Adultery - What is it?

[Luce NDs]

Did you know the difference between a "v" and the "h" in Hebrew is just a speck ... like the dot 'ere in chance you could see it ...

What's the point for ... just to allow a pain in the following and the loosening of the hermeneutic seal ...

 

[revjohn]

@revjohn, I'm confused. David was an adulterer as was Bathsheba, AND he was a murderer,but God loved him.

Yes. That is true. David was an adulterer and a murderer probably also a liar and a thief yet God loved him.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

In fact, I would argue that God's love in that case should inform our own when we are dealing with sins committed by others or even examining the sins we commit ourselves.

God does, after all, call us to follow in God's footsteps. it probably is surpassing wise to note the way God places God's feet.

Sin and judgment are powerful words in the history of the Christian faith. Should they loom larger over Christian history than words like grace, redemption and forgiveness.

Divorce is permitted when we harden our hearts, so isn't God, in a way participating with His understanding and forgiveness?

God forgives but God does not permit. If God permitted then there would be no necessity for forgiveness nor anything to repent.

God hates divorce. At least that is the testimony of Malachi 2: 16 and I have yet to be presented with a passage that says God is actually really okay with divorce for any reason.

If we fall back on this reasoning though, isn't this a "cheap grace", when we know this? Forgiveness is understood and counted on even before we divorce?

Cheap grace is a concept coined by Dietrich Bonhoffer and according to Bonhoffer is:

the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.

Others have run with the idea but most agree that cheap grace is an attempt to have all of the benefit of Christianity without suffering any of the cost. Or in other words the idea that one can carry ones own cross without any possibility of being crucified on it.

In the context of adultery then, it would seem that forgiveness of that particular sin (which is grace God gives) also produces repentance and redemption.

So getting personal. I am guilty of the sin of adultery. How is not important to the discussion. God and I have spent much time in prayer about the issue in the standard pattern of conviction, confession and assurance of pardon. I know where I stand. I am forgiven but I am not innocent.

The task of redemption is not something I can accomplish. The grace of God will deal with that.

But more to the point the "exception clauses" that gotquestions.org points to could, if considered in isolation of all other texts, lead individuals to think remarriage after divorce is something that God is very pleased with.

I think that misses a great deal of context.

Context which the book of Hosea supplies if one has the stomach to learn it. Hosea is a heartbreaking book. And not because of the primary element of broken relationships and the instruction given to the prophet to deliberately enter into broken relationships although that is a bitter pill.

More heartbreaking is the fact that God does direct the prophet to deliberately enter into broken relationships so that forgiveness can be deliberately be modeled and people of faith refuse to forgive others of this sin. If anything many Christians are very eager to attempt to match God's wrath against sin but few dare attempting to match the grace and compassion of God. And of those who do dare failure is always blamed on some other for being particularly sinful.

[/FONT]
Also what did God say about those rulers in the OT with so many wives and concubines?

No where does God affirm that such is good.

While the scripture does record that there were many beloved of God who did not appear to listen to closely to God's word (David being but one of those sort) one does not find in scripture, as often as it records multiple wives, concubines and maid-servants anywhere where God approves of this behaviour.

Any who read God being gracious and take that to mean God grants license are applying a rather self-justifying hermeneutic to scripture.

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So he was a polygamist, adulterer, married foreign wives, and sought gold and power through those unions. David had many wives, eight who are named in the Bible, I would think that after Bathsheba, David should have understood clearly that he was to "sin no more". The Messiah will come from the line of David.....sounds like good credentials.

The mistake is thinking that God feels obligated in some way to reward David for his bad behaviour. Anyone remember that Solomon, the son of David and Bathsheba is not their first child?

Apart from that is God's integrity. God promises the Messiah to David's line not because David is owed any such favour but because God desires to give that gift. Because God often acts graciously there is very little that the recipient of such grace can point to that shows they are deserving of such grace.

Not that anyone is deserving of God's grace. Grace being unmerited favour.

So, it happens more frequently than not, I suspect that God is gracious to individuals who thumb their noses at God's graciousness and continue on in their own self-justifying ignorance.

So what gives? Is there a more straight answer? Are we allowed to divorce but you will have to "pay for it big time"? and then be forgiven?

Since I don't posit God as a scorekeeper (primarily because humanity simply cannot score at all without God's help) we are always on the knife's edge between Grace and Justice. The testimony of scripture is that the only wage humanity has earned is death so gifts of life are gifts of grace.

Does God hate divorce, but at the same time provides an addendum?

Nope.

God hates divorce. Humanity engages in divorce because humanity's heart is hardened. God's grace is so amazing it can forgive divorce. There is nothing that says God must or God will forgive any.

So basically, no matter what we do, God still loves us

Well, that is the Arminian stance. The Calvinist stance would be that no matter what the elect of God do God still loves them. I don't think we need to split that particular hair at this moment.

I do think it is important to note that God forgives and that is the model God gives to those who wish to be the children of God. Some clearly are better at identifying and matching the model than are others.

but He will destroy the world someday?

The answer is a matter of perspective. 2 Peter 3: 10 claims that earth and all its works will be burned up. Some interpret that as a destructive act. Others see it as necessary for the great refining. The dross is burned off until only the pure ore remains.

There will be a new heaven and a new earth and the old will pass away.

What are the sin/sins that He will justify that the world deserves that? No addendum?

What sins do not pay the wage of death? God, as far as I can recall, doesn't do nuance with sin as much as humanity loves to. God for example doesn't say that one sin is better than another. There are different penalties for different sins but that is not because God is only a little put out by one and really pissed off by others.

Which is, apparently a difficult concept for us to grasp. I mean it isn't like cheating on our taxes is the same as murder right? Unless you ask God and then you get a different answer. Cheating, like murder is sin and the wages of sin are death. You don't get more death for murder and less death for tax fraud.

But beyond the concern of what is sin, because all have sinned. Is what will God do about that sin and what model does God provide for the children of God in dealing with sin? Does God forgive? Does God shun? When God doesn't should we?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't understand how a gracious God would create ungracious theology - and that's probably because God doesn't create theology, we do. The theology of total depravity, I do not find very gracious. So, various individuals, and collectives of individuals have created theology out of the words in the bible, theology that they feel have suited their feelings/ experiences/ values, best. That goes for Calvinists, Wesleyans, Universalists....etc, etc. I think theology evolves...a framework to try to understand God. But God doesn't change. The fact that Jesus came and challenged established rules and gave new interpretations/ perspective shows that God is a God who expects understanding to evolve to help more and harm less. And that is what sin is. Any behaviour that leads to harm to others for ones' own satisfaction. Everyone has sinned because we are all connected. Everything we do creates a ripple. we have to forgive the past because there's nothing we can do to change it..and go forward. If we learned From the past, and learned to think before we acted...regardless of the letter of the law in the bible, and actually thought ahead to future consequences, there would be fewer 'sins' - that is, less harm, more help...a new world.

 

[Lastpointe]

The divorce would be voided if someone tries to get away with that and gets caught, and then would have to refile.

In Canada you must wait a year of separation (was two years, now one) to file a "no fault divorce", hypothetically sooner in cases of provable adultery - one of the grounds of "at fault divorce". And the person who commits adultery cannot file on those grounds (preventing someone from running out and having an affair to get a speedy divorce)...it would have to be the offended spouse who chooses to make that claim. Otherwise, trying to prove it would take an emotional toll, stretch out the time and legal fees beyond a year, so it ends up being cheaper and faster just to wait unless one of the spouses absolutely feels the need to get remarried before that - there's no point - it's generally advised against. No "deals" can be struck between spouses to make something up to speed up the separation process - probably based on past precedents of that happening.

That may be the rules now, i really am not up on divorce law. But my aunt divorced in 1948 or something. Definately before mysister was born in 1950

According to family, at least in Toronto, this was how people got around the draconian divorce laws

These women were hired by the wife to testify in court. It was apparently quite lucrative for them. Obviously everyone including the judge had to know the business model or else they thought a half dozen women in Toronto really got around. I expect it was judges turning a blind eye to a law they did not like. And eventually we got to no fault divorce

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

adultery is usually pretty thoughtless...usually pretty selfish and dishonest. It hurts the cheated on spouse, and the family. That is why it is a sin. Divorce breaks people apart who were committed to love one another. Divorce hurts, it is emotionally and often financially devastating, as well as socially, when friends take sides and drift away. It sucks, it's horrible, and usually unnecessary. A want rather than a need. It hurts kids, spouses, inlaws, alienates people. That is why it is a sin.

Doesn't anybody think about why sins are sins, or do they take the bible position as set in stone?

 

[Jaebius]

adultery is usually pretty thoughtless...usually pretty selfish and dishonest. It hurts the cheated on spouse, and the family. That is why it is a sin. Divorce breaks people apart who were committed to love one another. Divorce hurts, it is emotionally and often financially devastating, as well as socially, when friends take sides and drift away. It sucks, it's horrible, and usually unnecessary. A want rather than a need. It hurts kids, spouses, inlaws, alienates people. That is why it is a sin.

