FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
Not if one bothers to read the whole thread and not just that one post. My view doesn't correspond exactly to your view and I'm interested in pointing out details, including pertaining to various passages. It's perfectly possible to use the wrong scripture to promote the right view and thereby make a total mess of the scripture involved, creating new problems that are even worse than what the other party is promoting by way of their opposing view. I'm not saying that that is what you did with Ecclesiastes, not at all. But details to matter.
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
You asked if it refers to whatever, and the answer to that is no.
The next question is what does it refer to and what does it not refer to.
Quest would include "divorce" with the list of activities I just wrote, you would include "divorce" along with sowing, reaping etc. Input = output.
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
This is part of what I've been discussing half of the time in this thread. All the reasons people give as legitimate for divorcing that are not. Just because there ARE reasons beyond what the letter of scripture declares, doesn't mean that every last ridiculous exposition on scripture that people make up to justify whatever it was that they reasoned would make them feel better about having divorced their spouse, is scriptural. Some of the stuff on divorcehope.com is just that, RIDICULOUS. As Cardinal pointed out, all of it isn't. But some of it is. In a trench war climate that can some times be seen here, one is expected to simply choose sides and then either reject EVERYTHING at that site or endorse EVERYTHING at that site. Which is out of the question. It will never happen. And I don't jolly care what the subject is.
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
Like I said you are arguing with your own imagination as you often do
Just because you don't see or understand how a scripture applies to a situation doesn't mean it doesn't and shod be dismissed out hand . It just may mean that you should spend time one the scripture a little more .
And it sure as heck doesn't mean you should substitute what the other person is saying with your own imaginative constructs. Creating strawmen arguments where none need to be
Like it or not Ecclesiastes says what it means that pertaining to every activity under the sun there are appropriate responses that may sometimes seem contradictory . Therein lies the very obvious point .
Look at the following verses
Note the inherent contradiction ?Proverbs 26
4Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Vs 4 says not to answer a fool the very next verse 5 says you should answer a fool .
Question is which one is it ?? What should the appropriate response be when faced with two situations That look similar on the surface
Well the answer depends on context or season (per Ecclesiastes) but a legalistic person will insist only one of those verses is relevant and stake every thing on whatever leg he/she chooses as if the opposing verse isn't there this declaring all further debate closed
This is the simple point I was trying to highlight with Ecclesiastes that you have managed to parlay into a totally USELESS argument convincing yourself that Bap may be using ecclesiastes to endorse seasonal murder , rape , frivolous divorce or whatever other nonsensical constructs your imagination wants to come up with
I am done
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
Anyway Don't let the colonel boggle your mind .. Nothing mind boggling about divorce justification has been proferred by anyone except those who insist on creating strawmenBingo. It boggles my mind at some of the justification for divorce in this thread. I had no idea.
Last edited by krystian; 09-27-2015 at 11:58 PM.
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)
Now that you agree that everything is NOT included, we are back to trying to figure out what IS included. According to you, divorce outside of adultery and the unbeliever wants out IS included, according to Quest it is NOT included. Which implies stalemate.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.
Even if you ARE right, we are still left with having to define just HOW FAR we are to go with including divorce rather than "frivolous divorce"
FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)