D'Souza d'vorce: another one bites the dust.

[I Ratant]

Then, maybe.
Now, with the names of the perps being published, one would have to be seriously warped to even try to take advantage.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Do tell...

Well, two preachers and a televangelist were sitting in a bar, discussing tithes. Specifically, how to decide what fraction of the offerings should go to missionaries, the greater church and so on.

The first preacher says, "Well, what I do is, I put all of the offering money in a box, draw a large circle on the ground, and toss the money at the circle. Anything that lands outside the circle I send to our district representative, the rest we use locally."

The second preacher says, "Funny, we do something similar. Only in our case, the money that lands inside the circle is tithed."

The televangelist finishes his whiskey and says, "I don't know why ya'll bother with the circle. We just toss up the money. Anything God wants, He can keep."

 

[pakeha]

[qimg]http://www.jim-harvey.com/wp-content/uploads/Jim-Bakker-Crying.jpg[/qimg]
And Jimmie here even had a good excuse, considering who he was married to.

Jimmie Fallon cried about his wife???

Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Just LOOK at that poor woman's hair!
What hair stylist would use such a cheap conditioner on dyed hair?
And the bad bad bad hair lacquer.
There's a REASON God created Elnett!

 

[DOC]

The thing is I don't think this is wrong. Sure it ignores Christs teaching about divorce...

Christ said if you sin against me you will be forgiven, but if you sin against the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven. If the Holy Spirit (if D'Souza is filled with the spirit) is telling D'Souza to do it, then according to the bible he should do it. If it is his own desire doing it, and the Holy Spirit says not to do it, or is silent, then it is a sin.

Also there is a possibility the former wife committed adultery. Christ said divorce is permitted when that happens.

 

[ddt]

Christ said if you sin against me you will be forgiven, but if you sin against the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven. If the Holy Spirit (if D'Souza is filled with the spirit) is telling D'Souza to do it, then according to the bible he should do it. If it is his own desire doing it, and the Holy Spirit says not to do it, or is silent, then it is a sin.

Ah, so if D'ouche just claims the Holy Spook told him to divorce, it's all right?
Oh, and care to substantiate those claims with Bible citations?

Also there is a possibility the former wife committed adultery. Christ said divorce is permitted when that happens.

There is no former wife, he's still married. And care to back that up too?

 

[Craig B]

Christ said if you sin against me you will be forgiven, but if you sin against the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven.

Is sincere repentance not required then, for sins against Christ?

Also there is a possibility the former wife committed adultery. Christ said divorce is permitted when that happens.

What a disgusting thing to say! Have you no sense of shame?

If it comes to that, there is a "possibility" that you are a pedophile North Korean spy.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, two preachers and a televangelist were sitting in a bar, discussing tithes. Specifically, how to decide what fraction of the offerings should go to missionaries, the greater church and so on.

The first preacher says, "Well, what I do is, I put all of the offering money in a box, draw a large circle on the ground, and toss the money at the circle. Anything that lands outside the circle I send to our district representative, the rest we use locally."

The second preacher says, "Funny, we do something similar. Only in our case, the money that lands inside the circle is tithed."

The televangelist finishes his whiskey and says, "I don't know why ya'll bother with the circle. We just toss up the money. Anything God wants, He can keep."

 

[ponderingturtle]

Technically, it's still adultery while the divorce hasn't been finalized. And for someone who professes "Christian values", it's already a failure to uphold those values by divorcing in the first place - and then doubly so by not being able to wait until they're actually divorced.

But the story is even juicier. Right Wing Watch reports that Dinesh Douche's "fiancee" is married too, so it's a double adultery. Her own blog now is in "maintenance mode" - coincidence?

She is a woman with a blog, ignoring the proscriptions about women speaking in public. Total hypocrite.

 

[AvalonXQ]

She is a woman with a blog, ignoring the proscriptions about women speaking in public. Total hypocrite.

There are no general Biblical proscriptions against women speaking in public. The Biblical prohibition is only against women speaking during Christian worship.

 

[Craig B]

There are no general Biblical proscriptions against women speaking in public. The Biblical prohibition is only against women speaking during Christian worship.

It goes much further than that, as well you must know. 1 TIM. 2

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

[Seismosaurus]

But it looks like if you sincerely repent of your sins, all is not lost, and God can still use you.

And in this case, genuine repentance would involve stopping his adulterous ways and returning to his wife.

I wonder if he will do that?

 

[AvalonXQ]

It goes much further than that, as well you must know. 1 TIM. 2

No, it doesn't. Paul was giving Timothy instructions for authority and conduct in church.

 

[pakeha]

Christ said if you sin against me you will be forgiven, but if you sin against the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven. If the Holy Spirit (if D'Souza is filled with the spirit) is telling D'Souza to do it, then according to the bible he should do it. If it is his own desire doing it, and the Holy Spirit says not to do it, or is silent, then it is a sin.

Also there is a possibility the former wife committed adultery. Christ said divorce is permitted when that happens.

That's an inspiring interpretation of holy writ, DOC. Wold you quote chapter and verse on that, please?

There are no general Biblical proscriptions against women speaking in public. The Biblical prohibition is only against women speaking during Christian worship.

It goes much further than that, as well you must know. 1 TIM. 2

Avalon, what verses were you thinking of?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Avalon, what verses were you thinking of?

The one Craig B quoted, plus 1 Cor 14 ("Let women keep silent in the churches..."). In both cases, Paul is giving instructions about running the church. There is no Biblical prohibition against Christian women speaking in public or holding public office; the limitations places on women are confined to conduct in the church.

Certainly there are not Biblical prohibitions against women having blogs, or posting in forums (!) for example.

 

[Craig B]

The one Craig B quoted, plus 1 Cor 14 ("Let women keep silent in the churches..."). In both cases, Paul is giving instructions about running the church. There is no Biblical prohibition against Christian women speaking in public or holding public office; the limitations places on women are confined to conduct in the church.

Eh? May I remind you

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

But if the prohibition derives from these considerations, then it must apply generally, because women are sinful daughters of Eve both inside and outside churches, according to this religious view of matters. I agree with you about Corinthians, but certainly not Timothy. It has long been thought by scholars that Corinthians is genuinely by Paul, while Timothy is falsely attributed to him.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

There's also quite a compelling argument that 1 Cor 14: 34-35, where Paul commands women remain silent in worship, is a later interpolation by a different hand. It interrupts the flow of the text and the argument Paul's making; it looks weird in that Paul never argues elsewhere 'as in all the churches ...' when he's writing to just one place; and it clearly contradicts his own argument three chapters earlier (1 Cor 11:5-6) where he says that women can pray or prophesy in church as long as they cover their heads (or a possible reading, as long as they tie their hair back). Many scholars therefore consider that 1 Cor 13: 34-35 is a marginal note from a later scribe that has found its way into the text. IIRC, some early manuscripts of 1 Cor have it included in a different place, as though copyists were not sure about it, and at least one has scribal markings over it to indicate uncertainty.

The vast majority of New Testament scholars do not believe that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. There have been some spirited defences recently of Pauline authorship of the so-called 'pastoral epistles' (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), but even there, most will admit that 1 Timothy is the least likely of the three to have had any association with Paul himself. OTOH, I think everyone agrees that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Corinthians, with the possible exception of those two verses!

 

[joobz]

Christ said if you sin against me you will be forgiven, but if you sin against the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven. If the Holy Spirit (if D'Souza is filled with the spirit) is telling D'Souza to do it, then according to the bible he should do it.

So much for objective morality.
Do it, if it feels right, eh?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I agree with you about Corinthians, but certainly not Timothy.

You're welcome to disagree, but the disagreement certainly persists.

In this letter, Paul is instructing Timothy who he has sent out to found and foster churches. He gives Timothy rules about Christian conduct and church authority. The particular instructions for a) women to study quietly, for b) women not to be permitted to teach men, and for c) women not to be permitted to usurp authority are all understood to apply to conduct within the Body of Christ. Immediately after this passage, he gives instructions for how the leaders of the Church are to be married, sober men with good reputations.

Trying to apply Paul's instructions to confine women's role generally is a) outside the context of the letter Paul was writing, b) inconsistent with other scriptures describing the conduct of Christian women, and c) inconsistent with other passages about Christian conduct generally. The passage certainly doesn't demand your reading, and the context contradicts it. So I must persist in my disagreement.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I tend to agree with Avalon (though unlike him/her, I don't think Paul wrote 1 Tim). Elsewhere in Paul's letters it's clear that he knew women who were leaders in the early church, and he encouraged their ministry. So Romans, perhaps his most important letter, was entrusted to Phoebe, whom he calls a 'deacon' (because the word is masculine it almost certainly denotes an office rather than the act of serving, which would be feminine to agree with her name) to take to Rome, and Paul introduces her in 16.1, which in the ancient world was a way of saying that she's trustworthy and will explain any difficulties you might have with the text. He also lists Junia as an 'apostle' in 16.7, which is the highest status you could get, and otherwise frequently lists women among leaders of the churches. From other evidence too we know that women could be deacons in the early church and had pastoral and catechetical care at least of other women. Indeed, if you take out 1 Tim and the two disputed verses from 1 Cor, Paul comes across as rather positive about women.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for your perspective, sleepy_lioness!
You've me a lot to think about.