Moral Dilemma

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

Elias Jezebelsbane
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Atlanta

Moral Dilemma

Post #1

Post by Elias Jezebelsbane »

I was a young newly wed. Because my relationship with my wife was so beautiful, others started coming to me for counseling on how we arranged our relationship. At the time I was in the Air Force and still living in the dormitory as was my wife.

One of the other girls in the dorm was a sweet Christian girl that had also recently gotten married. She and her new husband were trying to have a child while the AF would pay the medical expenses. He was a college student that lived about 60 miles away. They tried for months with no success. When they got checked out medically they found out that the new husband was sterile and could never have children according to the doctors.

At the time we didn't know but her dorm roommate was a witch and the local coven had placed a sterility curse on him with their witchcraft as a punishment for saving her virginity for her wedding night and declaring how special it had been while the coven was pushing for women to sleep around.

The couple had previously come to me for pre-marital counsel as well as sexual counsel for their honeymoon. They then came to me and my wife to tell us the situation. They explained that they had been to their pastor and he advised them that they could use a surrogate and used Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah as the basis. Granted in their case, the husband wasn't dead but permanently sterile. The younger brother of the husband was only 13 years old so they didn't think they could go to him. In fact, it would have been illegal due to his age.

They were also on a time constraint to have the child while she was still covered by military medical benefits. They explained the situation then dropped the bomb shell. The wife declared if she couldn't have her husband's child, she wanted to have mine because of our close friendship.

Instead of agreeing, we anointed the husband with oil and prayed for healing. I also directed them to ask their pastor and elders to anoint them and pray for him. If that didn't work we would consider the other. They tried for a few more months to conceive with no success and came back to see me and my wife to ask again if I could get her pregnant.

I told them that scripture declares that the body of the husband belongs to the wife and they would have to gain her permission, not mine. My wife declared that if she couldn't have her husband's child, that she wanted me to be the father of their child and gave her blessing.

We later found out that the sterility curse had been broken several times but the coven kept putting it back when the demon reported back to the sender. The local high priestess of the coven was my own wive's roommate and the entire situation had been set up to help destroy both of our marriages. They had also placed a love spell on the other woman towards me in an attempt to get us caught in an affair thus destroying both of our witnesses.

Here I had my wife pleading with me to give them a child but they wanted that child conceived in an act of love and the AF would not pay for fertility expenses. They also had scriptural backing for the situation as well as the full blessing of their families and pastor.

What do you do?

Me, I have a 21 year old biological son by her as a result. They used the husband's younger brother for their 3 later children. They never had a child by the husband. One of the coven members later got saved and filled us in on the activities of the coven.

Adstar
Under Probation
Posts: 976
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:18 am
Location: Australia

Re: Moral Dilemma

Post #11

Post by Adstar »

Elias Jezebelsbane wrote:
Adstar wrote:
You did not give a detail that is important, to me anyway.

Was your 21 year old Biological son born by artificial means or was it done by the traditional method?

They did use the scripture you referred to as support for their request to you. But that scripture clearly states it must be the brother who impregnates the woman not a non relative like yourself.

From what you have said the primary issue that lead to you bring pursued was the desire of the woman to qualify for the military medical subsidy. It was not the desire for a child that was secondary. The woman could have waited a few years for her husbands brother to be of age.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I gave all the important details. It isn't my job to meet other people's requirements.
So be it.
The means of the pregnancy is irrelevant. In the case of Tamar it was done the normal way.

No scripture does NOT state that it has to be a brother.
Well at the time the law was not established but it was established later thousands of years before your particular case came into being.

Deuteronomy 25
5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

So it is clear for you. If your going to use the Law then you need to use the Law then you need to follow the one that is up to date. what happened between tamar and he father in law came before Moses.

In the case of Tamar, it was Judah, her father-in-law that got her pregnant after Judah's sons failed to produce a child. Obviously you don't understand the spirit of the law.
Well hearing that judgement from a man who claims to be a follower of the Messiah Jesus but who became a member of an army really makes my eyes roll. A man who would kill His enemies in carnal combat telling me I do not understand the spirit of the law.

This is what a Christian believes.

II Corinthians 10:3,4
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."

So tell me what religion you belong to? Talk about not have understanding of the Spirit.
The reason it had to be a close relative was to keep the inheritance in the same family. Property was not to leave the tribe. In our case the inheritance wasn't an issue so they went to a brother-in-christ instead of a brother by blood.

