The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by backwoodsman » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:10 pm

dorianleigh,

I've considered what I might say to you in response to your attacks on Steve in this and other threads. But the simple truth is, you have a big problem, and it has nothing to do with Steve. You've said at least once that the Spirit tells you what to say here. The Holy Spirit doesn't lie or deceive -- but everything you've said relating to Steve's character is false. So I have no reason to doubt there's a spirit telling you things, but there's nothing holy about it. Please, please repent of listening to this false spirit and stop bearing false witness against God, while you still can. What you have now is only a cheap imitation of true Godly spirituality; He wants to give you the real thing, but He can't while you cling to the counterfeit.

By the way, is "Dorian Leigh" your real name? If it's a pseudonym, it seems like a strange choice for someone who wants to be considered Godly.

dorianleigh
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:53 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by dorianleigh » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:30 pm

Backwoodsman,

Steve is not a victim and doesn't need you to rescue him. Please step back and allow Steve to be an adult. You are diminishing him as a person and a believer when you treat him like a child.

The Kool-aid seems to have clouded your ability to see that Steve is an adult. Your attempts to attack a person who stands up to the person you appear to idolize, display the condition of your walk. I'm not feeling the love????

Does Steve always call people names when they don't agree with him? Wow, you might want to drink some living water and then read the manner in which your hero reacts to what he doesn't like to face about himself......

Love you lots!

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:48 pm

Dorian,

If you wish to continue participating on this forum, could you please give a few straight answers to the following issues:

1. Rescue me from what?

2. Whom did I call names? What names did I call them?

3. Also, what is surprising about my raising a defense? Isn't that what innocent people do when attacked without provocation? If you were being slandered in a court of law, and you were called to testify in your own defense, would it seem valid for someone to object, saying, "You are being defensive! That proves you have a guilty conscience!"? Isn't answering for myself, rather than having "groupies" (of whom I know of none here) do so for me, just what you have said should be done?

4. Could you please identify what sins you are alluding to, which I need to face up to? It would be helpful to have some specifics. Also, how do you know about any such sins?

User avatar
Sean
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:48 am
Location: Smithton, IL USA

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by Sean » Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:12 pm

Dorian,

I would like for you to clearly state what Steve's issues are so that I may make an objective determination about him.
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)

dorianleigh
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:53 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by dorianleigh » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:03 pm

Hi Sean,

It is not my place to list anyones sins. I simply posed questions to Steve for "introspection". The fact that he reacted in such a defensive manner, is shocking to me. Aren't we all supposed to examine ourselves daily and seek the Lords purification of our hearts? If we are in leadership, aren't we called to humility and servanthood? Does he believe that he is the only person who doesn't have blindspots? Steve appears to have a victim mentality which is being fostered by the people on this site who seem to have difficulty seeing any flaws in Steve. This is not helping Steve grow and based upon the unloving manner he is now treating me, I'm guessing that he has been successful up until this point at chasing away any believer who dares to think with their own mind??

I have noticed in Steve's radio broadcast that he seems drawn towards "arguing" and "debating" Scripure with the motive of "convincing" people of these truths that he feel he has. I'm concerned for any leader who feels they are rare in their beliefs because God only speaks these "enlightened thoughts" to them and they therefore need to convince (control) other minds to believe as they do. Do you see any posts on here where someone disagreed with Steve and Steve learned from them? I haven't spent too much time searching for this, but I have noticed other people who are verbally attacked by Steve when they disagreed. Steve seems to feel that the believer's relationship with Jesus is black and white and that God deals with all of us exactly the same. I've heard him say that if their are 40 different interpretations of Scripture, then 39 of them are wrong? Where does it say that in the Bible? Who were the religious people who accused Jesus of doing "wrong" because he was violating Scripture healing on the Sabbath? Contrary to what Steve is trying to "convince" others into believing, there are many different perspectives to the Scripture which are in fact correct! When the Bible is used as a weapon and causes believers to become dependent upon a human, rather than on God, we are moving into idolatry.

I called Steve's show and complimented him and he was very thankful for my "affirmations". When I disagreed with some other areas, he became angry and accused me of being hostile as well as other accusations which you can read for yourself. I've been able to turn the other cheek and continue walking in love, however, I'm concerned that there is not any freedom (grace) on this site or on his show, to enlighten Steve. Whenever a leader comes to a place where they feel that they have ALL the answers from God and it is their job to convince everyone else, we should beware. The Bible warns us that in the last days, even the elect will be deceived.

I appreciate your asking me a question rather than attacking me and trying to prevent Steve from learning how to walk in love when he is challenged. He seems to require lots of practice in this area. I would encourage you to pray about all this and seek wisdom from the Lord. When you disagree with Steve, please speak up and see if he is ever teachable........

God Bless.....

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:07 pm

Dorian,

Please cut and paste my posts here to which you are referring. Please post one where I am being

1) "shockingly defensive"
The fact that [Steve] reacted in such a defensive manner, is shocking to me.
2) Unloving toward you
based upon the unloving manner [Steve] is now treating me, I'm guessing that he has been successful up until this point at chasing away any believer who dares to think with their own mind??
3) Verbally attacking someone who disagrees with me.
I have noticed other people who are verbally attacked by Steve when they disagreed.
Since these are your most recent accusations, please document them, since I have not been able to locate any of my posts containing the elements to which you seem to be referring. I don't believe I have accused you of anything, but if I did, I would feel obligated to document what you did, rather than hurling vague and subjective insults. Please show me the same courtesy.

