independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 22nd Jul 2019 8:16pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Why Prince is still married to Mayte
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 4 1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/15/10 1:56am

JMonkey

avatar

Why Prince is still married to Mayte

IF PRINCE BELIEVES IN THE BIBLE...

and if Mayte was never married before she married Prince, then Prince is still married to Mayte.

Wot, don't believe it? Peep this:

Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

"saving for the cause of fornication." Remember that - not "adultery," but "fornication." "Adultery" is sexual sin when you're married to someone - cheating on your spouse. Right? "Fornication" is a broad word to describe sexual sin in general... it might include adultery, but in the Bible, it's almost always used to describe sexual sin outside of marriage.

Matthew 19:3-13

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There it is again in Matthew - "fornication." So I'll use Prince and Mayte as our example; it seems like, if Mayte (the wife) committed "fornication," whatever that means, then Prince is OK to divorce her, right? And whoever marries Mayte after that is... committing "adultery?" Hm. It doesn't really explain why. But it does go on to talk about eunuchs (those who are castrated, can't or don't have sex), about those who can "receive this saying," and about those who "make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Well, let's see what else the Scriptures say. Right then, let's move on...

Mark 10:2-12

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Right, so Jesus Christ says if Prince (the husband) puts away (divorces) his wife and marries another, he commits "adultery" against his wife, Mayte, (that doesn't look so good for Manuela, does it?) and if Mayte divorces Prince and marries another, she commits "adultery"... against her husband, Prince, right? Well, that clears up Matthew a tiny bit... but what else does the Scripture say?

Luke 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

There it is again... if Prince divorces Mayte, and marries another, he commits "adultery," and whoever marries the divorced Mayte commits "adultery." Jesus keeps saying "adultery" after the divorce. "What God has joined together." Hm.

Next in order, we have the death of John the Baptist, because of what he said to Herod... which you can read in Matthew 14:3-4, Mark 6:17-20, and Luke 3:18-20. I'll spare you the whole story, but the reason Herodias, who was married to Herod, wanted John dead was because of what he said about their marriage:

Matthew 14:3-4

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

Herodias was Herod's brother Philip's "wife," and John the Baptist, one whom Jesus recognized as a great prophet, said it was wrong (or to a 1st Century Jew, "unlawful" - against God's Law) for Herod to "have" (be married to) her. So we have a Jew talking to a Gentile, telling him it's still wrong.

Right, let's keep going...

Romans 7:1-3

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So - if Mayte married Prince, she's married to him as long as he's literally alive (until he dies for real, not like he "died" in 1993... besides, he's "alive" again now, isn't he? cool )... and if Mayte remarries before Prince dies, she shall be called an adulteress (a woman who cheats on her husband). If Prince dies and Mayte's still alive, then she's "loosed from the law of her husband" and it's fine for Mayte to remarry; she'd be "no adulteress."

1 Corinthians 7:10-17

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

So first Romans says not Paul, the writer, but the Lord commands Mayte not to "depart from" Prince... and if for some reason she does, her options are limited: singleness or reconciliation. No room for wiggling there. But what Jesus said about "making themselves eunuchs" makes more sense now. Then Paul specifies that it's his advice to the Church when he says, if Prince is a believer and Mayte isn't, and Mayte wants to stay, he should let her, and the same goes for Mayte. He says that the presence of one believer would sanctify the children. Also, if Mayte's and unbeliever and she wants to leave, Prince should "let her go"... he's not "under bondage" to keep her. Right, but I have have a hard time believing that "let her go" means "divorce" because of the strong wording of the whole "let not man put asunder," "adultery" and "eunuchs" thing from Matthew... don't you? It could just as easily be implying that Prince shouldn't give her a hard time about leaving. Which he might be tempted to do if he really loves her. Because the next thing it says is "God has called us to peace." And it then says that the way Prince handles it from that point on could very well bring Mayte to Jesus... in our example. Right-o...

1 Corinthians 7:25-28

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Paul gives his advice again "as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." Unless you know a guy in this day and age who's more faithful than Paul the Apostle, I'd be inclined to listen to him. And Paul says that because of the "present distress" (I'd say that means the difficulty of the Christian life in Roman times... it's not as bad today, but it's getting there, isn't it?) it's best to stay how you are, married or single. "Loosed" here, again, can't mean "divorced" because he already specified he's talking about single women who have never been married - remember, he started off by saying, "Now concerning virgins..." - right?

So: Prince, are you married? Don't seek a divorce. Are you (...not divorced, but...) unmarried? Don't go looking to get married. But if you do, it's not a sin to get married (if you aren't already - adultery is still a sin, right?)... and if Mayte's a virgin (do they even make those anymore? confused ) and she marries, she has not sinned either. Paul also says that those who get married will have "trouble in the flesh" that unmarried people won't have, and he's looking to "spare" us that. You married people probably don't need me to explain...

