Ok ok ok. I've been trying to educate myself, seriously, in an attempt to really understand who to hire to run my country. After all, I'm paying this guy to be trusted and from day to day I change my mind about who that's gonna be! So a couple weeks back I had the fun of posting about my love of Bill Clinton on The View one morning (cuz I like to get you guys all riled up!!!) and heard both online and by phone all about his adulterous exploits and how we as Christians shouldn't elect someone like that. But. No one talks about John McCain divorcing his first wife Carol in 1980 and marrying Cindy one month later. He'd met Cindy while still married to Carol, at a party during a political function, and is quoted as saying "By the end of the night, I was in love."
I'm not saying what Bill Clinton did was ok...but I know a lot of Christians who didn't like Bill because of his moral character and ability to deceive; is it ok though for a Republican candidate to have shady moral character? I don't want to hear about a guy's moral character while in a POW camp for 5 years and how he turned down the offer to come home, if once he got home he cheated on his wife (who'd been in a disfiguring car accident by the way) and married someone else 30 days after the divorce was final.
Now. Before a bunch of people start quoting books at me I need to read or sources I need to check let me say this. I've been on the receiving end of adultery, and no matter how you spin it or what book you write it's wrong. So I guess the only "source" I'd like to read is Carol McCains, and if anyone can find that please let me know! I want her story, and maybe it's out there and I just haven't found it?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A place for moms, girlfriends, fellow Princesses to gather and chat...and gripe?! and offend?! and laugh and cry and take comfort in the knowledge that we all have a Destiny. Let's get to goin'! (If you Googled Weddings and Things Event Design, you're in the right place! This is my personal blog. Click here on the right on "My Business/Store Blog" or go to the Gotta Party link here, it'll take you to www.theweddinghelper.net for store and party planning info)!
Wecome CUBS fans!!!!!
Opening Day 2009 is April 6th. Let the countdown begin!
Wedding/Party Planner Site
Me!
Fave Blogs
Fave Reads
- anything Shakespeare
- Clan of the Cave Bear books
- Harry Potter books
- Princess Diary Books
- TD Jakes "The Lady, Her Lover, and Her Lord"
- Things Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Vaccines
Fave Jams
- 80s Metal baby
- GOOD worship
Fave Flicks
- anything Chris Farley, Will Farrell!
- Gone with the Wind
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Somewhere in Time
- Under the Tuscan Sun
Life is a journey, not a destination.
I hate that!!
17 comments:
I don't really like all the talk of adultery, because it brings back up the "sin heirarchy," or the idea that somehow adultery (or homosexuality, or fill in the blank) is somehow a worse sin than telling a lie or cheating on your taxes or doing something "harmless" like that. Each and every sin separates us inextricably from God, and if it weren't for the saving power of Christ's death and resurrection, each and every one of us would be damned.
However, there is something more to Bill Clinton's situation, and keep in mind that I'm not saying his sin is worse, but just that the situation was different. He not only hid the affair (and a string of previous affairs) from his wife, but stood up before the entire world and lied, stating they never occurred. All the while, his wife Hillary called the situation with Monica Lewinski a "right-wing conspiracy" (something she has never apologized for), slandering the Republican party for her husband's sin.
I don't give a pass to John McCain, for his sin of adultery against his wife is just as grievous, but I do recognize that he had just come home from 5 1/2 years of being severely tortured, and I recognize that kind of stress can do very strange things to the human mind. Now, he reflects on the breakup of his marriage as his "greatest moral failure." Additionally, his ex-wife has been quoted as saying that they are still friends, and she supports his campaign for president.
Both men's sins against their wives were horrible, but while John McCain has recognized his moral failure, Bill Clinton responded to his with an "aww, shucks" attitude and gave his reasons for the affair by saying "because I could." Keep in mind that these admissions came out only after months of lies and Bill Clinton's subsequent impeachment.
