Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[KCKID]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death.

I abhor your opinion about this and I would find stoning an adulterer to death to be a wicked act. Claiming support from a god concept does not make this un-wicked IMO.

It is what they deserve.

We are biological creatures. I find it wicked to suggest stoning a human to death for acting on this biological function. I believe you would too if not for your religious book. I believe we should use our brains and not this barbaric book, but that's just me.

Please note, "I find it wicked" does not mean there should be no punishment at all. It means that I don't think we should stone people to death for this act.

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

[Angel]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death.

I abhor your opinion about this and I would find stoning an adulterer to death to be a wicked act. Claiming support from a god concept does not make this un-wicked IMO.

It is what they deserve.

We are biological creatures. I find it wicked to suggest stoning a human to death for acting on this biological function. I believe you would too if not for your religious book. I believe we should use our brains and not this barbaric book, but that's just me.

Please note, "I find it wicked" does not mean there should be no punishment at all. It means that I don't think we should stone people to death for this act.

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

I think most would agree that adultery is bad and that there should be some consequences but the issue is determining what the consequences should be. It seems that most here agree that the Bible goes too far in its punishment, esp. when it gives no chance for reconciliation (at least in the OT) IF the husband or wife forgives their partner's adultery and decide to give the guilty spouse a chance to fix the trust and damages to the relationship.

Whether or not non-monogamous behavior is a biologically driven is an interesting point to factor in. We KNOW that there are mammals and other animals that engage in non-monogamous behavior and it's not always because of an uncontrollable sexual appetite. More studies should be done on this especially as it relates to humans, although with humans socio-cultural reasons would have to be factored in.

[10CC]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death.

I abhor your opinion about this and I would find stoning an adulterer to death to be a wicked act. Claiming support from a god concept does not make this un-wicked IMO.

It is what they deserve.

We are biological creatures. I find it wicked to suggest stoning a human to death for acting on this biological function. I believe you would too if not for your religious book. I believe we should use our brains and not this barbaric book, but that's just me.

Please note, "I find it wicked" does not mean there should be no punishment at all. It means that I don't think we should stone people to death for this act.

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

I think most would agree that adultery is bad and that there should be some consequences but the issue is determining what the consequences should be. It seems that most here agree that the Bible goes too far in its punishment, esp. when it gives no chance for reconciliation (at least in the OT) IF the husband or wife forgives their partner's adultery and decide to give the guilty spouse a chance to fix the trust and damages to the relationship.

Whether or not non-monogamous behavior is a biologically driven is an interesting point to factor in. We KNOW that there are mammals and other animals that engage in non-monogamous behavior and it's not always because of an uncontrollable sexual appetite. More studies should be done on this especially as it relates to humans, although with humans socio-cultural reasons would have to be factored in.

To the bold.......WHY?

There are consequences for some, they are natural.

[Danmark]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death.

I abhor your opinion about this and I would find stoning an adulterer to death to be a wicked act. Claiming support from a god concept does not make this un-wicked IMO.

It is what they deserve.

We are biological creatures. I find it wicked to suggest stoning a human to death for acting on this biological function. I believe you would too if not for your religious book. I believe we should use our brains and not this barbaric book, but that's just me.

Please note, "I find it wicked" does not mean there should be no punishment at all. It means that I don't think we should stone people to death for this act.

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

I think most would agree that adultery is bad and that there should be some consequences but the issue is determining what the consequences should be. It seems that most here agree that the Bible goes too far in its punishment, esp. when it gives no chance for reconciliation (at least in the OT) IF the husband or wife forgives their partner's adultery and decide to give the guilty spouse a chance to fix the trust and damages to the relationship.

Whether or not non-monogamous behavior is a biologically driven is an interesting point to factor in. We KNOW that there are mammals and other animals that engage in non-monogamous behavior and it's not always because of an uncontrollable sexual appetite. More studies should be done on this especially as it relates to humans, although with humans socio-cultural reasons would have to be factored in.

To the bold.......WHY?

There are consequences for some, they are natural.

Exactly! And this gets to the heart of the morality issue. Those who think there are absolute moral values think the act itself is somehow evil.
Others recognize that there are simply natural consequences that may cause heartache and loss . . . or joy and pleasure. How can the act itself be intrinsically evil? For that you really do need a god or religion.

[Angel]

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

I think most would agree that adultery is bad and that there should be some consequences but the issue is determining what the consequences should be. It seems that most here agree that the Bible goes too far in its punishment, esp. when it gives no chance for reconciliation (at least in the OT) IF the husband or wife forgives their partner's adultery and decide to give the guilty spouse a chance to fix the trust and damages to the relationship.

Whether or not non-monogamous behavior is a biologically driven is an interesting point to factor in. We KNOW that there are mammals and other animals that engage in non-monogamous behavior and it's not always because of an uncontrollable sexual appetite. More studies should be done on this especially as it relates to humans, although with humans socio-cultural reasons would have to be factored in.

To the bold.......WHY?

The reason is that adultery is 'dishonest' behavior so it would not be wrong to have some consequences in place. Having something in place in my view is better than having no pre-determined consequences in place and just going by reactions after things happen which in some cases lead to murder, fighting, etc. I should specify that I wouldn't want some state imposed consequences because that may complicate things esp. if it goes beyond what the innocent spouse would want done (like sowing on a Scarlet letter on the guilty party to bring public shame, etc).

There are consequences for some, they are natural.

It would depend on what those consequences are. Just as long as it involves the guilty spouse learning from his wrongdoing and helping him to not do it again and doing the work to help fix the relationship, then I'll have little objection to any ideas you may have.

[KCKID]

It should not be forgotten that 'scriptural adultery' also includes those that divorce and marry another. While the former spouse of one or the other or both is still living, marrying another and thereby having an intimate relationship with them is tantamount to infidelity (biblically speaking) since marriage is supposed to be forever. While divorce IS permitted under certain circumstances (i.e. infidelity) remarrying is not permitted since the result would be adultery (and a sin toward the former living spouse) which is condemned.

Obviously, few Christians give too much attention to this Bible fact and one cannot blame them. Nor do I care who marries who. It's a nothing issue unless to the parties involved. However, when dealing with homosexuality and gay marriage (i.e. a committed monogamous partnership/relationship between two people of the same gender) Christians and the Church can't condemn these people fast enough. Some pretty much froth at the mouth in their hostility toward gay folk. AND, it's THIS double standard and hypocrisy and inconsistency of the Christian Church that irks me personally perhaps more than anything else ...

[Angel]

It should not be forgotten that 'scriptural adultery' also includes those that divorce and marry another. While the former spouse of one or the other or both is still living, marrying another and thereby having an intimate relationship with them is tantamount to infidelity (biblically speaking) since marriage is supposed to be forever. While divorce IS permitted under certain circumstances (i.e. infidelity) remarrying is not permitted since the result would be adultery (and a sin toward the former living spouse) which is condemned.

Obviously, few Christians give too much attention to this Bible fact and one cannot blame them. Nor do I care who marries who. It's a nothing issue unless to the parties involved. However, when dealing with homosexuality and gay marriage (i.e. a committed monogamous partnership/relationship between two people of the same gender) Christians and the Church can't condemn these people fast enough. Some pretty much froth at the mouth in their hostility toward gay folk. AND, it's THIS double standard and hypocrisy and inconsistency of the Christian Church that irks me personally perhaps more than anything else ...

To be honest, I feel the same way about the mainstream Church's position on polygamy. In your 1st paragraph you reference Matthew 19:9 which is a common passage used to argue against polygamy. I find it odd for Jesus to reference the OLD TESTAMENT to explain the ORIGINAL definition of marriage but then he suddenly IGNORES the ORIGINAL definition for adultery in the OT where it was never applied to men in polygynous marriages. Besides, the two becoming one flesh euphinism did not mean anti-polygamy in the OT (where it was originally used) so why would it mean anti-polygamy in the NT? The monogamist use of Matthew 19:9 to argue against polygamy does not add up. If I reference the OT like Jesus did and connect it to his message in Matthew 19:9 then the divorce and remarriage that Jesus spoke of does not necessarily outrule polygamy. It can mean that a man is prohibited from polygamy and SERIAL monogamy (or remarriage, to make it simple) when it involves an unjustified divorce. Polygamous marriage not involving divorcing any wife is perfectly fine.