Please also let me know why you said I "was very thankful for [your] 'affirmations'." Did I say something to give you the idea that your affirmations were particularly pleasing to me? I don't remember finding them to be particularly gratifying.

I believe you have yet to answer my posts in which I asked you for specific points of clarification:

From above in this thread:
Dorian,

If you wish to continue participating on this forum, could you please give a few straight answers to the following issues:

1. Rescue me from what?

2. Whom did I call names? What names did I call them?

3. Also, what is surprising about my raising a defense? Isn't that what innocent people do when attacked without provocation? If you were being slandered in a court of law, and you were called to testify in your own defense, would it seem valid for someone to object, saying, "You are being defensive! That proves you have a guilty conscience!"? Isn't answering for myself, rather than having "groupies" (of whom I know of none here) do so for me, just what you have said should be done?

4. Could you please identify what sins you are alluding to, which I need to face up to? It would be helpful to have some specifics. Also, how do you know about any such sins?
From http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 2&start=20 :
Dorian,

I do not know you, and you do not know me. I have no idea what "sins" of mine you would like for me to be confronted about, or how you might have knowledge of them.

We have never met nor conversed. The first I ever heard from you was when you called me on the air a week or so ago, commending me for not charging for anything at the website, and telling me I was a true man of God.

Then you sent me a photograph of yourself with your mother, and told me some information about your divorce. I wrote back and mentioned that I was in a relationship.

Beyond this, we have had no other communication, apart from this forum, in which you have done nothing but attack me, accuse me of vague "sins" and mischaracterized my activities on this forum and on my program.

In other words, you know nothing about me, except that I do not charge for stuff, that I am in a relationship, and whatever else you may have gleaned from this forum, from listening to the radio show, or from reading my bio at the website.

May I ask what it is that I have done to offend you or to warrant this unprovoked attack?
I would like to clarify that we have never banished anyone from this forum due to a disagreement. However, some have been banned who have wished merely to come and attack the people here, as you have done, and then have refused to answer questions or interact with those who answer them. Please do not keep telling us how much you love us. Nobody could believe this, so it simply sounds sappy. It would be more impressive if you were to learn to behave and speak in a loving manner, rather than to parrot the words "I love you." The forum is for interaction, not for spleen ventilation. Please bear this in mind. We respect people who disagree. We do not respect people who simply accuse and will not justify their accusations. Since you have told us so much about how the devil works, I'm sure you know that groundless accusations are exactly how the devil works.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:51 am

Sean wrote:Dorian,

I would like for you to clearly state what Steve's issues are so that I may make an objective determination about him.

Hi Sean,

This thread has gotten completely off topic. How about offering to everyone to start a new thread where Steve is the focus and so allow this thread to get back on topic. I know you did not start the side track, just thought perhaps you could suggest to others that they respect the topic of the thread, since you desire to make an honest assessment of Steve.

No attempt has been made to answer numerous questions that show the divorce for adultery model to indeed be deficient.
Those who are ignoring the questions cannot make them or the implications of not answering them go away.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:29 pm

AVoice,

I agree with your objection that this thread has been sidetracked from its original intent.

However, you may have to resign yourself to the possibility that this topic has been played out and no one has convinced anyone else. The fact that many here do not seem to find your exegetical arguments compelling, and you do not find theirs compelling, is one of those frustrating facts of life. Mature people learn to live with this. No one can say you didn't make a thorough stab at it. I guess we sometimes have to allow that others are not required to agree with our opinions any more than we are required to agree with theirs.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 pm

Dorian,

I have just deleted another of your posts here, because you are refusing to answer the questions I posed to you above. Without doing so, you show yourself to be only dishonest and a troublemaker. When you make vague accusations, you imitate the devil. If you have something substantive to say, then answer the questions above. You have written so irresponsibly here that you are not permitted to post here any more until you answer the questions you have been asked. They are easy to find, as they are just above in this thread and on this page. You can't miss them.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:05 pm

steve wrote:AVoice,

I agree with your objection that this thread has been sidetracked from its original intent.

However, you may have to resign yourself to the possibility that this topic has been played out and no one has convinced anyone else. The fact that many here do not seem to find your exegetical arguments compelling, and you do not find theirs compelling, is one of those frustrating facts of life. Mature people learn to live with this. No one can say you didn't make a thorough stab at it. I guess we sometimes have to allow that others are not required to agree with our opinions any more than we are required to agree with theirs.

With all the views this thread has gotten, only a few people have gotten involved. The disagreement from a few doesn't really amount to much especially since some serious questions have been asked with no serious answers to the specific questions I am referring to.
The question I'm asking now is that if there were any way that the betrothal model does not work grammatically, then please let that be known. The grammar fits perfectly in Matt 5;32 and 19;9 when the betrothal model is applied.
When the divorce for adultery model is applied, a list of serious grammatical inconsistencies surface with regard to Matt 5:32 and 19:9.
The question has not yet been attempted to be answered, what are the chances that the wrong model fits PERFECTLY grammatically while the model deemed as absolutely allowing divorce does not at all fit grammatically?
It appears Matt and Steve have basically stated in effect that it doesn't matter that the betrothal model actually fits while the adultery model fails grammatically.
The dynamics of how the different clauses in 5:32 and 19:9 relate to each other is radically changed when "fornication" is changed to "adultery".

Many of the Mennonites have held this understanding for centuries as I understand. They have not strayed from the simplicity that is in Christ in this basic foundational-to-Christianity doctrine.


Words have to be added to the text under the adultery model to accurately reflect what that teaching requires from the text.
Nothing has to be added or changed to the text under the betrothal model.

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”