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

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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

Leviticus 20:10

you condemn all fornication outside of the marriage bed, including sex between consenting non-married adults — VagabondSpectre

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

Furthermore, if we incarcerate mothers and fathers for committing adultery, then we would likely be even more seriously negatively impacting third parties, including children, spouses, and families involved, by depriving them of their presence entirely. — VagabondSpectre

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.

My argument is that your proposed regime of sexual control directly undermines our right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. — VagabondSpectre

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.

He who has not sinned, cast the first stone. — frank

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.

P.S. If you go out wearing a rolex (a needlessly expensive status symbol) you're consciously or unconsciously trying to attract sexual-reproductive partners by signalling your high wealth status. Women find men wearing Rolex watches sexually attractive. — VagabondSpectre

A needless generalisation, just like the previous one with the clothing. Some women do, some are offended by the opulence. Not all people have the same preferences.

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. No doubt that some women ARE like that, but not all. There are many women out there who find it offensive to be looked at sexually because of the way they dress.

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.

How can incarcerating someone for such a long period of time possibly be an appropriate punishment for engaging in consensual sex? — VagabondSpectre

It's not long. Where I'm from, for forgetting to renew your gun license you go 6 months in jail.

How is imprisonment the lesser evil? — VagabondSpectre

A punishment doesn't have to be the lesser evil. That's why it's a punishment. That's why things like PUNITIVE damages exist.

Where's the balance of harm and justice? — VagabondSpectre

It is balanced. Adultery is very serious and negatively affects many third parties, including children, spouse, and the families involved.

What kind of circumstances would warrant the maximum sentence? — VagabondSpectre

Multiple repeated offences, long-drawn out affairs, etc.

Would having sex with or without a condom be the worse offense? Does the alleged vulgarity of a given sexual act make the crime more severe? — VagabondSpectre

Irrelevant.

Given that sex outside of the marriage bed is a crime, being sexually attractive for anyone other than one's spouse could be considered incitement to engage in criminal behavior. Attractive men and women would need to be handicapped, else they knowingly corrupt the vulnerable innocent minds of others. — VagabondSpectre

So, wearing make-up or drastically appearance enhancing apparatus would be to knowingly incite sexual attraction, impure thoughts, and possibly adultery. Certain exercises which accentuate sexually attractive features (thighs, waist, buttock, etc...) should therefore be forbidden, along with dietary practices which achieve the same results, and of course any form of attire which could be considered sexy by anyone. — VagabondSpectre

Nope. This is bullsnit. If I go out on the street wearing a Rolex, I'm not inviting people to rob me.

Let's see some serious arguments if you have any.

Well, I suppose someone will first have to file an official complaint with the relevant court (sorry not sure about the English terms). The person who files it would have to supply some evidence, or reasons for initiating the case. Then some relevant official will have to decide if the case is worth pursuing or not.

If the case is worth pursuing, then an investigation will begin of the people involved. Phones and text messages will be checked, emails will be checked, hotel bookings will be verified, relevant witnesses will be called to give their testimony, the people involved will be called to give their testimony. Vehicles or whatever may be searched if such is deemed necessary.

Is fornication with someone other than a spouse (I suppose that's redundant) the crime in question, or does the crime of adultery include other conduct? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, for the most part fornication is required. But obviously making out for example, and similar types of conduct would also be considered adulterous.

Also, if fornication is a necessary element of the crime of adultery, perhaps conduct which isn't fornication, e.g., kissing, making out, holding hands, hugging in suspicious circumstances, may be made offenses for which a forfeiture is required, if not a lesser sentence. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

May the vehicle be searched? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes.

Is there sufficient evidence to justify arrest? — Ciceronianus the White

No.

If there is not sufficient evidence to justify arrest, would there be enough evidence to, for example, search their homes, get their phone records, etc.? — Ciceronianus the White

No, only if a relevant court official decides to further pursue the case. The police should only be able to submit their evidence/report to the relevant court, which should decide if further investigation is required or worth pursuing.

Let's say police stop a car because one of the rear lights isn't functioning. Speaking with the two occupants, one of the alert officers discovers they're not married. Worse yet, one is a man and one is a woman. His partner (to whom he's not married, by the way) noticed the two occupants were holding hands as he approached the vehicle. Suspecting the couple are engaged in the crime of adultery, the policemen search the vehicle. They find unused condoms in the glove compartment.

