YES Exactly.


Rubbish. Just made that one up did you?


Get a clue!

Actually BK [ahem] the prescribed punishment for rebellious youth who were unrepentant was stoning in the OT. [lol]

Adulterers..likewise.

And yet in the NT they are having to deal with some very undead adulterers in their midst in their churches and were told to cast them out if they refuse to repent rather than drag them to the city square and stone them.

There is some difference between civil law for OT jews and moral law as it applies to the modern church.

It's a whole new ballgame so to speak BUT since God does not contradict himself or change the spirit of the law is still correct today.

Frankly parents would take raising their children MORE seriously if the penalty for rebellion could result in their public execution. The law wasn't WRONG and it isd very clear that God takes rebellion in children very seriously.

Compare..rebellious child = death to homosexuality which for all of the hullabaloo was not a capital offense even then.

Krazy..the issue HERE is not whether christians are right or wrong to believe what they do...it is people who claim that belief as their own and then defy it and call it good.

Which is basically saying..I don't believe this thing I believe.

And what's the point of that?

I want to practice wicca but call it christianity?

I want adultery to be accepted not as something that exists but as something which is virtuous and acceptable specifically in defiance of the very scripture I claim to espouse?

Christianity is specific and it is exclusive and it has never claimed to be anything else.

What Dr. Harley has to say about same sex marriage...

From Defending Traditional Marriage by Dr. Willard F. Harley, Jr. (Chapter 13 Pgs. 209-218)...

[color:"blue"]Same Sex Marriage a Threat?[/color]
[color:"red"]Is There Anthing Wrong with Gay and Lesbian Relationships?[/color]

[color:"blue"]"Over the past thirty-five years, I've watched as our government has done just about everything imaginable to lose the meaning of traditional marriage. We've allowed the enactment of laws that suggest traditional marriage has become outdated-that a permanent and sexually exclusive relationship of extraordinary care is no longer relevant. And all this has occurred with very little resistance despite devastating consequences to our families and to society in general. In each case these laws were passed with hardly a murmur of opposition.

That's why I was shocked to witness the energy behind grassroots efforts to resist same-sex marriage. Why now? I must say that I honestly didn't understand how this issue could create such a firestorm of protest when so little opposition had arisen against earlier changes in laws regarding marriage. But whatever the reason, I was energized by the realization that the controversy had awakened a sleeping giant. And legislators were listening.

In response to the public outcry, legislators at first simply enacted laws against same-sex marriage, hoping that would be enough to satisfy their constituents. But when judges challenged those laws as being unconstitutional, it became apparent that nothing short of a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage would suffice. So states throughout America are now in the process of changing their constitutions. They want to define marriage in their state constitutions as a relationship between one man and one woman-just so judges will not tamper with it.

From my perspective, traditional marriage was already doomed by cultural bias against extraordinary care in marriage and by the passage of laws supporting infidelity and divorce. So what difference would it make if gays and lesbians "married", when marriage had already lost its traditional meaning? Based on the legal and cultural trends we've considered so far in this book, I had already predicted that traditional marriage would be reduced to a cultural footnote within the next few decades.

Consider the numbers. My best estimate of the percentage of marriages that suffer from infidelity is 60%. That's over half of all marriages. And the percentage of the marriages that end in divorce is about 45%-almost half. In contrast, where same-sex marriage or civil unions are encouraged, they account for just 0.5 percent of all marriages. That means only five couples out of a thousand actually choose that path-99.5% choose heterosexual marriage. How much influence could that half of one percent have on the rest of us?

So when I first became aware of the same-sex marriage issue, I didn't view it as a significant risk for traditional families. There were too few of them to have much impact. On the other hand, laws favoring infidelity and divorce have had, and continue to have a devastating effect on marriage. It seemed to me that all of that energy going into avoiding same-sex marriage was being directed at the wrong issue. Traditional marriage was already on the rocks-and not because of the same-sex marriage issue.

Nonetheless, the more I studied the arguments both for and against same-sex marriage, the more convinced I became that the fourth element of marriage-that it is betweeen a man and a woman-does need to be supported. Let me explain why I'm now on board.

Do Same-Sex Relationships Really Work?

Traditional marriage creates the most fulfilling relationship that is possible in life. When all four of its essential elements are in place, a husband and wife-and their children-are very happy. But when even one of those elements is lacking, trouble is on the horizon.

