</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by micro2000:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by noodle:

You say that with such authority, such conviction. It certainly has warranted such in the past..and presently in other areas of the world. If you steal my car..you'll see the inside of a jail..if you unravel my home..I guess I wipe my tears and hope for better days? Honestly, I agree with you..but your statement lacks..argument.[/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If you wish to use the past as justification, then I can demonstrate many inconceivable forms of justice practiced in the past, just as I can argue that the countries which still practice these forms of punishment are socially and technologically stunted. I don't see why it is necessary to defend what is pretty self-evident. Would we have laws instituted to punish every case of lying, every case of deceit, every case of immoral behaviour known to man? The courts would grind to a halt with cases of "he said/she said". The government should retain itself only to those matters of conduct which affect the infringement of individual rights. This is not to state that laws cannot be instituted relegating adultery to civil law, penalized by fines, etc., as we could argue that marriage is a contract, and government does step in to mediate matters of contractual obligations, but certainly not anything greater than civil. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Micro,

Your agrument reduces adultery to the same level as an argument.

My example was intended to point out [although I admit that I didn't take time or make effort to back this up, sorry] that adultery HAS BEEN and STILL IS in many places considered a capital offense. Like murder, theft, or rape. Now then..the actual punative measures appropriate are very grey..but what befuddles me is how we as a society can go from believing that it is one of the most repugnant and vicious acts that can be committed..to thinking it is a fun and mostly harmless past time for rakish edgy individuals.

Oh..sure..you'll feel bad if it happens to you...In an ideal picture..no one catches a life threatening disease..or loses their fertility, or have children born with birth defects..or lose suddenly 50-100% of their income as a result..or perhaps the theft from the marital home account..any of these would surely up the ante, no? Nay, I'm sure it is all only sex..only betrayal..and that's my problem as a BS..so I'll just invest in some professional counseling..at my expense so that I can function whether I can afford it or not..and I'll spend a few months living in terror until that second set of std tests comes back clean <in my perfect world it does>..

Have I made my point? Adultery is more than consensual sex. It is willfully playing russion roulette with another person[s] life [lives] in MANY aspects. It is knowledgable use of deceit and force bringing HARM at the VERY LEAST to another person[s].

So do I think that is worthy of being a criminal offense? You bet your [censored] I do.

I would settle for civil action. Mostly because I have a vested interest in the well being and continued life of my husband..not because I don't think he has earned it.

Noodle

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But infidelity is sex between two consenting adults and it is not hurting anyone ( except emotionally ).
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">All right.
Hey, that's just great news! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Unfortunately With that reasoning, then all the woman / children (or men) that are being treated for verbal, mental or Emotional ABUSE can now discontinue treatment....after all its not "really" abuse after all.
(Bet they'll all be happy to Learn that). <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

Its not as they actually Have something to Get Over. Doesn't mean all that much.

Next, All the women being told to escape an emotionally abusive relationship.....can now just return ....as I mean / come on.....its not like they're being Smacked Around.

And as far as any children taken from their parent (or other guardian) because of verbal, mental or emotional Abuse......just send them all back.....I mean its NOT Like their being Beaten or anything.
What's the Big Deal?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Sheeesh!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">From Mulan:
I'm sorry to see you just dismiss it this way.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Indeed!

<small>[ February 23, 2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: top rope ]</small>

I'm not saying infidelity is right or justified and that no one gets hurt.
I'm just tossing some things out for discussion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by faithhopelove04:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why isn't the emotional hurt worth something?
If you see a movie and cry, should you get money from the director, actors, movie company?

WHAT???! How is that even remotely the same thing? That's worse than comparing apples and oranges. More like comparing a big juicy hunk of beef to a celery stick. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Then what is the emotional hurt worth?
Money? Time in jail? What and how much?
What if your h says you look fat in a dress or forgets your birthday/anniversary?

As far as I can tell, a marriage "contract" is pretty useless as a contract/agreement between two parties.

<small>[ February 23, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris -CA123 ]</small>

Myschae,

Good to hear from you. No problem with how you worded things. I do understand what you are talking about. So, I will get right to your questions.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">First, let me just mention that I am an atheist. I say that because I want to talk about my understanding of religious matters and I want to ask for your patience if I get something about religious teachings wrong. I am certainly no religious scholar!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No problem!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Obviously, the WS broke a legal contract, and the OP helped. So, there should be legal sanctions against both. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The problem with this is that the contract is fairly non-specific. Every ‘enforceable’ contract I’ve ever read spells things out.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True in some aspects. But, the issue is this. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, where I am from, there are laws on what constitutes the breaking of the marriage contract. And those laws are very specific. Added to that, legal dictionary's already define what "marriage" is in every state. So, when your marriage contract stated that you are married, it means that you are bound by the legal definition in that state of marriage, you get the legal advantages that go with marriage, and the penalties and sanctions of breaking that marriage contract, as outlined in law. What I am saying is that the contract need not state everything in there. Just like my drivers license need not state every penalty I will have for abusing that privlege (speeding, DUI, etc).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No where in there is there any reference to being faithful or anything else. As atheists, we weren’t married in a church and wrote our own vows. We never promised to love, honor, obey or until death do us part.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True. And I can get to the theological aspects of this later. But as I said above, depending on the deifnition of marriage in your state, and the penalties, snactions and even privileges outlined by law in your state. then you did promise those things. Just as you promised not to speed, or drive drunk when you got your drivers license.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If marriage is to become an enforceable, legal contract, then wouldn’t we need to be somewhat specific about what actions constitute a breach of contract? Isn’t that what a prenuptial agreement is for?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nope. See above. Actually, a pre-nup makes my point. Why have a pre-nup? Because it allows the parties to redefine the marriage from what is already legally accepted.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think the only real ‘legal’ part of the contract that would be breached would be if one or the other of us tried to enter into another marriage contract (bigamy). I’m not convinced that fidelity is adequately spelled out to pass a legal enforcement clause.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, it is. Each state has defined what marriage is. Some states have included homosexual relationships as marriage, I think. But there is a definition. Added to that, many states like Virginia are "fault" states, where we define what ends the marriage contract. In Virginia, it includes abandonment, adultery and the like.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, I’m just mentioning that what you ‘sign’ to make it legal isn’t really anything like a ‘normal’ contract. I suppose you could take vows as a verbal promise that is made in the presence of witnesses, though.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh it is legal...just as signing that drivers license is a legally binding contract between you and the state.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You spoke a lot about God’s law and how adultery and divorce is against God’s law. I’m not sure if this is accurate, but my impression is that you advocate for legal and civil penalties for breaking God’s law.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, I did not say that. I first said that if we were to mimic God's laws, we would be better off. I know you are an atheist, but let me take an intellectual approach here. Foe a second, let's agree that there is a God. Now, if there is a God, and He created us, then wouldnt he know best on how we should be running our lives? Of course. So, my argument from that side was that as a Christian, I believe that if our laws were better in line (not tied to or based on) God's laws, we would be much better off.

