 Porneia. Matthew 19 And Spiritual Adultery, phone sex, watching porn, web cams... |
  |
 Aug 1 2006, 08:28 PM
Post
#16
|
|
 PrincessDrRe  Group: Financial Donor Posts: 9,011 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 712 Gender: f  |
QUOTE(watchbird @ Aug 1 2006, 10:10 AM) [snapback]142840[/snapback] You make some other good points also, but let's just focus on this one for a bit more. Might the reason this was not more explicit have to do with issues of paternity? I don't think that a man at that time who married a woman who already had children would have been considered their "father", since blood lines were considered so important and blood lines went through the male. Thus I doubt that there was any designation such as we use today which would equal our "step-father" label. If I am correct in this, then this text does indeed speak explicitly of not only the children, but the grandchildren of any woman whom the man "has sexual relations with" and would thus be at the same time more explicit and more broad in its application than as if it had merely said "step-father" or even had said a man's wife's children and grandchildren. Stated as it is, this text covers every woman with whom he has had sexual relation -- including not only his legal wife (or wives) but any other woman with whom he had had sex, whether in the permitted categories or in any and all of these forbidden categories. So, yes, I agree that using this text.... or rather the absence of the specific wording you note..... as being an "excuse" for sexually "assaulting" or even "sexually fondling" their own "daughters" is completely unexcusable and a gross twisting of scripture. Any scholar worth his "salt" should see more, not fewer, implications in a text than a mere "straight read through" seems to indicate.  I soooo got ya! It goes so much deeper..... 
-------------------- *"Some folks use their ignorance like a umbrella. It covers everything, they perodically take it out from time to time, but it never is too far away from them."*
PrincessDrRe; March, 2007 ~"Blood = Meat, Face = Meat, Internal "Organs" = Meat - you can try to make it cuter; but it's still meat...."~ PrincessDrRe; September, 2007 *(NOTE: Any advice given by Re' Silvey, MSW is not to be taken as medical/mental health advice. Although trained to be a counselor, currently employed as a therapist, and currently pursuing her PhD in Counseling Psychology (ABD/I) - she is not your assigned therapist. Please consult a mental health professional of your choice for a face-to-face consultation.)* |
 |
 
|
 Aug 1 2006, 09:25 PM
Post
#17
|
|
 Regular Member  Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 1-August 06 Member No.: 1,981 Gender: m |
QUOTE(tall73 @ Jul 31 2006, 01:30 AM) [snapback]142621[/snapback] . . . Burton’s view is somewhat compelling. Jesus stresses the one-ness that should not be put assunder and says that Mose’s decree was in fact only for the hardness of their hearts. It was Moses’ decree that permitted divorce at all. Moreover, as Burton notes if adultery were to free one from marriage, and Jesus had defined it as lust, then it would be very easy to be released! ... Great word study, btw. One thing I would add is the observation that of the gospel witnesses, Matthew alone includes the porneia exception. Mark 10 records the same statement of Jesus as in Matthew 19 as "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." And Luke 16 records it as "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." This explains the disciples shocked reaction, "Well, if that is so, it would be better not to marry at all." This would also close the "Burton's view" loophole. And both of these witnesses' version are entirely consistent with His preliminary statement that what God has joined, no man is to take apart as well as the exceedingly high and humanly unattainable standard that even lustful thoughts are adultery.... I think it safe to say that we all flunked that test... Tom This post has been edited by Tom W.: Aug 2 2006, 07:33 AM -------------------- "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."
"Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal" |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 07:25 AM
Post
#18
|
|
 5,000 + posts Group: Administrator Posts: 19,829 Joined: 20-July 03 From: Alabama Member No.: 4 Gender: m |
QUOTE(Tom W. @ Aug 1 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]142975[/snapback] This explains the disciples shocked reaction, "Well, if that is so, it would be better not to marry at all." This would also close the "Burton's view" loophole. And both of these witnesses' version are entirely consistent with His preliminary statement that what God has joined, no man is to take apart as well as the exceedingly high and humanly unattainable standard that even lustful thoughts are adultery.... I think it safe to say that we all flunked that test... Tom Flunking the test is significantly different from saying one's spouse has committed adultery via lust and now we are permitted to seek a divorce...... -------------------- "you are as sick as your secrets...." -quote from Celebrity Rehab-
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 07:53 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Regular Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 1-August 06 Member No.: 1,981 Gender: m |
Absolutely! As I read it, Jesus has set it up to allow for only one real alternative that places this issue directly in the context of the most important theme of his ministry - forgiveness.
Tom This post has been edited by Tom W.: Aug 2 2006, 08:08 AM -------------------- "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."
"Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal" |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 08:00 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
5,000 + posts Group: Administrator Posts: 19,829 Joined: 20-July 03 From: Alabama Member No.: 4 Gender: m |
QUOTE(Tom W. @ Aug 2 2006, 08:53 AM) [snapback]143015[/snapback] Absolutley! As I read it, Jesus has set it up to allow for only one real alternative that places this issue directly in the context of the most important theme of his ministry - forgiveness. Tom Welcome to bsda Tom... looking forward to your continued participation..... 
-------------------- "you are as sick as your secrets...." -quote from Celebrity Rehab-
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 08:26 AM
Post
#21
|
|
 5,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 10,513 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Nashville, Tennessee Member No.: 830 Gender: f |
Real situation that happened to someone I know:
Is it not adultery when a person is fantasizing having sex with someone that is not their spouse, watching pornographic websites or live cam via internet, or phone sex? This is not about whether or not a marriage can work through it, but from the definition posted previously, Solomon's take and Christ words whether or not it is adultery: Proverbs 6:20-28 20My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 21Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. 22When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. 23For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: 24To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. 26For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life. 27Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? 28Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? Matthew 5:27-32 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But 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. QUOTE(tall73 @ Jul 31 2006, 12:30 AM) [snapback]142621[/snapback] Spiritual Adultery is the term that was applied in the 3ABN saga to justify Danny’s remarriage. And it has raised an interesting question. Need there be physical adultery to apply Jesus’ ‘exception clause?’ Here is the text in question: Jesus’ statement suggests he was clarifying the law found in Deut. 24 in which they were permitted to divorce if “indecency” (uncleanness in KJV) was found in her. (Strong's) ערוה ‛ervâh er-vaw' From H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish): - nakedness, shame, unclean (-ness). Now the question is, what was entailed by this “indecency” (Deut) or sexual immorality/adultery/fornication (Matthew). The term used in the exception clause is the oft-debated term Porneia. You can look up all of its uses using Strongs etc. Here are some of the more interesting ones: These texts use both Porneia and the more specific word, Moixeia which always means adultery. In fact, in Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19 He uses both as well. The grounds for divorce and remarriage were “porneia” and the resulting sin if this was not present was causing them to commit adultery, “moichatai.” This indicates that either porneia was distinct from adultery or was a broader word that also included adultery. (Strong's) porneia por-ni'-ah from G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication. μοιχεία moicheia moy-khi'-ah From G3431; adultery: - adultery. The next text of interest is I Corinthians 7. Here is it is clear that marriage was intended partly as a means to help resist sexual immorality (porneia) by unmarried people. In other words, if you are lusting, get married. Here fornication is used of the unmarried probably in the sense of sex outside of marriage. In the Acts council they enforced upon the gentiles the same requirements already made of “strangers” (ie. Gentiles) living among the Israelites in the law. The sexual immorality mentioned in Acts is spelled out in its various forms in Leviticus. The list includes acts done while married (wife’s sister) which would be problematic both as adultery and as having sex with close relations. It appears that porneia could carry a number of connotations. Adultery, incest, pre-marital sex, etc. So with this information in mind the question comes up, what did Jesus mean by his exception clause? There are a few views. a. Only literal, physical adultery would release someone from the marriage and allow for remarriage. b. Fornication previous to the marriage that was later discovered would allow for divorce and subsequent remarriage. (Some would say that adultery would not allow for