Krsto
Well-known member
Any religion which relies on ancient text understands those speaking or writing at the time weren't perfect and it's theoretically possible to improve upon their ethic. If Muslims realized this the Islam of today wouldn't have so many problems. St. Paul can be passed off as a misogynist and so we allow for female elders in our churches. But Jesus? Wasn't he perfect? In reality what pastor when confronted with a woman who is being abused by her husband doesn't secretly believe he wished Jesus would have added the phrase "and abuse" to "I allow divorce only for unfaithfulness." How many pastors say to their battered parishioners, "I know Jesus never allowed divorce for abuse but if you do divorce for that reason I'm certainly going to understand and won't judge you."? Why don't we just come right out and say to the world that we can improve upon the religion that Jesus gave us and allow for divorce for abuse? What nuckle-headed Fundamentalist among us is going to say our civil laws allowing divorce for abuse aren't more Christian and Christ-like than a legalistic pastor who won't counsel a battered wife to dump the bastard she married?
In reality, it might be quite possible that if someone at the time listening to Jesus had raised his hand and asked, "What about physical abuse? Can't women divorce for that?" Jesus would have said, "Oh yeah, that too." We also must recognize that while Jesus was the incarnation of God (however you want to understand that), he was subject to human limitation, including not being able to anticipate every objection to his teachings. Also, what we know of what he said has been determined by fallible humans putting together a record of his teachings decades after the fact based on quite a variety of oral traditions. It could very well be that Jesus said, "and abuse" but that just wasn't important enough in their paternalistic culture to be preserved until the end of the first century when the Gospels were being written or collated.
Evangelicals say that the scriptures are without error, but in reality act as if there are errors when they allow for divorce for abuse in those churches where the pastors have a lot of control.
In reality, it might be quite possible that if someone at the time listening to Jesus had raised his hand and asked, "What about physical abuse? Can't women divorce for that?" Jesus would have said, "Oh yeah, that too." We also must recognize that while Jesus was the incarnation of God (however you want to understand that), he was subject to human limitation, including not being able to anticipate every objection to his teachings. Also, what we know of what he said has been determined by fallible humans putting together a record of his teachings decades after the fact based on quite a variety of oral traditions. It could very well be that Jesus said, "and abuse" but that just wasn't important enough in their paternalistic culture to be preserved until the end of the first century when the Gospels were being written or collated.
Evangelicals say that the scriptures are without error, but in reality act as if there are errors when they allow for divorce for abuse in those churches where the pastors have a lot of control.
