₦airaland Forum

...hmmmm. This garri drinking party urgently requires a sandman. Let me get my my bucket. I'll be right back!

...Ideye Brown ; The case Against affirmative action !

debrief08: Same old same old hypocrisy.
Off course now she is dead we can curse out the man.
Had she chosen to leave earlier we would have abused her and tagged her a divorcee, a failure at marriage, a woman who can't "keep" her home.
We would have told her to be more tolerant, asked her what she was doing wrong, told her to dress better, told her to "stay for the kids" same kids who are now scared of marriage.
Spare me the curses, when a woman dies abused we pity her and curse the man, when she walks and chooses to live instead we curse her out.
Have fun, support her now she is dead, enjoy "cursing' him out as if it would help.
Am sure some would have even said Cancer was her "punishment" for leaving him eventually, had she lived.
Please spare yourselves the hypocrisy, we can only "understand" because she is dead.
If she was alive, and came here 90 percent would have told her to stay, it would have broken into a war of curses to those who ask her to put her life first.

…do you ever ponder as you think or think before you give utterance?

A woman has died – and a most excruciating death at that.

And apart from passing in such a painful manner, the one person she should rightly have expected to provide comfort and offer support not only abandoned her, not just played her for a fool, but seemed to be willing her demise. And dying, believing that the four children she bought into the world are all but fatherless in name only. Effectively orphans.

And do you show any empathy? Especially as one who by her own account has cause to say “there but for the grace of God go I". As a mother of children or simply as a woman. Do you spare even a modicum of sympathy, or the merest thought of pity? Alluding perhaps to mercy & peace in rest as a benediction. Pausing on the loss and/or well-being of the loved ones she left behind? Or perhaps simply hold your peace – as decency would demand - if you have nothing but harsh cant to offer?

No true to form, in your blind and unrelenting pursuit to erect an altar to divorce, you sinks to a new low. You calumnise Nigerian men, slander Nigerian women and mock their unions. And now you despise the untimely demise of a sister, seeing not a tragic situation, but an opportunity to “self-justify” and enliven the campaign keep your divorce bandwagon rolling.

Never mind that you’ve sold it as God’s failure, your husband’ failure, your fathers failure, your mothers failure and even your siblings failure. Regardless of the fact that you’ve implicated, the elders in your church, the congregation, neighbours, everyone but yourself. Because in truth, marriages don’t fail. People do. You did.

Kindly focus on getting over it. There’s healing available. Campaigning amongst men does not effect peace with God – or even within yourself it appears. The gall is all too evident, the bitterness is palpable. Your efforts to justify yourself are certainly zealous, but unfortunately misguided. No matter how many cohorts you have, how many acolytes you gather, how many marriages you help steer on the path to ruin, or how much you succeed in your efforts to normalise “divorce”, marriage remains a divinely blessed union, instituted by God, and divorce a fail and a tragedy.

Your cause and your campaign are not merely unjust, but positively evil. Some of us are not fooled by “recharge card largesse” and publicity seeking dash.

Can’t you see? It’s searing your conscience. Please cover your shame, rather than glory in it and continue to plumb new depths of wickedness.


RIP Sister Yetunde.

May the God of all consolation comfort the bereaved.

TV

@ WhyMe222, good evening my brother,

Your post literally moved me beyond words. So much so, that I had to write, if only to comfort you and wish you well.
You are undoubtedly torn and in great despair. I hold marriage sacred, and would not wish your experience on the vilest of people.

I realise that right now you are raw and hurting, rewinding and playing back events in your head, reviewing the evidence, looking for fault, ascribing blame, feeling utterly betrayed. It must be torture.

As painful as this obviously is, I am heartened by your desire to forgive your wife and restore your union. We all know what the default position is – especially for African men. It was likewise my position. But in coming to and growing in Christ I am fully persuaded that forgiveness and restoration are available and would be a wonderful thing.

You have persevered for at least 6 months. You know why? There was great hope and expectation when the two of you wed. You were both committed, loving and you have a precious daughter. Even now you declare your love. Sir, please believe that both hope and joy are still possible.

Your wife has shown remorse, if this is genuine, please continue to seek forgiveness, healing, reconciliation and restoration.

You need to be prayerful – the both of you - if you are a Christian. Get deeper into your faith, closer to God. One should enter marriage with a sacrificial mindset, and although sacrifice is not always required, I urge you to make a very big – but worthy – one in this instance.

She needs to be utterly open and honest and totally re-committed to her husband, daughter and home. The betrayal was manifold. She needs to be humble and penitent.

But you have to communicate through all of this – intensely. Perhaps you could find time alone, just the two of you. Talk, talk, talk. Discuss, discuss, discuss. You need to have this out fully.

Be clear on your desires and expectations. As a man and as faithful and committed, you need to know why? Continue to show the admirable qualities you have thus far. Be angry, rage even, but remain restrained. You have done so in your hurt and also held your tongue, that is thoroughly commendable. You have been wise to not spread this abroad. Whilst you will get to the point of forgiveness, others may not forget.

Did you miss something, was it truly a mistake or is your wife simply wayward. Even waywardness can be repented of. You both need to be clear on what’s at stake and where you stand. Trust needs to be rebuilt. That takes time and commitment from the both of you.

Having said that, if it proves too much and you feel you must unburden yourself, choose wisely. Someone mature and god-fearing who will respect your privacy.

As for the man in question; Your wife needs to be away from him. And as soon as is conveniently possible. He is not a family friend. He never was. Utterly expunge him.

You have rightfully bourne your daughters well-being in mind. Please continue to do so. I believe you know the resolution that is in her best interest.

Once again I commend the character you have shown and your pursuit of a non selfish outcome. Marriage is worth fighting for, worth persevering through the difficult times.

Please be strong, you will surely make it through this by the tender mercies and unyielding grace of God. May He restore you to overflowing.

God bless
TV

...this old thread may be a useful reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/30552/church-structure-sole-authority-pastors

Best
TV

Kay 17: Pls refer me to the verses in the bible that abolished slavery. Also tell how the Slavery in the Roman World, wasn't as horrific as Trans altantic slave trade?

Please refer me to the verses in the Bible that instituted slavery. The difference between slavery in ancient Rome and the trans-atlantic trade has been clearly depicted on this thread.

As has the the overarching message of the Bible and the relevant understanding of Gods redemptive plan for mankind and how it would effectively eliminate personal and societal ills.

And, it is worth mentioning again, the intellectual dishonesty of trying to justify or parallel slavery with homosexuality.

Please show us anything in the OT that was termed an abomination, that was repealed in the NT without being specifically mentioned.

And please apply some thought of your own, this is becoming a bit tedious.

Best
TV

amdatam: @TV01

Thank you for making attempts to answer the question.

You are welcome. However, "I did not make an attempt", I fully answered the question. I cannot be held responsible for your failure to comprehend.

amdatam: Sorry, if you felt being put on the spot

Apologies are not necessary. I like to keep the discussion about principles, not persons. I was merely trying to forestall that happening. The integrity of my posts and my position preclude my being "put on the spot" in this instance.

amdatam: I suppose "If anyone I know or is related to me comes out “as gay”, my response would be as if they were a complete stranger – i.e., the same is or was your answer if sibling(s) or child(ren) was gay

Whatever this ". . . my response would be as if they were a complete stranger. i.e. the same" means. You didn't in no uncertain terms give a clear and direct answer

The response was clear complete and direct. I'll break it down into bite-sized chunks to aid digestion;

I first made it clear that my response would not hinge on kinship.

