Should adultery be illegal?

Post Reply New Topic

WHO was married? God and Mary? That's ridiculous. They most certainly weren't.

This would have constituted fornication, NOT adultery.

At the time that Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph were engaged to be married--they weren't yet married.

You might say that Joseph was cuckolded in a big way, as he was engaged to Mary at the time, but it wasn't adultery if they were weren't yet married.

I already pointed out that God probably slipped in under the wire on adultery. And I would much prefer you not putting my name over somebody else's statement. But Christ was, by human definition, a bastard. I have never seen a statement attributed to God on the definition of a bastard.
God, apparently, did not indulge in actual fornication although that seems not to be spoken of anywhere and there is nothing definite in that area. Nevertheless, if Christ was not strangely haploid he did possess a male chromosome which somehow was inserted by God.

You disappoint me. Is all you can offer to against my position such a weak and obvious attempt to impugn the messenger?

No hurt here, No axe to grind. I simply believe that people should be expected to behave honestly and responsibily an in ways that will not recklessly cause harm to others. And further that it is reasonable to enact laws in cases that should be obvious violations of such behavior. And I also believe that punishment of one sort or another suppresses such wanton behavior and promotes justice in a society. I am also fed up with the nonsense of regarding man as some kind of animal that cannot arise above utter amorality. I believe that such a viewpoint condemns civilized society to low mediocrity at its best and demise at worst.

You're merely assuming God wouldn't, though. If we assume God's nature to be as it is, which is good, then you have the picture of God who is the Father of His creation. If God is the Father and we are His children, then it doesn't make sense to assume that a good Father would abuse His children. Now, I know from my own childhood experience what the alternative is like. I've never felt that God manipulated me in any unwelcome way. If God is all-knowing, then certainly God's will is superior to human will and thus the best way to live life is under the faith that God is ultimately responsible for all outcomes, whatever they may be. It's not being "gullible," as you put it, if a person enters into such a condition with full knowledge of what that means.

Because God is good, it would be against the nature of a good Father to coerce anyone not His own to follow Him. But it WOULD be within the nature of such a being to desire that all people follow Him, understanding, of course, that allowing people to make an individual choice to do so would result in an unavoidable loss. An abusive, manipulative father wouldn't give anyone a choice, and there's no guarantee that all living under the rule of an authoritarian god would be willing or even happy with the arrangement. So since it is in God's best interest and our best interest that He draw us to Him of our own choosing, it only makes sense that He would leave us with the bare basics on how to properly relate to Him and to each other. The Bible is the recorded history of such dealings together with a plan for how we may live eternally in God's presence.

Now, if you're avoiding a cold blooded manipulative creature, you do so with good reason. But clearly God in the end is not cold blooded nor manipulative. He allows us to avoid Him if we so desire, but He also welcomes us if we accept Him for who He is.

My apologies if it seems I'm hijacking the thread. The subject came up and I feel the need to answer it.

Back to the point of God's approval of adultery: Yes, obviously God is somehow responsible for a Y chromosome when it comes to Jesus, and it seems we're pretty clear that sex was not involved with Mary's conception of Jesus.

Pandabear pretty much hit the nail on the head about what I was getting at, and I don't think putting Sand's name over what I wrote was intentional.

What I was talking about was more a hypothetical than actual Biblical truth. You could reason that it was acceptable for God to impregnate Mary if they were married, but that line of reason falls apart when you get into the rest of the story--namely that if God had a claim to Mary she couldn't have married Joseph. But pandabear is right that God and Mary weren't married. Fornication is against the law, too, though. Since Mary was pregnant with a baby that was not Joseph's, then by law she could have been put to death.

Yes, you MIGHT say that Joseph got hit with the ultimate cuckoldry. At worst, that's about all you can say. But then there's the issue of Mary's virginity. So she was a virgin when she conceived and had the baby, AND she was married by the time she had the baby... If you examine the Levitical code on pre-marital sex, pregnancy, and marriage, virginity is the only loophole that absolves all involved of any guilt--not because virginity is specifically mentioned, but because what happened did so with no sex involved. There's nothing in the law about that, so it has to be acceptable.

