An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce...

[G. Gordon Gumbo]

I cannot find anything in the Law that prohibits or condemns "children out of wedlock" per se. If someone else has that information, please cite chapter and verse.

Leviticus 18 gives a series of prohibited sex acts ... mostly incestual activities ... for which one may be condemned to a variety of unpleasant punishments. Sex with your mother, sex with your father, sex with a sibling, sex with a grandchild, sex with the child of your father's other wives, sex with your daughter-in-law, sex with your aunt, sex with your brother-in-law's wife, sex with an animal, male on male sodomy, on and on, is prohibited and carry punishments. But I can find no specific prohibition of sex without marriage or childbearing outside of wedlock ... assuming of course that the other prohibitions are observed.

With regard to divorce, most of what I find is in Deuteronomy 24 and has to do with formalities that one must observe to make a divorce legitimate and legal ... and of course that one may not remarry his divorced wife if she has in the meanwhile married another man.

With regard to the New Testament absolving one's requirement to observe the Law, I can only cite you Matthew 5:17 - 20, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

With regard to my personal opinion of these matters, I will reserve that to myself at this time and only offer information for discussion as I have always found many particulars of the Law rather curious.

GGG

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by uprooted_kentuckian

I agree, and I'm just learning how important it is to study the Bible with proper study guides for translations. I'm getting somewhat unfond of King James as the true translations are just too different.

You can say that again! It sort of blows a hole in the belief that the Bible is literally and figuratively correct in every detail.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Adultery is condemned and would be one way to have a child out of wedlock. I'll have to research the Levitical view of fornication....maybe
that was less of a sin...I dont remember whether it carried a death sentence or not...a lot of those early Bible figures certainly engaged in both.

I had a quick look at Leviticus the other day, and found that fornication
takes a back seat to adultery...But, there were lots of different sexual offenses, and not all of them would be seen as offenses today.

It appears that a man COULD have sexual intercourse with a woman slave who was not his wife, at least up to some point before she was to be freed.
This was considered okay. So I guess that in some cases fornication was okay as well.

Having sex with your father's wife's daughter was not permitted if I read it correctly, even though she were of no blood relation to you.

Now, one I hadnt seen before says it is a sin to eat the fruit of a tree or bush during the first (three, I believe) years of the plant's life. After that, you can pig out.

It also says you are not supposed to eat the fat of an animal. (and certainly not the blood). I have read Leviticus before but did not remember the "fat" restriction.

I really believe that a lot of these restrictions were not of Gods dictation, but were, rather, a mixture of good health, facts, rumors, and mythology.
How better to control a people than to form your own thoughts and prejudices into words and claim they came from God.

[G. Gordon Gumbo]

Originally Posted by LarryS

I really believe that a lot of these restrictions were not of Gods dictation, but were, rather, a mixture of good health, facts, rumors, and mythology.
How better to control a people than to form your own thoughts and prejudices into words and claim they came from God.

Woah there dude! You're saying these commandments found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy aren't the Word of God?!? You're saying they might be societal controls imposed by willfull men?!? You know there's a heap of folks who'll argue that one 'til we're all blue in the face :::smile:::

However, there are various views regarding whether the Laws are rational or arbitrary. One view is that the Laws were ordained for the protection and health of God's people in a time where basic hygiene was not yet understood. For example, shellfish can be easily contaminated with hepatitis and other diseases if they are not cared for properly.

A second viewpoint is that the Laws have a reason, but it is not understood because the ultimate explanation for the Laws is beyond the human intellect. This viewpoint does not set well with our current slant toward scientific analysis of everything.

A third view holds that the Laws have no meaning other than to instill obedience to God. Hardline Biblical scholars simply say hard to understand laws, like the dietary laws in particular, should simply be grouped in with other laws that appear irrational, that there is no explanation for their existence, that the faithful apparently aren't capable of understanding such lofty things and God's authority requires mankind obey without asking for a reason.

While we ponder the rationality or irrationality of the Laws, here's some commandments from Torah you might want to chew over and second guess as to the whys and wherefores:

Not to reap the entire field.
To leave the unharvested corner of the field or orchard for the poor.
To leave the imperfect clusters of the vineyard for the poor.
That a bridegroom shall be exempt for a whole year from taking part in any public labor, such as military service.
Not to travel on Sabbath outside the limits of one's place of residence.
To remove all yeast products from your home on the Eve of Passover and not to eat any yeast products for the next seven days.
Not to eat meat and drink milk in the same meal.
Not to simmer meat in milk gravy.
Not to take part in any interest-bearing transaction between borrower and lender.
Not to muzzle a beast, while it is working in produce which it can eat and enjoy.
Not to make any animal or human figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped.
Not to suffer any one practicing witchcraft to live.
Not to practice observing times or seasons as favorable or unfavorable, using astrology (such as per farmer's almanac).
Not to enquire of a ghost or spirit (i.e. Ouiji board)
Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters.
Not to cross-breed cattle of different species (like making mules).
Not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together.

Oh ... that's just 17 of 613 that Maimonides distilled from Torah, some of which are totally irrelevant since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

GGG

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by G. Gordon Gumbo

Woah there dude! You're saying these commandments found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy aren't the Word of God?!? You're saying they might be societal controls imposed by willfull men?!? You know there's a heap of folks who'll argue that one 'til we're all blue in the face :::smile:::

Well, while I hope I stopped short of declaring it, some of these laws are
rather suspicious

If anyone wants to take the entire Bible literally, then he or she should do so. If that person wants to discuss it, that is fine too. I have tried to search for years for the unbroken line of truth which runs through the minefield of biblical literalism.

It isn't that I dont believe in a God almighty. (But his scribes are sometimes
subject to close scrutiny)

[uprooted_kentuckian]

I understand your point Larry, but I have seen nothing to cause me to reach that conclusion.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by uprooted_kentuckian

I understand your point Larry, but I have seen nothing to cause me to reach that conclusion.

That is good, UK.. It should make matters much easier to accept.

Sometimes one is better off if he does not turn over too many stones,
does not delve too deeply.

[uprooted_kentuckian]

Thats sounds like you think I simply haven't researched things enough. That is possible, however, I doubt if I ever find anything that significantly changes my positions. I am going to do enough to find out, though.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by uprooted_kentuckian

Thats sounds like you think I simply haven't researched things enough. That is possible, however, I doubt if I ever find anything that significantly changes my positions. I am going to do enough to find out, though.

Sorry, but I wasnt necessarily directing that comment at you. It is more toward me.

When you set off to do the studies, the path is long, and the thread tenuous at times.

[uprooted_kentuckian]

From what I've done so far, boy, you've got that right.