Had an interesting Argumentative Essay come across my desk earlier this week that debated the topic of "Which is worse Fornication or Adultery?"
The paper was very well written and structured. The student made the argument that these are not the same things going under a different title. That both fornication and adultery were both a sin, but in the eyes of God Adultery is by far worse.
The student went on to say that Adultery is worse because it involves at least one individual who is married. And in the case of marriage a promise was made before family, friends, and God. The ring itself represents a long-lasting covenant or promise.
The student acknowledged the serious nature of fornication but stated that with fornication no promise to God has been broken, and therefore Adultery must be worse.
I was just curious what your thoughts on this particular debate were.
Beau
I do not have a Christian perspective ~ therefore, to me personally, neither is "sin", though I fully understand that they are perceived as such by believers in the Bible God ~ so my view is informed instead by my moral principles (at its baldest: no damage, no deceit, no coercion).
I see nothing wrong with consensual sex in and of itself (and I mean informed consent) and I don't believe it necessarily should be something that only happens within a marriage.
If "fornication" leads to unwanted or unplanned pregnancy through carelessness or disregard for consequences ~ therefore causing damage to others ~ then I think it would be morally unsound.
If through "fornication", sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted deliberately or knowingly, then I think it would be morally unsound.
If "fornication" involves any deceit or coercion, then I think it would be morally unsound.
As "adultery" would most likely involve damaging someone else and deceit, then then I think it would be morally unsound.
I think in almost all scenarios "adultery" would most likely be worse than so-called "fornication".
There could be some 'open marriage' situations, where partners have certain mutual understandings, where there could be what is technically "adultery" that would not (in my view) be morally unsound, although there would have to be an absence of subtle coercion in the formation of the 'understandings' in cases where, for example only one of the partners is engaging in the aforementioned "adultery".
I tend to agree with the view of CS Lewis who (in his book Mere Christianity) says that our preoccupation with grading sexual sins as worse than other sins, is wrong.
To Jesus, it was never the "blatant", or "external" sins such as adultery, theft, etc that were the real "baddies", but the sins of the heart, sjpecifically pride and loveless legalism and selfrighteousness.
When we start to grade sins, (even by saying that adultery is worse than fornication, or whatever,) we immediately introduce an evaluation of people's external actions rather than their attitude towards their fellow human beings and to God.
Edit: another thought - because both adultery and fornication are actions that cannot be separated from persons, creating a hierarchy of these "sins" inevitably results in saying that "what he or she did is worse than what he or she did". This deflects us from thinking about what we DO instead of what we ARE.
Originally posted by FMFWell detailed. I would add that fornication that causes transmission of STDs, without knowledge of the participants, may be morally unsound if recklessness is involved [at least one person having unsafe and promiscuous sex and never getting tested.]
I do not have a Christian perspective ~ therefore, to me personally, neither is "sin", though I fully understand that they are perceived as such by believers in the Bible God ~ so my view is informed instead by my moral principles (at its baldest: no damage, no deceit, no coercion).
I see nothing wrong with consensual sex in and of itself (and I mean informe ...[text shortened]... cases where, for example only one of the partners is engaging in the aforementioned "adultery".
Pride is the sin God hates the most IMO. Pride is the root of all sin. Selfish pride.
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by josephwwhats the difference between pride and being pleased with something you have achieved?
Pride is the sin God hates the most IMO. Pride is the root of all sin. Selfish pride.
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Originally posted by stellspalfieI will take this as a sincere question.
whats the difference between pride and being pleased with something you have achieved?
A good definition of "Humility" is being known for who you really are.
If you have achieved something great, like being a GM, there is no pride in saying "I am a GM" - you are just stating a fact. Pride comes in when you pretend to be more than what you are, or put other people down negatively by comparison.
Pride (imho) is simply an attitude that seeks to raise your own selfworth above that of others around you.
Originally posted by josephwSuzianne's claims about herself (and other Christians) [on Thread 162007 pages 3, 4 and 5] appear to be steeped in "pride" and are about a topic that ought surely to be a very important one to Christians: faith, hers and what she sees as the weak faith of "most" other Christians here. If she's committing "the sin God hates the most" here in public, and is doing so on a fundamental Christian issue, isn't it a little bit odd that no Christian has called her out for it?
Pride is the sin God hates the most IMO. Pride is the root of all sin. Selfish pride.
Originally posted by FMFIn a discussion between you and me, let's leave the words "God" and "sin" out of the picture.
Do you too think it is "the sin God hates the most"?
From a purely human point of view, by far the majority of problems that we encounter in our lives are caused by relationship issues (i.e. interactions between people) and by far the majority of these problems are in turn the result of pride, i.e. one party thinking that they are better, more deserving of respect and/or resources, or more important, or valuable, or whatever, than the other party.
That is also the cause of racism, sexism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism, etc etc.
So yes, I would say that at its root pride is probably the biggest cause of ills the human race faces.
Originally posted by CalJustThis simply is not feasible if you are to answer the question: 'Do you too think it is "the sin God hates the most"?' If, "in a discussion between you and me", you don't want to answer it, just say so. 🙂
In a discussion between you and me, let's leave the words "God" and "sin" out of the picture.
Originally posted by FMFEdit: I would gladly discuss the question "Is pride the sin God hates the most?" with somebody with whom I agree on the concept of "God" and " sin".
This simply is not feasible if you are to answer the question: 'Do you too think it is "the sin God hates the most"?' If, "in a discussion between you and me", you don't want to answer it, just say so. 🙂
Edit 2: Otherwise, your question could well be translated as: "Is pride really a big issue for the FSM?"
The moment I (or somebody else) says "I believe God says so-and-so" then your (quite logical) response is " but I do not believe in your God".
So all I am trying to do (as I have said several times before) is to place the discussion on some mutually agreed common ground.
Is there a place where we can start from the same point of reference, and if so, what would that be? In my post I assumed such a common ground would perhaps be "is pride really a serious issue in the realm of human existence?"
Originally posted by CalJustI know what "sin" is and I understand your God figure. I was a Christian for almost three decades. You can just skip answering the question, by all means. It's fine by me.
Edit: I would gladly discuss the question "Is pride the sin God hates the most?" with somebody with whom I agree on the concept of "God" and " sin".
The moment I (or somebody else) says "I believe God says so-and-so" then your (quite logical) response is " but I do not believe in your God".
So all I am trying to do (as I have said several times before ...[text shortened]... ommon ground would perhaps be "is pride really a serious issue in the realm of human existence?"
Originally posted by CalJustI don't think "pride" is immoral. Even if it contributes to morally unsound actions, it is these actions that are morally unsound on account of their consequences and not the sense of pride in and of itself. Other things that can cause morally unsound actions would be like confusion, misunderstanding, idealism, good intentions, sense of duty, sense of loyalty, fear etc. None of these ~ along with pride ~ is inherently morally unsound, in my view.
Is there a place where we can start from the same point of reference, and if so, what would that be? In my post I assumed such a common ground would perhaps be "is pride really a serious issue in the realm of human existence?"
Originally posted by FMFI did not express any opinion on the morality or otherwise of pride.
None of these ~ along with pride ~ is inherently morally unsound, in my view.
All I said was that if you take any problem of human relationships - influding war - and trace it back to its roots, chances are pretty good that you will end up with pride.