Although I do not like posting arguments against 'friends', in the case of a recent discussion on "shabbat Night Live' I believe a serious point needs to be made regarding divorce ties to sin. Rood and Gordon went 'wide' rather than narrow when it came warnings against divorce. If I am not mistaken, in ancient history there were no verbal vows professed before witnesses in a ceremony after or before mating with a companion. The sin often tied to divorce that occurs when divorce is requested only due to dissatisfaction with the other party is that one of both of the people involved in the divorce proved to have given false testimony earlier in life once the petitioner openly denied the original vows which equal a legal testimony. If it was adultery that lead to the filing of divorce, again there is sin tied to the divorce that does not automatically get forgiven just because a divorce was granted.
I believe both Rood and Gordon grossly mishandled the question on the August 5th, 2016 episode of 'Shabbat Night Live''. If an original public testimony of a commitment to a spouse is not taken seriously when it is publically retracted, how will Gordon and Rood react to other court-type testimony that is later proven to be UNTRUE and is sin if it is proven to be a LIE? There is a very bad outcome for people who are known to be liars, and those who seek divorce without just cause actually are liars based on their 'change of mind and change of heart' away from their original testimony. Breaking of vows IS a serious sin; if no vows were spoken between a couple, it is possible there is no sin attached to breaking up the relationship if both parties had been truthful with each other. Broken vows is contrary to telling the TRUTH in public.
Rood and Gordon sounded more like lukewarm Harvard or 'Las Vegas style' attorneys in their response to the question 'Can the sin of divorce be forgiven?' rather than sounding like investigators who needed a bit more information about the REASON for divorce after a legal testimony regarding lifetime intentions to a physical spouse and a household business partner was retracted. I believe Rood and Gordon are going to face very big problems for misleading so many viewers on the issue of divorce.
If two technically 'single' monogamous people co-habitate and manage to evade fornication charges and never made any legal testimony (public statement of intent) regarding the intended duration of their relationship, I suppose there often is no sin when the relationship is intentionally 'dissolved' since lack of public wedding vows means they might not have a LYING TONGUE problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment