Posted on 11/20/2012 9:21:01 PM PST by John Leland 1789
Most of today’s citizens don’t want any constraints upon themselves especially in the area of sex; however, whatever government does, God still holds everyone to a very high standard: all sex outside of a marriage relationship is sinful and will be faced one day. Apart from God’s judgment, adultery can result in bastard babies, broken marriages, blasted careers, and baneful diseases.
Adultery seems to be too much pain for so little gain! I wonder if General Patraeus thinks his roll in the hay was worth the destruction of his reputation, career, and maybe his marriage.
God has not rescinded the Old Testament law forbidding adultery. In fact, it was strengthened when Christ commanded, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). He further said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32).”
Apart from the Bible command, there are social reasons to prohibit adultery. One reason is because of paternity of children. If a wife is a cheat, how can a husband be sure that a child born to her is truly his? He should not be financially responsible for another man’s child. He also wants his estate to go to his own not another man’s child. Few sane people would disagree that sexual immorality has driven society to the cusp of the abyss, and it is in the best interest of everyone to have decent, caring, unselfish, and vow-keeping marriages.
Adultery is so serious, it is the only cause God permits as an excuse for breaking up of a marriage. It should be much more difficult to obtain a divorce, thereby forcing couples to solve their problems rather than breaking up a small civilization (the home) because of “irreconcilable differences” or “She’s a bad cook,” or “He keeps me awake with his snoring.”
I think it is astounding that any man would go to bed with a female not his own wife. When a man seeks sex from another woman, he often gets far more than he expected–such as syphilis and gonorrhea or even AIDS.
It is time for each state to reinstate adultery as a crime! Those who glibly say, “You can’t legislate morality” are “know nothings” since every law legislates someone’s morality. And yes, such a law would not be possible to enforce, but it would be a crime for anyone to have unmarried sex. That fact alone would keep some people from crossing the line into law-breaking.
With such a law it would make it easy to prohibit or prosecute those who would promote immorality especially to children, such as the Planned Parenthood pamphlet that was given to school children: “Sex is fun, and joyful…and it comes in all types and styles, all of which are OK. Do what gives pleasure and enjoy what gives pleasure and ask for what gives pleasure. Don’t rob yourself of joy by focusing on old-fashioned ideas about what’s ‘normal’ or ‘nice.’ Just communicate and enjoy.” States should make such jerks criminals for corrupting children and promoting sexual immorality.
Adultery is already an offense in the U.S. military but it is not forbidden by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Adultery is usually prosecuted, if at all, under the General Article that “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.” Prosecution usually depends on the circumstances such as rank, publicity, background, and other considerations.
When General David Patraeus, although retired, admitted to adultery with his female biographer it brought discredit upon the military and himself. The knowledge by the world that he broke his vows to his wife of 35 years produced a loss of confidence in his military and intelligence capabilities. He destroyed his life, his career, and maybe his marriage because of adultery. Maybe a strict prohibition against adultery would have helped the general keep his zipper up. Loss of rank, retirement and brig time might also help with that. The consequences to society from adultery are great enough to add adultery as a crime in each state and use it as a tool against married people who break their marriage vows, unmarried people who live like barnyard animals, and politicians who expose themselves to blackmail by illicit sex.
The status of morality in America is shameful, shameless, and sad and it reinforces Madison’s statement in the Federalist Papers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” We are not angels so some laws are necessary. And to critics who tell us that it is no one’s business what consenting adults do, we say, “Nonsense.” We already have laws restricting what consenting adults can do: drug use, watching child porn, conspiracy to commit crimes, bestiality, sadomasochism, suicide pacts, sodomy (in some states), etc.
Civilized nations have always accepted the Ten Commandments as part of their criminal code and if it should be illegal to steal and kill, why not restore adultery as a crime?
According to Plutarch, Demosthenes declared, “We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act.”
Killing a wife’s lover may be a little extreme but it was legal in Texas until 1974 to kill your wife and her lover if caught in the act of adultery. Many Texas and other state juries would still be reluctant to send a man to jail for “defending his honor” by killing his wife’s lover.
Whatever state governments do, adultery is still sin and making it a crime would label it as harmful to everyone.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from www.thegodhaters.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.
"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow Dr. Boys on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews
Pass it along if you agree!
Is that a statistic for the United States?
If that is true, and I don't doubt, it can only bring very deep confusion to the country in the long run, and certainly God will withhold His holy hand from blessing the nation that has taken this course in its morality.
I lay a very great share of the blame and responsibility upon the "Christian" churches in our land which preach only what men want to hear, and not the Truths of God from His Word. Mere civic clubs they have become !
Scientific studies of such seem to be more around 4% or so. Not sure why there is such a discrepancy - but 4%, although still high, seems more reasonable.
One can tell by relative human testes size that there is some “competition” to establish paternity. It seems somewhat ‘hard wired’ in human nature. Not that one shouldn't strive to overcome such animalstic urges.
See post number 5 in this thread.
See post number 5 in this thread.
When anyone chooses to be a public figure, their trustworthiness, by default, is judged by their actions.
I was hammered for being too stupid to count, this would not have happened 50 years ago, it would have been face to face and there would have been an ass whipping, maybe mine but that would be beside the point.
I have no argument in the political sense as it could cause security problems.
But other wise it is between Him and God, if you read the scripture that tell about the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus and he told them ( those with out sin first cast a stone )
This seems to put the people who are doing the hammering of Patraeus in the same place as the scribes and Pharisees and puts Patraeus in the place the woman who committed adultery was in, Jesus said nothing good about the scribes and Pharisees.
I doubt that either position is a good one to be in where our Lord is concerned, we can not be the opposite of every thing Jesus says to be and be his followers.
The Catholic Church does not allow annulments for marriages when, at some point,
The Catholic Church does not allow annulments for marriages when, at some point
Two believers are not to do so because if they are really believers they are also capable of and believers of forgiveness.
That’s right.
Truman would get kicked out of the Democratic party for a statement like that today(and for his support of Israel).
“How can I trust a man if his wife cannot?” - Harry Truman
“If your wife can’t trust you, why should I?” - Ross Perot
The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning.
Otherwise, using Scripture against the clear commands of Scripture is a device from the Satanic bag of tricks (Matthew ch. 4 ; Luke ch. 4), taught by liberal churches to liberal professing Christians ; a device to make sin seem less sinful.
“How can I trust a man if his wife cannot?” - Harry Truman
“If your wife can’t trust you, why should I?” - Ross Perot
The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning.
Otherwise, using Scripture against the clear commands of Scripture is a device from the Satanic bag of tricks (Matthew ch. 4 ; Luke ch. 4), taught by liberal churches to liberal professing Christians ; a device to make sin seem less sinful.
The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning.
“The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning. “
I often felt that among the accusers was the man who committed adultery with the woman, and Jesus, through his divinity, pointed out the hypocrisy of the whole affair, then asked the woman to never commit adultery again.
You seem to be assuming that the scribes and pharisees are the ones who the woman was committing adultery with, maybe i have missed it but i see no such evidence.
They caught her in the act, but their first failure to imitate the Law as given in the Torah was to also bring the man along. Who was the man who committed adultery with the woman? If they caught her in the act, they know full well who the man was and either
1) They singled out the woman and let the man stay there
or
2) One of the accusers was the man who committed the act with the woman.
They caught her in the act with a man, and either of those two happened, or both were true.
1) They singled out the woman and let the man stay there
or
2) One of the accusers was the man who committed the act with the woman.
They caught her in the act with a man, and either of those two happened, or both were true.
They were not really interested in the woman, their intent was to get Jesus to say something that would make him look bad.
Jesus had no interest in winning arguments, telling it the way it was being his only concern made them back off because they had all sinned,if not adultery, then something else.
I believe we should call sin what it is,but at the same time
i think we can carry it too far when it becomes personal.
The Bible is not about a woman trusting her husband, it is about us trusting God.
Each one of us have a different circumstance in this life and God will deal with us accordingly, and there is that word assumption again because i am also assuming.
“The Bible is not about a woman trusting her husband, it is about us trusting God.”
This is a red herring
God (Jesus) calls himself the husband to Israel, Judah, and the believers at various times.
Adultery is still wrong because it is a breach of a relationship ordained of God, and often a breach of a vow made to God, if it is performed through a religious officiator. It’s a double breach of trust.
“They were not really interested in the woman, their intent was to get Jesus to say something that would make him look bad.”
Doesn’t negate the fact that they caught the woman and the man in the act, and readily let the man go unpunished, which still means one or both of the two points I mentioned.
“Each one of us have a different circumstance in this life and God will deal with us accordingly, and there is that word assumption again because i am also assuming.”
Assuming, yes, but then again, what I mentioned is strongly about the context, one way or another, at least #1 happened, which would be hypocrisy on the Pharisees part for letting the man go, when they supposedly knew the 615 laws given by God to Moses and written in the Torah. In fact, read Deuteronomy 22:22-24.
“They were not really interested in the woman, their intent was to get Jesus to say something that would make him look bad.”
Indeed they were, which adds additional hypocrisy to the pretending to know the laws given by God while deliberately doing something contrary even to them. They were merely acting like they cared.
One way or another, jesus wrote something which we will never know that cut the accusers to the core. Even I have no problem in what I said in saying either/or, but honestly all I really can say that I know is that Jesus knew something through his divine power that shocked the Pharisees.
“Possible, but an assumption.”
My own words admitted limited certainty on the real details, but they purposefully went against Biblical principles in what they did, and either one is possible. I am not claiming absolute fact, but either of those points are true. One way or another, they let the man involved with the woman go. Correct?
My own words admitted limited certainty on the real details, but they purposefully went against Biblical principles in what they did, and either one is possible. I am not claiming absolute fact, but either of those points are true. One way or another, they let the man involved with the woman go. Correct?
I’m not married, but I still commit as much adultery as I can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.