Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Homosexuals Embrace Adultery...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Thanks.

    Yet such a communal living environment would violate Jesus' words no less than 'serial adultery'; "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Mat. 22:29-30) We're told heaven is asexual, not open relationships.

    Thanks. Rereading 1 Cor. 7, I don't see remarriage of widows being any more discouraged than marriage itself. Regarding adultery, I haven't seen John Piper's argument, but in my understanding betrothal and marriage were treated essentially identically (to the point that sexual intercourse was often acceptable during the betrothal).
    I agree (I think) that a communal sexual congress, even in the shape of shared fidelity in a polyamorous group, would be wholly impermissible in a Christian sexual ethic, despite the tolerance for polyamorous relationships in Hebrew Scripture and then-contemporary Palestinian culture. But I also think we can imagine such an experiment entered into innocently, without a necessarily sinful intent. I'm not able to speculate on the sexual makeup of angelic beings but Christians do understand marriage to be an earthly analogy of heavenly experience and relationships: it's not illogical to see shared sexual partnership in a Christian "group marriage" as part of that marriage/Heaven analogy. But I agree that this would not be a typically successful or healthy endeavor: I think that many polyamorous families have existed virtuously enough through history so I wouldn't beat down too hard on the ethical nature of such relationships but, theologically, I think the door is closed on a Christian Swingers commune.

    Piper summarized his argument here: the driving point being that Matthew, needing to clarify why Joseph would be justified in divorcing Mary, distinguishes "adultery" from "fornication", allowing for (re)marriage after a divorce during betrothal so as to not conflict with the absolute prohibitions found in other Gospel writings.

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post

    As people in the thread are using different definitions for the same term, by "serial adultery", I am referring to a violation of an expectation of mutual exclusivity, either by repeated violations against one person or violations against numerous partners sequentially. An example of the latter being Donald Trump's two divorces and three marriages and an example of the former being Trump's habitual infidelities while married. An "open marriage", by contrast, does not have an understanding of mutual exclusivity and so does not necessarily involve a violation of that (though such violations could still occur with partners outside that agreement).
    Thanks.
    We might imagine a communal living environment where members of the sect or "family" lived as common spouses and we might imagine something like that to be a (probably misguided) attempt to live closer to what we're told Heaven is like, where there is no marriage and everyone enjoys the same bond with their earthly spouse as they do their earthly adversaries. We can imagine no situation where violating an understanding of exclusive fidelity can at all resemble a heavenly ideal.
    Yet such a communal living environment would violate Jesus' words no less than 'serial adultery'; "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Mat. 22:29-30) We're told heaven is asexual, not open relationships.
    As to belief and behavior, we'd be largely talking about attitudes regarding remarriage, whether after divorce or death of a spouse; the latter being discouraged and the former being equated with adultery (with the possible exemption of sexual immorality on the part of a spouse but I think John Piper has a good argument that this was in reference to the betrothal period and not a blanket exception). That's what we be talking about as a matter of stated principle: on matters of what churchgoers are willing to tolerate among their chosen spiritual and political leadership ... well, we don't have a great track record there that we can point back to when preaching sexual ethics.

    -Sam
    Thanks. Rereading 1 Cor. 7, I don't see remarriage of widows being any more discouraged than marriage itself. Regarding adultery, I haven't seen John Piper's argument, but in my understanding betrothal and marriage were treated essentially identically (to the point that sexual intercourse was often acceptable during the betrothal).

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    He actually started out all liberal hippy. By the 60's he was a John Bircher (except in his sexual proclivities, apparently).
    Reminds me a bit of John Norman and his Gor books.

    Started out pretty good. Then at some point something snapped and he became obsessed with something like the BDS&M lifestyle where the men brutalized the women and the women all grew to accept if not love it. He could spend an entire chapter discussing the proper may to chain slaves together when marching them single file

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    I disagree with that very broad definition and posit that the much of the populace do not use that term in that way.
    A lot of folks confuse fornication for adultery.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    It hardly gets more "open minded" than 20 person orgies that spread Monkeypox.
    And in our world, that is a good thing....

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post

    Oh, I don't know, I guess they must be more open minded when it comes to sex.
    It hardly gets more "open minded" than 20 person orgies that spread Monkeypox.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I'm unclear on the difference between "open marriage" and "serial adultery"; they seem rather synonymous to me.


    Could you expand on this a bit, and clarify what 'belief and behavior' you're referring to? Thanks.

    Quite.
    As people in the thread are using different definitions for the same term, by "serial adultery", I am referring to a violation of an expectation of mutual exclusivity, either by repeated violations against one person or violations against numerous partners sequentially. An example of the latter being Donald Trump's two divorces and three marriages and an example of the former being Trump's habitual infidelities while married. An "open marriage", by contrast, does not have an understanding of mutual exclusivity and so does not necessarily involve a violation of that (though such violations could still occur with partners outside that agreement).