TV01: If anyone I know or is related to me comes out “as gay”, my response would be as if they were a complete stranger – i.e., the same.

I then went on to outline my two possible responses which would be based on Christian belief - or not as it were.

TV01: For those that do not believe, I would not seek to impose my worldview on them. I shall continue to love and care for them as before, which affection was never based on sexual practice, but on kinship. Am I a hypocrite? Is fornication, adultery and the like unknown amongst my kindred? What of those things I am not even aware of?

TV01: For those that do, I would point out that my reading of scripture demands abstinence from secs outside the marital relationship, which is between 1 man and 1 woman. Again, no forced imposition of my views and if they wanted us to discuss, study and pray about the issue, I would willingly do so.

Hope the above was easily understood. Happy to break it down further if it helps.

I then posed two questions of my own, which you point blank ignored. Even though I was happy to take simple yes/no answers?

TV01: Now let me ask you a few questions, which I trust you will afford me like consideration and respond to. Simple yes/no answers will suffice;

Would you be happy for a son of yours to live a homosexual lifestyle? Even in the type of relationship the site you referenced (yes I visited and yes I read some articles) terms “monogamous non-cultic permanent unions”. Knowing the physical pathologies and psychological damage that will almost certainly result to some degree? Either forego having children, or have children that were not biologically his or his partners. And in any event not have the children’ natural mother play her rightful role in raising them.

Secondly, would you insist that the bible narrative suggests such unions are acceptable, blessed, equivalent to male/female unions and should be promulgated as such in church and in the wider society, with enforcement by legislative decree if required?

amdatam: Well, it was all about exploring your "Adam where art thou" factor; a bit of self discovery and/or self disclosure dabbling, as it were

Happy to explore and discuss freely and be enlightened by anyone at anytime.

amdatam: Trust you read and understood from a previous post, the italics snippet repeated below

"Let's take off the halo for a moment and step aside the holier-than-thou self righteous indignation . . .

So, no halo, not H-T-T, not S-R, not S-I. Just happy to state my position without imposing it on others. I am unequivocal about naming sin as sin. And I am not intimidated by those with opposing views no matter how condescending or arsey - excuse the pun - they happen to be.

amdatam: to without prejudice or a biased mindset, go through these links, selected from the plethora of information off the main web portal to ponder and share thoughts"

I am not in a rush for you to clinically and meticulously go through the link articles.

even if it'll take a year to devour, I am patient and can wait until ALL the linked articles, if not the entire site is read

I will be very pleased to answer yours question(s) after you have carefully and completely read through all the links

and when you are done, it would be a bonus and nice to know where you stand concerning the errancies of bible translations before you pose, if any, more questions

I likewise could ferret out a website with opposing views, point you to a few choice articles, suggest you take a year or so to read and digest, and then return with reformed theology and questions to sit at my feet. Oddly facetious at best. Instead, I posted as follows;

TV01: Happy to discuss anything from the site referenced or any other related issue.

Happy for the exploration and discovery to happen here and now. So if you have anything to offer except anothers self-justifying website, I'm happy to hear it.

Best
TV

What of Frosbel?

amdatam: This question "What you'll do, if your sibling, kid (i.e. child(ren)) etc is gay, turned out gay or comes out gay" ashamedly went unanswered

@amdatam

I have no problems answering your question and indeed, I will do so hereafter. However my response should come as no surprise, as I have always been – and will happily recant where I have not – consistent in my worldview and approach. I’m pretty sure that those that are familiar with my views/posting history would be able to give a fair approximation of my response here. I didn’t want this to get personal. I'd rather we focus on the scriptural narrative and a considered response to situations.

If anyone I know or is related to me comes out “as gay”, my response would be as if they were a complete stranger – i.e., the same. For those that do not believe, I would not seek to impose my worldview on them. I shall continue to love and care for them as before, which affection was never based on sexual practice, but on kinship. Am I a hypocrite? Is fornication, adultery and the like unknown amongst my kindred? What of those things I am not even aware of?

For those that do, I would point out that my reading of scripture demands abstinence from secs outside the marital relationship, which is between 1 man and 1 woman. Again, no forced imposition of my views and if they wanted us to discuss, study and pray about the issue, I would willingly do so.

Now let me ask you a few questions, which I trust you will afford me like consideration and respond to. Simple yes/no answers will suffice;

Would you be happy for a son of yours to live a homosexual lifestyle? Even in the type of relationship the site you referenced (yes I visited and yes I read some articles) terms “monogamous non-cultic permanent unions”. Knowing the physical pathologies and psychological damage that will almost certainly result to some degree? Either forego having children, or have children that were not biologically his or his partners. And in any event not have the children’ natural mother play her rightful role in raising them.

Secondly, would you insist that the bible narrative suggests such unions are acceptable, blessed, equivalent to male/female unions and should be promulgated as such in church and in the wider society, with enforcement by legislative decree if required?

Happy to discuss anything from the site referenced or any other related issue.

Best
TV

Kay 17: Most of TV01's post is unrelated to the OP, all that's relevant is how you explain away slavery as a cultural mess and leave homosexuality.

The OP was a ruse. It was posted in an attempt to marry - excuse the pun- the biblical narrative regards slavery and homosexual practice and suggest that as slavery had ultimately been discontinued, the prohibitions against homosexual acts should likewise be considered outdated. Even as the OP' premise was doomed to fail, it was actually designed to plant the seed of doubt and and raise questions, ultimately making people more receptive to and moving further along the path of acceptance of homosexual acts. Fail!

This was an obvious false dialectic, so I chose not to take the bait.

It would have been infinitely more honest to parallel it with other prohibited sex acts such as incest or bestiality and see if parallels could be drawn there. Slavery was a man made condition from which the bible immediately gave succour and ultimately eradicated. As noted it was nothing like, nor did it justify the trans Atlantic slave trade.

People are happy to piggy back off, and at once belittle the historical suffering of Afro-Americans, in both slavery and the fight for civil rights, in order to push this abominable behaviour. Doubly repugnant

Strangely enough it is the AA that is suffering most from sexual licentiousness and the erosion of the moral fabric in society. It's estimated that 60% of pregnancies (for AA'in New York city) are aborted. 60% of kids are born out of wedlock and more than 1 in two marriages end in divorce - do the math. If such trends persist, soon there will be very few AA families and little or no AA community - not substantively anyway.

God have mercy on us all
TV

Any discussion around homosexuality and the Christian response has to take into account the times we live in. I fully understand the point you are making. And I've been clear that its a logical part of the conversation we are having. However, this has to be considered in light of a number of other factors, particularly the mood at this time.

1. God. His will. His ways – we are not our own to willfully determine who, what and how we worship. Looking for ways to distort His template or alter His eternal plan will not end well. No matter how heartfelt and sincere meaning.

