Why do Christians not take the sin of adultery seriously?

Great Debates
61

For those who think that Davis person is anything at all like mainstream or usual- there are 3143 counties in the USA, with about that many County Clerks. Exactly ONE has tried this shit. The rest do their jobs, and i will bet around 2/3rd of them are Christian.

Davis isn’t even one in a thousand. She’s a odd outlier and few Christian sects would ask their parishioners to do as she did.

So, yeah, I do imagine a few County Clerks inwardly tsk-tsk when marrying gays- or frequent divorcees- or several other “sinners”. But their religion tells them to do their duty. “*Render unto Caesar what is Caesars”. “Judge not, lest you be judged”. *

62

For those who chose God’s Law, but use secular law when they’re just too horny, it’s really a stretch to then turn around and apply God’s law in a secular setting. The idea that Kim Davis is a outlier is true, but when the GOP whackjobs like Huckabee get on the bandwagon then the idea catches fire.

63

Nope. Even Hucks knows it’s simply him being desperate, as he’s getting zero support.

64

Over the last 2,000 years, people have largely defined sin to fit current political and cultural concerns.

“Usury” was once a grave sin - when elites in Christian countries saw this “sin” as a barrier to economic growth; well guess, what, loaning with interest lost its sinfulness.

Homosexuality’s profile as a sin closely correlates to how many votes one can scare up over gay panics.

There was a time when adultery was not only harshly condemned but widely criminalized. Even Frank Sinatra was once busted for adultery! This law fell by the wayside once it became clear that prosecuting this crime would alienate too many voters and elites.

65

I don’t think religious people are truly concerned with what others do, but rather how others make them feel. The religious look down on sinners for not choosing the right path, a righteous person makes the religious feel good about what they’ve chosen.

It’s no mystery to me why people choose to feel good by forgiving the transgression of a person that also helps them sees the mirage.

66

The current German head of state, the Federal President Joachim Gauck, is an ordained minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, he is a man of the cloth. He lives with his domestic partner, Daniela Schadt, who also serves as his his official First Lady. However, President Gauck is still married to another woman, Gerhild Radtke, the couple has been separated since 1991, but they never divorced.

67

They are homophobic bigots using their JAYSUS as a false authority and rallying point.

They don’t worry too much about adultery because, like most people, they want to fuck and maintain spousal relationships. They only make a fuss about adultery when the adultery is hurting them personally, or when they want an excuse to attack someone else, in which case, JAYSUS . . . .

Don’t expect rationality.

68

This is the real answer. Religions like all large institutions are inherently lumbering and conservative and so they tend to be behind the times. Gradually however they move in the direction their flock has moved.

As birth control and antibiotics and wealth have made the consequences of adultery less pragmatically harmful in Western society, the flock’s view of morality has moved on, and the churches have gradually followed.

The same is happening with homosexuality. If the current direction in popular Western morality continues, eventually almost all Western religions will move on (as many already have), and not regard homosexuality as a sin. It will just become one more part of their inerrant religion that was dropped when it became errant. And we have always been at war with Eurasia.

The RCC is in trouble with this at the moment; their church is theoretically monolithic but spans the globe. As a consequence, its 3rd world adherents are preventing the church from moving on to keep up with 1st world morality. Consequently its 1st world flock is vanishing.

69

There’s always abortion.

70

You’ve mostly got it, I think. Adultery is a sin, but it’s a sin in the past. As long as you resolve to never do it again, you’re fine. Homosexuality is considered a sin, but it’s ongoing, so you commit it again anew every time you have sex with someone of the same gender as yourself (or possibly if you lust after him, but what qualifies as “lust” is up for debate). There’s also repentance, where you promise to never do it again and actually try to keep your word, where homosexuals generally do not promise this.

Divorce is where you are going astray. Divorce is also a one-time sin for the divorcer. Re-mariage is a one-time sin. You are not required to give up your husband or wife when you convert back to Christianity. (Remember, every time you willingly sin, you are converting away from Christianity.)

As for Kim Davis, she married a husband who she divorced over adultery, which makes it where he’s the one who is guilty, not her. Then she married husband 2, divorced him, married husband 3, divorced him, and then married back to husband 2. So the last marriage isn’t sinful, and the last divorce is of questionable sin status.

She also had a conversion to a more strict form of Christianity since then, and thus is not required to divorce her current husband, and in fact would be a sin for her to do so outside of certain circumstances. Any other divorces or remarriages are in the past and no longer count.

Sure, God hates divorce. He also thinks lying is an abomination. They all can be forgiven.

Now, under less theological terms, it’s because Christians have faced divorce or had friends who did, which made them go back and question their old rules and look for ways out. Christianity is all about this balance between judgement and mercy.

The same thing is happening with homosexuality, but it’s taking longer due to lack of out friends and never having to worry about facing it themselves, making it hard to empathize. But, every day, more and more Christians are coming in contact with homosexual people and struggling with finding a balance. Most stick with “It’s sinful, but who am I to judge,” but that’s really shaky.

This is why I continue to argue that the best course of action is to still stick with sola scriptura and even biblical literalism, and argue that we don’t know exactly what the Greek words that reference homosexuality mean, and that, without reaffirmation in the New Testament, the Old Testament rules are not necessarily valid.

People are looking for a way to accept homosexuality, so, I say, give them an out. Heck, it even helps me be more comfortable with it.

71

In some circles, it seems that the gay thing supersedes the Christ thing. It doesn’t at my Episcopal church; can’t speak for any others.

I also sometimes wonder if there are any young, handsome pastors of independent non-denominational churches, who have beautiful, slender blonde wives, and a stable of children, who DON’T cheat on them with their parishioners. :confused: :rolleyes:

72

That’s more of a Catholic thing.

73

But there’s a thread devoted to this nonsense, and she was trending news.

74

Come to think of it, the Anglican priest of my congregation cheated on his wife with one of his congregation. The only reason he was found out was that he, his wife and their kids were the only black people in our town, and the baby from the affair was black.

75

Kim Davis, the subject of this thread, is a Democrat. So, there’s, you know, one to start with.

What you’re overlooking here is the rule of law.

You can find plenty of people on record as opposing DOMA, as wanting to prevent that law, or change it. You can find plenty of people who have been fighting in court and legislatures for decades, sometimes against Democrats. People who campaigned against and voted against Obama and the Clintons on the basis of that view (which is how you punish politicians who make policy you don’t agree with).

The difference is that all those people who you mentioned:

  1. Weren’t doing anything illegal
  2. Stopped doing the thing that we disagree with.

What exactly should we punish them for? They’re the success cases! It worked! We changed minds. We changed the law. Hurrah.

In contrast, the people who are now bearing the punishment:

  1. Are doing something illegal
  2. Are continuing to do so, even in the face of court orders otherwise

This is a meaningful distinction. It is, arguably, the meaningful distinction on which civil society functions.