Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man. — Agustino

:rofl:

Why are you laughing? That's what the Jewish Law states, and the Pharisees weren't respecting it:

Leviticus 20:10

Oh, you were serious. Did you make up that interpretation? I've never heard of it.

Not legally, just morally. There is a difference there. I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral. — Agustino

Adultery being cheating is already quasi-legal (you can get a potentially lucrative divorce if your spouse cheats on you), but incarceration is going a bit far don't you think?

Losing more than half your stuff, and possibly custody of your children, isn't punishment enough?

It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent. — Agustino

So you think we should be making examples of adulterers by making them suffer in prison as a deterrent?

I think abusing the freedom of some individuals to set an example for others is unjust, but that's just me. I think incarceration should be rehabilitative.

But in the case of a father stealing to feed his children, incarcerating him at any expense which could otherwise feed said hungry children would be a greater crime.

Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices — Agustino

You can't just equate consensual casual sex with theft and murder. Theft and murder directly impact third parties, while consensual sex behind closed doors does not.

It's possible to condemn theft and murder while not condemning fornication.

It is a bit objectifying to claim that women generally dress a certain way just because they want sex. Not only that, it seems to me to be a bit hyper-sexualised, as if we view other people solely as objects of sexual interest, or as if clothing, etc. is all about sex. — Agustino

Some women do dress a certain way because they want to be sexually attractive or want sex, same goes for men. It's a fair generalization. Clothing which accentuates sexual organs sends pretty clear signals...

↪fdrake Oh yeah, blabbering your mouth is certainly an argument. Again, all those people who just blabber their mouths in this thread provide no arguments as to why adultery should not be a crime. — Agustino

Marriage can be between many woman and one man, as spoken by God. If a man needs sex but is unmarried, he should obtain a holy concubine. Animals have sex for reproduction alone, we humans can have it for pleasure. The soul of the prostitute is the soul of the adulterer, and what can be more holy than exercising the divine gift of mutual pleasure.

Each woman who provides this service is a protected, respected wife of the community, and should be treated as such. Monogamy is an impoverished form of our true relationship to the divine, and breeds hate for the wife as property. The commercialisation of this is a sickness, money should not buy people, yet the institution of marriage is compatible with this sickness.

The woman and the man who embody the relationship with the divine the best are the prostitute and the adulterer, the essence of Western civilisation since the Greeks. Moreover, the essence of civilised life from the time of Sumer.

Why are you laughing? That's what the Jewish Law states, and the Pharisees weren't respecting it:

Leviticus 20:10 — Agustino

Got curious about this because it doesn't even sound like it comes from a Christian. It's associated with someone named Sarah Rush. Lunatic apparently.

Not that long ago, and for all I know it may still be the case in certain jurisdictions, it was required that there be grounds for divorce. Adultery being one of those grounds, it was necessary sometimes that married couples eager to rid themselves of each other do things like pose for pictures laying in bed with some man or woman they had never met before, which could be duly displayed to a court in order for it to have the authority to dissolve a marriage. Or, one spouse might have to pay a private detective to follow another in the hope of gathering incriminating evidence of adultery.

In these times, all states as far as I know have what's been called "no fault" divorce, and such things like "irreconcilable differences" are adequate to dissolve marriages, thus sparing people and the legal system much time, effort and money, though quite enough of all those things are nonetheless expended on matters related to divorce such as financial settlements and the custody and care of children. And I believe "fault" divorce may still be available even where "no fault" divorce is as well, though I'm not sure why. Happily, this is an area of practice I've managed to avoid.

I'd suggest that there are various reasons why adultery is not a crime, and that some of those reasons are likely similar to the reasons why the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages is no longer a crime. People probably will no more give up sex than they gave up drinking. There will be adultery, and there will often be adultery. So, the question which will be raised is--if it is made a crime, what kind of resources would have to be devoted its enforcement, and are those resources better spent in the enforcement of other laws?

My guess is many resources, and my opinion would be those resources would soon be thought to be better spent elsewhere. I suspect as a result that it would be a crime which would rarely be enforced, and probably repealed eventually, sooner rather than later. And there are, in fact, civil remedies available; claims can be made for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, consequential damages resulting from them, which may carry with them potential claims for punitive damages. Then there's the amusingly named tort of "criminal conversation." The availability of these claims vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I saw a headline recently in which a court apparently awarded damages in excess of 8 million dollars. And adultery I would think could figure in a court's determination on custody and financial settlement.

I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral. — Agustino

I think lying ought be illegal. If everyone always told the truth, so much pain, fraud, and trickery would be avoided. One year for every lie.

Eating McDonald's hamburgers increases the likelihood of developing a variety of health issues. We should throw McDonald's employees in jail for four months to five years, depending on calories sold.

Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man. — Agustino

So you're basing your moral stance here on old testament law, yeah? Jewish law, right? You practice Judaism? And Jesus did too, right?

No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"?

Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
— Agustino

:rofl: — frank

I agree: it's hilarious. So, like, if they had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've been like, "Go ahead. Stone away!".

Got curious about this because it doesn't even sound like it comes from a Christian. It's associated with someone named Sarah Rush. Lunatic apparently. — frank

I agree: it's hilarious. So, like, if they had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've been like, "Go ahead. Stone away!". — Sapientia

No it's not hilarious at all, you two are just being ignoramuses. The interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees follow a certain pattern throughout the Bible. The Pharisees always attempt to set up TRAPS for Jesus, and show that he is a false prophet because he does not respect the Law. The Law demands death for adultery under certain given conditions. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to say "Stone her", because then he would have broken the law.

https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1277

This is standard commentary, not Sarah Rush BS. But of course, your ignorance of the Bible, your ignorance of how this ties in in the overarching narrative of Jesus, and your introduction of modern biases within the text prevents you from seeing any of this. Instead you interpret it as ridiculous.

You're right, it's not hilarious at all. And your views on adultery, biblical interpretation, human rights, and other matters, are not in any way ridiculous.

Adultery being cheating is already quasi-legal (you can get a potentially lucrative divorce if your spouse cheats on you), but incarceration is going a bit far don't you think? — VagabondSpectre

Maybe, you can certainly make this case.

Losing more than half your stuff, and possibly custody of your children, isn't punishment enough? — VagabondSpectre

It would be, except that, as far as I know, you don't lose "more than half your stuff". And what is "half your stuff" isn't very clear. What if all my stuff is, on paper, owned by my mother, but actually I control it? Clearly I won't lose it. What if I acquired that stuff prior to my marriage? Then again, my wife would not be entitled to it. It is only wealth that is acquired over the duration of the marriage that can be disputed.

I'm not a big fan of those financial punishments because (1) they are relatively easy to avoid, (2) if someone is very rich, it won't affect them much, and if someone is poor, there won't be much to get anyway. So that's why I think we need some other form of punishment.

So you think we should be making examples of adulterers by making them suffer in prison as a deterrent? — VagabondSpectre

Yes - from my observation, force works as a deterrent. It is almost the only way to keep people at a mass level in check. That is why in organisations where obeying rules is of the utmost importance - such as the army - there are very harsh punishments for disobedience. There, disobedience is rare.

In modern democracies though, the ruling class keeps people in check precisely by creating discord in their midsts, and giving them, as the Romans called it, "bread and circus".

I think abusing the freedom of some individuals to set an example for others is unjust, but that's just me. I think incarceration should be rehabilitative. — VagabondSpectre

I see, then we disagree on this legal principle. This is a much more general matter though, whether the law should be rehabilitative or punitive (or perhaps both). It's a discussion that merits its own thread.

My own view is that the law should, in some cases, be punitive. Those are the cases where it is impossible to render back what has been taken. So if compensatory damages are not possible, because the action has produced such harm that it is impossible to compensate for it, then punitive damages are absolutely necessary. I see part of the process of redemption as being this suffering for one's crimes. So we cannot rehabilitate criminals without also forcing them to go through the suffering that their actions entail.

But in the case of a father stealing to feed his children, incarcerating him at any expense which could otherwise feed said hungry children would be a greater crime. — VagabondSpectre

But what about the justice of the law? Shouldn't the law be just?

You can't just equate consensual casual sex with theft and murder. Theft and murder directly impact third parties, while consensual sex behind closed doors does not. — VagabondSpectre

Well that depends. I'm talking strictly about adultery here, which isn't just consensual casual sex, it is a breach of the marriage agreement, which does directly impact third parties.

Some women do dress a certain way because they want to be sexually attractive or want sex, same goes for men. It's a fair generalization. Clothing which accentuates sexual organs sends pretty clear signals.. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, there no doubt are such women, but not everyone is like this. Some women just like to be pretty and admired, for example, and don't want sex. Obviously being pretty and admired involves being attractive - but it's not the same thing as desiring sex.

You're right, it's not hilarious at all. And your views on adultery, biblical interpretation, human rights, and other matters, are not in any way ridiculous. — Sapientia

I think what is hilarious is your lack of argumentation :)

Eating McDonald's hamburgers increases the likelihood of developing a variety of health issues. We should throw McDonald's employees in jail for four months to five years, depending on calories sold. — Maw

Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself.

