quote:

---

Okay, responses:

quote:

---

Selah: What I am painfully trying to ask is simply this: "How is adultry ongoing, while murder, fornication, gossiping, stealing, lying, gluttony etc. are all things we can cease and repent of?" (even though each one knocks us down a notch from God's Ideal "a")

Doc: I think you’re making a good point. (down to 5 minutes left. Must hurrrrrry). Jesus DOES say remarriage involves adultery. But he doesn’t revoke God’s permission to remarry. In fact, he assumes it. It’s very very difficult (viz. Impossible) to read his words any other way. (Anyone want to give it a try?). Yet, this is NOT the exact same thing as adultery when a person is ALREADY MARRIED to another – any more than adultery in the mind (lusting after someone) is exactly the same as adultery with the body. In remarriage one enters into a new covenant with a partner, and this is good. Its not the same as breaking a covenant of marriage by having sex with another person.

Remarriage differs radically from the other sins you mentioned because it is the loving thing to do in some situations, whereas the other sins are never "the loving thing to do."

---

selah: Thanks Greg. This is very good!!

(*there was a part here I deleted, because after rereading your post...I figured it out ;))

quote:

---

I think if a person think about these issues less out of a technical knowledge of good and evil and more out of a mind set that just asks, "what is the loving thing to do," we see most of these distinctions quite clearly.

---

selah: well, I think we all need grace, and more time to renew our minds to this way of thinking. But, indeed, 'setting our minds' is clearly the goal!!! (I love the way you said it)

quote:

---

Selah: Adultry is just a label. It is not something that remains over you all your life. It is not the unforgivable sin. It is less than God's ideal for some, but it is something that can be completely forgiven and only God and you know if you've made it "right" before God. (in my mind there is a degree of difference between mocking God by being casual about divorcing and remarrying vs. being young and/or completely faked out by the spouse)


Doc: I agree completely about the forgivability of all sin. But I don’t see how this means "adultery is just a label." I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

---

selah: If you are forgiven (completely) of something by God, the necessity for anyone to tell you, you are "in adultry" is zipO. At least in my opinion. If you're on the receiving side, and don't have a filter, it may be seen as judgement.

quote:

---

Doc: When you say that adultery is "less than God’s ideal for some…" I’m wondering, is it EVER God’s ideal for some? I think the answer is clearly no.

---

selah: Sorry. I guess the wording on that was bad. So, I agree!

quote:

---

Doc: Is it ever the best GIVEN THE REAL SITUATION OF A PERSON? Now it becomes an issue of what KIND of adultery you’re talking about. The adultery involved in remarriage may be.

---

selah: This is helpful, yes!

[quote]
Jesus point – and its always vital to ask ourselves about any passage, what is the main point of the context – is not to prohibit remarriage or to make remarried people feel bad. It was to confront the religious MEN who felt justified in "putting away their wives" (their PROPERTY in the first century) for frivolous reasons. Religious men were trying to trip Jesus up with technicalities – their precious knowledge of good and evil, employed (as it always is) for self-serving purpose. Jesus blows them all away by showing that there very question arises out of sin, that all divorce (and remarriage, which is simply assumed) is a break from God’s ideal, and hence that all of (20 seconds left) of these religious folk are sinners. He was, I believe, trying to jar them out of their getting life from their knowledge of good and evil and get them to admit they are sinners – in order to lead them to a grace/love stance rather than a self-justifiying/judgment of others stance.

Bye
GREG

---

quote:

---

Semeia:

I'm curious why you would qualify, and say I am only making this point to a "certain degree"? It seems to me that this is the point I have made over and over on this thread and numerous other threads, many of which you have also been on.

---

*grinning from ear to ear*

Semeia, you renegade philosopher-queen, you. I KNEW when I wrote in that qualification, you would jump on it!


Actually, I put that qualification in there because I think I MIGHT not go as far as you do on the issue of non-judgmentalism (not sure yet), which I plan to post something about later, but I shouldn’t have thrown that “to a certain degree” qualifier in here, because, as you point out, there is nothing that I say about love vs. legalism that you haven’t said earlier in your own articulate words. Sorry about that. I know it can be especially frustrating when you put so much time into explaining yourself, and somebody (ME!) seems to be reading right past it! Unfortunately, I've been limited in the time I have to devote to the discussions, and I’ve been trying to jump in here and there, so forgive me if I do this to you once in a while. . .

Cool, sista-friend. . .?

Brett

PS-Is the email address in your profile legit? If not, would you mind sending me an email? Gracias, mi amiga.

