tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post8158075849476560759..comments2023-08-08T04:19:26.974-07:00Comments on THE CALLADUS BLOG: Jesus loves you, but he hates your new wife – Atheist Bible StudyCalladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-15160416933532957282008-02-23T23:06:00.000-08:002008-02-23T23:06:00.000-08:00Thanks Sam. I think that the Susan B. Anthony quo...Thanks Sam. I think that the Susan B. Anthony quote still applies.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-19636741810429907682008-02-23T17:30:00.000-08:002008-02-23T17:30:00.000-08:00I feel like I need to mention something you wrote ...I feel like I need to mention something you wrote concerning the divorce passages in Mark and Luke. Regardless if one believes that Mark and Luke actually wrote these passages the social setting cannot and should not be ignored. The intended readers of Mark and Luke would have mentally inserted what some have termed the "exception clause" found in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. Given the fact that ancient writers tried to be as concise as possible, whoever wrote Mark and Luke would not have been predisposed to list every exception. Paul also was dealing with some really extreme situations in 1 Cor. Some people were denying themselves sex to be more holy while others were believed that if the body was "bad" you might as well indulge because it did not matter. Also, the context of Matt. 19:9 was not teaching, but a rebuttal to the religious leaders who were trying to get Jesus to say something to increminate himself. A scholar named Bruce Malina at Creighton Univerisity has written on the issue of the social setting of the NT. Regardles if one believes in God, these passages (and Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians regarding same gender sexual activity) cannot be interpreted apart from the social setting. Here is a link to the WiKi. article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Context_Group. <BR/><BR/>Also, many of the context group people do not profess Christian faith. <BR/><BR/>Sammy SabineSamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10045927949493228225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-76875491642855555002007-06-22T09:23:00.000-07:002007-06-22T09:23:00.000-07:00Well Mister or Miss Anonymous, if you're not even ...Well Mister or Miss Anonymous, if you're not even going to <I>try</I> to come up with an original, irrefutable argument for God's existence, then you shouldn't even bother stopping by. It just makes Christians look bad.<BR/><BR/>You gave me <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager" REL="nofollow">Pascal's Wager</A> as your “proof” of God? Oh C'mon. You're going to have to do better than that to meet <I>your</I> <A HREF="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/05/practical-atheist.html" REL="nofollow">burden of proof. </A> <BR/><BR/>Your hypocrisy would be astonishing if I had not already experienced it from <A HREF="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/11/reply-to-daniel-j-lewis.html" REL="nofollow">other Christians.</A> You call <I>me</I> hateful while <I>you</I> are the one attempting to take the moral high ground of “hurt victim” – while at the same time you are following the rules of a hateful book in order to condemn me (in your God's name) to a place of <A HREF="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/04/heaven-full-of-sorrow.html" REL="nofollow">eternal torture.</A> <BR/><BR/><BR/>As for Jesus paying your “fine”, how is that just, or even kind? If a murderer raped and killed one of your children, would you allow another person to be executed for the murderer's crime? On the flip side, if some scientist came up with a way to inflict torture on a human, eternally – would it be right to use it against shoplifters? Nether position is morally right, either is a hateful travesty of justice. But this is what you seem to be advocating.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Your lame argument just ticks me off – not due to its (lack of) effectiveness or logic – but because I admire some Christians for their honesty, intelligence, and hard work in apologetics, and I can't stand to see them placed in the same category as you.<BR/><BR/>If you're “sad and hurt” by what I've said on my blog, then I offer you the freedom to click somewhere else. I'm not forcing you to read anything here. The only reason why you are here is because your religion has <A HREF="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/06/answer-to-cuz.html" REL="nofollow">commanded you to proselytize.</A> <BR/><BR/>However, if you wish to refute what I've written and practice <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics" REL="nofollow">Christian apologetics,</A> then I expect you to do your homework before coming in here and making yourself, and other Christians, look bad.