Posted: Jun 05, 2011 10:43 am
CookieJon wrote:
That's not what you just said. You're splitting hairs now between violent and non-violent punishments when a second ago you said biblical doctrine dictates forgiveness, not punishment.
Would you like to retract your previous answer?
No, not really, when "turn the other cheek and go the second mile" are all non-violent solutions found in biblical doctrine. So combine it with the concept and doctrine of forgiveness and I would imagine its easy to say that a man beating is wife is unreasonable punishment.
However, resorting to brutality because a wife was "unfaithful" is sickening.
To whom? That's just your opinion. Where's the biblical doctrine that says it's "sickening"??
The sickening part is of course my opinion, but I based it off of biblical doctrine. The biggest is the concept of forgiveness. If my non-existent wife committed adultery on me, who has she hurt aside from me? The "sin" was personally against me, no one else. If she was unfaithful, why was she? How much do I love her? If I loved her would I seriously condemn her to death. Joseph could have publicly declared Mary defiled and unfaithful but instead of having her killed or beaten, was going to send her away. A "non-violent solution" to adultery.
If husbands are commanded to love their wife, and she proved unfaithful, should that not stop the husband and make him wonder whether truly loved her and if he was the reason she was unfaithful? I'd give her the benefit of doubt.
Again, that's just you. I want biblical doctrine.
Surely you're not now arguing that the Bible has to be interpreted according to the values of the society?? Surely not, WIll!!!
No, there are concepts found within the Bible that are dependent and change on and with the society. The biggest that comes to my head is Paul's teachings that guys should not have long hair and woman should not have short hair. This is not Paul giving a command, but a societal "suggestion."