for·ni·ca·tion (fôrn-kshn)
n.

Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

LOL,,

OK Chris thanks for clearing that one up.
I am still confused about what plumb said...
The abusive spouse,,,, is there not any biblical scripture that relates to this. Maybe its as he said it was written by man,, there are loop holes to everything I guess.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> there are loop holes to everything I guess. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Eric,

I don't consider the scenario I gave as "making use of a loophole".

My church teaches that there are four parts to application of faith:

1) Reason (Using the brain God gave us)
2) Experience (learning from Biblical, as well as personal experiences)
3) Teachings (As in Christ's teachings, as well as those we've received personally)
4) Scripture (Reading the Bible)

But, mostly, the actions of the hypothetical woman in my scenario would be between her and God. It's not my place to tell others who are able to read and think what the Bible should mean to them. Christ gave us the ultimate free-agency...He told us what we SHOULD do, but left doing it up to us. When I have my life completely in order, then I'll start telling others where theirs is out of order.

Plumb Bob,

If you don't mind my asking... which church or branch of Christianity do you follow (don't feel you must answer - you can tell me to quit being so nosy)?

The reason I ask, is that I'm learning about different religions and your beliefs seem to fall somewhat in line with my thoughts and opinions.

When I was reading this thread, I thought about the scene from the Jesus miniseries a while back which was taken from the Gospel, about the woman who was caught in the act of adultery.

The penalty for adultery according to the old law (old testament) was stoning to death. The teachers of the law were trying to test Jesus, to see what he would say. They asked him what to do with the woman. He scribbled in the sand, and told them that the person without sin should cast the first stone.

He didn't say "Hey guys. Don't you think you're being a little harsh? Is adultery really worth killing over? Maybe God didn't really mean it was a sin punishable by death literally." The appropriate penalty for all sin (including breaking one's word/vow) is death. But mercy is always a better and preferred response. Mercy is the God-like response.

Would God prefer that both people in a marriage get their collective crap together and start loving and honoring each other as He intended, as opposed to divorcing? Yup. Is he going to hit us over the head with a rock or condemn us to hell if one or both of us can't or won't do that?

I doubt it, just by the example he gave in that situation.

Jilliana,

I belong to the United Methodist Church.

Bob

My fww and I discussed this a bit. I was being attacked alot by Satan from those passages you quoted. Something she said to me was in direct reference to that 'livestock' concept. The laws God placed (her interpretation) were created to protect women during that time, from just being cast aside for a new/exciting young thing, it was not designed so much for the sin of adultery, although, it is as well, but moreso a protective measure for the women. Does that make sense?

Also, as towards the passages... and hardness of mens hearts... imo, those are Old Testament I believe, and thus, with no Holy Spirit in your heart, of course, it will be quite hardened. However, in New Testament living were are blessed to have the Spirit indwelling us <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> ... and so, I believe our marriages our not free to cast aside even because of adultery. It sucks, but, that is what I finally came to around it all...my support for this was the adultery in the heart and not by action, being the same sin, well, let's face it, very very very few of us have never persued that line of thought about another individual while we were married. Does that then justify a divorice? No, I say not. I think the key here is that application of where your passage is coming from, pre-Cavalry or post-Cavalry.

Either way, at some point, the pain will have to be faced. The divorice is the easy way out, and unfortunately, I think many discover too late that the pain must still be dealt with, and your spouse was equipped by God to help you deal with it perfectly. (I think we see a great example of this with separated couples who are still in contact frequently...they are trying to fulfill the needs that God inheritently gave the ability to do) THUS ---- PLAN B and why it is so very devastating to both partners and yet also so tremendously effective at revealing the weakness of the affair.

This is a good topic. I just hope that people can see past the immediate pain of experiencing the revelation of those passages in their own lives, to perhaps seeing what I believe God was trying to reveal to us. --- One other, let no man break asunder (not sure of passage, but I think it should ring enough bells for everyone)... only God can end the marriage, by joining together in a new marriage. Thus, really, imo...sex is not a grounds for the divorice, as it doesn't really 'end' the marriage. If adultery was to be the end, then i would suspect that we would see something much more specific about having to have a new wedding and new vows....? Anyone else think something along those lines?