Monday, May 14, 2012
Adultery
The "sexual revolution" of the 1960's radically changed the social mores of America. It has had a profound impact on family life that is likely to be felt for generations to come. But was it a mistake? Did we lose something that we cannot recover?
By the standards of Jesus' teaching the answer is "yes," it was a mistake. After discussing murder and anger, Jesus went on in the Sermon on the Mount to consider the subject of adultery. It is here that modern society is likely to feel the enormous distance between us and Christianity. To understand what Jesus was talking about, we must understand marriage; and in modern society marriage has become virtually a meaningless concept.
No fault divorce turned marriage into a mere legal technicality. A "marriage" can be terminated at any time for any reason as long as both parties agree to it. One out of every two marriages in the U.S. ends in divorce, and many younger couples are dispensing with the formality altogether. Cohabitation and out-of-wedlock pregnancies have become common and accepted. And now we have "gay marriage," an attempt to cover a notoriously promiscuous lifestyle with a thin veneer of respectability. "Marriage" has become something of a sick joke.
According to the Bible human sexuality is not an accident of nature, the result of a blind, purposeless natural process called "evolution." Rather, it is something created by God. It exists by design. When God created the first human being, Adam, He said, "It is not good that man should be alone: I will make a helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:8; NKJV). God then created the first woman, Eve, and brought her to Adam. The text adds the explanatory comment: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (v. 24). The Hebrew word translated "be joined" means "to cling, cleave, be close to." In this particular context it implies an intimate relationship marked by affection and loyalty. In marriage a husband and wife are bound to each other both physically and emotionally.
Adultery is the act of unfaithfulness to one's life partner. It is an assault on the most intimate of all relationships. The victim feels betrayed, degraded and humiliated. The family is destroyed. The children are liable to bear the emotional scars for many years to come. Marriage is a relationship that was never meant to end, and for this reason adultery is one of the most heinous of all crimes. The Torah, in fact, prescribed the death penalty for it (Lev. 20:10).
Here again Jesus internalizes the principle. "But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28). The very desire to commit adultery is itself a sinful impulse. What Jesus is doing here is interpreting the Seventh Commandment ("You shall not commit adultery") in light of the Tenth Commandment ("You shall not covet your neighbor's house; You shall not covet your neighbor's wife," etc. . . .) The words "lust" and "covet" mean basically the same thing (The Greek version uses the same word in both passages). And here once again Jesus is echoing the words of the Old Testament. Solomon warned against falling prey to the seductress: "Do not lust after her beauty in your heart . . ." (Prov. 6:25), and Job could say "I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?" (Job 31:1). Job then went on to say, "For what is the allotment of God from above, And the inheritance of the Almighty from on high? Is it not destruction for the wicked, And disaster for workers of iniquity?" (vv. 2,3). Jesus, in turn, takes note of the same fact: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:29).
The marriage bond between a husband and wife is sacred. Upon this the most intimate of all human relationships, and the stability of society, rest. Anything that would undermine that relationship is just plain evil. Herein lies the present peril of Western society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Adultery is the act of unfaithfulness to one's life partner. It is an assault on the most intimate of all relationships. The victim feels betrayed, degraded and humiliated.
ReplyDeleteUnless, the "victim" doesn't love their "life partner" at all. In which case, the idea of not sharing a bed with them would be very appealing.
Marriage is a relationship that was never meant to end, and for this reason adultery is one of the most heinous of all crimes. The Torah, in fact, prescribed the death penalty for it (Lev. 20:10).
There's a good idea.
Yet...um...surely that's negotiable?
Let's haggle a little.
Isn't there a passage in the bible which tweeks that a bit?
Hey, how about if we water it down a bit and just go for, say, "a year in prison and a $5,000 fine?
Doesn't that sound more reasonable to you?
Solomon warned against...
Solomon? You are quoting Solomon?
For the benefit of those who don't know...
What was Solomon's marriage track record like?
Give the numbers.
The marriage bond between a husband and wife is sacred.
Yet there are biblical exceptions, right?
Link.
"But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:28). The very desire to commit adultery is itself a sinful impulse.
ReplyDeleteThis notion from Jesus is absurdly immoral. It is equivalent to making thought a crime, a thought that is absolutely fundamental to our biological attractions. Christians who think Jesus is the end all and be all of morality and love fail to appreciate why this horrendous little notion mocks the very core of what we hold to be precious: erotic love. Jesus reduces this most gentle yet powerful of emotions - this overwhelming attraction and desire to be bonded with another - to be something dirty and disgusting and in need of theological cleansing. But, of course, it cannot be cleansed when it is a necessary ingredient for the most intimate of loving expressions we possess as humans. Jesus turns this biological response into a 'sin', revealing to all that his warped views about humanity are at their core anti-life and anti-human, demanding that we submit utterly to his jewish god because we are broken from the get go. It's a revolting little immoral number he's trying to pull here, and finding a way to guarantee that we view ourselves even by thought to be guilty of sin and brokenness when it's no such thing in reality. It's the ultimate perversion Jesus offers us against love and I cannot understand why more people are not as offended by this gross and immoral stance as I am.
From Bob's earlier post: The real problem with the world today is not a handful of political issues. Rather it is the latent evil that lurks in the darkest recesses of the human heart.
ReplyDeleteSee what I mean? Anti-life, anti-human rhetoric from which there is no escape except death - and even then only if certain conditions are met. This is what is meant by christian love: it's antithesis.
And people wonder how religion poisons everything. Case in point.
Jesus never said that the attraction and desire to bonded to another is something dirty and disgusting. What He is saying is that the desire to have an affair with someone else's spouse is sinful, precisely because you should have an overwhelming attraction and desire to be bonded with your own spouse. And because God is concerned with our motives, the thought is tantamount to the act itself.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about the biological response raises an intriguing question about moral responsibility. I just finished reading Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values." In it he has a chapter entitled "belief" in which he says that everything that happens in the human brain has an underlying cause, sometimes lying deep in our sub-consciousness. What struck me about his argument was how similar it sounded to something that Jonathan Edwards, the 18th Century American Puritan theologian had said - there is no such thing as an uncaused act of the will. There is a difference between Edwards and Harris, of course. Edwards was trying to defend the doctrine of Predestination, while Harris is a neuroscientist who is trying to argue that all thought, moral or otherwise, is biological. But either way we have the problem of how someone could be considered morally responsible is he can't help thinking and acting the way he does. The answer, I think, is that biology dtermines much of our emotions and desires, but we still have a rational self that can distinguish between truth and error, right and wrong, and we are responsible to make the right choice. We don't have to act on our self-destructive or anti-social impulses. I will probably put a review of Harris' book up on the blog in the first week of June, to give my scientific friends something to comment on without having to go back through the archives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen God created the first human being, Adam.... But he didn't. And we know he didn't. We have compelling evidence from genetics that humanity does not trace back to a first couple... unless the science of genetics is all wrong. The problem here is that genetics seems to work for everyone everywhere all the time, so to suggest it doesn't work to protect only by special exemption the historicity of this biblical myth seems to me to be folly.
ReplyDeleteBut as if this folly wasn't enough, you then begin to deduce all kinds of conclusions based on it. You judge all kinds of domestic situations and legalities based on it. You extend this false belief into the world by acting on it as if it were true. But it's not true if you seek reality to judge it; it's only true according to your unrealistic, disassociated, specially privileged belief. This is a problem when we're dealing with reality. Your beliefs hinder this process by unjustly elevating your belief to be equivalent when it is not. It's just a belief - good enough to allow it to rule over yourself but not good enough to extend into the world without being called what it is: folly.
I forgot to point out that our first female ancestor predates our oldest male ancestor by some 50,000 years. Genesis - with a 50-50 chance of getting it right - selects the wrong gender to be our oldest ancestor. So much for god's omnipotence.
DeleteI think Genesis got it right. Probably the simplest way to explain the genetic evidence is to look at who survived the Flood and how they were related to each other. Three of the males were sons of the fourth (Noah). Thus Noah was the common male ancestor of his all of his grandchildren. But the four females were not closely related to Noah, nor to each other for that matter. Which means that the common female ancestor of the human race would have to have been much earlier, viz. Eve, who even by the most conservative interpretation of the text would have lived several thousand years earlier than Noah.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand the evidence is much harder to explain on evolutionary terms. One reason why I find it hard to believe that science has "proved" that we have not descended from a common couple is that the evolutionists cannot agree among themselves as to exactly what did happen. Coyne mentions two theories, the "out of Africa" theory and the "Multiregional" theory. And Steven Pinker is skeptical of the whole thing. Why? A common female ancestor doesn't fit the standard evolutionary model! (So much for the evidence!)
And of course, once we get beyond the emergence of the modern Homo sapiens the whole thing becomes very murky. From what species did "archaic H. sapiens" evolve? No one knows. Was their any interbreeding Between anatomically modern human beings and Neanderthals? We don't know that either. And then on the biblical side, what do we make of that cryptic statement that "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose." (Gn. 6:2)? And who were "the giants on the earth in those days" (Gn. 6:4). (My theory, and its only a guess, is that they might have been Neanderthals, who were not necessarily very tall, but had a powerful build.)
In light of our very incomplete knowledge of the facts I think that Pinker's comment is on point: "All reconstructions of our evolutionary history are controversial, and the conventional wisdom changes monthly." (How the Mind Works, Chapter 3).
I think Genesis got it right. Probably the simplest way to explain the genetic evidence is to look at who survived the Flood...
DeleteNo flood, Bob. Fiction. No evidence in favour, much contrary evidence.
Pulling out this fiction to help 'explain' another fiction is simply cringe worthy. As for your understanding of genetics, let me just say that the smallest human bottleneck was not 8 as you suggest (trying to hammer biblical myth into historical reality) but about 10,000.
We don't know a lot about a lot of stuff, Bob. Sure, there's a lot of our genetic history we have yet to figure out and there will inevitably be competing hypotheses as you quite rightly point out. But this doesn't excuse magical thinking or justify a belief in some interventionist guiding agency because there are disagreements today. Turning our backs on the best method we have to distilling good explanations from the evidence we have is another common religious meme to embrace ignorance and call it faith just so we can hold tightly to fictions.
The fossils themselves are evidence of the flood. Fossils of land animals are not formed today under normal circumstances. The vast coal and oil reserves around the world point to a geological catastrophe in which enormous amounts of plant and animal were suddenly destroyed at once. Evolution is a fiction that runs counter to the available evidence.
DeleteWe have the same problem with Eve. Coyne acknowledges that the evidence supports the "out of Africa" theory, while the "multiregional" theory fits better with the theory of evolution. On an evolutionary model it is hard to see how a single woman could become the common ancestor of the entire human race, and Steven Pinker is skeptical of the whole idea, including the idea that Homo sapiens exists as a distinct species. If evolution were true, you would expect to see greater genetic diversity and a wider variety of transitional forms. But you don't. What you see is that every human being shares certain genetic traits, and that our mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to a single remote ancestor. If evolution is true because it fits the evidence and has predictive value, then why doesn't it fit the evidence?
From Steve Pinker:
Delete"Human evolution, at first, seems extraordinary. How could the process that gave rise to slugs and oak trees and fish produce a creature that can fly to the moon and invent the Internet and cross the ocean in boats? Was it some kind of divine spark that made our brains special? Well, I don't think so, because I think that you can understand human evolution in terms of the ordinary process of Darwinian natural selection." (Source)
Of course we have emerged from ancestors like Homo erectus and Homo habilis because we know we share big chunks of our DNA from them. And of course there is no set line differentiating one species from the next but a spectrum. Nevertheless, we do have genetic markers including the mitochondrial, which we all share as humans. But the X chromosome we all share is some 50,000 years later. If the creation myth doesn't match up with these facts then it's the myth that needs changing.
