Republican at a Prayer Breakfast Jokes About Her Shacking Up

[JonC]

Sounds like it to me.

I guess my main objection is that sin should not, IMHO, reflect an injury on us. We should respond to a Christian doing those things, but we have to be very careful not to make it about us.

When a Christian sins and we are offended that points to us as the offended.

The difference is "Your lifestyle and your joke is against the commands of Christ. It is not only a poor witness of or faith but it is something you need to address in your life...." verses "I am offended by your lifestyle and that joke".

Do you see what I am getting at? The issue of another person's sin, in how or why it is wrong, has nothing to do with us. We should not point to us but to Christ and to His work.

We identify it as sin. We respond appropriately. But it is about that person and God, not about us. Their sin is against God, not us.

I hope at least that helps explain where I am coming from.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Until the conservative Republicans who rightly identify the issue with Mace likewise denounce Trump it's all politics. It's all politics because they ignore the sin when it suits them but become offended when it does not.

Where was the outrage when Trump insulted his political enemies? Where was the outrage when Trump cursed during Presidential speeches? I am not even offended by the hypocrisy of those "Christian Republicans". I am saddened. I pray for them. But they do not hurt me. They do not anger me.

Oh.....I see what you are all about now.

Let's give her a pass because too many Christians give Trump a pass [I don't].

Trust me, Jon, this is not about politics. Not to me.

 

[Deacon]

It's obvious that many politicians (probably all but a very few) use Christianity as an implement of political influence rather than a personal lifestyle.
It's a rare politician that can maintain their conduct in the atmosphere of corruption in Washington.

Romans 1:28–32 (ESV)
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.​

Rob

 

[Van]

Just because we all fall short of the glory of God's sinlessness, does not suggest in the slightest we should not stand up for adhering to Christ's standards and instructions for Christian living.

In my youth the cultural view was that tattoos were taboo. Now, contrary to biblical instruction, they are acceptable. People needed to have only one spouse to be qualified to act in a leadership role. We tried not to offend the sensibilities of others, now folks blaring vulgar music is commonplace.

And while this slide into godlessness is destined, as revealed in scripture, I see no support for not doing our best to slow the slide.

 

[KenH]

Now, contrary to biblical instruction, they are acceptable.

I am curious where you find that in the Bible. I hope you don't base your comment on Leviticus 19:28, which only applied to ancient Israel concerning pagan idol practices, especially related to the dead.

Now, should Christians get a tattoo of a false god nowadays? Nope.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…Now, should Christians get a tattoo of a false god nowadays? Nope.

Come on, man. That’s taking all the fun out of it. I was just contemplating getting one of the stump of Dagon fallen before the Ark of the LORD, with his broken head and hands lying on the threshold.

 

[Van]

I am curious where you find that in the Bible. I hope you don't base your comment on Leviticus 19:28, which only applied to ancient Israel concerning pagan idol practices, especially related to the dead.

Now, should Christians get a tattoo of a false god nowadays? Nope.

Here are some of the arguments against tattoos from "Got Questions:"

◦ Children are to honor and obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1–2). For a minor to get a tattoo in violation of his or her parents’ wishes is biblically unsupportable. Tattoos born of rebellion are sinful.

◦ “Outward adornment” is not as important as the development of the “inner self” and should not be the focus of a Christian (1 Peter 3:3–4). A person who desires a tattoo to garner attention or draw admiration has a vain, sinful focus on self.

◦ God sees the heart, and our motivation for anything we do should be to glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Motivations for getting a tattoo such as “to fit in,” “to stand out,” etc., fall short of the glory of God. The tattoo itself may not be a sin, but the motivation in getting it might be.

◦ We are Christ’s ambassadors, delivering God’s message to the world (2 Corinthians 5:20). What message does the tattoo send, and will it aid or detract from representing Christ and sharing the gospel?

◦ Whatever does not come from faith is sin (Romans 14:23), so the person getting the tattoo should be fully convinced that it is God’s will for him or her.​

But in addition, I do base my view that believers should not get tattoos on Leviticus 19:28, which says:

WEB
“‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you. I am Yahweh.​

 

[JonC]

Oh.....I see what you are all about now.

Let's give her a pass because too many Christians give Trump a pass [I don't].

Trust me, Jon, this is not about politics. Not to me.

Uh... no. You misunderstood me.

I am saying that Christ is the standard.

When our complaint is "I find that offensive" we have made ourselves the standard and the sin subjective.

Like I said, I believe Christians should identify her joke as inappropriate. We should identify sexual immorality as wrong.

But we should not do so on the basis of our being offended.

We should be saddened. We should identify the sin. But we should reach out in love with correction based on Christ and her claim to follow Christ.

My comment about Trump was simply that many who are offended with this politician support Trump. It was not an excuse for her behavior but an indictment on the hypocrisy of a segment of Christians.

 

[KenH]

But in addition, I do base my view that believers should not get tattoos on Leviticus 19:28

That only applied to ancient Israel.

 

[KenH]

Come on, man. That’s taking all the fun out of it. I was just contemplating getting one of the stump of Dagon fallen before the Ark of the LORD, with his broken head and hands lying on the threshold.

Personally, I don't like tattoos at all. But after getting back into watching professional wrestling for 3 years now, I've gotten used to seeing people with numerous tattoos. Makes me appreciate the wrestlers that don't or that keep them to a minimum.

 

[Van]

That only applied to ancient Israel.

I explained that your view differs from my view. The verse refers to any marks, such as a cross, or a depiction of the Bible.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Personally, I don't like tattoos at all. But after getting back into watching professional wrestling for 3 years now, I've gotten used to seeing people with numerous tattoos. Makes me appreciate the wrestlers that don't or that keep them to a minimum.

Yeah, if my job called for running around in undies, I’d be less likely to want a tatt too.

 

[JonC]

Just because we all fall short of the glory of God's sinlessness, does not suggest in the slightest we should not stand up for adhering to Christ's standards and instructions for Christian living.

In my youth the cultural view was that tattoos were taboo. Now, contrary to biblical instruction, they are acceptable. People needed to have only one spouse to be qualified to act in a leadership role. We tried not to offend the sensibilities of others, now folks blaring vulgar music is commonplace.

And while this slide into godlessness is destined, as revealed in scripture, I see no support for not doing our best to slow the slide.

I agree that Christians should stand for truth.

But the Bible tells us not to be offended or provoked.

I believe the reason we are told not to be offended by those things is that we have no right. We were once guilty of being enemies of God.

We do address sin within the church but we have a choice in how we address sin. We can address sin out of anger and offense OR we can address sin out of love and compassion.


Jesus offers us an example that is very close to the OP (minus the joke and probably with a bit more sexual promiscuity).

He met a woman who had been married several times and was living with a man to whom she was not married. Jesus could have become angry and offended, but He didn't. He responded with love and compassion. And He addressed her sin.

Why do we think that we have to respond with anger or offence, otherwise it would be amblivelnce?

 

[JonC]

Yeah, if my job called for running around in undies, I’d be less likely to want a tatt too.

Not me. If I had to run around in my undies I'd want a lot of well placed tattoos.

Also, we have to remember that under the Mosaic Law the prohibition was not to get tattoos or marks for the dead (an ANE practice).

I'm less concerned about tattoos than I am about what those tattoos mean.

 

[Deacon]

Yeah, if my job called for running around in undies, I’d be less likely to want a tatt too.

That’s why I don’t have any tattoos…
They’d clash with my tighty whities.
LOL

Rob

 

[Baptist Believer]

She is married.

No, she is not. She has not publicly represented herself as being married, and she certainly knows how to tell people if she is. Otherwise, she is not competent to be in Congress.

Unless there is a marriage license (a public record) that no one has uncovered, she is not married by common law or formal law in the United States.

She says he’s her betrothed.

Exactly. That’s different than married.

No where does scripture teach a marriage is not valid until a church or state official says so.

Absolutely true.

Biblically, when a man and a woman “knew” each other, they were considered married.

No, that’s actually not correct. It’s a common interpretation promoted to discourage premarital and promiscuous sexual activity, but it is a superficial position. A person can be married without consummation (common in some older couples and persons with sexual dysfunction), and one can voluntarily engage in sexual congress without becoming married. More on that in a moment.