1 Corinthians 7:39

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

How clear it is. Mayte is married to Prince "until death do them part." So why in the world did Jesus say "except for fornication" in Matthew, when everything else seems to say the opposite?

I looked into this, and you know what's missing? It's a small thing, but it means a great deal. Historical context.

The four Gospels were written primarily to different groups of people:

The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews. The Gospel of Mark was written for the Romans. The Gospel of Luke was written for the gentiles, the Greeks of Luke’s day. The Gospel of John was written for the believers.

Since Matthew was written primarily to the Jews, it talks a great deal about fulfilled prophecy and God's Law. It also doesn't take time to explain Jewish customs that its Jewish audience would already know about. It's one of these customs that explains Matthew. It's not explained explicitly, but it appears in 2 other places in the Bible... It has to do with the Jewish marriage custom.

In Genesis 19:14, Lot speaks to his "sons in law." But earlier, in verse 8, he said his daughters "have not known man," meaning they were virgins. If they were married, why were they still virgins?

In Luke 2:5, Mary is Joseph's "espoused wife," yet Matthew 1:18 says before they "came together," Mary was found to be pregnant - the "virgin birth." Why was she called his wife, if they were only engaged?

The answer is simple. When a Jewish couple were to get married, they would first have an "engagement" ceremony, about a year ahead of the actual wedding. The groom would contract with the bride's father to pay a dowry in return for his marriageable virgin daughter, and the couple would be considered "married." It was what we would consider today a "betrothal" period, where the couple would not live together or consummate the marriage (that's the idea, blokes) for about a year, or until the groom would "return" for his bride and the official marriage ceremony and wedding feast would take place.

Therefore, if proof (without getting too graphic) was found at the end of the betrothal period that the bride was not in fact a virgin, the husband-to-be could cite the father-in-law as being in breach of his agreement to provide a virgin, and annul the marriage contract. In other words, the groom could annul the impending marriage "for the cause of fornication." Notice the Scripture does not say anything about "adultery," but "fornication." That's the reason! There are two different Greek words being translated in Matthew 5 and 19. "Moiceia" means "adultery." "Porneia" means "fornication." What Matthew 5:32 says is this:

But I (Jesus Christ) say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (divorce, annul) his (legitimate) wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia - in this case, because she has had sexual relations with another man prior to marrying her husband-to-be), causeth her (the legitimate wife, who was married without committing porneia) to commit adultery (moiceia - in this case, because she, the legitimate spouse, will eventually be forced to remarry in order to survive): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (by her husband for any reason other than porneia) committeth adultery (moiceia - because he is marrying a woman who was divorced for reasons other than porneia, and who God sees as still married to her husband).

Assuming the bride is a virgin, and all goes as it is supposed to, once the marriage is complete, Jesus says that God Himself takes the two and makes them "one flesh," and it is a covenant unbreakable by anything other than death; "the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives."

I have to take a small detour here. The excuse many Christian people give at this point, not knowing or understanding this, is "by the law! by the law! it doesn't count because it says by the law! I'm a Christian, so I'm not under the law!" as if, since they are not "under the law," God's Law is no longer a good standard for them to determine what sin is. Those who like to quote Romans 6:14 -

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

...hardly ever quote Romans 6:15, which says:

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

And 1 John 3:4 says exactly what sin is:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Right, so how do we learn what sin is? Romans 7:7 -

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

That's why Galatians 3:24 says,

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

A Christian is saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), but God's Law, the Commandments, teach us all why we need salvation. By teaching us what wrong is, they show us we're all sinners at heart. Sinful actions reveal a sinful heart. Adultery is still sin, and sin is still wrong. And if God says so through the Law, who are we to say He's wrong?

It seems like, by His taking such a strong stand on marriage, emphasizing the Garden of Eden, "what God has joined together," and "eunuchs," Jesus Christ did the opposite of show grace. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), Jesus spoke of several of the Commandments and presented an even higher standard than the Pharisees! Read it for yourself when you have time. But God's grace isn't only shown by forgiving us - it's also shown by commanding us to "go and sin no more," because sin hurts us and everyone around us. the Father disciplines His children because He loves them. There are few ways the damage sin causes is more clear than in divorce, yes? How many children of divorce are still wounded to this day, even in adulthood? But let's go on...

Ephesians 5:31-32

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Paul quotes Genesis 2, just like Jesus did in Matthew, but then he says the "mystery" of it is that he speaks "concerning Christ and the church." Could this be the big reason God created woman? Could marriage exist just to teach us about God's love and relationship with His people? Here's something that sounds very important. It means we can learn about our relationship with God by looking at how God views Marriage. It also gives deeper shades of meaning to 2 Corinthians 11:2 where Paul says to the believers,

For I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

If this is true, then what kind of a stand would you like God to take on His marriage to you? Every time you sin, or love anything in the world more than God, it's actually like "spiritual adultery" against your Heavenly Spouse, Jesus Christ.

James 4:4 - Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Do you believe that your every "adultery" annuls your saving covenant with God and makes you once again hell-bound? Do you believe that we could ever have hope of Heaven, or a moment's peace, if every time we gained God's grace, we lost it with our next impure thought? If not, what do you believe about our covenant of salvation - our "marriage" to God? What does the whole Bible actually say? This is the problem with groups like the Watchtower, the Mormons, etc. - their theology is inconsistent; too legalistic one way, too liberal the next.

There is not much more that needs be said on the topic at this point. All other arguing "from the Bible" in favor of blessing divorce and remarriage, while the spouse still lives, flies in the face of historical context, and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Most, if not all, such arguments are made from twisting Scriptures far out of context. Remember, the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was lawful "for any reason." The Pharisees of today hunt far and wide for more "liberal" interpretations of God's Word. Some actually claim that 1 Corinthians 7:15, the "departs... not under bondage" passage, means that if an unbelieving spouse leaves, it is the same as divorce, or allows divorce. Many go even further and apply that reasoning to believing spouses. Some even claim if a spouse "feels" abandoned, God will bless their seeking of divorce!

Others claim that because God "forgives" and Christians are "under grace" (citing many Scriptures on the general topic of forgiveness, but none on the specific topic of marriage), they can continue to knowingly live actively sinful lives - even to the point of remarrying and starting new families, while their spouse still lives! God, while forgiving us, always commands us to "go and sin no more." Jude 4 describes "ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness," or a license for immorality, and who are actually "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Don't these "liberal" ideas seem far, far out of context to you, when you read them in light of historical context and Jesus Christ's words?

The Bible is quite clear. Marriage is ended only by death. If Prince and Mayte are both still alive, then in God's eyes, they are still married to one another. It's often not easy to obey the Word of God... indeed, it's very hard sometimes. Fighting our own desires is often the hardest part of all. And it may take a long time to come to terms with the Bible, even if we claim to believe it. Jesus never promised a happy-go-lucky life; He promised His righteousness, His joy despite trials and persecution, and the rewards of Heaven... if we submit to His Lordship. If we believe in the Bible, we must obey it, no matter how difficult.

I'll check back in a few days. Your servers ought to be on fire by then... Cheers!


What did you just say to me?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/15/10 2:12am

andykeen

avatar

Read 'The god delusion' that's my bible! smile


Keenmeister
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/15/10 2:14am

ZombieKitten

what?????

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/15/10 2:17am

polkadotbliss

i need to read ALL that-just to see your wrong

my eyes are too lazy for that shizzle

where do you folk get this doo doo from eek

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/15/10 2:17am

erik319

avatar

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/15/10 3:30am

syble

JMonkey said:

IF PRINCE BELIEVES IN THE BIBLE...

and if Mayte was never married before she married Prince, then Prince is still married to Mayte.

Wot, don't believe it? Peep this:

Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

"saving for the cause of fornication." Remember that - not "adultery," but "fornication." "Adultery" is sexual sin when you're married to someone - cheating on your spouse. Right? "Fornication" is a broad word to describe sexual sin in general... it might include adultery, but in the Bible, it's almost always used to describe sexual sin outside of marriage. Actually I think you have misinterpreted the language there. It says who ever puts away (divorces) his wife will cause her to commit adultery. The only reason she wouldnt be committing adultery is if she is divorced for fornication. ie sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. Adultery is the act of marrying someone else while technically being married in the eyes of God, already. Fornication is the sexual act with another person besides the married husband. hence that is the only reason to divorce you wife. If this is the case then you can divorce and not be committing adultery when you remarry as it is a just and legal reason for the divorce, plus the divorced wife will not be committing adultery as the divorce was 'legal' for want of a better word.

Matthew 19:3-13

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There it is again in Matthew - "fornication." So I'll use Prince and Mayte as our example; it seems like, if Mayte (the wife) committed "fornication," whatever that means, then Prince is OK to divorce her, right? And whoever marries Mayte after that is... committing "adultery?" Hm. It doesn't really explain why. But it does go on to talk about eunuchs (those who are castrated, can't or don't have sex), about those who can "receive this saying," and about those who "make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Well, let's see what else the Scriptures say. Right then, let's move on... The first part is correct if you use those two as an example which is a bit odd as we dont know why they divorced really. anyway as you said the only reason to be divorced is if the wife committed fornication with another other than her husband. Therfore should she remarry or the guy remarry they will not be accused of adultery as their divorce is the only reason allowed. The word marry meaning marriage and that has to be consumated. the mention of eunuchs refers to their query that if a man wishes to marry a divrocee then its not a good idea as he may be committing adultery in the eyes of God. However he goes on to assure them that some men are eunuchs and therefore their marriage would not be consumated, hes basically saying if you go on to marry a divorcee (except one divorced for fornication) and you have a complete consumated marriage you are both committing adultery as the divorce is not allowed in the first place.

