est. 2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

,

Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man

Reverend Charles Morris considers himself to be the most misunderstood man in Barbados. In has been just over a week the Anglican priest, who has been unassigned a Church for some time, deposited a thesis which has created consternation in a society known for its Christian influence. Reverend Morris’ thesis states that no where in…

, , ,
Reverend Charles Morris – Photo Credit: Nation Newspaper

Reverend Charles Morris considers himself to be the most misunderstood man in Barbados. In has been just over a week the Anglican priest, who has been unassigned a Church for some time, deposited a thesis which has created consternation in a society known for its Christian influence.

Reverend Morris’ thesis states that no where in the Bible does it condemn pre-marital sex. He agrees however the Christian thing to do is to have sex in wedlock. BU has been able to attract over time some of the best dividers of the word in the world, we are certain the BU family is equipped to validate Morris’ thesis or shatter it to smithereens.

306 responses to “Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man”

  1. HAMILTON HILL Avatar
    HAMILTON HILL

    @ Scout …………. When next you get on your knees say a pray for those in the holy robes who make bacon out of people’s lil boys while their compadres turn a blind eye. Did ya remember to pray for Dean Harold when he time and again transformed the pulpit into a political platform ? Did ya pray for those that tried to force out Father Gatherer ? Did ya remember to pray for Joe Atherley who reaped the benefits of a hidden report so as to dethrone Branford Taitt ? How come his superb christian teachings did not compel him to speak out ? Reading your posts Mr.Scout , I am reminded of the Rev.Jesse Jackson who gave counsel to Bill Clinton in his time of trouble . A month later Rev.Jackson was exposed as the fraud he is. That same title was given to you on this very site. The ship of morality may have lost its rudder ,but that didn’t happen yesterday. Many a child borned out of wedlock roam the streets of Barbados . Some were made with the seed of the very politicians you defend , yet you proffer the view that Rev.Morris should not be allowed to do his job . Hypocrisy lives in those knees you bend in prayer.

  2. jeff cumberbatch Avatar
    jeff cumberbatch

    An interesting mix of views as usaual, David. But some people, maybe not the same individuals, are going to have to explain “female priests” and the law’s recognition of the ‘union other than marriage’ in Barbados. What, indeed, is our morality?

  3. David Avatar
    David

    @Jeff

    Trust you to ask the 64k question. Luckily we have academics in our midst.

  4. the scout Avatar
    the scout

    Random Thoughts
    You are in no position to judge me, please judge yourself, I don’t HATE guyanese, having lived and worked in that country, I know what they are capable of and how they can disrupt a country, I’m forcefully against this free for all attitude in the name of Caricom. Where I live there are a number of guyanese and I treat them kindly and give them anything I can afford but I still and will always say there are too many of them here and it will have its problems in a big way very soon.

  5. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    @ David, “Your offering so far does not effectively rebut the blog title.”

    Come now David, you can word the blog title anyway you like, to suit your own way of provoking debate. The point is, that Morris made a dogmatic statement, that pre-marital sex is not specifically forbidden in the Bible, a most unscriptural hermeneutic, when the FULL* context of the subject matter is viewed from the OT through to the NT, which was adequately presented on Sunday night, properly rebutting Morris and his unbiblical thesis, which simply CANNOT stand in light of all that God’s Word, the Bible has to say on sexual immorality BEFORE and AFTER marriage.

    Secondly, you ask: “Isn’t Morris simply putting context to the issue? Does anyone deny that the rights of women in biblical times were managed by men? Does anyone deny how women engaged in sex then agree with Morris’ thesis?”

    The point is, that though this was the culture in OT times, that fathers and husbands owned women like property, simply does NOT validate Morris’ contention re his thesis, that today such sexual liberty is not forbidden in God’s Word, as it is clear from Scripture during OT Jewish culture, that the Husband had the right to question his Wife’s Virginity on their wedding night, if she did NOT bleed. This was so engrained in OT Jewish culture that it was a shame, an utter disgrace for a women not to be a Virgin right up to her wedding night, and remained so into the New Testament.

    So that, the entire biblical issue of sexual purity, is so clearly emphasized, in the overall context of God’s Word, from both the OT and the NT, it is blatantly ignorant for Morris to present such an argument, not on any silience from God’s Word, because the subject matter is dealt with either implicitely, or by what I call expliciely implied; as amptly brough out on Sunday night by Morris’ opponents.

    And, because it seems that many here on BU are in support of Morris, what else do you expect from such Godless bloggers who ascribe to cultural and moral relativism; anything goes, as long as you feels good, do it! God help us!

  6. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Tina Roach: “HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW HOT IS THESE LAST DAYS

    I fully expect the world to move on the 21st.

    I plan to kiss my girlfriend for that shortly after….

  7. the scout Avatar
    the scout

    Hamilton Hill
    There are many Charles Morrises in our society, that does not make it right. When I do my meditation first thing at morning, I pray for health, and understanding, so that I can focus on the goodness of Christ to my family and I. I pray for my wife and ask God to keep us firmly focused on Him, then I pray for my offspring, my siblings and their family. Finally, I pray for the sick, hungry. those in trouble and for all who do not believe in Him that one day they would come to the knowledge of Christ. There are many other things I poray for but I can’t recall all now. You see once I start to pray, I’m led by the Holy Spirit and the words just flow. I don’t mind who might call me names, I will pray a special prayer for you too that all would come to know Christ as your Saviour.

  8. the scout Avatar
    the scout

    islandgal246
    On the contrary, i thank anyone who can point out my flaws, I’m by far not perfect and anyone who live a Christian life and believe they don’t sin, is fooling themselves, that’s why there is a God who is willing to forgive, i try to prevent making the same mistake/sin over and over again. And YES, I believe I’m the best thing that happened since sliced bread, God made me special and I’m thankful, I’m better than anyone else, that’s what I know of myself but I give God the praise for everything He has done for me. I think a lot about my family, relatives and friends but I think more of myself because God is not going to ask me to answer for the mistakes/sin anyone else commit, therefore I have to live a life that makes me be proud of myself, but I do this with humility

  9. Chuckles Avatar
    Chuckles

    Barbadians are the biggest hypocrites in the world. Are you telling
    me that all the water-washed priests who criticise Rev. Morries
    never had sex with a male or female apart from their wives/husbands? I ignore the homosexual priests who are grandstanding.
    One blogger said in an earlier posting that marriage is something of recent vintage in Barbados. The statement is true for Blacks and mixed-race citizens who are posing as Whites. Not one of them can trace their maternal and paternal ancestry to 1834 when slavery was abolished and names were given. Go to the Registration Department tomorrow morning and ask for a birth certificate for all of the priests who are opposing Rev. Morris. Yes, tell the clerk that you want to do genealogical research, fill in the form and pay the required amount of money. Within two working days, you would know if they were born out of wedlock. If you are fortunate to get the father and mother’s name, make a further request for their birth certificates . You will discover at this point that only a mother’s name will appear on the certificate. Are we to believe that we have more morals than those decent old people just because we can buy a ring and ask a priest to marry us?