What angered Yah in the case of Judah's sons Onan was his greed. The eldest son got a double inheritance. With the eldest son dead with no heir, the 2nd son would get an even greater double inheritance of the remaining sons but if he raised up a child to his dead elder brother, that child got the double inheritance thus reducing Onan's portion greatly. Onan wanted the sex with his brother's wife but did not want her to have a child. The ONLY reason he was to violate his brother's wife was to produce that child. Yah killed him for his GREED.
Yes i know that. I read the story.
Tamar married Judah's eldest son with the understanding that he would get the double inheritance. That property would maintain her the rest of her life. Without a child, she had no means to support herself the rest of her life.
Yep that’s true.
This situation for a childless marriage was written into the Mosaic law later to make it an exception to the sexual law.
Yep and they did not allowed a father in law to go into his daughter in law. Oddly enough the issue was again talked about when Jesus was being asked questions by the scribes.

Matthew 5
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.�
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

See 7 brothers. No mention of a father in law.
The Levirate Rights were an exception that a brother should not 'uncover the nakedness' of his brother's wife. It was for the purpose of granting a child to a woman that couldn't have that child by her own husband. That was the purpose of the law, to make an exception to the sexual law.
True.
Ruth fell into the same situation. Naomi instructed Ruth to go to Boaz after he had feasted and drank then uncover him after he went to sleep for the purpose of claiming her rights to a child by him. Boaz went the extra mile by marrying her and restoring the property into the family early. It would have returned to Ruth's son at the next Jubilee year anyway. Boaz was not require to marry her, just produce a child.

The point is there are exceptions to the sexual law where the production of a child is the reason. One of Yah's very 1st commandments is to be fruitful and multiply.
And a law that allowed for this came when Moses gave it. And That law states that it must be done via a Brother, and also the first brother must be dead.

Without the military medical benefits to cover the costs, they could not have had a child for many years.

The AF benefits would NOT cover artificial fertility treatments either. Her husband was a college student and had no medical coverage for his wife. She was providing those benefits while he finished college and maintained her support while he got his own business going after graduation.


Irrelevant.
Our situation tends to be attacked by Pharisaical christians that go by the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.


Oh i get it i am a one of them "Pharisaical christians" right?

But it is you that is using the Law to justify your actions. If your going to use the Law to try and justify your actions in a "Pharisaical" manner then you should make sure your actions are cleared by the same law.

If you are suggesting that we were in sin, then I suggest you worry about your own beam.
Oh i know i am a sinner. I am fully aware of the beam in my own eyes, But you see i am not trying to justify my sin am i? Who is trying to justify their sin here?
We were not in sin. There is nothing to repent of. This wasn't about satisfying lust with another man's wife. It was the gift of a child by a close friend that loved them that made it an exception to the sexual law.
If it was God's will that they remain childless for how ever long then who are you to intervene and commit adultery to produce a child? See i believe that through the Messiah Jesus all sins are forgiven. So this sin is no big problem for a Christian. IF they acknowledge their sin when convicted. But your not doing that are you? You’re proclaiming yourself as righteous in this matter. That you have done a good thing.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Elias Jezebelsbane
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post #12

Post by Elias Jezebelsbane »

Goat wrote:
Elias Jezebelsbane wrote: But it teaches the nature of Yah so therefore it is not obsolete. Whether Christianity adopts something as a standard practice or not is irrelevant, that would just make it a 'tradition of man'. The law of Yah is to be written onto our hearts, not dictated by the traditions of man. There are all kinds of evil doctrines within Christianity based on traditions of man.
Uh.. no, it doesn't. It teaches what is important to the ancient Hebrews in Caanan, and how you described it is taken out of context, and incorrect.

The description of the Levitate marriage in the Jewish scriptures shows it is after the brother died, and by his brother only. It is not a tradition that every was adopted by Christianity, and the way that you described it does not match the reasoning behind the tradition.

Sorry, but the way you describe it makes your biological son a Mamzer, and as such, he will not be allowed to worship in the Temple in Jerusalem, nor his descendants onto 10 generations. I am sure that is not relevant to you, since he isn't Jewish, and the Temple hasn't existed in a couple of thousand of years.
Before presenting yourself as an authority on the subject, I suggest you actually learn to spell the term. You mispelled the term both times you mentioned it. It is Levirate Rights, not Levitate! Levitate is to float.

The reason behind the exception to the sexual law was to produce a child that could inherit when the husband failed to do so. The reason for it being a close relative was to keep that inheritance within the tribe. How is that wrong in your opinion? The point is there ARE exceptions to laws. For example, there was to be no work done on the Sabbath BUT there were things that could be done in emergency situations.

Scripture in another sexual law strictly forbids a man to have sexual contact with his brother's wife.

Le 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
...
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.


You are suggesting they should violate this law unless you accept there ARE EXCEPTIONS to that sexual law in certain circumstances.

