Are there single fathers, who never married, with children in the West?

[Robert.Evans]

Your "law" then would dictate that my current hubby would not find happiness with me and, the biggest thing, my children would not exist. I cannot seriously believe in a god that would condemn people to misery and unhappiness for the rest of their lives due to another person's transgressions. I cannot seriously believe in a god that would say my children should never have existed. I cannot seriously believe in a god who would punish a victim. That is not a god worth believing in. That is a childish, pathetic, twisted, cruel, malevolent god and I will have nothing to do with such a terrible excuse for a "deity". You can go on with your worshipping of such a beast but I cannot. My morals forbid it.

Draka.... there are many angles that have to be viewed to understand this. I took a long time and could not understand a lot of it at one time. It is not easy. You pick up the book, don't like the cover, and throw it down again.

To start at the beginning, we should all keep the law; hence we should not inflict violence, kill or murder. Any man doing that, nullifies all laws that might bind a woman. But, the woman has still "joined" with the man and they have become "one flesh".
Now, there are many levels of consciousness in this understanding of existence that we call God. The God of this aeon is an extension of us. Does that make sense?
Everything is about trying to attain the greater good.
But, there are always concessions- hence the position you find yourself in. We are not complete yet, it takes time. You do the best you can. It depends on what level of existence you are in. If it is right for you, then fine. You do what you are. You answer for what you are.
Eventually all will be made clear. Until then you make the best of what you have.

I can only speak of what you should do, not what is necessarily right for you personally.

But if we all keep the law, none of this happens in the first place, right? But we don't, and so we see other laws broke because the first laws are broke. Yahshuah spoke of this when he was asked why Mosheh allowed them divorce, and he said because their heart's were hard, the men that is. So concessions were made.

People say that the law is static and has not moved, when in fact it has moved all the time. It now moves into the common law of the land. But there is always the divine pure law. Everything is judged off that. Yet we are told that we will not be able to keep this law as it is a holy law. Do you see the problem? It is not easy. There is only one way and that is through the son. He is the lawgiver. He gives it and understands it, fulfills it. The law is completed in him completely so the intermediaries do not have to use their concessional laws to judge.

I could go on.

 

[savagewind]

Draka.... there are many angles that have to be viewed to understand this. I took a long time and could not understand a lot of it at one time. It is not easy. You pick up the book, don't like the cover, and throw it down again.

To start at the beginning, we should all keep the law; hence we should not inflict violence, kill or murder. Any man doing that, nullifies all laws that might bind a woman. But, the woman has still "joined" with the man and they have become "one flesh".

Beware of disagreeing with the Lord, I say. John 4:16-17

 

[columbus]

When are you going to explain how murder can be subjective?

I think this topic of worth its own thread, and we have already done too much derailing of paarsurryey's thread.

It is a little difficult to do that from my phone, but I will try to start one later. If you want to do it, feel free.
Tom

 

[McBell]

Yeah, we have been a bit mischievous I think

a bit?
Seems we took this thread way off into left field.
Then to the moon and back,
Back to the OP, then back into left field.

 

[McBell]

When are you going to explain how murder can be subjective?

Abortion is a prime example.
Pro-lifers call it murder even though it is legal and thus by the very definition of the word murder, it is not murder

 

[Robert.Evans]

Beware of disagreeing with the Lord, I say. John 4:16-17

Haha.... you put a pit in front of a blind man perhaps, or did i dig it myself? I shall think on that one a while

 

[columbus]

Wow. 12 pages? Really? The OP was answered in the very first post, thus closing up the entire "debate".

It was an invitation to discuss, not a test question. I learned something new. I had no idea that there was more than a tiny handful of 100% mother free families in the USA.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

You can't run?

He is saying that fighting is the right thing to do in that situation. Running would be wrong, according to his thinking.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Beware of disagreeing with the Lord, I say. John 4:16-17

I think the quote from John 4 cannot be seen the way you implied. The woman of Jh 4 had had other men, so rightly the lord said she had no husband adding to that that, even the one she now had was not her husband. Thus she joined with one, which would be the first that she physically joined with (which would mean most in the west have committed adultery, right?) and those after were not then her husband.

