The Church has lost its voice in the US

[KingsGambit]

C'mon, this is undergrad stuff. Are you really claiming that anyone took that argument seriously?

Being somewhat familiar with this scholarly debate, yes, I am claiming that. And I don't understand why people get so hung up on the mustard seed thing. It seems like an obsession with hyperliteralism.

Are you going to address my arguments about homosexuality?

[apostoli]

Dude, just because God has used sinners for His purposes does not negate the fact that they in fact sinned. Are you next going to claim that Saul/Paul didn't sin in persecuting Christians?

Dude, scripture just goes to prove that "sin" is a relative thing, open to definition (or quite often personal prejudice).

As for A.Paul, he points out that if it wasn't for the law (eg: though shall not covet) we wouldn't know what sin was/is (Rom 7:7). Therefore, in that context Saul did not sin in persecuting Christians (in fact he was being faithful to the ordinances of Moses). However, after Christ's intervention on the road to Damascus, if Saul had continued in his previous ways, by his own admission he would have sinned by failing to " love thy neighbour as thyself (cp. Rom 13:8-10).

[Abigail]

Same thing here. Jesus is simply speaking from her perspective so as to not get off topic as to what is or isn't a marriage, and address the issue that he wants to get to.

Christy has a thread in Biblical Ethics on Divorce and remarriage. I am sure she would be interested in your and Cow Pokes (I think he is a minister) and any one else's comments there too.

[Cerebrum123]

Your opinion pretty well sums up the opinion of the RCC and more-or-less mine (given I am RCC).

Here in Oz, we have no fault divorces - either the husband or wife can sue for divorce - just fill out a form, get your spouse to sign it (indicating agreement), pay a court fee ($500?) and wait a few weeks. Takes a bit longer if the spouse doesn't co-sign the form and doesn't contest the divorce. I don't know what happens if the spouse contests the divorce. I guess the combatants have to appear in court and fight it out.

As far as I know child support is automatic and how much to pay is determined under Family Law legislation and is usually imposed on the husband (nb: child support can be imposed on someone irrespective of marital status). If someone wants to vary the payment criteria or spread it between the parents then one has to appeal to the court.

Not sure about spouse maintenance. Probably has to go to the courts unless there is a private agreement.
_____

I think we have to be careful about making proclamations about sin. Did Abraham sin when he married his sister Sarah? (incest today is considered a sin). When he had sex with Sarah's slave and pro-created Ishmael, did he sin? (Even though Sarah suggested it, today that would have been considered adultery or at least Polyamory (the latter being illegal in many a country). Jewish tradition tells us Abraham had many wives, he was a polygamist (the latter being illegal in many a country). Like most if not all of the patriarchs, Abraham was a rampant adulterer, and therefore by your definition totally a serial sinner of the worse type, and yet it was to Abraham that YHWH appeared as a man (Gen 18) and considered him to be His friend.

Shall we now review King David. Someone who was not only an adulterer but one who arranged the murder of a woman's husband to cover up his liaison, and yet YHWH made him sovereign over His people...

Imu, "sin" is falling short of God's standards. Apparently, in their adulteries, neither Abraham nor David sinned...
_________

In mu understanding, in the scriptures harlotry isn't equated with adultery. So, imu, a wife could run away and become a harlot and that was OK, but she couldn't give her love to another = adultery. If I recall correctly, YHWH highlights the difference when discussing Judea and Israel.

Anyone care to clarify for me?

Dude, just because God has used sinners for His purposes does not negate the fact that they in fact sinned. Are you next going to claim that Saul/Paul didn't sin in persecuting Christians?

[themuzicman]

No, if you read the paper, the point is that Jesus acknowledged that she had had five marriages. If only the first marriage was valid and the others were invalid because the first marriage was still actually intact, as many would argue, he could have said "You have lived with five men while still being married to the original man"... and there would be no point in his pointing out that she had not married her current man, as that wouldn't matter at all. No less a scholar than Craig Keener has argued the same point.

Whether one is convinced or not (and I really am not wanting to into divorce as we are fairly down a tangent), my overall point is that the issue of divorce, remarriage, and adultery is not quite as straightforward as the issue of homosexuality as a hermeneutical case can be made. I see no reason not to stand by my original point that the stances of the PCUSA and other denominations on homosexuality constitute apostasy.

Jesus also said that the mustard seed was smallest of all the seeds. It is and was not. However, Jesus wasn't doing a biology lesson that day, but speaking about faith. So, he spoke from their perspective to avoid getting off topic about whether the mustard seed is, in fact, the smallest.

Same thing here. Jesus is simply speaking from her perspective so as to not get off topic as to what is or isn't a marriage, and address the issue that he wants to get to.

C'mon, this is undergrad stuff. Are you really claiming that anyone took that argument seriously?

[KingsGambit]

Do you really think that because Jesus interacted with a woman who had been married 5 times (and was now living with a man not her husband) that this jutsified remarriage?

That's a real stretch

No, if you read the paper, the point is that Jesus acknowledged that she had had five marriages. If only the first marriage was valid and the others were invalid because the first marriage was still actually intact, as many would argue, he could have said "You have lived with five men while still being married to the original man"... and there would be no point in his pointing out that she had not married her current man, as that wouldn't matter at all. No less a scholar than Craig Keener has argued the same point.

Whether one is convinced or not (and I really am not wanting to into divorce as we are fairly down a tangent), my overall point is that the issue of divorce, remarriage, and adultery is not quite as straightforward as the issue of homosexuality as a hermeneutical case can be made. I see no reason not to stand by my original point that the stances of the PCUSA and other denominations on homosexuality constitute apostasy.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you really think that because Jesus interacted with a woman who had been married 5 times (and was now living with a man not her husband) that this jutsified remarriage?

