Sins of the flesh

[Thomas D]

In 2000 Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe addressed the Republican Convention. This caused some controversy because the Congressman was openly gay. A lot (not all) of the delegates of Faith voiced opposition to his speaking and the Texas delegation bowed their heads in protest during his speech.

In 2008 Rudy Giuliani addressed the same convention and despite cheating on his second wife and being married 3 times the delegates had no problem with him speaking.

It seems to me that there are many (Again, Not all) people of Faith who have a double standard when it comes to things like this. They'll tell gay people: "No you can't get married. No you can't adopt children, No you can't serve openly in the military and we will fight all efforts to protect you from discrimination in housing and in the job market."

But people who engage in premarital sex, who commit adultery, who get divorced don't seem to cause the Faith Community to gear up for battle quite the way the gays do.

I think that if you want to fight sin you should fight all sin.

So is there a double standard when it comes to Sins of the flesh?
And if there is, why?
And if there isn't then what am I missing?

Thank you for your time

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you're purposely confusing someone justifying their sin (e.g. openly homosexual) and someone who is repentant of their past sins.  

Rudy Giuliani did not, as far as I know, openly and unrepentantly flaunt sin.  And Jesus himself provided a justification for divorce, so you can't say divorce in itself is a sin.

If an unmarried person is having premarital sex, then they are sinning.  if they openly flaunt it, then they are as self-deceived as those who are openly homosexual.

The issue youre raising is not whether someone is a sinner, but whether or not they see their sin as sinful.

[Derek]

you're purposely confusing someone justifying their sin (e.g. openly homosexual) and someone who is repentant of their past sins.  

Rudy Giuliani did not, as far as I know, openly and unrepentantly flaunt sin.  And Jesus himself provided a justification for divorce, so you can't say divorce in itself is a sin.

If an unmarried person is having premarital sex, then they are sinning.  if they openly flaunt it, then they are as self-deceived as those who are openly homosexual.

The issue youre raising is not whether someone is a sinner, but whether or not they see their sin as sinful.

When did Guiliani repent for his sins and who are you to judge or tell us what judgement will be given? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you politically, but religiously I'm more interested in the truth.

[Thomas D]

I've read the Bible and I understand that homosexual acts are a sin.

What I'm talking about is why is it considered a worse sin then sex before marriage.

Next year when all the GOP candidates are having their debates most of them will speak out against gay marriage. But not one will say : "You know what else is wrong? Sleeping with some one you're not married to."

They won't say that because that's a sin that a lot of people have committed. And if you're only speaking out against sins that a few people have committed, and ignoring the ones that most have committed then I see that as being intellectually dishonest.

[Derek]

I think some will come out against it. The problem is that Romney isn't even Christian. Palin may say something along those lines regardless of her daughter. I can see Huckabee coming about against premarital sex as well as homosexuality. As far as gays, the GOP has copped out as well. Instead of saying they're morally against it like Bush had the guts to do in 2004, they'll just want to let the states decide. I'm not saying the states shouldn't decide. I'm saying that the GOP is getting softer.

[Thomas D]

I think some will come out against it. The problem is that Romney isn't even Christian. Palin may say something along those lines regardless of her daughter. I can see Huckabee coming about against premarital sex as well as homosexuality. As far as gays, the GOP has copped out as well. Instead of saying they're morally against it like Bush had the guts to do in 2004, they'll just want to let the states decide. I'm not saying the states shouldn't decide. I'm saying that the GOP is getting softer.

You're right. Huckabee might say that. But I think he cares more about saving souls then being President. To his credit.

[afleitch]

Its called hypocracy. Fairly short answer that

[Derek]

I think some will come out against it. The problem is that Romney isn't even Christian. Palin may say something along those lines regardless of her daughter. I can see Huckabee coming about against premarital sex as well as homosexuality. As far as gays, the GOP has copped out as well. Instead of saying they're morally against it like Bush had the guts to do in 2004, they'll just want to let the states decide. I'm not saying the states shouldn't decide. I'm saying that the GOP is getting softer.

You're right. Huckabee might say that. But I think he cares more about saving souls then being President. To his credit.

Do you know anything about Christianity? Only Jesus can save souls and as a Christian Huckabee understands that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I've read the Bible and I understand that homosexual acts are a sin.

