Posted on 02/10/2011 4:22:54 AM PST by mbeaven
"The new healthcare law can make certain things more difficult, but family life will still happen. And that is what is most important."
"After the passage of no-fault divorce (thank you Ronald Regan), children are often not raised in a stable two-parent home. Traditional marriage, as an institution, is in retreat."
http://considerandhearme.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/obamacare-vs-no-fault-divorce/
(Excerpt) Read more at considerandhearme.wordpress.com ...
So........... are ya out yet?
mbeaven, you asked for honest feedback so here it is: this is probably one of the most poorly written pieces I've read in a very long time. Poorly constructed sentences and changes in verb tense mid sentence do not make this easy to read. For me, it was like listening to the rejects on American Idol. Your writing is equivilent to the screeching of the loosers thinking they can sing.
Sensei! Two-time loser? You got me beat. I only have one ex-hubby, and that was 45 years ago.
Third time - DING! DING! DING!
“Anyone opposed to divorce is invited to spend a week with my ex-wife.
Then we’ll talk.”
Very funny!
Thanks for the correction. Spell check was not my friend today!
From a conservative position, the problem with divorce is the same problem as with gay marriage: There is no such thing. If you marry someone of the same gender, you are not really married. If you divorce and remarry, you are still married to the first person (until they die).
I am familiar. However, it is still forbidden to marry a divorced person.
” and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery”
Right, but it does not say it is forbidden to marry a divorced person. Punctuation is important; it is one sentace not two.
If you marry someone who subsequently fornicates, you can divorce them and find someone else.
Of course this line of conversation has nothing to do with no-fault divorce, ObamaCare, or the fact that people are going to do what people do regardless of how difficult divorce is to get.
You have no logic. It is adultery but it is not forbidden? Read 1 Cor 6:9 to see what happens to those who commit adultery (marry a divorced person or remarry after divorcing).
Let’s dissect what you posted:
“Matthew, Chapter 5:32
but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. “
1. If she is already committing adultery, putting her out does not make her an adulterer. She already is one.
2. Put away is not the same as divorce. The scripture is speaking of separation. Vows are “until death do we part” and there are not “get out of your vows to God” cards. So you can separate for adultery but you can never marry again (until death of one).
3. It doesn’t matter the reason why the person was put away, to marry them is adultery. Even if the person was put away for adultery.
Also, punctuation is a translator’s inference. Scriptures were written with no punctuation. You have to rely on the authority of the Catholic Church to say what the scriptures mean, as it was they who decided what should be in the Bible and what shouldn’t be. The Catholic Church says there is no divorce. They compiled the Bible. They rejected books rejected, they accepted books accepted. All this hundreds of years before any other denomination was on the scene.
Divorce is a lie. Those who divorce and remarry commit adultery. Unrepentant adulterers go to hell. Not too complicated here.
“You have no logic. It is adultery but it is not forbidden? Read 1 Cor 6:9 to see what happens to those who commit adultery (marry a divorced person or remarry after divorcing).”
First, in the verse I provided, fornication is not adultery; otherwise it would not make sense to use another word. In other translations unchastity and immorality have been used in place of fornication. In the ones I looked at adultery is never used there.
In I Corinthians, the when the topic of marriage is discussed, Paul prefaces what he said by saying that he says it without command. But if you read the entire thing, it paints the picture where women are not much more than property, with a clear double standard. “If you have been released from a wife, do not seek a wife. But if you remarry, you have not sinned…” and, “A woman is bound to a husband until he dies.”
In Galatians, however, he goes on to talk about the law, being established through a mediator, was a tutor until Christ could redeem. In verse 28 he says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.” Christ looks at everyone the same. Romans chapter 3 is similar, and they appear to be reiterations and expansions of John 3.
All in all, salvation is a deeply personal affair and is not something that can be legislated, whether a little or a lot, in a free and self-governing society. Citizens here have the right to make up their own minds about how to conduct themselves, to judge their own conduct, and believe whatever they are inclined to believe. The use of law to coerce others to participate in one’s ideal view of society is not much different than what the radical left is attempting now, or what radical Islamists are doing with shariah law in the Middle East and Europe and is nothing short of tyranny. I do not condone its use in that way, in the place of real leadership and persuasion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.