That's a real stretch

That's sort of like saying that God approves of everything mentioned in scripture that's not simultaneously condemned.

[themuzicman]

Here is a paper from a very conservative scholar that (in my view, persuasively) argues that remarriage and adultery are not a state of continual sin and that the initial action are what constitutes the adultery. Some of the points he considers are the OT prohibition on remarrying someone you previously divorced, and the fact that in John 4:16-18, Jesus recognized the multiple marriages of the woman he met at the well:


http://www.academia.edu/2996952/Mist...dersgate_Forum

Do you really think that because Jesus interacted with a woman who had been married 5 times (and was now living with a man not her husband) that this jutsified remarriage?

That's a real stretch

[apostoli]

In the US either partner may initiate divorce. A man can divorce his wife, or a woman can divorce her husband. My point was whoever did the divorcing was guilty of sin. However, if I divorce my wife and remain celibate there is no adultery. Is divorce as simply separating from ones spouse actually sin in and of itself? My understanding, off hand, is that divorcing a partner (without Biblical justification) and remarrying, or simply "living in sin"*, is adultery which is the sin. Is that more clear?

Your opinion pretty well sums up the opinion of the RCC and more-or-less mine (given I am RCC).

Here in Oz, we have no fault divorces - either the husband or wife can sue for divorce - just fill out a form, get your spouse to sign it (indicating agreement), pay a court fee ($500?) and wait a few weeks. Takes a bit longer if the spouse doesn't co-sign the form and doesn't contest the divorce. I don't know what happens if the spouse contests the divorce. I guess the combatants have to appear in court and fight it out.

As far as I know child support is automatic and how much to pay is determined under Family Law legislation and is usually imposed on the husband (nb: child support can be imposed on someone irrespective of marital status). If someone wants to vary the payment criteria or spread it between the parents then one has to appeal to the court.

Not sure about spouse maintenance. Probably has to go to the courts unless there is a private agreement.
_____

I think we have to be careful about making proclamations about sin. Did Abraham sin when he married his sister Sarah? (incest today is considered a sin). When he had sex with Sarah's slave and pro-created Ishmael, did he sin? (Even though Sarah suggested it, today that would have been considered adultery or at least Polyamory (the latter being illegal in many a country). Jewish tradition tells us Abraham had many wives, he was a polygamist (the latter being illegal in many a country). Like most if not all of the patriarchs, Abraham was a rampant adulterer, and therefore by your definition totally a serial sinner of the worse type, and yet it was to Abraham that YHWH appeared as a man (Gen 18) and considered him to be His friend.

Shall we now review King David. Someone who was not only an adulterer but one who arranged the murder of a woman's husband to cover up his liaison, and yet YHWH made him sovereign over His people...

Imu, "sin" is falling short of God's standards. Apparently, in their adulteries, neither Abraham nor David sinned...
_________

In mu understanding, in the scriptures harlotry isn't equated with adultery. So, imu, a wife could run away and become a harlot and that was OK, but she couldn't give her love to another = adultery. If I recall correctly, YHWH highlights the difference when discussing Judea and Israel.

Anyone care to clarify for me?

[Cow Poke]

A church who spends it's efforts simply condemning behavior has lost it's voice.

That's focusing on the problem rather than the solution.

It has given up it's voice rather than tell the truth. It does very little good to convince people to change their behavior - even if they do change behavior. The message of the Church is that of Salvation in Christ, not stop it you horrible people.

If we give them something to change TO, we don't have to nag them about where they're coming FROM.

[Jedidiah]

I heard a sermon yesterday where the pastor said that we (Christians) were losing our voice because we are talking about the wrong things, like spending more of our time condemning that telling the good news.

A church who spends it's efforts simply condemning behavior has lost it's voice. It has given up it's voice rather than tell the truth. It does very little good to convince people to change their behavior - even if they do change behavior. The message of the Church is that of Salvation in Christ, not stop it you horrible people.

[rogue06]

This reminds me a bit of the wife of a friend of mine who says that she doesn't like churches that keep talking about religion but prefers those who's message is more about the community activities they are involved with

[Ana Dragule]

I heard a sermon yesterday where the pastor said that we (Christians) were losing our voice because we are talking about the wrong things, like spending more of our time condemning that telling the good news.

[Jedidiah]

You stated "It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin...".

I suggested: if so then biblically only the husband is guilty of sin as it is he that does the act of divorcing. Biblically, a woman has no rights, she cannot divorce her husband!

In the US either partner may initiate divorce. A man can divorce his wife, or a woman can divorce her husband. My point was whoever did the divorcing was guilty of sin. However, if I divorce my wife and remain celibate there is no adultery. Is divorce as simply separating from ones spouse actually sin in and of itself? My understanding, off hand, is that divorcing a partner (without Biblical justification) and remarrying, or simply "living in sin"*, is adultery which is the sin. Is that more clear?

[apostoli]

Sorry, apostoli, I fail to see what your point is.

You stated "It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin...".

I suggested: if so then biblically only the husband is guilty of sin as it is he that does the act of divorcing. Biblically, a woman has no rights, she cannot divorce her husband!

I assume your focus is exclusive to the USA. Here in OZ we have to have a wider perspective, we are an ultra multi-cultural society and our near neighbours (Indonesia & Malaysia) are Muslim (thankfully they tend to be more moderate than those from the middle east, and we have a lot of them as residents). We have "arrangements" with these nations that cover marriage, divorce and child custody when inter-marriage occurs. Basically, the wife is always up a creek without a paddle. Imu, if she divorces her husband under Australia law it isn't recognise if she goes to her husbands country. So she has to get him to divorce her...