grounds for divorce for bible inerrant people - what about physical abuse?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 56
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Butt is for poop

Frontal device doubles up for urination.

GODDO was having a laugh when he designed the procreation evacuation region.

Though if it fits, it fits.

Clean thoroughly after use.

And do not swallow.
#32
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5

Divorce does not exist to GOD nor Holly Marriage the argument is based on an interpretation of Marriage by Jesus and not GOD. We are Married once for life and that is it under GOD. This doesn't mean the GOD commands either male or female die as the pardon of the vowels taken with Marriage. It only means any second male and female Holly union would have been described by GOD as being named something else by the couple or by witness to the couple’s holly union.

 Love, honor, and obey until death do you part. The fact of self-evident truth in this matter is that a husband and wife cannot love honor and obey someone who has passed away. It is self-evident truth we can only obey, honor and love what once was a wish befoe death and the wishes of those to whom we share the creation of life with. 

 Obedience is not astate of the union held in America United States Constitutional Right, where it can be broken as a verbal contract by a lawyer practicing law at will using criminal law. Love, honor and obey until death do we part, the words of the couple who enter the verbal contract. The words are bound together by the oath not the male and female who are pledging a condition by words to eachother. The condition of this state of the union describes a limitation on all three conditions of the verbal contract in a time frame, a vowel by man and women taken together at one time before GOD. Something not often described in whole truth by many people practicing law or religion.
#33
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
F.W.Y.
The American 1st Amendment describes a state of the unionwith established justice which describes the act of listening to words spoken and words written and read as a freedom of religion.  For we the people must hear or understand in some way, and it is religion being the largest united state to describe a shared belief system of understanding of the people, for the people. Lawyer, judge, or tradesman or tradeswoman, President or Presadera.
#34
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,189
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Ever changed lanes without indercating. 



Females think its wrong.  
AS so so  many times I've heard em say 
( NOPE,....  "wrong hole"   

So like.  
If Females are referring to it as ( the wrong hole )  it must be wrong. 

If you flip a female over , you can have sex with a man.  

#35
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,236
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
I don't think domestic abuse was a priority for first-century Jews, or first-century males in general. A man's wife was basically his property, and how he handled her was just his business. If the abuse was extreme -- if it began to threaten the peace -- a village might intervene by trying to correct his behavior. But seeing it as grounds for divorce? Doubtful.

But sexual immorality/adultery? That was a Much Bigger Deal.
#36
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,342
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Castin
But sexual immorality/adultery? That was a Much Bigger Deal
Yeah, I dont know why. Sexual immorality and adultery is from satanic societies, but not necessarily bad.

#37
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,236
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
Lol satanic societies.

#38
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@FLRW


FLRW,

YOUR TRUTHFUL QUOTE: "Let's get back to the Bible. Why did God put the vulva right next to the butthole?"

What makes your comment even worse for TRUE Christians like me, is the biblical axiom that God has a butthole too since He created His Hebrew creation in His own image and likeness, this is barring the term "our image" which alludes to more than one god, or refers to the Trinity Doctrine, praise!

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

.


#39
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

Barring that Miss Tradesecret was to embarrassed to mention that women are second class citizens in Christian marriage in her post #11, did you notice in said post that she admits to being a SATANIC Presbyterian whose church has its origin in the FALSE Doctrine of Calvinism?  No wonder Miss Tradesecret is the #1 Bible Stupid fool of this prestigious Religion Forum where we have to correct her Bible Stupidity all the time!

Jesus H. Christ, can it get any worse for Miss Tradesecret now?

.


#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
 did you notice in said post that she admits to being a SATANIC Presbyterian whose church has its origin in the FALSE Doctrine of Calvinism?  

Yes I did Brother D. S/he must be the only Presbyterian Preterist on the whole planet. A rare breed. I could be wrong but from what I remember the Presbyterians condemned forcefully full and partial Preterism? 

