Is this adultery?

Post Reply New Topic

Via Matthew 5:27-30, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

And so some would have it that such "adultery" in one's heart is absolutely equivalent to committing the actual act of adultery, such as my ex-wife Jackie who didn't like me watching Screen Team or cosplay music videos in general even though she watched the Rob Dyke show, Sin Chan, and she looked at actual pornography and not just that other stuff. Heck, before we were married, she had used a pool torpedo to pleasure herself with and yet I'm so evil for liking Screen Team. Right. Anyway though, while such heart-adultery might be bad, the question I have is: is it equivalent to real adultery or is it a separate offense to God and one's spouse?

See here is where the doctrine doesn't make sense.

For one is sin subject to 'thought policing'?

I'm pretty sure that other doctrine supports the idea that it is acting on temptation amounts to sin. Temptation is a constant, it is giving into it that is considers a problem. Or at least that is one theology.

How many people are going to gauge their eyes out, if they have thought of someone lustfully? Would you do it?

Isn't it also a sin to mutilate your body?

Ok maybe it is metaphor, but is there an actual point?

For one the eyes don't lust, the eyes are sensors.

I think you have to reconcile that these different apostles had very different ideas of theology and morality.

in this case driven by sexual repression, and guilt.

I think if your ex had looked at porn, then she shouldn't have had any problem with you watching something as tame as a cosplay video.
As for Jesus' words - - I think his point was, in the eyes of God, the thought is as much a sin as is the action. The good news - or perhaps I should say, the Good News - is, we're also forgiven.
And while some early church fathers had taken Jesus literally with gouging out their own eyes, and cutting off their own hands, I'm pretty certain he had intended that part not to be taken literally.
As for your former wife with her toy - - as far as masturbation is concerned, let he or she with a free hand cast the first stone.

It does seem a bit like thought policing to me. The next passage likens anger to murder, and later on (by Paul) the Bible says, "in your anger do not sin" which I think was a reference to the Old Testament somewhere in Psalms. So if anger is murder, and it says in your anger do not sin, then it's possible to be angry and not sin. But if anger is murder, then it would be a sin in itself. I don't know what to think, but it's quite a bit of thought policing. There is, "from out of the heart the mouth speaks", and so forth. So maybe it's more of a controlling one's own thoughts kind of deal, stopping internal motives before they become worse.

Yes though, mutilation is wrong. Jackie required me to get circumcised before she'd consider marrying me. She's only genealogically Jewish, and she believes in Jesus she says, but she used lies like saying that she had an allergy to pork and shellfish in order to eat kosher. Paul called circumcision mutilation in the New Testament, even though in the Old Testament it was required of men. Either way, it's $3,000 of wasted money, months of pain, and a wasted five years of marriage for me. Harming one's body is wrong, so it should only be considered a metaphor somehow.

You think she'd not, but apparently her "moments of weakness" were acceptable in her own eyes whereas I'm to be held to a much higher standard. That's how it seems to me anyway.

Yeah, I know we're all sinners. Still, it stinks and stings to be held to a far higher standard and to be accused of "infidelity" for liking stuff like ScreenTeam when she's guilty of far worse and yet she's fine with what she does and she thinks that she's in the right. Of course nobody sees themselves, they can see the worst in others but they themselves are perfectly "okay" in their own eyes.

While a pork allergy sounds rather hokey to me, there is in fact such a thing as a shellfish allergy, and it afflicts many ethnic Jews.

I have heard that the Hebrews didn't know how to cook pork properly (to prevent trichonosis) but that theory always seemed specious to me.

I had always been told that pork just didn't keep in the Middle Eastern heat.

To my knowledge, all true allergies are acquired. The mechanisms are not well understood. For example, the current accepted practice with infants is to withhold certain allergens like nuts for a few years. However, a recent study found that among infants with parents that come from families with a high instance of peanut allergy, a 6 gram per week exposure to peanut protein in the early years resulted in a dramatically lower instance of peanut allergy.

There may be epigenetic components for all we know. It is known that the expression of genetic traits can be inherited. That offspring are sometimes born with responses to environmental stressors that were acquired by their parents.

That being said, shellfish and other bottom feeders (catfish, etc) are known to acquire and transmit parasites and viruses, even today, if not properly handled.

Swine as well, if not properly handled, can carry a number of parasites that can be transmitted to humans. "Food Inc." is a shameless push piece but i like to refer to the example of the sanitary hog confinement they visit. Those hogs are born, live, and die in an aseptic environment and are practically safe to eat raw. This is a major change from say 50 years ago when your parents or grandparents routinely boiled pork before searing it.

..And (I haven't read whole line) the Bible said " Verily , the Lord will be back in this generation "(paraphrasing) , I believe , and.........Even reproducing was rather begrudgingly " Oh , if you must..." (better...than to burn with passion) accepted , again IIRC.........

Adultery is completely subjective, and totally in the eye of the beholder.

Most of us can agree that explicitly sexual relations with parties outside a union that is expected to be monogamous constitutes adultery. When I was younger, I thought that was ALL. Adultery was, to me at that time, wholly and only constituted by having sexual relations with someone other than your spouse or "shopping around for a better deal."

In seventeen years of marriage, I've learned otherwise. Adultery has little to do with sex, and everything to do with the failure, even briefly, to completely and totally share one heart, one mind, and one soul with one and only one other human being. Adultery is also:

1) Talking about your feelings to a member of the opposite sex not your spouse, or having any philosophically or emotionally deep conversation with a member of the opposite sex not your spouse,

2) Giving time, thought, consideration, money, food, or other resources to anyone who is not your spouse, child, or spouse's parent,

3) Saying anything negative about your spouse, marriage, or home life to ANY outside party, even one who is paid to listen to and help resolve your complaints (such as a psychologist, counsellor, or therapist),

4) Saying anything in any public forum, such as an anonymous or pseudonymous Internet message board, that could be taken to represent you, your spouse, your children, you're spouse's family, or your home life in a negative light,

5) Having interests or hobbies that divert time, money, or labor from the needs, wants, interests, and otherwise service of your spouse, your spouse's family, and the children you share with your spouse,

6) Participating in social or political organizations that advance goals your spouse does not agree with,

7) Working more hours than your spouse is comfortable with,

8.) Thinking that members of the opposite sex, even if they are completely and totally public and utterly inaccessible (such as famous musicians, movie stars, or Playboy girls) are "hot,"

9) Spending time alone at a time when it is possible for you to be with your spouse, and

10) Anything else that you want to do which causes your spouse to be inconvenienced, even for a moment not in "first place," to feel even briefly insecure or threatened, or of which your spouse does not approve.

Basically, if a spouse/significant other feels hurt, inconvenienced, or threatened by it, experiences a moment of feeling like they are in competition with ANYTHING for your time, money, labor, affection, or other resources, or just generally disapproves, IT'S ADULTERY.

What you are apparently referring to is Paul of Tarsus expressing his opinion.

...I do not agree .
You are not a divorce lawyer , are you ? Or even a (church or elsewhere) counselor , looking to drum up business !




















te="BuyerBeware"]Adultery is completely subjective, and totally in the eye of the beholder.

Most of us can agree that explicitly sexual relations with parties outside a union that is expected to be monogamous constitutes adultery. When I was younger, I thought that was ALL. Adultery was, to me at that time, wholly and only constituted by having sexual relations with someone other than your spouse or "shopping around for a better deal."

In seventeen years of marriage, I've learned otherwise. Adultery has little to do with sex, and everything to do with the failure, even briefly, to completely and totally share one heart, one mind, and one soul with one and only one other human being. Adultery is also:

1) Talking about your feelings to a member of the opposite sex not your spouse, or having any philosophically or emotionally deep conversation with a member of the opposite sex not your spouse,

2) Giving time, thought, consideration, money, food, or other resources to anyone who is not your spouse, child, or spouse's parent,

3) Saying anything negative about your spouse, marriage, or home life to ANY outside party, even one who is paid to listen to and help resolve your complaints (such as a psychologist, counsellor, or therapist),

4) Saying anything in any public forum, such as an anonymous or pseudonymous Internet message board, that could be taken to represent you, your spouse, your children, you're spouse's family, or your home life in a negative light,

5) Having interests or hobbies that divert time, money, or labor from the needs, wants, interests, and otherwise service of your spouse, your spouse's family, and the children you share with your spouse,

6) Participating in social or political organizations that advance goals your spouse does not agree with,

7) Working more hours than your spouse is comfortable with,

8.) Thinking that members of the opposite sex, even if they are completely and totally public and utterly inaccessible (such as famous musicians, movie stars, or Playboy girls) are "hot,"

9) Spending time alone at a time when it is possible for you to be with your spouse, and

10) Anything else that you want to do which causes your spouse to be inconvenienced, even for a moment not in "first place," to feel even briefly insecure or threatened, or of which your spouse does not approve.

Basically, if a spouse/significant other feels hurt, inconvenienced, or threatened by it, experiences a moment of feeling like they are in competition with ANYTHING for your time, money, labor, affection, or other resources, or just generally disapproves, IT'S ADULTERY.[/quote]

...Well , I don't think Paul presented it as such , did he ?
You are , of course , saying " Everything in the Bible , even in the NT and said by an apostle , is not nessecarily to be taken as literal truth " , which many would agree with ~ and some I think would disagree with) ~ yes ?





uote="glebel"]

What you are apparently referring to is Paul of Tarsus expressing his opinion.[/quote]