This post is a reply to a PM from SuperEddy and it is posted with his permission. His original thread on this topic was in the Men's sex folder and it was requested by a mod that it be put here where both men and women can comment. So be it.
The main text is from SE. My comments are in RED.
We need MATT 19:9-12 from NIV, year 2011:
9) "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10) The disciples said to Him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11) Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to it has been given.
12) For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others == and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Analysis:
Verse 9 is generally true, but what if the "anyone" husband is a eunuch?! What would happen if a eunuch married a woman? He would automatically and instantly be an adulterer since he could not perform his marital duties of sex and procreation. His wife could divorce him with impunity!
First off - "adultery" has a very narrow definition in scripture: one who has sex with a person who is married to someone else. One's status of being a eunuch has nothing to do with adultery.
Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.
Verse 10 doesn't make sense if it is taken at face value! That is "the husband and wife are already married (obviously!)". Why is it "better not to marry" if they are already married?! The key is, "If THIS is the situation". "THIS" probably refers to the eunuch husband: It is better that he does not marry!
Your "face value" is a misunderstanding. The disciples were saying that if it was that difficult to properly get out of a marriage, it would be better to not get married in the first place. It is kinda like saying "if there really is that bad crash and explosion at the bottom of the valley; it would be better to not drive your car off the cliff."
Verse 11 says, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."
I do not see that at all. It is saying that the only ones who could take the advice "better to not marry" are those who Paul says has a charismatic gift of celebacy - not a eunuch but supernaturally sustained to be ok as a single.
Verse 12 lists three kinds of eunuchs:
1) Born that way.
2) Made eunuchs by others.
3) Act like eunuchs for the kingdom's sake.
A eunuch who is born that way has dysfunctional genitals and cannot have intercourse.
Probably so. There may be other forms as well.
The eunuch made that way by others begs an important question: When did he do it? Was it after he fathered a child or before he fathered any children? If it was after, his genitals are functional, and, symbolically, he can still have intercourse. If it was before, symbolically, he is like the "born that way" eunuch and he cannot have intercourse.
In that society one "made by others" would indicate a male child who was "chopped off" to be a guard in a harem. What you are describing is set #3.
Last, he may have God's gift to remain unmarried and is like a "eunuch".
Which Paul lists in 1 Cor 7 as a charismatic gift.
As for, "The one who can accept this should accept it", it says, "eunuchs are not forbidden to marry but it's better for them not to do so."
Actually a eunuch was not biblically forbidden to marry but that society would have prevented it.
DaveW: Thank you for posting this letter! I'm formulating a reply which I will give you tomorrow.
SE
: DaveW Tue Aug 12, 2014 - 07:31:34
First off - "adultery" has a very narrow definition in scripture: one who has sex with a person who is married to someone else. One's status of being a eunuch has nothing to do with adultery.
DaveW: Ironically it was MATT 5:32 that led me to a more general definition of adultery, or, rather, seeing that there are at least two definitions of adultery.
MATT 5:32 == "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
When I first read this, I thought, "Yes, I divorced my wife ten years ago, but I didn't have sex and I didn't marry again. How is she the victim and how am I, implicitly, guilty of adultery just by divorcing her?" The breakthrough came when I looked up the dictionary definitions of "adultery" and "unfaithfulness". "Adultery" is defined as "sexual unfaithfulness of a married person" and "unfaithfulness" is defined as "not observant of vows, allegiance, or duty". What I get from the Lord is that there are "vow" adulterers and "duty" adulterers (or adulteresses). The vow-adulterer is the one of conventional meaning == the married person who sleeps around. The duty-adulterer is the one who refuses to do their marital sexual duties, which was my case due to my divorcing my wife without proper cause. A eunuch who marries a woman would automatically and instantly be a duty-adulterer.
I had a great and somewhat long post that disappeared before I hit the "post" button.
Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text. It is not in the original at all. The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.
And you need to look at a Strong's, a Thayer's, Vine's, Wilson's, etc. to find the meaning of the actual words translated "adultery."
: DaveW Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 07:58:25
I had a great and somewhat long post that disappeared before I hit the "post" button.
Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text. It is not in the original at all. The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.
And you need to look at a Strong's, a Thayer's, Vine's, Wilson's, etc. to find the meaning of the actual words translated "adultery."
DaveW: Too bad about your lost post == I would like to see it.
Last week, I ordered a Greek Interlinear Bible and a NT Greek/English Dictionary. It should arrive at the end of August. I'll be better equipped to address the issue then.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: DaveW Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 07:58:25
Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text. It is not in the original at all. The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.
DaveW: Just thought of this: If she is "forced" to commit adultery, doesn't THAT make her a victim?
Are we just splitting hairs?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: DaveW Tue Aug 12, 2014 - 07:31:34
Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD. [/color] [/b]
Actually a eunuch was not biblically forbidden to marry but that society would have prevented it.
DaveW: In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK. This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!
Or, does it? Look at MATT 19:7-8. In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it! == "No, your hearts were hard! I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth! In the beginning, it was not so!"" So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do! MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus! A NT example is slavery! "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..."
Even more than that: Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven" God's Word is dynamic. The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!
It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: DaveW Tue Aug 12, 2014 - 07:31:34
Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.
I in no way want to divert this discussion from the subject of the opening post, but you have made a point in this specific statement of yours and I have a very valid question.
IF only men were/are entitled to obtain a divorce from a wife, and the only reason is because of adultery, of which I would assume meant her adultery/ unfaithfullness to him... or perhaps his desire to bed/marry another woman would make it alright for him to divorce his wife...(?)....
DOES GOD APPROVE OF WIFE/CHILD ABUSE of either the physical or verbal kind?
The fact that only men are able to obtain a divorce, of Biblical approval (ie God approved) would seem to suggest He does.
: Rella Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 17:42:23
: DaveW Tue Aug 12, 2014 - 07:31:34
Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.
I in no way want to divert this discussion from the subject of the opening post, but you have made a point in this specific statement of yours and I have a very valid question.
IF only men were/are entitled to obtain a divorce from a wife, and the only reason is because of adultery, of which I would assume meant her adultery/ unfaithfullness to him... or perhaps his desire to bed/marry another woman would make it alright for him to divorce his wife...(?)....
DOES GOD APPROVE OF WIFE/CHILD ABUSE of either the physical or verbal kind?
The fact that only men are able to obtain a divorce, of Biblical approval (ie God approved) would seem to suggest He does.
Rella: The Bible is, unfortunately, silent on this issue, but with MATT 16:19 this can be changed!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: DaveW Tue Aug 12, 2014 - 07:31:34
Your "face value" is a misunderstanding. The disciples were saying that if it was that difficult to properly get out of a marriage, it would be better to not get married in the first place. It is kinda like saying "if there really is that bad crash and explosion at the bottom of the valley; it would be better to not drive your car off the cliff."
Verse 11 says, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."
I do not see that at all. It is saying that the only ones who could take the advice "better to not marry" are those who Paul says has a charismatic gift of celebacy - not a eunuch but supernaturally sustained to be ok as a single.
DaveW: The point of verse 10 was to introduce verses 11 and 12. In verse 11, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept THIS (verse 10) word, but only .... (introduce verse 12)..." The point, "It is better not to marry", does NOT mean, "It would have been better that they didn't marry".
The charismatic gift of celebacy is referred to as a state of being a " 'eunuch' ". And THAT, together with the other eunuchs, can be summed up as, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 05:57:51
DaveW: The point of verse 10 was to introduce verses 11 and 12. In verse 11, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept THIS (verse 10) word, but only .... (introduce verse 12)..." The point, "It is better not to marry", does NOT mean, "It would have been better that they didn't marry".
The charismatic gift of celibacy is referred to as a state of being a " 'eunuch' ". And THAT, together with the other eunuchs, can be summed up as, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
You seem to be missing my point. "Better not to marry" means in the first place. Don't get hung up over the tenses of the verb. It is not talking about being better to dissolve an existing marriage.
