I'm cohabitating... would appreciate any advice.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

The church has historically interpreted adultry as mentioned in the 6th commandment rather broadly to encompass all sexual sin. This is consistent with the teachings of Jesus:

"But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28

um, nope.

The commandment as WRITTEN is very very clear. ADULTERY is sex with a MARRIED WOMAN. End of story. In the Judaic tradition it was quite specific.

Now, if you want to talk about the MODERN Church...

The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses: "Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery."

If some made up church believes otherwise, then fair enough... but when it comes to defining the Commandments.. I tend to defer to what they were MEANT to be understood to say AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN and by the people that they were written for.

If I write a law that forbids quaqlagog and I define quaglagog to be the drinking of beer through a straw. Then somewhere down the line people start to think of quaglagog as the drinking of ANY fermented beverage through a straw... Does that mean I am breaking the law if I drink wine through a straw? See the problem with reintepretation?

Sorry for the hijacking... misinterpretation of the bible is a pet peeve....

My advice, I'm sure someone has mentioned it... COMMUNICATE COMMUNICATE COMMUNICATE. It isn't just about saying what needs to be said.. but also learning HOW to say it. ASK HER how she prefers to be communicated with... and try to accomodate that.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

um, nope.

The commandment as WRITTEN is very very clear. ADULTERY is sex with a MARRIED WOMAN. End of story. In the Judaic tradition it was quite specific.

Now, if you want to talk about the MODERN Church...


If some made up church believes otherwise, then fair enough... but when it comes to defining the Commandments.. I tend to defer to what they were MEANT to be understood to say AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN and by the people that they were written for.

If I write a law that forbids quaqlagog and I define quaglagog to be the drinking of beer through a straw. Then somewhere down the line people start to think of quaglagog as the drinking of ANY fermented beverage through a straw... Does that mean I am breaking the law if I drink wine through a straw? See the problem with reintepretation?

Sorry for the hijacking... misinterpretation of the bible is a pet peeve....

It all boils down to what you think the 10 commandments are. If you think they are a tradition created by humans to govern their own situation in a particular time and place. then, you could make an arguement for a very narrow "constructionist" interpretation. However, in that case, they would have zero relevance for today since that society and culture is long dead. Even modern day religious Jews do not live in the culture of circa 1500 BC, hence the laws written by humans in that time and place have no bearing on today.

If on the other hand you think the 10 commandments are written by God then you would need to consider what the giver of the 10 commandments say about them. I fall into this camp. Specifically, I believe they were written by the Triune God as revealed in the Old and New Testament in order to show all people their sins. Therefore, what the second person of the Trinity (Jesus Christ) has to say about them is very relevant, since Jesus is the author.

I think we probably disagree on who is the author and what was/is their purpose. Without agreement on that point, it is rather difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I think we probably disagree on who is the author and what was/is their purpose. Without agreement on that point, it is rather difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

Fair enough, I can go with TWO possible arguements. #1 must be looked at int he exact context of the time/culture from which it came .. or #2 brought to us by God .. in which case I would defer to the people most qualified to interpret the EXACT meaning... which in my opinion would be the Catholic Church... (who broaden the definition to mean any extramarital relation.. but DOES not apply it to single persons)

That was the real basis for my disagreement with KCJohnny... Either you take a strict view of what was written and what it was meant to say at that time OR you can look at the more evolved fluid view passed down from Churches that can rightfully claim to be a direct lineage of that time (Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc etc)

I just don't feel that people like KCJohnny (No offense KCJ) are qualified to tell someone how to apply the 6th Commandment, nor do I think Pastor Joe is... that is why I defer to the big boys.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Either you take a strict view of what was written and what it was meant to say at that time OR you can look at the more evolved fluid view passed down from Churches that can rightfully claim to be a direct lineage of that time (Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc etc)

Religions are largely political entities, and in that light, the ten commandments, and the meaning of much of the bible (and much of religion, in fact, as far as interpretation goes) are fluid. Interpretation is generally a matter of what most benefits the folks in charge, and morality is usually summed up by "we do it this way, so it must be right, the rest of you are wrong. Until we change, in which case the new way is right. Unless we go back to the old way later. Either way, you're wrong, and will go to hell for not being like us."

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Fair enough, I can go with TWO possible arguements. #1 must be looked at int he exact context of the time/culture from which it came .. or #2 brought to us by God .. in which case I would defer to the people most qualified to interpret the EXACT meaning... which in my opinion would be the Catholic Church... (who broaden the definition to mean any extramarital relation.. but DOES not apply it to single persons)

That was the real basis for my disagreement with KCJohnny... Either you take a strict view of what was written and what it was meant to say at that time OR you can look at the more evolved fluid view passed down from Churches that can rightfully claim to be a direct lineage of that time (Catholic, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, etc etc)

I just don't feel that people like KCJohnny (No offense KCJ) are qualified to tell someone how to apply the 6th Commandment, nor do I think Pastor Joe is... that is why I defer to the big boys.

The Roman Catholic Church most certainly does apply the sixth commandment to single persons. The link below is the section of the Roman Catholic Catechism that explains the sixth commandment.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

[luv]

If Direckshun isn't violating any beliefs he may have, then I say he's good.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by luv

If Direckshun isn't violating any beliefs he may have, then I say he's good.

Well, considering the pic in his profile... I'm guessing he's ok with what he's doing.