It's easy to see how the lack of extraordinary care, sexual exclusivity, or permanence would wreck a relationship. But is it all that important for the couple to be of opposite sexes?

Admittedly, there's not much published research on this topic. As with surveys that ask people about incidences of infidelity, it's difficult to obtain accurate data regarding fulfillment in same-sex relationships. In public surveys, most people will either deny ever having had an affair or, when they do admit it, will tend to downplay its diastrous consequences. Likewise, in surveys, same-sex couples who are fighting for the right to marry are likely to downplay frustration or dissatisfaction with their relationships.

But I've observed hundreds of same-sex couples in my own professsional experience, and they have always stood out to me as being characteristically frustrated and depressed-many to the point of suicide. Same-sex relationships tend to be very brief and, especially for men, very unhealthy and violent. Granted, I've seen my share of unhealthy opposite-sex relationships as well. Yet on average, the same-sex relationships I've witnessed have been far more fragile.

For these and a host of other clinical reasons, I've discouraged my clients from maintaining their same-sex relationships. Instead I encourage them to either pull away from romantic relationships entirely for a time or to turn their attention to opposite-sex relationships. And, contrary to public perceptions, I've seen many clients successfully reorient themselves to opposite-sex relationships. Scores of my previously gay and lesbian clients are now happily married with children-all because they embraced a traditional definition of marriage that is marked by extraordinary care for life.

I have absolutely no doubt that same-sex relationships can be very romantic. And they can be characterized by the extraordinary care I've suggested. But even in the best of these relationships, when a couple has been honest with me, they have both admitted that they would have preferred feeling the same way toward someone of the opposite sex. The truth is, on average, opposite-sex relationships tend to be more stable and fulfilling. And that, in itself, is a good reason to promote traditional marriage rather than same-sex marriage. But there's also another, even more important reason: the welfare of our children.

A Biological Father and Mother Make the Best Parents

When parents share genetic traits with their chilren, it gives them an instinctive advantage for understanding what those children need. Shared genetic traits also tend to help children understand why their parents react the way they do. That emotional similarity helps parents and children form a bond that is much more difficult to form in alternative families. And that bonds leads to trust that makes training much easier to implement.

Since gay and lesbian relationships do not lead to the creation of offspring that share genetic traits of both partners, they suffer a distinct disadvantage when it comes to raising children. At best, just one of the parents has that biological connection to the child. And as a result, they lack the same emotional empathy that biological parents tend to have.

Also, because gay or lesbian couples do not offer both a male and female parental role model for their children early in life, such children are at a distinct disadvantage later in life. In most families biological fathers and mothers tend to play very different roles in the training of children that help balance love and care (a mother's influence) with responsibility and discipline (a father's influence). Granted, I acknowledge a significant overlap in these traits-women are also responsible and disciplined, and men do demonstrate love and care. But in most families, care is more empathasized by mothers and responsiblity is more influenced by fathers.

A father gives his children insight into the way men tend to view the world, and a mother gives them a woman's perspective. As long as both parents respect each other's way of thinking, a child grows up with understanding of the value of both men and women. Diversity training begins in the traditional family, where children come to appreciate the differences between their mother and father.

Same-sex couples offer childre little hope of understanding and appreciating the differences between men and women because they cannot provide daily exposure to both a father and a mother. Instead, they tend to reinforce a false belief that men and women are not made for each other because they cannot demonstrate to children the exquisite way that a man and woman can blend together.

In addition to concerns about male and female parental influences, there is also another reason to be concerned about the ability of gay and lesbian couples to raise children most successfuly: their relationships are notoriously unstable. As we've already discussed, problems they have trying to make their relationship fulfilling often cause them to jump from one relationship to another-in constant search of that perfect match. As a result, their relationships don't usually last very long. Only a very small percentage stay together long enough to raise a child to adulthood.

As I already mentioned, it's difficult to get accurate information about the stability of same-sex relationships from surveys. But the countries that have enacted laws granting same-sex marriage and civil unions have provided our first truly objecive measures of the stability of same-sex marriages. For the first time, we have their divorce rates.

We are all aware how fragile opposite-sex marriages have been recently-divorce rates are incredibly high. In fact, one of the arguments used in support of same-sex marriage is that they can't be any worse than opposite-sex marriage. But the first solid evidence we have on that subject from Sweden is that same-sex marriages are worse-much worse.