What I'm talking about is why is it considered a worse sin then sex before marriage.

Next year when all the GOP candidates are having their debates most of them will speak out against gay marriage. But not one will say : "You know what else is wrong? Sleeping with some one you're not married to."

They won't say that because that's a sin that a lot of people have committed. And if you're only speaking out against sins that a few people have committed, and ignoring the ones that most have committed then I see that as being intellectually dishonest.

not sure if you've noticed, but there has been an ongoing battle to teach abstinence in schools.  If that isn't about premarital sex, then what is?!

[useful idiot]

In 2000 Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe addressed the Republican Convention. This caused some controversy because the Congressman was openly gay. A lot (not all) of the delegates of Faith voiced opposition to his speaking and the Texas delegation bowed their heads in protest during his speech.

In 2008 Rudy Giuliani addressed the same convention and despite cheating on his second wife and being married 3 times the delegates had no problem with him speaking.

It seems to me that there are many (Again, Not all) people of Faith who have a double standard when it comes to things like this. They'll tell gay people: "No you can't get married. No you can't adopt children, No you can't serve openly in the military and we will fight all efforts to protect you from discrimination in housing and in the job market."

But people who engage in premarital sex, who commit adultery, who get divorced don't seem to cause the Faith Community to gear up for battle quite the way the gays do.

I think that if you want to fight sin you should fight all sin.

So is there a double standard when it comes to Sins of the flesh?
And if there is, why?
And if there isn't then what am I missing?

Thank you for your time

1) There is a double standard, unfortunately among a lot of so called "Christians"
2) Because certain people would hate gays anyway, they just use Christianity as an excuse

I'm all for calling all sin sin, and I don't see any difference between homosexual sex and premarital sex, biblically.

Honestly Rudy is a scumbag who doesn't deserve to be heard. Kolbe had the guts to come out as a Republican, I'll give him props for that. Since Rudy's marriages weren't ended on biblical grounds he is living in a permanent state of adultery (See Romans 7:2-3)

[Thomas D]

I've read the Bible and I understand that homosexual acts are a sin.

What I'm talking about is why is it considered a worse sin then sex before marriage.

Next year when all the GOP candidates are having their debates most of them will speak out against gay marriage. But not one will say : "You know what else is wrong? Sleeping with some one you're not married to."

They won't say that because that's a sin that a lot of people have committed. And if you're only speaking out against sins that a few people have committed, and ignoring the ones that most have committed then I see that as being intellectually dishonest.

not sure if you've noticed, but there has been an ongoing battle to teach abstinence in schools.  If that isn't about premarital sex, then what is?!

Yes I've noticed that fight. But you're not trying to amend the Constitution over it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

you're purposely confusing someone justifying their sin (e.g. openly homosexual) and someone who is repentant of their past sins.  

Rudy Giuliani did not, as far as I know, openly and unrepentantly flaunt sin.  And Jesus himself provided a justification for divorce, so you can't say divorce in itself is a sin.

If an unmarried person is having premarital sex, then they are sinning.  if they openly flaunt it, then they are as self-deceived as those who are openly homosexual.

The issue youre raising is not whether someone is a sinner, but whether or not they see their sin as sinful.

No, but remarriage after divorce generally is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Rudy did not cite adultery as the reason for divorcing his second wife.

Rudy's third wife is herself divorced and adultery was not the reason given forth for the termination of her previous marriage.

By the standard put forth in the Bible by Jesus, Rudy clearly is living in sin and is not repentant of it.

So is Newt and quite a few other leading lights of the Republican Party.  So  much for the party of family values.  (Not that the Democrats don't have their share of transgressors, but the Democratic Party doesn't claim to cloak itself in religious purity these days.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Honestly Rudy is a scumbag who doesn't deserve to be heard. Kolbe had the guts to come out as a Republican, I'll give him props for that. Since Rudy's marriages weren't ended on biblical grounds he is living in a permanent state of adultery (See Romans 7:2-3)

what exactly are you calling a "permanent state of adultery" and what remedy are you prescribing?!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

the difference is Giuliani is a rock star

[useful idiot]

Honestly Rudy is a scumbag who doesn't deserve to be heard. Kolbe had the guts to come out as a Republican, I'll give him props for that. Since Rudy's marriages weren't ended on biblical grounds he is living in a permanent state of adultery (See Romans 7:2-3)

what exactly are you calling a "permanent state of adultery" and what remedy are you prescribing?!