2. Christ. His gospel, His message – we are messengers, ours is not to dilute or sweeten the message; even if we get shot for delivering it. The gospel demands an acknowledgment of sin and repentance from same. Getting people into church doesn’t save them. Getting them to the cross of Christ on the basis of real conviction does

3. The 5th column already within the church – there are those who will re-interpret the scriptural narrative to satisfy those implacably opposed to the message. Where The Lord used the word "divide", they use inclusive. While the Bible talks of vile unnatural act, they talk of inherent natural orientation. Are we to be blind to this? Whom will we believe?

4. The raging contra-ideology without – They will not desist until our message (if not our very presence) is all but eradicated, if not effectively marginalised. They started with “we don’t want to be criminalised for this”, then it was “we just want to be left alone”, that became, “we are entitled to our human rights”, it has now become “you will endorse and celebrate this lifestyle on a par or above your own or else”.

Let me be clear. There are certainly some gay people who are amenable to hearing the gospel. And I have little doubt that God is leading some even now to that place of repentance and healing. But there are a whole load - indeed a very powerful LGBT lobby - that are warring per point 4. I'm not sure they are after or will be receptive to your sympathy.

5. Our children and their godly heritage – if we dilute or corrupt the message, they will be easy prey. Which in one aspect is the whole point of this. They can’t breed, so they must recruit. I always felt the sting of this move was in gay adoption, not SSM.


This conversation is way, way wider than what we have touched on. This is all designed to destroy the family and utterly corrupt society at large. Society has been carpet bombed with sex from literally every angle and it’s all but saturated. To the point we are close to being desensitised - and sex itself almost meaningless. Once sexual morality becomes permissive, ultimately everything will become tolerated and acceptable.

Go to the family section and see them erecting a temple to divorce. Sexual licentiousness is all but winked at, meaning that deviant sex becomes ever more acceptable. Pornography is just out there, eating away at the fabric and norms of sexual morality. Promiscuity is totally acceptable and encouraged. Celebrated even. We are all but resigned to rampant adultery and fornication no longer has real meaning for many in this age.

We’ve decoupled sex and marriage, doing likewise with marriage and children. We have no-fault divorce, readily available contraception and on demand abortion. Co-habitation is now normal.

The family has a significant role to play in Gods eternal plan. The enemy wars earnestly to destroy or distort it and make profane that which is holy. I could go on, but I can't believe that as this plays out people simply don't see it?

Best
TV

@Debosky, evening.

I've distilled your last response into what I believe your main point appears to be? Whilst it is laudable in itself, I think it misses the bigger picture of any discussion around this issue.

debosky: Authority here refers to understanding of the 'condition' in order to adopt a compassionate approach that enables the individual to be reached for Christ. If it's simply pontificating we're interested in then everyone can do that from their armchairs, but that achieves nothing.

debosky: They are not strawmen in my view. Let's give an example - if someone steals out of hunger, the approach to dealing with stealing will differ from someone else who suffers from greed. The nature/root cause of an issue is vital to proper understanding in my view. Take the man that Jesus healed - those around him were regarding his sin as caused by his parents' sin. Not an exact comparison I agree, but I hope you see my point.

debosky: A wrong response can reframe the discussion - if the response paint homosexuals as virtually irredeemable then it is unhelpful if the aim is to reach them for Christ.

debosky: I would not re-think my reading of the bible (which isn't the issue here) but my approach should reflect the how well I understand the 'problem'.

debosky: A compassionate, understanding standpoint - one that seeks to place one's self in the person's shoes in order to best minister to them. Not acceptance of homosexuality in any sense, but definitely not rejection in a manner that is so hostile and vitriolic that it viewed as precluding the possibility of salvation for those involved.

I'll follow up shortly.

Best
TV

amdatam: @TV01
I have been reading you blowing off steam - no offense meant

And none taken

amdatam: and none the wiser, your attitude or stance towards homosexuality as such

Please read again, believe I have been clear. Or at least advise on which specific point you'd like me to clarify.

amdatam: God, please, spare us a burden we are unable to carry or handle . . .

A resounding Amen to that.

amdatam: God forbid, but whatcha gonna do, if you have a sibling, kid etc that is gay, turns out gay or comes out gay?

God forbid indeed
I can only trust God, pray and raise my children as best I can - in His nurture. I want Gods will for them and that is not His will. May He also have mercy on me and mine - and may we not fall foul of His wrath for not glorifying Him or the deception He sends for believing the lie - but receive the love of the Truth, so as to be saved.

amdatam: Your reply can be liberating. Thank you in advance.

True liberty is in Christ, who frees us from sin and asks us not to become slaves of men. But I hope this helps.

God bless
TV

Evening Debosky,

I am by no means denying your right to do so, but it seems your approach to issues is Christian only in a purely academic sense? It often appears to omit God, His word, His will and His ways.

debosky: My issue is thus - how do we deal with the issue of homosexuality in practice? While it is clear there are those that voluntarily engage in homosexuality, there appears to be those who feel they are 'made' that way, or did not 'choose' to be that way. Simply harping on 'design' in those cases isn't helpful.

Scripturally speaking, as practice it cannot be condoned or encouraged, even if those with such inclinations should be treated sympathetically - which I fully understand may have not been the case in the past. The Bible denotes it as clear evidence of Gods wrath (at some point at least).

Practically, it seems that there are a number of factors that may predicate homosexual leanings, but familial and social factors are evidentially key. We should be aware of this and not engender the circumstances for it to flourish. It is historically clear that where it is condoned it proliferates.

As for being made that way, whilst I can't empirically refute that, I can query that supposition. Who can tell exactly how they were born? Who can recall every childhood incident or memory? Causative factors could be forgotten, repressed or be things the individual was not and will never be aware of. That claim has also been made and there is documented evidence of people being delivered from a homosexual lifestyle.

Harping? The conversation has been progressive. It is important to establish facts and terms of reference. After all, someone posted claiming it was natural, a "human right" and anyone against homosexual sex was a bigot. Despite the evidence by design, in nature and through science.

debosky: I am clearly not talking about scriptural authority here - I am referring to those who claim to know the origin and 'cure' for homosexuality with little or no evidence to back up their assertions.

I don't see what other authority Christians have? Whatever knowledge we possess is to some degree indeterminate. However scripture is clear in this case. It's an abomination - a vile affection - a turning away from God and ultimately a sign of Gods judgement. I don't deny the right of unbelievers to reject that. They will ultimately answer to their Creator. As a Christian, intercession is one thing, taking God to task is another.

For a Christian, knowledge of the origins and cure are both strawmen. It's about what the bible says and the response based on that.

debosky: And what extent do congenital factors determine sex-ual inclination? That is an important question that many of those pontificating have yet/unable to examine. For people who have no inkling of what it means to have/struggle with homosexual inclination, it is quite easy to make assertions on cures without understanding the origin.

For congenital read genetic. There is no proven link. And if there was, how would that change our reading of the Bible? Agreed, there can be seemingly little sympathy, even vitriol. A wrong response perhaps, but it does not change the scriptural narrative or re-frame the discussion.

I do not struggle with inclinations towards a number of things God calls sin and lack understanding of others. But I know what the word says about them - and that the cure for all are in Him.

debosky: What classes as design? Is it only the external? Like you said earlier, do the 'congenital factors' not count as design? I'm glad you mentioned deformities - if one is deformed (physically or 'orientationally' due to congenital factors) and hence doesn't fit the 'design' does that then constitute sin?

