PDA

View Full Version : The Big Questions #1 - DIVORCE (sf IPU)



Rincewind
15-12-2008, 11:43 PM
Logic is logic. There is no such thing as magisterial and ministerial logic. Magisterial and ministerial reason, yes, since this is logic applied to premises.

No you are trying to stand like a judge over the Holy scriptures of Our Lady Unicorn. You can't do that.


Mine are self-consistent.

That's a laugh. :lol:

Ok So what is your position on divorce, is it right or wrong?

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 12:22 AM
No you are trying to stand like a judge over the Holy scriptures of Our Lady Unicorn. You can't do that.
No, just applying logic, as per proper reasoning. Even some of the IPU devotees are trying to say something halfway sensible, e.g. in the dark such a thing would be invisible in one sense since it couldn't be seen, but might be called "pink" because that is what it would look like in white light. But same could be said about any pink object.


That's a laugh. :lol:
Not really; British comedy makes me laugh quite often (Dawkins' ranting can be quite comedic in another way :P :lol:), but this wasn't it.


Ok So what is your position on divorce, is it right or wrong?
Easy. See On Divorce and Adultery in the NT (http://www.tektonics.org/af/divorce2.html) by James Patrick Holding

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 07:30 AM
Easy. See On Divorce and Adultery in the NT (http://www.tektonics.org/af/divorce2.html) by James Patrick Holding

I said what is your position. Given that article seems to do a lot of name calling it is clear they think that divorce is ok for a man to divorce a wife if she is guilty of fornication.

Is that the only circumstance that you believe divorce to be justified?

(NB Thread split because I invisage this topic could generate a lot of comment in its own right).

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 09:20 AM
I said what is your position. Given that article seems to do a lot of name calling
No, accurate labelling of a maladjusted misotheist.


it is clear they think that divorce is ok for a man to divorce a wife if she is guilty of fornication.
The Apostle Paul allows divorce and remarriage for abandonment by an unbeliever.


Is that the only circumstance that you believe divorce to be justified?
There are two explicit ones: sexual infidelity and abandonment. The Bible also teaches a graded absolutism or hierarchy of morals, so escaping violence is an implicit grounds (as JP says, a high context understanding, which is part of a grammatical-historical understanding).


(NB Thread split because I invisage this topic could generate a lot of comment in its own right).
Sure, a good decision. But I'm not going to comment much.

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 10:44 AM
No, accurate labelling of a maladjusted misotheist.

Well as Robert tries to claim some sort of moral high ground in name-calling it is pretty hypocritical in my view considering he has sunk to the same depths.


The Apostle Paul allows divorce and remarriage for abandonment by an unbeliever.

So Paul allows it but Christ doesn't? And according to Mark, Christ didn't even mention fornication as an excuse.


There are two explicit ones: sexual infidelity and abandonment. The Bible also teaches a graded absolutism or hierarchy of morals, so escaping violence is an implicit grounds (as JP says, a high context understanding, which is part of a grammatical-historical understanding).

This sounds like some comfortable compromise to me. For centuries the church said that divorce was impossible. Justified by primarily by Mark's reporting of the words of Christ himself.

Matthew (which lends heavily from Mark) adds the fornication exception and Paul's exception is added later again and is itself not a direct teaching of Christ.


Sure, a good decision. But I'm not going to comment much.

That's a pity but despite what you think there are other people with intering opinions on matters of faith and ethics which don;t agree with you.

As the name suggests I'm considering more than one of these threads and have a topic of discussion already worked out for TBQ #2, but thought it best to let interesting parties talk about divorce first...

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 01:48 PM
Priests shouldn't marry divorcees

Leviticus 21:7-8
'They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the LORD am holy—I who make you holy.

Leviticus 21:14
He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people,

Ezekiel 44:22
They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests.

A man who questions a brides virginity and found to be wrong must wed for life

Deuteronomy 22:13-19
If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

Rapists must marry their victims (if caught) and must marry for life

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

You cannot remarry someone you have divorced if they remarried

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

By analogy god seems to be saying there is no coming back if you leave worshiping him.

Jeremiah 3:1
"If a man divorces his wife
and she leaves him and marries another man,
should he return to her again?
Would not the land be completely defiled?
But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—
would you now return to me?"
declares the LORD.

Malachi 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.

Divorce is only allowed in the case of an adulterous wife

Matthew 5:31-32
It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:8-9
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Mark and Luke mentions no except to the divorce teaching

Mark 10:2-12
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female'. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Paul thinks it is better if people don't marry, or is they do stay celibate, or if they don't at least don't divorce. No exceptions are given but it appears that even if divorce is permitted remarriage is not.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

1 Corinthians 7:39-40
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

MichaelBaron
16-12-2008, 01:51 PM
[B]

; they may marry only virgins .