And I do not see anywhere that equates the gift of celibacy with being a eunuch.
: Rella Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 17:42:23
IF only men were/are entitled to obtain a divorce from a wife, and the only reason is because of adultery, of which I would assume meant her adultery/ unfaithfullness to him... or perhaps his desire to bed/marry another woman would make it alright for him to divorce his wife...(?)....
DOES GOD APPROVE OF WIFE/CHILD ABUSE of either the physical or verbal kind?
The fact that only men are able to obtain a divorce, of Biblical approval (ie God approved) would seem to suggest He does.
No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there. That is why it was not addressed.
BTW - abuse can go both ways. A man would have not been allowed to divorce his wife for abuse against him either.
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 04:59:41
with MATT 16:19 this can be changed!
This is off topic but WHAT? ? ? By the apostles writing something addressing it in the NT? That did not happen.
I think you have a very wrong idea of what binding and loosing are all about.
: DaveW Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 06:50:09
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 05:57:51
DaveW: The point of verse 10 was to introduce verses 11 and 12. In verse 11, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept THIS (verse 10) word, but only .... (introduce verse 12)..." The point, "It is better not to marry", does NOT mean, "It would have been better that they didn't marry".
The charismatic gift of celibacy is referred to as a state of being a " 'eunuch' ". And THAT, together with the other eunuchs, can be summed up as, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
You seem to be missing my point. "Better not to marry" means in the first place. Don't get hung up over the tenses of the verb. It is not talking about being better to dissolve an existing marriage.
And I do not see anywhere that equates the gift of celibacy with being a eunuch.
DaveW: I DO get your points, but you seem to be missing mine. How do we resolve this?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: DaveW Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 07:03:38
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 04:59:41
with MATT 16:19 this can be changed!
This is off topic but WHAT? ? ? By the apostles writing something addressing it in the NT? That did not happen.
I think you have a very wrong idea of what binding and loosing are all about.
DaveW: The MATT 16:19 quote was originally from Post #6 == Please read that (#6) and then comment.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: DaveW Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 07:00:39
No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there. That is why it was not addressed.
You cannot possibly know if it did or did not exist there.
I agree that there can be husband abuse, and as such that would not have been grounds for a divorce either.... but with all due respect to the Holy Bible, It was written by men, or .... at least the books that made it in to the acceptable Canon
were.
Women were considered inferior to men, back in that time span.(Still are according to a number of men I know.)
They were regarded in many cases as possessions.
Not unlike the Muslim thought about women today.
As such, I would not expect abuse to be included in talk in scripture.
Today if a Muslim woman were to abuse her husband she would be killed.
We do not know if that would have been acceptable in old testament times as they did stone to death for any number of reasons. Therefore, as a reason for divorce, it may not have been necessary.
So, if it is not a reason for divorce today, then I submit that God does approve....
Probably as an added curse from the idiocy of Eve that we will always be under.
I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both, God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.
: Rella Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 10:37:52
: DaveW Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 07:00:39
No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there. That is why it was not addressed.
You cannot possibly know if it did or did not exist there.
I agree that there can be husband abuse, and as such that would not have been grounds for a divorce either.... but with all due respect to the Holy Bible, It was written by men, or .... at least the books that made it in to the acceptable Canon
were.
Women were considered inferior to men, back in that time span.(Still are according to a number of men I know.)
They were regarded in many cases as possessions.
Not unlike the Muslim thought about women today.
As such, I would not expect abuse to be included in talk in scripture.
Today if a Muslim woman were to abuse her husband she would be killed.
We do not know if that would have been acceptable in old testament times as they did stone to death for any number of reasons. Therefore, as a reason for divorce, it may not have been necessary.
So, if it is not a reason for divorce today, then I submit that God does approve....
Probably as an added curse from the idiocy of Eve that we will always be under.
The discussion is only men were allowed to divorce their wives, or if God allowed abuse is moot, really.
The Bible states that if one hurts his neighbor...and yes that includes his wife...he has to pay up.
The Jews twisted the OT scriptures into the understanding that men could divorce their wive for whatever reason.
Didn't like her anymore...divorce her. All the same.
Anyway, if you are being abused...pack your bags and go live somewhere else.
That does not constitute divorce. The Bible nowhere states or indicates that a wife has to live with her husband if she is abused (or the other way around).
: Rella Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 10:37:52
: DaveW Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 07:00:39
No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there. That is why it was not addressed.
You cannot possibly know if it did or did not exist there.
I agree that there can be husband abuse, and as such that would not have been grounds for a divorce either.... but with all due respect to the Holy Bible, It was written by men, or .... at least the books that made it in to the acceptable Canon
were.
Women were considered inferior to men, back in that time span.(Still are according to a number of men I know.)
They were regarded in many cases as possessions.
Not unlike the Muslim thought about women today.
As such, I would not expect abuse to be included in talk in scripture.
Today if a Muslim woman were to abuse her husband she would be killed.
We do not know if that would have been acceptable in old testament times as they did stone to death for any number of reasons. Therefore, as a reason for divorce, it may not have been necessary.
So, if it is not a reason for divorce today, then I submit that God does approve....
Probably as an added curse from the idiocy of Eve that we will always be under.
Rella: This is very well said!!! Thank You!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: chosenone Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 11:05:13
I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both, God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.
Dear chosenone: Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters. He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night. One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife! It became are regular thing == daily! His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help. She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help. Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail". Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife! He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.
I'd say her divorce was justified!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 15:29:01
: DaveW Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 07:58:25
Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text. It is not in the original at all. The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.
DaveW: Just thought of this: If she is "forced" to commit adultery, doesn't THAT make her a victim?
Are we just splitting hairs?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
DaveW: I thought you might have missed this == Please comment.
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 06:30:02
: chosenone Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 11:05:13
I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both, God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.
Dear chosenone: Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters. He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night. One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife! It became are regular thing == daily! His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help. She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help. Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail". Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife! He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.
I'd say her divorce was justified!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 07:48:52
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 06:30:02
: chosenone Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 11:05:13
I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both, God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.
Dear chosenone: Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters. He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night. One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife! It became are regular thing == daily! His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help. She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help. Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail". Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife! He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.
I'd say her divorce was justified!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.
chosenone: Could I also get your opinion on Post #6, which was the root of the spouse-abuse/divorce issue? I'd also like to know how your opinion is different from DaveW's.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 09:55:17
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 07:48:52
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 06:30:02
: chosenone Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 11:05:13
I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both, God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.
Dear chosenone: Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters. He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night. One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife! It became are regular thing == daily! His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help. She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help. Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail". Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife! He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.
I'd say her divorce was justified!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.
chosenone: Could I also get your opinion on Post #6, which was the root of the spouse-abuse/divorce issue? I'd also like to know how your opinion is different from DaveW's.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Do you mean about allowing wives to divorce their husbands?
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 09:59:57
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 09:55:17
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 07:48:52
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 06:30:02
: chosenone Thu Aug 14, 2014 - 11:05:13
I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both, God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.
Dear chosenone: Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters. He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night. One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife! It became are regular thing == daily! His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help. She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help. Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail". Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife! He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.
I'd say her divorce was justified!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.
chosenone: Could I also get your opinion on Post #6, which was the root of the spouse-abuse/divorce issue? I'd also like to know how your opinion is different from DaveW's.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Do you mean about allowing wives to divorce their husbands?
chosenone: That, but, also, in general == and each of the specifics. Also check out the original "Eunuchs?" post.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.
As for women divorcing, if they have Biblical reason to do so, yes.
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:16:57
I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.
As for women divorcing, if they have Biblical reason to do so, yes.
chosenone: Do you have an / share my opinion wrt MATT 19:7-8 and MATT 16:19, as these are the mechanisms for change?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:16:57
I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.
