The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The 16 commandments


#61

The only sane intepretation of this is wife. It lines up perfectly with the 10th commandment. Additionally, as polygamy was still common then, it most certainly was not against married men.

Not saying it is fair, but Jesus clearly was talking about adultry, which means only a taken women. Men could have many wives, but women could not have more than one husband.

I don’t consider the Bible authoritative on this though, as these rules were what society was at the time. Today, adultry would me a married man or women. If both were ok with it, in the sense of swingers, then it would no longer be adultry.

If you notice, the word desire/covet doesn’t limit itself to a sexual context. If someone else’s wife cooks a great meal and you desire that trait, it would be no different than desiring her beauty, which is another trait. But the term covet is stronger, and conveys the idea of trying to obtain the person, effectively stealing another’s property (as it would have been in those days).

You are stealing nothing to admire another’s traits. But if you are seeking to obtain those for yourself, then your heart is geared towards the deed, should it arise, and this is the beginning of the seed of sin, not before.

I like Gary’s A’s thing about “reading the white”, too many people study so the word so intently that they miss the big picture. This causes us to obsess over the words vs the heart of the matter, and, of course trying to label normal and healthy desires as evil is a recipe for disaster and slavery.


#62

I agree.

Tolstoi says this:

He mentions nothing of the robber’s responsibility for his own actions. It is common knowledge that one should not steal, and in doing so, the thief puts himself in a precarious situation, taking the risk that he may be harmed by someone’s defensive reaction.


#63

Yes sir. I had the interesting (I’m not sure this is the place for the story but I have actually told it on TV so I guess it is OK) position where I hired my wife before we became a husband and wife. We were musicians and we traveled all over the eastern US playing music. And we took a liking to each other and yes qaz, we did desire each other. We went on to have kids and grandkids and go through the same craziness that all families go through. But I love her. I love her a bunch. She is my everything. Enough said.


#64

Metaphors have meaning. For example: “The leaves danced in the wind” is a metaphor that means the leaves moved in an upright position when blown about by the wind.

Now you explain in what way Jesus’ encounter with Satan was a metaphor. And if so, what is the meaning?


#65

I’m not very good with proof text’s so there will be none.

First of all, the Son of God being ‘tempted’ is a bit of a slog. There was a reason and a definite place for the devils (thus my understanding as being metaphorical) doings. Both God and Christ allowed the said exchange to happen. Which makes me to believe that it was both inspired and necessary, The idea that it was actual, is a belief on your part.

The devil in my belief is a mirror to our given free will souls.


#66

Not only a… “bit of a slog” BUT ALSO a bit of a problem when one considers what this might do to Christ’s divinity in light of…

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

Of course one reassuring way out of that potential difficulty might be to simplistically claim that “tempt” doesn’t really mean tempt, and then go on to supply some other derivation thereof… it’s been done before lol. :thinking:


#67

Yeah but people take refuge/recourse in the supposed ‘dual-nature’ theory. Only the ‘human’ nature was tempted, not the ‘divine’ nature.
I don’t buy it, personally.


#68

I get the same reaction, when I present the theory…that the Zombie Apocalypse…is the most probable, end-times tribulation model. And there is ONLY ONE nature to deal with - DEAD.

image


#69

No, you get that reaction because you are so off the wall that most people assume you are a full time joker or coockoo.


#70

I, too, believe Jesus, while He lived on earth was fully human. But as you know, I believe that God had begotten His only Son as the first of His acts, and that the Son was fully divine (though not God or part of God), and that He divested Himself of His divine attributes when He became human.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8 ESV)

So Jesus, in being born, did not hold on to his divinity, but emptied Himself, and became fully human. But the fact is, though He allowed Satan to try to tempt Him, He also couldn’t be tempted in the sense of success on the tempter’s part.


#71

Everything is “off the wall”, until it gains momentum. When Christian Science was in its infancy and Mary Baker Eddy was the only adherent…People thought it was “off the wall”, when they first heard it - like Mark Twain. But it did reach a high point in history.

The key questions to ask, is what do people do - with visions or prophesies… more than one different person, is having or saying? Regardless of how “far out”, it may seem.

And speaking of “off the wall”. Just look at this article, from today’s Patheos evangelical newsletter:


#72

Yes Randy is off the wall but there is a method to the madness.