Now, if the crime of adultery includes the act of holding hands with a person who is not married to you (well, an adult person, perhaps; holding hands with a minor may be a separate offense), then clearly the search of the car was warranted and the two may be arrested and appropriately charged. — Ciceronianus the White

So far the police found SOME evidence which could indicate adultery. They have to take a decision if they will file a report for it, get the testimony of the witnesses, and submit it to court, or not. If they think the evidence requires it, then yes, otherwise no.

attempted adultery should be a crime as well — Ciceronianus the White

Depends. I would say no.

the range of sentences available — Ciceronianus the White

4 months to 5 years I would say.

whether more than one instance of adultery should require additional punishment — Ciceronianus the White

You mean after already being punished, as in repeat offences? Yes, I would say so.

whether adultery with more than one person should be considered a separate crime — Ciceronianus the White

Same crime.

and whether more than one instance of adultery with the same person is a single crime or each instance a crime in itself. — Ciceronianus the White

Single crime.

Philosophy as A Way Of Life by Pierre Hadot is good. Or What is Ancient Philosophy - by the same author.

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Way-Life-Spiritual-Exercises/dp/0631180338
https://www.amazon.com/What-Ancient-Philosophy-Pierre-Hadot/dp/0674013735

Is there any textbook or general book on ethics concerning primarily this question? — Johnpveiga

Let's put it this way.

Number 1. Follow all the moral rules, and be a good person.

Number 2. Find out what you desire, and find a way to get it (while respecting 1).

-"Parerga und Paralipomena" vol. 1, ch. "Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life". — Ying

Eh, Schopenhauer is just promoting the kind of life he lived.

Ehhh... none... or all of them. It's hard to put your finger on one book, because every situation and circumstance in life is unique. Ultimately you have to find your own way.

Is there any textbook or general book on ethics concerning primarily this question? — Johnpveiga

What kind of answer are you looking for? Each person is unique.

It wasn't in the speech I linked to though. He may have promised that during the campaign, and America will get there, but obviously now he's not putting his hand in the fire for it, lots of things can change. But he is right that America is on track for 3%+ GDP growth.

"We're now on track to hit an annual GDP growth of over 3%, and it could be substantially over 3%". This is what Trump said.

You've conceded the point then. Trump's policies won't lead to a sustainable level of four per cent growth as he claimed, so I was right to say that his claim was false. It's either an exaggeration or another deliberate lie. — Baden

No, I haven't conceded the point. Trump didn't say that they will be 4% for certain. If you listen to the speech you will see that he also claimed the results will be very strong, could be over 4% even. That's also my claim.

And his brand of protectionism will not lead to more growth in the long term compared to free trade because, for a start, it makes the US less competitive. — Baden

What does "less competitive" mean? How do you quantify that? If companies which buy steel, say auto manufacturers, end up paying 30% more for steel, and they raise their prices by 15% let's say, who is to say that they become less competitive? That depends on whether the demand for cars is elastic or inelastic.

Trump has already had to pencil in twelve billion dollars to pay farmers who have lost their markets because of retaliatory moves by other countries, notably China. — Baden

Yes, until investments kick in, the economy does need some support.

Protectionism may be necessary in limited circumstances but Trump's trade war tarriffs won't work now because other countries won't let them work (I'll try to find the source but the figure I saw was they would in a best case scenario lead to a moderate reduction in GDP of a quarter of a per cent per year or so). — Baden

And so they will suffer as well. They will need to negotiate.

Let's see what your reaction will be when you read my post ;)

Are you ready to surrender your personality? — Bitter Crank

Yes, in the process of building a family, sure! I don't see a problem with that. Building a strong community of any kind requires some form of "surrender" and adjustment to mutual goals. Don't you think?

Would kissing in itself be sufficient for a conviction? Kissing plus "petting" perhaps? Exchanging sexts? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes kissing on the mouth + sexts would still consist in adultery. Though obviously less severe than if it's a 6-month long affair that involved everything for example, including hotel bookings and the like.

Would the prosecution meet its burden of proof merely by showing that people married to others spent a lot of time with someone they weren't married to, for no legally sufficient reason? — Ciceronianus the White

No.

What would support arrest; what would result in conviction? What would constitute probable cause for arrest, support issuance of a warrant? — Ciceronianus the White

Evidence. Conversations (phone calls are recorded), testimonies, photos, video, unexplained hotel bookings, circumstantial evidence (underwear forgotten, fingerprints, etc.). Just like for any other crime. It's really very easy to prove once the state apparatus gets in motion.

