I was once an RGN (Registered General Nurse) student. I went into nursing to be a missionary, not kill people, so when I found out there were secret plans not to resuscitate patients, and other ways they finished up without the planned resuscitation, I went on Channel 4 TV News in England to try to expose the practices. However I would describe the TV broadcast as a clever cover-up. They actively refused to allow me to quote evidence of a planned resuscitation that did not occur, even though the patient and relatives thought a resuscitation would be performed in the event of a cardiac arrest.
If you want to see just how bad the secret practices were just see the paper that was published by one of the hospitals I worked in, where I made complaints about subjects like "The Hollywood Code" "Light Blue" or "The slow code".
Aarons / Beeching Paper, Fazakerley Hospital Liverpool England, BMJ Dec 1991.
I was once an RGN (Registered General Nurse) student. I went into nursing to be a missionary, not kill people, so when I found out there were secret plans not to resuscitate patients, and other ways they finished up without the planned resuscitation, I went on Channel 4 TV News in England to try to expose the practices. However I would describe the TV broadcast as a clever cover-up. They actively refused to allow me to quote evidence of a planned resuscitation that did not occur, even though the patient and relatives thought a resuscitation would be performed in the event of a cardiac arrest.
If you want to see just how bad the secret practices were just see the paper that was published by one of the hospitals I worked in, where I made complaints about subjects like "The Hollywood Code" "Light Blue" or "The slow code".
Aarons / Beeching Paper, Fazakerley Hospital Liverpool England, BMJ Dec 1991.
Jesus and Bible .com
Where Jesus is Lord!
Marriage - the strict view.
Marriage - the Strict view .
The strictest view on the interpretation of "porneia" in Matthew 19:9 and Matt 5:32, is that it means incest, which is entirely forbidden. This would mean once the marriage vows are taken, in a normal marriage, there really is no reason at all to divorce and remarry whatsoever. The two big debates here are the strict Catholic view on first cousins marrying, which they say is incest, and as to whether the word "annulment" is more accurate than a divorce. I do not hold this view, and some might add to the issue being tricked into marrying a trans sexual, another entirely non biblical situation.
Stricter?
That when two people fornicate, they are married. I think this view was held by Arch Bishop Gore, and was expounded in his "Gore's Bible Commentary."
Adultery - refutations.
Fornication refutations.
The big attempt to refute the belief that porneia means "fornication" (KJV) a premarital sin, is as follows:
1) If two Christians are married for life, and an innocent partner cannot divorce and remarry, this would mean the wayward wife or husband could have multiple affairs, without the consequence of the marriage ending. This would include situations where the innocent party does not find out. There might be secular legal consequences, the church might also discipline or disfellowship (excommunicate) the guilty party, but they remain married. This could be interpreted as a licentious teaching Further they could agree to have what is called "an open marriage" and the marriage would continue. In all circumstance surrounding this unrepentant adultery the guilty party loses their salvation, without repentance. We then must add the situation of a man who claims he has a "weakness: claims genuine repentance, but backslides and does this again, avoiding disfellowshipping. (so this criticism applies also to the interpretation that poeneia means only incest).
2) That a person can be trapped in an unhappy marriage. (remember your vows therefore, and be careful who you choose, as even the interpretation of adultery can leave you in an unhappy marriage for life.)
3) A second tidal wave - several preachers, including me, have described the plethora of divorce and remarriages in Protestantism, as a tidal wave of adultery, occurring mostly after the Modern Versions of the bible changed the in context meaning of the word porneia in Matthew 5:32 to such things as "marital unfaithfulness." and that the Catholics have had a similar tidal wave of adulterous second marriages (according to the view of martyrs like John Fisher) by trying to keep as lax by introducing preposterous reasons to annul marriages.
HOWEVER I could be blamed by God on the Day of Judgement for "sparking" a second tidal wave of divorce and remarriage by saying fornication is a legitimate reason, (eg a woman pretending she is a virgin, and marrying in a white dress to symbolise this) if that is I was to say that this can be used as a reason to divorce years after the marriage is consummated. If you examine my teachings I have never said this.
Imagine if a man suspected his wife was no virgin, but had no hesitation to consummate his marriage to her, including the reason she is simply very alluring and beautiful. Could such a man years later pretend to "discover" this unchastity, and legitimately divorce and remarry?
This question highlights what the possible partial meaning in the marriage vows is to the words
"“If any man have just impediment, say now, or forever hold his peace” - common book 1789."
"Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace."
Can we construe from this controversies like the olde English law "The law of the false virgin" must now be set aside, you have decided to consummate, and cannot use accusations of false virginity etc after you have done this?
Some people would very controversially quote Deuteronomy 22 as a strong indication that divorce can take place now (in a completely different covenant with new law). Does it sound right for a man to be blase about consummation, have several children with a woman, and then claim "she was not a maiden/virgin" and so called legitimately remarry??? And we all know the irony might be he was an unconfessed fornicator himself.
The shattering conclusion seems to be that "fornication" discovered before consummation, whether by confession, or physical proofs, or both, can end a marriage, BUT if a man or woman proceed to consummate the marriage by free will, this therein after is NOT a grounds for divorce.
Adultery refutations.
1) The view adultery can legitimately end a marriage in the eyes of God, needs splitting into more exact doctrinal stances:
1) After adultery only the innocent party can remarry, the guilty party must remain unmarried (why?). This seems so obscure the cunning, crafty and often money minded pastors teaching that adultery can end Christian marriages simply do not complete their doctrinal stance. For instance if you say "because the guilty party would be committing adultery by remarrying" the only reason that would be true would be that the divorce is not recognized by God, leaving the innocent party committing adultery.
2) After adultery both the innocent and guilty party can remarry. (Here the old Catholic criticism holds true, that this means "the way out of an unhappy marriage is for one or both partners to have an affair and legitimately remarry.) Once again accusations of licentiousness can be made.
3) Very seldom do ANY teachers say adultery must always end the marriage bond, almost always they say you can forgive. If you can forgive once, I take it they say an innocent party can forgive over and over again, so, this means they occupy themselves already the doctrine of their main criticism that the word "porneia" means fornication - except they say forgiving is a choice. Kind of like the old saying "the pot calling the kettle black."
Forever hold his peace