Biblically (NT) speaking, which is worse?

[BeHereNow]

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?

[BeHereNow]

BeHereNow wrote:
There are a lot of people running around who believe:
1) If it's in the bible, you can believe it.
2) Somebody else can tell me what it says because I really don't want to figure it out myself.
3) The Bible says divorce is okay but homosexuality is bad.


reply: I happen to believe in 1 (with some reservations as to what you might mean), but not in 2 and 3. To clarify, it is certainly possible that I am interpreting the Bible wrong somewhere. It is also possible that my English Bible has been mistranslated at places, or that scribal errors have been introduced into the text.

And some people believe 3, but not 1 or 2.
I am talking about people who believe all three.
It is also possible that everyone is interpreting the Bible wrong. It is probable that many are interpreting the Bible wrong.

BeHereNow wrote:
Because they believe these things, they want to pass laws to make everyone else act like they do. The want to legislate morality, beyond the concern for the general welfare. They want to do it to a moral certainty, as long as it is their morality, and not someone else's.


reply: This is mostly an ad hominem red herring, attacking some people's positions rather than the topic at hand.

No, I don’t see any evidence for this. This is the topic at hand, and ad hominen is reserved for the attack of a person, not a complete culture of people.

jerickson314: I will say that under moral absolutism, only one morality is right. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, its morality is right for all people at all places. Nonetheless, whether this should be enforced in civil law is a topic of debate outside of the scope of this discussion. I haven't really made up my mind on this.

If everyone might be interpreting the Bible incorrectly, how can it be right for all persons? You’ve made a statement with no supporting evidence. How do you know which parts you are misinterpreting? Maybe you are misinterpreting the part about the “infallible word of God”.
You are assuming moral absolutism, which is not in evidence.
You are also assuming the Bible is the infallible word of God, which is not in evidence.
The Bible has never been applied (interpreted) to all persons equally in all place and at all times. So, according to you, the morality of the Bible has never been expressed correctly.

jerickson314: You are approaching the problem with relativistic presuppositions, to the same extent as the people you are criticizing do so with absolutistic presuppositions.

Care to show which presuppositions.

BeHereNow wrote:
The want to restrict the harmless activity of certain persons on the idea they are immoral, possibly dangerous, and evil.


jerickson314" Harmless, oh really?

You may have (at best) shown one exception to my statement. Even that I could argue against.
Clearly you have not show my statement is incorrect.

BeHereNow wrote:
Surely you realize one person's sin is another's "try not to do it". There are many uses of the word sin, what is and what isn't, the resulting effects of sin, more. What does it mean to say "sin is not sin". Surely you do not claim to have a common belief about sin compared to all Christians who have walked the face of the earth, or even among those walking the earth today.

jerickson314: A lack of understanding and consensus does not indicate a lack of truth.

Sure it does.
A lack of understanding does not prove a lack of truth, but it certainly indicates a lack of truth. If you tell me I do not understand something, clearly you are telling me I do not hold true beliefs concerning the issue.

This is an interesting concept of yours, that there is large disagreement about an issue, but all (or most) persons are correct, even though they disagree. I’m wondering in what sense you mean this. Relativism?

BeHereNow wrote:
Of course sin is "outside the definition of being part of God's plan". That is not a Christian belief, that is a religious belief. Sin may be a different word, but the meaning is there.
And what if it is outside of God's plan. Many do not care.
Why should they be forced to pretend that it matters?


reply: If Christianity is true, then it is true for all people. You are using nonChristian presuppositions.

Would you then say that if Buddhism is true, it is true for all persons?
And if Christianity is false, might we conclude it is false for all people?
Do you feel I should start with presuppositions of a false belief?

BeHereNow wrote:
Speaking for myself, I would think that most homosexuals would be satisfied with a general understanding that morally, they were on an equal footing with individuals who were divorced and remarried. Equal sinners, so to say. Let the moralists fight for their souls equally. Do not single out homosexuals as morally inferior when scripturally, divorced and re-marrieds are equally sinful.


jerickson314: Correct! Although I wouldn't say they should be "satisfied", especially since they are capable of changing their behavior regardless of whether this is true for attractions.

Are not divorced and remarrieds equally capable of changing their behavior?
Should not (by your understanding of Biblical mandates) all remarrieds repent of their sin, dissolve their sinful union, and go their separate ways, never to marry again?