So since no sex/fornication was involved, you can't really say that Joseph was cuckolded.

As to whether Christ was by definition a bastard, your definition follows the English/Welsh language definitions. Despite all the fair-skinned and blue-eyed depictions of Jesus in Renaissance portraiture, Jesus was not European and especially not of any Germanic, Anglo, or Saxon heritage. He was from Palestine and His mother was a Jew. The circumstances of His birth and parentage would have been determined according to Jewish law, not English law. Mary and Joseph HAD to get married in order for it to work. The story might have been different otherwise, but any legal claims of illegitimacy fall apart considering where and when Jesus was conceived and born.

We are not clear at all whether or not sex with God has or has not taken place. What people said or did not say is irrelevant as there is no way to know the truth.

That was just a notification I was not happy with the misquote whatever the intent might have been.

As I said, no one knows whether fornication took place. God, of course , is perfectly capable of seeing to it that Mary subsequently had the appearance of a virgin.

I winder if Joseph had any secret thoughts about how he was treated.

As I pointed out God could easily have refabricated the appearance of a virgin and no one knows whether sex took place.

I am using the word "bastard" as it is understood today in English and whatever the equivalent might have been in historical times has no bearing on the label as applied today of a child born of some cause other than her husband. There is no doubt Christ was a bastard. Bastards are not unknown amongst Jews or other people of that ancestry.

The assumption is that God cannot speak anything but the truth. Insofar as the multitudes of discussions have indicated, nothing is outside God's powers. Who is to say what His motivations might be in saying anything? I'm sure Stalin also assured people of how great a guy he was.

It is not possible to know the mind of a being of such extraordinary powers whatever that being might be or whatever intents, hidden or open, it might have. "Full knowledge" is a ridiculous assumption.

"Because God is good" What does that mean? The outrageous flights of murderous temper described of God's behavior in the Bible is hardly evidence of Godly beneficence. Murdering not just individuals but whole nations is strange to accept as non-coercive behavior.

You seem to be totally unaware or what's recorded in the Bible.

Your last sentence amuses me. I've read the Bible all the way through once, which I finished doing after roughly 1 year and 3 or 4 months, and that was fairly recent when I stopped seriously reading. Rather than keeping my study Bible on hand as I used to do, I've switched to a smaller one, which is the same translation but without all the commentary. In my more casual re-reading since then, I've read through Genesis again, but I'll restart my reading in earnest after New Year's day. Now, granted, that doesn't make me a Biblical scholar--but it's funny to me that I'm being accused of being "totally unaware"!

So, yes, we are clear from reading the Bible whether sex with God took place. First, a virgin can't be a virgin if she's had sex. The Bible tells us that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and that she was a virgin when she gave birth. Joseph was actually instructed NOT to have sex with Mary during this time in order to establish that the baby Mary was carrying was God's Son begotten of the Spirit. The birth did not occur out of wedlock, and the Bible tells us that Joseph was a righteous man who listened to God's instructions and neither caused harm to come to Mary nor disposed of her quietly, but rather kept her as his wife and care for her.

Note that as much as possible I've avoided the "nuclear option" when it comes to God: God does not sin, therefore nothing He does can be considered sin even if it appears so otherwise. I avoid that because it looks like the bad parent "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. God can do what He wants, but I rather think God prefers to be consistent in His actions before resorting to rewriting the rules. The only time you really see "the rules" being rewritten comes out of necessity, such as Jesus' healing on the Sabbath. In that case, you have a conflict between Pharisaic definitions of what constitutes "remembering the Sabbath day" and greater commands that might supersede strict Sabbath observance. The greatest commandment is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength." Jesus said the second greatest commandment is "like this. Love your neighbor as yourself." If our fellow human beings are God's image-bearers, then healing others on the Sabbath is just another way of "loving the Lord your God" and is in essence a form of worship--not to mention "just the right thing to do" even by purely human standards. The "nuclear option" is God can do as He pleases and not sin, therefore He can do what He wants with Mary and be an exception to the rule. I think there are too many problems with that line of thinking, though, because a God who does whatever He feels like despite any respect for fairness is unjust, and "unjust" is out of the character of a benevolent being.

