₦airaland Forum

Back to the topic everyone!

babyosisi:
Personally,I would be terrified to take back a spouse who has committed adultery because of AIDS,Syphyllis,HepB and C and other diseases and not because it is biblical grounds for divorce.

Exactly as I stated on the other thread!  I can only seperate from my wife (not necessarily divorce) because I don't want her to transfer diseases to me (if at all she's got any), and not because I cannot forgive her.

That was a great post you made there by the way.

Yes, though there's only one Supreme God.

Have you gone to the school? Maybe when you show up in person, they'll take you seriously. They probably get hundreds of complaints everyday, that yours may be inconsequential to them.

I wish you the best anyway. Good luck!

You gotta pester these people harder.  Interactive session is just in 4 days!

Good luck!

Now they're 11 people, oh lawd!

Thor,

If I may ask, which/what God do you believe in?

It's okay.

You're blessed.

I know that, and that's why I have not quoted the scriptures so far.  Besides, I am not judging anyone here.

I believe (as I stated above) that the thread starter was only asking for clarification on the meaning of the words that she's taking as antonyms, even though they are clearly synonyms; and anyone with a sound knowledge of the English language will agree with me here.  This is why I am surprised that 8 other people too follow this line of reasoning, because as I stated, this is simple English that I do not even expect us to be arguing about.

The whole argument started here actually, but I decided to move my post here to avoid derailing the thread.

You're welcome by the way.

All glory be to God.

BTW, who the hell are the 9 people that voted 'NO'? Una no sabi simple English?

I believe the issue at hand is about the meanings of these words.  No more, no less.  trini_girl has made us to realise that she acknowledges the fact that fornication is a sin, but it's not the same thing as premarital sex, which makes premarital sex no sin; so there really isn't any essence of preaching to her now.  Obviously, her problem here is about the interpretation and usage of the words.  It's all about the grammar.  And a good job has been done so far by some contributors here to prove that premarital sex is the same thing as fornication, grammatically.  That being said, if trini_girl still decides to stick to what she read from some website or some book, and pays no attention to these truths that are as clear as the daylight, staring right at her in the face, then all I can say is:  May God help her get out of this illusion.

I responded already.

Radiant, I'm as calm as a dove.

windywendy:
@ Goodguy, what Jesus said is clear. He is neither justifying adultery nor divorce. Look at the NIV version of Matt.5:31:

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

It's clear. Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adultress. I mean think about it this way, if she wasn't unfaithful maritally, then she wasn't an adultress in the first place. But if she was already unfaithful maritally (i.e was already sleeping with another man while married to the husband) she was already an adultress. So it's not the divorce that makes her an adultress because she already is . So if the husband divorces her, he does not make her an adultress. I believe that's why Jesus made the exception in that passage.

Exactly! Therefore, that passage does not talk about Jesus 'permitting' divorce, not even on the grounds of adultery. But that the man himself is totally free of sin if he divorces her on that basis, since it was regarded a sin to divorce in the first place so far it wasn't due to some illicit affairs by the other party.

Simply, it's like this:

"You're free of guilt if the basis of your divorce is on adultery. But I am not saying you should divorce your wife if she's an adulteress", Jesus said.

I've moved my post to the right thread. I'll respond to you there.

There are actually no grounds for divorce, Biblically.

I believe every Christian bases their justification of divorce on Matt 5:32.  But a proper scrutiny of that text shows that Jesus was actually not justifying divorce, but was simply against adultery. 

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."  (Matt 5:32, KJV)

"But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."  (Matt 5:32, RSV)

Those underlined words are what confuse people, thereby making them interprete the verse completely out of context.

Before I try explaining what Jesus meant here, note that adultery has always been frowned upon, and divorce allowed even right from the days of Moses (Deut 24:1); and Jesus himself acknowledged that in verse 31 of that text.

But in verse 32, it does seem like Jesus was 'permitting' divorce (not commanding it though) if one partner is caught in the act of adultery.  But was he really?  We'll find out now.

Since Jesus himself frowns on adultery (Matt 5:27-28), it therefore implies that his message actually is (paraphrasing now):

"Every one who divorces his wife, makes her an adulteress and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  You only become innocent of this offense (. . of making someone else commit sin), if and only if it was on the grounds of adultery that you divorced her, afterall, she was already committing the sin itself before you left her anyway."

Here, Jesus is saying that the only situation in which divorce and remarriage are possible, without breaking the seventh commandment, is when it has already been broken by some serious sexual sin.  Clearly, he was against adultery, and adultery alone, and was in no way advocating divorce.

This is a correction to the widely misinterpreted statement of Jesus that "one is free to divorce if one finds one's partner guilty of adultery".  No, this is not what Jesus was saying.  If Jesus actually meant this, then he would be contradicting himself in Mark 10:2-6,9:

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.  And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?  And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.  And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. . . What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The two links below explain my position better.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/grounds.htm
http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/vanderet/1090.html

I am open to corrections anyway.

Actually, you didnt start the talk about God. Windywendy did.

ThiefOfHearts:
Ok cool no grounds for divorce. Let him take our place in a marriage where there might be domestic abuse or a cheating STD infected gnome.

Well, the scriptures quoted above are not my words, apparently.


God bless.

