Why God hates divorce - an alternate look

[StanJ]

4 hours ago, Steve_S said:

1.  I did not reject it, I'm not an expert in translation, most experts roundly reject it I reject it based upon the arguments or more learned men than myself and the fact that there is a massive consensus by God-fearing men on the translation.

2.  Why would you make that assumption? I will listen to any argument if it is made from a position of reasonability. Could you provide the list, please?

3.  It's very rarely difficult to reconcile one word into another language, it's just that sometimes it takes more than one single word to get the idea across in the translation. What would be so difficult about using "oppose" instead of "hate" if indeed "oppose" is the best translation? It would seem that thousands of experts in hebrew disagree that oppose is a reasonable approximation, as none of them have ever used it, to my knowledge, in an actual bible translation.

I'm also having a hard time finding the logic in arguing that, firstly, that there is no word that it translates while simultaneously arguing that it translates to "oppose." 

1.  you indeed rejected it based on your finding that it was some website you had never heard of before rather than reading the explanation and using your god-given reasoning to understand it.
2.  it's not an assumption it's a conclusion based on how you've presented your views on this issue so far.
3. well I guess the fact is you have to first deal with the idea of the impassibility of God and whether or not you accept or reject that.  What I said was 'opposed' is heading in the right direction rather than to hate, which does not identify a God who IS love.

[Steve_S]

2 minutes ago, StanJ said:

1.  you indeed rejected it based on your finding that it was some website you had never heard of before rather than reading the explanation and using your god-given reasoning to understand it.
2.  it's not an assumption it's a conclusion based on how you've presented your views on this issue so far.
3. well I guess the fact is you have to first deal with the idea of the impassibility of God and whether or not you accept or reject that.  What I said was 'opposed' is heading in the right direction rather than to hate, which does not identify a God who IS love.

1.  Another false assumption, I have both heard of and been to that website before.

Accusing me of not using God-given reasoning - why are you getting personal here? Are you at all capable of having a discussion without making it about someone else's reasoning ability or their intentions? This is a violation of our terms of service.

2.  Your conclusion is entirely incorrect on that count. I ask again, please provide names and credentials of the "many hebrew scholars" (your words) who believe this should be translated as "opposes."

3.  You are basing this argument on what you believe the nature of God to be, not on the scriptures He has left us. The scriptures say He hates something, then He hates something.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, StanJ said:

Definitely is when you don't see for yourself what the words in the origin language really connote.

All you do is quote liberal scholars.  You have provided absolutely no indication that you possess any competency in exegesis or the original languages.   So, that pretty much rings hollow.

Quote

It's not about winning it's about telling the truth  and seeing that a God who is love does not hate in the sense that you understand it, or are you looking for a reason to justify your hatred.

Well, the problem again, is that your theology is simply incorrect.   God loves and God hates and the Bible says so and as you can see in this thread, you are not convincing anyone that God is incapable of hate.  

And it looks like your entire argument is based on telling us that none of us can read or know what words mean and you are the only one who can.   You sit here and insult everyone's intelligence in the process.  You lost the argument a long time ago.   No one is buying what you're peddling.

[enoob57]

How poor the understanding of God is when one does not reckon the eternal hell as in regard to His hatred of sin.... they are an equality unparalleled in in all of human thought or witnessed events! God's hatred is pure undefiled and will not end in the place of hell.... yet for all who have come to The Son in repentance of being and received new life knows the deliverance afforded them by His Perfect Life... Love, Steven

[Churchmouse]

What is needed is marriage counseling within the church, for couples wanting to marry, so that all areas of marriage can be explored and discussed fully before people enter into  such a commitment. Marriage is not a game. It's not an adventure. It's an absolute commitment to the full sharing of lives between a man and a woman, for richer or poorer. In sickness and in health, to death do they part.  That's pretty straight foreword, but most people don't even regestr that on their way to the happy times they a re sure will never end.

[nebula]

8 hours ago, StanJ said:

 I would say God feels about these sins the same way he feels about ANY sin, that it is not acceptable.

And when something is "not acceptable," how does God feel about it?

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, Davida said:

Your post attempts to change the meanings of words used in the Bible and reframe God's hatred of sin through your own liberal beliefs. It is like shaving off parts of God's character because it is too extreme for liberal contemporary consumption.  Sorry but the Bible says what it says, and it is not up to us to try to make God's condemnation of sin into some modern version the politically correct world where tolerance is seen as of higher moral value than justice.

The Bible has never revealed a politically correct God that merely finds all sin "unacceptable". But there are great attempts being made now,  to rewrite the Bible and change the meanings of words so as to make GOD fit the standards of this sinful world.

 

Yes, you are spot on, Davida.   It is false teachers who try to do this Jedi mind trick on us to convince us that the Bible doesn't mean what it says or doesn't really say what it says.   It's that cultic mentality that pretends that your unable to read the Bible for yourself and cannot understand it, and they alone have the true meaning of the text.  

 

[mikefromwichita]

On 11/30/2016 at 5:34 PM, nebula said:

"Jesus said what he said about divorce to protect women, not to imprison them. Divorce was a weapon foisted against women in the first century, not one they could use, and it almost always left them destitute if their family of origin couldn’t or wouldn’t step up.

"How does it honor the concept of “Christian marriage” to enforce the continuance of an abusive, destructive relationship that is slowly squeezing all life and joy out of a woman’s soul? Our focus has to be on urging men to love their wives like Christ loves the church, not on telling women to put up with husbands mistreating their wives like Satan mistreats us. We should confront and stop the work of Satan, not enable it."

http://www.garythomas.com/enough-enough/

 

*Note: Yes, the same could be said for abusive wives, but more often than not it is the wives who suffer.

Sooooooo, your claim is that the fault in a failed marriage routinely lies with the husband?

[mikefromwichita]

9 hours ago, Davida said:

"sadly" ? that was what the article was referring to Stan, and using this as an example of misusing the translation as meaning "abomination"

Why are you trying to excuse homosexuality- a vile behaviour God Tells us is worthy of execution?

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, mikefromwichita said:

Sooooooo, your claim is that the fault in a failed marriage routinely lies with the husband?

he is where God holds the responsibility toward!