  10. David Avatar
    David

    @Zoe

    You still have not explained the ‘context’. There was a premium placed on the Virgin, why?

  11. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    DAVID@ BU

    Thanks for the heads up ‘ole chap – I was actually indisposed (not quite incognito) working on some research data and was away from the blogosphere temporarily trying to meet some deadlines…

    However, thanks for dragging me into the BU* family fray* of religious POLITICS – immersing me into the dark, lurid world of the theological lumpenproletariat whose minds are frankly still not transformed by the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT* – while they continue to red flag the “CARNAL” and the “PROFANE” by trying to relegate the threshold of the “DIVINE” to its lowest common denominator…

    Other than ZOE*, I have not read a SINGLE* comment that states the correct BIBLICAL* position on the issue of MARRIAGE* (pertaining to the oxymoronic viewpoint of men in frocks) and how GOD* sees SEXUAL INTERCOURSE* in the light of the “COVENANT”* of matrimony…

    Clearly, the CHURCH* leadership is doing a great job of shooting itself in the foot on almost all the major issues that once made her relevant…

    But I guess in an age of MORAL RELATIVISM* where everyone has (A TRUTH*) – is it any wonder that the CLERGY* has pandered to the whim of postmodernism and have become like that primordial ship in the RIME OF THE ANCIENT MARINER* – lost at sea and manned by the bones of dead men…

    What a pathetic situation we find ourselves in!!! No wonder JESUS* poignantly reminds us – “WHEN I RETURN WILL I FIND FAITH UPON THE EARTH?”…

  12. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Chuckles you are the only one here that stating the true facts about marriage in Barbados. There were more common law unions than there were marriages among the black population in bygone days.

  13. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    In 2005, FOCUS ON FAMILY – Dr. James Dobson in writing a review on my just published book: Husbands Love Your Wives” remarked that he could agree with the statistical findings in my book on the issue of “DIVORCE” in the Church; the loss of the conceptual traditional family unit; the high incidence of single-parent families and how 272 out of every 1000 marriages (IN THE CHURCH) end in divorce – numbers which have steadily crept up to [480] in every 1000 based on the latest research done through the BARNA* Research Group…

    Again, when the CLERGY* chooses obfuscation, DENIAL* and genuflecting as against holding a SOLID* line in regards to the WORD* of God – is it any wonder that conditions have become so patently dilapidated???

  14. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    THE MARRIAGE COVENANT: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE

    Chapter 1

    THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

    Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

    Marriage is not a human institution devised in the dim past of human history as a convenient way to sort out social responsibilities. If marriage were a human invention, then different types of marriage could have equal value. Polygamy, the taking of several wives, may serve an agricultural society better than an industrialized society; polyandry, the sharing of a wife by several husbands, may prove to be more efficient and economical in a highly technological society. Monogamy, the lifelong union of one man to one woman, would have no more intrinsic value than any other type of marriage. Some could legitimately argue that monogamy has served its purpose as the ideal norm of society and should now be replaced by serial monogamy, the taking of a succession of husbands and wives. In fact, for many today the latter better satisfies the quest for greater self-fulfillment and gratification.

    A Divine Institution.

    The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God. It was established by God at the beginning of human history when He “created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). As the Creator of marriage, God has the right to tell us which principles should govern our marital relationships.

    If God had left us no instructions about marriage after establishing it, then marriage could be regulated according to personal whims. But He has not left us in the dark. In His revelation contained in the pages of the Bible, God has revealed His will regarding the nature and function of marriage. As Christians who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, we must study and respect those Biblical principles governing marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In some instances, the laws of a state regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

    Objectives of Chapter.

    This chapter seeks to help the reader understand the Biblical view of marriage by examining three specific themes: (1) The creation of woman, (2) The institution of marriage, and (3) Marriage as a sacred covenant. The last part looks into the Old Testament teachings of the prophets and the New Testament teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding marriage. The study will show that Scripture consistently upholds marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant, established and witnessed by God Himself. The study closes urging the reader to recover the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant to counteract the secularization of marriage in our society today.

    PART I: THE CREATION OF WOMAN

    No newspaper reporter was present to observe the creation of this universe and the celebration of the first marriage. God alone tells us how it all began in the brief account of Genesis 1-2. As the crown and culmination of His creative work, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27).

    This fundamental text reveals three things. First, the first human couple originated not from an evolutionary process, but through divine creation. Second, man, which, as the parallelism indicates, is the generic name inclusive of “male and female,” was fashioned in the image of God. This involves moral, rational and spiritual faculties rather than gender likeness, since God transcends male/female distinctions. It may also include the capacity of a man and a woman to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing in the Trinity. Third, man was created as a sexual being, consisting of a male and a female counterpart. This means that though men and women are sexually and functionally different, they enjoy equal dignity and importance before God.

    The Need for Companionship. In the creation account, God repeatedly recognizes that His creation was good (Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31). The only thing that God acknowledges to be “not good” is the incomplete creation of man as a single being: “Then God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Gen 2:20).

    At this point creation was still incomplete. With man alone there could be no procreation, and more important yet, no possibility for him to experience the kind of intimate relationship existing within the Godhead. To be human means more than to be male or female. It means to be able to enjoy an intimate rational and spiritual fellowship. To rectify the “not good” situation, God declares, “I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:18).

    A Suitable Helper.

    God designed woman to be man’s suitable helper, or literally, “a helper agreeing to him.” Eve was created to be Adam’s other half approximating him in every point and making the marriage union a complete whole. She was not created to be man’s slave, but rather his helper. The word “helper” (’ezer) is used in the Bible also for God as the helper of the needy (Ps 33:20; 146:5), thus it does not imply that woman is an inferior being. She is equal in nature and worth, reflecting the same divine image (Gen 1:27). Yet she is different in function, serving as a supportive helper. We shall consider in chapter 4 the importance of respecting the creational role distinctions to ensure harmonious relationships in the home and in the church.

    Woman was created to be man’s counterpart, agreeing with him mentally, physically and spiritually, making him a larger person than he would have been alone, bringing into his life a new feminine perspective he would not have known otherwise. The same holds true for man. He brings to his wife a masculine perspective that enlarges her life, making her a more complete person than she could be without him. Thus, a marriage union not only fills the need for companionship, but it enables a man and a woman to become fuller, more complete persons.

    The Single Life.

    God’s evaluation of the single life as “not good” (Gen 2:18) appears to be contradicted by Christ’s statement that “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matt 19:11-12). A similar thought is expressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:7 where in speaking of his single lifestyle he says: “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor 7:7).

