Adultery is excusable, no.

[Timreason]

In ukrc that certain poster is now claiming that the 10 Commandments are
fundamental, and therefore the sabbath should be kept as stated there,
and that means Saturday.

However, that poster also says that 'remarried' adulterers can carry on
in their sin, once having 'repented' of their 'remarriage' contrary to
Christ's teaching.

He ducks and dives to 'excuse' the adulterers, even though the
commandments outlaw it and Jesus says 'remarriage' (in the circumstances
He gave) is adultery. The poster wants to claim that, somehow, it stops
being adultery once they have 'repented', and so they can then go on
sinning.

As usual, he skates on self-contradictory thin ice, excusing some sins
whilst taking a firm line on others.

It's pointless discussing the subject in that group though, as we all
know. He will either twist what you say, or use his idiotic 'logic'
which proves only how he has lost the argument, and then he will claim
victory!

Tim.

[Timreason]

After posting the above, I found this quote:-

"Don't argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and
then beat you with experience. " -- Mark Twain

Wish we could edit posts after we've made them, it's so appropriate when
it comes to trying to debate with his wonky 'logic'!

>
> Tim.
>

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

You can delete your post, and then post an amended one, Tim.
Jeff...

[Timreason]

Oh, OK. I didn't know it's possible to delete posts once made.

Thanks, Jeff.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 09:05:11 UTC, Timreason wrote:
> In ukrc that certain poster is now claiming that the 10 Commandments are
> fundamental, and therefore the sabbath should be kept as stated there,
> and that means Saturday.

It doesn't matter which day is used for worship.
"16 Therefore, let no one judge you because of what you eat or drink or about the observance of annual holy days, New Moon Festivals, or weekly worship days. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body {that casts the shadow} belongs to Christ".
Col 2:16-17 (GW)

> However, that poster also says that 'remarried' adulterers can carry on
> in their sin, once having 'repented' of their 'remarriage' contrary to
> Christ's teaching.

The point is they are still committing actual physical adultery each time they have sexual intercourse, which may go on for 20 or 30 years thereafter.
Thus the Seventh Day Adventist reasoning is sheer madness.

But it does enable them to retain in fellowship those whom Christ has stated are committing adultery.
Yet 'the certain poster' conveniently forgets that John declares that "Whosoever bids godspeed is a partaker of their evil deeds".

Thus the SDA become sinful partners with those in their fellowship who have divorced & remarried.
Not a lot of people know that.

Jeff...

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

On my page, its the three dots on the right hand side at the top next to the arrow.

Jeff...

[Robert Marshall]

It isn't possible, Jeff's using google to post - that allows him to
delete posts so that they are no longer visible *there*, but by that stage
the post has propagated elsewhere onto real(tm) usenet and any deletion
that google operates will not affect the post on usenet.

That explains why I (at least) can see, sometimes, very slightly
different posts from Jeff, he's deleted one - but here I'm seeing both
of them!


Robert
--
Some people use the word "woke" as if it's supposed to be an
insult. But mostly they use it because they can't spell "empathetic",
"educated" or "enlightened".
Robert Marshall he/him twitter: @rajm

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Here is where I post to the Newsgroups from.
https://groups.google.com/g/england.religion.christian/c/V6M1PSX0ma8

[Timreason]

Ah, OK we're using different methods. I use Thunderbird (as it's like
the old 'Outlook Express') and Eternal September client (which is free).

I could use the google groups route if I want to delete. Good to know,
thanks.

Tim.

[Timreason]

On 12/02/2023 19:15, Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12 2023, Timreason <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2023 08:52, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 10:44:31 UTC, Timreason wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2023 09:05, Timreason wrote:
>>>> Wish we could edit posts after we've made them, it's so appropriate when
>>>> it comes to trying to debate with his wonky 'logic'!
>>> > Tim.
>>> You can delete your post, and then post an amended one, Tim.
>>> Jeff...
>>
>> Oh, OK. I didn't know it's possible to delete posts once made.
>>
>
> It isn't possible, Jeff's using google to post - that allows him to
> delete posts so that they are no longer visible *there*, but by that stage
> the post has propagated elsewhere onto real(tm) usenet and any deletion
> that google operates will not affect the post on usenet.
>
> That explains why I (at least) can see, sometimes, very slightly
> different posts from Jeff, he's deleted one - but here I'm seeing both
> of them!
>
>
> Robert

Ah, OK that's how I thought it was.

Many thanks.

Tim.

[Timreason]

On 12/02/2023 18:57, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 09:05:11 UTC, Timreason wrote:
>> In ukrc that certain poster is now claiming that the 10 Commandments are
>> fundamental, and therefore the sabbath should be kept as stated there,
>> and that means Saturday.
>
> It doesn't matter which day is used for worship.
> "16 Therefore, let no one judge you because of what you eat or drink or about the observance of annual holy days, New Moon Festivals, or weekly worship days. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body {that casts the shadow} belongs to Christ".
> Col 2:16-17 (GW)

Yes. I think the main principle is there should be a day of
rest/recreation. Interestingly, I think the best pattern is to have
Saturday as a 'Recreational day', followed by Sunday morning as a time
for worship and fellowship. IOW I advocate a two-day weekend. 'The
poster' has accepted that that is not so far from the Adventist position
on this, yet I am 'traditionalist' in this regard. Sunday (the Lord's
Day) is my 'holy day'.

Also, that is only 'the best pattern', and may not always be possible
for some people, who might have to nominate another day for recreation,
or another time for worship and fellowship. So these things need to be
in their lives, but being legalistic over which day and time is not
required.