this but fornication before marriage would… (See Keith Burton’s Ministry Magazine article http://www.lifeheritage.org/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage.pdf). c. Any sexual uncleanness, not necessarily physical adultery (pornography, cyber sex, etc., emotional affairs, phone sex, etc.) would come under porneia and therefore qualify since porneia is much broader than the more limited term moicheia d. There are no grounds for divorce except for an non-sacramental marriage in the first place, which would indicate pre-marital fornication, or a marriage based on incest (this would be the Catholic version, see this article for one exposition of it: http://members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html ). It seems that any type of inappropriate sexual activity could qualify as porneia. For that matter, Jesus spoke of lust as adultery. But the question seems to be more about what Jesus had in mind by the word porneia, and therefore what would qualify as an exception, than whether phone sex (if that is what Danny meant by these conversations that were taped) would count as porneia. Note, we haven’t heard these conversations, so who knows what they really have on them. To me phone sex would be porneia. It is “sexual immorality” or porneia in the broad sense. The only question though is whether Jesus really intended porneia in the broad sense, or whether he meant it as a synonym for adultery in this context, or whether he meant it specifically as pre-marital fornication as in Burton’s view. The Catholic view has some internal problems as porneia seems to be used for more than just pre-marital infidelity at times, and in the list in Leviticus it includes what would be adulterous relationships. The physical adultery only view would be understandable due to the feelings of betrayal it causes. However, one must ask why it is that the word for adultery is not used when Jesus clearly uses it later in the text? If He wanted to make it specific He knew how. Others would say that perhaps Jesus was simply using variety of expression, and certainly we do see that at times in all languages. Burton’s view is somewhat compelling. Jesus stresses the one-ness that should not be put assunder and says that Mose’s decree was in fact only for the hardness of their hearts. It was Moses’ decree that permitted divorce at all. Moreover, as Burton notes if adultery were to free one from marriage, and Jesus had defined it as lust, then it would be very easy to be released! On the other hand Paul does note that if a non-believer wants to leave, let them, you are not bound (which Burton also acknowledges) so the oneness is not without scriptural exception. Moreover Burton’s view does not seem to account for the flexibility of the term porneia beyond pre-marital relations. The any sexual uncleanness view would apply the term porneia broadly. Christians were told to avoid every hint of sexual immorality, so the standards were high. However, taking it too broadly seems to mean that it would be quite easy to qualify. For instance does fantasy again qualify? Moreover, how many non-physical means did they have back then? There were no phones. There were letters I suppose and pornography existed at the time. It is a difficult problem. And it is not completely clear that we have understood the exception clause to begin with, and even less clear that phone sex, if indeed such happened (so far it sounds more like accusations of emotional intimacy over the phone) would qualify. For me personally I tend to lean toward the any sexual uncleanness view. One thing that is quite clear though, no matter how you take porneia it does not include "spiritual adultery”. That would seem to be a stretch even beyond porneia. QUOTE(Clay @ Aug 2 2006, 07:25 AM) [snapback]143003[/snapback] Flunking the test is significantly different from saying one's spouse has committed adultery via lust and now we are permitted to seek a divorce...... This post has been edited by simplysaved: Aug 2 2006, 09:14 AM -------------------- "No weapon formed against YOU (Sarah--and every Believer/Servant of God) shall prosper and every tongue that rises against you in judgement you will condemn...."--Isaiah 54:17
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 08:32 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
5,000 + posts Group: Administrator Posts: 19,829 Joined: 20-July 03 From: Alabama Member No.: 4 Gender: m |
topic was split since this question is not related to 3abn per se... and deals with some interesting variables..... continue on....
upon review of the instant replay, the moderator was wrong in the decision to move the comment made by Sarah, and the comment has been reinstated in the original thread..... carry on...