I'm not sure I understand what "God cannot speak anything but the truth" has to do with it. I don't think the "nuclear option" is the case with Jesus, but it is within God's power. The nature of God is among other things that of a good parent. What does a good parent do but care for his or her children? Same thing applies. God COULD speak anything but the truth, but that would go against His nature of goodness. He COULD, but He WON'T. Just because someone has the power to do something doesn't mean that they WILL, nor does it mean that it's RIGHT. Stalin probably believed himself to be a great guy. But depending on perspective that may or may not actually be the case. Rather consider who put Stalin in power. He didn't do it by himself. So ultimately those people have to answer for their decisions. But neither they nor Stalin were omniscient. God, however, DOES know everything and every possibility. And since God, who is also all-powerful, desires the best possible outcome (we all want the best possible outcome for whatever our motivations may be), He has the power to set in motion a series of events to bring about that outcome--an outcome consistent with God's nature would be one that would also be, like God, good.

I suppose if God's mind is infinite, then there's no human possibility of "full knowledge." All that matters is what's most important. The Bible is your primary source for what God wants you to know. It's the introduction. It's the testimony of eyewitnesses to what God did through the person of Jesus. No one MAKES you believe that any more than anyone can rightfully MAKE a jury believe court testimony. As a matter of fact, the gospels show that the Sanhedrin itself was divided on the matter of what to do with Jesus--some members were believers while others were opponents. In a modern court of law where a jury is involved, prosecutors and defenders, or plaintiffs and defendants, are charged with persuading a jury of guilt on the part of the accused or calling evidence into doubt. The immediate task that God has in the hearts and minds of people is to persuade them of the truth, to draw them to Him, and there's really no shortage of evangelists seeking to persuade others of this truth. While that's more immediate than reading the Bible, you really do have to read for yourself to decide whether what has been preached to you is really true. Beyond that is actually doing what God wants you to do, but it means nothing if you can't accept it. If you do accept God and become accepted by God, then He won't hold back from you what you need to know. God doesn't make us omniscient, nor does He equip us to know "everything." But He does reveal to us what is necessary, and the Bible is a good place to start.

I disagree that God's "temper" as you described it is necessarily "murderous." "Murder" occurs when there is no just cause. When I still lived in a moderate-scale neighborhood (it was nice, but obviously middle-class), I had teenagers come by about 4 or 5 times a year trashing the place. In the end I had to install infrared security cameras and finally caught the worst vandals, reporting them to the police as soon as I had clear evidence of who was causing trouble for me and my family. You might say its a harmless prank, but any situation you find yourself in like that--trespassers out WAY past curfew whom you have no clue what their intentions may be--is a terrifying experience and you have a duty to ensure you protect your family as well as valuable property. Those kids were putting themselves in harms way because they had no real way of knowing for sure whether I'd confront them with a shotgun if I detected their presence. The plain fact is I COULD have killed them and would have been within my rights to do so, and the police would have sided with me as would the courts. In that case, I'd probably be compelled to appear for trial for manslaughter, it would be an open-and-shut case, and I'd probably not see even 5 minutes of jail time IF that--obviously, I have no intention of running from the system. I did what I felt I had to do because for all I really knew, my life and that of my family could have been in serious danger.

It never CAME to that, of course, and I've never injured any person--with a firearm or otherwise--after we called the police and documented what happened, it never happened again. But the point is that taking care of your family is not wrong in the least and you cannot be accused of murder if your actions are the result of a forced hand.

