 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What is marriage? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2004 5:45 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
...that it is within the communities perview to look at this issue in terms of what is more helpful or less helpful rather than taking some absolutist stand based on a few verses of the old law in the bible. Especially when we have discounted so much of the old law already.
Response: One would assume from what you wrote that it is only in the OT.
1 Corinthians 6:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And:quote:
1 Corinthians 6
12"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.
quote:
1 Thessalonians 4
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable,
quote:
Colossians 3
4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. 5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
quote:
Galatians 5
18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity...
quote:
Ephesians 5
3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
God has given the Scriptures to the Church. No individual is a church unto themself. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Part of your POLITICS (rather than faithfulness to Scripture), Icon, is to confuse and conflate the distinction between civil law and Spiritual truth. Your post clouded the issue Scripture puts on our plate with matters of contemporary politics. Eternal issues take precedence for our attention.
The Church is in the business of saving, healing, restoring, and discipling. Not condemning.
The various degrees of penance (which is therapy and not punishment) recommended for various sins varies. For homosexuality the same is evident.
But sin is not swept over and ignored as safe.
This is not a political issue. It is spiritual. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2004 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | "ALL SCRIPTURE...
quote:
2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
quote:
2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Human rationalizations and equivocations are not the guidance God has given.
God is in the business of saving (not condemining), and not in leaving us in a state of decline.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2004 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Here is a previous post by Greg Boyd on the topic:
Previous post by GregBoyd:
Brandon, I think the attempt to identify divorce as adulterous in an of itself is clever, but unsuccessful. Consider that Jesus says:
Matt. 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Its about sex with someone other than the first partner.
On the "exception" clause, its interesting to note that Mark doesn't include it. Many scholars have argued that the reason Matthew DOES is because his audience is the most Jewish. The debate of the day was about the grounds for a "justified" divorce. The conservatives said only adultery was a ground. The liberals said it could be anything. It would be uncharacteristic of Jesus to side with one school against another, without saying so, and then speaking against divorce in unqualified terms by going back to the beginning (Adam and Eve) and concluding "let no man..." The only way to see Jesus as doing what he did everywhere else -- viz. showing that both sides of a dilemma were sinful -- is if the "unchasity" (pornea) he is referring to had to do with the betrothal period.
In ancient Judaism, a husband and wife were legally married about a year before they consumated the marriage. It was the betrothal period. During this time, a man or woman could annul their marriage (as Joseph was going to do ) if they were unfaithful.
In this light, we might hear Jesus saying that all divorce and remarriage involves sin -- except, of course, if one of the partners is unchaste (which can mean anything from full sex to anying morally indecent) during the betrothal period.
I suspect this is the best reading. ALL divorce, once the marriage is consumated, is sin, and all remarriage involves adultery. It happens because of the hardness of people's hearts.
Yet, Jesus is not thereby trying to tighten the belt on the OT permission to divorce and remarry. He is saying, to both the conservative and liberals parties... "don't feel justified in divorce or remarriage. If it happens, it 's always a break from God's ideal."
Blessings
Greg
Iconoclast
I think this is a sound argument and reflects some of the issues and thinking on this thread. The betrothal period was consider to be an "official" marriage in that day. This thinking then supports the notion that Jesus sees the actual marriage as the two "becoming one flesh" when the marriage is consummated - not some "official" custom of the people at that time.
Thus, once the "two have become one" for whatever reason, they are one - joined together - and any break from that is a break from God's ideal - it is sin ("hamartia" - missing the mark).
IMHO, it is cleaver, but unsuccessful to absolve a third level sin (adultery for divorcés) in order to absolve a second level sin (homosexuality). What Doc has pointed out is the fact that divorce (once consummated) is at least a second level sin for any reason. Two wrongs don’t make a right; divorce does not justify homosexuality, period. It is childish to say my sin is relieved because of someone else’s sin, including the first level sin of “hardness of the hearts”.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/11/2004 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | sparknheart
Semeia, Iconoclast and others,
What is your view of divorce with the exception of adultery and abandonment being the reason? Should or can a married couple get divorced if they tried professional counseling and are still very unhappy and miserable with each other? With no physical, but plenty of mental abuse, would you give them your blessing to seek a divorce in order to be set free from the pain? If very little love is shared, would it be just for the couple to be left to suffer?
Iconoclast
My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).
Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no. Marriage is about two people committing to each other. It is a fundamental free-will issue. If one of the partners chooses to break the commitment and wants out then there is not much that can be done. The other partner should not be required to be a doormat to someone who is punishing them because they don’t want to be together any more.
I think it is clear from the Mosaic law that since our hearts are hard divorce cannot be legislated against in any form or fashion.
I do not think any of this has to do with my “blessing”. My “blessing” is neither here nor there except as a form of judgment which is unhelpful. Now, if you ask what I believe is the best course of action for some couple then I have an opinion and it is that if both partners want to love each other and want to have a happy marriage then I believe it is always possible for such to occur and I would tend to advise working through the issues. In my view, we either work through the issues right where we are at, or we run away and work the exact same issues out with someone else.
Nor do I think any of this has to do with “justice”. It is not about justice, it is about life, it is about love. So, the question is, what is helpful to this couple in terms of loving each other and creating life together? How do we support this couple? How do we support the individuals? How can we influence them to work through the issues? How do we give them hope that such is possible? I believe that these are the important questions. The “legal” question only gets in the way of what is truly needful.
So, what is helpful in this situation? I believe that what often happens to most marriages is that the couple is “falling out of love” because they no longer share common goals. They once did (presumably this is why they got married) they then achieved those goals (kids, house, and so on) and failed to set new shared goals. One spouse focuses on their individual career goals and the other spouse focuses on their individual community goals (or what have you). So, the key is to call the couple back to the goals and the love they once shared in order to create hope that such is achievable again. If there is no hope then there is not much chance of them wanting to set new shared goals and thus start working together again instead of apart from each other.
This is of course a very simplistic view of an extremely complicated matter. However, I believe it points to the kinds of questions and understanding – the kind of “judgement” (separating all things) – that we should be focused on in order to love one another.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/11/2004 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Semeia, Iconoclast and others,
What is your view of divorce with the exception of adultery and abandonment being the reason? Should or can a married couple get divorced if they tried professional counseling and are still very unhappy and miserable with each other? With no physical, but plenty of mental abuse, would you give them your blessing to seek a divorce in order to be set free from the pain? If very little love is shared, would it be just for the couple to be left to suffer?
Semeia:
First of all, Jesus said "unchastity" not "adultery" as an exception. If unchastity and adultery are the same thing, why did he use two different words for it? Unchastity, to my understanding, means something more along the lines of "lack of virginity" which is a one-time event (thus referring to the betrothal period, as obviously once someone consummated the marriage they would no longer be a virgin).
And he said nothing about abandonment.
But he also said nothing at all about "outlawing" divorce - making a new, stricter law that forbid divorces (and the consequent "adulterous" sex in remarriage). He was simply pointing out that those people who thought that they were pure and holy were a lot less pure and holy than they imagined. His words come in the context of a sermon in which he is trying to get people to look at their OWN sin (take the log out of their own eye) rather than trying to look at SOMEONE ELSE'S sin (take the speck out of their brother's eye).
Similarly, we are not focusing on what Jesus said about divorce in order to get Christians to take a stricter line toward divorce. Marriages fall apart, and although I might encourage a friend or family member to seek counseling to try to work it out, if it then failed I would still support them and love them. In fact, I would NEVER use what Jesus said about divorce to try to keep them together - because that was NOT the context of Jesus' words. Jesus himself was not counseling someone in the process of a divorce to not get divorced, he was telling already divorced people to stop judging other people while overlooking their OWN sin.
And of course I would encourage a divorced person to get remarried. Everybody deserves to find someone to love and cherish and spend their life with. People are not meant to be alone. I would also encourage a gay person to find a partner for life, because as I just said, EVERYBODY deserves to find someone to love and cherish and spend their life with.
And, no matter what anyone says about divorced and remarried people repenting and moving on with their life - Jesus calls it "adultery" and adultery is about sex, and so it would be "adulterous" every time they have sex, not just at the time of divorce and remarriage. But does that mean I think that a divorced and remarried person should repent every time they have sex, since Jesus clearly said the relationship would be adulterous? No, of course not. That would completely miss the meaning of his words. He didn't say what he did to bring a new legalism into being - a new, stricter law. He said what he did to get people to STOP JUDGING OTHERS, because they themselves had plenty of sin in their own life.
