blackbird

We have reached a dead end with you. You obviously are not interested in knowing the truth. After thousands of years of expertise by biblical scholars, you know better.

I don't think God changed his mind. "If the Bible’s teachings for monogamy are so clear, why then are so many of God’s Old Testament saints polygamists? The reason Scripture records so many instances of polygamy and concubinage is not to endorse these actions, but to condemn them and show just how destructive such sexual perversity proved to be. Consider the outcomes of four of Scripture’s most notable polygamous relationships." quote LAMECH Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. . . . Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.” (Genesis 4:17–19, 23–24) The first polygamist in Scripture is Lamech, a son in the line of Cain. Lamech is not an exemplary character. Instead, Moses portrays him as the archetypal bad guy of the prediluvian world. In the line of the seed of the serpent, Lamech is the epitome of human wickedness, a man whose bloodlust and violence are exponentially worse than Cain’s. “As Christ has only one bride, so marriage on earth testifies to that truth.” Moses’s mention of Lamech’s two wives establishes a stark contrast between God’s good design in the garden and life away from the presence of God, east of Eden (Genesis 4:16). This story of the first polygamist in Scripture establishes that those who follow Lamech’s polygamous ways do so not out of righteousness, but because they’ve sinfully embraced the ways of the serpent and followed in the pattern of Cain’s unrighteous seed (at least in the area of sexual ethics). unquote For more case studies in the Old Testament: Why Did God Allow Polygamy? | Desiring God

No. The human body made up of countless systems and information storage in cells is beyond comprehension. The fact that man rebelled from God in the garden of Eden explains why there are many illnesses, imperfections in the world and death. That was man's fault when he rebelled against God. So we live in an imperfect world with fallen mankind. The future for those who turn to God in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ will be wonderful as they will enter into eternal life.

My posting was talking about science and biology, specifically the 20th and 21st century discovery that information is the fundamental cornerstone of all living things starting with a cell. The vast amount of information stored in a cell proves beyond a doubt that it required an intelligent designer. But if you want to remain in the dark ages and not acknowledge the fact that it required God to design and create the most basic living organism such as a cell with immensely complex DNA that is your choice. I prefer to accept what advanced science has found which points to an intelligent designer to create it. The old school of chemicals accidentally coming together has been shown to be not a credible explanation for the complexity of the information in DNA and cells.

I already quoted verses to you but you ignore them and persist with your nonsense. You have clearly spoken against divorce and I pointed out verses showing when it is justified by men or women.

So you believe in the Taliban ideology that a woman is just a slave and a man can abuse her as much as he wants and there is no escape.

There are certain things that society has always regarded as sacred. One is human life and the fact nobody has the right to kill another person. This is clearly taught in the Holy Scripture of Holy Bible. This is not just some "idealism in a book". This is what determines the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. This is what determined that the holocaust was a crime against humanity. The sanctity of life is not based on just opinions or emotions or feelings of men. It is something that God has communicated in his written revelation to man. We might not understand it fully or the reasons why in the light of the existence of pain and suffering, but that is what God says in his revelation. So I am not going to disagree or reject that. I must accept it even though I don't understand everything in the Bible. I understand one thing though; when humans make their own rules that deviate from God's word, it becomes a slippery slope and humans think they are gods and can do anything. I unequivocally reject that.

