So Link - Another post of yours got me thinking

[LinkH]

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:

Where did Jesus say that the Pharisees had no compassion at all, the whole lot of them?

 

[LinkH]

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.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean. But your description doesn't seem to fit any passage in the book of Romans I can think of. Can you quote a passage you think has to do with knowing the rules so well we can break them?

That sounds like a better description of the type of Pharisaical Judaism Jesus was opposed to.

 

[mkgal1]

Where did Jesus say that the Pharisees had no compassion at all, the whole lot of them?

That's not what I wrote. I posted: "From what I can tell, the Pharisees formed their own additional laws (or interpreted the law) in a way that benefited them." I get that from the entire narrative between Jesus and the Pharisees---the theme being, "But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus." Not all were responsible in forming their laws (or interpretations of the laws)....and not all plotted to kill Jesus.

 

[LinkH]

MkGal1,

A man could use 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others' to justify fornicating with every woman he could. The problem is, his idea of 'love' is not in accordance with God's idea. His idea of what is good for others is wrong. Trying to love someone with warped morality can harm that person. Genuine love 'does not delight in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.'

 

[LinkH]

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?

Bad stuff happens to Israel when Israel breaks covenant. If Hitler had been killed as a baby, some other person may have arisen to take his place. Then if more people had a chance to hear, or not, the same amount of them may have gone to Hell. If you went to Hell, Hell would claim one more person.

Paul said that those that the damnation of those that said that he taught, "Let us do evil that good may come.' was just. So there must be something wrong with that philosophy.

 

[mkgal1]

Maybe I don't understand what you mean. But your description doesn't seem to fit any passage in the book of Romans I can think of. Can you quote a passage you think has to do with knowing the rules so well we can break them?

It's not "know the rules so well so you can break them".....it's "knowing the rules so well that we can break them effectively". It's about knowing when the rules apply and when they don't. It's "living in the Spirit" instead of "living by the law".

A few applicable verses where Paul was trying to get--what I think-- a similar concept across are:

for you are not under law but under grace.~Romans 6:14

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.~Romans 7:4

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.~Romans 10:4

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.~Romans 8
**************************
An example of this in action? Perhaps a leader at church allowing someone with divorce in their past (where their spouse left them, or was refusing to get treatment for addiction that was tearing apart the family, for examples) to facilitate Bible study without any condemnation of them. To me....that's a good example of "living in the Spirit and not the Law".

 

[mkgal1]

MkGal1,

A man could use 'love thy neighbor' and 'do unto others' to justify fornicating with every woman he could. The problem is, his idea of 'love' is not in accordance with God's idea. His idea of what is good for others is wrong. Trying to love someone with warped morality can harm that person. Genuine love 'does not delight in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.'

I agree. It's not what a person claims....but whether or not they are actually acting in accordance with God's love. The thing is......only God truly knows the condition of a man's heart....but if there's a string of hurt people in a guy's path, the "fruit" doesn't look too affirming that the guy was "loving others" and not his own self.

 

[LinkH]

MkGal1, that passage says nothing about breaking the law. It does talk about the righteousness of the law being fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

 

[mkgal1]

There are times, Link, where there's going to be a choice: follow the law (or an interpretation of the law, more like it)....or follow the Spirit of the law. Divorce may be a good example.....sometimes it's what preserves the soul of two people, instead of them remaining together and building up bitterness and an extreme lack of joy.

 

[LinkH]

There are times, Link, where there's going to be a choice: follow the law (or an interpretation of the law, more like it)....or follow the Spirit of the law. Divorce may be a good example.....sometimes it's what preserves the soul of two people, instead of them remaining together and building up bitterness and an extreme lack of joy.

The Bible does not talk about the 'spirit of the law.' That is a misinterpretation of II Corinthians 3, and an oft-used phrase even used in reference to civil law. Paul was contrasting the Spirit versus the law. He that is under the law finds that 'the good that I would, i do not, and the evil that I would not, that do I." But if you walk in the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Paul is talking about the same theme we see in Romans 7 through 8 and in the book of Galatians. Those who are under the law are struggling to keep commandments. Those who are under grace, walking in the Spirit, are enabled to please God.

