Divorce: The Sin Preachers Nod & Wink At

Ekklesian said:
Yes, they are biblical. So is the law.

But what you need to understand is that mercy and truth came through Jesus. Christ's commentary on the law was to restore the law to it's original interpretation, and to purge it from the rabbinical corruption which turned the concession into a license.

Christ, under the law, and when restoring the law, gave no mercy, because the law has no mercy to give. But the Apostles, loosened certain things, and the one central and universal dogma was that of marriage.
Click to expand...
Some members attempted to use the OT for furthering their cause. On the other hand, I believe I exclusively used the NT.
Ekklesian said:
Marriage is a blessed estate. We are called to peace. But where peace cannot abide, there can be no marriage...no matter what vow one might have made thinking otherwise. So one, according to the letter, avoids adultery. What of the murder and warring that is ongoing?

At one point, when my ex said I vowed for better or for worse, I said, That didn't mean your worst. It was eventually she who said we needed to divorce.
Click to expand...
My argument isn’t so much about divorce, it’s the remarriage part.
Ekklesian said:
You need to realize that it's your elders that are telling you that you do not understand the dynamics at play, or what was Christ's intent in His words.
Click to expand...
I think I’m way too old for you to use this “respect your elders” argument. Regardless, elders aren’t always correct.
Ekklesian said:
Are you practicing birth control?
Click to expand...
None of your damn business.
 
DoctorDuck said:
In these matters, I’ll gladly side with two thousand years of theology and philosophy, and guys from Notre Dame with a Th.D and Ph.D after their names. If you prefer siding with a guy named “Phil” from the forum, more power to you. 😬
Click to expand...

Your Catholic scholar pals from Notre Dame also believe that the bread and wine actually transform into the blood and body of Christ.
They also believe in purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary and praying to the saints.

Like you, I believe I truly take Jesus at His word:

"But I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the divorcee commits adultery."

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The word except in those verses means:"except for" or "apart from" or "not based on".
Therefore, I conclude, divorce not based on, caused by porneia is not permitted.
Divorce caused by, based on porneia is the exception to the 'commit adultery" rule.

I'm good with whatever you, the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Pentecostals, the Northwest Unorthodox or anyone else believes about this. I believe I'm right and you're 'mistaken' (since you're never wrong obviously).

And, sub clutches his pearls and I'm casting a few of mine before swine.
 
DoctorDuck said:
My answers are biblical, and you can’t prove otherwise, or you would have already. And as for “snark,” I can’t even hold a candle to you. 😎
Click to expand...

You complaining about 'snark' is truly rich.
As i've told you before if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
 
DoctorDuck said:
🤣Not true. The crux of my argument was that I have stuck with the literal words of Jesus (letters in red)...
Click to expand...

Do you recall the question I asked you that had relevance to your perceived hermeneutic? I asked if you thought the words of Jesus in the red letters carried some sort of special significance by themselves apart from, or over and against the rest of Scripture. There's a good reason for that, because all Scripture is given by inspiration and is Christ's word. That is a longstanding evangelical tradition for rules of interpretation that stands against the progressive hermeneutic of the liberals today.
DoctorDuck said:
and you immediately began asking me about unrelated examples and how I’d interpret them, then my “hermeneutical approach.”
Click to expand...

Yes, because the notion that the red letters should not be reconciled with the words of Paul is an important basis for understanding your Biblical reasoning and rationale. And you never did reconcile the words of Jesus on His description of the woman who had 5 actual husbands.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Your Catholic scholar pals from Notre Dame also believe that the bread and wine actually transform into the blood and body of Christ.
They also believe in purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary and praying to the saints.

Like you, I believe I truly take Jesus at His word:

"But I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the divorcee commits adultery."

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The word except in those verses means:"except for" or "apart from" or "not based on".
Therefore, I conclude, divorce not based on, caused by porneia is not permitted.
Divorce caused by, based on porneia is the exception to the 'commit adultery" rule.

I'm good with whatever you, the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Pentecostals, the Northwest Unorthodox or anyone else believes about this. I believe I'm right and you're 'mistaken' (since you're never wrong obviously).

And, sub clutches his pearls and I'm casting a few of mine before swine.
Click to expand...
So, in summary, you don’t actually know either. And for what it’s worth, I’ll side with Catholic scholars over hillbilly Southern Baptist preachers. 😬
 
DoctorDuck said:
Some members attempted to use the OT for furthering their cause. On the other hand, I believe I exclusively used the NT.
Click to expand...
And likewise some members would refer to the Old Testament regarding issues of creation order to defend traditional views of human sexuality, as well as Romans 1. The use of the OT is not an endorsement of the principles of the Mosaic Law for salvation, but it is potentially useful at deriving other truths that are further fleshed out in the NT.
 
Last edited:
ALAYMAN said:
And likewise some members would refer to the Old Testament regarding issues of creation order to defend traditional views of human sexuality, as well as Romans 1. The use of the OT is not an endorsement of the principles of the Mosaic Law for salvation, but it is potentially useful at deriving other truths that are further fleshed out in the NT.
Click to expand...
But some Christians are also notoriously picking & choosing which Old Testament issues to use, and when to use them. In other words, it is used for aiding and abetting a pet cause as needed.
 
DoctorDuck said:
But some Christians are also notoriously picking & choosing which Old Testament issues to use, and when to use them. In other words, it is used for aiding and abetting a pet cause as needed.
Click to expand...
How so?

Also, a proper hermeneutic and exegesis precludes the OT from being used for certain doctrines because they have been annulled by the sacrifice of Christ, unless you think we should be slitting the throat of some goats on the altar still.
 
DoctorDuck said:
So, in summary, you don’t actually know either. And for what it’s worth, I’ll side with Catholic scholars over hillbilly Southern Baptist preachers. 😬
Click to expand...

I take note of your snark.
I take note that conspicuously absent is your rebuttal of my point….what except means.

Except means except!



PS have pearls, will cast….😉
 
DoctorDuck said:
That hillbilly preacher comment hit home, huh, Liberty? 😉
Click to expand...
Yes.
I’m with my therapist right now.
He’s helping me with my casting pearls before swine problem.
And he knows what except means. He pointed out that it was in red letters.

Hallucinations!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top