Divorce and Remarriage

[McCulloch]

I had a friend, a conservative Christian evangelist, who taught that for Christians, the only allowable reason to get a divorce, is for adultery.

[Jesus said,"]It was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. ["]

If a Christian is divorced for any other reason, then in the eyes of God, it is not a properly constituted divorce. Since it is not a divorce, then the Christian who is not properly divorced is still married to his or her previous spouse and therefore not free to remarry.
So, if Jack divorces Jill, for a reason other than adultery, and subsequently marries Julianna, he is committing adultery with Julianna. He must separate from Julianna, treat her as a sister, until such time as he can divorce Jill for her adultery. If Jill has not remarried, or otherwise committed adultery, Jack is out of luck. Jesus told an adulterer to sin no more.
This is a particularly harsh teaching, but Jesus did not promise that repentance would always be an easy thing.
I have searched the New Testament for some other point of view, but it seems to me that this is the consistent application of teaching of Jesus.

Does anyone have any other Biblical teaching on this topic? Does Jesus allow remarriage for his followers in cases other than unchastity?

[McCulloch]

Not quite. I don't believe in God.

Then you will have to understand that I dont recognize your authority to interpret the Bible meaning in spiritual matters.

Good. Ad hom but good. You should accept no one's authority to interpret it. If scripture is God's communication with humanity, then it should be understandable.

And *IF* one insists that Jesus meant ONLY for adultery, then not even Pauls concession can be an 'allowance' or it would be contradictory, no?

I'm willing to admit that Paul contradicts Jesus. It is a lot easier than the hermeneutic gymnastics required by Christian apologists.

Ive spent 4 years on this one topic and I DO believe in God, so Ill take what Ive learned over atheistic instruction where Gods word is concerned any day

God must be an awfully poor communicator. Four years on one topic!

Ive given a small one about Jesus ONLY being sent for Israel, but Im guessing you will overlook or dismiss that....[...]
And it is EXACTLY the same friend.
I gave you CLEAR words from Jesus Christ HIMSELF that says He ONLY was sent for Israel. You either accept 'as is' or you amend it with the context of the whole to show the real meaning.

I submit that the only reason you do not take Jesus' words here at face value, is that you have subsequent revelations indicating something else. Rather than believe that Jesus and the subsequent revelations contradict, you must find some harmonization. In the case of the issue of divorce, there is not such need.

Is there any teaching in the Bible which makes some alternate claim or extension of the teachings about divorce, which necessitate any form of harmonization? Please cite them.

Ill give you something, but Im quite sure that in your state, without the Spirit of God, that you will simply handwave them away.

1Co 7:12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(1Co 7:12)

The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.
It doesnt not simply state 'let him not put her away' but adds the condition of being 'pleased' to his not putting her away.
If this were an absolute statement, that he not put her away then it should be stated as such, but its not. A condition is very apparent in the actual text.

This is a conditional statement. It very clearly states what a Christian spouse should do, in the case where the unbeliever is willing to stay. It says nothing about the other case. It also seems to indicate that the pleasing is one way not necessarily mutual. And she [the unbeliever] be pleased to dwell with him [the believer]. It does not say and that the believer be pleased to dwell with the unbeliever, does it?

the greek does not show a one sided thing at all.

I hate it when the translators get it wrong! How many times has this passage been translated into English? How many times have the translators missed that nuance found only in the Greek?

Just as we know the Lord God did not ‘sin’ against an adulterous Israel when He gave her a bill of divorce.

In this case, God would have been justified, since Israel was chasing after other gods.

Are Christians not called to perhaps suffer for His sake, for the possibility that their faithfulness in suffering might win someone?

Not within a marriage covenant they are not. Marriage is a holy union created by God and is not to be defiled.

And helping a sinner to redemption would defile a marriage?

Christians are not under a covenant with a godless world, tho.

Other than the covenant to go into all the world ...

[FoC]

Good. Ad hom but good. You should accept no one's authority to interpret it. If scripture is God's communication with humanity, then it should be understandable.