Means they will never find a wife :owned:

MichaelBaron
16-12-2008, 01:54 PM
[B]1 Corinthians 7:10-16
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

1 Corinthians 7:39-40
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

This is the why nobody wants to be a priest these days...spend entire life with one woman only....what a nightmare :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 01:58 PM
Well as Robert
Do learn to catch up. See I am James Patrick Holding....deal with it! (http://www.tektonics.org/jphforever.html)


tries to claim some sort of moral high ground in name-calling it is pretty hypocritical in my view considering he has sunk to the same depths.
Stop your bellyaching. See the article on his site that discusses the challenge-riposte method of the biblical cultures, Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html)


So Paul allows it but Christ doesn't?
Paul was Christ's chosen emissary, and wrote after Christ ascended, and was spelling out a new occurrence: with the growth of Christianity, there would be marriages between Christians and non-Christians, not an issue when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees.


And according to Mark, Christ didn't even mention fornication as an excuse.
Already explained in that article: what Jesus taught, He taught hundreds of times with minor variations according to the audience. With this issue, He didn't always have to spell out that which was understood by all (high context).


This sounds like some comfortable compromise to me. For centuries the church said that divorce was impossible. Justified by primarily by Mark's reporting of the words of Christ himself.
More likely a low-context (mis)understanding by an increasingly gentile and legalistic church.


Matthew (which lends heavily from Mark) adds the fornication exception
More likely, took a different example of one of Christ's many teachings on the topic, on one of the occasions where He spelt out what was already agreed on all sides in the dispute.


and Paul's exception is added later again and is itself not a direct teaching of Christ.
It's still binding.


That's a pity but despite what you think there are other people with intering opinions on matters of faith and ethics which don;t agree with you.
Then let them put their case. The mere fact of disagreement doesn't prove that I am wrong.

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 01:59 PM
This is the why nobody wants to be a priest these days...spend entire life with one woman only....what a nightmare :wall:

I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Priests shouldn't marry divorcees
Irrelevant for today, because the Levitical Priesthood is obsolete (Hebrews 7:12).


A man who questions a brides virginity and found to be wrong must wed for life

Rapists must marry their victims (if caught) and must marry for life
Of course: this is an obligation on the rapists to support their victims for life, since there was no social welfare in those days (http://www.tektonics.org/af/ancientmores.html#dt2228). I answered a philosophy-religion prof about this issue, divorce, homosexual behaviour, and the role of the Law of Moses here (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2202).


Malachi 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
Indeed, divorce is always a sign of some failure in what should have been a permanent union (Jesus in Matthew 19:3–6 cites Gen. 1:12 and 2:24).


Paul thinks it is better if people don't marry,
Because of "the current crisis" (1 Cor. 7:26).


or if they do stay celibate,
If they don't marry, then by definition they are celibate. The word you want above is "chaste".


or if they don't at least don't divorce. No exceptions are given but it appears that even if divorce is permitted remarriage is not.[/B]
No, since the believer is no longer bound if the unbeliever abandons him/her.


1 Corinthians 7:10-16
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Indeed. Also, note that "I, not the Lord" is not disclaiming authority, but that there was no command about the matter in Jesus's recorded statements while He was on Earth. See How Does 1 Cor. 7:6 Reconcile with Inspiration? (http://www.tektonics.org/af/concession.html)

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 02:15 PM
Do learn to catch up. See I am James Patrick Holding....deal with it! (http://www.tektonics.org/jphforever.html)

If Robert likes to call himself JP then that is even more reason to call him Robert, I say.


Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html)

You can't justify base name-calling but labeling it satire. Robert is just a hypocritical thug and his poncing maneuvering for some sort of moral high ground on the charge of name-calling is just comical. Perhaps you could call it self-satire if such a concept is possible.


Paul was Christ's chosen emissary, and wrote after Christ ascended, and was spelling out a new occurrence: with the growth of Christianity, there would be marriages between Christians and non-Christians, not an issue when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees.

That is one theory. Still it is funny that Christ would have to amend his teaching through Paul when he could have just said so when he was originally teaching on divorce less than a century earlier. It is interesting to note that no new teachings have been required in the 1,900 years since John the Theologian's death.


Already explained in that article: what Jesus taught, He taught hundreds of times with minor variations according to the audience. With this issue, He didn't always have to spell out that which was understood by all (high context).

Since he would have known it would be record by both Luke and Mark in one form and Matthew in another perhaps the problem was with the divine inspiration of the scripture.


