NationStates Jolt Archive

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments. It is the only rule regulating sexual conduct to make it into the Big Ten.

Jesus said that if a person gets divorced and remarries, then that person is commiting adultery. As marriage is an ongoing thing and in Biblical terms marriage can be taken as a synonym for conjugal union, then adultery would be committed many times in the course of a second marriage.

Many Christians wish to make laws forbidding other "sinful" marriages (ie homosexual marriage). Some even want the Supreme Court ruling that declared another type of sexual misconduct - namely sodomy- legal overturned.

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Now considering that adultery is not only form of sexual misconduct, but it is also breaking an oath as well as sundering that which God himself has joined together, how can Christians' attitudes be so lax towards adultery while being so harsh toward certain other forms of sexual misconduct?

Please explain.

The phenomenon of "salad bar Christianity" at work.

Well, that's a new argument. I'll have to remember it. I anxiously await the replies from our religious forum users.

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

100% agree. This is something I myself have always wondered as well.

IMO adultery is worse than almost any of the other things so often talked about (such as gay marriage), and more attention should be payed to it.

Marriage should be something that is very deep and meaningful, yet nowadays people go off and get married for money, get married for a day, get married for a damn t.v. show....

However, if you want my opinion on why Christians (I'm not Christian btw, I'm agnostic if we're talking about religion) don't care as much, it's because so many Christians are themselves guilty of this. It's disgusting the way so many members of that religion (not to generalize, but from personal experience many many Christians) will preach about their religion and specific aspects of it, then go off and cheat on their boyfriend/girlfriend, have sex outside a relationship, etc. etc.

Perhaps there should be some clarification of "Divorce" versus "Annulment", which means that the marriage is treated as though it never existed, since it was undertaken on false pretext.

Common causes for this are fraudulent marriage, coercion, psychological problems, or being already married.

In the Roman Catholic Church, divorce is not allowed, but Annulment is, and can be followed with remarriage, since the person was never married.

Also, remarriage without annulment is viewed to be living in sin, as are homosexual relations. In both cases, though, the Sin is hated, but the person is not, and to mistake the person for the sin is wrong.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments. It is the only rule regulating sexual conduct to make it into the Big Ten.

Jesus said that if a person gets divorced and remarries, then that person is commiting adultery. As marriage is an ongoing thing and in Biblical terms marriage can be taken as a synonym for conjugal union, then adultery would be committed many times in the course of a second marriage.

Many Christians wish to make laws forbidding other "sinful" marriages (ie homosexual marriage). Some even want the Supreme Court ruling that declared another type of sexual misconduct - namely sodomy- legal overturned.

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Now considering that adultery is not only form of sexual misconduct, but it is also breaking an oath as well as sundering that which God himself has joined together, how can Christians' attitudes be so lax towards adultery while being so harsh toward certain other forms of sexual misconduct?

Please explain.because 99.9% of religious people are rank hypocrites

Bah, clearly you miss the point.

Christians attempting to only push a secular agenda here people. Hello.

Because of this, chrisitans recognize that there is much debate among the different religions regarding what is, and what should be the punishment for, adultery. You see they recognize that the US is a secular nation so they shouldn't go around legisitlating their beliefs system on others, DUH ! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, every religion -except those godless hindoos and they don't count - recognizes that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.

Thus any ban on gay marriage is simply promoting a secular, i.e., NON - CHRISTIAN agenda. So what's your problem?

[Frankly I think it just goes to show the tolerance of christians that they have stopped at only wanting to dissallow marriage, when we all know the appropriate pusnishment is death.]

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

Lot's wife was dead at that point. She was turned to a pillar of salt while fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gammorah (spelling?) The Lot and his daughters getting it on thing was just simple fornication and incest. God actually seems to prefer incest to sodomy. Christians ignore this when they use the "slippery slope" argument that allowing gay marriages will lead to allowing incestual marriages.

Bah, clearly you miss the point.

Christians attempting to only push a secular agenda here people. Hello.

Because of this, chrisitans recognize that there is much debate among the different religions regarding what is, and what should be the punishment for, adultery. You see they recognize that the US is a secular nation so they shouldn't go around legisitlating their beliefs system on others, DUH ! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, every religion -except those godless hindoos and they don't count - recognizes that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.

Thus any ban on gay marriage is simply promoting a secular, i.e., NON - CHRISTIAN agenda. So what's your problem?

[Frankly I think it just goes to show the tolerance of christians that they have stopped at only wanting to dissallow marriage, when we all know the appropriate pusnishment is death.]

You're an idiot. Hinduism is a religion. Buddhism doesn't have a problem with it either. Anyhow, what's your point? Even if all religions agreed on this, this doesn't make it "secular". It would still be a religious context. Salad Bar Christianity at work indeed.

Perhaps there should be some clarification of "Divorce" versus "Annulment", which means that the marriage is treated as though it never existed, since it was undertaken on false pretext.

Common causes for this are fraudulent marriage, coercion, psychological problems, or being already married.

In the Roman Catholic Church, divorce is not allowed, but Annulment is, and can be followed with remarriage, since the person was never married.

Also, remarriage without annulment is viewed to be living in sin, as are homosexual relations. In both cases, though, the Sin is hated, but the person is not, and to mistake the person for the sin is wrong.

Haha, oh man, just listen to yourself there. You are using a loophole around it. That's right, just close your eyes. If you think it never happened, then of course it never happened.

A divorse and anullment are the same thing. You are breaking apart a marriage. Whether you break it from the very start, or somewhere in the middle does not matter. You are still breaking it.

Bah, clearly you miss the point.

Christians attempting to only push a secular agenda here people. Hello.

Because of this, chrisitans recognize that there is much debate among the different religions regarding what is, and what should be the punishment for, adultery. You see they recognize that the US is a secular nation so they shouldn't go around legisitlating their beliefs system on others, DUH ! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, every religion -except those godless hindoos and they don't count - recognizes that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.

Thus any ban on gay marriage is simply promoting a secular, i.e., NON - CHRISTIAN agenda. So what's your problem?

[Frankly I think it just goes to show the tolerance of christians that they have stopped at only wanting to dissallow marriage, when we all know the appropriate pusnishment is death.]

Then why, when trying to gather support for this oh-so-secular agenda do Christians use the reasoning that gay marriage is sinful, against God's design, and so on. Why are they unable to provide secular reasons? And if your reasoning secular why do you need to bring up the lie that only one religion in the whole world is tolerant of homosexual marriage?

By the way, Hidus are far from godless, and by what means do you discount them.

You're an idiot. Hinduism is a religion. Buddhism doesn't have a problem with it either. Anyhow, what's your point? Even if all religions agreed on this, this doesn't make it "secular". It would still be a religious context. Salad Bar Christianity at work indeed.


Hindooism is not a religion.

And buddhism does have a problem with it. I suggest you actually study what the Dalai Lama has to say on the subject, then we'll see who feels secure enough to bandy around the term idiot.

Moreoever your definition of secular seems to imply godless.

I am pointing out that since there is broad agreement across all real religions, then there is no chance of implementing this law being the establishment of certian religious perspective through the law. So there. And please do not flame. It is rude.

Then why, when trying to gather support for this oh-so-secular agenda do Christians use the reasoning that gay marriage is sinful, against God's design, and so on. Why are they unable to provide secular reasons? And if your reasoning secular why do you need to bring up the lie that only one religion in the whole world is tolerant of homosexual marriage?

By the way, Hidus are far from godless, and by what means do you discount them.


Many hidoos are indeed godless, although not all.

And every real religion says that it is against god's design. So it's not a religious viewpoint, but a secular one. :rolleyes:

The Scripture you may be referring to:

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

under the Law of Moses, divorce was permitted because the people were not able to live the high gospel standard which would abolish it.

Deut. 24: 1
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

But, in both cases, the provision for divorse was based on fornication. The only other provision that I believe is valid for divorce is spousal or child abuse, including neglect.

If you go onto my church website (www.mormon.org) and type the word "Divorce," the following quotes pop-up:

"Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has explained: “There is now and again a legitimate cause for divorce. I am not one to say that it is never justified. But I say without hesitation that this plague among us, which seems to be growing everywhere, is not of God, but rather is the work of the adversary of righteousness and peace and truth.

“There is a remedy for all of this. The Lord proclaimed, ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder’ (Matthew 19:6). The remedy for most marital stress is not in divorce. It is in repentance and forgiveness, in sincere expressions of charity and service. It is not in separation. It is in simple integrity that leads a man and woman to square up their shoulders and meet their obligations. It is found in the Golden Rule, a time-honored principle that should first and foremost find expression in marriage.”

We view the family as the center of our Heavenly Father's plan take and we divorce seriously. We desire that it could be abolished altogether, but, becasue of the hardness of men's hearts, we recognize that we are far from realizing this high standard. However, let it be known that anyone who commits adultry or who abuses their spouse or children has sinned against their family and against God. In most cases, we will also remove them from fellowship in the church.

It all boils down to sexual purity and living the law of chastity. Whether you are straight, gay, married, divorced or widowed. The Law of Chastity applies to all of God's children. Note that living a chaste live does not require living a life of abstinence, it requires living a life of fidelity to the spouse who you are legally married to...and the marriage that God has ordained is between man and woman.

Perhaps there should be some clarification of "Divorce" versus "Annulment", which means that the marriage is treated as though it never existed, since it was undertaken on false pretext.

Common causes for this are fraudulent marriage, coercion, psychological problems, or being already married.

In the Roman Catholic Church, divorce is not allowed, but Annulment is, and can be followed with remarriage, since the person was never married.

Also, remarriage without annulment is viewed to be living in sin, as are homosexual relations. In both cases, though, the Sin is hated, but the person is not, and to mistake the person for the sin is wrong.

I'm very familiar with RCC tradition. I've never personally understood annulment, and have always thought of its power to undo a marriage nearly on par with the miracle of transubstantiation; however, I do recognize that it is part of the Catholic religion and so wasn't including the annulled marriages in what I counted as divorce. Catholics who do no procure annulment and members of other types of Christianity were there are no recognized annulment miracles who get re-married are still committing adultery, however.

Added bit - aren't fornication and sodomy venial sins whereas adultery is a mortal sin?

The phenomenon of "salad bar Christianity" at work.


salad bar religion!

Haha, oh man, just listen to yourself there. You are using a loophole around it. That's right, just close your eyes. If you think it never happened, then of course it never happened.

A divorse and anullment are the same thing. You are breaking apart a marriage. Whether you break it from the very start, or somewhere in the middle does not matter. You are still breaking it.

No, they are not. A divorce is saying, "I don't want to be married to you anymore."

An annulment is admitted that you entered into a contactual agreement under false pretenses, and therefore, the contract was invalid.

IE: You fall for this girl, you date her for a year or more, and decide to tie the knot. Only later do you find out that she was married already, and was pulling off a massive deception. Oops. While you made your vows in good faith, she did not, and therefore, the vows were not valid. Thusly, you are not held by the marriage, since it was not legitimate.

To do otherwise would hold people bound to a sin not their own.

Hindooism is not a religion.

And buddhism does have a problem with it. I suggest you actually study what the Dalai Lama has to say on the subject, then we'll see who feels secure enough to bandy around the term idiot.

Moreoever your definition of secular seems to imply godless.

I am pointing out that since there is broad agreement across all real religions, then there is no chance of implementing this law being the establishment of certian religious perspective through the law. So there. And please do not flame. It is rude.

If hindooism isn't a religion, what is it?

Enlighten us, what does the Dalai Lama have to say?

Secular:

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.


The main reason that the religous body has not lobbyed for a law agaisnt adlutery is that in order to police it, you would need to incroch heveyly on privicy and human rights. You would need a substansial ammount of electronic suvalience and other such techniques to use on people for even suspecting that they are guilty of an affair. And imagine the damage you could do if you begin investigating and then find out its false and then the fact that you are investiagating is discovered by the one being investigated.

The Scripture you may be referring to:

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

under the Law of Moses, divorce was permitted because the people were not able to live the high gospel standard which would abolish it.

Deut. 24: 1
"When a man hath taken a awife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of cdivorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

But, in both cases, the provision for divorse was based on fornication. The only other provision that I believe is valid for divorce is spousal or child abuse, including neglect.

If you go onto my church website (www.mormon.org) and type the word "Divorce," the following quotes pop-up:

"Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has explained: “There is now and again a legitimate cause for divorce. I am not one to say that it is never justified. But I say without hesitation that this plague among us, which seems to be growing everywhere, is not of God, but rather is the work of the adversary of righteousness and peace and truth.

“There is a remedy for all of this. The Lord proclaimed, ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder’ (Matthew 19:6). The remedy for most marital stress is not in divorce. It is in repentance and forgiveness, in sincere expressions of charity and service. It is not in separation. It is in simple integrity that leads a man and woman to square up their shoulders and meet their obligations. It is found in the Golden Rule, a time-honored principle that should first and foremost find expression in marriage.”

We view the family as the center of our Heavenly Father's plan take divorce seriously. We desire that it could be abolished altogether, but, becasue of the hardness of men's hearts, we recognize that we are far from realizing this high standard. However, let it be known that anyone who commits adultry or who abuses their spouse or children has sinned against their family and against God. In most cases, we will also remove them from fellowship in the church.

It all boils down to sexual purity and living the law of chastity. Whether you are straight, gay, married, divorced or widowed. The Law of Chastity applies to all of God's children. Note that living a chaste live does not require living a life of abstinence, it requires living a life of fidelity to the spouse who you are legally married to...and the marriage that God has ordained is between man and woman.

I don't see how it's been ordained that it's between a man and woman. High standard my ass. If you truly believe that, then place a law against divorce just like you did with gay marriages.

Lot's wife was dead at that point. She was turned to a pillar of salt while fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gammorah (spelling?) The Lot and his daughters getting it on thing was just simple fornication and incest. God actually seems to prefer incest to sodomy. Christians ignore this when they use the "slippery slope" argument that allowing gay marriages will lead to allowing incestual marriages.

the answer is that the sisters were under that the immpression that the destruction was not limited to sdom and gemmorah so they were in fact doing A GOOD DEED by "repopulating" since they were the only people left on the planet

Um, what if that passage of the bible didn't actually condone the actions of lots daughters. that passage is part of the judaic obsession with geneology. They needed to trace the lineage of the peoples of that area.

Oh, and at least here in the united states, there are laws against adultary.
That's why when there is a divorce resulting from adultary, the offending partner has very few rights (ie, he/she often doesn't get any money)

oh, and your argument falls apart if it is not taken for granted that conjugal union is synonomous with marriage: you are using Jesus' own words to back your argument, and he did not equate the two.
for example, in conversation with the woman at the well in Symaria he asks he who her husband is, she says she has none, and he says, in effect, that's true, because you've had five husbands and the man you are with is not your husband.