Also, the other part of this that I was talking about was that Christians are called to follow God's law first. Thus, if the State says you can get a divorce, as a Christian, that doesnt mean a lot. Because the higher law for us is God's. And He only gives a very narrow reason that we can divorce. I hope I have explained this well enough...but suffice it to say that I am not saying we turn into a theocracy. This nation was founded on freedom of religion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My question is why did you neglect to mention more stringent spiritual consequences for breaking God’s law? It seems to me, that it would be more appropriate for Churches and religious institutions to impose penalties on the faithful than the state.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Exactly. And in some of my other posts, I have talked about what God requires of Christians. We are not to take our spouse or any other Christian before the local court until we have taken them before the Church. Sadly, too many churches have abdicated their responsibility in this. But, like I said earlier, the State has a role in this also. We have given the State a role because we have also given the State a role in cleaning up the mess of adultery and divorce. Most families in divorces end up with financial problems. Many women end up single mothers, and count on government assistance. That is money from the government. Now, we want to take the government out of the business for providing care for these mothers, then the State could get out of the bedroom.

Or, STDs. The government is charged with health policy and keeping the spread of diseases from happening. You stay in a monogamous relationship with your spouse, and guess what? No STDs that the government has to police up, provide support for, or eradicate. Again, because of this, the State has a role.

A marriage is a legal entity. Thus the State has a right to set policies and sanctions involved with that legal entity.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let me try to explain using a somewhat unrelated example.

My sister and her H are both Catholic. My BIL was previously married in the Catholic church and was civilly divorced. He has 2 children from his prior marriage. During their pre-marital counseling, a priest indicated that there were some circumstances under which the Catholic church can and will annul a previous marriage (whether or not children were born of that marriage) and that my BIL’s previous marriage met the criteria for an application of annulment. They were also advised that the annulment process was quite lengthy and could take from 5-10 years. Against the priest’s advice, they decided to enter into a civil marriage with my BIL’s promise that he would vigorously pursue an annulment. Because the were not married ‘in the church’ my sister and BIL are sanctioned against participating in certain sacraments until the situation is resolved. Sadly, my BIL decided to stop pursuing the annulment after a few years (it seems the priest’s advice for her to wait was wise in that respect).

I don’t know very much about Christianity or other denominations (I wouldn’t know about this if it hadn’t happened to my poor sister) but I can’t help but wonder what kind of sanctions churches impose on those who break God’s law?

It is my understanding that not all Christian denominations have the same types of sanctions against those who choose to remarry after a divorce. Have stronger sanctions about being remarried 'in the Church' been discussed by any of those denominations or am I flat out wrong because I don't know that much about it? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Very good questions!! I am not Catholic, but I do know a lot about what the Catholic Church policy is. Rather than get into the different Christian denominations, I would rather just go to Scripture, which tells what are the penalties and processes in this for the Churhc to be involved in. Yes, most denominations have different ways of approaching this. And in my case, I do feel that some actually go against the Word of God in what He says. So again, it comes back to if the Church says one thing, but the Bible says something else...the Church is wrong! But onto the main point. There are passages in 1st Corinthians, Hebrews, Matthew and others that outlien this whole process. A Christian that is committing adultery is to be approached by their BS. If the WS will not stop, then the BS goes to the church. The church will send witnesses to come and talk to WS and ask them if they are indeed cheating and admonish them to stop. If they still will not stop, then the WS is taken before the church. In that meeting, the church elders, or sometimes the whole congregation, sit in judgement of the WS and if the WS will not repent, then the WS is put out of the church...as well as declared spiritually dead. God then says that He will bind in Heaven what the church did. And God also says that even though the Christian had their sins covered by Jesus blood, that the penalties for this rebellion will not be covered by Jesus blood. They will be on the WS directly (Hebrews 10).

I could go into this more, but I just wanted to outline that yes, there are things the church is supposed to do as outlined by God.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Should people who commit adultery be excommunicated?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, if they do not repent. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Should they be punished by the Church?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They MUST be punished by the church, or the church is in violation of its responsibilities. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Should they be given penance in the form of financial sanctions (increased tithes) or perhaps compelled to perform some sort of public works in order to remain a part of that church?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nope. The Bible does not allow a person who is engaged in adultery to pay their way into the church. What they have to do is stop committing adultery, repent and get back in line with God's will. Then they can fellowship again. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why should civil law which affects those of different or even no religious beliefs be altered with respect to a particular religions interpretation of God’s law?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because even though we are not a Christian nation, we were set-up by Christian men who wrote our laws and our Consitution based on the Declaration of Independence. That is the founding document with which all of our laws are based. And what does it say? It says our rights are based on what God says (and in the U.S. case, they were talking about the Christian God), not what man says or government says. because if man or governments get to say what our rights are, then man or the government has the right to take them away. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Why can’t the churches take more responsibility and impose harsher sanctions in that area?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Great question. Wish they would. My church did. Most churches are failing in their responsibilities and God will judge them because of it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am not trying to start a religious war or insult those who follow religious teachings. I suppose I’m just perplexed as to why I seem to see a lot of advocacy for civil, legal, remedies and not much of a description of what spiritual bodies (churches, spiritual leaders) are doing in this area. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand. And no religious war need happen here. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> But there are religious and legal matters here. And in some cases, they are intertwined. Try as we might, we try to take God out of our government and out of our public life. But He was in it from the beginning. And this nation is founded on those principles.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." George Washington</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">“The name of American, belongs to you…and with slight shades of difference, you have the same religion.” George Washington in his Farewell Address to the American people, Paragraph 10; September 17, 1796</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I hope I answered your questions adequately. I llok forward to further discussions.

In His arms.

<small>[ February 23, 2005, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Mortarman ]</small>

Mulan,
And even if they don't catch an STD, the emotional damage cannot be dismissed.
Sure it can. Go to (almost) any divorce court in the country and you will see that any emotional trauma cannot even be brought up.

I'm sorry to see you just dismiss it this way.
I'm NOT dismissing it at all. Been there, done that, read the book, starred in the movie, got the t-shirt, yada, yada, yada.

I heard somewhere that some U.S. state legislature was thinking of introducing the concept of Gross Marital Misconduct -- aka "cheating" -- as grounds for divorce *and* as grounds for punitive financial settlements for the pain and suffering caused by said Gross Marital Misconduct.

I would love to see this happen.
I agree that it would be a great step towards supporting marriage and giving infidelity the consequences which are LONG overdue.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I heard somewhere that some U.S. state legislature was thinking of introducing the concept of Gross Marital Misconduct -- aka "cheating" -- as grounds for divorce *and* as grounds for punitive financial settlements for the pain and suffering caused by said Gross Marital Misconduct. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'd love to see this too....problem is...some of our presidents and law makers are some of the perpetuators of these gross marital misconducts. I wonder if they are brave enough to legislate punishments that could be visited on their own heads???

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by star*fish:
I'd love to see this too....problem is...some of our presidents and law makers are some of the perpetuators of these gross marital misconducts. I wonder if they are brave enough to legislate punishments that could be visited on their own heads???</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">HA! That's got as much chance of passing as making a killing selling ice to Alaskans. Then again I've been witness that the old adage 'never say never' has been surprisingly broken quite a few number of times during my lifetime. Even if it doesn't pass, it is still going to be fun seeing them boys [and girls] in Washington D.C. squirm if they are ever put on the hot seat and asked why they voted against it.

TMCM

***You hear people say that you can't legislate morality. Without debating whether or not you can do that, IMHO you can model and teach it, prevent interference with development of it, and provide consequences.***

As I recall, "can't legislate morality" was precisely the argument as to why the laws against racial segregation should not be repealed.

