Sandi Patty on Prime Time
J Mark Whitfield
I too got to see Prime Time Live with Amy and Sandi. I thought Amy did a
great job. I was shocked to learn about Sandi's adultery, divorce, and
marriage. And even more supprised the she is still singing christian music.
Maybe she should pick-up her Bible and she what God has to say about her
situation (Matthew5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18). She
certainly has no business on stage. What kind of example is she setting for
our young people???
Wednesday
In article <66710a$h...@news1.infoave.net>,
Well, foo. Let's just scrap all the sinners from the industry.
*boot*
*crickets chirp*
Sheesh. Awful quiet in here...
--
It's always the same. It's not easy to keep::::::wednsday@[tezcat.com|chiark.
myself contained. Sit back and relax? How::::::greenend.org.uk] - bev white
can I when I'm going down in flames? - F242::::::sex: no substitute for perl.
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
whit...@infoave.net (J Mark Whitfield) erupted:
>What kind of example is she setting for our young people???
none, hopefully. i mean, i wouldnt wish her music on any young person.
Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
allthesleepingneverwakingalltheleavesinneedofrakingallthebusinessundertaking
allmybonesandmusclesachingthoughtandmindaresurelyflakingoverluncheonhandsare
shakingsuretyofnomistakingcarsandhornsandglassisbreaking - 'dogman', kings x
--[Michael A. Vickers]-----------------------------[mavi...@cryogen.com]--
Thor, God of Thunder
Wednesday wrote:
>
> In article <66710a$h...@news1.infoave.net>,
> J Mark Whitfield <whit...@infoave.net> wrote:
> >I too got to see Prime Time Live with Amy and Sandi. I thought Amy did a
> >great job. I was shocked to learn about Sandi's adultery, divorce, and
> >marriage. And even more supprised the she is still singing christian music.
> >Maybe she should pick-up her Bible and she what God has to say about her
> >situation (Matthew5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18). She
> >our young people???
>
>
> *boot*
>
> *crickets chirp*
>
> Sheesh. Awful quiet in here...
> --
> It's always the same. It's not easy to keep::::::wednsday@[tezcat.com|chiark.
> myself contained. Sit back and relax? How::::::greenend.org.uk] - bev white
> can I when I'm going down in flames? - F242::::::sex: no substitute for perl.
Well that was a truly sad response. It has nothing to do with scrapping
or bashing sinners in the christian music industry, but with God's rules
(oh, and there are some rules whether you believe them or not). I
watched it too and although my response wasn't that heated, I did think
the same thing: if she had an affair as she said she did, then she has
no right to remarry.
When Jesus met the woman at the well she was caught in adultry...Jesus
said she had 7 husbands (?). She begged his forgiveness, and He forgave
her just as He does all of us. But he did tell her to not sin anymore.
Same with the woman caught in adultry and who was about to be stoned.
See, we can't accept God's forgiveness without true repentance, and
repenting means turning away from the sin. If we keep sinning then we
stay in the same predicament.
Sadly enough, when christians commit this sin it is a sin against their
own bodies, which means that when we do that, it is eating us away. Sin
is a disease and it's only purpose is to kill and destroy. When we
refuse to accept Christ's rules, then we invite sin to continue
destroying us - regardless of how much we want what is forbidden. No
matter what we don't see or how much we don't believe it to exist, there
are consequences to our sins. God made the rules for us.
Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words. If
you don't see that because your own mind sees God as being intolerant or
not fair, then pray for wisdom, and honestly search...He is good and
faithful and will show you. I feel sorry for her because God will not
bless the union without repentance...
- James
loserboy
Thor, God of Thunder <we...@lexmark.com> wrote:
>
>When Jesus met the woman at the well she was caught in adultry...Jesus
>said she had 7 husbands (?). She begged his forgiveness, and He forgave
>her just as He does all of us. But he did tell her to not sin anymore.
maybe you oughta reread john 4 before you start moralizing at others...
glenn
--
welcome to my world|where's my gun?|conform or be cast out|i'd hug your
neck and kiss your face|you took away my hero...|how is it i am found...?|
...and everything is grace|http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt1636b
Wednesday
In article <34872F...@lexmark.com>,
Thor, God of Thunder <we...@lexmark.com> wrote:
(The irony fills me with vaclemptitude.)
>Well that was a truly sad response. It has nothing to do with scrapping
>or bashing sinners in the christian music industry, but with God's rules
So why did the original poster feel the need to say "She certainly has no
business on stage?" She's got as much right as anyone who sins in this biz
to be on stage. Sexual taboos aside, it's no worse than anything else.
That's what I was responding to.
>(oh, and there are some rules whether you believe them or not).
If you feel the need to condescend to me, please do it more effectively.
>See, we can't accept God's forgiveness without true repentance, and
>repenting means turning away from the sin. If we keep sinning then we
>stay in the same predicament.
*shrug* So this makes her worse than anyone else how?
>Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words. If
>you don't see that because your own mind sees God as being intolerant or
>not fair, then pray for wisdom, and honestly search...He is good and
>faithful and will show you.
Um, you don't know me. You can stop extrapolating now.
Chemically Imbalanced Spice
On Thu, 04 Dec 97 19:42:39 GMT, in rec.music.christian,
whit...@infoave.net (J Mark Whitfield) wrote:
>I too got to see Prime Time Live with Amy and Sandi. I thought Amy did a
>great job. I was shocked to learn about Sandi's adultery, divorce, and
>marriage. And even more supprised the she is still singing christian music.
>Maybe she should pick-up her Bible and she what God has to say about her
>situation (Matthew5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18). She
>certainly has no business on stage. What kind of example is she setting for
>our young people???
Please tell me you're joking! What about the way God restores people
after they have sinned?
And besides, what teenager would ever listen to Sandy Patty anyway?
--
Donnie
don...@imagixx.net
klutzi
My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
treats her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In my
eyes, Michael did nothing worse than Sandi. It seems to me that it's a
double standard. I used to like Sandi, but now I can't stand her. Maybe
it's the way Christian music opens there arms to her. One question -- Did
she ever publicly admit she was wrong & ask her audience for forgiveness,
like Michael has?
I don't want to start a war here, but I really want to know where things
stand in regards to her.
Thanks!
--
Klutzi
jsp...@iquest.nospam.net
Remove nospam to send email
Wednesday wrote in message <667ek6$a...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>...
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
>And besides, what teenager would ever listen to Sandy Patty anyway?
and that is THE question. my only offering is those teens who are stuck in
the car with mom while she plays her music.
Chemically Imbalanced Spice
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:13:59 -0500, "klutzi"
<kao...@geocities.nospam.com> snapped into a Slim Jim and wrote:
>My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
>treats her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In my
>eyes, Michael did nothing worse than Sandi. It seems to me that it's a
>double standard. I used to like Sandi, but now I can't stand her. Maybe
>it's the way Christian music opens there arms to her. One question -- Did
>she ever publicly admit she was wrong & ask her audience for forgiveness,
>like Michael has?
>
>I don't want to start a war here, but I really want to know where things
>stand in regards to her.
>Thanks!
I totally agree. Both artists definitely should have been asked back,
and I think its terrible Michael was deined. At least he's honest
enough to admit when he did wrong.
--
Donnie
don...@imagixx.net
Ji Bae
J Mark Whitfield wrote:
> I too got to see Prime Time Live with Amy and Sandi. I thought Amy
> did a
> great job. I was shocked to learn about Sandi's adultery, divorce,
> and
> marriage. And even more supprised the she is still singing christian
> music.
> Maybe she should pick-up her Bible and she what God has to say about
> her
> situation (Matthew5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18).
> She
> certainly has no business on stage. What kind of example is she
> setting for
> our young people???
1) The Sandi Patty divorce/adultery thing is old news now... where have
you been? It was all over the CCM mags and secular press a long time
ago.
2) Your desire to remain faithful to Christ's teachings on divorce and
remarriage is commendable. However...
3) What exactly is it that you find objectionable about her continuing
her career? Do you know all the facts surrounding her adultery,
divorce, and remarriage? Or have you made your opinion based upon
rumors? If it is the latter, than I would ask you to read James, and
pay close attention to the passage about taming the tongue.
4) It is one thing if Sandi Patty did all this and had no feelings of
remorse and flaunted her sins for the wide world to see, or if she
behaved like it was no big deal. It is another if she deals with the
sin, ask for and accepts God's forgiveness, and moves on with her life.
The former is living in open rebellion to God, while the latter is doing
what most of us Christians do every day. IMO, it seems that she has
done the latter.
5) What kind of example is she setting for young people? By the way,
maybe we should remember that these CCM artists are sinners too. I
think one of the worst things that CCM has done is create a market for
"Christian" celebrities. While the secular perception of celebrities is
harmful because it elevates skill and/or talent above the importance of
character, the Christian perception of celebrity is harmful because it
elevate skill and/or talent above the importance of humanity. These
artists are people, and they screw up just like all of us. The problem
is that we inflate the importance of these artists to the point that
when they do screw up, many people are left disillusioned and bitter.
Maybe we should stop idolizing and drooling over these "Christian"
celebrities, remember that they are no better than us, and look to the
REAL example, Jesus Christ -- One whose character will never disappoint
us.
6) I don't think you need to worry about Sandi Patty disappointing our
young people.
When was the last time you heard Sandi Patty being blasted out of the
speakers at a youth group party? :)
ji
Rob Sawatsky
Chemically Imbalanced Spice (don...@imagixx.net) wrote:
: On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:13:59 -0500, "klutzi"
It is also encouraging to hear songs from artists that reflect the
reality of the struggles they face in life, including their failures.
I find these songs often more uplifting than the standard, sugary,
cliche ridden fare. Listen to a few of Larry Norman's songs which
deal with his struggles in all sorts of relationships for example.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sawatsky All opinions are my own and in no way reflect the
opinions or policies of MacDonald Dettwiler and
r...@mda.ca Associates Ltd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CabotR
<<Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words. If
you don't see that because your own mind sees God as being intolerant or
not fair, then pray for wisdom, and honestly search...He is good and faithful
and will show you. I feel sorry for her because God will not bless the union
without repentance...>>
Ann here, de-lurking. I just HAD to comment on this piutistical reply I
quoted.
<long winded, pms-induced rant>
First off, this thing about Sandi Patty is way old, like in from mid-1995.....
and can any of us sit back and say [1] we have never sinned, [2] that it's up
to any ooutsider to say someone is forgiven or not? [3] would we want, seek
out, enjoy the scrutiny of our sin the way that Sandy or Michael English have
had to endure?
As far as I've been able to see, Sandy has done the repentance thing very well.
She openly confessed her sin, asked God for forgiveness, stepped out of the
biz for a time of healing and reconcilation, and we're gonna sit back and judge
her and say she has no business on a stage? Excuse me, but who made you the
Holy Spirit?
And, how can you assume she hasn't repented and that God won't bless her union.
I was really torqued by her affair and divorce, cuz the reasons she gave were,
to me, a survivor of infidelity, totally lame and without grounds. But all we
can do is trust that God is indeed in still in the business of restoring lives
and take Sandi's word that has happened in her life.
And is she supposed to compound the sin of remarriage by getting a divorce?
Please, give me a break.
</long winded, pms-induced rant>
Bev was right. We don't have much room to talk. Any of us.
And, lest anyone confuse the issue, I am *not* a Sandi Patty fan, although I
can't wait till Heaven so I can hit those big scary high notes like she can <g>
Annie
Cab...@aol.com
"You can't live forever, Knight" Forever Knight, Second Season
"Love like you'll live forever" Rich Mullins
Bob Weigel
In article <6674bh$3...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> you write:
>In article <66710a$h...@news1.infoave.net>,
>J Mark Whitfield <whit...@infoave.net> wrote:
>>I too got to see Prime Time Live with Amy and Sandi. I thought Amy did a
>>great job. I was shocked to learn about Sandi's adultery, divorce, and
>>marriage. And even more supprised the she is still singing christian music.
>>Maybe she should pick-up her Bible and she what God has to say about her
>>situation (Matthew5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18). She
>>certainly has no business on stage. What kind of example is she setting for
>>our young people???
Where does the bible say "If thou HAST committed sin, thou shalt not
appear before the masses to address them with thy works!"???? HOPEFULLY
she is setting an EXAMPLE like the ONE DAVID IS RECORDED TO HAVE SET IN
THE BIBLE! Do YOU CUT THAT PART OF YOUR BIBLE OUT BEFORE you give it to
your CHILDREN?!!! (This is some of the most deadly thinking I know of, so
I address it strongly). It looks to me like someone else needs to repent,
before THEY set a bad example for someone's children....don't tell me you
already HAVE children!? (End of scolding)
>
>Well, foo. Let's just scrap all the sinners from the industry.
>
>*boot*
>
>*crickets chirp*
>
>Sheesh. Awful quiet in here...
:-) C'mon bev! Don't you know that if you are on *STAGE*, it means
people look to you as something perfect and you wouldn't dare want to
soil that reputation because otherwise people will find out and be able
to say "HAH! They were PERFECT and look at them! DOh. Now I don't feel
so bad about myself. " :-) It is certainly good to have a Davidic heart
though, and it sounds like Sandi is going toward that from what I heard of
the interview...which means like she might make some music that's worth
listening too? "Songs from the Heart" is the only album of hers I own,
and I remember her introducing her x hubby at that concert tour in Portland.
I got this sense that it wasn't a very stable situation for sure. The Lord
doesn't always plan things to be "ideal", because it's not a very ideal
world, and none of us are very ideal people. The sooner we learn to be
humble before God and know that any step we take outside his care is going
to land us on our face the better. -Bob
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
> Where does the bible say "If thou HAST committed sin, thou shalt not
>appear before the masses to address them with thy works!"????
this sounds like something akin to _the book of armaments_ (:
'...and blowing thy enemy to bits, in thy mercy, ...'
Cheef Dan
Bob Weigel (b...@efn.org) wrote:
: HOPEFULLY
: she is setting an EXAMPLE like the ONE DAVID IS RECORDED TO HAVE SET IN
: THE BIBLE!
