Biblically speaking (NT), is an adulterous man, divorced woman, or homosexual, the worst sinner?
Christians use the new testament to show what conduct is expected from a Christian.
I think the Ten Commandments make it clear that adultery and homosexuality are on an equal standing. Whether you believe all sin is equal, or some sins are worse than others, these two conducts are seen to be lascivious in nature, and therefore sinful. According to a strict interpretation of the New Testament, they are both a sinful departure from the Holy Plan of one marriage union. They are both a departure from Matthew [10:7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.
We should all have a common understanding of homosexuality, and the Bible does not say much about it.
As for adultery, the Bible has a fair amount to say about it.
~ ~ ~
Matt. [5:32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
So any woman who is divorced, is a fornicator, or an adulteress.
Also, whoever marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. Not just committing a single act of adultery, but engaging in an adulteress life style.
~ ~ ~
Matt. [10:12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
A divorced woman who remarries commits adultery (lives an adulterous life style).
~ ~ ~
Luke [16:18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Any man who divorces and remarries commits adultery, and any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
~ ~ ~
So any man who remarries is an adulterer, any man who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer, in other words, divorce and remarriage always results in adultery. Not just a one time occurrence of adultery, but a life style of adultery.
Also, a man who divorces a woman, causes her to be an adulterer (or she was a fornicator), so divorce itself causes or is a sure sign of adultery.
The only time divorce would be acceptable, would be if neither were fornicators, they got divorced, and neither one ever got married or had sexual relations with someone else.
Biblically (NT) speaking, any person who marries a divorced person, or is divorced and remarries, is just as sinful as a homosexual.
Can it be seen any other way?
Biblically (NT) speaking, which is worse?
Moderator: Moderators
-
MagusYanam
- Guru
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
- Location: Providence, RI (East Side)
Post #2
Hmmm... a good question. I personally think adultery to be the worst crime among these three, since if a man commits adultery against his wife, he is not only hurting himself and his own interests by being dishonest, if he is found out the result for his wife would be psychologically devastating. Not to mention that for the kids. Adultery is, in my book, a terrible thing for any couple or any family to have to go through.
Divorce is a very grey area. Most churches nowadays do condone divorce - my church (Episcopalian) actually got its start that way. Henry VIII wanted to divorce his first wife (I think) and the Pope wouldn't allow it. My opinion? Divorce, where one of the couple is abusive or hurtful to his / her partner, is justified - all the same, it is not something to be taken lightly. That was what Jesus was preaching against in the Sermon on the Mount - it seems he felt blame rested more on the husband and any who would take advantage of the divorced wife than on the divorced wife herself. Note the language - 'causeth her to commit adultery'. His point was made against a man putting his wife off frivolously.
Homosexuality is also a very grey area. Oft-cited epistolary and Leviticus quotes given in condemnation of homosexuality are, in fact, only condemnations of certain homosexual acts and male prostitution. Homosexual orientation is inherited, so unless you believe in original sin it shouldn't fall under condemnation. Gay marriage is a tricky issue and I haven't really gotten off the fence as of yet. There are aspects of gay marriage that frankly worry me (should they be able to adopt kids?), but I find the hate-mongering and hypocrisy of the opposing side repugnant in the extreme.
So, worst of the three? Adultery, I'd have to say.
Divorce is a very grey area. Most churches nowadays do condone divorce - my church (Episcopalian) actually got its start that way. Henry VIII wanted to divorce his first wife (I think) and the Pope wouldn't allow it. My opinion? Divorce, where one of the couple is abusive or hurtful to his / her partner, is justified - all the same, it is not something to be taken lightly. That was what Jesus was preaching against in the Sermon on the Mount - it seems he felt blame rested more on the husband and any who would take advantage of the divorced wife than on the divorced wife herself. Note the language - 'causeth her to commit adultery'. His point was made against a man putting his wife off frivolously.
Homosexuality is also a very grey area. Oft-cited epistolary and Leviticus quotes given in condemnation of homosexuality are, in fact, only condemnations of certain homosexual acts and male prostitution. Homosexual orientation is inherited, so unless you believe in original sin it shouldn't fall under condemnation. Gay marriage is a tricky issue and I haven't really gotten off the fence as of yet. There are aspects of gay marriage that frankly worry me (should they be able to adopt kids?), but I find the hate-mongering and hypocrisy of the opposing side repugnant in the extreme.