***Unfortunately, it has become quite trendy to deny that adultery is harmful. The betrayed spouses are often just expected to "get over it" and some even view the betrayed spouse's depression as evidence that the betrayed spouse is mentally unstable, rather than the adulterers.***

Oh, you bet. I remember very well that Princess Diana was, and still is, labeled "unstable" when she was just reacting as virtually every BS on this board has done.

Most people say, "oh, poor WS. No wonder they cheat. Their BS is crazy."

They should say, "oh, poor BS. No wonder they are crazy. Their WS cheats."

***Also, the betrayed spouse is expected to shield the adulterers from any consequences.***

Oh, of course. If the BS takes action to make the affair uncomfortable for the cheaters, or -- even worse -- lets his/her own pain and suffering become known, they will be told to "let it go" and "get out of the way" and "let them have what they want." What about what *I* want??? Why do THEY get to have all of the choices and *I* have NONE???

***Esppecially harmful is the belief that adultery and divorce doesn't really hurt the children AND that if the children show signs otherwise it must eb the betrayed spouse's fault (betrayed spouse must have turned the children against the wayward spouse).***

Oh, absolutely. Broken homes are normal and intact ones are not. "Kids are resilient." Well, so is SillyPutty. What does "resilient" have to do with the destruction of your family?

***IMHO there needs to be much more public education about how harmful adultery/divorce is, not just to the betrayed spouses, but also to the children, society in general, and even to the adulterers themselves.***

Yes. Right now it's a dirty little secret that any BS is afraid of exposing, because the BS is virtually always blamed as being the cause of the WS "having" to cheat.

***It would also help if people would speak up more against adultery/divorce (be 'judgemental').***

ITA!
Mulan

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Chris wrote:
"As far as I can tell, a marriage "contract" is pretty useless as a contract/agreement between two parties."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If this is the case, what is the division of marital property based on during a divorce? What contract supports this division???

Jo

<small>[ February 23, 2005, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Resilient ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Good to hear from you. No problem with how you worded things. I do understand what you are talking about. So, I will get right to your questions. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Great.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> True in some aspects. But, the issue is this. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, where I am from, there are laws on what constitutes the breaking of the marriage contract. And those laws are very specific. Added to that, legal dictionary's already define what "marriage" is in every state. So, when your marriage contract stated that you are married, it means that you are bound by the legal definition in that state of marriage, you get the legal advantages that go with marriage, and the penalties and sanctions of breaking that marriage contract, as outlined in law. What I am saying is that the contract need not state everything in there. Just like my drivers license need not state every penalty I will have for abusing that privlege (speeding, DUI, etc). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand. That is why I specifically stated it was an Arizona marriage license. Arizona is a community property state in which ‘fault’ divorces are not allowed. All divorces (breaches of marriage) are ‘no fault.’

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> True. And I can get to the theological aspects of this later. But as I said above, depending on the deifnition of marriage in your state, and the penalties, snactions and even privileges outlined by law in your state. then you did promise those things. Just as you promised not to speed, or drive drunk when you got your drivers license. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To my knowledge, divorce is allowed in all 50 states. Though some states definitely have different requirements – which is probably why so many people go to Nevada.

So, there is no US provision for ‘until death do us part’ that I’m aware of. I have heard that some states are offering a different form of marriage – a covenant marriage – that has more stringent requirements for divorce but even they allow for it.

Similarly, I’m not sure that love, honor or obey is ever legislated.

However, I do know that there are adultery laws on the books in some states which are rarely enforced and that would certainly qualify. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> The erosion of those laws is what we’re talking about!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Again, it is. Each state has defined what marriage is. Some states have included homosexual relationships as marriage, I think. But there is a definition. Added to that, many states like Virginia are "fault" states, where we define what ends the marriage contract. In Virginia, it includes abandonment, adultery and the like. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Right. It depends on your local community.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Oh it is legal...just as signing that drivers license is a legally binding contract between you and the state. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree that the marriage license is a legal document. I’m not sure about other states, but in Arizona, it is registered with the court. I imagine it’s the same in other jurisdictions.

What I meant was that your specific responsibilities as a marital partner aren’t necessarily spelled out with what penalties would apply to a breach of those responsibilities. Or, at least they weren’t in the state I was married in since fault was not an issue. You either divorce because of ‘irreconcilable differences’ or because of mutual consent. Fault divorces don’t exist and property is divided evenly.

It’s an interesting thing to ponder because, if you moved to Arizona and lived there for 90 days, your spouse can divorce you without any cause and walk away with half of the marital assets. I find the disparity in laws between fault and no fault states to be very interesting. I wonder if the divorce rate is different between the two types of states. Does anyone out there know of any studies that have been done on that?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> No, I did not say that. I first said that if we were to mimic God's laws, we would be better off. I know you are an atheist, but let me take an intellectual approach here. Foe a second, let's agree that there is a God. Now, if there is a God, and He created us, then wouldnt he know best on how we should be running our lives? Of course. So, my argument from that side was that as a Christian, I believe that if our laws were better in line (not tied to or based on) God's laws, we would be much better off. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand your argument. If I assume there is a Divine Entity, then I can certainly agree that it would behoove us to listen to Him/Her/It.

But, there are so many renditions of what God’s Law might be. The Bible isn’t the only religious text which describes God’s Law. There is the Koran, the writings of Budda (though he doesn’t claim to be a God), Hindu religious teaching, various native American interpretations, etc. There have been countless revelations which have come from a God or Gods and many of them are so contradictory. How do you choose or really KNOW which is the proper law to follow? (Well, Ok, obviously you “know” because you have faith in your religion but assume for a moment that you didn’t “know” or have faith in any particular religion and had to choose one to build laws upon.)

To an outsider, there seems to be a huge disparity in how various Christian denominations interpret God’s Laws as they come from the Bible. My understanding is that is because the Bible has some contradictions within it but I am not speaking from personal knowledge as I haven’t read all of it (I tried once but kept getting lost in all the who begat who…).

To a non-Christian, it all seems so very odd. The Catholics don’t allow for divorce but they do allow remarriage after annulment. Other Christians do allow remarriage after divorce. Doesn’t the disparity between denominations BOTHER the faithful?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Also, the other part of this that I was talking about was that Christians are called to follow God's law first. Thus, if the State says you can get a divorce, as a Christian, that doesnt mean a lot. Because the higher law for us is God's. And He only gives a very narrow reason that we can divorce. I hope I have explained this well enough...but suffice it to say that I am not saying we turn into a theocracy. This nation was founded on freedom of religion. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m glad you aren’t in favor of a theocracy. I will admit I am concerned about that.

As a non-Christian, I’d like to be able to get a divorce even if it’s in violation of what you (and other Christians) believe is God’s Law. As you stated earlier, all sin is equal and either way I’m doomed to death by the tenants of your faith. As long as my actions do not impinge upon your ability to freely worship and act in accordance to your conscience, I’d like to be able to freely NOT worship and act in accordance to mine. In my opinion, I don’t believe that making divorce more difficult is in the best interest of the state. I believe that it clogs the state’s courts and I also wonder if it doesn’t contribute to make divorce more vicious and personally difficult on the parties than it needs to be. It seems to make an all ready gut wrenching processes even more painful and gut wrenching.

I’m also in favor of allowing non-traditional (gay) unions because I don’t see the lack of gay marriage as instrumental in creating anything other than legal difficulty. In other words, since I do not concern myself with God’s laws, I have no moral objection to two adults who wish to build a life together regardless of their gender and, in fact, I see civil benefits to allowing such unions. But, I digress.