Heck,
if she dances naked in front of the slave girls, I'll not only forgive
her, I'll even buy one of her albums!
Cheef Dan
klutzi (kao...@geocities.nospam.com) wrote:
: My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
: treats her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In my
: eyes, Michael did nothing worse than Sandi.
And he didn't repeatedly lie about it to the press like SP did.
As I said, it's a case of big sales and the fact that the deacon's wives
like her music. The deacon's wives don't like ME's music... besided
didn't he have *shudder* long hair?
Wednesday
In article <669l11$5...@beast.connix.com>,
Michael A. Vickers <mavi...@cryogen.com> wrote:
>this sounds like something akin to _the book of armaments_ (:
>'...and blowing thy enemy to bits, in thy mercy, ...'
Five is right out.
--
You'd better hope that Bev (aka She Who Must:::bev white: wedn...@tezcat.com
Have Proper Nettiquette Observed Before Her):::wedn...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
doesn't catch you. -- Brendt Waters via RMC.:::hamilton's answer to christi s.
Chemically Imbalanced Spice
On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 15:32:23 GMT, mavi...@cryogen.com (Michael A.
Vickers) snapped into a Slim Jim and wrote:
>while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
>don...@imagixx.net (Chemically Imbalanced Spice) erupted:
>
>>And besides, what teenager would ever listen to Sandy Patty anyway?
>
>and that is THE question. my only offering is those teens who are stuck in
>the car with mom while she plays her music.
>
>Michael
Poor kids. In some states, that is considered felony child abuse.
--
Donnie
don...@imagixx.net
rmc's resident Spice Girl fan
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
>Bob Weigel (b...@efn.org) wrote:
considering her personal 'growth' over the years, it would probably not be
A Good Thing.
David Murray
Cheef Dan wrote in message <669lpq$e...@netaxs.com>...
>Heck,
>if she dances naked in front of the slave girls, I'll not only forgive
>her, I'll even buy one of her albums!
Cheef, some people were never intended to be nudists.
Dave Murray / db-m...@rfci.net
reply by removing the dash from the address above
visit my homepage http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1005
Making hay while the sun shines
Bob Weigel
Many of you here seem to have a misconception. Where I offended
and took difference with Bev before, I applaud her now. HERE'S WHY!
(The lack of bible heart knowledge is REALLY leaking through for many
of you, and you'd do best to shut your...yes, stupid mouths and pick
up that thing and dust it off and pray through the matter while reading)
1) Love hopes all things, endures all things, believes all things...
Now, if Sandi Patti claims to have repented, I believe that and wait
for fruits of it. In this case, fruits are NOT that she go back to her
former husband. I don't know the situation there, but it's obvious Sandi
was not in a God centered marriage when she appeared in the music industry.
And she had some sensual stuff in her heart and the opportunity came and
she fell....where in reality she had already fallen in her heart by "making
provision for the flesh". No "Good sandi, bad sandi" please.....
Rather, fruits would be to acknowledge her sins, which it seems she has
done, and move on in God's grace. Now, the problem I'm seeing in SO MANY
posts here, is that we don't seem to understand that
2) When people choose to "set up" things so they can switch mates, or
make provision for other kinds of sins, it will be revealed in God's
time. But let's not make that assumption before the facts are in...
and even then let's pray that the person gets a grip and comes to
true repentance. Repenting means to turn away in ones' heart.
3) Whatever a person finds themself in when they repent, God will work
in that. All of us have committed adultery in our heart according
to Jesus it would seem. I'm yet to meet anyone who hasn't. It's a
very common sin...BUT from what I'm reading here, nobody should marry.
Nobody should be on stage! Boy would that be cool or what!! :-)
But it's not biblical either. RATHER I suggest that we repent of the
fornication and adultery and love the person God has put us with...
or just be content being single if that's where we are! The scriptures
tell us that if we are married Stay married. It never says "make sure
it's busted up if they were previously married on courthouse record".
THE LAW is truth, but we MUST remember, that Israel was set up to be
a physical type for the things of the spirit. Thus, when they did
certain things they got stoned to symbolize the finality of the sin they
were guilty of. WHY WHY WHY Jr. Einstein Bible Scholars of America and
beyond.....don't we still stone people today? RIGHT! That exercise is
over. The point was made. And I'm QUITE sure that God only allowed people
who were either completely hardened in their hearts or would repent given
the sentence of stoning to get stoned!
Today, we are called to walk in the spirit. In the spirit we follow the
law by the nature of that spirit. If we don't walk in that spirit we receive
dicipline! Like any child!! But it makes no sense to ask someone to leave
their mate if the Lord has really joined them together! I pray that Sandi
is currently really married in Christ with this person. I pray that they will
serve him together and be an example of what a marriage in Christ should be.
I bless them in the name of Y'shua; that they be free to hear HIS voice, and
not the voice of pharisee rule spouters.
The spirit of the law is life. Rules bring death alone...and as in
this case, can't even be understood. If Sandi was really married to a man
of God who has purposed in his heart to wait for her to come back, then I
guess that will be evident in time. If he was just a guy she made a verbal
committment to, then I don't believe God saw it as anything more than
"legalized fornication". That's the way the spirit sees it. The spirit
doesn't go down to the courthouse and say "hmmm, let's see if they are
married". The spirit knows. And usually, there's nothing but wickedness
in the motives I'm afraid. -Bob
HistoryDC
>The problem is that we inflate the importance of these artists to the point
that when they do screw up, many people are left disillusioned and bitter.
>Maybe we should stop idolizing and drooling over these "Christian"
celebrities,
Kind of reminds me of the "Bob Dylan disallusionment" that was experienced by
many a Christian in the 1970s. Can we really expect that a young or new
Christian (Dylan, for historical example) to really give us great spiritual
insight? Many of these artists have a young, immature faith. Unfortunately,
Christians are so eager to have famous people acknowledge Christianity, and to
give it legitimacy (as if it needs it), that we fail to realize that these same
people are not the ones to lead us to spiritual wisdom.
This is what disturbs me about the fanaticism of followers toward the CCM's
most popular groups. These musicians may serve an entertainment need, or even
give an opening for someone to evaluate the claims of Christ, and therefore
have an evangelistic purpose, but please, don't make these people into a Moses
that will lead you out of the wilderness. For that, try your pastor. That is
what a pastor is supposed to do - be a spiritual guide. If your pastor doesn't
do that, find one who does.
Personally, I would rather hear my pastor teach and CCM artists sing, not the
other way around.
Tim the Historyman
SamHag
>Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words.
If she asked for forgiveness, which I'm sure she did by the accounts that I
read, then she is free to remarry if released of the marriage vow by her
husband. To deny that would a huge injustice in the eyes of the Father.
Sam Hagedorn
time changes everything, but truth
Jan Krist paraphrase
SamHag
In article <66710a$h...@news1.infoave.net>, whit...@infoave.net (J Mark
Whitfield) writes:
> I was shocked to learn about Sandi's adultery, divorce, and marriage. And
even >more supprised the she is still singing christian music. Maybe she
should pick-up >her Bible and she what God has to say about her situation
(Matthew5:32, Matthew >19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18). She certainly has
no business on stage.
I'd like to know where in the Bible it says Jesus blood wasn't shed for the sin
of adultery.
SamHag
In article <6695oq$49b$1...@news.iquest.net>, "klutzi"
<kao...@geocities.nospam.com> writes:
>My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
treats >her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In my
eyes, Michael
>did nothing worse than Sandi. It seems to me that it's a double standard.
This just is not the case. There is a huge difference in the attitudes of both
of these artists. Michael English is the one who said that he didn't want
anything to do with the Christian Music scene. He turned his back on the
Christian music scene, even after attempts to reach out to him were made. He
wanted to be a "rock" star and that was his stated goal. I'm sure that as he
continues to in his present direction that he will be embraced by all in the
Christian music industry.
Sandi Patti sought counseling from her church and did not take the stage or
want to make the affair a public. The whole thing became public after some
"investigative" reporting. She didn't flaunt the situation nor was she proud
of it, she went to her pastor which is very biblical. Word Records postponed
her record for a year.
There was no double standard. She just decided to handle the situation
differently than Michael English. Both of them have the right to go back on
stage, both of them have the right to remarry, both can use their situations
for the Glory of the Father.
_DEFAULT
SamHag wrote in message <19971206060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6695oq$49b$1...@news.iquest.net>, "klutzi"
><kao...@geocities.nospam.com> writes:
>
>>My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
>treats >her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In
my
>eyes, Michael
>>did nothing worse than Sandi. It seems to me that it's a double standard.
>
>This just is not the case. There is a huge difference in the attitudes of
both
>of these artists. Michael English is the one who said that he didn't want
>anything to do with the Christian Music scene. He turned his back on the
>Christian music scene, even after attempts to reach out to him were made.
He
>wanted to be a "rock" star and that was his stated goal. I'm sure that as
he
>continues to in his present direction that he will be embraced by all in
the
>Christian music industry.
>
IIRC, Michael English intended to leave the music industry in total. Mike
Curb of
Curb Records came to him and convinced him to consider the secular music
industry. To imply his affair was part of a strategy to crossover is wrong
IMO.
>
>Sandi Patti sought counseling from her church and did not take the stage or
>want to make the affair a public. The whole thing became public after some
>"investigative" reporting. She didn't flaunt the situation nor was she
proud
>of it, she went to her pastor which is very biblical. Word Records
postponed
>her record for a year.
>
>There was no double standard. She just decided to handle the situation
>differently than Michael English. Both of them have the right to go back
on
>stage, both of them have the right to remarry, both can use their
situations
>for the Glory of the Father.
>
IIRC, Sandi said on Prime Time Live that her affair was the result of a
love-less
marriage. As long as her husband was not abusing her, that reason doesn't
cut
it. Marriage is a covenant which can't be dissolved (biblically) just
because the
love isn't the same as it used to be, etc.. Sandi's only biblical choice was
to
repent and return to her husband. Her husband biblically had the option to
ask
for a divorce or to accept her repentance. My opinion isn't impacted by
Sandi's
music career. The standard would be the same for me or a friend who
similarly
sinned.
But as others have said on this thread, none of us is without sin. The shed
blood
of Jesus is powerful enough to cover all of our sins if we have acknowledged
our
inability to do anything pure and have sought the forgiveness of our sins
offered
by God.
--
P. Kuipers pkui...@juno.com
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-Sir Winston Churchill
Will McDonald
In <19971206060...@ladder02.news.aol.com> sam...@aol.com
(SamHag) writes:
>
>In article <34872F...@lexmark.com>, "Thor, God of Thunder"
><we...@lexmark.com> writes:
>
>>Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words.
>
>If she asked for forgiveness, which I'm sure she did by the accounts
that I
>read, then she is free to remarry if released of the marriage vow by
her
>husband. To deny that would a huge injustice in the eyes of the
Father.
I don't think I really agree with either one of you here, but you've
intriqued me... How does one "release" the former spouse from the
marriage vow? Are you referring to legal divorce or something else?
What is your thinking here?
A serious question,
Will
--
"In Lubbock [Texas] we grew up with two main things. God loves you
and he's gonna send you to hell, and that sex is bad and dirty
and nasty and awful and you should save it for the one you love.
You wonder why we're all crazy." -- Butch Hancock
Allison
Yeah, but Michael himself resigned himself from the position as
"Christian music singer." Sandi wasn't brave enough. Michael IS coming
back to Christian music I've heard, since he couldn't make it in the
secular industry.
Hmm
Allison
>
> My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
> treats her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In my
> eyes, Michael did nothing worse than Sandi. It seems to me that it's a
> double standard. I used to like Sandi, but now I can't stand her. Maybe
> it's the way Christian music opens there arms to her. One question -- Did
> she ever publicly admit she was wrong & ask her audience for forgiveness,
> like Michael has?
>
> I don't want to start a war here, but I really want to know where things
> stand in regards to her.
> Thanks!
>
Brandon Smith
I too believe there to be no double standard as far as the Sandy
Fatty/Michael English ordeal. But I WILL point out a double standard that
has bothered me for a long time.
Mike Warnke was one of my favorite comedians. But why has the "Christian"
industry not forgiven him yet? He, like Sandy Fatty, sought counseling on
his issue too and made several public pleas for forgiveness but the
"Christian" industry can't seem to let his situation go. I mean, why wasn't
he "embraced" by the "Christian" industry as Sandy Fatty has been?
Everybody just seemed to want to kick him while he was down.
-- Brandon
-- phydeaux at theonramp dot net
_DEFAULT <_DEF...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
<66bd1c$12d0$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>SamHag wrote in message <19971206060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>In article <6695oq$49b$1...@news.iquest.net>, "klutzi"
>><kao...@geocities.nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>>My biggest problem with Sandi Patty is the way the Christian Music scene
>>treats >her like she did nothing wrong, yet they ban Michael English. In
>my
>>eyes, Michael
>>>did nothing worse than Sandi. It seems to me that it's a double
standard.
>>
CabotR
In article <3489d...@208.136.0.6>, "Brandon Smith" <phyd...@theonramp.net>
writes:
<<I too believe there to be no double standard as far as the Sandy
Fatty/Michael English ordeal. >>
<snip>
<< Sandy Fatty>>
<snip>
<< Sandy Fatty>>
Hey, Brandon....
That's real cool and Christ-like of you to call Sandy that. Great brotherly
love. Thanks so much for providing that example.
BTW.... Sandy has reduced that size of hers in the past several years ... and
after you've spent umpteen years on the road eating fast food and after you've
had 5 children and see what that does to your body size, then you can comment
on someone else's.
Annie
....... who used to be concerned at the level of sarcasm on the ng. Since I'm
plunging right in that sarcasm pool, obviously I'm not concerned any more. <G>
Chemically Imbalanced Spice
On 6 Dec 1997 18:32:22 GMT, wmc...@ix.netcom.com(Will McDonald)
snapped into a Slim Jim and wrote:
>In <19971206060...@ladder02.news.aol.com> sam...@aol.com
>(SamHag) writes:
>>
>>In article <34872F...@lexmark.com>, "Thor, God of Thunder"
>><we...@lexmark.com> writes:
>>
>>>Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words.