Mark 10:2-12

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Right, so Jesus Christ says if Prince (the husband) puts away (divorces) his wife and marries another, he commits "adultery" against his wife, Mayte, (that doesn't look so good for Manuela, does it?) and if Mayte divorces Prince and marries another, she commits "adultery"... against her husband, Prince, right? Well, that clears up Matthew a tiny bit... but what else does the Scripture say? you are repeating the previous point, same story as before different words, when married two become one and cannot be divorced except for the wife fornicating. 'hardness of their hearts' refers to the earlier scripture that explains the men were 'putting away their wives' ie divorcing them for reasons other than fornication ie lack of love, disgust, annoyance, or in more modern day terms - incompatibility

Luke 16:18

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

There it is again... if Prince divorces Mayte, and marries another, he commits "adultery," and whoever marries the divorced Mayte commits "adultery." Jesus keeps saying "adultery" after the divorce. "What God has joined together." Hm.

Again different disciple same story in his own words

Next in order, we have the death of John the Baptist, because of what he said to Herod... which you can read in Matthew 14:3-4, Mark 6:17-20, and Luke 3:18-20. I'll spare you the whole story, but the reason Herodias, who was married to Herod, wanted John dead was because of what he said about their marriage:

Matthew 14:3-4

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

Herodias was Herod's brother Philip's "wife," and John the Baptist, one whom Jesus recognized as a great prophet, said it was wrong (or to a 1st Century Jew, "unlawful" - against God's Law) for Herod to "have" (be married to) her. So we have a Jew talking to a Gentile, telling him it's still wrong.

Right, let's keep going...

Romans 7:1-3

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So - if Mayte married Prince, she's married to him as long as he's literally alive (until he dies for real, not like he "died" in 1993... besides, he's "alive" again now, isn't he? cool )... and if Mayte remarries before Prince dies, she shall be called an adulteress (a woman who cheats on her husband). If Prince dies and Mayte's still alive, then she's "loosed from the law of her husband" and it's fine for Mayte to remarry; she'd be "no adulteress."

I think that romans passage is self-explanatory really, the fact is they did divorce and neither that I know of has died so its somewhat irrlevent in this case study.

1 Corinthians 7:10-17

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

So first Romans says not Paul, the writer, but the Lord commands Mayte not to "depart from" Prince... and if for some reason she does, her options are limited: singleness or reconciliation. No room for wiggling there. But what Jesus said about "making themselves eunuchs" makes more sense now. Then Paul specifies that it's his advice to the Church when he says, if Prince is a believer and Mayte isn't, and Mayte wants to stay, he should let her, and the same goes for Mayte. He says that the presence of one believer would sanctify the children. Also, if Mayte's and unbeliever and she wants to leave, Prince should "let her go"... he's not "under bondage" to keep her. Right, but I have have a hard time believing that "let her go" means "divorce" because of the strong wording of the whole "let not man put asunder," "adultery" and "eunuchs" thing from Matthew... don't you? It could just as easily be implying that Prince shouldn't give her a hard time about leaving. Which he might be tempted to do if he really loves her. Because the next thing it says is "God has called us to peace." And it then says that the way Prince handles it from that point on could very well bring Mayte to Jesus... in our example. Right-o... it actually says that the non-believer is not 'under bondage' for how can you be under bondage to laws of something in which you do not believe. its just common sense. so the believer may marry a non believer but if they wish to leave they can. The final line says ' how can you 'save' your non-believing partner'.

If a wife leaves her husband he must not 'put her away' in other words he is still responsible for her but if she remarries then she is an adulterer. Its a simple case of acknowledging that some people cannot always live happily together but must remain linked and bonded together in the eyes of God even if not in the same house thus they are still technically married.

1 Corinthians 7:25-28

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Paul gives his advice again "as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." Unless you know a guy in this day and age who's more faithful than Paul the Apostle, I'd be inclined to listen to him. And Paul says that because of the "present distress" (I'd say that means the difficulty of the Christian life in Roman times... it's not as bad today, but it's getting there, isn't it?) it's best to stay how you are, married or single. "Loosed" here, again, can't mean "divorced" because he already specified he's talking about single women who have never been married - remember, he started off by saying, "Now concerning virgins..." - right?

