Hitting with the heavy gloves

[GreenEyedLady]

I am not a Christian, my beliefs lean toward Unitarian values of not hurting others and being responsible for my own actions. I am truly not bashing anyone who is religous and am asking with a genuine need for understanding as to how anyone can be a Christian, attend Church and follow the Bible, yet contine to have an affair knowing that it will hurt the BS. I understand that people can fall in love while married to someone else, but not the continued deceit that ensues. How can this be reconciled with religous doctrine especially for those who take communion.

 

The MW in my H's affair was a practicing catholic and it just confused the hell out of me how she could participate in an A. Not projecting, each to their own, just curious.

 

It's sin. It's free will. It's choosing to do something that you know you shouldn't.

 

People aren't perfect and sinless. They act against their beliefs and justify or excuse it. And it's not following the Bible or those people engaging in the A wouldn't be in one.

 

I don't think that the OP is reconciling it with religious doctrine. Instead she sees that it is wrong and therefore the conflict. Her task is how to resolve the conflict.

 

GEL

[Owl]

I don't think that the OP is reconciling it with religious doctrine. Instead she sees that it is wrong and therefore the conflict. Her task is how to resolve the conflict.

 

GEL

 

I usually try to avoid these kinds of discussions, but...

 

She's got her guidance already.

 

The parable mentioned earlier explains it perfectly.

 

The prostitute had to realize she was sinning (as pointed out by the stoning by the crowd), and she was instructed to "go, and sin no more". In other words...recognize the sin, ask for God's forgiveness, and stop committing that sin.

 

Mombot needs to take those same steps in order to resolve her conflict.

[GreenEyedLady]

Mombot needs to take those same steps in order to resolve her conflict.

 

I disagree Owl. She has to determine it for herself. That is what free will is all about. She knows the parable. Application, however, varies from person to person.

 

People can tell her what to do, but she must decide for herself. The decision much come from within her.

 

GEL

[Owl]

I disagree Owl. She has to determine it for herself. That is what free will is all about. She knows the parable. Application, however, varies from person to person.

 

People can tell her what to do, but she must decide for herself. The decision much come from within her.

 

GEL

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, GEL.

 

This is exactly where people tend to (often deliberately) try to mis-apply the concept of free will.

 

The Bible is very clear about the steps for addressing sin. It's not the least bit confusing. It's not vague, nor does it require interpretation. It's clearly spelled out over and over throughout the New Testament.

 

"Go, and sin no more" isn't difficult to extract the meaning from. No confusion on how to apply it...unless you deliberately create that confusion because you wish to avoid applying it.

 

If she follows the Bible and believes it's God's word...she doesn't need people to tell her what to do. The Bible tells her clearly already.

 

If she doesn't...then this entire conversation on the parable and it's application is moot anyway.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Owl

[fooled once]

We'll have to agree to disagree, GEL.

 

This is exactly where people tend to (often deliberately) try to mis-apply the concept of free will.

 

The Bible is very clear about the steps for addressing sin. It's not the least bit confusing. It's not vague, nor does it require interpretation. It's clearly spelled out over and over throughout the New Testament.

 

"Go, and sin no more" isn't difficult to extract the meaning from. No confusion on how to apply it...unless you deliberately create that confusion because you wish to avoid applying it.

 

If she follows the Bible and believes it's God's word...she doesn't need people to tell her what to do. The Bible tells her clearly already.

 

If she doesn't...then this entire conversation on the parable and it's application is moot anyway.

 

Excellent post Owl - truly excellent! thank you for saying this and saying it in a way that is easy to get.

[Mombot]

Thanks for the thought provoking posts. Am deciding what it is I really want. I have a good life with or without him.

[pureinheart]

We'll have to agree to disagree, GEL.

 

This is exactly where people tend to (often deliberately) try to mis-apply the concept of free will.

 

The Bible is very clear about the steps for addressing sin. It's not the least bit confusing. It's not vague, nor does it require interpretation. It's clearly spelled out over and over throughout the New Testament.

 

"Go, and sin no more" isn't difficult to extract the meaning from. No confusion on how to apply it...unless you deliberately create that confusion because you wish to avoid applying it.

 

If she follows the Bible and believes it's God's word...she doesn't need people to tell her what to do. The Bible tells her clearly already.

 

If she doesn't...then this entire conversation on the parable and it's application is moot anyway.

 

Hi Owl,

 

With all due respect...BTW I appreciate the respect you show for others in agreeing to disagree:)...the tone of your posts are never out of line that I have seen...so thanks...

 

Anyway, I heard a teaching on this matter as it was fresh in my mind at the time as I was having a discussion about this very scripture with another poster...

 

I meant to write the teaching down as it clearly stated that many take "the go and sin no more" out of context...I will have to sit down and do a study on it...and if Mombot doesn't mind, come back to this thread at a later time. I've got so much going on in my life right now that my head is swimming...lol.

 

Just off the top of my head...Jesus making the statement to go and sin no more...well we know we will sin again, so there must be another meaning to it, I don't believe literal interpretation is the deal with this scripture.

 

I think Jesus was referring to salvation...