>>
>>If she asked for forgiveness, which I'm sure she did by the accounts
>that I
>>read, then she is free to remarry if released of the marriage vow by
>her
>>husband. To deny that would a huge injustice in the eyes of the
>Father.
>
>I don't think I really agree with either one of you here, but you've
>intriqued me... How does one "release" the former spouse from the
>marriage vow? Are you referring to legal divorce or something else?
>What is your thinking here?
>
>
>A serious question,
>
>
>Will
A lot of people believe that whenever somebody gets divorced, in the
eyes of God, they can never get re-married, because, in God's eyes,
the divorced couple are still married, and to marry someone else
would be like committing audultry in the eyes of God.
I don't agree with this. Nobody has ever been able to give a
scripture reference that backs this up.
I don't always agree with divorce, but sometimes it is VERY necessary,
and is the only real solution.
--
Donnie
don...@imagixx.net
rmc's resident Spice Girls fan
Cheef Dan
SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'd like to know where in the Bible it says Jesus blood wasn't shed for the sin
: of adultery.
Third Corinthians.
SamHag
In article <66c5nm$f...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, wmc...@ix.netcom.com(Will
McDonald) writes:
> How does one "release" the former spouse from the marriage vow? Are you
>referring to legal divorce or something else? What is your thinking here?
I believe the bible is fairly clear that the party who hasn't committed
adultery has the right to choose to remain married or can seek a divorce. I'm
not about to get into whether which is the right answer, but I do see where God
gives the one a choice. Once the divorce is finalized both partners have a
right to remarry, to each other if they want.
If you need more information I can send you some. I have done some bible
studies on this issue and being a divorced person, I wanted to know what would
please the Father the most. In my study, I was overwhelmed by God's love and
mercy in a situation that definately is not in His perfect will.
SamHag
In article <66bd1c$12d0$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "_DEFAULT"
<_DEF...@prodigy.net> writes:
> To imply his affair was part of a strategy to crossover is wrong IMO.
By no means did I intend to infer that. My point was that he choose to work in
the general marketplace after the affair with the desire to be a star.
Will McDonald
In <348a05dc...@206.31.232.1> don...@imagixx.net (Chemically
Imbalanced Spice) writes:
>
>On 6 Dec 1997 18:32:22 GMT, wmc...@ix.netcom.com(Will McDonald)
>snapped into a Slim Jim and wrote:
>
>>In <19971206060...@ladder02.news.aol.com> sam...@aol.com
>>(SamHag) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <34872F...@lexmark.com>, "Thor, God of Thunder"
>>><we...@lexmark.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words.
>>>
>>>If she asked for forgiveness, which I'm sure she did by the accounts
>>that I
>>>read, then she is free to remarry if released of the marriage vow by
>>her
>>>husband. To deny that would a huge injustice in the eyes of the
>>Father.
>>
>>I don't think I really agree with either one of you here, but you've
>>marriage vow? Are you referring to legal divorce or something else?
>>What is your thinking here?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Will
>
>A lot of people believe that whenever somebody gets divorced, in the
>eyes of God, they can never get re-married, because, in God's eyes,
>the divorced couple are still married, and to marry someone else
>
>I don't agree with this. Nobody has ever been able to give a
>scripture reference that backs this up.
That's not what I was wondering about... I wanted to know what
"released from the marriage vow" means. In the context above, it does
not seen to be referring to divorce.
>
>I don't always agree with divorce, but sometimes it is VERY necessary,
>and is the only real solution.
It is not a solution, but it can be the best choice in some
circumstances... Unfortunately, divorce does not solve problems, it
just changes circumstances.
Bruce Geerdes
On Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:06:32 -0600, "Brandon Smith"
<phyd...@theonramp.net> wrote:
>Mike Warnke was one of my favorite comedians. But why has the "Christian"
>industry not forgiven him yet?
I'll forgive him. But I'm not going to buy any of his books, records
or see him in person. I don't owe him anything.
--
bgee...@bigfoot.com
Peter Thomas Chattaway
SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: I believe the bible is fairly clear that the party who hasn't committed
: adultery has the right to choose to remain married or can seek a divorce.
According to Matthew, perhaps, but I'd want to interpret that within the
historical context, i.e. Jewish debates about the Mosaic law. Paul in I
Corinthians 7 would seem to put it differently for us Gentiles. IIRC, the
thrust there is that anyone who has been abandoned by a spouse is free to
remarry, but Christians ought not to be the abandoners.
Mind you, given that Sandi Patty's first husband has, reportedly, said on
numerous occasions that he wants her back, I don't think it's far to say
that he abandoned her and left her free, and since *she* was the one
committing adultery, I don't see that she's off the hook, exactly ...
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "I don't mind if you don't like my manners.
16397 Glenmoor Ct. | I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad.
Surrey, BC V4N 1V2 | I grieve over them on long winter evenings."
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | -- Humphrey Bogart, _The Big Sleep_
Wesley Deskins
Ji Bae wrote:
>
> J Mark Whitfield wrote:
> What kind of example is she setting for
> > our young people???
>
> ji
How about these for examples for our young people?
He was an angry, unforgiving young man whose primary goal was to do
away with those who were different than him, going so far as to condone
the murders of some he felt were not up to his standards and actively
sought to destroy the lives of still more. Any ideas who this miscreant
was?.....(Everyone together now!!) The Apostle Paul
This fella had lead an intentionally hedonistic lifestyle, dabbled in
Eastern philosophy before settling into blissful paganism. Fathered an
illegitimate child, and was disowned by his wealthy parents. All before
the age of 21. Who was this scoundrel?.....just a no goodnik known
as... St Augustine.
Do you really think that God can no longer use someone because they
have been lured into sin? Is there some new dispensation you've
received that the rest of us have yet to be made privy to?...if I'm not
mistaken, somewhere in the Bible it is written "ALL have sinned....."
(oh yeah, Paul wrote that one, and by your reckoning he has no business
"being on stage") How about we go straight to the words of Jesus as
recorded by Matthew "Do not judge, for then you will be judged, and the
standard that you judge others by, that is the standard that will be
applied to you"....and then elsewhere it says (in regards to another
woman found in an adultrous affair by the way) "whoever is without sin,
let him cast the first stone" and when no one is able to condemn her
Jesus (remember Him?) says,"none are left to condemn you? Nor do I, go
and sin no more"...If Jesus chose not to hold judgement over this woman,
I personally would like to know by WHOSE authority you are able to pass
judgement upon Sandi Patty, 'cause I get the feeling that it's not on
Jesus' authority. She has confessed her sin and had it covered by the
blood of Jesus, a FINE example for our young people in my opinion. But
then again, I'm not perfect and cannot claim to be without need of the
Grace of God, so I have "no business being on stage" either now do I?
sorry to have been so long-winded
Wesley Deskins
--
No no no....The Book Of Hezikiah, (or is it Bel and the Dragon? Hmmmmm)
klutzi
Yes, I think God can use someone who has sinned, because we ALL have sinned!
I'm not trying to judge Sandi, I just wanted to know why the industry pulled
all of Michael English's stuff off the shelf & has not put it back. He
confessed & asked for forgiveness, so why can't I get his albums? Why did
they not immediately pull Sandi's stuff like they did Michael's? I think
the Christian music industry is the one who is judging people & thinking a
sinner can't be a good witness.
My only problem with Sandi is that I just don't like her style. I love some
of her older stuff, but her newer stuff seems to be forced & uninspiring to
me, but I think her stuff should be out there for those who like it. This
is just my opinion. I know some will disagree with me, but please, I'm not
trying to start a fight.
--
Klutzi
jsp...@iquest.nospam.net
Remove nospam to send email
Wesley Deskins wrote in message <66g2sj$g...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
<snip>
Steven R. Shoop
I really enjoyed Mike Warnke's comedy, stage performances, and general
ministry. I know that a lot of controversy came about regarding his
"satanic priesthood" past and what was true and what wasn't. Even if it was
fiction, the message was still right. Not only do I forgive his lying, but
I would buy any new stuff in a heartbeat.
Steve the Shoop
***
Bruce Geerdes wrote in message <348c3642...@news.incc.net>...
Will McDonald
In <66h1hr$ou0$1...@roc-news.ctron.com> "Steven R. Shoop"
<ssh...@ctron.com> writes:
>
>I really enjoyed Mike Warnke's comedy, stage performances, and general
>ministry. I know that a lot of controversy came about regarding his
>"satanic priesthood" past and what was true and what wasn't.
According to the authors of the book "Selling Satan...," Mike Warnke
misrepresented nearly everything in his life. The book is scrupulously
documented -- with photographs, the testimonies of family and friends,
public records, and the conflicting words of Warnke himself. Warnke
has yet to discredit *ANY* of the allegations. If he was telling
anything close to the truth, he shouldn't have much trouble doing it.
It's not just a matter of exaggerating his alleged "satanic past," it
is a question of basic honesty and faithfulness.
>Even if it was
>fiction, the message was still right.
He said some good things occasionally, but there was *so* much
deception under the guise of "Christian ministry" that he has lost all
credibility with most Christians.
All moral and theological questions aside, it is a matter of
economics... Why should a label invest a lot of time and money
recording and promoting a man who has been thoroughly discredited? I
doubt that he would sell very well.
>Not only do I forgive his lying,
I can forgive his lying, but that doesn't mean that I am going to
support another destructive "ministry." (Warnke's personal life was a
shambles during his heyday. Maybe he can find some stability now.)
>but
>I would buy any new stuff in a heartbeat.
Matt Laswell
SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <34872F...@lexmark.com>, "Thor, God of Thunder"
: <we...@lexmark.com> writes:
: >Sandi P. is wrong to remarry, at least according to Jesus' words.
: If she asked for forgiveness, which I'm sure she did by the accounts that I
: read, then she is free to remarry if released of the marriage vow by her
: husband. To deny that would a huge injustice in the eyes of the Father.
Yeah, but from all accounts I've read (e.g. Christianity Today),
her husband wanted to reconcile and rebuild the marriage...
- matt
Norman Leach
Cheef Dan <chee...@netaxs.com> wrote in article <66en5v$m...@netaxs.com>...
> SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : I'd like to know where in the Bible it says Jesus blood wasn't shed for
the sin
> : of adultery.
>
> Third Corinthians.
>
i hate to be a nitpicker, but third corinthians ACTUALLY deals with the
steps chritians need to go through to judge another christian when all the
facts aren't available. i'm not sure where it states that jesus' blood
wasn't shed for adulterers. if i had to guess i would say it is where it
talks aobut there being two unforvigable sins, blasphemy of the holy spirit
and adultery (oh, yeah, and suicide).
norm
btw, i'm am very anti-divorce, pro-marriage, but it is not the unforgivable
thing alot of people make it out to be.
Matt Laswell
Will McDonald (wmc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <66h1hr$ou0$1...@roc-news.ctron.com> "Steven R. Shoop"
: <ssh...@ctron.com> writes:
: >
: >I really enjoyed Mike Warnke's comedy, stage performances, and general
: >ministry. I know that a lot of controversy came about regarding his
: >"satanic priesthood" past and what was true and what wasn't.
: According to the authors of the book "Selling Satan...," Mike Warnke
: misrepresented nearly everything in his life. The book is scrupulously
: documented -- with photographs, the testimonies of family and friends,
: public records, and the conflicting words of Warnke himself. Warnke
: has yet to discredit *ANY* of the allegations. If he was telling
: anything close to the truth, he shouldn't have much trouble doing it.
: It's not just a matter of exaggerating his alleged "satanic past," it
: is a question of basic honesty and faithfulness.
Well, also, there's a lot that he's never really much repented of.
Warnke's a strange bird. From all I've heard, one day, he'll talk
about repenting and being sorry for his "mistakes" and the next
he'll deny that he lied about his past, or try and tell you that
he said at the time that they were just stories. He hasn't given
back the money he stole, AFAIK. He talks about accountability,
but then you find out that the board he's made himself accountable
to contains his lawyer and other people who depend on him for
income...
I read _Selling Satan_ and recomend it highly. Not just for the
information about Warnke (though it is, as Will said, incredibly
well documented), but also as an insight into the Christian
subculture of our day. The ending parts of the book, which
deal with the reaction to the original Cornerstone Magazine
expose' are fascinating. The reactions of the various christian
publishing companies, of various people involved, of Warnke
himself, of our friends on TBN.
If anybody wonders why I so often hint that the Christian publishing
industry is proof that you truly cannot serve both God and Mammon,
read this book. Of course, I've only seen it in secular bookstores...
: >Even if it was
: >fiction, the message was still right.
Let's be quite clear here. It wasn't "fiction." It was lies.
Not merely one or two, but a web of them spun over a couple of
decades. And it wasn't just about his alleged Satanic background
(which wasn't merely exaggerated, but a complete fabrication)
and it wasn't just about his time in the Navy. It was also about
his four wives. It was also about strong hints of drug use
and sexual dalliances while he was on tour. It was about the
money he got in donations by claiming he was building a center
to help kids involved in drugs and the occult when in fact the
"center" consisted of a receptionist with no training in counselling
(and the money went straight into Warnke's pocket). It was
about the private religion Warnke was apparently adhering to
(it was some really bizzarre off-shoot of the Eastern Orthodox
church, but with no connection to Constantiople) while telling
people he was a Christian.
Is is acceptable for a minister of the gospel to lie cheat and
steal if the message is right.
: He said some good things occasionally, but there was *so* much
: deception under the guise of "Christian ministry" that he has lost all
: credibility with most Christians.
Jim Jones said some good things, after all.
: >Not only do I forgive his lying,
: I can forgive his lying, but that doesn't mean that I am going to
: support another destructive "ministry." (Warnke's personal life was a
: shambles during his heyday. Maybe he can find some stability now.)
Exactly. It's not simply good for us to not put Warnke back on
that pedestal, it's good for Warnke.
"Repentance" that doesn't involve change is the definition of
cheap grace. We don't do Mike Warnke any favors if we give him that.
