And Joanne falls even deeper down the rabbit hole...

[Gizmola]

Yes I do.

May I ask you to elaborate? Do you believe you'll find a like-minded believer here? Do you think we are your "brethren?" Have you even read the FJ TOS and Rules and all that fun stuff to know who we are as a community?

Or are you simply here to be a monosyllabic troll who feels some sort of self-satisfied thrill at playing what you think are very sophisticated semantic games in order to prove to yourself (and to us, you believe) how godly you are? If so, you're doing it wrong.

[joannesmith]

May I ask you to elaborate? Do you believe you'll find a like-minded believer here? Do you think we are your "brethren?" Have you even read the FJ TOS and Rules and all that fun stuff to know who we are as a community?

Or are you simply here to be a monosyllabic troll who feels some sort of self-satisfied thrill at playing what you think are very sophisticated semantic games in order to prove to yourself (and to us, you believe) how godly you are? If so, you're doing it wrong.

Elaborate: I have an email address. People use it. I believe they have sincere questions and I've enjoyed speaking with them.

Do I think you all are my 'brethren'. No. But maybe there is one lurking? You never know.

Have I read all the fun stuff to know who you are as a community? No, not all of it. But I've been interacting a little here and I have a pretty good idea I think. I am not a believer in being sheltered from the world. I go out and speak to others as often as I can. Some of the most interesting conversations I have had have been with atheists and those of other religions (like Muslims & Hindus and even satanists). I'm just curious what others believe and why.

Am I here to be a monosyllabic troll (had to look that up) who feels some sort of self-satisfied thrill at playing what I think are very sophisticated semantic games in order to prove myself and to you all how godly I am? No. I have nothing to prove. I just see the 'freejinger' site come up on my tracker and came over to see what you all had to say about me. Is it wrong of me to try and answer some of the questions posted on here? Does it offend you in some way that I have taken the time to do so? Have I said anything offensive or broken any of the rules? If so, please let me know.

[Lemonbalm]

Joanne;

What do you feel about this verse "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15). This to me says divorce is OK and acceptable in God's eyes as long as the unbelieving one leaves which it seems to be your husband did. What do you think of this?

Also I know you have quoted this "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery," (Matt. 19:9). Immorality can refer to adultery as well as immoral actions/ungodly actions which you husband also committed in abandoning you. If this is the case it seems to me it is OK for you remarry since your marriage fell into both cases where divorce is OK in God's sight as well as remarriage being OK.

Just a thought, would like to see what you have to say to that..

From a fellow Christian who has tried to get it right before and realized we will always fall short especially in fundamentalism.

[formergothardite]

So you would say that someone who is a day before their 19th birthday isn't over 18?

And was she the one who didn't want to look up hard words or study the deep meanings of the Bible in the last thread she came to?

[joannesmith]

Joanne;

What do you feel about this verse "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15). This to me says divorce is OK and acceptable in God's eyes as long as the unbelieving one leaves which it seems to be your husband did. What do you think of this?

Notice the word "bondage". If an unbelieving spouse departs, the believing spouse is not under bondage but is called to peace. I believe this means the believing spouse has done what they could and they are not to blame for the departing of their spouse. Also the believing spouse does not have to perform the normal duties of a spouse for the departed spouse.

Notice too that nowhere does it say in that verse that "divorce is ok and so is remarriage". Just before that verse the Lord tells us to remain single or be reconciled to our husband. After that verse it is reiterated that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he is living and any relationship outside of the covenant husband is adultery (as long as he is living). She is free to marry if she is a widow. Based on what is said before and after that verse (and what is said by Jesus and also what is said in Romans 7), it would not make sense for Paul to be saying, "You are free to divorce and have another marriage".

Also I know you have quoted this "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery," (Matt. 19:9). Immorality can refer to adultery as well as immoral actions/ungodly actions which you husband also committed in abandoning you. If this is the case it seems to me it is OK for you remarry since your marriage fell into both cases where divorce is OK in God's sight as well as remarriage being OK.