quote The double helix DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), first identified and isolated in the 1860s by Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher, and was later 'discovered' by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953. It is the 'language of life', the biological software, that determines the construct of every living thing - from the bacterium to man. For a human being, it is approximately six-foot long when unwound, consisting of about 3.1 billions of base pairs or nucleotides of 4 chemical letters (A,T,C,G). Every living thing has its unique, signature DNA, and it is a volume of exact digital information to construct the creature from birth to death. This two-dimensional code will generate all the three dimensional proteins that will, in turn, create all the molecular machinery in the critter. Above all, this genetic information is transferable and can be stored in a computer hard disk, paper or in any encrypting medium. It can be sent via an email attachment and be stored in iCloud or Dropbox. The amazing thing is that this information is independent of the medium it is being housed - just as in Shakespeare's book Macbeth - the information is independent of the paper and ink. The storyline, the information, is in Shakespeare's head, but the paper and ink are the materials he uses to pen it down. Not only is information independent from matter but there is a real distinction between tangible matter and intangible information. The DNA language or code is not the same as the DNA molecules. And unless this distinction is acknowledged, the Darwinist will be forever hopelessly clinging on to his 'lucky chance' and 'chemical accident' for life to emerge. The emergence of life is not about the chemicals only, just as the construction of a building is not about the raw materials per se - it is more about information. "One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, 'what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they possess'? And of course the answer is 'Zero! None!' There is no difference as a result of the information. And that's because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain its origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there's a third fundamental entity; and it's 'information'. It's not reducible to energy. But it's still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of the life. (Dr. Stephen C. Meyer) unquote -from the book Darwin's Universe, From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing, Survival for Nothing by Yan T. Wee; section "In the Beginning was Information", Pages 127, 128. The bottom line is random chance processes as in Darwinian evolution cannot produce information. The first living cells required a vast amount of DNA information with billions of bits of data. This could not be produced simply by accidental non-living chemicals randomly coming together. Life required someone to design and create this complex information within living cells at the beginning or life could not exist.

No I don't lack compassion. I just am not deceived by the lies coming from the Devil on the subject. I understand some people suffer pain with certain diseases. But I also know there are powerful drugs they administer and have been for years for people suffering pain. They also occasionally put people in a coma. Not everyone with health issues suffers a lot of pain. Some people die relatively pain free. People often die quickly when their heart stops. When the heart fails, you are gone very quickly. It is a lie and myth being spread around today that everyone will suffer huge pain when get an illness and so they should opt out by medical assistance in dying. That is false. But many people such as yourself are falling for it. Some people will suffer pain. Just how much is hard to know. But they can be given powerful pain killers. That should be what is done if necessary. Make sure you talk to your care aids or doctor about that if that is what concerns you. God has said "thou shalt not kill". So that is the bottom line. Trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and he will be with you and get you through. It is far better to be ready to meet death with Jesus Christ than to go against him in such a serious matter. Suffering is often part of this life. But this life is short and it will be over before we know it. Eternity is what matters and where one will spend eternity. That's what counts.

It makes sense. Abuse can come from a woman or a man so either one can seek a divorce.

Since it is legal under certain criteria, I don't have any right to interfere. That doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't. The fact that it is legal does not make it morally right in God's view according to his word and prohibition against killing.

BOTH the state and the doctors who administer the lethal injections are accomplices to the killing. There is no other way to describe it. Just because a person signs a suicide pact to be killed by someone does not eliminate the culpability.

No, often when God refers to men it also means both men and women. For example this verse uses the word "he" but obviously it refers to everyone. "18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " John 3:18 KJV

You may not find one specific verse that says a woman can divorce a man. Like many things, the concept is found in the general teaching of the Bible. quote How can a person live a godly life and at the same time submit that life to someone who practices ungodliness? "For either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other...." (Matthew6:24). You cannot love the Lord your God with all your heart while lowering and yielding yourself and your children to accept, partake and participate in things that the Lord Himself detests. What has the Lord assigned as our lot in life? Surely it can't be you hate so much you want to die to escape the pain. No! The Scriptures are so powerfully clear. Let's take a look: "14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. " 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 KJV How could you not hate evil, and truly love, at the same time? That is hypocritical love. Hypocritical love does not hate evil. It allows evil to dwell beside it in its own house. Love must hate evil to be true in itself. Let our love be without hypocrisy. Otherwise, it's not love at all, but bondage. And for one to cling to that which is good, one must at the same time separate from that which is evil. As we move closer to that which is good, there is always a moving away from that which is evil. TRUE LOVE ALWAYS HATES THAT WHICH IS EVIL. --from the book Divorce: God's Will?

OK, I will see what I can find about that. You could also look at the website Divorce Book | Divorced Christain | Christian Divorce Advice | Divorce Guilt (divorcehope.com) and if you really want to know more, I would recommend the book they mention.

