23 Sep 06
Originally posted by xpoferensYes, as I have said, he did have remorse for these indescretions or sins. However, when his wife played tapes of Scripture and preaching against what he had done, it always brought back his guilt and despair.
God wouldn't send him a gift that His own Sanctity condemns.
1 Cor. 10
12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, th ...[text shortened]... to judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.
Regards
Do you see what I'm getting at?
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957James 1:13. "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt any man with evil."
He was a Christian. He had repented. Reflecting back on these experiences he wondered if God had sent him a precious gift in these women.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957How do you think Christ would have responded to what he had done?
Yes, as I have said, he did have remorse for these indescretions or sins. However, when his wife played tapes of Scripture and preaching against what he had done, it always brought back his guilt and despair.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957This was your question in the other thread: You said that if Scripture conndemns something as wrong, we should stand against that in support of what Scripture says. I was asking if you ever found any contradictions between what you read in the Bible and what you feel in your heart is right or wrong.
To people of faith who use the Bible as The guiding influence in your life: Have there been experiences in your own life that contradict what you read in the Bible?
Let me give an example. I knew a man once who had had a number of affairs which directly go against the commandment not to commit adultery. Yet, he found his wife incredibly oppressive a ...[text shortened]... sadistic. The only time he really felt blessed and joyful about life was screwing other women.
As I said, I've come to the conclusion that whenever that happened, I was wrong and the Bible right.
Regards
23 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957The key words are, "Go and sin no more."
Where are those who condemn you? Neither do I. Go and sin no more."
This runs contrary to the injunction to stone her.
John 3:17. "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemneation, that the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
The woman in question responded to the mercy of Christ and his love towards her and he won her heart. This is in sharp contrast to the nasty wife who used the Bible to preach condemnation to her husband whom she abhorred. The gospel is suppose to be about the good news and not the bad news nor should it be used as a weapon. The good news is that we do not have to be condemned because of sin. However, if we love the darkness rather than the light our love is not for God, rather, it is for things not pertaining to the light.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyI find the second story to be complete BS.
My question to you is, who do ya love? I must drag out yet another dreaded scripture. 1 John 5:3 says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his ciommandments and his commandments are not burdensome." If you love someone such as your wife, you will do what you know pleases her. It may be difficult, but it is not burdensome. If you do not love your w ...[text shortened]... appy together.
Which story do you find the most compelling? Which outcome was the best?
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is because you are not a believer. A believer knows that the type of love the wife showed her husband exists as does the life changing power of God that was seen in the husband. This type of love the wife showed is of supernatural origins. This is because the natural reaction to someone who means you harm is to strike back and not to love them back. Also, it probably is hard for you as an unbeliever to imagine people changing in such a dramatic fashion as did the husband. However, I have seen it happen time and again and all I can tell you is seeing is believing.
I find the second story to be complete BS.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyThat story was wonderful.
That is because you are not a believer. A believer knows that the type of love the wife showed her husband exists as does the life changing power of God that was seen in the husband. This type of love the wife showed is of supernatural origins. This is because the natural reaction to someone who means you harm is to strike back and not to love them back. ...[text shortened]... . However, I have seen it happen time and again and all I can tell you is seeing is believing.
Thanks for sharing it.
Regards
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957The basic problem here is this: specific moral injunctions lose their morality under exceptional circumstances.
To people of faith who use the Bible as The guiding influence in your life: Have there been experiences in your own life that contradict what you read in the Bible?
Let me give an example. I knew a man once who had had a number of affairs which directly go against the commandment not to commit adultery. Yet, he found his wife incredibly oppressive a ...[text shortened]... sadistic. The only time he really felt blessed and joyful about life was screwing other women.
Thou shalt not kill? Well, maybe it's okay if Hitler is trying to take over Europe, or a madman is about to attack your wife's with a meat cleaver.
Thou shalt not commit adultery? Well, maybe if, for whatever reason, you end up married to heinous harpy, there might be grounds for it, or if both parties, as occasionally happens, are okay with it.
God would be intelligent enough to understand why such qualifications might apply. Unfortunately, some of his self-styled servants, obsessed with parroting back fetishized phrases from the Good Book, in a frantic attempt to establish their own righteousness, either lack such Godly intelligence, or are perversely motivated not to apply it.
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThou shalt not kill? Well, maybe it's okay if Hitler is trying to take over Europe, or a madman is about to attack your wife's with a meat cleaver.
The basic problem here is this: specific moral injunctions lose their morality under exceptional circumstances.
Thou shalt not kill? Well, maybe it's okay if Hitler is trying to take over Europe, or a madman is about to attack your wife's with a meat cleaver.
Thou shalt not commit adultery? Well, maybe if, for whatever reason, you end up married t ...[text shortened]... ghteousness, either lack such Godly intelligence, or are perversely motivated not to apply it.
The distinction here is murder, not killing. Within the framework of society, killing is justified whereas murder is not. You gave two examples of killing, not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery? Well, maybe if, for whatever reason, you end up married to heinous harpy, there might be grounds for it, or if both parties, as occasionally happens, are okay with it.
Marriage is one of the frameworks of society, a binding, legal contractual agreement meant to be fulfilled. Breaking such contracts rips away at that framework.
If you allow a man to seek marriage-only acts outside of his recognized relationship simply due to his wife's 'harpiness,' why not also allow him the same access when she shrinks his favorite sweat pants? For that matter, maybe every marriage should begin not with vows, but a scorecard in order to keep track of wrongs and new-found 'rights.'
23 Sep 06
Originally posted by kirksey957Of coarse it is possible. I have no beef with you in that regard. I simply do not see why quoting scripture is not preferable. If you follow the life of Christ you will see that he went around quoting scripture. Why do you think that was and are we not to try and be more Christ-like?
The question is not is it preferable, but rather is it possible and according to St. Paul in Romans it is. Your beef is with Holy Scripture and not me.