Struggles with reading comprehension

czja comments:

It is the ludicrous and ungodly conclusion Vox and you and others have come to in dealing with this reality that I take issue with…. Read your bible from cover to cover a couple of times and then we’ll talk.

Ungodly? Unbiblical?

“It is good for a man not to marry.”

“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.”

“But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances;”

“Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”

Obviously, the notion that men must marry is demonstrably unbiblical. And there is clearly nothing wrong with a man taking defensive legal measures once the wife has pursued the unbiblical principle of refusing herself to her husband or violated the Biblical command not to separate from her husband.

A defense of the overtly unbiblical (the separating wife seeking a divorce) over that which the Bible says nothing (legal financial maneuvers put into play once a divorce-seeking woman’s intentions become clear) indicates use of the Bible to defend an emotional position rather than a Biblical position in its own right.

I note that the unusual measures proposed by Minnesota should not be confused with mine. There are many good reasons to invest offshore, not least the fact that foreign exchanges have significantly outperformed US markets since 2003, performance compounded by the weakening dollar. Indeed, a marriage in Italy, where the divorce laws are far stronger, might be a wise step worth considering for both men and women who value their marital commitment and contract.

As I stated in the original column, God’s concept of marriage is good. But would cZja and others argue that men must accept the harsh realities of civil marriage if it required men to amputate their left hand? Why, then, should they expect men to blithely submit to having their property rights violated at will? For the Biblically minded, it is perhaps worth recalling that those property rights are unalienably endowed by their Creator.