Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What Constitutes Adultery?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 9:45AM #21
smcisaac
Posts: 7,893

Mar 2, 2012 -- 3:45PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:49PM, smcisaac wrote:

I think I already detect in the way you have discussed the question a hint that you may respect your (male) friend as a peer and a worthy individual deserving of your courtesy and honor more than you do his wife, whom you see more as an object and less as an equal.


It doesn't matter to me whether any husband is a "worthy individual deserving of my courtesy and honor" as I would still respect the boundaries because for me it's not about gender but rather; about boundaries. There are just some lines I simply cannot cross without compromising my integrity.


For example: some years ago, when I was younger and looking for a spouse, I ran across a really wonderful girl at the church I was attending in San Diego and fell in love with her practically on the spot. Well, not too long afterwards, she and her boyfriend got up in front of my single's group and announced their engagement. It took the wind out of me for two good reasons. Number one: I hadn't known till then she was involved with someone; and number two: I was familiar with that man and convinced he was totally wrong for her. To make matters only worse; she began watching me in a way you could only interpret as feeling the same way I did. The girl I eventually married was attending that same single's group and told me later that she could see happiness and adoration in that girl's eyes whenever she looked at me. But as much as I really treasured that girl— and she apparently treasured me —I treasured my self-respect even more. She was engaged, and to me that's a line only a pig dares to cross.


Now; if you're done raking me over the gender-bias coals, maybe we can get back to the topic and continue discussing that issue instead of usurping the thread to find fault with Webers_Home.


Cliff
/




I didn't mean to rake you over the coals, I mearely meant to raise a question.  I offered the possibility that you might have an implicit bias, but also the possibility that I was misinterpreting your comments because of the gender roles prevailing at the time of the source text.   It's evident to me from your further comments that you do respect women and hold men to a high standard of control over their baser instincts. I apologize if you felt I was unfairly ciriticizing you.


If anything, it's regrettable that you and this young woman did not have (or take) the opportunity to resolve your mutual feelings before she married someone else.  Engagement is not marriage, and revealing your affection toward someone who is not yet married is very different than lechery or adultery toward someone who is.

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way."  Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 1:59PM #22
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:45AM, smcisaac wrote:

it's regrettable that you and this young woman did not have (or take) the opportunity to resolve your mutual feelings before she married someone else


Maybe it's regrettable to you; but as for me, I'm very satisfied with myself for keeping a lid on it.



Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:45AM, smcisaac wrote:

Engagement is not marriage, and revealing your affection toward someone who is not yet married is very different than lechery or adultery toward someone who is.


Maybe it's very different for you; but not for me: and since you're not the one who has to live with my conscience; then I will continue to follow my own moral compass instead of yours.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 8:10PM #23
Goyboy
Posts: 232

Feb 29, 2012 -- 12:26PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.
Webster's defines adultery as: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife; or between a married woman and someone other than her husband


So then, according to Webster's; adultery requires the participation of at least one married person.


†. Mtt 5:28 . . I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


I'm a traditional Christian; but this is definitely one place where I strongly disagree with the traditional interpretation of Mtt 5:28; which is an interpretation that makes men guilty of adultery for nothing more than having a healthy libido.




I completely disagree.


First, it doesn't matter how Webster defines adultery. What matters is how Jesus defines adultery, and He defines adultery as something that takes place in the heart before any action takes place.


Second, there is a difference between a man perceiving a woman as being sexually attractive and a man desiring to have sex with that woman. The "healthy libido" pertains to the former. Adultery pertains to the latter.


If you are a married man, and if you desire to have sex with a woman who is not your wife, then according to Jesus, you have already committed adultery.


If you are a single man, and if you desire to have sex with a married woman, then according to Jesus, you have already committed adultery.


Plenty of Christian men (including myself) have struggled with sinful sexual thoughts. Yet, we have struggled because we acknowledge the sinfulness of those thoughts.


It is foolishness for a man to deny the sinfulness of sinful thoughts. As 1 John 1:8 says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and  the truth is not in us." (ESV)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 9:37PM #24
Beautiful_Dreamer
Posts: 5,152

Webers, let me say thank you. I know that there are many good men out there-I'm married to one and related to many others. I like to think that there are far more good men out there than 'bad'. However, when I was getting engaged/married, some people tried to tell me that it's 'normal' for men to want to cheat (or actually do it), and that I should either accept it or make sure I 'keep my man happy' (in *that* way). And this was from Christian men! I know that this isn't true and that not all men are like this, but it's still great to see it in writing. Especially when it seems that you can't turn on the tv or open a magazine without seeing something about 'my husband cheated on me' or 'X celebrity cheated on Y with Z' or some crap like that.

More where that came from...

Writing I get paid to do

Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 10:01PM #25
Goyboy
Posts: 232

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:37PM, Beautiful_Dreamer wrote:

. . .  when I was getting engaged/married, some people tried to tell me that it's 'normal' for men to want to cheat (or actually do it), and that I should either accept it or make sure I 'keep my man happy' (in *that* way). And this was from Christian men!



I wonder if those so-called "Christian" men would have said what they said if their pastors had been listening.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2012 - 12:46PM #26
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:10PM, Goyboy wrote:

it doesn't matter how Webster defines adultery.


Maybe Webster's doesn't matter to you but it does to me because I am an English-speaking man, and my Bibles are all translated in English, and everything the Lord says in my Bibles is spoken in English. Were I not to use Webster's to understand the Lord, then he and I would fail to communicate. We would be like two adolescents speaking foreign languages and replicating the Tower of Babel.


†. 1Cor 14:9 . . Unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.