Paul is not talking about interpreting the law in a loose way. That is not what the Spirit refers to in that passage.

When Jesus discussed divorce with the Pharisees, He was the one who took the 'stricter' position. Hillel allowed for a divorce if the wife ruined supper. The Babylonian Talmud came later, but was from the legal tradition of the Pharisees. It is interesting that it allowed as a grounds for divorce if a husband discovered that he had paid a bride price for a woman whose breasts were not spaced apart appropriately or were too big by their standards(Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth 75a-75b). Do you think Jesus would have agreed with this after reading Matthew 19?

The Bible tells believers that "no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."

If two believers are married and serving the Lord together, then there is no need for them to divorce. It is when one or both are disobedient that divorce happens. Joy is a fruit of the Spirit. Bitterness between a husband and wife is not.

Paul writes in Romans 6 that sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace. That doesn't mean that sin will not have dominion over us because we are forgiven if we commit it. Romans 5 tells us that grace reigns. Like we read in Philippians, God works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure. God works in us by His grace.

 

[Dave-W]

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.~Romans 10:4

Don't take "end" the wrong way here. It is not "end" as in terminus, but "end' as in the goal. The way it is used in the phrase "To what end?"

 

[mkgal1]

Don't take "end" the wrong way here. It is not "end" as in terminus, but "end' as in the goal. The way it is used in the phrase "To what end?"

I understand. If obeying rules is seen as the way to be "righteous" in and of themselves---there's a pride and self-righteous attitude that comes from that. So now a person is still "sinning" (falling short). That's not "effective".

 

[mkgal1]

Do you think Jesus would have agreed with this after reading Matthew 19?

You have to keep in mind who was asking this of Jesus (and also that He knew their thoughts and their motives). It wasn't a sincere question---the text even states they were "testing Him"...trying to trip Him up or catch Him in contradicting their laws so they could have Him killed. That answer was specific to those circumstances. Jesus was encouraging a compassion (I wouldn't call it as being "stricter")---when their practices had been calloused and self-centered. So.....this answer applies to those that are with the same attitude (but --IMO---isn't something that applies to *all* questions of divorce).

 

[mkgal1]

If two believers are married and serving the Lord together, then there is no need for them to divorce. It is when one or both are disobedient that divorce happens. Joy is a fruit of the Spirit. Bitterness between a husband and wife is not.

That's the big "if", though. People have free will to do as they please....and, unfortunately, not all truly are "serving the Lord together" all through their marriage. Throwing Bible verses at them as a way to "get them to do it" isn't going to cause them to internalize a desire to do so. It has to be of their own volition.

 

[Dave-W]

That's the big "if", though. People have free will to do as they please....and, unfortunately, not all truly are "serving the Lord together" all through their marriage. Throwing Bible verses at them as a way to "get them to do it" isn't going to cause them to internalize a desire to do so. It has to be of their own volition.

Agreed. If no one disobeyed, then things would go better for everyone. Any 2 believers of the correct gender (male-female) could make a go of a marriage IF (a very big IF) both are entirely submitted to the Lord. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.

As Lori Byerly of TheMarriageBed [dot] com is fond of saying: "Free Will sucks sometimes."

 

[mkgal1]

The Bible does not talk about the 'spirit of the law.' That is a misinterpretation of II Corinthians 3, and an oft-used phrase even used in reference to civil law. Paul was contrasting the Spirit versus the law. He that is under the law finds that 'the good that I would, i do not, and the evil that I would not, that do I." But if you walk in the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Paul is talking about the same theme we see in Romans 7 through 8 and in the book of Galatians. Those who are under the law are struggling to keep commandments. Those who are under grace, walking in the Spirit, are enabled to please God.

I suppose there's a reason why it seems as if Paul was struggling to get that concept across---I don't think it's a simple concept to articulate (it is more "experienced" than described in words).

The way I see it---"legalism" is one contrast to "walking in the Spirit"....and Jesus seemed to have spent a lot of time (at least His time that's recorded in the Bible) speaking out against legalism. Paul is probably the best qualified to write about it since he'd lived it out himself (and changed direction away from it).

Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you . . . " (Acts 22:3)

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith" (Philippians 3:4-9).

 

[mkgal1]

If no one disobeyed, then things would go better for everyone. Any 2 believers could make a go of a marriage IF (a very big IF) both are entirely submitted to the Lord. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.

As Lori Byerly of TheMarriageBed [dot] com is fond of saying: "Free Will sucks sometimes."

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, but if a girl were married off as a virgin and was found not to be one, she could face the death penalty. There was no law against non-virgins marrying. But marrying a virgin is presented as desirable. Aaronic priests could only marry Israelite virgins or widows of other priests.

Frankly, it's hard for me to see this...as an atheist...as anything but sexual control. When you think about it, what is the virgin capable of doing that the non-virgin isn't? The answer is literally nothing.

So aside from the possibility of disease (and I can see that being a real concern back in the days of the bible...so perhaps there's something to that) what's the point of marrying a virgin over a non-virgin?

The virgin doesn't have any sexual experiences...therefore she's completely ignorant of what is the "norm" sexually and the man is then capable of suggesting that "norm" to his new virginal wife. Whether that means indulging in his personal kinks or getting her to believe that his endowment is "normal"...he has that advantage.

That, to me at least, seems to be the likely basis for this whole "marrying a virgin" business back when it was written. Of course, I fully understand that those who believe it is god's will probably disagree with me entirely on this subject...but this section is open to atheists and I'm not handing out advice, so I don't think my interpretation is breaking any rules.

Personally, I've only been with one virgin in my entire life and wow...was that awful. There's so much teaching and explaining and instructing instead of simply being in the moment that it felt more like work than sex.

I'm not saying that I'd prefer a woman far more experienced than myself...but, to use a clumsy analogy, if I were a magician...I'd like it if my new assistant already knew a few tricks and I didn't have to teach her how to make everything disappear.

 

[LinkH]

Frankly, it's hard for me to see this...as an atheist...as anything but sexual control. When you think about it, what is the virgin capable of doing that the non-virgin isn't? The answer is literally nothing.

So aside from the possibility of disease (and I can see that being a real concern back in the days of the bible...so perhaps there's something to that) what's the point of marrying a virgin over a non-virgin?

First of all, God's original design was that two become one flesh. Those who lose their virginity and then marry someone else fall short of that design for marriage.

Also, if a man married a virgin, she wouldn't be pregnant with another man's child. He is not going to pass down his inheritance, which has been in his patriarchal lineage for generations, to some other man's son.

There are other practical benefits. If you wanted to buy some land to build a house on, and one had been used for dumping medical wastes for thousands of people all over the place, and the other hadn't, all else being equal, which one would you pick?

Which is better, to marry someone who has been scarred emotionally by lovers who dumped him or her, or someone without such experiences?

The virgin doesn't have any sexual experiences...therefore she's completely ignorant of what is the "norm" sexually and the man is then capable of suggesting that "norm" to his new virginal wife. Whether that means indulging in his personal kinks or getting her to believe that his endowment is "normal".

I read something recently that more 'primitive' people tend to be less 'kinky. Hunter gatherers just have intercourse, something along those lines. Maybe it has to do the luxury of extra time. The principle could hold true for agrarian societies.

But be that as it may, not having previous lovers does have advantages. If a man's virgin wife doesn't have some old flame to compare him to, not just physically, but in terms of personality and her past feelings, that is an advantage for both husband and wife. Even in terms of physical 'endowment' that could be is an advantage for both, especially if she has acclimated to someone else. Hormonally, her not having bonded with other men may be an advantage. There was a bit of research (Teachman 1990) that showed that women who had slept with a man other than her husband before marriage was much more likely to divorce (or experience 'marital disruption') than those who had not.

There is also the fact that those who choose to wait to have sex may tend to take marriage and sex a lot more serious than those who are promiscuous. Having sex with someone else has to be a much bigger deal to someone who has only slept with one person than it is to someone who slept with a whole football team or cheerleading squad.

