-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Adultery...bad?
- Thread starter Buttons*
- Start date
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
@Buttons* -- Nice thread. :clap
"The last time we combined church and state, we burned some witches at the stake in Salem, Mass."
Truly; how many Christians can honestly say that they have sat down and read the ENTIRE bible from cover to cover, without the aid of some priest telling them how to interpret each phrase and passage?
The bible, frankly, is a poorly written, violent, abuse-laden, trashy sex-novellette.
If you try to follow the actual book's edicts by the "letter of the law" then we'd be stoning adulterers, 3 year old children that talk back to their parents, young women who have sex prior to marriage, inter-racial couples, blasphemers, petty thieves, .....and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.....
Short of completely throwing out church dogma, then I suppose the next best thing is to have cloistered men tell us what to do, and how/what to read.
There is a LOT more in the bible on how most of the forum members here should be put to death, for questioning the "word of God" and working on the Sabbath, than there is about not tolerating homosexuality.
Because this is not a theocracy, and we have the concept of separation of church and state. Thank God!
"The last time we combined church and state, we burned some witches at the stake in Salem, Mass."
Yes, undeniably.
They don't get away with it. There is no Christian scriptural defense. It is simply a matter of cherry-picking lines from scripture to be lectured at the masses/congregation from the pulpit. . . . by men.Well, that's our conclusion.
Truly; how many Christians can honestly say that they have sat down and read the ENTIRE bible from cover to cover, without the aid of some priest telling them how to interpret each phrase and passage?
The bible, frankly, is a poorly written, violent, abuse-laden, trashy sex-novellette.
If you try to follow the actual book's edicts by the "letter of the law" then we'd be stoning adulterers, 3 year old children that talk back to their parents, young women who have sex prior to marriage, inter-racial couples, blasphemers, petty thieves, .....and the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.....
Short of completely throwing out church dogma, then I suppose the next best thing is to have cloistered men tell us what to do, and how/what to read.
There is a LOT more in the bible on how most of the forum members here should be put to death, for questioning the "word of God" and working on the Sabbath, than there is about not tolerating homosexuality.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
I have brought this up over and over within the anti-homesexual marriage threads.
You hear "protecting the sanctity of marriage" that its between a man and a woman while marraiges between "men and women" are falling apart every where you turn.
Even of those that never divorce how many of those marraiges are the couples actually loving and faithful?How many of the remaining 50% are the couples actually happy?
As another poster so thoughtfully pointed out you dont have to committ physical adultery and you dont have to legally divorce to be in a marriage that is dying or dead.
But then you have this outrage by some of the same people that its such an "insult" to marriages to allow two gay people that love each other to marry.
What I say is worry about your own marriage..
Love
Dallas
You hear "protecting the sanctity of marriage" that its between a man and a woman while marraiges between "men and women" are falling apart every where you turn.
Even of those that never divorce how many of those marraiges are the couples actually loving and faithful?How many of the remaining 50% are the couples actually happy?
As another poster so thoughtfully pointed out you dont have to committ physical adultery and you dont have to legally divorce to be in a marriage that is dying or dead.
But then you have this outrage by some of the same people that its such an "insult" to marriages to allow two gay people that love each other to marry.
What I say is worry about your own marriage..
Love
Dallas
On a Christian forum I once belonged to, I had a discussion with another Christian about an abused woman leaving her abusive husband. I said that she had every right to leave her husband (the same would go if a woman abused her husband) but he said that what Jesus said that she couldn't. I felt as thought that person was abusing God's word.
Finally, a preacher said that if someone commits adultery, that the spouse is free to leave him with no punishment, but the preacher also said that abuse is another "breaking of the marriage vows" and counts the same way. So, in that way, a woman could leave her abusive husband and not to penalized for it.
Finally, a preacher said that if someone commits adultery, that the spouse is free to leave him with no punishment, but the preacher also said that abuse is another "breaking of the marriage vows" and counts the same way. So, in that way, a woman could leave her abusive husband and not to penalized for it.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
On a Christian forum I once belonged to, I had a discussion with another Christian about an abused woman leaving her abusive husband. I said that she had every right to leave her husband (the same would go if a woman abused her husband) but he said that what Jesus said that she couldn't. I felt as thought that person was abusing God's word.
Finally, a preacher said that if someone commits adultery, that the spouse is free to leave him with no punishment, but the preacher also said that abuse is another "breaking of the marriage vows" and counts the same way. So, in that way, a woman could leave her abusive husband and not to penalized for it.
I agree..you have to look at the "big picture"..what God intended a marriage to be like.My understanding is our relationship with our spouse is supposed to be the closest resemblence of our relationship with God.Love your wife as Christ loved the church does not conjur up images a of Jesus beating a woman as part of that love.
Love
Dallas
linwood
Well-Known Member
You may not be very old Buttons but you are very wise.
I don`t have any input about your OP as the same question has bothered me often.
Well, I don't know many Christian churches who advocate stoning anyone, but at least in the regard of divorce, remarriage and adultery, I think that the Catholic position is generally consistent. They're very much against all of them and probably spend much more time addressing these issues on a day-to-day basis than they do condemning same-sex marriage.