I know what you're trying to say. Too hard to prove. I don't buy it. We can easily prove such things, there is always a trail left. So those people who try to say that it's too difficult to prove, really have no idea how the police (not even mentioning secret services now) work. And especially when dealing with regular folk, who would leave so much evidence behind anyway, it's really not difficult at all. Especially with modern technology.

So I think that we definitely have what it takes to do the job well, if only there was the will to do it. I see this much like the situation was 100 years ago with slavery. Largely, part of the ruling class wants to maintain adultery as legal, as part of their oppression of those weaker than them who cannot defend themselves.

And look, there has to be a punishment, just like for other crimes. I don't see why this is controversial at all. I mean if some guy steals your car, you want them to go to jail, but if they have sex with your wife, ahhh that's all good, no problem - very strange.

@Wayfarer - actually yes, during Communist times, adultery was punished for the most part, that's why it was very rare. It is one thing to permit immoral actions like promiscuity and not legislate against them, and a totally different thing to permit adultery which destroys families, harms children and spouses, and generates social conflict.

Trump's trade war will boost GDP in the long term? According to what economic model? According to what evidence? — Baden

Understanding how economics works. Trade barriers will cause the local economy to start up once again, which means both increased investment and increased consumption (more wages paid in the economy). Trade barriers will make products more expensive, but that isn't a concern when it comes to GDP growth.

For what reasons do you claim that protectionism cannot be effective at growing GDP long-term?

if by the end of the year overall growth is four per cent or more I'll post a picture of myself here in this discussion wearing a MAGA hat. If it falls more than half a per cent short of that, you post a picture of yourself with an "I Love Hillary" speech bubble coming out of your mouth. OK? Or is this just hot air? — Baden

Well, no, I'm not ready to make quantitative claims about the growth rate. I think it will be very good, but even a 3.5% growth would be very good for the US.

They just need to be properly regulated. Where are the funds for entrepreneurship going to come from if not banks? — Baden

Bootstrapping, savings, private investors, government subsidies/funding programs. Like that.

No banks are needed. Sure, growth may be slower, so what? It will be more stable.

Of course the rub is that when inflation outpaces wages growth for long enough due to this randonomics type approach, Agu's wage slaves won't be able to buy his stuff any more. — Baden

Well, I only sell to other businessmen, so...

They are simply players in a system that can either distribute its benefits rationally for the greater good, as democratic socialists would like, or that can feed the avarice that you and those of your political ilk would espouse. — Baden

I disagree that democracy can distribute resources and benefits rationally and fairly for the greater good. The way I see it, central authority is needed to set the economic AND social agenda of society in order to have stability. Democracy is, by its very nature, unstable, and always falls victim to mediocrity, and the fickle nature of "the public". Resources are to be used for the public good, but they must be managed by those who are capable of managing them to deliver the best results.

For those still interested in this topic, I have found this very interesting presentation built on Kant's writings:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jheis/bio/Heis,%20K%20Parallels%20HOPOS.pdf

Yeah, but it ain't trickling down? Why? — Posty McPostface

Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc.

That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls. — Baden

You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP.

Although to be fair - economic crisis doesn't come from lack of GDP growth, but rather from the failure of (a few) important and big players. Economic crisis originates with BANKS for the most part. If we got rid of banks, we would have no more crisis. Banks are the virus in the economic system. It is the greed of bankers which takes us from crisis to crisis. Banking is usury, and should be outlawed.

Banks need crisis. They loan to the entrepreneur, and the crisis is the opportunity to appropriate the value that the entrepreneur produced. And when banks are in bed with the state, as they always are, then they don't even have to worry about themselves - the state will finance them, if needed, so that they can hoard all the wealth. Banking IS the redistribution of wealth from the poor (the taxpayers) and the wealth creators (entrepreneurs) to the capitalists. Capitalism is the economic system where bankers (indeed, owners of capital) always come out on top.

I do question some of the popular modern interpretations of Buddhism — Wayfarer

Alright. Why do you reckon popular/modern interpretations of Buddhism fall more towards the nihilistic/materialistic side?

I'm not aware of any Buddhist converts who 'use it to maintain a diseased state of the soul' which I think is right over the top. — Wayfarer

It is hyperbole, and clearly doesn't apply to all Buddhists. Also, it depends what you mean by "convert". There are people in the West who attempt to follow Buddhism and do use it for unwholesome purposes. Do you not agree that the doctrines such as detachment are often wrongly interpreted by the Western mind? And thus you'd get people trying to "detach" themselves from the love they feel for a dying family member for example, thus turning colder towards them, since they see that the "attachment" (or love) also hurts and causes suffering.

