So Link - Another post of yours got me thinking

[LinkH]

lol - okay so in this case (the one that prompted the thread/is being used as an example)- what you're suggesting is that the doctor evaluates the dude's size and then reports back to the wife on it?

That's uber tacky, but at least it is not fornication. It's not something I'd recommend for couples that are going to get married.

If a man does know that he's close to either end of the bell curve, IMO, it would be courteous to let his love interest know before engagement.

 

[GoodGRACEshus]

Ha! Evaluate compatibility, and deliver diagnosis.....to both parties!

(If on Aussie soil the next step is to recommend expensive surgery

Humour aside though, common sense would have to be in the mix somewhere.

 

[DZoolander]

Ya know how when you have a kid and you take them for their annual checkups as babies/toddlers, you get that chart that shows where they are size wise relative to the mean?

Something like that? lol

 

[Dave-W]

Is that a quote from Star Trek? How about 'Thou shalt not kill"?

Yes, Spock said it in the 2nd ST movie - but it was not original with ST. It is a common age old bit of philosophy.

As to the command not to kill, As I said I may go to hell for violating it. But on the plus side, it gives millions more people the chance to hear and respond to the gospel. Is that not a fair price to pay?

 

[mkgal1]

It is my understanding that the Pharisees did not consider taking an ox out of the ditch to be sinning by violating the sabbath. Jesus applied the same principle to healing. They had their own interpretations of what violated the sabbath. The Torah doesn't say you can't eat out of the grain field and rub off the chaff on the sabbath.

From what I can tell, the Pharisees formed their own additional laws (or interpreted the law) in a way that benefited them. I don't believe it was out of compassion for the animals that they permitted pulling them out of ditches on the Sabbath---I think that was more of a utilitarian decision (plow animals meant livelihood and monetary resources).

I don't think Jesus was applying "the same principle" to healing. I believe His principle *was* based on compassion overriding law.

The Pharisees interpreted the law in a way where they believed Jesus and His disciples were being unlawful when they "harvested" the grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12).....they'd defined that (and a lot of other absurd things) as "doing what's unlawful on the Sabbath".

I think The Dalai Lama summed up most of Romans by saying this: "Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively".

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus didn't allow a man to put away his wife because of the dimensions of private parts. If he does that and marries someone else, that's committing adultery. Would you really go post on that man's thread and suggest they divorce?

I didn't write (or infer) that he'd be "putting away his wife because of the dimensions of his private parts". I wrote that there's that option (as "one sin" ) open that you don't allow for them as a way to avoid a lifetime of sin. I wouldn't suggest to anyone that they divorce their spouse----that's always a private decision---but I also wouldn't judge someone for doing so, especially if the couple couldn't reconcile this. He shouldn't have to face a lifetime of humiliation and rejection because of something he had no control over. That's cruel. I've said a few times I believe there's something else far more complex than just her dissatisfaction of his "dimensions".

 

[Dave-W]

From what I can tell, the Pharisees formed their own additional laws (or interpreted the law) in a way that benefited them. I don't believe it was out of compassion for the animals that they permitted pulling them out of ditches on the Sabbath---I think that was more of a utilitarian decision (plow animals meant livelihood and monetary resources).

I don't think Jesus was applying "the same principle" to healing. I believe His principle *was* based on compassion overriding law.

Not exactly. There was a rabbinic principle the pharisees used, and by His appealing to the same principle, gave it God's endorsement. The principle was this: Except in certain cases, a positive command always overrides a negative command. They had divided the OT into 613 commands, 248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's). So the positive command to preserve life trumps the negative command to not work on the sabbath.

 

[LinkH]

MkGal1,

Suppose a man posted that his wife was a virgin, so they didn't do anything sexual before marriage. For his sexual satisfaction, a woman has to have two nice evenly-sized breasts. But when he got married, his wife had one a few sizes smaller than the other, which was very noticeable. This was such a big issue to him, he was thinking of divorcing his wife.

If a man posted that, would you argue that he was wrong for wanting to divorce his wife over that, or would you just be quiet, consider it a personal decision, and think nothing of it?

 

[mkgal1]

So the positive command to preserve life trumps the negative command to not work on the sabbath.

....are you saying that was the rabbinic teaching *after* Jesus had given this example? Because, if not, then those Pharisees must have skipped out on that teaching.

 

[LinkH]

From what I can tell, the Pharisees formed their own additional laws (or interpreted the law) in a way that benefited them. I don't believe it was out of compassion for the animals that they permitted pulling them out of ditches on the Sabbath---I think that was more of a utilitarian decision (plow animals meant livelihood and monetary resources).

There could have been some self-interest there. But I think it is wrong to think that the Pharisees and their legal tradition was totally without compassion and only self-seeking. They had helped restore the Jewish kingdom against the Selucids, and depending on how you interpret Daniel, the Bible may be somewhat positive about the Jews involved in that revolution. Many of Jesus' interpretations and arguments were apparently made from a somewhat similar perspective on the Law. The apostles had agreement with the Pharisees on some matters of doctrine when compared to the Saducees, and both Pharisees and priests could be found in the early church.

you wrote,

I don't think Jesus was applying "the same principle" to healing. I believe His principle *was* based on compassion overriding law.

He clearly applied the principle they used to save animals on the sabbath to healing on the sabbath.

You contradict yourself. Either he applied the same principle or He did not.

