Definition of adultery

wolfsbane

It has been alleged on another thread that Christians have no consensus as to what constitutes adultery. I find that incredible, both from the clarity of Scripture on it and from 40 years contact with Christians of many hues.

But maybe I'm out of touch. My simple definition was, having sex with someone else's spouse.

Any of you Christians trouble with that?

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

It has been alleged on another thread that Christians have no consensus as to what constitutes adultery. I find that incredible, both from the clarity of Scripture on it and from 40 years contact with Christians of many hues.

But maybe I'm out of touch. My simple definition was, having sex with someone else's spouse.

Any of you Christians trouble with that?

I defined it as any sex outside of marriage.

robindch

The standard biblical definition is sex between a man and a woman who is married to another man. Jesus extends this to a man "looking lustfully" a woman who is not his wife. I don't believe that it includes sex between unmarried people, or a woman sleeping with an married man, or homosexual sex.

Evolute

I honestly would class adultery as (A) Cheating on your spouse or (B) Cheating with another persons spouse

philologos

Sex outside of marriage is considered fornication though?

Hm I consider adultery cheating on anyone, girlfriend or wife in my opinion. Culturally in Israel people got married a lot younger than they do today, and relationships are different in the way they form.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I defined it as any sex outside of marriage.

Adultery is more specific. Fornication/sexual immorality is the general term, that includes adultery, but also singles having sex, homosexuality and bestiality.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adultery is more specific. Fornication/sexual immorality is the general term, that includes adultery, but also singles having sex, homosexuality and bestiality.

I stand corrected. I just looked up the Strongs definition.
Thanks

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is certainly so. But how does that establish your assertion that Jesus did not teach that sex with someone else's spouse was adultery?

Well it doesn't establish that because that wasn't my assertion.

Your assertion was that the definition of adultery is clear and well known, that being adultery is sex with a person outside of their marriage. The key point being the "sex" part.

As the Bible demonstrates, that is not the definition Jesus uses, as he says that adultery includes simply thinking about lustful things about other people's spouces. Any man or women who does that is committing adultery. So clearly God's definition of adultery does not match yours.

So if someone like yourself, who I imagine has studied the Bible a lot, can come out of that with a different definition of the word "adultery" than your own God, what hope is there for a unified clear set of moral teachings?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it doesn't establish that because that wasn't my assertion.

Your assertion was that the definition of adultery is clear and well known, that being adultery is sex with a person outside of their marriage. The key point being the "sex" part.

As the Bible demonstrates, that is not the definition Jesus uses, as he says that adultery includes simply thinking about lustful things about other people's spouces. Any man or women who does that is committing adultery. So clearly God's definition of adultery does not match yours.

So if someone like yourself, who I imagine has studied the Bible a lot, can come out of that with a different definition of the word "adultery" than your own God, what hope is there for a unified clear set of moral teachings?

Stop trolling, Wicknight.

Jesus does not say that at all. He said that thinking lustfully about other person's spouses is the equivalent of committing "adultery with her in the heart" (Matthew 5:27-28). In the same way, thinking about killing someone would constitute harbouring "murder in your heart".

Jesus was teaching a simple moral proposition, that our cherishing thoughts of adultery has a similar corrosive effect on our own morality as would the actual deed. Of course such thoughts do not have the destructive effects on others (children, the husband of the woman concerned etc) as the actual act of adultery, so Jesus used the clear modifying phrase "in the heart".

For the Jews at the time of Jesus, adultery also applied to an engaged person sleeping with someone other than their intended spouse. This is because an engagement as seen as legally binding and could only be dissolved by divorce. This explains why Joseph was minded to 'divorce' Mary when she announced her pregnancy, even though they were not actually married yet.

This binding concept of engagements was more common in Europe in past generations (where a man who jilted his prospective bride could be sued for 'breach of promise') than today where engagements are seen as vague non-binding agreements. However, I would think there is a case for arguing that someone who cheats on a fiancee is also committing adultery.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it doesn't establish that because that wasn't my assertion.

Your assertion was that the definition of adultery is clear and well known, that being adultery is sex with a person outside of their marriage. The key point being the "sex" part.

As the Bible demonstrates, that is not the definition Jesus uses, as he says that adultery includes simply thinking about lustful things about other people's spouces. Any man or women who does that is committing adultery. So clearly God's definition of adultery does not match yours.

So if someone like yourself, who I imagine has studied the Bible a lot, can come out of that with a different definition of the word "adultery" than your own God, what hope is there for a unified clear set of moral teachings?

It was your assertion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Sex with someone else's spouse was adultery.