Just a thought, would like to see what you have to say to that..

From a fellow Christian who has tried to get it right before and realized we will always fall short especially in fundamentalism.

Here are a few things to consider about the passage:

First: where does it say remarriage is all right?

Second: Right after that Jesus says: Whosoever marries her that is divorced is committing adultery. Why? Because he says clearly that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. Jesus says they were two but now they are ONE. The only thing that breaks that bond (according to the scriptures) is death.

Third: Notice the argument of the Pharisees and what Jesus responds with. He points back to what God did: one man, one woman, one flesh, and does away with the precept Moses gave in Deut 24. A true follower of Christ does not have a hard heart. We are to love and forgive. We are to keep our covenant and be faithful till death regardless of if the other keeps their covenant or not.

Fourth: the flow of what Jesus said in the verse you quoted:

"whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

There are a few things going on here:

-Whoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery unless he divorces her because of her fornication in which case he is not the cause of the adultery on her part because she has already committed it.

- Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

There is an early christian quote that says if a man stays with his wife while he knows she is committing adultery with another (or other) man (men) then he is a partaker of that adultery. He is to send her away and not take her back till she has truly repented of the adultery. There are many early christian quotes (by early I mean the first few centuries) that are very clear: one man, one woman. Anything outside of that original marriage covenant is adultery and needs to be repented of. This is how the early christians who walked with the apostles and the disciples of the apostles saw it.

I hope that answers your questions?

[Lemonbalm]

Notice the word "bondage". If an unbelieving spouse departs, the believing spouse is not under bondage but is called to peace. I believe this means the believing spouse has done what they could and they are not to blame for the departing of their spouse. Also the believing spouse does not have to perform the normal duties of a spouse for the departed spouse.

Notice too that nowhere does it say in that verse that "divorce is ok and so is remarriage". Just before that verse the Lord tells us to remain single or be reconciled to our husband. After that verse it is reiterated that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he is living and any relationship outside of the covenant husband is adultery (as long as he is living). She is free to marry if she is a widow. Based on what is said before and after that verse (and what is said by Jesus and also what is said in Romans 7), it would not make sense for Paul to be saying, "You are free to divorce and have another marriage".

Here are a few things to consider about the passage:

First: where does it say remarriage is all right?

Second: Right after that Jesus says: Whosoever marries her that is divorced is committing adultery. Why? Because he says clearly that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. Jesus says they were two but now they are ONE. The only thing that breaks that bond (according to the scriptures) is death.

Third: Notice the argument of the Pharisees and what Jesus responds with. He points back to what God did: one man, one woman, one flesh, and does away with the precept Moses gave in Deut 24. A true follower of Christ does not have a hard heart. We are to love and forgive. We are to keep our covenant and be faithful till death regardless of if the other keeps their covenant or not.

Fourth: the flow of what Jesus said in the verse you quoted:

"whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

There are a few things going on here:

-Whoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery unless he divorces her because of her fornication in which case he is not the cause of the adultery on her part because she has already committed it.

- Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

There is an early christian quote that says if a man stays with his wife while he knows she is committing adultery with another (or other) man (men) then he is a partaker of that adultery. He is to send her away and not take her back till she has truly repented of the adultery. There are many early christian quotes (by early I mean the first few centuries) that are very clear: one man, one woman. Anything outside of that original marriage covenant is adultery and needs to be repented of. This is how the early christians who walked with the apostles and the disciples of the apostles saw it.

I hope that answers your questions?

Thank you for answering, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your thoughts further, truly I do. I wish all the Bible students I teach would take the time to answer questions and challenges with grace. ;)

[joannesmith]

So you would say that someone who is a day before their 19th birthday isn't over 18?

And was she the one who didn't want to look up hard words or study the deep meanings of the Bible in the last thread she came to?

Over 18 means over 18. When my son turns 19 he'll be over 18. I am not sure why you think this is illogical?