    These two texts (Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:7) suggest that God has singled out some people to lead lives of celibacy for the sake of His kingdom. How then can God give the gift of celibacy to some while affirming at the same time, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18)? The resolution to this apparent contradiction is to be found in recognizing that God has made an exception to His own general principle. Because of the social distortions and crises brought about by sin and because of the urgent demand upon the church to advance the cause of His kingdom, God has equipped some persons with the capacity of leading fulfilling single lives.

    The exact nature of the gift of celibacy is never fully explained in the Scripture. Presumably it consists in the capacity to find companionship, though of a different kind, outside of marriage, by becoming deeply involved in the mission of the church in ways married persons cannot (see 1 Cor 7:32-34). According to Christ, “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matt 19:12). Those who have been granted the special gift of single service for Christ’s kingdom, must prepare for it and pursue it. To determine whether a person has the gift of leading a single life for Christ’s kingdom, it is necessary to apply the two tests suggested by Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:8,9: (1) Am I able to contain my sexual urges? and (2) Do I find satisfaction and companionship in the work of God’s kingdom?

    Single Christians who have been granted the special gift of single service for Christ’s kingdom ought not to be looked down upon nor neglected by married Christians. Rather, they ought to be honored for their willingness to accept God’s call to make the advancement of His kingdom the primary purpose of their lives. After all, we do not look down on Paul for choosing a single life in order to be able to serve Christ more fully and more freely.

    The Provision of Woman.

    The way God chose to create the first bride is most significant. Unlike the rest of creation and of man himself, God formed Eve not from “the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7) but from the very man who was to become her husband, by utilizing one of his ribs (Gen 2:21). The significance of the manner of Eve’s creation, though not explicitly expressed, can hardly be missed. Eve was not made out of Adam’s head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be his equal, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved.

    As Adam beheld with sleepy eyes the most beautiful creature of God’s creation, he declared with ecstatic excitement: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen 2:23). Adam’s rejoicing was motivated by the discovery of the person who completed his incompleteness. His hunger for wholeness stemmed from the fact that God made him a male with the need for a female companion. God made Adam incomplete without Eve from the beginning.

    The manner in which God created Adam and Eve reveals God’s design that there should be male and female. Each of them needs the other for self-fulfillment. Each of them should accept his or her sexual and functional roles as given by God. This means that efforts to promote sexual or functional role interchangeability between men and women represent a violation of the role distinctions established by God at creation. True completeness and self-realization can be found not by transcending our sexual or functional roles but rather by fulfilling our different and yet complementary roles.

    PART II: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

    After Adam expressed his excitement at the sight of Eve and exercised his authority by naming her, God united them in holy matrimony, saying: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This foundational statement about marriage is repeated three times in the Bible: First, by Jesus in the context of His teachings on divorce (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7,8) and then by Paul to illustrate the relationship of Christ to His church (Eph 5:31).

    Marriage as a Covenant.

    The very first description of the nature of marriage in the Bible, as consisting of leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24), reveals the Biblical understanding of marriage as a covenant relationship. This meaning of marriage as a covenant of companionship is expressed more explicitly later in Scripture in such passages as Malachi 2:14: “The Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.”1 Being a sacred covenant, human marriage serves in the Old and New Testaments as the prism through which God reveals His covenant relationship with His people and Christ with His church.

    To appreciate the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant, it is helpful to distinguish between a contract and a covenant. Paul E. Palmer offers a helpful clarification of the difference between the two: “Contracts engage the services of people; covenants engage persons. Contracts are made for a stipulated period of time; covenants are forever. Contracts can be broken, with material loss to the contracting parties; covenants cannot be broken, but if violated, they result in personal loss and broken hearts. . . . Contracts are witnessed by people with the state as guarantor; covenants are witnessed by God with God as guarantor.”2 In light of this understanding of a covenant as a permanent commitment, witnessed and guaranteed by God, let us examine the three components of the marriage covenant mentioned in Genesis 2:24: leaving, cleaving, and becoming one flesh.

    Leaving.

    The first step in establishing a marriage covenant is leaving all other relationships, including the closest ones of father and mother: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother” (Gen 2:24). Of course, leaving does not mean the abandonment of one’s parents. The responsibility to “Honor your father and mother” (Ex 20:12) is applied by Jesus to adults (Mark 7:6-13). We do not evade our responsibility toward our parents as they grow old. Jesus scorned the hypocrisy of those who gave to the Temple the money they had set aside for their parents (Mark 7:9-13). As adults, however, we assume responsibility for our parents rather than to them. The Bible never suggests that married couples should sever their ties with their parents, but that they must “let go” of their former lives as sons and daughters in order to cement their relationships as husbands and wives.

    What “leaving” means is that all lesser relationships must give way to the newly formed marital relationship. A leaving must occur to cement a covenant relationship of husband and wife. This principle of leaving applies likewise to our covenant relationship with God. It is said of the disciples that “they left everything and followed Him” (Luke 5:11).3

    Leaving is not always easy. It is often hard for a baby to leave his mother’s womb. It may look cruel to see a doctor cut the umbilical cord which binds the baby to themother. Yet, it is necessary for the growth and development of the baby. It is also hard for children to leave their parents and for parents to let their children go, for example, to a school away from home. Just as babies cannot grow physically unless they leave their mother’s womb and just as children cannot receive an education unless they leave home to go to school, similarly a marriage cannot mature unless both partners are willing to leave their parents in order to cement a new marital relationship and establish a new family.

    Aspects of Leaving.

    There are men and women who fail to build strong covenant marriages because they are still “tied to their mother’s apron strings,” or they are not willing “to leave” their attachment to their parents, jobs, advanced education, sports, past lives, friends, or even church work, in order to establish strong marital relationships.

    Leaving involves not only leaving behind our positions as dependent children, but also ending our financial dependence upon our parents. The couple who never learns to stand financially on its own feet will have difficulty in developing their future plans independently. We must also leave behind our parental authority. Possessive, interfering parents can threaten the best marriages. While parental counsel must always be respected, parents’ efforts to interfere in the private lives of their married children must be firmly resisted.

    Leaving also involves learning to abandon some of our parents’ attitudes and influences. This is not always easy since we are largely the product of our upbringing. The process of adjustment to a new marital relationship requires that we learn to distinguish between what is fundamental and what is incidental to our past upbringing, being willing to leave behind the latter for the health and growth of our marriages.

    Perhaps the most difficult things to leave behind are the inner wounds and hurts of our childhoods. We come to our marriages with the good and bad emotional experiences of the first two decades of our lives. Through the healing power of the Holy Spirit, we can be delivered from the past wounds that can infect our marital relationships. The love of Jesus and the encouragement of our spouse can set us free from our pasts and enable us to be the understanding partners God wants us to be. So the first principle we derive from the divine institution of marriage recorded in Genesis 2:24 is as follows: To establish a thrilling “one flesh” marriage covenant, we must be willing to leave all lesser relationships.

    Cleaving.