Wrong.
Something you clearly misunderstand is that God has hidden truths within His written word from those without the Spirit.
Who said God is trying to communicate with all of humanity?
Jesus Himself said that He spoke in parables to INTENTIONALLY to keep them from understanding the truth.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
(Mat 13:10-12)

The Jews as a whole didnt want the truth...they were more like atheists are, simply rejecting the truth shown to them. And so they were given things to blind them further than they already were.

It is no different with you and I.
I seek to understand. You seek to demean and ridicule. And therefore any understanding you might have had might very well be taken from you.
God is quite capable of ripping understanding from a person and turning them completely over to a reprobate mind.

I'm willing to admit that Paul contradicts Jesus.

Do you honestly think that I believe there is any other point to this?
Atheist love to find 'contradictions' in the text. Precisely why there are passages that seem to do so on the surface.
Remember what Jesus said above? He intentionally did spoke as He did to CAUSE the blinding of the Jews.
The atheist may well find himself in a similar position, since he will not come actually looking for truth, but only seeks to demean God and His word.

It is a lot easier than the hermeneutic gymnastics required by Christian apologists.

Its called study, context, harmonization.
Its funny but with ANY other text on the planet, youd most likely be more than willing to do it...but not with the bible.

God must be an awfully poor communicator. Four years on one topic!

Hardly.
My years is not been spent learning what I have because it was hard to comprehend.
My years have been spent learning to fight legalism with likeminded legalism so that I can wage this war on both fronts....with grace and with spiritless legalism...

I submit that the only reason you do not take Jesus' words here at face value, is that you have subsequent revelations indicating something else. Rather than believe that Jesus and the subsequent revelations contradict, you must find some harmonization. In the case of the issue of divorce, there is not such need.

As I said, the atheist will take the time to harmonize just about anything, including massive amounts of data to try to prove millions of years of evolution..even where that data conflicts....but with the bible you will refuse to do so.
The motivation is quite apparent.

It does not say and that the believer be pleased to dwell with the unbeliever, does it?

Do you understand anything about rendering and translation?
I assume you do, and so I will also assume that you understand the absolute necessity to go the the mother tongue to get the full meaning/intent.

The greek, as I presented, does not simply mean that the unbeliever is the only one pleased in the marriage.
The greek shows a 'pleased' relationship...the unbeliever is 'pleased toether with' the believer.
But that doesnt matter to you, does it?
You will stick to your guns with the english rendering because you can force it to say something the greek doesnt mean.

Just like our word 'love'.
There are at least 3 greek words rendered as 'love' in our KJV bibles, but each greek word has somewhat varied meaning.

In this case, God would have been justified, since Israel was chasing after other gods.

Idolatry was not Israels only sin.
Intermarrying was another, among other sins.

And helping a sinner to redemption would defile a marriage?

God gives clear instruction as to how His marriage covenant is to be.
Physical abuse is not part of that intent...neitehr is adultery, desertion nor lack of support.
Which is why Paul gives his concession in 1 Cor 7 that on the surface seems to defy Jesus 'harlotry only' clause.

Lets take some of Jesus' words exactly as stated.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
(Mat 5:32)


"Whoever puts away his wife, unless she cheats, causes her to commit adultery"

So, taking His words EXACTLY as stated, unconditionally, we see that if even and UNbeliever (whosoever ) puts away his wife, and its not for fornication, that he CAUSES her to "commit adultery"...correct?

So this woman has done NOTHING wrong apparently, and surely not fornicated against him, and yet when this unbeliever puts her away he actually is causing this innocent woman to 'commit' adultery.
If we assume that as long as she is 'put away' that the state is perpetual, then this woman is now a hellbound adulteress simply because her unbelieving spouse decided to put her away and run off with his secretary.

So when we get to 1 cor 7, we see that Paul CANNOT allow even the UNbeliever to leave without adultery being committed by the believer (who in reality didnt do anything wrong) in what would have to be an ongoing state while the unbeliver refused to reconcile.