In the Swedish study, the divorce rate of same-sex couples was compared with the divorce rate of opposite-sex couples over a similar period of time. It was found that same-sex male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce, and same-sex female couples were 167 percent more likely to divorce than their opposite-sex counterparts. In other words, divorce statistics among same-sex couples reflected what I already knew-they are unstable whether or not they marry.

And these results are particularly impressive when you consider that same-sex couples in the most stable relationships would be the first to take advantage of the opportunity to marry. The early results from Sweden should give same-sex couples a temporary advantage over their opposite-sex counterparts when dvorce rates are compared. But this study indicates that the first group of same-sex couples to have married in Sweden are actually more likely to divorce than opposite-sex couples in the same culture. And I expect future studies to show the divorce rates of same-sex couples to be even higher.

If same-sex relationships are much less stable than opposite-sex relationships (as shown in the Swedish study), it should be ovbious that they're not the ideal place for chilren to be raised. Children neeed safety and stability, and same-sex relationships tend to provide exactly the opposite-danger and instability.

In chapter 10, I presented other reasons why children need a biological father and mother who stay together, so I won't repeat them here. But I will repeat the conclusion of thousands of studies: the best way to raise happy and successful children is for them to be with their biological father and mother who are united in marriage and who love their children and each other. In other words, a same-sex couple simply cannot give children the advantages that biological parents are able to provide.

Why Experiment with the Lives of Children?

Many call same-sex marriage a social evolution. I'm in favor of doing things if they work. But I think same-sex marriage is more accurately characterized as a social experiment, and early results of this experiment are not at all encouraging. In fact, they are downright frightening, especially from the perspective of our children.

Why experiment with the lives of our children? Even if only one-half of on percent of couples will exercise the option of same-sex marriage, it's still an unsafe and unstable environment for both them and the children they could raise.

Children will believe almost anything we tell them when they're young. So why give children the impression that same-sex relationships offer the same advantages as opposite-sex relationships when it's not true? And why would we want to mislead children into thinking that same-sex relationships are safe and secure when it's so clear that they're not? They are more violent, more unhealthy, and more unstable than their heterosexual counterparts.

Men and women are made for each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. I am a witness to how successful and permanent a relationship between a man and woman can be when they give each other extraordinary care.

Traditional marriages have suffered a body blow lately because our culture has failed to teach us the meaning of extraordinary care in marriage. And the same cultural changes that led to uncaring marriages also helped create the legal changes that made infidelity and divorce more common. Today, the success of marriage is at an all-time low when it comes to acheiving its potential. But in spite of its failure, heterosexual marriage is still doing far better than its same-sex counterpart.

If men and women would give each other the extraordinary care they promise at the time of marriage, our society would not be so disillusioned with marriage, and as a result we wouldn't even be considering same-sex marriage these days. And we wouldn't be seeing much infidelity or divorce either. If our marriages were to be characterized by extraordinary care, the other three elements of marriage would be easy for everyone to understand and accept.

But since we've come so far in destroying three of the essential elements of traditional marriage, I'm delighted that the risk of losing the fourth element has finally drawn the public's attention to traditional marriage. Perhaps this effort to stop further erosion in marriage will eventually help restore the other elements that been missing. If that happens, we will have helped create the quailty of marriage that will make our children happier, healthier, and more successful than we could have ever imagined."[/color]

Happy Reading!

Mrs. W

I hope this is not a “threadjack,” but I was interested because I saw it posted. If it is the wrong place to ask, I will post elsewhere as advised, but I was curious what you all think:

It was posted that the only permitted reason for Christian divorce is “marital infidelity.” But the definitions I have for infidelity/faithlessness include: “Breach of trust or loyalty” and being “False to duty, obligation, or promises/vows.”

So: How rigid is that definition of adultery/infidelity when it comes to divorce, if we are seeking to encourage marriage and limit divorce?

We know that outright sexual encounters with other men and women are considered acts of infidelity, but:

Many here consider an EA to and pornography to be infidelity; are they also grounds for divorce?

But would it be appropriate to consider other forms of “breach of trust or loyalty” or being “false to duty, obligation, or vows” to also be a form of faithlessness? And would that be adequate grounds for divorce?