- matt
David Murray
klutzi wrote in message <66h4d5$imf$1...@news.iquest.net>...
>I'm not trying to judge Sandi, I just wanted to know why the industry
pulled
>all of Michael English's stuff off the shelf & has not put it back.
That's a darn good question, because it's readily available thru Warner
Christian Distribution now.
Dave Murray / db-m...@rfci.net
reply by removing the dash from the address above
visit my homepage http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1005
Making hay while the sun shines
JWStyll
>Mind you, given that Sandi Patty's first husband has, reportedly, said on
>numerous occasions that he wants her back, I don't think it's far to say
>that he abandoned her and left her free, and since *she* was the one
>committing adultery, I don't see that she's off the hook, exactly ...
>
>
former husband, John Helvering, remarried two years ago.
--John
Bridgette and John Moore
Norman Leach wrote:
> i hate to be a nitpicker, but third corinthians ACTUALLY deals with the
> steps chritians need to go through to judge another christian when all the
> facts aren't available.
You mean there are official steps involved!!
Wow!!
I thought judging without the facts was something all Christians (and
non-Christians) were just born with and didn't need any training.
So does step 125C say how many people we are allowed to gossip to when
we are "sharing" the sin "aka prayer request" with others in the body??
Peter Thomas Chattaway
JWStyll (jws...@aol.com) wrote:
: > Mind you, given that Sandi Patty's first husband has, reportedly,
Ah. Well, if my understanding of their break-up is correct -- i.e., that
she left him, not vice versa -- then it would seem he, at least, has some
biblical backing for what he's done, which is apparently to accept the
fact that his wife left him and to move on ...
(Did they get divorced *that* long ago? Man, how the time flies ... )
Matt Laswell
JWStyll (jws...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Mind you, given that Sandi Patty's first husband has, reportedly, said on
: >numerous occasions that he wants her back, I don't think it's far to say
: >that he abandoned her and left her free, and since *she* was the one
: >committing adultery, I don't see that she's off the hook, exactly ...
: >
: >
: Not to overly complicate the discussion, but as a point of information, Sandi's
: former husband, John Helvering, remarried two years ago.
Huh. I stand corected.
- matt, who, if he must be corrected, figures it may as well come from
John Styll...
Norman Leach
Bridgette and John Moore <jnbm...@asiaonline.net.tw> wrote in article
<348DA2...@asiaonline.net.tw>...
it depends. done right, numerous people can be told at the same time but
only count as one. for instance according to 125c-f, if i am telling one
person and up to six other people who are nearby happen to overhear, that
is only counted as one telling. if more than six people are nearby, then
it is considered to be a group telling, which can be dangerous because then
multiple people can point back at you and say, "He's the one that told us."
as a general rule, you can gossip to seventy times seven people. that way,
when it is learned you were wrong or were merely sharing things that didn't
need to be made public, you can be forgiven by seventy times seven people.
norm
RevDWW5231
Isn't John remarried now? Not sure how he can reconcile!
Sandi took much time away from christian music and went through an extensive
reconciliation process, something like two years. She can be forgiven--as can
we all.
BTW, IMHO her new stuff is better than the old--because it is from her heart
and means something to her.
David
Rob Sawatsky
Bridgette and John Moore (jnbm...@asiaonline.net.tw) wrote:
: Norman Leach wrote:
: > i hate to be a nitpicker, but third corinthians ACTUALLY deals with the
: > steps chritians need to go through to judge another christian when all the
: > facts aren't available.
My bible doesn't have a third corinthians.
I think the idea is to approach the other person and get all the facts
BEFORE making a conclusion.
: You mean there are official steps involved!!
: Wow!!
: I thought judging without the facts was something all Christians (and
: non-Christians) were just born with and didn't need any training.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sawatsky All opinions are my own and in no way reflect the
opinions or policies of MacDonald Dettwiler and
r...@mda.ca Associates Ltd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Moore
No doubt the blood of Jesus can atone for adultery when it is repented of. But
to
divorce ones husband and marry the adultery partner is living in a continual
state
of adultery which is an unrepentant act. It's only in this century that the
church has
become so apostate that it accepts such behavior. The early church did not
allow
divorce and remarriage, and it was virtually unheard of until Erasmus
introduced the
so called "innocent party" doctrine from Matt 19:9 in the late 16th century.
But Sandi
wasn't even the "innocent party" in this situation!
The fact is that she is living in an adulterous relationship.
Norman Leach wrote:
> Cheef Dan <chee...@netaxs.com> wrote in article <66en5v$m...@netaxs.com>...
> > SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> > : I'd like to know where in the Bible it says Jesus blood wasn't shed for
> the sin
> > : of adultery.
> >
> > Third Corinthians.
> >
>
> i hate to be a nitpicker, but third corinthians ACTUALLY deals with the
> steps chritians need to go through to judge another christian when all the
> facts aren't available. i'm not sure where it states that jesus' blood
> wasn't shed for adulterers. if i had to guess i would say it is where it
> talks aobut there being two unforvigable sins, blasphemy of the holy spirit
> and adultery (oh, yeah, and suicide).
>
> norm
>
> btw, i'm am very anti-divorce, pro-marriage, but it is not the unforgivable
> thing alot of people make it out to be.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan R. Moore mailto:bmo...@tivoli.com 512-436-1076 (office)
Tivoli Systems mailto:mo...@cs.swt.edu 512-436-1991 (fax)
http://www.tivoli.com http://www.io.com/~aslan 800-396-3753 (pager)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thor, God of Thunder
Peter Thomas Chattaway wrote:
>
> JWStyll (jws...@aol.com) wrote:
> : > Mind you, given that Sandi Patty's first husband has, reportedly,
> : > said on numerous occasions that he wants her back, I don't think it's
> : > far to say that he abandoned her and left her free, and since *she*
> : > was the one committing adultery, I don't see that she's off the hook,
> : > exactly ...
> :
> : Not to overly complicate the discussion, but as a point of information,
> : Sandi's former husband, John Helvering, remarried two years ago.
>
> she left him, not vice versa -- then it would seem he, at least, has some
> biblical backing for what he's done, which is apparently to accept the
> fact that his wife left him and to move on ...
>
> (Did they get divorced *that* long ago? Man, how the time flies ... )
>
> --
> Peter T. Chattaway | "I don't mind if you don't like my manners.
> 16397 Glenmoor Ct. | I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad.
> Surrey, BC V4N 1V2 | I grieve over them on long winter evenings."
> pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | -- Humphrey Bogart, _The Big Sleep_
But does SHE have the right to remarry? Of course he has to move on, it
is the same situation that I am in. My wife cheated on me with two
members of my band, and then she moved out. I went to counselling for
over a year (actually we went together until I confronted her with the
affair), and my counsellor said I was to move on when God told me to.
When the time came, it was clear as a bell. But she never repented...
My question is this: Is she committing adultry with her new husband even
though she has repented and asked for forgiveness (according to her
words)? Does the Bible give her the right to remarry?
Wednesday
I'm not sure why it matters if she's on her second husband.
She's hardly chattel. She can do what she wants.
--
nihilistic mystic apostolic alcoholic messianic manic cataclysmic and prolific
bev/wednsday@[tezcat.com|chiark.greenend.org.uk]------celebrate relentlessness
Wednesday
In article <66l139$p...@netaxs.com>, Cheef Dan <chee...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Wednesday (wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com) wrote:
>: She's hardly chattel. She can do what she wants.
>
>Well, Bev... I'm afraid we part company here.
S'all right, I'm used to that. :)
>Christians are free to choose to do what they want, in the sense that they
>have the option of doing what they want. However, that does not mean that
>Christians can do what they want if they wish to remain within the desire
>of God for our lives... within God's will...indeed, within God's rules for
>living.
Yeah, but God's rules for marriage don't apply to the same institution WE
call marriage; they apply to an exchange-of-property arrangement that
afforded no rights for the female spouse to speak of.
And that's my point; Sand[i|y], to my knowledge, was involved in a more
contemporary version of the permanent arrangement, so we can hardly apply
rules for one form of relationship to another in this case...
David Murray
RevDWW5231 wrote in message
<19971209180...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>BTW, IMHO her new stuff is better than the old--because it is from her
heart
>and means something to her.
Are you saying her old stuff wasn't from her heart and meant nothing to her?
:)
IMHO, the best album she ever did was _Find It On The Wings_. The new stuff
sounds too much like the stuff she was doing 10 years ago. But I suspect the
smaller, yet devoted fan base she has now prefers the straight inspo stuff
of _Artist Of My Soul_ to _Find It On The Wings_ and the artsy _La Voyage_.
Will McDonald
In <348DBFDD...@tivoli.com> Bryan Moore <bmo...@tivoli.com>
writes:
>The early church did not
>allow
>divorce and remarriage, and it was virtually unheard of until Erasmus
>introduced the
>so called "innocent party" doctrine from Matt 19:9 in the late 16th
century.
That's quite a statement...
Where did Paul get all that stuff in 1st Corinthians about persons
being free to remarry and Jesus get the "except for unfaithfulness"
idea then?
Paul seemed to believe that divorce in cases of desertion was
legitimate.
Jesus rather explicitly made an exception for adultery.
It seems that abuse would also be a legitimate reason for divorce.
Cheef Dan
Wednesday (wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com) wrote:
: She's hardly chattel. She can do what she wants.
Well, Bev... I'm afraid we part company here.
Christians are free to choose to do what they want, in the sense that they
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Thor, God of Thunder (we...@lexmark.com) wrote:
: Peter Thomas Chattaway wrote:
: > Ah. Well, if my understanding of their break-up is correct -- i.e., that
: > she left him, not vice versa -- then it would seem he, at least, has some
: > biblical backing for what he's done, which is apparently to accept the
: > fact that his wife left him and to move on ...
:
: But does SHE have the right to remarry?
A good question. I was working off of Paul's instructions in I Cor. 7 --
instructions which, incidentally, Paul admits come from himself and not
from "the Lord" (meaning the historical Jesus, I suspect, but possibly God
too) -- but they presuppose that the partner doing the abandoning is not a
Christian. Basicly, Paul assumes that both partners were not Christians
when they married, but now that one of them has become a Christian, that
partner is to stay married unless the non-Christian partner decides he or
she can't take it any more and quits. In that situation, the Christian
partner is free to remarry, and so is the non-Christian partner, since
there was nothing in the non-Christian culture of the times to prevent
them from divorcing and remarrying (and Paul did say, earlier in that
epistle, that Christians shouldn't be judging non-Christians by Christian
rules).
But if the abandoner, too, is Christian, what then? Frankly, I don't
think the New Testament allows for such a possibility. According to the
canonical Gospels, Jesus forbade his followers to get divorces, and Paul
echoes this teaching explicitly in I Cor. 7 (he credits it to "the Lord",
presumably indicating that it was a tradition passed down to him from the
historical Jesus via the earlier apostles). Paul even goes so far as to
say that periods of separation must end in reconciliation -- that, or
permanent singlehood.
Time for a tangent: As I've said before, if the church is going to go lax
on this stuff, then it had best stop harrassing gays and lesbians too.
Jesus had nothing to say on *that* subject, and even what little Paul said
about homosexuality is open to interpretation, but they were pretty damn
clear about this divorce stuff. I'm not saying we can't contextualize it,
write it off, whatever -- interpretation is a many-splendored thing and it
can go in several possible directions -- but it is bald, stinking,
self-serving hypocrisy to write off teachings as explicit as those on
divorce while *not* writing off teachings as vague as those on
homosexuality.
: My question is this: Is she committing adultry with her new husband
: even though she has repented and asked for forgiveness (according to
: her words)? Does the Bible give her the right to remarry?
Apparently so, to the former question, and apparently not, to the latter
question.
Rob
Thor, God of Thunder wrote:
>
> My question is this: Is she committing adultry with her new husband even
> though she has repented and asked for forgiveness (according to her
> words)? Does the Bible give her the right to remarry?
Ah yes..the divorce and remarriage issue.
My answer: it depends on who you ask. I ain't that smart to flush out
all of the Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue. I have read
enough so that if I were in an argumentative mood I could argue either
side.
Bill Gothard gives a convincing arguement on the no marriage side.
Chuck Swindoll would allow remarriage in some cases. Most fellowships
I have been involved are closer to Chuck.
Aside here: I did spend 9 years in a church that was very strong on the
conservative side of this issue. If you were divorced you could not
remarry again. For the rest of your life. No matter what the reason
for the divorce. My problem with this this was not the position per se
(although I am not sure I agree) but that this issue was a litmus test
on which either marked you as a true conservative Christian or a
liberal. It was in part this issue that caused this church to split
from the liberal Assemblies of God.
I have seen churches not associate with each other in Maine (my
birthstate) over this issue.
I strongly object to this issue being a litmus test of a true believer.
Of course now I am living in Vermont which a friend called 'land of the
Liberals'. So maybe I am brainwashed by my culture but I'm probably
closer to Chuck than Bill.
--
Rob
Rob
Bryan Moore wrote:
>
> No doubt the blood of Jesus can atone for adultery when it is repented of. But
> to
> divorce ones husband and marry the adultery partner is living in a continual
> state
> of adultery which is an unrepentant act. It's only in this century that the
> church has
> allow
> divorce and remarriage, and it was virtually unheard of until Erasmus
> introduced the
> so called "innocent party" doctrine from Matt 19:9 in the late 16th century.
> wasn't even the "innocent party" in this situation!
>
> The fact is that she is living in an adulterous relationship.
>
Oh boy..this topic has got me in such a mood. See previous post about
divorce and remarriage. And about this being a litmus test issue.
First, because somebody disagrees with you concerning an issue in which
there is not consensus on within the Conservative, fundamentalist, Bible
thumping, evangelical (and whatever other adjectives I forgot) Christian
church does not qualify them as apostate.
It means they disagree with you. Is everyone who disagrees with you
apostate? sheeeeesh.
Second..let us assume your doctrine is correct. Then I must ask "Is
repentance available to someone who has divorced and remarried". It
better be. Because I don't read that as an unforgivable sin. Not even
in Third Corinthians.
