Good morning, Dog.

Well, I'm more than happy to "chew" on this, your latest "bone".

In a Cbox discussion several weeks ago, Ian made the following (highlighted green) comment with regard to divorce.

Didaktikon: Epi. And it's sad when, realistically, Jesus forbade divorce altogether.

In recent discussions, Ian has said that there ARE cases where Jesus and the bible would allow divorce and subsequent remarriage.  This is inconsistent with your earlier statement, which would appear to be an absolute statement to me.

So Ian, why did you say "Jesus forbade divorce altogether" when you now say this is not your view or understanding from the bible.  Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Certainly. To begin with, the remainder of the conversation from which you quote, which includes my response to your "Jesus forbade divorce altogether"? Another dumb-arse archaic piece of biblical nonsense!" comment is yet to be posted by Moth (point one). Now, the context of that particular "fly-by-night" discussion, had to do with the slippery ease with which certain Revivalist pastors enabled/enacted divorce and remarriage within their assemblies: "Episkopeo: Ian They look after relatives and friends in this regard. They will find a reason for another marriage to go ahead even if no fornication. It's laughable when spiritual fornication is quoted" (point two). As I recall, I stated words to the effect that, 'Jesus, being God; provided the Divine absolute on the subject of marriage and divorce' (point three). The reason I did has to do with the fact that Scripture very clearly presents that marriage is intended to be a life-long covenant entered into between a man and a woman, a covenant wherein both parties sacrifice themselves for the other, placing the others needs ahead of their own (point four). And as I very clearly pointed out to you in post #74 of the "gay marriage" thread, Jesus also made allowance for divorce under a very select group of prescribed conditions. These conditions, by-the-bye, are to be found in the Old Testament, and they might be summed up thus: (1) marital unfaithfulness on the part of the spouse. (2) Failure by one party to meet the physical needs of the other. (3) Failure by one party to meet the emotional needs of the other, i.e. "abandonment".

I believe that in your marked haste to yet again rail against God, you (a) failed to appreciate the specific and narrow context that underpinned the Cbox discussion: you went "global" when the context was very clearly "local". (b) Furthermore, you altogether failed to recognise that the Cbox isn't the forum proper, it's necessarily immediate. Consequently I don't craft my comments there for the same audience, or in the same way that I do for the permanent record, here. This is why I've asked people in times past not to cut-and-paste my statements from there to here. Next, (b) I believe that you intentionally failed to acknowledge (even when informed of such) that I have written on the subject of divorce (extensively) in several places on this forum, over several years. You imply, above, that my explanatory comments over your misunderstanding are a "back-pedalling" away from a previous position. Well, my "previous position" predates the Cbox comments by several years! Understand, this time, that my position on the subject of divorce is to be found, and should be assessed, by those earlier, detailed and nuanced discussions. And, (c) ultimately, you failed to appreciate the basic hermeneutical principle: meaning resides in authorial intent, and not in the interpretation of the reader (I'm actually surprised that you seemed so over-quick to "proof-text" me).

Now, what I think is that this entire "rabbit-trail" of yours is naught but an intentional ploy to distract others away from the fact that you've yet to adequately respond to/rebut a single point of mine in the "gay marriage" thread.

Bro', have you ever heard of the expression, "clutching-at-straws"

Blessings,

Ian

 

Epi, point taken.  As your comments appear from the Cbox here, (to provide some context) would you like me to edit or delete them?

Ian,

I am aware of the differences of the Cbox and the forum proper.  Despite those considerations, and your other postings on the theme of divorce, I still find it inconsistent, that you made that statement.  It stands alone as an absolute statement.  Altogether = wholey, completely.

So what WAS your 'authorial intent' in this comment?  And how does any subsequent discussion change the contained message of your statement?  I don't recall any subsequent qualification at that time that would give the reader any other understanding.  And how is it that you find it so difficult to concede that most anyone reading your statement would have the same understanding.... that Jesus forbade divorce altogether?  The word 'altogether' pretty much cements the absolution of the statement.

Despite the Cbox being an immediate chat box where typos can easily happen, you are still most pedantic to correct any inadvertent spelling/grammatical mistakes of your own, and make plain your message, and to whom its addressed.  You are critical of anyone who fails to communicate/debate/whatever to your standards, yet you appear stubbormly able to acknowledge one little faux pas of your own.  Furthermore, you berate the messenger of the issue, instead of simply conceding that yes, you can understand that folk could read your comment as saying what clearly it IS saying.  You can give it Ian, but you appear unable to take it!

Dog.

Dog,

Read my response again. The context has clearly been spelled out, the substance of the issue has been explained for you, and then in quite some detail. You're doing little more than "shadow-boxing" with yourself currently.

I wonder, are you the sort of person, who encountering a "STOP" sign at a road crossing, subsequently refuses to move forwards thereafter? The fact of Jesus absolutely prohibiting divorce from the Divine perspective isn't surprising. The issue of grace; however, often is. Scripture amply demonstrates that Divine Prohibitions, which reflect the completely holy nature of God, are frequently offset by Divine Concessions, allowances made for human weakness under sin. Think about it.

Blessings,

Ian

Ian,


Nup.  In the subsequent posts Moth dragged in, (thanks Mothman) all that is said that could be said to qualify your statement is here...

"First, Jesus is God, and so was providing God's absolute standard on the matter: marriage being a LIFELONG covenant between a man and a woman.  Two, Jesus himself made allowance for human weakness and frailty, which a study of the relevant passages in CONTEXT would have demonstrated to you."

Your FIRST point would seem to reinforce your absolute statement.

Your second point "made allowance for human weakness and frailty" doesn't make it plain that you are saying something DIFFERENT to your original statement in question, and your directive to study the relevent passages would (I suppose) have revealed that Jesus did NOT "forbid divorce altogether".  So why say he did in the first place?

As usual, you do your utmost to talk your way out of a firing squad with your reasoning, which is totally self serving.  You are proving yourself to be as ambiguous as the bible that you like to tell people is so perfect.


Dog.

Dog,

Absolutely amazing! Every single point that I reinforced with you over the past two days, has proven to have been the case. Every one! The Cbox, do remember, functions as an ongoing conversation. In our current example, I said something, you responded. I then replied to your concern. Exactly as what takes place in a normalconversation! For the past two days now you've sat at your keyboard accusing me of being evasive, building straw-men of your own devising to try to knock down; and yet I've answered every single point that you've raised. And Moth's recovery of the actual Cbox conversation demonstrates that I was being completely truthful in what I maintained.

I credited you with greater integrity and more common sense, the truth be told. Perhaps I've been wrong in my estimation. In any case, this will be my last word to you on this matter. Feel free to knock yourself out in your attempts to convince others that you're not chasing rainbows.

Ian

 Ian,

Nup,

Not accusing you of being untruthful at all or evasive.  Its clear in all of this that you DO NOT believe Jesus forbade divorce altogether.  You simply acknowledging that your statement to the contrary was misleading would have put the matter to rest long ago. 

I have your permission to "knock myself out".  You have my permission to remain silent if you prefer.  Its no skin off my nose in any case.

Dog.

For all the amazing and dedicated work and effort Ian puts into this forum it amazes me how quickly people can jump on Ian when they smell a little blood. The smallest of spelling errors get all sorts of excited reactions from various ones, and this whole thread seems like a slap to the face, imo. Yeah, I can see what may be considered a contradiciton... "Jesus forbids divorce... but...". The Bible forbids killing, but even that has its exceptions. I suppose in a perfect world people wouldn't make mistakes and, well, the word divorce wouldn't even exist. In the real world, however, the mistake can be the marriage in the first place, and the tragedy can be when that marriage continues to the detriment of the children and all involved. Ideally, a marriage that has been joined in love, and is built on love and promises, should be given every chance to continue.

Hey Mothy,

During the day today, it did occur to me that the theme of divorce may touch a nerve, and I'm sorry if it's a little insensitive of me.  My interest in bringing it up is probably fairly obvious.  Its not the interest in the subject of divorce per se, but my objection to being told by Ian that I'm at fault for reading his statement, and taking it as saying what it says.

So yes it was intended as a 'face slap'.  Ian sets high standards, not only for himself, but for all who come here.  He is openly critical of anyone whose intellect or capacity to engage in dialogue or debate falls short, and so claims victory in his game of logic.  Ian leaving a 'smelly red herring' there was something that I felt needed clarifying.  But rarther than concede that "yes that might be seen that way, but...." he took his stance of criticising me for not reading it correctly, as he sees it.  Clearly its bloody-minded, and this made me more determined not to 'roll over' but to call him out for his little misleading statement.  Ian missed this opportunity (IMO) of showing a little humility and humanity, but that is his choice.  If he could see it, not being 'right' for once may actually have had a positive effect on the way people perceive him.

