William James

William James
We must get by on what truth we have today, and be willing to call it error tomorrow.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

On Biblical Prophets Committing Adultery

The comment was made:

"This one needs to be saved...!

I asked a question on another board:


How many Polygamists are in Jesus Christ's would pile that Evangelical Christians would rather sweep under the rug and "white wash" the the history to expunge the record?

Here is one of the Answers I received:


zero. We admit our prophets were sometimes adulterers."

To which I responded:

This is a fascinating topic, but as I have noted before, until the rise of modern LDS doctrine, it appears that there was but a single passing scriptural reference which might be construed to support the view that the biblical prohibition on adultery was condemned in part based upon it being an offense to the betrayed woman- the reference in the Sermon on the Mount, wherein Jesus allegedly states that, "He who looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Biblical condemnation of adultery appears to me to be rooted in three concerns- first, the idea that a man whose wife sleeps with another man has been wronged and interferred with his property rights and potentially bloodline; second, the tendency of sexual promiscuity to spread disease; and third, the concept of sleeping with someone outside the faith is a betrayal of God. Jesus's alleged statement, even if authentic (which I believe is itself a doubtful proposition), is not sufficiently specific to lay out the basis for the prohibition on adultery. The majority of Christianity has construed this alleged statement as a prohibition on the bulk of human sexual thoughts.

In any event, the point of what I have just written is that in Biblical times, the people (even believers) did not have the same moral code adopted today by modern Christianity. You are right to point out that people, in projecting today's morals onto ancient times to support their positions, tend to conveniently ignore important aspects of history which might undercut their position.

No comments:

Post a Comment