September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Religions Are Not All Basically the Same | Main | Live Broadcast Today »

July 13, 2015

Comments

Greg says “divorce and remarriage in many cases is sinful”. I believe this is why the churches who teach this view haven’t a leg to stand on in opposing SSM. Matthew 19:9 seems to give a loop hole for divorce and remarriage on grounds of sexual uncleanness which includes adultery.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matthew 19:9).

If the guy commits adultery by divorcing his innocent wife and marrying another. Why does the innocent wife and the man she marries commit adultery after she is divorced from an adulterous husband?

If the “except clause” means what many think, that it allows remarriage on grounds of adultery, why doesn’t it apply to the innocent wife and the man she marries?


The stuff about 'as a rule, as a group and by nature' does not become true just because it's repeated a lot.

Contracts - agreements that must by law be kept - have been around for a long time.

Marriage is a contract.

Pretty simple, eh?

I hope that helps people understand why marriage is covered by law.

Greg shrugs away the notion that divorce has the same kind of impact by saying that conservative Christians are being "forced" to accept SSM through public policy, whereas, divorce is not an issue of public policy? It seems to me this is a way of weaseling out of the question.

Many conservative Christians march on January 22, the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. But where are they on September 4? The day Ronald Reagan signed the No-Fault Divorce act in California?

I think the reason is that divorce is readily forgiven for many conservative Christians. The figures they might admire, people like Charles Stanley, Randall Terry, even Ronald Reagan, have gone through what you could describe as "unbiblical" divorces and lived in sin with other "spouses." But somehow, they find that OK. And they look at the gay couple across the street as ruining America. It's no wonder that conservative Christianity is becoming a head scratcher for many people.

RonH - marriage is not a contract in the sense you seem to try and describe it. I've bought houses and cars, and signed a contract for my job. I've also signed a form to receive a marriage license and signed my certificate of marriage after the ceremony. Marriage is a social contract, but not a legal contract in the sense you try to proclaim.

RagTime - The reason I might consider marching on January 22, is that Roe v. Wade is a national law with ubiquitous implications. September 4th has implications for 1/50 states. If I march every time some institution, municipality or state makes what I think is a bone-head policy decision, I'd be fired from my job, which I could not fight because I actually signed a legal contract when hired.

B.E. Hunt...
All you have to do is look it up. Find out what a contract is and you'll find out that marriage fulfills every requirement.

I dont think SSM is being FORCED on anyone...they arent MAKING anyone get married to anyone of the same sex just because this law was passed...so I dont think that point stands at all...

Ragtime,

>> It's no wonder that conservative Christianity is becoming a head scratcher for many people.

You and "conservative Christianity" again. Whazzamattawit you? If by "cC" you mean that segment of the Church (not the earthly institution but the union of faith, the "kingdom of God" which manifests itself in the life of the individual with a collective of those in this faith) with whom you tend to disagree, then your complaint is meaningless. It becomes a matter of lampooning the "them" in an "us vs. them" mentality.

This past Sunday, the Old Testament reading came from Ezekiel Two. Pity the poor man. He is of priestly family in a time when there is no public practice of the priesthood, thank you Nebuchadnezzar. God calls on him to be a prophet, His spokesman. He is told up front that his message will not be received, for the house of Israel is stubborn and rebellious. Not the profession one follows if one wishes to win hearts and impress people.

Noting his prospective non-popularity status, I ask, would this prophet be aligned more closely to the "conservative Christian" bunch or the "progressive Christian" bunch. Ezekiel exposes all that is wrong with the decayed society that Israel pursues in exilic times. Ezekiel points to better days of eschatological glory. Hmmm ... this Ezekiel guy seems to be more evangelical/fundamentalist than liberal/progressive.

This gets to the point ... The problem is that God would have something negative to say in regards to both SSM and divorce. The problem is the follow-through on the believers' part. Yes, consistency would be important. Too often God's favor plays second fiddle to the general good will of the people. But the right course is to express God's view on the matter. Appeals to Matt. 7:1 (don't judge) loses steam when one remembers that Jesus speaks to the "lustful look in the same address to His followers (along to that unkind "don't cast your pearls before swine" remark just after this don't judge or you will be judged.

The problem is simple. Liberal Christians cite sweetheart lines as "Love your neighbor" while conservative types point to lines as "Take up your cross and follow me." Blessed is the man/woman who acknowledges both, understanding the teachings of Jesus are complex and refreshingly deep.

By the by, some of the "conservative Christians" simply don't like the moniker conservative because it is an increasingly political term. Their preference is "confessional," regarding the credal expressions as authoritative in that they accurately reflect Scriptural teachings. They tend not to compromise the important stuff just for the sake of "itching ears."

I'm working more on paradigm shift here, Ragtime. All this "cC" (and the little "c" stands for what again?) wants is a more thoughtful approach to a brother/sister in the faith whose place in the political spectrum is not identical.

DG--

Your point is well taken. I'm often hearing from non-Christians questions like "Why do Christians say this? Why don't they say that?" And I have to speak about how it's not accurate to paint all Christians with a big brush. There are lots of us with political and social views that run counter to those pastors with the megaphone of a mega-church empire.

The comments to this entry are closed.