Agreed.
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:29:17
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:16:57
I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.
Agreed.
MeMyself: Do you have an opinion about MATT 19:7-8? I discuss it in Post #6. Do you share my opinion?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 16:00:50
In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK. This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!
Or, does it? Look at MATT 19:7-8. In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it! == "No, your hearts were hard! I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth! In the beginning, it was not so!"" So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do! MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus! A NT example is slavery! "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..."
Even more than that: Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven" God's Word is dynamic. The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!
It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
S.Eddy...here is the post you are asking about...
I think that a wife should be allowed to divorce her dh, for biblical grounds such as adultery AND abuse.
I read the thread you had going in the men's forum...I gather (please correct me if I am wrong) that you feel a vas would be an abuse towards the marriage/wife?
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:45:32
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 16:00:50
In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK. This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!
Or, does it? Look at MATT 19:7-8. In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it! == "No, your hearts were hard! I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth! In the beginning, it was not so!"" So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do! MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus! A NT example is slavery! "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..."
Even more than that: Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven" God's Word is dynamic. The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!
It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
S.Eddy...here is the post you are asking about...
I think that a wife should be allowed to divorce her dh, for biblical grounds such as adultery AND abuse.
I read the thread you had going in the men's forum...I gather (please correct me if I am wrong) that you feel a vas would be an abuse towards the marriage/wife?
MeMyself: I do not feel a vas is an abuse. Please disregard the Men's Forum posts as I had ended them in confusion and I see that they were a mistake. But, please do see the original Post of "Eunuchs?" which is my corrected approach. Please look at my analysis == do you agree with it? Or, not? Why?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.
: AVZ Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:57:13
Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.
AVZ: So Noted. I have a Greek Interlinear Bible on order. It should come at the end of August.
Thank You!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:55:42
MeMyself: I do not feel a vas is an abuse. Please disregard the Men's Forum posts as I had ended them in confusion and I see that they were a mistake.
Ok. Will do.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:55:42But, please do see the original Post of "Eunuchs?" which is my corrected approach. Please look at my analysis == do you agree with it? Or, not? Why?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Here is your post and analysis:
Analysis:
Verse 9 is generally true, but what if the "anyone" husband is a eunuch?! What would happen if a eunuch married a woman? He would automatically and instantly be an adulterer since he could not perform his marital duties of sex and procreation. His wife could divorce him with impunity!
~~~~
My reply is that if a man was unable to function sexually, he would disclose that to his intended bride to be...and there are women who would be fine with no sex within marriage. But, what if the man didn't know? What if he had E.D. and only found out after marriage? (Or hoped that marriage would "cure" him)I would hope his wife would be loyal to him and their vows...I do *not* think this is grounds for divorce. I do *not* see a man like you describe as "automatically and instantly be an adulterer "
chosenone:
MeMyself:
How do you (both) Biblically justify a divorce based on spouse-abuse? What verses do you site? How is it justified?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:08:21
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:55:42
MeMyself: I do not feel a vas is an abuse. Please disregard the Men's Forum posts as I had ended them in confusion and I see that they were a mistake.
Ok. Will do.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:55:42But, please do see the original Post of "Eunuchs?" which is my corrected approach. Please look at my analysis == do you agree with it? Or, not? Why?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Here is your post and analysis:
Analysis:
Verse 9 is generally true, but what if the "anyone" husband is a eunuch?! What would happen if a eunuch married a woman? He would automatically and instantly be an adulterer since he could not perform his marital duties of sex and procreation. His wife could divorce him with impunity!
~~~~
My reply is that if a man was unable to function sexually, he would disclose that to his intended bride to be...and there are women who would be fine with no sex within marriage. But, what if the man didn't know? What if he had E.D. and only found out after marriage? (Or hoped that marriage would "cure" him)I would hope his wife would be loyal to him and their vows...I do *not* think this is grounds for divorce. I do *not* see a man like you describe as "automatically and instantly be an adulterer "
MeMyself: If there is mutual consent among the bride and groom, I agree with you. If not, there are problems....
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:11:01
chosenone:
MeMyself:
How do you (both) Biblically justify a divorce based on spouse-abuse? What verses do you site? How is it justified?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
the bible never spells out specifically divorce for abuse, but it is clear that we should not be around hot tempered people, that we are to protect and teach our children the ways of God, that we are to run our race with freedom.
Divorce should never be done at the drop of a hat or on a whim, but after every other option is tried and no stone left unturned.
I can't believe that God who gives grave warning to those that cause a little one to stumble would expect a person who has been beaten down, up and sideways (emotionally or physically) to just stay and take it.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:16:23
MeMyself: If there is mutual consent among the bride and groom, I agree with you. If not, there are problems....
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
And, every marriage has problems...we should stay and work them out if we can. Sexual intercourse, while a lovely gift from God, is not the end all of marriage.
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:22:14
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:11:01
chosenone:
MeMyself:
How do you (both) Biblically justify a divorce based on spouse-abuse? What verses do you site? How is it justified?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
the bible never spells out specifically divorce for abuse, but it is clear that we should not be around hot tempered people, that we are to protect and teach our children the ways of God, that we are to run our race with freedom.
Divorce should never be done at the drop of a hat or on a whim, but after every other option is tried and no stone left unturned.
I can't believe that God who gives grave warning to those that cause a little one to stumble would expect a person who has been beaten down, up and sideways (emotionally or physically) to just stay and take it.
I agree. I believe when there is abuse of the spouse of children then separation is the way forward. After that, the abusive spouse should get therapy, ministry or whatever else they need with a view to reconciling. If they refuse or if they have help but still carry on abusing, I cant see any alternative but to end the marriage. I believe that its a grey area, but I also believe that God would not want a wife/husband or children to remain with a spouse who either beats up or rapes or molests the spouse or the children. Sometimes divorce is the only option if the abuse is serious and the family are in danger.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:16:23
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:08:21
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:55:42
MeMyself: I do not feel a vas is an abuse. Please disregard the Men's Forum posts as I had ended them in confusion and I see that they were a mistake.
Ok. Will do.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:55:42But, please do see the original Post of "Eunuchs?" which is my corrected approach. Please look at my analysis == do you agree with it? Or, not? Why?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Here is your post and analysis:
Analysis:
Verse 9 is generally true, but what if the "anyone" husband is a eunuch?! What would happen if a eunuch married a woman? He would automatically and instantly be an adulterer since he could not perform his marital duties of sex and procreation. His wife could divorce him with impunity!
~~~~
My reply is that if a man was unable to function sexually, he would disclose that to his intended bride to be...and there are women who would be fine with no sex within marriage. But, what if the man didn't know? What if he had E.D. and only found out after marriage? (Or hoped that marriage would "cure" him)I would hope his wife would be loyal to him and their vows...I do *not* think this is grounds for divorce. I do *not* see a man like you describe as "automatically and instantly be an adulterer "
MeMyself: If there is mutual consent among the bride and groom, I agree with you. If not, there are problems....
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I do agree here. Its cruel for one spouse to deny the other of sex, and they are disobeying God.
: DaveW Tue Aug 12, 2014 - 07:31:34
Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.
This statement is absolutely incorrect. There is not statement in the Bible that either a husband or a wife can divorce the other person, other than for the reason of adultery.
Nowhere does the Bible state that divorce can only be initiated by the husband.
This statement comes from the twisted teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes.
It refers back to Deuteronomy 24:1-2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.The Jews literally taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever. If she spoiled his food, he could divorce her.
If he found another woman who was more pretty that the one he had...he could divorce her.