Design and function have been discussed. Please present something new here or force me to harp. Congenital is de facto genetic for the purpose of this discussion. Unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise. Why focus on outliers or extremes? But I daresay God can glorify Himself in those cases also

debosky: Normality is not the issue being debated - from a Christian perspective, it is whether this aberration is equivalent to sin, taking the origin/source into consideration.

What does the Bible say? What is your reading of it? As the sources may not be clearly explicated in the Bible, if a study claimed 100% certainty that it was genetic/congenital/inherent, would you re-think your reading of it and hence your response?

debosky: Again, for the sake of argument, this is debatable - if the gene was say 'recessive', it wouldn't breed out because it could be 'latent' in one generation and passed on. Besides, I am not advocating for homosexuality from an evolutionary/functional design standpoint, so don't feel a need to rebut.

Exactly what standpoint are you advocating for homosexuality?

debosky: I am not straddling anything - my point is that there appear to be some/many cases of homosexuality that aren't simply a 'self-selected' practice. Call it an aberration, call it a 'deformity', call it whatever you like. The issue is, if the individual has not 'chosen' to be that way, do you treat that as identical to someone else who simply experimented?

If the Bible says something is sinful, unnatural, vile, is that invalidated or cease to be applicable if it's claimed to be "not by choice"?

[quote author=debosky]I am talking about the practicality of dealing with these people, not just an academic debate on whether it's 'normal' or 'by design'.

I believe I have responded to all points here.


God bless
TV

Kay 17: ^^^

You can discuss Love if you wish, however it seems Wilberforce turned a blind eye to the numerous EXPRESS biblical verses that support and promote slavery. And they are quite self-evidential.

I can't see how you"d maintain love and then keep slaves. Because slavery is a destruction of personhood.

You are doing a very good job of making me appear prescient

Kay 17: @TV01

I painstakingly complied the verses in the Bible that supported and promoted slavery.

I disagree. You cut and pasted scripture that touched on slavery/indentured servitude. There was no real contextual or situational analysis. There was no consideration given to Gods eternal plan of redemption. I don't see anything painstaking in that.

Kay 17: @TV01

I'm yet to receive your response on such verses

Sir, I summed up the whole message (not the purpose mind)of the bible for you thus;

The greatest commandment is to love The Lord your God with all your strength, all your heart and all your soul. And your neighbour as yourself. Love does no harm to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I further expantiated on believing and trusting God to work His will in you, how that would ultimately cleanse us individually of all destructive and dysfunctional behaviour, and corporately rid us of all societal ills.

Kay 17: @TV01

and from what angle should they be looked from.

In the light of bigger picture view outlined above. There is no angle required. Although I do find you approach rather obtuse.

More than happy to further discuss the "love" or other aspects if you so desire, but I have nothing further to say regards the biblical position on slavery or sodomy. And I consider efforts to force inaccurate reasoning into one to erroneously justify the other, a complete and utter waste of time.

Also happy to hear any well considered postulations you'd like to put forward; yours or anyone elses.

God bless
TV

debosky: I'm not making any points per se - I simply challenged the ignorance of truthislight's claim that there is 'no evidence of homosexuality in animals'. His argument was that if it was 'natural' we would find it in animals, which we do.

I can't claim to have studied secsual practices in animals, but I would question what is being termed "homosexual" here? Is it really male animals (and vice-versa) purposely shunning females and copulating with other males in the absence of any adverse or abnormal conditions?

There are inmates who only have gay sex when incarcerated; justifying it by the conditions, refusing to acknowledge themselves as homosexuals and not indulging in the behaviour upon release. I't's a practice. Even if it's a preferred one, it's not how we were designed. It is dysfunctional.

I believe I have made the points about nature with regards to behaviour and conduct. And how humans are not subject to or validated by what obtains in the animal kingdom. So that is an erroneous claim. Whoever makes it.

debosky: is - many of those that glibly bandy about advice/opinion are not really knowledgeable about the subject they want to discuss with authority.

Without knowledge perhaps, but not without authority. Scriptural authority. Having read and researched, I can discuss knowledgeably to a degree. If I hadn't and couldn't, I would rest assured in the truth of scripture. Especially on something as glaring as sodomy. Most of the chatter around the legitimacy of homosexual secs is fabricated. Supposed scriptural backing is deceitful butchery at best. It's propaganda.

debosky: The appeal to nature for evidence is not sufficient evidence for either position, but some ignorantly believe the absence of homosexuality in 'nature'/animals confirms the view that homosexuality is wrong - clearly this belief is not true.

There is full corroboration in nature for the "normal sex" position;

1. The obvious functional design and complimentarity of male and female
2. It is fruitful


There is non for the "gay sex position";

1. It occurs in the animal kingdom - Errr so what?
2. It is unproductive - survival of the fittest? Propagation of genes??
3. It is inherent - secsual inclinations are triggered by a number of factors, not necessarily congenital.
4. It is inherent - not a chance. Design plainly denies this. We are all born functionally "Heterosexual" (deformities aside)
5. It is genetic - no genetic link proven. Even this would not make it normal. It remains an abberation.
6. It is pathological - clear evidence of functional misapplication. It results in physical and psychiatric disease.
7. Evolution - none of it - It would be bred out. Indeed, it couldn't even have been bred in.
8. Evolution - no sir, the rectum would have "evolved" the layered muscularity and robustness of the female pudenda.
9. Evolution - still no. Along with the the correct immune response to male sp@rm.

Nature is pretty unequivocal here. You sir appear to be "straddling". Without further detail, I can make no judgement as to that particular practice.

God bless
TV

Kay 17: I think we don't have sufficient understanding on sexuality

Cannard. And sad one at that. Attempting to overlay sexuality on identity? Utterly bogus. Sex is a practice; something we do. It in no way designates our beings or identities, which are glaringly apparent from our inherent design and functionality. Men and women come together to create a recombinant whole for the God glorifying purpose of creation. Whatever practice, fetish or deviancy one holds to, that remains an incontrovertible fact.

How odd is that statement. Its on record that a man attempted sex with "the pavement. Yes 0! The sidewalk. Did you simply imbibe and regurgitate or have you actually thought this through?

Kay 17: what we have is based on gender roles from multiple cultures, hence a confusion.

I'm trying really hard to take your postulations seriously or give any credence to anything you've said. All cultures have done throughout the ages is promulgate the two "gender roles" that were God given. Or "come naturally if you prefer. The odd defect or aberration aside.

Kay 17: It is settled at law, that a sexual identity is inherent to a person and consequentially a human right.

Men can, and do make laws as they see fit. That changes nothing. Please refer to my opening statement in this post. And again, pederasts, those given to zoophillia and any other secsual perversion can make a claim to be inherently predisposed to their deviancy.

True human rights should in truth be based on a few immutable/natural truths. Unfortunately they can be legislated for (or against)if the ideological/political lobby is powerful enough. Hence the erroneous gay rights" notion.

Human law is not necessarily immutable. Sodomy as a crime has only recently been repealed. It's an immutable natural law that homosexuals can't reproduce. Why have they sought to contravene that via adoption? Which l actually believe is a bigger abomination than SSM.

Kay 17: However bible scholars/followers are called upon here to deal with interpretation and its rules.