    The second essential component of a marriage covenant is cleaving: “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife” (Gen 2:24). A leaving must occur before a cleaving can take place. This process reveals divine wisdom. A man and a woman must leave all lesser relationships for the purpose of cleaving, that is, cementing their new relationship and establishing a new home.

    “Cleaving” reflects the central concept of covenant-fidelity. The Hebrew word for “cleave” dabaq, suggests the idea of being permanently glued or joined together. It is one of the words frequently used to express the covenant commitment of the people to God: “You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve him and cleave to Him” (Deut 10:20; cf. 11:22; 13:4; 30:20). The word is used to describe Ruth’s refusal to leave her mother-in-law Naomi: “Ruth clave unto her” (Ruth 1:14 AV).

    In the sight of God, cleaving means wholehearted commitment which spills over to every area of our being. It means to be permanently glued together rather than temporarily taped together. You can separate two pieces of wood taped together, but you cannot separate without great damage two pieces of wood glued together. In fact, two pieces of wood glued together become not only inseparable, but also much stronger than if they were taped together.

    Cleaving involves unswerving loyalty to one’s marital partner. Note that man is to cleave to “his wife.” This excludes marital unfaithfulness. A man cannot be glued to his wife and flirt or engage in sexual intercourse with another woman. The two are mutually exclusive.

    In a marriage covenant, cleaving does not allow the “freedom to leave” when the relationship is no longer satisfying. If the “freedom to leave” is retained as a real option, it will hinder the total effort to develop a marital relationship characterized by covenant faithfulness. As marriage counselor Ed Wheat observes, “Keeping divorce as an escape clause indicates a flaw in your commitment to each other, even as a tiny crack that can be fatally widened by the many forces working to destroy homes and families.”4

    Accepting the Biblical standard of cleaving means asking ourselves when contemplating marriage: Am I prepared to make a lifetime commitment to my prospective spouse, for better or for worse till death do us part? Once married, cleaving means to ask ourselves: Will this action, word, decision, or attitude draw us closer together or further apart? Will it build up or tear down our relationship? For a Christian committed to living by the principles of God’s word, any course of action which weakens the cleaving must be regarded as contrary to God’s design for a marriage covenant.

    Many today scorn the idea of developing a close dependent relationship between husband and wife. They claim that it restricts their freedom and stifles their personal growth. What they advocate can be characterized as a “married singles” lifestyle where both partners continue to follow their independent lives while sharing the same roof and bed. It is not surprising that such marriages often fail, since there is no willingness to leave selfish considerations in order to cleave to each other “for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health.”

    Summing up, we can state the second principle derived from the divine institution of marriage recorded in Genesis 2:24 as follows: To maintain a thrilling “one flesh” marriage covenant we must be willing to cleave to our marital partners, avoiding any thought, word, or action that could weaken our loyalty and commitment to them.

    Becoming One Flesh.

    The third essential ingredient of a marriage covenant is that “they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Note the progression: leaving, cleaving, becoming one flesh. As husband and wife leave lesser relationships and learn to cleave to one another, they become a new entity, “one flesh.”

    The phrase “one flesh” needs some explanation because it is frequently misunderstood to refer primarily to the sexual union. The phrase is closely parallel to our English compound word everybody. When we speak of everybody we do not think of bodies only. Rather, we mean every person. Or when God speaks of destroying all flesh (Gen 6:17; 7:21), obviously He does not mean all the flesh without the bones, but every person. Similarly, to become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24) means to become one functioning unit. H. C. Leupold explains that becoming one flesh “involves the complete identification of one personality with the other in a community of interests and pursuits, a union consummated in intercourse.”5

    No theologian or scientist has ever yet explained how two people are able to so interpenetrate one another’s lives that they become “one flesh,” that is, one functioning unit. Yet we know that it happens! Couples who have been married for many years start to think, act, and feel as one; they become one in mind, heart and spirit. This is why divorce is so devastating. It leaves not two persons, but two fractions of one.

    The phrase “one flesh” does also refer to the physical or sexual aspect of marriage. Paul explicitly uses the phrase in this way when speaking of sexual intercourse between a man and a harlot (1 Cor 6:16). Sexual intercourse per se, however, does not automatically assure that a man and a woman become one in a mystical, emotional, and spiritual unity. Genital intercourse without spiritual communion often leaves people divided, alienated, and bitter toward each other. Thus, sexual intercourse itself does not bring about real oneness.

    To achieve the Biblical “one flesh” union, sexual intercourse in marriage must be the natural fruit of love, the crowning act of marital union. If sex is not the expression of genuine love, respect, and commitment, then it offers only a physical contact while keeping the partners mentally and spiritually apart. Sexual desire must become the desire for the total union and oneness of body, soul, and spirit between marital partners.

    Gradual Process. A man and a woman who come together in marriage do not automatically become “one flesh” when they exchange their marriage vows. Their personalities are still free, independent and desiring assertive of their respective wills. But as they live together as husband and wife, they realize that they must safeguard their individuality while striving to become one. They must not allow their differences to divide them but must learn to accept their differences, viewing them not as antagonistic but as complementary. They can still be themselves and yet come into unity. The husband learns to accept his wife as she is because he needs to be accepted as he is. Their differences contribute to achieving their oneness because they are accepted as being complementary and not contradictory.

    The becoming of “one flesh” is beautifully exemplified in the children of a married couple. In their children, husband and wife are indissolubly united into one person. Our three children, Loretta, Daniel and Gianluca, possess both my features and those of my wife. There is no way I could retrieve my features from any of my children nor could my wife retrieve hers. They are my flesh and my wife’s. Something marvelous and permanent happened when they were born: they became the sum total of what we both are. What happens biologically in children occurs psychologically in a husband/wife relationship as the two gradually become “one flesh,” a new functioning unity. This is why extra-marital sexual relationships are not only immoral but also destructive to the one-flesh relationship.

    Continuity.

    Becoming “one flesh” also implies continuity. We cannot become one flesh with a succession of husbands and wives. This is why the modern practice of serial monogamy must be rejected as immoral: it defeats the Biblical purpose of marriage which is to develop a permanent “one flesh” relationship. The “one flesh” principle excludes polygamy and extra-marital relationships of all kinds, because no man can become “one flesh” with more than one woman. The Old Testament persons who violated the “one flesh” principle by taking more than one wife paid the price for their transgressions. Problems of all kinds developed in their families as their wives became jealous or felt exploited, degraded, or hated.

    Summing up, the third principle we derive from the divine institution of marriage recorded in Genesis 2:24 is as follows: To become a “one flesh” functioning unit, husband and wife must learn to accept their differences as complementing their oneness and must reserve their sexual expressions exclusively for each other.

    PART III: MARRIAGE: A SACRED COVENANT

    The preceding study of the divine institution of marriage has shown that God intended marriage to be a sacred and permanent covenant. To appreciate more fully the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant, we shall now consider briefly the teachings of the prophets, of Jesus and of Paul.