So if repentance is available what is that person to do..divorce their
second husband (or wife).
--
Rob
Bob Weigel
"Let no division remain among you".... but division seems to exist.
God doesn't see it that way I assure you. He sees that either one,
or neither of the groups which divide to themselves apart from the
other are following him.
In any matter like this, mature believers will
1) Realize what the ideal is. (The bible tells us clearly that we are
to remain with even an unbelieving mate if they will remain SO THAT
they might be brought to Christ through the believer!...which basically
means that if one mate is really following Christ, it will drive a person
who is completely hardened out of town real fast.)
2) Bring this ideal to the attention of the person who is not meeting with it.
3) Discern the body. Realize that a sin against God by one member of the
body HURTS THE WHOLE BODY and is THUS a sin against us, and is to be
dealt with according to Matthew 18:15
4) If the person seems to be repenting, gently RESTORE them.
That's why I've have such a disgusted reaction to a lot of this thread.
It seems that people are saying that we should
1) Same as above sort of
2) Judge people according to it without discerning jack!
I know this seems more concise, and fitting with out highly optimized
society BUT.....God calls us to personal involvement. Like I said, I
don't know Sandi personally, but I'm encouraged to hear that she has
supposedly repented of the whole thing. If that state of repentance
finds her and her x already remarried DROP THE BS about her NOT BEING
FIT FOR MINISTRY! It has no foundation that I have seen. IF SOMEONE
has a REAL reason to believe that Sandi has not currently repented, then
come forth with that information.
It's really sad things turn out the way they do sometimes, but we are
called to turn to God and believe he has a best plan amidst the pain we've
caused by our disobedience, and to find the joy of our salvation right there.
We can't undo what's done. So let's hope the best for Sandi, unless someone
has something else to say that's profitable. -Bob
John Swick
In article <348E9F...@us.ibm.com>, Rob <rwe...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>Aside here: I did spend 9 years in a church that was very strong on the
>conservative side of this issue. If you were divorced you could not
>remarry again. For the rest of your life. No matter what the reason
>for the divorce. My problem with this this was not the position per se
>(although I am not sure I agree) but that this issue was a litmus test
>on which either marked you as a true conservative Christian or a
>liberal. It was in part this issue that caused this church to split
>from the liberal Assemblies of God.
As an aside...Wow! That's the first time I've ever even seen the
words "liberal" and "Assemblies of God" in the same sentence.
---J. J. (who was married in an AOG church, but have only ever visited
a couple AOG churches)
--
**********************************************************************
J. J. Swick, E911 Software Design, The Company Formerly Known as BNR
(919) 991-8782, esn 294-8782
SamHag
In article <348DBFDD...@tivoli.com>, Bryan Moore <bmo...@tivoli.com>
writes:
>No doubt the blood of Jesus can atone for adultery when it is repented of. But
>to divorce ones husband and marry the adultery partner is living in a
continual
>state of adultery which is an unrepentant act.
I humlby disagree. I find no Biblical reference to this. It's a debateable
subject. I would consider remarriage an act, not a state (constant sin),
whether done "correctly" or not. If it were a state of sin, then Paul would
have told the Corinthians it's not only OK to divorce the second marriage
partner and remarry the first (1 Cor 12:14), but it is recommended. So then a
divorced person should divorce a second time so they aren't living in a state
of continual sin. This makes no sense to me.
I'm not questioning that reconcilliation is what is the best for all involved,
but I also understand that we live in a fallen world and we must make the best
of what we have. The family is too important to society to have men and women
remain single after a divorce. Many of the Bible verses that talk about the
subject acknowledge that divorce and remarriage happen.
In fact if you read Mark 10:1-12, you'd find that the real reason God allowed
divorce is because of hard hearts. God understands how we can so easily
destroy each other with inhumaness. Adultery, abandonment, and the other
things are nothing more than the result of a hard heart, not only to the other
person in the marriage, but more importantly to God (Psalm 51:10).
Sam Hagedorn
time changes everything, but truth
Jan Krist paraphrase
Peter Thomas Chattaway
SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: Bryan Moore <bmo...@tivoli.com> writes:
: > No doubt the blood of Jesus can atone for adultery when it is
: > repented of. But to divorce ones husband and marry the adultery
: > partner is living in a continual state of adultery which is an
: > unrepentant act.
:
: I humlby disagree. I find no Biblical reference to this.
That's because women weren't allowed to file for divorce according to
Jewish custom; it was a man's prerogative (and, depending on the rabbi,
the husband could divorce his wife for a reason as trivial as
she-burned-his-supper). However, having said that, Jesus did say pretty
clearly that any man who divorces his wife and marries another is
committing adultery and turning his first wife into an adulteress.
: It's a debateable subject.
Isn't everything?
: I would consider remarriage an act, not a state (constant sin), whether
: done "correctly" or not. If it were a state of sin, then Paul would
: have told the Corinthians it's not only OK to divorce the second
: marriage partner and remarry the first (1 Cor 12:14), but it is
: recommended.
Whoa! Hold on a second here! First of all, why should anyone give a
rat's ass what Paul has to say if it contradicts what Jesus had to say?
Second, Paul said no such thing -- he said that people who converted to
Christianity were not obliged to spend the rest of their lives in boring
isolation if their non-Christian spouses left them. In such situations,
he thought they were free to remarry. Paul is not at all advocating
divorce as a course of action; rather, he is recognizing that it happens
to some people, and if it does, they should just get on with life. He is
most definitely *not* recommending it!
Third, the verse you cite is not about divorce at all but about the body
having many parts. I think you meant to say I Corinthians 7:15.
: So then a divorced person should divorce a second time so they aren't
: living in a state of continual sin. This makes no sense to me.
It does if you consider that the second marriage was invalid in the first
place. In a sense, there would be no need for a divorce because there was
never a proper marriage in the first place, except perhaps in the eyes of
the state.
: In fact if you read Mark 10:1-12, you'd find that the real reason God
: allowed divorce is because of hard hearts.
And if you look at the Old Testament, you'll find God didn't normally like
people who had hard hearts. He tended to kill their firstborn and do
other nasty things to them ...
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) erupted:
>:So then a divorced person should divorce a second time so they aren't
>:living in a state of continual sin. This makes no sense to me.
>It does if you consider that the second marriage was invalid in the first
>place. In a sense, there would be no need for a divorce because there was
>never a proper marriage in the first place, except perhaps in the eyes of
>the state.
can it be concluded that there are first marriages that weren't proper in
the first place, except perhaps in the eyes of the state?
Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
allthesleepingneverwakingalltheleavesinneedofrakingallthebusinessundertaking
allmybonesandmusclesachingthoughtandmindaresurelyflakingoverluncheonhandsare
shakingsuretyofnomistakingcarsandhornsandglassisbreaking - 'dogman', kings x
--[Michael A. Vickers]-----------------------------[mavi...@cryogen.com]--
Matt Laswell
Peter Thomas Chattaway (pet...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: : > No doubt the blood of Jesus can atone for adultery when it is
: : > repented of. But to divorce ones husband and marry the adultery
: : > partner is living in a continual state of adultery which is an
: : > unrepentant act.
: :
: : I humlby disagree. I find no Biblical reference to this.
: That's because women weren't allowed to file for divorce according to
: Jewish custom; it was a man's prerogative (and, depending on the rabbi,
: the husband could divorce his wife for a reason as trivial as
: she-burned-his-supper). However, having said that, Jesus did say pretty
: clearly that any man who divorces his wife and marries another is
: committing adultery and turning his first wife into an adulteress.
I think you're misunderstanding Sam's point, Peter. I seriously doubt
he's suggesting that marrying one's lover is anything other than
A Very Bad Thing(tm). But the question is, what happens once you've
done that. Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Sand[iy]
Patti had the affair, divorced her husband and married her lover.
Let's say further that after doing that, she realized that she'd
screwed up in all this. What should she do at that point?
I believe that's the question Sam's getting at - what's the right
thing to do after the fact? Bryan's contention that marrying her
lover makes for a continual state of sin gives a very clear answer -
if being married to her lover is sin, she should divorce him.
Sam's response, on the other hand, is that remarriage is an act,
not a state. As such, Sam's argument is that for Sand[iy] to
divorce her second husband in no way improves the situation
(especially since her first husband has remarried, making
reconcilliation with him pretty well impossible).
It's not a question of whether or not she should have done what she
did - that's pretty clear to everyone, I should think, and Sand[iy]
can't undo it even if she should want to. It's a question of what
she does *now*.
For my part, I have no idea whether or not this hypothetical situation
reflects what actually happened. I'm cynical about the whole thing
(no mention was initially made of infidelity, just some vague
references to abuse and contolling types in her life. It seemed like
information about the affair only came out once she married her
lover). But if she really did come to her senses after having
married her lover, I tend to agree with Sam. It does nothing for
the cause of Christ or for any of the principals to break up the
second marriage. It only brings more pain.
And, of course, this is more than a merely academic subject for
some. We should both tread lightly here.
- matt
Thor, God of Thunder
This subject is hard. I went through a rather nasty divorce (on her
part) last year. My wife had several serious affairs, and I don't mean
one night stands, over the course of about 2 1/2 years. In that time, I
grew an incredible amount in my Christian faith and have come to know
the voice of God. I spent a year in counseling with a minister with a
PhD in counseling, specializing in sex addictions, which my ex has. I
had to confront her with my knowledge of her affairs (one guy told me he
had an affair with her - my best friend too), at which point she broke.
I told her that if she wanted to work through it, we would work it out
and I gave her an ample amount of time to make her decision - 6 weeks.
She stopped counselling and would not talk to me anymore. She told the
counselor that she appreciated his words and prayers, but God forgave
her and she had to move on. She is still in the affair with my best
friend of 15 years who is in the process of divorcing his wife so they
can be together. I am divorced now.
If divorcing your spouse under certain conditions (physical abuse, their
adultry, abandonment) is wrong, then where does that leave me? I had no
choice in the matter, she was getting out no matter what I did? Does
that constitute sin on my part? Am I free to remarry? My understanding
from an indepth study of scripture and many many christian books and a
year of counseling, is that she is NOT free to remarry, but I am. There
is a LOT of backing of this in the context of the scripture (WAY too
much to show here). If you want to read more about it, then there are a
TON of books on the subject, but I suggest Dobson's Tough Love to
start. Then there is Love Is A Decision by Gary Smalley, and a few
more. I can list them later if someone wants the list, just email me
privately.
While we can be forgiven of our sins, that doesn't mean that God steps
in and changes His laws to fit our repentance (although that does
happens some times), we are still suject to the laws of nature and laws
of the spirit. Sin constitutes consequences regardless of where we
stand with God, you can read the first chapter of Romans to get a bit of
understanding about it. Just as remarrying or having a sexual
relationship when not Biblically divorced (meaning under the
circumstances listed above) means you constantly sin, and repentance
means turning away from that sin - whether a wrongful marriage or an
illicit sexual relationship, contracting a disease from an illicit
relationship means you live with the consequences of that disease.
In the end, I know without a shadow of a doubt that God wants me to
remarry because He told me in an audible voice, more real than anything
I have ever heard. He has even put on my heart who it is, and I haven't
met her yet. My counselor, a true man of God that has experience
healing too, understands and knows exactly what I am talking about.
It's exciting and an incredible experience, and I give God the complete
glory.
If this thing has been hard to read, it's cause I am working while
writing it. Please forgive my misspellings and confusing sentances.
- James
PepperJoey
In article <66kun7$e...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>, wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com
(Wednesday) writes:
>I'm not sure why it matters if she's on her second husband.
She's hardly
>chattel. She can do what she wants.
Of course she can do as she wants
But being a Christain is not about doing what Sandi or I wants to do - it is
about submiting to the Lord and having the mind of Christ. If a person does as
one wishes, should we not be concerned about the motivies of ones ministry???
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Michael A. Vickers (mavi...@cryogen.com) wrote:
: pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) erupted:
: > : So then a divorced person should divorce a second time so they
: > : aren't living in a state of continual sin. This makes no sense to
: > : me.
: >
: > It does if you consider that the second marriage was invalid in the
: > first place. In a sense, there would be no need for a divorce because
: > there was never a proper marriage in the first place, except perhaps
: > in the eyes of the state.
:
: can it be concluded that there are first marriages that weren't proper
: in the first place, except perhaps in the eyes of the state?
Biblically? I don't know. I suppose if the woman (or even, perhaps, the
man) was not a virgin at the time of the wedding, that might violate some
Mosaic understanding of marriage and how the person you have sex with is
the person you're supposed to live with for the rest of your life (even if
that person raped you!). But that's Old Testament stuff.
I'm not sure what the New Testament position would be on this. Paul
doesn't deal with marriage so much as he does with sex and "being one
flesh", which he says happens between two human beings every time they
copulate (hence his prohibition against prostitution). When he *does*
deal with marriage and the legitimacy thereof, he is primarily concerned,
it seems to me, with *re*marriage, which assumes that there was an earlier
marriage which might gum up the works for the second (or third or fourth
or fifth) one.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Matt Laswell (las...@wwa.com) wrote:
: Peter Thomas Chattaway (pet...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: : SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: : : Bryan Moore <bmo...@tivoli.com> writes:
: : : > No doubt the blood of Jesus can atone for adultery when it is
: : : > repented of. But to divorce ones husband and marry the adultery
: : : > partner is living in a continual state of adultery which is an
: : : > unrepentant act.
: : :
: : : I humlby disagree. I find no Biblical reference to this.
: :
: : That's because women weren't allowed to file for divorce according to
: : Jewish custom; it was a man's prerogative (and, depending on the
: : rabbi, the husband could divorce his wife for a reason as trivial as
: : she-burned-his-supper). However, having said that, Jesus did say
: : pretty clearly that any man who divorces his wife and marries another
: : is committing adultery and turning his first wife into an adulteress.
:
: I think you're misunderstanding Sam's point, Peter.
Nah, just sticking to my pedantic biblical guns.