So, worst of the three? Adultery, I'd have to say.
Convolution or direct?
Post #3Repent!
There is a big difference to a fallen sinner calling out to a forgiving God and an individual who looks at God and claims there is nothing to be forgiven of for God "made" them the way they "are."
Adultery, the worst sin?
David AND Bathsheba "IS" the example of adultery and are the prototypical adulterers.
Both were forgiven it seems by the text. Though, both could not stop the consequences for their sins. David's family as virtually all do, suffered from the chaos of infidelity.
The children of that union between David and Bathsheba went on to be the fathers (genealogically) of both Mary and Joseph. I would guess from the text that forgiveness does indeed carry with it forgetfullness.
Homosexuals refuse to believe they have done wrong or are doing anything wrong. Even the promiscuity inherent in homosexual behavior is wiped away by excuse. Excuse is not repentance. Excuse is denial of fact. And judgment is rendered on that accord.
Homosexuals are unrepentent. I'm using their own assertions on this and not my own judgments. They will not accept forgiveness because they are not guilty in their own eyes.
"All have sinned and fall. . ." That means all of us.
/ / / / / / / / / /
Now, I interject my own "common sense" and "logic" and do not dare speak for holiness in this matter. But, there is also inherent in heterosexuality (which is a gross redundancy) a natural explanation for promiscuity. There is the exact opposite for unnatural sexuality. The desire for offspring drives the nature of every living thing.
/ / / / / / / / / /
There is a parabale about just looking at a women with lust. There is no comparison for unnatural sexual behavior. The Gospel's silence on homosexuality IS deafening in its directness.
But, forgiveness of sins is limitless in any and every case. But the "sinner" must repent. And then, the sin is sent (infinitley) as far as the East is from the West.
There is a big difference to a fallen sinner calling out to a forgiving God and an individual who looks at God and claims there is nothing to be forgiven of for God "made" them the way they "are."
Adultery, the worst sin?
David AND Bathsheba "IS" the example of adultery and are the prototypical adulterers.
Both were forgiven it seems by the text. Though, both could not stop the consequences for their sins. David's family as virtually all do, suffered from the chaos of infidelity.
The children of that union between David and Bathsheba went on to be the fathers (genealogically) of both Mary and Joseph. I would guess from the text that forgiveness does indeed carry with it forgetfullness.
Homosexuals refuse to believe they have done wrong or are doing anything wrong. Even the promiscuity inherent in homosexual behavior is wiped away by excuse. Excuse is not repentance. Excuse is denial of fact. And judgment is rendered on that accord.
Homosexuals are unrepentent. I'm using their own assertions on this and not my own judgments. They will not accept forgiveness because they are not guilty in their own eyes.
"All have sinned and fall. . ." That means all of us.
/ / / / / / / / / /
Now, I interject my own "common sense" and "logic" and do not dare speak for holiness in this matter. But, there is also inherent in heterosexuality (which is a gross redundancy) a natural explanation for promiscuity. There is the exact opposite for unnatural sexuality. The desire for offspring drives the nature of every living thing.
/ / / / / / / / / /
There is a parabale about just looking at a women with lust. There is no comparison for unnatural sexual behavior. The Gospel's silence on homosexuality IS deafening in its directness.
But, forgiveness of sins is limitless in any and every case. But the "sinner" must repent. And then, the sin is sent (infinitley) as far as the East is from the West.
-
BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Post #4
You have made no claim that my biblical proof is incorrect. I assume you accept it.
You would have to be extremely delusional to believe that most of the re-married couples feel they are doing anything wrong. Of those who are not “true believers”, virtually none of them are repentant. They feel just as justified in their actions as the homosexuals, for good reason I might add.
BTW, When David married Bathsheba he had the discretion to wait until she was widowed, so they were not the prototypical adulterers of divorced persons who remarry. You need to read your bible a little closer.
You are making the ridicules claim that the difference between divorced people who remarry and homosexuals living as a couple is that the re-marrieds are repentant, and ask forgiveness of God for their life of sin, whereas the homosexuals do not.Homosexuals refuse to believe they have done wrong or are doing anything wrong. Even the promiscuity inherent in homosexual behavior is wiped away by excuse. Excuse is not repentance. Excuse is denial of fact. And judgment is rendered on that accord.
