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

Originally Posted by Lista

Going NT here...trying to strip away any legalism.

Jesus said it all comes down to loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving the Lord God with all your mind, soul, and strength. (Lisa paraphrase)

If we divorce someone because they don't make us happy, or they don't provide financially, etc. are we loving them as ourselves? Wouldn't we give ourselves a pass on these?

Legalism isn't a matter of NT/OT it's a matter of what spirit in which you apply the scriptures be they found in the OT or the NT

Nobody is saying you need to run to the divorce court immediately someone fails to provide make you happy or even commit adultery that is NOT the point and has never been

With everyone of my comments there is an implicit assumption of good faith and long suffering and a true willingness to make the marriage work on the part of the aggrieved party . The final Line being crossed only when it reaches a level of pressure that the individual in question cannot bear and that's firmly between the individual and the Lord not bible thumping legalists

To continue to insist that the only two applicable scenarios worthy of divorce are those that Quest has hung her coat on is what I would consider legalism

Originally Posted by Colonel

Ummm...BAP ? Does that mean that everyone should eventually divorce since there is a time for that under heaven ? Does "every activity under heaven" include murder, fraud, rape ? Careful with the logic of what you are saying here.

Don't get all intellectual on me now Colonel we have been in rhythm for the most part so far .. You know fully well that's not what I am saying

Simply saying that within context there could be differing or even opposite albeit legitimate responses to every activity under the sun including marriage and divorce .

I emphasized that because some here will insist that Ecclesiastes isn't pertinent because it isn't specific to divorce

How you can get a potential endorsement for seasons of murder rape and theft from that is beyond me

Originally Posted by BAP

Don't get all intellectual on me now Colonel we have been in rhythm for the most part so far .. You know fully well that's not what I am saying

Simply saying that within context there could be differing or even opposite albeit legitimate responses to every activity under the sun including marriage and divorce .

I emphasized that because some here will insist that Ecclesiastes isn't pertinent because it isn't specific to divorce

How you can get a potential endorsement for seasons of murder rape and theft from that is beyond me

The point is that we are to take your word for divorce being included with "normal" activities rather than with those other activities I mentioned. Meaning you are the one who gets to draw the line.

Originally Posted by Colonel

The point is that we are to take your word for divorce being included with "normal" activities rather than with those other activities I mentioned. Meaning you are the one who gets to draw the line.

No I said "Marriage and Divorce" which is the topic at hand and would be part of the activities which people take part in on the earth correct ?

Point again is there is no specific action that one can term universally right or wrong at all times; a point which you yourself have eloquently highlighted especially with your hiding Jews from Nazis quip ..

When Nazis are looking for Jews to kill and you know where the Jews are is not the time or season under the sun for you to tell "the truth" according to Ecclesiastes

Originally Posted by BAP

No I said "Marriage and Divorce" which is the topic at hand and would be part of the activities which people take part in on the earth correct ?

Point again is there is no specific action that one can term universally right or wrong at all times; a point which you yourself have eloquently highlighted especially with your hiding Jews from Nazis quip ..

When Nazis are looking for Jews to kill and you know where the Jews are is not the time or season under the sun for you to tell "the truth" according to Ecclesiastes

I think you're just reading your own view into that and making it too all-inclusive. It clearly does not include actions that are sin. Which means we are back to having to figure out what is sin and what is not. Quest can do the same that you do, read her particular view into the passage and get her view back from it. Input = output.

Originally Posted by Colonel

I think you're just reading your own view into that and making it too all-inclusive. It clearly does not include actions that are sin. Which means we are back to having to figure out what is sin and what is not. Quest can do the same that you do, read her particular view into the passage and get her view back from it. Input = output.

I remember John once making the comment that he has seen you argue against a position that you yourself previously made in the same thread :) This I must say is one of those times ..

God's word is Truth and God's position is Truth. Rahab did not sin by denying her knowledge of the location of the Hebrew spies . The wise men did not sin by breaking their promise to Herod . Why ? because they affirmed HIGHER truths but in the mind of the legalist both those parties would be considered liars .

I thought you understood this with your Nazi /Jew quip but apparently not

Just because I find some general level of agreement with you on these issues doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with your interpretation of every single passage pertaining to or supposedly pertaining to this matter. This discussion is not about choosing which camp to go with and sticking with that (= trench wars). Either your camp or Quest's camp. It is perfectly possible to agree with you on some points and not agree with you on some points. This is not "did Jesus resurrect physically from the dead or did he not". If that is frustrating to you then that is just the way these discussions are.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Just because I find some general level of agreement with you on these issues doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with your interpretation of every single passage pertaining to or supposedly pertaining to this matter. This discussion is not about choosing which camp to go with and sticking with that (= trench wars). Either your camp or Quest's camp. It is perfectly possible to agree with you on some points and not agree with you on some points. This is not "did Jesus resurrect physically from the dead or did he not". If that is frustrating to you then that is just the way these discussions are.

I do appreciate that about you Colonel. I've just seen you do it in the Dead People thread. The fact that you're debating the points given rather than the subject matter in its entirety.


Though, it does occasionally throw people for a loop.

Originally Posted by Lista

I do appreciate that about you Colonel. I've just seen you do it in the Dead People thread. The fact that you're debating the points given rather than the subject matter in its entirety.

Though, it does occasionally throw people for a loop.

I'm frequently studying the Bible and not just discussing the topic in the narrowest sense. Since BAP posted a rather well known passage from Ecclesiastes, that got me interested in and of itself. No, it is not referring to WHATEVER. Sorry, BAP. And no, it's not the end of the world if you disagree with me, either.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Just because I find some general level of agreement with you on these issues doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with your interpretation of every single passage pertaining to or supposedly pertaining to this matter. This discussion is not about choosing which camp to go with and sticking with that (= trench wars). Either your camp or Quest's camp. It is perfectly possible to agree with you on some points and not agree with you on some points. This is not "did Jesus resurrect physically from the dead or did he not". If that is frustrating to you then that is just the way these discussions are.

Not inviting you to entrench yourself in any trenches my good friend . Simply puzzled at your ability to argue against your own position even in the same thread😄

No sweat just makes you extremely difficult to understand that's all