: I seriously doubt he's suggesting that marrying one's lover is anything
: other than A Very Bad Thing(tm). But the question is, what happens
: once you've done that.
A good question. And, on *that* score, I don't think the Bible helps us
very much at all. In fact, even with those places where the Bible *is*
pretty clear, I am not sure that Jesus and Paul would have said the same
things to us that they said to the people of their generation, there being
different cultural and social constraints, between their time and ours,
re: marriage and divorce and all of that. But I harp on those verses
because, it seems to me, conservative Christians frown deeply on "putting
things in context" and thus "writing off the Bible" on virtually every
other subject, yet they've become rather lax about this one topic, and
without even thinking about it!
: Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Sand[iy] Patti . . .
Actually, I don't think the "Sandi" has ever been in doubt, just the
"Patti/Patty". :)
: . . . had the affair, divorced her husband and married her lover. Let's
: say further that after doing that, she realized that she'd screwed up
: in all this. What should she do at that point?
I dunno, sell all her riches and give the money to the poor? Repentance,
to hear Jesus tell it, *can* require us to make major changes in our lives
and to upset our family structures (you think the rich young ruler
*earned* all that money, as opposed to inheriting it?). I don't mean to
sound glib -- Lord knows *I* can't stand sudden, major changes in my life,
but then, that's probably partly why I'm still not married and why I would
strongly, strongly resist getting divorced in the first place.
: I believe that's the question Sam's getting at - what's the right thing
: to do after the fact? Bryan's contention that marrying her lover makes
: for a continual state of sin gives a very clear answer - if being
: married to her lover is sin, she should divorce him.
I think it safe to say that, on a plain reading of the Bible, she should
never have married him.
: Sam's response, on the other hand, is that remarriage is an act, not a
: state. As such, Sam's argument is that for Sand[iy] to divorce her
: second husband in no way improves the situation (especially since her
: first husband has remarried, making reconcilliation with him pretty
: well impossible).
Well, if we grant Sandi Patty the powers that Jesus credited to men, it
would seem that Sandi has made an adulterer out of her former hubby and is
living in a state of adultery right now. Now, perhaps Jesus only meant to
say what he said in a society where women had no power over their marital
lot in life, and he was trying to guilt-trip the men of the Hillel school
who liked the thought of easy divorces; perhaps, speaking today in a
relatively egalitarian culture, he would never deign to say that Sandi had
made her husband an adulterer, and perhaps he would no longer be inclined
to guilt-trip the abandoning spouses either. So perhaps what Jesus said
doesn't matter any more. I'm willing to grant that. Is Sandi?
: It's not a question of whether or not she should have done what she did
: - that's pretty clear to everyone, I should think, and Sand[iy] can't
: undo it even if she should want to. It's a question of what she does
: *now*.
Well, I know it sounds like I'm dodging the question, but that is partly
because I Don't Know What She Should Do Now. One's actions in any given
situation are determined by how one *appraises* that situation -- how
things got to be the way they are, etc. -- and I think some people are too
willing to skip past the appraisal, with all its implications for what
role, if any, the Bible has in our lives when it comes to really crucial
issues like this, under the guise of being "sensitive". I would say I'm
*not* dodging that question because, as far as I'm concerned, we haven't
got there yet.
: But if she really did come to her senses after having married her
: lover, I tend to agree with Sam. It does nothing for the cause of
: Christ or for any of the principals to break up the second marriage.
: It only brings more pain.
No one said it would be easy. I am personally not inclined to believe
that the Christian life is about the avoidance of pain. What *I* want to
know is with what sort of integrity people like Sandi are supposed to live
if, on the one hand, they represent and epitomize a subculture that claims
to be Bible-believing and all the rest of it, and, on the other hand, they
don't appear to follow it. Is she willing to live the rest of her life
married to someone who, according to the plainest reading of the Bible,
she ought not to be married to? Or is she comfortable with a slightly
more developed interpretation which contextualizes Jesus' remarks and, in
a sense, brackets them off? -- is she willing, that is, to say that the
words of Jesus, or at least some of them, *can* be ignored today? If she
is, then great, leave her be, and let her be honest about it (whatever
that might do to her record sales). But if not, then she's got bigger
problems to worry about than the pain that may follow a second break-up.
: And, of course, this is more than a merely academic subject for some.
: We should both tread lightly here.
Perhaps. But treading lightly, as opposed to facing things directly, is
partly what gets us in these fixes in the first place.
Bob Weigel
I tried to cover most of this in my other posting which drew no
response, so let me comment again.
In article <19971213011...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
SamHag <sam...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article, pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) writes:
>
>get on with life. He :is most definitely *not* recommending it!
>
>Exactly. He is not recommending divorce at all. He's saying you should stay
>with your current spouse.
Yes, and "current spouse" needs understanding. I mean either a person
comes to a place where they are broken before the Lord and they realize
that everything they have done in the past was sin, or they don't. When
they come to that point and TRULY repent,....that's where Paul's instructions
kick in! Everything before that was sin....no matter how much society
thought it looked kosher.
So, if you find yourself unmarried at that point, and the spirit leads
you to stay that way, do. If he leads you to marry, do. If it finds you
married to your first, second, or sixty third spouse, then by ALL means
make a proclaimation that Jesus is LORD of your marriage now, and begin
to WALK IN VICTORY in that. If the person remains, they will be sanctified
if they aren't already.
-Bob
SamHag
In article, pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) writes:
:Whoa! Hold on a second here! First of all, why should anyone give a rat's
ass what :Paul has to say if it contradicts what Jesus had to say?
Paul didn't contradict Jesus, nor did I imply that.
:Paul is not at all advocating divorce as a course of action; rather, he is
recognizing :that it happens to some people, and if it does, they should just
get on with life. He :is most definitely *not* recommending it!
Exactly. He is not recommending divorce at all. He's saying you should stay
with your current spouse.
:: So then a divorced person should divorce a second time so they aren't
::living in a state of continual sin. This makes no sense to me.
:It does if you consider that the second marriage was invalid in the first
place.
I'm sorry, but I really believe you're wrong. Jeremiah 3:1(Amp) "If a man puts
away his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man's, will he return
to her again? [Of course not!] Will not that land be greatly polluted that so
acts?"
:And if you look at the Old Testament, you'll find God didn't normally like
people who :had hard hearts. He tended to kill their firstborn and do other
nasty things to them
I'm not sure he didn't like them. In pharoah's case it says that God hardened
his heart. Now I don't think he did this to justify any of the nasty things.
Hard hearts can be a good thing, though not hearts hardened to God.
If I'm going to make an error in my theology on any subject, my error is going
to be on the side of Grace not Law. This isn't an excuse to disobey God's law,
it's just that when one sins, Grace has to be greater than the sin, or Grace
means nothing.
SamHag
In article, las...@wwa.com (Matt Laswell) writes:
:And, of course, this is more than a merely academic subject for some. We
should :both tread lightly here.
Thanks Matt for understanding what I was trying to say. You pretty much hit
the nail on the head. Adultery and abandoment are the only two reasons for
divorce I see in the Bible. Reconciliation is still the best answer, but not
always possible.
My concern, after spending 7 years involved in a Single Parent Ministry and
being a single parent for 17 years (still single) is what to do to reconstruct
one's life after divorce. I believe God would want all to be in a traditional
family if at all possible, and this includes the "sinning" party in a divorce.
Again I believe that Jesus died for all sins, if a sin is forgiven it is
forgotten as far the east is from the west and you should be able to move on
with your life and "sin no more". Grace and Mercy cover all sins.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: I believe God would want all to be in a traditional family if at all
: possible . . .
Eh? Paul didn't seem to think so ...
: . . . and this includes the "sinning" party in a divorce. Again I
: believe that Jesus died for all sins, if a sin is forgiven it is
: forgotten as far the east is from the west and you should be able to
: move on with your life and "sin no more".
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? That's the crux of the matter right
there: are people like Sandi Patty "sinning more" by continuing to live
with, sleep with, copulate with their second marriage partners after
abandoning their first ones? If they are, then shouldn't they *stop*
sinning? Even if that means a second divorce? Even if it means "more
pain"?
If you want to take a plain, literal, inerrant view of scripture and/or
the teachings of Jesus, then it would seem to me that Sandi Patty is
"sinning more" by staying in her current marriage and this must outweigh
any sentiments to the effect that pain is a bad thing (which is more of a
Buddhist approach than a Christian one).
If, however, you want to call on other authorities besides the Bible, then
your understanding of Patty's current obligations will undoubtedly be
different. Indeed, it seems you *have* called on other authorities here,
since you assert, purely on your own authority ("I believe") that God
wants people to be in "traditional families".
I, for one, am not aware of any scriptural warrant for that, but then, *I*
would not be the one to say that the Bible is the only source of truth,
even for Christians. I simply find it ironic that Christians who *claim*
to follow the Bible tend to ignore it in cases like this, lest they appear
"judgmental" or "insensitive". I mean, if Sandi Patty can live a life
that clearly contradicts the plain words of Jesus and Paul, then why not
grant the same privilege to monogamous gay partnerships that *don't* have
such biblical hurdles to clear?
: Grace and Mercy cover all sins.
And yet we are not supposed to keep sinning, even if a profusion of sin
means that grace can abound just that much more. To keep on sinning,
knowingly at least, is to spit in the face of God.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
SamHag (sam...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article, pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) writes:
: : Whoa! Hold on a second here! First of all, why should anyone give
: : a rat's ass what Paul has to say if it contradicts what Jesus had to
: : say?
:
: Paul didn't contradict Jesus, nor did I imply that.
Well, not having the previous message in front of me, I can't recall the
exact context of my remark. But if you were using a teaching of Paul's
to back a claim which would appear to contradict a teaching of Jesus's,
then you quite possibly *were* implying it, albeit unknowingly.
: : Paul is not at all advocating divorce as a course of action; rather,
: : he is recognizing that it happens to some people, and if it does,
: : they should just get on with life. He is most definitely *not*
: : recommending it!
:
: Exactly. He is not recommending divorce at all. He's saying you
: should stay with your current spouse.
Not quite. What he is saying, if you read it in *context*, is that
everyone should stay the way they were when they became Christians. If
you became a Christian and you were married to a non-Christian at the
time, then stay married to the non-Christian (unless the non-Christian
spouse abandons you, in which case you're free). If you were single,
then stay single (unless staying single means you would burn with lust).
This is not at all the same thing as saying that, once you have sinned by
committing adultery, sinned by abandoning your spouse, and then confirmed
your state of sin by marrying the person you had adultery with, you
should do all you can to keep that state of sin permanent. Paul is not
addressing at all the issue of Christians who married Christians and then
got divorced and married other Christians. I don't think that scenario
ever occured to him, and I doubt he thought it possible -- apart,
perhaps, from his command to expel the immoral brother (and sister?).
(And if you object to my use of the terms "sinning" and "adultery", then
all I can say is, Take it up with Jesus. Again, I'm not saying that the
words of Jesus can't be reinterpreted -- or, more accurately, bracketed
off -- to accomodate today's prevailing attitude towards divorce and
remarriage. But let's be honest about it. And let's not use shabby
interpretations of Paul to back ourselves up.)
: : : So then a divorced person should divorce a second time so they
: : : aren't living in a state of continual sin. This makes no sense to
: : : me.
: :
: : It does if you consider that the second marriage was invalid in the
: : first place.
:
: I'm sorry, but I really believe you're wrong. Jeremiah 3:1(Amp) "If a
: man puts away his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another
: man's, will he return to her again? [Of course not!] Will not that
: land be greatly polluted that so acts?"
Not familiar with Jeremiah. I'll get back to you on this one.
: : And if you look at the Old Testament, you'll find God didn't
: : normally like people who had hard hearts. He tended to kill their
: : firstborn and do other nasty things to them
:
: I'm not sure he didn't like them. In pharoah's case it says that God
: hardened his heart. Now I don't think he did this to justify any of
: the nasty things. Hard hearts can be a good thing, though not hearts
: hardened to God.
Where is there any reference to a hard heart being a good thing?
: If I'm going to make an error in my theology on any subject, my error
: is going to be on the side of Grace not Law. This isn't an excuse to
: disobey God's law, it's just that when one sins, Grace has to be
: greater than the sin, or Grace means nothing.
I agree wholeheartedly. But we *still* have not answered the question:
Is Sandi Patty -- or someone like her -- living in sin by continuing in
her current marriage? If she is, then appealing to Grace *does* become
an excuse to disobey God's Law. If she is not, then she has no worries.
But as near as I can make it, for her (or us) to reach that latter
conclusion, she (and we) would have to be relying on some other basis for
knowledge and authority than the Bible.
In a way, Sam, I'm on your side. I too think the Law is over-rated. But
I prefer to be clear about what it does and does not say.
SamHag
In article>, pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) writes:
>But if you were using a teaching of Paul's to back a claim which would appear
to >contradict a teaching of Jesus's, then you quite possibly *were* implying
it, albeit >unknowingly.
I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself, which you must since you have
twice implied that Paul has strayed from Jesus' teachings. If the Bible is God
inspired, then what Paul has to say is as valid as what Jesus taught.
>What he is saying, if you read it in *context*, is that everyone should stay
the way >they were when they became Christians.
I know the context. What he is saying is that they should stay married to
their present spouse. That they shouldn't divorce, just so they can serve God
better.
>(And if you object to my use of the terms "sinning" and "adultery", then all I
can >say is, Take it up with Jesus.
I don't have any problem with the terms. I understand them and I use them
also. Please don't be condensending.
>I agree wholeheartedly. But we *still* have not answered the question: Is
Sandi >Patty -- or someone like her -- living in sin by continuing in her
current marriage? If >she is, then appealing to Grace *does* become an excuse
to disobey God's Law. >If she is not, then she has no worries. But as near as
I can make it, for her (or us) >to reach that latter conclusion, she (and we)
would have to be relying on some >other basis for knowledge and authority than
the Bible.
The question really is "Is the remarriage a constant state of adultery or a one
time sin. This is really the only area where we disagree. From my study of
over a 6 month period and reading over 35 commentaries and books on the subject
of divorce, talking with pastors and a college professor, I can only assure
you of one thing - the New Testament doesn't say. You can find no scripture
for it, nor can I.