As for your requirement for it to be only a brother is wrong for both examples presented in scripture. Judah was the father-in-law of Tamar and Boaz was NOT the brother of Ruth's husband but was one of the closest living relatives but wasn't even the closest because Boaz went to see that man to see if he would fulfill the Levirate Rights before he did. The situation with Tamar was even referenced in the story of Ruth.

The strict adherence to the letter of the law but ignoring the spirit of the law is a major problem of Phariseeism. No wonder John the Baptist and Yeshua called them a nest of vipers that served their father the devil. They turned the law into a list of rules to please man instead of understanding the nature and intent of Yah. Galations teaches that the intent of the law is a teaching tool for the spiritual children but as an adults we understand the intent of the law and therefore don't need the list of rules.

The law is not a measuring tool to compare your self-righteousness against another. That attitude is an attribute directly out of Baal worship.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #13

Post by Cathar1950 »

Elias Jezebelsbane wrote:
Goat wrote:
Elias Jezebelsbane wrote: But it teaches the nature of Yah so therefore it is not obsolete. Whether Christianity adopts something as a standard practice or not is irrelevant, that would just make it a 'tradition of man'. The law of Yah is to be written onto our hearts, not dictated by the traditions of man. There are all kinds of evil doctrines within Christianity based on traditions of man.
Uh.. no, it doesn't. It teaches what is important to the ancient Hebrews in Caanan, and how you described it is taken out of context, and incorrect.

The description of the Levitate marriage in the Jewish scriptures shows it is after the brother died, and by his brother only. It is not a tradition that every was adopted by Christianity, and the way that you described it does not match the reasoning behind the tradition.

Sorry, but the way you describe it makes your biological son a Mamzer, and as such, he will not be allowed to worship in the Temple in Jerusalem, nor his descendants onto 10 generations. I am sure that is not relevant to you, since he isn't Jewish, and the Temple hasn't existed in a couple of thousand of years.
Before presenting yourself as an authority on the subject, I suggest you actually learn to spell the term. You mispelled the term both times you mentioned it. It is Levirate Rights, not Levitate! Levitate is to float.

The reason behind the exception to the sexual law was to produce a child that could inherit when the husband failed to do so. The reason for it being a close relative was to keep that inheritance within the tribe. How is that wrong in your opinion? The point is there ARE exceptions to laws. For example, there was to be no work done on the Sabbath BUT there were things that could be done in emergency situations.

Scripture in another sexual law strictly forbids a man to have sexual contact with his brother's wife.

Le 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
...
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.


You are suggesting they should violate this law unless you accept there ARE EXCEPTIONS to that sexual law in certain circumstances.

As for your requirement for it to be only a brother is wrong for both examples presented in scripture. Judah was the father-in-law of Tamar and Boaz was NOT the brother of Ruth's husband but was one of the closest living relatives but wasn't even the closest because Boaz went to see that man to see if he would fulfill the Levirate Rights before he did. The situation with Tamar was even referenced in the story of Ruth.

The strict adherence to the letter of the law but ignoring the spirit of the law is a major problem of Phariseeism. No wonder John the Baptist and Yeshua called them a nest of vipers that served their father the devil. They turned the law into a list of rules to please man instead of understanding the nature and intent of Yah. Galations teaches that the intent of the law is a teaching tool for the spiritual children but as an adults we understand the intent of the law and therefore don't need the list of rules.

The law is not a measuring tool to compare your self-righteousness against another. That attitude is an attribute directly out of Baal worship.
At the time there wasn't much difference between Baal worship and any of the other gods including Yahweh the war god that seems to be give attributes from Baal the storm god. Of course Baal also means lord and like the king MLK were used for Yahweh. They sacrificed children to Yahweh too.

In Mark the Pharisees are rather friendly and it is later writers that make then out to be legalistic as when the gospels were being written after the war they were competing idealogies and experiments in community.

Elias Jezebelsbane
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Moral Dilemma

Post #14

Post by Elias Jezebelsbane »

Adstar wrote: Deuteronomy 25
5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

So it is clear for you. If your going to use the Law then you need to use the Law then you need to follow the one that is up to date. what happened between tamar and he father in law came before Moses.
Oh, I understand that the situation with Tamar pre-dated the law of Moses. IMO it was the situation that was the basis for this law at the time of Moses.

The law assumes that a brother is available. In the case that a brother was not like in the case of Ruth, it passed from a direct brother to a near relative yet is that directly stated in the law? Even in the case of Tamar, Judah's next son was not of age so it was put off so even with a brother available but not of age also influences the choice.
In the case of Tamar, it was Judah, her father-in-law that got her pregnant after Judah's sons failed to produce a child. Obviously you don't understand the spirit of the law.
Well hearing that judgement from a man who claims to be a follower of the Messiah Jesus but who became a member of an army really makes my eyes roll. A man who would kill His enemies in carnal combat telling me I do not understand the spirit of the law.

