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 didn’t keep ABC’s 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 Young’s 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.
McFadden’s 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 Young’s 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 Young’s 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 ...
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.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
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
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
“...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!
5.56mm
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.