Doesn't anybody think about why sins are sins, or do they take the bible position as set in stone?

I take the Bible position as set in stone. I also at times muse about just why something is sinful.

 

[revjohn]

The theology of total depravity, I do not find very gracious

I suspect that is because you don't see where Total Depravity fits in the entire doctrines of grace. Further to that I expect you object to the doctrine because you don't like how it points the finger at you. Not that there are many who can understand the doctrine without coming to the realization that it does point the finger and it is generally right on the mark.

At most the doctrine of Total Depravity posits that there is a problem and everyone is in the same boat.

I think theology evolves...a framework to try to understand God.

It does. Not so much as one might think. And where evolution can be demonstrated it typically is found to be more than the simple rejection of earlier thought.

But God doesn't change.

That is true as far as the character or nature of God is concerned. Not particularly true when it comes to the strategies that God has employed. And it isn't that God changes so much as we finally move to where God desired us to go and the journey is by no means done. So we will be lead a little further. As we grow and learn the one thing we learn is that there will always be a call to grow further.

The fact that Jesus came and challenged established rules and gave new interpretations/ perspective shows that God is a God who expects understanding to evolve to help more and harm less.

Well, that works as an incomplete picture it is not the be all and end all.

And that is what sin is. Any behaviour that leads to harm to others for ones' own satisfaction.

That too is an incomplete picture. It allows us to harm others so long as we gain no satisfaction from it. Again, sin is to miss the mark. To fall short. It doesn't matter if anyone is hurt or whether that pain and suffering satisfies us or not. Anything not a bull's eye is sin.

Everyone has sinned because we are all connected.

No. Not at all. Connection is not the cause of sin or even the means of sin.

Everything we do creates a ripple.

While true the ripple is not of necessity sin.

we have to forgive the past because there's nothing we can do to change it.

Forgiving the past does not change the past. Forgiving the past may very well effect our present trajectory and prevent fresh new sins from multiplying misery.

If we learned From the past, and learned to think before we acted...regardless of the letter of the law in the bible, and actually thought ahead to future consequences, there would be fewer 'sins' - that is, less harm, more help...a new world.

Yes and no. From a Christian perspective it is the letter of the law in the Bible which tells us what Bull's eye is and whether or not we have managed to hit it. Our marksmanship does not improve if we change the target.

Although it does mean that some folk actually miss the target simply because they refuse to identify it.

Moving back to Total Depravity is not actually identifying the target so much as it is commenting on our current level of marksmanship. If we stay in the context of archery we would not today say that folk sinned. When they missed the mark we might say, "you suck." And since we all suck we are experts on what sucking looks like.

The chief problem, historically, for Christianity is that there is a great many horrible shots missing the broadsides of barns and taking it out on others who also miss. Which is more missing the target since the target is not actually how many other horrible shots you can fairly criticize. The target is reconciliation, how can all of us lousy shots be reconciled to God?

Well, we could miraculously (because that is what it would take) start hitting the target. Or we could accept that try as hard as we might on our own we will always miss and seek help from one who doesn't miss. Such a move would not mean overnight accuracy. It would mean that we would start getting closer to the mark. Our ability to hit the target would more closely resemble Christ's ability to hit the mark.

We all have a better chance of hitting the target when you know what the target actually is. The target is not the ability to identify sin so much as it is the willingness to forgive it.

Those who insist on pointing fingers are doing work that is already done and not the work they have been called to do.

We have been given a ministry of reconciliation and that is where grace is greatly needed and so few are willing to pitch in.

 

[revjohn]

Doesn't anybody think about why sins are sins, or do they take the bible position as set in stone?

For the most part I think it is very easy to determine why some sins are sin. God establishes a target and folk fail to hit it.

Eating Pork, for example. For our Jewish brothers and sisters it is a sin. Why? Because God asked them to distinguish themselves from other peoples and one way to do that was to not touch nor eat pork. It isn't because people didn't know how to cook pork, they did. It isn't because pork is bad for you. It isn't. It is because everyone ate pork in the area and one way to become distinct is to not share in the economy. No trading for pigs or with pigs.

Gentiles were not forbidden to eat pork. So they are free to eat it.

Non observant Jews will eat pork. In so doing they fail to distinguish themselves. Until God tells the Jew that they can eat pork with impunity it remains an unclean food and eating it prevents them from being considered ritually pure. Not forever, but until they clean their act up.

Murder is a little more obvious. Are we thankful that is set in stone or is that something we wish we could conveniently erase?