That is the context, here, too. Just as it is better for people to live in the sin of remarriage (if they got divorced for reasons other than unchastity - which if you think about it was totally sexist because it basically only involved the bride's virginity, not the groom's) than to live alone, or remarry their first spouse (which is what the church used to force people to do if they wanted to stay in the church and take communion), so it is also better for a gay person to live in the sin of a gay marriage than to live alone.
But is it even up to us to evaluate whether or not someone else is "sinning"? I would say no, not ever. Sin is something we are only able to see in ourselves. Sin is "missing the mark," but each of us can only know what the will of God is for us, not for our brother. Sin is what we, individually, need to repent for. If something is "clean" for us, as Paul would say, how would someone else know?
Does that mean that we don't stop people from harming each other? No, of course not. We stop the pedophile from molesting, we stop the drunk from driving, we stop the abuser from battering, we stop the murderer from murdering. But we don't stop them because it is up to us to stop someone else's SIN; we stop them because it is up to us to LOVE people, and it is not loving to allow someone to get abused or molested or murdered. It is not up to us to evaluate sin in others; it is up to us to love.
Would it be loving to point out to a remarried person that Jesus thinks that their sex is adulterous? Of course not. And that wasn't even Jesus' point. Jesus’ point was to convict people of their OWN sin so that they would stop focusing on OTHER PEOPLE’S sin
But is it loving to point out that it is futile and unloving to focus on the sin of others (for example, unmarried people who live together, gay people, etc.) when each of us has a log of sin in our own eye - divorce, remarriage, saying thou fool to our brother, lust in our heart, being less than perfect every day of the week? Yes, I think that's loving. Because it is abusive to self-select the sins we might not suffer from while ignoring the ones we do suffer from. It is abusive to the people whose “sins” we are focusing on.
I have two sisters who are gay, and several male friends. Only one of them is a Christian, and he only is because he has an enormous tolerance for emotional pain, because he has been rejected and accused and lectured to by Christians throughout his life. It is doubtful that my sisters will ever know Christ. What do you suppose Christians look like to them? They look like divorced, angry, cruel, judgmental, gossipy, greedy, narcissistic, [insert your favorite sin here] people who don’t seem to focus much on their own flaws (evidenced by the fact that they continue to be greedy, gluttonous, angry, etc.) and yet who seem to see gay people as the downfall of the world as we know it. They do not feel loved or accepted by Christians; on the contrary, they are vilified. We have divorced preachers in church after church, obese preachers, preachers who have left their own children behind after a divorce, narcissistic preachers, greedy preachers, power-hungry preachers, basically preachers showing every sort of human failure possible. Now if we discover a preacher is a pedophile, or is stealing from the collection plate, we make them leave the church (or at least we do after hundreds of victims come forward and we can no longer cover it up). But we allow every sort of “sin” possible in the pulpit – and how could we not? Preachers are human; humans sin. But we take certain “sins” and elevate them above others, and shun people who have them – refuse to let them have leadership positions in our churches; sometimes refuse them entrance altogether.
This is what this disagreement is about – the elevating of certain sins as worthy of focus – and somehow they always turn out to be someone else’s sins.
But the question we should be asking is whether or not we are fulfilling the highest commandment: to love God and love our neighbor as ourself.
When Jesus encountered the woman at the well, he acknowledged her situation without shame or accusation. He did not say, “You are living in sin because you are not married.”
When he encountered the woman caught in adultery, he did not focus on her at all; he focused on her accusers, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Even the words, “Go and sin no more” can only be said by someone who is without sin. If you have sin, it is the height of hypocrisy to say, “Go and sin no more.”
Yes, we need to stop people from raping, murdering, molesting, abusing, driving drunk, slandering, abandoning their children, etc. But we need to stop people not because we need to stop their sin, but because we need to love them and their victims.
When a person is going through marital trouble, it is loving to support them and help them to get counseling. It is not loving to point out the sinfulness of divorce. That won’t help them resolve their problems – and we have our own log of sin to focus on, anyway.
By the way, if their marriage is foundering because they are a workaholic and are never home, or because they get drunk on a regular basis, or because they have an anger problem, and they have invited us in by talking to us about their problems, it is certainly okay to try to help them to see their own part in the destruction of their marriage; although it takes a lot of skill to give people that kind of feedback and it is usually better if it happens in counseling.