Just off the top I would say, as a general statement, if she is being abused or being denied the right to worship God as per the Bible. But if you want specific Bible references, that would take a fair amount of time to dig into which I am not sure I can do right now. I may be able to give some references later.

There were polygamous marriages in Old Testament times, but that was before the church began 2,000 years ago. The norm for Christianity in the New Testament age is one partner. A Christian can only have one wife or husband.

You ignored my posting explaining Matthew 19:9 where the phrase "put away his wife" is not referring to divorce. I am using the King James Version which is the only accurate version. You quoted from some corrupt modern version which uses the word divorce. The word divorce is not the word in the KJV. It clearly says "put away his wife" which clearly means separate from not legally divorce. You answered without reading and understanding what I posted. You want to jump all over the place without dealing with one specific subject. The Greek word "apoluo" means separate from. It does not mean legally divorce. The KJV is translated from the original Greek word which is apoluo. The modern version you used changed or rejected the original word which means separate from to divorce which is a serious corruption. It is not correct. Throw that bible in the waste basket.

Your interpretation of Matthew 19:9 is incorrect. But you could be forgiven because many people misinterpret that verse. quote In order to understand that there is marriage after divorce, we will examine the Scriptures in Matthew 19:3-12 focusing on the usage of the Greek word, apoluo. The Greek word apoluo that's translated "divorce" or to "put away" is a general word. Its primary usage is: to "send" (apoluo) someone home when it's getting late. When two are leaving each other is a "separation". The Old Testament Hebrew word shalach and the New Testament Greek word apoluo are equivalent as discussed earlier. Apoluo is a separation in general, which does not involve the "legal" aspect of a permanent separation like divorce. The common usage is seen in the Scripture "When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying 'This is a deserted place, and the house is already late. SEND (apoluo) the multitudes away, that they may go unto the villages and buy themselves food'" (Matthew 14:15). The Greek word apoluo doesn't have a legal aspect to it. It's just a common word that means, "I'm going to go" or, "away from, to separate." ............ So in the verse in Matthew 19:5 it means a separation and NOT a divorce. If a spouse separates intending never to return, then the next step comes into play; the spouse obtains a "certificate of divorce." This is what the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees (the religious lawyers of His day) was about in Matthew 19:3-12. The legal question was, "Do you just separate, OR do you separate AND give a certificate of divorce?" The Greek word used for divorce in these Scriptures means, to "send away" or separate from, NOT the finalized legal divorce. So Jesus was talking about separation not legal divorce. If you separate without getting a legal divorce and marry another then of course you are committing adultery. That is what the verse is talking about. -from page 110 of the book "Divorce: God's Will". by Stephen Gola. Also see divorcehope.com

You said " Personally, I think anyone should get divorced for any reason they choose," which is irrational to begin with. Marriage is between a man and woman, period. That is the biblical and societal norm for thousands of years. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

"any reason" sounds pretty sad. So if you see another woman you think would be preferable, you would dump your wife for her? Or maybe you don't agree about some trivial matter. I don't think you understand the subject at all.

No, I never said "divorce is adultery". That is you saying that. The verse does not say divorce is adultery. It says in that particular verse that fornication is one ground for divorce. So what do you think if a woman has a husband that abuses her mentally? Do you think someone should have to stay married to an abusive partner? Do you believe a woman should remain enslaved to an abusive husband or vice versa?

No, there is a lot more to it than that. If you are serious about wanting to know what the Bible teaches about marriage and divorce, that is a different thing. You can take a look at this website: Divorce Book | Divorced Christain | Christian Divorce Advice | Divorce Guilt (divorcehope.com) "There is a divorce that God approves of, and there is a divorce that God hates." "God's first priority is the individual; then the institution". - Divorce: God's Will?" by Stephen Gola

According to the Bible, God only recognizes marriage between a man and woman. That's all I can tell you.

You may be quoting something from the Old Testament. Certain commands about stoning only applied to the nation of Israel several thousand years ago and don't apply today. The church age started 2,000 year ago and we are not under all the regulations which only applied to Israel several thousand years ago. But some things never change such as sodomy is still a sin according to both the Old Testament and the New Testament, just as murder, stealing, adultery, etc. were always a sin.