Can Marriage be repaired after an affair?

**elganned** · August-19-09, 11:35 AM

Well, since there's no longer a temple or sacrifice [[therefore no need for Levites), would that be a bad thing?
In any case that doesn't answer the question: Why was David smitten and Solomon not smitten?

**elganned** · August-19-09, 11:38 AM

And while we're at it, if marriage is only between one man and one woman, how could David have five wives and Solomon 700 wives and neither of them was smitten for it? Especially in light of the statement that David never transgressed the laws of the Lord except in the matter of Uriah's wife. Does that mean that having five wives didn't transgress God's law?

**Sstashmoo** · August-19-09, 11:52 AM

Quote: "700 wives and neither of them was smitten for it?"

Thats is why there is a New Testament.

**Just Amazed** · August-19-09, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

"Well I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned."

LMAO, too funny. Some people get toooooooooo serious

**elganned** · August-19-09, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "700 wives and neither of them was smitten for it?"

Thats is why there is a New Testament.

I don't see how that applies, Sstashmoo; the New Testament wasn't written in Solomon's time, so one presumes the Old Law was still very much in effect. So howcome God never objected to Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines? I never heard that Nathan or any of the other prophets mentioned it.

cheddar bob · August-19-09, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "700 wives and neither of them was smitten for it?"

Thats is why there is a New Testament.

Seems pretty convienent that christians can seemingly change their whole beliefs at any time, on a whim.

**Sstashmoo** · August-19-09, 05:49 PM

Quote: "Seems pretty convienent that christians can seemingly change their whole beliefs" blabla...

Considering the New Testament is really the book of Christianity, how can mentioning it, be changing anything. It's like someone saying "Whenever you Americans discuss rights you always bring up the Bill of rights".

Quote: "I don't see how that applies, Sstashmoo; the New Testament wasn't written in Solomon's time, so one presumes the Old Law was still very much in effect."

I don't know. If you're looking discrepancies and hypocrisy. the Old Testament is chocked full. Last count I heard it was up in the thousands. Again the reason for the New Testament.

ccbatson · August-19-09, 08:25 PM

Don't mistake religious morality for rational and objective morality...they are seldom the same thing.

**elganned** · August-20-09, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

I don't know. If you're looking discrepancies and hypocrisy. the Old Testament is chocked full. Last count I heard it was up in the thousands. Again the reason for the New Testament.

Matthew, 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I don't know what "fulfill" means in this context, and I suspect nobody else is sure, either. But it seems pretty clear that Jesus did not intend to supercede Mosaic Law with a new code of conduct. Therefore, the Law as set forth in the Old Testament is still in force.

So how could David have 5 wives yet still not have transgressed God's commandments "except in the matter of Uriah's wife"?

**elganned** · August-20-09, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Don't mistake religious morality for rational and objective morality...they are seldom the same thing.

I'm not really addressing matters of morality, Cc, either religious or "objective" [[whatever that means). I think we all agree that Sanford's actions are reprehensible.

What I'm trying to explore is bailey's assertion that such behavior warrents the death penalty.

**bailey** · August-20-09, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

What I'm trying to explore is bailey's assertion that such behavior warrents the death penalty.

My assertion was tongue in cheek. It was to highlight the absurdity of the fundamentalist right that wishes to make Leviticus and Moseaic law [[only the certain parts they like) civil law. It was to illustrate that those most strident in their opinion that we should all look to religion [[of course, only theirs and none other) in all things and live by the Bible are ususally the ones off hiking the appalacian trail with someone other than their wife or hanging out in airport bathrooms with extra wide stances.

**elganned** · August-20-09, 07:56 AM

I see.

"I wasn't dead, I was ACTING!"
"Brilliant! You fooled me!"

[[Jon Lovitz as Master Thespian on Saturday Night Live.)

**ggores** · August-20-09, 08:25 AM

Being a weakling in the face of temptation, I simply. Cannot. Resist:

"Kent Brockman [[on Smartline): Homer, have we started down a slippery slope to which marriage becomes so meaningless that anyone can marry any-thing?

Homer: Oh, Kent, not anything. It has to exist...or does it?

Rev. Lovejoy: Call me old fashioned, but I believe marriage is described in the Bible!

Homer: If you love the Bible so much, why don't you marry it? In fact, I now pronounce you and the Bible man and wife. And you're the wife! Ah ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. You owe me two hundred bucks.

Lovejoy: Homer, your impulsive marriages are going to lead to a lot of divorces.

Homer: Which will lead to a lot more impulsive marriages, putting more green in the blue, the blue being my pants!"

**Sstashmoo** · August-20-09, 09:07 AM

Quote: "What I'm trying to explore is bailey's assertion that such behavior warrents the death penalty."

Why does he condemn one thing and seemingly not another? Because we don't have the capacity to understand everything. He is the Alpha and the Omega. We are but a vapor. When two are washing, one will be taken and one left. The symbolism, is two will be exhibiting the same levels of appearance to man, one will be dealt with one way and one another. We are not judges of mankind in this context, nor should we try to be. We aren't capable. Why does God allow a child to die? Why does God allow rulers to slaughter multitudes? I don't know and never will on this earth.

**elganned** · August-20-09, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Why does God allow rulers to slaughter multitudes?

Allow it? He positively demands it.

Read Joshua. See how many he "smote with the edge of the sword"--men, women, children, and animals--expressly at God's command.

**bailey** · August-20-09, 09:31 AM

Why does God allow a child to die? Why does God allow rulers to slaughter multitudes?

