Page 10 of 40 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 395

Thread: So I just heard TD Jakes tell a couple to get divorced...

  1. #91
    Super Moderator Quest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ashville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,863
    Thanked: 3342
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Regarding using scriptures legalistically, including Jesus comments on the law of Moses on divorce that the Pharisees used willy nilly to get rid of their wives whenever they wanted. Here is an example of Jesus going in the other direction :

    Mark 2:23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
    25 But He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?”
    27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

    Here he circumvents the legalistic reading of two different scriptures in the OT, one pertaining to the showbread and one pertaining to the Sabbath. His point was that the God given institution of the Sabbath was given to be a blessing to man, not so that man could work hard at fulfilling the Sabbath. The same way, the God given institution of marriage was given to be a blessing to man, not so that man could work hard at keeping with that marriage under every circumstance imaginable.

    Note that this is a very general principle and should not be applied indiscriminantly. One cannot simply tell people that "okay, if you want out then go ahead, marriage was made for you and not the other way around". This is still just one small part of the equation and Psalm 119:160 "the sum of your word is truth".

    The sum.
    Jesus, in fact, corrected the principle of the law stating Moses set that in place BUT IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO...He states what GOD put in place in the beginning trumps their view of Moses law..I guess essentially He did do the same thing with their view of the Sabbath...He pointed them to it's God designed origin..

    That is what makes Jesus words so strong...In the BEGINNING it was not so...what was not so? DIVORCE...In the beginning God...powerful words...

    And with that I think I will exit this discussion for awhile..
    Matthew 19

    4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever [e]divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Quest For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by BAP View Post
    Quest the problem is you have a legalistic view on this matter and the more you write the more obvious it becomes

    Jesus was talking to a bunch of Jews natural men as they were. They lived in a culture where women were regarded just one cut above cattle in their value and men called all the shots pretty much. Most men could care less about women's emotions and women by and large could do little damage to their husbands emotional state aside from committing adultery . That is why Jesus made that comment on the adultery which was in the middle of a discussion on the laws of Moses. In essence it was a Jewish discussion not a Christian one and it was not a one size fits all mandate that governs all cases today

    We know that Jesus later told his disciples that in the Christians context merely looking upon a woman could constitute adultery even if one didn't actually carry it out point being that matters of the heart in the NT are more important than fulfilling the letter of the law ..

    In the new Testament our law is the law of the spirit with the fruit of the spirit being our guideline. So we are not under any OT law . Yes Marriage which is the Joining of a man and a woman remains sacred and should not be trivialized and we are held to an even higher standard but according to the laws of life in the spirit not according to legalism . What may make sense in one context may not make sense in another even if on the surface they look alike ..

    I am not here to hold brief for TD Jakes ... frankly speaking had I been in his position I would likely have handled the matter differently but on the other hand I have seen with my own eyes his commitment to Christian marriage and the endless resources he has produced to that end so I will simply advise that you tread softly before branding him a heretic so flippantly

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CatchyUsername For This Useful Post:

    BAP (09-17-2015), FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  5. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Regarding using scriptures legalistically, including Jesus comments on the law of Moses on divorce that the Pharisees used willy nilly to get rid of their wives whenever they wanted. Here is an example of Jesus going in the other direction :

    Mark 2:23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, "Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"
    25 But He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?"
    27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

    Here he circumvents the legalistic reading of two different scriptures in the OT, one pertaining to the showbread and one pertaining to the Sabbath. His point was that the God given institution of the Sabbath was given to be a blessing to man, not so that man could work hard at fulfilling the Sabbath. The same way, the God given institution of marriage was given to be a blessing to man, not so that man could work hard at keeping with that marriage under every circumstance imaginable.

    Note that this is a very general principle and should not be applied indiscriminantly. One cannot simply tell people that "okay, if you want out then go ahead, marriage was made for you and not the other way around". This is still just one small part of the equation and Psalm 119:160 "the sum of your word is truth".


    The sum.
    Excellent

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  7. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest View Post
    We should all have our foundation in scripture, not philosophies...Nikos is not always wrong in his warnings...he is just sometimes really rude and sarcastic toward PEOPLE.
    No, I don't think we agree at all, here. Nikos has the inability to be gracious in his disagreements IN THAT, he usually resorts to condemning and judging people who disagree with him (not always, but in many cases), by outright implying that they are: being disobedient to the scriptures, have hardened hearts, etc..... I mean, let's face it, Quest. You can be very passive-aggressive in your judgements and condemnations, and everyone still knows exactly what you are doing. Nikos is just more open about it (like me).

    It's never the disagreements that bother me. Ever. What bothers me more than anything on planet earth is: self-righteousness and dishonesty. That's why I said I don't have to prove anything to you. We will never agree about this topic, so it's all good. IMO, the woman acted fraudulently in this instance, which, like I said, is the reason why annulment exists.

    I mean, at the end of the day, Quest, you would never counsel anyone to ever get divorced, ever. As if physical abuse is somehow LESS HARMFUL than adultery. Again, this is that legalistic mindset, imo, that is being demonstrated. So knowing that, I see no sense in "proving" anything to you. We will never agree on this topic. Doesn't mean I don't respect or love you any less, it just means I see it as a waste of time to argue about this when I already know your stance.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to CatchyUsername For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  9. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    I don't think you can find that in scripture. Jesus did equate lusting for an other person in one's heart to adultery so committing adultery is possible by way of even an imagined person inside one's head but that is different to just being loveless. I don't think Jesus would have placed the bar for divorce as low as "my spouse looked lustfully at some woman today, I could tell" though.
    What about withholding affection and failing to render due benovalence which could lead to temptation on the part of the deprived spouse . Should the deprived spouse continue to live with perpetual temptation ?

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  11. #96
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,038
    Thanked: 5450
    Quote Originally Posted by BAP View Post
    What about withholding affection and failing to render due benovalence which could lead to temptation on the part of the deprived spouse . Should the deprived spouse continue to live with perpetual temptation ?
    I think that would qualify as going back to being single, in sexual terms. Not grounds for immediate divorce, for short. It should also qualify for some marriage counselling. Which is what I subscribe to under all circumstances. Or as good as all circumstances. Adultery can be forgiven and the marriage can be restored. It doesn't have to end in divorce although there is no grounds for condemning people for divorcing on that grounds either. Only for adding bitterness etc to that decision. The wishes of an unbeliever are more difficult and as the Bible says we are called to peace, not to attempting to force an unbeliever to follow Christian commandments concerning marriage.
    In any other case, one should work with it, with a solution in mind. If that does fail then there are other principles to take into consideration. As I think you talked about earlier, there is the general problem with being unevenly yoked with an unbeliever. If that unbeliever is a total tyrant and cannot be expected to participate usefully in counselling then that should be good grounds. If one party is so generally sinful (though doesn't actually commit adultery) that one has grounds for suspecting that the person is not really a believer then that should be good grounds. These things take wisdom and sometimes revelation. There is also the question of the children. Keeping with the marriage for the sake of the children is a strong motivation. Sometimes things can be so bad that it works the opposite way, and divorcing for the sake of the children may be a serious consideration.
    Last edited by Colonel; 09-18-2015 at 04:55 AM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    BAP (09-17-2015), FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  13. #97
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,038
    Thanked: 5450
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest View Post
    OMG..you were serious...

    Ok...well let me just ask...what scriptural basis do you have TO include that?

    The Bible has specific things to say about slavery and specific things regarding marriage...God did put in place the slavery but Jesus said that in the beginning
    God instituted marriage in the Garden...
    What grounds do I have for including anything ? Psalm 119:160 tells the story :

    The SUM of your Word is truth

    Not isolated scriptures here and there, interpreted as according to the letter as possible. Including Jesus' statements.

    We could boil this further down to an even more general principle than the one that involved the Sabbath :

    Romans 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    In other words, if something is actually an expression of the love of God (not just pretends to be) then it has implicitly fulfilled all the commandments. Not according to the letter, but according to their spirit, their deeper intent.

    Again, this is the last thing that one should apply indiscriminantly. People will use that kind of thinking as an oppurtunity for the flesh in about two seconds if they can get away with it.

    But the principle is there and it is part of that SUM.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015), Michelle (09-18-2015)

  15. #98
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,038
    Thanked: 5450
    On the topic of acting fraudulently in relation to getting married. Here's an example that worked at Jesus's time and which would still work in places in the world where records aren't kept digitally and made available through the internet or by way of a phone call. It may still work in general through a more elaborate identity fraud.

    A man abandons his wife and travels to a different region then marries a new woman. Who is he now married to ? The new woman is innocent in the matter and has formed a pact with him in her heart. The man is not innocent and has done no such thing. Upon discovering the truth, the marriage is dissolved and the man goes back to having to dealing with his actual wife.

    The woman is no longer a virgin. Does that mean that she was raped or that she sinned ? Not really, they "married" first and she consented fully to having sex until she knew the truth. He was committing adultery with her but she was not sinning with him, as long as she was under this fraud.

    The woman can not regain her virginity, the state of not having known a man sexually (including an other, living man, if she should remarry). But she hasn't sinned. Claiming that since she has given herself to one man and then that man had to leave and therefore she cannot go on and marry someone else would be completely ridiculous. In my opinion, it would amount to an atrocity to attempt to force her to comply to that.

    What difference does it make if there is a different kind of fraud involved than outright adultery ? Maybe it can be resolved even so, maybe it cannot or should not. What does it matter that the two had sex for a while, to the one who was a victim of fraud ? He or she entered the marriage innocently and then things changed when he or she was made aware of the fraudulent circumstances. Again, counselling is the natural process for this but divorce is a serious consideration given many scenarios involving outright fraud.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  17. #99
    Senior Member Cardinal TT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    6,678
    Thanked: 4671
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Lively Stone View Post
    Abdicating one's vows by simply not loving one's spouse is a form of adultery.

    Didn't want to get into this debate .....sorry LS but that statement is incorrect

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Cardinal TT For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  19. #100
    Super Moderator Quest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ashville, Alabama
    Posts
    5,863
    Thanked: 3342
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    Didn't want to get into this debate .....sorry LS but that statement is incorrect
    100 pages...you held out well bro.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Quest For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can mitigate major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Infiniti. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.