Anyway, even after saying all that, I'd like to go back to my original point that moral failure is no reason not to elect a man president, because every person who runs for president (and every human on this earth) is a moral failure in the sense that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It's not a good idea to start categorizing the sin of adultery as worse than any other sins. BUT, I think we still need to look at each person's attitude when caught in sin. John McCain called his sin his greatest moral failure. Bill Clinton made excuses and testified that technically, he wasn't lying, because he didn't have sexual intercourse with Lewinski. And Barack Obama still hasn't come clean about any wrongdoing involving shady land deals with Tony Rezko or his affiliation with ACORN, to name a few scandals currently on the table.
i guess that's my point, "moral failure is not a reason not to elect a man president." i agree wholeheartedly with that statement, out of necessity if nothing else! but let's keep that standard across the board...
My full position would be, "Moral failure is not a reason to not elect a man president, but how he RESPONDS to that moral failure could be."
Carol McCain is still friends will Sen. McCain and is a supporter of his campaign so that should tell you something.
Before I say anything else, I would like to note that my criticism of Clinton has not had anything to do with his sexual liaisons (as our last conversation shows). That being said I think Clinton and McCain's situations are completely different and Clinton should be called to task for it. I'm not making any theological judgments against either man, I think we can all agree that that is left to God. But Clinton's sin was public and compromised his position as the most powerful leader in the world. The big problem with Bill in this regard is that, if he is willing to lie so boldly about something that is so inconsequential (compared to other areas of a presidents life) who is to say he is being honest with anything?
McCain's affair did not compromise his office (he wasn't in any political office at the time) and he was quick to identify that he was at fault.
But again, there are much bigger problems with Clinton. This is just another shingle on his house of shame (ok, it might be a porch or a guest room).
That comment was me sorry.
I have to say that the Bible certainly does not give a heirarchy of sins, but it does say that sexual sin is a sin against the body and in that way it is on a different level of affecting someone....at least that is my interpretation... and in my mind that means adultry, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc. It makes sense just from what I have seen in friends....the amount of grieving that pre-marital sex or adultry can cause seems to be on a different level....not to say that the person committing that sin is a worse sinner than someone who lies....it just has a whole different level of consequences. What do you guys think?
Well I am sure that this will ruffle some feathers but I am gonna say it anyway.
I totally understand the point about how John McCain was accountable and Bill Clinton was not. You can't receive complete forgiveness unless you are first completely repentant.
To me Carol McCain still being friends with Senator McCain and a supporter of his campaign tells me this: she is forgiving,the sharpness of the pain dulls over time (lots of time), and she doesn't hold a grudge. The same thing Jennifer being friends with Dave tells me. The same thing Hillary still being married to Bill tells me.
As for the sin heirarchy...and I know this is the part that will ruffle feathers....
I know that the Bible says that all sin is the same, but I just can't talk myself into completely believing that. I know sin is sin meaning ALL sin is wrong and ALL sin separates us from God, but as far as a lie being equal to adultery or murder...that i am not convinced of. Come on...smoking a joint or even a cigarette for that matter equals raping a child??? And if there is no hierarchy of sin then why is there a heirarchy of punishment here on earth? Who of you beer/wine/alcohol drinkers have been drunk? Bible says not to get drunk on wine, doesn't it? That would make it a sin then, right? But many of us have been drunk and is that equal to the man who sits in prison for murdering his wife and children or the mother that took the life of her own child or the uncle that repeatedly raped his niece or nephew?
I know, I know if we really get into this then we have to argue if the Bible is inerrant or inspired and capable of containing error....not Godly error, but human writer error or maybe some humans own agenda or own interpretation of what God was inspiring them to write. (Tammy is going to go get shield before the stones start hurling her way!!)
I don't think the bible is perfect but I know there are those who do and I just like to agree to disagree on that.
God has emotions and I really think and believe that the rape of a child pisses him off a lot more than someone cheating on their taxes or punching someone in the nose in a drunken state at the Franklin House. Just my opinion though.
I think that there is no sin that is "harmless". At the same time, I could pretty much promise anyone that a lie will never match up to what one feels when they find their spouse in the bed of another or even just hears about the act. What occurs out of that is a feeling that makes you go...Wow Jesus felt more betrayal than this, how did He ever endure it? Let me tell you who don't know....it is pretty close to untolerable for a very long time!!!! and you would have much rather been lied to. So once again, if the consequence is so much more....why is the sin not?