All that said, I can certainly understand why a Church would not want to sanction such a union. I can also see why a Church would not recognize a divorce or allow remarriage within that Church.

One suggestion I would make is that people be able to either divorce legally through the courts if theirs is a purely civil union and those that are married in a Church be divorced through a Church. That would clear up the courts to only deal with civil unions (like mine) and allow Churches greater power in the arena of governing which people in their flock should be divorced or not. Since Churches are allowed to officiate over the CREATION of a marital union (but not required to do so), I see no reason not to allow a Church to officiate of the DISSOLUTION of a marital union (though not require that they do so). I wonder how many Churches would be willing to take up that type of community role. That way, people could act in accordance with their conscience regarding marriage and Church.

I’d love your opinion on that idea.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But, like I said earlier, the State has a role in this also. We have given the State a role because we have also given the State a role in cleaning up the mess of adultery and divorce. Most families in divorces end up with financial problems. Many women end up single mothers, and count on government assistance. That is money from the government. Now, we want to take the government out of the business for providing care for these mothers, then the State could get out of the bedroom. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand your point. I do think the government should have some interest in preventing as much drainage on it’s resources as possible. Yet, I am emotionally opposed to tying two people together in a marriage who no longer wish to be there. I can’t see that as a benefit to children, though maybe that’s because I don’t have any. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Or, STDs. The government is charged with health policy and keeping the spread of diseases from happening. You stay in a monogamous relationship with your spouse, and guess what? No STDs that the government has to police up, provide support for, or eradicate. Again, because of this, the State has a role.

A marriage is a legal entity. Thus the State has a right to set policies and sanctions involved with that legal entity. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, I agree that the State has the right to set those policies but are the resources involved in enforcing those policies a greater drain on the resources of the State than cleaning up the mess involved? It is virtually impossible to keep two people (adults or not) who are determined to be together, apart. You can’t legislate compatibility, either. Are children better off in a home that has become a war zone or a broken home? The research suggests the later.

If you look at the stories on this board and on the news, you can see that our society is filled with cases of adultery and divorce. If we started putting all those people in prison, there wouldn’t be anyone left outside to get anything done!

It may be that stiffer penalties would result in fewer incidents because of deterrence but look where the drug war has gotten us. The U.S. has the largest prison population of the developed world. *sighs* Sadly, people who are addicted to substances or determined to fill their lustful needs seem to be immune from the good sense to learn from other’s examples. If they weren’t we probably wouldn’t have as many problems as we do, eh?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I could go into this more, but I just wanted to outline that yes, there are things the church is supposed to do as outlined by God. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ah, that is good to know. Do you have any knowledge of how often that sort of thing actually happens?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Nope. The Bible does not allow a person who is engaged in adultery to pay their way into the church. What they have to do is stop committing adultery, repent and get back in line with God's will. Then they can fellowship again. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What does repentance require? Isn’t penance a way to demonstrate repentance?

Also, what does the Bible say about restitution towards the Betrayed?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Because even though we are not a Christian nation, we were set-up by Christian men who wrote our laws and our Consitution based on the Declaration of Independence. That is the founding document with which all of our laws are based. And what does it say? It says our rights are based on what God says (and in the U.S. case, they were talking about the Christian God), not what man says or government says. because if man or governments get to say what our rights are, then man or the government has the right to take them away. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Our forefathers had the foresight to build a separation of church from State into our nation’s laws. I expect that is because they all had different beliefs and held the over all belief that Civic matters should be decided in a different way than Spiritual ones. They wanted to break away from the laws of any one Church and instead be governed by the will of the people. In those days, that will did not include women or people of color. We’ve changed our nation to include those voices. The voices of those of us who do not follow a faith are just as important and protected as those who do follow a faith. Both should be protected. Building laws based upon the teaching of one religion is dangerous ground.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I understand. And no religious war need happen here. But there are religious and legal matters here. And in some cases, they are intertwined. Try as we might, we try to take God out of our government and out of our public life. But He was in it from the beginning. And this nation is founded on those principles. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m glad. One thing this planet doesn’t need is another religious war!

I’m a bit confused though. Our founding fathers decidedly took God out of government by insisting on a separation of Church and state. In order to preserve the right of all people to worship (or not worship) according to their conscience, they took the bold step of insisting that the Government not sponsor any religion. I think it makes America a great place to live.

I suppose I’m curious as to why the focus isn’t more on getting errant Churches to live up to their responsibilities rather than creating legislation. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that the U.S. government has more clout on matters of spirituality to the average Christian than the local leaders of his or her Church.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Well, I hope I answered your questions adequately. I llok forward to further discussions. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You did a wonderful job!

I suspect that you and I will not agree in some areas but I also think that we probably have some common ground. I do appreciate your patience with my questions about religion. I’m truly not trying to attack religions, religious people, or Churches. I’m just often confused as to why it seems there is so much outside focus to fix what appears to me to be a largely internal problem.

In other words, I can assume that I am a sinner according to the tenants of your faith. My understanding is that it is “your” (the collective “your” as in Christians) responsibility to educate me and then allow me the free will to make my decision. I either believe or I do not. Past that point, as long as I do not trespass against you, my understanding is that it is no longer your responsibility. Further, it doesn’t matter whether I live a good life or a bad one because, either way, I am doomed for eternity. It doesn’t make much sense to me for “you” (the collective “you” as in Christians) to concern yourselves about my additional sins.

On the other hand, I can understand why a Church would be very concerned about the sins of it’s members. After all, if you believe in a Divine God, then it certainly seems to make sense to me that a Church (of all places) better behave in accordance with His/Her/It’s wishes! I imagine His/Her/It’s wrath would be even more terrible at the failure of a Church which is supposed to be leading the faithful than at the failure of an individual.

So, it seems as though the resources of concerned Christians, such as yourself, would be better focused on saving those who you can actually save from the dire consequences rather than on an atheist, like me.

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest,

Mys

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by meremortal:
<strong>
My daughters and I are probably the only ones who've ever seen my WH get violent. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree that many violent men are able to keep their temper underwraps when in public. And only those in a intimate relationships with them can see the darker side.

Which is why I wonder why she did not see this. The whole story has not come out of course...I don`t know how long she was dating him...perhaps she had not been with him long enough to see his true nature...but if this is the case why did she decide to become pregnant with a man she did know intimately?

I do understand that women do fall in love with and marry men with tempers all the time...I did...but this monster was WAYYYY beyond the norm. And other people DID see his dark side. There are reports of this man setting fires and then becoming irate with people who called the fire dept. This guy was not keeping his temper underwraps in public.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Please try and remember that an affair's affects on a BS are not limited to emotions and a life change. The WS, via the OP, have been known to share wonderful STDs with the BS. STDs that can, and have, caused death. Cervical cancer comes to mind.

And THAT my friend is not something that one can or should chalk up to easily moving on or an easy opportunity to heal.

Please take it from me, a BS that is given such a disease by way of an affair by their spouse IS LIFE THREATENING as well.

The irresponsibiity of affairs now reach much deeper and can be fatal to the innocent parties - the BS.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I bought my wife a car. Cars can, and have, killed people. However, cars are manageable. So are diseases. Even HIV can be controlled.

The real issue does not change here. A woman and two children(or one child and a fetus, depending on your viewpoint) are dead. That was the topic of this thread. And yet, we have discussed biased viewpoints, theology and legal theories.