Mishna Gittin states:
It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: As men differ in their treatment of their food, so they differ in their treatment of their wives. Some men, if a fly falls into their cup, will put it aside and not drink it. This corresponds to the way of Papus b. Judah who used, when he went out, to lock his wife indoors. Another man, if a fly falls into his cup, will throw away the fly and then drink the cup. This corresponds to the way of most men who do not mind their wives talking with their brothers and relatives. Another man, again, if a fly falls into his soup, will squash it and eat it. This corresponds to the way of a bad man who sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and spin cloth in the streetHere the wife is compared with a fly falling in a man's cup, and therefore the husband was completely free to do with the wife as he so desired.
And that's what the Parisees came to Jesus with the question:
Matthew 19:3
"Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?"In their mind, they could divorce a wife for any reason whatsoever and they wanted to trap Jesus.
They then continued:
Matthew 19:7 "Why then did Moses
command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?"
Here they twist Moses' word into a command...as if Moses commanded "you MUST divorce a wife if you do not like her anymore"
The disciples of course were taught the above by the Pharisees all their lives. They did not know any better.
And that's why they ask the question:
"If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!"The disciples thought that marriage and divorce were easy things. Don't like her anymore...get rid of her.
Just go to the Scribe, get yourself a letter of divorce drafted out and give it to your wife...out she goes.
In the mind of the disciples, staying with a wife and accepting her for who she was, was an unheard thing off.
Dave, it is NOT a biblical statement that only husbands can divorce their wives.
What you stated is what the Pharisees taught, it is once again the twisted and selfish interpretation the Jews had, and which Jesus condemned.
In fact: Mishnah Ketubot 7:9-10, Mishnah Gittin 9:8 and Arakin 5:6 introduce "forced divorce" where the Rabbinic Court can force a husband to accept a letter of divorce initiated by his wife.
Of course this too is twisted interpretation and totally rejectable theology, but it shows that even in Jewish thinking not only men could file for divorce.
Thank you, AVZ, for your correctly reasoned reply to DaveW!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see no where that says that if a man is infertile, for whatever reason, he cant get married or have sex with his wife.I do see though where God tells a husband and wife to not to defraud each other of sex unless its for a time of prayer, and also where God says that each spouse has a claim on the others body and its not their own. Eunuchs as I understand them, cant actually have sex and have no sex drive.
I think divorce for spousal abuse is a grey area that isn't actually mentioned in the Bible, and each affected spouse would need to let God lead them in this.
TO ALL:
THE WHOLE LOT OF YOU ARE GUILTY OF GROSS HYPOCRISY !!!!!!
THE USE OF INTUITION, ANALOGY, SYMBOLISM, AND FLEXIBILITY REQUIRE FAITH == WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE !!!!
When I came to "www.gracecentered.com" forums I wanted to address a simple thesis, which was initially wrong, but is now correct, which is, "God has serious consequences for men and women, who have never had children, yet get sterilized in order to prevent having children". I thought I could get a fair hearing. I was looking for Christians with open hearts and open minds, but instead, I found a bunch of self-righteous, self-serving, hypocritical, legalistic, religionists, who are afraid to think about what the Bible really says and really means.
(I feel like the little nerdy kid who goes to Sunday School for the first time, asks the Minister all kinds of simple yet difficult-to-answer questions, gets no answers, and is lead by the hand back to his parents, to where the Minister says, "Please don't bring your kid back here!")
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
wow!
I guess you do indeed look a little like that kid who stamps his feet after he did not get what he wanted.
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
I haven't objected to anything, I answered a question you asked of me honestly. I am allowed to have different opinons than you, you realize don't you?
Being a TRUE eunuch would be highly unlikely in this day and age...as men don't opt for that, and those that are born with dysfunctional genitalia wouldn't have the drive for sex.
so that leave us with men who get a Vas...
A vasectomy does not reduce the drive for or the longing for sexual intimacy one bit, there is no adultery there.
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 07:26:44
TO ALL:
THE WHOLE LOT OF YOU ARE GUILTY OF GROSS HYPOCRISY !!!!!!
THE USE OF INTUITION, ANALOGY, SYMBOLISM, AND FLEXIBILITY REQUIRE FAITH == WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE !!!!
When I came to "www.gracecentered.com" forums I wanted to address a simple thesis, which was initially wrong, but is now correct, which is, "God has serious consequences for men and women, who have never had children, yet get sterilized in order to prevent having children". I thought I could get a fair hearing. I was looking for Christians with open hearts and open minds, but instead, I found a bunch of self-righteous, self-serving, hypocritical, legalistic, religionists, who are afraid to think about what the Bible really says and really means.
(I feel like the little nerdy kid who goes to Sunday School for the first time, asks the Minister all kinds of simple yet difficult-to-answer questions, gets no answers, and is lead by the hand back to his parents, to where the Minister says, "Please don't bring your kid back here!")
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
8:25AM EST
16AUG14
Cleveland, Ohio
USA
Earth
Sol
The Milky Way
The Universe
Well, that was an ugly little snit fit.
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 07:26:44
TO ALL:
THE WHOLE LOT OF YOU ARE GUILTY OF GROSS HYPOCRISY !!!!!!
THE USE OF INTUITION, ANALOGY, SYMBOLISM, AND FLEXIBILITY REQUIRE FAITH == WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE !!!!
When I came to "www.gracecentered.com" forums I wanted to address a simple thesis, which was initially wrong, but is now correct, which is, "God has serious consequences for men and women, who have never had children, yet get sterilized in order to prevent having children". I thought I could get a fair hearing. I was looking for Christians with open hearts and open minds, but instead, I found a bunch of self-righteous, self-serving, hypocritical, legalistic, religionists, who are afraid to think about what the Bible really says and really means.
(I feel like the little nerdy kid who goes to Sunday School for the first time, asks the Minister all kinds of simple yet difficult-to-answer questions, gets no answers, and is lead by the hand back to his parents, to where the Minister says, "Please don't bring your kid back here!")
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
8:25AM EST
16AUG14
Cleveland, Ohio
USA
Earth
Sol
The Milky Way
The Universe
Good grief.
Where did that come from? Is that how you speak to people who dont agreed with your theories?
You do realise dont you that most men who have vasectomies have already had children? Which is exactly the reason they have one.
: MeMyself Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 08:56:27
A vasectomy does not reduce the drive for or the longing for sexual intimacy one bit, there is no adultery there.
Also, I wanted to add that I have talked to many women who were BLESSED by their dh's willingness to go through this procedure! Their bodies were tired from carrying and giving life, so they were looking forward to getting to enjoy intimacy with their husbands with no fear of another pregnancy. It enhanced their relationship.
: MeMyself Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 09:45:21
: MeMyself Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 08:56:27
A vasectomy does not reduce the drive for or the longing for sexual intimacy one bit, there is no adultery there.
Also, I wanted to add that I have talked to many women who were BLESSED by their dh's willingness to go through this procedure! Their bodies were tired from carrying and giving life, so they were looking forward to getting to enjoy intimacy with their husbands with no fear of another pregnancy. It enhanced their relationship.
I agree, and they had already had children anyway. Sometimes its the women who are sterilized.
: AVZ Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 00:02:33
This statement comes from the twisted teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes.
It refers back to Deuteronomy 24:1-2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
The Jews literally taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever. If she spoiled his food, he could divorce her.
If he found another woman who was more pretty that the one he had...he could divorce her.
Mishna Gittin states:
It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: As men differ in their treatment of their food, so they differ in their treatment of their wives. Some men, if a fly falls into their cup, will put it aside and not drink it. This corresponds to the way of Papus b. Judah who used, when he went out, to lock his wife indoors. Another man, if a fly falls into his cup, will throw away the fly and then drink the cup. This corresponds to the way of most men who do not mind their wives talking with their brothers and relatives. Another man, again, if a fly falls into his soup, will squash it and eat it. This corresponds to the way of a bad man who sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and spin cloth in the street
LOL!!! You don't get it do you? You are giving only one side of the argument here. Rabbi Meir was from the shool of Hillel and this teaching was accurate for that school early in the 2nd century - when it was under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva. (the same guy who declared Bar Kochba the "messiah" in 135 ad)
But the school of Shammai taught very differently and if you read on past what you wrote you will find that understanding as well. Shammai taught that the phrase "because he hath found some uncleanness in her," meant ONLY that if he found her to not be a virgin on their wedding night. PERIOD. There was a 2 century long argument over that between the 2 houses and was the background framework for the Pharisee's questions about divorce to Our Lord.