Au contraire. We are led by the Spirit into all truth. Besides, a literal reading of the Bible is glaringly clear on the illicitness of all sex outside the marital - male/female - union and the fact that homosexual sex is an abomination.

Those trying to interpret otherwise are simply ignorant, incompetent or insidious. There is no gainsaying.

debosky: Settled at law - on the basis of what evidence? Many Christians (e.g. TVO1) don't accept your idea that sexual identity is inherent to a person. Furthermore, no such law is 'settled' in Nigeria for example.

The interpretation of bible scholars is based on the premise that homosexuality is neither inherent nor a human right. The view is that this is a perversion - a departure from 'nature'.

I trust my response speaks to the above also.

debosky: What are you on about? For you to glibly claim there is no evidence of homosexuality in the animal world shows you are highly ignorant about what you are talking about.

I have not tried to educate God, just to point out YOUR ignorance.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

Go and educate yourself and stop ranting. Don't make daft claims that there is no evidence of homosexuality in animals just to defend your position. God does not need your pathetic lies for his Word to remain true.

And what is your point here?

As I've previously stated, nature is not necessarily the determinant of behaviour, and certainly not of morality or conduct.
Matricide and infanticide are common in animals, does this validate it in humans? In normal conditions, are animals given to homosexuality? As opposed to frenzy/abnormal behaviour caused by abnormal conditions.

One further point, 1'000 species is not 1% of the total known species. This hardly qualifies as "universal". Please beware of the idealogical position of your sources.

An appeal to nature is contrary to the "argument for". Homosexuals cannot reproduce, would have been bred out. The rectum is not constructed to accommodate penile penetration or receive sp@rm - which is an immunosuppressant - one of the reasons for the host of pathologies associated with an@l secs. The area is easily - and in the medium to long term irreparably damaged. Is middle-aged men wearing butt-plugs and pampers natural?

God bless
TV

Evening All,

I’ve been following the thread and whilst I’ve been coalescing thoughts and even prepping to post, I’ve not been opportuned to contribute further.

I’d like to respond to a couple of questions posed about my thoughts on the “causality”.

Currently science has not determined that there is a genetic link to homosexual behaviour. No peer-reviewed, critically acclaimed studies have been able to prove this link. Although there have been a few discredited studies making that claim.

However, I will not dismiss a possible genetic/biological cause – even if only in part – for the following reasons;

1. It not having been shown doesn’t mean it does not exist

2. “For honesty’ sake” – as a Christian, I make that very same claim about God. A lack of scientific evidence for His existence, is not sufficient to deny it.

3. I make a claim to personally having encountered God, making the need for scientific affirmation a moot point. Likewise even as the discussion progresses, someone has contributed, saying her inclination in this regard has been with her since as far back as she can remember.

As a Christian, I see sodomy – not the deceitful/reformed word Homosexuality or the re-invention “gay” – as a practice – and an unnatural one. Not an immutable identity (like blackness say), or an innate orientation (like left-handedness). I use those H & G terms in discussions merely to be polite and to give leave to contemporary speech. I am not deceived by those terms.

Regardless of the current cultural view promulgated as ideology by the LGBT lobby, it is not simply and wholly a “natural orientation that people have no power over”. That is no more than a ploy to reduce resistance to it and piggy back of the civil rights movement.

Historically it was closely linked to – so as to be almost indistinguishable from– pederasty (paedophillia). Indeed the LGBT special interest group (SIG), is at a loss and decidedly silent on the homosexual scandals - specifically the child secs abuse - rocking the catholic church. It’s not because the priests are unable to marry (in a traditional sense), it’s normal sodomitic practice. It’s a well known fact that a large number – if not an outright majority – of catholic priests (in the West at least) are homosexually inclined. They could just as easily engaged with each other or rent boys outside the church. Perhaps at some point we’ll move on to discuss the wider spiritual implications of sodomy and all forms of scripturally illicit secs.

Homosexuality was previously on record as a psychiatric disorder, being finally removed in the 70’s due to Lobbying (as have medical terms around the pathologies such as “Gay Bowel Syndrome”).

There is no doubt that early stage trauma (for example secsual abuse), or disruption to the natural order of a childs development can trigger this inclination. That is well researched and documented fact.

Even recently we hear of people deciding to change orientation. One of the women from the SecsInTheCity program recently changed orientation after 15 years in a marriage (not sure if common law or legal) with children. The bombardment by the LBGT lobby has worked in culturally shifting this from being percieved as an unnatural act to a natural feeling, from secs to love. Society will ultimately suffer the consequences if it - no pun intended – swallows this lie.

Even if causality is a spectrum? From natural (even in part) to a simple choice (which we have seen). It doesn’t change my position. Man is a fallen creature. Christians see all dysfunction as a result of this fall – and sin in the world - regardless of origins.

And note this key point; nature is not necessarily a determinant of behaviour (scotching meaningless cliches like “why are all black people violent” etc.). Otherwise these same arguments can be applied to almost all harmful behaviours, secsual or otherwise. A sociopaths charter.

Youngsters go through a vulnerable and impressionable period through their formative years. It’s not very difficult to condition them to believe and accept that homosexuality is natural and normal. How much more with the promulgation of Gay ideology (and hip, high profile gay icons), through the media and now via state sponsorship. It’s essential that children are raised as much as possible in the right setting – traditional marriage – with the right nurture.

And whatever its causes it’s sin. And as sin abounds, grace abounds much. And what of demonic influence? Especially early? Whatever the cause, Christ can set you free.


God bless
TV



Note: homosexuality is not found universally in all cultures/societies, mitigating against a genetic link. In those that it is, it is typically considered an abomination. Where it is considered neutral or encouraged, it typically proliferates. It is always more common and accepted in urban as opposed to rural areas. And always more amongst the wealthy, educated, liberal elite, hence it’s seemingly overwhelming – although unrepresentative – support.

Kay 17: 3. Yes, however what the Bible says depends on its interpretations. We are presented with thousands interpretations and contexts. And in this case, we have 2 sides on slavery and homosexuality.

Utter nonsense. The Biblical narrative is blessedly clear. If you believe the Bible initiated, supports or champions slavery, please elucidate using your own interpretation. In fact, submit any interpretation supporting that claim you please. A number of posters here will be more than happy to show you that the problem lies not with the Bibles clarity, but with the muddy thinking -or deceitful purpose - of those pushing that sorry notion.

Kay 17: 4. Still a problem of interpretation, you seem to have your unique own too. Slavery was well regulated, lots of biblical verses dedicated to it. Yet Jesus never condemned it directly, given that slavery was as horrible in his times as the Trans Altantic Slave Trade.

As requested, kindly submit this interpretation. There'll be little headway if we merely exchange assertions
Slavery was extant prior to the Bible. It still practiced today - both physical and economic.
I've responded to this; the great commandment and the effect of trusting God to work His will in you.
Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save. Both the slave and the free. The issue was - and is - slavery to sin. Afflicting all.

Kay 17: @TV01
5. It was not my piece. Its a perspective within Christianity itself. And he draws inspiration from the Wilberforce spirit.

The Lord knows those who are His. Anyone can claim to be a Christian and anything can be advanced as a Christian position.