She was clearly part of a conjugal union, and Jesus said she was not married.

(now on another note, you relativists need to read some Kant or at least some Hobbes or Rand.)

why are we even talking to this guy? it's obvious from his blatant direspect of other cultures and religions that we're not going to get through to him. :fluffle: i like this smiley

Many hidoos are indeed godless, although not all.

I really hope that you're attempting sarcasm, even if appallingly.




http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses.htm

http://www.saigan.com/heritage/gods/gods.htm

Knock yourself out.

I don't see how it's been ordained that it's between a man and woman.

We already have a thread on this. Read it.

High standard my ass. If you truly believe that, then place a law against divorce just like you did with gay marriages.

So long as there is wickedness in the hearts of man (and woman) a law like this would never pass.

No, they are not. A divorce is saying, "I don't want to be married to you anymore."

An annulment is admitted that you entered into a contactual agreement under false pretenses, and therefore, the contract was invalid.

IE: You fall for this girl, you date her for a year or more, and decide to tie the knot. Only later do you find out that she was married already, and was pulling off a massive deception. Oops. While you made your vows in good faith, she did not, and therefore, the vows were not valid. Thusly, you are not held by the marriage, since it was not legitimate.

To do otherwise would hold people bound to a sin not their own.

Ahh, I see. My mistake then. In such cases of fraud, I can see how an anullment can work. However, in other cases of anullment, such as conceilment, refusal, or misunderstanding, I don't see how it's any different from a divorce.

We already have a thread on this. Read it.

So long as there is wickedness in the hearts of man (and woman) a law like this would never pass.

are you serious? Obviously, the wickedness of gay marriages didn't stop people from passing laws against it.

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

The children fathered by Lot and his daughters formed the Moabites and the Ammonites, two tribes who were bitter enemies of Abraham's descendents (i.e the Hebrew people) who were considered God's chosen people.

Can someone explain why God spared Lot and his family from Soddem and Gomorrah, which had to be destoryed because the two cities were full of rapeists (I know the christians claim it was because of the homosexuality, but every version of the bible I've read acrtually details all the rape gangs as the vile reasons for their destructions) But it's okay for Lot to be practically raped by his daughters and spawn the enemies of God's "chosen people"

No wonder many christians are hypocrites, their God can't make up his mind what's bad and what's not.

Perhaps there should be some clarification of "Divorce" versus "Annulment", which means that the marriage is treated as though it never existed, since it was undertaken on false pretext.

Common causes for this are fraudulent marriage, coercion, psychological problems, or being already married.

In the Roman Catholic Church, divorce is not allowed, but Annulment is, and can be followed with remarriage, since the person was never married.

Also, remarriage without annulment is viewed to be living in sin, as are homosexual relations. In both cases, though, the Sin is hated, but the person is not, and to mistake the person for the sin is wrong.

I'm just curious. The Roman Catholic Church does base it's teachings on the Bible does it not? I would like to know what part of the bible does this annulment loophole come from? :confused:

Stop debating scripture and see logic here for a second. Why isnt there a law specificly making adultery a criminal offence - answer because it would be impossible to police without heveyly encroching on civil rights, see my earlier post

If hindooism isn't a religion, what is it?

Enlighten us, what does the Dalai Lama have to say?

Secular:

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>


The name given to the people on the asian subcontinent east of the Indus valley, of course.

The Dalai lama says that sodomy, buggery and homosexuality are unnatural. That's what he says. And I think he knows a bit more about buddhism than anyone aorund here.

Plus, if it concerns all religions it must be secular. (Not tom mention atheists that think it is wrong too.)

[QUOTE=Shinra Megacorporation]Oh, and at least here in the united states, there are laws against adultary.
That's why when there is a divorce resulting from adultary, the offending partner has very few rights (ie, he/she often doesn't get any money)
QUOTE]

Actually, this is not true in most states. Most states have become what they call "No fault divorce" states, which means that regardless of the reson for the divorce, common property is to be divided equally (assuming there is no prenup), and adultury plays no part in deciding who gets custody of the kids.

are you serious? Obviously, the wickedness of gay marriages didn't stop people from passing laws against it.

Laws making marriage illegal and a criminal offence would heveyly encroch on civil rights when policed. Gay marriage being outlawed does not as it is not a "Right" to be married.

Ummm...perhaps before people start slagging off Christianity based on discrepancies in the Bible, it should be noted that :

a) The Bible is NOT written by God - it was compiled by (mostly) men who believed what they were saying was the Word of God

b) It is now known that the Bible as it exists today is only the 'accepted version'...there were a lot of separate books that were rejected when the first Bible was prepared

c) Translation errors from the Hebrew text have caused different words to appear where they shouldn't...for instance, in the original Hebrew, the 5th Commandment (6th, depending on which denomination you belong to) states that "Thou shalt not Murder" whilst the new King James version (that most Christians use daily) states "Thou shalt not Kill"...

interesting, no?

The children fathered by Lot and his daughters formed the Moabites and the Ammonites, two tribes who were bitter enemies of Abraham's descendents (i.e the Hebrew people) who were considered God's chosen people.

Can someone explain why God spared Lot and his family from Soddem and Gomorrah, which had to be destoryed because the two cities were full of rapeists (I know the christians claim it was because of the homosexuality, but every version of the bible I've read acrtually details all the rape gangs as the vile reasons for their destructions) But it's okay for Lot to be practically raped by his daughters and spawn the enemies of God's "chosen people"

No wonder many christians are hypocrites, their God can't make up his mind what's bad and what's not.

spared BC abrahams merit. the rapists are never explicitly stated, just that they were bad people. 29, 29 genisis

I'm just curious. The Roman Catholic Church does base it's teachings on the Bible does it not? I would like to know what part of the bible does this annulment loophole come from? :confused:

Annulments came about when the RCC had to compete with the Anglican church which allowed divorces. Too many men were killing their wives because they were not able to get out of the marriage and marry again without it being considered divorce...so the RCC saw this as an opportunity to gain members AND to make money (as annulments are extremely expensive in most cases).

In response to Actual Thinkers:

Annulment is not easy to recieve, as both parties, even if they AGREE that the marriage was invalid, have to go before a tribunal and prove it invalid. An annulment is more difficult to receive than a divorce, and is taken very seriously.

Examples of valid reasons, other than the one I mentioned earlier, are marital violence, drug abuse, or domestic abuse of any kind. Mind you, these have to be proven and deemed reason to invalidate the marriage.

To Bootlickers:

The Catholic Church derives its teachings not only from Scripture, but from Tradition as well (which is one of the main differences from the other denominations). As such, Annulment is a recognition that humans are... well, human, and even the sacrament of marriage can be violated by human failings. Therefore, a solution must be offered. (NOT OFFICIAL, JUST MY EXPLANATION!)

Trivia: It was the failure to receive an Annulment, not a Divorce, that made King Henry split from the Roman Catholic Church and form the Anglican Church. (Well, actually it was a variety of religious/political reasons, but that was the last straw in the relationship.)

Stop debating scripture and see logic here for a second. Why isnt there a law specificly making adultery a criminal offence - answer because it would be impossible to police without heveyly encroching on civil rights, see my earlier post

We're not talking about adultery, we're talking about divorce, or, in other words, the sanctity of marriage.

Laws making marriage illegal and a criminal offence would heveyly encroch on civil rights. Gay marriage being outlawed does not as it is not a "Right" to be married.

No, i'm talking about passing laws forbidding a divorce, not forbidding a marriage. And obviously, it's ok to forbid marriage between some people as long as everyone else can still marry. To me, it just looks like you are telling people on how to live their life, that you are "right" and that they are wrong. Intollerance and superiority at its finest.

In response to Actual Thinkers:

Annulment is not easy to recieve, as both parties, even if they AGREE that the marriage was invalid, have to go before a tribunal and prove it invalid. An annulment is more difficult to receive than a divorce, and is taken very seriously.

Examples of valid reasons, other than the one I mentioned earlier, are marital violence, drug abuse, or domestic abuse of any kind. Mind you, these have to be proven and deemed reason to invalidate the marriage.

To Bootlickers:

The Catholic Church derives its teachings not only from Scripture, but from Tradition as well (which is one of the main differences from the other denominations). As such, Annulment is a recognition that humans are... well, human, and even the sacrament of marriage can be violated by human failings. Therefore, a solution must be offered. (NOT OFFICIAL, JUST MY EXPLANATION!)

Trivia: It was the failure to receive an Annulment, not a Divorce, that made King Henry split from the Roman Catholic Church and form the Anglican Church. (Well, actually it was a variety of religious/political reasons, but that was the last straw in the relationship.)

Who cares about how expensive it is. It could cost you an arm, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are still getting an anullment, a loophole around divorcing.

A solution must be offered? Obviously, the solution is an anullment instead of a law forbiding it. If you are going to follow the word of God, then you must follow the word of God. You can not just pick on what WORDS to follow.

Laws making marriage illegal and a criminal offence would heveyly encroch on civil rights when policed. Gay marriage being outlawed does not as it is not a "Right" to be married.

If marriage is not a right, then no civil rights would be encroached upon by outlawing ALL marriages.....hmmm....

The mexica people thought it was a sin too. And they believed in human sacrifice.

If marriage is not a right, then no civil rights would be encroached upon by outlawing ALL marriages.....hmmm....

Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as a straight person in the US.

Ummm...perhaps before people start slagging off Christianity based on discrepancies in the Bible, it should be noted that :

a) The Bible is NOT written by God - it was compiled by (mostly) men who believed what they were saying was the Word of God

b) It is now known that the Bible as it exists today is only the 'accepted version'...there were a lot of separate books that were rejected when the first Bible was prepared

c) Translation errors from the Hebrew text have caused different words to appear where they shouldn't...for instance, in the original Hebrew, the 5th Commandment (6th, depending on which denomination you belong to) states that "Thou shalt not Murder" whilst the new King James version (that most Christians use daily) states "Thou shalt not Kill"...

interesting, no?

yes, but the distinction is moot since in most cristian countries the death oenalty still existis, ignoring the change in translation.

but i do agree, go back and learn the stuff in the original hebrew, or use the Artscroll translation of the old testiment(modern jewish trans.) besides for some political commentary that was inserted(Same as the king james and all the others,) it does do a much more effective job of capturing the text verse for verse

Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as a straight person in the US.

No they don't. They are not allowed to marry the person they love. Straight people can.

The children fathered by Lot and his daughters formed the Moabites and the Ammonites, two tribes who were bitter enemies of Abraham's descendents (i.e the Hebrew people) who were considered God's chosen people.

Can someone explain why God spared Lot and his family from Soddem and Gomorrah, which had to be destoryed because the two cities were full of rapeists (I know the christians claim it was because of the homosexuality, but every version of the bible I've read acrtually details all the rape gangs as the vile reasons for their destructions) But it's okay for Lot to be practically raped by his daughters and spawn the enemies of God's "chosen people"

No wonder many christians are hypocrites, their God can't make up his mind what's bad and what's not.



Uneducated Christians claim that. I love the way you atheists preach "religious tolerance" yet have none for christianity, despite the fact that not only are most of you as dumb as an average southern religious hick(if not more) and in addition, don't even bother to inform yourself properly. Why should God punish Lot for the sins of others? The pure stupidity spewing from your post shows that you're probably a dumbass liberal like Michael Moore who goes around asking senators to sign their children into the army, as if their children were their slaves and the senators' actions were the children's fault. People like you make me sick.

Annulments came about when the RCC had to compete with the Anglican church which allowed divorces. Too many men were killing their wives because they were not able to get out of the marriage and marry again without it being considered divorce...so the RCC saw this as an opportunity to gain members AND to make money (as annulments are extremely expensive in most cases).

So they were breaking one commandment to get out of another? Interesting.

If marriage is not a right, then no civil rights would be encroached upon by outlawing ALL marriages.....hmmm....

Marriage is an instiution given from God to man and womena as the appropriate place for sex and so with regard to religion you have the right to be married. This is done basicly by citing vows to each other in the presence of God. Since that is anywhere you can do it anywhere though it is better to cite them in a church or at least in the presence of a bible. However marriage as a governmental instiution is not a right and shouldnt be mistaken for one.

So they were breaking one commandment to get out of another? Interesting.

Pretty much....yes. King Henry VIII was a GREAT example of that. Had many of his wives killed, and he finally broke away from the Catholic church and formed the Anglican Church (Church of England), which allowed divorce.

Bah, clearly you miss the point.

Christians attempting to only push a secular agenda here people. Hello.

Because of this, chrisitans recognize that there is much debate among the different religions regarding what is, and what should be the punishment for, adultery. You see they recognize that the US is a secular nation so they shouldn't go around legisitlating their beliefs system on others, DUH ! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, every religion -except those godless hindoos and they don't count - recognizes that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.

Thus any ban on gay marriage is simply promoting a secular, i.e., NON - CHRISTIAN agenda. So what's your problem?

[Frankly I think it just goes to show the tolerance of christians that they have stopped at only wanting to dissallow marriage, when we all know the appropriate pusnishment is death.]

Hindoos are not godless. They have thousands of gods.

spared BC abrahams merit. the rapists are never explicitly stated, just that they were bad people. 29, 29 genisis

God sent two angels to Soddom to find any "righteous" people who should be sparred. Lot took the angels in. A mob formed outside of his house and they demanded that the angels (disgused as humans) be sent out so they could have sex with them.

Lot refused and offered his daughters to the mob insetad. The mob told Lot to piss off, attempted to break down the door. The angels blinded the mob and told Lot to gather his family and "all those who belong to him" and get out as the city was to be destoryed.

Gensis chapter 19: 1 - 16

No they don't. They are not allowed to marry the person they love. Straight people can.


straight people aren't allowed to marry the person they love. they're allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. I can marry a woman whether we love each other or not. Gay people are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everybody else. Personally, i don't think government should observe marriage at all. I dislike democratic governments, and for my idea to work we need a lot more reforms than that. The way legal marriage is right now is flawed, but i don't feel like going into any more detail.

No they don't. They are not allowed to marry the person they love. Straight people can.


What does love have to do with it? They have exactly the same rights in the exercise of marriage as everyone else. No-one has the "right" to marry someone they love.

Also that is hardly a legal argument. So you are doing exactly what you criticise the christians of doing.

Marriage is an instiution given from God to man and womena as the appropriate place for sex and so with regard to religion you have the right to be married. This is done basicly by citing vows to each other in the presence of God. Since that is anywhere you can do it anywhere though it is better to cite them in a church or at least in the presence of a bible. However marriage as a governmental instiution is not a right and shouldnt be mistaken for one.

