Adstar:
I read your thoughts on divorce=adultery a few times and I can see confusion in your thoughts
I believe it is because you did not read my post closely enough.
BeHereNow writes: In Matthew we learn that any man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery . . .[Matthew 5:32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.]
Adstar replies: If a divorced woman does not re-marry then she will no be an adulterer. Yes she is guilty of adultery within the original marriage but she is not forced to be an adulterer after she has been divorced. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man. therefore she does not have to commit fornication as well. So a divorced woman is only "as bad" as a homosexual if she decided to no longer be celibate.
Clearly Matthew 5:32 says the act of divorce “causeth her to commit adultery”. We might want to add “unless she is a fornicator”, but a fornicator is an adulteress. So a divorced woman is always an adulteress. No other conditions are necessary. She does not have to commit adultery within the original marriage. By the simple act of the man divorcing her, she becomes an adulteress. Since it is the divorce that causes her sin, she remains in the sin.
Lets change the sin to murder and look at it following your logic. Suppose a woman decides she no longer wants to be married. Her plan is to first kill her husband, then simply repent of the sin. I’m not talking about murder in a fit of rage. I’m talking about planned and premeditated murder, because certainly the divorce is planned and premeditated.
And there is another bonus for her. If her husband is dead she can remarry without being an adulteress. That is permitted. If she divorces her husband, repents, then remarries and has relations with her new husband, she will be continually committing adultery. But if she kills her first husband, repents, she is free to remarry without committing adultery. Surely this is not what you intend, but it is the logical result of your line of thinking.
Adstar wrote: As i have explained divorce does not necessarily lead to adultery or fornication. Both sins are independent of divorce.
You have not successfully countered my proof that divorce always leads to adultery.
It is true that fornication and divorce are independent of divorce, but divorce is not independent of adultery. There is a difference.
You do seem to agree that remarriage always result in adultery, so I assume you would support a law against remarriage just as strongly as a law against gay marriage.
Is that true?
Also, if Christians were not hypocrites, they would be advocating a law against remarriage just as strongly as a law against gay marriages.
Concerning wealth:
Adstar says: Firstly, it was the young mans claim that He followed ALL the teachings.
You give very little evidence that that it was merely a claim. Essentially you want a certain result, and the only way to get that result is if his claims were false.
Consider this: Jesus could see into the hearts of people. He knew what was inside. Take for example the woman at the well (John 4). She said she had no husband, but Jesus told her she had 5 husbands. When people tried to deceive Jesus he let them know he knew the truth. Jesus did not deny that the man followed all of the commandments. In effect he said “Fine, you honor all of the commandments. There is something else you must do. Sell everything and follow me.”
The only way to draw your conclusion is to read into the scripture ideas that are not there. I am applying a simple, literal interruption.
Adstar: For if the ruler had truly placed God above wealth he would have done what Jesus challenged him to do.
Why does this not apply to every person?
You said the rich ruler only thought he honored the commandments. When it came down to brass tacks, his true colors shown through. Isn’t this also true for the wealthy today? They delude themselves into believing they love God more than their wealth. They are generous enough to appear pure, but in fact they would never give all away.
Won’t every person, if they want to follow the scriptures and if they place God about wealth, sell all that they have, and surrender every raise from their employer to the poor?
Why is it that virtually none of the wealthy Christians surrender their wealth? You would have us believe it is because they are sinful. Some of us believe it is because they are hypocrites. Certainly they can be both, and probably are. Show me why they are not hypocrites.
Again we have this premeditated sin that you would have us believe is easily forgiven. “Lord, I love being filthy rich and again today I am not going to give any of it away. Please forgive me Lord. Thank you for letting me into heaven.” If you are not hypocritical you would say the same is true for gays in marriage. They can remain married as long as they repent each day.
Personally I don’t believe it is true repentance if it is premeditated and repeated continually. A serial killer who kills, repents, kills, repents, kills repents, is not really repenting. He will not be forgiven. It is also true for the wealthy that remain wealthy, if we take a literal interruption of the scriptures.
Adstar wrote: Secondly, Jesus said it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven Not impossible. For he said "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." So once again you are misreading scripture. Read the following especially the bolded parts it may help you understand.
You changed my scripture quote (Luke 18) to one of the other harmonic gospels which seems to favors your position slightly (Matt 19). Using your verses my KJV says: [23] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall
hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[24] And again I say unto you, It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
It does not simply say it is hard, it says hardly will he be able. It is possible, but virtually impossible. He gives us an example to show how hard. Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. He does not say “it is hard, but most of you will do it.” Rather he says
of all of you wealthy, hardly any will enter the kingdom of God. The poor who sin can repent and be forgiven. The wealthy live in their sin continually and do not truly repent for being greedy, for they always want more.
Adstar wrote:
BeHereNow wrote: We have no reason to believe he was “driven by want of money”. In fact, if this were true, if he were ‘driven’, we would expect that he would not tithe, and he would be coveting. The fact that he followed all of the commandments is proof that he was not driven by wealth.
We have no indication that the ruler placed undue importance on his wealth, UNTIL he was asked to surrender it. At that point he had a choice between Spiritual wealth (eternal life, salvation) and materialism. We are lead to believe that he chose materialism. ”
Adstar replies:Can you see the confusion in what you have put down here? The rulers love for money did not start when Jesus challenged Him to give it up. But it was the challenge of Jesus that made him realize how much he loved his money.
I see no confusion in what I wrote. The rich man said he lived the letter of the law and Jesus said that is fine, but it is not enough, you must do more. If you want to follow Jesus you must surrender your wealth. What you say is only true if the man merely claimed to honor the law. As I said above, you did not show that he only claimed this. The scripture indicates he was indeed honorable. The words and actions of Jesus indicate that he recognized the man was honorable.
As you say, attempting to live the letter of the law is not enough. You can be wealthy and live the letter of the law. That is not enough. If you are wealthy you must show you are honorable by giving it away.
Adstar wrote: When you say "christians in general" and "we are looking for the rule" alarm bells start to sound in my mind.
What are you really looking for BeHereNow? The truth or what many people think is the truth?
You are losing the forest for the trees my friend.
LephtShew made a comment about Christians, in general, being hypocritical. You responded, in objection, indicating you though he was wrong. Lephtshew never said he though you were hypercritical except in the sense you might be a typical Christian. Instead of defending typical Christians you have concentrated on defending one particular Christian, yourself. I am attempting to return to one of the original themes of this thread. If that sets off alarms, well, you have clearly missed the mark and gotten off track.
I would never say there are no Christians who take the Bible literally and live that way. I know better because many of my neighbors are Amish. (Thought for another thread: If Amish are true to the word of God, can this also be true for adstar?) We are in this discussion because lephtshew and I contend that most Christian literalists are hypocrites. You have not convinced me you do not belong in this group.
