Adultery...bad?

[Green Gaia]

Homosexuality Is Not A LIfestyle

Funny how queers have lifestyles while straights just have lives....

:rainbow1:

Indeed.

 

[Kathryn]

Funny how queers have lifestyles while straights just have lives....

:rainbow1:

Listen, lots of ways of living, sexual orientations, and philosophies are lifestyles.

What I mean is this:

I am heterosexual. That's not a LIFESTYLE per se, but if I was a heterosexual that prefered a different sexual partner every week, that would be my heterosexual LIFESTYLE. If I prefered serial monogamy, that would be my heterosexual LIFESTYLE. If I preferred to remain married and faithful to one man my entire life, that would be my heterosexual LIFESTYLE.

If I, as a Christian, decided that I was going to shack up with someone, or have regular, casual sex, then my confessions and "repentence" to God would be pretty meaningless, because my LIFESTYLE would be in violation of my Christian beliefs.

That's what I mean by lifestyle. It doesn't matter whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual - my belief is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That is what I believe Christianity teaches. I also believe that the bible teaches that marriage is between heterosexuals.

Two heterosexuals who are not married but having sex are no "better" than two homosexuals having sex.

My point is this - divorce is usually an isolated event. A one-night stand is an isolated event. If either of those becomes a REGULAR event, then that is a lifestyle, not an abberation. In order to be forgiven, I believe one must repent of a lifestyle and change that lifestyle.

That is what I mean by a lifestyle - if a person doesn't repent and intends fully to continue in a series of behaviors - that's a lifestyle - not an isolated event.

Now, I don't expect you or many others here to agree with me on this - and that's OK. You're free to those opinions, lifestyles, philosophies, etc. and I wouldn't dream of infringing on your rights to practice those beliefs.

Believe me, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest here. Upholding Christian principles rarely makes one popular anyway.

 

[raybo]

In this context, when Jesus makes broad sweeping remarks about divorce and remarriage, he is speaking generally and figuratively. I believe he is saying, "Don't try so hard to justify your selfish actions when you're contemplating divorce. Remember, this is very serious business. Divorce for selfish reasons is wrong, and when you remarry after a frivolous divorce, it's nothing more than adultery. My perfect plan is that one man and one woman remain married for a lifetime." There's that high standard again.

Say that a couple divorces FOR THE WRONG REASONS, and one party remarries. I think then that the other party is free to remarry. That's because regardless of the validity of the original divorce, the first remarriage now constitutes an act of adultery, and the first marriage is now null and void. This leaves the other party free to remarry without that marriage being adulterous.

In post #37 Kathryn the context is fully explained and realized. In post #39 the portrayal of the relationship with the divine is re-enacted. The truth must be reduced to its purest, so as to eliminate the wiggle room that half truths seem to permit.

Will you comment on these posts?

 

[Kathryn]

In post #37 Kathryn the context is fully explained and realized. In post #39 the portrayal of the relationship with the divine is re-enacted. The truth must be reduced to its purest, so as to eliminate the wiggle room that half truths seem to permit.

Will you comment on these posts?

Raybo, you seem like a nice person and that's why I didn't comment on those posts before, but since you've pressed the issue I'll respond.

I've read them both a couple of times and for the life of me I can't see what "truth reduced to it's purest" that you're talking about. I hear some nice phrases but I can't find your central point and how it would relate to my posts.

Sorry.

 

[raybo]

Kathryn,

Yes, Sorry! It is a summation of much discussion. Yet the validity... is revealed and is the root of much of what you speak. Saying what is to come, seldom makes one "nice" in a secular or "religious" arena.

The paradox... is if one is to embrace the love of God, while denying one aspect... that unites that love... then they are returned to the dance of former measures served.

Here, if one wishes to engage in the divine. In simple terms "be spiritual", they are constantly confronted with mystical roadblocks that prevent them from moving further, on their spiritual path.

Definition:[FONT=&quot]A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction; or the puzzling result is not really a contradiction; or the premises themselves are not all really true (or, cannot all be true together).

[/FONT]The last part, "or cannot all be true together" is the key.

Some have already said that justification is all that matters the most, in this. This is very much the point. In these justifications, the masculine and feminine will continue to dance... without uniting as one and in peace... as was declared in the book of Genesis.