Marriage IS a right given by the government. Gays are simply discriminated against by not being allowed the same rights as everyone else. Personally, I think churches and religious establishments should be the ones that marry people, and the government get the heck out of it....but religious people wouldn't like that...cause they like their tax breaks and benefits too much....they just don't gay people to get those same benefits...

Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as a straight person in the US.

In most of the U.S. gays cannot marry at all. They cannot receive pensions if their significant other dies. They cannot claim any tax benefits. They cannot adopt children as a couple, and on and on. What do you mean by this statement?

Hindoos are not godless. They have thousands of gods.


Some do, some don't.

Also, I just checked the laws in India, and apparently even the Hindoos think homosexuality is a sin. Prove me wrong.

So now it is unanimous. All religions condemn it.

In most of the U.S. gays cannot marry at all. They cannot receive pensions if their significant other dies. They cannot claim any tax benefits. They cannot adopt children as a couple, and on and on. What do you mean by this statement?


They can get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex and over the age of consent.

Ergo, same rights as everyone else.

straight people aren't allowed to marry the person they love. they're allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex. I can marry a woman whether we love each other or not. Gay people are allowed to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everybody else. Personally, i don't think government should observe marriage at all. I dislike democratic governments, and for my idea to work we need a lot more reforms than that. The way legal marriage is right now is flawed, but i don't feel like going into any more detail.


Umm....straight people ARE allowed to marry the person they love, cause they are straight...so the person they love would be of the opposite sex...

I agree that government should not observe marriage at all. marriage by definition is a religious institution, and the government should not be regulating religious institutions. I think that the religious organizations should be the ones to marry people...and if they want to marry gays or straights, or whatever...that is their perogative.

What does love have to do with it? They have exactly the same rights in the exercise of marriage as everyone else. No-one has the "right" to marry someone they love.

Also that is hardly a legal argument. So you are doing exactly what you criticise the christians of doing.

The legal argument is that if the government recognizes the marriage of ANYONE, they should not discriminate. They should allow any two people that want to marry to marry. Period.

They can get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex and over the age of consent.

Ergo, same rights as everyone else.

Oh please!!! Straight people would pitch a holy fit if their marriages were not legal and gays were, and that was the argument......

God sent two angels to Soddom to find any "righteous" people who should be sparred. Lot took the angels in. A mob formed outside of his house and they demanded that the angels (disgused as humans) be sent out so they could have sex with them.

Lot refused and offered his daughters to the mob insetad. The mob told Lot to piss off, attempted to break down the door. The angels blinded the mob and told Lot to gather his family and "all those who belong to him" and get out as the city was to be destoryed.

Gensis chapter 19: 1 - 16

thats only if you translate the word "Know" or in hebrew (Naydah) as meaning to have sex. that IS a meaning but in this case it is out of context.
this is despite the fact that the commentatiors see the use of "Naydah" with lots daughters, and figure it meants the same thiung from here. BUT there is NO OTHER evedence other than from this verse (Genisis 19.5) that they were homosexuals, so it does not happen to sit well with me

Hindooism is not a religion.

And buddhism does have a problem with it. I suggest you actually study what the Dalai Lama has to say on the subject, then we'll see who feels secure enough to bandy around the term idiot.

Moreoever your definition of secular seems to imply godless.

I am pointing out that since there is broad agreement across all real religions, then there is no chance of implementing this law being the establishment of certian religious perspective through the law. So there. And please do not flame. It is rude.

I think one would by very much mistaken to say that "most", "all", or, worst of all, "all legitimate" religions believe one thing or another. Even in Christianinity, many churches and sects openly accept remarriges and homosexuallity. Furthermore, the idea that some religions are somehow "godless" (particularly wrong with Hinduism since it has many divinities and Buddhism, depending on the sect, has not defined "god") is absurd, since no one has the right to objectively declare a religion as "wrong".

Even if only one religion consisting of, perhaps, two percent of the population of the United States (assuming the enire country was religious) accepted remarriges, the Constituion, thanks to the Establishment Clause, would forbid the government from preventing this religion from having second marriges, since, after all, it is legitimate enough if it has one out of every fifty Americans as believers.

This very problem is occuring for sects of Christianity, Judaism, and many smaller religions in the United States right now who ACCEPT homosexuallity and even, in some cases, GAY MARRIGE. For them, Congress would be forbiding their religious practices.

Now we come to remarrige, which is not even controversal to much of the country. Clearly most of the people do not have a problem with it. Most do not believe that there can be a marrige save love. If you stop loving someone or never did, how can your union be immortal? The point is that religions have they power to regulate their followers, but not nonbelievers.

Additionally, I have to say that the misspelling of "Hinduism" is abhorant and shows ignorance and a total lack of respect and understanding for people other than oneself.

Some do, some don't.

Also, I just checked the laws in India, and apparently even the Hindoos think homosexuality is a sin. Prove me wrong.

So now it is unanimous. All religions condemn it.

Except many Eastern religions, and most "pagan" religions. May I remind you that the Greeks considered homosexuality a sign of prestigue. Bisexuality and incest were frequently practised among the high class peoples of the Ancient Egyptions, including preists.
I'm sure by "All religions" you really mean the "Christians, Jews, and Muslims".
By the way, the Indian government is secular, so what they believe religiously is not always what they put into law.
So, perhaps you should look a little deeper into it next time? Or have you been watching too many movies?

Haha, oh man, just listen to yourself there. You are using a loophole around it. That's right, just close your eyes. If you think it never happened, then of course it never happened.

A divorse and anullment are the same thing. You are breaking apart a marriage. Whether you break it from the very start, or somewhere in the middle does not matter. You are still breaking it.

whether you think that divorce and annulment are the same, no offense, but it doesnt matter. They are seperate things as defined by Christian law. (this is coming from a jewish perspective)

The legal argument is that if the government recognizes the marriage of ANYONE, they should not discriminate. They should allow any two people that want to marry to marry. Period.

They don't discriminate. There is no law saying gay people can't get married.

And there is no law saying straight people can marry whoever they want either.

Also I just checked up on the Africans. They also condemn it.

So it seems like world majority opinion is against this plan. Don't you believe in democracy.

They are lax when it comes to adultery because it is convienient to do so. Just as it is convienient to speed on a highway if you are in a hurry. Same as lying, cheating, stealing or what have you. Being a christian does not make someone perfect, or even good for that matter.
A practicing christian will usually push whatever agenda his church wants. Homosexuality is the hot topic now so that is what a lot of churches are concentrating on at this time.

thats only if you translate the word "Know" or in hebrew (Naydah) as meaning to have sex. that IS a meaning but in this case it is out of context.

Valid point. Translations are always tricky.

This still invalidates any agrument that Soddem and Gomorrha were destoryed outright because of homosexuality

whether you think that divorce and annulment are the same, no offense, but it doesnt matter. They are seperate things as defined by Christian law. (this is coming from a jewish perspective)

The Reconstrutionist and Reform Jews also have religious homosexual marriges. THIS IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

Laws making marriage illegal and a criminal offence would heveyly encroch on civil rights when policed. Gay marriage being outlawed does not as it is not a "Right" to be married.

Yeah, you're a REAL expert on civil rights! Schmuck, you're own country has the lowest civil rights I've seen (of course, mine is in Libertarian, so...), not to mention a 72% tax rate.
You are to civil rights what Ashton Kutcher is to acting.

It's not a right to get married? If your state or country took away heterosexual's "privelege" to get legally married tomorrow (and enjoy those "priveleges" like hospital visitation and health insurance), you'd be pissin' and moanin' all over this board about the travesty of the loss of your prescious civil liberties.
Dude, even you have sinned and come WAY short of the glory of God, so stop blowing holy smoke up our collective arses.

Sodom and Gomorrah weree destroyed by God because they were full of sin. If people knock on your door to ask you to give up your guests to be raped, then i can't really blame god. It had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with everybody raping everybody, among other things.

Except many Eastern religions, and most "pagan" religions. May I remind you that the Greeks considered homosexuality a sign of prestigue. Bisexuality and incest were frequently practised among the high class peoples of the Ancient Egyptions, including preists.
I'm sure by "All religions" you really mean the "Christians, Jews, and Muslims".
By the way, the Indian government is secular, so what they believe religiously is not always what they put into law.
So, perhaps you should look a little deeper into it next time? Or have you been watching too many movies?

No hidoos do not support homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. Just look at the DharmaShastras.

Nor do buddhists.

All the ancient greeks are now dead. They were also pedophiles - is that the next project.

The Reconstrutionist and Reform Jews also have religious homosexual marriges. THIS IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE


the right to do what u want is protected by the government however the marrigaes they consecrate are not valid(i dont think) in the eyes of the government.

and the reconstructionists dont have it at all

Sodom and Gomorrah weree destroyed by God because they were full of sin. If people knock on your door to ask you to give up your guests to be raped, then i can't really blame god. It had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with everybody raping everybody, among other things.

refer to my post three (3) above your original one.

read posts before u talk

the right to do what u want is protected by the government however the marrigaes they consecrate are not valid(i dont think) in the eyes of the government.

and the reconstructionists dont have it at all

THe marriges are not recognized by the government, but who knows if the government is valid in the eyes of god. WHO KNOWS WHAT THE EYES OF GOD SEE. WHO KNOWS WHO OR IF GOD IS. And the reconstuctionists are very ,very right on a lot of things. They sang out their faith befor Evangelicals.

refer to my post three (3) above your original one.

read posts before u talk


I did read your post my deeply ignorant friend. What do you propose they meant then? They wanted to get to know the angels over a nice cup of tea?

Sodom and Gomorrah weree destroyed by God because they were full of sin. If people knock on your door to ask you to give up your guests to be raped, then i can't really blame god. It had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with everybody raping everybody, among other things.

Okay, I'm confused.

You flame me and then say what I pretty much said

whether you think that divorce and annulment are the same, no offense, but it doesnt matter. They are seperate things as defined by Christian law. (this is coming from a jewish perspective)

Ah yes, christian law. Because obviously, christian law is above the laws of God to you. YES, twist the words of God around. If God doesn't want you to get a divorce, then all you have to do is say "OH, I was never married in the first place." Convenient? Yes, yes it is.

I find it sad that you would rather have an anullment than a divorce. With a divorce, you could say that you loved each other at one point, but as time went on, things changed and that the two of you were not meant for each other.

But with an anullment, it's like it never existed. Go ahead and turn a blind eye. Go ahead and tell yourself that the love between the two of you never existed, it was all a lie. How F*ing sad is that . . .

Sodom and Gomorrah weree destroyed by God because they were full of sin. If people knock on your door to ask you to give up your guests to be raped, then i can't really blame god. It had nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with everybody raping everybody, among other things.

Why can't angels be female?

I did read your post my deeply ignorant friend. What do you propose they meant then? They wanted to get to know the angels over a nice cup of tea?


kick the shit out of them perhaps?

No hidoos do not support homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. Just look at the DharmaShastras.

Nor do buddhists.

All the ancient greeks are now dead. They were also pedophiles - is that the next project.

You don't know. It's true many Indians don't like gays now, but look at the Kamasutra. There are many homosexual drawings. Also, Hinduism the religion has no problem with it. Modern Indians, regardless of religion, usually do. Buddhism the religion has no problem with it. I don't like it, but I do enjoy proving your stupid bigot ass wrong.

Okay, I'm confused.

You flame me and then say what I pretty much said

That's not "pretty much what you said"

I flamed you for your bigotry and stupidity. That doesn't mean i have to disagree with everything you said.

kick the shit out of them perhaps?

so Lot's daughters took turns kicking the shit out of their father then...

Ah yes, christian law. Because obviously, christian law is above the laws of God to you. YES, twist the words of God around. If God doesn't want you to get a divorce, then all you have to do is say "OH, I was never married in the first place." Convenient? Yes, yes it is.

I find it sad that you would rather have an anullment than a divorce. With a divorce, you could say that you loved each other at one point, but as time went on, things changed and that the two of you were not meant for each other.

But with an anullment, it's like it never existed. Go ahead and turn a blind eye. Go ahead and tell yourself that the love between the two of you never existed, it was all a lie. How F*ing sad is that . . .

Are you argueing about Christain law or what you want to be the law of the United States of America

You don't know. It's true many Indians don't like gays now, but look at the Kamasutra. There are many homosexual drawings. Also, Hinduism the religion has no problem with it. Modern Indians, regardless of religion, usually do. Buddhism the religion has no problem with it. I don't like it, but I do enjoy proving your stupid bigot ass wrong.


Karma Sutra is not a religious teaching. Just because gay porn gets produced in Italy doesn't mean the Catholic church supports homosexual marriage.

And like I said, the religion does have a problem with it. It's unfruitful.

The Dalai Lama has condemned homosexuality as not a good buddhist practice.

You are wrong not me. Also I suspect you are the bigot, since you seem to assume to know what all these religions say without bothering to check.

I flamed you for your bigotry and stupidity.

Bigotry and stupidity? Okay then, enlighten me. What did I say that was stupid and made me a bigot?

Are you argueing about Christain law or what you want to be the law of the United States of America

I don't want it to be a law of the US. Marriage, gay or not, is up to the people. Divorce is up to the people. But I don't like how religious people are going around passing laws preventing people from doing something, just because they think it is wrong. They tell you that it's against the will of God when gays marry. But when it comes to divorce, they will bend the "will of God" to fit their taste. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Oh, and I'm an atheist. Hooray!

Bigotry and stupidity? Okay then, enlighten me. What did I say that was stupid and made me a bigot?

You mocked the idea that Christians are God's chosen people. In other words, you judged an entire group you know nothing about. Bigotry +1

You didn't read the Bible and made obviously uneducated comments. Stupidity +1

You think Christians are God's chosen people. It's actually jews. Stupidity +3

You mock the God of 3 religions and billions of people. Bigotry +1

No hidoos do not support homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. Just look at the DharmaShastras.

Nor do buddhists.

All the ancient greeks are now dead. They were also pedophiles - is that the next project.

Humm.. I have Buddhist family members, and I asked them, what do they say. "Buddhism doesn't disprove of homosexuality, incest, or anything else like that. We prefer to let people make their own choices in life and find their own path to enlightenment."

Now, as for the Hindu's. There is a story involving some sex-crazed demons comming from some guys butt, and then chasing after him. (Uber-paraphrase).
Now, I can understand how this can be interpreted as anti-gay, and indeed it is by some Hindus. But, I ask you to prove where it blatantly says anything involving homosexuality. If you wish, I'll even post the story to make it easier to you.

