Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    	It's not over til it over!
    
    
    
    
    	No one has the right, with respect to a marriage, to begin a 
    new relationship until the old one is over.  Most all marriages are
    salvageable, (NOTE: I said 'most').  It is because of the selfishness
    of one or both partners that marriages fail.  
    
    	The marriage is 'legally' dead when there is a divorce, yet I have
    heard of marriages that survived even that and were reconciled.  The
    marriage is dying when the partners start being more concerned with
    what they can get out of the other or what they are not getting out of
    the other and less concerned with how to meet the others needs.

    I was discussing divorce with my father once. He told me of how often
    people tell him divorce is wrong because the marriage ceremony say
    "what God has joined together let not man put asunder." Dad's reply
    is that God gets blamed for a lot of marriages that he didn't cause.
    Some marriages should never have been in the first place and just
    because two people say their "I do" in a church doesn't mean that
    God is in or supports the marriage.

    Many, perhaps even most, marriages can be healed if both partners
    want it to work and work at it. But that is an ideal case and far too
    often both people don't want it to work. In some cases the continuation
    of a marriage is not in the best interests of the participants. It is
    a decision I believe each couple has to make for themselves.

    		Alfred
    
    PS: Where in the Bible does it say God hates divorce? Thanks for the
    pointer.

    To answer Cal's question, as far as I'm concerned, the marriage is dead
    when one or both of the parties has left the marriage emotionally.  To
    me, this is the technical end of a marriage.  At this point the
    commitment between the two has been violated.
    
    When I went through my divorce, my ex left the marriage emotionally 
    1 1/2 years before we separated and 2 years before the divorce was
    really final.  Although we tried to put "work things out" the trust
    between the two of us had been violated and neither of us was able to
    re-commit to each other or the relationship.  So, legally the marriage
    didn't end until February of 1986, technically, I think it ended in
    November of 1983.
    
    Nanci 

Though I never went through a divorce, I lived the seperation. My
first spouse was hospitalized with a condition that she did not
know reality or who I was for about 6 months. When she was on the
recovery path, she got so distraught that she was in her
condition that she took her own life. As a result, I had a period
of spiritual and psychological help to regain who I was: a loved
child of God.

It was 7 years later that Judy and I met and married two years
later. I, in that period of time looked hard at why I was single
and if marriage was for me. I learned that there are some
differing look at divorce, suicide, etc. that helped Christians
to live beyond the guilt and conviction and go back into God's
house.

I knew that God loved me but I was not ready for His love because
I held Him guilty for taking my beloved Charlotte. I learned that
though He was not the cause of my suffering, He still loved ME
enough to bring me back into His mansion.

calvin

Note 112.1
>	                  -< GOD HATES DIVORCE! >-

I'm glad you point this out.  How else could we possibly know what
God hates? ;-)

Let's also say that God does *not* hate divorced people.  Okay?

Peace,
Richard

>================================================================================
>Note 111.6               Private versus Public Morality                   6 of 8
>JOKUR::CIOTO                                          6 lines  14-NOV-1990 13:47
>      -< Though I hate quoting scripture, this should pretty much do it. >-

	Interesting comment about hating to quote Scripture. Why?

>    Matt 5:31,32, Matt 19, Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7

	Now that I've had a chance to look these up I can comment a little.
	The Gospel references all relate to basically the same incident. Jesus
	is asked by the Pharisees if it was lawful for a man to put away his
	wife. Jesus replied by asking what Moses' law was. Moses law allowed
	(allows) a bill of divorcement and putting "her away." Jesus then
	goes on to say that that law was written because of man's weakness.
        He further says that if you divorce a woman for reasons *other then*
	fornication and either party marries again they commit adultery. So
	it sounds like Jesus would prefer people not divorce except that
	divorce for adultery seems to be ok.

	I Corinthians 7 is a little different though. Chapter 7 talks about
	marriage. It includes interesting little verses like 7:4 which says
	that a husband and a wife have power over the others body. This
	chapter also includes 7:7 where the author wishes that everyone could
	stay single. Verse 10 says "Let not the wife depart from the husband."
	Later verses say that people should not divorce their unbelieving
	spouse but stick around as a witness. On the other hand verse 15 says
	that "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a 
	sister is not under bondage in such cases". This implies that a
	believer married to an unbeliever is free to re-marry if the other
	leaves.

	Other comments? 

