That is abusive — Agustino
It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength.
False. What's this? — Agustino
It is impossible to achieve peak pleasure except within the confines of an exclusive relationship. By its very nature sex is exclusive - it wants to have the other for him/herself.Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine. — fdrake
Then why do human beings, and animals too, experience emotions such as jealousy when it comes to sex?I repeat. Sex for pleasure is a divine gift, and those who share it freely and share in it are expressing a freedom bestowed by the divine. By its very nature, sex is communal and social. — fdrake
(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. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
But what about the justice of the law? Shouldn't the law be just? — Agustino
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. — Agustino
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? — Agustino
Yes, quite possibly. I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business. I don't see how your position here is anything less than a hatred for justice and a love of sin.And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right? Can't you hear the Pharisee in your own voice, Agu? Jesus Christ. — Noble Dust
Kicking the money lenders out is punishment.What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment? — Noble Dust
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God — I Corinthians 6:9-11
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. — Corinthians 6:7-8
Save sinners from what? From the consequences of sin so that they can keep sinning?! :brow:Jesus came down to Earth to save sinners. — Benkei
Therein lies the deep comfort provided by the magisterial Protestant fantasy that the apostle Paul inveighed against something called “works-righteousness” in favor of a purely extrinsic “justification” by grace—which, alas, he did not. He rejected only the notion that one might be “shown righteous” by works of the Law—ritual observances like circumcision or keeping kosher—but he also quite clearly insisted, as did Christ, that all will be judged in the end according their deeds (Romans 2:1–16 and 4:10–12, 1 Corinthians 3:12–15, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Philippians 2:16, and so on). — David Bentley Hart
It's not true that forgiveness is preferred over divorce in this case. God hates adultery more than He hates divorce - that is why adultery is listed amongst the 10 Commandments, which say nothing about divorce at all.So it is for this reason that Canon Law tells us that the innocent spouse may stop conjugal living with the adulterer for a maximum of 6 months. He should petition the Church for a divorce within that time but the law urges the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer. — Benkei
I read it. But I also read the Church Fathers such as Augustine or Aquinas (and other theologians such as C.S. Lewis), and I find their position providing much better arguments. All through human history justice was rendered by force, and in no other way. God Himself, will come in full force in Revelation to render justice. Christians aren't commanded not to judge, but rather to judge rightly -Here's a good article on that: Jesus, the Whip and Justifying Violence — Benkei
Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly — John 7:24
So then it isn't punishment to stop the possibility of unlawful behaviour by putting adulterers in jail, no?It isn't punishment to remove an unlawful gain or to stop the possibility of making unlawful gains. — Benkei
Out of context.This Corinthians quote sums up as “Why not suffer wrong instead of bringing your dispute before unbelievers?” Which becomes clear from the previous wording: — Benkei
That passage is precisely about the fact that Christians can judge for themselves, and should not take their internal problems to be judged by the unrighteous.If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
No - cite me the passage where this is the case. It is only when there is repentance that forgiveness is possible. "Forgiving" someone who persists in their crime is not "righteous" but a sign of great moral weakness and a soft heart - it is immoral.Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin. — Benkei
Because the harm that adultery causes is irreparable, irreversible and cannot be compensated for, and thus, it demands punitive damages, not just the removal of the threat through divorce.Why do adulterers need punishment beyond being divorced though? — VagabondSpectre
Because such a punishment is brutal, and it would say more about us than about the adulterer. It is an inhuman form of punishment.I'm asking this question seriously: why not just cut the noses off of adulterers then? — VagabondSpectre
Because it would be unjust and overly brutal.It's an extraordinarily powerful deterrent, and if marital laws are of utmost importance, then why not? — VagabondSpectre
Why? Suffering is what rehabilitates people. Without suffering, rehabilitation is impossible. That is the very biological purpose of suffering, to guide behaviour away from that which causes suffering. If we find a way to extinguish suffering after a crime, then that itself is a great crime.I think we can actually rehabilitate criminals without forcing them to suffer (especially by visiting their own crimes back upon them). — VagabondSpectre
Why do you think so? Also, this is a metaphorical expression suggesting that the punishment ought to be proportional to the harm caused, where this is at all possible.Eyes for eyes an d teeth for teeth just doesn't work very well... — VagabondSpectre
I agree, but that isn't to say that their injustice should be ignored, is it?If someone steals because of hunger, maybe there are greater injustices we should be concerned with? — VagabondSpectre
It is impossible to achieve peak pleasure except within the confines of an exclusive relationship. By its very nature sex is exclusive - it wants to have the other for him/herself. — Agustino
If someone steals because of hunger, maybe there are greater injustices we should be concerned with? — VagabondSpectre
Children, spouse, families. — Agustino
Not true. People rarely move to an open marriage because of it, and adultery represents breaking one's promises to another who is a VICTIM. I cannot comprehend how you can side with the abuser. That is the height of moral insanity.Same thing with homosexuality. Familirs are frequently torn apart by it. Adultery doesnt always cause harm. Simetimes peiple evilve I to open marriages from there. Or there os forgiveness and they move on.
So no. Homosexuality and adultery are about equal in the social consternation department. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.