I would offer that people should learn to be honest and true to a commitment.
The family unit is the strength of the human race, it is the foundation of unity.
Regards Tony
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Flogging the adulterer - Sura of Light
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
I would offer that people should learn to be honest and true to a commitment.
The family unit is the strength of the human race, it is the foundation of unity.
Regards Tony
Very much so a crime.
It is a destroyer of trust and honesty. It destroys the unity of the family, which is the foundation of the unity of the entire human race.
In the Baha'i Faith it is a crime
"Sex relationships of any form outside marriage are not permissible therefore, and whoso violates this rule will not only be responsible to God, but will incur the necessary punishment from society."
The Laws in the Baha'i Faith are for a future society;
"Though forbidden, punishment for adultery in the Aqdas is for a future state of society; such a matter is usually covered by the civil laws of each country."
Regards Tony
There are some questions about the authenticity of Pericope Adulterae.
Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia
Those questions aside, I agree the verses fit with the overall message and intent of Christ that marked a radical departure from Mosaic law. There was now an the emphasis on a much more personal relationship with God. The implications were that we should now keep our innermost thoughts pure from defilement, not just obey the law outwardly. In that regard, Jesus talked about the very thought of lusting after a woman as adultery in one's heart (Matthew 5:27-28).
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I don't know if adultery should be a crime any more than lying should, but it's pretty bad regardless. Though how do you categorize something like open marriages with adultery... no experience on those but seems like it's not the job of the governments of the world to decide.
And I would agree that honesty and adhering to commitments is a good thing. So, if a couple agrees to have an open marriage, that should not be a problem, right? if anything, that can strengthen the family (not that I am agreeing that families are the foundation of unity--often they are the foundation of divisiveness).
The pericope adulterae is of very ancient provenance and was canonized by the church as scriptural, whether or not it properly belongs in the Gospel of John. I'm just glad the scribes found a place for it somewhere if it isn't original to the text!
Eusebius describes how Papias, an early apostolic father born in the first century who had contact with the apostles, composed an authoritative compilation of the authentic oral tradition of Jesus that hadn't made it into the four gospels.
The story of a woman accused of serious sin before Jesus, which practically all scholars take to be the adulterous woman, features in Papias's now lost book on the Sayings of the Lord and was also apparently featured in the Jewish Gospel of the Hebrews, again very early and containing canonical traditions like the resurrection appearance of Christ to his brother James.
The latest scholarly treatment of the PA, which has since become a university textbook, is an edited book, The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research. (T&T Clark, 2016.), that pulls together five academic contributions from experts, two who are in favour of the PA's authenticity and three who regard it as a scribal interpolation.
Even those scholars who argue for it's inauthenticity as an original part of John, freely concede that it's ancient. Wasserman, for example, notes that a story of an adulterous woman was known among Christians in the second century, and already established by then.
St. Augustine of Hippo came up with the so-called "suppression theory", according to which certain scribal copiests tried to delete the PA because they worried it excused adultery and was too sympathetic to women. He wrote:
Some of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, I suppose, from a fear lest their wives should gain impunity in sin, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of indulgence toward the adulteress, as if he who had said “sin no more” had granted permission to sin. (Augustine, De Adulterinis Conjugiisii.6-7)
In that scholarly compilation I mentioned above, Professors David Punch and Maurice Robinson argue in Augustine's favor.
So, there is no overwhelming consensus on whether or not the adulteress woman narrative was an interpolation (although you might say the majority opinion tilts that direction).
I don't fall down clearly on either side of this dispute, because as a Catholic it doesn't really matter to me. Sacred Tradition is an authoritative source of Divine Revelation in my church and the PA has been universally endorsed by the Magisterium as apostolic in origin.
The question of open marriages is an interesting one and appears peculiar to the age we currently live in. In bygone times in most cultures, open marragies as being considered here were not permissible. Their advent is associated with secular liberalism that emphasises with rights of the individuals often at the expense of the well being of children. In my country I've seen various experimental of communes that have championed open marriages. The outcomes for the well being of their members as often been poor, particularly for children who grow up in such an environment.
Is there much difference between a polygamous marriage and an open marriage, apart from the fact that the latter is far more sexually equal and less patriarchal than the former?
(And yes, I understand that marriage - even polygamously - entails legal obligations, responsibilities and benefits that extra-marital relationships do not.)
When you factor in the widespread practice of concubinage, pederasty and prostitution by married men throughout history, open marriage just comes across as a more consensual, egalitarian and less sexist updating of age-old sexual licence outside of marriage.
Last edited:
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
In Quran, polygamy is allowed but limited to 4 wives, and there are obligations and rules for it.
The husband and wives are still bounded together. Open marriage is basically unlimited, and as far as I understand it, is just intended for sex.
I agree, they are somewhat similar.
@Vouthon
I hadn't really though too much about it at all until I started debating a Muslim here.
Do Baha'i believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit can cure the Leper?.
Muslims regard the gospels as corrupted and suprceded by the Quran. Baha'is see the Gospels as conveying all that God intended through Christ and has been under Divine protection. It would have been unfair for God to have burdened the Christians with a false gospel until Muhammad came on the scene afterall.
So like you, I see the Gospels as the read deal. Regardless of the uncertainties around whether or not the pericope adulterae was interpolated, its entirely consistent with the Divine Revelation God intended through Christ.
I hadn't really though too much about it at all until I started debating a Muslim here.
Do Baha'i believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit can cure the Leper?.
Muslims regard the gospels as corrupted and suprceded by the Quran. Baha'is see the Gospels as conveying all that God intended through Christ and has been under Divine protection. It would have been unfair for God to have burdened the Christians with a false gospel until Muhammad came on the scene afterall.
So like you, I see the Gospels as the read deal. Regardless of the uncertainties around whether or not the pericope adulterae was interpolated, its entirely consistent with the Divine Revelation God intended through Christ.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Adultery is definetly immoral. I often thought that marriage is more a spiritual commitment, and should not be a commitment enforced by law. Marriage is something you do all on your own. So anything a spouse earns is completely their own, and they are free to share their earnings or not.
I agree there are similarities, and there are good justifications for many practices in the past such as concubinage and public floggings for adultery. I don't see how these practices being legitimate for a bygone era can make them acceptable today.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Most Abrahamic religions outlaw sex outside of marriage, adultery, etc.
They all have unacceptable penalties in these times.
You're a Bahai, and Bahai is no exception.
Marriage is both physical and spiritual. For Baha'is one of the most important purposes of amrriage is to raise children that have good character. Children are the future of our communities, not just the concern of their parents. The success or failure of a marriage can affect the development of children and therefore our communities too.
Adultery is seen as immoral in the Baha'i Faith. There are no penalties set at this stage and any penalties in the future would most likely be a civil matter.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
True, the fact is you're still punished. These are the indirectly implied Christian values imparted on all U.S. military personnel.
Jollybear
Hey
Good question: i think it depends on whos wanting to do the punishing. If murderers are wanting to do the punishing, then they need to drop there stones.
Any motive for punishment should purely be out of societies protection.
People are free at this time to do as they wish.
If one embraces a Faith with Laws, they then should expect to follow those Laws.
Families, have to work at finding their unity, life is this challenge.
I see the next challenge is the family of man.
Regards Tony
When one becomes a Christian, Muslim, Baha'i or follower of Judaism they enter into a contract to do their best effort to live in accordance with the Teachings of their Faith. If one doesn't follow such a path there is no such obligation. Religious considerations aside we all share the same humanity. Usually with marriage there are expectations and understandings that are the basis of marriage, for example faithfulness.
One of the considerations for Baha'is is we must become thoroughly acquainted with the character of our potential spouse. In my experience, many enter into an intense physical relationsip with their partner before really getting to know them. Ever heard the phrase, 'love is blind'?
Divorce is strongly discouraged for Baha'is but permissible when there is irreconcilable antipathy. At that point the couple can divorce after a year of being seperated and attempts to reconcile have been unsuccessful. Because there is a great deal at stake, especially if there are children, both partners should avoid entering into a new relationship during this period as it would undermine efforts to reconcile.
There are always exceptions to be considered on a case by case basis and no one can walk in the shoes of another.
