• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Final Feast and Spirit Led Polygamy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear all,

Just an observation here:

Legalistic interpretations of scripture always break down to the point of absurdity when taken them out to their logical conclusion.

Therefore, those who espouse legalistic views find themselves in the unenviable situation of having to make "work arounds" to their own strident beliefs when their doctrine meets real life.

This is particularly true when it comes to the doctrine of marriage.

Blessings,

Justin
 
Interpretation: "I cannot refute the clear scriptural arguments in the posts of others, but am happy with my way of interpreting the Bible because it fits my experiences in my life, so I'll accuse everyone else of legalism because they were debating the issue using scripture rather than real-world examples".

Michael, all of us have real lives too. All of us have dealt with marriage difficulties, and some have been through divorces. We're not in some legalistic bubble disconnected from the world. Yet we find that the Bible is not a problem, but rather shows us the solutions to all such problems. As Christians have found throughout the generations. We can follow the Bible, or follow our own lusts/desires, and it should be very obvious what the correct path to take is.
 
JM, to the extent there's any truth in that observation, it's sort of trite, don't you think?

Let me run an alternate "workaround" by you. Maybe the problem is just the human tendency to self-justification. If we're playing by what we think are the rules, we get smug and self-righteous. If we think we're failing, we either fall into shame and self-pity or we just change the rules to suit our outcomes. Sometimes it sucks to be human, eh?

What if the "workaround" is just forgiveness and patience? What if we don't have to lower the bar to step over it, and we don't have to hate ourselves for not being able to jump over it yet? What if we don't have to distribute shame and self-loathing to those who think they're failing and arrogance and self-righteousness to those who think they're succeeding? What if God's standard really is God's standard, and we can hold it in front of ourselves without compromise without being "legalistic" at all? What if the bit about the law's being a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ isn't about trading one set of standards for another, and it's not about rejecting standards altogether, but it's about grace and forgiveness and love and acceptance, for our own selves and for others, while we work together on becoming better versions of who we are?

If I'm target shooting and I keep missing the bull's eye on the target, I don't have to move the bull's eye, I don't have to change my goal to just being able to hit the paper, and I don't have to hate myself for not being a world-class shooter. I just have to keep practicing and keep getting better.

I also don't have to look down on people that can't shoot as well as I can, and I don't have to feel unworthy in the presence of better shooters. I just have to accept myself for who I am and accept others for who they are.

None of that changes the location of the bull's eye, and it's not legalistic to encourage people to aim for the bull's eye instead of settling for just hitting the paper.
 
51644890.jpg

Sorry, couldn't resist. Saw all those "what if?" questions in my post and just had to go there.
 
Prolly need a new thread for Holy Laughter and a new thread for legalism.

Technically, "legalism" is strict adherence to the letter of the law, and the plural marriage group would properly be described as legalistic, and the modern cultural take on marriage is something else. Unfortunately, "legalism" and "legalistic" have become all-purpose insults in our culture, to describe anyone that is trying to uphold a higher standard of conduct than the one making the accusation, or anybody whose construction of the law we don't like.
 
You started it! :lol:

Might have been your reference to the Oracle that subliminally got me going on the what ifs. One never knows....
 
cwcsmc said:
Works for me. The point is, we all have different interpretations of the Word of God based on life's experiences. The understanding of whether an interpretation is valid or not is in the fruit it produces.
Click to expand...
Eh, you sure about that? That's a little too Humpty Dumpty for my taste.

Taking the Mt 19:9 verse as a relevant example, I'd rather hear you give your reasons for not accepting or ordering your life by the teaching (not applicable today, Jesus was interpreting Jewish law for Jews, not laying down ethical principles for all cultures for all time, whatever) than hear you say that words mean whatever you say they mean. If the latter, then why read or study the bible at all, and why discuss our individual, experience-derived "interpretations" with others?

Here's something that will really bake your noodle: What if when you say "Word of God" you're not even talking about the bible, which is a book about other people's experiences with God? What if you're talking about what happens in real time when God speaks to you today? :shock:

Here's a cookie for you: Run a word search in the scriptures on the phrase "word of God" and see if you can figure out what that phrase meant as it was originally used in scripture. Then see if you can figure out why some people refer to their bibles as "the word of God"....
 
Dear Andrew,

one definition of trite is: of a remark, opinion, or idea - overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness.

So I don't know if my statement qualifies as trite...maybe short, succinct, etc. I am not quite sure why you seem to want me to modify the way I say things. I guess you find them annoying or offensive in some regard. I actually think that the way I say things is less caustic than some who reply to me. However, I will try to tone down things so as not to offend.

I understand the desire to walk righteously before Jesus. I think it is admirable. However, I do not propose to lower the bar but rather to step back and consider how we have interpreted the rule book for the high jump in the first place. Do you seriously think that the way things are in christian marriage these days is working well? If not, do you have the anwer and has it worked out well on a large scale? I am speaking in general here. I don't. Everyone seems to be so set on their doctrine but the problem is it just is not working.