More likely a low-context (mis)understanding by an increasingly gentile and legalistic church.

Not at all. These traditions grew immediately out of the church fathers and were unquestioned for centuries.


More likely, took a different example of one of Christ's many teachings on the topic, on one of the occasions where He spelt out what was already agreed on all sides in the dispute.

Problem was with the divine inspiration then because by omitting a key clause just looks shoddy.


It's still binding.

If you accept Paul's letters as scripture. It also raises questions the moot point as to whether it was a sin between the time of Christ's teachings and Paul's letter.

Could you just clarify that by Paul's teaching you are talking about 1 Corinthians 7?


Then let them put their case. The mere fact of disagreement doesn't prove that I am wrong.

No but the fact that many highly trained theologians disagree with you as well as the largest christian church in the world is reason to think that you are not patently correct, even though you write as if you are.

Adamski
16-12-2008, 02:16 PM
Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.The first part is not true. Paul's position on sex and marriage is often mis-represented. You need to look at I and II Corinthians as a whole to appreciate it's full context. In one place he says it is better to stay as you are than to change. If you are married, stay married. See esp. I Cor 6: 12 - 7:40.

eclectic
16-12-2008, 02:19 PM
I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.

no paul actually said that it was better to be married than to be continually tempted

the law requiring that priests be celibate is a church law (9th Century?) which is not applied across the board ie only to (western) latin rite catholics and even in there with exceptions (for instance if you are a married minister from another denomination then convert )

some ( maybe all?) of the eastern (oriental) rites (referring here to those in union with rome not to those of the orthodox communion) permit priests to marry - for example the maronites of lebanon have fiercely guarded that right

iirc in such rites:

a man who is married cannot become a priest
a man who is already a priest can then marry
priest who has always been celibate or is widowed can become a bishop
a bishop can never marry

i am sure that there a quite a few latin rite priests who get "frustrated" by such "inconsistencies"

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 02:19 PM
I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely
A misundestanding as shown above. Paul told Timothy (1 Tim. 4):


1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

The book of Hebrews (13:4) states:


Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.


and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.
That's a Roman Catholic Church rule for the Roman Rite. There are Eastern Rite priests who are part of that Communion who are allowed to marry, and the Roman Catholic Church regards married Eastern Orthodox priests as genuine priests. [Edit: I see that Eclectic has made the same point]

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 02:20 PM
The first part is not true. Paul's position on sex and marriage is often mis-represented. You need to look at I and II Corinthians as a whole to appreciate it's full context. In one place he says it is better to stay as you are than to change. If you are married, stay married. See esp. I Cor 6: 12 - 7:40.

Yes he did favour staying married if you were already married. But he preferred you to remain unmarried if that was your current situation.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 02:40 PM
If Robert likes to call himself JP then that is even more reason to call him Robert, I say.
Typically petty misotheist. JPH is his legal name now.


You can't justify base name-calling but labeling it satire. Robert is just a hypocritical thug and his poncing maneuvering for some sort of moral high ground on the charge of name-calling is just comical. Perhaps you could call it self-satire if such a concept is possible.
Stop whinging. JPH is witty, while many misotheists are just plain vicious.


That is one theory. Still it is funny that Christ would have to amend his teaching through Paul when he could have just said so when he was originally teaching on divorce less than a century earlier.
Why? Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus's ministry was almost entirely to the Jews.


It is interesting to note that no new teachings have been required in the 1,900 years since John the Theologian's death.
What's the problem? Are you going to present an actual logical argument, rather than just an expression of your personal psychological quirks (about what yuu find "funny" or "interesting", for example)?


Since he would have known it would be record by both Luke and Mark in one form and Matthew in another perhaps the problem was with the divine inspiration of the scripture.
No problem at all. An omission is not an error.


Problem was with the divine inspiration then because by omitting a key clause just looks shoddy.
No, just modern misotheists are spoilt brats wanting the New Testament authors to spell out everything for their low-context minds.


If you accept Paul's letters as scripture.
Of course, as the Church Father did right from the start.


It also raises questions the moot point as to whether it was a sin between the time of Christ's teachings and Paul's letter.
What was? The Bible, unlike lefties, doesn't advocate retro-active legislation.


Could you just clarify that by Paul's teaching you are talking about 1 Corinthians 7?
How do you mean? This is the main chapter about marriage and divorce in the Epistles, but I regard all of his epistles as authoritative.


No but the fact that many highly trained theologians disagree with you as well as the largest christian church in the world is reason to think that you are not patently correct, even though you write as if you are.
Who cares what some unnamed theologians say? What is their evidence, and how does it match up with a grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture?