Because there is no god.

**exdetroiter** · August-20-09, 09:59 AM

I don't think the marriage would ever be the same. The parties may remain together as partners to raise the children or for financial security, but without trust its hard to love, so it would be a marriage of convenience.

**Sstashmoo** · August-20-09, 10:27 AM

Quote: "Because there is no god."

That is your opinion. You've been twisting turning writhing and baiting for two days so you could drop that on here. Behavior like yours makes me believe all the more, thanks.

Quote: "Allow it? He positively demands it."

Yep. You know the point you folks miss is. If the Bible were a false work, there would only be supportive information of the fallacy. Why would the people that allegedly made it up, add things to contradict their story? Ever consider that bit of logic? In a job interview or on a resume, how many negative aspects about yourself have you revealed? How many subjects about yourself or your work history that could be misinterpreted, have you presented?

**ejames01** · August-20-09, 10:42 AM

Who wrote the bible?

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Because there is no god."

That is your opinion. You've been twisting turning writhing and baiting for two days so you could drop that on here. Behavior like yours makes me believe all the more, thanks.

Quote: "Allow it? He positively demands it."

Yep. You know the point you folks miss is. If the Bible were a false work, there would only be supportive information of the fallacy. Why would the people that allegedly made it up, add things to contradict their story? Ever consider that bit of logic? In a job interview or on a resume, how many negative aspects about yourself have you revealed? How many subjects about yourself or your work history that could be misinterpreted, have you presented?

**elganned** · August-20-09, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Yep. You know the point you folks miss is. If the Bible were a false work, there would only be supportive information of the fallacy. Why would the people that allegedly made it up, add things to contradict their story? Ever consider that bit of logic? In a job interview or on a resume, how many negative aspects about yourself have you revealed? How many subjects about yourself or your work history that could be misinterpreted, have you presented?

If the Bible was written by people who were inspired by God directly, as is alleged, then why didn't He exercise the necessary editorial overview to make sure His word wasn't inconsistent or contradictory? Mistakes and missteps would only make it harder to get His message out.

If I can see the logic of that, I am quite certain God can.

Or do you think He changed His story depending on to whom He was speaking?

**elganned** · August-20-09, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

...In a job interview or on a resume, how many negative aspects about yourself have you revealed? How many subjects about yourself or your work history that could be misinterpreted, have you presented?

I couldn't help laughing when I read this. I pictured a headline:

"Economy Worse Than Expected--Even God Looking For Work!"

**bailey** · August-20-09, 11:11 AM

The parties may remain together as partners to raise the children or for financial security, but without trust its hard to love, so it would be a marriage of convenience.

Agreed. fake,ruined and loveless marriages are a-ok, just as long as it's not two fags trying to get married. That part of the Bible we all still believe in...the rest...well, we'll let some parts slide when convenient or unfashionable. .

Yep. You know the point you folks miss is. If the Bible were a false work, there would only be supportive information of the fallacy. Why would the people that allegedly made it up, add things to contradict their story? Ever consider that bit of logic? In a job interview or on a resume, how many negative aspects about yourself have you revealed? How many subjects about yourself or your work history that could be misinterpreted, have you presented?

One can not argue with someone that employs cognitive dissonance as their primary reasoning support structure. Have a nice life. Try not to question those glaring inconsistencies or you might have to think for yourself.

**Sstashmoo** · August-20-09, 11:36 AM

Quote: "then why didn't He exercise the necessary editorial overview to make sure His word wasn't inconsistent or contradictory? If I can see the logic of that, I am quite certain God can."

Well, following that same logic, he should just control our every move and we could never sin. [[Said with most motherly-Mary Poppins voice I could muster)

Quote: "One can not argue with someone that employs cognitive dissonance as their primary reasoning support structure."

Total bullshit, I'm quite comfortable in my beliefs and methods of reasoning. You are the one that appears confused here.

Quote: "Have a nice life"

I am and will, Thanks.

Quotes: "just as long as it's not two f*gs trying to get married"

adios

**elganned** · August-20-09, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Well, following that same logic, he should just control our every move and we could never sin. [[Said with most motherly-Mary Poppins voice I could muster)

Doesn't follow. If He were to do that, He wouldn't have written it in the first place, as there would be no need.

If He wrote it [[or had it written) as a guide to our behaviour, I must say He didn't do a very good job of communicating. It's like reading one of those poorly-translated Korean tech manuals--a prescription for failure. If you do manage to get it right, more often than not it's purely by accident.

And saying the inconsistencies are just proof that it's true is like a lawyer saying, "The witness contradicted his story several times, thereby proving that he must be telling the truth!" No jury in the world would buy it.

Besides, even if the contradictions were proof that one of the versions is true, it doesn't advance the process of figuring out which version is true. So we're no better off believing it than disbelieving it.

**bailey** · August-20-09, 12:26 PM

Total bullshit, I'm quite comfortable in my beliefs and methods of reasoning. You are the one that appears confused here.

That is really not a surprise. Incurious people are always comfortable not questioning authority figures, ignoring glaring inconsistencies and logical failings. For some, simply taking things on "faith" is enough.

My only confusion lies with those who apparently possess the ability to think and reason and somehow...as they say...believe a 2000yr old Jewish zombie will grant them the ability to live forever in the sky if they ritualistically eat his flesh, drink his blood and use mental telepathy to tell him that you accept him as your master. And could someone please explain how there wasn't rampant incest in our collective family tree if we all descended from Adam and Eve?