I really believe that what we are actually talking about here is the difference between the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit. Whereas the Mosaic law demanded that the women caught in the very act of adultery be stoned Jesus did not cast the first stone even though He was the only one qualified to do so. Jesus walked by the law of the spirit of life. Perhaps we should examine what that is and see if we should reconsider our viewpoints.

What I am saying is that legalistic interpretations of scriptures that break down when applied to real life may be suspect and need to be re-examined. Doing something twice as hard that does not work in the first place will not make it succeed. Doubling down on doctrine that becomes absurd when confronted with actual practice will not make it any better either.

The pharisees acted one way but Jesus acted another. Who was right?

Divorce happens and it does not fit within the interpretations that many have been preaching. For most, that does not matter, simply because there is no consequences for them if their doctrine does not work. However, to others, who are faced with tough choices, these stringent interpretations of scripture seem ludicrous given the reality of their circumstances. I am not lowering the bar I am saying that perhaps the bar was set wrongly in the first place by people who did not know what the original author of the rule book meant.

What is emerging, to me anyway, is that the two sides of this discussion are law vs. Spirit. Some want to hold to the law no matter what the consequences or inconsistency (so long as they are not in danger of being stoned) while others want to examine the heart of the matter and see whether eating the shew bread is permissible under certain circumstances.

I really am trying to be polite and reasonable but I do not "brow beat" easily. I think those who want to cast the first stone at those who divorce should consider what Jesus forgave the woman caught in the very act of adultery. What was the reasoning behind his actions is the question we should look into.

Blessings,

Justin
 
JM, have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Are you familiar with the scene with the Black Knight?...
 
Justin Mangonel said:
I really believe that what we are actually talking about here is the difference between the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit. Whereas the Mosaic law demanded that the women caught in the very act of adultery be stoned Jesus did not cast the first stone even though He was the only one qualified to do so. Jesus walked by the law of the spirit of life. Perhaps we should examine what that is and see if we should reconsider our viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Jesus followed the Mosaic law. When someone sins deserving death, this was the procedure:
Deuteronomy 17:5-7 said:
then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Click to expand...
After Jesus' statement everyone left. He asked the woman where her accusers were, and she confirmed they had left. Jesus could not therefore put her to death because there were not two witnesses, nor were the witnesses there to start the stoning. He followed the law and sent her away. How is this possibly be an argument to reject the clear teaching of the scriptures?
What I am saying is that legalistic interpretations of scriptures that break down when applied to real life may be suspect and need to be re-examined. Doing something twice as hard that does not work in the first place will not make it succeed. Doubling down on doctrine that becomes absurd when confronted with actual practice will not make it any better either.
Click to expand...
I must repeat that nobody here, as far as I can see, is saying divorce is never justified. I see no legalistic interpretation here. We accept divorce occurs sometimes. All we are disagreeing with you on is one specific reason for divorce. You have proposed that God may tell someone to divorce their spouse by making them fall in love with someone else. We have pointed out that Jesus said very clearly that if you divorce one woman in order to marry another that is adultery. How is that absurd?

Note too that when we quote Jesus we are not quoting the "law of sin and death", but quoting the One who by your own statement walked by the law of the Spirit of Life. How can you reject Jesus' teaching based on Jesus' actions?
 
"or.....we call it a draw" :)
 
Dear All,

It is good to discuss things between brethren. Although this started out a bit rocky it has ended with civility. This is commendable. All that we can do is present our ideas and viewpoints and allow each of us to be convinced according to how God leads them.

God bless,

Justin
 
Dear CW,

I categorically believe that God is sovereign. Therefore, God is able to do anything He wishes. As the clay, we cannot say to the potter "what are you doing?"

You asked,

"Do you believe that God will cause someone to fall in love with someone else to purposefully destroy a marriage?"

The answer to that question is yes. I believe that God will lead a married person to fall in love with another person of God's choosing If the present union is not pleasing to Him or if it hinders His plan. Though it is not common, He will most definitely do so and that is the point of my essay on "Love at first sight." While love at first sight is a worldly saying that phenomenon is sometimes God spiritually connecting two people, by divine foreknowledge, for their good and for the goof of His plan.

God had many put away their wives in Ezra and even the father of our father put away his second wife and child at the bidding of Sara with God's approval because that union was outside His plan for Issac.

I believe the position taken by those on this forum is inconsistent with what God has done in the past and actually does now days. Their dogma in this matter devolves into absurdity when confronted with reality. Unfortunately, no scripture showing divine divorce, save for the cause of adultery, holds any weight with them because their dogma does recognize anything that diverges from it.

I hope that makes my position clear,

blessings,

Justin

(I am really trying to bow out of this conversation...I just could not leave CW hanging with that question...grin.)
 
cwcsmc said:
andrew said:
That's a little too Humpty Dumpty for my taste. .
Click to expand...

I am confused on this statement. Is it in reference to my comment being closely related to an egg,or to King Richard III? Even nursery rhymes can have different meanings? Or are you saying it was childish?
Click to expand...
Sorry, and no, that had nothing to do with being childish. I should have been more clear. It's an allusion to the question of words and meaning.

Lewis Carroll said:
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Click to expand...
To me, Humpty Dumpty is the patron saint of all who would be careless with words. "Words mean things", as long as we're doing literary allusions.

Back to the question of "interpretation" as it pertains to the subject at hand...

Apparently Moses wasn't clear enough in his instructions re divorce, and the Pharisees, though often accused of being 'legalistic', were in the matter of divorce pretty liberal. They brought the matter to Jesus, who gave a new—and presumably authoritative—"interpretation" of the commandment (using the word interpretation in its correct dictionary sense), that not only is pretty unambiguous, it is actually properly understood pretty helpful. Go Jesus, right?

To come along later and argue about our different "interpretations of the interpretation" is weird on a couple of levels (I'll leave it to readers to think about how many different ways that's weird). It's a short jump from "explain" to "explain away", and any "interpretation" that starts with "this is what Jesus said, but this is what it really means" and leads to an "interpretation" that is not congruent with the original text is just silly.

I'm saying this as someone who just went ten rounds with one of the sharpest guys I know over some nuances in the understanding of what exactly constitutes a divorce and the precise technical understanding of what adultery is, but I don't think we would have spent ten seconds debating whether a guy who leaves his wife for another is committing adultery—Jesus couldn't have said it any more plainly. Anybody who thinks he can interpret that away, or thinks that to say that's what Jesus meant is being 'legalistic', or thinks he's hearing from the same spirit that was in Christ as he puts away a woman for a reason other than her unfaithfulness so he can be with the new love of his life, well....
 
cwcsmc said:
This should be simply enough to clarify. However, I get the feeling that even if Micheal gets the right answer, he is still not going to be let off the hook for some perceived infraction that occurred a hundred years ago which is really only hearsay to those most adamant about him being stoned.
Click to expand...
Curtis, I love ya, brother, but your feelings are off in this matter. The problem here is that we're eight pages into a discussion of something Michael said that is just wrong and he still hasn't owned up. Period. There, I said it. He's wrong. Either Jesus is right or Michael is, and I intend to continue to follow the teachings of Jesus, not Michael's.

All Michael has done since being challenged is attempt to back up his assertion with spurious and illogical references to Abraham, Ezra, and the woman taken in adultery. From there it's just post after post of generalities about "legalism" and "interpretation", blah, blah, blah. The Black Knight fights on....

I'd like to remind everyone that this group is Biblical Families, not What-I-Decided-This-Morning-Based-On-My-Private-Interpretation Families. Jesus said if a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery, and to say "if a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery" is not being legalistic, it's being biblical. That's why I can say Michael is wrong, because in this forum, according to our general agreement, he's out of line.

Apparently in Michael's world, he gets to make stuff up as he goes, which is why he would have been more comfortable having a conversation over at his site, where he makes the rules. In that world, anyone who doesn't 'get' him is just not as highly evolved as he is, and without naming names or citing particular examples he can blather away in generalities about "those people" and their impractical, unenlightened refusal to let their life experiences change the teachings of Jesus, or render them unimportant and inapplicable to Christian life today.

Oh wait, but wouldn't "Christian" life be following the teachings of... wait for it... Christ?

So that's two strikes for Michael. His view in this matter is neither biblical nor Christian. Your blunt question to him is the pitch that he will either hit over the fence or strike out on.
 
cwcsmc said:
Let him answer the question.
Click to expand...
Can't wait!

cwcsmc said:
If you have other things to do, go do it. Sorry this is taking up too much of your time. I think it is important.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where that's coming from. I think you're important, and I responded to something you said that is in the nature of an accusation, one which I believe to be false. Is that not okay with you?
 
Curtis, thanks for the question, Michael thanks for the response. Once again you have reiterated your position but not addressed any of the very clear Biblical reasons to it.

So let's just finish this here I say, nobody's getting anywhere. Andrew's summed up the situation well. Michael, you're welcome to believe whatever you want in your own life, but this is Biblical families, where we apply the Bible to marriage, and Jesus is very clear about this.

It is a sin to leave your wife for another woman. Repeated multiple times in the gospels to ensure we all get the point. End of story.

Andrew, this isn't actually a new teaching of Jesus. The Pharisees disputed at the time whether divorce was for any reason or very limited in Mosaic law, so asked Jesus for his opinion, and here he reiterates what was actually standard teaching by one side of the Pharisees themselves, just confirming this side had it right. Look up Hillel and Shammai.
 
FollowingHim said:
Andrew, this isn't actually a new teaching of Jesus. The Pharisees disputed at the time whether divorce was for any reason or very limited in Mosaic law, so asked Jesus for his opinion, and here he reiterates what was actually standard teaching by one side of the Pharisees themselves, just confirming this side had it right. Look up Hillel and Shammai.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry about that, you're right. It's my understanding that several of the questions brought to Jesus were really just inter-sect or intra-sect squabbles that somebody was trying to get Jesus's opinion on so they could suss out "who's side he was on". Not so much trying to learn something from Jesus as judging his teaching according to whether he backed their play. Their loss, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top