Most people I know who are divorced and remarried are in healthier marriages the second time around. I’m sad for people when their marriages don’t work out; but I’m thrilled when they get a second chance at love and fulfillment.
All I want is for people to give gay people the same grace – to give gay people the chance at love and fulfillment, without judging them for it. The vast majority of gays can never change their sexual orientation, no matter how hard they try or how long they pray. And the vast majority of divorced people can never go back to their first spouse, either – and most people have no problem accepting them.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2004 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).
Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no. Marriage is about two people committing to each other. It is a fundamental free-will issue. If one of the partners chooses to break the commitment and wants out then there is not much that can be done. The other partner should not be required to be a doormat to someone who is punishing them because they don’t want to be together any more.
I think it is clear from the Mosaic law that since our hearts are hard divorce cannot be legislated against in any form or fashion.
Thank you for your response,
I’m sorry, but I’m confused. You state: “My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).” And then in the next sentence you say “Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no.”
How can you declare it a sin and then turn around and condone it? I understand forgiveness after the fact, but a green light for the sin of divorce when they are in such need to stop the sin of a hardness of heart. This two, three, four sins make a right is beyond me.
If all sin is not the same, why not just kill your spouse! Why, because there are different levels of sin, divorce is not the same as eating a few extra Krispy Kremes. God does not what you to be his Krispy Kreme, he wants you to be his bride. There is a reason for God using the analogy of marriage through out the Bible, love and being faithful come to mind.
Peace,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/11/2004 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Did we all marry our teenage sweetheart?
Our first love??
If not, it might appear, then, that many of us may need to take
the plank out of our own eye (or marriage bed) -- before we complain about the marital "p's and q's" of the couple next door.
.
Iconoclast wrote: quote:
... I think this is a sound argument and reflects some of the issues and thinking on this thread. The betrothal period was consider to be an "official" marriage in that day. This thinking then supports the notion that Jesus sees the actual marriage as the two "becoming one flesh" when the marriage is consummated - not some "official" custom of the people at that time.
Thus, once the "two have become one" for whatever reason, they are one - joined together - and any break from that is a break from God's ideal - it is sin ("hamartia" - missing the mark).
.
.
Greg Boyd wrote: quote:
.....Matt. 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Its about sex with someone other than the first partner.
.
Iconoclast wrote: quote:
First level sin? Second level sin? Third level sin?
Are those biblical / spiritual concepts or human concepts that come out of the stolen knowledge of good and evil?
.
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I've never heard of orders of sin, Spark. Please explain.
Sahid,
I’m just following along with Icon,
First sin was hardness of the hearts, second was divorce and the third was adultery after remarrying.
Peace to all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2004 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Icon and Semeia,
I just want to let you both know that it is good to have you both back around. While i may not agree with you on every issue, I always find your posts to be thought provoking and always given with love.
Just thought I'd share,
Ross
A BIG Ditto! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/11/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I’m sorry, but I’m confused. You state: “My view is that once a marriage is consummated (therefore a “marriage”) any divorce is a break from God’s ideal. Any break from God’s ideal is, by definition, sin. It is “hamartia” (missing the mark).” And then in the next sentence you say “Now, should this fact mean that under all circumstances divorce should never be allowed? My view is no.”
Should we dis-allow sin? Allowing sin is not the same as condoning it. Hold on, I'll look up condone..... quote:
con·done ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-dn)
tr.v. con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. See Synonyms at forgive.
To me, at least, it makes sense to allow without condoning sin. Isn't that what God does? He allows sin, and then deals with it. He doesn't overlook, forgive, or disregard without censure. Fortunately, for us, He bears the censure Himself.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/11/2004 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Should we dis-allow sin? Allowing sin is not the same as condoning it. Hold on, I'll look up condone..... quote:
con·done ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-dn)
tr.v. con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. See Synonyms at forgive.