Lets not forget how many are probably committing adultery in the Church, especially when you add on Jesus' standard of lusting in your heart. It's funny many Church-goers would frown on polygamists rather than their serial monogamy and adulterous behaviors.

[Clownboat]

It is not wicked to stone an adulterer to death.

I abhor your opinion about this and I would find stoning an adulterer to death to be a wicked act. Claiming support from a god concept does not make this un-wicked IMO.

It is what they deserve.

We are biological creatures. I find it wicked to suggest stoning a human to death for acting on this biological function. I believe you would too if not for your religious book. I believe we should use our brains and not this barbaric book, but that's just me.

Please note, "I find it wicked" does not mean there should be no punishment at all. It means that I don't think we should stone people to death for this act.

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

Indirectly, yes.
Divorce, losing half of your 401k, losing your children, etc....
I was not talking about punishment via law if that is what you were asking.

[10CC]

IS there punishment for adultery nowadays . . .?

I think most would agree that adultery is bad and that there should be some consequences but the issue is determining what the consequences should be. It seems that most here agree that the Bible goes too far in its punishment, esp. when it gives no chance for reconciliation (at least in the OT) IF the husband or wife forgives their partner's adultery and decide to give the guilty spouse a chance to fix the trust and damages to the relationship.

Whether or not non-monogamous behavior is a biologically driven is an interesting point to factor in. We KNOW that there are mammals and other animals that engage in non-monogamous behavior and it's not always because of an uncontrollable sexual appetite. More studies should be done on this especially as it relates to humans, although with humans socio-cultural reasons would have to be factored in.

To the bold.......WHY?

The reason is that adultery is 'dishonest' behavior so it would not be wrong to have some consequences in place. Having something in place in my view is better than having no pre-determined consequences in place and just going by reactions after things happen which in some cases lead to murder, fighting, etc. I should specify that I wouldn't want some state imposed consequences because that may complicate things esp. if it goes beyond what the innocent spouse would want done (like sowing on a Scarlet letter on the guilty party to bring public shame, etc).

There are consequences for some, they are natural.

It would depend on what those consequences are. Just as long as it involves the guilty spouse learning from his wrongdoing and helping him to not do it again and doing the work to help fix the relationship, then I'll have little objection to any ideas you may have.

Dishonest?. How then do you propose sanctioning politicians, accountants, advertising execs, salespeople etc etc etc. You will need one big can of whooparse if you want to punish dishonest.

[Angel]

The reason is that adultery is 'dishonest' behavior so it would not be wrong to have some consequences in place. Having something in place in my view is better than having no pre-determined consequences in place and just going by reactions after things happen which in some cases lead to murder, fighting, etc. I should specify that I wouldn't want some state imposed consequences because that may complicate things esp. if it goes beyond what the innocent spouse would want done (like sowing on a Scarlet letter on the guilty party to bring public shame, etc).

There are consequences for some, they are natural.

It would depend on what those consequences are. Just as long as it involves the guilty spouse learning from his wrongdoing and helping him to not do it again and doing the work to help fix the relationship, then I'll have little objection to any ideas you may have.

Dishonest?. How then do you propose sanctioning politicians, accountants, advertising execs, salespeople etc etc etc. You will need one big can of whooparse if you want to punish dishonest.

I'm am only referring to dishonesty in the context of marriage - adultery, etc. We all know that there are other areas of life where people can be dishonest and perhaps exposing them would be enough to get those people to stop their behavior. I'm not sure that you and I have much of a disagreement just as long as the consequences are enough to get the cheating person to feel or know that their actions are bad and hurtful to their partner. Ideally, this consequence should also lead them to stopping their bad behavior and take steps to repair the marriage.