Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdlongmire · 07-08-2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

As to your statement that divorce, depending on the circumstances, can be immoral, amoral or moral, I would (respectfully) disagree that the Bible asserts the same. The bible is clear that it is always immoral. Always. (I would LOVE to see the apologetic that allows divorce that would not violate Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 1 and 2.)

But even given your "all three" scenario, this simply proves my point. Morals are not that easy to state that we can "define it" and "act upon it."

Divorce from a Reformed Faith position

Quote:

Morals change. Even "christian" morals.

...salvific morality does not...

jbernier · 07-08-2004, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

...salvific morality does not...

I am not convinced that "salvific morality" is a valid Christian theological category. It suggests that there is a morality which has the character of being salvific. However, Christian theology has traditionally said that morality is not salvific.

Cross Examiner · 07-08-2004, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Exactly! I am arguing that C3 is incorrect [1] - that one can support the proposition 'baby-torture is wrong' a posteriori [2]. I would further argue that P1 is incorrect [3] - that a priori knowledge does not exclude a posteriori knowledge [4].

The law of the excluded middle is introduced in your P1 [5] - and is precisely what I am arguing against here [6].

1. You are confused again. C3 (of the first argument in green; hereafter A1) is not incorrect; it is a valid logical inference from the preceding premises. What I suppose you mean to say here is that you dispute the soundness of the premises from which C3 follows.
2. How is this is relevant to my position (i.e. the second green argument; hereafter A2)?
3. You mean you think that P1 of A1 is unsound.
4. Well, of course you would think P1 of A1 unsound since I explained that it presented a false dichotomy in my previous post.
5. The law of excluded middle is not introduced in P1 of A1, it is misapplied in P1 of A1 which is why it presents a false dichotomy.
6. There is no need for you to argue against A1 since it is only a demonstration of the false dichotomy that was presented to me (I thought by you, but I'll have to check). Anyway, as I said here, the second green argument, A2, better reflects my position. So you dispute the soundness of P2 of A2 by proposing that:
1. The term 'torture' is 'historically conditioned'.
2. The knowledge of baby-torture as wrong is therefore not innate.
But, as now mentioned multiple times, this is exemplary of what non sequitur means.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go · 07-08-2004, 05:19 PM

jdlongmire - sorry. Made an error. Bible makes an exception for a non-christian to divorce a christian. But not vice versa.

Yeah, Yeah, I am familar with the reform statement of divorce. "Innocent party." "Exception for adultery." All wrong.

Number of questions you would have to address. What exactly is pornea ? Is it adultery or more? Or less?

Is Matthew talking about Divorce or Remarriage? (Hint: Remarriage, the divorce talked about is a desription, not a justification.)

If you allow Divorce for "adultery," you have created the greatest contradiction of them all--this is a clear violation of both Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 1 and 2.

Let me get this straight. Following Ephesians, I have to love my wife to the same extent that Christ loved the church, even to the point of dying for her, regardless of what she does. Doesn't want to have sex with me? so what. Beats me? no big deal. Hates my guts and tells me so on a daily basis, still required to love her. If you believe "god is love" and the agape love system, then it doesn't matter WHAT she does, I still have to love her. The ol' 1 Cor. 13 love.

Yet she has an affair and all of a sudden I get to stop loving her?? What bible are YOU reading? (And don't try the crap of "tough love." That is only love from an authority.)

The ONLY way the align Ephesians and Matthew (5 and 19) is to state that the divorce in Matthew is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Must confess, have well-studied this one.

Also must confess, have no idea what "salvific morality" is. Google came up with a grand total of one hit.

jdlongmire · 07-08-2004, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

I am not convinced that "salvific morality" is a valid Christian theological category. It suggests that there is a morality which has the character of being salvific. However, Christian theology has traditionally said that morality is not salvific.

...fits into faith without works...and fruits of the spirit...notionally, anyway...

jdlongmire · 07-08-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

jdlongmire - sorry. Made an error. Bible makes an exception for a non-christian to divorce a christian. But not vice versa.

Yeah, Yeah, I am familar with the reform statement of divorce. "Innocent party." "Exception for adultery." All wrong.

Number of questions you would have to address. What exactly is pornea ? Is it adultery or more? Or less?

Is Matthew talking about Divorce or Remarriage? (Hint: Remarriage, the divorce talked about is a desription, not a justification.)

If you allow Divorce for "adultery," you have created the greatest contradiction of them all--this is a clear violation of both Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 1 and 2.

Let me get this straight. Following Ephesians, I have to love my wife to the same extent that Christ loved the church, even to the point of dying for her, regardless of what she does. Doesn't want to have sex with me? so what. Beats me? no big deal. Hates my guts and tells me so on a daily basis, still required to love her. If you believe "god is love" and the agape love system, then it doesn't matter WHAT she does, I still have to love her. The ol' 1 Cor. 13 love.

Yet she has an affair and all of a sudden I get to stop loving her?? What bible are YOU reading? (And don't try the crap of "tough love." That is only love from an authority.)

The ONLY way the align Ephesians and Matthew (5 and 19) is to state that the divorce in Matthew is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Must confess, have well-studied this one.