Kay 17: 6. Fairness and equality in how they are treated. Probably being treated more as humans rather than sub-humans, who shouldn't be spoken to, employed, do busineSs with, touch, or participate in a public square.

People with homosexual inclinations should not be persecuted or denied their freedoms. Homosexual behavour is both aberrant and abhorrent and should not be normalised or endorsed as equivalent or an alternative to the heterosexual union.

How are homosexuals treated as sub-human, discriminated against or denied freedom to participate in the public square?

Hate to be an@l, but what's your point exactly?

God bless
TV

Kay 17: There are many posts like yours that have said the exact same as yours, which I have read well.

Likewise. I have read many such as yours which sneakily try to twist biblical truth to justify their errant ways.

Kay 17: My OP is seeking a different perspective in which homosexuality is juxtaposed with Slavery.

A different perspective? not really. Just a shabby re-working of the old lie "...did God really say"

Kay 17: Slavery has received support and justification from the Bible, great arguments supporting the horrific trans atlantic slavery have been made from the Bible. The trade went on for centuries receiving support from the Catholic Church itself.

Simply untrue. Men have tried to justify slavery - amongst other ills - using the Bible. Please make the distinction between the scriptures given to us by God and mens use/interpretation of them, rightly or wrongly.

As for your charge against Catholicism, abeg face Rome. "The Lord knows those who are His"

Kay 17: But today we look back in horror and condemn such acts. The Bible ought to be condemned too BUT great anti slavery activists have used the same Bible against Slavery!

We do? Can't honestly say I ever have. But for the avoidance of doubt, culpability here is neither Gods nor the Bibles. Again, I have not personally given time to the study of the "for and against slavery" cases made from the Bible. However, I have read it for myself - numerous times to be sure - and I can categorically tell you that it does not initiate, support, champion, structure or otherwise endorse slavery in any way. Either in part or in whole.

And ponder on your own point; the charge to abolish slavery was a Christian one.

Kay 17: Should all humans be treated fairly and equally? At least a secular definition of Love supports that.

Right, an exposition of the Biblical text on slavery juxtaposed with the same on homosexuallity, but using a secular definition of love? That's the kind of lofty intellect that "condemns the Bible"? Perhaps I have overrated you? Actually your OP wasn't an original piece was it?

Kay 17: So pls speak in that respect.

Ok. I've started so I'll finish. Listen carefully; Love =/= Fairness & Fairness =/= equality, at all cost and without due consideration.
Fairness does not mean two men - or woman - should be able to make a one flesh baby, any more than equality means a man should be able to gestate just like a woman.

I'll close thus; The Bibles greatest commandment is to love The Lord your God with all your strength, all your heart and all your soul. And your neighbour as yourself.

With that and the God sought - and given - enduement to joyfully fulfill it, all individual and societal ills will - maybe not immediately mind - ultimately cease.

It was Christianity that ended slavery. It was Christianity that emancipated women. And I could go on and on. And God, if you will simply believe Him, will free you from homosexual inclinations - no juxtaposition required.

Apologies if this lacks my usual flow, I've just returned from a mad spin class and had a delicious meal - prepared by my opposite sex spouse - of chicken and rice. I'm full, it's late and I'm understandably tired. Packed day tomorrow and if I don't get my full complement of sleep I'll be - in a manner of speaking - buggered in the morning.

So, please persevere with those preaching the gospel on this thread and ally that with my advise two paragraphs above. Being buggered due to lack of sleep is bad, I daren't imagine what it would be like for all eternity? But believe you me, it won't be gay heaven.

I have spoken.

Good night
TV

A gay union is de facto infertile. No supposedly “in love” gay couple can procreate and be blessed with “one flesh“ offspring.
Gays simply cannot “go forth and multiply, or be “fruitful”. It’s an abomination to the divine creational order and undeniably against nature.

Speaking of procreation in a fuller sense viz; “the raising and nurture of children”; by its very nature, it pre-empts the possibility of a child being raised in a loving union of both natural parents and always means that one is missing. To knowingly deny a child the presence of either of its natural parents is simply cruel.

Key developmental indictors are triggered and behaviours catalysed by the presence and appropriate nurture of both – different gender - parents. Oddly enough, compromising this in some respects can often trigger gay inclinations.

Back to the point about being “in love”, three things; 1. No amount of being in love can change the divine creation or natural order. 2. Marriage is not primarily predicated on love, although for a joyous union it is essentially that love is mutually given.

I did say 3 things. Point 3 is worthy of its “own show”, hence I’ll hive it off. This is not actually about love, it’s about deviant sex, it’s about forcing – legally - those who rightly consider it unnatural and abhorrent to accept and endorse it. Activism – no matter how strenuous - does not alter divine, natural and obvious truth.

The blanket, uncompromising – and quite frankly deceitful - use of the word love is to disguise the above and shift focus away from the consequences of gay sex. What the Bible calls the penalty of their error.

I won’t go into the absolutely stomach turning detail about the ramifications of gay sex here, rather I would urge everyone too search it out for themselves via the net. Numerous studies detail all too graphically the resultant pathologies of the unnatural act of gay sex and the gay lifestyle. Read it for yourselves. I suggest you start with “Gay Bowel Syndrome”.

I don’t promote real discrimination against those with gay inclinations, neither do I condemn them. I simply don’t want the gay lifestyle promulgated in society or taught to my children as an equally valid and healthy alternative to the male & female union.

I would be the first to acknowledge that marriage as an institution has suffered terrible abuse at the hands of so called heterosexuals. However, the response to that is not to pervert it, but to re-affirm it, champion it and celebrate it in the proper form and context.

In many aspects it’s something that I would simply consider further evidence of mans continued post-fall descent and evidence of a turning away from their Creator and glorifying the creation (themselves and their desires).

However, in this case I simply cannot “waka pass”. Once promulgated legally by state fiat, it follows that it will be equally endorsed and championed by every state-sponsored or affiliated organisation and by extension their employees and citizens– whether they agree with it or not.

The gay lobby has done a good job of building a straw-man of “love” and falsely making it about civil rights. Of getting it de-listed as a psychiatric condition – which it was merely a generation ago and undeniably is, even if only in part. Of erasing any pejorative medical terms regarding the pathologies and keeping the epidemiological health studies quieted. Of stilling dissenting voices with accusations of bigotry. Of using the media and entertainment industries to make it appear normal and acceptable, whilst placing high profile gays in strategically sensitive and influencing positions. The truth holds sure. It is simply wrong, unnatural and against Divine order to act on, promote, celebrate or champion gay inclinations and lifestyle.

Biblically, both testaments portray homosexual activity as an abomination in the clearest and most emphatic terms. Romans 1 alone is unequivocal in terming it unnatural, unhealthy, a direct challenge to Gods glory and ultimately rejection of God himself. That is why its considered particularly profane. That is why it is, and should be, resisted with such fervour.

If one does not agree with the Bible fine, reject it. But please spare us the feeble attempts – especially by so called clergy - to re-interpret it to fit the times. I personally shake my head at all such efforts, no matter how seemingly heartfelt. Because like marriage , it’s not about what you feel, it’s about Gods intent, Gods design and Gods purpose.

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out”

Why are people meandering around this topic? Giving people like the OP and others leave to continually promulgate this error. Will someone not simply spell it out?

Preach the gospel if you will, but what's with these protracted discussions?

Nansense !

@Goshen let me address you, as you are the main protagonist here. You do have a point of sorts, and one I can see if properly defined and contextualised.

The “but” here, is that you have gone about it in a way that can at best, be described as somewhat careless and have not really articulated the point clearly.

Firstly, the bible has as one of its many recurring themes, the fact that “He is no respecter of persons”. Does it mean that illiterate, vernacular-only speaking mama in the village cannot know God like concordance using, lexicon referencing, mult-ilinear translation reading brother in the city? No sir, he can possibly know the scriptures more, master the languages of antiquity better, but the desire for God and the Spirit of God are the real difference.

Secondly, all things are lawful, but are all expedient? Will you make your brother stumble by your knowledge or your desire to prove your sterling Berean ethic? You should have been as concerned about this, as about proving your essentially moot point.

Thirdly, you did not originally caveat or correctly outline the position which is a very narrow one. So it actually appears that you have changed position over the course of the discussion?

I am personally convinced that if God is truly in a (marriage) union and both parties consent to that and to one another, they are effectively married. However you define fornication or adultery - in English, Hebrew or Greek. And whatever further consents you seek or formalities you undergo. It is done and it is blessed.

What if – as has been noted – there are no parents, family or others? What if they are the last (or first) couple, castaway (or created) on a desert Island (garden)?

But if there are and they are not, what prevents them fulfilling all righteousness? What stops you acting maturely so that the one who has not the same understanding on this point does not stumble? It is not sin to you if you know, understand, are convinced and led. It could be to others who do not and are not.

In truth, all you’ve really done – and rightly so in my view - is question the view of were pre-marital ends and marital begins. In any event sex before – whether you term it fornication or not – is sin. And even sex after (dependant on where you consider it begins), while lawful, may not necessarily be expedient.

May we all attain to the fullness, the measure, the stature….

God bless
TV

[quote author=Busy_body]@TV01
You try biko, you must have the patience of a saint i tell ya [/quote]BB greetings.

As ever you demonstrate a "without fear or favour" objectivity, that is most warming. Most appreciated. Thank you.

May The Good Lord I serve not only keep you set on truth, but exponentially increase you in discernment.
May He always compel succour when you have need and the presence of those He approves even if you haven't.
May He never allow those who do not seek your well-being to use you as a platform for their own self-aggrandisement - And especially not those who manifest the spirit of "Inesquor".

Have a very pleasant weekend.

God bless
TV

debosky: Therein lies the rub for me. Ideally you shouldn't divorce and re-marry, but this applies to all instructions not just divorce. For example - as Christians, there is no 'recourse' to fornication (i.e. ideally it shouldn't happen), but if one were to fornicate, will God reject such a person if they repent? I don't think so. Repentance doesn't mean you return to your pre-fornication state (physically anyways) but are still acceptable to God due to repentance.

Reasonable on the face of it, but whilst other sins can be renounced and done away with, how does oneu renounce the adultery of "marrying a divorcee" whilst remaining married to the divorcee?

ileobatojo: Well, stone the crows! Why then have you spent days arguing with all and sundry on NL when you essentially agree with that one should separate (if desired) when they are being physically abused irrespective of people's perception of the severity?

Me argue? I have merely remained consistent in my position . Just so that you are aware, separate =/= divorce.

ileobatojo: My primary goal in this discussion has always been to avoid severe harm to a victim in the form of dangerous advice and that's why I have come down hard (and seemingly "subjective" and "emotional" ) on people who I feel are trying to place victims in harms way by compelling them to stay in the situation "while trying to figure out what it is they have done to deserve the abuse" and change it. I have no major argument with anyone who agrees they should immediately separate (if they so wish) when they are being harmed. The rest of my arguments with you, myriad as may be, are 'by the way' and secondary. It has taken you a lot of 'speaking out of both sides of your mouth' to get to this point but I will accept it for what you say it is.

A laudable goal to be sure, it's just that unrelentlessly labeling men psychopaths and every situation heinous physical abuse, with divorce as the only recourse, you lose some traction, a lot of credibility and it's hard to take you seriously. Try balance and objectivity occasionally, it's lend credence to your position.

ileobatojo: I rest my case.

i.e. "Quit while I'm behind"

By the way, feel free to use my template !

Best
TV

ileobatojo: I have no idea what you're talking about.

True debate is not concluded by by giving a "nod to the majority".

ileobatojo: Nobody said the divorce process saves. I strongly disagree and object to your repeated assertion that only when loss of life is imminent is when separation should occur. It's not only when they become axe wielding and fire starting that the victim should leave. Common sense will tell anyone that once one party wields an axe and starts a fire, the chances of the victim coming out alive are slim. Your view is simply not supported by facts in cases of abuse. So I can never agree that one should wait till it is imminently dangerous before leaving. This view is dangerously ignorant or disingenuous at worst. When you counsel people to go back to their abusive partners, what advice to you give them about what to watch out for to know that their life is in danger or will be in danger next time? How do you know at the time of your counseling that the next time is not the time that will be fatal? I really hope you will answer this question directly.

TV01: First we are talking about a spectrum of abuse. I've said the remedy depends on the variables. You appear to be fixating on extreme physical instances. In those cases separate yourself from harm.

TV01: - I've said it repeatedly separate yourself from an unhealthy situation, avoid harm.

TV01: If there is the danger of harm, then separation should be considered and at some point 3rd part intervention.

TV01: , then I've noted that if potential harm is perceived, there are steps to be taken.

TV01: Healing and remediation should be persisted with, but if it escalates to a degree that may be considered harmfull, seperation should be considered and an increase in the external intervention considered.

The assertions are all yours. And all wrong. Feel free to make me emblematic of the opposing viewpoint and a focal point for your campaign, but for the sake of all following please stop tediously mis-ascribing things to me.

ileobatojo: As a matter of fact, I would recommend separation even when there is no physical abuse in some cases. Do you know anything about the psychological impact of verbal and emotional abuse on a victim.

You have every right to make your recommendations. And without anyone willfully misinterpreting them. Please accord me the same priviledge.

ileobatojo: God hates divorce and he hates violence. Why do you hate divorce but excuse violence? Why do you have zero tolerance toward divorce but will tolerate the violence for many different reasons.

Like I said, tedious.

ileobatojo: Then stop invoking the name of Jesus because you are not being Christlike at all. Jesus ministry was all about mercy not some false superiority based on your 'holy' works. Jesus said it himself, He desires your mercy not your sacrifice'. How many times in the bible did Jesus rebuke the pharisees for doing exactly what you are doing?

ileobatojo: By the way, did you say your wife goes to the church of England? Are you trying to tell us that your wife chose and married you according to your template that you've laid out for us all? I highly doubt it. Now if she didn't and I can bet my bottom dollar that she didn't, how can you go around condemning others for not doing so?

So if my wife didn't follow "my template" as you rightly say, wouldn't I simply have condemned or rejected her as opposed to marrying her if I was judgmental?

So you are quids in , but unfortunately still way too subjective, emotional or willfully biased.


Best
TV

ileobatojo: The above quoted, word for word, represents my position in this matter. And, I believe, it represents the position of the vast majority of people who have discussed this topic on these boards.