			Alfred

In Mosaic law, a woman marries into the man's family. If they are
believe in the Almighty God, she is under his household laws
which include submission (recall the story of Ruth and Neomi?) to
the faith of the man's house hold. This was still true in Paul's
time when the Roman centurion became a believer of Jesus, his
whole family was converted (read mandated to convert).

How then, can a woman marry a man and not be a believer? If she
or he blaspheme the name of God, they are stoned to death.

calvin

Re:  112.3 

  >To answer Cal's question, as far as I'm concerned, the marriage is dead
  >when one or both of the parties has left the marriage emotionally.  To
  >me, this is the technical end of a marriage.  At this point the
  >commitment between the two has been violated.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this.  Because the
commitment that is made is *not* based on what your spouse will give
you.  It is a commitment that gives freely sometimes *despite* what
the spouse gives.  It as agape love.

Now, there is more to a marriage than agape.  However, agape is the
commitment to love forever and is the basis of a marriage.

Collis
    

< Note 112.8 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >
                                 -< Disagree >-

>I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this.  Because the
>commitment that is made is *not* based on what your spouse will give
>you.  It is a commitment that gives freely sometimes *despite* what
>the spouse gives.  It as agape love.

>Now, there is more to a marriage than agape.  However, agape is the
>commitment to love forever and is the basis of a marriage.

Collis
    
I agree with Nancy and disagree with you. Agape (greek word for
un-defined love such as God has for those who reject Him). If a
marriage hangs on Agape love, then the marriage is called married
singles (in Marriage Encounter terms).

I know of several divorced couples who still respect each other
and care for each other but they cannot live in the same house.

Love forever requires a continual commitment; when there is a
death of the relationship, it's like a physical death. I, for
one, lived through a physical death, yet, I still love her and
her parents.

No, when the intimate relationship is dead, then it's no longer a
marriage.

calvin

    In Marriage Encounter it is said "Love is a decision."
    
    It means it is possible to decide to love even when we don't feel very
    loving.  I have this kind of relationship with many of my antagonists.
    ;-) Hopefully, a marriage does not become an antagonistic relationship.
    But, unfortunately sometimes it does.  Sometimes, it grows irretrieveably
    cold.  Things said and things done cannot be unsaid and cannot be
    undone.  There is a point of no return, as much as either or both
    partners would like otherwise.
    
    	One person out of a couple is not enough to hold the marriage
    together, no matter how great the commitment, no matter how great the
    agape love.  I speak from experience.
    
    	It is in this sense that I am in agreement with Nanci.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I agree with you, Cal.

    I have many agape relationships with people whom I am not married to. 
    There are many people I care about and value as human beings who I
    would not choose to live with in an intimate heterosexual relationship. 
    Agape may be an necessary condition for an ideal marriage, but I do not
    believe that it is a sufficient one.  When the other components of a
    marriage are dead, certainly the agape can continue, but I don't
    believe that agape alone makes a marriage alive.

    -- Mike

Re:  112.9

  >Agape (greek word for un-defined love such as God has for those who 
  >reject Him). 

I don't understand what you're saying, Cal.  (Or maybe I do understand
and just disagree?)  Are you saying that agape is not defined?

  >If a marriage hangs on Agape love, then the marriage is called married
  >singles (in Marriage Encounter terms).

All marriages should be based on agape.  It is agape that is a commitment
of the will.  When vows are exchanged, it is agape that will carry them
out - or not carry them out if the agape is not there.

No other kind of love will consistently stick in there when the going
gets tough.  And to some degree or another, all marriages have places
where the going is tough.

  >I know of several divorced couples who still respect each other
  >and care for each other but they cannot live in the same house.

Are you trying to say that these couples have a commitment love towards
each other (i.e. agape)?  A commitment that accepts the spouse as he/she
is?  That rejoices when the spouse rejoices and weeps when the spouse
weeps?  That seeks the best for the spouse even at the expense of
himself/herself?  This is what agape is.

Collis

    If agape is all that marriage is based on, should I marry one of my
    close platonic female friends?
    
    -- Mike

    Re. 13
    
    Better thee than me. ;-)
    
    Richard

< Note 112.13 by CSC32::M_VALENZA >
    If agape is all that marriage is based on, should I marry one of my
    close platonic female friends?
    
    -- Mike

How about a few? Some religious sects permit polygamous
marriages. Seriously, the monogomous marriage is neither biblical
or locked by history. Monogomous marriages in Christianity is a
product of tradition. In Utah, where some groups practice
polygamy, marriage failures are a whole less. In a twisted way,
their "christian" marriage is very much a committed marriage.

calvin

    re .2 (CVG::THOMPSON)
    
>    PS: Where in the Bible does it say God hates divorce? Thanks for the
>    pointer.
    
    		"For he has hated a divorcing," Jehovah the
    		God of Israel has said ...  (Mal 2:16 NWT)

    Mark,
    
    Did God also hate divorce in the time of Ezra?  Or is there something
    I don't know about?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re .17 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)/Richard
    
>    Did God also hate divorce in the time of Ezra?  Or is there something
>    I don't know about?
    
    	I assume you're refering to Ezra's demand that the Israelite men
    divorce the foreign wives that they had taken.  It appears to me, at a
    glance, that they had taken wives from the surrounding nations which
    Jehovah had originally forbidden them to make marriage alliances with
    (Ezr 9:1; cf. Ex 34:11,12).  As is made clear in Exodus, this
    prohibition was to ensure the purity of their worship, as it's written
    that the foreign wives would surely bring their false worship along
    with them, and their husbands would surely end up compromising, and
    adopting false religious practices -- and thus bringing Jehovah's
    sentence of death upon them for apostacy.
    
    	The context of Malachi's statement is a bit different, and seems to
    be a chastizement for their liberal practice of divorce among
    themselves for selfish, and even treacherous reasons.  In Ezra's day,
    true worship was in danger of being compromised by external influence
    (i.e., Israelites marrying non-Israelites), whereas in Malachi's day,
    it was in danger from within (i.e., from lousy ethics between married
    Israelites).
    
    	Since the entire Mosaic Law was a binding contract between the
    Israelites and Jehovah, it was righteous for God to require that they
    strictly adhere to all its terms, which included the specific
    requirement that they not intermarry with Gentile nations.  Although
    it's probably true to say that Jehovah hated to see the Israelites of
    Ezra's day divorce their foreign wives, he no doubt hated even more
    their violation of the Law against marriage with those other peoples.
    
    	In reality, at the time of Ezra, the Law stipulated which marriages
    were, and which were *not* legal (or acceptible) for the Jews.  It was
    therefore right and righteous for the men of Ezra's day to dismiss
    their foreign wives to bring them back into compliance with Jehovah's
    Law for them.
    
    	What we see is that, although Jehovah's view on marriage hasn't
    changed, in that he has always held it as a sacred bond, it isn't (or
    in times past, hasn't been) as sacred as, or more sacred than, the
    value of pure and true worship.  Since Jehovah is the one who
    establishes whether certain relationships between people are sanctified
    and sacred (or not), it's his right to disolve relationships that
    violate what is holy in his eyes.
    
    	Does this make sense?
    
    								-mark.

RE God hates divorce: but God allows for divorce.

In the old testament, divorce was allowed because of the HARDNESS
of men's hearts. Divorce for a Jew was for "indecency". This got
interpeted from (liberal) a wife who cannot cook, to unchasity
(literal). 

In the new testament, Jesus addressed the phrasees by saying that
a divorce, either man or woman, may be permitted for unchasity.
The change is subtle here except that the woman, under Jesus, may
now equally, divorce her husband. (Mark)

In Paul's dealing with christians marrying pagans or pagan
marriage, one converts to Christianity, the Christian may divorce
the pagan if the pagan does not or persists in pagan practises.
(I Thesalolians)

Please notice that the divorce ruling shifted ever so slightly
but there is a change. I believe that the changes of
relationships, longer life, more neculeus family (versus the
extended family) and the advent of the dual working parents,
divorce are permitted (again, because of the hardness of humans)
God still hates divorce.

calvin

Note 112.18

>    	In reality, at the time of Ezra, the Law stipulated which marriages
>    were, and which were *not* legal (or acceptible) for the Jews.  It was
>    therefore right and righteous for the men of Ezra's day to dismiss
>    their foreign wives to bring them back into compliance with Jehovah's
>    Law for them.

If this is righteousness, then righteousness appears to be a cruel joke.  How
many women and children were abandoned, left to fend for themselves, in the
name of obediance to a righteous God?

Of course, it is likely someone out there will accuse me of judging God,
and advising me not to use my God-given brain except for the absorption
of dogma.

>    Does this make sense?

Not to me.  Am I alone??

Peace,
Richard

    Richard
    
    
    alone, no
    
    what you write makes sense to me
    
    Bonnie

    It also makes sense to me.
    
    -- Mike

    re .20 (CSC32::J_CHRISTIE)
    
>If this is righteousness, then righteousness appears to be a cruel joke.  How
>many women and children were abandoned, left to fend for themselves, in the
>name of obediance to a righteous God?
    
    	Lest I appear to be too hardnosed, let me make it clear that since
    I'm also married and have children, and love my family very much, I'm
    not particularly inclined to give a gusty cheer whenever women and
    children are abandoned, or even worse, sent away by their husbands and
    fathers.  Further, since it's my belief that Jehovah is the originator
    of the family, and created us with the ability to feel emotions when it
    comes to family relationships, I also doubt very much that Jehovah
    feels anything other than sadness and pain when families suffer as a
    consequence of wrong human actions, even when matters of high spiritual
    principle are involved.  After all, it was Jehovah himself who asked:
    
    		"Do I take delight at all in the death of someone
    		wicked ... and not in that he should turn back from
    		his ways and actually keep living?" (Ez 18:23 NWT)
    
    If Jehovah is actually saddened by the death of the wicked, is he not
    also saddened even by the suffering of those who live, but who suffer
    because humans have disregarded his commands, and thus brought the
    consequences of their actions upon themselves and others?
    
>Of course, it is likely someone out there will accuse me of judging God,
>and advising me not to use my God-given brain except for the absorption
>of dogma.
    
    	To tell you the truth, Richard, I don't find it easy to put my
    heart into arguing against this sort of reasoning, so please understand
    if my efforts seem to leave you dissatisfied ... Personally, I think
    that Jehovah wants us to use our God-given brains to understand why
    he's allowed certain tragic events to happen, and has allowed people to
    suffer as a result his judgments, even though those people might, from
    our point of view, appear to be somewhat less culpable than the truly
    wicked, if not seemingly innocent altogether; to the end that we learn
    from those tragedies and don't fall victim to those same errors.
    
    	I've always been taught to look positively at Bible teachings and
    events, because it's been impressed upon me that Jehovah is truly
    interested in the lasting welfare and well-being of both humanity at
    large, and individuals in particular .  For instance, through Isaiah,
    Jehovah said of himself:
    
    		"I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to
    		benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in
    		the way in which you should walk."  (Isa 48:17 NWT)
    
    Although Jehovah has given humans many guidelines in the form of
    commands, he's done so, not just as an exercise in arbitrary
    power-wielding, but to teach us practical, moral lessons which will be
    of lasting benefit to us as individuals, and as a global society of
    humans at large.  But yet, I feel that it's only possible to truly see
    the benefits (or value) of what Jehovah is trying to teach us if we're
    willing to take his side on matters, or at least give him the benefit
    of our doubts and assume that it's we who've overlooked something or
    are unware of the big picture, rather than turning off our willingness
    to hold him in high esteem because his judgments have consequences in
    terms of real, human tragedy.
    
    	Above, you compare the effect upon woman and children of someone
    else's actions in "obediance to a righteous God," in a way which likens
    the righteousness of God to the cold-hearted cruelty of a human despot.
    I think I understand why you feel the way you do, but do you understand
    why Jehovah feels the way *he* does about these matters?
    
    	For instance, take the principle underlying the following (somewhat
    axiomatic) declaration by Paul:
    
    		"Do not be mislead: God is not one to be mocked.
    		For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also
    		reap; because he who is sowing with a view to his
    		flesh will reap corruption [or some sort of 
    		literal harm] from his flesh, but he who is sowing
    		with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting
    		life from the spirit."  (Gal 6:7,8 NWT)
    
    Now, although this verse is in the Christian writings, Paul was himself
    a Jew and a student -- and we might even say a scholar -- of the Hebrew
    Scriptures, and thus he knew of the divorce account in Ezra, as well
    (in all likelihood) as every other account in which someone somewhere
    suffered as a result of his adverse judgments against humans (whether
    they worshipped him or not).
    
