If all you can do is argue...

[olger]

You got a lot of po-tential!

g

[GreatLakesGramma]

A case in point. In 2005 there was a motion on the floor of the GC to allow divorse in cases of spousal abuse and I mean physical abuse but where there was no adultery. This motion was fought by people from africa and South america where a husband can culturally beat his wife and it is accepted as ok.

I guess what that tells us is that church decisions are not being based on the Bible. Anyone who would support husbands being allowed to beat their wives without penalty is not studying the Bible with the Holy Spirit's guidance.

[phkrause]

I want know redwood, have the cows come home yet.

pk

[olger]

Cows here

g

[Woody]

I want know redwood, have the cows come home yet.

pk

Quiet. Olger is milking them.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

A case in point. In 2005 there was a motion on the floor of the GC to allow divorse in cases of spousal abuse and I mean physical abuse but where there was no adultery. This motion was fought by people from africa and South america where a husband can culturally beat his wife and it is accepted as ok.

I guess what that tells us is that church decisions are not being based on the Bible. Anyone who would support husbands being allowed to beat their wives without penalty is not studying the Bible with the Holy Spirit's guidance.

The Bible does not authorize such penalties. If you want to make up penalties .... that is fine but don't claim they are from the Bible. There just simply aren't those provisions.

Now if you want to do something extra-Biblical and claim you are under the Holy Spirit's influence ... that would be fine.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: GreatLakesGramma

I guess what that tells us is that church decisions are not being based on the Bible. Anyone who would support husbands being allowed to beat their wives without penalty is not studying the Bible with the Holy Spirit's guidance.

The Bible does not authorize such penalties. If you want to make up penalties .... that is fine but don't claim they are from the Bible. There just simply aren't those provisions.

You got it goin on, Man.

g

[Woody]

Quote:

"You got it goin on, Man."

g

DISCLAIMER

I've never been to the bathroom with Olger.

[lazarus]

Who knows, we might end up schismed like the Anglicans/Episcopalians...

I detect a hint of excitement there, could be wrong.

[Dr. Shane]

six pages were added to this thread in one day. I haven't read any of them. Are we still on topic?

[Neil D]

hmmmmmm.......looks to me that you are baiting someone to start an arguement......

Does that answer your question, Shane?

[Woody]

six pages were added to this thread in one day. I haven't read any of them. Are we still on topic?

We are currently arguing whether we are on topic or not.

[LifeHiscost]

Why because the bible only allows divorse in cases of adultery but SOP tells us that a woman should not stay with an abusive husband for the sake of her safety and her children but does not give council on the divorse topic. So what should we do? That is what makes for heated discussion.

The underlined above is a point of view that can be seen as true only when other scripture on the topic is ignored. However since individuals choose that route to personal belief, it becomes important to recognize another principle that covers all Scripture, although in the process some will settle for less than the Truth.

"Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Romans 14:5 NKJV

Regards!

[GreatLakesGramma]

Originally Posted By: GreatLakesGramma

Anyone who would support husbands being allowed to beat their wives without penalty is not studying the Bible with the Holy Spirit's guidance.

The Bible does not authorize such penalties. If you want to make up penalties .... that is fine but don't claim they are from the Bible. There just simply aren't those provisions.

Would "consequences" be more to your liking? "Penalties" happened to be the word that came to mind. Excuse me for not taking an hour or so to think about my post and make sure every word was exactly what it should be.

What I meant was that anyone who believes it is OK with God for a man to beat his wife is not reading the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And there are penalties, or I should say a penalty - Any man who habitually beats his wife and never repents won't be in the Kingdom.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Who knows, we might end up schismed like the Anglicans/Episcopalians...

I detect a hint of excitement there, could be wrong.

Good observation.

g

[CyberGuy]

HEY CYBERGUY

WOW that was interesting about the 2005 and the beating

of the wife with AFRICAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN members

opposing it

dgrimm60

This was on the agenda at the 2005 GC Meetings because in Africa and South America a woman who divorced her husband for beating her but where there was no adultery was disfellowshiped for divorcing her husband on non biblical adultery grounds. This action was taken to protect those women from being disfellowshipped for divorcing her husband for beating her.

It is unfortunate that it had to pass under such a sneaky but legal move such as waiting for most of the delegation from Africa and South american to leave and then the Delegation fromm Europe and Australia and North America to pass it as the last item friday afternoon before they closed the GC Session.

I do think that divorse for spousal abuse should be legal within the church and no retailiaton by the church should be tolerated.

[Woody]

Quote:

no retailiaton by the church should be tolerated.

This I agree with.

[LifeHiscost]

Would "consequences" be more to your liking? "Penalties" happened to be the word that came to mind. Excuse me for not taking an hour or so to think about my post and make sure every word was exactly what it should be.

When one posts on a forum or in a thread of different views, the penalty, errr__, consequences are that the possibility lies in someone taking exception to our view.

I've found comfort for myself when this happens, just so my own nose doesn't get bent out of shape, to accept one of the promises those who wish to live by His Word are granted.

"Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them."Psalm 119:165 KJV

Of course, that doesn't mean that nothing offensive will be evident.

Blessings!

[Woody]

Quote:

Would "consequences" be more to your liking? "Penalties" happened to be the word that came to mind.

I don't feel it matters which word you use. To me IMHO ... it doesn't change anything. But I suppose we could "argue" about that. Ha Ha

[GreatLakesGramma]

Does that mean, Redwood, that you believe it's OK for men to beat their wives, and that no one has any right to take action against them for doing it,including the victim? It certainly sounds like that is what you are advocating.

[Bravus]

Nup, sorry Laz and olger, no excitment at the idea of schism, not at all. A certain weary resignation, though: when people major in minors, and when different people in different parts of the world choose different minors to major in, conflict is inevitable... and sometimes a divorce for the church as a whole can at least stop the fighting, not unlike a divorce for a couple. But it's never a good outcome in either case. A little more affection, compassion, thoughtfulness and understanding is a much, much better prescription.

[olger]

Our differences are an asset until they become offensive.

da G

[Bravus]

True, but as we're frequently reminded here, offense is often in the eye of the offended rather than the 'offending' party. Ensuring that we're modest on both sides of that coin is helpful...

Perhaps part of the lesson of 'one hand clapping' is that it takes two hands working together?

[phkrause]

Dgrimm its getting to argumenitive (sp) for me. hahaha hehehe hohoho

pk

[phkrause]

What's that saying, "Great minds think alike". hee hee hee hee

pk