cwcsmc said:
This should be simply enough to clarify. However, I get the feeling that even if Micheal gets the right answer, he is still not going to be let off the hook for some perceived infraction that occurred a hundred years ago which is really only hearsay to those most adamant about him being stoned.
Curtis, I love ya, brother, but your feelings are off in this matter. The problem here is that we're eight pages into a discussion of something Michael said that is just wrong and he still hasn't owned up. Period. There, I said it. He's wrong. Either Jesus is right or Michael is, and I intend to continue to follow the teachings of Jesus, not Michael's.
All Michael has done since being challenged is attempt to back up his assertion with spurious and illogical references to Abraham, Ezra, and the woman taken in adultery. From there it's just post after post of generalities about "legalism" and "interpretation", blah, blah, blah. The Black Knight fights on....
I'd like to remind everyone that this group is
Biblical Families, not What-I-Decided-This-Morning-Based-On-My-Private-Interpretation Families. Jesus said if a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery, and to say "if a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery" is not being legalistic, it's being biblical. That's why I can say Michael is
wrong, because in this forum, according to our general agreement, he's out of line.
Apparently in Michael's world, he gets to make stuff up as he goes, which is why he would have been more comfortable having a conversation over at his site, where he makes the rules. In that world, anyone who doesn't 'get' him is just not as highly evolved as he is, and without naming names or citing particular examples he can blather away in generalities about "those people" and their impractical, unenlightened refusal to let their life experiences change the teachings of Jesus, or render them unimportant and inapplicable to Christian life today.
Oh wait, but wouldn't "Christian" life be following the teachings of... wait for it... Christ?
So that's two strikes for Michael. His view in this matter is neither biblical nor Christian. Your blunt question to him is the pitch that he will either hit over the fence or strike out on.