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Or just rename it pro choice. Convenient!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't agree revJohn. You are very well studied in your position and I can't argue with you about your doctrine, or formal theology, but I just do not agree with your definition of what God's definition of what sin is. Good thing Calvin was a flawed human himself, and that Calvinism isn't the only option.

Sin is what hurts each other, humanity, and rips the social fabric apart. Sin is not sin just because God says so, period, end of discussion, no critical thought required. Sin is sin because God wants us to love one another and think about and change the things we do that hurt one another, to make a new world...God made us to do something about it, and the burning off of the dross is humanity figuring it out, getting back to the best of ourselves as we, humanity, was intended to be, and each person finding what their purpose and calling is as part of it .... We are just starting to learn of our interdependence. Yes, sin is bad because of collective harmful ripple it makes. It leads to literal death, and we are all connected...responsible to one another, the bigger the world grows and the bigger the mess grows. That is why we cannot connect our individual decision to drive cars, with, say, war in the ME. We are also responsible for collectively turning it around.

 

[Waterfall]

Those who insist on pointing fingers are doing work that is already done and not the work they have been called to do.

We have been given a ministry of reconciliation and that is where grace is greatly needed and so few are willing to pitch in.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

There is a difference between pointing to a problem that may require reflection and correction, and being punitive, and overly pious and not recognizing that we all make mistakes ... Different mistakes, but we all make them.

For example... Say one commits adultery, has a one night stand... There is a difference between sitting down, discussing one's mistake, apologizing with all sincerity and trying to make amends as best as possible, trying every means of good counsel to save a marriage, rather than running off and abandoning one's spouse and chasing one night stands infefinately, or dumping them for the other woman/ man, and forming a new relationship that will have new problems, maybe the same ones, eventually - but never tending to the hurt the initial sin caused, or the subsequent ripple.

So, the right thing to do would be to counsel a person to act responsibly in the wake of their mistake and not go on to add insult to injury, wouldn't it? That's not so much about pointing fingers as it is about nipping a bad situation in the bud.

 

[Jaebius]

There is a difference between pointing to a problem that may require reflection and correction, and being punitive, and overly pious and not recognizing that we all make mistakes ... Different mistakes, but we all make them.

For example... Say one commits adultery, has a one night stand... There is a difference between sitting down, discussing one's mistake, apologizing with all sincerity and trying to make amends as best as possible, trying every means of good counsel to save a marriage, rather than running off and abandoning one's spouse and chasing one night stands infefinately, or dumping them for the other woman/ man, and forming a new relationship that will have new problems, maybe the same ones, eventually - but never tending to the hurt the initial sin caused, or the subsequent ripple.

So, the right thing to do would be to counsel a person to act responsibly in the wake of their mistake and not go on to add insult to injury, wouldn't it? That's not so much about pointing fingers as it is about nipping a bad situation in the bud.

I would add that the injured party (the one who's been cheated on) absolutely has the call on whether the marriage continues or not.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I would add that the injured party (the one who's been cheated on) absolutely has the call on whether the marriage continues or not.

Well, unless they don't, because the injuring party has initiated a divorce regardless of what the injured party would like to do.

 

[Jaebius]

Well, unless they don't, because the injuring party has initiated a divorce regardless of what the injured party would like to do.

If the injurer wants to reconcile, it's the choice of the injured to continue the marriage or not. The injuring party has violated the marriage covenant.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

For the most part I think it is very easy to determine why some sins are sin. God establishes a target and folk fail to hit it.

Eating Pork, for example. For our Jewish brothers and sisters it is a sin. Why? Because God asked them to distinguish themselves from other peoples and one way to do that was to not touch nor eat pork. It isn't because people didn't know how to cook pork, they did. It isn't because pork is bad for you. It isn't. It is because everyone ate pork in the area and one way to become distinct is to not share in the economy. No trading for pigs or with pigs.

Gentiles were not forbidden to eat pork. So they are free to eat it.

Non observant Jews will eat pork. In so doing they fail to distinguish themselves. Until God tells the Jew that they can eat pork with impunity it remains an unclean food and eating it prevents them from being considered ritually pure. Not forever, but until they clean their act up.

Murder is a little more obvious. Are we thankful that is set in stone or is that something we wish we could conveniently erase?