You're referring to the conquest of Canaan. God made a covenant with Abraham that his descendants would inherit what we presently know as Israel. We know from reading the Bible that Abraham was not alone in Yahweh worship because the priest Melchizedek was neither of Abraham's bloodline nor a Levitical priest--obviously, because Levi hadn't been born yet. The Canaanites would have had a sense of who Yahweh was and would have known that Yahweh worship is proper worship. Abraham proved himself faithful. The surrounding Semitic tribes did not and engaged in unfit practices of worshipping other gods and practicing myriad forms of immorality. They DID have a sense of who Yahweh was, so they had no excuse for doing what they did.

When the Israelites returned from Egypt, the Canaanites had persisted in their behaviors for hundreds of years by that point. The failures of the Israelites condemned them to losing an entire generation (with few notable exceptions) to the wilderness. The Canaanites were aware that the Israelites were returning and had 40+ years to evacuate. I'm sure there were those who did, but a large contingent did not. Because God wants to see His children prosper and worship Him alone, the Canaanites were unfit for cohabitants with the Israelites. Thus God's destruction of the Canaanites through the actions of the Israelites came about as punishment for evils they'd had MORE than enough time to correct. God is merciful to the repentant. If God gives you time, especially time beyond what you deserve, make good use of it and change your ways. Further, God used evil nations as a medium for punishing His own when they forgot about God. God gave plenty of warning through prophets and priests. The Judeans could have looked to the destruction of Israel (the northern kingdom) as an example of what would happen to them when their time ran out. Things got better with certain kings following God's commands, which did buy the Jews some time. But in the end God had to teach them a lesson through destruction, and it seems that those terrible things that happened, culminating in the destruction of the temple, were a last resort attempt at regaining their attention.

Good parents discipline their children in such ways as to lead them to be model adults. Discipline takes many forms, not all of which have to be extreme. My wife and I do physically punish our children, but it has become an extremely rare occurrence as our children have learned better what to expect from us. I've counted weeks, which have turned into months since the last time I laid a hand on my son, and I'm impressed that it takes so little to modify his behavior. I believe God works the same way. He doesn't want to take anyone's life, but He always does at the most crucial moments. Consider the account of a wealthy early church family that didn't bring all that they promised into the church treasury. God struck them down as soon as they lied about the money they promised to give. It may seem cruel and unduly heavy-handed, but given the circumstances, the new church was in a fragile position. Church members had to know that what they were doing was a serious matter and the church could quickly disintegrate if matters were not handled properly. In our present day and age, we don't see church attendees struck down if they don't tithe, but the church today doesn't face the same danger as it did during its earliest days.

If action from God is warranted to protect His people or to grow them into what He wants them to be, it is hardly bullying or murder. It's discipline. You may disagree with the death penalty, but you cannot deny that considering the cost of your own life for the sake of committing a crime punishable by death isn't at least a partial deterrent. Weighing the cost of disobedience of God ought to have the same effect. God still puts the choice in our own hands, though, but having the choice ought to further lessen any excuse we might have. Such, sadly, doesn't seem to be the case in reality, but at least God seems to be demonstrating His careful patience in our own day and time.

As to what Joseph might have thought--well, we know that Joseph DID have internal conflict as to whether he should go along with Mary's pregnancy. That much IS in the gospels. Any way you look at it on the surface, it doesn't look good. It would have been perfectly understandable if Joseph at first felt mistreated. But if Joseph was a righteous man, then he would have understood God at work when he saw it and thus would have had no problem staying in the game, particularly if he'd had divine assurance that everything would work out fine in the end. From time to time, you've let us in on some unpleasantnesses you've experienced, so you should know better than most of us on here what it means to stay the course. How much more so would a believer if he recognizes God's messengers when he sees them. But I have no doubts it was a frightful experience at times. My wife and I experienced and shared a lot of negativity about the circumstances of her pregnancy with our daughter, her birth, and the tense days following. Not having the usual bonding time with her, we didn't even feel that she was OURS, and it truly was a trying time for us. Add to that she yet looks nothing like us (her blue eyes haven't even STARTED changing color yet and she's almost 2 years old, not to mention her hair is an even lighter color than her brother's, and as you know my wife and I both have dark brown or black hair--going prematurely gray, I might add). As difficult as that has been for us, even though we adore the little "chicken nugget," I can't even begin to imagine how Joseph and Mary managed; but as with any parent who's had children through extraordinary circumstances and who deeply loves and cares for their children, no doubt Joseph's heart was softened such that the experience was not as traumatic as it could have possibly have been.