Not that I don't enjoy good debates. But something feels disrespectful here to me.

Instead of respecting the dead, it feels like 'inspecting' the dead.

Patriot,

Comparing buying your wife a car [with her consent and approval no less] to giving her a fatal or disfiguring disease is stretching it pretty far.

If you are concerned about disrespect..uhm..take a walk down a hospital ward for the terminally ill and tell them all about your analogy.

I'm sure they'll be receptive.

Aside from the debate..which indeed has grown beyond the article or crime..how much discussion would you expect?

If this was not related to my situation in some way..I'd shrug and say "How sad" and move on with my day.

Noodle

As a european l am interested to know what percentage of people here do or do not believe in capital punishment? l have read many views for and against the OW's status being a credible factor in her murder but wondered again what percentages thing she had a "part to play" in her downfall...many thanks
Sue

well... I'm a math guy. Lucky for me my wife is the english pro. Whereas I have really no idea what the percentages are for her having a 'part' is her downfall, or that the mathematical representation of her having a 'part' in her downfall is really any greater than the mathematical percentages of me having a 'part' in my death in a car accident simply because I chose to drive on a particular morning, I will say this.

She participated in an affair. And since she participated in something evil, further evil in other forms happening to this woman, by majority opinion here, seems to be somewhat acceptable. Like she did it to herself, so to say.

Susan,

The stastics are about people no matter where they live may vary but a marriage commitment is the same here or on the other end of the earth. The difference is the standpoint of each individual. If you were the BS, you may have a different view from the WS or OP.

What is consistent are the marriages resulting from an A. Very few survive. Most that appear to survive are riddled with guilt. After all what made that next M was based on the loss of love and trust with the first spouses.

My question to you is, was the pain caused to either of the Xspouses and the family worth your M? What are you doing to ensure your M will not suffer the same consquences?

L.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by noodle:
<strong> Patriot,

Comparing buying your wife a car [with her consent and approval no less] to giving her a fatal or disfiguring disease is stretching it pretty far.

If you are concerned about disrespect..uhm..take a walk down a hospital ward for the terminally ill and tell them all about your analogy.

I'm sure they'll be receptive.

Aside from the debate..which indeed has grown beyond the article or crime..how much discussion would you expect?

If this was not related to my situation in some way..I'd shrug and say "How sad" and move on with my day.

Noodle </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Expect? <shrug>

As for my analogy, though crude, requires further inspection. I use it only to illustrate that many things in life can be dealt with and life can be continued. Driving a car is one. Carrying a disease is another. There are many examples. However, strangulation, fatal gunshots and the like have an immediate end for life. So, more specifically, the immediate nature of this situation is what I am speaking to.

I won't beat a dead horse anymore, as it is pointless. Nothing said here will bring these people back to life, and really... the best thing I can do as a person is grow from this persons tragic experience.

An A comes with inherent risks and if you just simply don't participate in them.... then no one can kill you AND blame it on that.

Patriot,

I look at this thread as spreading the blame and discussing solutions...all problems in life have many different root causes. You cannot just point to one solution and say "Eureka...That`s IT, that`s how we are going to solve this problem"

Infidelity is one of these big problems....and there is blame to be spread around here. Of course Barbee holds the largest portion of responsability here...but so does Underwood herself...and so DO WE as a society.

We have removed pretty much ALL the legal brakes for infidelity and made divorce way too easy.

We have thrown up our hands and said "Ah... it`s human nature...we don`t want to tie up the courts...let`s take the easy way out"

Underwood was having a SECOND child by a SECOND man. What happened to the first father/BF/H (whatever he was). Why was she not married (or at least engaged) before becoming pregnant by Barbee...why did she not know this man intimately BEFORE she became pregnant by him?

Barbee was married before as well and I heard involved in ANOTHER paternity suit in 1997.

I think some of the blame/responsability for this lies with us. With the "rules" we have set in our culture. This type of behaviour is acceptable to us now and so no one thinks twice about it.

That said, I was divorced long ago. I did not have children, my alcoholic H refused to go to counselling...then he had an A and gave me an STD. I don`t think divorce should be outlawed but it should not be so darned easy either. All I had to do was have ONE visit with my lawyer...and show up in court one year later. The judge asked me ONE question "Have you lived with your H in the last year?" No...so the divorce was granted. And BTW my X didn`t bother to show up.

There was alot more jumping through hoops to get married than it was to get divorced.

When I found out about my second H`s A I also wanted a D. But H did not. So we worked it out. But had he agreed I would have ben willing to do whatever it took...wait however long a period of time. H was THEN a drug abuser so I think I did have just cause. It was matter of protecting my family.

But many people get divorced over MUCH less than that.

I do not think that strengthening the laws for divorce and infidelity would stop it in it`s tracks. But it would slow it down.

I think changing the laws for divorce caused by infidelity would stop many predatroy OW`s. If they thought that the MM was going to lose EVERYTHING and have to start over from scratch many of them would think twice.

I do believe that many OP`s are motivated by greed...they see the fancy car...the nice house...the burgeoning bank accounts and think to themselves "I want some of that...even if it`s only half it still looks good to me"

Not every OP is like this but of the ones who ARE changing the laws would help to remedy this. NO willing/greedy OP...NO A.

It would be just one step in addressing the whole problem.

And send the message "This type of behaviour is NOT acceptable in our society"

<small>[ February 24, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Daisy37 ]</small>

Mys,

I wanted to respond to your questions and what you wrote....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I understand. That is why I specifically stated it was an Arizona marriage license. Arizona is a community property state in which ‘fault’ divorces are not allowed. All divorces (breaches of marriage) are ‘no fault.’</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Which was the point of my original post on this thread. I believe that these laws must be toughtened, and penalties stricter, for this behavior. Because, as I said before, I have never heard of a divorce where it was nobody's fault.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> To my knowledge, divorce is allowed in all 50 states. Though some states definitely have different requirements – which is probably why so many people go to Nevada.

So, there is no US provision for ‘until death do us part’ that I’m aware of. I have heard that some states are offering a different form of marriage – a covenant marriage – that has more stringent requirements for divorce but even they allow for it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True...but not true. What I mean is that if both parties agree to end the marriage (to break the contract), then the divorce is granted. But, if one party wants to break the contract, thru either abandonment or adultery, then there should be a penalty. Why? Because both parties agreed to abide by the contract until the contract ended. And when did the contract end? Well, it either ends in divorce...or it ends in death. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are laws on the books that basically tell what causes this breach of contract. Here is Virginia's law: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">§ 20-91. Grounds for divorce from bond of matrimony; contents of decree.

A. A divorce from the bond of matrimony may be decreed:

(1) For adultery; or for sodomy or buggery committed outside the marriage;

(2) ]Repealed.[

(3) Where either of the parties subsequent to the marriage has been convicted of a felony, sentenced to confinement for more than one year and confined for such felony subsequent to such conviction, and cohabitation has not been resumed after knowledge of such confinement (in which case no pardon granted to the party so sentenced shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights);

(4), (5) ]Repealed.[

(6) Where either party has been guilty of cruelty, caused reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, or willfully deserted or abandoned the other, such divorce may be decreed to the innocent party after a period of one year from the date of such act; or

(7), (8) ]Repealed.[

(9) (a) On the application of either party if and when the husband and wife have lived separate and apart without any cohabitation and without interruption for one year. In any case where the parties have entered into a separation agreement and there are no minor children either born of the parties, born of either party and adopted by the other or adopted by both parties, a divorce may be decreed on application if and when the husband and wife have lived separately and apart without cohabitation and without interruption for six months. A plea of res adjudicata or of recrimination with respect to any other provision of this section shall not be a bar to either party obtaining a divorce on this ground; nor shall it be a bar that either party has been adjudged insane, either before or after such separation has commenced, but at the expiration of one year or six months, whichever is applicable, from the commencement of such separation, the grounds for divorce shall be deemed to be complete, and the committee of the insane defendant, if there be one, shall be made a party to the cause, or if there be no committee, then the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the insane defendant.