But I can also tell you that my view comes from a Genesis to Revelation study
of all the versus pertaining to divorce. I can also assure you that I have not
used any shabby interpretations of any of the versus. I have not called on any
other authorities other than the Bible, though I have read other's
interpretations of such.
In the Bible study group I was affiliated with, we had three goals in this
order:
1 - Relationship to God thru Jesus Christ
2 - Reconciliation to spouse if possible
3 - Reconstruction of life
No one can do much about what should have happened. My concern is what the
church should about the present. A quote from one of the authors I read
probably best sums up my summation to this subject, "The grace of realized
forgiveness does not suspend God's absolute ethical demand, but transcends the
legal requirements of it in face of a failure"
With all due respect
Chemically Imbalanced Spice
On 14 Dec 1997 07:50:00 GMT, sam...@aol.com (SamHag) chased the
butterfly and wrote:
>In article>, pet...@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas Chattaway) writes:
>
>>But if you were using a teaching of Paul's to back a claim which would appear
>to >contradict a teaching of Jesus's, then you quite possibly *were* implying
>it, albeit >unknowingly.
>
>I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself, which you must since you have
>twice implied that Paul has strayed from Jesus' teachings. If the Bible is God
I've had debates with Pete in the past, and there is no winning with
him. Trust me, you'll never win the arguement. I have agreed with
some of his points on this matter, but have disagreed with others.
My .02 on divorce is this. Everybody is getting divorced it seems, I
think churches should welcome people with open arms who are divorced,
I believe that people who are divorced can still be preachers,
teachers, etc. There is no resaon why divorce should make any
difference.
*****************************************************
*Donnie
*don...@imagixx.net
*
*visit my homepage:
*http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/2663
*
*la la la la la la la la la- Spice Girls
*****************************************************
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: : But if you were using a teaching of Paul's to back a claim which would
: : appear to contradict a teaching of Jesus's, then you quite possibly
: : *were* implying it, albeit unknowingly.
:
: I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself, which you must since you
: have twice implied that Paul has strayed from Jesus' teachings.
Actually, I'm not convinced that Paul *did* stray from Jesus' teachings,
at least on this point. Indeed, Paul actually quotes the teachings of
Jesus on the divorce issue inasmuch as he tells people not to initiate
divorce proceedings. Beyond that, Jesus apparently had nothing to say,
so Paul had to invent the bit about what Christians should do if they
*didn't* initiate the proceedings, but their partners leave them anyway.
But as far as the rest of this sentence goes, I believe the Bible *does*
contradict itself, if for no other reason than there is no such thing as
"the Bible". God did not write a book for us to follow. Lots of people
wrote about their experiences in lots of littler books, and these were
collected by a faith community into a collection which we now call the
Bible. But to say the Bible can never contradict itself is like saying
the library can never contradict itself; it's a foolish claim in both
cases, since the books *within* the Bible (and within any given library)
do, in fact, contradict each other. Just look at the radically different
-- even opposed -- interpretations that Galatians and James give to the
relationship between God and Abraham (both epistles cite a verse in
Genesis 14; FWIW, I think Paul got it right on this occasion, while James'
interpretation depends on a more garbled understanding of Genesis, mixing
chapters 14 and 22). Just look at Matthew 1, which deliberately falsifies
the historical record of both I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles to make
some obscure numerological point. There are other examples, too, but this
is something of a tangent now. Let's just say that, since the different
voiecs contained within the Bible *do* contradict each other, and quite
clearly, on some occasions, I see no reason to assume that Paul and Jesus
would have agreed with each other.
: If the Bible is God inspired, then what Paul has to say is as valid as
: what Jesus taught.
Even when Paul says he's not speaking for Jesus, but only for himself?
You realize, of course, that this begs the qeustion: What do we mean when
we say the Bible is "inspired"?
: : What he is saying, if you read it in *context*, is that everyone
: : should stay the way they were when they became Christians.
:
: I know the context. What he is saying is that they should stay married
: to their present spouse. That they shouldn't divorce, just so they can
: serve God better.
If you know the context, then why do you avoid it? Why do you delete it?
Why does it not figure at *all* into your interpretation? Paul is
speaking to a specific kind of Christian in a specific kind of situation
-- why would we assume that he would say the exact same words to other
Christians living in very different circumstances?
: : I agree wholeheartedly. But we *still* have not answered the
: : question: Is Sandi Patty -- or someone like her -- living in sin by
: : continuing in her current marriage? If she is, then appealing to
: : Grace *does* become an excuse to disobey God's Law. If she is not,
: : then she has no worries. But as near as I can make it, for her (or
: : us) to reach that latter conclusion, she (and we) would have to be
: : relying on some other basis for knowledge and authority than the Bible.
:
: The question really is "Is the remarriage a constant state of adultery
: or a one time sin. This is really the only area where we disagree.
: From my study of over a 6 month period and reading over 35 commentaries
: and books on the subject of divorce, talking with pastors and a college
: professor, I can only assure you of one thing - the New Testament
: doesn't say. You can find no scripture for it, nor can I.
Well, it is true that the New Testament doesn't address the question
phrased quite like *that*. But when Jesus says that anyone who divorces
and remarries both commits adultery *and* causes his original partner to
commit adultery, I somehow can't imagine him thinking, "But that's only
true for a limited time only. Wait a while, and the sinful nature of the
relationship goes away by itself."
: No one can do much about what should have happened. My concern is what
: the church should about the present.
Indeed. And if it should turn out that, from God's point of view, the
present state of things is sinful, then it had best be changed, hadn't
it? I mean, no one says there's no point in mending a broken arm simply
because, well, the arm was broken yesterday, and there's no point in
worrying about the past ... Ignoring the past has consequences.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Chemically Imbalanced Spice (don...@imagixx.net) wrote:
: I've had debates with Pete in the past, and there is no winning with
: him. Trust me, you'll never win the arguement.
Not quite true. I used to be as homophobic as the next evangelical,
possibly more so. But, after a few years of careful study, arguing it
with people, reading and attending various lectures and whatnot, and
getting to know some gay people myself -- more or less in that order --
I've come to a position roughly equal to Peggy Campolo's, to cite one
pro-gay evangelical. I'm not quite the stick-in-the-mud I appear to be.
: My .02 on divorce is this. Everybody is getting divorced it seems, I
: think churches should welcome people with open arms who are divorced, I
: believe that people who are divorced can still be preachers, teachers,
: etc. There is no resaon why divorce should make any difference.
Ah, yes, this gets us into another interesting aspect of this whole
debate. If Paul is arguing that new Christians should not try to change
what they were when they were saved -- be it circumcised, uncircumcised,
married, single, whatever -- then what would he have to say to the new
Christian who is divorced? I think Paul would be inclined to overlook
their past life, simply because, as Christians, they wouldn't have known
any better, and while Paul would (as usual) encourage celibacy, I don't
think he'd have a problem with them getting married.
But this still doesn't help us figure out what to do with Christians who
get divorced *after* they become Christians. And if the pastoral epistles
can specify that church leaders must be husbands of *one* wife and that
church leaders must have their orderly houses, then there may be biblical
objections to divorced people in leadership positions (objections which, I
grant, may be bracketed off according to the historical context, yada
yada, if you are of a more liberal interpretive stripe).
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
>But this still doesn't help us figure out what to do with Christians who
>get divorced *after* they become Christians.
so many combinations... i asked your opinion earlier as to whether or not
there are first marriages that are recognized in the eyes of the state but
not in the eyes of god, because there are apparently second marriages that
fall under that definition.
i wondered, in particular, about christians who marry non-christians. is
the marriage considered lawful in god's eyes, even though the bible seems
to forbid 'mixed' marriages?
Jason and Heather
Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>
> If you want to take a plain, literal, inerrant view of scripture
> must outweigh any sentiments to the effect that pain is a bad thing
> (which is more of a Buddhist approach than a Christian one).
>
> If, however, you want to call on other authorities besides the
> Bible, then your understanding of Patty's current obligations will
> undoubtedly be different.
*grumble*
If Jesus was any kind of perfect authority, he'd have made himself a
little clearer so we wouldn't put up with all this bickering. Since
he can't do the job, I will.
Hear ye, hear ye.
Sandi Patty did willfully and knowingly make the sign of the two-
backed beast (and a large and lumbering beast it was, I'm sure) with
a man other than her own husband, whom she had dutifully sworn to
love, honor, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, Sandi Patty is hereby
declared a two-timin' slut. It doesn't matter if she pleads for
forgiveness, goes back to her husband, or gets married to some other
guy altogether, she's still a two-timin' slut.
This is not necessarily a good thing, it's not necessarily a bad
thing. It's just something to keep in mind in case you were ever
intending on getting into a committed relationship with her. Or
a one-night stand, for that matter.
If you're not, then it don't concern you, and you'd be better off
discussing her music, which - speaking as an authority - sucks.
See? Wasn't that easy?
jason
r.m.c resident atheist
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
>Hear ye, hear ye.
just in time to be nominated as post of the year.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: seems to forbid 'mixed' marriages?
Hmmmm. Well, it doesn't forbid mixed marriages, per se, since it accepts
that some people will become Christians but their spouses might not; in
such situations, according to Paul, there is no reason to invalidate the
marriage.
But presumably you mean cases where a Christian and a non-Christian are
not *yet* married but are thinking about it, yes? I'm inclined to think
they shouldn't get married -- part of that "unequal yoke" stuff, though on
the biblical face of it, last time I checked, it would seem to apply as
much to business matters as to marriage and stuff. Do Christians apply it
on that level? If not, I'm not wholly convinced it ought to apply on the
other level as well.
But for me, I could not marry someone whose beliefs differed significantly
from mine, especially if we wanted to have kids some day. That's the sort
of friction I *don't* want to have.
(Of course, I did have the hots for this really cool lapsed Catholic a
couple of years back, but I justified it on the grounds that her mother
had attended the same Mennonite church as mine; alas, nothing ever came of
that ... )
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Jason and Heather (stei...@primenet.com) wrote:
: See? Wasn't that easy?
Tee hee. You make me smile, Jason. :)
HistoryDC
Peter Chattaway wrote, in repsonse to a discussion of "mixed" mariages:
> part of that "unequal yoke" stuff, though on
>the biblical face of it, last time I checked, it would seem to apply as
>much to business matters as to marriage and stuff. Do Christians apply it
>on that level? If not, I'm not wholly convinced it ought to apply on the
>other level as well.
Well, not if you take the whole of Scripture into account. There is plenty
indication that a marriage union results in a unity that is not only unique and
mysterious, but not possible between a believer and a non-believer.
Then again, maybe you happen to be thinking of situations where you are
screwing over your business associates.
Tim the Historyman
Peter Thomas Chattaway
HistoryDC (hist...@aol.com) wrote:
: Peter Chattaway wrote, in repsonse to a discussion of "mixed" mariages:
: > part of that "unequal yoke" stuff, though on the biblical face of it,
: > last time I checked, it would seem to apply as much to business
: > matters as to marriage and stuff. Do Christians apply it on that
: > level? If not, I'm not wholly convinced it ought to apply on the
: > other level as well.
:
: Well, not if you take the whole of Scripture into account. There is
: plenty indication that a marriage union results in a unity that is not
: only unique and mysterious, but not possible between a believer and a
: non-believer.
"The whole of Scripture." What a nice, vast, nebulous term. I'd rather
deal with one writer at a time, not an entire library all at once, thank
you very much.
: Then again, maybe you happen to be thinking of situations where you are
: screwing over your business associates.
Not necessarily (and besides, one could just as easily be screwed as do
the screwing). But whether it's business partnerships or marriage
partnerships you're dealing with, it's all about a contract in the end,
n'est-ce pas?
Besides, this "unique and mysterious" relationship you allude to is
apparently achieved, according to Paul, by the simple act of fucking. Not
by wedding ceremonies, not by elaborate rituals, not by sharing some sort
of holy matrimonial bond with all the attendant mumbo-jumbo. Just sex.
And sex, as Paul himself recognized, can easily take place between people
of different faiths.
Michael A. Vickers
while under the influence of a chili onion supreme from wally's weiner world,
>:i wondered, in particular, about christians who marry non-christians.
>:is the marriage considered lawful in god's eyes, even though the bible
>:seems to forbid 'mixed' marriages?
>Hmmmm. Well, it doesn't forbid mixed marriages, per se, since it accepts
>that some people will become Christians but their spouses might not; in
>such situations, according to Paul, there is no reason to invalidate the
>marriage.
i was going to comment here, until i read the rest of the post. i've always
struggled with the wording on the 'unequally yoked' passage, especially
since it didnt seem to explicitly talk about marriage.
>But presumably you mean cases where a Christian and a non-Christian are
>not *yet* married but are thinking about it, yes?
actually, i asked the question above supposing that, without a doubt, it
was unlawful in god's eyes for a christian to marry a non christian.
supposing the marriage happened... then what?
('...and then you ask more useless questions, and then my troubles double!'
- the crucified)
>I'm inclined to think
>they shouldn't get married -- part of that "unequal yoke" stuff, though on
>the biblical face of it, last time I checked, it would seem to apply as
>much to business matters as to marriage and stuff. Do Christians apply it
>on that level? If not, I'm not wholly convinced it ought to apply on the
>other level as well.
i agree.
>But for me, I could not marry someone whose beliefs differed significantly
>from mine, especially if we wanted to have kids some day. That's the sort
>of friction I *don't* want to have.
(as an aside - i'm fairly resolved to never have kids, myself. i have a few
reasons... most having to do with my never being mature enough to raise
them)
i agree with that too. i've never thought the bible explicitly says not to
marry a non-christian, but i've always thought it a bad idea. even if i
shouldnt have kids, there are other ethical issues that will arise where
there will probably two (very) different solutions.
of course, that happens with christian couples, too.