For instance, Mrs. GGW felt for many years that poor conduct on the part of Mr. GGW was in the arena of “falseness to duty, obligation, or promises.” (Neither EA nor porn was involved.) Mr. GGW concedes that this was probably the case. Okay, it was the case. At that time. But he was never physically or emotionally available to another human being. This was very bad behavior on the part of one spouse – in the category of “breach of trust or loyalty” because of its magnitude.

Would it have been appropriate for Mrs. GGW to have considered his conduct “marital infidelity”? Or “marital faithlessness”? And to have used that as an opportunity for divorce at that time?

<b>How do we define the parameters of infidelity, when considering what conduct is divorceable?[/b]

BTW, FH, we left a note of gratitude for you over on our previous thread <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

(Co-written by Mr. and Mrs. GGW)

The legal definition is somewhat limited. It is intercourse with someone other than your spouse. EA's, oral sex and other sexual transgressions are not considered adultery in the eyes of the laws in many states.
Biblically speaking, the terminology, IMO, would be much broader. It would include things like abusing your spouse, EA's ...not just limited to intercourse. In reality, all of things you mention are in fact infidelity to a marriage.

I think further explanation would be required to understand exactly what you mean by falseness to duty, obligation or vows. This can encompass a lot and may very well be infidelity.

How should it be defined...perhaps through prayer.

Hi Mr. and Mrs. GGW! It's very good to see you two still working at recovery. I left you a message on your Recovery thread.


"Many here consider an EA to and pornography to be infidelity; are they also grounds for divorce?"

Short answers now, detail later if you want more discussion.

In my opinion, yes, both of those "rise to the level of marital unfaithfulness" that would be biblical grounds for a divorce.


"would it be appropriate to consider other forms of “breach of trust or loyalty” or being “false to duty, obligation, or vows” to also be a form of faithlessness? And would that be adequate grounds for divorce?"

For some things, yes, and for other things, no. It would take specific "things" to be more precise. One example: Consistant spousal abuse would be "marital unfaithfulness" but a "one time slip" or a "slap" from letting anger "get the best of you" would not. More than anything, I think is a "heart condition" that is what defines it. Slapping, etc. as an exception and not a rule of behavior is wrong, but it does not rise to the level of "marital unfaithfulness" that would "trigger" a "biblically acceptable divorce."




In my opinion, no it would not "qualify." It was not right, but it would fall more under the "or for worse" part of the marriage vows. It has a lot to do with how each individual views the sanctity of marriage and the value of THEIR own vows to the spouse and to God.


"How do we define the parameters of infidelity, when considering what conduct is divorceable?"

Okay, you might want to read a thread I began on the EN forum to Tama. This question was a large part of that discussion and in particular you might want to follow the link to an older thread on the subject and read the lengthy article by Frank McGaw Jr on this subject.

That may answer some question and it might prompt more questions.

God bless.

I read the entire article connected. It's hard even to know what to say.

How do believers stop the rising of cultish dynamics within churches that purport to be Christian?

There is a great deal, imo, of emotional blackmail in cult dynamics... and I found the statement of "sharing blame" with members... to be further form of emotional blackmail for speaking up and out against the wrong things that happened there.

When anything happens involving the members and leaders of an institution... it's a different dynamic than what happens unrelated to membership/leadership (even holding same) within an institution.

If the true standards of the church whereby the leaders function in practice were actually published as their "rules"... I believe we'd probably look at them and believe that it was a cult - not a Christian church.

The danger of a true church on paper is this: It can be a cult in practice.

Then what is it, really?

A "true church" because it is so... merely on paper?

This is what I tell my friends.

"Don't believe what he says. Watch his feet."... in relation to men... when words and actions do not line up.

Believe their feet.

What actually happened there is the reality... not the illusion of what they say the institution exists to accomplish... imo.

If they want to change that... trying to get people to believe the illusion of what they say is merely a lie and deception.

Their actual practices need to change... imo.

And I'm not so sure that can happen.

True repentance would mean, imo, the replacement of the entire leadership and a complete dismantling and restructuring in order and agreement and in subjection to sound biblical structure... and accountability.

The errors of the denominational church... can be exceeded by the dynamics present in a non-denominational church that make it susceptible to becoming cultish in it's structure... and practice, imo.

Seeing a problem, however, isn't the same as being a solution.

I see a real problem with exalting leadership that seems to me to have swept through many non-denominational churches that become personality cults rather than biblical churches.

Only a return to biblical order, imo, will solve it. And what biblical order really looks like is open to debate.

I think that the moment leaders take "authority" lording it over the flock in any form of emotional blackmail to feed an "institution" or, actually, themselves... we've left the Christian path.

Humility in service and equality in respect to me are keys of what makes a true Christian church in mutual submission.

(I'm still left wondering "What next?").

If I fall, I'd leave the church... out of respect for the Lord and others.

It's the members and leaders wanting to look one way and live another that is always the greatest danger to the church, imo.

"What's next?" would seem to me to be fairly obvious, but perhaps not to others. What it takes is personal responsibility for one's own walk with God, not "tolerance" or "blindly following." Of course that sort of personal responsibility is rather hard to do if the individual does not know what the Scripture actually says. For most of us, I'd say it's fairly rare that people actually read the Bible, let alone study it. Most get "sound bites" and their entire understanding from attending a service somewhere.

So-called "Easy believism" falls into this category, and "stunts" the growth of a new believer so that they never progress from "milk" to "meat."

This also can impact the "differences" you see in the dangers of "denominational" and "non-demoninational" churches. The single biggest "threat" that can enter into a denominational church is "error" that becomes entrenched in tradition or control that emphasizes strict adherence to what the church teaches, regardless of how it "stacks up" against the Word of God.

Where you perhaps can see this most evidently displayed today is the differences between so-called "liberal" and "fundamental" churches. NO church is "immune" from the potential for problems promulagated by it's leadership, but at least in a "congregational" form of governmental structure, the congregation CAN remove leaders found to be "in error" in teaching or practice that is contrary to the Word of God.

In the end, the question is "where IS the 'church of God'?" I would submit that it is NOT in any church building, it is within each member of Christ's body. Those individuals MAY congregate together and some may choose to stay in whatever "church" they attend. But if the teaching of the church is opposed to Scripture, I would think they might find it personally more and more difficult to remain a member of a church that is not "biblically centered."

But, as interesting as this discussion could be, it doesn't really touch on your own situation. That is where I'd prefer to spend what time I have available for discussion, if, as always, you might want to discuss your situation.

I also left you a responsive post to the post you made on the Quiet Corner thread. You might want to check it out when you get a chance.

More "in line" with the issues you face, would be my thread on the EN forum for "A Christian perspective on Divorce" where I was talking with Tama.

Hi FH,

Very good points.

I feel like a person trying to regain strength. The Bible says to be strengthened through the Word of God and prayer (and of course other sound Christian disciplines).

I think it's a good idea to go to that site.

I don't think it's always such a good idea to talk about my own situation. That can't be the center... and runs the risk of becoming central... if I focus on it. I can feel myself weaken sometimes... and need to be strengthened.

I think focus on the Word of God should be central. It always applies to my situation.

Cart and horse.

The Word is the horse... and it's everything else that needs to line up and be pulled, imo.

What I believe is that God's strength of His Spirit is in me in salvation... and strengthened by the Word.

If I can just get strengthened in the Word and prayer, I'll "walk things out" the way God would have me.

And that's really my only responsibility.

Yet, when I do that right... it will help have a positive influence on all things.

OK, to the EN thread!

God bless,

Back - just a general comment or two based on what you wrote here. Perhaps more in the arena of "food for thought" rather than discussion or "I agree" or "I disagree" types of posting.

"If I can just get strengthened in the Word and prayer, I'll "walk things out" the way God would have me."

This can easily slide into a "works" based sort of "yardstick" of one's "Christianity." So we have to be careful in that it is not always what "we can do." It is most often "what God can do," if we will just get ourselves out of the way and let God work His will ACCORDING to His will for ourselves and for others around us.



"Cart and horse."

One thing we also need to remind ourselves is that God created us for Himself. WE are the "object" of what God's will is, and the Bible lays out God's love for us with the purpose of eternal communion with God.

The "cart before the horse" thing is that the "Word of God" itself is not the object, we are, and God's plan for salvation of us is what is revealed. The Word it the means by which (primarily) God REVEALS His will to us and informs us of what He wants us to know relative to BEING children of God.

God bless.