|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 21, 2014 17:52:33 GMT -5
I said "trivial and non-trivial." Non-trivial is abuse, infidelity etc.. Trivial is boredom, change of life-style etc.. You are not reading all my words. A friend of ours, married for many years, was recently divorced. A man came to her house one day with a new washing machine. She hadn't ordered a new washing machine! The man said it was for her husband. But oh wait... wrong address. So this happless lady followed the van to the new address, and met her husband's other wife. That's a good ground for divorce, no? Bert, you still have no answered the question of why divorce & re-marriage is allowed in some places in the "fellowship" but not others ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 18:01:27 GMT -5
I can't answer that question in detail - I am not aware of the situation. But I can answer in principle: Jesus said remarriage was "adultery" but He didn't provide a response to it. Meaning - it was up to the powers-that-be to determine that response. No?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 21, 2014 18:25:09 GMT -5
I can't answer that question in detail - I am not aware of the situation. But I can answer in principle: Jesus said remarriage was "adultery" but He didn't provide a response to it. Meaning - it was up to the powers-that-be to determine that response. No? What amazes me is that anyone would seek to keep D&R folks from church services and full participation. Jesus didn't say one word about that did he? Didn't he say to the lady caught in the very act, was to go and sin no more? Well if she was forgiven by the Master and was made free of what she had been accused of, her only instruction wat to go and sin no more. Fact Jesus told her after he'd asked her where her accusers were and she said none stayed to accuse her...he told her that he didn't accuse her either! This seems to be somewhat a cross purpose to those who think Jesus is going to throw the books at the adulterers now doesn't it? Didn't Jesus' instructions to the men who'd brought the woman before Jesus tell them that whoever was without sin should be the first to cast the first stone at her. None could do that...they left, the elder before the younger I think we need to keep in mind, that every divorce and remarriage must be considered individually and even then this must be done by the righteous and just Judge, eh>? It is said often that every sin is forgiveable except one and that one is the blasphemy of the HOly Spirit. The ONE example we have of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is when the Pharisees and scribes and priests etc. accused Jesus of casting out devils in the name of Beezlebub! Otherwords they were saying Jesus had a bad spirit....Jesus had the Holy Spirit without measure, so for anyone to say anything negative or derogative about Jesus' spirit would be blaspheming the Holy Spirit, no?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 21, 2014 18:33:01 GMT -5
I can't answer that question in detail - I am not aware of the situation. But I can answer in principle: Jesus said remarriage was "adultery" but He didn't provide a response to it. Meaning - it was up to the powers-that-be to determine that response. No? Of course you cannot answer the question ! Because it proves that there are a lot of "mans ideas" in the Fellowship ! No Bert it is not up to the powers-that-be to determine, it is between the person involved & God .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 18:36:34 GMT -5
Okay, that could be so. But a lot of scripture concerns itself with what the CHURCH'S response should be. ie a person might commit a heinous crime and tell their church they "have been forgiven by God." That might or might not be the case, but in any case, the Church has to take a public position on the matter. Just read the CSA issues here....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 18:38:38 GMT -5
I can't answer that question in detail - I am not aware of the situation. But I can answer in principle: Jesus said remarriage was "adultery" but He didn't provide a response to it. Meaning - it was up to the powers-that-be to determine that response. No? Of course you cannot answer the question ! Because it proves that there are a lot of "mans ideas" in the Fellowship ! No Bert it is not up to the powers-that-be to determine, it is between the person involved & God . they wouldn't be very good servants if they allow the flock to be destroyed now would they?
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Nov 21, 2014 19:26:32 GMT -5
Having long hair and wearing it "up" has been a constant standard preached as long as I can remember, but never heard anything about denim skirts.
Does anyone know what is meant in the bible (did Paul say it?) by the long hair being a "covering" for women? What exactly is is it supposed to cover? The scalp, the neck, the body? If only the scalp, as when long hair is worn up, couldn't women have short hair like men are allowed to? If the neck, then shoulder length hair should be worn down rather than up. If body, then long hair should be worn down. In none of the three scenarios can I see the need for long hair worn up, so that doesn't seem like a biblical policy.
The quote about girls looking like the sister workers and guys having the spirit of the brother workers is such a sad distinction.
Of course mental health is affected by rules. Very basic concept.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 21, 2014 19:35:34 GMT -5
Fortunately there is a proven cure for this particular mental illness. A cure that has no negative side effects and won't prevent you driving or operating heavy machinery. The cure is to just quit believing. Quit believing that the bible is the word of god. Quit believing that god loves you and cares for you when it's blatantly obvious that he doesn't. Quit believing in virgin births and talking serpents and wives turning into pillars of salt and other absurd nonsense. Quit believing that ancient camel herding men have any monopoly on truth. Quit believing in heaven and hell and in ghosts and gods and hobgoblins. Just quit believing irrespective of whether you're a deep thinker or not. Matt10 The question is whether one can will themselves to believe or not believe. I could not will myself to believe in a paranormal being. I could not will myself to believe that evolution is false. I don't know that "will" is quite the right word here. I think, however, that one can "choose" to believe in a paranormal being. One can "choose" to believe that evolution is false. It's a matter of choosing to focus on things that support cherished beliefs, ignoring the things that might challenge them. We all do this kind of thing over and over in life, whether we are particularly aware of it or not. To my mind, all the beliefs we have are either inherited or chosen. Mostly chosen, unless we are very young, very busy, or very damaged. There is a certain point where even inherited beliefs become "chosen", unless we actively reject them or consciously acknowledge that we simply do not know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 19:37:13 GMT -5
Hebrews 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
We are all going to dress like someone. Obviously, someone we prefer. We don't dress just for covering - we all want to make that Statement about who we are. This is well understood by any student of psychology.