To me, at least, it makes sense to allow without condoning sin. Isn't that what God does? He allows sin, and then deals with it. He doesn't overlook, forgive, or disregard without censure. Fortunately, for us, He bears the censure Himself.
quote:
Definition: allow
allow
v 1: make it possible through a specific action or lack of action
for something to happen; "This permits the water to rush
in"; "This sealed door won't allow the water come into
the basement"; "This will permit the rain to run off"
[syn: let, permit] [ant: prevent]
2: give permission; "She permitted her son to visit her
estranged husband"; "I won't let the police search her
basement"; "I cannot allow you to see your exam" [syn: permit,
let, countenance] [ant: forbid, forbid]
3: let have; "grant permission"; "Mandela was allowed few
visitors in prison" [syn: grant] [ant: deny]
4: give or assign a share of money or time to a particular
person or cause; "I will earmark this money for your
research" [syn: appropriate, earmark, set aside, reserve]
5: make a possibility or provide opportunity for; permit to be
attainable or cause to remain; "This leaves no room for
improvement"; "The evidence allows only one conclusion";
"allow for mistakes"; "leave lots of time for the trip"
[syn: leave, allow for, provide for]
6: allow or plan for a certain possibility; concede the truth
or validity of something; "I allow for this possibility";
"The seamstress planned for 5% shrinkage after the first
wash" [syn: take into account]
7: afford possibility; "This problem admits of no solution";
"This short story allows of several different
interpretations" [syn: admit]
8: allow the other team to score; "give up a run", in baseball
[syn: give up]
9: grant as a discount or in exchange; "The camera store owner
allowed me $50 on my old camera"
10: allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without
opposing or prohibiting; "We don't allow dogs here";
"Children are not permitted beyond this point"; "We
cannot tolerate smoking in the hospital" [syn: permit,
tolerate]
BUT, while God respects free will, he does not "allow" unless it is to let us slip further into dispair that we might turn and repent. Further the Church practices repentance and absolution as discipline. And in some cases even excommunication.
The notion that God "allows" sin is bogus.
A friend posted this on another site:
An earlier post referred to the so-called "wrath of the Lamb" and "wrath of the Father" in Revelations. ... The word in Greek is thymos. It occurs five times in the New Testament writings of St. Paul, once in Hebrews, twice in the Gospel according to Luke, and 10 times in Revelations. In general, thymos is the courageous power of the warrior and a part of the soul in Greek thought. It is also means to boil up and is a force that breaks bonds and obstacles. Thymos, even in Homer and Plato and the Bible, is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion. The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God". If any of you know your early Church doctrinal history about the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered"? Its scriptural basis was this expression in Revelations "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means. Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
. . .
The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokrisis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice. [/font=Book Antiqua]
God does not passively allow or permit; but in love disciplines. And so does his Church.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/11/2004 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | The rest of the thread is YOURs.
I just received this, e-mail.
quote:
You received the following message from: ataraxia (ataraxia@christusvictorministries.org)
At: http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/
POW,
It doesn't seem that your numbers are down much at all since we last spoke of the volume of your posts. Many posts are just pictures (which I asked you not to post) and posts pasting material that is not your own (which I remember asking you to check on as well). Let's try a ban for five days shall we?
ataraxia
I WILL BE CONTACTING A. BY E-MAIL.
pOw | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/11/2004 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Amen, Brother.
might-be-don wrote:
quote:
Iconoclast,
Thanks for helping to wipe off these "legal" glasses. While I think my former tag line, "No rules, just right" , describes how I have always felt about things, you and Semeia and Greg have been providing the language to talk about it.
peace, don
<><
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/11/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Was God "condoning" the sin of divorce when He allowed it through the Mosaic law?
I don't think it is about "condoning" or not condoning or allowing or not allowing. These are all "legal" issues. It is not about the law at all. It is about people and what is helpful or hurtful given the actual reality and situation we find ourselves in.
thanks,
Iconoclast
I’m not here to debate, I’m here to learn. With that said, you have pointed out, in other threads, that Jesus did not give a lot of weight to the Pharisees and the Mosaic Law. I think there is clear difference between them and God’s law. To understand that difference, is to understand what Jesus was pointing out. Love is the law, and IMHO, that is the law that is being broken when marriages fail, that is the sin that should be giving first priority over all else that trickles down from it. I can love someone else (a new spouse) but just not you, is the same type of hypocrisy that I see you and Semeia arguing against. Someone that says they need a divorce so they can love someone else is doing what you both reject when a gay person is not getting loved. The divorce is a direct sin against God himself and the Great commandment. In a sense, did Jesus not assign levels of sin with the Great commandment, love, love and love? Oxymoron or not, love is the law.
If condoning means forgiveness, then I certainly would agree to forgive those that miss the mark of love.
Peace,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
| 171 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|