†. 1Cor 14:19-20 . . In the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2012 - 12:49PM #27
Sacrificialgoddess
Posts: 9,496

Mar 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:10PM, Goyboy wrote:

it doesn't matter how Webster defines adultery.


Maybe Webster's doesn't matter to you but it does to me because I am an English-speaking man, and my Bibles are all translated in English, and everything the Lord says in my Bibles is spoken in English. Were I not to use Webster's to understand the Lord, then he and I would fail to communicate. We would be like two adolescents speaking foreign languages and replicating the Tower of Babel.


†. 1Cor 14:9 . . Unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.


†. 1Cor 14:19-20 . . In the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.


Cliff
/




I think if you are asking the question, and consulting the dictionary on the matter, then you likely already have a problem on your hands that you are trying to justify.

Dark Energy. It can be found in the observable Universe. Found in ratios of 75% more than any other substance. Dark Energy. It can be found in religious extremists, in cheerleaders. To come to the conclusion that Dark signifies mean and malevolent would define 75% of the Universe as an evil force. Alternatively, to think that some cheerleaders don't have razors in their snatch is to be foolishly unarmed.

-- Tori Amos
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2012 - 1:58PM #28
Goyboy
Posts: 232

Mar 6, 2012 -- 12:46PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:10PM, Goyboy wrote:

it doesn't matter how Webster defines adultery.


Maybe Webster's doesn't matter to you but it does to me because I am an English-speaking man, and my Bibles are all translated in English, and everything the Lord says in my Bibles is spoken in English. Were I not to use Webster's to understand the Lord, then he and I would fail to communicate. We would be like two adolescents speaking foreign languages and replicating the Tower of Babel.


†. 1Cor 14:9 . . Unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.


†. 1Cor 14:19-20 . . In the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.


Cliff
/




If you want to get technical, then Webster is not the source that you should be using, because the New Testament was originally written in the Koine Greek dialect. Amazingly, over the decades New Testament theologians have produced for the general public several Greek lexicons, New Testament dictionaries and commentaries that explain to an English-speaking audience the meaning of those Greek words.


The Greek word in Matthew 5:27-28 being translated as "adultery" is "µοιχεύω" , transliterated as "moicheuō".  New Testament theologian William Barclay say the following about the use of "µοιχεύω" in Matthew 5:27-28:


“According to the literal meaning of the Greek the man who is condemned is the man who looks at a woman with the deliberate intention of lusting after her. The man who is condemned is the man who deliberately uses his eyes to awaken his lust, the man who looks in such a way that passion is awakened and desire deliberately stimulated.”*


Webster's definition of "adultery" pertains to an action. Jesus said that adultery is committed before any action takes place, because adultery is committed in the heart before it is acted out in a physical way.


By the way, it is understandable if a person has nothing but an English translation of the Bible to rely on. However, keep in mind that English is not the language that Jesus spoke. He would have known Hebrew, Aramaic and perhaps Koine Greek, but not English. Indeed, the English language as we know it did not exist when Jesus walked on the Earth. So, whenever possible, we need to turn to the New Testament in its original language to gain insight into what the New Testament teaches, which is why seminary students usually have to take courses in Koine Greek.


[*Quote Source: William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 (The Westminster Press: 1975), p. 147.]


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2012 - 3:43PM #29
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 1:58PM, Goyboy wrote:

If you want to get technical, then Webster is not the source that you should be using, because the New Testament was originally written in the Koine Greek dialect


Good God! you really expect me to use a Bible written in a Greek dialect that I do not understand?


Numerous linguists and translators, who are far better educated than I, and certainly better qualified, have invested literally decades translating the existing koiné Greek manuscripts into my native language. I see absolutely no wisdom in tossing their efforts aside and attempting to re-invent the wheel by doing something they have already done for me.


I just can't figure out why people so strongly object to standards. I have out in my garage a twelve-foot Stanley tape measure that's marked off in feet and inches. Did you know that every twelve-foot tape measure used in American industry, regardless of whether it's made by Craftsman, Stanley, Bostitch, Great Neck, Black & Decker, and/or Lufkin et al are all the same? Yes, if I were to lay the tape of my Stanley alongside the tape any one of those other brands, their inches would be exactly the very same length as the inches on my Stanley. You know why? Because they are made to a universal standard; which is essential to the manufacture of interchangeable parts.


Now if some of you want to really, really get technical than maybe you should find a New Testament written in the Lord's native language instead of koiné Greek. But even then, you would to have to find someone to translate the Lord's native language into your native language in order to understand him; and then you'd be right back to square-one with an English translation that you could have purchased for a song at a local outlet of a Good Will and/or a Salvation Army store specializing in second-hand goods.



Mar 6, 2012 -- 1:58PM, Goyboy wrote:

Webster's definition of "adultery" pertains to an action. Jesus said that adultery is committed before any action takes place, because adultery is committed in the heart before it is acted out in a physical way.


Regardless of one's actions or inactions, the standard English definition of adultery requires the involvement of at least one married person: so that single guys scheming on single women doesn't count.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2012 - 6:05PM #30
Goyboy
Posts: 232

Mar 6, 2012 -- 3:43PM, Webers_Home wrote:

Regardless of one's actions or inactions, the standard English definition of adultery requires the involvement of at least one married person: so that single guys scheming on single women doesn't count.


Cliff
/




Oh, now I get it. In your original post, you mischaracterize the traditional interpretation of Matthew 5:27-28.  You imply that the "traditional" interpretation pertains to single men as well as to married men. In short, this entire thread has been a straw man argument.


I do not know of any Christian who thinks that Matthew 5:27-28 refers to single men.


Please cite an example of someone interpreting Matthew 5:27-28 as referring to single men as well as to married men.




 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook