Noodle - huh?

This seems to be one of the most illogical rationales I've seen in a while.

While we are using your "moral yardstick" to be the defining judge, perhaps we should kick almost all actors/actresses out of the film industry.

What constitutes a "pivotal" role? Kids are innundated with the "morality" of movies, by actors and actresses who themselves display extremely immoral behavior in their own personal lives.

And they often FLAUNT it.

How about the music industry?

Kids listen to tons of music that not only have very "bad" lyrics, but that are performed by people with "immoral" lifestyles.

Just WHERE does this "slippery slope" of "black listing" you propose stop?

FH... do you ever... EVER answer a question without going into a long winded... constantly veering off topic reply/ Can you ever reply to a question without bringing the religious aspect into it?

And remember FH that not everyone is a Christian. It seems like every post that you put out there anymore has this slant that implies that any non Christian is incapable of having a good marriage or an understanding of something beyond their worldly boundaries.

FH... have you read the replies to your posts of late? You have become so enamoured with YOUR view of Christianity that you are failing to see the impact your words are having on others.

I have no confusion over this issue. I am not here to be "educated" by you FH. Don't preach Gospel to me FH... because IMO, you are not qualified to do so at this time. That is not meant as an attack... it is meant as a request from one Christian to another. I find your "brand" of Christianity to be pretty distasteful at times and really don't need these replies directed towards me. I have defended your ways in the past, but frankly they are coming across more as an exercise to say.. "see, how smart I am and how right I am"... rather than anything constructive.

MEDC - Yes.




I do.




Didn't say that. And you know it.




Yep.




If you have a problem with my "view" of Christianity, then argue it with the Scripture as to why my "view" might be incorrect. I'll listen and evaluate.




Fair enough. Now how about you stopping your trying to "educate" others by your feelings and thoughts on any given subject?




Okay. What "flavor" of Christianity would you prefer?




Well that may be. I can't help the perceptions of others. That is also why I try to be very careful to "back up" or "support" an opinion with Scripture, and why I welcome any other believer to do the same.

So, without answering any of the legitimate questions put to you, you resort to yet another ad hominem attack to "make your point?" You state your position as THE position in a "coming across more as an exercise to say.. "see, how smart I am and how right I am"... rather than anything constructive."

The person you are attacking is Jilly, another believer. AS with all believers, it is God's Word, not our own "opinion" that is the final authority, whether we like it or not.

I take it you are saying that you don't like it? Is that it?

I have to say this we in this life all have our own crosses to bear. I don't think anyone would want a past mistake to dictate the rest of their life. Why are you all being so hard on JJ? I think in the handling of her sitch before you reply to her you should think WWJD?

I would like to ask that, if possible, this thread could continue to be a discussion of Jilly's scripture questions. No matter who the sinner, or how entrenched the sin was, Jesus did not hesitate at the chance to lift someone closer to His Father.

It seems like a good idea to take the marital discussion elsewhere, which I think has already been done. If not, no time like the present.

Should it be too offensive to even discuss the Bible with Jilly, then this should move, too I suppose, though I hope that would not be the case.

FH...

Let me clear it up for you and make it very simple.

In order for me to trust someone with my child they must demonstrate to me that they have good judgement which meets MY standard.

I would venture to say that MOST parents do not consider a drug addict to be a person with good judgement whether they have a moral objection to her affair marriage or not.

It really has nothing to do with her "forgiven" status if such a status should apply.

To be very specific I would suggest that most if not all roles that required people to trust your judgement are and should be extremely discriminating.

Question: Can the sin of adultery be forgiven?

Answer: Moichos (Greek word for "adultery") is defined as, "...unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 1, pg. 32). Fornication (porneia) is illicit sexual intercourse (Ibid, Vol. 2, pg. 125). Adultery is a specific for the more generic fornication. Sometimes these two words are used interchangeably (cf. Matt. 5: 32; 19: 9).

Adultery is a terrible sin. All sin is horrible (Rom. 6: 23), but some sins are more injurious to innocent people. The innocent husband or wife is severely traumatized by an unfaithful mate. Children suffer because of the marital problems caused by adultery. Society is falling apart, largely because of the deterioration of the family - adultery is often the cause.

Adultery can be forgiven. There are two areas to be explored in answering our question. There is the mate who has been sinned against and there is God. Adultery is a sin against one’s mate (Mk. 10: 11). If one is penitent, the sinned against mate is to forgive them. However, I am persuaded the wronged mate has the right to put away, especially in certain circumstances. God will forgive the penitent adulterer. God forgave the Corinthians, some of whom had been adulterers (I Cor. 6: 9-11).

I have often encountered the argument that "if adultery can be forgiven, then unscriptural marriages may be continued." While we without hesitation affirm adultery can be forgiven, we just as certainly affirm such forgiveness does not mean adulterous marriages are allowed to continue. Jesus said they commit adultery (Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). "Commit adultery" is from the Greek moichatai. This word is third person, singular, present tense, and in the indicative mood (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 272). In other words, they continue to commit adultery as long as they actively remain in the relationship.