    We might imagine a communal living environment where members of the sect or "family" lived as common spouses and we might imagine something like that to be a (probably misguided) attempt to live closer to what we're told Heaven is like, where there is no marriage and everyone enjoys the same bond with their earthly spouse as they do their earthly adversaries. We can imagine no situation where violating an understanding of exclusive fidelity can at all resemble a heavenly ideal.

    As to belief and behavior, we'd be largely talking about attitudes regarding remarriage, whether after divorce or death of a spouse; the latter being discouraged and the former being equated with adultery (with the possible exemption of sexual immorality on the part of a spouse but I think John Piper has a good argument that this was in reference to the betrothal period and not a blanket exception). That's what we be talking about as a matter of stated principle: on matters of what churchgoers are willing to tolerate among their chosen spiritual and political leadership ... well, we don't have a great track record there that we can point back to when preaching sexual ethics.

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    I find, as a Christian, the general concept of "open marriage" (of the same family as polygamy and polyandry) far less problematic than serial adultery (classified as violating an understanding of mutually exclusive physical or emotional fidelity). And Christians certainly have a "planks and motes" aspect to these issues that should be attended to before trying to level a finger at others.
    I'm unclear on the difference between "open marriage" and "serial adultery"; they seem rather synonymous to me.
    But were we to all to believe the literal declarations of Jesus Christ, we'd be classifying a whole lot of belief and behavior as adultery that the broad public, churchgoers and I'm sure many TWebbers included, support.
    Could you expand on this a bit, and clarify what 'belief and behavior' you're referring to? Thanks.
    Whole lot of reasons to refrain, biblically speaking.

    -Sam
    Quite.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Fornication and adultery are effectively synonymous.
    Adultery would be a subset.

    If there's no promise to be faithful, one cannot be unfaithful.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    No it doesn't. While most people think of adultery as a secretive affair, the fact is, any sex outside of marriage is adultery, even if all parties are fully aware and consenting.
    The bolded is probably the important part of this conversation. The poll asked a specific question, to which seer is applying a very generic term to. By doing that, it creates a dishonest picture of what the people in the poll are actually approving of.

    I'll give an analogy to demonstrate. I'll be very explicit in my comparisons, and what I'm actually saying is similar.

    So: The poll asked about "Open Marriages" I'm going to compare that to a poll that instead asks about "Killing someone in defense of one's self or in defense of another person, when there is reasonable fear of death." (for simplicity, i'm just going to call this "Self defense" just to keep it shorter.

    Seer then switched "Open Marriages" to "Adultery". I'm going to compare that to switching "Self Defense" to "Homicide"

    Putting it together: There is a poll that asked people whether they supported "killing in self defense", many said yes. Person A then said that people asked supported Homicide.

    In both cases we have a specific item "Open marriages" and "Self defense" which includes a specific act, that has been switched to the larger category that includes that act. While at a very BASE level, the statement remains true, it is misleading because it implies approval of the specific means approval of everything under the generic. Just because someone supports "open marriage" it does not mean that someone supports "Secretive affairs", in the same way that someone supporting "killing in self defense" means that they support "Cold blooded murder", even though both are technically Homicides. Just "Justifiable Homicide".

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    So promiscuity is a good thing in your mind - got it...
    First off, you're moving the goal post if you're talking promiscuity or casual sex in general, meaning amongst single people. If that's what you mean, then yes promiscuity, or casual sex is just fine. If you're talking promiscuity by married people, i.e open marriages, then I don't think it's a good idea myself, but that's just me. It might work out fine for others, I don't know, I don't care, and I don't think it's anyone else business. You like to pretend that you're all about freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of religion etc. But I don't think you actually are. You're about the freedom to live according to your religious beliefs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    I wouldn't consider an "open marriage" to be a marriage much like I wouldn't agree "same-sex marriage" or "plural marriage" to be marriages. Sex outside of marriage while not being married would be fornication, Openly (or secretly) having affairs while married is not the same as an "open marriage".
    Fornication and adultery are effectively synonymous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    I find, as a Christian, the general concept of "open marriage" (of the same family as polygamy and polyandry) far less problematic than serial adultery (classified as violating an understanding of mutually exclusive physical or emotional fidelity). And Christians certainly have a "planks and motes" aspect to these issues that should be attended to before trying to level a finger at others.

    But were we to all to believe the literal declarations of Jesus Christ, we'd be classifying a whole lot of belief and behavior as adultery that the broad public, churchgoers and I'm sure many TWebbers included, support.

    Whole lot of reasons to refrain, biblically speaking.

    -Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Maranatha
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No surprised...
    Not surprising.

    They've only done the whole gay marriage thing a couple of years.

    You need to give em some time man.

    Before that they were literally defined by sex anytime, anywhere with anybody willing.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post

    Oh, I don't know, I guess they must be more open minded when it comes to sex.
    So promiscuity is a good thing in your mind - got it...

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:29 AM
3 responses
18 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:13 AM
0 responses
6 views
1 like
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:18 PM
1 response
20 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 02:55 PM
2 responses
55 views
0 likes
Last Post Starlight  
Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:17 PM
16 responses
69 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Working...
X