This is what a Christian believes.
How so? How does killing enemies in carnal combat have anything to do with the discussion at hand? I was a computer tech for telecommunications and later radar systems. Again your judgment is irrelevant. The law doesn't forbid killing in warfare but murder by taking innocent lives. Sounds to me like a JW cult doctrine.

Why would you even suggest that I am not a follower of Yeshua? We followed what we perceived to be scriptural guidance whether you agree with the outcome or not. Your agreement isn't required. We also submitted to the perceived spiritual authority of their pastor on how to handle the situation.

Scripture teaches that we are not to be man pleasers but God pleasers. What other believers think of the situation is irrelevant to me. They are not my judge as to whether there was sin involved or not. Only Yah can see the motives of the heart and only He is in a position to judge.

It was a difficult choice at the time hence one of the reasons for posting under Ethical Dilemmas. I had to weigh the future attacks by Pharisees over the decision verses my love for the couple and their desire for a child.
II Corinthians 10:3,4
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."

So tell me what religion you belong to? Talk about not have understanding of the Spirit.
Oh I am fully aware of that scripture dealing with spiritual warfare but how is it relevant to this situation? We did do spiritual warfare in our attempt to break the sterility curse but we were not even aware of it at the time. Are you assuming that is was strictly a carnal decision? You would be wrong.

As to my background, well I have been saved for over 40 years. I have attended bible colleges and I even read Hebrew a little. Early in life my family belonged to a fundamental denomination (Plymouth Brethren) but later became involved with full-gospel non-denominational churches. My primary spiritual gift is 'discernment of spirits' but I have operated in several of the other spiritual gifts.

I have operated in Christian counseling and done direct warfare against witchcraft and paganism. Even the coven I was in conflict against considered me as prophet of Yah. They denied the existence of the Christian God before our conflict but saw His power in that conflict.
This situation for a childless marriage was written into the Mosaic law later to make it an exception to the sexual law.
Yep and they did not allowed a father in law to go into his daughter in law. Oddly enough the issue was again talked about when Jesus was being asked questions by the scribes.

Matthew 5
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.�
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

See 7 brothers. No mention of a father in law.
No and it doesn't mention other close relatives as in the case of Ruth. I suggest you stop judging by the letter of the law.
Ruth fell into the same situation. Naomi instructed Ruth to go to Boaz after he had feasted and drank then uncover him after he went to sleep for the purpose of claiming her rights to a child by him. Boaz went the extra mile by marrying her and restoring the property into the family early. It would have returned to Ruth's son at the next Jubilee year anyway. Boaz was not require to marry her, just produce a child.

The point is there are exceptions to the sexual law where the production of a child is the reason. One of Yah's very 1st commandments is to be fruitful and multiply.
And a law that allowed for this came when Moses gave it. And That law states that it must be done via a Brother, and also the first brother must be dead.
Again, you are going by the letter of the law, not the spirit. By your statement, you are putting Boaz as being in violation of the law but obviously he had the full blessings of the town elders that were judging the situation with compliance to the law. Boaz was NOT the brother of Ruth's husband. In our case, it was their pastor that was the judge on compliance with Yah's law. The case was presented to spiritual authority for judgment and approved.
Our situation tends to be attacked by Pharisaical christians that go by the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.


Oh i get it i am a one of them "Pharisaical christians" right?

But it is you that is using the Law to justify your actions. If your going to use the Law to try and justify your actions in a "Pharisaical" manner then you should make sure your actions are cleared by the same law.
Whether you are a Pharisaical Christian or not is dependent on your motives and whether you are attacking me over the situation. Since you are by no means an authority over my actions, you don't have right of punishment. Attempting to punish without authority is a form of witchcraft.

You are entitled to your personal opinion or to provide teaching and debate is welcome but if your position is to attack what you see as perceived error in my life, then that is not welcome and exhibits a primary trait of a Pharisee. It is also the reason that so many Christians are hated. They drive people away from Yah through their harshness as opposed to operating in love. I have no need of that leavening in my life.

I posted an ethical dilemma and my position for the choice I made. You don't have to agree with it and I don't have to justify it. I stated my basis for making the decision that I did. We are not justified by the law anyway.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Galation goes on to teach that we are not bound by the law of Moses. It is just a teaching tool for the spiritual children. Once you become spiritually mature, you have the ability to judge the situation on a case by case basis with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you demand that others follow the letter of the law by your understanding, it just goes to show your level of spiritual maturity.

If you wish to remain in bondage to the letter of the law, that is your option. If that is the case, stick to milk because you are not ready for 'strong meat'.