Did you know that in the early church there were two unforgivable sins?

It's true. One was the sin against the Holy Spirit. The other was the sin of public adultery. By public they meant once exposed and confronted it continued out in the open.

Now, since this was in the original pure uncompromising no interpretation church so espoused by some purists here, what does this say about A marraiges?

“If you have a problem with my "view" of Christianity, then argue it with the Scripture as to why my "view" might be incorrect. I'll listen and evaluate.”

“Well that may be. I can't help the perceptions of others. That is also why I try to be very careful to "back up" or "support" an opinion with Scripture, and why I welcome any other believer to do the same.”

OK, I have a problem with your view of Christianity.

Matthew 5 32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Matthew 19 9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Mark 10 11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mark 10 12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16 18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.

2 Peter 2 14 Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls, having their heart exercised with covetousness, children of malediction.


None of these passages from scripture need what you call interpretation or context. They are as plain and uncompromising as the nose on your face.

You cannot explain these instructions away. You cannot mitigate them.

You cannot make an affair marriage acceptable in any way.

You are a cult of one, FH. You are in grievous error, and you are a fraud.

Your soul is in danger, IMO, and you lead innocents away from the truth.

I will pray for you.

Noodle - Thanks for the clarification. I don't see any disagreement there. It is a personal choice. For example, I would have the same feeling you expressed about a homosexual being the teacher, if their homosexuality became an issue, since I consider homosexuality to be highly offensive to me and my beliefs.

The question would seem to be one of whether or not "my" feeling on the issue should be applied regardless of what anyone else thought. The "alternative" would be for me to enroll my children in some other school that might be more "in line" with my evaluation of who should, or should not, be a teacher of children, my children in particular.

The "question," it would seem, is do I have a right to demand the expulsion of any such individual who does not "measure up" to my personal likes or beliefs simply because I make the assumption that everyone else might be similarly offended, or that "some" of the other people might be similarly offended. It's the old "slippery slope" issue again.

Sure I do because I am the employer [grins].

Firing a teacher might mean that I move MY child and everyone who does not object can enjoy ther fruits of their choices.

Unfortunately I will not have the opportunity unless by accident because addicts lie...it's what they do...it's what she is doing...and when they lie they take away the choices of people who have misplaced their trust.

Every job I am aware of has a standard...fall short of it and you SHOULD be fired.

The slope gets slippery when we confuse mercy and grace with enabling.

Aphelion - no need to "explain these verses away." I happen to agree with them.




That's correct. I cannot. Only God can, and then only for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Or are you saying that there are some sins that God cannot forgive and make the individuals "white as snow" (sinless) in His eyes?




That is always a possibility with any person, myself included. So let's hear you cite where you think I am a "fraud" and a "cult" in my belief that God is Sovereign and Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

Accusations and opinions are fine, but now it is incumbent upon you to provide the specifics of your reasoning that you use to arrive at such a conclusion.




In what way do think my soul is in danger? In danger of what? In danger of losing my salvation? Please clarify exactly what you mean.




Thank you. I appreciate all prayers of supplication and intercession. Please direct them to the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ, that the Father's will may be done in my life.

Imo FH... and this is just my opinion, you really would benefit from some serious psychological counseling. You have become so enamoured with yourself... not God...that I seriously question your mental health. I hope you find the help that you so obviously need. I am genuinely worried about you.

I too will pray for you.

As an example FH... why is it in just the last two days you have had three Christian's express concern about your manner... and one atheist state that it is people like you that make him/her glad they are not a Christian.??? Do you really think you are being a good witness?

You mentioned in your previous post that you would do the same if the teacher were found to be practicing homosexual [remove your child].

I'd like to borrow from that analogy.

In the past you have been asked...what if a person were legally "married" to a same sex partner...what if they became "saved".

Could that relationship similarly be washed up and now acceptable or would they need to leave the "marriage" in order to obey their newfound beliefs?

See I agree with you that a persons sins are forgiven, I eventhink they can sin again and still be forgivien...what I disagree with you about is that sins cease to be sins when you have been forgiven.

Murder committed after salvation is still murder...homosexuality likewise even if you are "married" to your partner...what loophole is adultery sliding through that allows you to encourage her to continue to pursue it rather than turn away from it?

Noodle - <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> This could be an interesting discussion all by itself, imho.

"Unfortunately I will not have the opportunity unless by accident because addicts lie...it's what they do...it's what she is doing...and when they lie they take away the choices of people who have misplaced their trust."

No different in the case of a homosexual teacher, eh?


"Every job I am aware of has a standard...fall short of it and you SHOULD be fired."

They do. And the workplace is replete with examples of people who should be fired, but who are not, beginning in the corridor of the Oval Office to the "least" of workplaces.


"Sure I do because I am the employer [grins]."

Allow me to "grin" with you. I hired a homosexual and put him in charge of his department with full "hiring/firing" responsibility. After he resigned, he sicced the State on me for being "discriminatory" toward homosexuals. The State found no basis for his accusation, especially since I hired him and gave HIM the "hire/fire" responsibility for his department (billing and collections), he resigned on his own (didn't know it at the time but he was being treated for aids) and was not fired by me, and that there was no discrimination of any kind in evidence at our company.


"The slope gets slippery when we confuse mercy and grace with enabling. "

Indeed.

I don't know, MEDC. But in the interest of brevity in answering a question, what do you think makes a "good witness?"

And while you are at it, you could even toss in what the Christians believe with respect to how one is saved and what sins are forgiven when they are saved. That way we'll have a better idea of "common ground" on which to potentially answer your question. The opinion of an atheist is just that, an opinion of an atheist concering anything related to God, which, by definition, they deny and would be opposed to any "Christian" and anything related to God. It isn't me, or you for that matter, that an atheist "rejects," it is God, and especially Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Please don't assume that was asked in a "sarcastic" tone. It wasn't. It was asked in the sincere desire for clear communication of what someone thinks and believes. Unless "terms" are clearly understood, there is much room for misunderstanding, nicht so?

FH... I asked YOU if you think you are being a good witness... what is confusing about that question? This is part of the problem... you just can't answer a question. "Terms" don't need to be discussed... you could have answered the question...and if need be explain anything that might be confusing. FH... why are you an island of one with your Christianity???

MEDC - if it pleases you to attack me, please continue. Let me see...."have I stopped beating my wife yet?"

I asked you a very simple question for clarification of your use of the word "good," and how YOU, the questioner, defined that term, and you again dodge the issue and resort to attacking me.

So, again in the interest of brevity, let me say that I try as best I can to stand on the revealed Word of God. Does that make me "error proof?" Of course not. No human being, including the Pope, who many consider to be "infallible" when speaking "ex cathedra," are "error proof."

Am I a "good witness," in whatever definition you choose, I don't know. AM I a "good witness" in how I stand on the Word of God regardless of the opinions of other men, I leave that judgment to God. Do I TRY to be a "good witness," as I see it according to the commands of God? Yes, I do try. Am I always "successful?" Nope. Not even Jesus "successfully witnessed" to everyone he spoke to, if you define "success" as "getting some to accept what he was saying." That didn't make Jesus a "bad witness" either, did it?

So I guess I'm in "good company." But that, too, is WHY I stress going to the Word of God whenever there is a disagreement of opinion between believers. That is the "essence" of Sola Scriptura, and in the arena of forgiveness of sin, Sola Fide.

How deep do you want to take this opinion of "good witness," MEDC. I am willing to discuss it further if you will state your definition of what YOU mean by "good witness."

Where would you like to start?

How someone is saved?

What sins are forgiven when they are a saved child of God?

What does repentance mean?

Can someone lose their salvation? (though that already was being discussed until the "posse" arrived to attack Jilly's mere presence here and to excoriate me for having the "audacity" to speak to her about anything other than "you must divorce your husband, period!"

How about the infallibility of the Pope? (though I am sure that there would be a lot of Christians who are Catholic who might object to any notion that the Pope could be fallible, ex cathedra notwithstanding.

How about what DOES make one a Christian, by biblical definition?

How about differences in beliefs of those who consider themselves Christians?

Just how far do you want to take this notion of "good witness" to others?

Noodle, another interesting discussion topic that could be a "thread of of its own." So let's see if I can address your scenario as briefly as possible to avoid "a long thread." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />




The premise is wrong, therefore the conclusion would be flawed. There is no "same sex marriage." Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Anything else is an abomination to the Lord.

But, to extend your question, IF a homosexual truly accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they would become subject to the commands of God. They would have a "new nature," and a desire to please God first, not themselves first. They would recognize that homosexuality is unacceptable to God, who created and instituted marriage and the purpose for marriage, between one man and one woman.

They would then exercise their "free will" to deny "self" and to follow God. There was no "marriage" to end and there was no "marriage" to divorce. There WAS a sin to stop doing, period.




I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. Sin IS sin. THE consequence of sin (not being saved) is what is removed when a believer accepts Jesus Christ. Other consequences of sin (the effects of sin) are not necessarily removed. Sometimes we have to live the rest of our lives with those consequences (i.e., and STD or an Other Child).

If what you are trying to say is that anyone who divorces for any reason (unless they happen to be the Faithful Spouse of a spouse who committed adultery) and then remarries ANYONE else, affair partner or not, IS living in a marriage founded in adultery, that even IS adulterous by virtue of the fact that the people committed adultery when they married, I AGREE with you.

But what is being advocated here is the "marital equivalent" of "if thy hand offend thee, cut if off; if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."

God is NOT telling us TO DO those things, He is telling us that if they cannot be controlled, they are sinning, and in need of repentance and a turning to God, not that we are to mutilate the flesh as some way to "show" your repentance is real.

In whatever state a person finds themselves, God says "come to me and I will give you rest." He does NOT say "come to me only if you DO such and such."

Anyway, just some thoughts to hopefully address some of your questions.