Yes, I was the one who said all the theology confuses me. Someone made a very funny picture with my quote and I really liked that picture (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8240&start=240). Theology does confuse me. Where are all those big terms in the bible? I challenge you to find them. Can't we [speaking to those who care] just read the bible and believe what it says? It's not that complicated. That was my point when I said all that theology and all those big words confuse me. I don't understand how someone can write hundreds of pages to explain one little verse. It seems to me the only reason why they do this is to explain why it does not mean what it says. God is not out to trick us all. The apostles and disciples didn't write letters to try and confuse people. They wrote letters to clear things up. Yet some how, by the use of theology, the water gets muddier and muddier. And when one just simply looks at the teachings of Christ and actually believes what he says, they are labeled a heretic. Certainly Christ did not actually mean what he said right?! He was here to trick us all and confuse is, right?! Nonsense.

[Witsec7]

...

You do realize that it is your job as a mother to support your children, do you not? It is not a group effort. You are the responsible party. You should not be accepting your children's hard earned money. You say he has free access to his money, but you have very clearly stated that you spend what is needed on the family and then give the rest away. Given the fact that you state that (due to his mental capacity) he isn't capable of driving or living alone this is even more suspicious to me.

And yet she took him for his drivers license.

[Arete]

joanne,

I've got something to say on this attachment you have to "bretheren" you are not related to. You keep insisting on "show me the verse my son should be my headship". I'll show you the biblical cultures. An ancient Israelite woman who was widowed past child bearing years went to live with her oldest living son, if no living son, the oldest male relative. The ancient Greeks who converted to Christianity had the practice that a widow was cared for and guided by her oldest male child, then oldest male relative. When an ancient Roman husband died (and I'm talking the Christians), his eldest son became the immediate head of the family, which included having his mother under him.

Your practice of seeking "correction" from unrelated men would have scandalized any woman in these Biblical cultures, and most of the men as well. You have a son who is considered an adult by both the modern and ancient definition. You have no business seeking your "correction" from men who are not related to you and still claim you are following the Bible. To be honest, a grown woman seeking correction from a headship is a sad spectacle. You alone are responsible for your life and your salvation. Take them and own them, and stop volunteering yourself for unpaid slave labor.

[Witsec7]

Then he's free to attend high school and college?

Sure he is, but he also knows living in the world is evil and the college professors are all atheists and being in the company of woman who don't wear frumpers will damn him to an eternity in hell.

[joannesmith]

You alone are responsible for your life and your salvation. Take them and own them, and stop volunteering yourself for unpaid slave labor.

I agree 100% and have said this many times.

Thank you for the brief account of history. Do you have a book or something to point me to that explains all of this? Something as close to the original source as possible? What you said sparked a bible verse from the NT: "if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." My son certainly does all he can to provide for us. He is a blessing.

[joannesmith]

I agree 100% and have said this many times.

Oops, I mean, I agree to the first part: that I alone am responsible for my life and my salvation.

[joannesmith]

Good night snark friends. I must leave this board for now and I am not sure when I'll have the time to check in.

[lilith]

If your daughter took the same path you did in your teens and got pregnant out of wedlock would you love her and support her patiently while she discovered her own happiness and spiritual path for her and her child, just as you have?

If one of your sons got a girl pregnant, would you welcome her and the child into your life and family and allow your son to head his own household, even if it looked very different to yours?

[Parkersmom120106]

My husband and I are both completely competent. Neither of us are prone to foolish actions based on emotion. Neither of us are here to "rebuke" or "correct" the other.

Does she really think that women are the only one's who act on emotion? I can think of plenty of times when men in my life have done stupid things out of anger. Acting on emotion is not an exclusively female thing.

[thoughtful]

I'm sorry - I was told before that this is a snark board and no one is interested in knowing the truth, they just want to snark. I assumed that meant you too and I see it was wrong of me to assume. Please forgive me if I offended you.

You didn't offend me.

I'm not sure who told you that nobody is interested in knowing the truth -- seeking out the truth, facing it, and hoping that others will face it, as well, goes on a lot on FJ.

