Posted on 12/06/2011 7:09:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: God detests ALL sin in equal measure, but his Word makes it clear that you shall know them by their deeds.
I don’t think Prager disagrees with you here. He is arguing however that out of all sins, we should not focus single mindedly on adultery to the exclusion of others.
Let’s put it this way, given the choice between a known adulterer who publicly acknowledged his sin and wants to move on, with GOOD, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES, and a man who has been faithful to his wife but with BAD, LIBERAL POLICIES, what should a good conservative religious person do?
A) Vote for the flawed conservative
B) Vote for the liberal
C) Stay home
Personally I don’t care to be French.
I never want to see a Presidential funeral where the
former First Lady and his former mistress lay a wreath
together.
I always presumed my great-great grandfather fled that country for the hills of West Virginia for some good reason.
RE: Yes, the Lord did not remove David from the throne but the consequence of his sin was that contention and rebellion came into his household
Which still begs the question — WHY WASN’T HE REMOVED the same way King Saul was?
The way I see it, Jimmy Carter was faithful to Rosalyn, but he was still a horrible President.
So give me the philanderer who cuts taxes and is for smaller government, over the faithful candidate who is for raising taxes and bigger government.
RE: Personally I don’t care to be French.
I never want to see a Presidential funeral where the
former First Lady and his former mistress lay a wreath
together.
_________________________
Personally, what troubles me about France is even more than what you mentioned.
I can never live in a country that celebrates a bloody revolution that killed thousands of people in a mindless reign of terror.
First off, my vote is MY vote, and I’ll vote however I want for whatever reasons I want. If I want to disqualify Newt Gingrich for being a serial adulterer, that’s my business.
Secondly, Mr. Prager may not being trying to justify or approve of adultery, but he’s certainly attempting to excuse it. Methinks that has something to do with him backing a serial adulterer for president. What fools the rest of us are for considering a person’s character when we vote!
Finally, we all sin. I’m a sinner. What’s important is whether or not one repents and tries not to repeat the same mistake. God forgives those who repent, but that doesn’t eliminate negative, worldly repercussions of sin. It also means all sins are not equal in this world. In other words, God may forgive you for cheating on your first two wives, but it may very well end up costing you a run for the presidency.
Christ is Savior for all God’s people, of course! However, I was just making the point that God’s mercy and forgiveness of sin does not remove the consequence of that sin. David was forgiven, but the consequence of what he did had terrible results in his family and in the manner in which God’s covenant promise was fulfilled. Mr. Prager overlooked that in his article.
As far as this truth’s application to our political situation, we should not be fooled. A man who breaks his vow to his most intimate companion for his own pleasure, will also be more likely to break the vow to his country for the same reason. If you read the history of the founding of this country, you’ll find that this was a common belief among men for picking their leaders. Adulterers were held in very low esteem until just recently.
RE: God may forgive you for cheating on your first two wives, but it may very well end up costing you a run for the presidency.
______________
Just remember this -— David’s sin of murder and adultery did not end up costing him his leadership the same way it did his predecessor.
God has His own reasons for doing so. Therefore, it is possible that the adulterer might very well end up with the presidency ( I am not closing my mind to that possibility ).
That does not mean David was not a great King and leader. He was.
Nathan not Solomon is not Jewish belief nor mainline Christian belief.
Jewish belief is that the Messiah will be a descendant of David and Solomon through male descendants.
“And David said to Solomon, “Then He called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build a house for HaShem, the G-d of Israel. And David said to Solomon: ‘My son, as for me, it was in my heart to build a house unto the name of HaShem my G-d. But the word of HaShem came to me, saying: Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be to Me for a son, and I will be to him for a father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.’ “ (1 Chronicles 22:6-10).
Saul remained King of Israel until he died in battle. It was his descendants who were removed from inheriting the throne. This is exactly what eventually happened to Solomon’s line. God was merciful to David because of his repentance. However God’s eventual judgment was carried out later in history. But please note NONE of these men received their thrones AFTER committing their sins.
If anything is clear from these narratives it is that is definitely an error to suppose that sexual and spiritual sins have no consequence in politics or a person’s ability to hold political office.
Saul remained King of Israel until he died in battle. It was his descendants who were removed from inheriting the throne. This is exactly what eventually happened to Solomon’s line. God was merciful to David because of his repentance. However God’s eventual judgment was carried out later in history. But please note NONE of these men received their thrones AFTER committing their sins.
If anything is clear from these narratives it is that is definitely an error to suppose that sexual and spiritual sins have no consequence in politics or a person’s ability to hold political office.
Saul remained King of Israel until he died in battle. It was his descendants who were removed from inheriting the throne. This is exactly what eventually happened to Solomon’s line. God was merciful to David because of his repentance. However God’s eventual judgment was carried out later in history. But please note NONE of these men received their thrones AFTER committing their sins.