As for ancient Greeks, I don't suppose you remember that until the last 70 years or so, Christianity was a mass of pedophiles to? As were the masses of Muslims until the colapse of the Ottoman Empire (And indeed in some areas still are, but I won't go there).
And as for all dead, I suggest you look at a map, the country of Greece still exists. The Greek people now are the descendants of the Ancient Greeks, so obviously they're not all dead. As well, there is an increasing movement for people to convert to pagan religions, and many of these people convert to either Egyptian, Greek, Norse, or Galic religions predating Christianity, so I assume you are saying these people's beliefs are wrong?

I could go on and on, but I'd rather let you think for yourself, so I'll make one last point.
You said that a law being made based on what "All religions" believe is wrong is secular? No.
A secular law is one that is not dictated by religious beliefs, and thus a law based off of what "All religions" think is not, by definition, secular.

Karma Sutra is not a religious teaching. Just because gay porn gets produced in Italy doesn't mean the Catholic church supports homosexual marriage.

And like I said, the religion does have a problem with it. It's unfruitful.

The Dalai Lama has condemned homosexuality as not a good buddhist practice.

You are wrong not me. Also I suspect you are the bigot, since you seem to assume to know what all these religions say without bothering to check.

What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that the Dalai Lama is an avid Civil Rights activist (stemming from his own experience with tyrannical and self-righteous Red China).
He said nature arranged male and female organs
"in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot
manage well." But he stopped short of condemning homosexual
relationships altogether, saying if two people agree to enter a
relationship that is not sexually abusive, "then I don't know.
It's difficult to say."

Do better-than-thou Christian leaders have any of that humility or humbleness? The Dalai Lama isn't afraid to say he doesn't know, and it's really not up to him to decide.
Pat Robertson and his ilk could learn a thing or two from the Dalai Lama (and Jesus, for that matter).

Humm.. I have Buddhist family members, and I asked them, what do they say. "Buddhism doesn't disprove of homosexuality, incest, or anything else like that. We prefer to let people make their own choices in life and find their own path to enlightenment."

Now, as for the Hindu's. There is a story involving some sex-crazed demons comming from some guys butt, and then chasing after him. (Uber-paraphrase).
Now, I can understand how this can be interpreted as anti-gay, and indeed it is by some Hindus. But, I ask you to prove where it blatantly says anything involving homosexuality. If you wish, I'll even post the story to make it easier to you.

As for ancient Greeks, I don't suppose you remember that until the last 70 years or so, Christianity was a mass of pedophiles to? As were the masses of Muslims until the colapse of the Ottoman Empire (And indeed in some areas still are, but I won't go there).
And as for all dead, I suggest you look at a map, the country of Greece still exists. The Greek people now are the descendants of the Ancient Greeks, so obviously they're not all dead. As well, there is an increasing movement for people to convert to pagan religions, and many of these people convert to either Egyptian, Greek, Norse, or Galic religions predating Christianity, so I assume you are saying these people's beliefs are wrong?

I could go on and on, but I'd rather let you think for yourself, so I'll make one last point.
You said that a law being made based on what "All religions" believe is wrong is secular? No.
A secular law is one that is not dictated by religious beliefs, and thus a law based off of what "All religions" think is not, by definition, secular.


The Dalai Lama disagrees with you view of buddhism.

And don't even get started with modern greece being related to ancient greece, because that is silly. Ancient greece was never even a country, rather a region. And like I said, no-one practices those beliefs anymore.

As to your refenerence to Egyptian, Greek, Norse, or Galic religions predating Christianity. I don't see what you really mean. No-one practices them anymore, so what.

And of course an amalgamation of the beliefs across all faiths is secular. Because, as you note, it would no longer be dictated by religious beliefs, but rather everyone's moral code.

So it's all the religious folks getting together to create a secular majority that condemns this practice. Very democratic really.

You mocked the idea that Christians are God's chosen people. In other words, you judged an entire group you know nothing about. Bigotry +1

You didn't read the Bible and made obviously uneducated comments. Stupidity +1

You think Christians are God's chosen people. It's actually jews. Stupidity +3

You mock the God of 3 religions and billions of people. Bigotry +1

1) I didn't say the christians are God's chosen people. I said Abraham's descends were God's chosen people, who were (drum roll please) the jews.

2) I've actually read the bible cover from cover. 12 years in a Christian school didn't hurt either

3) I made a sacrastic comment referring to the fact that the bible if full of God's inconsistent method of punishing sinners and rewarding the "righteous" have given christians mixed messages about what is "good" and bad"

It is very possible that the intentions of my post were not clear, given that I have been awake for 37 hours straight, and for that I do apologise.

What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that the Dalai Lama is an avid Civil Rights activist (stemming from his own experience with tyrannical and self-righteous Red China).
He said nature arranged male and female organs
"in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot
manage well." But he stopped short of condemning homosexual
relationships altogether, saying if two people agree to enter a
relationship that is not sexually abusive, "then I don't know.
It's difficult to say."

Do better-than-thou Christian leaders have any of that humility or humbleness? The Dalai Lama isn't afraid to say he doesn't know, and it's really not up to him to decide.
Pat Robertson and his ilk could learn a thing or two from the Dalai Lama (and Jesus, for that matter).


My point is that everyone - of consequence that is - is against these practices. So why is everyone so up in arms when people simply want to prevent homosexual marriage.

Why can't angels be female?

Angels are asexual. They simply took the shape of men in this particular case.

The Dalai Lama disagrees with you view of buddhism.

And don't even get started with modern greece being related to ancient greece, because that is silly. Ancient greece was never even a country, rather a region. And like I said, no-one practices those beliefs anymore.

As to your refenerence to Egyptian, Greek, Norse, or Galic religions predating Christianity. I don't see what you really mean. No-one practices them anymore, so what.

And of course an amalgamation of the beliefs across all faiths is secular. Because, as you note, it would no longer be dictated by religious beliefs, but rather everyone's moral code.

So it's all the religious folks getting together to create a secular majority that condemns this practice. Very democratic really.


You claim I, and the others here, don't look into what we're talking about, yet, you are obviously ignorant of what you say yourself.
Now, just to retort your idea that the Dalai Lama dissagrees, read the post by Eichen right above yours. I think it's well put there.
Now, to your "No one practises those anymore". You either truely are ignorant, or a bigot.
The last time I looked, the number of fully practising pagans in the US was something like 140,000. And that's just the people who really get into it, and admit it, not including the non-practising ones (Like me), and definatly not including the ones who won't say they're pagan because they're affraid of persecution.
Think about what you say before you say it.

Angels are asexual. They simply took the shape of men in this particular case.

Angels can be male. It's in the bible.

Karma Sutra is not a religious teaching. Just because gay porn gets produced in Italy doesn't mean the Catholic church supports homosexual marriage.

And like I said, the religion does have a problem with it. It's unfruitful.

The Dalai Lama has condemned homosexuality as not a good buddhist practice.

You are wrong not me. Also I suspect you are the bigot, since you seem to assume to know what all these religions say without bothering to check.

The dalai lama is not the authority on buddhism.

You may, you know, want to check up on buddhism before you make a generalization like "buddhism disapproves of gay marriage."

1) I didn't say the christians are God's chosen people. I said Abraham's descends were God's chosen people, who were (drum roll please) the jews.

2) I've actually read the bible cover from cover. 12 years in a Christian school didn't hurt either

3) I made a sacrastic comment referring to the fact that the bible if full of God's inconsistent method of punishing sinners and rewarding the "righteous" have given christians mixed messages about what is "good" and bad"

It is very possible that the intentions of my post were not clear, given that I have been awake for 37 hours straight, and for that I do apologise.

1) I must have misread the first point, so you can have it.

2) They must have done a shitty job teaching you about it then

3) I have not seen any "inconsistent" methods. Most things that do not make sense in one verse are usually explained in another, sometimes hundred of verses away. The bible is extremely easy to quote out of context, and a lot of the "inconsistencies" are just that, quoting out of context.

You claim I, and the others here, don't look into what we're talking about, yet, you are obviously ignorant of what you say yourself.
Now, just to retort your idea that the Dalai Lama dissagrees, read the post by Eichen right above yours. I think it's well put there.
Now, to your "No one practises those anymore". You either truely are ignorant, or a bigot.
The last time I looked, the number of fully practising pagans in the US was something like 140,000. And that's just the people who really get into it, and admit it, not including the non-practising ones (Like me), and definatly not including the ones who won't say they're pagan because they're affraid of persecution.
Think about what you say before you say it.


How can people practice druidism, for example?
No-one knows what it is anymore.

And stop calling me a bigot. It's rude. I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion, no need for the personal attacks :(

The dalai lama is not the authority on buddhism.

You may, you know, want to check up on buddhism before you make a generalization like "buddhism disapproves of gay marriage."

Yes he is.

Angels can be male. It's in the bible.


Angels have no need to reproduce since they are spirits, and as a result, they have no need for sex organs or males/females. In the bible, they usually take a male body. That does not make them male.

How can people practice druidism, for example?

No-one knows what it is anymore.

Actually, alot of people do. I'm freinds with a Druid at that. People actually get PhD's in things like History, Archeology, and Anthropology where they learn how to learn about civilizations that have died.
And for the Druids in particular, they never died, they just moved out of the public "spotlight".

And stop calling me a bigot. It's rude. I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion, no need for the personal attacks
And I'm sorry, but you've said several times that my beliefs are wrong, illegitimate, and do not exist. I'm sure you can understand the great offense I take to those remarks.

Yes he is.


That is palpably and embarrassingly wrong.

Angels can be male. It's in the bible.

they are only called male because of the different forms for male and female in hebrew, so when they were translated, they became called he in english.

My point is that everyone - of consequence that is - is against these practices. So why is everyone so up in arms when people simply want to prevent homosexual marriage.

Everyone so up in arms because it is a form of discrimination and it is bigoted. If everyone one wanted to ban straight marriages would that make it O.K. to do so?
People should be able to marry whoever they want. It's nobody elses business.
I don't give a crap what the Dahli Lama, Budda, Pat Robertson, or the Pope says.

The main reason that the religous body has not lobbyed for a law agaisnt adlutery is that in order to police it, you would need to incroch heveyly on privicy and human rights. You would need a substansial ammount of electronic suvalience and other such techniques to use on people for even suspecting that they are guilty of an affair. And imagine the damage you could do if you begin investigating and then find out its false and then the fact that you are investiagating is discovered by the one being investigated.

There would be no undue monitering or invasion of privacy laws that would stop divorced people from getting remarried. We could do something about that bit of adultery at least.

so Lot's daughters took turns kicking the shit out of their father then...

as i said before, there are two meanings to the hebrew root of LAYDAH, One is to meet, and the second is to have sex with.

It is true that that root is used in the same chapter to mean sex(With Lot's daughters) and it is used again here with regards to the angles.

However, being that there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE that the Sedomites were homesexual, I do not like the interpretation that it means the same thing.

It is an especially weak argument in light of the fact that the bible gives another reson for why the cities were destroyed. Namely that they were THieves and Amoral people, not that they were specificly homosexuals.

No hidoos do not support homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. Just look at the DharmaShastras.

Nor do buddhists.

All the ancient greeks are now dead. They were also pedophiles - is that the next project.

You do realize that saying, "Um, I just checked on X group ("The Africans" and "The Atheists" - lol, priceless), and they also condemn it. So says me," does not cut it for backing up your claims. You've made so many baseless claims here that I think I've gotten dumber just reading your posts.

Post some sources or quit wearing out your keyboard. You don't have a shred of credibility.

for example, in conversation with the woman at the well in Symaria he asks he who her husband is, she says she has none, and he says, in effect, that's true, because you've had five husbands and the man you are with is not your husband.

She was clearly part of a conjugal union, and Jesus said she was not married.

(now on another note, you relativists need to read some Kant or at least some Hobbes or Rand.)

Let's see... could it be maybe because Jesus considered her conjugal union to be a state of ADULTERY rather than marriage.

In my opening arguement I did use conjugal marriage as a delicacy... relying on the modern rather than Jesus defined usage of the word conjugal, however.

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

You are quite right in noting that the action of Lot and his daughters was an abomination, the sin of incest. So it has always, everywhere been understood.

Although what Lot and his daughters did - because of the daughters' despair in finding a husband after what they took to be the end of civilization at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - was indeed terribly wrong.

as i said before, there are two meanings to the hebrew root of LAYDAH, One is to meet, and the second is to have sex with.

It is true that that root is used in the same chapter to mean sex(With Lot's daughters) and it is used again here with regards to the angles.

However, being that there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE that the Sedomites were homesexual, I do not like the interpretation that it means the same thing.

It is an especially weak argument in light of the fact that the bible gives another reson for why the cities were destroyed. Namely that they were THieves and Amoral people, not that they were specificly homosexuals.

Umm, I never said they were gay. There is an ancient culture who used to consider women scum, and hold them prisoners with only food and water, and used them for bearing children only. When they wanted sex, they would screw younger men, untill the young men were old and rich enough to afford their own little play toys. The greeks would screw each other as well. Screwing other men does not make you gay. You have to actually feel attraction, and sex feels good whether you love the person or not.

i hate all of you

The Scripture you may be referring to:

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

under the Law of Moses, divorce was permitted because the people were not able to live the high gospel standard which would abolish it.

Deut. 24: 1
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

But, in both cases, the provision for divorse was based on fornication. The only other provision that I believe is valid for divorce is spousal or child abuse, including neglect.

If you go onto my church website (www.mormon.org) and type the word "Divorce," the following quotes pop-up:

"Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has explained: “There is now and again a legitimate cause for divorce. I am not one to say that it is never justified. But I say without hesitation that this plague among us, which seems to be growing everywhere, is not of God, but rather is the work of the adversary of righteousness and peace and truth.

“There is a remedy for all of this. The Lord proclaimed, ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder’ (Matthew 19:6). The remedy for most marital stress is not in divorce. It is in repentance and forgiveness, in sincere expressions of charity and service. It is not in separation. It is in simple integrity that leads a man and woman to square up their shoulders and meet their obligations. It is found in the Golden Rule, a time-honored principle that should first and foremost find expression in marriage.”

We view the family as the center of our Heavenly Father's plan take and we divorce seriously. We desire that it could be abolished altogether, but, becasue of the hardness of men's hearts, we recognize that we are far from realizing this high standard. However, let it be known that anyone who commits adultry or who abuses their spouse or children has sinned against their family and against God. In most cases, we will also remove them from fellowship in the church.

It all boils down to sexual purity and living the law of chastity. Whether you are straight, gay, married, divorced or widowed. The Law of Chastity applies to all of God's children. Note that living a chaste live does not require living a life of abstinence, it requires living a life of fidelity to the spouse who you are legally married to...and the marriage that God has ordained is between man and woman.

Okay. Proven cases of infidilety and abuse are understandable. Even if the bible doesn't specify abuse it is in Jesus' style and well, religion should not get in the way of actual physical welfare when laws are being decided. No-fault or "incompatible" marriages aren't. I never said that Christians thought of divorce as good. What I want to know is why they aren't working to pass laws against something that is far worse than sodomy.