You would have to be extremely delusional to believe that most of the re-married couples feel they are doing anything wrong. Of those who are not “true believers”, virtually none of them are repentant. They feel just as justified in their actions as the homosexuals, for good reason I might add.
BTW, When David married Bathsheba he had the discretion to wait until she was widowed, so they were not the prototypical adulterers of divorced persons who remarry. You need to read your bible a little closer.
Post #5
Odd moral position. I don't want to sink to insulting prose towards you but David killed Uriah the Hittite. He was found guilty of murder and adultery by God. Nathan the prophet was ready for any verdict to be handed down, as the Lord's Prophet. I'm sure of that. (I read the Bible and am not afraid to read it again.) Hardly the scenario you paint of David's decency towards the already pregnant Bathsheba. Waiting until she was a widow when and after David had him murdered at his command? Bizaare decency for sure. What translation of the Bible has changed the facts of David and Bathsheba? Again, the consequences for their sinning was spelled out. They were allowed life but at a price.
Leave convoluted logic to politicians and child molesters. The only footing you have, is in condemnation for both adulterers and homosexual acts. Both involve physical wrongdoing and tragic consequences. No one should try to be the judge of the spiritual condition of an individual no matter what they choose to do sexually, but justifying one wrong by another is better portrayed as a position Satan would take on the matter.
Homosexuality cannot find solace in the individual choosing to use their body parts for what by empirical means is proven to be a futile endeavor. Psuedo-intercourse is by nature an act that can be judged outside of religion. Logic again can be the guide to Biblical matters. I fear science only when it is used to kill and redefine observable facts. In the case of homosexuality, even the assertion that animals in nature attempt this act lands squarely in the irrational. In fact evolution is far more heartless on the futility of same-sex mating as is the Biblical position. There is hope for ann individuals future in the Bible. "Survival of the Fittest" defines as worthless the creatures that do not desire reproduction. Even Jesus (God) says that Sodom and Gomorrah have a better stance on the day of judgment than people in the cities who will not listen to the Gospel. I know homosexuals who believe the Gospels. I know many "scientific" people who do not.
What you are trying to do is justify one sin because of another. That only cements the sin for what it is. It is better to hold out repentence then to sink into childish rhetoric; "He did it too!" Or, you have the right (still) to start another church (congregation) somewhere else and wait until judgment day. "Let God settle the debate." God has shown in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that "He" will circumvent His own "Law" and do something unexpected. The Israelites deserved annihilation and the adulterer at the feet of the crowd and Jesus could have been stoned by law! Repentance is why there is even one person left on Earth who can trace their blood back to the Israelites. All sinned against the Lord time and time again.
But to agree that sin is not sin is outside the definition of being a part of God's plan.
Like Paul said: There must be divisions among you so that you can see those who are right and those who are wrong.
If you want to allow same-sex relationships or rationalize the unjustifiable position of a "marriage" existing between two men or two women" and that be equaled to adulterers being married, so be it. You have just judged them all as sinners. Well done. You are right. But I would suggest that you start a church and await the ultimate judgment for your faith and works. In the Bible I read, you and you alone will stand for your decisions. I as well. I choose to repent, recognize that I was not created to grasp excuse from a congenital condition or a condition promugated by the society I live in as exceptable because "anything goes" in the eyes of that culture. The Bible has enough lessons to teach me in choosing sin and justifying that choice no matter where I make my home.
Leave convoluted logic to politicians and child molesters. The only footing you have, is in condemnation for both adulterers and homosexual acts. Both involve physical wrongdoing and tragic consequences. No one should try to be the judge of the spiritual condition of an individual no matter what they choose to do sexually, but justifying one wrong by another is better portrayed as a position Satan would take on the matter.
Homosexuality cannot find solace in the individual choosing to use their body parts for what by empirical means is proven to be a futile endeavor. Psuedo-intercourse is by nature an act that can be judged outside of religion. Logic again can be the guide to Biblical matters. I fear science only when it is used to kill and redefine observable facts. In the case of homosexuality, even the assertion that animals in nature attempt this act lands squarely in the irrational. In fact evolution is far more heartless on the futility of same-sex mating as is the Biblical position. There is hope for ann individuals future in the Bible. "Survival of the Fittest" defines as worthless the creatures that do not desire reproduction. Even Jesus (God) says that Sodom and Gomorrah have a better stance on the day of judgment than people in the cities who will not listen to the Gospel. I know homosexuals who believe the Gospels. I know many "scientific" people who do not.
