1. 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!

Featured Punishment for adultery

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by InvestigateTruth, Jan 25, 2019.

?
  1. Flogging

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Death by stone

    2.4%
  3. Prison

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Paying a fine (some money)

    9.5%
  5. No punishment is needed

    64.3%
  6. Other

    23.8%
  1. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +10,200
    Religion:
    None
    Selfish? An open relationship is about giving, not selfishness

    You know nothing about the children of those unions.

    Nor do you have an inkling of such a relationship.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,431
    Ratings:
    +1,783
    It's a personal matter between the people involved in the marriage. It's no one else's business.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. QuestioningMind

    QuestioningMind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,431
    Ratings:
    +1,783

    How do you imagine that punishing one of the parents will somehow improve the lives of the children?

    Many people get married so that they can have the legal benefits that marriage provides.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,694
    Ratings:
    +11,224
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Punishment is a very general term here. Let's assume that the agreement between the married couple is that no outside sexual relationships are allowed. Let's also assume that one of spouses violates that agreement and the other spouse does not want to renegotiate the terms of the agreement.

    It is certainly reasonable for the other spouse to feel hurt by the violation of trust. It may well be that they extract a punishment in order to continue the marriage ( I've heard this described as 'being on a short leash') or decide to ask for a divorce, which may be another form of punishment. I don't see either of these as unreasonable.

    It may well be that friends and family, as a sign of support for the aggrieved spouse, decide to restrict communication or contact with the violator. Depending on specifics, this is usually also quite reasonable.

    it may be that some people decide not to conduct business ventures with the violating spouse. While within their rights, I see this as a borderline thing. This should not be the concern of a business partner.

    It may be that a judge in a divorce case decides to restrict contact with children because of the infidelity. In general, I don't consider this to be a good thing because it hurts the children more than necessary.

    Or, it may be the government wants to level a fine, impose jail time, or have some other form of legal punishment. I consider this to be completely unreasonable..
     
  5. Apologes

    Apologes Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Ratings:
    +143
    Religion:
    Christianity
    None, what kind of a question is that?

    Also, why is it only for those who are in a relationship with someone of opposite sex? Is cheating in a homosexual relationship less bad?
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,309
    Ratings:
    +1,955
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    Angelus Silesius (c. 1624 – 1677), one of my favourite of the Catholic mystics, had some germane advice here:


    Alexandrines of Angelus Silesius

    I know the nightingale mocks not the cuckoo's call;
    Yet if my song apes not yours, may I not sing at all?

    Which is to say, one is enjoined to tolerate and even transcend differences in others without passing judgement (so long as its mutual).

    Why would I seek to 'punish' people for adopting different living arrangements from me and following another set of sexual norms than my own? The mindset espoused is just alien to my sensibilities. Christ did not walk around Judea dishing out 'punishments' to all and sundry.

    Quite the opposite, he fraternized openly with the unclean, sinners, tax-collectors, prostitutes and a Samaritan woman who - let's not forget - appeared to be practising a first century version of "open marriage" herself:


    The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.)...

    Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come back." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the man you are now living with is not your husband. What you have said is true!"

    The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem."...

    Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”

    (John 4:4–42)

    In John 4:4-42, Jesus ignores three codes of behavior. He initiates a conversation with a foreigner belonging to a religion Jews deemed a heresy, Samaritanism. This foreigner is also a woman and men were not expected to speak in public with women they weren't married to, or bring scandal upon themselves. Third, she is a sexually profligate woman in the eyes of her contemporaries. Her surprise is included in the narrative: “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” (John 4:9). As one scholar notes: "Jesus not only speaks with her but also enters into a prolonged dialogue, a dialogue which recognizes and honors her thirst for religious truth".

    Did he "punish" her for having had five husbands (or extra-marital relationships that Jesus was tongue-in-cheek referring to as husbands) and now living with a man she wasn't married to? No, he opened a friendly dialogue with her and exchanged his perspective for hers - meeting her where she was at, without judgementalism even if he did personally (as a Jew) disapprove of her sexual predilections. And she was impressed that he was so tolerant of her and didn't run away repulsed as many Jewish men of that time would have from a fornicating Samaritan woman.

    It's their life and their family, not mine. So long as they take good care of their kids, make sure that they are loved and cherished, have a great education etc., who am I to judge? I can think of a whole lot worse environments to be brought up in, such as one parent being an abusive partner. Among the biblical patriarchs, the children of King David were brought up amidst his multiple wives, concubines and harem of lovelies. Yet we don't seem to judge him so harshly.

    We are told in scripture by St. Paul, "What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church?" (1 Corinthians 5:12), and yet here, I find the kind of judgement on others that we are told should be left to an individual's own conscience before God:


    "For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?"



    "Let every one be definite in his own convictions. The faith you have, have as your own conviction before God. Let us therefore stop turning critical eyes on one another. If we must be critical, let us be critical of our own conduct and see that we do nothing to make a brother stumble or fall"

    (Romans 14:1-23)


    Jesus invited his listeners to "judge for yourselves what is right" (Luke 12:57). People in open marriages are doing just that, even though I may not personally deem their lifestyle to be moral according to my own convictions, and they are not (so far as I can tell) interfering with the right of Christians to practise our strict marital monogamy. For that reason, I have no interest in concerning myself with their private sex lives, nor do I think I have any God-given business in doing so.
     
    #26 Vouthon, Jan 25, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    24,045
    Ratings:
    +7,940
    Case in point.