No, fossils are not evidence of the flood. Good grief, but you're intransigent on this historicity of the myth. And yes, we have evidence of catastrophic events. But not a global flood.
The problem you have with evolution not fitting the evidence does not belong to evolution: it belongs to your improper understanding of it.
Do we have samples of DNA from H. erectus and H. habilis?
DeleteWhat the evidence suggests is that huge amounts of organic material were quickly buried under layers of sediment in a deluge of some kind. How many catastrophes were there? And what caused it/them? The scientific method, using inductive reasoning, cannot tell us. Velikovsky's "working hypothesis" was that something caused the earth's axis to shift or tilt. Inertia would cause massive hurricanes and tsunamis, and the result would be the striking geological features we see today. Could he prove this? Of course not; it is mere speculation. Morris and Whitcomb started from the assumption that the Bible really is divinely inspired and is giving us accurate information about an actual historical event, and it is interesting that a number of different cultures around the world have a flood story. Are these distant memories of something that actually happened? It would explain much of what we see (detailed in the books by Velikovsky and Morris). Can anyone explain the causality involved? No. But what we do know is that Lyell's theory doesn't match the evidence, and that calls the standard interpretation of the geological column into question. And just using the scientific method that is about as far as we can go.
Could he prove this? Of course not; it is mere speculation.
DeleteMore to the point, it doesn't match the evidence.
Morris and Whitcomb started from the assumption that the Bible really is divinely inspired and is giving us accurate information...
Spot the basic problem.
But what we do know is that Lyell's theory doesn't match the evidence...
Who is this "we" you speak of?
...and that calls the standard interpretation of the geological column into question.
Who is "questioning" it?
And just using the scientific method that is about as far as we can go.
Who is this "we" and when do we get to the "using the scientific method" bit. You seem to have glossed over that rather important part.
You can't be referring to Velikovsky because you've already admitted that he was just speculating.
The scientific method is not just idle speculation.
No scientific method there.
The poor man didn't even understand that fossils are being made in the here and now.
You do but he didn't.
(shrug)
Morris and Whitcomb perhaps?
Nope.
You can't be referring to them either.
You yourself say they were just making assumptions with their bible goggles on.
The scientific method is conspicuous by it's absence.
Oh...and speaking of Morris...
How do you think those big holes on the moon got there?
No peeking.
Just think about it.
As a rational and reasonable man, what do you think caused them?
Fossils of land animals are not formed today under normal circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think so?
Look at the basic steps that you yourself pointed out from Coyne on how fossils are formed and tell us which ones magically no longer apply.
The vast coal and oil reserves around the world point to a geological catastrophe in which enormous amounts of plant and animal were suddenly destroyed at once.
Not according to the scientists. You are just repeating a creationist lie.
If evolution is true because it fits the evidence and has predictive value, then why doesn't it fit the evidence?
Or perhaps you have your fundie goggles on?
Going on about modern biology will not poof your god or creationism into existence. It will fool only the ignorant.
You are using the "false dichotomy" argument.
The internet is not your friend.
Here is what Jerry Coyne said, in his own words: "...the remains of an animal or plant must find their their way into water, sink to the bottom, and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don't decay or get scattered by scavengers. Only rarely do dead plants and land-dwelling creatures find themselves on the bottom of a lake or ocean. This is why most of the fossils we have are of marine organisms, which live on or near the ocean floor, or naturally sink to the floor when they die." (Why Evolution Is True, pp.21-22). Please note the words "water" and "quickly."
ReplyDeleteVelikovsky, who was not wearing "fundie goggles," made this observation: "Millions of buffaloes have died natural deaths in the prairies of the West in the more than four hundred years since the discovery of America; their flesh has been eaten by scavengers or putrified and disintegrated; their bones and teeth resisted for a while the decaying process, but finally weathered and crumbled to powder. No bones of these dead buffaloes became fossils in sedimentary rocks, and scarcely any are found in a state of preservation." He then goes on to say, "The explanation of the origin of fossils by the theory of uniformity and evolution contradicts the fundamental principle of these theories: Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no fossils are formed." ("Earth in Upheaval," pp. 193,194).