Fair call--I drew a conclusion not wholly supported by the evidence. I apologize for the inference.

That being said, I do not see the intractability of your position being consistent with your stated beliefs.

1) You appear to me to overstate the harm. The law does not, generally, step in to deal with pain and suffering, let alone emotional hurt. Protection of children, protection of spouses' material interests, yes--but not pain and suffering.
2) The purpose of civil law is not to punish, except in the particular case of punitive damages that are generally the exception rather than the rule.
3) As for the criminal law (and please tell me that you are not advocating a criminal penalty for adultery...) punishment has generally not been a significant deterrent.

Ultimately it is not the purpose of the law to create or to impose morality. There is a correspondence for acts that are malum in se, but generally speaking that which is legal and that which is moral are not identical. There are perfectly legal acts that are entirely immoral. Similarly there are illegal acts for which moral justification may well exist. To conflate the two is to expect the law to fulfil a function for which it was not designed and for which it is not equipped.

Push the reset button. Starting from illegal, I thought we were talking about criminalization. So we are actually talking about the party of the first part suing the party of the second part + / - the co-respondent - with maybe the wouldbe lover suing the spouse foer not granting a divorce on request?

Whole new ballpark, different discussion.

I am not so much interested in whether it is civil or criminal law that is used. I would go for what gives the greatest efficacy. The adulterer and adulteress have wronged their spouse(s) any involved children and created a burden for the state (broken home children have higher crime rates and workers who must not take time out to put their lives back on track are unproductive).

If a divorce occurs then cuckolded spouse takes all except for what mercy they choose to show, That is a start. But there should be a penalty of equal magnitude for interloper. Not the least of which is that the adulterers should bare the cost of raising any children from their union, regardless of who gets custody. Anciently the matter was handled by a capital punishment. When done promptly capital punishment is a better deterrent than the drawn out farce we see today. Promptness is far more efficient for the state. However in today's society, I doubt that will be reinstituted.

If there are monetary punishments under civil law I would want to see failure to pay be a criminal offense. So perhaps a civil/criminal law approach would be advisable. Once a court has established a monetary payment in such cases the court should be responsible for making it stick or the bad guy can just keep harassing the good guy by non or late payment. I would think an improvement of child support payment needs to be made and such an improved system could be used to enforce in this sort of situation.

In reply to Angel Rho

Let me preface this by noting I am not attempting to convince you of anything since my pervious contacts with you have clearly indicated that your religious beliefs are so deeply and firmly embedded in your personality that nothing I can say will have any serious effects on your outlook. I am merely explaining my personal reaction to your statements.

My comment was not that you hadn’t read the material but that you seemed unable to evaluate its implications.



It is not clear to me at all that she had had no sex. As I mentioned, God is not a human and if He had had sex his alteration of Mary’s physical being would be a trivial effort for one who could create a universe at the wave of his hand. And Christ’s bastard condition was defined in not that he was born with Mary unmarried but that her marriage was to Joseph and not to God. As I pointed out, there is no guarantee that the Bible is unquestionably true since God, assuming He wrote the Bible, is not a prevented from being liar since God, no doubt, has had cause to manipulate humanity in whatever way would serve his purposes. All indications I have seen are that the Bible was clearly written by men.
This brings up another question. One is not supposed to question God’s messages or methods but it strikes me as most peculiar Christ had to go through a normal birth which then inspired much questioning throughout his career as to whether he was actually the Son of God. How much easier it would have been, and far more convincing, if Christ appeared out of a flash of lightning or a supernatural cloud. God, it seems, could have used a competent PR manager.



I doubt your personal feelings about what is in or out of character with such an impenetrable creature as an absolutely powerful supernatural being can be considered to have any validity. You are voicing what you prefer, not what might be so.