So a woman can dress like Angela Jolie with her vampire-inspired outfits and a vial of blood, or Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball, or emulate a woman preaching the Gospel. Your choice - but you aint going to create your own fashions. Don't kid yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 21, 2014 19:37:44 GMT -5
Okay, that could be so. But a lot of scripture concerns itself with what the CHURCH'S response should be. ie a person might commit a heinous crime and tell their church they "have been forgiven by God." That might or might not be the case, but in any case, the Church has to take a public position on the matter. Just read the CSA issues here.... Bert I think we have established that the Church's response as far as "The Fellowship" goes varies so much from country to country & state to state. Live in Australia & the church's response to D&R is No, live in parts of USA and the Church's response will be its ok !! The Fellowship doesn't take a public position on anything IMO, just look at the amount of people that want CSA issues resolved but it hasn't happened ( Maja's letter for example) they just keep moving the offenders & covering it up ! But meanwhile if you are divorced you are stopped from taking part in meeting !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 19:54:12 GMT -5
I understand. What SHOULD a church's position be, given that Jesus said remarriage is adultery? What standard SHOULD a church show?
ps I know of a few divorced people speaking in meetings today in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2014 19:56:51 GMT -5
Of course mental health is affected by rules. Very basic concept. As basic as the 'known' fact that you will catch cold if you go outside in the winter with wet hair.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 21, 2014 19:59:58 GMT -5
Hebrews 13:17 " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." We are all going to dress like someone. Obviously, someone we prefer. We don't dress just for covering - we all want to make that Statement about who we are. This is well understood by any student of psychology.
So a woman can dress like Angela Jolie with her vampire-inspired outfits and a vial of blood, or Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball, or emulate a woman preaching the Gospel. Your choice - but you aint going to create your own fashions. Don't kid yourself.
I am not professing. I have a television, usually tuned to a news channel or a movie channel. I have never seen Angela (sic) Jolie in a vampire outfit nor Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball. What are you watching that I am not? Or what are you searching for on the internet that I have not? And why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 20:01:52 GMT -5
Quote - "Mental health is affected by rules." Depends. Why has mental health issues gone through the roof in Western countries? No rules.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2014 20:05:09 GMT -5
Quote - "Mental health is affected by rules." Depends. Why has mental health issues gone through the roof in Western countries? No rules. Because families are no longer allowed to lock Aunt Sally up in the attic. And the state does not accept very many people as wards of the state. So more and more show up as patients.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 20:07:16 GMT -5
Quote - "I am not professing. I have a television, usually tuned to a news channel or a movie channel. I have never seen Angela (sic) Jolie in a vampire outfit nor Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball. What are you watching that I am not? Or what are you searching for on the internet that I have not? And why?" If you follow the news, it's all there.
ps personally my interest is reading Geek science stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 21, 2014 20:09:21 GMT -5
Quote - "Mental health is affected by rules." Depends. Why has mental health issues gone through the roof in Western countries? No rules. Because families are no longer allowed to lock Aunt Sally up in the attic. And the state does not accept very many people as wards of the state. So more and more show up as patients. Oh, great -thanks a lot, Rats. Now I'm going to have to explain this to Aunt Sally and take away her internet access.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 20:15:09 GMT -5
There are always Aunt Sally's out there - whether in the attic or an institution. But now there are a lot MORE Aunty Sally's. 51% in USA, I believe. Main factors 1 - family breakdown 2 - social breakdown Depression, for instance, is rare to non-existent in tribal societies. In these societies there is little privacy and lots of rules. Sounds a bit like my church.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 21, 2014 20:56:15 GMT -5
I understand. What SHOULD a church's position be, given that Jesus said remarriage is adultery? What standard SHOULD a church show? ps I know of a few divorced people speaking in meetings today in Australia. Matthew 19:1-12New International Version (NIV) Divorce 19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Well to start with the Church's position should be the same the world over, if it is the same church/fellowship. What did Jesus say before he spoke about remarriage ? Except for fornication or sexual immorality. Everyone likes the forget those words & just quote "anyone who divorces their wife & re-marries commits adultery !
As to the divorced people taking part in meeting in Australia that you know, who are they related to ! We all know that if you are related to certain workers/overseers they look the other way !
