The Bible vs Your Heart/Head

Originally posted by xpoferens
That story was wonderful.

Thanks for sharing it.

Regards

Your welcome. I suppose if I were not a believer I too would consider the story as mere myth. It probably would be as believable as the story of Chrsit walking on water. However, that is becasue both stories could not happen apart from suernatural influences.

Originally posted by whodey
However, that is becasue[sic] both stories could not happen apart from suernatural[sic] influences.

I disagree. A fighting couple reconciling isn't quite walking on water.

Christians love to enforce a vow of masochism on their fellow believers.

One of the most perplexing tenets is the prohibition against divorce. I'll discuss this from the spiritual perspective of the church I once attended.

Essentially, you're bound to endure your marriage, no matter cold and lifeless it becomes, when all attempts to fix it have failed. The only legitimate ways to escape are physical abuse or adultery on the part of one spouse. (And perhaps the adultery reason will be disputed by some of the fundies in this thread!)

So what is the recourse? The unhappy spouse goes to prayer groups and 'christian' counseling and waits and waits. The situations that do turn around are attributed instantly to the power of god, and quite a show is made of giving the testimony to the congregation, but those that do not lay quiet in the background. Nobody talks about them very much. People in the unsuccessful situations hear the message of Job quite loudly: God may inflict all manner of sufering on you, and you are not even entitled to ask "Why?". And their counselors demand they remain in this ridiculously impotent, unempowered state ad nauseum.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Christians love to enforce a vow of masochism on their fellow believers.

One of the most perplexing tenets is the prohibition against divorce. I'll discuss this from the spiritual perspective of the church I once attended.

Essentially, you're bound to endure your marriage, no matter cold and lifeless it becomes, when all attempts to fix it have ors demand they remain in this ridiculously impotent, unempowered state ad nauseum.

This is why the Bible says not to be unequally yoked. When you make a vow before God you treat it as such. The vow actually MEANS SOMETHING and should not be taken lightly. It reminds me of the movie "A Beautifal Mind". If you did not see the movie it was about this intellectually gifted individual who was somewhat crazy in the head. He slowly began to drift further and further into madness until he met a young woman whom he married. In the end, it was only the love of the woman that kept him together and he eventually managed to gain control of his faculties and resume a half way productive and normal life via the love of his wife. Had she not been there or decided to bail on him he would have drifted into madness and died alone. In the movie it appeared she had every right to do so and you waited the whole time for her to run off with one of his friends but she inexplicabley stuck it out with him and they were both the happier for it in the end. That is the thing about love. It should not be focused soley on your own needs and happiness. Love is not narcissistic although Hollywood would probably disagree. Then again, look at how long those relationships last and what a shallow existence in which they live.

BTW Christ did not say that divorce was not permitted. What he said was this was not what God plans for in our lives. Christ said that the provision of divorce was made due to the hardness of poeples hearts. Essentially you need two to tango. It therefore should be avoided if possible but never denied if it is deemed as needed.

Originally posted by whodey
This is why the Bible says not to be unequally yoked. When you make a vow before God you treat it as such. The vow actually MEANS SOMETHING and should not be taken lightly. It reminds me of the movie "A Beautifal Mind". If you did not see the movie it was about this intellectually gifted individual who was somewhat crazy in the head. He slowly began to d ...[text shortened]... tango. It therefore should be avoided if possible but never denied if it is deemed as needed.

Do you think God can save Liza Minilli and David Guest's marriage?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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.
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 adul n not with vows, but a scorecard in order to keep track of wrongs and new-found 'rights.'

First, you will have noted that the biblical commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not murder". So, citing examples of evidently justified killing is a good way for me to illustrate my more general point: that moral injunctions on specific matters, if adhered to rigorously under particular extreme circumstances, lead to immoral behaviour, because doing so involves a failure to take in account legitimate collateral considerations.

Second, contrary to your implication, I can support marriage vows generally, and recognize their many merits, without supporting them in every single case. There is a difference between general support and unqualified support. The former is admirable where marriage vows are concerne; the latter is unhelpfully extremist.

Your slipperly-slope argument, that if heinous harpiness legitimates adultery, then shrunken sweat-pants do, is facile and fallacious. A similar form of argument would have it that, because it is wrong for a car to drive fast at 200 kph, it is also wrong for it to drive fast at 100 kph. In any case, I do not generally claim that heinous harpiness legitimates adultery, only that it might, given other specific conditions. This is a very modest and qualified claim, one that contrasts with the sweeping and unqualified claims popular among self-righteous moralists, keen to exhaustively demonstrate their capacity to reproduce biblical passages, to which they kow-tow like servile pups. So your argument carries no force.

Your final statement seeks to impute to me a strawman position I do not hold. Like any reasonable person, I do not believe that the systematic recording of mutual grievances conduces to an uxorious relationship. Moreover, there is nothing in the position I hold that implies that I hold this belief. Hence, your statement is irrelevant, and not a little invidious.

Please feel free to discard your empty rhetoric at any time.

First, you will have noted that the biblical commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not murder".

I believe that it does indeed read "Thou shalt not murder".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]First, you will have noted that the biblical commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not murder".

I believe that it does indeed read "Thou shalt not murder".[/b]

Well, I guess that's a translation/interpretation issue. In the KJV, the word is translated as "kill." But I presume God does mean something like "murder" or "kill without good reason", because he seems to be in favour of certain types of killing in the OT.

In any case, the example serves only to illustrate a point: the validity of point doesn't depend on the precise translation.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Do you think God can save Liza Minilli and David Guest's marriage?

Well since no one has responded I guess it is safe to say that this union is beyond God's grace.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
First, you will have noted that the biblical commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not murder". So, citing examples of evidently justified killing is a good way for me to illustrate my more general point: that moral injunctions on specific matters, if adhered to rigorously under particular extreme circumstances, lead to immoral behavio ...[text shortened]... and not a little invidious.

Please feel free to discard your empty rhetoric at any time.

legitimate collateral considerations
facile and fallacious
servile pups
uxorious relationship
invidious
Please feel free to discard your empty rhetoric at any time.
Sure. Just allow me to get a good thesaurus first, though.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]legitimate collateral considerations
facile and fallacious
servile pups
uxorious relationship
invidious
Please feel free to discard your empty rhetoric at any time.
Sure. Just allow me to get a good thesaurus first, though.[/b]

I'll be waiting patiently for you to fill your linguistic lacunae. A pup is a baby dog, by the way.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
First, you will have noted that the biblical commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not murder". So, citing examples of evidently justified killing is a good way for me to illustrate my more general point: that moral injunctions on specific matters, if adhered to rigorously under particular extreme circumstances, lead to immoral behavio ...[text shortened]... and not a little invidious.

Please feel free to discard your empty rhetoric at any time.

First, you will have noted that the biblical commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt not murder".
'I will have noted' in a bad translation, perhaps. Here's the Hebrew and the transliteration:

la thrtzch
not you-shall-murder

Of course, there are other words and phrases used for the act of killing, as follows, but none of them are labeled murder.

ekuth
to-smite
uergu
and-they-kill, or and-kill
uregthi
and-I-kill
iergni
he-shall-kill-me
emithu
to-put-to-death, or to-let-die-him
ushchtu
and-he-slays-him, or and-slay, or and-they-slay
etc., etc.

that moral injunctions on specific matters, if adhered to rigorously under particular extreme circumstances, lead to immoral behaviour, because doing so involves a failure to take in account legitimate collateral considerations.
You don't get credit for using more words than necessary. Obviously anything taken to an extreme without mind to natural or stated boundaries will result in failure. This shouldn't have to be said.

However, when there is a specific 'injunction' against a specific ending of life that is differentiated from all other forms of ending a life, the thoughtful reader sits up and takes note. Here, murder is viewed differently than the other forms of taking a life, and for good reason. When in doubt, consult the original source.

There is a difference between general support and unqualified support.
You think?

The former is admirable where marriage vows are concerne; the latter is unhelpfully extremist.
Well, since you've lent your blessing, I'm sure that's enough for everyone else. Let us know what else you want to see changed.

In any case, I do not generally claim that heinous harpiness legitimates adultery, only that it might, given other specific conditions. This is a very modest and qualified claim, one that contrasts with the sweeping and unqualified claims popular among self-righteous moralists...
Among said self-righteous moralitsts, apparently you lump the Lord Jesus Christ, who--- in discussing divorce--- authorized divorce because of the hard hearts of the Israelites (and only for audultery). Certainly He knew all the extenuating circumstances one faces in marriage life, and yet He remained steadfast to the original directive; namely, marriage is not to be put away causally or flippantly.

So your argument carries no force.
Tell it to Him.

Like any reasonable person, I do not believe that the systematic recording of mutual grievances conduces to an uxorious relationship. Moreover, there is nothing in the position I hold that implies that I hold this belief. Hence, your statement is irrelevant, and not a little invidious.
Two sentences so rich in ostenatiousness, so glittery and gaudy, they just screamed for another shot at the stage. Well done: you put the 'vid' in IOU's.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Well since no one has responded I guess it is safe to say that this union is beyond God's grace.

Sorry for not responding sooner. Unfortunatly I do not know the details of their relationship or much about either of them. All I know is that with God there is a way. Without God who knows what will happen with them.

Is anything beyond God's grace?

Originally posted by whodey
This is why the Bible says not to be unequally yoked. When you make a vow before God you treat it as such. The vow actually MEANS SOMETHING and should not be taken lightly. It reminds me of the movie "A Beautifal Mind". If you did not see the movie it was about this intellectually gifted individual who was somewhat crazy in the head. He slowly began to d ...[text shortened]... tango. It therefore should be avoided if possible but never denied if it is deemed as needed.

BTW Christ did not say that divorce was not permitted. What he said was this was not what God plans for in our lives. Christ said that the provision of divorce was made due to the hardness of peoples hearts. Essentially you need two to tango. It therefore should be avoided if possible but never denied if it is deemed as needed.

Oh no! I am in total agreement with Whodey! 😲 🙂

But, then again, both my wife and I were divorced (from longstanding abusive and absolutely, wrenchingly, horrible marriages), and perhaps we just don’t like to think that our beautiful, loving relationship of the last 12 years is one of continuing adultery. (Though I have become aware of at least one fairly large Protestant denomination that would not admit us to church membership—if we applied, that is—because of it.)

I wonder if Jesus’ adultery porneia “escape clause” includes continuing abuse, emotionally or physically.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]BTW Christ did not say that divorce was not permitted. What he said was this was not what God plans for in our lives. Christ said that the provision of divorce was made due to the hardness of peoples hearts. Essentially you need two to tango. It therefore should be avoided if possible but never denied if it is deemed as needed.

Oh no! I am in tota ...[text shortened]... s’ adultery porneia “escape clause” includes continuing abuse, emotionally or physically.[/b]

Thank God for Episcopalians and Unitarians.