All this does NOT take away from what you describe as Ian's generosity of time & efforts.  I am quite able (as I have done) to acknowledge his talents and virtues.  But this incident is one where I am simply giving to Ian what he dishes out to us.  After all, what's good for the goose.... 

Anyway, all that aside, thanks for your words Mothy, and best wishes for your future!


Dog.

 Hi Mothy

Your story really struck a chord with me. I am so sorry you were subjected to such an awful situation courtesy of the clowns running your branch. Yours is a story which is very common in RCI and something that has certainly touched my families life and one that even after ten years of freedom still angers me. Marriage/Family are, for me, what life is all about and has completely replaced my need for belief in a God.

I sincerely wish you well in your new relationship.

Tom

Good morning, all.

I've been accused recently of "dishing out that, which I'm not prepared to be served", here. The original claim was that I was inconsistent, in that I had stated on the CBox that Jesus forbade divorce abolutely, but that I later stated (in the "gay marriage" thread) that he made allowance for the severing of marriages under certain circumstances.  I maintained when so challenged, that I wasn't being inconsistent at all, in that I had explained in the CBox conversation what I had meant. This explanation; however, was summarily dismissed along the lines of: "well, I don't remember it that way".

In post #3 of this thread, I elucidated my reasoning on the issue (especially given the circumstances or context which had predicated and underpinned the entire CBox discussion), on just how Jesus (being a completely holy God) could make a Divine Absolute, but also being God, that he could make a Divine Concession. I pointed out that this is what "grace" invariably is all about. In that very same post I indicated that I had said words to the same effect in the CBox conversation at the time. I maintain now that if one is seeking an example of consistency, then this a pretty good one!

Moth eventually posted the remainder of the CBox conversation, and, lo and behold, what I had maintained all along was shown to be the case! I had stated that Jesus gave a Divine Absolute in prohibiting divorce, but that he had also made a Divine Concession due to human frailty and the effects of sin. What I had repeated in this current thread was even shown to be almost word-for-word to that, which I had stated in the earlier CBox discussion! However, this explanation still wasn't accepted. But then a remarkable "twist". Suddenly the accusation itself changed! What was formerly the charge that I was being inconsistent in what I had written, suddenly became the charge of me "not believing that Jesus forbade divorce altogether"! (cf. the header post to # 13)

One of the reasons that I post here involves the challenging of people to think clearly. This is why debate itself is such a great medium, it forces people into not being lazy or haphazard in their thinking! It forces people into dealing directly and consistently with their subject matter to hand. And given what was the underpinning reason that most people found themselves in Revivalism to begin with, it also helps them to become more rigorous in their evaluating of other peoples' comments into the future, thereby minimising the risk of being duped again by "pleasing words".

I know full-well that my methods, manners and mannerisms grate against some people, people who seemingly take great pleasure in avoiding the issues in preference to attacking me personally. But I apparently also have a thicker hide than do many of them. The issue to me always remains one of having a proper comprehension. In noting this I have misunderstood what people had said on this forum in times past, and I'm also on the permanent record here, in apologising to them. When I'm wrong, I will and do admit to being wrong, and such will continue to be the case into the future. But I am very careful in what I write, and it's no doubt for this reason that some people believe that I think I "know everything about everything". However, if someone makes a statement--whether a proposition or an accusation--which isn't based on the available evidence, then I will point this out to them. Again, it's about promoting rigorous thinking.

In closing, I hold no personal animosity to those who rail either against me, or God (or who apparently confuse the two of us!). I will continue to "do what I do" here, and then in spite of the "naysayers", as the fruit of my labours is abundant enough to satisfy me.

Blessings,

Ian

 Cheer up Ian, the world's not over yet ... you know when I pour myself over the issue of divorce and your musings and off the track replies, I am reminded and yet again saddened that there is too little understanding of Grace - Charis within the whole body corporate but worse when it comes to the revivalist position, understanding of Grace is really a total zero...

 " For the law was given through Moses; he Charis kai he aletheia dia Iesou Christou egeneto "  and yet if I jump back a verse I read " charin anti charitos - grace upon grace "  so it seems to me that folk who have only a short time removed from the revivalist groups are very much undeveloped spiritually - and that just about sums up the whole revivalist paradigm... so never mind Bro, you are doing well and in some cases extraordinarily well.

blessings

Metanoian