[txsilkysmoothe]

Just off the top of my head...Jesus making the statement to go and sin no more...well we know we will sin again, so there must be another meaning to it, I don't believe literal interpretation is the deal with this scripture.

 

I think Jesus was referring to salvation...

 

 

I think Jesus was telling her, "stop prostituting." This sin was at the core of their meeting that day.

 

We will all sin again, but I don't think we will continue the "same" sin or the same "type" of sin. There are sins we will overcome and never repeat; others we may abstain from for years before commiting again; Others we'll recognize as wrong, but continue to commit because it's our desire to do so.

 

Sorry for getting off topic!

[Mombot]

Appreciate it!

[bentnotbroken]

Hi Owl,

 

With all due respect...BTW I appreciate the respect you show for others in agreeing to disagree:)...the tone of your posts are never out of line that I have seen...so thanks...

 

Anyway, I heard a teaching on this matter as it was fresh in my mind at the time as I was having a discussion about this very scripture with another poster...

 

I meant to write the teaching down as it clearly stated that many take "the go and sin no more" out of context...I will have to sit down and do a study on it...and if Mombot doesn't mind, come back to this thread at a later time. I've got so much going on in my life right now that my head is swimming...lol.

 

Just off the top of my head...Jesus making the statement to go and sin no more...well we know we will sin again, so there must be another meaning to it, I don't believe literal interpretation is the deal with this scripture.

 

I think Jesus was referring to salvation...

 

 

I have studied this particular scripture as well. He was only speaking to this specific woman specifically about the sin of remaining an adultress. God doesn't expect not to sin, but the living in a state of sin is unacceptable. As in continueing to commit the same sin over and over and over again, without total disregard to what we know is true. As believers we are supposed to learn from our poor choices and not repeat the offense. For those who don't learn, that is a choice of remaining in a constant state of sin with intention and without impunity.

[pureinheart]

I have studied this particular scripture as well. He was only speaking to this specific woman specifically about the sin of remaining an adultress. God doesn't expect not to sin, but the living in a state of sin is unacceptable. As in continueing to commit the same sin over and over and over again, without total disregard to what we know is true. As believers we are supposed to learn from our poor choices and not repeat the offense. For those who don't learn, that is a choice of remaining in a constant state of sin with intention and without impunity.

 

I disagree on this one...Jesus was under some heavy fire concerning the Pharisees...they were trying to set Him up concerning the Law and Grace...interesting read if you choose

 

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/John/john_28.htm

 

 

In my initial post concerning this I thought it was the issue of salvation...it was the issue of grace.

[bentnotbroken]

I disagree on this one...Jesus was under some heavy fire concerning the Pharisees...they were trying to set Him up concerning the Law and Grace...interesting read if you choose

 

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/John/john_28.htm

 

 

In my initial post concerning this I thought it was the issue of salvation...it was the issue of grace.

 

 

I've read it before. We will agree to disagree.

[pureinheart]

I think Jesus was telling her, "stop prostituting." This sin was at the core of their meeting that day.

 

We will all sin again, but I don't think we will continue the "same" sin or the same "type" of sin. There are sins we will overcome and never repeat; others we may abstain from for years before commiting again; Others we'll recognize as wrong, but continue to commit because it's our desire to do so.

 

Sorry for getting off topic!

 

Basically IMO sin is sin...there is the theology that the repetitious sin is the sin unto death, meaning one can loose their salvation (which is yet a whole nother topic...lol).

 

Ok the repeat offender sinning the same sin...will they loose their salvation? Because in my mind that is the key issue..as is with God...salvation.

 

Jesus was all about grace and redemption, it is why He died on the cross...this is the reason I think the link above carries the truth about the woman at the well...when He said to go and sin no more, he was refering to grace.

[pureinheart]

I've read it before. We will agree to disagree.

 

lol...works for me and I appreciate that:)

[GreenEyedLady]

What I think is the most thought provoking and important part of the parable is:

 

Those without sin raise the first stone.

 

However, those who tell of the parable mean: repent the sin and sin no more.

 

Why isn't the true meaning: those without sin cast the first stone studied?

 

I guess because people want to judge others and not themselves.

 

GEL

[BalenciagaSpain]

What I think is the most thought provoking and important part of the parable is:

 

Those without sin raise the first stone.

 

However, those who tell of the parable mean: repent the sin and sin no more.

 

Why isn't the true meaning: those without sin cast the first stone studied?

 

I guess because people want to judge others and not themselves.

 

GEL

I read the Opening Post very carefully, and it said this:

The part about the sin and all that really hit me hard.

In context, the "go, and sin no more" is appropriate.

 

Had she said her prayer group had judged her and demanded she stop her sinning, then "those without sin, cast the first stone" would be in context. She has not said that happened to her, so it therefore is inappropriate in response to the Opening Post.

 

Should she refer to some of her advisors as hypocrites, then it would be appropriate, but she has not (so far).

 

Mombot, I hope you continue with your prayer group. I wish you the best on your spiritual journey. It pleases me that there are some OW out there open to it.

[GreenEyedLady]

I read the Opening Post very carefully, and it said this:

In context, the "go, and sin no more" is appropriate.