So youll have to forgive me if I choose to not believe that Jesus was condemning the innocent believer who DIDNT commit fornication, but was deemed as being 'caused to commit adultery' simply because their spouse decided to put them away.

again, studying the context of the whole and understanding that Jesus is dealing with a SPECIFIC problem with the Jews in the Gospels, the frivolous casting away of a spouse for the purpose of marrying another (see Herod/Herodias)...and is simply telling them that when they do so they arent getting off the hook as they believed they were under Moses.
Even tho they did put this spouse away, they STILL committed adultery against them because they had not put them away for a just cause.

Other than the covenant to go into all the world ...

That is not a covenant.
That is simply instruction for the church.
That is a 'commission'...a 'job'.

[McCulloch]

God is quite capable of ripping understanding from a person and turning them completely over to a reprobate mind.

Because he really does not love me.

The atheist may well find himself in a similar position, since he will not come actually looking for truth, but only seeks to demean God and His word.

I am looking for truth. The skeptic's way of looking for truth is to put each idea under fire, to look aggressively for inconsistencies and falsehoods. Those ideas which emerge unscathed, can be accepted provisionally as true.

Its called study, context, harmonization.
Its funny but with ANY other text on the planet, youd most likely be more than willing to do it...but not with the bible.

You don't know me very well.

It does not say and that the believer be pleased to dwell with the unbeliever, does it?

Do you understand anything about rendering and translation?
I assume you do, and so I will also assume that you understand the absolute necessity to go the the mother tongue to get the full meaning/intent.

I am not an expert in koine Greek, therefore I am at the mercy of those who are. If you are an expert, accept my apologies and present your credentials. If you are not, please provide citations from experts supporting your views.

In this case, God would have been justified, since Israel was chasing after other gods.

Idolatry was not Israels only sin.
Intermarrying was another, among other sins.

Therefore, ??
If Israel committed metaphorical adultery against God, then God would be allowed to divorce Israel, according to Jesus' teachings. I don't see how your example supports your case.

[...] whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Now your on to something. Comparing this thought with 1 Cor 7, would lead one to your conclusion. I might have to concede your point.

[FoC]

God is quite capable of ripping understanding from a person and turning them completely over to a reprobate mind.

Because he really does not love me.

Because YOU have chosen the path of ridiculing His word, His law, His ways.
He loves mankind as a whole, but He IS also a judge.

I am looking for truth. The skeptic's way of looking for truth is to put each idea under fire, to look aggressively for inconsistencies and falsehoods. Those ideas which emerge unscathed, can be accepted provisionally as true.

No, if you were actually LOOKING for truth, then you would accept that ALL things must be taken IN the context they were given.
If you did that, then you would see that Jesus is simply telling the Jews that they cannot keep up this practice of divorcing to marry another, as we see with Herod and Herodias..and that even tho they have put this spouse away, they STILL commit sin against the former spouse because they put them away unjustly


...running out for a bit....Ill get to the rest in a few....

[McCulloch]

God is quite capable of ripping understanding from a person and turning them completely over to a reprobate mind.

Because he really does not love me.

Because YOU have chosen the path of ridiculing His word, His law, His ways.
He loves mankind as a whole, but He IS also a judge.

I have not chosen a path of ridiculing God. I have chosen a path of not accepting what other people say as being God's word. I have not seen a good reason for accepting the Bible as God's word.

I am looking for truth. The skeptic's way of looking for truth is to put each idea under fire, to look aggressively for inconsistencies and falsehoods. Those ideas which emerge unscathed, can be accepted provisionally as true.

No, if you were actually LOOKING for truth, then you would accept that ALL things must be taken IN the context they were given.

I accept that.

If you did that, then you would see that Jesus is simply telling the Jews that they cannot keep up this practice of divorcing to marry another, as we see with Herod and Herodias..and that even tho they have put this spouse away, they STILL commit sin against the former spouse because they put them away unjustly

I don't see in the text where the context of Jesus' words is so narrowly defined.

• Jesus said,"It was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "

Are you saying that when Jesus says everyone who divorces his wife, ... he really means everyone of you Jewish law followers and Herodians who divorces his wife, ...? Don't you just wish he would have made it clearer?

[FoC]

You don't know me very well.

Ive seen enough already to form a basic opinion.