Wednesday
In article <19971216071...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
And how do you do that without needing to compensate for the fact that Old
Testament marriage structures, rules, customs, etc. were never designed for
Yon J. Random Average Gentile Christian Wot Doesn't Live In A Society Anything
Like The Hebrews Did, And Never Mind Judah?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: we're not even talking about the same
cultural institution anymore. Marriage contracts are no longer the same deal:
you marry a woman, chances are you're not fusing two families or having parents
hand over a dowry or getting someone you can legally own or anything. There
is no longer any added value to getting a virgin, to having sex as a tool to
create an emotional/psychic tie once the commitment is in place (that's WAY
backwards...) -- we don't HAVE a situation where you've got to marry off the
chyx to someone who can support them properly, and as such have to go to
drastic measures to make sure they want to stay there. The level of power
exchange is completely different.
Hell, we don't even have a situation where it's desirable to have as many
environments to raise lots of kiddies well as possible anymore either.
(To raise kiddies well, yes, but not LOTS of kiddies in one go.) Nor, for that
matter, do we have a society which needs to compensate for a lack of largely
reliable ways to avoid having kiddies.
(Note: by "we" I mean North America, and parts of Europe.)
Women can work. Women can take care of themselves, by and large. Marriage
these days is two effectively equal adults deciding to enter into a commitment
on their own (ideally, without family pressures, although I recognize that
those exist). I don't think that the Bible takes that kind of arrangement
into account, and any Christian looking to the Bible for a guide to how
their marriage is supposed to work *has* to take into account the discrepan-
cies between their logistical arrangement and the ones Scripture describes
over the course of the tomes involved.
There are even, lately, circumstances under which cohabitation is preferable
now, something you would not necessarily have had to deal with back when
Tubal Cain had to go off and begat all over the place. (Although it's not
like Adam and Eve ever had the ceremony, ya know...) The Bible doesn't offer
any real practical advice for that kind of arrangement.
>There is plenty
>indication that a marriage union results in a unity that is not only unique and
>mysterious, but not possible between a believer and a non-believer.
Um, would you care to elaborate here? If you're talking lovemaking (as opposed
to straight-out fucking, or the myriad levels of sex-having), um, I can say
with no small amount of certainty that you are very, very wrong. Unless some-
one went and perfected a particular form of Christian spousal telepathy that
no one told me about...
--
wednesday * wednsday@[tezcat.com|chiark.greenend.org.uk] * perkygothi anon.
Thor, God of Thunder
>
> r.m.c resident atheist
>
> --
> "The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
> like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
> restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
> BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
Well Jason, you certainly make the discussion interesting. However, I
guess in your eyes she can be a slut, but if she truly is repentant,
then I believe she is allowed the same grace that Jesus offered me, and
I'm in the position her husband was in, cheated on and living through
it. Her actions don't devalue her as a human being any more than your
words devalue you. But then again, you've declared yourself the resident
atheist, and I respect that.
However, you are wrong considering our concern about the situation,
because it does bring up certain questions that pertain to my life, and
the lives of others. I am not so concerned with Sandi's heart toward
God, I will take her word for it, and believe that she has accepted
God's forgiveness, which was already given to her almost 2000 years
ago. But what you fail to acknowledge is that this isn't (or shouldn't
be) a judgemental discussion, but one in which we can see her mistakes
and discuss the implications that they have on our own lives.
And then you make one other assumption, that Jesus "couldn't" make his
position concerning this matter clearer. I beg to differ, but I would
say that He could, only He didn't. Maybe because He knew that for us to
be certain about something like this, it would require a close, personal
relationship with Him - which is what He desires for us anyway. That is
what the Bible is all about and what God finds most important - that we
Love Him first, and each other second.
Just my thoughts on your words.
-James
Jason and Heather
Thor, God of Thunder <we...@lexmark.com> wrote:
>
> Well Jason, you certainly make the discussion interesting.
> However, I guess in your eyes she can be a slut, but if she truly
> is repentant, then I believe she is allowed the same grace that
> Jesus offered me, and I'm in the position her husband was in,
> cheated on and living through it.
Would you like to go through it again? No? Then it's to your
advantage to stay from two-timin' sluts like Sandi Patty. That's
all I'm saying.
> Her actions don't devalue her as a human being any more than your
> words devalue you.
Value is a relative thing. Whether or not her actions "devalued"
her depends on who's doing that evaluation. The man who married
her - and presumably valued her faithfulness - was probably a bit
disappointed to find out his wife was aardvarking another guy. Who
knows how the other guy felt.
Me, I don't value Sandi Patty at all, so what she does is hardly
going to make me think any worse of her.
> However, you are wrong considering our concern about the situation,
> because it does bring up certain questions that pertain to my life,
> and the lives of others. I am not so concerned with Sandi's heart
> toward God, I will take her word for it, and believe that she has
> accepted God's forgiveness, which was already given to her almost
> 2000 years ago. But what you fail to acknowledge is that this
> isn't (or shouldn't be) a judgemental discussion, but one in which
> we can see her mistakes and discuss the implications that they have
> on our own lives.
Implications? Like, "If you don't want your wife making the sign of
the triple-horned narwhale with some other dude, don't marry a two-
timin' slut." Like that?
C'mon, kids. I know it's a serious subject, but it's _not_ that
complicated. It's a simple issue of honesty and integrity.
> And then you make one other assumption, that Jesus "couldn't" make
> his position concerning this matter clearer. I beg to differ, but
> I would say that He could, only He didn't. Maybe because He knew
> that for us to be certain about something like this, it would
> require a close, personal relationship with Him - which is what He
> desires for us anyway. That is what the Bible is all about and
> what God finds most important - that we Love Him first, and each
> other second.
Well, when he comes down and tells you exactly how he feels about
two-timin' sluts, you let me know.
Thor, God of Thunder
Peter Thomas Chattaway wrote:
>
> HistoryDC (hist...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Peter Chattaway wrote, in repsonse to a discussion of "mixed" mariages:
>
> : > last time I checked, it would seem to apply as much to business
> : > matters as to marriage and stuff. Do Christians apply it on that
> : > level? If not, I'm not wholly convinced it ought to apply on the
> : > other level as well.
> : Well, not if you take the whole of Scripture into account. There is
> : plenty indication that a marriage union results in a unity that is not
> : only unique and mysterious, but not possible between a believer and a
> : non-believer.
>
> deal with one writer at a time, not an entire library all at once, thank
> you very much.
>
> : Then again, maybe you happen to be thinking of situations where you are
> : screwing over your business associates.
>
> Not necessarily (and besides, one could just as easily be screwed as do
> the screwing). But whether it's business partnerships or marriage
> partnerships you're dealing with, it's all about a contract in the end,
> n'est-ce pas?
Well, that isn't necessarily true. The Bible says that two become one,
which
I think is a LOT more than a simple contract. It's a spiritual bond
designed
to be made only once, in front of God. It's a covenant, which is much
more than
a contract - it's a promise, whereas a contract is a guideline.
> Besides, this "unique and mysterious" relationship you allude to is
> apparently achieved, according to Paul, by the simple act of fucking. Not
> by wedding ceremonies, not by elaborate rituals, not by sharing some sort
> of holy matrimonial bond with all the attendant mumbo-jumbo. Just sex.
> And sex, as Paul himself recognized, can easily take place between people
> of different faiths.
Well, first of all, it isn't a simple act. As I stated before, the two
become one, which is a great distinction between something as simple as
becoming a partner in a business and promising someone that you will be
there for life, under all circumstances.
But you are completely wrong as far as the "relationship" being achieved
by your so crudly worded term for sex. The relationship is defined by
intimacy and commitment, which are the defintions of love. Intimacy
cannot be found in one night stands or sexual relationships. Instead,
intimacy is enhanced by sex when it is in its proper place within the
relationship. Sex can easily take place beteen any number of people and
inantimate objects, or heck even animals. But the relationship can't.
Marriage is not defined by a wedding ceremony, you were correct in
pointing that out, however, the relationship HistoryDC was referring to
can only be obtained within the confines of marriage, no matter how that
marriage is recognized. God designed it that way, and He ought to
know. He made that clear over and over. Sexual purity, within or
outside of marriage, ought to be kept.
And Peter, if that is how you define the one relationship that God uses
to define the relationship of Christ to the church, then I do feel sorry
for the girl you have/will marry. I would suggest that you search your
heart and find where Christ resides in that area of your life.
-James
Jason and Heather
> than a simple contract. It's a spiritual bond designed to be made
> only once, in front of God. It's a covenant, which is much more
> than a contract - it's a promise, whereas a contract is a guideline.
Remind me not to get into any contracts with you!
It's kinda' sad that you have to reduce the significance of contracts
in order to promote this idea of a covenant. If covenants really were
superior, you wouldn't have to do that.
> > Besides, this "unique and mysterious" relationship you allude to
> > is apparently achieved, according to Paul, by the simple act of
> > fucking. Not by wedding ceremonies, not by elaborate rituals,
> > not by sharing some sort of holy matrimonial bond with all the
> > attendant mumbo-jumbo. Just sex. And sex, as Paul himself
> > recognized, can easily take place between people of different
> > faiths.
>
> Well, first of all, it isn't a simple act.
Yes, actually, it is.
> As I stated before, the two become one,
And what does that mean, exactly?
> which is a great distinction between something as simple as
> becoming a partner in a business and promising someone that you
> will be there for life, under all circumstances.
Actually, business agreements tend to be quite a bit more complex
than your standard marriage vows.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
:
: actually, i asked the question above supposing that, without a doubt,
: it was unlawful in god's eyes for a christian to marry a non
: christian. supposing the marriage happened... then what?
Well, if the marriage happened before either of them was a Christian,
Paul would say there's no need to lose sleep over it. If it happened
afterwards, though, and it is by now a fait accompli ... hmmmmmmm ...
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Wednesday (wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com) wrote:
: There are even, lately, circumstances under which cohabitation is
: with back when Tubal Cain had to go off and begat all over the place.
Such as ... ? (Not to disagree with you or anything -- yet :) -- but I'm
wondering what circumstances you had in mind.)
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Thor, God of Thunder (we...@lexmark.com) wrote:
: Peter Thomas Chattaway wrote:
: > Not necessarily (and besides, one could just as easily be screwed as do
: > the screwing). But whether it's business partnerships or marriage
: > partnerships you're dealing with, it's all about a contract in the end,
: > n'est-ce pas?
:
: Well, that isn't necessarily true. The Bible says that two become one,
: which I think is a LOT more than a simple contract.
Actually, it's a lot LESS than a simple contract. Becoming one, according
to Paul (and therefore according to the Bible), happens whenever two
people fuck. Simple as that. No contract needed. And it's precisely
because it can happen so easily that Paul did not want to see this oneness
thing abused; hence his stipulation that Christians should not go visiting
prostitutes.
: It's a spiritual bond designed to be made only once, in front of God.
: It's a covenant, which is much more than a contract - it's a promise,
: whereas a contract is a guideline.
Very interesting. Where do you get this from?
: > Besides, this "unique and mysterious" relationship you allude to is
: > apparently achieved, according to Paul, by the simple act of
: > fucking. Not by wedding ceremonies, not by elaborate rituals, not by
: > sharing some sort of holy matrimonial bond with all the attendant
: > mumbo-jumbo. Just sex. And sex, as Paul himself recognized, can
: > easily take place between people of different faiths.
:
: Well, first of all, it isn't a simple act. As I stated before, the two
: become one, which is a great distinction between something as simple as
: becoming a partner in a business and promising someone that you will be
: there for life, under all circumstances.
You seem to be confused here. Let me clarify things a little.
"Two become one" whenever two people have sex, according to Paul. That's
in the Bible. If you want to disagree with it, go right ahead, but there
will be consequences for your other attempts at biblical interpretation.
(These are not necessarily bad consequences; I just suspect that you might
not like them.)
But merely having sex does not "yoke" people. And because merely having
sex is enough to make two people one, "becoming one" also does not,
apparently, "yoke" people. So what does "yoke" people? Contracts. And
both marriages and business partnerships are built around contracts.
: But you are completely wrong as far as the "relationship" being
: achieved by your so crudly worded term for sex.
"As soon as you deal with it [sex] explicitly, you are forced to choose
between the language of the nursery, the gutter and the anatomy class."
-- C.S. Lewis, quoted in _Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language,
Oaths and Profanity in English_ by Geoffrey Hughes.
Me, I'll take the gutter. The nursery's too prissy, and the anatomy
class too abstract. The gutter lives. All hail the gutter.
: The relationship is defined by intimacy and commitment, which are the
: defintions of love.
Love? Who's talking about love? We're talking about sex and marriage!
: Intimacy cannot be found in one night stands or sexual relationships.
So what? According to Paul, "becoming one" can be found with hookers!
Who's talking about intimacy?
: And Peter, if that is how you define the one relationship that God uses
: to define the relationship of Christ to the church, then I do feel
: sorry for the girl you have/will marry. I would suggest that you search
: your heart and find where Christ resides in that area of your life.
Somewhere in the bedroom, I think. In fact, I think I can hear him
calling to me: "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts
like clusters of fruit. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take
hold of its fruit.'" (SoS 7:7-8) At least, they *tell* me those passages
are all about Christ and his love for the Church. But while I admit I'm
a little chubby, I think it's premature to say that I have "breasts" ...
Rob
Jason and Heather wrote:
>
> If you're not, then it don't concern you, and you'd be better off
> discussing her music, which - speaking as an authority - sucks.
>
My first musical post.
I tend to think of her as a 'Dino' of vocal musicians.
She certainly has the ability to hit the high soprano notes (as Dino has
the ability to play the piano fast - at least cheap arpeggios). Both
perform with an ability that is quite advanced, although neither are
concert level according to professional standards (Dino could never make
it as a classical pianist - neither could Sandi as an opera singer).
But still they have more training and skill then the average Joe Blow
Christian musician.
The music of both of them to me is shallow on musical substance and long
on that which exploits whatever virtuosity they have. Thus the average
Christian listener tends to view them as concert level, which they are
not.
> See? Wasn't that easy?
>
> jason
> r.m.c resident atheist
>
>
--
Rob