If anything is clear from these narratives it is that is definitely an error to suppose that sexual and spiritual sins have no consequence in politics or a person’s ability to hold political office.
You don’t have to be religious to understand that a guy that can’t keep an oath can’t keep an oath.
David was not an adulterer. At the point he bedded her, Bathsheba was free woman, no longer married or engaged.
When King David sent Uriah back into the very front lines of battle it was for a number of reasons, none having any thing to do with wishing Uriah to die. Rather it was to determine if Uriah wished to bed Bathsheba, if she was in some state of marriage to Uriah. Uriah refused to bed her. Why? Either he was rejecting the marriage to her, or refusing to consummate the marriage to her.
David had spied Bathsheba at the bath. Under Jewish custom a bath is mandatory for a bride about to consummate her marriage, or for a wife after having completed the monthly menstrual period during which she and her husband may not have relations and ready to return to her husband for sexual coitus.
But Uriah refused to have her.
Still, David tried to heal that marriage. He ordered Uriah to be sent to the very dangerous front line of battle. If it was within the first year of marriage Uriah could, under Jewish law, have refused the order. Newlywed men are exempt from military service for the first year of marriage.
Thus King David forced Uriah to chose life or death. To live, but as the full husband of Bathsheba, or to risk almost certain death in battle. Uriah chose the great danger.
Why? We don't know. We know Uriah was a mighty warrior, but perhaps outside of the high intensity of battle, of action and danger, he was bored. Depressed. Not clear, afaik. But King David, an adept judge of men, would have known.
Like a good Doctor, King David was focused entirely on saving the case that was immediately in front of him. The marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba. And in that focus on the immediate case of one single marriage, David missed on his duty as King of a Nation.
As the prophets came to rebuke him -- APPEARANCES are critical for a King. As it was the circumstances of the story as evidenced to the public, to all but Davis, Bathsheba and Uriah, were truly problematic. It looked like what most people take it to have been.
Guess what? F@ck them. All of them. I'm DONE gathering information about this candidate or that one. I know what I want, and I won't dissemble and watch this country be sold wholesale down the river with a RINO. If Obama wins again and does it, at least we all know where the evil is and can plan accordingly.
Am I to understand from your above explanation that a man who refuses to have sex with is wife forfeits her to another person and when she has sex with that other person (even when they are not married) , they are not committing adultery?
Is this your view?
That’s not my view. The case of King David, Uriah and Bathsheba does not apply to today’s world, we do not have King’s of the sort that David was, nor is our divorce custom or marriage custom the same.
In that time and place, according to the laws of that place and time, either Uriah committed to a divorce, by refusing to go to his wife, and a action done in front of the King of the land. Or he refused to finalize a marriage, by the act of bedding his own wife.
RE: Or he refused to finalize a marriage, by the act of bedding his own wife.
__________________________
How do you know that Uriah never bedded his wife or never, EVER consumated his marriage? What verse tells us that?
All we know is he did not feel it was right for him to enjoy the special privilege of the comfort of his home and wife while he knew that his comrades were fighting and risking their lives in battle.
Also, when David bedded Bathsheba, did he know anything about Uriah and Bathsehba’s bedroom habits? Did he know when they had sex and how often? You will be hard press to tell me yes. All we know is that he saw her bathing and was attracted to her ( a married woman ). David then had sex with her and impregnated her.
Uriah was brought back after David found out that he had her impregnated and wanted to keep his fatherhood a secret. THAT was the reason he called Uriah back to his house ( hoping that Uriah would bed her and cover his adultery with Bathsheba, making the world think that the child was Uriah’s).
I think your explanation is quite fanciful.
With respect, that's a false choice. A good conservative religious person should realize that he or she is accountable to God for his or vote. I'm not staying home, but the person who gets my vote will be one whom I can trust. I still have that option, and if the GOP doesn't nominate someone who reaches my standards, that person will not get my vote. Period.
I don't vote single-mindedly on adultery and I know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
I'd just like to know that the person I vote for is not willing to take moral shortcuts on other issues when he's already got a track record of taking shortcuts in an area where good judgment is essential.
I'd also like to see some of those "good, conservative policies" from Gingrich. What I'm seeing now is a flip-flopper who used to be conservative and is now a Beltway insider, as has been exhaustively documented on this site.
For now, I'll take Bachmann, who we know hasn't been in anyone else's bed but the one she shares with her husband. Then Santorum. Then, maybe, Perry.
RE: With respect, that’s a false choice.
With respect it is most assuredly NOT a false choice. If you choose Bachmann and she is not the candidate, they you just might see a Gingrich vs Obama race. WHAT THEN?
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.