Galations shows three positions. Those who claim grace to live in the flesh that stand in direct opposition of those that are in bondage to the law whereas the CORRECT position is to be led by the spirit while using the law as a guide to teach you righteousness and gaining grace where you fail. It is a common tactic of the enemy to divide the position of Yah into extreme camps to battle each other each pointing out the error in the opposite extreme but blinded to their own error while BOTH extreme positions are in fact error.

The bondage to law camp is the Pharisee camp IMO. Personally, I despise the Pharisee point of view while I try to be led by the Spirit. I do NOT fall into what I like to call the 'greasy grace' camp. I specifically try to root out any Phariseeism when I see it try to manifest in my life because I come from a very Pharisaical family.
If you are suggesting that we were in sin, then I suggest you worry about your own beam.
Oh i know i am a sinner. I am fully aware of the beam in my own eyes, But you see i am not trying to justify my sin am i? Who is trying to justify their sin here?
No, I am not justifying sin. IMO there was no sin. IMO for sin to exist, someone must be hurt by the events which isn't the case. Even IF there was, well then I have grace which is sufficient. This isn't a situation that has repeated itself. I don't intend to ever be a surrogate father again so it isn't a big concern.

I don't follow that 'loss of salvation' doctrine anyhow so don't concern yourself with trying to convince me of being in sin because my salvation may be as risk. It isn't.

The lesson from this situation is the one from Galations. Use the law as a guide but be led by the spirit, not bondage to law. You have to make hard decisions and do what you feel is right on a case by case basis because not all situations are covered exactly within the law. It is more about learning the nature of Yah and doing the best we can within our own understanding while operating in love. As you learn more, Yah holds you to a higher level.
We were not in sin. There is nothing to repent of. This wasn't about satisfying lust with another man's wife. It was the gift of a child by a close friend that loved them that made it an exception to the sexual law.
If it was God's will that they remain childless for how ever long then who are you to intervene and commit adultery to produce a child? See i believe that through the Messiah Jesus all sins are forgiven. So this sin is no big problem for a Christian. IF they acknowledge their sin when convicted. But your not doing that are you? You’re proclaiming yourself as righteous in this matter. That you have done a good thing.
And who are you to dictate that it was Yah's will not to have that child? There you go again with that beam in your eye. I classify adultery as a violation of the trust with your spouse. In this case it was not a violation with my wife because it had her full blessing and it was a request made by the other couple after careful consideration.

If you understand WHY adultery is sin it helps. Adultery can cause severe emotional problems. Generally it is done as punishment to a spouse. A woman that cheats on her husband because she is mad at him is an extremely evil thing to do. Stealing another man's wife is also an evil thing to do. It is theft from another man. Generally adultery is an indication of major problems within the relationship. It can also cause problems with the husband accepting and raising a child that might not be his own. That issue was covered before I even agreed and of course he knew it would not be his biological child but wanted to raise a child of his wife's own body. Those are the type things that makes adultery a sin. It is the harm that it causes. This was strictly a surrogate situation with no other purpose. So your classification of it as adultery is once again irrelevant. If you think it is sin, then my advice is don't be a surrogate father because it would obviously cause you problems.

Elias Jezebelsbane
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post #15

Post by Elias Jezebelsbane »

Cathar1950 wrote: At the time there wasn't much difference between Baal worship and any of the other gods including Yahweh the war god that seems to be give attributes from Baal the storm god. Of course Baal also means lord and like the king MLK were used for Yahweh. They sacrificed children to Yahweh too.

In Mark the Pharisees are rather friendly and it is later writers that make then out to be legalistic as when the gospels were being written after the war they were competing idealogies and experiments in community.
Yes, there was a lot of paganism that got mixed in with Judaism. At times they even confused one for the other. The prophets tended to come and bring correction for times like that.

Pharisees were a sect whereas I used Phariseeism as a representation of their general negative influences that were prevalent among them. Obviously there were still righteous men among them.

One of the primary attributes of what I classify as Phariseeism is expanding on the actual law to include all grey areas nearby and turning into a religious rule of man. They were then attack anyone that violated there expanded definitions of what was actually forbidden. I see it as an attempt to keep people from being close to the possibility of sin. The problem comes in when they attack someone in that grey area that has greater understanding and knows they are not in sin.

That was the case of the attacks on Yeshua for healing on the Sabbath. He was attacked because he didn't bow to the Pharisees definition of what constituted a violation of the law.

It is that attitude of superior righteousness for abiding by the traditions of man that is the root of the problem IMO. Pharisees tend to be super self-righteous people that try to keep the focus on other people's perceived sins.

Here is an example. A girl I led to the Lord was in college. She was supported by her father under terms of her parents divorce until she graduated or got married. She got engaged but if they married before graduation, she lost that financial support and could not finish her degree.