Being married to someone other than the wife whom you are not divorced from is being in a state of adultery. Well, that's what Jesus says, if you don't like what he has to say then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Or are you going to ignore Romans 7:3, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and Luke 16:18 and allow the divorced to "openly and unrepentantly flaunt sin", and just be a hypocrite by enforcing different rules on homosexuals?

The remedy is called celibacy, the same thing I assume you would require from a homosexual, or reconciliation with with his original wife.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Agreed, there's certainly a double standard.

[??????????]

Agreed, there's certainly a double standard.

The problem is that cheating on ones spouse and divorce has become "accepted" by many in society and it has even crept into many of the Christian communities. They have become immune to the sting of affairs much like some grow numb to violence. The promiscuity of the culture is the problem, imho. I personally don't believe the idea of homosexual relationships has permeated the culture enough to desensitize Christians in the same way that affairs and divorce have.

[Derek]

Agreed, there's certainly a double standard.

The problem is that cheating on ones spouse and divorce has become "accepted" by many in society and it has even crept into many of the Christian communities. They have become immune to the sting of affairs much like some grow numb to violence. The promiscuity of the culture is the problem, imho. I personally don't believe the idea of homosexual relationships has permeated the culture enough to desensitize Christians in the same way that affairs and divorce have.

Yep we can thank Clinton for that.

[??????????]

Agreed, there's certainly a double standard.

The problem is that cheating on ones spouse and divorce has become "accepted" by many in society and it has even crept into many of the Christian communities. They have become immune to the sting of affairs much like some grow numb to violence. The promiscuity of the culture is the problem, imho. I personally don't believe the idea of homosexual relationships has permeated the culture enough to desensitize Christians in the same way that affairs and divorce have.

Yep we can thank Clinton for that.

It started way before Clinton but you're in the right generation. The Baby boomers were one of the most destructive forces to the family in recent times. I can't wait until they're all to old and feeble to have power anymore.

[afleitch]

It started way before Clinton but you're in the right generation. The Baby boomers were one of the most destructive forces to the family in recent times. I can't wait until they're all to old and feeble to have power anymore.

Then you know nothing of the social history of the family. The 'boomers' were the first generation and probably the last for that matter to have been born into the '2.4 kids' notion of the family with married parents. Step back only a few generations and that concept was more alien to them than it is to many of us now. For the poor, children were raised in extended families looked after by grandparents, sisters, aunts and even by people who they were not related to. Childcare was shared as it has been throughout human history. For the rich, then it was a parade of nannies, mistreses or you were bundled off to school to be looked after. I do not know the stats for the USA, but in Britain it has been determined that abortion rates were at their highest in living memory in the 1940's and not post 'sexual revolution'

You honestly think that children were born out of 'wedlock', that mothers abandoning their kids, women having terminations because they couldn't afford to keep their kids is a recent issue? It's the 'nuclear family' that is at odds with family structures throughout history. Not the other way round.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Honestly Rudy is a scumbag who doesn't deserve to be heard. Kolbe had the guts to come out as a Republican, I'll give him props for that. Since Rudy's marriages weren't ended on biblical grounds he is living in a permanent state of adultery (See Romans 7:2-3)

what exactly are you calling a "permanent state of adultery" and what remedy are you prescribing?!

Being married to someone other than the wife whom you are not divorced from is being in a state of adultery. Well, that's what Jesus says, if you don't like what he has to say then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Or are you going to ignore Romans 7:3, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and Luke 16:18 and allow the divorced to "openly and unrepentantly flaunt sin", and just be a hypocrite by enforcing different rules on homosexuals?

The remedy is called celibacy, the same thing I assume you would require from a homosexual, or reconciliation with with his original wife.

I understand fully well that if a marriage is ended without the excuse of sexual infidelity, then the remarried have committed adultery.  That’s what Jesus said and it is plain as day.

BUT, Jesus did NOT say that they are in a state of "perpetual adultery".   Jesus did NOT advocate the dissolution of the new marriage, rather Jesus RECOGNIZED the new marriage and the end of the first marriage– Jesus even recognized all the marriages of the adulterous woman who had been married FIVE TIMES – “you have had five husbands”.  And nowhere in the bible, NT or OT, does it call for abstinence within a marriage or dissolution of a marriage.