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 06/21/2002 1:44:27 PM

quote:

---

Selah - I'm sorry if my words were too intense. I tend to put things in a strong way to convey an idea. I didn't mean it as a personal indictment of you, although I do think the thought process is one that depends on the idea that oneself is not "living in sin." (Otherwise the issue of remarriage being "living in sin" would not be a problem.)

On the other comments - I'm delighted that there is SOME AGREEMENT!!!! Yaaaahhhhh!

And I think you do a great job at communicating. We all get easily misunderstood on this type of detached medium.

..

Thanks,
Semeia (Struggling to not get pulled back in...)

---

Semeia,

Whenever you wonder about my thought process, just ask. My money is ALWAYS on my not being able to fully communicate, illuminate and make sense of what I'm ACTUALLY trying to say. If you ask me, you take a chance that I'll mess it up again. But, if we're lucky, and if I push real hard...we might find we agree a lot in the first place

On the rest, I am delighted you are delighted!

love,
selah











Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1

Edited by - Selah on 06/21/2002 2:01:13 PM

quote:

---

What I’’m now wondering about is how this translates into confronting systemic sin: sin that structures society as a whole. (This touches on the Christian and Society thread that BBB started a while ago, and may get us off track here. But it seems pertinent). Let me illustrate with an example. I believe that American culture is racist. It is set up in a such a way that whites are advantaged from the start. In principle the society is set up to reward and punish certain behaviors (e.g working hard vs. being lazy), but it rewards whites more and punishes them less. I also believe that we are all socialized to see whites as superior to non-whites.
Now, I don’t right now want to discuss whether my belief is right or wrong. That is a topic for a different thread. What I’’d like help thinking through is how I or someone who shares my belief (or any similar conviction about systemic sin –– e.g. homophobia) could work to wake people up to this demonic system and not be judgmental? How can a person do their part in pointing out systemic racism –– or any systemic sin –– while yet holding to Jesus teaching that we aren’’t in a position to find specks when you yet have logs in your own eye?

---

quote:

---

PS, Brandon, I'm sorry for answering Brett's question and not yours - but I had a quick answer for Brett, and yours is a longer discussion, and now I really am going to take my break.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

---

Semeia,

I'm the same way. I can only concentrate on one subject at a time for the most part, especially when I don't feel confident in my thinking on the subject at hand. That's one of the things I admire aboot some of the theologians on this board. They can "multi-task." Anyway, that's OK, for answering Brett's first. If it had been anyone else, I probably would have been very upset, cause Brett is not only Joe Cool , his name is bomb too. And you know why don't you? Soooo...now, here's the deal.

I think I have figured out a way through your argument. As a matter of fact, I don't think it has even been brought up before (in it's totality and force), though I have referred to it. I won't present everything for now, because it will take a complete post and a run down of the positions on both sides and therefore a little bit of time to put together. But here, let me give you a little hint of where I am going with this.

Your strongest argument against "judging" which basically takes the position that says, "The Bible opposes homosexuality, but it is just one sin among many. There is no justification for singling it out as more serious than other sins castigated in the Bible," as it turns out, is precisely your weakest one as well.

From what I gather, your argument against the stance that writerdad and myself and others here take (judge homosexuality in the church, along with other sexual sins) is based, or hinges (ironically), upon your view of divorce and remarriage. That is, why don't we judge the sexual sin of divorce and remarriage if we are going to judge homosexuality? Also, I think I may have been misunderstood when I referred to "Christian liberty" on the subject, of divorce and remarriage due, most likely to my lack of clarity.

I will not necessarily argue the (de)merits of divorce and remarriage, (though, admittedly, it will be hard to sustain my position without doing so) but my argument will be of the nature of an "argument around the argument."

It is because of this that I am almost wanting to start a new thread on this subject, because this is what, some eleven pages down now? Anyhoo...I guess what I am saying is this. It looks like you are not going to get much of a break after all. Hee, hee, hee...

Roger that. Over and out...

Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden

Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/22/2002 09:27:39 AM

quote:

---

The issue of homosexuality is just one example among many to illustrate the problem of judgment. It is not the main issue, nor in any way central to the main issue, and so you can spend all the time you want to try to explain why the sexual sin of divorce and remarriage is okay, while the sexual sin of homosexuality is not.

---

Accusation or "judging" time . [ YOU said the high-lighted part, not me! The highlighted part is precisely the point that I want to address which I think can nullify your position. I can guarantee you that I will not be arguing that position.

Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden