"But its just lunch?"

I did.

 

I'll answer it. We're not talking about envy, which covets the rights and privileges to which it has no claim. Jealousy implies a violation of legitimate rights, a trespass, and describes a fiery, indignant response. God hates anything that might alienate our affection and dedication to Him (i.e. idolatry) and will respond with wrath and indignation upon both the seducer and the one seduced, unless they repent. For the LORD thy God is a jealous god.

But that's not all, His jealousy responds to those who may offend His beloved. He curses them that curse his beloved, and blesses them that bless him.

The jealousy a man has for his wife is not rooted in insecurity, but in his love for his wife and the hatred of anything that has the potential to alienate her affection.

Those who do not know jealousy, do not know love. They are two sides of the same coin.

Now if you want to cast aspersions upon human jealousy because it springs from polluted nature, and say that the wrath of man cannot work the righteousness of God, then I'll join right in. I'll even cast aspersions on human love because it, too, springs from polluted nature and falls short of God's glory. But the implication that human jealousy springs from fear and insecurity is a copout.

 

I did. </font>[/QUOTE]NO, you did not.
Answer the question, Aaron.

 

Human jealousy does indeed spring from fear and insecurity.
Are you really so bold as to compare human emotions with the Righteousness of The Lord God Almighty? If you are, then I would be convinced that you really don't grasp the true Holiness of our Lord.

Perhaps now you can answer the questions that were posed to you.......

 

Baptist in Richmond---I will try to answer you---if you promise not to jump on my head if the answer seemingly is not what you want!

As a Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ the Lord God has given me certain responsiblities as a husband that I cannot fulfill without Him---the responsibilites He gives me only HE can work out through me---so that even in my marriage I am to be at a point where I can only say---the only way this will work is through you----NOT I, BUT CHRIST--even in my marriage!

My love toward my wife in my marriage is to mimic the Father's love toward Jesus and Jesus' love toward His church!! "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her!" In my marriage, I am to bear the Father's charactor---and part of His charactor is jealously as Aaron described above!! I am not speaking of that human instinct or the kind of jealousy that fallen man has---but the kind of jealousy the Father has----in holiness---toward my wife!!

Now, before you start bashin'---let me remind you again---there's no way I can have or produce that kind of jealousy as a fallen human! No way!! But I also said that God demands that kind of jealousy in a marriage! And the only way we husbands can show that kind of jealousy is to deny self--die to self and the ambitions of the worldly message---and to live to Christ---NOT I, BUT CHRIST will begin to work His holiness out through me in my marriage!

You start crucifying your self on a daily basis---you wake every morning with a God given will to DIE to self and to LIVE to Christ---then you'll start understanding that it is vital that BELIEVING husbands produce that sort of Godly jealousy toward their wives---believe me---if every Believeing husband would start mimicing the love of the Father toward His Son and the love the Son has toward the church---there'll be a whole lot less "lunchin'" going on!!

Your buddy,
Brother David

Remember---that holiness is to be lived out in us and through us----NOT I BUT CHRIST!!

 

And lets just suppose---I'm at the office, my wife is out shopping(by herself) and she runs across an old schoolmate(a male)---its lunchtime--so he asks her---let me buy your lunch today(by the way---I know how my wife would respond to this scenrieo!!!)---but that ain't my point---

anyway---she says OK to lunch---she's there at the table with this male schoolmate eating---I don't know anything about it----and by coincidence---I get hungry and decide that I'm gonna go(alone) to the same resterant as they!!! I walk in---she don't know that I know she's there---

Now---I didn't know she was there and she didn't know I choise to eat there too---and so happens I don't know this schoolmate(we went to different schools in different states)---read my mind right now-----

 

Aaron said:

You insist that for something to be judged as a moral wrong, they must express a specific prohibition.

My response:
No, I simply insist that if you are going to apply the Scriptures, you must do it in a relevant and responsible way.

Aaron's rejoinder, quoting me:

--- WARNING --- STRAW MAN ALERT --- WARNING ---

Aaron, how is it that someone who claims to be taking the Biblical high ground on this issue would be dishonest in reporting what I was saying? Yes, I said that sin needs a Biblical prohibition. No, it need not be a specific "yea, if a man and woman be married, but not to each other, they shalt not have lunch together."

On the other hand, it is intellectually dishonest and irresponsible hermeneutics for you to shoehorn any old prohibition you want, such as a command to be separated from those under church discipline, into a prohibition against a social outing where church discipline is not even a relevant issue.

If you can't make your case without inventing sins, misapplying Scripture, and lying about your opponents, just do the honorable thing and quit the thread.

 

Dear blackbird,
I assume you remember many of the women and pants threads.
In some ways, this reminds me a lot of them.
A person says that women should dress modestly because the Bible says so. Everybody agrees.
From there,the application often comes that all women at all times should wear dresses.

I agree with you that the marriage relationship is foremost and must be "jealously" guarded.
And your applications of doing that are for you to figure out. It is also appropriate for people to share how, why, and what they do.
But, in my opinion, just like women and pants, the Bible is inspired, not the application.

On this thread, people have said they would not stop in the rain to help a friend with a broken down car. Some would question taking a much older, long-term friend to a celebratory meal.
You would question sitting down by somebody at McDonald's and saying howdy. Some would quit before having a job around females.

Those are personal applications. And you have the right to make those personal applications.
But just like pants, someone else may not have a problem with those or other scenarios. And it does not necessarily mean that they don't "jealously" protect their marriage.
My husband was again at a refinery on Thursday. The site engineer, once again, was a female. Sitting in the commissary, drinking a Coke, and spreading out mechanical drawings, is honestly not something he, I, or anyone there had a problem with. We agree with you on the overarching principle, but we disagree on application.
Just like you agreed you would do SOMETHING to help a friend by the side of the road. Others would differ from both of us in that application.

Karen

 

It appears that you and I are in agreement on the fact that it isn't "just lunch." A degree of intimacy is required for two people to be eating together.

I'm happy with that.

I won't argue the degrees of intimacy or whether the intimacy is hallowed or not right now.

 

Ok, I'm going to throw another thought into this thread that I can't believe has lasted for eleven plus pages.

What if it is a small diner and there is only one place left to sit and it is with a married co worker of the opposite sex?

Do you stand to eat to avoid the "appearance of intimacy"?

There is not time to go to another eating place and get back to work on time. Should you just not eat? You can't take your food back to your desk...it is not allowed.

And further.....I don't think my husband would be very interested in the discussion topics that I share with my best friend of the same sex. He would be bored and I am not betraying him in any way.

I personally think that a man and woman, even married to others can have an innocent lunch.

What about the couples that hang out together, eat, go to movies, take vacations, together? Some of them even divorce and swap partners.

So should we avoid all contact with anyone of the opposite sex if we are married?

A little common sense has to be used here.

Trust is very important in a marriage.

 

What! Just because two people are eating lunch together does NOT mean that there is anything intimate between them.

My wife is capable of making choices about who to have lunch with. If she is comfortable sitting with someone, other than myself, for lunch, I trust her. To imply that this is inappropriate is, well, silly.

 

I agree with you, Terry

 

Brother David:
For the record, I have never "jump[ed] on your head if the answer seemingly is not what "I" want," and I challenge you to show me where I said anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, I stated twice that it was an honest question.

Therein lies the issue. The Verse says to love your wife as 'Christ loved the church. There is no mention of the Father.

This is my issue. Nowhere in the Bible does anyone compare their behavior to that of the Almighty. Remember: we are talking about the One True Lord God. This is the God that is so Holy that the angels turn their heads in His Presence. IMHO, we should be very careful in comparing our lives to the Holiness of God. As your brother in Christ, I am exhorting you to tread lightly with respect to comparing any facet of our lives/behavior to that of the Lord God.

Have I accused you of anything? No. I have asked you twice to consider this when comparing any emotion/reaction you may have to that of the Almighty.

 

Sorry: I did not see this, or I would have responded.

Aaron, you have a real problem if you believe this. This would imply that the Bible is imperfect or incomplete, which is patently false. ALL moral wrongs are specifically stated in the Scriptures. Let me say that again: ALL moral wrongs are specifically stated in the Scriptures.

Another word for a “moral wrong” (to usurp your phrase) is “sin.” ALL sins are “specifically” stated in the Bible. A particular behavior may not be “specifically” prohibited; however, the characteristic of any behavior that is sinful can be shown by using the Bible. The Bible does not specifically state anything about internet pornography, but Jesus made it very clear that to look on a woman to lust after her is to commit adultery. If the Bible “abound with examples to the contrary,” then show us where a moral wrong is not specifically stated in the Scriptures. Additionally, provide the extra-Biblical source that identifies the “moral wrong.”