And for you to advocate abstinence within a marriage or the dissolution of the new marriage, as if the first marriage was still binding, is contrary to every thread of scripture, both OT and NT, because the scripture ALWAYS recognizes the new marriage.

Just imagine is two unbelievers were divorced and had remarried and had children within the new marriage.  Are you going to tell that family that in order to accept Christ and repent, they have to dissolve their marriage and destroy the lives of the kids with the breakup the family and return to the first spouses?!  There is not any part of scripture that even comes close to saying anything like that, in fact the scripture is AGAINST dissolving the new marriage and returning to the first spouse:

Jer 3:1”If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled?”

The scritpure says that God hates divorce, but once a new marriage takes place, what is done is done and God recognizes the new marriage.

Your “remedy” is just plain evil, extreme, and contrary to scripture and would destroy lives and marriages that scripture recognizes as legit.  Case closed.

[??????????]

Sorry af but in all the genealogical research my wife has done the situation you talk about was extremely rare. Families have always helped out, at least we agree on that. But broken families were rare with a few exceptions and many times when you find a broken family it was when one spouse died.

[??????????]

Single parenthood at it's current level is very high historically.

Why are you so hostile?

[afleitch]

Sorry af but in all the genealogical research my wife has done the situation you talk about was extremely rare. Families have always helped out, at least we agree on that. But broken families were rare with a few exceptions and many times when you find a broken family it was when one spouse died.

I don't mean to play a 'trump card' but as part of my degree work I can assure you that it was quite common. Genological records are official records often designed to portray the 'official' position on family and relationships, which is not necessarily the same as reality. Church records especially.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Honestly Rudy is a scumbag who doesn't deserve to be heard. Kolbe had the guts to come out as a Republican, I'll give him props for that. Since Rudy's marriages weren't ended on biblical grounds he is living in a permanent state of adultery (See Romans 7:2-3)

what exactly are you calling a "permanent state of adultery" and what remedy are you prescribing?!

Being married to someone other than the wife whom you are not divorced from is being in a state of adultery. Well, that's what Jesus says, if you don't like what he has to say then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Or are you going to ignore Romans 7:3, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, and Luke 16:18 and allow the divorced to "openly and unrepentantly flaunt sin", and just be a hypocrite by enforcing different rules on homosexuals?

The remedy is called celibacy, the same thing I assume you would require from a homosexual, or reconciliation with with his original wife.

I understand fully well that if a marriage is ended without the excuse of sexual infidelity, then the remarried have committed adultery.  That’s what Jesus said and it is plain as day.

BUT, Jesus did NOT say that they are in a state of "perpetual adultery".   Jesus did NOT advocate the dissolution of the new marriage, rather Jesus RECOGNIZED the new marriage and the end of the first marriage– Jesus even recognized all the marriages of the adulterous woman who had been married FIVE TIMES – “you have had five husbands”.  And nowhere in the bible, NT or OT, does it call for abstinence within a marriage or dissolution of a marriage.

And for you to advocate abstinence within a marriage or the dissolution of the new marriage, as if the first marriage was still binding, is contrary to every thread of scripture, both OT and NT, because the scripture ALWAYS recognizes the new marriage.

Just imagine is two unbelievers were divorced and had remarried and had children within the new marriage.  Are you going to tell that family that in order to accept Christ and repent, they have to dissolve their marriage and destroy the lives of the kids with the breakup the family and return to the first spouses?!  There is not any part of scripture that even comes close to saying anything like that, in fact the scripture is AGAINST dissolving the new marriage and returning to the first spouse:

Jer 3:1”If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled?”

The scritpure says that God hates divorce, but once a new marriage takes place, what is done is done and God recognizes the new marriage.

Your “remedy” is just plain evil, extreme, and contrary to scripture and would destroy lives and marriages that scripture recognizes as legit.  Case closed.

Useful, I cannot believe you picture Jesus and the apostles spreading the gospel by telling husbands and wives who had remarried that they had to dissolve their new marriages, regardless if kids were involved.  Such a scene is sickening and heart-wrenching and impossible to reconcile with any NT historical account or teaching.

I pray you don’t council the married!!!!