Here, the two cannot become one. If one was to justify, that the desire of their love for another will stand... while denying one aspect of the whole, either masculine or feminine... they will not find peace in it.

For instance, one does not return to the source, uniting the all, while they remain divided in some way. They are returned to embrace their divisiveness until that has been "corrected". Initially, it is easier to see in same-sex relations than in adultery.

First for same sex coupling, the union cannot consummate... as a union. That is not to say that many of said relations should not be the envy of many heterosexuals. Let me add here, that with a few insightful looks, the "initial" differences between Hetero and Homo relations can readily be broken down, such that any difference's are only the matter of choice and acceptance pending one's justifications.

Consider: This is but one story! An everfree embraces a same sex brother who in his joy to justify his same-sex desires would scream (internally and externally), it is his right and honor to be as he is, and that he is totally happy with his position. Only when "unconditional love" falls on him, and such love is not shaken when exposed to willful canter and desire... then he can move beyond from what was binding... letting go and accepting (the divine) and further measures of repentance. In any case, he was actually miserable trying to justify what he had become, even more so, as he was overcome in this love. Facing "unconditional" love, the "causes" of bitterness and longing are soon completely uprooted. What he did or does with that... is no easy road! What is cool is that he/she often stand at the front of the line... in their insights.

Adultery has the same roots of justification as in same-sex relations. Some use the term, "love the sinner and hate the sin". However, in most cases it is not sin that instigates either... and it is very much an over simplification. Mostly, it is in our own seductions (internal and external) and while holding to temporal ideals... does one get caught up so.

Surely it can be seen... that the love of an everfree, a spiritual guru, her/his love would surpass the love of an adulterer or same-sex relations. Guru as defined is explained in a few ways:

The word comes from the sanskrit root "gru" literally
meaning heavy, weighty. Another etymology claimed in Hindu scriptures is that of
dispeller of darkness (wherein darkness is seen as avidya lack of knowledge both
spiritual and intellectual), 'gu' meaning darkness, and 'ru' meaning
dispeller.
The syllable gu means shadows
The syllable ru, he who disperses them,
Because of the power to disperse darkness
the guru is thus named.
Another popular etymology claims that the syllables gu (ग&#2369 and ru
(र&#2370, stand for darkness and light, respectively, providing the
esoteric meaning that the guru is somebody who leads the disciple from the
darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge.

Exposed to this... the love in adultery and/or same -sex relations is stalled. What was said above, "That the love of an everfree would surpass the love of one who holds to adultery or same sex relations." This cannot be denied, and explains in part why conditional love is returned to the dance, until such inner measures of one's life are fathomed.

Blessings!

ray

 

[raybo]

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied. 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44 " 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." ' [e]
45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Kathyrn,

Just curious:

you state

If I, as a Christian, decided that I was going to shack up with someone, or have regular, casual sex, then my confessions and "repentence" to God would be pretty meaningless, because my LIFESTYLE would be in violation of my Christian beliefs.

If you were not a christian then?
Rather lets discuss about humans before Christ, did they all go to Hell?

Love & rgds

 

[Imagist]

Listen, lots of ways of living, sexual orientations, and philosophies are lifestyles.

What I mean is this:

I am heterosexual. That's not a LIFESTYLE per se, but if I was a heterosexual that prefered a different sexual partner every week, that would be my heterosexual LIFESTYLE. If I prefered serial monogamy, that would be my heterosexual LIFESTYLE. If I preferred to remain married and faithful to one man my entire life, that would be my heterosexual LIFESTYLE.

If I, as a Christian, decided that I was going to shack up with someone, or have regular, casual sex, then my confessions and "repentence" to God would be pretty meaningless, because my LIFESTYLE would be in violation of my Christian beliefs.

That's what I mean by lifestyle. It doesn't matter whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual - my belief is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That is what I believe Christianity teaches. I also believe that the bible teaches that marriage is between heterosexuals.

Two heterosexuals who are not married but having sex are no "better" than two homosexuals having sex.

My point is this - divorce is usually an isolated event. A one-night stand is an isolated event. If either of those becomes a REGULAR event, then that is a lifestyle, not an abberation. In order to be forgiven, I believe one must repent of a lifestyle and change that lifestyle.

That is what I mean by a lifestyle - if a person doesn't repent and intends fully to continue in a series of behaviors - that's a lifestyle - not an isolated event.

To say that divorce is an isolated event comparable to a one-night-stand is preposterous. One doesn't just get in one fight and then get divorced and then repent and live a pure life from then on. Divorce takes a few weeks at a minimum to work out in legal terms. And that doesn't even count the fact that divorce is simply one stage in many of a married couple's decisions. Usually there are months of fighting beforehand, and especially when children are involved, the process of separation can last for years before and after the actual divorce. Often divorce is caused by poor decisions in getting married to begin with.

So while I wouldn't necessarily say that divorce is a lifestyle, I WOULD say that it is indicative of a certain type of lifestyle which is very comparable to long term homosexuality.

 

[J Bryson]

OK, since we're debating what the bible says and doesn't say about divorce and homosexuality, here are some additional verses related to homosexuality:

1 Timothy 1:8-10:


8But we know that (A)the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9realizing the fact that (B)law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and (C)rebellious, for the (D)ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and (E)profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and (F)immoral men and (G)homosexuals and (H)kidnappers and (I)liars and (J)perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to (K)sound teaching,

Leviticus 18:22:

22'(A)You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:


9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.

Jude 1:7:

7just as (A)Sodom and Gomorrah and the (B)cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and (C)went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an (D)example in undergoing the (E)punishment of eternal fire.



Romans 1:26-28:


26For this reason (A)God gave them over to (B)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (C)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (D)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

Just so you know where Christians get "this crazy idea that homosexual behavior goes against the Christian faith."

I believe the debate was actually about what Jesus himself said, not the Bible.

 

[raybo]

We should probably be taking this FAR more seriously than gay marriage/homosexuality because there are only about three verses in the OT about it, and nothing in the NT. So why aren't we stoning adulterers? Why are we ok with being married a second or third time? Isn't that MORE detrimental to the family unit than say, two homosexual parents?

Why aren't we as hardcore on stoning adulterers than we are with condemning two people who want to love one another?

Buttons,

The premise of your thoughts are weighed correctly. As you share, Yeshua (Jesus) was not inspired to share much more regarding homosexuality, than his Father had already shared in the Torah. Marriage and the tradition of divorce more so.

Marriage was exemplified by the Prophet Mohammad (May he rest in peace!). He was exemplary with regards to widows of good stature and the sanctity of the marriage. The accounts of Hinduism were initially equally defined. Tradition's such as with Hinduism and Israel clearly got caught up after time... stirring the waters of accountability to the sanctity and duty of the householder in marriage. Yet, the truth is seen when such accounts are weighed and you "buttons" have done so. The purity of "tradition" not so and should be shrived for by all. In truth those measures of accountability are lost to secular societies each day. Yet, they are constantly striving for this.

In the secular society where accountability to any tribe or heritage is unfounded, such thoughts as divorce or same-sex relations get weighed or reduced to fundamentals lived. Two consenting adults... is a line that is abhorrent to heritage, genealogy, and family. No Prophet would share such sentiment.

Imagine, an only son or the oldest son coming home to his father declaring his love to another man. He, in one stroke denounces the inheritance and birth rite of himself and his father. Denies his mother a grandson or daughter and denies the patriarchs, his grandparents, their position as elders to entice and encourage the depth of family matters. This is only the beginning of such insight!

The same one comes home and declares he is getting divorce. Again he denounces the energy, love and compassion that has been shared freely by all. Denies his son or daughter their birthrite and with extended family divides all love shared.

Just as a father/mother should not deny his love to his son... no matter what! This one applauds those parents confronted so! No son, will be appeased in the divine, or in their spirit, if they unilaterally do so... standing opposed to all of the above. Alas! The paradox will stand. Any peace found in this is blinded. Seduction, (internal or external) is oft the root cause. One should beware of such things. In an ideal world they would be!

No offense intended! It just is!

 

[Kathryn]

I believe the debate was actually about what Jesus himself said, not the Bible.

Christians take the entire bible into account when defining doctrine. All that Jesus said is true but all that Jesus said is NOT recounted in the bible. There is biblical truth outside of the recorded words of Christ.

 

[Kathryn]

Friend Kathyrn,

Just curious:

you state


If you were not a christian then?
Rather lets discuss about humans before Christ, did they all go to Hell?

Love & rgds

Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Before His sacrifice on the cross, man was condemned to live by the Law - which was a standard impossible for man to attain. That is why there had to be ritual sacrifice - which Jesus' death did away with. He became the sacrifice. He taught us to live by the SPIRIT of the Law, rather than by the LETTER of the Law.

As for the people born before Jesus, I believe that God is infinitely wise and inifinitely holy, and I trust the souls of every individual in His hands. He can and will judge each of us much more accurately than we judge each other.

 

[Kathryn]

To say that divorce is an isolated event comparable to a one-night-stand is preposterous. One doesn't just get in one fight and then get divorced and then repent and live a pure life from then on. Divorce takes a few weeks at a minimum to work out in legal terms. And that doesn't even count the fact that divorce is simply one stage in many of a married couple's decisions. Usually there are months of fighting beforehand, and especially when children are involved, the process of separation can last for years before and after the actual divorce. Often divorce is caused by poor decisions in getting married to begin with.

So while I wouldn't necessarily say that divorce is a lifestyle, I WOULD say that it is indicative of a certain type of lifestyle which is very comparable to long term homosexuality.

Of course I realize that divorce happens over time. My point is this - once a divorce happens, if a person repents of their past actions, and does what they can to rectify the situation, at some point this whole series of events becomes THE PAST. You have to move on, with whatever options are left to you. The repentent divorcee has to move forward - take responsibility for where they are today, try to right whatever wrongs they've done, and make future decisions in a godly manner.

This differs greatly from, say, someone who has one shack up relationship after another, and who never intends to stop that behavior, who doesn't see anything wrong with it and continues in that lifestyle.

 

[raybo]

"Now, Teacher, "they said, "what have you to say about this woman? She's an adulteress caught in the very act. Moses' Law says to stone such a woman, what do you say?" Jesus bent over and began to write in the dust. They kept after him: "Moses says stone her, what do you say?"
He straightened up. "Go ahead," he said, "stone her. But let the first stone be thrown by a man who has never sinned. "Again he bent over and traced words in the dust. One by one the men slipped away, from the eldest to the youngest, and Jesus and the woman were left alone.
He straightened up. "Where are your accusers, woman?" he said. "Is there no one to condemn you?" "No one sir." "Nor do I. Go now, and don't sin again."


Such wisdom as revealed, is weighed from a scale of truth. Wow! Within each response here, there is no one who could qualify to throw that first stone. Yet, in each there are measures that are blameless or can witness to what is blameless. First for the religious as well as for the atheist. All exclusions to what is not seen... we should consider all the more.

One must consider their thoughts as free of bias, coveting and false witness before acts of adultery and sexuality are even to be considered.

Buttons,

To rally the troops toward righteousness is pretty cool stuff. Hoping your inquiry has been beneficial to you... as it has been for me and hopefully others.

Could i ask, "What is your summary by what has been shared so far"?

P.S. Kathryn, hoping you do not feel it too weighty to respond to some of this stuff? I will confess it was more readily realized to me, as i explored divine insights by several religious teachings. This can be deemed offensive by some Christians to do so. Yet, the love that this one has gained by doing so... is far from anything offensive.

Blessings!

ray
​

 

[Kathryn]

Hi, Ray,

You're not offending me in any way, but I am having a truly hard time deciphering your way of writing/talking. I'm not critisizing you - maybe you're too intelligent for me to follow.

Pax.

 

[Imagist]

Of course I realize that divorce happens over time. My point is this - once a divorce happens, if a person repents of their past actions, and does what they can to rectify the situation, at some point this whole series of events becomes THE PAST. You have to move on, with whatever options are left to you. The repentent divorcee has to move forward - take responsibility for where they are today, try to right whatever wrongs they've done, and make future decisions in a godly manner.

This differs greatly from, say, someone who has one shack up relationship after another, and who never intends to stop that behavior, who doesn't see anything wrong with it and continues in that lifestyle.

All you're doing is choosing when to analyze the action. A person could choose to have wild gay orgies daily until they got too old to get it up and lost their sex drive. Then, if that person repents of their past actions, and does what they can to rectify the situation, at some point this whole series of events becomes THE PAST. They have to move on, with whatever options are left to them. The repentant homosexual has to move forward - take responsibility for where they are today, try to right whatever wrongs they've done, and make future decisions in a godly manner. (Your own words).

This in no way differs from the repentant divorcee. You've simply chosen to analyze the homosexual while they are living their lifestyle, and the divorcee after they have conveniently repented for their lifestyle. Frankly, this comes off as dishonest.

In my opinion, neither homosexuality nor divorce is wrong. Both merely have a great deal of potential to be done in the wrong way (heterosexual sex is no different). But neither is inherently harmful to anyone.

 

[blackout]

Christians take the entire bible into account when defining doctrine. All that Jesus said is true but all that Jesus said is NOT recounted in the bible. There is biblical truth outside of the recorded words of Christ.

Why would you make such an assumption Kathryn?
I AM serious here. Not pushing your buttons or anything.
It is quite a generalization to substantiate.
I mean... WHO SAYS?

There are christians who reject Paul outright.
Christians who find all they need in the gospels.

There are Gnostic christians who have an ENTIRELY different "doctrinal" spin.
(which I for one find much more enriching and interpretively resonant and wonder-filled and richly beautiful)
Not to mention MORE "bible" to support their interpretations.

Why are you all so trusting of the people who compiled this book?
I don't get it.
I should start a new thread.

 

[Imagist]

Christians take the entire bible into account when defining doctrine.

I have to agree with UltraViolet here. It simply isn't true. The Old Testament, in particular, is often maligned by Christians trying to get out of a sticky debate when I bring up verses like,

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

[Buttons*]

Buttons,

To rally the troops toward righteousness is pretty cool stuff. Hoping your inquiry has been beneficial to you... as it has been for me and hopefully others.

Could i ask, "What is your summary by what has been shared so far"?

Blessings!

ray
[/LEFT]

Well, it certainly is interesting to me. Earlier I made a post that outlined how I felt about the responses, so I'll give you an updated version of that:

It seems that in other discussions that begin with "Is homosexuality wrong?" end up with many hurt feelings. The truth is that most of the people posting threads like that are, themselves, not fans of Christianity in general, and are almost aiming to get a reaction.

But if we ask the question as I have posed it, you see Christians saying, "We know divorce is wrong. As good Christians, it should be a worse offense than gay marriage. In general, people should live and let live, even though I don't feel that gay marriage is scripturally ok, same with divorce."

We see that most Christians on RF actually don't feel that divorce is ok while gay marriage is not. They feel that divorce is actually terrible, and a serious problem within the church that demands more attention than it has had. In this way, we have seen that they do take it upon themselves to act in according to what they believe, and aren't trying to push it upon others unless others start the battle first.

I think that in summary, it's sufficient to say that shouting "you're not open minded enough" from both sides is clearly not the way to understand the issue of gay marriage OR divorce.

 

[raybo]

I think that in summary, it's sufficient to say that shouting "you're not open minded enough" from both sides is clearly not the way to understand the issue of gay marriage OR divorce.

Buttons,

Yes! Thanks for that! Well said! Most... all replies are therefore pointed from the vantage that is seen. In that... each has its own validity. When the divine points to action...any action that mankind has encountered, the response must be in context to what has been witnessed, shared and/or learned. Trying to reduce such responses regarding the, as to why... will in time expose/reveal the truth behind it. This one was exposed to the paradox some time ago and it "fit". Only it could only fit when i was of right intent to "see". For the record: Such matters as bias, desire and longings had to be set aside first. In time, what remains is simply love unconditional. If i was to sit with another, any other and share with compassion and understanding empowered by this love any division between the two will be overcome. Here, in time one is no longer hetero, homo, bi or anything else including acts or measures that are deemed sinful. Each decision decree, covenant and or law was/is designed to expose this. She/he who has ears... and so on. Oft what happens is the great imitator interjects and one is spiraled upon lust as a substitute and much else. Lust being the greatest imitator in all of it. The Buddha had shared much in this.

Kathryn,

For consideration: Imagine a continuum of outreaches by the divine over thousands of years. Each adding another element consistent to the last... and to the next. This i have found by exploring the scriptures of each. I was first taken a back, because what of the little ones (myself) who had prescribed to but one teaching. There seemed to be so many pieces that were missing from another that could have helped so. Then i was profoundly assured... that to anyone who has lived, from the time the first devotee's had laid to pen there insights... all who seek could/would readily find. That takes quite a leap of faith. Christians have the hardest time followed by Islamics. Yet, again the impostor/imitator has driven this wedge. Any who move beyond it (division)... will "know" what is shared in this. This is true, not because i say it... but as all is one who actually does so. It is nice to find the likes of these for sure.

Namaste!

ray