Does God judge everyone using the same criteria?


So you don’t need to keep away from fornication? …it only counts if it’s prostitution?

Maran atha!



Yeah, that’s me, judgmental and discriminating…

Maran atha!



You need to keep away from ‘porneia’.


Again, what is the point?

Maran atha!



Language is the only way we can communicate with each other, other than body language including tonal variation in the voice. I can’t see your body language.

You used the word fornication: the original Greek has multiple meanings.
You used the word dancer: to me that is a ballet or ballroom dancer.

The point is language is not objective.

Maran’athah! (Our Lord has been)


Of course not. Nothing I said implies that. But, the point is that the tax collectors and sinners were not repenting until they were shown mercy and love from Jesus. It is God’s love for us that changes us. This is something that the Pharisees were not doing. They did not show mercy to others. They did not help the man on the side of the road when he was hurt. Remember the parable about the man who was self righteous who said I am glad I am not like that sinner. Yet the sinner who did not fell worthy was sorry for his sins and received forgiveness. Imagine the Pharisees would not give forgiveness to sinners but they were treated as outcasts and the unclean. Whereas Jesus “ate and drank with sinners” which would make a Pharisee unclean. But, Jesus says that the Pharisees are like white washed tombs, clean on the outside but full of every unclean thing on the inside. Jesus is patient with us yet we are sinners. We ourselves are not yet perfect. So we should be patient and merciful with others. Jesus seemed to be most angry with those who were like the Pharisees and showed no mercy to others but only judgment. We can judge an action as objectively wrong or not. But we can not judge the person themselves or their culpability. We should be in the business of loving persons first, not objectifying them as evil for their sins. If we feel angry towards people because they are sinners than we miss the point. We all have done it but we need to be aware of this tendency to condemn others in ourselves.


I agree. Language in text is limited; yet, there’s context and content… I doubt that any Catholic reading my post on a “dancer” would think, ‘hey, what does Angel have against ballet and for that matter why would he use that as an example of unrighteousness?’

But since you seem to need clarification… the girl in the story: stripper (no she did not remove corn from the cob–she actually performed raunchy numbers, removing her clothes, stripping to bare skin, while making erotic and suggestive motions with her body in front of a bar-full of male and female oglers; and yes the beauty was both aesthetic and sensual with just the right proportions for my male ego to want to possess her–hope this helped).

Etymology–while it is great to know that many words have various levels of meanings; we cannot form our exegesis simply on etymology; we must take into consideration the context, content, era, audience, and author/orator.

During Jesus’ time, did people commit adultery, fornication, incest, rape, forced marriages, etc. etc. etc.?

Is Jesus discourse claiming the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage with the exception of fornication or adultery?

Since fornication directly relates to sex outside of marriage (both agents not being married to anyone at all) we must remove that as a possible meaning.

Since it would be infantile to suggest that Jesus is Calling His Disciples to commit adultery in order to get a divorce from a spouse while specifically stating that any relations by both the divorced spouses with anyone other then themselves is tantamount to adultery (person a + c; b + d or any given combination other than a + b = adultery), we must also rule out adultery.

So what other meaning does the term “porneia” has?

Maran atha!



As I wrote, ‘porneia’ can also be ‘immorality’ or ‘idolatry’.

You talk of the sacrament of marriage. Who defined it?


Carl, thank you for your clarification!

Maran atha!



There was this guy that stated something like… ‘it was not so from the Beginning; (a) man and (a) woman were united and the two would become one; what God Brought together let no man set asunder.’

…yet, I could be wrong, maybe if we study the etymology of those words Jesus really meant ‘what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.’

Maran atha!



Thing is, it was Adam who defined ‘wife’ and the unification of man and woman as one flesh, even though she was of his bone and his kinswoman, which is outlawed in Leviticus 18.
It wasn’t what God ‘brought together’ but what Adam, a man, brought together.
God made Eve to ‘help’, that is to help him naming the animals.

Basically Jesus fulfilled the expectations of the Pharisees… He knew scripture better than them. And because God didn’t bring together man and woman in the beginning for marriage, divorce is perfectly acceptable.

(You wanted content and context…)

Gen 2:20-24

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”


Do you follow your own reasoning?

Maran atha!



Yes. Jesus was being wry when asked about divorce.

“What God brought together let no man put asunder”

The point is that God didn’t being anything together. Man did.

And did Jesus answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ when asked if a married couple could divorce? He didn’t. He evaded the question intelligently reverting back to Genesis.


So it is your conclusion that Jesus did not mind that His Followers got divorced and remarried as they saw fit?

Maran atha!



I will adopt Jesus’ approach: What does scripture say?


Well it seems that you are quite independent of facts:

How did Adam bring the woman so he could get together with her?

Jesus did not evade the question but elevated the situation; man then, as now, trivialize life and God’s Commandments.

Jesus Brought them to Creation: ‘Man and Woman He Created them!’

Adam was joyful not for finding Eve but because Eve was Brought to him, as his “flesh of flesh, bone of bone” equal!

Maran atha!



Yep. Adam decided that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife even if she was a close relation.
(How he knew what a father and mother were when he had neither, is anybody’s guess…)




I wouldn’t say that is different criteria though.
Its the same criteria, but multiple things apply, making the overall results more varied.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit