Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Adulterers certainly should allow to be married as long as the government hasn't a problem, but the consequences
via God is another story as the adultery will be transferred to the new spouse if either is married or if they
previously divorced and they still are adulterers unless the divorce was via death or adultery by the previous spouse. Bottomline both are in an adulterous relationship . Its a continuous cycle. But its apparently ok as millions today are in an adulterous relationship.........but they wished it away with their magic wands and God becomes a badman.
Let me explain what I'm sure OzzyR was getting at...including the implication.
It was presenting a hypothetical scenario of someone previously married that had cheated on their spouse (now officially an "adulterer") that is now divorced or widowed, that seeks to marry again...or an adulterer (presently or formerly married) that seeks to adopt.
It is being asked: Should they be "allowed"...considering that they have demonstrated that they are of such poor moral character that they engaged in adultery?
What we actually have here is a thinly veiled slam on the Abrahamic Religions that typically "turn a blind eye" to the "great sin" of Adultery (it is even one of the "Ten Commandments") when people want to get married or adopt...but hypocritically take and express exception to homosexuals getting married or adopting children on the basis of what they see as poor morals because of that particular "sin".
BOTTOM LINE: Unless one is able to reconcile their bias and prejudice toward the beliefs of those that embrace one of the Abrahamic Religions...the resulting angst/anger toward the conceptual views of HALF THE OTHER PEOPLE LIVING ON THIS PLANET will surely diminish their quality of life experience.
This works the other way around too. Building an inner tolerance & love for others is the key.
I see, thanks.
I really did wonder what that was all about, but now I see it was a gay rights thing. Yeah, I'm good with that too.
I personally would not officiate a wedding where a person was divorced because they committed adultery. But what we do in my church is not what the state can or should do.
Do you hold this same position on other marriages?
ALL morality is, in essence, "imaginary" mordant.
You cite "society", and "the agent of the state", as a moral arbiter...noting that they will "put you in jail" or "the looney bin" if you don't comport to their moral standards (laws). Laws do not equate to morals. They can...but not necessarily. Any law could be considered as immoral by anyone perceiving it as such. Suffering punishment for "breaking the law" is nothing more than that...it does not necessarily mean you did or didn't do something "immoral". It can never mean that...morality is subjective. For that matter...so is what should be "legal" or "illegal".
Of course not all convictions of crime under the law are just, and not all laws are just in the first place. I never said these mechanisms were perfect, in fact I acknowledged that they are both imperfect and ever-evolving -- as are each of our concepts of "just" that we'd use to evaluate the law. The point however is that at the end of the day, laws, together with more informal social pressures and taboos, do a decent job of enforcing a consensus known as "morality" which does arise out of society. No it is not absolute and it is entirely subjective but it is no less useful or real for all that.
Indeed, in very broad strokes, there is essentially worldwide agreement about certain things -- that murder by individuals at their personal discretion is a heinous crime -- that sexually molesting children is a heinous crime. That mutual cooperation and respect and altruism are good things. That property rights must be respected. The details in between are fuzzy and variable in some ways, as are what should be done when people violate the rules. But to dismiss it all as a figment of imagination does not do it justice.
To slam Christians for getting their "moral standard" from the Bible...or slamming Muslims for using the Koran as a basis...is bogus.
Man-made law doesn't claim to be perfect, absolute, inerrant, or invented by an omnipotent being that cannot make mistakes.
Unless you're hunkered in a bunker with a stash of weapons and a 2 year supply of food, you probably recognize the legitimacy of our local, state, and federal governments - even if we don't always agree with what they do. And because Man-made laws don't come from God, Man has the authority to tweak, change, and discard laws that are later determined to be wrong, obsolete, unnecessary, or unenforceable.
Religious laws, on the other hand, are not subject to change or abandonment because they were supposedly given to us by a perfect and all-powerful God. Yet keeping with religious laws would leave society in a Bronze Age limbo, unable to advance or change with the times. Of course, religious law HAS changed, albeit very slowly, because it wasn't left much choice. Yet doing so is direct disobedience to God.
However, not everyone recognizes the legitimacy of religious law, including members of said religion. For instance, a clear majority favors an amendment to the US Constitution that would open up marriage to homosexuals - and the only reason why it ISN'T open right now is because of religious law (which not everyone recognizes as legitimate) manipulating Man-made law.
The reason why religious law tends to get "bashed" is because not a lot of people recognize its legitimacy as a legal policy. Even most believers see religion as a personal choice and not a dogma that should become codified law. But because a vocal and well-funded minority believes that their version of religious law ought to be the law of the land, there is conflict.
The issue isn't whether Man-made law is any more "real" than religious law. The issue is whether religious law has the right to enforce its tenets onto society as a whole. Given the thousands of different denominations, sects, cults, and divisions within Christianity alone, there is no possible way for a majority to gain legitimacy - never mind the fact that religious law is absolute, leaving us with no voice, no vote, and no option.
Of course not all convictions of crime under the law are just, and not all laws are just in the first place. I never said these mechanisms were perfect, in fact I acknowledged that they are both imperfect and ever-evolving -- as are each of our concepts of "just" that we'd use to evaluate the law. The point however is that at the end of the day, laws, together with more informal social pressures and taboos, do a decent job of enforcing a consensus known as "morality" which does arise out of society. No it is not absolute and it is entirely subjective but it is no less useful or real for all that.
Indeed, in very broad strokes, there is essentially worldwide agreement about certain things -- that murder by individuals at their personal discretion is a heinous crime -- that sexually molesting children is a heinous crime. That mutual cooperation and respect and altruism are good things. That property rights must be respected. The details in between are fuzzy and variable in some ways, as are what should be done when people violate the rules. But to dismiss it all as a figment of imagination does not do it justice.
Your post illustrates a problem that I have noted many times: The "blinkered" view of some contributors to only see things from the standpoint of the U.S. (only 5% of the world population) and seem oblivious to the facts of how the world REALLY is in many places, and how it is for an amount of people many times those that live in the United States.
What jurisdictions "social pressures and taboos" are you talking about that "do a decent job of enforcing morality"?
You talk about "essentially worldwide agreement about certain things" being "heinous crimes"...murder at personal discretion, molesting children, property rights, etc.
You didn't know that way more people than the population of the U.S. exist within jurisdictions where it is completely legal for a man to just kill his wife or child for no more than perceived "disrespect"?
Hundreds of millions live in jurisdictions where an adult man can not only "molest" a child...but take one as a spouse...all perfectly within the law and legal.
Many have lived, and still live, in jurisdictions where the government owns everything...forget "respecting property rights"...there isn't any "property" of any note owned by the people.
"Mutual cooperation and respect"?...YEAH RIGHT! Tell that to the people who have been gassed to death or otherwise killed, or arbitrarily imprisoned, by the people that head up the jurisdiction they live under. There are places where millions of people live right now this very day...where they will let a building full of little girls burn to death before they let them flee the burning building without the "proper head covering". Some "cooperation and respect" ya have there!!
And according to the people heading up each and every one of these jurisdictions...they're following what they have determined is "moral", and formed laws that support that "morality"...and will tell you straight-up that any other rules are not as "good" or "moral".
But I guess that according to the logic of you, et al...those "moral codes & laws" are not the "figments of imagination" of those that put them in place...and that to call them that, is to "not do them justice".
You and some others on this board live a very "tunnel visioned" existence. You need to take a look around and see how the world REALLY is.
What you state in your post is contradicted by the reality of the existence lived by most of the people that have ever been born, and many that still live today.
I'll say it again: "The Law", "Society", and "The Government" is not a proper arbiter of what is "right" and "just". It can't be. Nothing and Nobody is. It is all subjective...and any concept of "morality" is the figment of the imagination of whoever thinks a particular conduct or action is so.
All one can do is hope they are lucky enough to live in a place where most of the "rules" jibe with what they personally imagine to be "good", and "just", and "moral".
