|
E-Mail Explaining ----- Original Message -----
From:
J Belknap Subject: Re: Sheridan - Osborne Debate Dear Stan, My family also wishes you and yours a Happy New Year. After reviewing the debate, I have decided that it diverts the focus from the direction my efforts have been aimed at. Namely, I began the website to examine Ron's assertions that: "Next, a man may have enough regard for social convention that he will not go to bed with the "cute little thing" he wants rather than his wife; therefore, he may divorce his wife, then marry the "cute little thing," thus going to the bed of adultery. Once again, the original marriage bond stays intact under divine law until he commits adultery against his wife; his legal steps do not dissolve the bond put in place when God joined them together (Matt. 19:9). Since his true wife remains faithful to the marriage bond, she & she alone has the right to repudiate the marriage under divine law. She may scripturally do so even when she is not able to do so legally because of legal steps taken by the treacherous husband." and "If he has unlawful sexual relations with another (whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate), his true mate has scriptural grounds to reject or put him away. That might involve countersuing in the courts if he has a suit for divorce pending. But if he has already been granted a divorce by the courts of man, the laws of man make no provision for her to act. So far as the courts of man are concerned, legal issues such as property rights have already been settled and there is nothing else to be said in the realm of human law. But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act." Right off the bat, the debate begins with a scenario in which the divorcer has already committed fornication prior to putting his spouse away. I believe such a diversion only clouds the issue of my major concern, rather than helping to clarify it. Brotherly, |
|