I don't have to contest that "non-point" and I'm sure you fully appreciate why.

ileobatojo: This, I disagree with. No one, not even those who have gone through divorce, is seeking an unquestioning 'aye' for divorce. On the contrary, the 'dissenting voices' are the ones that seem to be seeking an unquestioning 'nay' for divorce even where life and limb are at stake.

We have been specific about the implications for Christians and non Christians. In the "immediacy" of life and limb being at risk, the lengthy divorce process is not what saves.

ileobatojo: God hates divorce. Guess what else God hates?

So if anything that God hates happens within a marriage, it nullifies Gods hatred of divorce? Or gives one leave too?

ileobatojo: Where is the empathy? The humanity? In a case where one party was abandoned comatose in the hospital after repeated violent incidents; after resolution had been sought multiple times from family, elders, pastors and the like; how can a Christlike human being's immediate contribution to this story ever be, "what did you do to cause it" and "why did you not seek God properly before marrying"? Even if one wants to use it as a teachable moment to discuss their own version of prevention (no matter how limited it would be in it's reach, therefore not very effective), you cannot go about it by showing scorn and disdain to the broken and downtrodden all in the name of 'God hates divorce'. Is that what Jesus would do?

An appeal to emotion is just weak. As tragic as it is - and I have noted that severally - we can still have an objective discussion about it.
And teaching/prevention is the main driver for me. I always ask "wanna weds" to take note. Feel free to deride my beliefs/version.

ileobatojo: Hmm. I can't say that I've seen this.

Oh I'm sure there are people in the world who do that. Personally, I haven't seen this yet on NL though. I don't claim to have heard every divorce story there is on NL but from the ones' I've heard, I am yet to get that impression.

You see what you want too.

And for the record, you haven't actually heard any complete "divorce stories" on NL. Only "one version or events". And no sensible person judges a matter on that.

Best
TV

debosky: I have no issues with this - however, my point is that not everyone starts out with the right foundation, neither do they build as they ought to. God does not say 'well you didn't do it properly so that's your problem'.

In the event that such people find themselves contemplating divorce or some other degradation/dissolution of the union, my view is that I don't think God is solely interested in maintaining a 'marriage' in name only over the day to day experiences of the individuals involved.

Where I believe I differ is many are arguing "what God wants", my thrust is "what God can do".

debosky: My 'remedy' as you call it is a recognition of the peculiar circumstances in each union and the lack of a 'common solution' for every case. While I believe God can heal any union (and this should be the first resort), it is incumbent on the participants to seek that restoration. Where one or both parties are unsuccessful in receiving/asking for that healing, then keeping a marriage in name only is a failure already - you don't need to sign a sheet of paper titled divorce for the failure to have occurred.

He is God of every circumstance and Lord of every situation. If their is one Christian in the union seeking Gods perfect will, He can do it, it can work. If no one is seeking Gods will - regardless of the hurt they've suffered - and I fully accept this can be heinous - why is just the one party labelled "an unbeliever"?

debosky: There is no universal remedy. Healing is preferable, but when not attained/unattainable, do you keep a semblance of marriage only on paper in a legalistic nod to 'obeying' the scripture? I don't accept the latter.

God is. I always counsel aspirationally. In any case, why should I wish less for anyone else than what I myself have? With God's involvement, the end will not be a "legalistic nod" to anything, but a loving union.

debosky: No one is saying divorce is a remedy. Unfortunately divorce may become a lesser evil or necessity especially when issues such as threats to life or incessant abuse is what obtains within the marriage. To deny this reality (in some cases, not all) is to make this purely an intellectual debate.

Furthermore, when I mentioned every one working out his/her own salvation, that is what it ultimately comes down to in my view. For example, some may be able to separate and stay that way praying indefinitely for restoration without falling into other temptations such as seeking out sexual intimacy elsewhere. Others may not be that 'strong' and fall into temptation. Is God then happy that the 'remain in marriage' instruction is upheld but sexual intimacy outside the union is occurring? I don't think so.

I think my previous replies speak to this.

debosky: Others still may decide to avoid this issue by divorcing and re-marrying with a heart set out to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It is my belief that God will bless the latter case. God wants the best for us, but when we fail, a second chance exists, be it within that current marriage or in a new one - that is my belief. It doesn't change the fact that God hates divorce.

As "Christians", there's no such recourse as "divorce and re-marry". If they were unbelievers that's different.

debosky: Men are overwhelmingly the (physical) abusers in relationships so this is unsurprising. No side should be vilified, but we can't deny this reality.

I won't quibble here, but in the West, "alleged abuse" and a new style of "provoked abuse" is a tool that some women are not slow to use.

Best
TV

Afamdman: sorry a question TV01 let me get this straight. You mean you married same girl david dropped or you meant it literally.

lol! What do you mean "david dropped"?

No seriously, it was meant literally. When I first started "churching" I was like "it's a holy chorister babe for me". After meeting a ton of "MyPas - My Pastor Says - girls", I was freed from that particular mindset. My wife is Church of England, but gentle and sweet with a great character - and yummy. I don't think I'd let her step foot in a Naija style church without heavy security.

Afamdman: And yes I do understand your point about the discussion making divorce seem as a way out. If we continue like this, in a few years time it would be acceptable, and its very true when you have divorce as a way out even before marriage, you most likely will divorce.

Bro' forget me and the number of girls I met who always raised divorce as a possible conclusion - and as an acceptable one. Often predicated on the fact that they or someone close to them had been "abused". It was kinda sad really. And not just for the fact that I instantly rejected them.

Sadly, it's already considered acceptable. Appears it's trending towards inevitable.

Best
TV

davidylan: ^^^ you make some valid points. But at the end of the day to each his own.

Agreed. My urging was "to walk your walk", which is what we all must do.

For what it's worth, God had to disabuse me of many erroneous notions and strip me of a lot of pride & prejudice before I was ready for a wife. Indeed, if He hadn't I would almost have certainly rejected my wife for any number of reasons - and probably made a bad choice.

If - as I am assuming - you are trusting your search to God - He will have you ready at the right time for the right one. And in the right place. It would take a whole chapter to list all the "naysaying" I was subjected to - and much from those closest to me. Not that they were necessarily hating, but they were frustrated by my being in "marital-limbo". As for the real hate, let me not go there.

A lot of what you go through is designed to test and strengthen you. God won't take away the joy of your woo'ing your spouse. You still have to "quit yourself like a man".It got to a point where the "slap-downs" were boosting my faith and imparting a sense of "wow, when God delivers eh!"

My position was, it had to be right or nothing. I marry the right way and the right one or I remain single and celibate. I'don't look back at any of the numerous women I met and think any "perhaps or maybe" thoughts. Lot's of "thank God for that" and "ye, The Lord delivered me" ones though.

And finally He did. All mouths stopped. The eyes of the naysayers were widened in wonder and the haters were choked.

Take heart, don't look back. I'd like nothing more than to hear that you've married and married well.

davidylan: I frankly dont believe that the christian race is a one-size fits all, sometimes a lot of us want to force our own interpretation of the word down the throats of others without stepping into their shoes for 2 minutes.

I've always said it's more of a solitary walk - where paths may cross - than a group march. I don't pronounce doctrine or enforce dogma, just outline what I understand.

Best
TV