On another note, do you agree that meditation can be used for unwholesome purposes?

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation

As far as I'm concerned, the reality is never in religions as such, they're simply signposts. — Wayfarer

Okay, I agree, how can it be otherwise. Words are symbols, not the reality itself.

All things - i.e. all objects of experience - have three characteristics - anicca, anatta, dhukka - impermanent, not-self, and unsatisfying. That's generally the gist. But there is also 'the unborn, the unconditioned, the unborn' which corresponds with (in my view) 'the wisdom uncreate' of Augustine. That wordpress site that you mentioned addresses this. — Wayfarer

Of course. The site also covers that: — Wayfarer

Okay, I agree with pretty much 95% of the way you and that site interpret things. However, why do you reckon that this isn't the mainstream Buddhist interpretation? Much of the Buddhist literature out there doesn't interpret things this way.

Secondly, when the Buddha criticized 'eternalism', it was a specific rejection of the idea that there was a permanent, self-existent and inherently real self or subject, that would continue to be reborn in perpetuity. — Wayfarer

I don't understand what you mean here. How can the concept of "permanence" (or "impermanence" for that matter) apply to a self? A self isn't an object in the world, like a chair for example. So applying the concept of permanence or impermanence to the self makes no sense to me. When Buddhists claim that the self is impermanent I have no clue what they're talking about. How can the self be impermanent? The self is the locus of freedom, or choice. As such, the self is always "empty" - the very possibility of freedom demands that the self be "empty" such that it can choose. Without being "empty", there is no possibility of choice.

So the belief in 'eternalism' was the belief that there is an unchangeable self or subject, which transmigrates from life to life, and which is never subject to change — Wayfarer

What's the problem with a subject which transmigrates from life to life? And how can a subject be subject to change? :s How can or does a subject change? What "is" this subject which is subject to change?

Also, do you personally believe in free will? If so, how do you reconcile free will with anatta and dependent origination?

Human rights are necessary because all people are created equal. — Waya

There is not a straight path from equality to rights.

No one today lives in a theocracy. — Waya

Iran? Also, why should we accept that theocracy is not an ideal form of government?

The rights are not evil, nor do they set good and evil on the same basis, rather, it demonstrates that humans have free will, as it is declared in Genesis — Waya

Having freedom is one thing, having a right to something is another. The Bible makes it quite clear that humans don't have "rights" - we don't deserve salvation for example.

Freedom of worship is not the right to idolatry, but rather the opportunity to do right. — Waya

It is the right to idolatry as well. Idolatry must be treated, as a result of this right, as equivalent to worship of the real God in society.

What's your proposed solution to the problem? — Baden

To remove the concept of "rights" from political discourse, and return to rules and regulations.

(with regards to polygamy)

I am opposed. Having multiple partners that satisfy different aspects is not true love. True love is in despair: I choose you because I can not survive without. They are in this romantic, monogamous and violent. Love is violence, abuse of themselves and others, is unique. And obscene, today, because the feelings are ousted from a world where porn reigns more and more. — Zizek

You know what book I really didn’t like from this perspective? Laura Kipnis’ "Against Love." Her idea is that the last defense of the bourgeois order is ‘No sex outside love!’ It’s the Judith Butler stuff: reconstruction, identity, blah, blah, blah.

I claim it’s just the opposite. Today, passionate engagement is considered almost pathological. I think there is something subversive in saying: This is the man or woman with whom I want to stake everything.

This is why I was never able to do so-called one-night stands. It has to at least have a perspective of eternity. — Zizek

What I find troubling about your valuation of the relationship which you think adultery violates is that it is too close to the idea of ownership and theft, where the partners are in possession of each other and adultery amounts to a theft. Your view emphasizes the contractual aspects of formal marriage rather than relationship. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with you. My view emphasises the total commitment that love itself demands from the two lovers for their relationship to be authentic. Namely the willingness to even die for one's partner, a wholehearted giving of oneself to the other completely.

It is in virtue of disturbing THIS commitment that adultery becomes such a crime. It is in light of the failure of this that adultery is disturbing.

In essence marriage is monogamy because it is personality — immediate exclusive individuality — which enters into this tie and surrenders itself to it; and hence the tie's truth and inwardness (i.e. the subjective form of its substantiality) proceeds only from the mutual, whole-hearted, surrender of this personality. Personality attains its right of being conscious of itself in another only in so far as the other is in this identical relationship as a person, i.e. as an atomic individual.

Further, marriage results from the free surrender by both sexes of their personality — a personality in every possible way unique in each of the parties. Consequently, it ought not to be entered by two people identical in stock who are already acquainted and perfectly known to one another; for individuals in the same circle of relationship have no special personality of their own in contrast with that of others in the same circle. On the contrary, the parties should be drawn from separate families and their personalities should be different in origin. Since the very conception of marriage is that it is a freely undertaken ethical transaction, not a tie directly grounded in the physical organism and its desires, it follows that the marriage of blood-relations runs counter to this conception and so also to genuine natural feeling. — Hegel

So the social commitment, the contractual aspects, etc. those are secondary. The gravity of the offence is spiritual in nature. You can replace spiritual with a Marxian-materialist word, and it will become no less true.

There's a difference between me arguing and defending my morals and trying to illustrate what's wrong with yours. I don't assert stuff like — Benkei

You assert maintaining the status quo, I assert changing it. Both are equally taking a stance / action. I see no reason for there being a difference between us, merely because yours happens to be the prevailing opinion at this historical juncture.

Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. Mere harm isn't enough for something to be criminal, it needs to be illegal. Since people don't feel like it should be illegal, that's the end of the story. People have been living with it for millenia without problems. You should get with the program. — Benkei

Yeah, and people have been living with slavery for millennia as well! You should get on with the program.

I mean, what a terrible woman you would be if, when it's a crime, your husband still cheats on you? How do you think that will play into her inferiority complex? — Benkei

Well, if the respective woman were to attend a psychologist, they would go through a process which would reveal that the cheating has nothing to do with her - she is not a cause of it nor responsible for it - but rather it has to do with the man and his (lack of) character.

The only reason adultery is experienced as harmful is because of left-over puritan beliefs, romantic notions of monogamy and modern depictions of love. If we'd be a bit more honest with the fact that we're barely rational most of the time, adultery is just part and parcel of what makes us human and shouldn't be frowned upon to begin with. — Benkei

:rofl:

Just like slavery is what makes us civilised people and superior to the barbarians, as the Greeks used to say :)

The same old excuses that have always been given historically in support of an unjust and immoral practice. Downplaying the pain, telling everyone else to get on with it, it's part of what makes us human etc.

The harm follows the social normative framework and isn't intrinsic. Take for instance Tibetan fraternal polyandry. — Benkei

Yes, I am aware that there are savages out there and less developed societies which are not monogamous. But there is a historical progression, as even Engels illustrates in his book, from promiscuity towards monogamy. It seems to be THE requirement for fulfilment in human beings in terms of sexual relationships and intimacy.

Also, again, adultery might be harmful but not to the level of being criminal. — Benkei

The difference being that all the personal shit that will be dredged up in a public court is going to be way more harmful than the actual "crime". But apparently that's lost on you. — Benkei

Why is "the personal shit" going to be harmful if the underlying action is so benign or trite?

Thank you for not replying to my arguments and just giving me more opinion — Benkei

I haven't seen much of any relevancy there.

I don't consider my personal morals universal or something to enforce on others. — Benkei

You certainly do. Even now, when you say that my view is tyrannous, you are implying that I ought to abandon it, you're telling me how I ought to behave, and you certainly act AS IF your morality was universal, even though through your mouth you claim the opposite.

I really don't see much of any argument as to why adultery should be treated differently than theft or worse crimes. It's really pathetic to be honest. Look:

Culpability, justice and fairness are not as black and white as you pretend it to be. I'm not going into how law if actually practised for centuries already. Just look up excuses, justifications and exculpations for starters. Suffice is to say that luckily, you're not a judge as the judgments you'd pass would be draconian. — Benkei

Yeah, all those things apply to theft too, and a whole host of other crimes. So what? :s Obviously in certain circumstances adultery would receive a lower punishment than in others. Just like some instances of theft deserve lesser punishment than others. But this doesn't change the fact that they should both be a crime.

Then you tell me about your own relationship, which is fine, but again I see no arguments at all. No arguments about the harmfulness of adultery, no arguments about the deceitfulness involved, no arguments about the effects it has on intimacy, children, and the rest of society, no nothing...

I often wondered why a behavior that can potentially psychologically injure so many people, spouse, family and children, is legal, why stealing a wallet or calling someone a name is a crime. — wellwisher

I agree with you on this point. If I was in charge, adultery would be illegal, punished with several years in prison for both involved. I see no problem with this at all, quite the contrary, they are the very demands of justice. Those who say otherwise are much like the slaveowners, who, attached to their slaves, and not wanting to let go of the power they wield over them, want to maintain an unjust status quo. And whoever says that taking the slaves by force if one must and freeing them is tyrannous, only proves his own tyranny by that assertion.

I think this problem of adultery is, in our day, much like slave ownership was 200 years ago. The root of the problem seems to stem from a ruling class of men who like to treat women as property instead of individuals. Most adulterers out there are men for a reason. And so, they have worked hard to create a culture, and laws, that are permissive of such abuse. Look even at Donald Trump's behaviour towards his wife.

It really comes across as tyranous. — Benkei

What is tyrannous is subjecting your marriage partner to something they haven't agreed to, THAT, now, is tyrannous, and ought to be punished accordingly. If you want to cheat on your partner, then you should never get married, it's very simple. And if you do get married, then you should divorce beforehand. Who is forcing you to get married? Is someone putting a gun to your head? Of course not. So if you do get married and you end up cheating, then you ought to face the consequences. Nobody forces you to cheat either. If you cannot control yourself, shame on you, and if you actually plan it out, even bigger shame on you. There really is no excuse. There can't be, not without claiming that people are not responsible for their actions. If people are responsible for their actions, then they are responsible for this too and should pay the price. If they cannot control themselves, it is much like not being able to control yourself and going on a murder spree against people who make you angry. It doesn't absolve you of guilt.

So freeing the slaves (and they are slaves, since they are forced to bear consequences that they never agreed to) from undeserved oppression is not tyranny, it is freedom. A society of the future cannot accept adultery in its midsts, just like it cannot accept slavery.

First, there's an important difference between promiscuity and adultery. You have a problem with both and are seemingly using them interchangeably here. — Benkei

No, I'm not using them interchangeably, I just want to discuss the most serious one out of them, because it's easier to see the wrongness there, where it is magnified. Like Plato discussed a city, instead of a person, in order to investigate morality.

I only have an ethical issue with adultery but that's a personal choice. — Benkei

If you have an ethical issue with adultery, then it's not just a personal choice, it is something that you consider to be valid for all. If I have an ethical issue with murder, then it's not just a personal choice, it's something that I consider valid for all.

Islam allows polygyny, which is promiscuous in the Christian sense yet you mentioned it as an example. — Benkei

Let's limit ourselves to adultery for now. Islam does not permit adultery.

You compare adultery to theft but this is not a correct analogy. I don't have a contract with a thief. — Benkei

Yes, you do, it's a social contract. If you want to live in society and enjoy what society provides you with, then you are effectively in a contract with the rest of society.

A better comparison would be contractual breach which allows for a claim for damages under most circumstances. — Benkei

Yes, and in the case of adultery, the damage is most often irreparable, irreversible and hence necessitates exemplary damages to be awarded. These are not expectation damages that could be recovered, as from the theft of a car for example. You do realise that adultery is (or should be), morally, ethically, and legally MUCH more serious than pretty much any act of theft. That is why adultery was punished by death in the past, just like murder. Theft wasn't punished by death in most cases for example.

whose fault is it? — Benkei

Really?! The one who cheats, obviously. Regardless of what the other partner does, cheating is off-limits. You can divorce them, sure, but not cheat.

Finally, the consequences of break ups are well within expectations for any adult getting into a relationship. — Benkei

No - not if you're referring to breakups that occur due to adultery. That's like telling me the consequences of your business partner driving your business into the ground to earn a profit himself are well within expectations for any adult starting a business with someone else. This is utterly insane. If they were within expectations, you would never have started that business together, or, in the case of marriage, you would never have gotten married with that person in the first place.

Again, the damages of adultery are irreparable. No amount of monetary compensation can ever repair the damage that was done. So it's not like your average business contract where you can quantify some damages and pay them. These are unpayable.

If the latter, then tell me specifically what these probable falsehoods are. — Relativist

That by "we will stop it" he meant "we" as the "American people", instead of "we" as the FBI.

Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc. — Erik

Yes, definitely agree. I wanted to mention this example too.

What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering? — Erik

I have no qualms with that, it sounds very much like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are are necessary, etc.? — Erik

Beliefs are not necessary, but faith is. I believe the Law passed on by Moses, and previously the Noahide laws, are codifications of this Love as it pertains to ethical behaviour.

I don't have much time now, I will likely get back to this at a later time!