    The Covenant Concept.

    The concept of the covenant stands out in Scripture among all the signs and symbols used by God to reveal His saving grace. In His mercy, God chose to enter into a solemn covenant of love, not only with individuals such as Abraham, but also with the whole household of Israel. They did not deserve His love which He freely manifested toward them. God’s covenant of love, though not always reciprocated, is everlasting, extending from generation to generation: “The Lord your God is God; He is the faithful God, keeping His covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep His commands” (Deut 7:7-9 NIV).

    To help His people understand and accept the unrelenting nature of His covenant of love, in the Old Testament God often used the metaphor of the husband/wife relationship. The obvious reason is that the marriage covenant, characterized by love, compassion, and faithfulness, fittingly exemplifies God’s covenant relationship with His people. A few examples will serve to illustrate this point.

    Hosea’s Marriage.

    In the final days of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, when they were threatened with extinction by the expansionist policies of the neighboring nations, God appealed to His wayward people through a succession of prophets. Among these was Hosea, who was told by God to marry a prostitute, Gomer, and raise a family by her. Through this experience, Hosea was to act out God’s unrelenting covenant of love to His people. When Gomer went after her lovers, Hosea was sent to take her back and love her again.

    Through Hosea’s marital experiences, God revealed Himself to Israel as a compassionate, forgiving husband: “In that day, says the Lord, you will call me, ‘my husband,’ . . . And I will betroth you to come to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (Hos 2:16, 19-20). By revealing Himself as a faithful, compassionate and unrelenting husband, God sets a pattern for the husband/wife relationship. What God does on a larger scale as Israel’s husband, a human husband is called to do on a smaller scale in his relationship with his wife.

    Later Prophets.

    The imagery of the marriage covenant is used by later prophets to remind the people of their covenant relationship with God. For example, Jeremiah reminded the people that God had entered into a covenant with them and had become their husband: “my covenant . . . they broke, though I was their husband” (Jer 31:32). Even though they had broken the covenant, God remained a faithful husband who would make a new covenant with His people, working to transform their hearts (Jer 33:33). The implication is clear. Marriage is a sacred covenant in which the husband and wife must be faithful to their commitment as God is faithful to his promise.

    Jeremiah’s message was ignored. Eventually Judah was captured by the Babylonians and all her leading citizens were taken into exile. There in exile, Ezekiel graphically portrays God’s unfailing love as that of a husband wooing and winning back an unfaithful wife: “When I looked upon you, behold, you were at the age for love; and I spread my skirt over you, and covered your nakedness; yea, I plighted my troth to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord God, and you became mine. . . . But you trusted in your beauty, and played the harlot . . . Wherefore . . . I will judge you as women who break wedlock . . . I will deal with you as you have done, who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant, yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant” (Ez 16:8, 15, 38, 59).

    On a similar vein Isaiah describes the final restoration of Israel in terms of a loving husband forgiving and restoring his unfaithful wife: “Your Maker is your husband . . . For the Lord has called you like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God. For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. . . with everlasting love I will have compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer” (Is 54:5-8).

    The above examples suffice to show how the Old Testament prophets often describe God’s covenant relationship with His people in terms of an ever-loving, faithful husband who never tires of wooing back an unfaithful wife. This example of God as a faithful and loving husband reveals what God intends marriage to be: a sacred covenant where love and faithfulness prevail.

    Malachi’s Teaching.

    Malachi, one of the last Old Testament prophets, fittingly sums up the Old Testament view regarding the sacred and inviolable nature of the marriage covenant. In his time, the Jews were languishing in a ruined Jerusalem and lamenting that God no longer accepted their offerings. Malachi responded by pointing out that the cause of their suffering was to found in their unfaithfulness to God manifested especially through their unfaithfulness to their wives: “You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, ‘Why does he not?’ Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal 2:13-14).

    Here the Scripture tells us explicitly that marriage is a covenant to which God is a witness.6 Since God does not break covenants (Lev. 26:40-45), the marriage covenant is all the more binding. This means that what we do to our marital partner we do also to the Lord. Christian commitment and marital commitment are two sides of the same covenant. For this reason, Malachi admonishes the people, saying: “So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. ‘For I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts’” (Mal 2:15-16).

    Note that God hates divorce, not the divorcée. As Christians we should reflect Christ’s attitude of loving concern toward those who have suffered marital disaster (John 4:6-26) while at the same time upholding the Biblical imperative of the sacred and inviolable nature of the marriage covenant.

    Malachi admonishes the people that in the best interest of their families and communities they should not violate their marriage covenant by divorcing their wives. The reason is that divorce violates not only God’s original plan for marriage but also the marriage covenant to which the Lord is a witness. Divorce betrays life’s most intimate companion and as such is a grievous sin which God hates.

    Christ’s Teaching.

    Malachi’s teaching on the sacred nature of the marriage covenant was reiterated and expanded four centuries later by Christ Himself. In response to the Pharisees’ question regarding the concession of Moses regarding divorce, Christ pointed back to the institution of marriage, saying: “For your hardness of heart he [Moses] wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:5-9).

    In this memorable statement Christ appeals to the divine institution of marriage (Gen 2:24) to point out that marriage is the strongest human bond that transforms two people into “one flesh.” Moreover, Jesus affirms that God Himself is the one who actually joins a couple in marriage. This means that when Christian couples exchange their marital vows in the presence of witnesses, they are in actual fact uttering their vows of mutual commitment to God Himself. At the deepest level, marriage is a covenant between a couple and God, because God is not only the witness but also the author of the marriage covenant.

    A man and a woman marry by their own choice; but when they do, God joins them together into one permanent union. Because marriage is God’s indissoluble union of the couple, no human court or individual as the right to put it asunder. It is evident that for Jesus marriage is not a mere civil contract, but a divinely ordained union which God alone has power to establish and terminate. The full force of this truth was explained by Christ privately to His disciples in these terms: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12).

    By this statement, Jesus declares unambiguously that the marriage covenant must not be violated by divorce and remarriage because it is a sacred inviolable bond. To do otherwise is to “commit adultery,” a sin clearly condemned by God’s moral law (Ex 20:14; Deut. 5:18). With a few simple words Jesus refutes the view that divorce is a viable option for a married couple. The covenant structure of marriage makes divorce an act of covenant breaking, a failure to keep a moral obligation.

    Paul’s Teaching.

    Following the teaching of Jesus, Paul affirms in different words that marriage is a lifelong and indissoluble covenant. In Romans 7:1-3, Paul sets forth the principle that death ends the dominion of the law and then illustrates the principle through the marriage relationship. The point of the illustration is that death and death alone releases a person from the bond of marriage: “A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.

    Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from the law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Rom 7:2-3).

    Paul’s illustration sheds light on his view of marriage as a lifelong covenant which can be terminated only by death. The same teaching is presented by Paul again in 1 Corinthians 7:39 where he declares: “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives.”