Analysing that text itself, how do you expect Jesus to say divorce is justified only on the grounds of adultery, and then go ahead to say, "it makes her an adulteress". Does it even make sense to you? 'Cuz it doesn't to me.

Did you even bother to read the explanation of the text?   I even provided that version you quoted just for the sake of clarity.

Modified: Post moved here.

No one in their right senses will cheat on their spouse after being forgiven.

ThiefOfHearts:
They seem to forget that infidelity/adultery is actually grounds for divorce, wendy.

But it is not a commandment.  The Bible is more like:  "If you can't handle it, you're justified to leave.  But if you can work it out, good luck!"

windywendy:
I don't think so. You certainly don't kill someone you love. I mean your statement is just riddled with contradiction. How can you CHEAT on someone you love The word Cheat doesn't go with love

People cheat out of covetousness, hoping their partners do not find out. As far as the partner does not find out, the cheater is cool with it. I do not think anyone will cheat to intentionally "kill" the partner. The "murder" only takes place when the cat is let out of the bag. So you see, they really do love their partners, and that's why they'll do almost anything to keep it secret so that their partner is not "killed" on finding out.

The reason you gave is also applicable anyway. But then, possibilities should not be limited to only one side of an issue.

windywendy:
I made a commitment to the Husband at the altar

And I want to believe a part of that commitment says, "Till death do us apart", and not "Till cheating do us apart".

windywendy:
afterall it's still the same loveable person in that body.

Yeah, just like it's still the same loveable man that only made a costly mistake.   (okay, okay you say it isn't a mistake, I hear you! )

But seriously, are you aware that men that cheat on their wives really do love their wives so dearly?  Why do you think they try as much as possible to keep their infedility a secret from their wives, and will do almost anything to prevent their wives from knowing about their illicit affairs?  Do you also know that men that cheat tend to guard their wives more jealously from 'predators' than other normal men?  Most men do not cheat on their wives because they no longer love them, most actually do out of covetousness.

May God help you!

dapper: mEHN!!!!i can see beein soo close to the united states has jazzed your brain!!!!im half nigerian,and i think there is really no point to your arguing!!!!!then again your proli not a christain!!because if u were i have to ask wot church u go to, because your preacher should be shot dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote author=trini_girl]I am reviewing the only sensible submission to this thread in opposition to my position regarding the Hebrew and Greek root meaning of the word fornication.[/quote]So are you now convinced that premarital sex = fornication?

Where's IAH, prettyH, scorpio and ocho?

I also used to enjoy this guy's post - CimonJorr, where's he?

Anyone remembers thelastdon, that crazy guy?

Advin, you're welcome my son.

Okay, okay people.  Everybody should calm down.

@ trini_girl,

I believe you started this thread to hear our opinions on this topic, and not for you to force your belief down our throat.

Please read the article I provided earlier (yeah, the one you accused me of plagiarising ) with an unbiased mind.  You will see that it deals with the various meanings of the word "fornication" in various languages.  Whilst it agrees with your own greek version of the word, it also explains that the word indeed was used in other languages and can also mean different things in these languages, even as used in the Bible.  

It will be totally partisan of you to shut your eyes and mind to these other explanations in the article, and only pay a close attention to that which you want to believe in - the one that suits your position obviously.

Note that no one here disputed the fact that fornication means "sleeping with prostitutes" as you've explained to us.  In this regard, you should also be able to listen to our explanation that fornication does not only mean that which you told us, but that it also has other meanings depending on the context in which it is used, of which "Premarital sex" is majorly one of them.

Please read that article open-mindedly, and elighten yourself more.

God bless you.   (. . and no, I'm not being sanctimonious ).

mrpataki:
I never knew that all the while thanks for the knowledge shared.

Hey bro, I was only kidding with that.  I was being sarcastic, actually.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg811386#msg811386 date=1168542642]@ goodguy

Plagiarism at it's worst,  please ,  I have no time to read 3000 word posts ,  please make a point.

Ok , I read it , where are the facts to back up this article u plagiarised?[/quote]Do you know the meaning of the word you're using at all?  I cited the source of that article.  That is in no way, plagiarism, woman!


[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg811443#msg811443 date=1168544186]so far, the only indulgent argument here is the one plagiarised by the virgin goodguy. But I doubt he even understands what it means , mr copy and paste.

But thanks for taking the time and effort to google the subject to try and contribute some intelligent matter.[/quote]I did not plagiarise that article.  Afterall, I didn't claim it was mine.  I copied, pasted, and provided the link to the article just to help you get out of that close-minded reasoning of yours.

You doubt if I understand what the article means?  You really think you're the only one with brains on Nairaland?  Conceit - not good at all at all.

@ trini girl

Even the reputable Answers.com recognises the fact that the verb, Fornicate, has only one meaning: "have sex without being married".

Educate yourself:  http://www.answers.com/topic/fornication


You can also check this link for the various meanings of the word, and see how pre-marital sex is a major synonym:

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/fornication-meaning.html


[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg811355#msg811355 date=1168541940]What the hell are you saying, you're rambling , I hate rambling it gives me headaches ,  [/quote]Just incase you didn't know, the word, "ramble" was derived from the greek word, "rambo", which means, "to speak the truth". Don't mind/believe those 'biased' lexicographers that have manipulated the whole thing to suit their needs. What you think is the meaning of the word is not the true real root meaning at all.