I think The Dali Lama summed up most of Romans by saying this:This is clear from his words in the Gospels.saying this: "Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively".

I memorized Romans my senior year of high school for Bible quiz, and I can't think of anything in the book that supports the Dali Lama's assertions. Do you often seek to learn things about the Bible from false gods?

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1, you wrote,

I wouldn't suggest to anyone that they divorce their spouse----that's always a private decision

The guy who posed the original message is on Christian forums. He could click over here and find your message where you mentioned divorce in relation to his case.

 

[mkgal1]

MkGal1,

Suppose a man posted that his wife was a virgin, so they didn't do anything sexual before marriage. For his sexual satisfaction, a woman has to have two nice evenly-sized breasts. But when he got married, his wife had one a few sizes smaller than the other, which was very noticeable. This was such a big issue to him, he was thinking of divorcing his wife.

If a man posted that, would you argue that he was wrong for wanting to divorce his wife over that, or would you just be quiet, consider it a personal decision, and think nothing of it?

There's a bit of a tweak here, in your comparison. We heard from the spouse that was being rejected.....and now you're presenting a scenario where it's phrased to be about the one that's actually the "reject-or". That makes a difference.

If it were the woman that came on here, saying that he new husband now won't have sex with her (for the last 3 months) because he discovered that her breasts weren't perfectly evenly-sized...and she was in angst over it: I'm saying I wouldn't judge them if they decided that this just wasn't a "fixable" issue (that the man was fixated on this and it wasn't any other issue that needed to be resolved). I don't believe it's right to expect for this wife (or that husband) to feel rejected and alone for the rest of their lives. That's a bit different than how you've portrayed the comparison.

 

[mkgal1]

But I think it is wrong to think that the Pharisees and their legal tradition was totally without compassion and only self-seeking

Uh....I'm going to go with Jesus' characterization of the Pharisees. I think He's probably the best one to have judged their character:

‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

25 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup,so that the outside also may become clean.

27 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. 28 So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

 

[mkgal1]

you wrote,
"He clearly applied the principle they used to save animals on the sabbath to healing on the sabbath"

You contradict yourself. Either he applied the same principle or He did not.

Was that my quote? Because, if I wrote that, it must have been because I didn't have my coffee this morning. Where was that taken from...what post #?

I memorized Romans my senior year of high school for Bible quiz, and I can't think of anything in the book that supports the Dali Lama's assertions. Do you often seek to learn things about the Bible from false gods?

The Dalai Lama isn't a "false god"....and doesn't claim to be any sort of "god". All wisdom and truth comes from the one True God (and it doesn't surprise me when people across all faith groups come to the same conclusion about things).

I think the whole book of Romans is based on that philosophy (knowing the rules so well that we can break them effectively). It's not about following rules for the sake of the rules.....it's more about the *why* the rules are there in the first place---how and when they apply to certain situations---and when love/compassion supersede the rules all together.

 

[Dave-W]

....are you saying that was the rabbinic teaching *after* Jesus had given this example? Because, if not, then those Pharisees must have skipped out on that teaching.

Not at all. It had not been codified yet, but the basis of it was laid out by Hillel and Shammai in the previous century (first century bc) Everyone there was familiar with it. They (the critical pharisees) just did not see it applying in that situation. Our Lord corrected them on that point by citing a principle they would have to accept.

 

[Dave-W]

"But I think it is wrong to think that the Pharisees and their legal tradition was totally without compassion and only self-seeking"
Uh....I'm going to go with Jesus' characterization of the Pharisees. I think He's probably the best one to have judged their character:

Do not make the mistake of thinking the Pharisees were all alike. There were significant differences between those who graduated from Shammai's school and those from Hillel's school.

 

[mkgal1]

The guy who posed the original message is on Christian forums. He could click over here and find your message where you mentioned divorce in relation to his case.

Mentioning divorce....or saying it's an option that some don't allow for, and that I believe that's cruel to judge someone in that way is different than to posit a person is "suggesting they divorce their spouse".

 

[mkgal1]

Our Lord corrected them on that point by citing a principle they would have to accept.

But it seems they *didn't* accept it, because (from what I can tell) they continued after Jesus and harassed Him on the same principle in the synagogue. Even after He healed the man in the synagogue (stating the principle again!)....the text says, "But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus." That doesn't sound like "acceptance" to me.

Do not make the mistake of thinking the Pharisees were all alike. There were significant differences between those who graduated from Shammai's school and those from Hillel's school.

I don't believe any group of people is "all alike".

 

[Dave-W]

It is interesting. On the "healing on the Sabbath" issue, Hillel and Shammai had already hashed that out 50 years earlier. Hillel taught that it was absolutely fine to perform medicine (doctoring) on the Sabbath for just that reason. (positive command trumps a negative command) The Shammai school taught that only if life was in imminent danger could a doctor do his work on the Sabbath. (not likely to survive the day)

 

[mkgal1]

It is interesting. On the "healing on the Sabbath" issue, Hillel and Shammai had already hashed that out 50 years earlier. Hillel taught that it was absolutely fine to perform medicine (doctoring) on the Sabbath for just that reason. (positive command trumps a negative command) The Shammai school taught that only if life was in imminent danger could a doctor do his work on the Sabbath. (not likely to survive the day)

.....and that's all based on their reasoning (as a group) of how the law ought to be applied (as it leaves room for interpretation). Not all scenarios are the same.....and as you're describing, there are unique variables to take into consideration.