    The covenantal nature of the marriage relationship is expressed by Paul again in Ephesians 5:31-32 where he uses the marriage union to illustrate the covenant relationship between Christ and His bride, the church: “‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church.”

    Just as the prophets in the Old Testament used the marriage covenant to portray the relationship between God and Israel, so Paul in the New Testament uses the marriage union to represent Christ’s covenant of sacrificial love and oneness with the church. Just as marriage unites two people when they commit their lives to each other, so the Gospel joins the believer to Christ as he trusts Him for his salvation. Since the marriage covenant represents the permanent relationship between Christ and His church, it must be permanent; otherwise it would be an inaccurate representation of the indissoluble relationship between Christ and His church.

    The use of marriage in the Old and New Testaments to reveal God’s covenant relationship with His people serves also to demonstrate what marriage today should be like. We may call this “reciprocal illumination.” By revealing through human marriage His covenant of salvation, God has simultaneously revealed to us the unique meaning of marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant.

    CONCLUSION

    Our study of the divine institution of marriage and of the teachings of the prophets, Jesus and Paul, regarding marriage, has shown us how the Scripture consistently upholds marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant, witnessed and protected by God. We have found that as a sacred covenant, marriage was effectively used in the Old Testament to portray God’s relationship with Israel and in the New Testament to represent Christ’s relationship with His church. If God used marriage as a metaphor to represent His commitment to His people, He must surely have thought of it as a sacred, permanent covenant.

    The recovery of the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant, witnessed and guaranteed by God Himself, is indispensable in counteracting the secularization of marriage. This trend has influenced many Christians to view marriage as a temporary social contract governed by civil laws, rather than as a permanent covenant, witnessed and guaranteed by God Himself. To counteract this trend, it is essential for Christians to recover and accept the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant. The conviction that it is God Who has united our lives in holy matrimony and Who will help us to stay together will motivate us to persevere in preserving the unity of the marriage covenant.

  15. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    @ Scout……..”Where I live there are a number of guyanese and I treat them kindly and give them anything I can afford”

    Scout you are one BIG LIAR! You have called them thieves and have stated that you do not like them.

  16. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    David look at WHAT YOU HAVE DONE! Stupse I am tired scrolling up and can’t see the light yet .

  17. David Avatar
    David

    @islandgal

    Actually it is an interesting intervention.

    @TB

    BU is still trying to reconcile the author’s view regarding how man and woman by the creation of Eve was to enhance the body and spirit experience. In the context of the bible with the woman treated as chattel what are we missing?

  18. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    The best explanation I have ever encountered so far on this profound concept of (ONENESS*) comes from a sermon by my friend and pastor Dr. H. Drake Williams, III, and former pastor of Central Schwenkfelder Church in Worchester, Pennsylvania and now Theological Professor Emeritus at Tyndale Theological Seminary in the Netherlands, where he wonderfully alludes to the [concept of oneness] in this manner:-

    “When we marry, two people become one. Jesus naturally concludes that in Matthew 19:6, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

    Thinking of this phrase, the two become one, reminded me of my chemistry days.

    Before I began studying for the ministry, I found myself intensely interested in chemistry. I was fascinated with the changes and reactions that occurred to different chemicals.

    From the very earliest times of learning about chemistry, we were taught that there is a great difference between something changing states and something combining with something else.

    We are all familiar with how a substance like water can change states. It can be cooled and become ice or it can be heated and become steam.

    Changing the temperature changes the way H20, water, is found. It changes states. The water itself does not change; it is simply found in a different form.

    This is very different from two substances combining. When two things combine, they give up their former individual identities and become something else.

    For example, hydrogen and chlorine are both gases by themselves. Combined together they become hydrochloric acid, a highly corrosive liquid.

    This is very drastic change.

    The two together are very different from when they were separate.

    The union between two substances can even be very dramatic.

    Some of you may have seen a dramatic combination between pure sodium and water. It was one of the first really dramatic reactions that I remember seeing in a chemistry class.

    Our teacher filled a large beaker with water and then took a tiny bit of pure sodium that was about the size of a fingernail. He then put on this full face shield which I never saw him wear before, put on gloves, and then he motioned to us as eighth graders to move to the back of the room.

    He then tossed this small piece of sodium into this container of water. What do you think happened next? A violent combination took place. There were flames, and there was steam rising to the ceiling, and there were a lot of wide-eyed eighth graders, unable to believe what it was that we had just seen. What had happened? Water had combined with sodium producing sodium hydroxide and excess hydrogen. That excess hydrogen had ignited and was burning off.

    I think in the following class period; our instructor’s beaker even broke when he tossed the sodium into the beaker, which produced a lot of good stories for us as eight graders.

    Two substances had become one.

    It was much different than water becoming ice or steam. Liquid water could become ice or steam again, but there was very little chance of sodium hydroxide reverting back to pure sodium and water.

    It would be quite difficult and unnatural for this new compound to revert to the former state.

    Jesus is telling us in Matthew 19 (which takes its support from Genesis 2) that when we marry, two become one, like two substances combining together.

    Two change into one.

    It is quite difficult, unnatural, and sometimes nearly impossible to revert back to the former state.

    Much of our world, however, is telling us the opposite. Our world is saying that in marriage that people simply change states, but the person within the marriage largely remains the same.

    The world says another person was added to your life when you marry, but each person is still the same.

    You can just separate and go back to your own lifestyle and be the same person.

    This, however, is not the case from Genesis or from Jesus’ perspective.

    Two become one.

    It is very difficult, unnatural, and harmful for God’s people to pursue divorce “for any reason” because the two have become one.

    Marriage dramatically changes a person.
    It is likely many of us have seen marriages where two become one. Many of us who have watched marriages, especially marriages that have existed for a number of years, know how two people can be bonded together as one. Many of us know couples where the husband starts a sentence and the wife will finish it. Many of you may know the routine of your spouse where they are in the house and what they are doing even though you are at the other end of the house and haven’t seen each other in hours.

    I even know of couples that were very difficult to play a card game like bridge. The husband and wife could look across the table at each other and instinctively know what was in each other’s hands, even though they were never displaying their cards.

    It is a dynamic that is found in marriage, two people becoming one.

    Breaking that synergy, that union and that togetherness is to be avoided as the general rule of thumb according to Jesus.

    Divorce for any and every reason is not what Jesus would want his people to do. As Jesus has said in Matthew 19:6, “What God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Emphasis supplied throughout)

  19. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    David

    Just strolled Blackett’s lonnnggggg comments (don’t have much time this a.m) but when he wrote about creation where does Evolution figure into this?

    Just figure that this thread will be hijacked as we go forward

  20. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    DAVID@BU
    “BU is still trying to reconcile the author’s view regarding how man and woman by the creation of Eve was to enhance the body and spirit experience. In the context of the bible with the woman treated as chattel” ——– “what are we missing”?