So: Prince, are you married? Don't seek a divorce. Are you (...not divorced, but...) unmarried? Don't go looking to get married. But if you do, it's not a sin to get married (if you aren't already - adultery is still a sin, right?)... and if Mayte's a virgin (do they even make those anymore? confused ) and she marries, she has not sinned either. Paul also says that those who get married will have "trouble in the flesh" that unmarried people won't have, and he's looking to "spare" us that. You married people probably don't need me to explain...

again good old common sense hes talking about unconsummated marriages which i guess must be the foundation for the roman catholic churches annulment of marriages. He has offered advice that it is ok to remarry if the marriage is not consummated but ven if it has not been the man should not look to be free of his wife and if his wife does not want or love him he shouldnt be seeking another wife. Perhaps the modern take would be 'adultery of the mind', a roving eye etc I dont think hes saying those who get married in such circumstances will have trouble of the flesh at all, more its a case of people who find themselves within an unconsummated marriage will have trouble of the flesh, urges that will make it very difficult to not 'seek a wife' look for change or divorce.

1 Corinthians 7:39

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

How clear it is. Mayte is married to Prince "until death do them part." So why in the world did Jesus say "except for fornication" in Matthew, when everything else seems to say the opposite? I think you are confusing yourself, all the disciples have said the same thing and its very clear you are married until death EXCEPT for the wife committing fornication and then it is ok to divorce her. You are speculating about Ps private life and we do not know if he felt justified in divorcing Mayte from his faiths point of view. Perhaps there was fornication on her part what today we loosely refer to as adultery, (not the scriptures exact definition of adultery)

I looked into this, and you know what's missing? It's a small thing, but it means a great deal. Historical context.

Id agree with you but your reasoning seems to be a lesson of dissecting the scripture in much the same way a 'believer' would do finding passages and quotes to support your theory.


The four Gospels were written primarily to different groups of people:

The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews. The Gospel of Mark was written for the Romans. The Gospel of Luke was written for the gentiles, the Greeks of Luke’s day. The Gospel of John was written for the believers.

Since Matthew was written primarily to the Jews, it talks a great deal about fulfilled prophecy and God's Law. It also doesn't take time to explain Jewish customs that its Jewish audience would already know about. It's one of these customs that explains Matthew. It's not explained explicitly, but it appears in 2 other places in the Bible... It has to do with the Jewish marriage custom.

In Genesis 19:14, Lot speaks to his "sons in law." But earlier, in verse 8, he said his daughters "have not known man," meaning they were virgins. If they were married, why were they still virgins?

In Luke 2:5, Mary is Joseph's "espoused wife," yet Matthew 1:18 says before they "came together," Mary was found to be pregnant - the "virgin birth." Why was she called his wife, if they were only engaged?

The answer is simple. When a Jewish couple were to get married, they would first have an "engagement" ceremony, about a year ahead of the actual wedding. The groom would contract with the bride's father to pay a dowry in return for his marriageable virgin daughter, and the couple would be considered "married." It was what we would consider today a "betrothal" period, where the couple would not live together or consummate the marriage (that's the idea, blokes) for about a year, or until the groom would "return" for his bride and the official marriage ceremony and wedding feast would take place.

Therefore, if proof (without getting too graphic) was found at the end of the betrothal period that the bride was not in fact a virgin, the husband-to-be could cite the father-in-law as being in breach of his agreement to provide a virgin, and annul the marriage contract. In other words, the groom could annul the impending marriage "for the cause of fornication." Notice the Scripture does not say anything about "adultery," but "fornication." That's the reason! There are two different Greek words being translated in Matthew 5 and 19. "Moiceia" means "adultery." "Porneia" means "fornication." What Matthew 5:32 says is this:

your explanation of historical fact that is not mentioned within the bible is the very reason I would suggest people to not lay too much store by what they read within it, especially if they dot around and pick and choose what they read and try to decipher its meaning. I think the bible is an interesting insight to one religion from history but should not be the corner stone of modern faiths. It is my understanding that many 'rules' laws etc are merely common sense for the era promoting a healthy society, for the effective procreation of a species including advice on eating, marriage, self discipline etc

But I (Jesus Christ) say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (divorce, annul) his (legitimate) wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia - in this case, because she has had sexual relations with another man prior to marrying her husband-to-be), causeth her (the legitimate wife, who was married without committing porneia) to commit adultery (moiceia - in this case, because she, the legitimate spouse, will eventually be forced to remarry in order to survive): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (by her husband for any reason other than porneia) committeth adultery (moiceia - because he is marrying a woman who was divorced for reasons other than porneia, and who God sees as still married to her husband).

just an old way of not going through with a deal to claim your betrothed is not a virgin, bit like joan of arc being checked if she was a virgin, male nonsense.