"Can a man divorce his wife 'for any reason?' "
This was the caricature of the Hillel position by the pharisees from Shammai's school.
But as to the "twisting" of Deut 24, do you find any scripture that authorized a woman to divorce her husband? No. There is none.
In fact, the practice of a woman divorcing her husband as reported in the NT was a kind of work around - a woman made an appeal to a rabbinic court called a "bet din" and if she showed just cause, the court would order the husband to divorce her. She could not do it directly.
: DaveW Mon Aug 18, 2014 - 06:16:16
: AVZ Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 00:02:33
This statement comes from the twisted teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes.
It refers back to Deuteronomy 24:1-2
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
The Jews literally taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever. If she spoiled his food, he could divorce her.
If he found another woman who was more pretty that the one he had...he could divorce her.
Mishna Gittin states:
It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: As men differ in their treatment of their food, so they differ in their treatment of their wives. Some men, if a fly falls into their cup, will put it aside and not drink it. This corresponds to the way of Papus b. Judah who used, when he went out, to lock his wife indoors. Another man, if a fly falls into his cup, will throw away the fly and then drink the cup. This corresponds to the way of most men who do not mind their wives talking with their brothers and relatives. Another man, again, if a fly falls into his soup, will squash it and eat it. This corresponds to the way of a bad man who sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and spin cloth in the street
LOL!!! You don't get it do you? You are giving only one side of the argument here. Rabbi Meir was from the shool of Hillel and this teaching was accurate for that school early in the 2nd century - when it was under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva. (the same guy who declared Bar Kochba the "messiah" in 135 ad)
But the school of Shammai taught very differently and if you read on past what you wrote you will find that understanding as well. Shammai taught that the phrase "because he hath found some uncleanness in her," meant ONLY that if he found her to not be a virgin on their wedding night. PERIOD. There was a 2 century long argument over that between the 2 houses and was the background framework for the Pharisee's questions about divorce to Our Lord.
"Can a man divorce his wife 'for any reason?' "
This was the caricature of the Hillel position by the pharisees from Shammai's school.
But as to the "twisting" of Deut 24, do you find any scripture that authorized a woman to divorce her husband? No. There is none.
In fact, the practice of a woman divorcing her husband as reported in the NT was a kind of work around - a woman made an appeal to a rabbinic court called a "bet din" and if she showed just cause, the court would order the husband to divorce her. She could not do it directly.
No it was not legal then but it is now.
: AVZ Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:57:13
Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.
AVZ: My translation says about the same thing, as if you did not notice! It's like me sending a love letter to my girlfriend only to receive it back from her with her proof-reader's marks on it. Your evasion translates to hypocrisy!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:45:32
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 16:00:50
In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK. This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!
Or, does it? Look at MATT 19:7-8. In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it! == "No, your hearts were hard! I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth! In the beginning, it was not so!"" So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do! MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus! A NT example is slavery! "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..."
Even more than that: Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven" God's Word is dynamic. The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!
It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
S.Eddy...here is the post you are asking about...
I think that a wife should be allowed to divorce her dh, for biblical grounds such as adultery AND abuse.
I read the thread you had going in the men's forum...I gather (please correct me if I am wrong) that you feel a vas would be an abuse towards the marriage/wife?
MeMyself: You know the question that I wanted you to answer == Why didn't you answer it! It was a straw-man and an evasion on your part. That is a form of hypocrisy! All your other talk about marriage issues is just a smoke-screen too! Is THIS what you call a "snit fit"?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: chosenone Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see no where that says that if a man is infertile, for whatever reason, he cant get married or have sex with his wife.I do see though where God tells a husband and wife to not to defraud each other of sex unless its for a time of prayer, and also where God says that each spouse has a claim on the others body and its not their own. Eunuchs as I understand them, cant actually have sex and have no sex drive.
I think divorce for spousal abuse is a grey area that isn't actually mentioned in the Bible, and each affected spouse would need to let God lead them in this.
chosenone: Your response is that of a typical double-standard, which is a particularly low form of hypocrisy! That, coupled with smoke-screens and straw-men, and the above, makes for self-righteousness, self-serving, legalism. If you don't want to give me a fair hearing, that's your choice! Just don't pretend to do so!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:00:54
: AVZ Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:57:13
Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.
AVZ: My translation says about the same thing, as if you did not notice! It's like me sending a love letter to my girlfriend only to receive it back from her with her proof-reader's marks on it. Your evasion translates to hypocrisy!
OK - I went back and read response #6 to refresh my memory and was VERY disturbed by it.
What scripture you posted in #6 was a paraphrase - what someone thinks it is saying using loose terminology. While it may amount to the same thing on one level, it certainly falls apart on other levels. But that was not what I found upsetting. Aside from your idea that " ... we can modify His Word" violates Psalm 119:89; the idea that Our Lord taught against the OT is even more troublesome. If that were true - If HE ever taught contrary to the OT, we are all lost in our sins forever. Galatians says HE was born under the Law and for a Jewish man under the law to teach AGAINST that Law was a sin. If He ever sinned he invalidated himself from being that perfrect spotless sacrifice; thus making his death meaningless. We are all lost.
You seriously need to re-think this stuff.
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:10:57
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:45:32
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 16:00:50
In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK. This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!
Or, does it? Look at MATT 19:7-8. In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it! == "No, your hearts were hard! I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth! In the beginning, it was not so!"" So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do! MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus! A NT example is slavery! "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..."
Even more than that: Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven" God's Word is dynamic. The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!
It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
S.Eddy...here is the post you are asking about...
I think that a wife should be allowed to divorce her dh, for biblical grounds such as adultery AND abuse.
I read the thread you had going in the men's forum...I gather (please correct me if I am wrong) that you feel a vas would be an abuse towards the marriage/wife?
MeMyself: You know the question that I wanted you to answer == Why didn't you answer it!
I thought I had! Why don't you tell me in plain english what you are looking for?
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:10:57It was a straw-man and an evasion on your part.
Not.
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:10:57That is a form of hypocrisy!
And what you are doing is being impatient, immature and not giving me the benefit of the doubt. You didn't get the answer you were looking for and RAN with all these things to accuse me of.
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:10:57All your other talk about marriage issues is just a smoke-screen too! Is THIS what you call a "snit fit"?
This is less of one, but yes, the root of the snit fit is still there.
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29
: chosenone Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see no where that says that if a man is infertile, for whatever reason, he cant get married or have sex with his wife.I do see though where God tells a husband and wife to not to defraud each other of sex unless its for a time of prayer, and also where God says that each spouse has a claim on the others body and its not their own. Eunuchs as I understand them, cant actually have sex and have no sex drive.
I think divorce for spousal abuse is a grey area that isn't actually mentioned in the Bible, and each affected spouse would need to let God lead them in this.
chosenone: Your response is that of a typical double-standard, which is a particularly low form of hypocrisy! That, coupled with smoke-screens and straw-men, and the above, makes for self-righteousness, self-serving, legalism. If you don't want to give me a fair hearing, that's your choice! Just don't pretend to do so!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I dont agree that a man who is not fertile, for whatever reason, cant marry. If that makes me the things you claim, and deserving of your rant, I am very surprised. No where does God say than an infertile man cant marry or have sex.
: DaveW Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:33:38
OK - I went back and read response #6 to refresh my memory and was VERY disturbed by it.