MichaelBaron
16-12-2008, 03:09 PM
I think Paul was not talking about priests but all christians. Paul preferred if everyone abstained from marriage and sex entirely and this is where the rule for Catholic priests comes from.

All Christians sigh..what a turn off for christianity :)

Rincewind
16-12-2008, 04:14 PM
Typically petty misotheist. JPH is his legal name now.

I would have thought trading in his perfectly serviceable name of Robert Turkel was petty. But I guess if you have worn out the reputation of one name it is time to try another.


Stop whinging. JPH is witty, while many misotheists are just plain vicious.

I guess you call restricting his so-called "challenge" to a closed forum run by his fundamentalist mates is witty. If he really was witty, in the sense of being able to think no his feet, he would not be scared of public debate in an independent forum.


Why? Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Jesus's ministry was almost entirely to the Jews.

Paul was adding caveats not mentioned by Jesus during his ministry as far as we know. So followers of that doctrine would be better described as Paulines and not Christians.


What's the problem? Are you going to present an actual logical argument, rather than just an expression of your personal psychological quirks (about what yuu find "funny" or "interesting", for example)?

No just pointing out the arbitrary way you include certain texts as scripture and divinely inspired and consign others to the scrap heap, even if such a process is based on the deliberations of church fathers, they are just men and capable of error.


No problem at all. An omission is not an error.

It is a flaw with the text when two biographers say Jesus just said "divorce is bad" and a third "remembered" the clause "oh, wait, except in the case of infidelity".


No, just modern misotheists are spoilt brats wanting the New Testament authors to spell out everything for their low-context minds.

No rather you have adopted a position of biblical consistency which is patently indefensible.


Of course, as the Church Father did right from the start.

You don't seem to agree with the church fathers on everything though only when it is convenient for you to do so.


What was? The Bible, unlike lefties, doesn't advocate retro-active legislation.

So why was it ok before Paul said it and not afterward. Had something which was inherently evil suddenly become perfectly ok?

Certainly such a patchwork of rules looks more ad hoc than the Australian tax legislation. Jesus was teaching about marriage and divorce less than 100 years earlier. Couldn't he have foreseen the need for the clarification?


How do you mean? This is the main chapter about marriage and divorce in the Epistles, but I regard all of his epistles as authoritative.

Ok but your position on divorce by reasons of abandonment is based primarily on 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. If so then I would say that abandonment is not supported by that scripture. If you partner is a non-believer and leaves then let them go. That doesn't mean you have divorced them or even that you could or should.


Who cares what some unnamed theologians say? What is their evidence, and how does it match up with a grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture?

Jono, you are just a very ordinary man with no theological training to speak of who happens to make a living by prostituting your scientific qualification, such that it is, for your religious beliefs.

The so called "nameless" theologians I am talking about have a history of thousands of years and comprise thousands of people with theological qualifications and lifetimes dedicated to interpreting scripture. The point is not that the majority disagree with you so much as the majority also disagree with each other to a lesser or greater extent.

Of course Jono the uneducated dilettante might have something on all those generations of theological experts. But the balance of probabilities is against it.

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 06:49 PM
I would have thought trading in his perfectly serviceable name of Robert Turkel was petty. But I guess if you have worn out the reputation of one name it is time to try another.
JPH was the name he was born with, so stop whinging.


I guess you call restricting his so-called "challenge" to a closed forum run by his fundamentalist mates is witty.
Misotheists are mostly mimophants: they want the right to insult Christians, but squeal pitieously at the slightest riposte (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/#cr)in return.


If he really was witty, in the sense of being able to think no his feet,
He can, as I can attest in person. But he is more interested in thorough research.


he would not be scared of public debate in an independent forum.
More likely, he doesn't see why sound bites instead of reasoning should be held up as the deciding factor. By the same token, Dawko won't debate creationists (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3103/)...


Paul was adding caveats not mentioned by Jesus during his ministry as far as we know. So followers of that doctrine would be better described as Paulines and not Christians.
No, because Christ authorized Paul to teach, and His original disciples affirmed Paul's writings as Scripture, thus authoritative.

[QUOTE=Rincewind]No just pointing out the arbitrary way you include certain texts as scripture and divinely inspired and consign others to the scrap heap, even if such a process is based on the deliberations of church fathers, they are just men and capable of error.
Not at all. It’s important to note that the Canon was decided by God and merely recognized by man. Leading NT scholar F.F. Bruce put it well:


‘The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, …. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif what was already the general practice of those communities.’ [[I]The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? IVP, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1960.]

One of the world’s greatest authorities on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger, pointed out:


‘You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. … . You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together.’ The Case for Christ, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998.]


