Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[ok doser]

one more thought - much of this conversation has been about "the wife" or "the husband" - i've tried to make it universal and refer to "the spouse"

all of those are failed ways to address the subject of marriage

let's see what the big guy has to say about it:

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

[ok doser]

"they are no more twain, but one flesh"



you can believe what God says or not - it's up to you

 

[George Affleck]

one more thought - much of this conversation has been about "the wife" or "the husband" - i've tried to make it universal and refer to "the spouse"



all of those are failed ways to address the subject of marriage

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.



When a man beats his wife he is putting asunder (splitting into two parts) the marriage because he is beating his own flesh in an attempt to break the bond. Her response should be that she recognizes his desire to separate and obey him. She is not putting the marriage asunder, it is he who is doing it. She is guiltless of the breaking of the bond and must consider herself no longer one with the man.

 

[ok doser]

When a man beats his wife he is putting asunder (splitting into two parts) the marriage because he is beating his own flesh in an attempt to break the bond. Her response should be that she recognizes his desire to separate and obey him. She is not putting the marriage asunder, it is he who is doing it. She is guiltless of the breaking of the bond and must consider herself no longer one with the man.

no

she must consider herself part of a single entity (one flesh) that has a disease, a disease that needs to be treated

in no way is the marriage put asunder

there's only one action that achieves that



eta: two, actually

 

[ok doser]

let's look once more at what Jesus has to say about it:

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I don't believe this statement was a suggestion

i believe it was a command, a command not to disregard the awesome work of God in joining together two to make one

 

[George Affleck]

no

she must consider herself part of a single entity (one flesh) that has a disease, a disease that needs to be treated

in no way is the marriage put asunder

there's only one action that achieves that



eta: two, actually

The fact that Jesus tells men not to sunder a marriage assumes that it is possible to do so.

Beating your wife is clear evidence that the man 1) disrespects God's gift to him, 2) desires to inflict damage and instill fear with the result of separation, 3) is refusing to accept the one flesh concept which is the only biblical basis for marriage.

He is denying God, his wife, and the Bible and in doing so sunders the marriage.

 

[Rosenritter]

But I say this to your shame, you seem to have forgotten that all crime is sin, and that moral laws given by God are applicable to all humans.

I believe that some of the saints were executed for crimes such as distributing the bible in the common tongue, or even burnt to death upon it being proven that they had memorized scripture. All crime is sin? Are you sure about that?

 

[ok doser]

The fact that Jesus tells men not to sunder a marriage assumes that it is possible to do so.

upon death or by committing adultery

that's it

Beating your wife is clear evidence that the man..

needs correction, swiftly

same is true of a wife who physically abuses her husband

in each case they are committing physical assault which should be dealt with swiftly, harshly and publicly if necessary

and in each case it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the vows taken before God

neither the abused spouse nor the abuser may claim the marriage ended

 

[ok doser]

God says "let not man put asunder"

george says "man is putting asunder"


george, i'm sorry, but i'm going to go with God on this one

 

[Rusha]

She shouldn't be. No person should be beholden to a contract where abuse is part of it because that isn't the part of any marriage agreement. "For better or worse" doesn't include being abused in any form.

Any type of abuse (in this case adultery) breaks the marital contract ... as well as being harmful to the children. Same goes for physical abuse. Acceptance (by the injured party) of adultery and the spouse committing adultery sends the message to the children that adultery is fine and neither one of their parents is worthy of respect.

 

[George Affleck]

Because putting people away for adultery is ridiculous.

It only aggravates any problems that might arise from the act itself.

It also attempts to take away the right of God to punish at the judgement.
One cannot be punished twice for the same crime.

 

[ok doser]

The stupid

It hurts

 

[George Affleck]

a bold claim

can you support it scripturally?

An unbeliever is one who denies God, and the Bible. One who sunders a marriage where God has joined them together is to be considered an unbeliever by his works and one who adulterates the spiritual truths of God: denying God's gift of a wife, attacking God's mystical union of one flesh, asking God's blessing and then having contempt for it. By their fruits shall you know them. God's love does not abide in him. When violence is present, it is just easier to reach a conclusion because it is more obvious.

In both these verses the word "chorizo" is rendered asunder and depart respectively. It is the dividing again of that which God has joined together by the unbelieving party.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (chroizo). Mark 10:9KJV

But if the unbelieving depart (chorizo), let him depart (chorizo). A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 1 Cor 7:15KJV

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. Eph 5:28KJV
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Eph 5:29KJV
Those who beat the ones with which they are one flesh, beat themselves, not discerning the union.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. Eph 5:22KJV
A wife who is abused is under no obligation to submit to her husband unless she can do it "as unto the Lord". If he is beating her, he does not represent the Lord in their marriage and she is released from the obligation of treating him with reverence the way the church reverences the Lord.

 

[JudgeRightly]

a bold claim

can you support it scripturally?

An unbeliever is one who denies God, and the Bible. One who sunders a marriage where God has joined them together is to be considered an unbeliever by his works and one who adulterates the spiritual truths of God: denying God's gift of a wife, attacking God's mystical union of one flesh, asking God's blessing and then having contempt for it. By their fruits shall you know them. God's love does not abide in him. When violence is present, it is just easier to reach a conclusion because it is more obvious.

In both these verses the word "chorizo" is rendered asunder and depart respectively. It is the dividing again of that which God has joined together by the unbelieving party.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I don't see any scripture in there...

So is your answer "no, I cannot support my position using scripture"?

 

[ok doser]

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I don't see any scripture in there...

So is your answer "no, I cannot support my position using scripture"?

i looked at a lot of commentary like this last night, trying to figure out how and why someone would twist scripture to make it say something it doesn't, to negate the clear and concise words of Christ

what i found was the same sort of stuff george posted, unpersuasive contortions of this particular greek word here, that particular aramaic word there, all to stretch towards a conclusion that didn't make sense

 

[ok doser]

it appears that george doesn't trust in God to make one flesh, able to endure for better or worse

george and rusha think that God's work at making one flesh from two is easily torn apart by any poorly defined act of "abuse"

George - is God's "one flesh" torn asunder by a slap on the face? A harsh word? Emotional distance?

just what level of "abuse" is required to destroy God's work?

 

[ok doser]

When we were first married, my wife would often strike me when we argued

should i have considered my marriage "torn asunder"?

would i then have been justified in committing adultery?

 

[Eeset]

Why did you argue?

 

[ok doser]

Why did you argue?

i think we liked to argue - i really can't remember a specific argument

but i do remember that she always started it

 

[JudgeRightly]

NVM