• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Limits of Christian rules

MrB said:
Yes it would appear that you are blind and lazy or just a bit stupid.
Why don’t YOU google “obvious historic benefits of a Christian society”
The phrase that comes to mind for you is “ There is none so blind as he who will not see”
Perhaps you are not as clever as you think you are.
Click to expand...
From my experience when somebody call me stupid, it's usually after they run of arguments.

You know, if something is obvious, you should be able to directly run of your head. Like, face-to-face conversation. You hear question, think max 5 second and tell your answer.

My answer is wealth, human rights and treatment of women.

But you can't or won't answer obvious. I don't research to answer obvious questions.
 
Recently Pat Stedman send, in my opinion legendary email. Here is almost full without promo at ending. He explains better what I'm trying to tell you why you can't blindly follow rules.

---
"Are you alright?"

Nobody had asked Hadley Vlahos that for years. But when her neighbor asked, it triggered her divorce.

Also known as Nurse Hadley, she's a hospice nurse influencer (how is that a job now??) with millions of followers and a best-selling book about caring for people at the end of their lives.

In 2023, a couple moved in two doors down from Hadley. The wife invited Hadley and her husband on a double date to a wine bar.

Great.

… Except on the drive there, her husband realized there'd be no TV at the restaurant to watch the basketball game. It wasn't his team, or the playoffs. He just wanted to watch the game. And when he found out he wouldn't be able to, he shut down.

As Hadley tells it, he sat at the table staring at the wall in petulant protest while the couple tried to make conversation.

What a child.

The next morning, the neighbor dropped by to invite Hadley to a girls' night.

"You can just leave the kids with your husband."

"Oh, I can't do that."

"What do you mean?"

"Well… he doesn't like for me to do stuff without him."

"So he is controlling you."

"Well, no. He doesn't tell me I can't go. He just makes a big deal out of it and it becomes such a problem that I don't go."

This near-stranger looked her dead in the eye and said it:

"That's not normal."

The neighbor never told Hadley to get a divorce. But after that conversation, Hadley’s eyes opened up to what a garbage human-being her husband was.

It was like a spell was broken and she could finally see the reality of how unhappy she was.

So she wanted a divorce.

Easy-peasy in every other state, but she lives in Mississippi, one of only two states that won't grant a no-fault divorce unless both parties agree to it.

Her husband refused to sign the papers, which meant she couldn't divorce him.

The only way to get a divorce from him was if she had proof of a legitimate reason to divorce him. The 12-point list of reasons includes infidelity, impotence, incest (lol), and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

Thus began her quest for a divorce.

She found out he was an alcoholic hiding bottles all over the house.

Not good enough.

He was verbally abusive and a few years before, he was arrested for physical violence against her.

Because she'd dropped the charges (Hadley felt bad for him because his mom was dying), this didn't count.

He even moved out to live with his new girlfriend.

Unless she could get photo evidence of them having sex, that wasn't good enough.

(WTF)

The whole story is crazier than I can relay here, but he also faked having cancer so she'd let him move back in, which worked for a few months until she found out it was BS.

(Can't believe this is the second time this week I'm writing about someone faking cancer)

To get out, she had to prove he was at fault — hiring a private investigator to document the affair, filing hundreds of documents, and sitting through an 11-day trial. All for the right to leave her own husband.

Then earlier this year, she was finally granted her freedom.

I think no fault divorce has had devastating consequences on society.

It’s made marriages disposable. People bail on a whim when divorce should be the last thing you try.

However, an anti-no-fault-divorce rule would have kept Hadley in that house.

This is a great example of where I have a strong position… that is not a hard and fast rule.

I think it's great that Hadley has escaped and can build a happier life now.

Because I don't live by rules, I live by context.

While I have lots of issues with no-fault divorce, the answer isn't a system that makes a woman hire a private eye and spend mid-5-figures to escape an alcoholic sociopath who is already sleeping with another woman.

This is the problem with rules.

Rules are judgment with the context stripped out. They’re short, memorable, and spread like monkeypox in a San Francisco polycule.

The increase in rules correlates with the decline in character of society.

And the worst decisions a man makes with women come from blindly following rules.

So you take a hard stance against your wife — or the girl you've been seeing three months — because the rule says to. But the rule doesn't have the full context. The last 4 years of marriage. Things you said before. Things she did before. So it can't possibly be right 100% of the time.