Tammy,
I can't speak for everyone but I myself would not necessarily say that there is no hierarchy of sin, but that it is God's to know and judge not ours. We are far to flawed and selfish to ever be in a position to make those assertions.
You pointed out that there is a hierarchy of sin with Earthly laws that are written by governments (which God has established). There is a big difference between the hierarchy of laws and that of sin in the Kingdom of God. The laws of a government serve one purpose, to maintain the welfare of a society and its citizens. The more a crime threatens a society the greater its punishment. The law of God is not so utilitarian, in fact every crime is punishable by death.
I understand that you do not want to see lying as on par with raping a child. The problem with you assessment is that it is tainted by our sinful nature. The reason that we feel that God is upset by rape more than lying is that we have grown used to lying. We do it all the time and we see others do it. We are not even aware when we do it. Our world has adapted and it seems to function fine even with everyone lying. But when someone is raped the world we see is shattered (although it is frighteningly less and less effected as time goes by if you ask me). But we are only looking through our eyes. Remember that the sin that doomed humanity was to Eve taking an apple that she was told not to. Yet a child taking a snack before dinner receives nothing but a slap on the wrist that is quickly forgotten. To God, every lie and little sin is an active choice to deny Him. It is to stand before Christ on His cross and to say "I see your suffering but I don't care, I want to make my life easier." It is to look at every person you know and the rest of humanity and say "I am more important that you." You said you believe that no sin is harmless. I agree but would take that one step further, every sin is infinitely harmful. Don't you think the world would be better if each treated all of our sin as if it were murder?
Dan, I agree with a lot of what you say and I appreciate the content of your response. Sometimes I am confused by your responses maybe even scared...lol... by them because you communicate in such an intellectual manner that I feel I can't even understand what you are saying let alone comment back in a competent manner...lol!! Please don't take offense that is suppose to be a compliment!! Fortunately, I think this time I got ya!! meaning I understand what you are saying!
I agree that we as a society have accepted way too much in the way of accepting lying all the way to excusing certain criminal acts or lessening the punishment due to mental illness (sane or not sane) ....such as a mother killing her own kids. Well, if you ask me any murder or rape is due to a severe mental illness and its all insane. And I think this enormously grieves God. I am not saying mental illness or post-partum or other conditions don't exist, I am saying that in my opinion it is way overused as a reason or excuse for horrible crimes.
I, personally, have not adapted to lying...it bothers me immensely and I will NEVER grow use to it. But I forgive the lie and the liar as well as I have, in the past, forgiven the adultery and the adulterer. ( I mention "in the past" because I don't want anyone to think I am talking about the dearest most faithful man I have ever known, my Kirk!!, I am speaking of former marriages.)
"The problem with your assessment is that it is tainted by our sinful nature" and "The reason that we feel that God is upset by rape more than lying is that we have grown used to lying." I get where you are coming from with that and what you are saying makes sense, but I disagree. I honestly believe that to God, there is a difference and in order to present why I think that we would probably have to have a very long theological biblical debate. But I do get your point and i do agree that disobedience is disobedience period. And yes the wages of sin is death and that is what sent Jesus to the cross. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right or vice versa, I just think differently.
What I am saying is that if I tell my 18 year old not to take a cookie that is sitting on the table and he/she takes it anyway that is sin. And if my husband walks down the street and kills the neighbor that too is sin. God sees those two sins exactly as the same?? .....I have a hard time believing that. See Dan, I think this is where the problem and differences come in....is every word, sentence, paragraph, of the Bible absolutely literal? Who wrote Genesis? Was it Moses? And was he in the garden and saw Eve eat the apple. Or is the scenario of the apple consumption a visual or audible message that God gave to Moses as a symbol of sin to show us that sin as a whole is what sent Jesus to the cross? As it is explained in the Bible, there was not other human being in the garden. So how could someone who wasn't there have written about it from an absolute factual stance.