Not according to Jesus!
As PDN pointed out, Jesus said imaginary sex with another's spouse was adultery in the heart. But actual sex is adultery too. Sex with another's spouse - imaginary or actual - is adultery.

In no case can it be said Christians are confused about the immorality of sex with another's spouse. THAT was the issue that started the debate: your claims that our morality is totally flexible, and Robin's claim that researchers in the USA found widespread confusion amongst Christians about adultery.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sex with another's spouse - imaginary or actual - is adultery.

Well first of all thank you for proving my original point, because PDN is saying that isn't true. I will leave the two of you to debate that with each other while keeping in mind the fact that you all get your perfect morality from a completely objective authority :rolleyes:

Second of all I never said that Jesus was saying that sex with another's spouse wasn't adultery, I was responding to your (rather foolish given the debate it has provoked) remark that the definition of adultery is clear and that it is sex with another's spouse.

There is no such thing as "imaginary sex", so really what you mean above is adultery is sex with another persons spouse or thinking about having sex with another's spouse. Which as you will notice isn't the definition you originally used when you claimed all this was perfectly clear.

So in the end it all goes back to my original point, that none of you know what the actual perfect, objective, moral behind these stories and words actually is.

All you have is subjective interpretation and the belief that your interpretation is correct.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In no case can it be said Christians are confused about the immorality of sex with another's spouse.

This thread itself strongly suggests otherwise :rolleyes:

For example, adultery is grounds for divorce according to the teachings of your religion.

So answer me this, can a wife divorce her husband because he has sexual thoughts about another woman?

A quick check with Google finds Christian websites that give a Yes answer and a No answer (and a few that say "maybe" but don't expand on that, which is obviously very helpful).

Given that the moral behind all this is perfectly clear to you and all other Christians through the teachings of the Bible, I would expect one unified answer to this question. Lets see if I get that ....

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Well first of all thank you for proving my original point, because PDN is saying that isn't true. I will leave the two of you to debate that with each other while keeping in mind the fact that you all get your perfect morality from a completely objective authority :rolleyes:

I don't think that is what PDN is saying, but he can speak for himself.

Second of all I never said that Jesus was saying that sex with another's spouse wasn't adultery, I was responding to your (rather foolish given the debate it has provoked) remark that the definition of adultery is clear and that it is sex with another's spouse.

Sex with includes the imaginary version - as Jesus pointed out. It is you who wish to make sex with only physical. That is not the Christian understanding.

There is no such thing as "imaginary sex",

Jesus says there is, and most normal people will agree.:o:o

so really what you mean above is adultery is sex with another persons spouse or thinking about having sex with another's spouse. Which as you will notice isn't the definition you originally used when you claimed all this was perfectly clear.

It is your definition that is the inadequate one. I gave you the Christian definition, you assumed it meant only physical. Your confusion, not mine or the Christian one generally.

So in the end it all goes back to my original point, that none of you know what the actual perfect, objective, moral behind these stories and words actually is.

All you have is subjective interpretation and the belief that your interpretation is correct.


This thread itself strongly suggests otherwise :rolleyes:

Quite the reverse. Your confusion cannot be blamed on us.

For example, adultery is grounds for divorce according to the teachings of your religion.

Yes.

So answer me this, can a wife divorce her husband because he has sexual thoughts about another woman?

Leaving aside the State's position, an argument could be made for that. But it would have to be proved beyond doubt, so would require the only one who actually knows (the husband) to confess it was so.

A quick check with Google finds Christian websites that give a Yes answer and a No answer (and a few that say "maybe" but don't expand on that, which is obviously very helpful).

I'm not surprised, for it deals not with the clarity of adultery - all agree on that - but with the intended grounds for divorce. The guilt of adultery is there for imaginary sex, but does that necessarily mean a physical divorce can result? We are no longer talking about moral definitions, but the consequences that may flow from them.

Given that the moral behind all this is perfectly clear to you and all other Christians through the teachings of the Bible, I would expect one unified answer to this question. Lets see if I get that ....

The morality concerning murder is perfectly clear, yet the appropriate consequence of that is debated amongst Christians. Amongst atheists too - have they no consensus on what murder is? Of course they do, for morality and consequences are separate issues.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sex with includes the imaginary version - as Jesus pointed out. It is you who wish to make sex with only physical. That is not the Christian understanding.

What are talking about???

Are you saying, to the best of your understanding, the English word "sex" is defined as sexual intercourse with someone or thinking about sexual intercourse with someone.

So sex with someone means you either had sex with a person. Or you imagined having sex with that person.