    	Instead of focusing on the end result of the situation (i.e., what
    happened to the wives and children -- if there were children -- who
    were sent back to their homelands), suppose we first ask the following:
    were the Israelite men who broke Jehovah's commandment not to
    intermarry with foreign women "sowing with a view to [their] flesh" or
    "sowing with a view to the spirit"?  Since those Israelite men
    blatantly disregarded a very explicit, and specific command, which did,
    in fact, embody a very lofty and serious moral principle (regarding
    true worship and false worship), should we not also ask whether Jehovah
    should have held them accountable in some way for what they had done?
    Should they not have obeyed Jehovah's commandments in the first place?
    [In this vein, here's a riddle for you: what did Jehovah mean when he
    said, "To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention better than
    the fat of rams"? (1Sam 15:22b NWT)]
    
    	I suppose either of us might be able to present a case in support
    of the idea that Jehovah should just have let the whole matter slide
    because someone was going to get hurt (like the women and children). 
    But could we not just as well make a case for the idea that *had*
    Jehovah let the matter slide, more harm to the nation as a whole would
    have resulted, which in turn would have meant *more* people would have
    suffered later?  After all, the Israelite religion *wasn't* just a list
    of dogmatic creeds which one had to confess belief in;  it also
    embodied a very comprehensive array of moral and ethical precepts and
    principles which were guaranteed to make life successful and happy for
    them if they faithfully adhered to them.
    
    	As Exodus 34:11-16 makes plain, the chief danger that foreign
    marriages posed was that it introduced the seeds of apostacy (or false
    worship) in among the people, and as a later proverb declared, "By his
    own mouth the one who is an apostate brings his fellowman to ruin" (Pr
    11:9a NWT).  Given that apostacy was tantamount to 'spiritual ruin,'
    should we not ask whether it would have been truly wise to let the
    Israelite men keep their foreign wives (who worshipped false gods) just
    to spare their immediate families from suffering whatever it is they
    suffered by being sent away?  
    
    	[Is there not also a lesson for us to be learned by considering the
    earlier account of King Ahab, of the northern 10 tribe kingdom is
    Israel, who took Jezebel (of Sidonia) as his wife?  If there was ever a
    clear example of the danger that foreign wives posed to Israel, the
    case of Ahab and Jezebel is it.  I'll leave it up to you to read up on
    them and see what I mean.]
    
    	The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this
    specific issue touches on the more general issue of whether Jehovah's
    commands which contain a penalty for disregarding them ought ever to be
    enforced by him at all, or whether we, as humans, should ever pay the
    consequences of our actions (with respect to those laws) any mind at
    all.  In the framework of defining what true "righteousness" really is,
    do we perhaps first have to consider whether Jehovah should *ever* have
    to tell us what to do (in the sense of defining what is "right" and
    "wrong" for us), or whether he even has the right to do so, given that
    he's given us the ability and the freedom to make choices of moral
    consequence?  For that matter, if we accept -- for the sake of
    argument, at least -- that Jehovah created us, is our freedom of choice
    a right, or a gift (or privilege)?  Now that he's put us here, should
    we say that he should let us make our own choices in life, and butt-out
    and leave us alone?
    
>>    Does this make sense?
>
>Not to me.  Am I alone??
    
    	Well, then ... how about now?  Does this make more sense, or any
    sense at all to you?
    
    								regards,
    								-mark.

    re .22 (CSC32::M_VALENZA)
    
>    It also makes sense to me.
    
    	What Richard wrote, or what I wrote?
    
    
    -mark.

    What Richard wrote.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  112.13

  >If agape is all that marriage is based on, should I marry one of my
  >close platonic female friends?

I did not say that agape was all that marriage was based on.  I did say
that all marriage should be based on agape.  As you rightly point out,
more than agape should be present for a marriage to take place.

Collis

    My spouse and I went on our fourth Marriage Encounter weekend
    this past weekend.  In eleven years of marriage, we've been to
    two United Methodist weekends, one Lutheran weekend, and now one
    Roman Catholic weekend.  [We need frequent refreshers ;)]
    
    One of the handouts was entitled the "Symptoms of Spiritual Divorce."
    
    I'll try to remember to bring this in next week and share it with you.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

			20 Symptoms of Spiritual Divorce:
			--------------------------------

1.  Moods of saddness in our marriage.

2.  Feelings of disillusionment, boredom, emptiness, and lonliness
    in our relationship.

3.  Indifference.....to each others problems, interests, jobs.

4.  Occasions of coolness toward each other.

5.  Not enough affection and small courtesies between us.

6.  Feelings of insecurity, jealousy.

7.  A sense of being better understood by others than by spouse.

8.  Nagging.

9.  Lack of planning things together.

10. Not enough personal conversation - most communication
    mechanical, routine and on the surface.

11. Lack of doing things together.

12. A sense of being used.

13. More interest in position and money than me.

14. Taking advantage of each other.

15. Taking each other for granted.

16. No excitment in our relationship.

17. Frequent quarrels.

18. Insults, rudeness, sarcasm, criticism.

19. Chronic escapes, together or alone, such as TV, sports, socializing,
    liquor, hypochondria, etc..

20. Lessening of the capacity of wonderment about each other.

    RE: .27
    In what ways did the four week-ends differ?