Is murder really equal to taking that cookie you were told not to take? And if not, is, in God's eyes, the taking of the cookie a lesser degree of sin (but no less in the form of sending Jesus to the cross because it is indeed sin whether big or small). And for us if it isn't equal, is it because our outlook is tainted by our sinful nature or because taking a cookie you have been told not to take is really not as bad as murdering your neighbor?
Or, am I just crazy and absolutely ridiculous to even think about, consider, and weigh, all of these ideas that come up in my thoughts?
Concerning your last question I think that this world would be a much better place if no one sinned at all...but I do not think the taking of a cookie you have been told not to take by your mother should be treated the same as killing someone while driving drunk. No, I don't think the drunk driver should be treated the same as the guy who took the cookie off of my cookie plate that I was taking to a meeting! and I have a hard time believing that God thinks they should be treated the same.
poor dan. tammy i love your comment"you're not right or wrong we just think differently" is often how i feel on this blog. no not everything is relative, there are absolutes and Truth of course. but to type 3 pages on a blog about all of my "why's" is too tiring:) so i stick to the "what's" and let you guys duke it out:)
Ok, Dan and Sara, so here is what I want feedback on? What do you think about the verse that talks about sexual sin being a sin against the body as a temple versus other sins that are "outside" the body? Am I misinterpreting that verse as making sexual sins at least more devestating if not more sinful???
Dan's the man to ask for the exegetical analysis of the verse, as he's much better at it. But I'll respond with what I know, incomplete though it might be. I'm sure Dan will correct me if I stray into heretical territory. ;)
I wouldn't call sexual sins more or less sinful than other sins, for the reason I listed above (because each and every sin irreparably separates us from God).
But I do believe that sexual sins ARE more damaging to the physical body, the body of Christ, relationships, and to one's view of God than other sins because of what sex is meant to be. Much of the sacredness of sex (leaving childbearing aside for now) comes from the fact that it's a picture of Christ's love for and relationship with his bride, the church. When people engage in premarital or extramarital sex, viewing of pornography, and other sinful sexual scenarios, they're in effect spitting in the face of Christ's relationship to his people, and distorting both their own and society's view of what a true relationship with Christ is supposed to be. Sex was NEVER meant to be a flippant thing that you do with just anybody, but an expression within a covenant marriage relationship of the type of love and care that Christ has for us. You can't mess with that and expect to come out unharmed.
There's more to that thought, but I'll let Dan come on here first and answer your real question. ;)
ok...to be the devil's advocate here...and back to the original question, doesn't it seem like the "sin hierarchy" applies to different politicians at different times, even if it's the same sin? is it just human nature to "ignore" the sins of people we like and draw attention to the sins of those we don't? i think the answer to that question is absolutely yes, it is human nature to do that. and it's the old verse about taking the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the spec in someone else's. why are we all so guilty of that?!
Jenny,
Certainly, it's human nature to ignore the sins we want to ignore, especially in people we admire. That's how we all roll, and we also do it when it comes to our own sins. It's so much easier to point to my neighbor and say, "He/she is horrible because fill in the blank" than to take an honest look at myself and say, "I'm sinful in this way."
I still think the situations between John McCain and Bill Clinton were different, and I appreciate John McCain's treatment of his sin much more than Clinton's, but I can guarantee that if Clinton had been repentant of his sin, and if his sin hadn't affected his role as leader of the country, I'd have less of a problem with him, too. It's not just because he's a Democrat! ;)
P.S. Dan will be home from class in about half an hour, Liz, and I'll ask him to get on if he has time. He did write a 16 page paper today, though, so I'm not sure if he'll feel like typing! Poor guy.
Dan says he'll be back tomorrow. I think he's all typed out for now. He's got a 6 page paper due today and a case study or something due tomorrow. :( Poor Dan... three masters courses at once!
Yikes! Poor Dan! I have no desire to go back to school, so I admire those who do!!! I completely agree with what you said about sexual sins being a physical sin against the body, Sara. You expressed what I was thinking much more eloquently than I could have. But that was more or less what I was trying to get at! :)
Post a Comment