Assuming the bride is a virgin, and all goes as it is supposed to, once the marriage is complete, Jesus says that God Himself takes the two and makes them "one flesh," and it is a covenant unbreakable by anything other than death; "the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives."

I have to take a small detour here. The excuse many Christian people give at this point, not knowing or understanding this, is "by the law! by the law! it doesn't count because it says by the law! I'm a Christian, so I'm not under the law!" as if, since they are not "under the law," God's Law is no longer a good standard for them to determine what sin is. Those who like to quote Romans 6:14 -

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

...hardly ever quote Romans 6:15, which says:

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

And 1 John 3:4 says exactly what sin is:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Right, so how do we learn what sin is? Romans 7:7 -

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

That's why Galatians 3:24 says,

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

A Christian is saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), but God's Law, the Commandments, teach us all why we need salvation. By teaching us what wrong is, they show us we're all sinners at heart. Sinful actions reveal a sinful heart. Adultery is still sin, and sin is still wrong. And if God says so through the Law, who are we to say He's wrong?

It seems like, by His taking such a strong stand on marriage, emphasizing the Garden of Eden, "what God has joined together," and "eunuchs," Jesus Christ did the opposite of show grace.

what do you mean?

In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), Jesus spoke of several of the Commandments and presented an even higher standard than the Pharisees! Read it for yourself when you have time. But God's grace isn't only shown by forgiving us - it's also shown by commanding us to "go and sin no more," because sin hurts us and everyone around us. the Father disciplines His children because He loves them. There are few ways the damage sin causes is more clear than in divorce, yes? How many children of divorce are still wounded to this day, even in adulthood? But let's go on...

Ephesians 5:31-32

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Paul quotes Genesis 2, just like Jesus did in Matthew, but then he says the "mystery" of it is that he speaks "concerning Christ and the church." Could this be the big reason God created woman?

I think its much more likely he was referring to the biological fact that two become one, not only in their offspring but also in their minds.


Could marriage exist just to teach us about God's love and relationship with His people? Here's something that sounds very important. It means we can learn about our relationship with God by looking at how God views Marriage. It also gives deeper shades of meaning to 2 Corinthians 11:2 where Paul says to the believers,

For I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

If this is true, then what kind of a stand would you like God to take on His marriage to you? Every time you sin, or love anything in the world more than God, it's actually like "spiritual adultery" against your Heavenly Spouse, Jesus Christ.

partially true, presented as a chaste virgin; free from sin, fresh, new untainted, a metaphor no more.

James 4:4 - Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Do you believe that your every "adultery" annuls your saving covenant with God and makes you once again hell-bound? Do you believe that we could ever have hope of Heaven, or a moment's peace, if every time we gained God's grace, we lost it with our next impure thought? If not, what do you believe about our covenant of salvation - our "marriage" to God? What does the whole Bible actually say? This is the problem with groups like the Watchtower, the Mormons, etc. - their theology is inconsistent; too legalistic one way, too liberal the next.

There is not much more that needs be said on the topic at this point. All other arguing "from the Bible" in favor of blessing divorce and remarriage, while the spouse still lives, flies in the face of historical context, and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Most, if not all, such arguments are made from twisting Scriptures far out of context. Remember, the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was lawful "for any reason." The Pharisees of today hunt far and wide for more "liberal" interpretations of God's Word. Some actually claim that 1 Corinthians 7:15, the "departs... not under bondage" passage, means that if an unbelieving spouse leaves, it is the same as divorce, or allows divorce. Many go even further and apply that reasoning to believing spouses. Some even claim if a spouse "feels" abandoned, God will bless their seeking of divorce!

Others claim that because God "forgives" and Christians are "under grace" (citing many Scriptures on the general topic of forgiveness, but none on the specific topic of marriage), they can continue to knowingly live actively sinful lives - even to the point of remarrying and starting new families, while their spouse still lives! God, while forgiving us, always commands us to "go and sin no more." Jude 4 describes "ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness," or a license for immorality, and who are actually "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Don't these "liberal" ideas seem far, far out of context to you, when you read them in light of historical context and Jesus Christ's words?