Personally, I've only been with one virgin in my entire life and wow...was that awful.

I have been with one woman who was a virgin my entire married life. I'd imagine if you slept around a lot and then had a one-night-stand with a virgin, that could be an underwhelming experience. But if you marry a virgin and you love each other, and you get to learn these things together, that is a beautiful thing, and it is also a lot of fun..

 

[Ana the Ist]

First of all, God's original design was that two become one flesh. Those who lose their virginity and then marry someone else fall short of that design for marriage.

I'm sure you believe that to be true. It's not really the point I was making.

Also, if a man married a virgin, she wouldn't be pregnant with another man's child. He is not going to pass down his inheritance, which has been in his patriarchal lineage for generations, to some other man's son.

I think if passing along an inheritance is a serious consideration for a marriage...then you're marrying for the entirely wrong reasons.

There are other practical benefits. If you wanted to buy some land to build a house on, and one had been used for dumping medical wastes for thousands of people all over the place, and the other hadn't, all else being equal, which one would you pick?

I'm hoping that you don't really look at women this way. It's difficult for me to think of a more obscene analogy.

Let's assume for starters...that the non-virgin woman we're speaking of practiced safe sex and doesn't have any diseases.

If that's the case, she's not medically/biologically any different than the virgin. The notion that she's somehow spoilt in some way because she had sex is archaic and baseless.

Which is better, to marry someone who has been scarred emotionally by lovers who dumped him or her, or someone without such experiences?

Peruse these forums for a bit and what do you see? I see many many couples unprepared for marriage. Often, it's a result of this notion of marrying a virgin. Frequently it seems as if there's a general lack of understanding of mature relationships in such people and what to expect. As a result, this lack of experience leads to extreme difficulty as soon as any trouble rears its head.

I read something recently that more 'primitive' people tend to be less 'kinky. Hunter gatherers just have intercourse, something along those lines. Maybe it has to do the luxury of extra time. The principle could hold true for agrarian societies.

It could...or it might not...hard to say. Don't focus too hard on the word "kink". Since the christian marriage is often one depicted as one where women are servile to men...it appears to me that marrying a virgin is an extension of that power.

But be that as it may, not having previous lovers does have advantages. If a man's virgin wife doesn't have some old flame to compare him to, not just physically, but in terms of personality and her past feelings, that is an advantage for both husband and wife.

Maybe. In other cases, it may be a distinct disadvantage as the notion that "the grass is greener" sets in. I'm of the opinion that both partners should have at least some idea of what they want in a partner...and it's hard for me to imagine that coming from two people who have never had sex.

Even in terms of physical 'endowment' that could be is an advantage for both, especially if she has acclimated to someone else. Hormonally, her not having bonded with other men may be an advantage. There was a bit of research (Teachman 1990) that showed that women who had slept with a man other than her husband before marriage was much more likely to divorce (or experience 'marital disruption') than those who had not.

I'd like to see that link. I've heard of these studies before and they often fail to control for factors like income.

There is also the fact that those who choose to wait to have sex may tend to take marriage and sex a lot more serious than those who are promiscuous.

It's possible...I don't know that it's true, but it's possible. There's always a flip side to that coin though...perhaps a woman who has only known one man may be more inclined to stay in an abusive marriage since that's all she's known.

Having sex with someone else has to be a much bigger deal to someone who has only slept with one person than it is to someone who slept with a whole football team or cheerleading squad.

And the flip side of that may be that those who have only slept with one person will always wonder what "could have been".

I have been with one woman who was a virgin my entire married life. I'd imagine if you slept around a lot and then had a one-night-stand with a virgin, that could be an underwhelming experience. But if you marry a virgin and you love each other, and you get to learn these things together, that is a beautiful thing, and it is also a lot of fun..

I'm glad you're happy Link...and I'm glad you find your relationship satisfying. That's what counts.

I will say this though...I remember thinking sex was the best thing ever when I had it for the first time too. That notion lasted right up until I had sex with a woman who was much better at it. This gave me some perspective on what I actually want in such a relationship.