The Bible vs Your Heart/Head

Originally posted by whodey
I do not think the story of David and Bathsheba is a poor example of divorce. After all, we are talking about couples getting married after being married to someone else. Granted, Bathsheba was then a widow after David killed her husband off, however, we are still talking about an adulterous affair that later remarried. Is the message then that if you kill ...[text shortened]... hrist we are condemned already because we are sinners and must then pay for our sins. John 3:17

The D&B story isn't a good example of an adulterous affair, either. He uses his power as King to take her by force. B can't be blamed for cheating on her husband. The whole thing was closer to a rape than an affair. In an affair, the [person who cheats] is necessarily at fault.

The simple fact of the matter is that, in the OT times, there was no penalty for divorce. The NT verse from Matthew confirmed that God allowed it due to the 'hardness of [their] hearts'. David was punished for his kidnapping and murder, not for marrying a previously-married woman.

It's disingenuous to lump re-married people in with the kidnappers and rapists. If even your God viewed divorce as allowable (although not desirable), yet never permitted murder, that shows that even he views them quite differently. Calling them all 'sin', as if there was no moral difference between the three acts, is drastically over-simplifying the case, or worse, attempting to pull people down to the same low common moral denominator, and guilt-trip them all accordingly.

Edits: apparently the site doesn't allow the word that begins with 'c' and ends with 'heater'.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The D&B story isn't a good example of an adulterous affair, either. He uses his power as King to take her by force. B can't be blamed for cheating on her husband. The whole thing was closer to a rape than an affair. In an affair, the [person who cheats] is necessarily at fault.

The simple fact of the matter is that, in the OT times, there was no pe ...[text shortened]... arently the site doesn't allow the word that begins with 'c' and ends with 'heater'.

I hate to break it to you but if you sin you are a sinner and are in the same boat with all sinners no matter their offense. There may be differing penalties to some degree but the ultimate penalty is death which is to be had by all sinners. Then enters Christ and his grace for those sinners. He offers grace to all and all are in the same boat in this regard no matter their offense. He does not offer condemnation but mercy. This is all I was trying to convey. If it offends you then so be it.

Originally posted by whodey
I hate to break it to you but if you sin you are a sinner and are in the same boat with all sinners no matter their offense. There may be differing penalties to some degree but the ultimate penalty is death which is to be had by all sinners. Then enters Christ and his grace for those sinners. He offers grace to all and all are in the same boat in this rega ...[text shortened]... r condemnation but mercy. This is all I was trying to convey. If it offends you then so be it.

That's nice. What does all that have to do with David & Bathsheba, or the topic of divorce?

You still haven't sold me on the idea of divorce as a (biblical) sin, because God allowed it in the OT times. The bible's God has no tolerance for sin. If divorce were a sin, he'd never allow it.

I swear, watching christians use OT stories to defend their cherished NT philosophies is like watching someone pound a square peg into a round hole.

Originally posted by vistesd
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 rec ...[text shortened]... honor it by calling it “adulterous.” Let’s leave it at that, and return to our usual arguments.

I didn't realize we were at odds on this subject. Even after rea-reading the posts, I can't see anything which could be taken in such a way as to cause pain or discomfort. But then again, I'm not the swiftest at sensing those types of things, either.

I apologize for anything I said which may have caused hurt; I certainly did not intend to do so. As you have pointed out, divorce (even for relief) is an indescribable torment that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Perhaps I was too flippant in my representation of the subject. Again, my apologies.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
That's nice. What does all that have to do with David & Bathsheba, or the topic of divorce?

You still haven't sold me on the idea of divorce as a (biblical) sin, because God allowed it in the OT times. The bible's God has no tolerance for sin. If divorce were a sin, he'd never allow it.

I swear, watching christians use OT stories to defend their cherished NT philosophies is like watching someone pound a square peg into a round hole.

Where did I say divorce was a sin? Granted, it is not part of Gods plan and therefore it is implied that sins were committed to lead to that action since it was not part of God's plan to begin with. For example, we as believers have a right to divorce if the other party has sex outside the marriage. It is merely an option open to us. It does not mean that the believer filing for a divorce sinned by doing so nor is a mandate to do so, rather, it is acknowledging that it takes two to tango and if you do not have an active participant to do so in a marriage then you are free to let them go. It is a judgement call. I was using the D&B story not to bash people who divorce and remarry, rather, to show that God can forgive such actions assuming that one or both parties seek such forgiveness. I was attempting to lift up individuals such as Visted rather than condemn. Perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions.😀

Originally posted by whodey
Where did I say divorce was a sin? Granted, it is not part of Gods plan and therefore it is implied that sins were committed to lead to that action since it was not part of God's plan to begin with.

A dangerous assumption. Some people get married and find they're not as compatible as they thought. Cohabitation can introduce a level of friction not seen in the dating world (person X keeps a neat and orderly house, while person Y leaves it messy, etc.).

I believe it's quite possible for a relationship to go sour without anyone actually being at fault. Certain couples just aren't a good match. Does that mean their marriage was a mistake? Not necessarily. It's not possible to know everything about your fiancee before marriage.

I find it odd that people are expected to get it right the first time. And if you didn't, too bad! You're stuck for life. Unless you can induce her to cheat on you, that is. But don't worry, God and his followers will still forgive and accept you, as long as you acknowledge, and let them repeatedly remind you, just how badly you screwed up. But they're not trying to condemn you. Honest.

And don't try to remarry, either. Past sins don't justify another sin of adultery. The only penance you can do to make up for your failure to remain married for life is to remain unmarried for life.

Originally posted by vistesd
All through the Torah!

In Judaism neither joy nor suffering are strictly “spiritualized.” Judaism does not separate spirit or soul and body. And joy is far more closely related to holiness than is suffering. The just (tzaddikim) are not expected to suffer. The "suffering servant" (from Isaiah) is not an ideal. Suffering happens—it is not sough ...[text shortened]... ur God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame.

Do these verses deal with merely a ritualistic adherence to the Law or a more personally involved, internal adherence?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I didn't realize we were at odds on this subject. Even after rea-reading the posts, I can't see anything which could be taken in such a way as to cause pain or discomfort. But then again, I'm not the swiftest at sensing those types of things, either.

I apologize for anything I said which may have caused hurt; I certainly did not intend to do so. As y ...[text shortened]... yone. Perhaps I was too flippant in my representation of the subject. Again, my apologies.

“A city open, without walls, is one who has no restraint on his spirit.”

I opened myself up—and worse, did not preserve the walls of protection for my spouse—by giving myself as an example. That is my fault.

Yes, you were too flippant. I left the church (physically, not theologically—at the time or for that reason) because it was not the safe haven that I sought during the hard times—quite the opposite. But the really hurtful stuff came later: finding love again and remarrying was apparently the worse sin. And the “good Christian folk” were a lot harder on my wife then than on me.

I reject those judgments, without regard to who pronounced or pronounces them. That statement of Jesus alone would keep me from being a Christian (I am talking about the remarriage part here!). Why? Because it interferes with my sinful desires? Well, some might say so, but I reject that out of hand as well (I hate it when Christians pretend to know more about what goes on in my mind than I do.) I reject it personally because it both insults and treats inconsiderately the one I love and, who is beautiful to me beyond measure; and I reject it because I find it legalistic, uncompassionate toward people who have suffered, and morally repugnant.

There are two kinds of people in the world that I call principle-people and people-people. Most are a mix; think of it as a continuum. Errors can occur on either end: by principle-people who proclaim and impose the strictness of their principles no matter who it harms; and by people-people whose leniency itself can cause more suffering. Nevertheless, I once believed that the gospel message was that God was more of (or had moved more toward being) a people-people sort than was portrayed in the ‘OT,’ or that compassion was being revealed as the greater principle. I have discovered that that belief is untenable. I have found rabbinical Judaism (the Judaism of the dual Torah, not that aberration called “the religion of the ‘Old Testament’” ), as it has evolved, and despite criticisms that I might level at certain behaviors by certain “denominational” groups, is relatively far more compassionate than Christianity.

Do I accept your apology? I don’t understand your apology. No, I don’t think it was your intention to cause hurt, or to indirectly insult my wife. (And, again, I was the one who opened the walls of my city—a terrible failure on my part.) But Jesus’ pronouncement insults us both; we are both, in Christian eyes, fated to wear that “scarlet letter” for the rest of our lives, and to seek forgiveness for our “sin” of living a married life together. I do not accept that judgment of “sin.” I refuse to wear that “scarlet letter.” And how you judge that, I am not sure at this point. I don’t see how you, as a Christian, can renounce Jesus’ proclamation in this point. I don’t know how a Christian can look at my marriage and not see that scarlet letter; I don’t know how a Christian can treat my marriage with equal regard to those whose original marriages remain intact (whatever else those marriages might entail); I don’t know how a Christian can treat my marriage with equal regard to the position of a divorced person who remains celibate for the rest of their lives. And I refuse to accept any such judgments of “unequal regard.”

Now I am likely to insult a lot of people by my next statement—

By and large, I have found that Christians are not safe people to be around. There are many, many exceptions! On this site there are exceptions! (“Some of my best friends are Christians”.) And this is not to say that there are not other religious people who are also unsafe, or even more so.

But I repeat, by and large I have found that Christians are not safe people to be around—even though their intentions be honorable and good. Always better to keep your walls intact.

Note my care not to generalize beyond that “I have found.” It is only my experience. Perhaps those who feel personally insulted by my statement should examine themselves on the question, before they reactively rail at me.

Originally posted by whodey
Where did I say divorce was a sin? Granted, it is not part of Gods plan and therefore it is implied that sins were committed to lead to that action since it was not part of God's plan to begin with. For example, we as believers have a right to divorce if the other party has sex outside the marriage. It is merely an option open to us. It does not mean that ...[text shortened]... up individuals such as Visted rather than condemn. Perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions.😀

I understood that, Whodey. But I have to say this—

I might ask forgiveness for a lot of things having to do with my first marriage, but the divorce itself is not one of them (except, perhaps, for delaying as long as I did, trying to “make it work”—but even then, had I divorced sooner, I might not have met my now wife when I did; that is why I say I cannot regret even the worst parts: it’s hard to say that one can unravel one strand in the fabric of one’s life without unraveling the others as well). The divorce itself (speaking for my situation alone here) was a just act that created the potential for everyone to live a happier and healthier life.

My wife has nothing, absolutely nothing, to ask forgiveness for in terms of her divorce.

Neither one of us asks forgiveness for our love and our life together.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do these verses deal with merely a ritualistic adherence to the Law or a more personally involved, internal adherence?

The second. What in Judaism is called kavannah, which might be loosely translated as “intentionality.”

As a matter of fact, for example, it is itself a mitzvah to violate the Sabbath rules in order to save a life. The rabbis have interpreted this to mean any case where a life might be threatened—such as seeking medical attention for a cut finger that could, conceivably, become infected and life-threatening. (It is definitely lawful to heal on the Sabbath.)*

I also recall reading a Talmudic statement to the effect that it is better to violate the mitzvot for a just intention, than to keep a strict adherence. I’ll see if I can find it. Meanwhile, here is a story about Rabbi Hillel, who was an older contemporary of Jesus:

Hillel was once accosted by a gentile who said he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of Torah in the time the gentile could stand on one leg. (Shammai had kicked the gentile out when the same question was posed to him.) Hillel responded: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary.” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a)

______________________________

* EDIT: Well, perhaps that isn't really on point. The following are better (the first one is, I think, the one I was remembering):

Rab Nahman ben Isaac said: “Better is a transgression performed with a good intention, than a mitzvah without it.” (BT, Nazir, 23)

Rabbi Eleazar said: “If a man prays only according to the exact text of the prayer and adds nothing from his own mind, his prayer is not proper.” (BT, Berakot, 28)

Prayer without kavannah is like a body without a soul. (Shalah, 249, Tamid, quoting the sages)

The ritual and ceremonial commandments will be abolished in the future that is to be. (BT, Niddah, 61b)

Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said: “Greater is he who acts from love than he who acts from fear (of God).” (BT, Sotah, 31a)

Originally posted by vistesd
“A city open, without walls, is one who has no restraint on his spirit.”

I opened myself up—and worse, did not preserve the walls of protection for my spouse—by giving myself as an example. That is my fault.

Yes, you were too flippant. I left the church (physically, not theologically—at the time or for that reason) because it was not the safe haven t ...[text shortened]... ed by my statement should examine themselves on the question, before they reactively rail at me.

Good post.

I suppose I could be characterized as principle-people in principle, but a people-people in practice. The doctrine that I hold to--- while intended for public consumption--- is not of a nature that requires me to force it down said public's throat. When called upon, I feel comfortable in providing a reasonably solid response backed up by the factors to which I give most credence: Bible doctrine, reason and academic discipline.

That being said, that doctrine has taught me an over-arching theme relative to people. Namely, live and let live. As stated, unlike the kid in "The Big Kahuna," I am not compelled to make sure everyone in my periphery shares in my load of guilt. Quite the opposite, actually: I have no guilt. That is to say, the doctrine I have learned teaches that guilt is not part of the Christian life, and futher, such emotional outbursts are just as 'sinful' as any other sin, overt or otherwise.

This lack of having to feel guilty over real and imagined sins is liberating to an indescribable degree. But it also informs me of other relative aspects of the Christian life. Specifically, as long as there is life, there is hope. That is why it is imperative that we understand every bit of Scripture within the context intended, taking painstaking care to ensure we aren't 'out to lunch' on any pet doctrines or ideas. Such imbalance leads to all kinds of instability and, quite frankly, life's already full of its own troubles.

Knowing that life carries with it the promise of hope, whatever mistakes I have made are past and do not need to be harbringers of my future. Some legalistic moralists will insist that I, too, am 'living in sin,' with a 'scarlet letter,' because of my remarriage. With all due respect, screw them.

If they have the temerity to cross that road toward me, I can only hope they have the fortitude to withstand the Mack truck of my indignation meeting them half-way.

With a clear mind and conscience, I entered into marriage a second time. God--- through Bible doctrine--- gave me that clear conscience; no one but me can take it away.

FreakyKBH Knowing that life carries with it the promise of hope, whatever mistakes I have made are past and do not need to be harbringers of my future. Some legalistic moralists will insist that I, too, am 'living in sin,' with a 'scarlet letter,' because of my remarriage. With all due respect, screw them.

If they have the temerity to cross that road toward me, I can only hope they have the fortitude to withstand the Mack truck of my indignation meeting them half-way.[/b]

double post

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good post.

I suppose I could be characterized as principle-people in principle, but a people-people in practice. The doctrine that I hold to--- while intended for public consumption--- is not of a nature that requires me to force it down said public's throat. When called upon, I feel comfortable in providing a reasonably solid response backed up by th ...[text shortened]... gh Bible doctrine--- gave me that clear conscience; no one but me can take it away.

Well said. Handshakes and toasts of l'chaim! all around!