Umm, I never said they were gay. There is an ancient culture who used to consider women scum, and hold them prisoners with only food and water, and used them for bearing children only. When they wanted sex, they would screw younger men, untill the young men were old and rich enough to afford their own little play toys. The greeks would screw each other as well. Screwing other men does not make you gay. You have to actually feel attraction, and sex feels good whether you love the person or not.

2 points.

1. One implication of wanting to have sex with men is the possible right of god to destroy your city. And that is most certainly the implication with regards to your interpretation of the verse in the context of sedom.

2. Having sex with men is HOMOSEXUALITY, not being gay, a word i never used.

That is palpably and embarrassingly wrong.


Right, but Pat Robertson speaks for all christians though.

You do realize that saying, "Um, I just checked on X group ("The Africans" and "The Atheists" - lol, priceless), and they also condemn it. So says me," does not cut it for backing up your claims. You've made so many baseless claims here that I think I've gotten dumber just reading your posts.

Post some sources or quit wearing out your keyboard. You don't have a shred of credibility.


You say this only because you do not like my conclusions.

You could say the same to the thread starter, but tellingly, you are silent.

Lacadaemon: Stop. Breathing.

Intellectual dishonesty is pouring out from your posts like diarrhea.

Lacadaemon: Stop. Breathing.

Intellectual dishonesty is pouring out from your posts like diarrhea.

i think we need a cool off periiod

You say this only because you do not like my conclusions.

You could say the same to the thread starter, but tellingly, you are silent.

No, I'm saying that because you are spouting drivel and making claims about other groups of people without a shred of evidence (or, apparently, the burden of knowledge). Examples: "The Atheists" and "The Africans" - did you go to their website or something (I'm still chuckling about those)? To make such claims is so unfathomably stupid that I'm at a loss for words. Your conclusions are crap produced by your own ignorance - go ahead, cite some sources to prove otherwise. The author of the thread puts together a logical set of statements reaching a conclusion. You don't - quite far from it. You make bogus claims to back up your point and expect us to buy it. It's insulting.

i think we need a cool off periiod

I may be inclined to agree.
Although I am throughly enjoying my debate with Lacadaemon, the "Stop Breathing" comment is over the top.
You ruin a good debatewith that.

Lacadaemon: Stop. Breathing.

Intellectual dishonesty is pouring out from your posts like diarrhea.

My, that's vivid...not to mention incredibly apt.

i think we need a cool off periiod

Perhaps.

You ruin a good debatewith that.

Sorry to rain on your parade. :p

... but, seriously, this isn't a debate, it's a massacre.

I'm just curious. The Roman Catholic Church does base it's teachings on the Bible does it not? I would like to know what part of the bible does this annulment loophole come from? :confused:

The Roman Catholic Church bases its teachings on the bible as intepreted by the Pope, as the interpreter of God's will. Technically, the Pope could decree that it is right and proper for Catholics to worship Lucifer (not that he is ever likely to do so) and the Catholics would have to do so.

Anullment has been around for centuries.

Some good things have actually come out of the RCC having an official interpreter of the bible.

Catholics must do good works as well as worship Jesus in order to be saved. They are allowed (possibly even encouraged) to believe in science - like evolution and physics. The official Cannon of the Church demands tolerance for other religions, and does not consider virtuous non-Christians to be evil just because they aren't Christian.

The Roman Catholic Church bases its teachings on the bible as intepreted by the Pope, as the interpreter of God's will. Technically, the Pope could decree that it is right and proper for Catholics to worship Lucifer (not that he is ever likely to do so) and the Catholics would have to do so.

Anullment has been around for centuries.

Some good things have actually come out of the RCC having an official interpreter of the bible.

Catholics must do good works as well as worship Jesus in order to be saved. They are allowed (possibly even encouraged) to believe in science - like evolution and physics. The official Cannon of the Church demands tolerance for other religions, and does not consider virtuous non-Christians to be evil just because they aren't Christian.

except jews(until recently) who were the damned no matter what the hell they did.

except jews(until recently) who were the damned no matter what the hell they did.

And Polytheists/Pagans/Wiccans who are condemned to eternal damnation according to Catholosism still.

Although that damnation isn't religious policy exactly, more like choices made by those working in the name of the religion.

And Polytheists/Pagans/Wiccans who are condemned to eternal damnation according to Catholosism still.

Although that damnation isn't religious policy exactly, more like choices made by those working in the name of the religion.

wiccans?

Some do, some don't.

Also, I just checked the laws in India, and apparently even the Hindoos think homosexuality is a sin. Prove me wrong.

So now it is unanimous. All religions condemn it.

Hindu scriptures do not condemn homosexuality. Some Hindus are in favor of it and others are not. Buddhist do not condemn homosexuality because a) The Dali Lami is just head of one branch of Buddhism, saying he speaks for all Buddhists would be like saying the Pope speaks for all Christians and b) the religion of Buddhism is such that everyone makes their own path. There is no law that says that even those of the Dali Lama's path must condemn homosexuality.

So far the nations that have made homosexual marriage legal have been Christian nations. Maybe its time for the rest to get a hint that there is more virtue in alleviating the suffering of even "sinners" than to deny marriage to those who are just going to go on being homosexual anyway.

Wicca isn't a religion, it's a joke. A bunch of rebellious teens decided to mix up a few obscure religions and call it "wicca". They claim it's "ancient" when it's actually 50 years old.

wiccans?
Yes, Wiccans, even though they're becomming more and more mainstream, they still get alot of persecution from Christianity as a whole.

Which I can bring back on topic, they're not against homosexuality, or adultury as is defined by the Bible at that.

Hindu scriptures do not condemn homosexuality. Some Hindus are in favor of it and others are not. Buddhist do not condemn homosexuality because a) The Dali Lami is just head of one branch of Buddhism, saying he speaks for all Buddhists would be like saying the Pope speaks for all Christians and b) the religion of Buddhism is such that everyone makes their own path. There is no law that says that even those of the Dali Lama's path must condemn homosexuality.

So far the nations that have made homosexual marriage legal have been Christian nations. Maybe its time for the rest to get a hint that there is more virtue in alleviating the suffering of even "sinners" than to deny marriage to those who are just going to go on being homosexual anyway.

Christian nations? Most nations outside of Europe ban it, including Islamic nations. what the hell are you smoking?

Wicca isn't a religion, it's a joke. A bunch of rebellious teens decided to mix up a few obscure religions and call it "wicca". They claim it's "ancient" when it's actually 50 years old.

Actually, it's a religion. And not one that's a mix, it merely adopts ideals from other religions (So does Islam, and Christianity for that matter), and uses the term "Witch Craft" in spite.
And actually it was created in the late 1930's.
It is however, becomming a fad.

Wicca isn't a religion, it's a joke. A bunch of rebellious teens decided to mix up a few obscure religions and call it "wicca". They claim it's "ancient" when it's actually 50 years old.

why are you so ANGRY?

Actually, it's a religion. And not one that's a mix, it merely adopts ideals from other religions (So does Islam, and Christianity for that matter), and uses the term "Witch Craft" in spite.
And actually it was created in the late 1930's.
It is however, becomming a fad.


It adopts completely unrelated ideals however. It is a mix of dead religions, put together because they "sound cool".

whether you think that divorce and annulment are the same, no offense, but it doesnt matter. They are seperate things as defined by Christian law. (this is coming from a jewish perspective)

True. And the Catholic Church is less hypocritical than other Christian Church's in this one instance. They have, in places where the held political influence, pushed for divorce to be illegal.

I think Lacadaemon took my advice. I'm sorry guys. :(

Are you argueing about Christain law or what you want to be the law of the United States of America

We are attempting to find out why certain Christians want an offense that the bible clearly shows is less grave than adultery (ie sodomy and homosexual marriage) to be made illegal because god thinks it is an "abomination" and Paul thinks it is simply amoral, while at the same time, they are perfectly happy with letting adultery remain legal.

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

keep on reading you fucking dumbass

Christian nations? Most nations outside of Europe ban it, including Islamic nations. what the hell are you smoking?

Nothing. The official state church of Norway is of an Evagelical-Lutheran denomination. 88% of the people belong to that Church. That would make Norway a predominately Christian nation. Norway allows gay marriages and divorce.

Sweden and Denmark are also Christian nations and they allow homosexual marriage and divorce. Just because they are in Europe doesn't make them any less Christian.

I'm not certain, but I bet divorce and adultery laws are a lot tougher in Islamic nations than they are in any Christian nation. While I do not like the idea of a theocratic state and laws based upon religion, at least there is less hypocrasy in the stance of the Islamic people than has been displayed by a very vocal but unknown percentage of Christians in the United States.

Everyone so up in arms because it is a form of discrimination and it is bigoted. If everyone one wanted to ban straight marriages would that make it O.K. to do so?
People should be able to marry whoever they want. It's nobody elses business.
I don't give a crap what the Dahli Lama, Budda, Pat Robertson, or the Pope says.
Now, I don't claim to be a theologen (sp?) but Personally, i think Budda and Jesus for that matter when asked about homosexuality would merely say, "Well... I'm not into it, but whatever." Keep in mind people, Budda and Jesus are quite possibly the most accepting people who have ever walked the earth. I personally love Jesus, its his fans that get on my nerves, kinda like Elvis. And Buddism, as a religion (personally I don't think it is due to the lack of deity, but whatever) continues the be the most accepting religion. The Dali Lama (or however you choose to spell it, note, there is no exact way to translate from their alphabet to ours) said that homosexuality is unnatural, not wrong. I mean, saying anything unnatural is a sin against God would be a viewpoint that I'd only except from a nudist living in a hollowed out tree.

Being a Catholic, I am opposed to divorce. Unfortunately, in today's society, where marriage is disposable like everything else, I am in the minority.

Christian nations? Most nations outside of Europe ban it, including Islamic nations. what the hell are you smoking?
Um... read the post again, it said the states that have made it LEGAL are predominately christian. :beats you repeatedly over the head with the "READ BEFORE REPLYING" sign:

I know of no Christians who would endorse divorce, despite how it may seem.

One reason Christians might seem lax, is that it's someone else's personal life. Divorce is allowed, Biblicially, if there is sexual unloayalty from one person, or both. I know that I'd personally rather divorce my wife, than let my children think adaultry is ok.

Christians (should) believe that judging others is wrong (Judge not, lest ye be judged), and that, not knowing all the circumstances surrounding a divorce, it's really not thier place to say. If it's not my place to say, I don't.

I don't condone, nor condemn, unless I actually know what's going on.

at least there is less hypocrasy in the stance of the Islamic people than has been displayed by a very vocal but unknown percentage of Christians in the United States.

The islamists are un-hypocritical?

less so than Anybody else?

really?

No, I'm saying that because you are spouting drivel and making claims about other groups of people without a shred of evidence (or, apparently, the burden of knowledge). Examples: "The Atheists" and "The Africans" - did you go to their website or something (I'm still chuckling about those)? To make such claims is so unfathomably stupid that I'm at a loss for words. Your conclusions are crap produced by your own ignorance - go ahead, cite some sources to prove otherwise. The author of the thread puts together a logical set of statements reaching a conclusion. You don't - quite far from it. You make bogus claims to back up your point and expect us to buy it. It's insulting.

You mean like.


Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Only I have to provide sources for all sweeping generalizations now is that it.

I say it again, I am not doing anything that the thread author is not. However when I argue from the specific from the general, it is no longer well though out and closely reasoned, but intellectual dishonesty. (Which for some reason is like diarrhea, how I don't know, but I will bow to the obviously superior knowledge of both subjects that whoever said that clearly has.)

And I did stop breathing. For nearly two hours. I bet none of you heathens can do that.

We are attempting to find out why certain Christians want an offense that the bible clearly shows is less grave than adultery (ie sodomy and homosexual marriage) to be made illegal because god thinks it is an "abomination" and Paul thinks it is simply amoral, while at the same time, they are perfectly happy with letting adultery remain legal.

Source - ?

I don't think it does. Not at all.

Which branch of christianity are you refering to?

And I did stop breathing. For nearly two hours. I bet none of you heathens can do that.

Hurray for pernament brain damage?

Citing another poster's post and trying to claim hypocrisy doesn't really work. You're only responsible for what you say. Two wrongs don't make a right, you still have to fess up.

Hurray for pernament brain damage?

Citing another poster's post and trying to claim hypocrisy doesn't really work. You're only responsible for what you say. Two wrongs don't make a right, you still have to fess up.

So now you're saying the first post was wrong then?

Adultery may not be allowed in the Bible, but rape is.

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Also,

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women…shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).

So now you're saying the first post was wrong then?

Not really. It's obvious that adultery is not allowed in the Bible. It's also evident there is no mass movement against it. An argument can be made.

It's not like saying "all religions argee so it must be secular." or brazenly not knowing what you're talking about.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments. It is the only rule regulating sexual conduct to make it into the Big Ten.

True

Jesus said that if a person gets divorced and remarries, then that person is commiting adultery.

Also True, However, it was allowed in the cases of infidelity. Look it up. It's there.

As marriage is an ongoing thing and in Biblical terms marriage can be taken as a synonym for conjugal union, then adultery would be committed many times in the course of a second marriage.

Very true. (Finally an Atheist who's done their homework!). However, in the Bible it says if you repent and humble yourself before God, then you will be saved(forgiven). This is in the New Covenant enacted when Jesus died and was resurrected. If you repent for this marriage and are TRUELY humbled before God, then he must save(forgive) you. The same with homosexuality. God loves gay and lesbian people. It's simply that it saddens him horribly to see his children "defile their bodies" [Lev. 18:23] whether it be with an animal, a man, woman, or child. God feels the same way about homosexuality as sex outside of marriage as adultry as sodomy.

Many Christians wish to make laws forbidding other "sinful" marriages (ie homosexual marriage). Some even want the Supreme Court ruling that declared another type of sexual misconduct - namely sodomy- legal overturned.

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Now considering that adultery is not only form of sexual misconduct, but it is also breaking an oath as well as sundering that which God himself has joined together, how can Christians' attitudes be so lax towards adultery while being so harsh toward certain other forms of sexual misconduct?

Please explain.

You have so much reason behind this, it's mind boggling.

Here are some easyeasy scriptures to undestand about this topic.

What does god say about homosexual behavior?
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

When is sex perverted?
As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally."
Judges 19:22

Will homosexuals be held accountable for their actions?
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men comitting what is shameful , and recieving unto themselvesthe penalty of their error which was due.... That those who practice such things are deserving of death.
Romans 27,32a

Where can sexual lust lead?

What does god say about homosexual behavior?

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

Oh, but sometimes it is okay.

“[David said] I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26).

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they [Jonathan and David] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” (1 Samuel 20:41).

Oh, but sometimes it is okay.

“[David said] I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26).

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they [Jonathan and David] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” (1 Samuel 20:41).

No where in the Bible does it talk about a romantic kiss. Kisses were used as a greeting. Nearly everyone in the Bible kisses when they greet someone. Think of Judas. The soldiers asked him to greet Jesus with a kiss. They would not have done so if it were not custom. David and Jonathan were great friends. If my best friend were going to another country and I would never ever see them again, and their very life was in danger, I think I would weep and kiss her good bye. When David speaks of Jonathan's love, he is saying that there is a difference between the love of a friend closer than a brother and that of a woman. Which, that is true. It is a completely different, and in some ways better, type of love.

Just to clarify, amoral and immoral are two separate things. amoral means morals don't apply. immoral means they do and you just break them.

One reason Christians might seem lax, is that it's someone else's personal life.

Yet when it comes to homosexuality, most Christians are quite willing to make someone else's personal life their public business. Like I said in another thread, I have the impression that most of them see homosexuality as Dawn of the Dead with gays instead of zombies and that if they don't crack down on homosexual relationships soon the whole world turns gay.

Many hidoos are indeed godless, although not all.

And every real religion says that it is against god's design. So it's not a religious viewpoint, but a secular one. :rolleyes:

Hin·du·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hnd-zm)
n.
A diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice native to and predominant in India, characterized by a belief in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing theories are aspects of one eternal truth, and by a desire for liberation from earthly evils.


Thats the dictionary def of "hinduism."
Spelled "Hinduism" not "Hindooism"

Thus "hindu" not "hindoo."

Moving on, look at the definition, read the underlined/bolded part. I'm sorry but you are wrong. They are not Godless. They are a real religion. Now i know many people from the Indian Subcontinent, so please, re-evaluate your views before you insult a religion to which many of my friends subscribe.

Second, look at this -
sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Thus, even if every religion on every country on every planet in every time and every galaxy and every universe agreed that homosexual marriage was wrong, making any moves to ban it is based on RELIGION and therefore NOT secular.

And what would you define as not a "real religion?" I submit it is hubris to assume that just because you don't happen to believe a certian faith it loses it's significance. Remember, you could be *and probably are given the number of faiths out there* wrong.

EDIT - Oh, and if you know god's design, or can find any mortal being who does, please tell me what it is!!!! Because, you know, i must not have been on the e-mailing list when god sent out that memo to a select few explaining exactly what his plan is... I guess i'm not worthy :(

No where in the Bible does it talk about a romantic kiss. Kisses were used as a greeting. Nearly everyone in the Bible kisses when they greet someone. Think of Judas. The soldiers asked him to greet Jesus with a kiss. They would not have done so if it were not custom. David and Jonathan were great friends. If my best friend were going to another country and I would never ever see them again, and their very life was in danger, I think I would weep and kiss her good bye. When David speaks of Jonathan's love, he is saying that there is a difference between the love of a friend closer than a brother and that of a woman. Which, that is true. It is a completely different, and in some ways better, type of love.

Really? And what part of the Bible tells you to interpret the passage that way? Your interpretation may be right or maybe not. However, there is no doubt that it is an interpretation.

Adultery may not be allowed in the Bible, but rape is.

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Also,

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women…shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).

And how do you interpret these passages?

I think Lacadaemon took my advice. I'm sorry guys. :(

Don't be...although, if he tried and just passed out, he may wake up feeling big and self-righteous by virtue of a persecution complex. That's the problem with telling such people to piss off...they'll always assume it's because of their beliefs and their message, not because they're acting like annoying morons.

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

1) Lot was a widower, so it was not adultery.

2) the sons of these unions were ungodly men who founded ungodly nations. None of the descendents of Lot remained in any form of Abrahamic covenent.

3) although this was before Moses, the Torah forbids incest with the same punishements as for adultery.



Learn to read, and read in context, before you critique. :)

Only I have to provide sources for all sweeping generalizations now is that it.

I say it again, I am not doing anything that the thread author is not. However when I argue from the specific from the general, it is no longer well though out and closely reasoned, but intellectual dishonesty. (Which for some reason is like diarrhea, how I don't know, but I will bow to the obviously superior knowledge of both subjects that whoever said that clearly has.)

And I did stop breathing. For nearly two hours. I bet none of you heathens can do that.

Claiming that many of those who oppose homosexual marriage have less of a problem with divorce is hardly on par with totally fabricating positions for entire groups of people with no factual basis. The former is a valid point - when was the last time you saw people picketing divorce proceedings or making it a major point in a presidential campaign? Look around, it's a valid observation. You, on the other hand, were just making things up as it suited you. Yup, that's intellectual dishonesty.

because 99.9% of religious people are rank hypocrites

Does this include me? :)

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).
The quote you are using it is not meant to condone adulturous incest...It was mean to ilustrate the sheer depravity of Lot's family even after their deliverance from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and its sister cit ywere destroyed not just because of homosexuality but due to all of its lustful faults... Lust being defined by any object of desire that pervades all thought and reason....And leads to an idolatrous lifestyle...

To: Lacadaemon
Response to: Anbar

Yes, imediatly making assumptions of other religions you know nothing about, declaring these other religions wrong, illegetimate, not real, and so many other things.
Such things are by any definition, descrimination. Thus, you are a bigot.

For your own good, actually research the subjects before you start talking about them. You said yourself that no one practises these pagan/polythestic religions anymore, yet I doubt that the entire time it ever occured to you that you were debating with a member of one of those polytheistic religions?
I'm glad you think you did your homework, but unfortunatly for you I'm much more experianced in the area of pagan/polythestic religions, I actually practice one.
I can only hope that either some day you realise through our actions here, or actions of your own doing elsewhere, that you can't make stuff up in a debate.

I know of no Christians who would endorse divorce, despite how it may seem.

One reason Christians might seem lax, is that it's someone else's personal life. Divorce is allowed, Biblicially, if there is sexual unloayalty from one person, or both. I know that I'd personally rather divorce my wife, than let my children think adaultry is ok.

Christians (should) believe that judging others is wrong (Judge not, lest ye be judged), and that, not knowing all the circumstances surrounding a divorce, it's really not thier place to say. If it's not my place to say, I don't.

I don't condone, nor condemn, unless I actually know what's going on.

Sodomy and homosexual marriage also deal with someone else's personal freedom? If that is the whole cause of laxness, then Christians should be lax on that too. Why do this Christian value of not judging get lost in this specific place?

I agree with the things you are saying about divorce. I just want to know what causes the differing opinion between the two issues.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments. It is the only rule regulating sexual conduct to make it into the Big Ten.

Jesus said that if a person gets divorced and remarries, then that person is commiting adultery. As marriage is an ongoing thing and in Biblical terms marriage can be taken as a synonym for conjugal union, then adultery would be committed many times in the course of a second marriage.

Many Christians wish to make laws forbidding other "sinful" marriages (ie homosexual marriage). Some even want the Supreme Court ruling that declared another type of sexual misconduct - namely sodomy- legal overturned.

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Now considering that adultery is not only form of sexual misconduct, but it is also breaking an oath as well as sundering that which God himself has joined together, how can Christians' attitudes be so lax towards adultery while being so harsh toward certain other forms of sexual misconduct?

Please explain.
I am very appreciative of your honest question and wish to answer it this way...
Any sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman is considered adultery...If a man or woman even looks on another person and has lust in their hearts then they are guilty of this sin...End od story...I will not be a hypocrit as some will say most Christians are and will not condon this behaviour by any...Man is (I use man as a general statement ie:humanity) by nature sinful and therefore prone to sin... But when God sent Christ to die for us he made it possible for all t oknow salvation through belief in Christ's death and ressurection...If one accepts this truly free gift then one will strive (and eventually fall short to some degree) to follow the laws of God...God condemns all sinners not just homosexuals...Not just murders...But all...But how wonderful it is to know (for me atleast) that when I fall short of God's will I will be forgiven every time...Tha tdoes not allow me to continue to walk in sin willfully but it does require me to strive daily to edify God...So you will not hear a true bible believing Christian condoning adultrey....
Thanx and have a good day....

Now, I don't claim to be a theologen (sp?) but Personally, i think Budda and Jesus for that matter when asked about homosexuality would merely say, "Well... I'm not into it, but whatever." Keep in mind people, Budda and Jesus are quite possibly the most accepting people who have ever walked the earth. I personally love Jesus, its his fans that get on my nerves, kinda like Elvis. And Buddism, as a religion (personally I don't think it is due to the lack of deity, but whatever) continues the be the most accepting religion. The Dali Lama (or however you choose to spell it, note, there is no exact way to translate from their alphabet to ours) said that homosexuality is unnatural, not wrong. I mean, saying anything unnatural is a sin against God would be a viewpoint that I'd only except from a nudist living in a hollowed out tree.

I agree. It could be argued that in the afterlife the homosexuals may go to hell (although most Christians say no one is without sin, so if a homosexual is Christian it could just as easily be argued that they would not) ... uhm, but that is beside the point.

In the Parable of the Weeds, the land owner told his servants specifically NOT to pick the weeds, that job was reserved for the harvester. Jesus told his followers not to judge. He said let those who will come to me, not bonk everyone over the head with my rules. HOW DID ALL THIS GET LOST FROM SOME CHRISTIAN'S WORLD VIEWS?????

True



Also True, However, it was allowed in the cases of infidelity. Look it up. It's there.



Very true. (Finally an Atheist who's done their homework!). However, in the Bible it says if you repent and humble yourself before God, then you will be saved(forgiven). This is in the New Covenant enacted when Jesus died and was resurrected. If you repent for this marriage and are TRUELY humbled before God, then he must save(forgive) you. The same with homosexuality. God loves gay and lesbian people. It's simply that it saddens him horribly to see his children "defile their bodies" [Lev. 18:23] whether it be with an animal, a man, woman, or child. God feels the same way about homosexuality as sex outside of marriage as adultry as sodomy.



You have so much reason behind this, it's mind boggling.

Here are some easyeasy scriptures to undestand about this topic.

What does god say about homosexual behavior?
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

When is sex perverted?
As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally."
Judges 19:22

Will homosexuals be held accountable for their actions?
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men comitting what is shameful , and recieving unto themselvesthe penalty of their error which was due.... That those who practice such things are deserving of death.
Romans 27,32a

Where can sexual lust lead?
As a Born again Christian I agree homosexuallity is sinful but you are only feeding th flames of hate against us by pointing out that God condemns homsexuals... He condemns all sinful sexual realtions...(ie : any sex outside a marriage between a man and a woman...) Any one who sins is deserving of death...That is why Christ died for us...All of us...If a homosexual is repents he will go to heaven...The same as anyone....Please try to practice the love Christ showed us....

I agree. It could be argued that in the afterlife the homosexuals may go to hell (although most Christians say no one is without sin, so if a homosexual is Christian it could just as easily be argued that they would not) ... uhm, but that is beside the point.

In the Parable of the Weeds, the land owner told his servants specifically NOT to pick the weeds, that job was reserved for the harvester. Jesus told his followers not to judge. He said let those who will come to me, not bonk everyone over the head with my rules. HOW DID ALL THIS GET LOST FROM SOME CHRISTIAN'S WORLD VIEWS?????
I think you have valid points about some Christians....And I do not judge anyone...I leave it Christ to know who has their name written in the LAMB'S Book of LIFE....But if one is to profess salvation then as Christian they have to strive to walk a very straight and narrow road and avoid the willfull sins such as sexual immorality....And many others...

Source - ?

I don't think it does. Not at all.

Which branch of christianity are you refering to?

My reasons for believing adultery to be worse than homosexuality are stated in the opening post. It is obvious form the amount of public outcry and legislation proposed against sodomy and homosexual marriage, while there have been no recent proposed legislations against adultery - and the fact that many people involved in the outcry cite Christian morals as their reason - either that not all Christians believe adultery to be worse than homosexuality (in which case I am willing to hear their reasoning) or they believe a more lax stance should be taken towards adultery (again, I am willing to hear and debate the reasoning).

Adultery may not be allowed in the Bible, but rape is.

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Also,

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women…shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).

I guess God in his infinite wisdom knew that the shekel wouldn't be a major form of currency in the future??????????????????????????

I guess God in his infinite wisdom knew that the shekel wouldn't be a major form of currency in the future??????????????????????????

50 shekels, a few years back, was ~$12.50 .

----
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
----

If they be found - meaning that they are discovered, so its ok if its a secret.

50 shekels, a few years back, was ~$12.50 .

Most of the OT doesn't apply anymore?

I guess the real question was what was $50 shekels worth at the time it was written. Was it sum large enough to deter anyone but the political elite (since I don't think anything has been invented that would deter them from breaking laws yet).

True



Also True, However, it was allowed in the cases of infidelity. Look it up. It's there.



Very true. (Finally an Atheist who's done their homework!). However, in the Bible it says if you repent and humble yourself before God, then you will be saved(forgiven). This is in the New Covenant enacted when Jesus died and was resurrected. If you repent for this marriage and are TRUELY humbled before God, then he must save(forgive) you. The same with homosexuality. God loves gay and lesbian people. It's simply that it saddens him horribly to see his children "defile their bodies" [Lev. 18:23] whether it be with an animal, a man, woman, or child. God feels the same way about homosexuality as sex outside of marriage as adultry as sodomy.



You have so much reason behind this, it's mind boggling.

Here are some easyeasy scriptures to undestand about this topic.

What does god say about homosexual behavior?
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

When is sex perverted?
As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally."
Judges 19:22

Will homosexuals be held accountable for their actions?
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men comitting what is shameful , and recieving unto themselvesthe penalty of their error which was due.... That those who practice such things are deserving of death.
Romans 27,32a

Where can sexual lust lead?


If all sins can then be forgiven by the same actions, then it would stand to reason that there is no _biblical_ justification for enacting secular prohibitions against one but not the other, or indeed any sin (which would not rule out overlap as there are compelling secular reasons why some things considered a Christian sin should be a crime but absolutely no reason why others should be considered criminal).

FUN FACTS:

Of the four states that passed bans on gay marriage in November by margins of 3 to 1 or higher, the number that have divorce rates higher than the national average: 4.

Of the states that voted to ban gay marriage this year, HALF are in the top 10 for teen pregnancy rates.

I think there is at least a couple of things missing from this debate:

1. Is there not a passage in the bible that goes something like: "Give Caesars things to Caesar, God's things to god? It seems to me that what God is saying is: Stay out of the governments business, your concerns are spiritual not earthly.

2. At least one person has alluded to the government giving us rights. The government does not give us rights. We have the right to do anything we please. We can kill, rape, pillage, or whatever, UNTIL the government takes those rights away through the passage of laws. Therefore the government can do one of two things. It can take away our rights. Or it can restore rights that it has previously taken away. That being said is it wise to encourage the government to take away more of our rights than it already has? Every time we lose a right we lose freedom. This time it is the homosexuals, next time it could be something nearer to your heart. If we don't stand up for one another to prevent the erosion of our rights soon we won't have any rights at all.

Adultery is okay as long as it is a father having sex with his daughters.

"And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36).

That's incest, not adultery.

The quote you are using it is not meant to condone adulturous incest...It was mean to ilustrate the sheer depravity of Lot's family even after their deliverance from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and its sister cit ywere destroyed not just because of homosexuality but due to all of its lustful faults... Lust being defined by any object of desire that pervades all thought and reason....And leads to an idolatrous lifestyle...


That is an interesting interpretation you have presented, especially since neither sister was punished for their incest. Can you point to the Bible passage that states that was the purpose of the story?

That's incest, not adultery.

Actually it is incest AND adultery. Adultery is sex outside of marriage (not just cheating on your spouse, as many today use the term).

1) Lot was a widower, so it was not adultery.

Learn to read, and read in context, before you critique. :)

See the above definition of adultery and take your own advice.

Actually it is incest AND adultery. Adultery is sex outside of marriage (not just cheating on your spouse, as many today use the term).

No, it's just incest. Cheating on your spouse is cheating on your spouse, while sleeping with relatives is incest. It's two different categories. You could mash everything together as you've done, or you could look at it and call it what it is. That's why we have two different names. Incest and Adultery. They're different things.

No, it's just incest. Cheating on your spouse is cheating on your spouse, while sleeping with relatives is incest. It's two different categories. You could mash everything together as you've done, or you could look at it and call it what it is. That's why we have two different names. Incest and Adultery. They're different things.

a·dul·ter·y
NOUN:
pl. a·dul·ter·ies

"Voluntary sexual intercourse with a partner other than the lawful spouse."

Incest is a form of adultery.

1. incest -- (sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child)

Lot and his daughters commited incest and adultery.

Lot and his daughters commited incest and adultery.

Whatever, man. It amounts to the same thing. Both are wrong.

That's incest, not adultery. ANd also, Lot was a widow.

Whatever, man. It amounts to the same thing. Both are wrong.

That, I believe, was my original point. And yet, neither Lot nor his daughters were punished for their transgression.

That, I believe, was my original point. And yet, neither Lot nor his daughters were punished for their transgression.

So basically, you're saying that God is inconsistent. Well, there's a stunner.

I am very appreciative of your honest question and wish to answer it this way...
Any sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman is considered adultery...If a man or woman even looks on another person and has lust in their hearts then they are guilty of this sin...End od story...I will not be a hypocrit as some will say most Christians are and will not condon this behaviour by any...Man is (I use man as a general statement ie:humanity) by nature sinful and therefore prone to sin... But when God sent Christ to die for us he made it possible for all t oknow salvation through belief in Christ's death and ressurection...If one accepts this truly free gift then one will strive (and eventually fall short to some degree) to follow the laws of God...God condemns all sinners not just homosexuals...Not just murders...But all...But how wonderful it is to know (for me atleast) that when I fall short of God's will I will be forgiven every time...Tha tdoes not allow me to continue to walk in sin willfully but it does require me to strive daily to edify God...So you will not hear a true bible believing Christian condoning adultrey....
Thanx and have a good day....

AMEN!

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments. It is the only rule regulating sexual conduct to make it into the Big Ten.

Jesus said that if a person gets divorced and remarries, then that person is commiting adultery. As marriage is an ongoing thing and in Biblical terms marriage can be taken as a synonym for conjugal union, then adultery would be committed many times in the course of a second marriage.

Many Christians wish to make laws forbidding other "sinful" marriages (ie homosexual marriage). Some even want the Supreme Court ruling that declared another type of sexual misconduct - namely sodomy- legal overturned.

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Now considering that adultery is not only form of sexual misconduct, but it is also breaking an oath as well as sundering that which God himself has joined together, how can Christians' attitudes be so lax towards adultery while being so harsh toward certain other forms of sexual misconduct?

Please explain.More religious fanaticism. Please explaoin that.

Why are there so may people willing to legislate moral behavior based on what they think is a valid interpretation of a translation of what someone wrote thousands of years ago and said was the "word of god"?

Why can't we all be satisfied with doing what we each think is right, and passing laws ONLY when a behavior will actually hurt someone - like assault, or murder?

Who/How/Where/Why gets people thinking that they know so much they have the right to determine what others can do and think?

Please explain THAT without resorting to "God said" or "the bible (or any other religious text)".

Religious fanaticism is directly or indirectly responsible for an awful number of wars and deaths. Witch burning, the Spanish Inquisition - history is rife with it. Yet people STILL go there.

Have we learned nothing?

So basically, you're saying that God is inconsistent. Well, there's a stunner.

No, what I am saying is that Christians pick and chose the portions of the Bible they feel most comfortable with and disregard those passages which they dislike (i.e., killing your children if they swear at you - "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" - Exodus 21:17).

That is all well and good with me, but let's just allow others to do the same and disregard antiquated notions concerning such things as homosexuality being an abomination, as well.

No, what I am saying is that Christians pick and chose the portions of the Bible they feel most comfortable with and disregard those passages which they dislike (i.e., killing your children if they swear at you - "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" - Exodus 21:17).

That is all well and good with me, but let's just allow others to do the same and disregard antiquated notions concerning such things as homosexuality being an abomination, as well.

The homosexuality thing...

Yeah, that's more of a case of someone looking at a cat, and insisting that the dog is sick, and imagines itself to be a cat. The rest of us look at it, and say, "no, actually, it IS a cat. No amount of therapy will turn a cat into a dog."

No, what I am saying is that Christians pick and chose the portions of the Bible they feel most comfortable with and disregard those passages which they dislike (i.e., killing your children if they swear at you - "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" - Exodus 21:17).

That is all well and good with me, but let's just allow others to do the same and disregard antiquated notions concerning such things as homosexuality being an abomination, as well.

The homosexuality thing...

Yeah, that's more of a case of someone looking at a cat, and insisting that the dog is sick, and imagines itself to be a cat. The rest of us look at it, and say, "no, actually, it IS a cat. No amount of therapy will turn a cat into a dog."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the Ten Commandments. It is the only rule regulating sexual conduct to make it into the Big Ten.

Jesus said that if a person gets divorced and remarries, then that person is commiting adultery. As marriage is an ongoing thing and in Biblical terms marriage can be taken as a synonym for conjugal union, then adultery would be committed many times in the course of a second marriage.

Many Christians wish to make laws forbidding other "sinful" marriages (ie homosexual marriage). Some even want the Supreme Court ruling that declared another type of sexual misconduct - namely sodomy- legal overturned.

Yet when someone brings up adultery, whether using its more standard definiton or the defintion of adultery in remarriage, the vast majority of the very same Christians will agree that it is "bad" but don't think there should be any law against it.

Now considering that adultery is not only form of sexual misconduct, but it is also breaking an oath as well as sundering that which God himself has joined together, how can Christians' attitudes be so lax towards adultery while being so harsh toward certain other forms of sexual misconduct?

Please explain.


I don't think that christians are alone in this particular vice

If I were to ask "why are Muslims so violent", it'd be regarded as an unfair blanket generalization, as it should be. This accusatory, tired crap is no different.

You'd best not jump to conclusions. Not all Christians are like that; not even most. If you want to see a lax Christian, it's Rev. Jessie Jackson. I am a Christian myself, but I don't want Jackson out there preaching against sin while he is cheating on his wife; he's a hypocrite.

If I were to ask "why are Muslims so violent", it'd be regarded as an unfair blanket generalization, as it should be. This accusatory, tired crap is no different.

Yes, but it would be fair to ask why certain Muslim sects, such as Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Deobandism in the refugee camps of Pakistan, are attempting to take Islam back to the 14th century. Similarly, it is also fair to question the vocal and increasingly powerful fundamentalist Christian movements that seek to interject their interpretation of the Bible into the secular world of politics.

While 99% of Muslims reject the above mentioned movements as deviations from true Islam and the majority of Christians may reject the teachings of their more strident brethren, the fact remains both movements have power and influence out of proportion to their actual numbers and have been setting the tone for the world's perception of both religions.

Then this thread is a redundant exercise in shooting fish in a barrel. It seems foolish to me to phrase your topic as a question when you've already arrived at your conclusion.

Yes, but it would be fair to ask why certain Muslim sects, such as Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Deobandism in the refugee camps of Pakistan, are attempting to take Islam back to the 14th century. Similarly, it is also fair to question the vocal and increasingly powerful fundamentalist Christian movements that seek to interject their interpretation of the Bible into the secular world of politics.

While 99% of Muslims reject the above mentioned movements as deviations from true Islam and the majority of Christians may reject the teachings of their more strident brethren, the fact remains both movements have power and influence out of proportion to their actual numbers and have been setting the tone for the world's perception of both religions.

99%?

all the Saudis? and egyptians? and Pacistanies?

its not half but it is more than 1% especially considering the extreamists in South Asia.

99%?

all the Saudis? and egyptians? and Pacistanies?

its not half but it is more than 1% especially considering the extreamists in South Asia.

Keep in mind there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, so even if only 1% (12 million) are fanatics that is no small number.

Also, notice just as my question was 'why are muslims so violent', not 'why are Wahhabists/Ansar Islam/etc. so violent', this thread uses 'Christians', not any proper denomination.

See the above definition of adultery and take your own advice.

Do you mean for me to look through 170+ posts, or are you refering to the teachings of Jesus refered to in Post #1? Jesus taught that marriage was until death, and that angels do not marry. A widower having sex with someone who is not his wife is not adultery. In fact, back in the day, when a man was not obliged to swear that he would cleave only to one wife, adultery was only when a married woman had sex with another man. Premarital sex with an unbetrothed woman could result in her father insisting that the man marry her, if she had been a virgin, or if she was betrothed, it was adultery if the man was not her betrothed; otherwise it was simply sex.

But please, keep pretending that you know what you're talking about, as you amuse me. :)

Do you mean for me to look through 170+ posts, or are you refering to the teachings of Jesus refered to in Post #1? Jesus taught that marriage was until death, and that angels do not marry. A widower having sex with someone who is not his wife is not adultery. In fact, back in the day, when a man was not obliged to swear that he would cleave only to one wife, adultery was only when a married woman had sex with another man. Premarital sex with an unbetrothed woman could result in her father insisting that the man marry her, if she had been a virgin, or if she was betrothed, it was adultery if the man was not her betrothed; otherwise it was simply sex.

But please, keep pretending that you know what you're talking about, as you amuse me. :)

No, sweetpea, you didn't have to look through all 170+ posts - just the one directly above my post. It said:

a·dul·ter·y
NOUN:
pl. a·dul·ter·ies

"Voluntary sexual intercourse with a partner other than the lawful spouse."

Incest is a form of adultery.

Let's go with elementary logic:

If A=B,
And B=C,
Then A=C

Therefore,

If Lot had sex with his daughters,
And Lot is not the lawful spouse of his daughters,
Then Lot engaged in adultery.

Who would have thought this would become the burning issue of this thread? My point, besides amusing you of course, is to show Christians frequently cherry pick the parts of the Bible they are comfortable with and ignore the parts they are not. If that is the case then they cannot criticize other Christians who choose to ignore prohibitions against homosexuality.

No, sweetpea, you didn't have to look through all 170+ posts - just the one directly above my post. It said:



Let's go with elementary logic:

If A=B,
And B=C,
Then A=C

Therefore,

If Lot had sex with his daughters,
And Lot is not the lawful spouse of his daughters,
Then Lot engaged in adultery.

Who would have thought this would become the burning issue of this thread? My point, besides amusing you of course, is to show Christians frequently cherry pick the parts of the Bible they are comfortable with and ignore the parts they are not. If that is the case then they cannot criticize other Christians who choose to ignore prohibitions against homosexuality.

that just is not the meaning of adultry.

sorry.

that just is not the meaning of adultry.

sorry.Well that explains it. We can all stop arguing.

They changed the definition.

That's why Christians can screw around and not sin.

And all this time we thought it was because they were hypocritical.

that just is not the meaning of adultry.

sorry.

LOL. I give you props for being concise.

Maybe the problem is I was defining adultery ("Voluntary sexual intercourse with a partner other than the lawful spouse"), whereas you are referring to adultry (a-dul-try, which as everyone knows, is when you attempt sex, but are so dull that your partner leaves before you can finish).

More religious fanaticism. Please explaoin that.

Why are there so may people willing to legislate moral behavior based on what they think is a valid interpretation of a translation of what someone wrote thousands of years ago and said was the "word of god"?

Why can't we all be satisfied with doing what we each think is right, and passing laws ONLY when a behavior will actually hurt someone - like assault, or murder?

Who/How/Where/Why gets people thinking that they know so much they have the right to determine what others can do and think?

Please explain THAT without resorting to "God said" or "the bible (or any other religious text)".

Religious fanaticism is directly or indirectly responsible for an awful number of wars and deaths. Witch burning, the Spanish Inquisition - history is rife with it. Yet people STILL go there.

Have we learned nothing?

I don't think there should be laws against adultery or that stop divorced people from being legally remarried, just as I don't think that there should be laws that prevent homosexuals from being legally remarried or laws against sodomy.

My point is that the Christians who are promoting legislation against homosexual union and/or sodomy are not doing so because it is against God's rules or because it offends their Christian morals. Instead they are using their religion as an excuse to promote their own bigoted anti-homosexual ideas.

Not a single Chrisitian has yet been able to explain to me why homosexuality is worse than adultery or usury or any of the hundreds of things the bible lists as a sin. If these people really were "religous fanatics" or were actually trying to make Christian morals public then why aren't people picketing CityBank or wherever with signs saying "Usury is Immoral" or standing around divorce courts and handing out pamphlets about how divorce is against God's design and is destroying the family and responsible for destroying the very fabric of America itself (or any of the other hyperboles that gets tossed around about homosexuality at gay pride marches and stuff)?

Some have suggested that the reasons Christians are working just against homosexual union and marriage right now and not against other things because this is what is current in the political scene. But where are the Christians working for socialized health care? One would think this would be practically mandatory as Jesus told his disciples to go out and heal the sick (And not just heal the sick who could pay. Yeah he said that it was right to get a just wage, but that meant taking food and shelter from ONE person in a town - he said don't move from house to house - while they were doing this. Meaning the government could be the one source of payment so that everyone could get healthcare). Where are the Christians working against mandatory minimum sentencing in the prisons systems and promoting rehabilitation over punishment in accord with Jesus' command to show mercy? From what I have seen most Christians who go out of their way to publically declare themselves Christian are working against socialized health care and for mandatory minimum sentencing.