BeHereNow wrote:
Religious fundamentalists of any religion can do whatever they choose, but they have a moral obligation to keep it to themselves. An open door and evangelism of course, but the founders of my country hoped to guarantee me the right to choose my belief system, not have it forced upon me.


jerickson314: Depends on what you mean by "keep it to themselves". Christian salvation is only meaningful if it is your free choice. This should not be changed. However, this doesn't mean that people shouldn't promote their beliefs, or even that this should be limited to evangelism.

It depends what you mean by “promote their beliefs”. I assume you grant the same right to homosesxuals (Christian or not) to promote their beliefs as well. If not, why should Christians get special rights?

[jerickson314]

It is also possible that everyone is interpreting the Bible wrong. It is probable that many are interpreting the Bible wrong.

Naturally. Although those I consider Christians are probably interpreting it mostly right, even though nobody's perfect.

No, I don’t see any evidence for this. This is the topic at hand, and ad hominen is reserved for the attack of a person, not a complete culture of people.

The topic at hand is legislation? I thought it was the sinfulness of homosexuality.

If everyone might be interpreting the Bible incorrectly, how can it be right for all persons?

I meant that what it actually says, when correctly interpreted, is right for all people. A given interpretation can be shown to be correct through sufficient study and critical discussion. And everyone "interpreting incorrectly" simply means that there are parts that are misinterpreted.

You’ve made a statement with no supporting evidence. How do you know which parts you are misinterpreting? Maybe you are misinterpreting the part about the “infallible word of God”.

The parts I have clearly studied, I can be fairly certain I am not misinterpreting. I try not to take significant action on a part I haven't studied much. And this is the wrong thread for the "infallible word of God" discussion.

You are assuming moral absolutism, which is not in evidence.

Moral absolutism is philosophy. It fits into the framework of Christianity, which is supported by evidence. But I am following through with the logical conclusions of my worldview, including the conclusion of moral absolutism.

You are also assuming the Bible is the infallible word of God, which is not in evidence.

Yes it is, but that is a topic that would best be discussed in a different thread.

The Bible has never been applied (interpreted) to all persons equally in all place and at all times. So, according to you, the morality of the Bible has never been expressed correctly.

In a fallen world, we cannot expect to see morality expressed correctly. Nonetheless, do not confuse "is" and "ought".

I'll use a simple analogy. A car company, like Ford for example, cannot attain complete freedom from defects in all products. Likewise, we cannot attain complete perfection in this life. However, Ford does not just let defects come their way without doing anything about it. Likewise, we should do the same for sin.

And I think you might be taking an extreme position about "to all persons equally in all places and all times". The shift from old to new covenant, for example, or the more lax restrictions on Gentiles. These were both accompanied by divine revelation.

Care to show which presuppositions.

The presupposition that people should not impose their moral standards on other people. The presupposition that moral standards are "theirs" rather than universal or "God's".

You may have (at best) shown one exception to my statement. Even that I could argue against.
Clearly you have not show my statement is incorrect.

By "one exception", do you mean that I only dealt with homosexuality? I would have to see a complete list of what you meant in order to show your statement incorrect. Nonetheless, you're going to have a hard time proving that all homosexuality is harmless, no matter how hard you try to argue agains the document I linked to.

jerickson314: A lack of understanding and consensus does not indicate a lack of truth.

Sure it does.
A lack of understanding does not prove a lack of truth, but it certainly indicates a lack of truth. If you tell me I do not understand something, clearly you are telling me I do not hold true beliefs concerning the issue.

This is an interesting concept of yours, that there is large disagreement about an issue, but all (or most) persons are correct, even though they disagree. I’m wondering in what sense you mean this. Relativism?

I think you misunderstood what I said, as it later struck me you might. What I am saying is that it is possible that only a few people hold a true belief, or that no one holds a certain true belief. This has no effect on the truth of the correct belief, or the falsehood of the other beliefs. The people who lack understanding do not hold the correct beliefs. Nonetheless, the belief no one understands can be the true belief.

Your second paragraph was exactly what I thought you might construe my statement as. I really should have worded that more clearly.

Would you then say that if Buddhism is true, it is true for all persons?
And if Christianity is false, might we conclude it is false for all people?

Yes, I would say both of those things. Nonetheless, I believe that Buddhism is false for all people and Christianity true for all people. My belief of this is not why this is the case.

Do you feel I should start with presuppositions of a false belief?

Not at all.

Are not divorced and remarrieds equally capable of changing their behavior?
Should not (by your understanding of Biblical mandates) all remarrieds repent of their sin, dissolve their sinful union, and go their separate ways, never to marry again?

Wow, that's a tough question. The real question is rather the act of remarriage itself was the only sinful part, or whether the act of sex is the sinful part. I've never thought of it the way you mentioned before, but this very well could be an example of a place I misinterpret the Bible.

It depends what you mean by “promote their beliefs”. I assume you grant the same right to homosesxuals (Christian or not) to promote their beliefs as well.

Well, they should certainly have the right to state their beliefs, and to argue against those they disagree with. If I knew my faith was only believed because all opposing views were silenced, it would bring me great doubt. Honest and open discussion is a must.

Also, the "problem of evil" demonstrates that God greatly cares about free will. I think it would therefore be quite sinful for me to try to take that away from others. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean I shouldn't discourage others from hurting themselves.

If not, why should Christians get special rights?

Well, if Christianity is true, Christians might deserve special rights. Nonetheless, here I do not really think they need any special rights.

[BeHereNow]

BeHereNow wrote:
If everyone might be interpreting the Bible incorrectly, how can it be right for all persons?


jerickson314: I meant that what it actually says, when correctly interpreted, is right for all people. A given interpretation can be shown to be correct through sufficient study and critical discussion. And everyone "interpreting incorrectly" simply means that there are parts that are misinterpreted.

A given interpretation can never be proven to be correct. Some persons will agree, some will not. Because some will not, how can we say it is correct? Do you decide the truth of the Bible by a show of hands? If there are two opinions (and there always will be), there is no way to know which is correct for all persons. One can only decide what is correct for them. How are we to know which parts are incorrectly interpreted? Each of us will decide what we feel is correct, based on the evidence at hand. We decide what is right. You decide which of the teaching of the Bible you will accept and which you will reject. Like everyone, you will follow your heart and mind.

BeHereNow wrote:
You’ve made a statement with no supporting evidence. How do you know which parts you are misinterpreting? Maybe you are misinterpreting the part about the “infallible word of God”.


jerickson314: The parts I have clearly studied, I can be fairly certain I am not misinterpreting.

So on those doctrinal issues where you differ from some of the major denominations of Christianity, you would say you are confident all of the preachers are misinterpreting (many of them with decades of Bible study, and PhD.’s). They all got it wrong, but you got it right?

BeHereNow wrote:
The Bible has never been applied (interpreted) to all persons equally in all place and at all times. So, according to you, the morality of the Bible has never been expressed correctly.

jerickson314: In a fallen world, we cannot expect to see morality expressed correctly. Nonetheless, do not confuse "is" and "ought".

I'll use a simple analogy. A car company, like Ford for example, cannot attain complete freedom from defects in all products. Likewise, we cannot attain complete perfection in this life. However, Ford does not just let defects come their way without doing anything about it. Likewise, we should do the same for sin.

The difference is that Ford does not claim to have built the perfect car. Your claim that the Bible is infallible is like Ford claiming their cars were perfect, then coming out with a different model. Form generation to generation Christians claim to have the infallible word of God, but the message changes. The infallible word of God contradicts itself from generation to generation.

jerickson314: And I think you might be taking an extreme position about "to all persons equally in all places and all times". The shift from old to new covenant, for example, or the more lax restrictions on Gentiles. These were both accompanied by divine revelation.

From the infallible I think we should expect the extreme. Christians not only burned at the stake, they burned others as well.

jerickson314: By "one exception", do you mean that I only dealt with homosexuality? I would have to see a complete list of what you meant in order to show your statement incorrect. Nonetheless, you're going to have a hard time proving that all homosexuality is harmless, no matter how hard you try to argue agains the document I linked to.

Well, Biblically (and thus morally) homosexuality is no more dangerous than remarriage and divorce, and that is the point of this thread. There are other threads that show the folly of your statements. As you said “in another thread”. For this thread, they are equal sins.

jerickson314: I think you misunderstood what I said, as it later struck me you might. What I am saying is that it is possible that only a few people hold a true belief, or that no one holds a certain true belief. This has no effect on the truth of the correct belief, or the falsehood of the other beliefs. The people who lack understanding do not hold the correct beliefs. Nonetheless, the belief no one understands can be the true belief.

You and I would agree on this.

BHN: Are not divorced and remarrieds equally capable of changing their behavior?
Should not (by your understanding of Biblical mandates) all remarrieds repent of their sin, dissolve their sinful union, and go their separate ways, never to marry again?

jerickson314: Wow, that's a tough question. The real question is rather the act of remarriage itself was the only sinful part, or whether the act of sex is the sinful part. I've never thought of it the way you mentioned before, but this very well could be an example of a place I misinterpret the Bible.

Adultery is a sexual sin, can it be any other way?
Remarriage causes adultery (a sexual sin). It is not the ceremony itself which is inherently sinful, it is the adultery caused by remarreds living together in sin (adultery).
It's not the question which is tough. The question is easy. It is the implications and consequences which are tough.

[jerickson314]

A given interpretation can never be proven to be correct. Some persons will agree, some will not. Because some will not, how can we say it is correct?

Consensus and truth are two different things. It is possible for something to be proven but not believed, if someone is too stubborn.

Do you decide the truth of the Bible by a show of hands? If there are two opinions (and there always will be), there is no way to know which is correct for all persons. One can only decide what is correct for them.

No, not by a show of hands but by analysis.

There is no consensus that pi is an irrational number. However, there is mathematical proof that pi is an irrational number. Some people don't accept this truth, but it is nonetheless knowably true.

How are we to know which parts are incorrectly interpreted? Each of us will decide what we feel is correct, based on the evidence at hand. We decide what is right.

Not what is right, but what we will believe. By examining enough evidence it is entirely possible to reach a conclusion.

You decide which of the teaching of the Bible you will accept and which you will reject. Like everyone, you will follow your heart and mind.

Right, and if I examine enough evidence I will reach the right conclusion.

So on those doctrinal issues where you differ from some of the major denominations of Christianity, you would say you are confident all of the preachers are misinterpreting (many of them with decades of Bible study, and PhD.’s). They all got it wrong, but you got it right?

The doctrinal issues where I disagree are probably where I haven't studied as much. I am not unwilling to examine the arguments these preachers make. We would generally tend to agree if we both study seriously enough. And it is possible for "authorities" to be wrong.

The difference is that Ford does not claim to have built the perfect car. Your claim that the Bible is infallible is like Ford claiming their cars were perfect, then coming out with a different model. Form generation to generation Christians claim to have the infallible word of God, but the message changes. The infallible word of God contradicts itself from generation to generation.

I wasn't referring to the infallibility of the Bible, I was referring to the removal of sin.

I don't know of any support for your assertion that the message changes. I know that our understanding increases, just like our understanding of mathematics, biology, astronomy, physics...

Well, Biblically (and thus morally) homosexuality is no more dangerous than remarriage and divorce, and that is the point of this thread. There are other threads that show the folly of your statements. As you said “in another thread”. For this thread, they are equal sins.

Biblically? I thought you were talking about ways unrelated to Christianity. After all, weren't you trying to convince me that Christians were wrong in using the Bible as an excuse to ban these things? And no sin is harmless Biblically, even the ones I have commited.

You and I would agree on this.

Then what about all your arguments it refutes?

Adultery is a sexual sin, can it be any other way?
Remarriage causes adultery (a sexual sin). It is not the ceremony itself which is inherently sinful, it is the adultery caused by remarreds living together in sin (adultery).
It's not the question which is tough. The question is easy. It is the implications and consequences which are tough.

I see your point.

[BeHereNow]

BHN: Form generation to generation Christians claim to have the infallible word of God, but the message changes. The infallible word of God contradicts itself from generation to generation.

jerickson314: I don't know of any support for your assertion that the message changes. I know that our understanding increases, just like our understanding of mathematics, biology, astronomy, physics...

Your sincerity and innocence are refreshing.
There are many issues concerning Christian beliefs and actions which vary widely within a group of Christians as well as from group to group. I need to start a new thread or revisit an existing one for that discussion.
Individual Christian beliefs are much easier to defend that the institution of Christianity. The problem of course is that individuals must trace their roots back to Christ, and the roots of Christianity are mired in the muck of mankind. It is impossible to justify the actions of self proclaimed Christians who have lived and died and been the cause of death of so many innocent persons, many of them self-proclaimed Christians as well.
I need to mention that the Word of God is Christ the Logos, not the Bible. That fact is widely accepted by Biblical scholars. The Bible is the fuzzy representation of the true Word of God. Merely a shadow on the wall as Plato would say. The Bible is a tool to lead one to the true Word of God, the eternal Logos. Do not mistake the tool for the goal.

