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, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
QUESTION AND ANSWER:
The core centre to understanding the teachings of Jesus about divorce and remarriage is one without controversy, that is between two virgin Christians / believers with no sexual history to complicate things.
1) What is the teaching of Jesus about two believers marrying?
In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and by inspiration in Romans 7:1-4, the teaching of Jesus in the new covenant is that when two believers legitimately marry the marriage is for life. No exceptions are mentioned. Be careful who you marry. There is no turning back. Once legitimately married only the death of your partner will end the marriage. Because marriage symbolises the divine relationship between God and his bride the church, and because God is totally faithful, the covenant is for life.
2) What is the exception for divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9?
The exception clause in Greek says "except it be for porneia". If this word is not used in a special context to modify it, scholars usually interpret the Greek word porneia to include:
intercourse by Adultery
intercourse by Fornication
intercourse that is Homosexual
Intercourse with animals
Intercourse with close relatives (incest)
Intercourse with a divorced man or woman
To complicate this some interpreters try to add a purely spiritual dimension, in that the word represents also a divorce could take place for idolatry. I entirely discount this as absurd.
To complicate things further, some add to the usually accepted meaning broader and less specific moral concepts, terms such as "lewdness" and "uncleanness" from which people giving a very strict interpretation might include such things as oral sex. not just intercourse, as a reason to divorce.
HOWEVER Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 discount from the very beginning, in the verses themselves, that postmarital adultery is meant by Jesus as a cause for divorce, as it is stated that a person with all the legal paperwork for divorce and remarriage is continually committing adultery over and over again in a second marriage, and therefore adultery does not break the marriage bond. A second reason to say this is the absurdity that in Mark and Luke Jesus supposedly misrepresents everything he teaches by stating marriage is for life, but in a third Gospel does a complete u-turn and introduces half a dozen sins that and marriage. Thirdly there is not mention of the need to make a decision on whether you decide to forgive and carry on with the marriage, or proceed to divorce court, and that I contend is for the obvious reason it is never an option (otherwise we have a situation where the innocent spouse uses his partner for sex while keeping an eye open for a new partner, which is preposterously immoral).
Therefore only relevant concept for the meaning of porneia left is fornication, or premarital sin. And yes this means that after two Christians are legitimately married post marital adultery, incest. homosexuality and bestiality are not reasons to divorce and remarry.
PORNEIA IN CONTEXT:
In the Matthean Clause (Matt 5:32 & 19:9) The King James Version of the bible, in context correctly interprets the word "porneia" as equivalent to the English word fornication (a premarital sin) as the one and only reason Jesus is giving for a marriage to end, something that happened before the marriage, to invalidate the marriage as legitimate.
INCEST:
Issues like incest committed with a relative after marriage (that does not end a legitimate legal marriage) is not the same issue, obviously, as the two marriage partners themselves being close relatives, who did not know this from the start. In certain very rare cases two siblings (etc) marry without even knowing they were related, because of some complex social lack of contact. When this rare event happens there is a semantic argument (extra specially if Catholics are involved) whether the end of such a marriage should be termed an annulment, or a divorce. This legitimate reason to end a union is then cynically seized upon by modern Catholic scholars to say that it is definitely an annulment, and that therefore their clergy are empowered to end marriages by annulment under the term "non sacramental" and the usual reason for this is the heresy that if it is concluded the marriage partners never truly understood the nature of marriage and its commitments (even though everyone thought they did at the time, including their Catholic counsellors) then that is a reason to annul a marriage. This in effect adds a very lax reason to end relationships, and is pure caustic heresy. I find it ironic that Roman Catholic men like the martyr John Fisher were burnt alive for opposing Henry the VIIIth remarrying, and that they would roll over in their graves if they knew the Catholic religion would later end hundreds of thousands of marriages, by cynically giving a new reason of "non sacramental" marriages on the grounds of not fully grasping every nuances of the lifelong character of marriage. The issue of incestuous marriage, and the disagreement between the Jews and Protestants versus the Catholics over first cousins marrying will not be analysed here.