She and her fiancée privately exchanged vows and moved in together. She was attacked by one of her church elders for 'living in sin' and forbidden to participate in certain things. She refused and was called before the pastor. The pastor confirmed they were in a committed relationship, witnessed them exchange their vows and told the church elder to butt out. They got legally married after graduation.

That elder was exhibiting the characteristics of a Pharisee operating in a total lack of love IMO. The covenant between the two is the marriage, not the ceremony. The ceremony is just a tradition of man that helps to reinforce the relationship. In biblical times, the betrothal was the beginning of the marriage. That is why it was considered adultery to have sex with another man's betrothed.

Adstar
Under Probation
Posts: 976
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:18 am
Location: Australia

Re: Moral Dilemma

Post #16

Post by Adstar »

Elias Jezebelsbane" wrote:
Adstar wrote:

Well hearing that judgement from a man who claims to be a follower of the Messiah Jesus but who became a member of an army really makes my eyes roll. A man who would kill His enemies in carnal combat telling me I do not understand the spirit of the law.

This is what a Christian believes.
How so? How does killing enemies in carnal combat have anything to do with the discussion at hand? I was a computer tech for telecommunications and later radar systems. Again your judgment is irrelevant. The law doesn't forbid killing in warfare but murder by taking innocent lives. Sounds to me like a JW cult doctrine.
No it is from the Word of God. Try reading the beatitudes some time and see if you believe Jesus. If you don’t believe Jesus then you believe in “another jesus.� Jesus did forbid us to engage in combat. He told us to love our enemies and the letters of the apostles backed this up. As i quoted. Why do you think Christians went like sheep to the slaughter in the coliseums of Rome? Why because they where true followers of the Messiah Jesus.
Why would you even suggest that I am not a follower of Yeshua?
I don't believe anyone who takes part in carnal war or seeks to justify taking part in carnal warfare if a follower of Jesus.

We followed what we perceived to be scriptural guidance whether you agree with the outcome or not. Your agreement isn't required. We also submitted to the perceived spiritual authority of their pastor on how to handle the situation.
The Word of Jesus stands you can rebel against it all you like.
Scripture teaches that we are not to be man pleasers but God pleasers.


Then admit that taking part in carnal combat is against the will of Jesus and repent.
What other believers think of the situation is irrelevant to me.


And your view on this point is also irrelevant to me. I give the message of Jesus and you reject it. That's your call.
They are not my judge as to whether there was sin involved or not. Only Yah can see the motives of the heart and only He is in a position to judge.
Then why did you bring forth your situation before us here for our imput???

If the only judgement that matters is God's then why bring your situation here?

You only want praises and slaps on the back and recognition of what a wonderful righteous Christian you are? What ever you motivation i will stand with the Word of God, i am not a "man pleaser".

II Corinthians 10:3,4
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."

So tell me what religion you belong to? Talk about not have understanding of the Spirit.
I am a follower of the Messiah Jesus. And what is written there is as clear as day. It is you who are in clear rebellion of the Messiah Jesus. It is you who have rejected His Word. Here is some more.

Matthew 5: 43-48
43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


Romans 12:17-21
17Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Oh I am fully aware of that scripture dealing with spiritual warfare but how is it relevant to this situation?


That’s what i am engaged in with you Elias, right at this moment and i do not need a gun or a radar controlled missile as my weapons.

As to my background, well I have been saved for over 40 years.
Trying to justify yourself?

I have attended bible colleges and I even read Hebrew a little. Early in life my family belonged to a fundamental denomination (Plymouth Brethren) but later became involved with full-gospel non-denominational churches. My primary spiritual gift is 'discernment of spirits' but I have operated in several of the other spiritual gifts.I have operated in Christian counseling and done direct warfare against witchcraft and paganism. Even the coven I was in conflict against considered me as prophet of Yah.
Oh blow the horns everyone step back and kneel down in awe and wonder at this exalted one.

Take a read of The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector Luke 18 and see who you sound more like. Here is a hint you do not sound like the tax collector.

Here is some more scripture for you.

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

This situation for a childless marriage was written into the Mosaic law later to make it an exception to the sexual law.
Yep and they did not allowed a father in law to go into his daughter in law. Oddly enough the issue was again talked about when Jesus was being asked questions by the scribes.

Matthew 5
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.�
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

See 7 brothers. No mention of a father in law.
No and it doesn't mention other close relatives as in the case of Ruth. I suggest you stop judging by the letter of the law.

Oh and tell me who is the person who comes into this forum looking to justify themselves by using the very same letter of the Law?
Ruth fell into the same situation. Naomi instructed Ruth to go to Boaz after he had feasted and drank then uncover him after he went to sleep for the purpose of claiming her rights to a child by him. Boaz went the extra mile by marrying her and restoring the property into the family early. It would have returned to Ruth's son at the next Jubilee year anyway. Boaz was not require to marry her, just produce a child.