I am not an expert in koine Greek, therefore I am at the mercy of those who are. If you are an expert, accept my apologies and present your credentials. If you are not, please provide citations from experts supporting your views.

There is a definition given by a greek scholar (in green) that shows conclusively that "pleased" is not a one sided thing.
http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page43.html

"to be pleased at the same time with"

I gave you this before and you handwaved it away, just as I predicted.
You arent interested in the truth, you are interested in proving Gods word as false and contradictory.

Your choice.

Therefore, ??

Therefore theyre sins were not based on one type of offense.

If Israel committed metaphorical adultery against God, then God would be allowed to divorce Israel, according to Jesus' teachings. I don't see how your example supports your case.

Because 'fornication' may not be restricted to ONLY sexual sin in Jesus exception.
The word itself alludes to more than just a single concept in scripture and may mean that Jesus' intent was that she must break the covenant, as Israel did when they 'cheated' on God in so many ways.

Now your on to something. Comparing this thought with 1 Cor 7, would lead one to your conclusion. I might have to concede your point.

Well, you could take another route that some christian legalists take in the matter.
I wont feed that beast, so you'll have to dig that up yourself to see what you think



Sorry if I seem a bit short, its just that I didnt know you were atheist when we started this and based on my many previous attempts with 'determined' atheists, I would have avoided this discussion like the black plague because I know its generally useless and a waste of effort.
Of course, you might just surprise me and make it so that I start believing that at least some atheists are willing to actually try to understand the context in which each biblical personality is speaking and with what they are dealing....

Take, for example, the fact that 1 Cor 7 is not just something Paul decided to jot down for no reason. If we look at the beginning of the chapter we see that he must have been asked specific questions by this church....

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me...
(1Co 7:1)


You seem like the type to want to ask as questions, so answer this...
Does the fact that Paul was apparently asked specific things by the corinthians in any possible way determine 'why' he said what he did and does it affect 'how' he has responded?

Say, for instance, if Paul is asked 'can we divorce' by a group of people who wanted to divorce for just any reason that struck them versus being asked the same exact question by a group of people whom Paul might have known would have ONLY divorced for a justifiable reason.
Assume that the former group doesnt take marriage seriously at all while the latter is quite serious about it.....could it affect how he words his responses to each and what he might 'leave out'?

I gave a link before
http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page43.html
Im completely convinced that that is a conditional statement that does permit the believer to 'put away' the unbeliever in cases such as abuse.
But what if Paul had CLEARLY stated to this corinthian church, who seemingly was just looking for a reason to divorce, "you can divorce for abuse".

Given mans nature my guess is that a DIRECT comment like that would have resulted in men and women defining ANYTHING that their spouse did that they didnt like as 'abuse'.
I base this on the Jews distortion of Moses' regulation in Deut24:1-4 and their twisting it into a 'command' rather than a 'sufferance'.

I believe that Paul would definitely have permitted a woman who was being beaten and raped by her husband a complete divorce and the ability to remarry afterward based on what 1 cor 7 presents (with the greek) but some would most like extend so far as to define 'abuse' as "breathes too loudly while Im trying to sleep" or some other such nonsense.

[FoC]

You don't know me very well.

Ive seen enough already to form a basic opinion.

I am not an expert in koine Greek, therefore I am at the mercy of those who are. If you are an expert, accept my apologies and present your credentials. If you are not, please provide citations from experts supporting your views.

There is a definition given by a greek scholar (in green) that shows conclusively that "pleased" is not a one sided thing.
http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page43.html

"to be pleased at the same time with"

I gave you this before and you handwaved it away, just as I predicted.
You arent interested in the truth, you are interested in proving Gods word as false and contradictory.

Your choice.

Therefore, ??

Therefore theyre sins were not based on one type of offense.

If Israel committed metaphorical adultery against God, then God would be allowed to divorce Israel, according to Jesus' teachings. I don't see how your example supports your case.

Because 'fornication' may not be restricted to ONLY sexual sin in Jesus exception.
The word itself alludes to more than just a single concept in scripture and may mean that Jesus' intent was that she must break the covenant, as Israel did when they 'cheated' on God in so many ways.