Are not women allowed into heaven Brother D.?
#41
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "I could be wrong but from what I remember the Presbyterians condemned forcefully full and partial Preterism? "

Like ALL divisions of specifically named Christian churches, some Satanic Presbyterian churches accept preterism, but the orthodox "Presby" church does not.



YOUR REVEALING QUOTE ABOUT THE BIBLICAL 2ND CLASS WOMAN NOT GOING TO HEAVEN: "Are not women allowed into heaven Brother D.?"

To many Christian men like myself, the last thing we need is to have our former ex-wives or ex-girlfriends in heaven because we had to put up with their insipid whining while upon earth!  “It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)

A little taste and tease, of which I have much more, in why women WILL NOT INHABIT HEAVEN is as follows: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30). 

Since there are no female angels within the scriptures, and all of Jesus' Hebrew creation will be like angels in heaven, then all angels are a male gender!  The only named angels in the Bible are Gabriel and Michael which are masculine names, and the "Sons of God" mentioned in the Bible were male angels as well!  Furthermore, lest we forget what Jesus said about women turning into MEN before they could go to heaven: "JESUS SAID: Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Gospel of Thomas 114)

With only a few of many biblical axioms shown above that I have, my Christian 1400 square mile heaven (Revelation 21:16-17) will be a "Men's Club" only with no women, praise!

If you remember, I took Miss Tradesecret to the carpet in a discussion of male angels only a while back, where I once again easily Bible Slapped her Silly®️ upon this topic!  What's new in this respect? NOTHING!


.


#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: "I could be wrong but from what I remember the Presbyterians condemned forcefully full and partial Preterism? "

Like ALL divisions of specifically named Christian churches, some Satanic Presbyterian churches accept preterism, but the orthodox "Presby" church does not.

Well I knew I had read something along those lines sometime ago.  I shall have to search the corners of my memory to find the quote to see if the Reverend told us that he was orthodox Presbyterian... or not.

Topic's author
#43
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@John_C_87
those are big walls of texts, but you didn't do much to address the yes and the why of domestic abuse not being a grounds for divorce and remarriage. 
Topic's author
#44
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
it's one thing not to be a literalist, like maybe the text of a story isn't meant to be taken literally. but the bible passage about only sexual immorality being grounds for divorce is clear, and there's not much context to think it's not meant to be taken at face value. the websites i posted make good arguments for why we shouldn't take the verse at face value, but it's going beyond the words of the verse. if you are willing to take a verse that is clear like that and then throw the label "not literal" on it, and then completely change its meaning, you are very much undermining the bible, if you truly believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.
#45
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
those are big walls of texts, but you didn't do much to address the yes and the why of domestic abuse not being a grounds for divorce and remarriage. 
It is unnecessary. It is a violation of law as a United State Constitutional Right held in a state of the union with the 1st Amendment as a unbroken self-evident truth.

The verbal oath between women and man is to love, honor, and obey, until death do we part. As one whole truth in a verbal contract abuse is the termination of the condition between the words love, honor, obey, and death. A person can be sent away fromthe Marriage as they failed the holding of the contract, as the vowel had been broken. The couple is to honor and obey one another and any harm must be by permission in an act of love. Domestic abuse without doubt fills that condition as do many things a person might do during a natural lifetime. A death must involve love, and honor with obedience or be selfless these are a very big limitation on use of lethal force.

: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy


#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,427
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
it's one thing not to be a literalist, like maybe the text of a story isn't meant to be taken literally. but the bible passage about only sexual immorality being grounds for divorce is clear, and there's not much context to think it's not meant to be taken at face value. the websites i posted make good arguments for why we shouldn't take the verse at face value, but it's going beyond the words of the verse. if you are willing to take a verse that is clear like that and then throw the label "not literal" on it, and then completely change its meaning, you are very much undermining the bible, if you truly believe the bible is the inerrant word of God.
A literalist is someone who believes that the words in any given passage have an actual real meaning. It doesn't mean that you have to accept that the passage has to be understood in a wooden way. That is the mistake and error that Fundamentalists and others make and is not helpful to any discussion. 

If a creation scientist quotes an evolutionist - from one part of their life story but forgets or omits everything else that scientist says from other parts of their life, they rightly gets whacked by every person who genuinely cares what the scientist believes.  It is the same, I suggest, for Jesus. It is foolish to take one verse and say that is everything he says about divorce. 

A literalist is - someone who believes that words have real substantial meaning. It is the opposite of someone who is allegorical. That each word needs to be understood as mystical. this is why context needs to be emphasised. To not do so - would be to say that Einstein believed in the Jewish God. When if we take his entire life, he probably is an atheist. 

Jesus' words had a context. and he was responding to a particular argument, then is is nonsensical to say that is all he had to say about it.  I think most people on this site are literalists when it comes to the bible. The question isn't whether the bible is to be understood as literal or not, it is as to how and what we mean by literal. I think poetry is literal. The phrase used in the Psalms for instance, God owns the cattle on 1000 hills. It is literal, but it is also poetical. Each word has real meaning. And yet it is a poem. It is not allegorical. It doesn't mean - for instance that God is the owner of all the mass prisons in Rome. It doesn't mean that the end of the world has come. It doesn't mean that Obama will be president. 


#47
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,342
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Tradesecret
A literalist is someone who believes that the words in any given passage have an actual real meaning
Yeah, until he reads the story of two bears in the Bible.

Hint: its not a pretty story.

Topic's author
#48
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I would agree that it's not so far fetched to think Jesus might have really meant that generally, only sexual deviance was the only grounds for divorce. People r not always precise in what they say plus this is just a recording and translation anyway even if Jesus was precise
#49
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
I would agree that it's not so far fetched to think Jesus might have really meant that generally, only sexual deviance was the only grounds for divorce. People r not always precise in what they say plus this is just a recording and translation anyway even if Jesus was precise
The issue is that the vowels of marriage have a greater bearing on the verbal contract or likelyhood over the Bible and what Jesus said as witness to GOD, as the creator and not just father. Meaning not only influencing Jesus or some people. I get the feelling some of this argument is about homosexuals and lesbians that cannot be married due to religion while in whole truth they are only stopped by their own action of picking the wrong person. By GOD and vowel of Marriage any couple preserving the likelyhood they enter can declare a man and man couple Binvir. Just as by GOD and vowel of Marriage a couple can also declare any female and female couple UnosMulier or even Mulierfemina. These are not the only choices but the limitation by oath of love, honor, obedience,with death describes them as whole truth.
#50
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim


.
What the Bible fool N8NRGIM and MISS TRADESECRET doesn't want the other pseudo-christians like them to know, is just a few biblical axioms regarding divorce  inspired by the LITERAL WORDS of none other than Jesus as God, relative to Christian men in how to divorce their 2nd class woman wife:


1. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (Luke 16:18)

Therefore, any pseudo-christian superior man that would divorce their 2nd class woman wife, or who marries a divorced woman is guilty of this commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14)

"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)


2.  “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her  and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’  then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.  And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her;  and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel.  And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:13-19)

Pseudo-christians, always remember that if the parents daughter was in fact a virgin at marriage, and said husband tries to refute this fact, then when proven by the parents that the daughter is a virgin, where they obviously had to "open up the daughters vagina to have a 'look see," then said husband is to be WHIPPED by your friends, and last but not least, he is to be fined $26.40 (Shekels conversion to dollars) and he is to be the husband of your daughter for all of his days and where he cannot divorce her!  How cool is that Christian parents?


