Should adultery be illegal?

Post Reply New Topic

They weren't married when Mary conceived.

They were engaged.

By any means, Mary would have to be stoned by Jewish law. And in fact, that's one of the reasons legend says they migrated away of whatever their town was called.

One of the reasons for traveling to Bethlehem was the formal home taking of the bride.

I see. What is the formal definition of a "bastard"?

There have been no volunteers for the definition of a bastard so I can assume that Christ was God's bastard. This is rather a great enhancement of Christ's reputation as a font of kindness and generosity since untold numbers of oppressed innocent kids born out of wedlock have been horribly punished for the assumed crime of their parents and if Christ can be acclaimed as King of the Bastards it might bestow a kindlier outlook for society to treat these children better.

Insofar as adultery is concerned it seems God sneaked under the line in that matter but to say the least it was an ungentlemanly treatment of poor Joseph and an indication of bad character. But any perusal of God's activities in the Bible will indicate that anyway since, if an ordinary human behaved in that manner he or she would be roundly condemned as a criminal and a mass murderer. God is tolerated, of course, because it seems might makes right and it takes an extraordinary strong character like Satan to defy God. Unfortunately it appears Satan is merely a different variety of a sonofabitch.

With respect to prosecuting the third party/interloper for their part in Adultery.

The practice is not silly! The responsibility of being sure one is not engaged in adultery lies with the interloper just as the responsibility of making sure that the girl who claims to be over 18 isn't under 16!

And if your are about to say that the difficulty with adultery is that the interloper cannot tell the cheater is lying to the interloper, then the interloper should marry them before having sex, Then the cheater is guilty of bigamy and the interloper is off the hook!

So, if I get your drift rightly about a "strict liability offense", yes that is what I am proposing for adultery but not bigamy, because in the bigamy case the second marriage is proof that the cheater was lying to the interloper or agency performing the marriage.

And so you get my drift rightly; Yes ! I would say that anyone who chooses to have sex without taking precautions to assure that what they are doing is not breaking any well know laws laws should be required to accept the consequences.

Last edited by outlander on 08 Dec 2010, 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's a bit of a stretch, I think. If you want to be technical about it, a bastard or "illegitimate" child is one born out of wedlock. So in order to fulfill the law that said a woman must be married for childbearing, Christ would have to have been born to a young married woman.

The way I read the Torah, being pregnant prior to marriage is not in and of itself a problem. According to the law, premarital sex was "improper" but not condemned (necessarily) to death. Only in certain cases. It seems that Mary was already engaged to be with Joseph. So if you were to assume that Jesus was the biological son of Mary and Joseph, then you would simply expect that they just couldn't wait for marriage before having sex. I need to read it again to be sure, but I think conceiving out of wedlock (if the relationship was acceptable to the girl's parents) might have been one of those situations in which the couple would forfeit their rights to divorce later on. If the couple loved each other and wanted to be together, it's doubtful they'd ever WANT to go that route. Therefore SOME concerns with sex laws could rightfully be winked at, although the ideal situation would be to avoid committing sexual sins to begin with.

Further, it's only a problem IF the bridegroom really sees it as a problem. If he loves the girl and, say, she's pregnant due to circumstances beyond her control (rape, abuse, etc.) or if she "made a mistake," he doesn't really HAVE to report her and have her killed. Rape is not HER fault but could prevent her from getting married to a man she's promised to. The gospels tell us that Joseph was a "righteous man" and planned on privately divorcing her in such a way that she wouldn't be put to death.

In the case of Mary and Joseph, though, the gospels tell us that Mary "conceived of the Holy Spirit." So there was no sex involved. The way in which Mary conceived prevented her from being unfit for her marriage to Joseph. Thus for Jesus to be born in accordance with the law, or in order for God to follow His own "rules," there could not be any sex involved--whether with God/angels or a human male. Therefore God wasn't "stealing Joseph's woman." And since Mary and Joseph were married and Jesus wasn't born out of wedlock, the problem of Jesus being born an illegitimate child is solved.

Technically, Mary would still have been a virgin after Jesus was born, and the Bible gives every indication that Jesus had biological brothers or, more accurately, half-brothers and Joseph would have been His adoptive father. And thus some of the apparent "problems" you see with the conception and birth of Christ aren't problems at all. The way in which Jesus was conceived did not involve infidelity or immoral behavior contrary to God's own mandates. The timing of Jesus' birth and other rituals were consistent with all the rules and customs.

Definition of bastard:
A bastard (also called whoreson) in the law of England and Wales is a person whose parents, at the time of his/her birth, are not married to each other.

Unlike many other systems of law, there was no possibility of post factum legitimisation of a bastard.

