- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 1,041
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Because we know the difference does not mean I necessarily disagree.
Don't assume anything.
It wasn't an assumption. It was an inference. If you agreed with Paul's opinion, than the defense that it was "just his opinion" would be disingenuous. Of course I did make the assumption that you did not intend to be disingenuous, so maybe that was my bad...
And somehow you know what ws better for the society he lived in? You went back in time or something?
His opinions were for his church as in letters he had written. I doubt he expected his letters to end up cannon. This does not change his authority when speaking about Gods law.
Ok. Well, Jesus still said that it was best for men to marry as was originally intended, and Paul still said it was better for them not to marry if they could control themselves. Which opinion do you hold?
So you are willing to do an end run around the law "technically" and just ignore the spirit of the law?
It's not a law, its an anecdote. The only part of that passage that is law is this:
"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
My use of the word technically was to indicate that I was breaking the passage down into the four distinct assertions Jesus was making. Of the four, only one of them was a commandment. The command was to not separate what God had joined together.
It seems to me that you are the one trying to twist the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law, is "Don't divorce your wives. Keep loving them and treating them as you would have them treat you instead."
You seem to be trying to twist this clear message into "Any sexual union other than a marriage between one man and one woman is sinful." It's not working.
You must be kidding?
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Oh wait, this is the law that you want to do an end run around.
Looks like a deflection to me. You didn't really address the part that you quoted. Did King David sin when he took a second wife, thereby making his marriage between 1 man and 2 women? Maybe read 1 Kings 15:5 again before answering.
Since the law does not state or recognize any other union it is safe to say, you are correct and very wrong at the same time.
No, no other union is mentioned or ordained save a man and woman. Anything else is morally wrong and a sin, period.
If no other union is mentioned or ordained save a man and a woman then how do you know anything else is morally wrong and a sin? Because they aren't mentioned? According to that logic, using sunscreen is morally wrong and a sin because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. Driving an automobile is morally wrong and a sin because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. how did you make the leap from "not mentioned" to "Morally wrong and sinful?"
Yes, it was so people could not just put away your WIFE for any reason.
Agreed, which is why that particular rule only applies to married heterosexual males and married homosexual females. I think we could reasonably extend the principal of the law to apply to married heterosexual females and married homosexual males by replacing the word "wife" with the word "husband."
Or we could just follow the golden rule and the who thing will solve itself, since no one wants to be cast off and traded in for a newer model.
And this puts them squarely in danger of separation from God and hellfire.
Really? Paul was one of those people who couldn't accept the word. Does that mean that he was put squarely in danger of separation from God and hellfire? Is everyone who chooses not to marry going to hell for not following the original design?