On 5-7-2009 15:08, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That 
>> is good to know. ;)
> 
>   I don't really like being categorized based on belief systems.

That would have been a valid remark if that was a full category. Here it 
is only a detail based on what you wrote yourself. If you don't like it, 
consider it a 'note to self' that you accidentally read. BTW you forgot 
to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession 
that you are member of a church. ;)

>> Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it 
>> is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the 
>> video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely 
>> wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a 
>> much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but 
>> the ones he meets everyday were?
> 
>   There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
> there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
> believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
> any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
> who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
> "true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
> church teaches.)

Matthew 19:1-12 especially 19:6

>   I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
> plenty of tougher questions.

The assumption is that people who believe that God united them in 
marriage will be more hesitant to divorce, more so because God 
explicitly forbids it. Divorce rates were indeed much lower in the first 
half of the 20th century because of this here. Apparently the words of 
Matthew became less important during the last century.

The only accepted reason for divorce was adultery (following Matthew 
19:8). My mother even mentioned the existence of the concept of the 'big 
lie' (or a name something like that). If two people decided that they 
had to divorce but this condition did not apply, one or both would admit 
adultery that had never taken place.

Post a reply to this message