Again you are extemporizing on what you prefer God to be with no capability to actually know what his plans or motivations might be. A being of God’s nature is totally inscrutable, whatever he might have declared to humankind and you are attributing to him human motives and ways of thought which is totally inappropriate and completely unverifiable.



Your decision to accept the Bible as absolute truth is a personal one and not something I find acceptable. Have encountered absolutely no direct contact from God or any other supernatural being I can only perceive that as some sort of mental aberration until I have that experience myself and even then I would not be invulnerable to extreme doubts if it so occurred.



This is difficult to determine when one is conversing on the internet but I am assuming you are not God. God, who is accredited with infinite powers, has no necessity to obliterate either individuals or masses of people whatever their actions. He could just as easily caused them never to have existed in the first place since he controls both time and space. But He chose rather nasty brutality and so must be judged. You, apparently, are totally unable to judge God. I am not so limited.



A lesson is something taught to be learned to improve future performance. You do not teach someone a lesson by executing him. You teach everybody else a lesson not to perform against a rule to notify them that there is an undesirable result to their actions. Although the Jews were docile worshipers of God the Canaanites were also created by God and were equally his progeny whatever their behavior. That an assumed benevolent God should surrender to a fit of violent temper and massacre an entire people to satisfy his desires can only strike me as a most primitive and inexcusably bloody reaction. And certainly not a teaching experience. But then, I am only human and not God and I surely would not murder a misbehaving child under any circumstances.



Since it would be no problem for God to arrange matters for money somehow to reach his church, killing seems quite extreme as a reaction. If a bank, on the point of failure, murdered someone for non-payment of a loan, I doubt even the most extreme legal judgment could accept that. Even the Mafia probably would settle with a shot in the kneecap. But apparently God is less merciful than the Mafia.



I’m terribly sorry, but that comment can only be accepted as black humor.



As I indicated previously, a child is an innocent not responsible for the circumstances of birth and to hold a child accountable is, to me, a frightful and inexcusable crime.

Understood. And hopefully you'll understand if I do the same.



A matter of perspective. I think maybe you are attributing implications to the material that are unnecessary. If you look at it from an oppositional point of view from the outset or judge according to personal predispositions rather than objectively, certainly you could see it that way. Even Satan has his reasons to oppose God; and as long as human beings have a choice in the matter, there's nothing stopping you from "evaluating" it from your own personal subjective bias.



If God had taken Mary's virginity and "gave it back" so to speak, then that makes God deceptive. Deception is contrary to God's nature as described in the text. I agree that it would be a trivial effort, but the prospect of doing so--well, forgive me for saying so--is just plain weird. God being a liar--again, contrary to nature. It makes no sense why God should HAVE to lie. Manipulating humanity--well, that's God's prerogative if He so chooses. The Bible shows that God allows men to do as they please but also uses what men intend for evil for His greater good. To say that the Bible is the inspired word of God is to say that it is literally "God-breathed." It takes men to communicate on the level of men.

As to questioning God: I think being created "in God's image" means that God has blessed in part with His own capacity for thinking and thus our capacity for reason and logic mirrors God's own capacity for the same. If we are given a choice in the matter, it stands to reason that God would give us all the time we need to think things through, especially in the sinful condition of a fallen world. We are easily deceived, necessitating careful discernment between that which is of God and that which is not. There is nothing wrong with questioning. In fact, I do not see myself as taking blind leaps of faith as I did when I was a child and believing in God was no different than believing in Santa. Rather, I've taken the time to question what is real and what is fairy tale. I have reasoned, over time, that there IS good reason to believe in God, and all other truths I've accepted flowed from the same line of reasoning.

As to what is convincing and what is not: God did appear in times past in some pretty flashy and amazing ways. People were convinced for a short time. And then they chose to reject God. Doing the same at the time of Jesus' birth would have been no different.