The Bible is quite clear. Marriage is ended only by death. If Prince and Mayte are both still alive, then in God's eyes, they are still married to one another. It's often not easy to obey the Word of God... indeed, it's very hard sometimes. Fighting our own desires is often the hardest part of all. And it may take a long time to come to terms with the Bible, even if we claim to believe it. Jesus never promised a happy-go-lucky life; He promised His righteousness, His joy despite trials and persecution, and the rewards of Heaven... if we submit to His Lordship. If we believe in the Bible, we must obey it, no matter how difficult.

the ony question I have is 'what constitutes a marriage then' is it a religious ceremony, a piece of paper or historically what would have happened to 'seal the deal' cattle for a wife? the bible refers to ownership of a wife not a very modern concept, if God sees sexual intercourse as a consummation of marriage then isnt your first sexual partner your husband/wife? hence the requirement for a chaste virgin when bartering for a wife? and thus leading onto some faiths idea of no sex beofre marriage carrying on this theme of female virgins. No mention of the husbands chastity or virginity. I am assuming it was taken for granted that men could have sex before marriage. Afterall women were seen as goods, something to 'own'.

I fail to see how that viewpoint can possibly seriously be considered in todays world where people have fought for all kinds of equality. the modern idea of marriage I think for most is that two equal people enter a state of marriage forsaking all others to become one. Marriage for some requires a ceremony for many it is based on an agreement and trust.

I fail to see how anyone can follow the teachings of the bible that is so out of place in a modern world. The teachings are based on old ways of life that simply do not exist anymore in modern society, the advice is therefore null and void.

From the get go P and M would not have been married unless she was a virgin, possible as she was so young. Perhaps Prince took his bible study very seriously and already knew about that but that would not explain a subsequent marriage. If however he had cause to divorce ie fornication (not ignoring your historical context but merely suggesting his or others interpretation of that scripture) perhaps he felt at peace and justified.

I'll check back in a few days. Your servers ought to be on fire by then... Cheers!


PS shoulnt this be in P&R?

walk with crooked shoes www.myspace/syblepurplelishous
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/15/10 3:58am

JoeTyler

avatar

andykeen said:

Read 'The god delusion' that's my bible! smile

You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes

and, oh please mods: ! neutral lock !!!!

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/15/10 4:08am

erik319

avatar

JoeTyler said:

andykeen said:

Read 'The god delusion' that's my bible! smile

You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes

What does that bit mean? confused

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/15/10 4:10am

ZombieKitten

erik319 said:

JoeTyler said:

You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes

What does that bit mean? confused

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/15/10 4:16am

Eyeofthelotus

That does make some sense... nod

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/15/10 4:23am

LuneCerise

avatar

JoeTyler said:

andykeen said:

Read 'The god delusion' that's my bible! smile

You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes

and, oh please mods: ! neutral lock !!!!

So only Brits are smart enough to know the bible is horseshit? As an American I'm offended by that.

Do U Lie?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/15/10 4:27am

JoeTyler

avatar

erik319 said:

JoeTyler said:

You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes

What does that bit mean? confused

that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick... rolleyes

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/15/10 4:30am

erik319

avatar

LuneCerise said:

JoeTyler said:

You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes

and, oh please mods: ! neutral lock !!!!

So only Brits are smart enough to know the bible is horseshit? As an American I'm offended by that.

lol

So it WAS meant to read that all Brits are atheist. thought so. Erm, fail. Unfortunately.

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/15/10 4:32am

NouveauDance

avatar

This thread looks like fun!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/15/10 4:33am

JoeTyler

avatar

erik319 said:

LuneCerise said:

So only Brits are smart enough to know the bible is horseshit? As an American I'm offended by that.

lol

So it WAS meant to read that all Brits are atheist. thought so. Erm, fail. Unfortunately.

rolleyes

I've said:

"that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick"

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/15/10 4:34am

erik319

avatar

JoeTyler said:

erik319 said:

What does that bit mean? confused

that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick... rolleyes

Offensive, stereotypical AND intollerent of other people's belief systems. Well done. rolleyes

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/15/10 4:38am

NouveauDance

avatar

erik319 said:

Offensive, stereotypical AND intollerent of other people's belief systems. Well done. rolleyes

Welcome to monotheism. I'd say enjoy your stay, but no one ever does.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/15/10 4:38am

JoeTyler

avatar

erik319 said:

JoeTyler said:

that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick... rolleyes

Offensive, stereotypical AND intollerent of other people's belief systems. Well done. rolleyes

It's not stereotypical, it's a FACT, Dawkins's pathetic book was a best-seller in the UK rolleyes

offensive??? no, you perhaps mean that TRUTH HURTS; if was British, I would be embarrassed too...oh my country, oh my people...

perhaps this thread should be moved to the Religion forums anyway shrug

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/15/10 4:38am

erik319

avatar

JoeTyler said:

erik319 said:

lol

So it WAS meant to read that all Brits are atheist. thought so. Erm, fail. Unfortunately.

rolleyes

I've said:

"that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick"

No, you posted that after, so that's backtracking. What you actually said was:

" You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes"

The funniest thing is, I'm an atheist, so don't really care, but if you think I'm in the majority in Britain, then you need to do a bit more research before stereotyping.

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/15/10 4:40am

erik319

avatar

JoeTyler said:

erik319 said:

Offensive, stereotypical AND intollerent of other people's belief systems. Well done. rolleyes

It's not stereotypical, it's a FACT, Dawkins's pathetic book was a best-seller in the UK rolleyes

offensive??? no, you perhaps mean that TRUTH HURTS; if was British, I would be embarrassed too...oh my country, oh my people...

perhaps this thread should be moved to the Religion forums anyway shrug

Ooh heading into racism now, I like it. Keep digging smile

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/15/10 4:43am

erik319

avatar

NouveauDance said:

erik319 said:

Offensive, stereotypical AND intollerent of other people's belief systems. Well done. rolleyes

Welcome to monotheism. I'd say enjoy your stay, but no one ever does.

lol

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/15/10 4:43am

JoeTyler

avatar

erik319 said:

JoeTyler said:

rolleyes

I've said:

"that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick"

No, you posted that after, so that's backtracking. What you actually said was:

" You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes"

The funniest thing is, I'm an atheist, so don't really care, but if you think I'm in the majority in Britain, then you need to do a bit more research before stereotyping.

rolleyes check the hour when my second message was posted...4:27, LuneCerise posted before that but that's not what I meant, if you don't believe me, I don't give a fuck really, specially considering that you're another Dawkins's casualty... rolleyes

That said, I know that there is still a reasonably large proportion of brits who still care for the CoE...

[Edited 10/15/10 4:45am]

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/15/10 4:44am

LuneCerise

avatar

JoeTyler said:

erik319 said:

lol

So it WAS meant to read that all Brits are atheist. thought so. Erm, fail. Unfortunately.

rolleyes

I've said:

"that many of you were so eager to eat Dawkins's dick"

Not really, you don't have to read a certain book to not believe in another.

Do U Lie?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 10/15/10 4:44am

JoeTyler

avatar

erik319 said:

JoeTyler said:

It's not stereotypical, it's a FACT, Dawkins's pathetic book was a best-seller in the UK rolleyes

offensive??? no, you perhaps mean that TRUTH HURTS; if was British, I would be embarrassed too...oh my country, oh my people...

perhaps this thread should be moved to the Religion forums anyway shrug

Ooh heading into racism now, I like it. Keep digging smile

racism??? you're confusing terms here, my dear...

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 10/15/10 4:45am

ZombieKitten

who is this Dawkins??????

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 10/15/10 4:46am

andykeen

avatar

ZombieKitten said:

erik319 said:

What does that bit mean? confused

SILLY PICTURE

So it okay to advocate God? The bible? The Koran? Etc Etc On the side of a bus? Out side a church? on billboards?

I'm proud to be British, proud of a that government still promotes freedom of thought and choice. Instead of having politicians being controlled by coroperate clones that feed a population of consumers and obedient workers.

America doesn't want a population of educated critical thinkers, because it doesn't help them, it doesn't help their interests. More for them and less for general public...Religion helps there needs!

RIP George.


Keenmeister
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 10/15/10 4:47am

LuneCerise

avatar

JoeTyler said:

erik319 said:

No, you posted that after, so that's backtracking. What you actually said was:

" You're British. That makes a lot of sense rolleyes"

The funniest thing is, I'm an atheist, so don't really care, but if you think I'm in the majority in Britain, then you need to do a bit more research before stereotyping.

rolleyes check the hour when my second message was posted...4:27, LuneCerise posted before that but that's not what I meant, if you don't believe, I don't give a fuck really, specially considering that you're another Dawkins's casualty... rolleyes

That said, I know that there is still a reasonably large proportion of brits who still care for the CoE...

Hey, isn't that the church that became all the rage when they had a king who wanted a divorce and the Emperor of Bibleland said no? Sounds perfectly legit to me. lol

Do U Lie?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 10/15/10 4:47am

JoeTyler

avatar

ZombieKitten said:

who is this Dawkins??????

the ironic/humorous answer would be : the true Antichrist

the serious answer is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...rd_Dawkins

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 10/15/10 4:48am

andykeen

avatar

ZombieKitten said:

who is this Dawkins??????

Haha exactly.......

http://www.youtube.com/wa...yr4gpuyC_4

[Edited 10/15/10 4:49am]


Keenmeister
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 10/15/10 4:49am

erik319

avatar

ZombieKitten said:

who is this Dawkins??????

Richard Dawkins. Hated by religous folks almost as much as Charles Darwen was back in the day.

Random fact for nobody in particular, he's also married to Lalla Ward who used to be Tom Baker's wife and played Romana in Doctor Who in the 70's.

blah blah blah
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 4 1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Why Prince is still married to Mayte