 

Had she said her prayer group had judged her and demanded she stop her sinning, then "those without sin, cast the first stone" would be in context. She has not said that happened to her, so it therefore is inappropriate in response to the Opening Post.

 

Should she refer to some of her advisors as hypocrites, then it would be appropriate, but she has not (so far).

 

Mombot, I hope you continue with your prayer group. I wish you the best on your spiritual journey. It pleases me that there are some OW out there open to it.

 

Maybe my point here has nothing to do with her post but the post of others.

 

Maybe as others call her a hypocrite I am basically saying they are hypocrites.

 

But I guess people don't really like being called on their own sh**.

 

GEL

[BalenciagaSpain]

Maybe my point here has nothing to do with her post but the post of others.

 

Maybe as others call her a hypocrite I am basically saying they are hypocrites.

 

But I guess people don't really like being called on their own sh**.

 

GEL

My apologies, I am new to this forum. I assumed that since Mombot started the thread to seek advice, it was for her to moderate or dictate the direction of it.

 

As I read more, I see this is not necessarily the case.

[pureinheart]

I read the Opening Post very carefully, and it said this:

In context, the "go, and sin no more" is appropriate.

 

Had she said her prayer group had judged her and demanded she stop her sinning, then "those without sin, cast the first stone" would be in context. She has not said that happened to her, so it therefore is inappropriate in response to the Opening Post.

 

Should she refer to some of her advisors as hypocrites, then it would be appropriate, but she has not (so far).

 

Mombot, I hope you continue with your prayer group. I wish you the best on your spiritual journey. It pleases me that there are some OW out there open to it.

 

Hi BS...it's a normal practice in this particular forum (LS) to chime in as it is not just the original poster that has the ability to challenge/participate anyone can.

 

Hey we're just one big happy family...lol...and BTW, welcome to the forum:)

[Mombot]

It's all the different perspectives that are helpful on this forum. Sometimes there a few snarky ones, but most everyone is very heartfelt.

[NoIDidn't]

I have studied this particular scripture as well. He was only speaking to this specific woman specifically about the sin of remaining an adultress. God doesn't expect not to sin, but the living in a state of sin is unacceptable. As in continueing to commit the same sin over and over and over again, without total disregard to what we know is true. As believers we are supposed to learn from our poor choices and not repeat the offense. For those who don't learn, that is a choice of remaining in a constant state of sin with intention and without impunity.

 

The scripture in question, as you rightly stated, is about a woman that was caught in the act of adultery. Actually having sex with a man that was not her husband. She was brought before Jesus naked.

 

There is so much symbolism in this particular scripture. Too much for anyone to really boil it down to "don't judge me, or you're a hypocrite".

 

I believe that Jesus was telling her not to continue in adultery. I believe that the Pharises that chose not to stone her, did so because when Jesus speaks his words convict on ALL of your previous sins, not just what she was going to be stoned for. But I don't believe that this scripture boils down to "don't judge me, even though I'm doing wrong", or else why did he tell her to stop it? Didn't he judge her in telling her to stop it?

 

Religious discussions in a forum about adultery are always very, um, interesting, to say the least. I mean, just how clear is "Thou shalt not commit adultery", that anyone needs to further think about continuing in it?

 

Mombot, I'm not mocking or judging you. Responding to the other posts, not your OP. Regarding your OP, I wouldn't consider his words to mean much as LB said, what about him being an honest man? You received the message you received for a reason. And it was a pretty clear one, at that. The choice is now yours to continue in sin or not. But as Paul said in Romans, God forbid we should ever attempt to continue in sin in the hopes that Grace would continue to cover it. My paraphrase. Read it at Romans 6:1-2 for the actual wording.

 

It seems that this affair is starting to cause you internal conflict. I would stop it, at this point, myself - but that's me. Things only get more difficult from here on out, though. When we quiet that voice of conviction, we run the risk of not being able to hear the Voice again. Or at least not hear it again until a moment of true crisis. I wouldn't let it get to that point. There really is no telling what could be going on by then.

 

((Mombot))

[GreenEyedLady]

You know, the scripture says that she was taken in the act of adultery.

 

I'd like to know where the man she was committing adultery with was.

 

I also don't know how more clear,"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," can be.

 

But maybe that's just me.

 

GEL

[Mombot]

I think most of us on this forum either are or were in self-conflict- and we know it.

[OWoman]

You know, the scripture says that she was taken in the act of adultery.

 

I'd like to know where the man she was committing adultery with was.

 

It didn't apply to men. Men were allowed as many women as they wanted - as Ws, as concubines or as slaves to have sex with whenever they wanted. It was only women who were bound to have sex with no one but their one, legally M, H.

[Fieldsofgold]

It didn't apply to men. Men were allowed as many women as they wanted - as Ws, as concubines or as slaves to have sex with whenever they wanted. It was only women who were bound to have sex with no one but their one, legally M, H.

 

that was not G-d's original plan. When He gave the Ten Commandments, it was applied to everyone. The plan that men could have as many women as they wanted, was a law created by man, or as the Bible says, "every man doing what seems right in his own eyes."