    Mark,
    	it's sweet of you to picture God as weeping for those who must
    suffer because s/he has a dual standard regarding marriage. I'm sure we
    all feel much better when you justify the need for God to speak out of
    both sides of his mouth on one or another topic.
    	On the other hand, you have made it quite clear that God allows few
    things to interfere with the marriage of two Jews yet holds the highest
    contempt for any marriage other than between two Jews. You wouldn't be
    Jewish, would you ?  No ?  God holds your marriage in contempt, your
    dissertation proves it, so you must disolve it. No, no, it makes God
    sad that you and your wife and your children must suffer so, but God
    has commanded it. (Have you started feeling like your argument might be
    a little specious?)
    	There are people here who could (but wouldn't, I'm sure) find a
    quote from the Bible which seems to support or to abhore nearly
    anything you can think of. You have done that, found quotes on both
    sides, and tried to form a logical argument from them. Well, you logic
    is a bit tortured and contradictory and your conclusion absolutely
    violates the spirit of Christ's teaching. 
    	Let's set aside the context of the OT God-words and assume that God
    was not - a falacious assumption - speaking ONLY to the Jews. Your
    conclusion would force two people who could no longer abide each
    other's presence to either suffer with each other or choose to sin as
    an excuss to be rid of each other. Your conclusion would also force two
    people who loved each other dearly to part if they chose to worship at
    different churches. Christ spoke of love, not torment. The OT God spoke
    of following the letter of the law regardless of who it hurt and
    regardless of the justice of that law. There are times when laws clash
    and one must be followed and the other not. Christ said that the first,
    the most important, law is love - of neighbor self and God. When
    another law contradicts this one then you must choose to worship Christ
    in love or the OT God in vengence.

    
    re .30 (DELNI::MEYER)
    
    Dave,
    
    	Pardon me for being rude, but do you always talk to people you
    don't know like this, with such a great deal of derision, or have you
    just made a special exception for me?
    
>    	it's sweet of you to picture God as weeping for those who must
>    suffer because s/he has a dual standard regarding marriage. I'm sure we
>    all feel much better when you justify the need for God to speak out of
>    both sides of his mouth on one or another topic.
    
    	I must say, it must take a lot of guts to talk about Jehovah that
    way, but that aside, I think you missed the point of what I was getting
    at entirely.
    
    	It wasn't Jehovah who was "speaking out of both sides of his mouth"
    back then, but rather, the Jews of that time.  They professed to
    worship Jehovah, which implied that they agreed to the tenets and
    conditions which Jehovah defined as both obligatory upon them and as
    acceptable to himself, which were, as you know, specified in the Mosaic
    Law (which was their legal and spiritual constitution).
    
    	The "family troubles" were a result of their own, selfish, misdeeds
    (of marrying outside their nation and religion).  Are you saying that
    Jehovah didn't have the right to hold them to their original agreement
    of worship, which included the prohibition on marrying women from the
    nations (mentioned by Ezra)?  Since the professed standard was the
    Mosaic Law, wasn't the men who married those women the ones who were
    living by a double standard?
    
>    	On the other hand, you have made it quite clear that God allows few
>    things to interfere with the marriage of two Jews yet holds the highest
>    contempt for any marriage other than between two Jews. You wouldn't be
>    Jewish, would you ?  No ?  God holds your marriage in contempt, your
>    dissertation proves it, so you must disolve it. No, no, it makes God
>    sad that you and your wife and your children must suffer so, but God
>    has commanded it. (Have you started feeling like your argument might be
>    a little specious?)
    
    	I hope I'm not supposed to take this in any serious way, Dave ...
    How is this supposed to make me feel as though my argument is specious
    (i.e. "seeming good or sound at first sight but lacking in real merit"
    -- dictionary)?  Are you saying then that for the sake of human
    misdeeds, such as an unapproved marriage between a person who worships
    Jehovah and a pagan, Jehovah should hold his own standards of spiritual
    holiness in contempt, as though the emotional bond between two humans
    (of whom one doesn't even worship Jehovah) is *more* important that the
    emotional and spiritual bond that ought rightly to exist between each
    individual and Jehovah himself?
    