But before you do that………………

On this discussion, you have made a statement that implied that I was sinning. I have confronted you publicly on this, and you refuse to address your statements. What does the Bible say about bearing false witness, Aaron? Do you have any proof to support your allegation? Where did I start down the slippery slope of adultery? You identified me as sinning, and you must now provide support for your statements.
Your response was to spare you the “righteous indignation.” The choice of words is quite appropriate, as “indignation” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean.”

Several times you have made outrageous statements and claimed victory. This doesn’t work in the real world, and it doesn’t work in cyberspace. It is time for you to display some maturity and account for your accusations. Come forward and prove your allegations, or apologize. Any other response is unacceptable (Hey: you made the allegation.) I trust that you will do the right thing.

 

Aaron said:

To which Travelsong replied:

Aaron answered:

Now anyone of average intelligence could quickly see that I did NOT use 1 Cor. 5 as a basis to prohibit anything, I used it to support the premise that there is no such thing as “just lunch.”

But notice Ransom's reaction:

Talk of your straw men!

But wait...there's more.

I said to Ransom:

To which Ransom replied:

Judge for yourselves. If I said, "Nothing without statutory prohibition, is illegal" what would you assume? Wouldn't you assume that I meant the prohibition had to be specified in the law books? Of course you would. Because that's what anyone would mean who said it that way, obviously. But when Ransom says nothing without Scriptural prohibition, is wrong, it doesn't mean the prohibition must be specified?

But now Ransom flips on this and says that the Scriptures can imply a prohibition, and by doing so he argues my case, and undoes his very first scoffing reply:

Emphasis mine. "No Biblical support whatsoever" is an absolute statement. Did he mean that there was not even an implied prohibition however remote? Not at all. Shortly after this he allows for the possiblity that it may not be a wholly wise activity and we all know the Scriptures command us to be wise and not foolish. There is only one way "No Biblical support whatsoever" can be true, and that is if he meant specific wording regarding the situation.

Maybe my mistake was assuming he was telling the truth.

 

Man you guys are getting nasty! Maybe there should be a prohibition aganst posting on the net? It is not bringing out Christian character in a lot of people.

In the meantime, if there is a reason to have lunch with someone, male or female, and it doesn't bother my husband, why should it bother anyone else? I won't be holding hands or making kissy faces or implying any intimacy at all.

I love running into someone I haven't seen for awhile and sitting and getting a bite so we have time to catch up.

I have never seen any biblical injunction, implied or direct, against friendship. And I would sure rather be in a restaurant talking to someone I have run into than invite them home where things could really look 'interesting.'

In the long run, any guy or gal who does not understand the 'signals' that 'only friendship' is the order of the day is either incredibly desperate and lacking in self-control, or retarded! No slam against the retarded -- my son is one.

 

Sez who?

A particular behavior may not be “specifically” prohibited; however, the characteristic of any behavior that is sinful can be shown by using the Bible.

I agree.

If the Bible “abound with examples to the contrary,” then show us where a moral wrong is not specifically stated in the Scriptures.

Galatians 5:19-21: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.

There Paul does not give us an exhaustive list, but leaves it open to include all those activities which are like the ones listed.

But I have already shown that the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" isn't just about sex. It is about anything that is contrary to, inconsistent with, useless or besetting in fulfilling the commandment, "Husbands, love your wives," and "Wives submit unto your own husbands." And that touches a wide array of behavior that has become acceptable in our promiscuous culture.

 

When Baptist says:

...he speaks the truth. This is the exact same argument you avoid in the music forum when I have repeatedly asked over and over what sin is being committed by the enjoyment of those types of music you condemn. You assume that people are looking for an explicit ban in Scripture when what they are really doing is jumping up and down, waving their hands at you and desperately trying to get you to finally address this very argument. If it is always sinful for a married man to sit down with another married woman, then what sin will be committed in every instance that such a circumstance occurs? In other words, what sin is Baptist committing by sitting down with a business partner for lunch and witnessing to her? It's obvious that you are incapable of answering this question, but I would at least for once like to see you admit it.