It is a flaw with the text when two biographers say Jesus just said "divorce is bad" and a third "remembered" the clause "oh, wait, except in the case of infidelity".
Only to spoilt 21st-century mimophantic misotheists who demand that everything should be spoon-fed to them. High context readers closer to the time had no such problem, because they knew that the exception clause was understood on all sides.


No rather you have adopted a position of biblical consistency which is patently indefensible.
I patently did defend it. :P


You don't seem to agree with the church fathers on everything though only when it is convenient for you to do so.
They were not authoritative unlike Scripture, and they recognized this. E.g. Ignatius (AD 50–115), Bishop of Antioch, recognised that the NT had a higher authority than he: ‘I do not order you, as did Peter and Paul. They were Apostles and I am even until now a slave’ (Letter to the Romans (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/IGNATIUS.htm)).


So why was it ok before Paul said it and not afterward. Had something which was inherently evil suddenly become perfectly ok?
What are you on about now? Paul was allowing something in a new situation: Christian in a marriage with a non-Christian.


Certainly such a patchwork of rules looks more ad hoc than the Australian tax legislation. Jesus was teaching about marriage and divorce less than 100 years earlier. Couldn't he have foreseen the need for the clarification?
This is ironic, because misotheists often claim that church committees put words into Jesus' mouth to settle disputes, without the slightest evidence for this claim of course. But here is a case where such a thing was NOT done. Looks like He foresaw pretentious liberal attacks on the authenticity of the Gospels :P


Ok but your position on divorce by reasons of abandonment is based primarily on 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. If so then I would say that abandonment is not supported by that scripture. If you partner is a non-believer and leaves then let them go. That doesn't mean you have divorced them or even that you could or should.
Being no longer bound means being free to marry someone else.


Jono, you are just a very ordinary man with no theological training to speak of who happens to make a living by prostituting your scientific qualification, such that it is, for your religious beliefs.
Rincy, you are a very ordinary man who's a loudmouthed misotheist. My earned doctorate in physical chemistry is a reasonable qualification. And you and the Leftmedia have no problem with the likes of Dawko prostituting his ancient science qualification for his atheopathic religious beliefs. My major theological/scientific book Refuting Compromise (http://creationontheweb.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-164)was vetted by a leading systematic theologian and a Ph.D. Hebrew scholar and teacher, and I have spoken many times in churches and seminaries.


The so called "nameless" theologians I am talking about have a history of thousands of years and comprise thousands of people with theological qualifications and lifetimes dedicated to interpreting scripture. The point is not that the majority disagree with you so much as the majority also disagree with each other to a lesser or greater extent.
Yet most Church Fathers, Thomas Aquinas and all the Reformers all agreed with creation in six ordinary days about 6,000 years ago, and a global Flood, as I document in Church of England apologises to Darwin: Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6048/).


Of course Jono the uneducated dilettante might have something on all those generations of theological experts. But the balance of probabilities is against it.
Of course, as I document, even most of the current crop of compromisers agree that Genesis means what I claim it does; they just don't believe it.

Rincewind
18-12-2008, 08:40 AM
JPH was the name he was born with, so stop whinging.

You stop whinging! Had he stuck with the name he was born with then maybe he would not be so confused.



Misotheists are mostly mimophants: they want the right to insult Christians, but squeal pitieously at the slightest riposte in return.

Nothing to do with what I was talking about. JPH is a turkey pretending to be
a lion. If he wants to challenge his rivals to a debate (they aren't exclusively atheist by the way, he is so left field that many chriostians also disagree with him) then he should do so in a open forum.


He can, as I can attest in person. But he is more interested in thorough research.

He is dfoing a very good job at hiding it under his private bushel and only discussing it among a closed group of like minded loony-tunes.


More likely, he doesn't see why sound bites instead of reasoning should be held up as the deciding factor. By the same token, Dawko won't debate creationists...

Dawkins has held many public and high profile debates. Dawkins won't debate people like yourself with no credentials but by the same token, he doesn't crow about how the creationists are too scared to debate with him. He just refuses to give the fringe like you any air time.


No, because Christ authorized Paul to teach, and His original disciples affirmed Paul's writings as Scripture, thus authoritative.

So Paul (a man) was infallible?


Not at all. It’s important to note that the Canon was decided by God and merely recognized by man. Leading NT scholar F.F. Bruce put it well:


‘The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, …. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif what was already the general practice of those communities.’ [[I]The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? IVP, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1960.]

Doesn't change the fact that the decisions of the church were the decisions of men. The fact that men had already decided which writings were canonical is exactly my point. Men got to chose what was in and more importantly what was out.

Also there are various canonical lists. The catholics and eastern churchs have a different list (from you and from each other). So obviously the decision of what to exclude was not a universally self-chosen as you are trying to portray.


One of the world’s greatest authorities on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger, pointed out:


‘You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. … . You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together.’ The Case for Christ, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998.]

Then why do different churches today have different lists?


Only to spoilt 21st-century mimophantic misotheists who demand that everything should be spoon-fed to them. High context readers closer to the time had no such problem, because they knew that the exception clause was understood on all sides.

If true then why was it sometimes included and sometimes not. Historical scholars put Mark as the oldest gospel and Matthew and Luke as slightly later and independent. (Leaving aside the 5th gospel hypothesis for the moment). Then the most likely scenario is that the author of Matthew was pro-divorce for reason of infidelity and interpolated the exception in the gospel. The fact that Mark and Luke agree means Luke copied Mark without embellishment.


I patently did defend it.

In your mind but it is all a question of interpretation. You lend more weight to one section and deduce that divorce is ok. Catholics read Mark and deduce that divorce is bad.

You are using basically the same gospels, right?


They were not authoritative unlike Scripture, and they recognized this. E.g. Ignatius (AD 50–115), Bishop of Antioch, recognised that the NT had a higher authority than he: ‘I do not order you, as did Peter and Paul. They were Apostles and I am even until now a slave’ (Letter to the Romans).

Well they seem to be recognising that peter and Paul were greater teachers. Not necessarily infallible.


What are you on about now? Paul was allowing something in a new situation: Christian in a marriage with a non-Christian.

There were no followers of Christ before this? Surely there were a number of churches that had already been established for a some decades before Paul wrote the letter.


This is ironic, because misotheists often claim that church committees put words into Jesus' mouth to settle disputes, without the slightest evidence for this claim of course. But here is a case where such a thing was NOT done. Looks like He foresaw pretentious liberal attacks on the authenticity of the Gospels

Christ did teach on divorce and he said it was bad and the law of Moses was wrong. If you believe Matthew (although he disagrees with Mark and Luke) infidelity is a reasonable excuse but this abandonment by a non-believer things is entirely an invention of Paul.


Being no longer bound means being free to marry someone else.

That is an interpretation you are reading into it but it is debatable. Also it is not what Christ said, even the more liberal version contained in Matthew.


Rincy, you are a very ordinary man who's a loudmouthed misotheist.

Coming from you Jono I take than as a compliment. :lol:


My earned doctorate in physical chemistry is a reasonable qualification.

Sure. Next time I need some chemicals mixed I'll come to you. If I want any advise on logic, history, grammar or biblical advice, it's best to talk to someone who knows a little about those subjects. :lol:


And you and the Leftmedia have no problem with the likes of Dawko prostituting his ancient science qualification for his atheopathic religious beliefs.

Actually Dawkins has been heavily criticised for his philosophical writing. His scientific and popular scientific writings have been generally praised as he is a good communicator and an esteemed scientist in the field in which he writes.


My major theological/scientific book Refuting Compromise was vetted by a leading systematic theologian and a Ph.D. Hebrew scholar and teacher, and I have spoken many times in churches and seminaries.

I think the word you are looking for here is sympathetic.


Yet most Church Fathers, Thomas Aquinas and all the Reformers all agreed with creation in six ordinary days about 6,000 years ago, and a global Flood, as I document in Church of England apologises to Darwin: Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism.

Whoa, Jono. You have really lost the plot here. We are talking about divorce remember. Try to focus.


Of course, as I document, even most of the current crop of compromisers agree that Genesis means what I claim it does; they just don't believe it.

Is there any divorce mentioned in genesis?

To get back to divorce. Based solely on the direct teaching of Christ alone, and in 25 words or less, how would you summarise the position on divorce...

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2008, 12:04 PM
You stop whinging! Had he stuck with the name he was born with then maybe he would not be so confused.
Misotheists never seem to mind that François-Marie Arouet called himself "Voltaire", or that a low-brow misotheist named Barry Cox calls himself by the weird name "Rincewind".


Nothing to do with what I was talking about. JPH is a turkey pretending to be
a lion. If he wants to challenge his rivals to a debate (they aren't exclusively atheist by the way,
What it wrong with debating to try to establish the truth, which is JP's aim, rather than see who can deliver the best sound bites at the time?

I am not a great fan of oral debates either, but I noted that Dawko and Gould never wanted an oral debate with creationists and advised others not to.


he is so left field that many chriostians also disagree with him) then he should do so in a open forum.
Then it would be a free for all, with little point.


Dawkins has held many public and high profile debates. Dawkins won't debate people like yourself with no credentials
More likely, he debates soft touches like bishops who are politicians without much in the way of Christian faith (cf. Yes Prime Minister, "The Bishop's Gambit" (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6048/#yesminister)).


but by the same token, he doesn't crow about how the creationists are too scared to debate with him. He just refuses to give the fringe like you any air time.
JPH refuses to give village atheists (and their compromising churchian supporters) any air time.


So Paul (a man) was infallible?
No. It is the Scriptures that are "God breathed" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15–17 (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2888/)).


Doesn't change the fact that the decisions of the church were the decisions of men. The fact that men had already decided which writings were canonical is exactly my point. Men got to chose what was in and more importantly what was out.
No, they recognized its authority, they didn't decide it. Dr Metzger gave the example of a poll of modern experts voting on great composers and coming up with say Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, then someone else claiming that these were great because later people decided they were.


Also there are various canonical lists. The catholics and eastern churchs have a different list (from you and from each other). So obviously the decision of what to exclude was not a universally self-chosen as you are trying to portray.
In the New Testament, there was agreement on the 27 books. The Protestants follow the Jewish canon for the Old Testament.


Then why do different churches today have different lists?
Because some are wrong. See also The Formation of the OT Canon (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html).


If true then why was it sometimes included and sometimes not.
Why should it always have to be spelt out? Why are people not allowed to make minor variations when they teach the same basic message hundreds of times?


Historical scholars put Mark as the oldest gospel and Matthew and Luke as slightly later and independent.
Maybe so, although I've discussed this with TheJoke.


(Leaving aside the 5th gospel hypothesis for the moment).
Which is crap, because the Gospel of Thomas was hugely later.


Then the most likely scenario is that the author of Matthew was pro-divorce for reason of infidelity and interpolated the exception in the gospel. The fact that Mark and Luke agree means Luke copied Mark without embellishment.
What piffle. The exception was already understood in the Jewish culture.


In your mind but it is all a question of interpretation.
Yes, the right grammatical-historical approach that recognizes that an infidelity exception was already understood.


You lend more weight to one section and deduce that divorce is ok. Catholics read Mark and deduce that divorce is bad.
Catholics also read Matthew, and others read Mark and know perfectly well the implied exception in that culture in a proper high context understanding.


You are using basically the same gospels, right?
Of course.


Well they seem to be recognising that peter and Paul were greater teachers. Not necessarily infallible.
They recognized that their writings were authoritative.


There were no followers of Christ before this? Surely there were a number of churches that had already been established for a some decades before Paul wrote the letter.
Wasn't so much of a problem for a few years. Paul was largely writing to churches about certain problems within them.


Christ did teach on divorce and he said it was bad and the law of Moses was wrong.
No, that Moses made an allowance for hardness of hearts.


If you believe Matthew (although he disagrees with Mark and Luke)
Only in your spoilt low-context mind.


That is an interpretation you are reading into it but it is debatable. Also it is not what Christ said, even the more liberal version contained in Matthew.
Doesn't matter, because Paul had Jesus' authority to make decisions, as Peter recognized.


Sure. Next time I need some chemicals mixed I'll come to you. If I want any advise on logic, history, grammar or biblical advice, it's best to talk to someone who knows a little about those subjects. :lol:
I disagree: better to talk to someone who knows a lot about these subjects, like me!


I think the word you are looking for here is sympathetic.
No, systematic theologian has a well defined meaning.


Whoa, Jono. You have really lost the plot here. We are talking about divorce remember. Try to focus.
It was perfectly relevant. After all, Jesus' teachings about marriage and divorce are based on the creation of man and woman as in Genesis


To get back to divorce. Based solely on the direct teaching of Christ alone, and in 25 words or less, how would you summarise the position on divorce...
Irrelevant. Christ Himself was not a "red letter Christian". Rather, He taught "Scripture cannot be broken", so it is the Scriptural teaching as a whole that matters.

Rincewind
19-12-2008, 12:18 AM
Misotheists never seem to mind that François-Marie Arouet called himself "Voltaire", or that a low-brow misotheist named Barry Cox calls himself by the weird name "Rincewind".

There are a couple of differences. Firstly I've never said that was my name when it was not. Secondly I've never logged on to the forum under a another name and posted supporting messages of my primary account written in the third person.

Neither of those things are true about Mr Turkel nee Holding.


What it wrong with debating to try to establish the truth, which is JP's aim, rather than see who can deliver the best sound bites at the time?

I agree and challenging people to a debate and calling them chicken for refusing is simply childish when you conditions include hosting the debate on a board moderated by those very sympathetic too one side of the debate.


I am not a great fan of oral debates either, but I noted that Dawko and Gould never wanted an oral debate with creationists and advised others not to.

I wouldn't say never wanted as Dawkins at least did give a couple.


Then it would be a free for all, with little point.

I think you mean fair for all.


More likely, he debates soft touches like bishops who are politicians without much in the way of Christian faith.

Ipse disit.


JPH refuses to give village atheists (and their compromising churchian supporters) any air time.

That's a laugh since he is a most village of theists with no theological qualifications whatsoever. Another dilettante like yourself. Birds of a feather you could say.


No. It is the Scriptures that are "God breathed" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15–17).

The ones that men decided were scriptures, versus the ones men decided weren't scriptures, you mean?


No, they recognized its authority, they didn't decide it. Dr Metzger gave the example of a poll of modern experts voting on great composers and coming up with say Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, then someone else claiming that these were great because later people decided they were.

And I recognise the gospel of St Cyrill the gammy-legged as having authority. It is still a voluntary act of men and thus open to error.

The same is true of the composers. They are great because they are popular and they are popular because fallible men like their music.


In the New Testament, there was agreement on the 27 books. The Protestants follow the Jewish canon for the Old Testament.

Mostly yes but there are a small number that include Baruch.


Because some are wrong. See also The Formation of the OT Canon.

Ah yes, the good old, I'm-right-because-I'm-Jono defense. :lol:


Why should it always have to be spelt out? Why are people not allowed to make minor variations when they teach the same basic message hundreds of times?

Hundreds of times? Are you sure. Mark, Luke and Matthew only mention it once and always in the same context of pharisees trying to trick Jesus. It is a bit of a stretch to claim they are reporting different teachings given the similarity of context and the recognised cribbing that Luke and Matthew did from Mark.


Maybe so, although I've discussed this with TheJoke.

Well it is difficult to be certain with little or no physical evidence of the original manuscripts and no corroborating reports by independent observers. But it is the prevalent theory historians seem to be working with.


Which is crap, because the Gospel of Thomas was hugely later.

Perhaps, as I said, I am leaving this aside for now and it doesn't really change the thrust of the argument anyway. Regardless of whether Mark was copied directly of via a secondary text is beside the point.


What piffle. The exception was already understood in the Jewish culture.

So you claim. The fact that Matthew put words into the mouth of Jesus that Mark and Luke does present a conundrum.


Yes, the right grammatical-historical approach that recognizes that an infidelity exception was already understood.

Of course it was. That is purely scripture interpreting scripture and not interpretation of fallible men.


Catholics also read Matthew, and others read Mark and know perfectly well the implied exception in that culture in a proper high context understanding.

Yes and the Catholics take Matthew to mean that separation is permitted in case of infidelity but the marriage is not dissolved, hence no divorce and no remarriage. To interpret otherwise would have Matthew contradict Mark and Luke (and other scriptures).


They recognized that their writings were authoritative.

Yes, a higher authority does not necessarily mean the highest authority.


Wasn't so much of a problem for a few years. Paul was largely writing to churches about certain problems within them.

Not so much of a problem? I would have thought it would have been more of a problem in the days before larger communities were formed and the christians could start to interbreed.


No, that Moses made an allowance for hardness of hearts.

Exactly but Christ upturned the Jewish law and so the "infidelity exception which was understood" was a part of Moses' law which Jesus supplanted with the new "two becoming one flesh".


Only in your spoilt low-context mind.

Rather you are weak and want divorce to be allowed and so you read that interpretation into the gospels. However in Mark and Luke (and elsewhere) it is clear that divorce is not permitted and the Catholic reading of Matthew does not have infidelity allowed under the Catholic rules.


Doesn't matter, because Paul had Jesus' authority to make decisions, as Peter recognized.

Good for him so you are saying that Paul could write ex cathedra? And he knew when he was and when he wasn't writing ex cathedra?


I disagree: better to talk to someone who knows a lot about these subjects, like me!

As modest as ever.

No my original statement is corrected. Better a little than nothing at all.


It was perfectly relevant. After all, Jesus' teachings about marriage and divorce are based on the creation of man and woman as in Genesis

What has that to do with the 6,000 year hypothesis though? The garden could have 5 billion years ago or 5 minutes ago for difference it would make to Jesus' teachings.


Irrelevant. Christ Himself was not a "red letter Christian". Rather, He taught "Scripture cannot be broken", so it is the Scriptural teaching as a whole that matters.

Seeing as he supplanted Moses' law on Divorce he certainly was a red letter Christian. What he said trumped Moses.