Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
--> (Note: Each link opens a new popup window)
|Exod 20: 4-6|
|Rom 11:29||his gifts are unchangeable|
Most white people are ratiscs. I advise Muslims not to marry Christian American girls not because I am prejudice or ratiscs but mainly because of different brought up. I have seen too many divorces between Muslim immigrant men and American women because of their brought in two different cultures and religions. Muslim father always looses his children for two reasons.1. American white Judges in most cases favor white mothers and give more often custody of children to mother's even if Muslim fathers have good income and care a lot for their children.2. Mother gets custory and in some cases doesn't allow her children to see father. Also because of her control over children she raises children as Christians and father can not do any thing about it.Most Muslims fathrs give custody of children to mother because of his brought up in Islamic country where Islamic laws allow children to remain with mothers until age 10 (girl) and 12 (boy). These laws were made centuries ago by early scholars of Islam based on the Sunnah and Ahadiths of Prophet of God. Bases of these laws are that:1. it is devastating for mother if children are taken from her. It is also extremely difficult for children to loose their mother. 2. Secondly by nature mother can love and care to her children much better than father at young age. Islamic laws require mother to send her daughter at age 10, and sons at age 12 to their father. A. After age 12 boy needs father to learn how to be a man from his father and girl needs to learn her father (a male figure) which will help her to become good wife in future. Education and marriages of children is financial responsibility of father and not the mother.B. Another reason is that if mother remarrys, her daughter is nothing to her new husband and he can molest her which happens a lot in west. Because western mothers don't give the daughter to father until she becomes adult even if she marrys. Muslim mother always sends her daughter to her father's house for her protection, further education and her marriage by her father. to educate her and to marry his daughter .These rules were made by early Islamic scholars based on Prophets instructions. Most Muslim parents follow these rules with out any reservations. Mothers seldom stop children to meet their fathers. Paremts rarely have court cases about child custody in all Muslim countries.
ueO8lu <a href="http://gkfudujshymv.com/">gkfudujshymv</a>
dyrnHN <a href="http://qdinoftteyda.com/">qdinoftteyda</a>
Dr. Decker,I'm glad you got a chance to repnosd to my question, and I trust the Lord is sustaining you through this complicated period of life.Surely the TIME mag piece is a strong rebuke, and I do feel that too many evangelicals do base their position on divorce and remarriage more on perceived notions of human justice, rather than on God's standard of justice as revealed in his Word.A quick note in response to yours. I don't want to put undo weight on marriage being a covenant either, although I do think it is a covenant. But, even if we don't call it a covenant, we need some word to describe the nature of the marriage union. Kostenberger in his book lays out 3 broad possibilities, and sides with the nature of marriage union being primarily a covenant, over against a contract or a sacrament. I would agree with him, but perhaps nuance it and say that it is a covenant which also contains some contractual and sacramental elements (provided I get to explain that).In Matt 19 Jesus refers back to the institution of marriage by quoting Gen 1:27 and 2:24. Many have pointed to this scene in Genesis being a covenantal context even if the word is not used. However, I do think that Prov 2:17 and Mal 2:14 do provide direct textual support to the marriage union being described as a covenant as Gordon Hugenberger has shown in his Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. [incidently, we can fairly infer that the Bible refers to at least one pre-lapsarian covenant here...but alas, a topic for another discussion]Erasmians I think are the ones that emphasize the covenantal nature of marriage as the primary OT support for their argument for divorce and remarriage. They simply point out that marriage is a covenant, and like other ANE covenants it can be made and broken, etc. They go on to assume that when divorce is permitted, so is remarriage, even if remarriage is not explicitly mentioned. In fact, Heth points to this argument as presented by Hugenberger as one of the major reasons he forsook his former Patristic view on this issue. He details this in his coming out article published in 2002 by SBJT. Kostenberger likewise relies heavily on the covenantal nature of marriage as an argument for why he believes the bible teaches both divorce AND remarriage while the original marriage partners are still alive. I've read much of Instone-Brewer's more academic work on this a couple years ago, but I can't seem to recall him emphasizing this as much as the 1st C Jewish understanding.I disagree with the Erasmians in maintaining that the Patristic view best aligns with the Scriptural teaching. Marriage is a covenant, but I think they have missed the one-flesh nature of the bond, as Wenham develops it from Scripture (this is what Jesus relies on in Matt 19 too). It seems to me that the uniform teaching of the Bible is that remarriage is not explicitly permitted apart from the death of the spouse, even if a divorce has already taken place. Hence the remarriage to another partner can accurately be described as committing adultry while both spouses are alive, precisely because they are still united in the marriage union before God until death do we part! I agree that either understanding of Jn 4 cannot be proved from the immediate context either way. Though I still think that phenomological language does fit with the overall presentation of marriage in the Bible. I can understand how an Erasmian would argue the way you did from Jn 4, but it still surprises me that you do in light of the fact that you hold to a No Divorce position. I just want to understand how you reconcile the logic of remarriage as adultry with your understanding of Jn 4.We don't have to continue this discussion on this blog post, as it is drifting from the original intent of your post. A comment you made sparked an interest to me, so I merely wanted to understand what you meant because I value your opinion so highly.Thanks for making yourself available through this blog. I appreciate your works about the Good Wednesday Service too on your other post.