Also must confess, have no idea what "salvific morality" is. Google came up with a grand total of one hit.

You won't be condemned for divorce...is this a personal thing? Sorry, if so...my own personal faith and practice is less constrictive than all the Law:

Mark 12
29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'
31 "The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

blt to go · 07-09-2004, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

is this a personal thing?

Nope. Just something I happen to know a bit about from study.

(Ironically enough, shouldn't it be a personal thing for you? I mean, you DO hate what God hates, right? And God hates divorce, right? Mal 2:16)

The point is this. RobertLW claimed that the reason he believes in inerrancy is because he felt there needed to be a justification for certain ideas, and that justification is God. Specifically, the god of the bible. The example for "certain ideas" which needed justification was "morals." Something he claimed could be defined.

I am just showing, through the wonderful tool of divorce, that the concept of the morality of divorce has changed. Not because the bible changed. Not because god changed. But because society changed, and christianity changed right along with it! (Albeit more slowly)

God defining morals? not practically. Society is. (This is the same point as BGic and jbernier are arguing with less P1's and C3's

)

I must note two things, jdlongmire.

1) you have sidestepped the issue of when is divorce moral, amoral or immoral, other than referring to a site that misstates your bible.

2) I have not seen your take on inerrancy. (If you have stated it, and I missed it, I apologize). Is the bible inerrant? If so, why do you assume inerrancy?

jdlongmire · 07-09-2004, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

I must note two things, jdlongmire.

1) you have sidestepped the issue of when is divorce moral, amoral or immoral, other than referring to a site that misstates your bible.

...I defer for the moment...

Quote:

2) I have not seen your take on inerrancy. (If you have stated it, and I missed it, I apologize). Is the bible inerrant? If so, why do you assume inerrancy?

Inerrant rule of faith and practice. Assumption based on experience and SIS (Scripture Interprets Scripture) consistency. I also have a great deal of appreciation for how the canon was compiled...and ultimately, it is God's word to humanity...as difficult as it may seem to believe for some folk...

jdlongmire · 07-09-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

(Ironically enough, shouldn't it be a personal thing for you? I mean, you DO hate what God hates, right? And God hates divorce, right? Mal 2:16)

See my earlier post - I love, not hate...and I do disagree with divorce, but understand that Mankind's weaknesses allow it...Christ did too...

Quote:

Malachi 2
14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
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.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

jdlongmire · 07-09-2004, 07:44 AM

Folks, I have become aware that I am spending far too much time participating on this forum. One reason is I enjoy the dialogue and interplay. Another is because I like to try and (hopefully!!!) offer a moderate, doctrinally sound Christian opinion on the many disparate subjects brought up on this board.

Unfortunately, I am participating to a degree that I perceive that I am not giving enough attention to my family and church. Thus, I will be moving back to lurker status for awhile. Please accept my apologies if I have participated in this thread and have not responded to open questions or issues. Any particular questions/messages can be directed to me via email: jdlongmire@hotmail.com.

Soli Deo Gloria,

JD Longmire

P.S. Please note, no ellipsi!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2004, 05:19 PM	#154
blt to go Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 513	jdlongmire - sorry. Made an error. Bible makes an exception for a non-christian to divorce a christian. But not vice versa. Yeah, Yeah, I am familar with the reform statement of divorce. "Innocent party." "Exception for adultery." All wrong. Number of questions you would have to address. What exactly is pornea ? Is it adultery or more? Or less? Is Matthew talking about Divorce or Remarriage? (Hint: Remarriage, the divorce talked about is a desription, not a justification.) If you allow Divorce for "adultery," you have created the greatest contradiction of them all--this is a clear violation of both Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 1 and 2. Let me get this straight. Following Ephesians, I have to love my wife to the same extent that Christ loved the church, even to the point of dying for her, regardless of what she does. Doesn't want to have sex with me? so what. Beats me? no big deal. Hates my guts and tells me so on a daily basis, still required to love her. If you believe "god is love" and the agape love system, then it doesn't matter WHAT she does, I still have to love her. The ol' 1 Cor. 13 love. Yet she has an affair and all of a sudden I get to stop loving her?? What bible are YOU reading? (And don't try the crap of "tough love." That is only love from an authority.) The ONLY way the align Ephesians and Matthew (5 and 19) is to state that the divorce in Matthew is descriptive, not prescriptive. Must confess, have well-studied this one. Also must confess, have no idea what "salvific morality" is. Google came up with a grand total of one hit.

07-09-2004, 07:44 AM	#160
jdlongmire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: American by birth, Southern by the grace of God! Posts: 2,657	Folks, I have become aware that I am spending far too much time participating on this forum. One reason is I enjoy the dialogue and interplay. Another is because I like to try and (hopefully!!!) offer a moderate, doctrinally sound Christian opinion on the many disparate subjects brought up on this board. Unfortunately, I am participating to a degree that I perceive that I am not giving enough attention to my family and church. Thus, I will be moving back to lurker status for awhile. Please accept my apologies if I have participated in this thread and have not responded to open questions or issues. Any particular questions/messages can be directed to me via email: jdlongmire@hotmail.com. Soli Deo Gloria, JD Longmire P.S. Please note, no ellipsi!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.