Now your on to something. Comparing this thought with 1 Cor 7, would lead one to your conclusion. I might have to concede your point.

Well, you could take another route that some christian legalists take in the matter.
I wont feed that beast, so you'll have to dig that up yourself to see what you think



Sorry if I seem a bit short, its just that I didnt know you were atheist when we started this and based on my many previous attempts with 'determined' atheists, I would have avoided this discussion like the black plague because I know its generally useless and a waste of effort.
Of course, you might just surprise me and make it so that I start believing that at least some atheists are willing to actually try to understand the context in which each biblical personality is speaking and with what they are dealing....

Take, for example, the fact that 1 Cor 7 is not just something Paul decided to jot down for no reason. If we look at the beginning of the chapter we see that he must have been asked specific questions by this church....

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me...
(1Co 7:1)


You seem like the type to want to ask as questions, so answer this...
Does the fact that Paul was apparently asked specific things by the corinthians in any possible way determine 'why' he said what he did and does it affect 'how' he has responded?

Say, for instance, if Paul is asked 'can we divorce' by a group of people who wanted to divorce for just any reason that struck them versus being asked the same exact question by a group of people whom Paul might have known would have ONLY divorced for a justifiable reason.
Assume that the former group doesnt take marriage seriously at all while the latter is quite serious about it.....could it affect how he words his responses to each and what he might 'leave out'?

I gave a link before
http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page43.html
Im completely convinced that that is a conditional statement that does permit the believer to 'put away' the unbeliever in cases such as abuse.
But what if Paul had CLEARLY stated to this corinthian church, who seemingly was just looking for a reason to divorce, "you can divorce for abuse".

Given mans nature my guess is that a DIRECT comment like that would have resulted in men and women defining ANYTHING that their spouse did that they didnt like as 'abuse'.
I base this on the Jews distortion of Moses' regulation in Deut24:1-4 and their twisting it into a 'command' rather than a 'sufferance'.

I believe that Paul would definitely have permitted a woman who was being beaten and raped by her husband a complete divorce and the ability to remarry afterward based on what 1 cor 7 presents (with the greek) but some would most like extend so far as to define 'abuse' as "breathes too loudly while Im trying to sleep" or some other such nonsense.

[FoC]

I have not chosen a path of ridiculing God. I have chosen a path of not accepting what other people say as being God's word. I have not seen a good reason for accepting the Bible as God's word.

Tomato/Tomahto.
If it IS Gods word, then by not accepting it you have done exactly as I said.

I accept that.

Accept what?

I don't see in the text where the context of Jesus' words is so narrowly defined.

And this is why scripture says 'let not many be teachers'. Because until the WHOLE is understood and harmonized with the facts involved, the 'text' may seem to say one thing while it is saying quite another.

If Jesus had just gone around saying 'remarriage is adultery' for NO reason then I might agree.
But that isnt the case.
He is speaking to Jews who were literally casting out their wives simply to take another ....for that sole purpose (as many do today).
In THAT context, yes, we DO commit adultery against that spouse put away....unlike under Moses where they might get off scott free with no adultery being defined in doing so.

All Jesus is doing in the gospels is the same as when He says that if we even look at a woman with lust we commit adultery...He is showing that even tho we BELIEVE we are not actaully committing sin, we are indeed doing so.
Jewish men, because of the way the law was recorded, thought that they could cast out this wife and NO sin was actually held agianst them.
Jesus shows that this is not the case...they DO commit adultery against her even tho they have ended that marriage (put it away) because she was cast out for no just cause.

Im sorry, I realize Im wasting both your time and mine in this...I dont expect you to actually understand or even try to. As I said, I wouldnt have gotten in this discussion had I known you werent a believer, so this is my own fault.

• Jesus said,"It was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "

Are you saying that when Jesus says everyone who divorces his wife, ... he really means everyone of you Jewish law followers and Herodians who divorces his wife, ...? Don't you just wish he would have made it clearer?

Im saying that we MUST accept the context Jesus spoke in.....OR....we MUST accept that even the INNOCENT woman whos UNBELIEVING husband has put her away is now a hellbound adulteress because in putting her away he CAUSES her to 'commit adultery'....just as I presented to you before and I thought by your response you could discern.....apparently that wasnt the case.

[McCulloch]

There is a definition given by a greek scholar (in green) that shows conclusively that "pleased" is not a one sided thing.
http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page43.html

"to be pleased at the same time with"

Thank you.

You arent interested in the truth, you are interested in proving Gods word as false and contradictory.

Your choice.

I'll take both. I am interested in truth. I am interested in proving or disproving that the Bible is false and contradictory. God's word, by definition is true.

In this case, God would have been justified, since Israel was chasing after other gods.

Idolatry was not Israels only sin.
Intermarrying was another, among other sins.

Therefore, ??
If Israel committed metaphorical adultery against God, then God would be allowed to divorce Israel, according to Jesus' teachings. I don't see how your example supports your case.

Therefore their sins were not based on one type of offense.
Because 'fornication' may not be restricted to ONLY sexual sin in Jesus exception.
The word itself alludes to more than just a single concept in scripture and may mean that Jesus' intent was that she must break the covenant, as Israel did when they 'cheated' on God in so many ways.

Or the OT prophets used the term adultery metaphorically and Jesus used it literally. That seems to be the most straightforward way to read the passages.

Sorry if I seem a bit short, its just that I didnt know you were atheist when we started this and based on my many previous attempts with 'determined' atheists, I would have avoided this discussion like the black plague because I know its generally useless and a waste of effort.

If you look to the left of each users' post, you will see a list of user groups that he is associated with. I make no secret of being an atheist, a humanist and an ex-Christian.

Of course, you might just surprise me and make it so that I start believing that at least some atheists are willing to actually try to understand the context in which each biblical personality is speaking and with what they are dealing....

It is impossible to properly understand anyone's writing without context. Christian apologists are also guilty at times of quote mining.

Assume that the former group doesnt take marriage seriously at all while the latter is quite serious about it.....could it affect how he words his responses to each and what he might 'leave out'?

Sure, but since we really do not know what the Corinthians were asking about or what there attitude was, this seems to be speculation.

I gave a link before
http://www.assembly-ministries.com/page43.html
Im completely convinced that that is a conditional statement that does permit the believer to 'put away' the unbeliever in cases such as abuse.
But what if Paul had CLEARLY stated to this corinthian church, who seemingly was just looking for a reason to divorce, "you can divorce for abuse".

Given mans nature my guess is that a DIRECT comment like that would have resulted in men and women defining ANYTHING that their spouse did that they didnt like as 'abuse'.
I base this on the Jews distortion of Moses' regulation in Deut24:1-4 and their twisting it into a 'command' rather than a 'sufferance'.

I believe that Paul would definitely have permitted a woman who was being beaten and raped by her husband a complete divorce and the ability to remarry afterward based on what 1 cor 7 presents (with the greek) but some would most like extend so far as to define 'abuse' as "breathes too loudly while Im trying to sleep" or some other such nonsense.

Thank you. You have given me something to chew on. You make the portrayal of God in the Bible as being more kind and understanding than I had previously regarded it.

Im saying that we MUST accept the context Jesus spoke in.....OR....we MUST accept that even the INNOCENT woman whos UNBELIEVING husband has put her away is now a hellbound adulteress because in putting her away he CAUSES her to 'commit adultery'....just as I presented to you before and I thought by your response you could discern.....apparently that wasnt the case.

No. I am just a hard sell. I've been fooled before. I tend to be somewhat careful.
I don't quite narrow the options as much as you do. I don't rule out that Jesus was wrong or that he was misquoted.

[FoC]

Thank you.

Youre quite welcome.

I'll take both. I am interested in truth. I am interested in proving or disproving that the Bible is false and contradictory. God's word, by definition is true.

I know you believe you can have both, but it is simply because you believe that God is not who the bible says He is. My guess is that the bible is far too illogical for a 'perfect' God to involved, in the atheists mind.
A 'perfect' being would have created things in such a manner that we could logically conclude His existence and what He expects of us....correct?
And since you believe that the Bible falls short in this, it cannot possibly be the word of a 'perfect' God.