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 21, 2014 21:08:42 GMT -5
Sorry about the red, not sure what happened
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 21:09:45 GMT -5
Quote - "Well to start with the Church's position should be the same the world over, if it is the same church/fellowship. What did Jesus say before he spoke about remarriage ? Except for fornication or sexual immorality. Everyone likes the forget those words & just quote "anyone who divorces their wife & re-marries commits adultery !
As to the divorced people taking part in meeting in Australia that you know, who are they related to ! We all know that if you are related to certain workers/overseers they look the other way !"
Yes and no. Like lots of other issues! Churches DO vary area to area, just as they did in biblical times. But on core issues, where the scriptural example or commandment is clear - there is little variation. EVERY church leader accepts Jesus' position on re-marriage. But Jesus didn't say what to do about it. I certainly hope people take on board the circumstances. I know one person who's partner walked out of a meeting, taking the kids with them, and got remarried. That person is now married again. Personally I wouldn't have done that - doesn't look good.
Regards divorced people. Those I know are not related to Workers. That's conspiracy theory stuff.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 21, 2014 21:09:53 GMT -5
"Just the facts, Ma'm." Divorce IS easier now than ever. The irony, particularly with people who for various reasons (trivial and non-trivial) want a divorce for some emotional reason, will increasingly find that re-marriage will offer no new emotional support because the very notion of marriage has been undermined. I have often felt that if I was divorced I wouldn't want to remarry because young people who want to get married will see me as yet another proof that marriage doesn't really mean a whole lot anymore. So my "gain" in re-marriage would come at a "loss" (albeit micro, but multiplied by others) to those who want to get married, or stay married. Oh, Bert, that just brings a tear to my eye!
How self-sacrificing you are to suffer so! So concerned that about young people!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 21:13:21 GMT -5
Quote - Oh, Bert, that just brings a tear to my eye! How self-sacrificing you are to suffer so! So concerned that about young people! " Do YOU ever see someone doing something you don't necessarily agree with?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 21, 2014 21:37:07 GMT -5
Quote - "Well to start with the Church's position should be the same the world over, if it is the same church/fellowship. What did Jesus say before he spoke about remarriage ? Except for fornication or sexual immorality. Everyone likes the forget those words & just quote "anyone who divorces their wife & re-marries commits adultery ! As to the divorced people taking part in meeting in Australia that you know, who are they related to ! We all know that if you are related to certain workers/overseers they look the other way !" Yes and no. Like lots of other issues! Churches DO vary area to area, just as they did in biblical times. But on core issues, where the scriptural example or commandment is clear - there is little variation. EVERY church leader accepts Jesus' position on re-marriage. But Jesus didn't say what to do about it. I certainly hope people take on board the circumstances. I know one person who's partner walked out of a meeting, taking the kids with them, and got remarried. That person is now married again. Personally I wouldn't have done that - doesn't look good.
1: Bert you really don't "get it" do you ! You wouldn't have done that -doesn't look good ! Wow is all I can say ! Unless you were in that person's situation you have NO idea what you would do ! As to saying " doesn't look good" is that your main concern how it looks to others ? Have you forgot that God see all !
"Don't judge another man until YOU have walked a mile in his shoes"
I believe that even on core issues we have proved that "The fellowship" varies so much it is ridiculous !
Regards divorced people. Those I know are not related to Workers. That's conspiracy theory stuff.
2: Bert I know this for a fact no conspiracy theory ! I am in Australia remember !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 21:48:03 GMT -5
I won't mention names, but two people who attended my meetings are divorced, both are professing. Both people had their partners leave them. One had to stop speaking for a while, the other did not. Now I don't know why there were different outcomes - neither was related to any Worker. I don't buy that argument. Until I read your posts I hadn't even connected these two people as they were generations apart. I am not privy to all the details of the case. But I guess different situations lead to different outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2014 2:35:48 GMT -5
I won't mention names, but two people who attended my meetings are divorced, both are professing. Both people had their partners leave them. One had to stop speaking for a while, the other did not.Now I don't know why there were different outcomes - neither was related to any Worker. I don't buy that argument. Until I read your posts I hadn't even connected these two people as they were generations apart. I am not privy to all the details of the case. But I guess different situations lead to different outcomes. Is one a man and one a woman?
Is it the woman that had to stop speaking for a while, but the man did not?
If so, that explains it completely !
Happens all the time!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2014 4:16:47 GMT -5
I won't mention names, but two people who attended my meetings are divorced, both are professing. Both people had their partners leave them. One had to stop speaking for a while, the other did not.Now I don't know why there were different outcomes - neither was related to any Worker. I don't buy that argument. Until I read your posts I hadn't even connected these two people as they were generations apart. I am not privy to all the details of the case. But I guess different situations lead to different outcomes. Is one a man and one a woman?
Is it the woman that had to stop speaking for a while, but the man did not?
If so, that explains it completely !
Happens all the time!
well well we have divorced women in our meetings who have never stopped giving testimony in morning meeting
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 22, 2014 6:13:47 GMT -5
Well Virgo in NSW & QLD if you are divorced you are not allowed to take part in meeting ! Again it proves the inconsistency of the fellowship !
|
|