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-39197826601463961272007-06-22T06:16:00.000-07:002007-06-22T06:16:00.000-07:00God Bless youThe fact that you believe that the Bi...God Bless you<BR/>The fact that you believe that the Bible is just a Myth is very sad and hurtful. Lets say you theory is correct, you and I die on the same day. The worst that can happen if you are right is we will be just six feet under, there is no heaven nor hell and it will be eternal sleep. But lets say that the WORD OF GOD is 100% true, then on the day we die I will be in heaven and you my friend will be in HELL. Consider this by law if you are caught in the act of commiting a crime here on earth you are punished. Well the same goes for GOD (who is Judge of all things) and in lying, using the lords name in vain, in hating someone you have commited murder in your heart, by GODS LAW you must be punished we all deserve to be punished however Jesus paid our fine so on Judgement Day all of our sins will be dismissed .<BR/><BR/>Well God Bless you again <BR/>And I hope God blesses you with the knowledge that he has blessed me with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-47564459868922670282007-05-29T14:47:00.000-07:002007-05-29T14:47:00.000-07:00Christian understanding of divorce and it's meanin...<I>Christian understanding of divorce and it's meaning is not as you presented it. At least not in the vast majority of churches.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, the "hardcore" churches who interpret this the way that I show certainly can't be "real" Christian churches - that wouldn't be... ah... <I>convenient</I> would it?<BR/><BR/>Or as Susan B. Anthony said, "<I>I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.</I>"Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-73349505651825567252007-05-08T06:01:00.000-07:002007-05-08T06:01:00.000-07:00"NO Scotsman would ever divorce his wife without a..."NO Scotsman would ever divorce his wife without an Annullment."<BR/>"But, my Uncle Angus divorced his second wife last year."<BR/>"Well, No TRUE Scotsman would ever do such a thing. The VAST Majority of Scots are clear in this regard."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-45617742469432331792007-05-07T17:41:00.000-07:002007-05-07T17:41:00.000-07:00'Jesus takes it further, in effect saying "screw t...'Jesus takes it further, in effect saying "screw that document - I don't care how you guys separate. But if divorce her for any other reason than her screwing around then you are causing her to commit adultery - and anyone who marries her also commits adultery."'<BR/><BR/>No he isn't saying that at all. You are causing her to commit adultery - that is correct. She has to break her covenant. Like I said previously that is what the words means. I think the work for adultery is used in at least 7-10 different ways in the bible. Only one is a sexual act. That is where part of the confusion comes into play. You simply cannot read it as a sexual act. It makes the entire pasage counter intuitive.<BR/><BR/>Jesus said as you quote: He whoputs away a wife and MARRIES another.' He viewed them as married. The sentence is passive similiar in structure to:<BR/><BR/>He who swings at a pitch, and hits a ball, expends energy. The sentence is passive. The swing expends energy. Likewise in the passive verse above the sin is in causing a divorce. Do you honestly think a man as schooled and deep as Jesus would have thought people married when they where not?<BR/><BR/>Of course not. It's silly.<BR/><BR/>'I hope you're not Christian, because this doesn't really help the case for Christian morality here'<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other to the validity of the moral system just that Christian understanding of divorce and it's meaning is not as you presented it. At least not in the vast majority of churches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-62318097449663606332007-05-07T17:16:00.000-07:002007-05-07T17:16:00.000-07:00"Can I just tell Jesus that I'm going to kill some...<I>"Can I just tell Jesus that I'm going to kill someone tomorrow, and then the next day we'll get together at the church and make it all better? "<BR/><BR/>In Christian theology - yes.</I><BR/><BR/>I hope you're not Christian, because this doesn't really help the case for Christian morality here.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-15471122165643876882007-05-07T16:53:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:53:00.000-07:00Two words here - Apostaseeon - which is a legal do...Two words here - Apostaseeon - which is a legal document of divorcement, and apoluo - which is ambiguous, but it can mean either "divorce" or "set free" (Put aside has the wrong connotation. Sent away might be better.)<BR/><BR/>Jesus is saying here that in Moses' time the man was urged to give a legal document of divorce to his wife - in order to allow her to marry again. By refusing that document, as you've pointed out, the woman was "stuck" - unable to marry again.<BR/><BR/>Jesus takes it further, in effect saying "screw that document - I don't care how you guys separate. But if divorce her for any other reason than her screwing around then you are causing her to commit adultery - and anyone who marries her also commits adultery."<BR/><BR/>The lady is out of luck here. No matter if she is guilty or not, she's guilty.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-15049306277984483522007-05-07T16:27:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:27:00.000-07:00'So when Jesus says that, "whoever marries a divor...'So when Jesus says that, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:31), you contradict him? Jesus is wrong?'<BR/><BR/><BR/>No, thats the entire point. The sentence in greek actually reads he who marries a 'put away' woman. This was not the same as a divorce. Moses instructed husbands to write a bill of divorcement. Minus this the covenent would be broken by a woman marrying another if she was still married to her previous husband. <BR/><BR/>BTW this practice still occurs in the middle east. It is now as then considered as a wayfor a man to practise control over a woman. He prevents her from marrying another and essentially places her in a hard to survive position.<BR/><BR/>'Okay, maybe the new marriage is only a brief sin, and once it is done it can be forgiven.'<BR/><BR/>The new marriage may not be a sin at all. It's hard to see how when you understand the tense. The sin is in the covenant breaking not in anything that comes later.<BR/><BR/>'Can I just tell Jesus that I'm going to kill someone tomorrow, and then the next day we'll get together at the church and make it all better? '<BR/><BR/>In Christian theology - yes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-73640696209347097292007-05-07T16:17:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:17:00.000-07:00So when Jesus says that, "whoever marries a divorc...So when Jesus says that, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:31), you contradict him? Jesus is wrong?<BR/><BR/>Okay, maybe the new marriage is only a brief sin, and once it is done it can be forgiven.<BR/><BR/>Can I just tell Jesus that I'm going to kill someone tomorrow, and then the next day we'll get together at the church and make it all better?Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-76490186282002497322007-05-07T16:11:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:11:00.000-07:00'Really? I hadn't realized that the Catholics stop...'Really? I hadn't realized that the Catholics stopped the practice of Annulment.'<BR/><BR/>Thats the point, the practice hadn't started yet. They even gave divorces to several kings. One in particular became upset that they wouldn't give him more and started his own church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-45237855407285022272007-05-07T16:10:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:10:00.000-07:00'If a Christian does not turn away from sin then h...'If a Christian does not turn away from sin then he or she has not truly repented and will not be saved.'<BR/><BR/>You seem to have an ackward view here as well. Repentence is a change of heart. Not all sins get a do over. If you murder someone you can repent but it doesn't bring the person back but you can realize the wrongness of your actions and not murder again.<BR/><BR/>Likewise causing divorce kills a marriage. You can't bring it back in the same form. You can marry again but it will be an entirely different entity. Liekwise causing another divorce creates the same sin again. Repentence from convenantbreaking is not more covenant breaking.<BR/><BR/>This is at least logically consistent and doesn't require people being magically married when they clearly are not.<BR/><BR/>'How can you repent if you will not give up your sin?'<BR/><BR/>The sin is on the divorce-covenant breaking- not in the marriage that follows. That doens't even make sense. The 'sin' is not ongoing at all. Jesus said the people are married. It's impossible for married people to commit adultery with each other. It's like being a married bachelor.<BR/><BR/>' it seems like the Church is unaware that it is assisting in the breaking of a commandment. Every approving voice in the congregation becomes an accomplice to the newlywed's sin. The only “out” to this that I can see is if the “once saved / always saved” doctrine is true (I'll talk about that another time) in which case most of the congregation is out of danger. Even so, should they be so approving of other people's sins?'<BR/><BR/>No because they recognize that the sin lies at the divorce not the later action. You are using a very narrow definition that rational people don't use. Your then inflicting violence and a strawman on the entire thing. There are many other ways than what you have presented here.