Post here if you think atheists can't be good people

[Whag]

Well, Mormons view the Bible as scripture too, don't they? (though admittedly they interpret it differently than mainstream Christianity)

And it's not necessarily about what's more severe, but what actually constitutes a breach of the marriage contract. But in case what Darth Executor is saying is true, i.e that violence towards your wife constitutes a breach in the contract (which it does seem to be, now that I think about it), then it could well be that she would be justified in divorcing him even if it's not explicity allowed by Jesus.

This is where rationalization comes in, since many things can be "interpreted" as a violation of the marriage contract. A husband can squander the couple's life saving through gambling, and that can easily be interpreted as justifying divorce and eventual remarriage. You can interpret "implicit" exceptions in the sayings of Jesus all day, and that's what I meant about the elasticity of religious moral code.

Why wouldn't I consider her a Christian? Does she deny Jesus as her Lord and God, or that He's risen from the dead? Does she deny the Trinity? If what I was saying was true, I.e that violence is not a legitimate reason to divorce your husband which might not turn out to be an illegitimate reason, I would certainly admonish her to divorce her current husband though.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You said she was an adulteress for divorcing and remarrying another person but it's possible she's still a Christian. I asked how that could be since Paul says adulterers aren't saved. Rationalizing these matters and acknowledging the elasticity inherent in religious prohibitions was the only point I meant to get across. Atheists and theists do this because we must evolve with social and cultural needs. One of those needs for some Christians is to remarry a more compatible partner after an ugly divorce if one so chooses. And basically you're acknowledging it makes no spiritual difference since God forgives the persistent adultery of a remarriage.

Also, you say that she married him before she became evangelical. What denomination or religion (if any) did she belong to before that? This might be pertinent information especially if I'm interpreting what I'm reading from the Bible right now correctly.

None of that matters. I gave you all the facts you need to determine if this law is really as fixed as you initially claimed.

[Chrawnus]

This is where rationalization comes in, since many things can be "interpreted" as a violation of the marriage contract. A husband can squander the couple's life saving through gambling, and that can easily be interpreted as justifying divorce and eventual remarriage. You can interpret "implicit" exceptions in the sayings of Jesus all day, and that's what I meant about the elasticity of religious moral code.

Actually it has nothing to do with rationalization, but with interpreting the Bible in general, and Jesus command in particular correctly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You said she was an adulteress for divorcing and remarrying another person but it's possible she's still a Christian. I asked how that could be since Paul says adulterers aren't saved. Rationalizing these matters and acknowledging the elasticity inherent in religious prohibitions was the only point I meant to get across. Atheists and theists do this because we must evolve with social and cultural needs. One of those needs for some Christians is to remarry a more compatible partner after an ugly divorce if one so chooses. And basically you're acknowledging it makes no spiritual difference since God forgives the persistent adultery of a remarriage.

I'll refrain from commenting on this until you give the information I asked for.

None of that matters. I gave you all the facts you need to determine if this law is really as fixed as you initially claimed.

How could you possibly know if it matters when you don't even know where I'm getting at?

[Whag]

Actually it has nothing to do with rationalization, but with interpreting the Bible in general, and Jesus command in particular correctly.




I'll refrain from commenting on this until you give the information I asked for.



How could you possibly know if it matters when you don't even know where I'm getting at?

I can honestly be puzzled about where you're going with this while also determining your questions about her faith as irrelevant. I already told you she was a Christian. She goes to church twice a week, believes all Christian tenets, prays, and evangelizes. She also divorced her husband and remarried an evangelical. But she's also an adulteress. How can an adulteress enter into heaven given what Paul said? That requires a certain amount of filling in the blanks and rationalization, since Paul seems quite clear about sinning and living the christian life not being compatible.

[Chrawnus]

I can honestly be puzzled about where you're going with this while also determining your questions about her faith as irrelevant.

You can, but you'd be wrong in doing so.

[Whag]

You can, but you'd be wrong in doing so.

How can one be a Christian and an adulteress? Could you explain what you meant?