(b) This subdivision (9) shall apply whether the separation commenced prior to its enactment or shall commence thereafter. Where otherwise valid, any decree of divorce hereinbefore entered by any court having equity jurisdiction pursuant to this subdivision (9), not appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, is hereby declared valid according to the terms of said decree notwithstanding the insanity of a party thereto.

(c) A decree of divorce granted pursuant to this subdivision (9) shall in no way lessen any obligation any party may otherwise have to support the spouse unless such party shall prove that there exists in the favor of such party some other ground of divorce under this section or § 20-95.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Also, take a look at the grounds for divorce in Mexico: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mexico: Grounds for fault-based divorce (Article 267), after which Guilty spouse can't remarry for 2 years and may have to pay alimony and also compensate the Innocent for damages caused by the divorce:</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I. Adultery</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">II. Illegitimate child conceived before marriage</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">III. Pimping or attempt to.</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">IV. Inciting spouse to violent crime</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">V. Corrupting the children by immoral acts or affirmative acts tolerating corruption.</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">VI. Chronic or incurable disease that's contagious or hereditary; or incurable impotence</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">VII. Insanity</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">VIII. Unjustified Desertion for 6 months</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XI. Justified desertion for 1 year without filing for divorce</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">X. Disappearance</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XI. Physical cruelty</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XII. Nonsupport</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XIII. Slanderous accusation of felony</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XIV. Infamous but non-political felony</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XV. Habitual gambling, drinking or drug use that threatens to ruin the family or causes continual discord.</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">XVI. felonious attack on person or goods of spouse</font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Okay, moving on...
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Similarly, I’m not sure that love, honor or obey is ever legislated.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not specifically. Again, the LEGAL contract is very specific. Many of these parts of the agreement are more symbolic in nature, according to the law.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">However, I do know that there are adultery laws on the books in some states which are rarely enforced and that would certainly qualify. The erosion of those laws is what we’re talking about!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Exactly!!!!!!!!!


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree that the marriage license is a legal document. I’m not sure about other states, but in Arizona, it is registered with the court. I imagine it’s the same in other jurisdictions.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes it is.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What I meant was that your specific responsibilities as a marital partner aren’t necessarily spelled out with what penalties would apply to a breach of those responsibilities. Or, at least they weren’t in the state I was married in since fault was not an issue. You either divorce because of ‘irreconcilable differences’ or because of mutual consent. Fault divorces don’t exist and property is divided evenly.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes. That is what my argument was about. That no-fault divorces, even in a fault state, should nto be allowed. Period. A marriage should be a marriage until the contract is broken by one party and the other seeks legal recourse. And by breaking that contract, the guilty party should have no claim to any marital property, custody of minor children, and should have to face some kind of penalties. The damage being done to children and society in general by people who engage in adultery and the subsequent divorces, is staggering. And thus, the penalty should be commenserate with the damage being caused. Again, I say this and also allow for reconciliation, which Virginia law also allows for: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">§ 20-94. Effect of cohabitation after knowledge of adultery, sodomy or buggery; lapse of five years.

When the suit is for divorce for adultery, sodomy, or buggery, the divorce shall not be granted, if it appear that the parties voluntarily cohabited after the knowledge of the fact of adultery, sodomy or buggery, or that it occurred more than five years before the institution of the suit, or that it was committed by the procurement or connivance of the party alleging such act. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It’s an interesting thing to ponder because, if you moved to Arizona and lived there for 90 days, your spouse can divorce you without any cause and walk away with half of the marital assets. I find the disparity in laws between fault and no fault states to be very interesting. I wonder if the divorce rate is different between the two types of states. Does anyone out there know of any studies that have been done on that? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Dont know of any studies, but yes...that would be interesting.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand your argument. If I assume there is a Divine Entity, then I can certainly agree that it would behoove us to listen to Him/Her/It.

But, there are so many renditions of what God’s Law might be. The Bible isn’t the only religious text which describes God’s Law. There is the Koran, the writings of Budda (though he doesn’t claim to be a God), Hindu religious teaching, various native American interpretations, etc. There have been countless revelations which have come from a God or Gods and many of them are so contradictory. How do you choose or really KNOW which is the proper law to follow? (Well, Ok, obviously you “know” because you have faith in your religion but assume for a moment that you didn’t “know” or have faith in any particular religion and had to choose one to build laws upon.)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, good questions. All I can say is that this nation was created under the Judeo-Christian God and teachings. Our rights, our basis in law, all stem from our acknowledgement that said rights come from Him. So, we go to the bedrock of this nation, which is the Declaration of Independence, and it outlines where our rights and laws are based. Rightly or wrongly, that is our system of government, whether a person believes in that God or not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To an outsider, there seems to be a huge disparity in how various Christian denominations interpret God’s Laws as they come from the Bible. My understanding is that is because the Bible has some contradictions within it but I am not speaking from personal knowledge as I haven’t read all of it (I tried once but kept getting lost in all the who begat who…).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The argument that the Bible has contradictions in it is an old one. But it isnt true. There are no contradictions in the Bible. The problem with many that say there are, is that they havent read the whole thing. Want an example? Many people say that Christians arent supposed to judge. Well, if they just read that passage, they would think this. but if they had read the whole chapter, and the whole book, they would understand that the passage in question is just saying that Christians should not judge unless they are careful that they do not judge hypocritical in their judgements. I agree that there has always been a lot of infighting in the Christian church over interpretations. That is why I refuse to get involved in denominations, per se. God is not a Baptist, or a Catholic. And the Bible says the same thing always. Sure, there are some minor things open to interpretation...but the basics are the same. Ultimately, for me...Christianity is NOT a religion. In a religion, you need to have the church teach you its interpretation of God's word. I dont need that. Sure, I listen to sermons and read tracks. But I take that learning and have my questions answered by Jesus Himself. Because Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. That is why I have no need to argue with anyone on the subject of God's will. Because anyone that WANTS to know His will, has direct access to Him...they dont need me, except to point the way to Him.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">To a non-Christian, it all seems so very odd. The Catholics don’t allow for divorce but they do allow remarriage after annulment. Other Christians do allow remarriage after divorce. Doesn’t the disparity between denominations BOTHER the faithful? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Of course it does!!!! Too often we get in arguments that have nothing to do with what the Bible says. And in some cases, the positions being taken are in direct conflict with what the Bible says. So again, I dont take what anyone says as the truth, until I check it against the Bible and through prayer.