    David, God created the WOMAN* EVE* as everything else had been “PAIRED” after its own kind…

    Adam found no commonality with anything in the lower order of the CREATION* – hence GOD* The CREATOR (Jesus Christ – The Created Word) said, “let us make Adam a help-meet… Someone that would be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh…” Someone who would reflect him in BODY* SOUL* & SPIRIT***…

    EVE* was equal in stature, in symmetry and in purpose as was her HUSBAND*… A marriage instituted by the HAND* of GOD* as an ensample for all created beings that would come after ADAM* & his wife….

    The synergy between these [2] precious SOULS* was completeness in the sight of God… For one complimented the other in perfect harmony provided they stayed TRUE* to the expressed WILL* & COMMANDS* of God… For to break God Law would imperil that SACRED* union at that transcendent level where DIRECT* communion between them and their CREATOR existed!!!

    And so it was!!!

    In the context of the bible with the woman treated as chattel” is an OXYMORON* from anyone who chooses to exegete the WORD* without a proper understanding of what the mind of God was at the creation… The woman was and still is held in the HIGHEST* regard both in the sight of Heaven and must be seen that way in the sight of men…FOR WITHOUT THE WOMAN THERE WOULD’VE BEEN NO PROCREATION!!!

    The subjugation of the WOMAN* and her subsequent relegation to that of “CHATTEL” is an amorphous transgression and a sinister PLOY* to lower the standard of the woman to that of a 2ND CLASS* entity – created a STEP* LOWER** than the man – insulated from the RITES & PRIVILEGES of other men…the “one” responsible for the FALL*…

    This has been a DAMNABLE LIE* of diabolical proportions hatched in the bowels of HELL* to create further enmity between the MAN & the WOMAN resulting in the CLASH* of GENDERS* which continues on apace 6000 years down through time…

    The woman, just like the MAN* were EQUALLY* guilty in GOD’S sight for the transgression of HIS* DIVINE LAW!!!

    So today, that said “DISOBEDIENCE” results in us still eating from that TREE* of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD* & EVIL*….

    THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT WE ARE MISSING is rather a simple MIS-contextual reading and MIS-interpretation of what God intended for MARRIAGE*, The Human Family and the SACRED* union which ought to exist between HIM* & us!!!

  21. observer Avatar
    observer

    @David

    Why allow Terrence M Blackett to put a thesis on the blog, nothing in it I have read as it is too long to be called a blog.
    I see this as an abuse of blogging . Do you want bloogers to be turned off the topic when they have to scroll by some long blog to get at something meaningful. I was exhausted after scrolling by that blog.

  22. David Avatar
    David

    @Observer

    Some of us are seeking answers and the Theologians are there to assist ordinary folk like the BU household. If you are looking for sound bites BU is not the place. Simply scroll pass the comments as you would turn a page in the Nation for which you are disinterested or do we detect an anti-academic leaning at play here. BU is for all.

  23. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    Sorry, forgive me …..but I have to ask….

    If man and woman are/were equal from the beginning, then why did woman come after Adam was bored?
    It seems to me that there was really no plan initially for Eve.
    Why weren’t they created at the same time, together and not woman, as a seemingly afterthought?
    Without woman there could be no procreation?!?…you mean as we know it?….try telling that to an African snail.
    What woman equality in the Bible what….modern day women fought hard to gain that, if it was left up to the Bible, they would still be like chattel.
    To this day, most ‘reLIEgions’ still treat their women as 2nd class.
    *smh*

  24. BMcDonald Avatar
    BMcDonald

    Rev. Morris provided Bishop Holder with a teachable moment. The Church teaches that sexual intercourse must only happen between a man and a woman, who are committed to each other. The only way in which we can establish that a man and a woman are committed to each other (without a long history of unbroken common law union) is for them to show that commitment publicly through marriage. Therefore sexual intercourse must only happen in the marriage of a man and a woman. A restatement of the Church’s teaching may have shed more light that a restatement of who holds power in the Church for the present.

  25. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    @ DAVID

    Man, I was quietly minding my own business oblivious as to what was going on center-stage on BU – then suddenly, the winds of curiosity blew across the Atlantic inciting me into taking a position on this LOCAL* issue hatched in the matchbox brains of “KNUCKLEHEADS” in my homeland who call themselves PRIESTS, PASTORS, CLERGY & MEN OF THE CLOTH…

    So now that I have posited “HALF” (LOL) of a position on the issues – I am being accused of HIJACKING*, QUANTUM VERBOSE & ELONGATED EXEGETICAL PARAGRAPHICAL USAGE…

    What a JOKE!!!

    Are these the same FOLKS* who have difficulty defending their pseudo-religious, ANTI-christian stand on the matters pertaining to whether there is a CREATOR* GOD**; whether CHRIST* is who HE* says HE* is and whether THE BLESSED HOLY SPIRIT*** did inspire ancient men of old to write the Sacred Scriptures…

    I still contend that it is a good thing that I do not live in BARBADOS*… (and thankfully so!!!)

  26. observer Avatar
    observer

    @David
    How can an academic like me be considered anti-academic. As you have advised, i srcolled past it when I realized that it was so long winded.
    No I am not looking for sound bite and i have the ability to appreiate scholary writing, a blog is not a thesis. Lets agree to disagree. I want you to ask yor bloggers how many read what wat wriiten.

  27. David Avatar
    David

    Thanks for your feedback Observer, you should be glad Dictionary doesn’t post any longer. Remember BU tries to accommodate all. Also BU is not your standard blog. Let us describe it has a project.

  28. observer Avatar
    observer

    @David
    agrred, who is dictionary. Did you say that becasue some bad spelling and bad English get away while blogging? That is accpted in blogging.

  29. David Avatar
    David

    Dictionary was a BU commenter who submitted voluminously on religious topics.

  30. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    observer
    I wid you, doan min’ David.It was nutton short of a ‘short-story’. Doan min’ David, he jus tryin ta be dang’rus. ‘Cording ta you, ‘a blog is not a thesis’.

    Technician
    Sorry, forgive me_____but i have ta answer.
    After God created Adam, de man start ta do bare shoite bout de place, so God in His good judgement realize dat in order ta stop de lotta shoite dat Adam did doing, he would need a WOMAN ta guide he in de right direction. Little did He kno, dat dat woman Eve would only offset dat po man Adam wid she ‘apple’. N ta dis day dah ‘apple’ does still offset many a good fella. ya dout ma?

  31. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Dear Auntie Peppa: “Eve would only offset dat po man Adam wid she ‘apple’. N ta dis day dah ‘apple’ does still offset many a good fella. ya dout ma?

    N3v34 d344 4un71…

    N3v34….

  32. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    @ TB…

    I still contend that it is a good thing that I do not live in BARBADOS*… (and thankfully so!!!)