    	Should any two married people feel that their marriage gives them
    the right to hold Jehovah's laws and principles in contempt just
    because they are married?  Since Jehovah himself gave humans the gift
    of marriage, which sort of relationship is *more* important, the one
    between Jehovah and individual humans, or the one between two individual
    humans?
    
>    	There are people here who could (but wouldn't, I'm sure) find a
>    quote from the Bible which seems to support or to abhore nearly
>    anything you can think of. You have done that, found quotes on both
>    sides, and tried to form a logical argument from them. Well, you logic
>    is a bit tortured and contradictory and your conclusion absolutely
>    violates the spirit of Christ's teaching. 
    
    	Well, here's another quote for you.  The Christian Scriptures say:
    
    		"A wife is bound to her husband as long as
    		he lives.  If the husband dies, she is free
    		to be married to who she wishes, but only
    		in the Lord." (1Cor 7:39 RSV)
    
    Now, given the context of the time, it wasn't uncommon for a woman to
    become a "believer in the Lord (Jesus)", as it were, but not have her
    husband join her (cf 1Pet 3:1).  So, for the duration, the marriage
    would be "unevenly yoked" in a spiritual sense.  But, if the wife found
    herself free to remarry, she could do so, but only if she married
    *another believer*.
    
    	Although this verse focuses in on a specific situation, the
    principle to "marry ... only in the Lord" surely applies to all
    Christians who are looking for a marriage mate, whether they were
    married previously or not.  The reason is evidently an application of
    the principle (also in the Christian Scriptures):
    
    		"Do not be mismated with unbelievers.  For	
    		what partnership have righteousness and
    		iniquity?  Or what fellowship has light with
    		darkness?" (2Cor 6:14 RSV)
    
    I'm sure that even you can see that this is simply a restatement of the
    principle which was underlying the Mosaic Law(s) which prohibitted the
    Jews from marrying people outside their nation, since no other nations
    worshipped Jehovah.
    
    	Although Jesus taught, with respect to marriage, that, "What
    therefore God has joined together, let not *man* put asunder" (Matt
    19:6 RSV; "what God has yoked together let no man put apart" NWT), this
    only means that *man* doesn't have the right to disolve relationships
    which Jehovah sanctions.  It doesn't mean that Jehovah doesn't have the
    right to disolve relationships which he *doesn't* sanction, to say
    nothing of those which he outright forbids.
    
    	Unless you are saying that the writings of Paul aren't in the
    "spirit of Christ's teachings," then what grounds do you have to argue
    that a fleshly relationship which "mates" a believer with an unbeliever
    is perfectly acceptable to God?  If this principle applies to
    Christians, did it not also apply to pre-Christian Jews?
    
>    	Let's set aside the context of the OT God-words and assume that God
>    was not - a falacious assumption - speaking ONLY to the Jews. Your
>    conclusion would force two people who could no longer abide each
>    other's presence to either suffer with each other or choose to sin as
>    an excuss to be rid of each other.
    
    	Excuse me, Dave, but this was *not* my conclusion at all.  It's
    your own conclusion that you come to by making, as you admit, a
    "falacious assumption."  What right do you have to blatantly make a
    false assumption like this, and then say that it applies to my
    conclusion (about the matter with the Jews in Ezra's day)?  I was
    *only* speaking about what legally applied to Jews of that day with
    respect to their legal and spiritual obligations to Jehovah.
    
    	Today, under the Christian arrangement, those obligations are
    different.
    
>                                       Your conclusion would also force two
>    people who loved each other dearly to part if they chose to worship at
>    different churches. Christ spoke of love, not torment.
    
    	Speak for yourself, Dave.   My religion teaches me to respect the
    following command:
    
    		"To the married people I give instructions, yet
    		not I bu the Lord, that a wife should not depart
    		from her husband; but if she should actually 
    		depart, let her remain unmarried or else make
    		up again with her husband; and a husband should
    		not leave his wife."
    
    		"If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet
    		she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him
    		not leave her; and a woman who has an unbelieving
    		husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with
    		her, let her not leave her husband."  (1Cor 7:10-13
    		NWT)
    
    As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of a few other scriptures
    which do, in fact, spell out when it is spiritually sanctioned by God
    for a marriage to end (i.e., when adultery corrupts a marriage or when
    one mate dies), the scriptures make it very plain that even married
    couples who don't share the same belief ought to stick together (in
    the context of at least one mate being a "believer" -- since these
    Scriptures were written long before Christianity was split into all the
    divisions of modern-day Christendom, and there was only one meaning to
    the term "believer").
    
    	The way I see it, this doesn't jive with your assessment of my
    'conclusions' in the least way.
    
>                                                           The OT God spoke
>    of following the letter of the law regardless of who it hurt and
>    regardless of the justice of that law. There are times when laws clash
>    and one must be followed and the other not. Christ said that the first,
>    the most important, law is love - of neighbor self and God.
    
    	If you look it up, you'll see that Jesus said,
    
    		"The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord
    		our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love
    		the Lord [Jehovah] you God with all your
    		heart, and with all your mind, and with all
    		your strength.'" (Mark 12:29,30 RSV)
    
    *Then* he said,
    
    		"The second is this, 'You shall love your
    		neighbor as yourself.'"  (Mark 12:31 RSV)
    
    The FIRST law was love of God, and was to be carried out with "all" of
    their hearts.  That means that their hearts had to put their
    relationship with their God *above* their relationships with other
    humans.  The "first" commandment wasn't just a mushy platitude to
    "love" everyone so as to make sure that 'no one got hurt'; it was a
    highly principled statement that required an individual to have faith
    that putting Jehovah's commands and interests first was a way of
    guaranteeing the greater and lasting good of both individuals and the
    congregation of true worshippers as a whole.
    
>                                                                When
>    another law contradicts this one then you must choose to worship Christ
>    in love or the OT God in vengence.
    
    	If you don't think that Christ, as God's Son and his appointed King
    and Judge, isn't going to exact "vengence" upon 'unbelieving mankind'
    (whoever they might be), just as Jehovah exacted vengence for disbelief
    among his people in the OT days, then you haven't read 2Thess 1:6-9
    lately.  
    
    	The thing to focus in on isn't whether certain Biblical laws
    allegedly contradict one another, but whether people, by their own
    doings (whether by accident or on purpose), have found themselves
    caught in a contradictory predicament because of disregarding the
    teachings of both God and Christ, which, had they followed them, would
    have been spared their troubles.
    
    								-mark.

    Mark,
    	209 lines of reply, I must have annoyed you. You are not being
    rude, I do sometimes use an excess of sarcasm and I should not. Your
    argument in your reply to my .30 was much better than your previous
    attempts, I looked at my notes before writting and saw that they were
    all peripheral issues. I could have a nit-picking good time crawling
    into a rathole about this or I could concede that our positions are no
    where near as divergent as our contexts. I think it's called "violent
    agreement". We both feel that mariage is not a casual affair.
    	Yeah, I have a lot of nerve talking about Jehovah that way. Yet
    there are no thunder storms in my vicinity, my computer is up and
    humming, and nothing has tried to kill me. His son and I talk often.

    re .32 (DELNI::MEYER)/Dave
    
>                            -< excellent rebuttal >-
    
    	Gee ... that's not the sort of reply I expected ... I'm
    flabbergasted that you took my reply (all 209 lines) so well ...
    
>    	209 lines of reply, I must have annoyed you.
    
    	Let's just say that you got my attention ...
    
>                                                                    Your
>    argument in your reply to my .30 was much better than your previous
>    attempts, I looked at my notes before writting and saw that they were
>    all peripheral issues. I could have a nit-picking good time crawling
>    into a rathole about this or I could concede that our positions are no
>    where near as divergent as our contexts. 
    
    	I guess I can accept that ... perhaps my problem is that I mostly
    NOTE rather late at night.  If I'm tired to begin with (which I usually
    am, these days), it's harder for me to isolate the point and make it
    clear.
    
>                                             I think it's called "violent
>    agreement". We both feel that mariage is not a casual affair.
    
    	Right ... and I regret having given you the initial impression that 
    Jehovah was treating those marriages casually.  I believe that Jehovah
    is a loving God, but that doesn't mean that he is sentimental, and gets
    bogged down in the complications of human emotions.  It's not that the
    toll taken in human feelings back then was inconsequential, but rather
    that the danger to the nation's spirituality was grave.  After all,
    they had just come out of exile, which they had been sent into
    because of tolerating and practicing false worship.
    
>    	Yeah, I have a lot of nerve talking about Jehovah that way. Yet
>    there are no thunder storms in my vicinity, my computer is up and
>    humming, and nothing has tried to kill me. 
    
    	... yet. ;-)
    
    								-mark.