>
>> However, that poster also says that 'remarried' adulterers can carry on
>> in their sin, once having 'repented' of their 'remarriage' contrary to
>> Christ's teaching.
>
> The point is they are still committing actual physical adultery each time they have sexual intercourse, which may go on for 20 or 30 years thereafter.
> Thus the Seventh Day Adventist reasoning is sheer madness.

As you know, I advocate that their relationship should be celibate. But
I don't advocate that people should be lonely. No-one can police it to
see if they are complying, of course, but God will know.

Tim.

[Robert Marshall]

Indeed, and even more of a 'not possible' when posting to moderated
groups like uk.r.c (as I guess was your implication), as in that case
the post gets emailed to the external moderbot and google groups doesn't
get it until it has been approved, so you can't "delete" it until it has
done the round trip, and a deletion won't go to the moderbot.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 08:14:48 UTC, Timreason wrote:
> On 12/02/2023 18:57, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> > On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 09:05:11 UTC, Timreason wrote:
> >> In ukrc that certain poster is now claiming that the 10 Commandments are
> >> fundamental, and therefore the sabbath should be kept as stated there,
> >> and that means Saturday.
> >
> > It doesn't matter which day is used for worship.

> > "16 Therefore, let no one judge you because of what you eat or drink or about the observance of annual holy days, New Moon Festivals, or weekly worship days. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body {that casts the shadow} belongs to Christ".
> > Col 2:16-17 (GW)

> Yes. I think the main principle is there should be a day of
> rest/recreation. Interestingly, I think the best pattern is to have
> Saturday as a 'Recreational day', followed by Sunday morning as a time
> for worship and fellowship. IOW I advocate a two-day weekend. 'The
> poster' has accepted that that is not so far from the Adventist position
> on this, yet I am 'traditionalist' in this regard. Sunday (the Lord's
> Day) is my 'holy day'.
>
> Also, that is only 'the best pattern', and may not always be possible
> for some people, who might have to nominate another day for recreation,
> or another time for worship and fellowship. So these things need to be
> in their lives, but being legalistic over which day and time is not
> required.

Quite!
"2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, **whose faith is weak** eats only vegetables.

3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike.
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.
8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord".
Romans 14:1-8 (ANIV)

> >> However, that poster also says that 'remarried' adulterers can carry on
> >> in their sin, once having 'repented' of their 'remarriage' contrary to
> >> Christ's teaching.
> >
> > The point is they are still committing actual physical adultery each time they have sexual intercourse, which may go on for 20 or 30 years thereafter.

> > Thus the Seventh Day Adventist reasoning is sheer madness.

> As you know, I advocate that their relationship should be celibate.

Well, Tim how many in all seriousness actually remarry to remain 'celibate' all their married life?

And those who remarry, often marry unbelievers, increasing their already continuing iniquity for the life of the forbidden marriage.

> But
> I don't advocate that people should be lonely.

Maybe that is what what God requires for that person, certainly not them overriding Christ's instruction that marriage is not for sundering but only at the death of the first spouse.

> No-one can police it to
> see if they are complying, of course, but God will know.
> Tim.

Well, as the person is now Living in the sin of Adultery, the Church must excommunicate such wicked persons or become contaminated and a sharer in their sin along with them.

"For he who bids godspeed is a PARTAKER of their EVIL deeds".

"Be you not partakers with them, keep thyself pure"

Jeff...

[Timreason]

On 13/02/2023 12:41, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 08:14:48 UTC, Timreason wrote:

[snip some for brevity]

>
>> As you know, I advocate that their relationship should be celibate.
>
> Well, Tim how many in all seriousness actually remarry to remain 'celibate' all their married life?
>

They may not keep to celibacy. But as they get older they may get to the
point where celibacy is what the Lord leads them to. They can repent of
what's gone before.

There are two approaches to this: (1) Assume there IS sin, even though
there may not be (even allowing that this is perhaps unlikely), or (2)
Assume there is NO sin (IOW, accord them 'The benefit of the doubt').

I run with the second option, rather akin to our legal system, which has
the principle that a person is presumed innocent, rather than guilty,
even when their guilt appears almost certain.

You see, whatever line is taken, in such a generally private matter
their compliance with teaching remains unknown to the congregation or
its leaders, so it has to be a matter of their conscience before God.

The main thing is not to exclude them from fellowship because they
*might* be sinning, if there's no hard evidence that they actually are.

If we start excluding sinners, or even people who *might* be sinners,
then EVERYONE would be excluded! We are ALL sinners, as we know from
scripture, and ALL therefore have fallen short.

> And those who remarry, often marry unbelievers, increasing their already continuing iniquity for the life of the forbidden marriage.
>

I have known examples where the unbeliever later comes to the Lord, so
that possibility should be borne in mind.

>> But
>> I don't advocate that people should be lonely.
>
> Maybe that is what what God requires for that person, certainly not them overriding Christ's instruction that marriage is not for sundering but only at the death of the first spouse.

The 'Maybe' there is the key word. They *could* be called to a lonely
life, but we are (as CS Lewis pointed out) not to be concerned with the
stories of others. Everyone's walk with God is personal and individual
and tailored to them, and therefore different.

>
>> No-one can police it to
>> see if they are complying, of course, but God will know.
>> Tim.
>
> Well, as the person is now Living in the sin of Adultery, the Church must excommunicate such wicked persons or become contaminated and a sharer in their sin along with them.

Well, only if it is KNOWN that they are not celibate. Even if there's a
string of kids, sometimes falling to temptation does not mean they are
not working towards celibacy and repentance!

Tim.