For the unbeliever, I would just say that you should not get caught up with what Christians are doing. We are humand, just like everyone else. We sin, we get things wrong. We are not perfect. You see, in the end, it wont be Christians that a person has to present their life to. Each person will stand alone in front of Jesus, and it wont matter what a person believed, or how much confusion there was. Because God is not the author of confusion...that comes from Satan.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m glad you aren’t in favor of a theocracy. I will admit I am concerned about that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">God gave all of us free will...who am I to want any different. Each of us are free to chose to follow Him, we are free to chose Heaven or Hell. If a person wants to chose Hell, then who am I to say otherwise. I dont want a person going to Hell out of ignorance though. That is why I spread the Word. That way, the person can make an intelligent choice...and is without any excuse once they end up where they have chosen. So, no...I do not want a theocracy. But what I would like to see is us model our laws after what God has taught us. Thous shalt not murder is a pretty good thing to copy. Thou shalt not commit adultery is another. Honor your father and mother. You get my point.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As a non-Christian, I’d like to be able to get a divorce even if it’s in violation of what you (and other Christians) believe is God’s Law. As you stated earlier, all sin is equal and either way I’m doomed to death by the tenants of your faith. As long as my actions do not impinge upon your ability to freely worship and act in accordance to your conscience, I’d like to be able to freely NOT worship and act in accordance to mine.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, on a theological basis, I can agree with this. but on a societal basis and a legal basis, I cannot. Society limits many wrongful behaviors. What about someone that wants 15 wives. Who is he hurting? Why is that illegal? Why would he go to jail for being married to 15 women? Because this society finds that behavior to be wrong. And who says it is wrong? Well, in this society, we based that rule on the fact that God said it is wrong. So, I would like to see divorce made as hard as God said it should be. That it only be allowed in the cases of adultery, abuse and the like. If you dont want a life long contract, dont get married.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In my opinion, I don’t believe that making divorce more difficult is in the best interest of the state. I believe that it clogs the state’s courts and I also wonder if it doesn’t contribute to make divorce more vicious and personally difficult on the parties than it needs to be.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How in the world does it make it MORE viscious? It already is viscious. The only way it could get worse is if we just put the husband and wife in a ring and let them hack each other to death. It wont clog the state courts...DIVORCE is clogging the state courts. You make most of them illegal and guess what? A lot less divorces!! Go talk to most lawyers out there. Most make half their money off providing divorce services. The only guys that win in a divorce is the attorneys.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Seems to make an all ready gut wrenching processes even more painful and gut wrenching.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How so? If there is no process, how can it be more gut wrenching? Again, if you dont want the life long commitment, dont make it in the first place. And if you want out...then expect to be penalized for it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m also in favor of allowing non-traditional (gay) unions because I don’t see the lack of gay marriage as instrumental in creating anything other than legal difficulty. In other words, since I do not concern myself with God’s laws, I have no moral objection to two adults who wish to build a life together regardless of their gender and, in fact, I see civil benefits to allowing such unions. But, I digress.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do I agree that gay unions should be allowed? Nope. For Biblical reasons? Sure...but that isnt all. In a legal and societal sense, we regulate many behaviors. We regulate marriage. We promote marriage between a husband and wife because it is good for society. It provides off spring, a home to raise the children and instruction. It does so i nthe morally accepted norms by the population ofthe U.S. And again, as based in law. Which, I said earlier...has its bedrock in the tewachings of the Bible. This, because of this, you get laws such as this one from Virginia passed in 2004: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex. A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But that is all for a different discussion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">One suggestion I would make is that people be able to either divorce legally through the courts if theirs is a purely civil union and those that are married in a Church be divorced through a Church. That would clear up the courts to only deal with civil unions (like mine) and allow Churches greater power in the arena of governing which people in their flock should be divorced or not. Since Churches are allowed to officiate over the CREATION of a marital union (but not required to do so), I see no reason not to allow a Church to officiate of the DISSOLUTION of a marital union (though not require that they do so). I wonder how many Churches would be willing to take up that type of community role. That way, people could act in accordance with their conscience regarding marriage and Church.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, I doubt this will happen, because like I said before, the State has a vested interest in regulating marriage and divorce due to its societal and financial impacts. But I would like to see the Church have the power to officiate over divorces as officials of the State, just as church officials are given sanction by the state to marry people. In this way, two Christians that wanted to divorce would not clog up the court system. They would have to go before their church and the church would rule on that. And as a Christian, the Bible says that is the way we are SUPPOSED to do it. Shoot, we let Judge Wapner on TV make legally binding decisions. Why not let the churches do so also?


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand your point. I do think the government should have some interest in preventing as much drainage on it’s resources as possible. Yet, I am emotionally opposed to tying two people together in a marriage who no longer wish to be there. I can’t see that as a benefit to children, though maybe that’s because I don’t have any.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Studies do show children are better off in a home of conflict (not including abuse) than in a home of divorce. Most studies show this to be true for the children. I know that goes against most thinking...but the studies have proven that the children are better of in an intact family.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, I agree that the State has the right to set those policies but are the resources involved in enforcing those policies a greater drain on the resources of the State than cleaning up the mess involved? It is virtually impossible to keep two people (adults or not) who are determined to be together, apart. You can’t legislate compatibility, either. Are children better off in a home that has become a war zone or a broken home? The research suggests the later. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As I said above, the research actually shows that an intact home is better for the kids than a broken home...of couse as long as there isnt abuse involved. On policing up divorces, what does the State have to police? Divorces are already clogging up our legal system. If we make them rare, then guess what? Less people coming before the judge. A coupel goes to their attorneys and say that they want a divorce. The attorney says "Is there abuse or adultery involved?" They say no. And the lawyer says "Well, you dont have a case." And it doesnt go to court. No legal standing to file.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If you look at the stories on this board and on the news, you can see that our society is filled with cases of adultery and divorce. If we started putting all those people in prison, there wouldn’t be anyone left outside to get anything done! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I am not advocating prison for people gettign a divorce...because they wont be able to get a divorce, except in the instances I mentioned. What are they going to do, get a "back-alley divorce?" Just a little joke there. But seriously. On the issue of adultery, there should be penalties...especially financial. Loss of all marital property. Loss of custody of minor children. Alimony to be paid to the BS. Child support for the children. Now, I would love them to add what we have in the military and that is the judge also can order the WS not to see or talk to the OP. Now, if they do....THEN there is jail time for contempt of court!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It may be that stiffer penalties would result in fewer incidents because of deterrence but look where the drug war has gotten us. The U.S. has the largest prison population of the developed world. *sighs* Sadly, people who are addicted to substances or determined to fill their lustful needs seem to be immune from the good sense to learn from other’s examples. If they weren’t we probably wouldn’t have as many problems as we do, eh?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Correct. But just because there will always be murderers doesnt mean we stop putting murderers on death row.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ah, that is good to know. Do you have any knowledge of how often that sort of thing actually happens?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, not specifically. But I do know that most churches in the Christian community are failing miserably at the jobs given to them by God. And being a "court" between two Christians is one of them. If I want a debt repaid by a fellow Christian, I am not supposed to head downtown to the court. I am supposed to head to the church and they make their ruling. And their ruling is not only binding here...but is bound in heaven. So, if the other Christian refuses to "fly right" they can actually be declared spiritually dead. And that is one place a Christian does not want to be.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What does repentance require? Isn’t penance a way to demonstrate repentance?

