Skip to comments.ABC: Adultery is Bad but Christian Arguments Against it are 'Intolerant'
Posted on 09/25/2009 2:10:10 PM PDT by Bean74
Adultery did not fare well during a September 25 Nightline broadcast about the issue, but that didnt keep ABCs Cynthia McFadden from asking an evangelical pastor if he felt a little intolerant for his conservative views on the subject.
McFadden moderated a debate that tried to answer the question, Are we born to cheat? but appeared to mock Pastor Ed Youngs responses whenever she could.
The proponents of adultery who appeared on the panel included Jenny Block, an author and participant in an open marriage, and Noel Biderman, the president and CEO of Ashley Madison, a Web site designed to help people begin extra-marital affairs. Block and Biderman faced tough questioning about their views, but did not receive the same derision McFadden levied at Young.
McFaddens question about intolerance came after an exchange in which Young asserted that an open marriage is adultery in the eyes of God and that marriage was ordained in Scripture by God. Block attempted to refute Youngs statement and argued he was talking about religious marriages when not all marriages are religious.
McFadden then asked Young, But do you think that what you think applies to everybody? and appeared surprised by his affirmative answer. After Block labeled Young's claims "preposterous," McFadden asked Young, Are you feeling a little intolerant? Her follow up question to that was, Is Jenny going to hell?
Prior to that exchange, McFadden had already mocked Youngs belief in the literal meaning of Scripture verse Matthew 5:28 which states in part, Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
(Excerpt) Read more at cultureandmedia.com ...
Tough subject. I am guilty of it on a daily basis. Can not go out without seeing a woman that is attractive to me. Thank goodness for Grace.
Is Jenny going to hell?
The proper answer would have been “if she does not trust in Christ, then yes.” And it should have been said without shame.
There’s nothing wrong with being intolerant of wickedness.
Christian objection toward adultery is not intolerant. ABC’s attitude toward Christianity is.
When is the MSM going to mock some Muslims for intolerance?
:: crickets ::
Exactly! That scripture is to show us how we need a Savior!
Maybe Young should have quoted Jimmy Carter (1976):
“The Bible says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock.”
To a liberal, the only sin is calling sin a sin.
Better to leave a marriage than cause the one who trusts you to become sick.
Is she against rape? If so, does she feel a little intolerant about that?
When confronted by evil, tolerance, moral agnosticism, and subjestivistic relativism allows it to spread and increase, which is what evil wants
Though it can be a very fine line, looking and lusting are two different things. IMHO
Well, I honestly rate a woman as soon as I look at her.
1. I’d do her.
2. I wouldn’t do her.
This is almost subconscious and I am not making an excuse. Can’t remember when it hasn’t been that way.
Let the flamming begin...
Since he expressed disagreement he fulfilled the first requirement of being tolerant. When discussing tolerance with a Liberal it is important to point out that it is not possible to be tolerant of things you approve of. And they are being intolerant of intolerance when they make the accusation.
God laughs at scoffers, for He knows their day is coming.
I don’t necessarily process that much at first look.
I tend to be more like this story my 85-tear old father in-law (Harold) told me:
He said that one day while in a grocery store he was in the check out line buying a few things. Just 3 or 4 isles down he noticed this woman paying for her groceries too.
Harold said that even at his age he could see God had blessed this woman physically.
He said that he must have been day dreaming or something when this woman, looking directly toward him shouted; Look all you want but you arent getting any!
Harold startled back to conscientiousness, completely embarrassed, froze.
He said he didnt remember paying for his groceries. At this point he realized he had to exit the store by walking in front of where the woman was checking out.
As he sheepishly passed in front of the woman, he noticed a boy of a bout 3 or 4-years old standing at her feet looking intently at the candy merchandized behind her.
People are inclined to do a whole lot of stuff they shouldn’t do. Appetites can be fed through many kinds of sex—same, opposite, or self. If it’s with somebody you’re not married to (including your own self) then it is against Biblical teaching.
Nice anecdote. lol
None of this is very surprising. We Freepers tend to look at cultural matters like this through 20th century lenses, but we need to remember that as long ago as the first century after Christ, Christians were cautioned that they would be mocked, cursed, and tortured for their beliefs. It’s in the New Testament. So, of course McFadden is a moron and the others are profiting from sin, but a Christian pastor being hammered for his views? Not surprising.
I did not see the program.
Was the pastor advocating some kind of government restriction or punishment on adultery or ‘open marriage’.
If not, why do they care what his opinion is?
He’s entitled to his opinion. It is they who are intolerant.
That’s not adultery. It’s a blessing to see an extraordinarily beautiful woman or a striking handsome man.
It’s not quite fair to you or her.
I am old enough to remember a time when pre-marital sex as well as adultry was frowned upon. You would say our society as a whole was much less tolerant then.
This was also the time when their was a stigma to being an unwed mother, and pity the poor teenage girl that found her self in trouble.
Did pre-marital sex occur, yes. Did people cheat on their spouces, yes. Did teenage girls get pregnant, yes. But society made those that transgressed pay a high price if their transgressions become known. That high price insured few were willing to pay the price. (As an aside, because of that price, young girls knew they had society on their side when they said “no”, often backed up by an angry father of older brother. Today young girls get a completely different message, “Sex is okay, no consequences, go for it.”) Up until the 1960s that was not the message society was sending.
Was it unfair to the individual yes, but what about society as a whole. Does society have a stake in maintaining some standands and rules about sexual contact? I believe it does.
If society encourages people wait until they get married before engaging in sex there is less chance of catching and spreading sexually transmitted deseases. It also lessens the number of unwed mothers in society, or number of abortions.
If society encourages people to remain faithful with their spouse is lessens the number of divorces (and again the spread of sexually transmitted deseases).
We do not have to guess what a society with few rules looks like, we are living it today.
Sexually transmitted desease is out of control.
The number of abortions are in the millions.
Unwed mothers have children that grow up in fatherless homes, which lead to all kinds of social problems (and I may add more unwed mothers).
Divorces are so easy it is common to know people that have been married three or four times. Many times with children involved. This leads to more social problems.
So being intolerant cause some individuals great personal sorrow, being tolerant has caused a once great nation to suffer.
At least this is one person’s opinion. Will we ever go back to the way it was. Yes, but not in our life time. Ours like most societies have to go through the cycle.
If you think about it, most rules are created to help a society to survive. We had it so good in the 1950s and 1960s we thought we could throw the rules away. Unfortunately it is our children and their children that will pay the price.
(I do not wish to gloss over problems of the past, there were some things that needed to be changed and for the most part they were)
It’s not something I dwell on. Doesn’t affect how I treat the person, as I am not looking for sex.
God’s commandments are clear. Thou shalt not means exactly that. We respond by saying, “Yeah, but . . .”
Black is now officially white, white is officially black, and furthemore, it is illegal to say anything about it other than "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full."
Stable families are the foundation of individual lives, communities, societies and nations. Official stamp of approval of, and condemntion of criticism of illicit sex of all kinds destroy all of the above.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
“...being intolerant caused some individuals great personal sorrow, being tolerant has caused a once great nation to suffer.”
That line says it all perfectly!Thank you!
Christian arguments against it are intolerant? Bwahahahahahahaahahahahaha. That’s laughable. It really is. Tolerance has become a one way street since Vatican Council II.
Seeing women who are attractive to you is not adultery.
That’s not what Christ meant when He said looking at a woman with lust in your heart is adultery.
James 1: “13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
It starts with temptation. Temptation, if not stopped, turns into desire. Desire gives birth to sin (the temptation is not sin). Sin gives birth to death.
1 Corinthians 10: “12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”
So every believer who is tempted is guaranteed a way out—before it turns to desire and gives birth to sin. Lust is not temptation. Lust is an intense craving or overwhelming desire for something.
Matthew 5:28 is often misinterpreted and used by unbelievers to create an impossible standard. Their purpose? To ridicule the faith and put believers back under the law.
In fact, Christ understood human nature VERY well, better than any of us. Matthew 5:28 is entirely reasonable and a good way to measure what’s in your heart. If you understand the steps that lead to sin (steps that are NOT sin themselves), you can avoid them.
So, it’s possible to look at naked women and not desire or lust after them in your heart. Doctors do it every day. By the same token, it’s possible to look at a fully clothed woman, allow her beauty or natural attractiveness to grow into a desire to have her, and then give way to sin.
Christianity makes sense. It’s not unreasonable!
Excellent post. Thank you for this.
I am “old fashioned” and think I was born at the wrong time. :-/
I said it once, I’ll say it again...when you are getting married you are doing time. You can’t go nowhere without asking permission from her—even though she has no problem getting together with the “girls” without asking permission from you—you can’t buy anything—even though she’ll have no problem spending “our” money on stuff that you really don’t need-(like $3000 vacuum cleaners)-my God man, you can’t even wear stuff that you want to wear..
Marriage to a spouse who truly cares about you, and has good character, is different. I am sorry you have troubles like that.
And there it is! People have free will to do whatever they want then when we die we all get to find out whose right and whose wrong!
I think the problem with that line of thinking is that you are looking at her as a sexual object instead of a person made in the image of God.
I very rarely find myself thinking “I’d hit it” or “I’d not hit it.” It slips into my mind, because I hear others say it all the time. I can’t separate myself completely from the world. I have to live and work in it.
When I have that kind of thought, I stop and remind myself that I’m supposed to be focused on my wife. I’m not supposed to think of other women that way, and doing so is unhealthy. I prefer to concentrate on better things, but I don’t believe stray thoughts are sinful. It’s how I react to that thought that counts.
I also find it somewhat strange when men say they’d “hit it,” because most folks who speak like that would probably “hit” just about anyone. They could save everyone time by only letting us know when they find someone they wouldn’t hit. It would cut their outbursts down, oh, by about 99%.
As for myself, I could still use “hit it” or “not hit it,” but I’d be saving the former for my spouse and the latter for everyone else. Not much point in that.
Christ himself showed forgiveness for the woman caught in adultry, and kept her from getting stoned to death. He then told her to go and sin no more.
Would ABC consider that act intolerant?
To a degree...Not an object, but certainly not an image of God.
I used the term “hit it” as an example. Not what I literally think. And I also do not dwell on it.
You could pick any commandment and use the same reasoning.
The Acorn Broadcasting Network continues to assault the foundations of this Republic.
I would never have it any other way.
Nothing wrong with being a natural human being. Both men and women have a natural sense of who is attractive to themselves individually and who isn't. It is the spiritual man or woman who makes a decision to cleave to one spouse for the greater good of themselves, their children and society. That decision is often tested throughout life.
That is something I tried to teach my offspring -- that rules and spiritual principles for living are not just for children and teenagers -- adults have to continue to make choices every day of their lives.
Just to be clear — I wasn't suggesting that Jimmy Carter be a source of advice on morals, or biblical interpretation. I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the MSM reporters, who venerate Carter, at the same time as they mock religious people (well, Christians and Jews, at any rate).