What you are trying to do is justify one sin because of another. That only cements the sin for what it is. It is better to hold out repentence then to sink into childish rhetoric; "He did it too!" Or, you have the right (still) to start another church (congregation) somewhere else and wait until judgment day. "Let God settle the debate." God has shown in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that "He" will circumvent His own "Law" and do something unexpected. The Israelites deserved annihilation and the adulterer at the feet of the crowd and Jesus could have been stoned by law! Repentance is why there is even one person left on Earth who can trace their blood back to the Israelites. All sinned against the Lord time and time again.
But to agree that sin is not sin is outside the definition of being a part of God's plan.
Like Paul said: There must be divisions among you so that you can see those who are right and those who are wrong.
If you want to allow same-sex relationships or rationalize the unjustifiable position of a "marriage" existing between two men or two women" and that be equaled to adulterers being married, so be it. You have just judged them all as sinners. Well done. You are right. But I would suggest that you start a church and await the ultimate judgment for your faith and works. In the Bible I read, you and you alone will stand for your decisions. I as well. I choose to repent, recognize that I was not created to grasp excuse from a congenital condition or a condition promugated by the society I live in as exceptable because "anything goes" in the eyes of that culture. The Bible has enough lessons to teach me in choosing sin and justifying that choice no matter where I make my home.
-
BeHereNow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
- Location: Maryland
- Has thanked: 2 times
Post #6
I take it you agree with me that if we apply the same standard to accepting or rejecting homosexuality based on scripture, as we do divorce and remarriage, then each are condemned equally.
Furthermore, Christians who condemn homosexuality but justify or make allowances for divorce and remarriage are hypocrites, pure and simple.
Do we agree?
Furthermore, Christians who condemn homosexuality but justify or make allowances for divorce and remarriage are hypocrites, pure and simple.
Do we agree?
It's hard not to insult.
Post #7Delusion: a persistent belief in something false typical of some mental disorders - delusional
Psychology held for years that homosexuality was a "mental disorder." Lawyers and not science eliminated that definition.
And Narcissism still is in the manual.
I don't really know what your position is, so to be fair, I don't want to judge your abilty to reason without unsettling passion driving an agenda laden position. You may be searching for peace within this political and ideological problem facing our culture.
But is saying a person cannot eat a hotdog through their eye socket a phobia produced query? Is it based in bigotry or prejudice? Or is it based squarely on empirical proofs?
Delusion is not in my position. Try not to use direct insults. They are luck a rubber ball and always bounce back at you. And like the path of that ball on its return, it will go all over the place.
Psychology held for years that homosexuality was a "mental disorder." Lawyers and not science eliminated that definition.
And Narcissism still is in the manual.
I don't really know what your position is, so to be fair, I don't want to judge your abilty to reason without unsettling passion driving an agenda laden position. You may be searching for peace within this political and ideological problem facing our culture.
But is saying a person cannot eat a hotdog through their eye socket a phobia produced query? Is it based in bigotry or prejudice? Or is it based squarely on empirical proofs?
Delusion is not in my position. Try not to use direct insults. They are luck a rubber ball and always bounce back at you. And like the path of that ball on its return, it will go all over the place.
Why are we hiding the real issue behind exegesis?
Post #9BeHereNow,
Jesus said that He "did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it." In the Tanakh (the Old Testament) which included the Torah, the "Bible" that Jesus would have read, a man could divorce his wife for any reason by a written certificate and send her away. (Kind of like Hollywood now.)
In that same Bible, homosexual acts between men were an abomination. (Not like Hollywood now.)
Can we agree to that? We don't have to because it is a fact, but, I will agree with you for another reason. Holiness. And the holiness of children. (Something homsexuals, by their own "orientation," have no claim to.)
Divorce is not condemend in the Old Testament until you get to the Prophets perspective, when God had had enough of justifying one sin after another by His people. Jesus never changed Biblical law. He appealed to the logic of actions of hypocrites and on that you are right. So then the Christian Church is proven right BY YOU, if they just allow virgins that married to do all of the talking for the Christian Church. I agree with that wholeheartedly!!!