And on that note--I had no prior formal study in music composition when I was accepted into a graduate program. So one of the first lessons I learned was about effective introductions. Famous symphonies generally start off by following the French overture model--slow introduction, gradual build-up in volume and tempo. Moments of silence or near-silence in music force audiences to listen more intently before the composer shocks or surprises them with contrasting material. Other musical forms may grab the audience by the throat and throttle them with big, grand gestures from the get-go. Holding their attention requires something other than increasing volume or speed because the composer has left himself nowhere else higher to go. I think God made such grandiose gestures at the beginning and understood that those gestures could only hold human attention for so long. The circumstances of Jesus' relatively quiet birth and life ministry, not to mention the brevity of his activity (in the span of roughly 3 years we think), forces us to dig in and pay attention while taking time to absorb his teachings and ponder what he meant. The "surprises" of Jesus' miracles were there for those who were ready and attentive. More demanding audiences frequently missed out on this aspect of Jesus' ministry.



Once again, it doesn't matter what my or anyone else's personal feelings are. The Bible describes actions that ARE within the character of God and conclusions may be drawn based on those facts.



The Bible reveals God's motivations. I have nothing to do with it, nor do my personal preferences. I simply read, try to understand to the best of my own knowledge and ability, pray and meditate on the rest of it, and go as the Spirit leads. I check myself for consistency, review the steps I've taken as to whether I'm doing the right thing or not, ask God's forgiveness for my failings, and try as best I can to do better and trust that God will help me along the way. That's all I can humanly do. Bear in mind God created human beings in His likeness. Part of our own nature is borrowed from God's nature, thus clues as to God's attributes and motivations are already within us. Ascertaining God's motivations by understanding that we are "like God" is not blasphemy and thus is not inappropriate nor unverifiable. One may read the Bible to verify whether one's own motives are consistent with God's motives.



That is certainly your prerogative. As I'm sure I've said before, I think the prevailing attitude with many unbelievers is they don't WANT God to exist. Interestingly enough, this is another one of those "personal preferences" you're accusing me of. Some may say you cannot merely wish something to be so and it so be. By the same reasoning, though, you can't wish something NOT to be so, either, and it cease to exist.



The issue is whether the damage is reparable. If an entire society is so far gone in its depravity there is nothing left to do but destroy it. The issue is whether depravity is so ingrained into the fabric of such a society that it cannot exist without it. In such a case, you have the problem of "innocent" children. Kill their parents, and what do you THINK they'll grow up to do? Such a situation in the ancient world, I believe, called for total extermination as an act of mercy as well as judgment. The children only have their parents to blame for their own deaths as innocents. The Bible records the consequences of the Israelites' failure to act in this matter--not with children, but with making improper treaties and with enslaving people God never intended them to mix with. These actions planted the seed for the destruction of the Israelites later on save for a faithful remnant.



Certainly. You hold out in hopes that something will change, that at the last minute the child will see the error of his ways and correct himself. The problem with the Canaanites, though, is as I just described--their depravity was so far gone to the extent there was nothing left to do with them. Among other hideous deeds, the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice. They were deserving of death and yet God saw fit to give them a warning for a length of time stretching across at least several decades. All they had to do was just leave. They didn't. God had gone as far as anyone could have gone. What happened to the Canaanites was due to their own responsibility to act--clean up or get out.

Executing a criminal occurs for two reasons: Appropriate punishment to fit the crime, and to protect society from a person who cannot be made fit to return to that society. Some criminals do not want to be peaceful, kind neighbors and will persist in their actions regardless of what happens to them. They will either stay incarcerated for life or put to death depending on the severity of the crime. There is nothing unjust about putting someone to death for the sake of protecting the innocent.



That particular incident was a matter of timing. It was do-or-die time for the church, and a demonstration of the seriousness of one's actions against the fledgling church was necessary. As we all know, corruption crept into various congregations anyway, and to my knowledge the named churches in Revelation no longer exist for various reasons (someone correct me if I'm mistaken here). What matters is that there are enough to maintain the truth of the Bible without corruptive influence, and I think this likely happened over a long period of time in various ways. The Catholic church held its own for a long time, and as I recall Martin Luther had no intention of usurping the authority of the Church. He was a good Catholic boy. However, I think the Catholic authorities were too blinded by their own hold on power to feel the need to correct themselves. As we Protestants spread out and gained influence, pulling authority away from "THE" church, the Catholics were forced to confront these issues for the sake of survival. I have no intention of converting to Catholicism, but my understanding is they are a lot nicer than they were a few hundred years ago. God needed to give them a good spanking, and we delivered it.

And yes, we've made plenty of mistakes of our own and have had to answer for them, too.

Apparently God is MORE merciful than the Mafia. He could have just wiped out all the Catholics the way He wiped out the Canaanites or early errant church members (I suspect those were likely isolated incidents used to make an example of those people in the early church. I have reason to doubt this was a commonplace occurrence). He could have punished the ENTIRE congregation for the actions of a few as He did during the Exodus. However, God apparently has a sense of what is appropriate and necessary and acts accordingly.



If you say so. I'm not sure I get it.



Agreed. I love my daughter and at times she makes herself "the favored child" over her older brother. Her mother and I could have exercised more caution and prevented her from ever coming into being in the first place, but we look at her now and consider how tragic life would be now if we hadn't had her or if we hadn't kept her. My point was simply that unusual circumstances surrounding a child's conception or birth is frightening to the parents. My wife could have died, and I vividly remember the nightmare of January 1 walking into a bathroom that resembled a hideous, violent murder scene. I could certainly be wrong about this, but I wonder that we've fallen madly in love with her is a miracle in and of itself. The earlier problems all seem like a distant memory of a really bad dream. And if we didn't love her enough, there is her brother. He gets really angry with us when we correct her, and no doubt his own life would be much less interesting without her. On a personal note, I think you'd enjoy meeting her. Her brother is a great kid, loves to laugh and play, but is often a victim of his own temper and mood swings. They are, together, a most winning combination.

I have not the time right now to go into a detailed reply to Angel Rho but some things should be noted. The absolute total refusal to doubt anything written in the Bible strikes me as incredibly gullible. The book is so replete with self contradictions and inaccuracies and data that it is impossible to verify and descriptions that defy the wealth of modern knowledge that this eagerness to defy normal cautious common sense appears to me to quite erratic.
Secondly the belief without any way of checking that God is beneficent merely because He claims to be is again rather frighteningly trusting. I have pointed out the brutalities attributed to God's actions, brutalities that can only be described as viciously psychotic if discovered in a human, and these are excused as being forced on this superbeing by a total social group. That this God is so lacking in imagination and empathy and basic consideration of people to declare "Do as I say or I will kill you" signifies actions that can come only from a horrible monster.
And throughout this discussion and other discussions there is the accusation that I am merely being stubborn and egotistical in rejecting these religious fantasies as if the acceptance were the only obvious thing to do. The fact is that enough current understanding of the world clearly indicates that a God is totally superfluous to normal living and that is very convincing indeed. No doubt there is much yet to be discovered but nothing so far indicates that the progress of knowledge will stop dead without religion.

I do not choose to believe the Earth is spherical and the stars are atomic furnaces or that the universe is billions of years old or that humanity has existed for only the tiniest stretch of time and Christianity has existed for a tiniest part of that time. The evidence on this is overwhelming and I am forced to believe these things because nothing else makes sense. And the total absence of supernatural forces is also not deniable in this context. This is not ego, it is basic good rational sense.

I have an idea! Not only should we make adultery illegal, and enforceable by law, we should put a government bracelet on every married person to track their every movement. That way, we can catch them in the act, and then it saves a lot of headache wondering if you are being cheated on.

Should adultery be illegal? Punishable with having to rubber stamp the red letter "A" on the forehead? Nathaniel Hawthorne / The Scarlet Letter? What would President Bill Clinton and Marcus Lamb from Daystar TV say about the topic?

Peter, Peter
Pumpkin eater
Had a wife that was no cheater
Kept her in a pumpkin shell
And though her life was living hell
He trusted her very well.

I knew Clinton had an interesting sex life but never heard he had an affair with Marcus Lamb.