Why do Christians not take the sin of adultery seriously?

[Czarcasm]

@running_coach

God doesn’t understand? WT everlasting F?

It’s kanicbird’s world-best to stay as far the everlasting F away from it as possible.

[running_coach]

@Saintly_Loser

That said, I’ll give her a pass on her marital history.

First, the belief that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery is more of a Catholic belief than a general Christian belief, and Ms. Davis is not a Catholic.

Cite?

Open Bible( English Standard Version) has a lot to say.

[kanicbird]

@running_coach

God doesn’t understand? WT everlasting F?

Do we not make God in our own image?

[kanicbird]

@Czarcasm

It’s kanicbird’s world-best to stay as far the everlasting F away from it as possible.

I do not appreciate this, I ask you not to do this, I do not do this to your replies.

[simster]

@kanicbird

Do we not make God in our own image?

pretty sure the bible is the other way around on that.

perhaps you need to repolarize your view screen.

(FWIW - I agree in concept that our version of ‘God’ is what we create in our heads - which is why “GOD” does not exist in any real sense of existing)

[kanicbird]

@simster

pretty sure the bible is the other way around on that.

perhaps you need to repolarize your view screen.

(FWIW - I agree in concept that our version of ‘God’ is what we create in our heads - which is why “GOD” does not exist in any real sense of existing)

I do know what the Bible says about man being created in the image of God, but you seem to grasp my meaning in the first part of your 3rd statement. People design their God based on what they know and how they feel about certain things.

[Buck_Godot]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

This is the kind of thing I am really trying to get at. I can understand wanting to vote for Newt Gingrich because your are a supporter of his policies and ideology, this is a sufficient and completely rational stance. What bothers me is the same people who were enthusiastically voting for Newt for these reasons were claiming that they could never vote for Bill Clinton because of his philandering ways. My aunt, an evangelical from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, would espouse the view that she could never vote for Bill Clinton because of his character but happily supported Newt because of his ideology never seeing the hypocrisy of this stance. I can understand not liking Bill’s policies and thus not supporting him for this reason, but for a lot of these folks it seems to be all about character for the people they oppose and never about character for the people they support.

This comes down to simple confirmation bias, a constant in human nature, whether evangelical or not. If you want to support a guy you will ignore or minimize any defects in his character. If you don’t like a guy you will see reasons to dislike him further. Even without the affair your aunt still would never vote for Clinton. But “his philandering ways” just gives her a convenient rationalization to do what she was going to do anyway.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

So why do Christians, meaning the common folk who vote in elections and support people like Kim Davis, ignore this discrepancy? Is it because they don’t really care about Christian values and are just homophobic bigots? Or do they also take a stand against adultery and I am just not seeing it?

Cafeteria Christians.

Also, as has been mentioned: MY sin is OK, no biggie. YOUR sin is unpardonable and you will burn.

[Gyrate]

@puddleglum

I understand it because to me philandering is different than being a serial divorcee. Not in the moral sense but in a character sense. Gingrich seemed like a guy with a short attention span. He is teaching courses, writing books, doing dinosaur digs, talking politics, just a whirlwind of activity. He throws himself into something is great at it for a time and then get bored of it. The same with his marriages, he seems to get bored with his old wife and want go dive into a new relationship. That makes him a bad husband and person but I feel I could trust him to do something as long as it was not a long term commitment. Clinton on the other hand was cheating on his wife all the time, lying about it, and having other people lie about it for him. He never seemed at all sorry and never seemed to learn anything from his past. I could never trust anyone who has shown that level of dishonesty. Since trust is so important in a politician Gingrich’s sins were disappointing and I am glad he is out of politics but Clinton’s were disqualifying and I would not trust him enough to run small town sheriff’s office.

You realize that Gingrich had several other mistresses other than the ones he eventually married, right? And that with at least one of them he restricted the relationship to oral sex only specifically so he could claim he wasn’t having “sex” with her? And that he was in the middle of an affair at the time he was leading a Congressional investigation into Bill Clinton’s affair? However, loathsome I find Clinton’s behavior, Gingrich was far worse because he was engaged in the exact same kind of repeated and unrepented philandering while at the same time preaching “family values” and condemning Clinton for the same sins he was wallowing in.

[simster]

@kanicbird

I do know what the Bible says about man being created in the image of God, but you seem to grasp my meaning in the first part of your 3rd statement. People design their God based on what they know and how they feel about certain things.

Right - which is why ‘god’ does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word “exists”.

If you want to claim that for -you- your god is created in your image and that because you’re confused by homosexuality, then so is your god - thats fine.