But if we take the verse, chopped, as you did: then other than the obvious, 'You don't belong to the lord as you break the law', it is difficult to see how that would work other than saying that no one can fully join with anyone here as there real other half, their 'twin' is within the higher heavens and is the real marriage partner. (Now I know we shall be like the angels and not marry, but marry means to join to another, not to join to 'self'.)

I think the truer answer is saying that she is not joined to any coming after and cannot join with the lord, as he is the true marriage partner for the calling. That was before the resurrection of course. All things are possible after. Does this explain it?

Jh4:

"The `woman said toward him, Lord, give me this `water so I do not thirst, neither coming in-here to draw. `Yahshuah is saying to her, Go address your `man and come in-here. The `woman answered and said to him, I have no man. `Yahshuah said to her, You said well, I have no man: for you have had five men; and the one whom* you now are having, he is not your man: this have you declared truly. "

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think this topic of worth its own thread, and we have already done too much derailing of paarsurryey's thread.

It is a little difficult to do that from my phone, but I will try to start one later. If you want to do it, feel free.
Tom

Okay Tim. What you on, a land line? That would be difficult

 

[Robert.Evans]

Abortion is a prime example.
Pro-lifers call it murder even though it is legal and thus by the very definition of the word murder, it is not murder

It is murder. We just choose to call it something else for the sake of the act, much like war.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It was an invitation to discuss, not a test question. I learned something new. I had no idea that there was more than a tiny handful of 100% mother free families in the USA.
Tom

And he has a phone now

 

[savagewind]

I think the quote from John 4 cannot be seen the way you implied. The woman of Jh 4 had had other men, so rightly the lord said she had no husband

If according to you a woman is joined to the first man she is with then Jesus was not telling the truth saying, ""correctly you have spoken, "I have no husband"", unless he was dead. He might be dead. And you are right that husband is translated from ἄνδρα which means man. Which is another example of Bible tampering. Thank you for exposing that one.

 

[savagewind]

It was an invitation to discuss, not a test question. I learned something new. I had no idea that there was more than a tiny handful of 100% mother free families in the USA.
Tom

Probably the most mother free homes resulted after the death of the woman. The father of the children having been legally married to her before she died.

 

[McBell]

It is murder. We just choose to call it something else for the sake of the act, much like war.

thank you for demonstrating how it is subjective.

 

[columbus]

Probably the most mother free homes resulted after the death of the woman. The father of the children having been legally married to her before she died.

That wasn't what I meant, and I don't think it is what OP meant either.
I mean the father raising the child from birth without the mother. I realise that women sometimes die in childbirth.
But I don't think that is what @paarsurrey meant either. I'm not sure what he was really asking about because the OP was vague, given USA culture.

I did have an interesting conversation with my partner Doug on this subject. According to him, the murky state of US parentage is even worse than I thought.
Tom

 

[viole]

What I am saying is that God is fact. I do not have to show that to you or anyone to make it fact. I have a clock in my room. That is fact. None of you know it, see it, or ever will. It is still fact. It is fact because it is true. It is fact because it is known. You think that it must be able to be proved to others then? And that I assume is because you are thinking with a materialistic mind, which will limit you immediately. But if your question is show me God, then one day you will see him. But that is up to him, not me. But it is still fact. We know that through the spirit of his son that he freely gives us.

i could say the same about the rain God named Bob.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Draka]

I can only speak of what you should do,

No, you really can't. As your personal religious beliefs have no effect upon me or my life, nor anyone else's. Just your own.

I could go on.

Please don't. It is all rather disgusting and offensive.

 

[dust1n]

It is murder. We just choose to call it something else for the sake of the act, much like war.

What do you call God's prophet sicking two bears on a slew of children?

 

[leibowde84]

It is murder. We just choose to call it something else for the sake of the act, much like war.

I think it's just that you don't quite have a handle on what murder actually means.