I would point out that the only reason there is universal agreement that murder is wrong is because that is the definition of murder: a wrongful killing.
But if you delve into exactly which kinds of killing are wrong and which kind aren't, there is wide disagreement. Quakers would say all killing is wrong. Chicago gang members would say it is right and expected to kill someone who has disrespected you, etc.
There is not universal agreement on other types of crimes. Throughout history and across geography, rape, molestation of children, etc. whatever you can think of you will find societies that practices it and accept it as morally appropriate.
Man-made law doesn't claim to be perfect, absolute, inerrant, or invented by an omnipotent being that cannot make mistakes.
Unless you're hunkered in a bunker with a stash of weapons and a 2 year supply of food, you probably recognize the legitimacy of our local, state, and federal governments - even if we don't always agree with what they do. And because Man-made laws don't come from God, Man has the authority to tweak, change, and discard laws that are later determined to be wrong, obsolete, unnecessary, or unenforceable.
Religious laws, on the other hand, are not subject to change or abandonment because they were supposedly given to us by a perfect and all-powerful God. Yet keeping with religious laws would leave society in a Bronze Age limbo, unable to advance or change with the times. Of course, religious law HAS changed, albeit very slowly, because it wasn't left much choice. Yet doing so is direct disobedience to God.
However, not everyone recognizes the legitimacy of religious law, including members of said religion. For instance, a clear majority favors an amendment to the US Constitution that would open up marriage to homosexuals - and the only reason why it ISN'T open right now is because of religious law (which not everyone recognizes as legitimate) manipulating Man-made law.
The reason why religious law tends to get "bashed" is because not a lot of people recognize its legitimacy as a legal policy. Even most believers see religion as a personal choice and not a dogma that should become codified law. But because a vocal and well-funded minority believes that their version of religious law ought to be the law of the land, there is conflict.
The issue isn't whether Man-made law is any more "real" than religious law. The issue is whether religious law has the right to enforce its tenets onto society as a whole. Given the thousands of different denominations, sects, cults, and divisions within Christianity alone, there is no possible way for a majority to gain legitimacy - never mind the fact that religious law is absolute, leaving us with no voice, no vote, and no option.
"Religious Law" IS "Man-Made Law" Shirina.
Who do you think wrote into books that some perceived "God" purported whatever to be "moral" or "immoral"? It is ALWAYS "men"...no matter what "spin" they put on it about some God cluing them in somehow as to what was or wasn't objectively moral.
Gotta hand it to 'em though...that has been the most effective "spin" ever invented. Nothing else is even close. I don't think I would have ever been smart enough, or slick enough, to come up with something so creatively awesome.
Who woulda thunk it!---It seems that men can put over just about anything by simply adding the caveat, "God said so", to however they imagine they would personally like things to be...and then even base laws on it!
If the people writing laws in whatever jurisdiction imagine that what previous men wrote in ancient texts agrees with what they think is "right & just"...then that will be the law. If they don't, it won't...and the law will be something else---But it is NEVER anything but "Man-Made Law".
I suppose I make the distinction as a way of differentiating between laws that are Man-made and accepted as Man-made and laws that are Man-made but believed to come from God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Gotta hand it to 'em though...that has been the most effective "spin" ever invented. Nothing else is even close. I don't think I would have ever been smart enough, or slick enough, to come up with something so creatively awesome.
It's actually rather sloppy and if the Abrahamic religions were unknown up until now and were introduced for the first time today, we would think Christians as a cult and deserving of padded rooms. I don't think the "spin" would work in today's world. Fortunately for Abraham, his religions managed to get their claws into the world's population during a time of relative ignorance and rampant superstition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Who woulda thunk it!---It seems that men can put over just about anything by simply adding the caveat, "God said so", to however they imagine they would personally like things to be...and then even base laws on it!
Yep, exactly, which is why I find religion to be so exceedingly dangerous. Secular laws that would have been outright rejected are suddenly embraced and viciously enforced when you involve God.
How would the government know if someone is an adulterer or not, it is an abomination and God will know it as He will be the final judge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