But the thread is talking about ‘christians’ - and they get their ‘god’ from the ‘bible’ - so you should try and stick with that god and those verses instead of inserting your own dogma where it doesn’t belong.

[ITR_champion]

@running_coach

1. Since you’re claiming that Dems do lecture, find one yourself. Shouldn’t be that hard.

Indeed. Since this thread began with the issue of marriage certificates for gay couples, it’s worth remembering that Democratic leaders had the same position as Kim Davis until about five minutes ago. Here’s Barack Obama opposing gay marriage. Here’s Hillary Clinton doing the same. And here’s Bill Clinton signing DOMA.

While Democrats are eager to punish bakers and florists who don’t serve gay weddings, they evidence no desire to punish themselves for preventing legal recognition of gay weddings.

2. Christianity Today. Speculative and I found no follow up.

Yeah, that’s what I found too.

[running_coach]

@ITR_champion

Indeed. Since this thread began with the issue of marriage certificates for gay couples, it’s worth remembering that Democratic leaders had the same position as Kim Davis until about five minutes ago. Here’s Barack Obama opposing gay marriage. Here’s Hillary Clinton doing the same. And here’s Bill Clinton signing DOMA.

While Democrats are eager to punish bakers and florists who don’t serve gay weddings, they evidence no desire to punish themselves for preventing legal recognition of gay weddings.
Yeah, that’s what I found too.

2004, 2004 and 1996 is not “five minutes ago”.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Gyrate

You realize that Gingrich had several other mistresses other than the ones he eventually married, right? And that with at least one of them he restricted the relationship to oral sex only specifically so he could claim he wasn’t having “sex” with her? And that he was in the middle of an affair at the time he was leading a Congressional investigation into Bill Clinton’s affair? However, loathsome I find Clinton’s behavior, Gingrich was far worse because he was engaged in the exact same kind of repeated and unrepented philandering while at the same time preaching “family values” and condemning Clinton for the same sins he was wallowing in.

This is where I land and why I find the whole thing disturbing. I find Bill Clinton’s behavior reprehensible, but I view it as really none of my business. I voted for him because I thought his policies would be better than George Bush’s (something I am not so sure of now) and Bob Dole’s (something I am still reasonably sure of). Meanwhile, people like Newt Gingrich that run on a platform of family values and make political hay of Clinton’s peccadilloes while at the same time having probably just as many affairs as Bill drive me nuts.

Similarly, Al Gore does not bother me for flying around in airlines though many conservatives view this as hypocritical. As far as I know, Al Gore has never condemned people for flying in airlines or driving cars like Newt Gingrich has condemned people for having affairs. Gore has a job to do and is using the tools available for the job. If I ever found out he was invested in Exxon or the exploitation of tar sands, I would feel very much differently.

[ITR_champion]

@running_coach

2004, 2004 and 1996 is not “five minutes ago”.

I used exaggeration to make the point that they opposed gay marriage for a long time and only changed their minds recently. I would think that was obvious.

[simster]

@ITR_champion

I used exaggeration to make the point that they opposed gay marriage for a long time and only changed their minds recently. I would think that was obvious.

But that is also true for the population on whole - so, how is that an issue?

(they are also politicians, and have a tendency (right or wrong) to go with what they think will get them elected/re-elected)

[running_coach]

@ITR_champion

I used exaggeration to make the point that they opposed gay marriage for a long time and only changed their minds recently. I would think that was obvious.

So no one is allowed to change their mind?

[Czarcasm]

@ITR_champion

I used exaggeration to make the point that they opposed gay marriage for a long time and only changed their minds recently. I would think that was obvious.

So you’re saying there’s still hope for the Christian Right, given another decade or so?

[running_coach]

@Czarcasm

So you’re saying there’s still hope for the Christian Right, given another decade or so?

Century, at least. Maybe a millennium.

[Czarcasm]

@running_coach

Century, at least. Maybe a millennium.

In ** ITR champion** speak that would be about an hour and a half from now.

[RickJay]

@Saintly_Loser

I’m perfectly willing to believe that Ms. Davis has repented of her sins of the past, and has firmly resolved not to sin again…

Everyone has done wrong, and will do wrong again. No exceptions. We know this.

Surely an Christian with an IQ higher than that of a hamster would not “resolve not to sin again” knowing that, barring imminent death, it is certain they WILL? Surely one’s resolution should be more based on reality - that they will attempt to sin less often, or to be a better person, or what have you?

“I won’t even sin again” is just stupid. “I will follow the example of Christ as best I can and consciously try to improve myself as a person” seems a noble goal.