Because if that is the case I had sex last night. Oh yes! In fact I probably had sex on the bus this morning (I was a bit sleepy, not sure). And twice while waiting for the bus. I'm a freaking stud!

And the hot girl who sits on the Dart is a bit of a slut, considering she had sex with me every day last week. I wonder does her husband know.

Groan :rolleyes:

Wolfsbane, when attempting to demonstrate that idea that words have universal and well understood meanings (and therefore how could you ever possibly get confused) it's a good idea not to take one word that does actually have a pretty well understood meaning and then change that meaning to something hardly anyone else would ever accept as the actual meaning of the word, in a rather silly attempt to support your point.

If in fact "sex" genuinely means to you sexual intercourse or imagined sexual intercourse then yes you and Jesus were both using the same definition of "adultery", but then you have the slight probably that you are using a ridiculous definition of the word "sex" that hardly anyone else shares. So you are back to square one.

I would love for you to find a Christian who says that they have sex with people when they think about having sex with them. How many people have you had sex with in your life Wolfsbane? And where does this leave the idea of no sex before marriage, and abstinence. Are you saying that a Christian who has no sex before marriage not only has never had physical sexual intercourse, but has also never thought about having physical sexual intercourse?

As they say in The Simpsons, "No, no no. Dig up!!"

wolfsbane wrote: »

Leaving aside the State's position, an argument could be made for that. But it would have to be proved beyond doubt, so would require the only one who actually knows (the husband) to confess it was so.

Well you don't need a man to confess to physical adultery, why would you need him to confess to mental adultery. Surely finding porn on his hard drive would be enough grounds to divorce him. Or hearing him say he finds Pam Anderson very sexy (it is hard to find someone sexy without imagining sex with them)

wolfsbane wrote: »

The guilt of adultery is there for imaginary sex, but does that necessarily mean a physical divorce can result?

Well perhaps and imagined divorce will suffice :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

We are no longer talking about moral definitions, but the consequences that may flow from them.

No, we are talking about whether or not it is moral to allow divorce because your husband or wife has imagined what it would be like to have sex with another married person, which under your (rather muddled) definition is actually "sex" with another person, as much as physically having sexual intercourse with them would be.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The morality concerning murder is perfectly clear, yet the appropriate consequence of that is debated amongst Christians.

How can you have debate when you have a system of objective morality? What do you debate? And on what objective grounds do you decide what is or is not a moral way to punish a criminal?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Amongst atheists too - have they no consensus on what murder is?

Amazing we can do without any objective morality to decide what is or is not a moral way to punish someone ... if only we could be more like you Christians

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Sex with includes the imaginary version - as Jesus pointed out. It is you who wish to make sex with only physical. That is not the Christian understanding.

What are talking about???

Are you saying, to the best of your understanding, the English word "sex" is defined as sexual intercourse with someone or thinking about sexual intercourse with someone.

No, as I said, I'm giving the Christian understanding of the term - something you accused Christians of not having.

So sex with someone means you either had sex with a person. Or you imagined having sex with that person.

Morally, Yes.

Because if that is the case I had sex last night.

I'm sorry for that. It is a sin common most.

Oh yes! In fact I probably had sex on the bus this morning (I was a bit sleepy, not sure). And twice while waiting for the bus. I'm a freaking stud!

Only in your mind.

And the hot girl who sits on the Dart is a bit of a slut, considering she had sex with me every day last week. I wonder does her husband know.

She is the innocent party. And if her husband knew about your mental sex, he might kick you where it would effect your physical capacity!

Groan

I hope that's in philosophical frustration! I'm not that sort of man.:D

Wolfsbane, when attempting to demonstrate that idea that words have universal and well understood meanings (and therefore how could you ever possibly get confused) it's a good idea not to take one word that does actually have a pretty well understood meaning and then change that meaning to something hardly anyone else would ever accept as the actual meaning of the word, in a rather silly attempt to support your point.

It is the universal Christian meaning, following from the teaching of our Lord.

If in fact "sex" genuinely means to you sexual intercourse or imagined sexual intercourse then yes you and Jesus were both using the same definition of "adultery", but then you have the slight probably that you are using a ridiculous definition of the word "sex" that hardly anyone else shares. So you are back to square one.

This wasn't about how anyone but Christians understood adultery.

I would love for you to find a Christian who says that they have sex with people when they think about having sex with them.

It is the Christian understanding. Maybe someone calling themself Christian has never read what the Lord Jesus said and so are ignorant. But I'm telling you what normal Christians believe.

How many people have you had sex with in your life Wolfsbane?