The point is there are exceptions to the sexual law where the production of a child is the reason. One of Yah's very 1st commandments is to be fruitful and multiply.
And a law that allowed for this came when Moses gave it. And That law states that it must be done via a Brother, and also the first brother must be dead.
Again, you are going by the letter of the law, not the spirit. By your statement, you are putting Boaz as being in violation of the law but obviously he had the full blessings of the town elders that were judging the situation with compliance to the law. Boaz was NOT the brother of Ruth's husband. In our case, it was their pastor that was the judge on compliance with Yah's law. The case was presented to spiritual authority for judgment and approved.
I don't give a pittance for the adjudications of any pastor on this issue. The Word of God is the authority, not some pastor.
Our situation tends to be attacked by Pharisaical christians that go by the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.


Oh i get it i am a one of them "Pharisaical christians" right?

But it is you that is using the Law to justify your actions. If your going to use the Law to try and justify your actions in a "Pharisaical" manner then you should make sure your actions are cleared by the same law.
Whether you are a Pharisaical Christian or not is dependent on your motives and whether you are attacking me over the situation. Since you are by no means an authority over my actions, you don't have right of punishment. Attempting to punish without authority is a form of witchcraft.
What punishment have i delivered to you? Have i stoned you? whipped you? thrown you in prison. No none of these have i done. I use the word of God to convict. Not to punish. God is in control of the penalty not me. I give warning so that some may repent and be saved. from all your boosting about how much of a great Christian you are i doubt you are open to conviction. But i got to have a try.

You are entitled to your personal opinion or to provide teaching and debate is welcome but if your position is to attack what you see as perceived error in my life, then that is not welcome and exhibits a primary trait of a Pharisee. It is also the reason that so many Christians are hated. They drive people away from Yah through their harshness as opposed to operating in love. I have no need of that leavening in my life.
Wow you build an impressive fortress don't you.
I posted an ethical dilemma and my position for the choice I made. You don't have to agree with it and I don't have to justify it. I stated my basis for making the decision that I did. We are not justified by the law anyway.
I believe you came in here posting your dilemma to obtain positive affirmation to help your pride overcome that nagging doubt that is within you. And anyone who has the temerity to reply with anything less then glowing praise and admiration will get the "your a Pharisee" treatment.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Galation goes on to teach that we are not bound by the law of Moses. It is just a teaching tool for the spiritual children. Once you become spiritually mature, you have the ability to judge the situation on a case by case basis with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you demand that others follow the letter of the law by your understanding, it just goes to show your level of spiritual maturity.
The i ask once again why are you using the same law to seek to justify yourself in your actions.
If you wish to remain in bondage to the letter of the law, that is your option. If that is the case, stick to milk because you are not ready for 'strong meat'.
Oh Pleaseeeee. Stop pontificating down to me. I know full well that one is justified by the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. But i also know that one must Believe Jesus and not seek to justify their rebellion against the Word of Jesus. You can have all your sins atoned for if you stop seeking to justify them as righteousness. Your seeking to justify carnal warfare, is seeking to justify rebellion against the Words of Jesus. If you are one who believes Jesus you will not seek to justify your actions against His Word.

Jesus said:
John 6
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.


All of them.

If you are suggesting that we were in sin, then I suggest you worry about your own beam.
Oh i know i am a sinner. I am fully aware of the beam in my own eyes, But you see i am not trying to justify my sin am i? Who is trying to justify their sin here?
No, I am not justifying sin. IMO there was no sin. IMO for sin to exist, someone must be hurt by the events which isn't the case. Even IF there was, well then I have grace which is sufficient.
Yes you are your trying to justify your act of adultery.

Plus you’re trying to justify the catholic doctrine of justifiable war.

