The Bible vs Your Heart/Head

Originally posted by kirksey957
Thank God for Episcopalians and Unitarians.

Why I became an Episcopalian*--other than that it's the church whose name is the most fun to say.

* Well, not really: at one point it was just a better fit than the Lutheranism I grew up in.

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]

As much as we would like to stretch the bounds (as I'm sure our wives would as well, from time to time), Matthew 5:32 makes the issue more clear than our aspirations would like to hear.

"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoseover shall marry her that is dicorced committeth adultery."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As much as we would like to stretch the bounds (as I'm sure our wives would as well, from time to time), Matthew 5:32 makes the issue more clear than our aspirations would like to hear.

"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoseover shall marry her that is dicorced committeth adultery."

Well, there it is then.

Doesn’t change a thing that I think—nor my appreciation of my marriage as a precious and beautiful thing, nor my absolute refusal to call this loving relationship “adulterous.”

Interesting here, how the “law” is upheld over love, and upheld in such a way as to prevent a battered wife, say, from ever finding intimate love and joy with another, without being an “adulterous.” This is a fundamental problem with strict, literalistic adherence to such texts. (And when does the marriage consist of only the marriage contract? When does one partner’s refusal to love the other—indeed their ongoing hatred of the other—constitute a de facto, if not de jure, dissolution?) I have known people who “celebrated” long-year anniversaries, who—if love and honor are defining principles at all—haven’t been married for years.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... screamed for another shot at the stage. Well done: you put the 'vid' in IOU's.[/b]

You should distinguish between taking issue with my literary style and responding cogently to my arguments. Evidently, ad hominen isn't in your vocabulary either.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As much as we would like to stretch the bounds (as I'm sure our wives would as well, from time to time), Matthew 5:32 makes the issue more clear than our aspirations would like to hear.

"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoseover shall marry her that is dicorced committeth adultery."

Somehow, I doubt whether Jesus, were he to come back today, would be as keen to castigate vistesd for this 12-year long adultery as you are FreakyKBH.

We know you as someone who would in principle approve of God sentencing their own son to an eternity of torment for not believing in Him.

Hence, we listen to your moralistic disquisitions, not to learn how to be better people, but to indulge out incredulity.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, there it is then.

Doesn’t change a thing that I think—nor my appreciation of my marriage as a precious and beautiful thing, nor my absolute refusal to call this loving relationship “adulterous.”

Interesting here, how the “law” is upheld over love, and upheld in such a way as to prevent a battered wife, say, from ever finding intimate love and joy ...[text shortened]... iversaries, who—if love and honor are defining principles at all—haven’t been married for years.

I couldn't agree more. It is a crying shame to see what is meant to be a haven of joy and shared paradise turned into a mockery; a living hell.

But I would also add that the same mockery exists--- that same living hell--- when any manner of life (corporate or otherwise) is not subject to the rules which are intrinsic to existence. It's just a matter of degrees, really. What God put together in the first place, Adam, is an unbelievable spectacle of awe. Likewise with the woman. Doubly so with their union. Who can describe it?

What a sickening contrast, therefore, between the woman and the man before that bite and the two of them afterwards: including their marriage. From shared joy and jubilation to guilt, shame, deceit, finger-pointing, shirking responsibility, etc., etc.

Marriage is not to be entered into lightly, is the point of the post. Your divorce, my divorce will not shred the entire known universe. Even still, I know my failure certainly did not agree with the Maker of the universe.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Somehow, I doubt whether Jesus, were he to come back today, would be as keen to castigate vistesd for this 12-year long adultery as you are FreakyKBH.

We know you as someone who would in principle approve of God sentencing their own son to an eternity of torment for not believing in Him.

Hence, we listen to your moralistic disquisitions, not to learn how to be better people, but to indulge out incredulity.

You obviously read into the post beyond what I intended. It'd be the height of arrogance for me to castigate another for that which I myself am guilty.

I merely cited what the Lord Jesus Christ had to say regarding the subject, as it pertained to a specific conversation.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Somehow, I doubt whether Jesus, were he to come back today, would be as keen to castigate vistesd for this 12-year long adultery as you are FreakyKBH.

We know you as someone who would in principle approve of God sentencing their own son to an eternity of torment for not believing in Him.

Hence, we listen to your moralistic disquisitions, not to learn how to be better people, but to indulge out incredulity.

After reading this the account of David and Bathsheeba come to mind. David entered an adulterous affair with Bathsheeba and then proceeded to kill off her husband. David was then confronted by the prophet Nathan and he immediatly repented. Although God forgave David based upon his repentence, David still had a huge price to pay for his sins.

I hate for anyone who has repented to stay in a mind set of condemnation. It is not what Christianity is all about.

Originally posted by whodey
Although God forgave David based upon his repentence, David still had a huge price to pay for his sins.

Yes. God performed the world's first partial-birth abortion on his newborn son.

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.

1) The whole 'unequally yoked' thingy applies to christians not marrying non-christians. Not much help for matched-faith spouses in a troubled marriage.
2) I don't recall anything about supernatural intervention in "A Beautiful Mind". Seems your example only shows that relationships can be saved without God's help.
3) FreakyKBH recently gave a verse from the gospel of Matthew which points out that divorce is only permitted in the case of 'fornication'. Doing so for any other reason causes both parties to commit adultery. If that's not a prohibition, I'm not sure what is.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]1) The whole 'unequally yoked' thingy applies to christians not marrying non-christians. Not much help for matched-faith spouses in a troubled marriage.

Yes and no. I believe it possible that believers can be unequally yoked as well. There are a wide range of beliefs among believers that can conlfict with one another and differnet levels of maturity.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
2) I don't recall anything about supernatural intervention in "A Beautiful Mind". Seems your example only shows that relationships can be saved without God's help.

Granted, the movie never led one to believe that either one was in the least bit religious. However, the story was based upon a true story and I have my suspicions that the wife had religious roots in real life that was not revealed in the movie.. Nevertheless, I say that she demonstrated many Christian like attributes and that in the end love prevailed against the odds.

One can be a nonbeliever and demonstrate Christian like attributes and reap the rewards for doing so. Likewise, a Chrsitian can demonstrate nonbeliever like attributes and reap the rewards of that behavior as well. I have observed both ends of the spectrum.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
3) FreakyKBH recently gave a verse from the gospel of Matthew which points out that divorce is only permitted in the case of 'fornication'. Doing so for any other reason causes both parties to commit adultery. If that's not a prohibition, I'm not sure what is.[/b]

One of the reasons I brought up the story about David and Bathsheeba was to illustrate the fact that their initial relationship was viewed as adultery. In fact, they both payed a heavy price for their unholy union with the death of their new born son. After all, in reality they both were subject to death via Mosaic law but were spared. However, since David whole heartidly repented, God forgave him and later blessed their union with the birth of Solomon.

God has been known to forgive you know.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You obviously read into the post beyond what I intended. It'd be the height of arrogance for me to castigate another for that which I myself am guilty.

I merely cited what the Lord Jesus Christ had to say regarding the subject, as it pertained to a specific conversation.

Look, Freaky, I will certainly not judge you on your divorce; from the way you write about it, I can only assume it was as heart- and gut-wrenching as mine. Nor will I make any judgement on others.

My point—and I will not debate it—is that I will not denigrate or diminish the subsequent precious jewel of my life by any second-guessing, or regrets or recriminations over the circumstances that permitted it, even the painful ones. Nor will I dishonor it by calling it “adulterous.” Let’s leave it at that, and return to our usual arguments.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes and no. I believe it possible that believers can be unequally yoked as well. There are a wide range of beliefs among believers that can conlfict with one another and differnet levels of maturity.

Hmm, this yoking thing is sounding like a more flexible escape clause than I'd originally thought. If only someone had told Matthew about that before he wrote that verse and embarrassed himself.