Also, what does the Bible say about restitution towards the Betrayed?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There is no Biblical ideal of penance that is applicable today. Repentance is nothing but asking for forgiveness for the sin, and turning from it...never doing it again. Once that is done, the believer is restored. On paying back the aggrieved person...well, if a Christian hurt someone and is repentent, they will let God lead them on what they should do to make things right. There is no standard formula in the Bible (which is all that I am concerned about).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Our forefathers had the foresight to build a separation of church from State into our nation’s laws. I expect that is because they all had different beliefs and held the over all belief that Civic matters should be decided in a different way than Spiritual ones. They wanted to break away from the laws of any one Church and instead be governed by the will of the people. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Okay, this is a common misperception of what they did and why they did it. I am a policitcal science major. Let me tell you what the separation clause was all about. They werent concerned with a church being involved in the State...they did not limit that (which is what many think today). They wanted the State out of the church. Look at where they came from. The head of the church there was the King. The were being persecuted for their religious beliefs by the King (read the Declaration of Independence). So, they wanted a nation where the government could not interfere with the church. NOWHERE IN THERE does it say anything about limiting the church's involvement in the State, which is why we have all of our problems today. Judge Moore in Alabama puts a statue up with the 10 Commandments. The courts say he cant do that because of the separation clause. Know what the Founders say? They say there is no problem with that. That it wasnt the government being involved in religion, but religion being involved in government.

We as a society have a common misperception on how and why our government was set-up. And even what out government is. We like to say we live in a democracy. That is untrue. We do not live in a democracy, and we would not want to live in a democracy. A democracy is the will of the majority rules. Minorities could be over run. We have a consitutional republic. Our laws and rights are based on a constitution, not on the vote. Our Consitution is based on the Declaration, which bases our rights on those given to us by God. This is the form of government we have. Thus, the majority of congreesmen could vote to say that we cannot speak freely in public...and that law would be illegal because the majority does not rule when it is in conflict with Consitutional rights.
So, now that I have given Poli Sci 101, what I wanted to say is that we need to relearn what the Founders did and what they meant. Because it is what they meant that counts, not what we think they meant (which is exactly why it burns me up to hear people falsely say the Consitution is a living document).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In those days, that will did not include women or people of color. We’ve changed our nation to include those voices. The voices of those of us who do not follow a faith are just as important and protected as those who do follow a faith. Both should be protected. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">All true. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Building laws based upon the teaching of one religion is dangerous ground.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe. But this nation has survived over 230 years based on Judeo-Christian principles, and our reliance on that God. It is the basis of what we founded and the basis of our law. And it has worked pretty well. And even though it is based in that faith, it has provided a nation that people of all faiths (or no faith) can live their life. But each nation has a moral code. This one is based on Christian teachings. If someone doesnt like that because they have a different faith, they have but two choices. They can live here and adhere to their faith. And if their faith intereferes with the laws of this nation, they will have to change or move. Or the second thing is to find a nation that adheres to their moral code. This nation has a moral code. Some may not like it. Some may want homosexual "marriages." But that isnt the moral background of this nation. Right or wrong, this nation believes marriage is a certain way and was set-up that way. But unlike many nations, those that believe in homosexual marriages, for example, have recourses available to them.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I’m a bit confused though. Our founding fathers decidedly took God out of government by insisting on a separation of Church and state.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nope. This is wrong. Our Founding Fathers did NOT take God out of governemtn, as you saw fro mjust the few quotes I gave from Geroge Washington. What they did do was take the government out of the church!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In order to preserve the right of all people to worship (or not worship) according to their conscience, they took the bold step of insisting that the Government not sponsor any religion. I think it makes America a great place to live. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Exactly!!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I suppose I’m curious as to why the focus isn’t more on getting errant Churches to live up to their responsibilities rather than creating legislation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh, believe me...I would love this. But God already said He takes care of those who are i nthe family and misbehaving. I have no worry there that they arent getting that "spanking" from Him as they deserve.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Somehow, I have a hard time believing that the U.S. government has more clout on matters of spirituality to the average Christian than the local leaders of his or her Church. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Unfortunately, this is true in America today. The church has abdicated its responsibilities to government. A hundred years ago, who took care of your neighbor if his house was flooded or he was out of work? You did, and the church did. Now we have unConstitutional government programs that provide for the "welfare" of the down trodden. No where in our Consitution or in the writings of the Founders did they think thsi was a good idea. As a matter of fact, they expressly warned us not to do this. I want to see the church get back to where it was supposed to be in the first place. And what God has told it must do.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I suspect that you and I will not agree in some areas but I also think that we probably have some common ground. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We do.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do appreciate your patience with my questions about religion. I’m truly not trying to attack religions, religious people, or Churches. I’m just often confused as to why it seems there is so much outside focus to fix what appears to me to be a largely internal problem. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I understand. believe me, it is all very confusing at times.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In other words, I can assume that I am a sinner according to the tenants of your faith. My understanding is that it is “your” (the collective “your” as in Christians) responsibility to educate me and then allow me the free will to make my decision. I either believe or I do not. Past that point, as long as I do not trespass against you, my understanding is that it is no longer your responsibility. Further, it doesn’t matter whether I live a good life or a bad one because, either way, I am doomed for eternity. It doesn’t make much sense to me for “you” (the collective “you” as in Christians) to concern yourselves about my additional sins.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You know, I have no problem with this. Shoot, many Christians have no concept of this. You should be commended for understanding all of this!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Many Christians do not get all of this. I do pray that the Lord will meet you one day and you will accept Him as your friend. But, I have no qualms of you making your decision based on truth and based on the fact that you know everything involved.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">On the other hand, I can understand why a Church would be very concerned about the sins of it’s members. After all, if you believe in a Divine God, then it certainly seems to make sense to me that a Church (of all places) better behave in accordance with His/Her/It’s wishes! I imagine His/Her/It’s wrath would be even more terrible at the failure of a Church which is supposed to be leading the faithful than at the failure of an individual.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is all true. But also, we believe that marriage is an institution set up by God. It was His invention, not man's. Thus, even if you dont believe in Him, your marriage is recognized by Him...and thus regulated by Him. That is why we involve ourselves in society in helping to change this destructive pattern of divorce.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So, it seems as though the resources of concerned Christians, such as yourself, would be better focused on saving those who you can actually save from the dire consequences rather than on an atheist, like me.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually, I can save no one. As you know, only Jesus can do that. In the concept of eternity, these Christians are already saved. So, even though they are doing wrong, Heaven is still assured. But what they risk is the loss of blessings, and for God outright spanking them, for rebellion. And that we try to stop them for so they wont have to be hurt in this life.

On saving heathens...I cant do that either. But I am charged with giving His word and spreading the truth. So, if my neighbor is Muslim, I will tell Him about Jesus and about God. If he chooses not to accept the truth, then that is on him. I did my job. And that person wil lstand before Jesus one day without excuse because they were told the truth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Your friendly, neighborhood athiest,</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This has been friendly and I do like the discussion. Again, I do pray that the Lord finds you and that one day your bi-line changes to "friendly neighborhood bond-servant of Jesus Christ." But until then, I look forward to further discussions.

In His arms.

<small>[ February 24, 2005, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Mortarman ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Patriot wrote:
I bought my wife a car. Cars can, and have, killed people. However, cars are manageable. So are diseases. Even HIV can be controlled."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have got to be kidding me.

You're comparing a husband buying his wife a car to a husband who has shared a fatal disease with his wife resulting from his affair???

Your logic is preverse IMVHO.

And BTW, I am one of those wives' who had to "manage" my stage 3 cervical cancer which resulted from a disease my WS shared with me.

Please rethink your analogy.

Jo

<small>[ February 24, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Resilient ]</small>