    My friend always wanted children since she was young. She has two beautiful children from her best friend via sperm donation. She and her current girlfriend plan to get married and have another child. She, her best friend, and her girlfriend are in one relationship taking care of the kids. While the best friend doesn't live with them, he is still the father of the two kids (and probably three) and sees the kids all the time.

    Among the agreement between both friend and her future-wife, they may decide to have a more open marriage with someone who is mature. She grown up in Germany where there was no split between who must take care of the child. So, there's no "only the parents take care of the child". The whole community did.

    When one gets married, they have a sacred and sealed commitment with the people involved. It could be a commitment under god or so have you; but, sacred (if seen that way) nonetheless. When you see family as a community of helpers, then yes, by all means, marriage for many reasons not just "love" helps a lot. I never heard of a man and woman get married and say, "hey, we just got married for love. All other marriage benefits we don't need because that's not why we got married."
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  8. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    6,175
    Ratings:
    +4,618
    Oh god no. The government should keep its nosy beak out of peoples bedrooms. If a couple wishes to file greivences or divorce or marry that’d be one thing. But to legislate this kind of interpersonal drama is overkill. Besides cheaters are not particularly well liked socially.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  9. Vouthon

    Vouthon In varietate concordia
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,309
    Ratings:
    +1,955
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    Right on! You can't legislate morality, only inculcate it through socialization.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    6,175
    Ratings:
    +4,618
    Well yeah. Although societal standards for morality can sometimes make redemption hard. I mean an ex con is always going to have the stigma. So there needs to also be a sense of forgiveness to temper our judgment as well, IMO
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +10,200
    Religion:
    None

    Marriage may be a contract for monogamy or it may not. Or the contract may be ammended at some time.

    If the contract does contain a monogamy clause and that contract is broken the matter should be sorted out by the people involved. It is no one elses business unless those involved chose to make it someone elses business by seeking divorce.

    Of course is the contract does not have a monogamy clause then what is the problem?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. InvestigateTruth

    InvestigateTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,560
    Ratings:
    +1,324
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    It could be just more than an issue between the couple involved. Let's say if a person steals or frauds on another person, can we say this is just their own business? The issue is, such a person can do the same to other people. It causes more disorder in the society. Adultry is a form of dishonesty, which is harmful in the society. Leaving the issue without consequence, or punishment would cause the people to think, it is OK to cheat, or comit adultery.
     
  13. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,650
    Ratings:
    +2,760
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Adultery is related to a number of factors.

    The most basic is that the father has a strong instinctive interest in seeing to the raising of his own genetic child and not wasting his resources on the child of another male.

    It's well known that in the animal kingdom eg male lions may kill all the cubs of a female before mating with her.

    It's also notable that the single clearest marker that a (human) child is likely to be murdered is that it's living with its mother and her partner who is not its father.

    In other words, why would male A pay to raise the child of male B? And why would male A wish his worldly worth to be inherited by the child of male B?

    This is also associated with controlled marriages, especially those with the purpose of keeping wealth, often land, within the family orbit. This (I read) is common in poorer countries and cultures to this day. The great houses of Europe did, and with milder consequences sometimes do, much the same thing with thrones.

    Thus the history of adultery goes with concepts of 'legitimate' and 'illegimate' children, which has a very long history. By contrast, reliable contraception, from a start in the 1950s, has only been normalized since the 1960s.

    And in the foreground is pair bonding, a necessary feature of successful child-raising with H sap sap, since the child has no independence until about the age of five. (Pair bonding has a life expectancy of about seven years, or so it was formerly reported ─ I haven't noticed it mentioned for decades. That would keep male providing and protection in the picture until the child had some independence.) From pair bonding arise notions of sexual fidelity, and jealousy, and thus adultery.

    So. Paying for someone else's child to be raised is strictly a job for volunteers.

    If the result of breaching the rules of pair bonding (formal or informal) has consequences for public order or the public purse then the wisdom of the state will be tested when it comes to legislating a view of such things.

    And the divorce courts, and people smarter than me, will no doubt sort it all out.

    But punishment? It sorta comes with its own punishments, doesn't it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,232
    Ratings:
    +3,005
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, Jesus was "sent to the lost sheep", but why? So they would change and repent.
    Was Jesus not sent to the "lost sheep of Israel"? He said, "the sick need a physician".
    He tried to help such ones get better, but he did not condone their wrongdoing.

    And he did consider adultery as wrong....John 8:11, in the KJV, has Jesus telling the adulteress: "go, and sin no more."

    Judgment is accomplished with facts (like actions), not opinions or feelings. There is the difference.

    Just like court systems rendering their judgment.
     
  15. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,232
    Ratings:
    +3,005
    Religion:
    Christian
    According to this, then, bigamy should be lawful.
     
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,694
    Ratings:
    +11,224
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Yes, and polygamy,polyandry, etc. The main issue is the resulting complication of the laws for when the relationships break down.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,349
    Ratings:
    +806
    Religion:
    It exists
    Did God talk to Mary about making her pregnant or did he just make it happen?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    40,984
    Ratings:
    +3,288
    where I live the criminal law has been repealed

    doesn't mean God and heaven agreed
     
  19. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,232
    Ratings:
    +3,005
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, He informed her first, through an angel. (You don't know the account? It's at Luke 1:29-35 & Matthew 1:18-25.)

    There was no physical contact.
     
  20. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,232
    Ratings:
    +3,005
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, since marrying two or more spouses is not allowed, that means there's little commitment given to the parties outside of the marriage contract.

    You think that's "responsible"? A lot of 'loving', maybe, but not responsible. And not emotionally healthy for the children, no matter how you spin it. Sorry.
     
Loading...