That is abusive — Agustino

No it's not, it's a sign of the ancient wisdom in the Old Testament. They knew what they were dealing with.

It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength.

Just false. If true, true incidentally.

False. What's this? — Agustino

As expected, you're painting symmetries when there's no evidence of it. Then you cherrypick bible quotes to vindicate your personal faith.

We have conflicting notions of divinity, deal with that and don't cite that scripture you agree is flawed.

We have conflicting notions of divinity, deal with that and don't cite that scripture you agree is flawed. — fdrake

I never said Scripture is flawed, I said some people in Scripture are flawed. Scripture itself makes this clear.

Focussing on the minutia to belay the point. Stop it. 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.

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

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.

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.

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

Then why do human beings, and animals too, experience emotions such as jealousy when it comes to sex?

Sexual jealousy is a perversion. It has nothing to do with the nature of sex, it has to do with the selfishness and short sightedness of the individuals involved. We both agree envy is a sin. Look at the theological distinction between jealousy and envy, and you'll see it's the latter. Having lost what you wrongly perceive as yours.

Sexual jealousy is a perversion. — fdrake

No, I disagree. Sexual jealousy is part of our humanity, and without it we are not human anymore. Sexual jealousy comes naturally, it is not something that has to be taught. Even animals display it.

The call of any sinner is to be understood as typical, as if their perversions and failings are the failings of all. What is natural is sexual pleasure, what is natural is freeform relationships, what is natural is the commonwealth of humanity, and sex is no more exclusive than the opinions of its participants.

You who would take your personal failings and brand them with the divine show the worst in men. The perverts, the hysterics, the hypocrites.

(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

Why do adulterers need punishment beyond being divorced though?

I've asked you why such a harsh punishment is needed, and you've said because existing punishments aren't harsh enough.

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

I'm asking this question seriously: why not just cut the noses off of adulterers then?

It's an extraordinarily powerful deterrent, and if marital laws are of utmost importance, then why not?

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

I think we can actually rehabilitate criminals without forcing them to suffer (especially by visiting their own crimes back upon them).

Eyes for eyes an d teeth for teeth just doesn't work very well...

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

If someone steals because of hunger, maybe there are greater injustices we should be concerned with?

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

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.

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

What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment?

Alright. I'm going to weigh in with my Catholic upbringing now since it's starting to get embarassing. First off, Jesus came down to Earth for a specific reason. And it wasn't about establishing manners and mores - we can read about that shit in Martha Stewart Living's August issue.

Jesus came down to Earth to save sinners. Not to punish them. Death and sickness are a result of sin existing. Jesus' miracles were not the breaking of natural laws but restoring the underlying order of a world without sin as it was before the fall of man. The paraplegic wasn't told to "get up and walk" he was forgiven his sins first and foremost.

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.

All this if you believe in fairy tales that is.

With regard to the money-changer story. Here's a good article on that: Jesus, the Whip and Justifying Violence

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

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.

What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment? — Noble Dust

Kicking the money lenders out is punishment.

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

Kicking the money lenders out wasn't punishment. Removing the money lenders from his Father's House was his right. It isn't punishment to remove an unlawful gain or to stop the possibility of making unlawful gains.

This Corinthians quote sums up as “Why not suffer wrong instead of bringing your dispute before unbelievers?” Which becomes clear from the previous wording:

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

Moreover, you were washed, sanctified and justified is short prose for the fact that God can remove your sins, set you apart from the world and be declared "just" before God (note, that's a couple of grades up from "not guilty" of sin). Even fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, the covetous, the drunks, the revilers and the extortioners can be saved.

Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin.

Of course, all this if you believe in fairy tales.

Jesus came down to Earth to save sinners. — Benkei

Save sinners from what? From the consequences of sin so that they can keep sinning?! :brow:

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

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

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.

Here's a good article on that: Jesus, the Whip and Justifying Violence — 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 -

Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly — John 7:24

I really don't understand this modern antipathy to force. It is certainly not Christian, and it is precisely one of the main reasons why injustice and sin are permitted to spread. Governing men takes a strong hand. Without a strong hand you cannot keep evil at bay. And Machiavelli was right - in government it is better to be feared, than to be loved.

I noticed this from business dealings. People respond to threats much better than they respond to kindness. Trying to be kind in business is the way to ruin. Instead, one has to be ruthless - this isn't the same as abusive, one must be just, but that justice has to be enforced by the threat of a big stick.

It isn't punishment to remove an unlawful gain or to stop the possibility of making unlawful gains. — Benkei

So then it isn't punishment to stop the possibility of unlawful behaviour by putting adulterers in jail, no?

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

Out of context.

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.

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.

Jesus Chris shows us we can only remove sin from this world by forgiving sin. — Benkei

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.

Why do adulterers need punishment beyond being divorced though? — VagabondSpectre

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.

I'm asking this question seriously: why not just cut the noses off of adulterers then? — 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.

It's an extraordinarily powerful deterrent, and if marital laws are of utmost importance, then why not? — VagabondSpectre

Because it would be unjust and overly brutal.

I think we can actually rehabilitate criminals without forcing them to suffer (especially by visiting their own crimes back upon them). — 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.

Eyes for eyes an d teeth for teeth just doesn't work very well... — 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.

If someone steals because of hunger, maybe there are greater injustices we should be concerned with? — VagabondSpectre

I agree, but that isn't to say that their injustice should be ignored, is it?

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

This is one of the most transparent examples of superficially puffing up your own personal opinion to give it an illusory appearance of fact that I have ever stumbled across on this forum. Bravo.

If someone steals because of hunger, maybe there are greater injustices we should be concerned with? — VagabondSpectre

Good luck getting through to him. This is the guy who asked, "Why should it trickle down?".

This is one of the most transparent examples of superficially puffing up your own personal opinion to give it an illusory appearance of fact that I have ever stumbled across on this forum. Bravo. — Sapientia

Did you not see the quote from Engels' book? You must have missed it.

And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right?
— Noble Dust
Yes, quite possibly. I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business. — Agustino

Wow.

Wow. — Sapientia

Why not? If they were acting in accordance with the law, sentencing both the man and the woman according to 2 witnesses, etc. why would He interfere? Jesus did not come to abolish the Law.

How about homosexual marriage? Ok as long as nobody cheats?

How about homosexual marriage? Ok as long as nobody cheats? — frank

Socially yes, religiously and morally no.

But why are you liberal about homosexual marriage, but not adultery?

But why are you liberal about homosexual marriage, but not adultery? — frank

Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to others apart from the people involved, unlike adultery. It is a sin, much like gluttony, that harms only those involved. No problem from a social point of view with that.

Who does adultery harm other than those involved?

Children, spouse, families.

That's why it was punished by death in the past. If it was such a trifle as you make it sound, nobody would have accepted such harsh punishments for it.

Children, spouse, families. — Agustino

Same thing with homosexuality. Families are frequently torn apart by it. Adultery doesnt always cause harm. Sometimes people evolve into open marriages from there. Or there is forgiveness and they move on.

So no. Homosexuality and adultery are about equal in the social consternation department.

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

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.

In homosexuality, no one is a victim, there are no vows broken, etc. It's is very much different. That you draw an equivalence between the two only underlines your own perverted views. No wonder the West is in such decline. If folks can't even understand something as morally basic as this, then there really is a problem.