When I got married, I had a chance to see the lengths they go to in order to prevent divorce, like marriage preparation classes, and making it clear that Church-run marriage counseling services would always be available if we needed them.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Good for them.
Again ..good for them.
Love
Dallas
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Because Jesus didnt I suppose..I believe it was along the lines of go ahead and throw stones at this woman..if you yourself have never committed a sin..
Love
Dallas
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I can give you a full explanation of that if you like. But let's start with this basic premise -
Most people take those verses completely out of context - thus skewering their meaning.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
First of all, keep in mind the AUDIENCE that the bible verses are addressing.
Secondly, read the entire chapter and take into consideration the bigger point that the passage is making - is it really a passage about marriage and divorce, or is it a GENERALIZATION using marriage to make a larger point?
Thirdly, also keep in mind that God is merciful.
Secondly, read the entire chapter and take into consideration the bigger point that the passage is making - is it really a passage about marriage and divorce, or is it a GENERALIZATION using marriage to make a larger point?
Thirdly, also keep in mind that God is merciful.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Ok. We're waiting for the proper context. How about giving it a shot?
Is this toward homosexuals who would like to get married as well?
What's better in God's eyes....a Christian homosexual couple who marry and stay married for life
Or:
A Christian who marries multiple times during their lifetime?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
I would expand on this..I dont believe the "goal" is to simply stay married for life.
What IS a marriage?..It isnt "just" a legal contract.
The goal is much more involved than that..
Whether you are gay or straight.
Love
Dallas
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Yeah, I know what you mean. Still, I think we're talking about "sin" in particular. Why is the "sin" of adultery overlooked to a large degree yet supposed homosexual "sin" is hammered and hammered upon?
Several years ago I brought the subject up of gluttony and tried to draw a parallel along these lines. Why is the sin of gluttony and obesity tolerated in the church but homosexuality is not? Same thing as adultery and remarriage in my eyes.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
I do not have the answer..Except I truly beleive it has to do with a persons "innate" fear and insecurity about them own selves..
And a persons "unwillingess" to step outside their own self for one second and see life through the eyes of another that is not just like them..
Love
Dallas
lunamoth
Will to love
Yes, adultery is bad. It's betraying a trust and hurting a relationship with someone you've promised to be faithful to. The 'other person' is essentially taking something that does not belong to them, which is something most of the ten commandments boil down to forbidding.
Jesus did not come to give us a new set of laws, but he did open up the laws that we already had and taught that we are to obey the spirit of the law (love and get along with each other) rather than the letter of the law (which if done rigidly works against love).
So, the 'commandment' that Jesus taught was to love one another as he loves us.
He 'explained' the laws on divorce as in effect because we are so unmerciful toward each other, so hard on each other, so unable to love each other. Divorce is like tearing flesh...painful and leaves scars. The infidelities and betrayals and things we do to hurt each other that lead to divorce are all sin. The brokenness of the relationship, the pain caused to the children, all are the sin.
That does not mean we can't be forgiven for that brokenness or that we can't be healed.
Jesus was not giving a new law that said 'you may not divorce (or remarry).' He was stating clearly what happens when we betray and hurt each other.
Having said that, I agree that judging homosexuals for wanting to have committed loving relationships is missing the mark, and so if you are going to do that why do you permit divorce or remarriage or why don't we hear sermons about gluttony?
But someone asked for a scriptural support for all this. Scripture, like the law, needs to be interpretted in the light of compassion and reason. And this is done in the context of beloved community rather than a court of law and judgement.
Jesus did not come to give us a new set of laws, but he did open up the laws that we already had and taught that we are to obey the spirit of the law (love and get along with each other) rather than the letter of the law (which if done rigidly works against love).
So, the 'commandment' that Jesus taught was to love one another as he loves us.
He 'explained' the laws on divorce as in effect because we are so unmerciful toward each other, so hard on each other, so unable to love each other. Divorce is like tearing flesh...painful and leaves scars. The infidelities and betrayals and things we do to hurt each other that lead to divorce are all sin. The brokenness of the relationship, the pain caused to the children, all are the sin.
That does not mean we can't be forgiven for that brokenness or that we can't be healed.
Jesus was not giving a new law that said 'you may not divorce (or remarry).' He was stating clearly what happens when we betray and hurt each other.
Having said that, I agree that judging homosexuals for wanting to have committed loving relationships is missing the mark, and so if you are going to do that why do you permit divorce or remarriage or why don't we hear sermons about gluttony?
But someone asked for a scriptural support for all this. Scripture, like the law, needs to be interpretted in the light of compassion and reason. And this is done in the context of beloved community rather than a court of law and judgement.
I will not marry people who have been divorced unless their partner was the adulterer.
I agree with that. An expression of man comes to mind here. Once a cheater always a cheater. I refuse to date anyone that has cheated on their partner. I have never cheated I expect the same out of my mate. Maybe it explains why I am still single, but eh whatever.
blackout
Violet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathryn
I can give you a full explanation of that if you like. But let's start with this basic premise -
Most people take those verses completely out of context - thus skewering their meaning.
Ok. We're waiting for the proper context. How about giving it a shot?
I would love to hear the proper context & full explination myself Kathryn.
I hope you will come back and post again.
I have always wondered about this, even as a traditional christian,
how christians rationalized away this teaching.
(as I have always seen it)