Suffice it to say I was a sinner, and am glad God saved me.:):):)

And where does this leave the idea of no sex before marriage, and abstinence. Are you saying that a Christian who has no sex before marriage not only has never had physical sexual intercourse, but has also never thought about having physical sexual intercourse?

No. In that context, the claim to have no sex before marriage is understood only to refer to the physical side.

Just as we do not expect anyone to present themselves to the courts as murderers because they have at some time hated their fellowman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Leaving aside the State's position, an argument could be made for that. But it would have to be proved beyond doubt, so would require the only one who actually knows (the husband) to confess it was so.

Well you don't need a man to confess to physical adultery, why would you need him to confess to mental adultery. Surely finding porn on his hard drive would be enough grounds to divorce him.

It would be necessary to prove why it was there.

Or hearing him say he finds Pam Anderson very sexy (it is hard to find someone sexy without imagining sex with them)

It is a fine line, OK, but not impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are no longer talking about moral definitions, but the consequences that may flow from them.

No, we are talking about whether or not it is moral to allow divorce because your husband or wife has imagined what it would be like to have sex with another married person, which under your (rather muddled) definition is actually "sex" with another person, as much as physically having sexual intercourse with them would be.

Glad you admit is is no longer about the definition of adultery - that was the moral issue that you said we had no consensus on. The morality of divorce under various circumstances can be taken up if you like, along with captital puunishment, but I want to finish this issue first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The morality concerning murder is perfectly clear, yet the appropriate consequence of that is debated amongst Christians.

How can you have debate when you have a system of objective morality? What do you debate?

Whether it teaches capital punishment as mandatory, normal or exceptional, for instance. Scripture says several things, all of which must be addressed.

And on what objective grounds do you decide what is or is not a moral way to punish a criminal?

We take all the Scripture has to say, both directly and by way of principle, and seek to find the point where they meet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Amongst atheists too - have they no consensus on what murder is?

Amazing we can do without any objective morality to decide what is or is not a moral way to punish someone ... if only we could be more like you Christians

That wasn't the question: it was have they no consensus on what murder is?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

No, as I said, I'm giving the Christian understanding of the term - something you accused Christians of not having.

Find me 10 Christians who think that is the definition of the English common word "sex" :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Morally, Yes.

"morally"?

You said that was the definition of the word. That is what the word "sex" means. That is when you read someone say "I had sex last night" that can mean, based on your understand of the word, either a) they had sexual intercourse, or b) they imagined having sexual intercourse with someone

Again, I would really be interested in finding other Christians who believe that is how the English word "sex" is defined. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry for that. It is a sin common most.

Well I'm just worried now that I will never be able to find a virgin on my wedding night, since I know not only have to worry about girls who have actually physically had sex, but I have to find a girl who has never even though about have sex with someone!! What to do!!

:rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only in your mind.

Well obviously "only" in my mind. But then isn't that what "sex" means. The word "sex" includes imagined sexual intercourse does it not?

So I'm perfectly correct when I say "I had sex with her last night". That sentence is perfectly grammatically correct, don't you agree?

wolfsbane wrote: »

She is the innocent party.

Well I had sex with her, under your definition of that word, so I'm not sure how innocent she is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the universal Christian meaning, following from the teaching of our Lord.

Is it now. So when you, as a Christian, say that someone is a virgin (a person who has never had sex) you mean someone who has never had physical sexual intercourse, or someone who has never even thought about sexual intercourse. Because thinking about it is "sex"

It is becoming so clear now

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. In that context, the claim to have no sex before marriage is understood only to refer to the physical side.

LOL :rolleyes:

Oh right, "context" Yes forgot about that little word, you Christians love that little word.

So "sex" in that context doesn't actually mean "sex" it actually just means "sex"

:rolleyes:

Man alive the nonsense you will come up with Wolfsbane just try and get out of conceding a point. "Never give in, never surrender!!" as they say

Fair play to you though, and I have to admit though I've been splitting my sides for the last 10 minutes reading this nonsense, so I guess that is something.

BrianCalgary

To wicknight:

Reviewing this thread this am I see a huge problem.

wolfsbane asks a simple question about adultery and its definition. After discussion it is explained quite nicely by PDN,s post on the diffrence between the actual physical act of adultery and the heart condition of one who has adulterous thoughts.

You then do not acknowledge PDN's post and continue to ram into the initial definition as proposed by wolfsbane.

You have failed to listen to any ones posts and to be honest it is like arguiong with an 8 year old.

Please grow up and read the whole posts, in context and stop wasting all of our time and ruining all the discussions with your continual pick and choose methods.

Thank you.