Ceremonies are man made and came later. I am not opposed to ceremonies, however, there is no instruction in scripture and indeed, Jesus says “what God has joined together…” as opposed to what a man made ceremony has joined together.

True. But ceremonies came VERY early in human history since marriage is also a social rite. The ceremony is the formal representation before the human community that a marriage bond has been created. And yes, premarital and extramarital sexual activity is sinful.

If a man and a woman were living together and stated they believed they were married…

Then they are married, either by common law or by a formal marriage contract. Again, they are making a public proclamation of their union. Years ago I pastored a church where one of the prominent widowed women in the church was telling me of her marriage. The man was in his 20s and she was 14 – her own mother was 16 and father 28 when she was born, so early marriage with a disturbing age gap was part of their family heritage.

Her future husband asked her father for her hand in marriage. Her father refused. They instead decided to elope with the her of her future mother-in-law. She snuck out of the house with a few possessions in her hand and ran to the nearby crossroads where her future husband and mother-in-law were waiting with the wagon and two fast horses (this was sometime around 1924 in a remote farming community), and they took off across several counties with her father giving chase. They finally got away from him and found a Justice of the Peace to marry them early the next morning. Her future mother-in-law pretended to be her mother to give legal permission. They returned to the community as husband and wife and eventually reconciled with her family a few years later when their first son was born. In terms of law, her marriage certificate is invalid because of fraud, and she was not married by a pastor. And out of curiosity I have searched for her marriage license on Ancestry.com but can’t find it. While there are plenty of other records about her and her husband, it is possible the marriage license was never properly registered. But she was married because of the representation that she and her husband made to the community, and (unlike the previous pastor of the churchI wouldn't dare claim that they were not married simply because their nearly 55-year happy marriage (ending in his death) started off with deception. She admits the deception was wrong, but it was something of a weird family 'tradition' where he own mother and father had done something similar around 1910. The story was often retold during her childhood and it set the pattern for expectations for her own elopement. NOTE: Be careful of the expectations you un intentionally set for your children.

…in God’s eyes…

Often then claim is made that when a couple has voluntary sexual congress, then that couple is married “in God’s eyes.” I don’t know if you intend to make that claim here. Men and women know the difference between “hooking up,” living together, and a marriage commitment. And sometimes you hear that God doesn’t “recognize” second marriages after the first one ends, because the civilly divorced couple is still married “in God’s eyes.” We can be sure that God knows at least as much of mere sinful mortals, otherwise God is not who Christians have claimed Him to be. Moreover, in His conversation with the Samaritan woman, Jesus made it clear that He is quite aware of the realities of marriage, no matter what civil authorities might say:

“I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
(John 4:17-18)​

So please be careful about making proclamations as to what is true “in God’s eyes.”

I have never thought being a repub automatically makes you Godly. I also don’t believe being a dem automatically makes you unGodly…

Politics really do not define righteousness.

Amen. May your tribe increase!

 

[canadyjd]

No, she is not. She has not publicly represented herself as being married, and she certainly knows how to tell people if she is. Otherwise, she is not competent to be in Congress.

Unless there is a marriage license (a public record) that no one has uncovered, she is not married by common law or formal law in the United States.


Exactly. That’s different than married.


Absolutely true.


No, that’s actually not correct. It’s a common interpretation promoted to discourage premarital and promiscuous sexual activity, but it is a superficial position. A person can be married without consummation (common in some older couples and persons with sexual dysfunction), and one can voluntarily engage in sexual congress without becoming married. More on that in a moment.


True. But ceremonies came VERY early in human history since marriage is also a social rite. The ceremony is the formal representation before the human community that a marriage bond has been created. And yes, premarital and extramarital sexual activity is sinful.


Then they are married, either by common law or by a formal marriage contract. Again, they are making a public proclamation of their union. Years ago I pastored a church where one of the prominent widowed women in the church was telling me of her marriage. The man was in his 20s and she was 14 – her own mother was 16 and father 28 when she was born, so early marriage with a disturbing age gap was part of their family heritage.