Since Mary and God were not married the term remains valid, whatever method God used to insert his sperm. Parthenogenesis could only result in a female birth so that dos not apply.

Ah, but therein lies the problem.

The laws that Mary and Joseph had to follow weren't made up by the governments of England and Wales. They were given by God Himself. God's law supersedes the laws of men; therefore the laws and England and Wales do not apply.

It is true that parthenogenesis could only result in a female birth. But it is still incorrect to say that God inserted any sperm. Parthenogenesis assumes natural means of reproduction. Jesus' birth assumes supernatural origins. So if Jesus came about as the result of "immaculate conception," it indicates that the birth of Jesus was nothing short of a miracle.

Contrast that with what is known in Genesis. Prior to the Deluge, there is an account of "the sons of God" mixing with "the daughters of men." There are any number of ways of interpreting that, but one strong possibility is "the sons of God" refers to angels--possibly angels in rebellion against God. Their children were called the Nephilim, sometimes translated as "giants," but I'm not sure there really is a language equivalent. It could be we never really know what it means. The main point is the Nephilim were "famous men," so I wonder if the Nephilim are anything like the Titans of Greek mythology or if the Titans/Olympians have their real origins in ancient stories of the Nephilim. I don't know. Either way, the Bible tells us they were bad news. If we assume that the Nephilim were the progeny of angel/demon and human unions, then we can also reasonably assume that this was NOT part of the original plan. The wickedness of humans along with the evil influence of the Nephilim caused God to destroy the world and start over with a clean slate.

If that is true, it is POSSIBLE that human beings and spiritual beings or celestial beings are compatible such that sexual intercourse is still required. Or if this doesn't happen directly, it could be that the demons possessed human men. The Bible doesn't say, but all indications are that sexual reproduction is still the chosen method.

That means, logically, that all created beings may reproduce sexually, which does require a sperm/egg. The Bible, however, seems to indicate that such was not the case with Jesus. To put it a bit more plainly, if not in a very sophisticated way, God can bring about what He wants in His creation any time, anywhere. No broken laws here.

Well, the crux of the problem is that you accept miracles and I do not. That is merely the Christian name for magic and if magic is accepted the whole useful and proven structure of science and reasoned knowledge crumbles into rubble. There is no way the human mind can accept and deal with the assumption that things can occur that not only are not understood, but that they will never be available to human understanding. That totally destroys human mental capability and I simply cannot swallow that.

But there is no under 16 equivalent of, "my spouse and I are in an open marriage."



Interloper?! You need to dismount that moral high horse of yours. Until you can demonstrate that the third party has actual knowledge of the existence of a pre-existing marriage, you cannot properly describe that person in a disparaging fashion.

Marry before having sex? What if there is an impediment to marriage because the two people are of the same sex in a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage?

Sex is a biological imperative. You may consider that marriage is the sole and exclusive framework within which to have sex, but neither you nor (more importantly) the state can impose such a point of view on people who do not share that view. It is perfectly legal for two (or more) people to have sex outside of a marriage relationship. Since the act is prima facie legal, you have to demonstrate a compelling case to criminalize or to impose civil liability on a party who is unaware of the existence of circumstances that would change the nature of the relationship.



Read some jurisprudence on strict liability offenses, and see what kind of constitutional authority there is for such an approach. You have no conception of the law in North American jurisdictions if you believe that this has any viability.



It is not enough for the law to impose a positive duty on an individual. That imposition is subject to the balancing of the importance of the interest that the state is seeking to protect, and the burden that compliance places upon the individual. Your idea is entirely off-side on that balance.

I don't know what kind of emotional axe you are lugging around, but you are certainly grinding it down to the hasp. I think rather than looking to the law to compensate you for the hurt that you have suffered, your should be looking to counselling.

Last edited by visagrunt on 08 Dec 2010, 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There are some people who go in for "open marriages", where the husband and wife may copulate freely with other people.

Adultery depends on the contractual arrangements associated with the marriage, and should be dealt with as a civil rather than criminal matter, regardless of the legal definition of "adultery."

Except "divine intervention" and "manipulation of spirits" are two completely different things. When God answers a prayer, it's a proactive exertion of will in favor of the person making the request. We ask God rather than demand of God. Magic is the opposite. Magic is the performance in some way on the part of a human being for the intention of coercing a deity to bring about a desired result or of directly channeling and manipulating supernatural powers. Whether you believe this CAN be done is a whole other discussion, but the fact remains that magic is an attempt on the part of a human being to bring about a supernatural result. Christians can ask all they want, and perhaps God is more motivated to act if we are persistent in our asking and in our faith. But we recognize that an act of God is on His terms and not ours.

Hence the difference. So you can't make a case for the virgin birth being magic.

Further, as I'm sure you'll recognize, you either have to assume the supernatural or reject it. If there is no God, then none of it can possibly make sense. But if there IS a God who can bring about what He wishes to bring about, then suddenly those things which are not humanly comprehensible or scientifically/physically possible do make sense--such as a virgin birth of a male baby. As far as I'm aware, there is no possible way to conceive as a virgin without parthenogenesis, and even then (as you are also aware) the sex would have to be female. While rare and never before documented in human beings, it is nevertheless POSSIBLE if improbable. Therefore parthenogenesis is not in and of itself a miracle. And with a male child--well, then we'd have to assume that something like, I dunno, a stray gamma particle or something damaged a preexisting XX gamete in order to bring about an XY chromosomal combination which in turn resulted in a live birth of a baby boy. Talk about right time, right place, right?

So something that goes beyond extraordinary had to have happened if it were an act of nature. According to science, anything that can't be repeated is assumed not to exist. Well, we know otherwise. So the only thing science can say about what happened is that it cannot explain it. The only explanation left is the one you don't want, but there really isn't a better one nor a way to arrive at a better explanation. At best, all you can say is you neither confirm nor deny it (scientifically speaking), and that is a valid scientific ruling on the matter. Beyond that, it is a matter of faith. Either you believe it or you don't.

Back to the original point: If we are to assume that what happened did happen, then there is no way for adultery to have been committed because that would have required sexual intercourse. Mary was a virgin and, according to the Bible, conceived of the Holy Spirit. There is no indication that God "knew" Mary in any carnal sense, so the conception had to have been purely a physical manifestation of a spiritual act. In prophecy, Jesus was described as the "seed of woman," not man, and the only way that Jesus could be said to be human and yet not inherit the sin nature of Adam is if some kind of immaculate conception occurred--which would have to mean no sex, either with men or with an angel/demon/whatever. Therefore you cannot accuse God of adultery here.

One problem with an "adulterous" God is the obvious: A deity can do what a deity wants without fear of reprisal. According to Greek mythology, you had various mixing between humans and gods. Therefore, it might be sin if WE do it, but a god is subject to divine law and not human law. The other problem with an "adulterous" God is that if it's ok for a god to take what he wants from among created beings (humans, specifically), then there shouldn't be a problem with humans doing the same. While we know for various reasons that there were those among the Israelites and surrounding cultures that practiced polygamy, within Biblical parameters adultery and fornication were NEVER acceptable. Having a wife or concubinage occurs under the rubric of "marriage" and thus regulated under established laws. The Bible also portrays plural marriage in a severe negative light, supporting the ideal that one man/one woman is the ideal. So if God is allowed to impregnate anyone He wants at any time, then He's violating His own law and setting a bad example. Either that, or if God finds adultery/fornication perfectly acceptable for Himself and his creation, then He would have given laws to that effect. Even fornication among unmarrieds is unacceptable BUT remedied through proper marriage.

You COULD make a case that God impregnating Mary was acceptable in that they WERE married, but then you have the problem of Joseph. The standard set in polygamist practices is polygyny, not polyandry. So it's not likely God would be willing to share Mary with Joseph nor would Joseph feel it fair to share Mary with God. To do otherwise would violate God's nature, so that doesn't work.

So you see trying to accuse God of adultery in the case of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fails on numerous grounds. The way Jesus came about had to have been the best reasonable way and yet still avoid the difficulties of "divine immorality."

The conception of a child against all natural biological constrictions due to the intervention of a supernatural being is, plain and simple, magic, whatever your reservations. Either natural forces hold and are understandable or they do not hold and are magic and not comprehensible. That's all there is to it.

For you to say what is or is not God's nature when such a being is totally incomprehensible is a rather odd kind of arrogance.

Unless God Himself reveals His nature. The Bible does a pretty thorough examination of what we humans need to know about that. Understanding God's will and God's mind within that context isn't arrogant at all. When someone judges, say, a political candidate based on interviews or debates prior to elections, people don't judge that person (or themselves, for that matter) as arrogant. Are you saying, for instance, that you know God's will or nature better? Does that not make you arrogant as well?

I am not so gullible or simple minded to consider a supernatural being would deal with the mini-minds we humans possess in a way we can understand or trust. That your God uses his methods to manipulate humans seem beyond your conceptual ability. I take God to be a manifestation of human fantasy and various aspects presented in all the folk tales indicate a very cold blooded manipulative creature and if it were real I would avoid it like the plague or kill it if I had the power. But since I am confident it is just some super spook constructed by an elite to control the masses I don't try to analyze it that much. There is no arrogance in trying to figure out natural law. Either it works or it doesn't and when it doesn't work I dump it.