Christian Forums

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:08:21

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:22:14

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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. 

Quote from: SuperEddy on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:16:23

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 11:08:21

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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. 

Quote from: DaveW on 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 street

Here 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

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: MeMyself on 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.

Quote from: MeMyself on Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 09:45:21

Quote from: MeMyself on 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.

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Aug 18, 2014 - 06:16:16

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: AVZ on 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

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:45:32

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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

Quote from: chosenone on Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:00:54

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:10:57

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:45:32

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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?

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:10:57It was a straw-man and an evasion on your part.

Not.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29

Quote from: chosenone on Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: DaveW on 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.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 09:29:01

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29

Quote from: chosenone on Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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

Quote from: SuperEddy on Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 11:46:39

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 09:29:01

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29

Quote from: chosenone on Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: chosenone on Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 12:05:09

Quote from: SuperEddy on Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 11:46:39

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 09:29:01

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:23:29

Quote from: chosenone on Sat Aug 16, 2014 - 06:27:53

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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

Quote from: SuperEddy on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:38:04

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:29:17

Quote from: chosenone on 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

Quote from: SuperEddy on Wed Aug 20, 2014 - 15:37:29

Quote from: SuperEddy on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:38:04

Quote from: MeMyself on Fri Aug 15, 2014 - 10:29:17

Quote from: chosenone on 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)

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:33:38

Quote from: SuperEddy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 - 08:00:54

Quote from: AVZ on 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.

Quote from: SuperEddy on 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.