It is a snark board, but not all of us snark on everybody and everything, in every thread. We are often very serious, and very heartfelt, especially when concerned about children.

Why do strong, grown women, capable of caring for themselves, want to submit? Because sometimes I need some direction and guidance. While I am free to do whatever I want, I also know that I am not wise in every area yet and never will be. The bible says, "in the multitude of counselors there is safety". I believe this. It's a blessing to have people to turn to when you need some help. Very rarely do I turn to them for spiritual help though [meaning, "what does this bible verse mean?"]; usually it's for situations in my life. For instance, my mother in law is not always the most loving person in the world. Sometimes she says things that are just not true and are rude. There are so many things I could say back to her in defense, but would that be the most loving, wisest thing to do? More often than not I want to act out of haste and defense, but that is usually not the best thing and will come off as unloving and only add to her issues. By stepping back and asking for help, I am able to take a deep breath, collect my thoughts, and respond to her in a way that will not make things worse.

This is just a small example. It's not like I have men here who are lording over me, telling me what to do. Brothers are here to lend an ear and give advice when needed.

I hope that clears it up for you.

It really doesn't.

The description you just gave is logical and benign -- we all turn to others for advice when we need it.

That is not submission, though.

This thread was started due to your saying this:

I'm learning how to be more quiet. I'm learning my place as a woman that does not have a husband around to help, correct, rebuke, instruct, and so on. Not having boundaries has been one of the hardest struggles I've had. There are many brothers here whom I can turn to for help, but I do my best to not depend on them too much because they are not my 'head' and I'm still not real sure exactly how much I should or should not be putting on them. Though I'd gladly submit to them (I sure would appreciate the structure and guidance they could offer), I am not sure it is their duty to fill that role in my life.

(bolding mine)

That does not sound like an adult woman who is comfortable making her own decisions. It does not sound like someone who merely wants a bit of advice from a peer now and then.

It sounds like someone who wants to be -- well, submissive -- wants to be told what to do, to be corrected, directed and bossed. It sounds like someone who considers herself subject to men, less than them, not in a position to give them advice if the need arises.

That's your privilege, I guess, although I join those who are horrified at anyone who is raising children in such a life. But it is not the same as just asking for a bit of advice now and then. It seems disingenuous to pretend or say it is.

You don't need to keep trying to explain it to me -- I doubt we'll come to a meeting of the minds. I would just ask that you bear in mind that those two statements are really contradictory.

I know you care about Biblical truth, but there is also normal, everyday-use-of-English truth. You can't be facing directly north and directly south at the same time, if you are eating a rutabaga you are not eating an apple, etc. Submission is not the same as running one's own life but asking for a bit of help or advice now and then.

You can't have it both ways. If you have chosen to be submissive to men, and the only men around are not family, due to the decisions you've made, you are stuck with submitting to whoever is around, or admitting that you cannot, in your present position, be submissive.

Sorry about the long quotes, all -- I just want to make sure nobody feels like editing led to reinterpretation.

[FaeT]

Over 18 means over 18. When my son turns 19 he'll be over 18. I am not sure why you think this is illogical?

Yes, I was the one who said all the theology confuses me. Someone made a very funny picture with my quote and I really liked that picture (http://freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?f=8 ... &start=240). Theology does confuse me. Where are all those big terms in the bible? I challenge you to find them. Can't we [speaking to those who care] just read the bible and believe what it says? It's not that complicated. That was my point when I said all that theology and all those big words confuse me. I don't understand how someone can write hundreds of pages to explain one little verse. It seems to me the only reason why they do this is to explain why it does not mean what it says. God is not out to trick us all. The apostles and disciples didn't write letters to try and confuse people. They wrote letters to clear things up. Yet some how, by the use of theology, the water gets muddier and muddier. And when one just simply looks at the teachings of Christ and actually believes what he says, they are labeled a heretic. Certainly Christ did not actually mean what he said right?! He was here to trick us all and confuse is, right?! Nonsense.