Murder is obviously directly connected with death, causing death of another and most conscienscious people can easily see that, and why it is a sin. What is less clear is how supporting, for example, corrupt economies in other parts of the world is connected to death...deaths of strangers who we are far removed from. So, not thinking about what we buy from sweat shops or how much of our tax dollars pay for weapons of war, for example, or how overconsumption and the demand for gas contributes to oil wars, or how not paying attention to carbon emissions and climate change has lead to extreme weather that has killed people, or how the massive islands of garbage we have dumped in our oceans are killing marine life and damaging and changing the ecosystem, and killing off marine life that people eat and fishermen depend on to earn a living... Etc. this is how sin leads to death, more broadly than the individual. Adultery... It leads to damage to family ties and a weakened social support system and that lack of support is not life affirming.

The reason why I think sins are the things which hurt people ... Missing the mark means doing something hurtful ... We just don't realize how far our negative ripple goes. If we collectively try to help there is a greater likelihood of creating a better ripple. You've likely heard the expression "hurt people, hurt people." And on and on, it is the source of dysfunction and brokenness in our world.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can we reconcile ourselves to brute force? nein ... thus the avoid 9 roués ... the additional to the 7 weals and virtues ... without soul and heart in balanced form you just don't see eM ... the abstract form ... such a pit-Heh ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Weal ... an injury imposed ... perhaps by and old crank that believe in the power of patriarchal right ... and ignores the mother of god ... don't you love such ethereal essences ... often giving sulphurous attributes to Ezekiel's Weal ... so we can escape the situation through the gift of dying to it? Is it an odd function when viewed from the other side of God/ET urnal?

What a PIs sup to allow et'ics to rise above the pool of morals ... and still those in it can't see out ... they need a sentient ... scent in all as pheromone? Thus cholesterol evolves into even norepinephrine ... a brain hoer muon? Hoeg that þiggie ... as a Latin roe ... as whirred in the brae*n!

 

[revjohn]

I don't agree revJohn.

Disagreement is fair and definitely an option.

I just do not agree with your definition of what God's definition of what sin is.

You could for a minute refuse to impugn others. The definition of sin I offered is not mine. It is one I adhere to but do not own. Nor do I advance it as God's definition of sin and imply that it is the only definition at play. Apart from that I offer definition of what the words at play in the Greek text mean. ἁμαρτία is a Greek word which we translate into the English a sin. It is an archery term meaning miss or to fall short. It is used whenever an archer fails to score a bull's eye.

Theologically speaking it is to miss the mark God establishes. How the mark is missed is of little import. That the mark was missed is what the term means.

Good thing Calvin was a flawed human himself, and that Calvinism isn't the only option.

Nobody. Not Calvin himself or myself a disciple of Calvin's religious thought have ever posited that Calvin was anything but flawed. The doctrine of Total Depravity doesn't come with exceptions. Not sure what the attempt was in making the comment. The result is simply petty.

Sin is what hurts each other, humanity, and rips the social fabric apart. Sin is not sin just because God says so, period, end of discussion, no critical thought required.

Having started petty it isn't surprising that you continue petty.

Nobody denies that sin does not hurt. In fact, throughout the history of the Christian faith the discussion regarding sin revolves primarily around how deeply sin scars. So you aren't championing anything new with respect to any discussion about sin. Also the character assassination is not required to prove a point which nobody belabours. Decisions to trust God are not automatically individuals checking their brains at the door. In fact, it could be argued that trust is a response to critical thought aforehand.

Sin is sin because God wants us to love one another and think about and change the things we do that hurt one another, to make a new world.

Some of the time I would agree with you. I don't think your evaluation works in the universal sense.

God made us to do something about it, and the burning off of the dross is humanity figuring it out, getting back to the best of ourselves as we, humanity, was intended to be, and each person finding what their purpose and calling is as part of it

No. It very much isn't. The language of burning dross and refining is not ever applied to human activity in the bounds of scripture. Within scripture it is action undertaken by the Holy Spirit and it belongs to God's work of redeeming us. Humanity, simply does not have the resources needed to redeem itself. Scripture suggest humanity doesn't even have the ability to repent of its sin without the Holy Spirit intervening on our behalf.

That is why we cannot connect our individual decision to drive cars, with, say, war in the ME.

It isn't that we cannot, (you just now proved that we can) it is that we, for the most part, will not make the connection and that goes back to human selfishness and the long history of passing the buck that Adam began in the garden.

Apart from that I am always fascinated by the lengths humanity will go to in an attempt to redesign sin as a concept all the while ignoring the ideas immediately tied to sin such as repentence and forgiveness.

 

[Luce NDs]

Socially or universally speaking are we outcasts ... or just castoff's of an ideal (god?) of loving thoughtful ness (dark) that doesn't work in the present pool ... can one hear the nell evolve on what hurts?