If this is your view, as it is the view of many other atheists Ive discussed things with, always bear in mind what Jesus said about the parables and why He spoke to the Jews using them.
There is a reason the bible seems 'imperfect' in the nonbelievers mind....there is a reason it was set up that way.
But of course, these are only the rantings of just one more christian who isnt a 'free thinker', arent they ?

Or the OT prophets used the term adultery metaphorically and Jesus used it literally. That seems to be the most straightforward way to read the passages.

Seeing that Israels sins were varied, not just worshipping idols, Jesus may well have used fornication instead of 'adultery' to show an expanded intent in His exceptions.
Without being scholars of ancient koine and also Aramiac, its probably not possible to know His full intent except by looking at the context in which He spoke and also at Gods view of putting away a spouse overall in both testaments.

I know we've covered this before, but if Jesus' intent is ONLY for adultery then as I said before, when Paul even allows the unbeliever to leave, Jesus' EXACT words cause this innocent woman to become a hellbound adulteress even if she obeys Gods every command because in putting her away, not for fornicaiton, he 'causes' her to 'commit adultery'....thru NO act of her own.

There is something quite amiss in that logic.

If you look to the left of each users' post, you will see a list of user groups that he is associated with. I make no secret of being an atheist, a humanist and an ex-Christian.

Being new to this forum, and being in anywhere from 6 to 20 debates simultaneously on any given day, not to mention working day in and day out on my website studies, I simply havent had the chance to explore here much to understand much of anything about what is presented in your title

It is impossible to properly understand anyone's writing without context. Christian apologists are also guilty at times of quote mining.

I would tend to agree for the most part that context is absolutely a must. Altho saying 'do not steal', 'do not bear false witness' leaves little to misunderstand.

Dont get me wrong, Im not an apologist...nor do I wish to play that game again.
I mistakenly came into this discussion believing you to be a believer.
Had I realized the truth in the matter we'd not be having this conversation. But since its already begun, I may stick it out for a bit depending on whether its actually productive or not.
If its just urinating match to see how many times we can both repeat the same things over and again, its best that we just let it drop as far as my own part goes.

Sure, but since we really do not know what the Corinthians were asking about or what there attitude was, this seems to be speculation.

Actually we can discern what they were asking about based on Pauls answers. We may not know word for word what they asked, but his responses give their motivations away entirely.
These were seemingly just as bad as the Jews had been about wanting to divorce for no just reason. It seems that some believed they should divorce simply because they had become saved and their spouse had not.
Which is why Paul tells them to remain, if the unbeliever is content to remain in the marriage, if they are 'pleased along with' the believer, then do not put them away.
This in no way is forbidding putting away if there is abuse present.

The church of Corinth had quite a few problems as the text clearly presents, divorcing for no real reason was just part of the issues Paul was dealing with.

No. I am just a hard sell. I've been fooled before. I tend to be somewhat careful.

Well, you'll get no argument from me in that regard.
The pirahna were waiting in the river for me to come up after being dunked at baptism. For two solid years they did their best to destroy my faith...these men who claimed to be christians.

There is one who is the father of my stepdaughter, and so I cannot get him completely out of my life...but he even tears down his own daughter even tho she has always done her best to live a good life and be a good person.

You dont have to worry about me trying to fool you, Id prefer simply telling you what I believe, why I believe it and then you running off and doing your own study to find out if its right or wrong.

I don't quite narrow the options as much as you do. I don't rule out that Jesus was wrong or that he was misquoted.

Well, my belief that Jesus is God pretty much causes me to reject completely that He was wrong. My belief that God has protected His word also keeps me from believing that Jesus was misquoted.

What Im left with is trying to study the historical facts to see if what was going on lines up with what is stated.
I always ask myself one initial question when I study...."why?"

"why did Jesus/God say this"

that question leads to all the rest.

Why He said it leads to whom He said it to and what He was dealing with and pretty much all the rest of the details.


well, anyway, I have some work to so on the website. we just switched to Godaddy for our host and Im trying to work out the kinks after the changeoever.

Ill probably stop back by tomorrow sometime