After all, weren't you trying to convince me that Christians were wrong in using the Bible as an excuse to ban these things? And no sin is harmless Biblically, even the ones I have commited.

No, I am trying to convince you that Biblically, divorce and remarriage is just as sinful as homosexuality. Further, that Christians who treat the sin of homosexuality differently than the sin of adultery (divorce and remarriage) are disingenuous. They claim things not supported by the Bible. [There is also the issue of greed and avarice. Different tangent.] If Christians accept divorced and remarried repenters into the flock, the same should be true for practicing homosexuals. Christ would rather each of us have a committed relationship to one person of the opposite sex for a lifetime. This is the best of all possible worlds. But things don’t always go that way. If Christ can accept practicing adulterers (divorced and remarrieds) as Christians in good standing, logic dictates he can accept practicing homosexuals with the same open arms.

Of course Paul says we should all be like him and remain single, no sexual relationships for anyone with anyone. But that is the topic of a different thread. Let me know if this needs explanation.

Rather than fray this thread I will start a new one tonight or tomorrow that addresses some of these peripheral issues. Or it may be that you wish to start your own thread, which I can visit. I think we both have more to discuss.

[melikio]

The Bible is the fuzzy representation of the true Word of God. Merely a shadow on the wall as Plato would say. The Bible is a tool to lead one to the true Word of God, the eternal Logos. Do not mistake the tool for the goal.

I didn't understand this, until I questioned things in general.

Now my faith is in Jesus (primarily); there are so very many interpretations of the Bible, and arguments to go with those.

I have faith, but it's mostly in Jesus and God the Creator. I do believe that the meaning behind Jesus' life, is most of what a Christian needs to know about being a Christian.

I have seen and participated in some awesome debates on "religion" and even "morality". Still, nothing compares to being able to accomplish some "good" for another. And that is what I believe Jesus was all about (all debates on religion and morality aside).

-Mel-

[melikio]

No, I am trying to convince you that Biblically, divorce and remarriage is just as sinful as homosexuality. Further, that Christians who treat the sin of homosexuality differently than the sin of adultery (divorce and remarriage) are disingenuous. They claim things not supported by the Bible.

You are speaking truth.

But the widespread social bias against homosexual people that has been put up with and justified for so long (throughout the history of mankind), is slow in being overcome. It amazes me that so few Christians see how it has infiltrated AND affected their own religious beliefs. I recognized it, when I would witness (too frequently) Christians saying things from their hearts (evil things) about homosexuals, that had NOTHING supporting it in the Bible. And on top of it, is the near-insane delusion that homosexuality can be "ended", just because people want to see an end to it.

Almost every other sin (including MURDER), is handled with more realism and SENSE, than homosexuality is. And the problem hinges significanty upon the reality that people REACT to homosexuality, rather than truly understand the PEOPLE who happen to BE homosexuals.

I firmly believe, that it was only a matter of time, before God put anti-gay extremism on trial (even IF homosexuality is as bad as many say it is). Why? Because the mistreatment and false and unnecessary hype many cast AT homosexuals, is BAD without question. I have even seen people skew the definition of LOVE, because they really HATE homosexual people, and cannot deal with the CONFLICT/S it sets up within their "Christian" beliefs. I've personally seen similar things with racism and greed.

I know a lot of homosexuals (not sexually speaking), but I know a LOT MORE sexually active, single "Christians". I've even helped some to handle their HUMAN sexuality in more godly ways. I did not judge/condemn them, because I have had the social and spiritual SKIN flayed off of me so many times before. Few stick around, to hurt with those they CLAIM to be HURTING for their own GOOD (another clue that something needs to change in the approach of many Christians). Consequently, I know love works, and sexual sin is something Christians need to be open, honest and fair about.

Sometimes (being flawed humans and all), we are a part of the problem...not the solution. Only a massive EGO, would convince a person that this is never true about them or their ways. The only person I've ever heard of who hasn't BLOWN IT, was Jesus Christ. Other than Him, and based upon my nearly 5 decades of living, I've conviced that people are so awesomely screwed up...PERIOD. That doesn't mean I'm seeing myself as better (I'm NOT), just that EVERYONE who claims to be a Christian, is only righteous according to the GRACE and COMPASSION they've been shown by the Creator. And those who make intricate and hypocritical reasons for withholding the same, are so often a part of the problems which have plagued MANKIND itself...from the very start.

Hey, that's just my view; but it's based upon what I've learned in this life (as a whole).

-Mel-