Considering it contradicts itself, it is rather complicated to believe what it says at face value. You seem to forget that the bible isn't complete either. The books that are in it were decided by a counsel based on politics affiliations. There are many other books that were always considered part of the bible until the Counsel of Nicea decided to make an "official" bible and forced everyone to burn copies of the books it didn't like. You also seem to forget that not everyone on here - or in this world - is a christian. Some aren't even theists. So it's rather condescending to just expect everyone to read it and believe.

[Arete]

What would be the point in giving you sources, since your off? But on the off change, for as close to the source as possible on the ancient Israelites, read the Old Testament. For ancient Greek and Roman social history, go to the library and get the books by Will and Ariel Durant. They have plenty of primary source citations. Both Italians and Greeks practiced the social construct of the oldest living son/male relative being the head of the family after the father's death until well into the 20th century.

[notsocommon]

This is hard for many to understand because sadly the accepted norm today is to have selfish, rebellious children.

What world do you live in? 'Selfish' and 'Rebellious' children are hardly the norm in mine.

[Witsec7]

What world do you live in? 'Selfish' and 'Rebellious' children are hardly the norm in mine.

Kids rebel it's part of the growing process to adulthood. Joanne loves to paint with a broad brush.

[TudorRose]

Two passages of Scripture never preached on in Fundamentalist congregations.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2

24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Ezra 10:2-3

2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.

3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

But, sure sure, "God hates divorce." (You know what? Divorced people kind of hate divorce,too. Physicians hate amputating diabetic toes, too, but it's better than letting the patient die.)

[notsocommon]

.

A husband is to be the head of the wife. Whether you agree with it or not, this is what the bible teaches. The bible also teaches that the woman is the 'weaker vessel'. How many times have you acted on emotion and done something stupid? Well, I guess I am only assuming you are a woman. If you are a man, I'm sure there are times you have known women in your life to act on emotion and do something stupid. The husband is there to offer guidance and boundaries. He is there if rebuke or correction is needed. I am a firm believe that all women can benefit from this, but of course most women would hate it.

.

....and men never react out of emotions and do something stupid? My own husband is guilty of this as he is a hot head. *I* the 'weaker vessel' am the one who reins him in and calms him down, so does not do stupid, impulsive things because he's pissed off.

I, on the other hand, rarely if ever react out of emotion.

My husband will be the first to tell you all this.

[Witsec7]

Here is a link to the mythology that is approved at The Church of Monett for those who are interested.

http://www.earlychurchtruth.com/reading.html

[Koala]

My son certainly does all he can to provide for us. He is a blessing.

This confuses me greatly, both as a mother and as a person. First of all you have said that your son is not an adult (even though according to state law he is) and that he has a mental condition which makes it so that he can't drive or live on his own. If your son is as you have described him then why on earth is he providing for you and your other children?

[keeks21]

joanne,

I've got something to say on this attachment you have to "bretheren" you are not related to. You keep insisting on "show me the verse my son should be my headship". I'll show you the biblical cultures. An ancient Israelite woman who was widowed past child bearing years went to live with her oldest living son, if no living son, the oldest male relative. The ancient Greeks who converted to Christianity had the practice that a widow was cared for and guided by her oldest male child, then oldest male relative. When an ancient Roman husband died (and I'm talking the Christians), his eldest son became the immediate head of the family, which included having his mother under him.

Your practice of seeking "correction" from unrelated men would have scandalized any woman in these Biblical cultures, and most of the men as well. You have a son who is considered an adult by both the modern and ancient definition. You have no business seeking your "correction" from men who are not related to you and still claim you are following the Bible. To be honest, a grown woman seeking correction from a headship is a sad spectacle. You alone are responsible for your life and your salvation. Take them and own them, and stop volunteering yourself for unpaid slave labor.

Does she realise how gross "submitting to a headship" and "seeking correction" sounds?

In any non fundie church they would also be scandalised if she tried to submit to an unrelated man.