Posted on 03/28/2017 5:25:10 PM PDT by Morgana
I will say that I learned something about the Pharisees’ plan to get Jesus in trouble with the Roman authorities - which ultimately is what they used as the accusation before Pilate. You are correct on that point.
The text says that “ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until ONLY JESUS WAS LEFT, WITH THE WOMAN STILL STANDING THERE.”
He did not condemn her and just between the two of them told her to go and sin no more. It was the Pharisees who sought to publicly shame and/or kill her, and Jesus who forgave her and admonished her to leave her life of sin.
As to how the disciples knew what had happened, maybe Jesus told them. Maybe the woman told them. Even if the disciples had been there, the point was that Jesus dealt directly with the woman rather than trying to shame her in front of everybody else.
He had the same approach with the woman at the well. He knew that woman’s sexual sin and yet He asked her for a drink of water and carried on a respectful conversation. She tried keeping things on a theological level rather than dealing with her own sin (which she found He already knew about). Jesus was not fire and brimstone about her sexual sin but instead offered her living water. And she was so amazed by Him that she alerted the whole town about Him!
I love Jesus. He sees the heart, and a dimly-burning wick He will not quench. He loves those who are broken and those who are boastful hypocrites, and gives each one what they need in order to repent and be forgiven.
When I grow up, I want to be like Him.
Children are reflections of our own souls and behaviors. They’re a blessing — a reward and forgiving gift from Hashem.
You said that if the article didn’t call her a widow then she wasn’t a widow.
The article didn’t call her a fornicator either.
Your epistemology is that the article had to contain EVERY DETAIL that was true, and anything not explicitly stated must not be true. If it wasn’t explicitly stated that she was a widow then she CAN’T be a widow. Well, it wasn’t explicitly stated that she was a fornicator. (I actually don’t remember if they ever called her a single mom either; what I remember is the article saying that the father was not in the girl’s life). So by your own reasoning she CAN’T be a fornicator.
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” 1 Cor 7:10-11
That whole passage treats men and women the same, in regards to marriage and divorce. If a believing spouse is married to an unbelieving spouse they should stay married unless the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave.
As to degrees of sin, there are different civil penalties for different sins, yes. But Jesus is the One who said that a man who looks at a woman lustfully has committed adultery with her in his heart. And someone who is angry and calls another a fool is guilty of murder.
Have you looked at a woman lustfully? Have you been angry and called someone a name? If so, then you are guilty of the GRAVEST of sins, just like you accuse this woman.
As for me, I know that I am a sinner. My sole defense is that Jesus has paid my penalty, giving me the greatest love in the world when I deserved nothing but condemnation and humiliation. That is the God who can heal this world, and that is HOW He heals in this world.
>You said that if the article didn’t call her a widow then she wasn’t a widow.
>The article didn’t call her a fornicator either.
No one is going to call a women a fornicator, that would be sexist. However Widow is still a term of honor and is generally used correctly. Thus the absence of it indicates that she’s a single mother not a widow. Words are interpreted in the context and subtext under which their normally used. You getting upset at me using perfectly normal reasoning and interpretation of the words presented says more about your desire to defend this behavior by attacking me instead of attacking the concepts that I laid out. It’s called attacking the messenger.
>At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until ONLY JESUS WAS LEFT, WITH THE WOMAN STILL STANDING THERE.
Again, you’re having trouble with subtext and context. The context was the people standing there where part of the mob that brought the woman before Jesus. The subtext is Jesus disciples where never separated from him so they could bear witness to everything he did as was normal for a teacher like Jesus which is why we have such excellent accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds.
The title of the article and the first line calls her a “single mom”. That could be a never-married mom, widow, or divorced mom. “Single mom” is inclusive of all those situations.
You called her a fornicator. You don’t know that. None of us do. All your self-righteous deflection depends on that assumption. And you have used the same standard to accuse me here, of defending sin and being as close to an atheist as a person can get, etc.
It’s a hateful, judgmental attitude, even as you admittedly cast the first stone that Jesus said could only be cast by one who has never sinned. You have said that Jesus will forgive any who are willing to repent, but I’ve seen no repentant attitude in you at all. When asked directly about it you avoid it like the plague.
I will leave you in the hands of God. May He fill you with Himself, as only He can do.
Did Jesus publicly shame the woman into obedience, as you say is the Biblical way?
Did He publicly shame the woman at the well?
The woman who washed His feet with her tears and dried them with her hair?
Mary Magdalene?
I’m trying to find even one instance where Jesus did what you claim is the “Biblical” approach on the mortal sin of sexual immorality, and I’m not finding it. The harshest words and actions of Jesus were reserved for the unrepentant, holier-than-thou, hypocritical Pharisees who laid heavy burdens on the people and did nothing to help them lift it. Jesus was known as a “friend of sinners” - hated by the Pharisees because He didn’t shame and shun the whores and tax collectors but actually ate with them and acted as if they too had human dignity. And they loved Him for it, and came to salvation.
That’s the happy ending I want. And I’m going to keep trusting that Jesus knew how to do things right. You can keep emulating the Pharisees but I’ll stick with Jesus, thank you.
Thank you for that perspective.
...or the skunk fathers just took off.
I feel sorry for the little girl and the lengths Mom went to for her. Too bad Mom didn’t talk to the school and explain the situation beforehand (maybe she did — I didn’t read the entire article).
Did God like her less?
I am appalled at this thread. Read it when it was a new post with only a few comments and figured this would happen.
Thank you for showing true Christianity & kindness:)
You’re welcome and use it in good health! :)
Yes, a good uncle could step in if dad is truly not there. Good bless you for doing that, I’m sure the young man can now look back and appreciate what you did. In our case there was a caring brother but he lived out of the country so couldn’t be there for his nieces.
Another new low for this site....It's starting to become a trend.
My original example was single Mom’s where the Husband deserted the family...
Also, Military families were the husband is away at war....
I guess those are the “sluts” you refer to....
You defined yourself with your words and lack of logic....
I think an elementary school trying to do a dance for 6-year-olds is probably the beginning of the problem.
And then trying to explicitly define the parental roles seems obsessive to me. Does anybody really care which parent “dances” with the 6-year-old? Is it the job of the school to force a single parent to pick some other person to perform parental duties?
It’s like they were searching for problems. Seriously, are the male parents going to be upset that a mother showed up with her kid because she didn’t have a father?
And i think it’s great that the mother tried to be a “father”.
Note that they also ran a dance for “mother/son”. Now, I think it is fine that they have separate dances for the boys and girls, but it makes no sense to limit the parents, especially when they are specifically limiting them to the opposite sex parent.
Note that nobody is thinking there is anything “sexual” about this dance. But by forcing the opposite-sex parent rule, they are kind of implying it is, that some how even at age 6, and dancing with their parents, the child needs to be paired with someone of the opposite sex.
Further, in the grand scheme of “things done wrong”, acting as a single mother isn’t the worst. Sure, get married before having sex, then you have two biological parents. Get an opposite-sex person involved if you can’t have a husband/wife for some reason. But I’m torn as to whether a child is better with one biological parent, or two non-biological parents.
The biological connection is strong, and provides a security you just can’t get from an adopted situation, as good as it is to adopt, and as great as some adopted parents are. There’s a reason for the “drama” of “when do we tell the kid they are adopted”.
And you know what — men suck. Many men anyway. It’s hard for a single mother with a small child to get a man to look past the child, too many men can’t or won’t deal with another guy’s child, or just want a woman who can baby them and don’t like the woman having other obligations.
If the inability to attend the father/daughter dance is the worst thing that happens to this child because she has no father in her life, then her mother should count her blessings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.