No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"? — Noble Dust

Well, Jesus is God, so He knew what was in the woman's heart. If she repented in her heart (changed her ways), then He chose to forgive her since she would sin no more in the future. If she wasn't guilty on the other hand (which is also a possibility - that the Pharisees were merely testing Jesus), then obviously letting her go was the right thing to do.

I don't understand why some people take Jesus to be a pink-wearing liberal - don't forget that it was Jesus who went angrily in the temple with the whip to kick the money-changers out. Do you disagree that immorality (in the absence of repentance at least) requires punishment?

You have to ask yourself. If the Pharisees were always looking to set traps for Jesus, what trap was being set here? Why would it have been wrong, in the eyes of the Pharisees, for Jesus to say "stone her"? What part of the Law would Jesus have broken if he answered so?

Jesus wouldn't have said, "Stone her", and he wouldn't have said, "Stone them", either. You're missing the point.

Jesus wouldn't have said, "Stone her", and he wouldn't have said, "Stone them", either. You're missing the point. — Sapientia

What was the trap that the Pharisees were trying to set up for Jesus?

What was the trap that the Pharisees were trying to set up for Jesus? — Agustino

You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong.

You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong. — Sapientia

Why would the Pharisees have asked Jesus what to do if they were already following the Law? Again, if you look at through the rest of the Gospel texts, you NEVER find instances of the Pharisees saying something like "Shall we do X?" where X is something in accordance with the Jewish Law. But you always find instances of the Pharisees trying to trick Jesus.

Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong. — Sapientia

Why do you reckon Jesus would have intervened if, for example, they were going about their business according to the Law? Didn't Jesus say that He came NOT to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it?

It doesn't really matter whether they were or weren't trying to trick Jesus. If that's what matters to you, then sadly you'll miss the point. Jesus would've said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whether they'd brought the woman only or the couple together. He was like the Good Samaritan.

If your twisted interpretation were right, then Jesus would not deserve any followers, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian.

All this is meaningless drivel. Unprimordial, filtered puritanically. If you want to really understand civilisation you have to go further back to its roots. What took the barbarian Enkidu from the outskirts to the city? Copulation with Shamhat, under the light of Ishtar. The holy copulation measured the man and founded his honour within the traditions of Uruk; creating that unquantifiable debt we all hold to the community and each other.

It is no coincidence that honour, debt and sex are so intertwined; they are a divine triad in which each pair finds expression in the other. Sex and honour express themselves in debt; honour became its price, a subtlety lost by you false heralds of Western civilisation, cherrypicking little myths to suit your heathen agenda. Honour and debt find their expression in the blood-price, the virgin-pawn, the immeasurable excess of the unmarried woman; dealt with through sacred fucking, worth deriving from the promise thereof. Sex and debt mark the power of a man, his greater worth and the influence he has over the reserve of pawns and holy prostitutes; the true purpose of women.

If your twisted interpretation were right, then Jesus would not deserve any followers, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian. — Sapientia

Why? You have provided no explanation or reasons for why this should be the case.

It doesn't really matter whether they were or weren't trying to trick Jesus. — Sapientia

Why not? If this was the case in all other stories between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible, shouldn't this be the case here too?

Jesus would've said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whether they'd brought the woman only or the couple together. He was like the Good Samaritan. — Sapientia

The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality.

You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong. — Sapientia

When it comes to sex, men pay and women turn a profit. Men are more compelled to have sex more often. Men are the consumer and women are the merchants. The Pharisees were acting like consumer protection advocates, targeting the merchant, whereas Jesus was more of a social conservative protecting free enterprise. Women have the right to say no or yes about sex. They decide who they will sell too, and therefore decide the outcome in the end.

The opposite is true when it comes to using force. Men are stronger and if a man and woman were to be physically struggling in an ambiguous assault scenario, the guy would be blamed as the aggressor; unscrupulous business practices.

The holy copulation measured the man and founded his honour within the traditions of Uruk — fdrake

Having sex with Shamhat just made Enkidu aware that he wasn't an animal. He remained in a liminal state until he was fed city food. That's what turned him into a city person.

It was more than that. The animals ignored him, he became unsuited to the wilds right after his shag. That's why he agreed to go into Uruk in the first place. Then he went to Pret-a-Manger and became a real citizen.

Please take your BS out of here, this is a serious thread.

It isn't BS Agustino. It's my religion. If you payed more attention the posts are actually very carefully constructed. You're not making any real arguments, refute my claims.