Her future husband asked her father for her hand in marriage. Her father refused. They instead decided to elope with the her of her future mother-in-law. She snuck out of the house with a few possessions in her hand and ran to the nearby crossroads where her future husband and mother-in-law were waiting with the wagon and two fast horses (this was sometime around 1924 in a remote farming community), and they took off across several counties with her father giving chase. They finally got away from him and found a Justice of the Peace to marry them early the next morning. Her future mother-in-law pretended to be her mother to give legal permission. They returned to the community as husband and wife and eventually reconciled with her family a few years later when their first son was born. In terms of law, her marriage certificate is invalid because of fraud, and she was not married by a pastor. And out of curiosity I have searched for her marriage license on Ancestry.com but can’t find it. While there are plenty of other records about her and her husband, it is possible the marriage license was never properly registered. But she was married because of the representation that she and her husband made to the community, and (unlike the previous pastor of the churchI wouldn't dare claim that they were not married simply because their nearly 55-year happy marriage (ending in his death) started off with deception. She admits the deception was wrong, but it was something of a weird family 'tradition' where he own mother and father had done something similar around 1910. The story was often retold during her childhood and it set the pattern for expectations for her own elopement. NOTE: Be careful of the expectations you un intentionally set for your children.


Often then claim is made that when a couple has voluntary sexual congress, then that couple is married “in God’s eyes.” I don’t know if you intend to make that claim here. Men and women know the difference between “hooking up,” living together, and a marriage commitment. And sometimes you hear that God doesn’t “recognize” second marriages after the first one ends, because the civilly divorced couple is still married “in God’s eyes.” We can be sure that God knows at least as much of mere sinful mortals, otherwise God is not who Christians have claimed Him to be. Moreover, in His conversation with the Samaritan woman, Jesus made it clear that He is quite aware of the realities of marriage, no matter what civil authorities might say:

“I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
(John 4:17-18)​

So please be careful about making proclamations as to what is true “in God’s eyes.”


Amen. May your tribe increase!

And so we disagree. Thanks for the comments.

She is married because she has declared her intention to be married and has now “known” her husband.

In scripture, that is all that is required in God’s eyes. The is no mention of man’s laws (common or otherwise) or the issuing of contracts or licenses. Indeed, Jesus specifically speaks of what God has joined together as opposed to what man has joined.

If you find scripture that teaches otherwise, please share it with me.

Again, her comments were crude and inappropriate. I hope she learns from the experience.

peace to you

 

[Baptist Believer]

And so we disagree.

It is way more than a disagreement.

Your position depicts God as not comprehending realities that children understand, and propagates a view of God that causes vulnerable Christians to doubt and unbelievers to scoff. My position, really just an appeal to various well-known texts in the Bible, demonstrates that God is both discerning and trustable.

If this is a matter of personal ego that won’t let you admit you have made an error, you need to just admit you made a mistake and that will be the end of it. I’m not one of those people who lurk around here to humiliate others. We all have lapses in logic and knowledge. In my previous post, I was bending over backward not to make you look foolish so that you could publicly change your mind and appear to be just clarifying your view. Instead you doubled down on your bad theology.

She is married because she has declared her intention to be married…

Declaring intentions and following through are very different things.

…and has now “known” her husband.

As pointed out before, God knows the different between a “hook-up,” routine sexual relations, and marriage. I literally quoted John 4:18 where Jesus makes the distinction between cohabitation and marriage. Moreover, if everyone became married when they engaged in voluntary sexual congress, there would be no such thing as fornication, since persons would simply become married in the uncomprehending “eyes of God.”

And beyond all of that, I think it is quite strange that you have reduced the meaning of marriage to sexual relations.

In scripture, that is all that is required in God’s eyes.

You have confused sexual relations with the marriage commitment. I realize there is a fundamentalist tradition your are probably following... I grew up with it too. But it is simply WRONG.

The is no mention of man’s laws (common or otherwise) or the issuing of contracts or licenses.

No, but human traditions (including religious traditions) developed around marriage quite early (think about the Law of Moses) and are referenced frequently in the Gospels by Jesus. As I said in the previous post, the difference between regular sexual congress and marriage (in the most basic sense) is that in marriage the couple presents themselves to the human community (and we hope, to God) as two persons united in marriage.

Indeed, Jesus specifically speaks of what God has joined together as opposed to what man has joined.

Yes. But we must also remember that we have Old Testament examples of men marrying more than one woman, and all of them are wives. We also have the extremely bad example of many of those same men also having concubines (women with whom they have sexual relations) who are NOT wives.

Did Abram/Abraham have two wives (Sarah and Hagar) or just one (Sarah)? Remember, he had a child with each of them. If Abraham had two wives “in God’s eyes,” then why does the Bible not reflect that view?

Remember Jacob (see Genesis 29-30)? He had two wives (Leah and Rachel) as well as relations with his wives’ servants/slaves, producing children with all of them. Did he have two wives or four? If he had four wives “in God’s eyes,” then why does the Bible not reflect that view?

If you find scripture that teaches otherwise, please share it with me.

I have already given you quite a bit of scripture and could give you tons more (think about David and Solomon, for instance), but if the passages I already cited don’t change your mind, I’m just wasting my time and you are hardening yourself against the witness of the scriptures.

 

[canadyjd]

It is way more than a disagreement.

Your position depicts God as not comprehending realities that children understand, and propagates a view of God that causes vulnerable Christians to doubt and unbelievers to scoff. My position, really just an appeal to various well-known texts in the Bible, demonstrates that God is both discerning and trustable.

If this is a matter of personal ego that won’t let you admit you have made an error, you need to just admit you made a mistake and that will be the end of it. I’m not one of those people who lurk around here to humiliate others. We all have lapses in logic and knowledge. In my previous post, I was bending over backward not to make you look foolish so that you could publicly change your mind and appear to be just clarifying your view. Instead you doubled down on your bad theology.


Declaring intentions and following through are very different things.


As pointed out before, God knows the different between a “hook-up,” routine sexual relations, and marriage. I literally quoted John 4:18 where Jesus makes the distinction between cohabitation and marriage. Moreover, if everyone became married when they engaged in voluntary sexual congress, there would be no such thing as fornication, since persons would simply become married in the uncomprehending “eyes of God.”

And beyond all of that, I think it is quite strange that you have reduced the meaning of marriage to sexual relations.


You have confused sexual relations with the marriage commitment. I realize there is a fundamentalist tradition your are probably following... I grew up with it too. But it is simply WRONG.


No, but human traditions (including religious traditions) developed around marriage quite early (think about the Law of Moses) and are referenced frequently in the Gospels by Jesus. As I said in the previous post, the difference between regular sexual congress and marriage (in the most basic sense) is that in marriage the couple presents themselves to the human community (and we hope, to God) as two persons united in marriage.


Yes. But we must also remember that we have Old Testament examples of men marrying more than one woman, and all of them are wives. We also have the extremely bad example of many of those same men also having concubines (women with whom they have sexual relations) who are NOT wives.

Did Abram/Abraham have two wives (Sarah and Hagar) or just one (Sarah)? Remember, he had a child with each of them. If Abraham had two wives “in God’s eyes,” then why does the Bible not reflect that view?

Remember Jacob (see Genesis 29-30)? He had two wives (Leah and Rachel) as well as relations with his wives’ servants/slaves, producing children with all of them. Did he have two wives or four? If he had four wives “in God’s eyes,” then why does the Bible not reflect that view?


I have already given you quite a bit of scripture and could give you tons more (think about David and Solomon, for instance), but if the passages I already cited don’t change your mind, I’m just wasting my time and you are hardening yourself against the witness of the scriptures.

Well, I only ask for a passage of scripture that states a man and woman need permission from the state to be married, or need a religious leader to bless the marriage, or need a license or contract to be married in God’s eyes.

You haven’t provided that, despite the lengthy reply filled with personal insults. I suspect all the personal insults are the result of your inability to find any passage of scripture to that end. It must be extremely frustrating to believe you are correct, but can’t find the scripture to support it.

Thanks for the conversation, except for the numerous insults.

peace to you

 

[KenH]

Well, I only ask for a passage of scripture that states a man and woman need permission from the state to be married, or need a religious leader to bless the marriage, or need a license or contract to be married in God’s eyes.

Ephesians 5:15-16 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.