This isn't a situation that has repeated itself. I don't intend to ever be a surrogate father again so it isn't a big concern.
That’s a strange sentence. If what you did was a good thing then why not take every opportunity to do it as many times as you can?
I don't follow that 'loss of salvation' doctrine anyhow so don't concern yourself with trying to convince me of being in sin because my salvation may be as risk. It isn't.
You better be very sure about your position upon these matters because be assured God can spew you out into disbelief. That is if you have ever truly been in.
The lesson from this situation is the one from Galations. Use the law as a guide but be led by the spirit, not bondage to law. You have to make hard decisions and do what you feel is right on a case by case basis because not all situations are covered exactly within the law. It is more about learning the nature of Yah and doing the best we can within our own understanding while operating in love. As you learn more, Yah holds you to a higher level.
Yeah and when you later come to the realization that you have sinned against God then you do not stand stubbornly on your position because of self destructive pride. You acknowledge your sin to God in your heart and know that you are forgiven and rejoice at the atonement of the Messiah Jesus that covers your sin.
We were not in sin. There is nothing to repent of. This wasn't about satisfying lust with another man's wife. It was the gift of a child by a close friend that loved them that made it an exception to the sexual law.
If it was God's will that they remain childless for how ever long then who are you to intervene and commit adultery to produce a child? See i believe that through the Messiah Jesus all sins are forgiven. So this sin is no big problem for a Christian. IF they acknowledge their sin when convicted. But your not doing that are you? You’re proclaiming yourself as righteous in this matter. That you have done a good thing.
And who are you to dictate that it was Yah's will not to have that child? There you go again with that beam in your eye. I classify adultery as a violation of the trust with your spouse. In this case it was not a violation with my wife because it had her full blessing and it was a request made by the other couple after careful consideration.
You can classify it anyway you want to Elias. But the Word of God is the opinion that counts. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another mans wife is adultery. That’s the Word of God.
If you understand WHY adultery is sin it helps. Adultery can cause severe emotional problems. Generally it is done as punishment to a spouse. A woman that cheats on her husband because she is mad at him is an extremely evil thing to do. Stealing another man's wife is also an evil thing to do. It is theft from another man. Generally adultery is an indication of major problems within the relationship. It can also cause problems with the husband accepting and raising a child that might not be his own. That issue was covered before I even agreed and of course he knew it would not be his biological child but wanted to raise a child of his wife's own body. Those are the type things that makes adultery a sin. It is the harm that it causes. This was strictly a surrogate situation with no other purpose. So your classification of it as adultery is once again irrelevant. If you think it is sin, then my advice is don't be a surrogate father because it would obviously cause you problems.
Isaiah 55
6 Seek the LORD while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
8 “ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,� says the LORD.
9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Elias Jezebelsbane
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Moral Dilemma

Post #17

Post by Elias Jezebelsbane »

Adstar wrote:
Oh I am fully aware of that scripture dealing with spiritual warfare but how is it relevant to this situation?


That’s what i am engaged in with you Elias, right at this moment and i do not need a gun or a radar controlled missile as my weapons.
Lol, you think taking a judgmental self-righteous Pharisaical position while attacking other believers is doing spiritual warfare, you have my pity. Deal with your own demons.

Mt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Don't bother trying to turn me into twice the child of hell you are. I don't fall for that Pharisee poisoning.

END OF DISCUSSION.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #18

Post by micatala »

Elias Jezebelsbane wrote: Lol, you think taking a judgmental self-righteous Pharisaical position while attacking other believers is doing spiritual warfare, you have my pity. Deal with your own demons.

. . . .

Don't bother trying to turn me into twice the child of hell you are. I don't fall for that Pharisee poisoning.

END OF DISCUSSION.
Both of these comments are personal and uncivil.


:warning: Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Elias Jezebelsbane
Student
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Atlanta

Post #19

Post by Elias Jezebelsbane »

micatala wrote:
Elias Jezebelsbane wrote: Lol, you think taking a judgmental self-righteous Pharisaical position while attacking other believers is doing spiritual warfare, you have my pity. Deal with your own demons.

. . . .

Don't bother trying to turn me into twice the child of hell you are. I don't fall for that Pharisee poisoning.

END OF DISCUSSION.
Both of these comments are personal and uncivil.


:warning: Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Yet Yeshua said far harsher things to Pharisees that attacked him accusing Him of sin that didn't exist.

If you are going to be a just moderator, why not also a moderator warning against the attacks that spawned the responses? For example, being attacked for being a former member of the US military in a non-combat role isn't proof of sin or a lack of belief in Yah or our savior Yeshua! That's ridiculous and offensive to all Christians that have served in the military. Was David condemned by Yah for slaying Goliath?

TRUTH is often offensive to those in error.

Murad
Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Australia - Sydney

Post #20

Post by Murad »

:warning: Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.


Challenging moderator warnings in thread is not allowed, re-read the forum rules.
If you have any problems with a moderator warning, private messege he/she.

Elias Jezebelsbane wrote: Yet Yeshua said far harsher things to Pharisees that attacked him accusing Him of sin that didn't exist.

If you are going to be a just moderator, why not also a moderator warning against the attacks that spawned the responses? For example, being attacked for being a former member of the US military in a non-combat role isn't proof of sin or a lack of belief in Yah or our savior Yeshua! That's ridiculous and offensive to all Christians that have served in the military. Was David condemned by Yah for slaying Goliath?


TRUTH is often offensive to those in error.


______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" without being put to the test?
We have tested those before them, for GOD must distinguish those who are truthful, and He must expose the liars.

(Quran 29:2-3)

----
Why Jesus is NOT God
---

Post Reply