I feel sorry for you. There's nothing greater in life than to truly and deeply love someone. — frank

Yes, that is true. But, as I said, to truly and deeply love someone is to care for their OBJECTIVE well-being. It is not to let them do whatever they want. That's a perversion of love, it is inauthentic love. In truth, as Kierkegaard makes clear, that is self-love masquerading as real love.

Lewis is a fucking amateur. — Benkei

That is quite false, Lewis is one of the best in the last 100 years.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

Love is guiding the other towards God. You should read, for example Kierkegaard's Works of Love. If you permit your beloved to rest in sin, you are not loving. So stop deceiving yourself, out of your own weakness.

So you announced that you're clueless about Christianity. Now you demonstrate that you don't know what love is.

Makes sense. Christianity is all about love. — frank

No, you demonstrate you have no clue what love is. Love isn't allowing the other to do what they want. If you want to inject drugs in your veins, it is not loving for me to allow you to do that and to "forgive" you.

Love doesn't demand forgiveness in the case of willful sinning. That is a complete misinterpretation of Christianity. If you love someone, you want them to be holy, to be close to God. And so, you cannot "forgive them" or allow them to persist in sin. Such a thing is to love yourself more than you love your beloved.

People who are vengeful never really loved in the first place. — frank

This is wrong. Vengeance in the case of injustice is the right thing. "I am a vengeful God"

I'm happy for you that you're not a Catholic as you'd most certainly burn in hell if you were. — Benkei

Ah, that's good then, I have a great passport for Heaven - don't be jealous!

My arguments can be found in the link, which is a short article. You didn't provide sources but names of authors. I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. So unless you're going to give me the exact places where I can find their arguments, you only appealed to authority. — Benkei

I did. You just didn't read them. For example:

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. — Mere Christianity

The parents of homosexuals don't have a RIGHT to demand that their children have children, or marry a woman, etc. They have a desire in that regard.

But a spouse has a RIGHT to demand that you remain loyal and faithful to them.

Adultery does no more harm than homosexuality does. Therefore harm can't be the problem.

It's just a broken promise. That's all. — frank

Nope. Breaking a promise is also a harm. And we're not talking about a perceived harm here, but a real harm. A perceived harm is when you don't act in accordance to my desires. A real harm is when I have a RIGHT that you break by acting in a certain manner.

I thought you were knowledgeable about Christianity but it is now clear you don't know what you're talking about. Timothy 1:1 15, 1:2 3, John 12: 47, Galatian 4: 3-7. etc. etc.

This does not preclude judgment on the final day. But Jesus did not come to earth to judge but to save sinners. This is so blatantly clear and repeated throughout the Bible and expressed and imparted again and again by the Catholic Church that denying it really only demonstrate the personal grudge you hold against sinners and the bias of your personal views when interpreting the Bible. The Dei Verbum tells you when interpreting SCripture you have to investigate what meaning the writers intended and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. You are instead using scripture to fit a pre-conceived result. This makes you a sinner yourself because Jesus commands you to forgive the sinner, even if he sins 77 times (Matthew 18:22). And you should heed it as we conclude in Matthew 18: “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” — Benkei

Where is the answer to my question? You have failed to answer my question and the rest is an empty red herring.

Save sinners from what? — Agustino

And while adultery is prohibited and is condemnable to death in the old testament, the new testament does not and preaches forgiveness as the better option. — Benkei

This is false. Jesus clearly stated that adultery is grounds for divorce - in fact, the only such grounds.

Appeal to authority. I don't see an argument here. — Benkei

And yours is what? Don't you see how ridiculous you are? You give me an article, I cite several sources, and mine is "appeal to authority", and what is yours? Appeal to a weaker authority, obviously.

Yes it is. — Benkei

To begin with, I am not a Catholic. Nowhere does the Bible state that divorce is not morally right in the case of adultery.

stop making personal comments. — frank

Whether you like it or not doesn't make it false. You are siding with the abuser, and you are protecting the abuser. That is a grave moral offence, and it should be noted. It is much like telling me that "ahh he's a murderer? No worries, we should just forgive him". Where the hell is your sense of justice and morality?

Homosexuality causes deep grief in some cases. Mothers become sad that they will never have grandchildren. So no, the suffering isn't the issue at all. — frank

Nope, this is just wrong. Mothers don't have a contract with their children that the children will have grandchildren. I have no clue what you're talking about now.

So now you say it isn't the suffering (since homosexuality definitely is associated with family suffering). Its that a promise was broken. Is that right? — frank

It's the combination of things. The suffering, the breaking of the marriage vows, the disrespect of the other person implied, etc. And adultery harms the family worse than homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't affect trust for example.

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.

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.

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.

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

Socially yes, religiously and morally no.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all. — fdrake

That is abusive and wrong. It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength. You see it with rich arabs, the Sultans, etc.

You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have. — fdrake

Yes, the people in the Old Testament (and the New) are in many regards deeply flawed.

They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows. — fdrake

False. What's this?

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. — 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels? — fdrake

In the work I've linked to, there are chapters that address the whole development of the family, from pre-history to today.

You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. — Maw

Sure. Did I say that I think we should punish (legally) promiscuity and polygamy? No. Adultery shouldn't be punished for harming the perpetrator, it should be punished for harming the rest of society.

You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman. — fdrake

This is crap. Yes, obviously the wife does not own herself 100% - that's the purpose of marriage, that each partner owns the other to an extent. If you don't like that, then don't get married.

But this isn't the commodification of women as property, since it applies equally to the men. The woman ALSO has a fundamental right to exclusivity to her man. Have you forgotten about that? Of course you have, because you have to straw man in order to pull this off.

Of holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly. — fdrake

No, that is not the correct placement since it precludes the possibility of "becoming one flesh". The whole of history, as even Engels showed, is a move away from promiscuity towards monogamy. Read it yourself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience,the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.

Wait a second... until now you were claiming that Jesus is a peace loving hippie. So which is it? You seem quite confused.

But yes, I think that for unrepentant sinners, hell is the adequate punishment, the punishment that they themselves choose.

Is it simply to inform us of the authentic way to be Christian or is it to suggest that one must adhere to Christianity as you've described it in order to be an authentic social conservative? — Hanover

The part about Christianity is a deviation from the topic of the thread to answer frank's position.

But no, you don't have to be a Christian to be a social conservative, obviously.

evangelical BS zone. — frank

I am not an evangelical.

One assumes he would say something like: — frank

Within specific contexts. Again, you take the injunctions of Christ out of context, and hence you pervert them. You also have:

I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me. — Luke 19:26

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. — Revelation 19:10-16

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” — John 2:13-16

Here C.S. Lewis explains:

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. — Mere Christianity

So this interpretation of Jesus as an all forgiving hippie, etc. is utterly criminal to the message of the Gospels. God is righteous & just, and therefore hates sin.

In the US, that passage would be brought up to dismiss any attempt to criminalize adultery (with a light chuckle).

I get that you have a problem with the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a pacifist, apocalyptic prophet. I can't help you with that. — frank

So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you?

Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries. — frank

It's not meant to have any bearing. I haven't brought religion in as an argument to criminalize adultery. You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. I have explained to you that (1) you took that phrase out of context, and (2) there is no indication in the Bible that sinners cannot (or should not) judge other sinners - indeed, the whole Old Testament and the laws of Moses involved sinners judging other sinners. And even in the New Testament, when Paul was writing to other Christian communities, it involved judging other Christians, even though Paul was still a sinner. Third, I don't see why a religious command should necessarily be applicable to our social law. If we were to follow the BS you're saying ad literam and out of context, then we would have no laws. If someone steals your car, forget throwing him in jail! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Really? I think your intelligence is better than this.

It's the lunatic fringe interpretation — frank

First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.

Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.

Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument.

Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus. — Sapientia

I haven't ruled out that possibility, but I prefer interpreting this parable in the light of the other ones. If we see that the other encounters with the Pharisees bear a certain structure, then we ought to choose the interpretation which bears the same structure in this case, and not another one. Again, this has to do with faithfully interpreting a text.

Did Abraham mindlessly obey and sacrifice Isaac? No. — Sapientia

Was Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac when God required it?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned. — Sapientia

So if one is to interpret ad literam, there would be no laws, because all laws are made by us, who are sinners, to punish other sinners. That makes no sense, it's not a sensible interpretation. Why do you reckon this interpretation makes sense? Do you think that we cannot judge others because we are also sinners? If we cannot judge others, how are we to go about living, since living requires judging others (ie, is he going to steal from me if I hire him, etc.).

Man, you were sporting a biblical interpretation that's mainly promoted by evangelicals who believe angels appear among us as aliens. This is a serious thread? — frank

How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again?

No - it has nothing to do with this thread. Please open a new thread, or else I will be asking the other moderators to moderate you.