You seem like an educated guy which is why I didn't feel obliged to provide links. Some of the most famous NT -- and OT -- passages involve adulterers/adulteresses. There is the He who is without sin incident and the woman at the well. to cite two.
The NT is largely a rejection of legalism -- although as you point out -- not the law. Adultery remains wrong.
Concerning the situation you described, those involved would have to account for their actions before God. If they can, they can.
A better and, more common, example of apparent Biblical inflexibility concerns divorce which the Lord equates with adultery.
You can posit the far more realistic situation in which a woman who divorces the fellow who has been beating her every night and goes on to marry a nice guy who will support her kids, then ask if she has committed a sin.
Now, an absolute saint might leave the husband for safety's sake, pray for his soul and raise the kids on her own. A weaker person might not. The same chapter says Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. and two chapters later comes the warning about judging ohers.
According to the Bible is divorce adultery? Yes. Is adultery a sin? Yes. Can God still love those who committ adultery? Yes, obviously.
You might also want to consider what Matthew 5 says about looking at a girl with lust. That was one of the verse I had trouble accepting when I first began believing. It soon made perfect sense. You look at a girl and feel attraction you are human. You look at a girl and start scheming of a way to take her to bed forgetting that she is human too, you are comitting adultery.
Perhaps, but if you want to make an argument, even from well-known and widely shared material, it is obligatory to cite the specific support for your argument, rather than expect someone to cast about in a vast array of evidence for the relevant testimony.
Some of the most famous NT -- and OT -- passages involve adulterers/adulteresses. There is the He who is without sin incident and the woman at the well. to cite two.
As best I can tell the "woman at the well" incident casts no insight on this argument. Jesus devined that she had 5 husbands, which made a big hit with the townfolk, but doesn't seem to provide any obvious moral lesson. The "without sin" incident seems to be a caution against enforcing God's commandment against adultereses--which, incidently, seems to contradict God's instructions regarding adulteresses, unless you think God intended for the stones to throw themselves--however, it does not, at first blush, provide me with any insight about my friend's impregnation dilemma. Jesus is careful not to contradict the commandment against adultury, yet jesus doesn't refute the Golden rule here, and I am still at a loss as to how to resolve two commands from God that seem to have come into conflict here.
The NT is largely a rejection of legalism -- although as you point out -- not the law. Adultery remains wrong.
indeed
Concerning the situation you described, those involved would have to account for their actions before God. If they can, they can.
So...in other words, they must use horse-sense and resolve their moral dilemma using their own brains & hearts regarding their contemporary human concerns--and their decision violates one of the two commands from God--either the Golden Rule or the Commandment against adultery. Just as if morality was a human question to be addressed in human terms?
A better and, more common, example of apparent Biblical inflexibility concerns divorce which the Lord equates with adultery.
...
Now, an absolute saint might leave the husband for safety's sake, pray for his soul and raise the kids on her own. A weaker person might not. The same chapter says Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. and two chapters later comes the warning about judging ohers.
Yea, fine, perish forbid we commit the horrible crime of judging the behavior of others. But that isn't the question on the table. My friend wants to know what he can do to keep on God's good side, when either choice he makes seems to violate one of God's absolute moral laws. It doesn't aid his thinking on this subject a bit to tell him jesus doesn't want him to be judgemental.
According to the Bible is divorce adultery? Yes. Is adultery a sin? Yes. Can God still love those who committ adultery? Yes, obviously.
Again--who cares? My friend isn't soliciting God's love, he's trying to be good when faced with contradictory rules about how to do it.
You might also want to consider what Matthew 5 says about looking at a girl with lust. That was one of the verse I had trouble accepting when I first began believing. It soon made perfect sense. You look at a girl and feel attraction you are human. You look at a girl and start scheming of a way to take her to bed forgetting that she is human too, you are comitting adultery.
Again, not too relevant. My friend's problem isn't with concupiscent lust, it's with apparent moral dilemmas.
However, now you've distracted me--how do you draw the distinction between "scheming" to take a woman a'bed, and "daydreaming" about taking a woman a'bed? If you ask me, a smart god would reserve internal condemnation for acts, not thoughts, but I admit to not being an expert on that subject.