Do these people even read their own bible?

If I think I understand your first post, your point is that anyone who is divorced should not be allowed to get remarried because that would be an adulterous, and therefore sinful relationship. Therefore christian churches should look equally askance upon re-marriage as the do upon gay marriage.

Is that right, or am I missing something.

Perhaps there should be some clarification of "Divorce" versus "Annulment", which means that the marriage is treated as though it never existed, since it was undertaken on false pretext.

Common causes for this are fraudulent marriage, coercion, psychological problems, or being already married.

In the Roman Catholic Church, divorce is not allowed, but Annulment is, and can be followed with remarriage, since the person was never married.

Also, remarriage without annulment is viewed to be living in sin, as are homosexual relations. In both cases, though, the Sin is hated, but the person is not, and to mistake the person for the sin is wrong.

Well said.

If I think I understand your first post, your point is that anyone who is divorced should not be allowed to get remarried because that would be an adulterous, and therefore sinful relationship. Therefore christian churches should look equally askance upon re-marriage as the do upon gay marriage.

Is that right, or am I missing something.

No, my real question is why are some sinful relationships targeted by churches for having political crusades waged against them whereas others are not.

But living in an area where most of the Christians are Roman Catholic, I have always been kinda curious as to why it is the only church (to my knowledge) that has that rule. I mean, it is there in the bible, so it doesn't seem to be one of the Traditions that got (somehow) decided upon.

Scripture Says:

He who is without sin may cast the first stone ... I don't think anyone here qualifies

No, sweetpea, you didn't have to look through all 170+ posts - just the one directly above my post. It said:



Let's go with elementary logic:

If A=B,
And B=C,
Then A=C

Therefore,

If Lot had sex with his daughters,
And Lot is not the lawful spouse of his daughters,
Then Lot engaged in adultery.

Who would have thought this would become the burning issue of this thread? My point, besides amusing you of course, is to show Christians frequently cherry pick the parts of the Bible they are comfortable with and ignore the parts they are not. If that is the case then they cannot criticize other Christians who choose to ignore prohibitions against homosexuality.

You're funny! :D

Adultery
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse

A widower is not a married person.

I find it charming that you write your own dictionaries, but I think you should do better with your research. ;)

If I think I understand your first post, your point is that anyone who is divorced should not be allowed to get remarried because that would be an adulterous, and therefore sinful relationship. Therefore christian churches should look equally askance upon re-marriage as the do upon gay marriage.

Is that right, or am I missing something.
Yup and think they were emphasizing that while gay marriage is not mentioned in the 10 commandments adultery is … with the big ten supposedly as important as it is why don’t they take a more negative view on adultery because obviously god disliked adultery more then gay marriage otherwise it would have been the big 11

Druthulhu - word.

Lot was "single" or "widowed" by the time that the situation in question occurred - His wife being turning into a pillar of salt just prior.

It could be considered fornication - but not Adultery.

To: Violets and Kitties
Many Christian churches teach that the most damnable sins are sexual sins and murdering someone. This might explain why it seems that those topics are focused on so much (IE homosexuality and abortion).

Druthulhu - word.

Lot was "single" or "widowed" by the time that the situation in question occurred - His wife being turning into a pillar of salt just prior.

It could be considered fornication - but not Adultery.

Okay, the reason why this particular ancillary debate is important escapes me, but be that as it may. The misunderstanding here is that we are looking at two differing religious interpretations of "adultery."

The Jewish understanding of the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") is that adultery is an act between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse (as several people have strenuously defended). This is also the dictionary definition.

Christians, however, expanded that meaning to include anyone who commits any act of sexual impurity:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

Adultery then, in the Christian sense (which is what this thread is debating) is defined as the physical act of sex outside of marriage, the desires to have sexual relations outside of marriage, or emotional unfaithfulness to one’s spouse.

Don't rely on me for this (I'm an agnostic). Check with any Christian clergyperson or knowledgeable layperson. I invite those versed in Christian teaching to verify or correct what I have said

The Jewish understanding of the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") is that adultery is an act between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse (as several people have strenuously defended). This is also the dictionary definition.

Christians, however, expanded that meaning to include anyone who commits any act of sexual impurity:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).


I would consider myself a fairly knowledable Christian. I served as a minister for a few years. Not that what I say is always correct or is the ONLY way - but I think in General on this topic i can speak for most Christians:

Jesus was a Jew. He of all people knew the OT better than anyone else. Heck he was the one who gave the commandments and law to Israel. He of all people knew what the OT was talking about when it mentions Adultery. It is obvious that Christ would not make a mistake and change the meaning of adultery as you might have suggested. This is proven by looking at the greek text.

"...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"

committed adultery is the english translation from the greek work Moicheuo which means: to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife.

The Jewish and Christian definition of Adultery should be the exact same.

Fornication is defined as: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

I hope that helps clear things up. :)

To: Violets and Kitties
Many Christian churches teach that the most damnable sins are sexual sins and murdering someone. This might explain why it seems that those topics are focused on so much (IE homosexuality and abortion).
(the emphasis is my own)

So you are saying the reason that Christians are more lax on adultery is that it isn't a SEXUAL SIN? Please explain that.

Then this thread is a redundant exercise in shooting fish in a barrel. It seems foolish to me to phrase your topic as a question when you've already arrived at your conclusion.

No. I have hypothesis or two. I wouldn't have posed a question if I were not willing to listen to the answers, however.

So far only one conservative Christian has botherd to pose an answer rather than simply offer a defense of the Christian faith or go on the personal defensive. And while I personally don't think his reason is the best of reasons to work against something in the secular realm, his was an honest answer and from what I have gathered of his character from his post elsewhere, fits his personality and as such would be very reasonable from his point of view.

Okay, the reason why this particular ancillary debate is important escapes me, but be that as it may. The misunderstanding here is that we are looking at two differing religious interpretations of "adultery."

The Jewish understanding of the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") is that adultery is an act between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse (as several people have strenuously defended). This is also the dictionary definition.

Christians, however, expanded that meaning to include anyone who commits any act of sexual impurity:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

Adultery then, in the Christian sense (which is what this thread is debating) is defined as the physical act of sex outside of marriage, the desires to have sexual relations outside of marriage, or emotional unfaithfulness to one’s spouse.

Don't rely on me for this (I'm an agnostic). Check with any Christian clergyperson or knowledgeable layperson. I invite those versed in Christian teaching to verify or correct what I have said

Well, you yourself had claimed that Lot's incest with his daughters, after his wife had died, was adulterous. But since he was widowed, it was not.

You assessment here is correct, except that I do not know if "emotional unfaithfulness" without sexual desire is adultery of the heart.

You should also note that according to the OT if a married or betrothed woman was raped in a city, it was considered adultery on the assumption that if it had been rape she would have called for help, and if it was consumated, she did not. Thus both would be executed. Feel free to work this into your critique. ;)

Druthulhu - word.

Lot was "single" or "widowed" by the time that the situation in question occurred - His wife being turning into a pillar of salt just prior.

It could be considered fornication - but not Adultery.

To: Violets and Kitties
Many Christian churches teach that the most damnable sins are sexual sins and murdering someone. This might explain why it seems that those topics are focused on so much (IE homosexuality and abortion).

Actually, according to Jesus, the worst sin is a form of blasphemy.

Actually, according to Jesus, the worst sin is a form of blasphemy.

I would like a quote or multiple quotes from Jesus that supports your statement.

I would like a quote or multiple quotes from Jesus that supports your statement.

"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Matthew 12:32

This is a subject upon which I have spent considerable time pondering.

The conclusion of the matter I have made is that divorce is the result of at least one party whom has hardened their heart.

Would, for example, it not be a higher calling to forgive the offending party of an extra-marital excursion? Is not forgiveness the thing unto which we strive as Christians?

Sadly, the inability of people to 'get along' with each other becomes easier and easier as time goes by. Rarely are the underlying issues addressed.

The state of one's anger and unforgiveness often characterizes one's existence and every interaction, personal and business.

The strength of the state of a relationship of two people lies in their ability to agree with one another. When they are in disagreement, dissolution of any organization, such as marriage, is imminent.

Thusly, it is difficult to maintain relationships, particularly intimate ones. The needs and wants of the other must be considered, and our own selfish wants are in battle against our higher ability to give of ourselves unselfishly to the other.

There is a mystery of human nature that I have never understood, and sincerely doubt any will understand, though they study until the end of time. And that mystery is that we feel complete, secure and fulfilled in love. When we are in love, we need no other - we are wholly satisfied. And love is often mistaken for a biochemical hormonal feeling, and often mistaken for sexual arousal. For in the sexual act, we give of ourselves to the other, it is the ultimate act, an expression of love.

However, whatever two people agree upon creates a point of strength for them. Thus we can understand the behavior of those whom flit about with multiple partners. For in their actions, they find multiples who share similar ideals and goals as they do, which is often temporary pleasure. They are ultimately cheating themselves of the deep satisfaction of a long-term relationship, and the growth they may achieve in the process.

In a crude sense, I think of many of the rules and regulations in the Scriptures as short term remedies for a "Burger King" world. Most want it their way, and remain dissatisfied when they are faced with the knowledge that they cannot always have it their way, and that the world does not revolve around them.

How does one deal with perpetual children, those who though adult in body are adolescent in mind? Is it not true that we find ourselves constantly facing situations in life that when failed are again offered to us so that we may successfully pass/learn and progress?

If so, then consider the Almighty whom has dealt with humanity's many foibles, which are by now getting old, and as the scripture says "is no new thing under the sun."

Each person must accomplish for themselves, and they must successfully pass along what they have learned to their successive generations. When few have learned anything, is there any presupposition that somehow magically more will learn more than the lessons of failure?

"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23 KJV

Hindoos are not godless. They have thousands of gods.

It's Hindu, not Hindoo, and actually they have one God, of which there are thousands of avatars or incarnations. It is similar to the Christian concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Different aspects of the same Being.

Why are Christians so lax when it comes to adultery?

Cos they're all commiting it.

I think the best way to apply Christianity is to listen to JC Himself and "Love one another as you love oneself"

Why are Christians so lax when it comes to adultery?

Cos they're all commiting it.
Somehow I think this strikes closer to the heart.

If the Christian religion took a real hard line on something that so many of their congregation do they wouldn’t last long me thinks.

I would consider myself a fairly knowledable Christian. I served as a minister for a few years....

Jesus was a Jew. He of all people knew the OT better than anyone else. Heck he was the one who gave the commandments and law to Israel. He of all people knew what the OT was talking about when it mentions Adultery. It is obvious that Christ would not make a mistake and change the meaning of adultery as you might have suggested. This is proven by looking at the greek text.

The Jewish and Christian definition of Adultery should be the exact same.

What? Jesus gave the Commandments to the people of Israel? What church were you a minister in? Moses gave the people of Israel the Commandments (Exodus 19-20). Also, look at Jesus' statement in Matthew:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

With the word "But" Jesus is modifying the concept of adutery from that presented in the Torah.

What? Jesus gave the Commandments to the people of Israel? What church were you a minister in? Moses gave the people of Israel the Commandments (Exodus 19-20). Also, look at Jesus' statement in Matthew:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

With the word "But" Jesus is modifying the concept of adutery from that presented in the Torah.

O think that he may have been talking from the "the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d" and Jesus as the "Word made flesh" idea, from the Gospel of John. In that perspective, Jesus created the universe, wrote the Law, etc.

What? Jesus gave the Commandments to the people of Israel? What church were you a minister in? Moses gave the people of Israel the Commandments (Exodus 19-20). Also, look at Jesus' statement in Matthew:


Druthulhu - thank you - you are exactly right.

Ogiek - thanks for providing an example of being overly picky and reading into my words a bit too much. I guess it might have been my fault for not being clear enough - but when I wrote I obviously thought that anyone would understand what I said.

Obviously Moses PHYSICALLY presented the law to Israel. But Jesus / God gave the law to Moses. So in effect the law given to Israel came from Jesus. Moses was the spokesman for God - who relayed the Law to Israel that God had given to him.

I’m seriously surprised that anyone would think that was implying that Jesus himself came down in body and physically gave the law to Israel... come on now.

Druthulhu - thank you - you are exactly right.

Ogiek - thanks for providing an example of being overly picky and reading into my words a bit too much. I guess it might have been my fault for not being clear enough - but when I wrote I obviously thought that anyone would understand what I said.

Obviously Moses PHYSICALLY presented the law to Israel. But Jesus / God gave the law to Moses. So in effect the law given to Israel came from Jesus. Moses was the spokesman for God - who relayed the Law to Israel that God had given to him.

I’m seriously surprised that anyone would think that was implying that Jesus himself came down in body and physically gave the law to Israel... come on now.

What an odd assumption for you to make. Since I am not a Christian I do not share your notion that Jesus-Moses-God are all interchangable.

There are many commandments from the Torah that Christians no longer adhere to (remember there are not 10 commandments, but over 400). Obviously, Jesus is changing the interpretation of adultery.

Somehow I think this strikes closer to the heart.

If the Christian religion took a real hard line on something that so many of their congregation do they wouldn’t last long me thinks.

I'm not going to suggest that so many of them are committing adultery, so much as they can understand the reasons why others would do it. They understand how love and physical attraction can sometimes happen outside the bounds of marriage. Being humans, this is something they live with. Being largely heterosexual, they fail to understand how love and physical desire for a member of one's gender is no different for a homosexual than from the love and desire that they feel for certain members of the opposite gender. In other words when they can understand why someone may be tempted, it becomes easier to show them mercy and tolerance rather than thinking they should be punished and hoping somehow that would make it all disappear. In less pleasant words, failing to give understanding and mercy to something just because one doesn't understand it is bigotry.

What an odd assumption for you to make. Since I am not a Christian I do not share your notion that Jesus-Moses-God are all interchangable.

There are many commandments from the Torah that Christians no longer adhere to (remember there are not 10 commandments, but over 400). Obviously, Jesus is changing the interpretation of adultery.

Since you are not a Christian you do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor in the christian G-d, but if you are to critique Christianity you must presume the christian paradigm. And no G-d and Moses are not interchangeable, but to most Christians G-d and Jesus are, so in that light Jesus gave the 10 Commandments to Moses.

And actually there was nothing in the Torah (AFAIK) that allowed a divorced woman to remarry. Pointing out that G-d intended marriage for life then was only a new interpretation in terms of the on-divinely inspired interpretations used by the hard hearted men of Moses' day. And adding that a sin desired but not commited is still a sin, that cuts across the board.