And I am satisfied that "Christians" are not using some perceived "phobia" and are making decisions based on their rights to decide the "nature" of one sin from another. Slapping a person is a far cry from splitting their head open with a brick. But then again Christians are not Jesus.
The silence of the Gospels on homosexuality is deafening in conclusion. The matter had been settled. Israelites would have followed the Levites and would have agreed to its status as an abomination.
Divorce and remarriage was not only allowed "Biblically" but practiced within the people of Israel. BUT. . . the consequences of sexual licentiousness affected the people of God and God sent his Prophets to deal with it.
THE REAL POINT:
Hedonism and narcissitic licentiousness are the root of the issue we are debating. Literally Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior.
Why are we hiding behind exegesis?
Give me a break. You are a deist and have no stake in the religious implications on this topic on the political and cultural.
Now deism is a fine position to take on life and proves you're not insane, but deism is not a good position on Biblical interpretation, seeing things outside the faith and you'll end up an moron like Thomas Jefferson. You will strain out the gnats and not see the elephants. Don't be a deist like Tommy J..
And logic is not in your corner either. It's more like a position of a whining five year old wanting another cookie because his sister got one before mommy caught them.
I'm not trying to insult you I assure you as I truly respect most deists. But I think trying to justify one wrong by another is not a well reasoned position for finding equality.
Jesus said that He "did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it." In the Tanakh (the Old Testament) which included the Torah, the "Bible" that Jesus would have read, a man could divorce his wife for any reason by a written certificate and send her away. (Kind of like Hollywood now.)
In that same Bible, homosexual acts between men were an abomination. (Not like Hollywood now.)
Can we agree to that? We don't have to because it is a fact, but, I will agree with you for another reason. Holiness. And the holiness of children. (Something homsexuals, by their own "orientation," have no claim to.)
Divorce is not condemend in the Old Testament until you get to the Prophets perspective, when God had had enough of justifying one sin after another by His people. Jesus never changed Biblical law. He appealed to the logic of actions of hypocrites and on that you are right. So then the Christian Church is proven right BY YOU, if they just allow virgins that married to do all of the talking for the Christian Church. I agree with that wholeheartedly!!!
And I am satisfied that "Christians" are not using some perceived "phobia" and are making decisions based on their rights to decide the "nature" of one sin from another. Slapping a person is a far cry from splitting their head open with a brick. But then again Christians are not Jesus.
The silence of the Gospels on homosexuality is deafening in conclusion. The matter had been settled. Israelites would have followed the Levites and would have agreed to its status as an abomination.
Divorce and remarriage was not only allowed "Biblically" but practiced within the people of Israel. BUT. . . the consequences of sexual licentiousness affected the people of God and God sent his Prophets to deal with it.
THE REAL POINT:
Hedonism and narcissitic licentiousness are the root of the issue we are debating. Literally Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior.
Why are we hiding behind exegesis?
Give me a break. You are a deist and have no stake in the religious implications on this topic on the political and cultural.
Now deism is a fine position to take on life and proves you're not insane, but deism is not a good position on Biblical interpretation, seeing things outside the faith and you'll end up an moron like Thomas Jefferson. You will strain out the gnats and not see the elephants. Don't be a deist like Tommy J..
And logic is not in your corner either. It's more like a position of a whining five year old wanting another cookie because his sister got one before mommy caught them.
I'm not trying to insult you I assure you as I truly respect most deists. But I think trying to justify one wrong by another is not a well reasoned position for finding equality.
Post #10
A simple question?
I do not expect disingenous statements from a deist.
You are fully aware that everything we are debating is loaded with perspective and the following defining of it. It takes time to formulate a response. I was writing one when you posed another.
You don't work for Fox News do you? A simple answer to any question is no longer part of society.
With every touch of your keyboard you cement the judgments and veracity of the Biblical God. Not me. I choose repentance. Are you sure you are a deist? You sound awful Baptist-hellfire to me.
I do not expect disingenous statements from a deist.
You are fully aware that everything we are debating is loaded with perspective and the following defining of it. It takes time to formulate a response. I was writing one when you posed another.
You don't work for Fox News do you? A simple answer to any question is no longer part of society.
With every touch of your keyboard you cement the judgments and veracity of the Biblical God. Not me. I choose repentance. Are you sure you are a deist? You sound awful Baptist-hellfire to me.