<BR/><BR/>With same sex couples(and I do not necessarily disagree with you here) there is a clear line. Not the case with your prior comparison. It's not really a particuarlly good analogy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-78467542142509870312007-05-07T16:07:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:07:00.000-07:00Really? I hadn't realized that the Catholics stop...Really? I hadn't realized that the Catholics stopped the practice of Annulment.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-3731316878526289802007-05-07T16:00:00.000-07:002007-05-07T16:00:00.000-07:00'But this is merely your interpretation. Other Chr...'But this is merely your interpretation. Other Christian denominations interpret this differently. The Catholics, for example.'<BR/><BR/>actually many if not most denominations are starting to accept this view simply because inthe last ten years or so several historical and lanquage scholars have shed alot of light on this. Google Al Maxey, a NT lanquage scholar, he has some interesting debates on this topic that pits the views head to head, it also exposes the weakness of the catholic position.<BR/><BR/>'So, first I want to know WHICH Christian denomination has the correct interpretation.'<BR/><BR/>All and none. It may vary between churches but Protestantism is reliant primarily on faith. Any matter of doctrine is secondary to this idea. So while it may seem big to you, faith plows the field of many disagreements.<BR/><BR/>'You all argue it out amongst yourselves, and when you come to a consensus, let me know.'<BR/><BR/>Again the original position is what I stated previously. The catholics had the view as well until about 4-500 years ago at the council of Trent. Then it all changed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-55212274935508454532007-05-07T13:36:00.000-07:002007-05-07T13:36:00.000-07:00But this is merely your interpretation. Other Chr...But this is merely your interpretation. Other Christian denominations interpret this differently. The Catholics, for example.<BR/><BR/>So, first I want to know WHICH Christian denomination has the correct interpretation. <BR/><BR/>You all argue it out amongst yourselves, and when you come to a consensus, let me know.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-8072933478566327212007-05-07T13:29:00.000-07:002007-05-07T13:29:00.000-07:00I think your understanding of these passages is ab...I think your understanding of these passages is abit how shall I say it'muddled'. <BR/><BR/>The adultery is only in the divorce not in the marriage after. The tense is present and past tense. Paul also says' If you are bound to a wife seek not to be loosed, if you are loosed from a wife seek not to be bound but if you do marry you have not sinned'. <BR/><BR/>The adultery is a breaking of a covenant not a sexual act. This word is used throughout the bible in places like 'They commited adultery with sticks and stone' and idols.<BR/><BR/>Obviously they didn't ahve sex with sticks and stones.<BR/><BR/>Likewise what is repentance? It's not doing an action again. According to Deut, a divorce clearly ends a marriage. One cannot sin against a marriage that doesn't exist. One cannot get a divorce to fix a divorce. That isn't logical. Your breaking yet another covenant. The RCC screwed this up about 450 years ago. Up to this time they went with the above but wanted to 'return marriage to it's origin.'<BR/><BR/>Just some commentary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-48439664008777466822007-05-03T07:58:00.000-07:002007-05-03T07:58:00.000-07:00Hi Michael, sorry to hear about the problems you'v...Hi Michael, sorry to hear about the problems you've had in your life.<BR/><BR/>Oddly enough, I have an Islamic friend who says that he was saved from a life of pain through Islam and the teachings of Muhammad. He feels truly blessed now, and knows he's going to Heaven. He's also absolutely certain that Christians are destined for (Islamic) Hell due to their sins of Heresy and Blasphemy.<BR/><BR/>I've a question. You would admit, I'm sure, that at least some of your friends or loved ones won't make it to Heaven. When you arrive in Heaven without them, <A HREF="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2007/04/heaven-full-of-sorrow.html" REL="nofollow">how will you deal with the knowledge that they're being tortured in Hell while you're having fun in Heaven?</A> Won't you feel pain and anguish over their suffering?<BR/><BR/>Hope you stick around and read more of my blog. Thanks for commenting!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-36476679200003746032007-05-03T02:47:00.000-07:002007-05-03T02:47:00.000-07:00About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – fo...About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].<BR/><BR/>Peace Be With You<BR/>MickyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940745178193985942noreply@blogger.com