text: You ask, "How is it that you conclude that because I do not subscribe to your "rule" interpretation of what Jesus said about marriage therefore my approach "is the opposite of humble obedience, the opposite of love of God?"
  
  Because: 
  1)  As to whether Jesus' pronouncement is a rule:  
  When an authority says you may not do X, unless Y, that is a "law," a "rule," if you will.  You are obstinate in denying this.  God does not enact statutes; he tells us his law through Scripture and through Jesus himself telling us what to do and not to do.  No reasonable person can deny that Jesus' pronouncement on divorce is a "rule" or a law or a commandment.  
  
  2)  As to the content of the rule:
  Mine is no "interpretation."  The rule's meaning is plain on its face.  You refuse to say what Jesus intended to say about divorce, evading for the third time now.  This is not good faith argument.  That's the least of it.  You're neither humble nor obedient.  
  
  3)  The rule is Jesus', not mine.  
  
  cont'd