A few weeks back, half of Twitter was saying dump your girl if she sympathizes with Lindsay Clancy. I sent an email about it myself.

What I didn't say is that there are two completely different women in this group.

One is obsessed with the case and has decided a mother who did that is the real victim. This woman has poor character.

The other half-read a headline, said something soft, and will have forgotten the whole thing by next month. That's not a red flag. That's a person with an uninformed opinion.

The rule says "dump her." But the rule also can't tell these women apart.

Can you?

Knowing when you’re living inside an exception requires judgment. And judgment is built through reps.
 
And by the why, case of Hardley Vlahos opens another thing.

If two rules conflict each other, what then?

So it's possible to claim that Hardley can't start divorce since she didn't do sexual immorality, but what is she start do claim 2nd commandment of love as her argument. Obviously, her husband breaks command in abundance.
 
MemeFan said:
And by the why, case of Hardley Vlahos opens another thing.

If two rules conflict each other, what then?

So it's possible to claim that Hardley can't start divorce since she didn't do sexual immorality, but what is she start do claim 2nd commandment of love as her argument. Obviously, her husband breaks command in abundance.
Click to expand...
The bible, though some may interpret things differently, does allow a few exceptions for women to be biblicalcally free from their husbands with the ability to remarry.

1. If an unbeliever who chooses to leave her she is no longer bound.
2. If he is not providing (necessary to life) food, shelter, and conjugal rights. (This needs to not be taken as the man has to provide according to the standards the woman wants.)
3. Serious physical abuse. (See biblical examples of slave being freed for this)
4. If a husband commits a grievous sin, punishable biblically by death, such as adultery she is free by enforcement of punishment.

Otherwise biblically women can choose to leave their husbands without a get. This means that they do not have the bill of divorce needed to remarry. She can choose to walk away from a marriage but has a consequence for the action. She doesn't get to take the mans children, his house, or half his wealth as the feminized and anti patriarchal society we live in today allows and enforces. She also isn't free to remarry without committing adultery herself. He has to be the one to dissolve the covenant. All of the above require the man to act.

The rule of love, as your personal opinion and interpretation of it exist, doesn't apply here.

Emotional abuse is not a biblical reason to divorce.
If she was seriously physically abused she wouldn't have dropped the charges, I don't believe women who cry and file physical abuse aren't just lying and manipulating the majority of the time.
Having an affair, if the woman is unmarried, is fornication but not adultery and does not justify a divorce/death penalty.

This case you are quoting is a clear cut case of dramatized feminism. It is not a biblical conundrum. If the woman wanted to leave she could have at any point. She didn't and chose to go the route she did because she wanted to take the kids, his house, and half his wealth with her. Period. Feminism and you are white knighting for a sensationalized story.
 
Last edited:
MemeFan said:
OK.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? Easy to understand? No problemo. LOL

Let's go. Define bear, false witness, your neighbor.

Let's with issue of definition. Horewer, there is problem with definitions. Any problem with definition must include words. And what is definition of words used in definition. We could run this till infinity.
Click to expand...
No, the bible defines out what is sin. It doesn't have to give every case, such as you suggest for people to know what is breaking the command. If there is a serious question you could take it to elders who may know scripture more thoroughly. All is interpreted through Gods laws and word.
MemeFan said:
So we

See how one sentence is so ambiquiouts. So in practice legal system will have to answer all those and way more. So, end result will be encyclopedia(s) how to do Lord's law in practice made by humans just trying to live Lord's Law.


You are speaking total nonsense.


You aren't thinking.

Exodus 31:14-15

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Read verses precisely. Emphasis on death penalty and any work. So define what is any work?

If you still don't get it. Any work is general prohibition.

Any work can easily include healing. So Pharisees weren't doing corruption. They were trying to applying above Law directly on situation.


So what is exception for Jesus? Where in Law is exception for healing? And if there is no written exception, then you must rely on general principle higher than no work on Sabbath. So by what verse of Law or general principle of Law Jesus isn't breaking Exodud 31:14-15?


You are so uncurious that you never asked yourself what exactly were Pharisees thinking. If don't understand what exactly their mistake is, how do you expect not to repeat their mistakes?

By magic maybe?

Another issues is general unthinking how to apply Law in real practical situations. Because if you do, you would realized situation isn't so black/white.