What scripture you posted in #6 was a paraphrase - what someone thinks it is saying using loose terminology. While it may amount to the same thing on one level, it certainly falls apart on other levels. But that was not what I found upsetting. Aside from your idea that " ... we can modify His Word" violates Psalm 119:89; the idea that Our Lord taught against the OT is even more troublesome. If that were true - If HE ever taught contrary to the OT, we are all lost in our sins forever. Galatians says HE was born under the Law and for a Jewish man under the law to teach AGAINST that Law was a sin. If He ever sinned he invalidated himself from being that perfrect spotless sacrifice; thus making his death meaningless. We are all lost.
Yeah...I very much agree.
: chosenone Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 09:29:01
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29
: chosenone Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see no where that says that if a man is infertile, for whatever reason, he cant get married or have sex with his wife.I do see though where God tells a husband and wife to not to defraud each other of sex unless its for a time of prayer, and also where God says that each spouse has a claim on the others body and its not their own. Eunuchs as I understand them, cant actually have sex and have no sex drive.
I think divorce for spousal abuse is a grey area that isn't actually mentioned in the Bible, and each affected spouse would need to let God lead them in this.
chosenone: Your response is that of a typical double-standard, which is a particularly low form of hypocrisy! That, coupled with smoke-screens and straw-men, and the above, makes for self-righteousness, self-serving, legalism. If you don't want to give me a fair hearing, that's your choice! Just don't pretend to do so!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I dont agree that a man who is not fertile, for whatever reason, cant marry. If that makes me the things you claim, and deserving of your rant, I am very surprised. No where does God say than an infertile man cant marry or have sex.
chosenone: WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT AN INFERTILE MAN COULD NOT MARRY??? NOWHERE!!! All you need to do is look at my posts: NOWHERE do I say that eunuchs CANNOT marry!!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 11:46:39
: chosenone Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 09:29:01
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29
: chosenone Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see no where that says that if a man is infertile, for whatever reason, he cant get married or have sex with his wife.I do see though where God tells a husband and wife to not to defraud each other of sex unless its for a time of prayer, and also where God says that each spouse has a claim on the others body and its not their own. Eunuchs as I understand them, cant actually have sex and have no sex drive.
I think divorce for spousal abuse is a grey area that isn't actually mentioned in the Bible, and each affected spouse would need to let God lead them in this.
chosenone: Your response is that of a typical double-standard, which is a particularly low form of hypocrisy! That, coupled with smoke-screens and straw-men, and the above, makes for self-righteousness, self-serving, legalism. If you don't want to give me a fair hearing, that's your choice! Just don't pretend to do so!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I dont agree that a man who is not fertile, for whatever reason, cant marry. If that makes me the things you claim, and deserving of your rant, I am very surprised. No where does God say than an infertile man cant marry or have sex.
chosenone: WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT AN INFERTILE MAN COULD NOT MARRY??? NOWHERE!!! All you need to do is look at my posts: NOWHERE do I say that eunuchs CANNOT marry!!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
They arent eunuchs, they are man who arent fertile, for whatever reason. Their reproductive organs are working as they should, so they can have sex, but they are not able to fertilize an egg. Eunuchs are those whose don't have their reproductive organs.
Definition
A eunuch is a man whose external genitalia have been surgically removed so that he can work as a harem attendant or other court functionary. In some cultures, only the testicles would be removed, while in others, the penis was cut off as well.
: chosenone Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 12:05:09
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 11:46:39
: chosenone Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 09:29:01
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29
: chosenone Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53
: SuperEddy Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 05:44:23
chosenone:
MeMyself:
Thank you for your reply to my questions about the Biblical justification of wife divorce and spouse-abuse. You did not know the exact verses used to justify these things, so you (both) used your intuition (I'm not complaining about that). It is also possible to use analogy and symbolism with flexible interpretations of the Scriptures. It's the only way to get any answers to modern-day questions.
If you are willing to do that in the cases of wife divorce and spouse-abuse, why do you object to using these methods with me in the areas of eunuchs and vasectomies?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I see no where that says that if a man is infertile, for whatever reason, he cant get married or have sex with his wife.I do see though where God tells a husband and wife to not to defraud each other of sex unless its for a time of prayer, and also where God says that each spouse has a claim on the others body and its not their own. Eunuchs as I understand them, cant actually have sex and have no sex drive.
I think divorce for spousal abuse is a grey area that isn't actually mentioned in the Bible, and each affected spouse would need to let God lead them in this.
chosenone: Your response is that of a typical double-standard, which is a particularly low form of hypocrisy! That, coupled with smoke-screens and straw-men, and the above, makes for self-righteousness, self-serving, legalism. If you don't want to give me a fair hearing, that's your choice! Just don't pretend to do so!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
I dont agree that a man who is not fertile, for whatever reason, cant marry. If that makes me the things you claim, and deserving of your rant, I am very surprised. No where does God say than an infertile man cant marry or have sex.
chosenone: WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT AN INFERTILE MAN COULD NOT MARRY??? NOWHERE!!! All you need to do is look at my posts: NOWHERE do I say that eunuchs CANNOT marry!!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
They arent eunuchs, they are man who arent fertile, for whatever reason. Their reproductive organs are working as they should, so they can have sex, but they are not able to fertilize an egg. Eunuchs are those whose don't have their reproductive organs.
Definition
A eunuch is a man whose external genitalia have been surgically removed so that he can work as a harem attendant or other court functionary. In some cultures, only the testicles would be removed, while in others, the penis was cut off as well.
chosenone: I thought you were trying to make a point about me saying that infertile men weren't allowed to marry? And, isn't THAT what my previous post was about? Please answer THAT question, first, then we can talk about eunuchs!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:38:04
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:29:17
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:16:57
I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.
Agreed.
MeMyself: Do you have an opinion about MATT 19:7-8? I discuss it in Post #6. Do you share my opinion?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
MeMyself: IS THIS "PLAIN ENGLISH" ENOUGH FOR YOU????
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:37:29
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:38:04
: MeMyself Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:29:17
: chosenone Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:16:57
I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.
Agreed.
MeMyself: Do you have an opinion about MATT 19:7-8? I discuss it in Post #6. Do you share my opinion?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
MeMyself: IS THIS "PLAIN ENGLISH" ENOUGH FOR YOU????
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Wow. You are really kinda on a bratty roll here...ugh.
Anyway, clearly NO it isn't plain enough, because I already answered this and you flipped out on me, instead of saying, "I'd like more clarification," or "I'm not sure we are on the same page."
Eddy's post #6 (in part)
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 13, 2014 - 16:00:50
DaveW: In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK. This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!
Or, does it? Look at MATT 19:7-8. In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it! == "No, your hearts were hard! I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth! In the beginning, it was not so!"" So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do! MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus! A NT example is slavery! "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..."
Matthew 19: 7-8
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
So, if you are asking if I agree that the bible changes; NO
If you are asking me to agree with the version you have quoted; NO
If you are asking if I agree that a woman can divorce a man now days: YES, HOWEVER, I don't believe its God's will, or that God wishes it...does He allow it? Yes. Just like He does when a man pursues one.
Other than that? I got no clue what you are up in arms about.
: DaveW Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:33:38
: SuperEddy Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:00:54
: AVZ Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:57:13
Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.
AVZ: My translation says about the same thing, as if you did not notice! It's like me sending a love letter to my girlfriend only to receive it back from her with her proof-reader's marks on it. Your evasion translates to hypocrisy!
OK - I went back and read response #6 to refresh my memory and was VERY disturbed by it.
What scripture you posted in #6 was a paraphrase - what someone thinks it is saying using loose terminology. While it may amount to the same thing on one level, it certainly falls apart on other levels. But that was not what I found upsetting. Aside from your idea that " ... we can modify His Word" violates Psalm 119:89; the idea that Our Lord taught against the OT is even more troublesome. If that were true - If HE ever taught contrary to the OT, we are all lost in our sins forever. Galatians says HE was born under the Law and for a Jewish man under the law to teach AGAINST that Law was a sin. If He ever sinned he invalidated himself from being that perfrect spotless sacrifice; thus making his death meaningless. We are all lost.