This post has been edited by Clay: Aug 2 2006, 09:17 AM -------------------- "you are as sick as your secrets...." -quote from Celebrity Rehab-
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 09:19 AM
Post
#23
|
|
|
5,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 10,513 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Nashville, Tennessee Member No.: 830 Gender: f |
  QUOTE(Clay @ Aug 2 2006, 08:32 AM) [snapback]143031[/snapback] topic was split since this question is not related to 3abn per se... and deals with some interesting variables..... continue on.... upon review of the instant replay, the moderator was wrong in the decision to move the comment made by Sarah, and the comment has been reinstated in the original thread..... carry on... -------------------- "No weapon formed against YOU (Sarah--and every Believer/Servant of God) shall prosper and every tongue that rises against you in judgement you will condemn...."--Isaiah 54:17
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 05:28 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
PrincessDrRe Group: Financial Donor Posts: 9,011 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 712 Gender: f |
Be careful with this
it gets misinterpreted..... BOT! Your definition is correct Simp. However this should be taken into account whenever you look at someone and just wonder.... it don't even have to go as deep as sex. It could just be seeing some lips and wondering how they kiss....or seeing someone's hands and wondering how they would feel giving a hug.... Jimmy Carter was asked if he had ever committed adultery. He stated yes. There was a big uproar. He then stated something akin to this: "I'm a man. I have looked at a pretty woman. I have wondered how it would be to kiss her. I have even wondered about sex a few times....but I have never physically done it. I love my wife...." Now. Using the definition I agree - It's adultery....but using the definition.....is there anyone that hasn't committed said offense - ever? Carry on! *(See disclaimer below)* -------------------- *"Some folks use their ignorance like a umbrella. It covers everything, they perodically take it out from time to time, but it never is too far away from them."*
PrincessDrRe; March, 2007 ~"Blood = Meat, Face = Meat, Internal "Organs" = Meat - you can try to make it cuter; but it's still meat...."~ PrincessDrRe; September, 2007 *(NOTE: Any advice given by Re' Silvey, MSW is not to be taken as medical/mental health advice. Although trained to be a counselor, currently employed as a therapist, and currently pursuing her PhD in Counseling Psychology (ABD/I) - she is not your assigned therapist. Please consult a mental health professional of your choice for a face-to-face consultation.)* |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 06:33 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
5,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 10,513 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Nashville, Tennessee Member No.: 830 Gender: f |
When a person makes a conscious decision to stay and or place himself/herself in a state of mind where they "linger" in thoughts of lust and/or sexual activity for someone who is not their spouse (whether married or single), then scripture states that this is adultery. Not the temptation, but staying there in the mind or acting on the emotive thoughts or feelings.
Jesus told Mary "Go and sin no more".... Now with that stated, if a person engages in consistent behaviors (i.e. phone sex, internet cam video, pornographic web-sites) and does not want to stop--especially when caught, whether or not they have actually touched the other person physically, it would then appear that this is adultery. Additional thoughts? QUOTE(PrincessDrRe @ Aug 2 2006, 06:28 PM) [snapback]143099[/snapback] Be careful with this it gets misinterpreted.....BOT! Your definition is correct Simp. However this should be taken into account whenever you look at someone and just wonder.... it don't even have to go as deep as sex. It could just be seeing some lips and wondering how they kiss....or seeing someone's hands and wondering how they would feel giving a hug.... Jimmy Carter was asked if he had ever committed adultery. He stated yes. There was a big uproar. He then stated something akin to this: "I'm a man. I have looked at a pretty woman. I have wondered how it would be to kiss her. I have even wondered about sex a few times....but I have never physically done it. I love my wife...." Now. Using the definition I agree - It's adultery....but using the definition.....is there anyone that hasn't committed said offense - ever? Carry on! *(See disclaimer below)* This post has been edited by simplysaved: Aug 2 2006, 06:34 PM -------------------- "No weapon formed against YOU (Sarah--and every Believer/Servant of God) shall prosper and every tongue that rises against you in judgement you will condemn...."--Isaiah 54:17
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 06:57 PM
Post
#26
|
|
 5,000 + posts Group: Charter Member Posts: 6,128 Joined: 20-July 03 Member No.: 15 Gender: m |
QUOTE(simplysaved @ Aug 2 2006, 07:33 PM) [snapback]143111[/snapback] When a person makes a conscious decision to stay and or place himself/herself in a state of mind where they "linger" in thoughts of lust and/or sexual activity for someone who is not their spouse (whether married or single), then scripture states that this is adultery. Not the temptation, but staying there in the mind or acting on the emotive thoughts or feelings. So should we look at it when folk are fixated on the sexual habits of others as that person's attempting to commit adultery? QUOTE Jesus told Mary "Go and sin no more".... Says Pope Gregory VII.... in an attempt to make Mary Magdalene a posthumous whore. in scripture, Jesus never says any such thing to anyone known to be named Mary. QUOTE Now with that stated, if a person engages in consistent behaviors (i.e. phone sex, internet cam video, pornographic web-sites) and does not want to stop--especially when caught, whether or not they have actually touched the other person physically, it would then appear that this is adultery. Additional thoughts? And what does it mean when these things are alleged and the allegations are found to be baseless? In His service, Mr. J -------------------- There is no one more dangerous than one who thinks he knows God with a mind that is ignorant - Dr. Lewis Anthony
You’ve got to be real comfortable in your own skin to survive the animosity your strength evokes in people you'd hope would like you. - Dr. Renita Weems |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 07:14 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
PrincessDrRe Group: Financial Donor Posts: 9,011 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 712 Gender: f |
QUOTE(simplysaved @ Aug 2 2006, 08:33 PM) [snapback]143111[/snapback] When a person makes a conscious decision to stay and or place himself/herself in a state of mind where they "linger" in thoughts of lust and/or sexual activity for someone who is not their spouse (whether married or single), then scripture states that this is adultery. Not the temptation, but staying there in the mind or acting on the emotive thoughts or feelings. Jesus told Mary "Go and sin no more".... Now with that stated, if a person engages in consistent behaviors (i.e. phone sex, internet cam video, pornographic web-sites) and does not want to stop--especially when caught, whether or not they have actually touched the other person physically, it would then appear that this is adultery. Additional thoughts? Using the said definition......how do you know when someone is "dwelling" on the thought or not? How does anyone know if they want to stop or not? Gettin' in the mind of others, interpreting their thoughts, that is on the edge there..... QUOTE(awesumtenor @ Aug 2 2006, 08:57 PM) [snapback]143114[/snapback] So should we look at it when folk are fixated on the sexual habits of others as that person's attempting to commit adultery? Umph.... maybe so...  QUOTE(awesumtenor @ Aug 2 2006, 08:57 PM) [snapback]143114[/snapback] Says Pope Gregory VII.... in an attempt to make Mary Magdalene a posthumous whore. in scripture, Jesus never says any such thing to anyone known to be named Mary. I heard that from a t'ology major before.... interesting.... QUOTE(awesumtenor @ Aug 2 2006, 08:57 PM) [snapback]143114[/snapback] And what does it mean when these things are alleged and the allegations are found to be baseless? ...and again....interesting!
-------------------- *"Some folks use their ignorance like a umbrella. It covers everything, they perodically take it out from time to time, but it never is too far away from them."*
PrincessDrRe; March, 2007 ~"Blood = Meat, Face = Meat, Internal "Organs" = Meat - you can try to make it cuter; but it's still meat...."~ PrincessDrRe; September, 2007 *(NOTE: Any advice given by Re' Silvey, MSW is not to be taken as medical/mental health advice. Although trained to be a counselor, currently employed as a therapist, and currently pursuing her PhD in Counseling Psychology (ABD/I) - she is not your assigned therapist. Please consult a mental health professional of your choice for a face-to-face consultation.)* |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 09:35 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
5,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 10,513 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Nashville, Tennessee Member No.: 830 Gender: f |
You know when your man is "lusting after you or someone else" by the way he looks at you or them....while there are always exceptions to the rules, in general this is a fair beginning. Some other signs may include him calling you by another name, etc.
As a counselor, getting into people's minds and interpreting their thought is what you do....there is even in counseling a difference between jugdement and logical conclusion based on the information/evidence presented. As Children of God, He gives us the power to think and draw conclusions to help keep us safe as well. I accept the logical conclusion of scripture regarding the identity of the "woman taken in adultery"....I also accept EGW inspiration from God specifically stating that it was Mary Magdalene. QUOTE(PrincessDrRe @ Aug 2 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]143115[/snapback] Using the said definition......how do you know when someone is "dwelling" on the thought or not? How does anyone know if they want to stop or not? Gettin' in the mind of others, interpreting their thoughts, that is on the edge there..... Umph.... maybe so... I heard that from a t'ology major before.... interesting.... ...and again....interesting! This post has been edited by simplysaved: Aug 2 2006, 09:50 PM -------------------- "No weapon formed against YOU (Sarah--and every Believer/Servant of God) shall prosper and every tongue that rises against you in judgement you will condemn...."--Isaiah 54:17
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 10:21 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
PrincessDrRe Group: Financial Donor Posts: 9,011 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 712 Gender: f |
QUOTE(simplysaved @ Aug 2 2006, 11:35 PM) [snapback]143129[/snapback] You know when your man is "lusting after you or someone else" by the way he looks at you or them....while there are always exceptions to the rules, in general this is a fair beginning. Some other signs may include him calling you by another name, etc. Per my divorce I can tell you that none of this was the "clues" that let me know he was "lusting after someone else".... He never called me another woman's name. This does happen...of course it does, but to think that you can just "look at someone and tell" what's in their mind.... come on now. If this was the case the "many" women that state they "never knew" should have known...but they didn't know! I know you know better than that! QUOTE(simplysaved @ Aug 2 2006, 11:35 PM) [snapback]143129[/snapback] [color=#993399] As a counselor, getting into people's minds and interpreting their thought is what you do....there is even in counseling a difference between jugdement and logical conclusion based on the information/evidence presented. As Children of God, He gives us the power to think and draw conclusions to help keep us safe as well. True. But GOD doesn't give me the power to tell someone when they are "dwelling" on a thought or not. He never gave me the power to "tell someone" what they are thinking or not thinking. We do "interpret" thoughts - but I don't sit down and think about others thoughts for time past time....wondering...thinking...."dwelling" on what I "think" may be their thoughts..... BTW: What if the conclusion you draw is incorrect? Sitting down, "dwelling" on what you think someone else's thoughts are...and they are totally the wrong thoughts? QUOTE(simplysaved @ Aug 2 2006, 11:35 PM) [snapback]143129[/snapback] [color=#993399] I accept the logical conclusion of scripture regarding the identity of the "woman taken in adultery"....I also accept EGW inspiration from God specifically stating that it was Mary Magdalene. Even when research states that the woman is not actual woman of fact/thought?  Whoa.  Hermeneutics people...... ya gotta study ya Strong's .... ya gotta break down the original language.... Hermeneutics....... This post has been edited by PrincessDrRe: Aug 2 2006, 10:24 PM -------------------- *"Some folks use their ignorance like a umbrella. It covers everything, they perodically take it out from time to time, but it never is too far away from them."*
PrincessDrRe; March, 2007 ~"Blood = Meat, Face = Meat, Internal "Organs" = Meat - you can try to make it cuter; but it's still meat...."~ PrincessDrRe; September, 2007 *(NOTE: Any advice given by Re' Silvey, MSW is not to be taken as medical/mental health advice. Although trained to be a counselor, currently employed as a therapist, and currently pursuing her PhD in Counseling Psychology (ABD/I) - she is not your assigned therapist. Please consult a mental health professional of your choice for a face-to-face consultation.)* |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 10:48 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
5,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 10,513 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Nashville, Tennessee Member No.: 830 Gender: f |
If you are walking with your man, and you see him turn around staring after the woman that just passed or saying ("expletive") you don't have to guess where his mind is...and again, I am not saying that everything falls in one's face...nor am I suggesting that it is anyone's job to "figure out" what is going on the in the mind of their spouse or partner.....or that you always know....but we usually (not always) know when something is not right in the relationship, even if we are not sure what.
QUOTE(PrincessDrRe @ Aug 2 2006, 10:21 PM) [snapback]143131[/snapback] Per my divorce I can tell you that none of this was the "clues" that let me know he was "lusting after someone else".... He never called me another woman's name. This does happen...of course it does, but to think that you can just "look at someone and tell" what's in their mind.... come on now. If this was the case the "many" women that state they "never knew" should have known...but they didn't know! I know you know better than that! True. But GOD doesn't give me the power to tell someone when they are "dwelling" on a thought or not. He never gave me the power to "tell someone" what they are thinking or not thinking. We do "interpret" thoughts - but I don't sit down and think about others thoughts for time past time....wondering...thinking...."dwelling" on what I "think" may be their thoughts..... BTW: What if the conclusion you draw is incorrect? Sitting down, "dwelling" on what you think someone else's thoughts are...and they are totally the wrong thoughts? Even when research states that the woman is not actual woman of fact/thought? Whoa. Hermeneutics people...... ya gotta study ya Strong's .... ya gotta break down the original language.... Hermeneutics....... This post has been edited by simplysaved: Aug 2 2006, 10:54 PM -------------------- "No weapon formed against YOU (Sarah--and every Believer/Servant of God) shall prosper and every tongue that rises against you in judgement you will condemn...."--Isaiah 54:17
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd March 2008 - 03:56 PM |