3.  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)

If a TRUE Christian superior man over the 2nd class woman has to divorce his wife for sexual immorality, then said wife will burn in the lake of fire and sulfur upon her demise, praise Jesus' revenge upon the 2nd class woman again!:  " But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

Yes, yes, yes, we all know AS A FACT that Miss Tradesecret admitted to being a sexual deviant with her family members a while back, and as said passage above shows, she will unfortunately burn in the sulfur lakes of hell upon her demise, and she considers herself a Christian? NOT!  Can you imagine if  her congregation that she preaches too knew of this ungodly act of hers, they would exit post haste through the doors of her church!  

.
#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Well Brother D. I can only say that had any other member here had put those BIBLICAL verses to the Reverend Tradesecret, that s/he would have been asking for the definitions of the words:

 adultery
adulterer 
adulteress 
 divorce
and
immorality,  which is her/his default when confronted with BIBLICAL facts contrary to her/his own understanding of scripture.
#52
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

Regarding your revealing post #51 towards our #1 Bible Stupid Miss Tradesecret, as we can all see, she dances around the LITERAL DIRECT WORDS of the Bible in so many ungodly and non-absolute ways, where who is on first, and what is on second? LOL!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZksQd2fC6Y  She does give us comedy entertainment at her expense all the time!

.
#53
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,427
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
 would agree that it's not so far fetched to think Jesus might have really meant that generally, only sexual deviance was the only grounds for divorce. People r not always precise in what they say plus this is just a recording and translation anyway even if Jesus was precise
If you view it as a general sense, then it might be argued.  Yet, since Jesus was very well informed of the OT covenants, he would clearly have understood that the marriage covenant could be breached in numerous ways, including death. The death certificate is a necessary divorce certificate. And it's recognised in our legal world today, even as it was then.  not that they had death certificates. But death ended a marriage.  

But what you seem to fail to realise is that every crime listed in the OT as a death sentence penalty also breached this covenant. Jesus would have recognised that - which is why he hammered the Pharisees.  They changed the law or rather interpreted differently so that they could simply divorce a person - if they didn't like them. or if they said "I divorce thee".   Jesus had a high view of marriage.  Unlike ours laws today, there needed to be a breach of the covenant. One that went to its heart. 


#54
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

Seriously, does Miss Tradesecret be Bible Stupid on purpose?

MISS TRADESECRET'S BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN AT HER EMBARRASSING EXPENSE: "They changed the law or rather interpreted differently so that they could simply divorce a person - if they didn't like them. or if they said "I divorce thee". "

Just how many times do we have to correct her outright Bible Stupidity in this Religion Forum?  AGAIN, what Miss Tradesecret doesn't tell the equally Bible inept pseudo-christians like her, is the following relative to divorce:

JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS SAY THAT A COUPLE IS NOT TO DIVORCE!  
"To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Does Miss Tradesecret want to call the Apostle Paul a LIAR relative to what he proposed for marriage in the passage above?!  NOT!


NEXT BIBLE STUPID WOMAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT DOESN'T KNOW THEIR BIBLE REGARDING DIVORCE, WILL BE ...?

.
#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Does Miss Tradesecret want to call the Apostle Paul a LIAR 

Brother D. The Reverend Tradesecret  denies often that which is written in the bible. I mean lets not forget, that we are talking about a Pastor and a Chaplain that even denies being a Reverend. How dumb is that!?
#56
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE TOWARDS OUR #1 BIBLE STUPID MISS TRADESECRET: "Brother D. The Reverend Tradesecret  denies often that which is written in the bible. I mean let's not forget, that we are talking about a Pastor and a Chaplain that even denies being a Reverend. How dumb is that!?"

There is not a better phrase that I personally can use towards Miss Tradesecret, other than her being so Bible Stupid that it is truly hard to believe in why she is still here upon this Religion Forum giving it a bad name, and to Christianity as well, unbelievable!

Miss Tradesecret's  church congregation are truly being "fleeced" when she passes the collection plate every Saturday on the Lord's day, whereas if her Bible ineptness was shown to them within this Religion Forum alone, they would RUN and find another church other than her Satanic Presbyterian Calvin church for sure!

.