You seriously need to re-think this stuff.
DaveW: My point is that there's not much to re-think. The conclusion is obvious: God contradicted the OT Word in the NT and MATT 5 is full of such contradictions. All you have to do is read it. And it has some important implications. Consider the practice of slavery, for example. 1 TIM, Titus, and 1 PET all have a paragraph about proper conduct between masters and slaves. Do we conclude that Jesus LIKES slavery?? It says so in His Word, doesn't it? What about your friend, the mod, who was trying to say that slavery exists, today, in the USA? You only asked him what could be done with it. Why not stand-up and be counted as endorsing slavery as Jesus did?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Jesus never endorsed slavery, he merely acknowledged that it existed and taught accordingly.
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:58:40
DaveW: My point is that there's not much to re-think. The conclusion is obvious: God contradicted the OT Word in the NT and MATT 5 is full of such contradictions. All you have to do is read it. And it has some important implications. Consider the practice of slavery, for example. 1 TIM, Titus, and 1 PET all have a paragraph about proper conduct between masters and slaves. Do we conclude that Jesus LIKES slavery?? It says so in His Word, doesn't it? What about your friend, the mod, who was trying to say that slavery exists, today, in the USA? You only asked him what could be done with it. Why not stand-up and be counted as endorsing slavery as Jesus did?
Endorsing slavery? Are you *kidding* me?! Just because Christ calls us to live with godly attitudes when life is at it hardest does not mean He endorses those hardships...He allows them. He is God and God gives us free will...we can choose to please Him or we can choose to go our own way and our own understanding.
Also, God does not contradict Himself.
I am still not entirely sure what we are being asked.
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:58:40
DaveW: My point is that there's not much to re-think. The conclusion is obvious: God contradicted the OT Word in the NT and MATT 5 is full of such contradictions. All you have to do is read it. And it has some important implications. Consider the practice of slavery, for example. 1 TIM, Titus, and 1 PET all have a paragraph about proper conduct between masters and slaves. Do we conclude that Jesus LIKES slavery?? It says so in His Word, doesn't it? What about your friend, the mod, who was trying to say that slavery exists, today, in the USA? You only asked him what could be done with it. Why not stand-up and be counted as endorsing slavery as Jesus did?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
SE - do you see what you are doing? You are changing scripture to fit
your opinions. That is NEVER right. Your issue with slavery is a case-in-point.
Stop it. You are doing damage to the scriptures to your own hurt.
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 05:10:20
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:58:40
DaveW: My point is that there's not much to re-think. The conclusion is obvious: God contradicted the OT Word in the NT and MATT 5 is full of such contradictions. All you have to do is read it. And it has some important implications. Consider the practice of slavery, for example. 1 TIM, Titus, and 1 PET all have a paragraph about proper conduct between masters and slaves. Do we conclude that Jesus LIKES slavery?? It says so in His Word, doesn't it? What about your friend, the mod, who was trying to say that slavery exists, today, in the USA? You only asked him what could be done with it. Why not stand-up and be counted as endorsing slavery as Jesus did?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
SE - do you see what you are doing? You are changing scripture to fit your opinions. That is NEVER right. Your issue with slavery is a case-in-point.
Stop it. You are doing damage to the scriptures to your own hurt.
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
It is a big jump from not saying anything against to actively endorsing.
Actually the bible is consistantly LIMITING the use of slavery and defining how to treat slaves. It is
not endorsing the institution - it is making it more humane.
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Is this what you are after? That everyone agree with your take on scripture?
I agree with Dave, BTW 100%! You really need to STOP it!
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:49:32
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
It is a big jump from not saying anything against to actively endorsing.
Actually the bible is consistantly LIMITING the use of slavery and defining how to treat slaves. It is not endorsing the institution - it is making it more humane.
Amen!
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:49:32
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
It is a big jump from not saying anything against to actively endorsing.
Actually the bible is consistantly LIMITING the use of slavery and defining how to treat slaves. It is not endorsing the institution - it is making it more humane.
DaveW: The lack of condemnation and three paragraphs of helpful suggestions constitutes an endorsement in my book. Isn't it ironic that the African-Americans of today see such freedom and liberation in the Scriptures when all it really told them was how to be better slaves! It did make slavery more humane, but it did not condemn slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:03:53
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:49:32
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
It is a big jump from not saying anything against to actively endorsing.
Actually the bible is consistantly LIMITING the use of slavery and defining how to treat slaves. It is not endorsing the institution - it is making it more humane.
DaveW: The lack of condemnation and three paragraphs of helpful suggestions constitutes an endorsement in my book. Isn't it ironic that the African-Americans of today see such freedom and liberation in the Scriptures when all it really told them was how to be better slaves! It did make slavery more humane, but it did not condemn slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
oh my gosh...what is really going on here? Are you a believer, or are you trying to discredit the Word of God and the message of Christ?
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:03:53
The lack of condemnation and three paragraphs of helpful suggestions constitutes an endorsement in my book.
Well, thank God the bible is NOT YOUR book!
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 05:10:20
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:58:40
DaveW: My point is that there's not much to re-think. The conclusion is obvious: God contradicted the OT Word in the NT and MATT 5 is full of such contradictions. All you have to do is read it. And it has some important implications. Consider the practice of slavery, for example. 1 TIM, Titus, and 1 PET all have a paragraph about proper conduct between masters and slaves. Do we conclude that Jesus LIKES slavery?? It says so in His Word, doesn't it? What about your friend, the mod, who was trying to say that slavery exists, today, in the USA? You only asked him what could be done with it. Why not stand-up and be counted as endorsing slavery as Jesus did?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
SE - do you see what you are doing? You are changing scripture to fit your opinions. That is NEVER right. Your issue with slavery is a case-in-point.
Stop it. You are doing damage to the scriptures to your own hurt.
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Jesus absolutely endorses slavery, and so should you.
Matthew 20:26-28
"It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:30:47
Jesus absolutely endorses slavery, and so should you.
Matthew 20:26-28
"It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
This kind of slavery isn't the same as *owning* another human being and treating them like a possesion. That is what Eddy is talking about.
: MeMyself Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:32:50
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:30:47
Jesus absolutely endorses slavery, and so should you.
Matthew 20:26-28
"It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
This kind of slavery isn't the same as *owning* another human being and treating them like a possesion. That is what Eddy is talking about.
Is it now?
This command Jesus gives applies both to masters and slaves. Both of them wanting to be less than the other.
Are we not all bought for a price?
SuperEddy takes the position that Jesus should have said "I want none of you to be masters", yet Jesus said the same thing but differently "I want all of you to be slaves".
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:48:29
: MeMyself Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:32:50
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:30:47
Jesus absolutely endorses slavery, and so should you.
Matthew 20:26-28
"It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
This kind of slavery isn't the same as *owning* another human being and treating them like a possesion. That is what Eddy is talking about.
Is it now?
Yes. I believe so..
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:48:29This command Jesus gives applies both to masters and slaves. Both of them wanting to be less than the other.
Are we not all bought for a price?
SuperEddy takes the position that Jesus should have said "I want none of you to be masters", yet Jesus said the same thing but differently "I want all of you to be slaves".
Since He wants us all as slaves, there can be no human masters over one another human and therefore no slavery, except to Christ. So He is *far* from endorsing it. He is abolishing it. :)
Slavery to Christ is freedom and *that* kind of slavery is joy!