So practical questions: Is any of following breaking Sabbath?
Do ambulances allowed to help? Are operations needed to save life allowed? Are quality of life (skin rash example) medical activities allowed?
Is fixing broken bones allowed?

Also, another interesting question. Is killing mosquitos doing work on Sabbath? If no, why? How are you doing to justify yourself?
Click to expand...
The Torah prioritizes life. You are the one claiming that 'work' on the Sabbath does not allow for healing. Where is this written? Nowhere in scripture is nursing the sick. Caring for the elderly or children, nursing babies, feeding livestock, etc claimed as work.

You are trying to play a game of gotcha with God. See how does His law apply here.

All of these laws and rules which you are chafing against and trying to throw exceptions out to can prayerfully be interpreted in the light of full scripture. You are cherry picking verses and daring others and God to prove why Gods laws aren't right anymore. As if we are too special and removed from Gods everlasting rules, laws, and standards for living and how they no longer need apply. You are relying on your feelings and not the spirit and logic you claim.
 
MemeFan said:
Another question.

Here is relevant Bible qoute:

And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
There is slight problem here.

Relevant verse:

You shall not bear false witness

Ummm, midwives break one of 10 Commandments (literally sinning) and Lord makes them house.

So, Lord rewards sin? Where exactly is mistake?
Click to expand...
In this case why are you claiming they are lying? Does scripture say they are lying?
I have personally given birth before a midwife showed up and it didn't have anything to do with me not getting ahold of her as quickly as possible. They also had many other women who weren't midwives around to assist, so they could have just been showing up intentionally late knowing that the women would be fine without them. Therefore not lying.

Even if they did lie this is a case of degrees. Yes I believe there are degrees of sin biblically. God spells that out for us as well as has varying degrees of punishment for sins. The sin of murder far exceeds the sin of lying , in this case to save and preserve many innocent lives from murder. Choose life.
 
HomesteadWife said:
No, the bible defines out what is sin. It doesn't have to give every case, such as you suggest for people to know what is breaking the command. If there is a serious question you could take it to elders who may know scripture more thoroughly. All is interpreted through Gods laws and word.

The Torah prioritizes life. You are the one claiming that 'work' on the Sabbath does not allow for healing. Where is this written? Nowhere in scripture is nursing the sick. Caring for the elderly or children, nursing babies, feeding livestock, etc claimed as work.

You are trying to play a game of gotcha with God. See how does His law apply here.

All of these laws and rules which you are chafing against and trying to throw exceptions out to can prayerfully be interpreted in the light of full scripture. You are cherry picking verses and daring others and God to prove why Gods laws aren't right anymore. As if we are too special and removed from Gods everlasting rules, laws, and standards for living and how they no longer need apply. You are relying on your feelings and not the spirit and logic you claim.
Click to expand...
Well said. 👍
 
steve said:
If the One who created me has a rule that I don’t see as having a point, He is still my Creator and Lord.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my assertion that God's Laws are as timeless and immutable as He is.

Laws that are invented by or altered by venal men are not and their vanity is revealed in the due course of time.

Titus 3:9 indirectly speaks to this: Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time.

Colossians 2:20-23 is more direct: If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
 
Last edited:
MeganC said:
This goes back to my assertion that God's Laws are as timeless and immutable as He is.

Laws that are invented by or altered by venal men are not and their vanity is revealed in the due course of time.

Titus 3:9 indirectly speaks to this: Do not get involved in foolish discussions about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time.

Colossians 2:20-23 is more direct: If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Click to expand...
Yes
@MemeFan is being as the Pharisees in trying to define every command into a set of finite laws that nobody can misunderstand.
It’s a form of legalism.

Yah’s commands are a rough outline for life.
Emergency appendix removal on the Sabbath obeys the higher law, but breast augmentation doesn’t.
What “work” was it to heal on the Sabbath? He certainly did no actual labor in the process. But it violated their finite rules.
If a taylor left the house with a pin still stuck into his clothing, (which is where they often stored them while working with them) he was judged as guilty for carrying his tools on the Sabbath.

So @MemeFan stop being as the Pharisees that Yeshuah excoriated.
Look at the principle, the idea behind each command.
Although they wouldn’t have understood the reasoning behind why things like swine, shellfish, dogs and horses were not to be considered food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top