Tildeb did point out that some fossilization does take place today on the ocean floor, and we concede the point. But you cannot account for the fossils of dinosaurs on the basis of geological uniformitarianism. There are no fossils of modern day buffaloes! On the other hand, if there was a massive destruction of life in a catastrophic flood, that would easily explain the existence of the fossils. The fossils are tangible evidence of the Flood.
"Millions of buffaloes have died natural deaths in the prairies of the West...
ReplyDeleteThe prairies of the West? Ok. Remember that. Prairie.
(...)
No bones of these dead buffaloes became fossils in sedimentary rocks...
Sedimentary rock? Ok. Remember that. Sedimentary.
So if you are going to create fossils in sedimentary rock...you need to have the conditions to create sedimentary rock first, right?
No conditions for sedimentary rock then there can be no fossils in sedimentary rock, right?
Ok, so.....
Where and how does sedimentary rock form?
Think about it.
What do you need to create sedimentary rock?
(Remember: Prairie/sedimentary/prairie/sedimentary/prairie/sedimentary)
Velikovsky, who was not wearing "fundie goggles,"...
The man was a kook. He's been dead for many years and his ideas went nowhere.
Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no fossils are formed.
Well, that's wrong. You graciously concede the point.
You understand something that poor old Velikovsy did not.
Fossilization does indeed take place. The basics of physics and chemistry work very well in the here and now.
But you cannot account for the fossils of dinosaurs on the basis of geological uniformitarianism. There are no fossils of modern day buffaloes!
Non sequitur.
On the other hand, if there was a massive destruction of life in a catastrophic flood, that would easily explain the existence of the fossils.
We can study the after-effects of floods. We know the "fingerprints" of what they leave behind. We can do the same with earthquakes and glaciers etc. They cause different types of destruction. We do not see evidence of a "global flood".
So how were the fossils of dinosaurs formed?
ReplyDeleteBob, you know how fossils are formed. You've already read it and copied it from Coyne. It's not just water either.
ReplyDeleteOn tildeb's blog, I gave a few more possibilities.
The science on this one is pretty straight forward.
Here's a link to help out.
Velikovsy was plain wrong. I'm sorry but you really have been lied to.
Your missing the point. How did a lumbering brontosaurus suddenly get buried under water and sediment?
ReplyDeleteWell, it doesn't have to be water for a start.
ReplyDeleteThat's the reason why I gave you the link.
There are other options.
Fossils form in a variety of ways.
Yet it all boils down to basic physics and chemistry.
It doesn't matter if you are talking about a worm or a jelly fish or a spider or a sabre-tooth tiger or a whale or...a brontosaurus.
Take a tar pit for example.
Could a bronosaurus be fossilized by a tar pit?
Think about it.
How big could a tar pit get?
Or is there some magical reason why that would be impossible?
How about Pompeii?
Think of a Pompeii event but without the Pompeii bit.
No Romans screaming in terror. No ancient buildings
Just lots of ferns. Ferns being buried in ash. Ferns and the animals that munch on them. Like, y'know, dinosaurs?
Or maybe a swamp? That would work. Think of a dinosaur slowly grazing in a bog or swamp. It dies and...sinks.
Not unreasonable.
How about a really nasty mudslide?
Imagine you are a dinosaur and you are...unlucky.
You have decided to go for a walk in the rain.
Next to a hillside.
An unstable, waterlogged hillside with poor topsoil stability and a treacherous layer of clay.
One minute you are slowly moving along minding your own business, the next minute...BAM... someone turns out the lights and your mouth and eyes are filled with mud. And you suffocate very quickly.
Nasty way to go.
Entire villages can disappear in seconds in a mudslide.
A dinosaur, even an entire herd could be taken out the same way.
And there's no dino emergency rescue team coming along to dig you out.
There's nothing special about dinosaurs. Not the big ones or the small ones. They are all subject to the same basic physics and chemistry. Dinosaurs have no magical protection.
Fossils happen.
Given what we know about fossils, why would a dinosaur (of all things) be any different?