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 05:10:20
: SuperEddy Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:58:40
DaveW: My point is that there's not much to re-think. The conclusion is obvious: God contradicted the OT Word in the NT and MATT 5 is full of such contradictions. All you have to do is read it. And it has some important implications. Consider the practice of slavery, for example. 1 TIM, Titus, and 1 PET all have a paragraph about proper conduct between masters and slaves. Do we conclude that Jesus LIKES slavery?? It says so in His Word, doesn't it? What about your friend, the mod, who was trying to say that slavery exists, today, in the USA? You only asked him what could be done with it. Why not stand-up and be counted as endorsing slavery as Jesus did?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
SE - do you see what you are doing? You are changing scripture to fit your opinions. That is NEVER right. Your issue with slavery is a case-in-point.
Stop it. You are doing damage to the scriptures to your own hurt.
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
Show us where he approves of it.
: MeMyself Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 10:22:34
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:48:29
: MeMyself Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:32:50
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:30:47
Jesus absolutely endorses slavery, and so should you.
Matthew 20:26-28
"It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
This kind of slavery isn't the same as *owning* another human being and treating them like a possesion. That is what Eddy is talking about.
Is it now?
Yes. I believe so..
: AVZ Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 09:48:29This command Jesus gives applies both to masters and slaves. Both of them wanting to be less than the other.
Are we not all bought for a price?
SuperEddy takes the position that Jesus should have said "I want none of you to be masters", yet Jesus said the same thing but differently "I want all of you to be slaves".
Since He wants us all as slaves, there can be no human masters over one another human and therefore no slavery, except to Christ. So He is *far* from endorsing it. He is abolishing it. :)
Slavery to Christ is freedom and *that* kind of slavery is joy!
Oh Amen.
: DaveW Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:49:32
: SuperEddy Thu Aug 21, 2014 - 08:44:41
DaveW: Jesus said nothing against slavery and we have three paragraphs telling us how to do slavery! I'm just doing what the Bible says. Show me the Bible verses where Jesus explicitly condemns slavery! I dare you to do it! But, you can't because they don't exist! Therefore, conclude, as I do, that Jesus endorses slavery!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
It is a big jump from not saying anything against to actively endorsing.
Actually the bible is consistantly LIMITING the use of slavery and defining how to treat slaves. It is not endorsing the institution - it is making it more humane.
Yep
chosenone:
MeMyself:
DaveW:
You have accused me of defaming the Bible, accused me of not using the Bible (some other book), accused me of not being a Christian, and have accused me of twisting the Scriptures to my personal ideas, YET NOT ONE OF YOU HAS OFFERED A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE THAT CONTRADICTS MY VIEWS!!! The actual problem here is your legalistic view of the Bible == And, if you dropped the literal/legal view of the Bible, YOU WOULD FIND A WAY OUT. IT'S SIMPLE!!!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 05:39:05
chosenone:
MeMyself:
DaveW:
You have accused me of defaming the Bible, accused me of not using the Bible (some other book), accused me of not being a Christian, and have accused me of twisting the Scriptures to my personal ideas, YET NOT ONE OF YOU HAS OFFERED A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE THAT CONTRADICTS MY VIEWS!!! The actual problem here is your legalistic view of the Bible == And, if you dropped the literal/legal view of the Bible, YOU WOULD FIND A WAY OUT. IT'S SIMPLE!!!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
No one here has accused you of not being a believer.
Maybe if you actually said clearly what it is you are trying to say, we would know how to reply.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 05:39:05
chosenone:
MeMyself:
DaveW:
You have accused me of defaming the Bible, accused me of not using the Bible (some other book), accused me of not being a Christian, and have accused me of twisting the Scriptures to my personal ideas,
OH.MY.GOSH! I did NOT *accuse* you! I ASKED you to clarify!!!! There is a huge difference.
: SuperEddy Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 05:39:05YET NOT ONE OF YOU HAS OFFERED A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE THAT CONTRADICTS MY VIEWS!!! The actual problem here is your legalistic view of the Bible == And, if you dropped the literal/legal view of the Bible, YOU WOULD FIND A WAY OUT. IT'S SIMPLE!!!!
I'd rather not follow you and your loosey goosey way of interpreting scripture, thanks anyway, though.
PS. What is this thread even about anyway? I thought I knew, answered as asked, but then was wigged out on, tantrums were thrown by the OP and now everyone who disagrees with him or his handling of scripture are hypocritical and legalistic. ::shrug::
Anyone have any clue?
: MeMyself Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 09:53:33
PS. What is this thread even about anyway? I thought I knew, answered as asked, but then was wigged out on, tantrums were thrown by the OP and now everyone who disagrees with him or his handling of scripture are hypocritical and legalistic. ::shrug::
Anyone have any clue?
Yeah - it was pretty much summed up in the OP. They guy believed that getting a vascectomy was equated with committing adultery and meant that even if he remained married (which he did not) he had to stay non-sexual with his wife.
I tried to show him from scriptures that he was off base with the idea and to a degree was somewhat successful; but then he started throwing accusatons of being bible literalists/legalists when he saw that scripturally he was still off base.
: DaveW Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 10:06:33
: MeMyself Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 09:53:33
PS. What is this thread even about anyway? I thought I knew, answered as asked, but then was wigged out on, tantrums were thrown by the OP and now everyone who disagrees with him or his handling of scripture are hypocritical and legalistic. ::shrug::
Anyone have any clue?
Yeah - it was pretty much summed up in the OP. They guy believed that getting a vascectomy was equated with committing adultery and meant that even if he remained married (which he did not) he had to stay non-sexual with his wife.
That is what I *thought* it was about too, but he told me that was the old thread in the men's forum, he was wrong and to disregard that. (so confused ??? )
: DaveW Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 10:06:33I tried to show him from scriptures that he was off base with the idea and to a degree was somewhat successful; but then he started throwing accusatons of being bible literalists/legalists when he saw that scripturally he was still off base.
Agreed.
: DaveW Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 10:06:33
: MeMyself Fri Aug 22, 2014 - 09:53:33
PS. What is this thread even about anyway? I thought I knew, answered as asked, but then was wigged out on, tantrums were thrown by the OP and now everyone who disagrees with him or his handling of scripture are hypocritical and legalistic. ::shrug::
Anyone have any clue?
Yeah - it was pretty much summed up in the OP. They guy believed that getting a vascectomy was equated with committing adultery and meant that even if he remained married (which he did not) he had to stay non-sexual with his wife.
I tried to show him from scriptures that he was off base with the idea and to a degree was somewhat successful; but then he started throwing accusatons of being bible literalists/legalists when he saw that scripturally he was still off base.
DaveW: My whole point is in the original post, but in order to understand that, the whole literal/legal thing has to be thrown out. The slavery issue was an example of the literal/legal thing and its failure to explain and defend the proper Biblical position on the issue. In a similar way, the literal/legal thing cannot explain the "eunuch" issue in MATT 19:12. Another kind of analysis is needed here, as it is for slavery.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy
However Eddy, as Christians, husbands are told not to deprive the wife of sex, and also that each bodies are not their own. So if you are married your body also belongs to your wife. So, even if a man is sterile for whatever reason(choice, treatment for cancer, or born that way for example), he would be disobeying God to refuse to have sex with his wife when he is perfectly capable of doing so.
As I said before, a eunuch in the Bible is is a man who is unable to have sex. He would have had some or all of his his reproductive organs removed, or he would have been born without them. Also what if a woman is sterile?
TO ALL:
I feel that the gulf of difference between our understandings is too great to cross at this time and I need to end this thread. Many of the things I've tried to show you have failed and I'm at a loss on how to show you more.
Thank you for the things you have shown me. I especially thank DaveW for his treatment of MATT 5:32, showing me that I CAN re-marry!
Please forgive me for my rough treatment of you, at times, my only intent was to prove my point and I'm sorry if I pushed too hard.
I forgive you too. After all, we are all Christians and, at the root, we all believe in our one and only Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.
We disagree on minor things but we are all together as one.
With Love In Christ,
SuperEddy