The record rather speaks for itself, but whatever. Water under the bridge.
Doesn’t this rather conflict with
Evidence to date, of course, being one actual error and one misunderstood facetious remark.
Yup, I’m convinced.
I Peter 3:3
Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
I’m not sure about glasses.
**
Ah, that explains why I wasn’t familiar with it. I’ve never read Peter.
Zev Steinhardt
Well one worthwhile post in this thread…
It’s almost like he was channeling Christ.
Yes indeed, it does.
No. If indeed it would turn out that you’ve commented extensively on OT themes over the past two years and only made one actual error and one “misunderstood facetious remark” I would agree with you. But this is merely your (apparent) claim. Not likely, based on evidence.
I am not certain that I understand this. Because I made one mistake, you believe it is likely that I have made more?
What’s the point in responding to this mess? Just another long argument. I never made any claims to perfect and without sin. But I sure knew what it was when I was doing it. As to the divorce and remarriage thing, yes I’ve been married before. I decided that it was better to have a spouse than to burn with lust. I’ve been married 3 times, to my regret. My first husband was physically abusive and I stood it as long as I could. “It is better to marry than to burn”. Sorry, don’t have the reference at present.
Many Christians are divided on the issure of marriage and divorce. Needless to say, I’ve asked forgiveness for my past sins. Does that mean that I should forever shut my mouth about what’s right and wrong? I don’t think so.
Well frankly I’m personally skeptical of your “facetious” claim. And while I don’t know if you’ve made more mistakes, I also don’t know if you’ve said anything else on the subject (nor have you even claimed otherwise yourself). So if you’re 0-2, you’re doing pretty badly, and would be advised to use more caution when you get the urge to ridicule Biblical commandments.
pepperlandgirl , that was excellent.
BTW, even though no one asked me, I am a widow.
I’ve been abstinate for 8 and a half years, but i am not burning with lust, as His4Ever so colorfully put it.
I think it’s pretty bad form not to take me at my word at least in this instance, especially since I retracted without prejudice the last time. But here I suppose we must agree to disagree.
I probably have, but honestly, I don’t remember. Since I don’t have the patience to produce a cite one way or another, I did not want to make the claim in the first place.
Though I don’t entirely agree with your interpretation, at least you’re being consistent. Fair enough, I suppose.
So being an adultress is better than lusting? If you stay married, then you are unrepentant, aren’t you? If you are unrepentantly remarried, then you should, indeed, shut your mouth.
By the way it was Paul that said a young man should marry if he can’t control his passions. Does Paul now trump Jesus? It was Jesus who I quoted before that said you are an adultress if you remarry.
I love the way you weasel about “Many Christians are divided on the issure of marriage and divorce.” The quote from Jesus himself is far more direct then the indirect quotes from Paul that you use to tell us that homosexuals are sinners.
Aren’t many Christians divided on the issue of homosexuality, too?
Desperately trying to stay out of the train wreck, but I do have a few questions here. Think of it as a discussion and ignore the Pit ravings, if it helps.
Just to help clarify, under what circumstances would you consider divorce not be sinful? I can understand that one might not consider it a sin in cases of abuse, although I’m unaware of any textual support for such an exception. And Peter cetainly endorses adultery (at least the wife’s adultery) as grounds for divorce. Are there other legitimate reasons? Were either of your own divorces a sin? If so, did you go through with them anyway because God would forgive you?
And how about remarriage? You indicate that you remarried because that was a preferable alternative to “burn[ing] with lust.” Did your lust excuse the sin of adultery Peter says you (or at least your new husband) committed by remarrying? Or was it just okay that you remarried because you knew God would forgive your sin?
Once again, I’m NOT trying to contribute to the train wreck; I’m honestly curious about the answers, and how you reconcile them with your faith.
You know, right after JD and Joe_Cool got engaged, they were at a smallish Doper Dinner. I was seated between them and a gay couple (Cajun Man and Dr. Matrix). I guess I’m lucky to have left alive, I didn’t even SEE the knives that must have flying, or heard the gunshots, not to mention a registered Republican turning his back on Ace0Spades. I thought it was a pleasant little gathering.
BTW, they must shoot like SW Stormtroopers - everyone walked out.
** Maeglin, **
IIRC, the Catholic Church is opposed to sex other than in marriage, and which does not allow for the possibility of conception. This would be opposed to extramarital and premarital sex, or homosexual ACTIVITY (the whole abomination thing). The INCLINATION is not considered a sin, IIRC. There is even dispute on good ol' masturbation (spilling seed).I’d say even if the child was the result of fornication, it’d be kosher. Afterall, you can repent past sins. But choosing to continue to live in sin is why Christians turn away homosexuals from their churches. If Jersey was previously married, then getting remarried is exactly analogous. The sin is living with her new husband and choosing to remain in sin would be hypocritical given why she turns away homosexuals.
FWIW, I think the Good Doctor has hit the nail squarely on the head here. If one chooses to interpret scripture in a literalist fashion, you gotta go all the way with it.
As soon as one says, “The Bible clearly says this; therefore, I must condemn your lifestyle”, that person had better be prepared to justify their life choices that are in “clear conflict” with the Bible. Otherwise, that person is a hypocrite.
Diamond and Cool may choose not to give anymore background on previous marital status, but if they don’t, any faith-based credibility I might have given them will be gone. Just two more people who can’t walk the walk after they have talked the talk.
Another tactic might be to skip the assumptions altogether, and first get the facts, and then Pit the appropriate parties. Just a thought.
But wait! How can one get the facts about another Doper’s personal life, that may or may not involve rape and/or abuse? Color me not surprised if the Doper(s) in question feel that is “personal” and quite possibly, “none of your business.”
Despite strong feelings and harsh words on both sides of recent threads here in the Pit and in GD, I cannot believe that anything from those threads justifies this (or any other) demand that another Doper air her personal history for the sake of confirming or denying your assumptions.
I would be very interested to hear one of the three subjects of this thread explain the fundamentalist interpretation of the passage quoted in the OP. For example, would His4ever refrain from marrying again (if her present hubby divorces her) now that she’s born again?
That’s a good point delphica. However these selfsame posters, particular His4Ever, have no qualms about preaching to the rest of us about our sins. I would not have started this thread if they kept their bigotry to themselves.