    Why is this?…..care to explain this comment?

  33. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Techie ………. let sleeping Englishmen lie, like you like nuff sermons. Leff de man alone nuh? Ah canh tek anymoh of dese long winded post by TB.

  34. observer Avatar
    observer

    @David thanks.
    @Bonny I am getting to understand David well. He has to sell his blog. So he cant offend his bloggers except me.
    Is Christopher yah real family or he is yah blogging family. i always see he call yah autie.

  35. David Avatar
    David

    @Observer

    Don’t let us split hairs on this matter. You and others know that one is never able to satisfy all.

    Let us appreciate the bigger value of BU i.e. a place where Bajans of all backgrounds can come together with others and butt heads on the issues ‘rumshop’ style.

    BU is a labour for a cause and up to now we have resisted all attempts to monetize the blog.

  36. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    If I might try to apply a little commonsense here. I will ask some questions.

    1) Is lust still a sin according to the bible?

    2) Do persons commonly lust after their partners before having intercourse?

    If both answers are yes, then in having pre-marital sex one is sinning PERIOD

    3) How does one undertake this pre-marital sex ting? Do you promise the ring, and squeeze a little piece pon de side, and if it isn’t quite your ting yuh take back the ring and get another partner. How many here would like your daughters, or sons to be treated in this manner?

    4) If having sex with as many people as you like outside of marriage is not a sin according to Morris, why would any idiot marry to be pinned down by one woman come what may, and then can’t divorce her unless she fornicates, according to the bible? The ting is this, if yuh go out pon the side pon she then yuh guilty of sin.

    In such matters one doesn’t even have to be Christian to see when commonsense is applied that the argument that sex can occur before marriage for Christians is a joke.

    Even if I were to give Morris the benefit of much doubt, how many partners does the reverend reckon I should have before I’m guilty of promiscuity?

    The bible in its wisdom has therefore encouraged marriage for those who are single and are widows, if they find difficulty in remaining single.

  37. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    This comment by the reverend must got de HIV/AIDS foundation hopping mad.

    Here is someone encouraging more sex than would ordinarily occur.

  38. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Anon: “This comment by the reverend must got de HIV/AIDS foundation hopping mad. Here is someone encouraging more sex than would ordinarily occur.

    You have heard of the term “protection”?

    Haven’t you?

    Or are you to “big” to wear a “glove”?

  39. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    Oh… Wait… Condoms aren’t allowed, even though they’re off-the-self almost the world over…

    Sucks to be you….

  40. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Observer
    yesssss, if ya mus kno; Christopher is my nev-u and I is he ‘dear’ Dear-Ant. I doan really tell evrybody dat he is famblee ta me, causen I does disown he mos’ a de time, but since you ask (ya too malicious,lol) i had ta tell ya. He motha haff-sista uncle brotha is my brotha by fadda. ya see de link now? hope so. (ya too malicious doe, LOL) wuhlosssssss.

    Anon
    I cannnnnn rememba de goodly Godly Rev. Morris saying dat it is ok ta phoop every Mary, Jane n Sue even doe ya marrid. He say in he opinion, it is no sin ta be phoopin befo ya marrid. In edda words, if you got a nice lil young ting and wunna in luv, is ok ta phoop she befo ya marrid she. An even if ya doan decide ta marrid she, even afta ya get lil piece, it in na sin. Pre-marital sex is jess a hi-falutent word fa having unmarrid sex. You kno hummuch peeple in de worl guilty a dat sin. EVERYBODYYYYY, doan leh nabody fool ya.
    Anudda ting, ta lust is not a sin, I hear, doan kno how tru, but ta carry out de act afta lustin is de sin. Ya undastan? Me needa. Gotta ask de goodly Godly Rev Morris.
    De bible is a book dat evva nuse ta confuse me so I kno jus enuff ta keep me outta troubl. My fav’rit scriptur in de bible is de one dat tell ya, ‘love thy neighba as ya love yaself’. Ya kno why dat is my fav’rit scriptur? When i did growin up my neighba had four suns, n I did luv one a dem real bad. ta dis day we still in luv. fa tru. And yesssss, we had nuff,nuff, nuffffffffffffffff premarital-phoops n um in change nutton. Doan k wah we parents do, dem kun keep me n he apart so dem gih up tryin. fa real.

  41. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    @ BU David….
    BU is a labour for a cause and up to now we have resisted all attempts to monetize the blog.

    You’re kidding right?!?

  42. David Avatar
    David

    @Techie

    The statement is as true as John 3:16.

  43. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    There are actually 2 accounts of human Creation in the Bible. The one quoted here where the creation of the first man and the first woman occured at the same instant as given here;“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27).

    Another version is given in the 2nd chapter of Genisis in that version God puts Adam to sleep and creates Eve out of Adam’s rib.

  44. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

    This passage is a LITERAL description of what happens when a boy grows to be a man.

    The passage LITERALY describes a grown man leaving his parents, having sex with his wife and out of that sex comes one flesh, their child (ren).

    We all know from everdday experience that this is what LITERALLY happens.

  45. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Random Thoughts: “The passage LITERALY describes a grown man leaving his parents, having sex with his wife and out of that sex comes one flesh, their child (ren).

    Just wondering…

    Were Mary’s parents legally married?

  46. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    *Anon @6:45 “If having sex with as many people as you like outside of marriage is not a sin according to Morris”

    But father Morris never said to have sex with as many people as you like outside of marriage.

    He said pre-martial sex is not a sin.

    Pre-martial sex means sex with a person in the immediate period before you marry that person. He means that sort of sex that many of us, our parents, grandparents, and great grand parents had . Man and woman having sex together, a child or 2 is born. Man and woman marry, have more children and stay together and raise those children, stay together until death do them part. That is not a sin.

    Fcuking every Jane, Susie and Mary because you don’t feel like marrying anybody IS SINFUL and wicked, and exploitive, and wrong.

  47. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    Dear CH:

    Don’t know if Mary’s parents swere legally married. You’ll have to ask Georgie Porgie, Zoe, Terrence Blackett or one of the other theologians.

    I am a lay person.

  48. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Random Thoughts: “Don’t know if Mary’s parents swere legally married. You’ll have to ask Georgie Porgie, Zoe, Terrence Blackett or one of the other theologians.

    God, I hope it’s Bush Tea who answers authoritatively…

    At least he makes a little bit of sense without the need for a doctoral thesis….

  49. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David

    Be careful. John 3:16 may not be true at all.

  50. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Random Thoughts | May 18, 2011 at 9:26 PM | “Fcuking every Jane, Susie and Mary because you don’t feel like marrying anybody IS SINFUL and wicked, and exploitive, and wrong.”

    The fcukor and the fcukee are equal participants in the act. There is no exploitation.Only sweetness.

    eff yuh dout me ask Bonny Peppa.

Older Comments
1 2 3 4 5 … 7
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply to ROKCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading