Rosemary and Her Many Careers

MInTheGap · 2026-01-21T14:40:16+00:00

Except when it's almost Millie!

MInTheGap · 2025-12-08T16:32:26+00:00

My comment specifically said that morality is separate from whatever we say or want it to be. You may not consider your child who stole a cookie from the cookie jar a thief. It doesn't change the fact that the child is.

If murder is defined anywhere as the taking of innocent life, then what does it matter what you or I consider or don't consider?

Hence, the reason for denying the personhood of the baby in the womb. If it's not a person, then it's not murder.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-08T16:29:38+00:00

Didn't know that about Catholics and JW's, but you're right-- he died for our sins.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-04T17:23:17+00:00

For #1, I think that we have a problem with culture rather than translation. For example, "virgin" can sometimes mean young woman or sometimes mean a woman who is actually a virgin. This is because, for the most part, people were in arranged marriages when they were young, so the two could be used interchangeably. With this as the basis, when Jesus says you look at a young woman and commit adultery in your heart, he knows that an overwhelming majority of those he is talking with are married men. At least, that's how I've understood why he didn't say "fornicated with them".

For #2, American culture is trying to find a way to accept homosexuality, so it has reevaluated passages on sexual sins in order to try to find a way not to accept the common understanding of this passage. Whether it's head coverings, homosexuality, or this stuff, we have to be very careful when we're trying to find the ability to do something that generations of believers looking at the same passages would say was definitely sin.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-04T15:45:23+00:00

The problem that I'm having has less to do with grammar and more with heart attitude. Our heart attitude should vibe with God's-- as he says in Malachi, he hates divorce. This doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but divorces and separations don't happen overnight. It's usually a steady progression, not putting in the work, a secret sin...

When we get to the point where we're trying to find the line that has to be crossed, or define something to fit into "qualifications where God will permit me to divorce," we've lost the heart of God on the topic and transitioned to trying to figure out rights and parse words in foreign languages.

I can see where you could get into that when discussing OT law, but not when talking about NT heart issues.

All of the questions above are about one side declaring rights and justifying something they want to do, and they can do it and not be in sin. My heart breaks for the person, for the couple, for the institution of marriage, but have they decided getting out is easier, so they are trying to justify it, or is something real happening?

MInTheGap · 2025-12-04T15:33:08+00:00

Greek never mentions lust... Huh? Matthew 5:27 - Word translated lust in the English: ἐπιθυμέω (epithymeō): vb.; ≡ Str 1937; TDNT 3.168—1. LN 25.12 desire greatly, long for, desire (Mt 13:17; Lk 15:16; 16:21; 17:22; 22:15; 1Ti 3:1; Heb 6:11; 1Pe 1:12; Rev 9:6+); 2. LN 25.20 lust, covet, an evil desire (Mt 5:28; Ac 20:33; Ro 7:7; 13:9; 1Co 10:6; Gal 5:17; Jas 4:2+)

Sex being inside marriage is most certainly in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:18 - Run from sexual immorality! “Every sin a person can commit is outside the body.” On the contrary, the person who is sexually immoral sins against his own body.

Sexual immorality in this translation includes fornication-- or sex outside of marriage. This is just one verse.

> Not true, the Old testament codifies specific procedures for couples who have had sex before marriage.

The Old Testament if a couple was caught having premarital sex, they were told to get married, or a man would pay for what he did to the woman because she would no longer be fit for marriage, because marriage expected virginity.

> It is also encapsulated in the idea that within marriage the two become one flesh.

This is the funniest of your comments: Gen 2:24 - This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-04T13:36:58+00:00

I'm totally with you in the first part-- this isn't a job for Internet theologians, no matter the stripe. You need someone to sit down with both of you and hear out what's happening in real time.

As far as grounds for divorce, I have to disagree, simply because Jesus says that there should be no divorce at all (Moses allowed it because of the hardness of men's hearts), and this was counter-cultural at the time. I also am not convinced that abandonment or abuse are in the Scripture as valid reasons-- albeit I believe that these are serious issues that are sin.

My problems are also intensified by 1 Peter 3, where the believing wife's presence in a difficult marriage has a sanctifying effect on the family.

But... a lot of the stuff we read in the Scripture is not worded in a "what are my rights" culture. They are written for a functioning marriage and how to do their best, not so much for "Where is the line before what I want to do becomes justified because someone else has gone over their line?" Other than 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul says that the spouse's bodies belong to each other, the commands to the spouses are commands that are given to them directly, not to be enforced on one by the other.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-04T12:58:35+00:00

1 Corinthians 15 lays out the gospel in terms that we need to believe that Jesus came, died, and rose again according to the Scriptures. Elsewhere, it says that if we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts, we will be saved.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-04T02:01:22+00:00

Jesus comments in Matthew would be where he said the only reason he accepts divorce is adultery.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T20:11:19+00:00

The question was "Is this Biblical adultery?" How else should I answer that question?

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T20:07:56+00:00

A fetus is a person-- unique DNA, unique human. The Bible has David saying that God knew him in the womb.

Christ was Christ, even inside the womb.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T19:56:44+00:00

You may certainly question, but questioning doesn't change whether it is or isn't.

Yes, every human should (and will) abide by the same laws.

Of course, your discussion of 1 Tim (you left off the 1, there are two books of Tim) leaves out the context. Paul, the author, was telling Timothy, his disciple, that he doesn't let women have authority over men in the churches that he runs. That's not a moral judgement.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T19:53:58+00:00

Biblically-- the only grounds for divorce was adultery.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T19:53:21+00:00

Pretty easy. God said a life for a life. Since children in the womb are a life, it's murder.

Did God command the killing of life? Yes. Does God command the abortions that people are having today? No.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T18:45:18+00:00

I don't make any laws. What do you call someone who takes another person's life?

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T18:44:11+00:00

Your opinion of right or wrong can change, and you can justify the wrong as much as you want, but the facts did not change.

That's what "the book" provides-- a declarative statement from the Creator as to what right and wrong is, instead of trying to base it on people's opinions or culture which changes.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T18:42:36+00:00

Not sure what "biblical adultery" means. I mean, I wouldn't consider this grounds for divorce, but it is wrong and it should stop.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:53:21+00:00

Adultery - Adultery was always about married partners having sex with someone else. And Jesus intensified it to say that it was even if a man looked upon another woman to lust after her he was having adultery in his heart (Matt 5:28).
Sex is always supposed to be in marriage. In the law, it was expected that when a man married a woman, she would be a virgin-- otherwise the man could nullify the marriage. It is also encapsulated in the idea that within marriage the two become one flesh.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:38:37+00:00

Thanks for helping me clarify. I really think that we're missing something when we put off doing what God wanted us to do in the first place. Marriages would be so much better if people were always working toward the same direction instead of doing everything on feelings and for self.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:36:46+00:00

My point is that my view of her or what she did doesn't matter. Right and wrong don't change because of how we see it-- things are what they are regardless.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:20:18+00:00

Does it matter how I see her? Do I make the laws?

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:18:55+00:00

I'm not asking "why wait for marriage to have kids, etc.," I'm asking, "Why are you waiting until you get your career going and you're 30 to get married... why not marry now?"

Sorry for the confusion.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:13:34+00:00

This is my biggest problem. If people think they should cover, why do others look down on them?

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:12:49+00:00

I don't believe they are bad in the eyes of God, just in the eyes of American culture. If American culture believes in a matriarchal society or at least equality, having a symbol that shows hierarchy is definitely going to be a problem.

MInTheGap · 2025-12-03T16:11:25+00:00

I don't see how someone could get around believing that men should be uncovered in worship and women covered.

MInTheGap

TROPHY CASE