Could you explain exactly what you mean by this? Are you merely referring to Moses's words in Deuteronomy 24 or are you suggesting that Moses was judge and jury regarding divorce?
You asked why something so simple as defining adultery seems to be an impossible task. I answered with a question, pointing to the division in the philosophy of spirituality/religion that means
unity - Christianity. There has never been a consensus between anyone of any religion - and we have evidence of this in Judaism/Christianity. There were certain
remnant that "got it," or were tasked to be teachers, visionaries, prophets, and martyrs that also had the providence of God. This number was historically small, unassuming and ridiculous in quality and quantity - especially compared to the world.
This is part of what I meant when I said earlier that marriage has been institutionalized, and has become a morphology of something other than what it originally was.
I would go even further in that and say there is no premarital sex, as when you decide to unionize yourself to someone else with the act of sex, you are participating in the consummation of marriage under God.
Clearly, this has wide spread implications that conflict with any type of structure - because it is the raw definition of the act without anything attached. It just so happens to culturally conflict with most all Christian denominations.
You don't think the HS could have inspired just one of the 40 authors to explicitly define adultery and proscribe polygamy?
Absolutely. And, He has.
Remember, He sent His entire Logos to earth to tell us all the secrets of the universe
freely. It is said there isn't a way to contain all of His teaching in "books."
But, "we" killed Him. Similarly, "we" either severely persecuted, or killed the prophets before Him that God sent. So, maybe we don't actually want the truth: and, like the Gentleman that God is, He is letting us see the
confusion that arises when we go back to ancient systems that caused enmity between Him and us in antiquity.
He kept sending people. We kept killing them, or ignoring them. Then He sent His Son thinking we wouldn't dare kill
this Representatative of Him. Not only did we kill Him, we still remain ignorant of His
simplicity.
The good news is that this isn't atypical: His own disciples didn't recognize Him even if He actually rode a donkey into Jerusalem. They were in His presence for months. So, we have a significant amount of "grace" to get it together. But, part of that comes down to getting to the root of everything.
A snake spoke to a woman and beguiled her? You think this encourages belief rather than scepticism?
In the apocryphal books, it was the Watcher angel Azazel who used his avatar - a serpent - to deceive Eve, and then Adam. If you are of the group who takes books of the apocrypha as something to be of profit, then the "talking snake" is well understood. In fact, Genesis 1-7 especially is considered commonplace, and issues like God telling Israel to commit apparent genocide become fully justified - considering what, for example, the Philistines were.
We have marginalized the magnanimity of antiquity - its wonders and terrors - in exchange for the basal philosophy of scientific enlightenment. The amount of contradicting paradigms we entertain is staggering. So, we wouldn't even be able to grasp the
allegory of the fantastic things in the bible, because we believe the fantastic things are
fantastic only.
Tell me - how would you describe Song of Songs? What, to you, are we to learn from it?
This is the relationship between
you and the HS. When you come to an understanding, you converse with others and discuss things. When you all gather together, even if you disagree, if you are in Christ He will oversee the conversation so that it is mutually profitable.
