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

[fuelair]

I saw a flyer from Tony Alamo today at the Mall.
Susan was looking perky, even though being dead for 30 years.

Guess she's still being stuffed on occasion.

 

[fuelair]

.
The Boy Scouts are getting their dirty laundry aired out!
How come so many of their leaders were/are into pedophilia? With boys.

Well, it certainly would produce more dirty laundry!!!

 

[fuelair]

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

I'm pretty sure JC or Moses or one of those guys said you had to stone the first wife before you could replace her. Big thing they had for stones then. Glad no primitive butt holes like that around anymore!!!!

 

[TimCallahan]

As much as I enjoy seeing D'Souza crash and burn, The Huffington Post Religion Blog points out that D'Souza and his wife have been separated for two years and disputes that he and the young woman shared a room at the hotel. Thus, there may not have been any real adultery going on. I thought, since I started this thread, that I should share this to be fair.

ETA: D'Souza's statement on this Fox News site is, however a bit humorous (emphasis added):

I sought out advice about whether it is legal to be engaged prior to being divorced and I was informed that it is. Denise and I were trying to do the right thing. I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings. Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong. But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement.

D'Souza had no idea you weren't supposed to get engaged to another woman prior to being divorced from the first one? This is a bit self-servng, to say the least. It also doesn't bode well for his new relationship. A psychologist I knew many years ago told me how many people use a new relationship to scrape off an old one. He said it was much healthier to end the first and spend some time alone before starting the second.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the honesty!

Enter RUMOUR, painted full of tongues
Henry V

 

[Craig B]

If Avalon had stated that there were no authentic Pauline prohibitions against women teaching in general, outside the churches, I would concede the point. But he said there were no Biblical prohibitions and 1 Tim proves him wrong.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

If Avalon had stated that there were no authentic Pauline prohibitions against women teaching in general, outside the churches, I would concede the point. But he said there were no Biblical prohibitions and 1 Tim proves him wrong.

Fair enough, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Wildy]

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

That depends on which Jesus you quote. Because in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 Jesus says that divorce isn't permissible at all, while Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 says that adultery is the only grounds for divorce.

Which is the correct teaching DOC?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If Avalon had stated that there were no authentic Pauline prohibitions against women teaching in general, outside the churches, I would concede the point. But he said there were no Biblical prohibitions and 1 Tim proves him wrong.

The other problem is that it introduces a certain anachronistic secularism to education and the state.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If Avalon had stated that there were no authentic Pauline prohibitions against women teaching in general, outside the churches, I would concede the point. But he said there were no Biblical prohibitions and 1 Tim proves him wrong.

No it doesn't, because Paul's letter to Timothy is still instructing Timothy on behavior within the church.

 

[Craig B]

No it doesn't, because Paul's letter to Timothy is still instructing Timothy on behavior within the church.

I have given my reasons for rejecting that. Adam came before Eve. The woman sinned, not the man. If these are relevant considerations, they apply equally within and outside the confines of church buildings. And they were understood to apply to teaching and leadership functions in society generally, throughout the period in which the Church was the major social force.

Hypatia was slain. Copyists of the NT gave poor Junia a sex change.

 

[TimCallahan]

As much as I enjoy seeing D'Souza crash and burn, The Huffington Post Religion Blog points out that D'Souza and his wife have been separated for two years and disputes that he and the young woman shared a room at the hotel. Thus, there may not have been any real adultery going on. I thought, since I started this thread, that I should share this to be fair.

ETA: D'Souza's statement on this Fox News site is, however a bit humorous (emphasis added):

I sought out advice about whether it is legal to be engaged prior to being divorced and I was informed that it is. Denise and I were trying to do the right thing. I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings. Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong. But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement.

D'Souza had no idea you weren't supposed to get engaged to another woman prior to being divorced from the first one? This is a bit self-servng, to say the least. It also doesn't bode well for his new relationship. A psychologist I knew many years ago told me how many people use a new relationship to scrape off an old one. He said it was much healthier to end the first and spend some time alone before starting the second.

Something that occurred to me after making the post above is this: Why didn't D'Souza - assuming he and Denise were not sharing a room after all - fight for his position and denounce his opponents? His resignation seems like a de facto admission of wrongdoing. And I'm still amazed he could say he didn't now it was wrong to be engaged to one woman while still legally married to another.


ETA: BTW, Denise Odie Joseph and Dinesh D'Souza deserve each other, but America deserves neither of them. If you aren't convinced of this view, go to her blog.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Copyists of the NT gave poor Junia a sex change.

Sometimes but not always; not in the King James version, for instance. There's an interesting summary of the history of translating her name here:

http://www.eewc.com/BookReviews/junia-woman-apostle/

Hypatia's lynching (fourth century) was appalling, and Christian history has a lot to answer for in its treatment of women in some times and places, it's true.

 

[Craig B]

Sometimes but not always; not in the King James version, for instance. There's an interesting summary of the history of translating her name here:

http://www.eewc.com/BookReviews/junia-woman-apostle/

Hypatia's lynching (fourth century) was appalling, and Christian history has a lot to answer for in its treatment of women in some times and places, it's true.

Agreed re KJV / AV. Young's Literal Translation, interestingly, gives "Junias".

"Some times and places" is putting it mildly. With regard to women as leaders and teachers, I think the historical data, as regards societies in which the church has exercised major power, require "most".

ETA Was Hypatia not lynched in the early fifth century, rather than the fourth? Christianity became in effect the sole recognised religion in 395, and Hypatia was slaughtered about ten years later.

ETA again. NIV has "Junias" too!

 

[hgc]

Something that occurred to me after making the post above is this: Why didn't D'Souza - assuming he and Denise were not sharing a room after all - fight for his position and denounce his opponents? His resignation seems like a de facto admission of wrongdoing. And I'm still amazed he could say he didn't now it was wrong to be engaged to one woman while still legally married to another.

I don't think it's fair to say that, "[in Christian circles, it's] wrong to be engaged to one woman while still legally married to another." Sure maybe among some Christians, but since engaged and not-engaged are the same situation vis-a-vis not married and all that that entails, I don't see an obvious religious prohibition. It looks like D'Souza's statement to the effect that he's shocked, just shocked to find that his behavior isn't acceptable within his chosen milieu (Christian circles) is facetious. He's replying to his critics that he knows what's acceptable and what isn't, and he doesn't need to hear it from them. On the other hand, anyone can see that he has erected a strawman in an attempt to sidestep the more salacious side of this tale.

 

[pakeha]

...ETA: BTW, Denise Odie Joseph and Dinesh D'Souza deserve each other, but America deserves neither of them. If you aren't convinced of this view, go to her blog.

Gosh.
I went to the blog and learned the lady considers herself "an American of color".

 

[TimCallahan]

While checking on any new material in this case, I cam across this article, in which the author points out something both interesting and obvious. He quotes Mark 10:11, 12:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery

Matthew softened what Jesus had to say somewhat by allowing divorce in cases of infidelity (Mt. 19:9). However neither of these gospels say anything about a wife being able to divorce a husband who uses here for a punching bag. So, what's obvious is that Jesus didn't allow for divorce. What is particularly interesting is that the divorce rate among evangelical Christians isn't much different from that amongst us heathen folks. This USA Today article disputes this finding somewhat. However, even so, the evengelical divorce rate remains high:

When Wright examined the statistics on evangelicals, he found worship attendance has a big influence on the numbers. Six in 10 evangelicals who never attend had been divorced or separated, compared to just 38% of weekly attendees.

Thus, even among regular church attendees, over one third of their marriages end in divorce. Since the divorce rate of the general populace is 50%, regular church attendance might lower your divorce rate by 12%. That's significant; but it's a far cry from either the zero divorce rate Jesus commanded according to Mark or the divorce only for adultery of Matthew. Considering that, as an outspoken Christian apologist, as well as one who's quite ready to accuse those who disagree with his political / religious stance of all the ills of modern society - including being responsible for 9/11 - he really should be among the 62% of regular church-goers not getting a divorce.

 

[Warrior1461]

Lest we forget, D'Souza started out nasty, even when he was in college at Dartmouth:

As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza stole correspondence from the school's Gay Student Alliance and published it, outing several gay students to friends and family and driving one to consider suicide. When The Nation published an article claiming that D'Souza had stolen the correspondence, D'Souza wrote asking for a retraction, calling the piece "lies from the loony left", and sending articles which he said would clear his name. But bizarrely, the articles he included showed that the claim was true - they included a piece written under his byline that featured excerpts from gay students' correspondence.

Notice how atheists do not ever act this NASTY to other people. Once you have Jesus as your savior. you can do anything you want because He died for you.