Should The State Enforce Laws Against Adultery? - Page 2

mshingler · #41 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:17 AM

At one time I would have unhesitatingly said "no" to the question, holding that the state cannot enforce morality. It was actually a discussion on another theological board over the Federal Marriage Amendment that got me to start rethinking my position in that area. It seems to me that, as long as the government gets to license and recognize marriages, then the government should, in some way, punish those who break the marriage contract.
This may be slightly

, but I question, sometimes, whether the state should have anything to do with marriage in the first place. it seems to me that this arrangement, in which the government issues marriage licenses and, possibly, defines what marriage is, has led to the marriage issue we have now, where a bunch of lost people in Washington can't decide whether it would be right to try and define marriage as between a man and a woman. Does anyone here think that marriage should be permitted/prohibited/defined by the church and not the state?
If that's too far off topic I can make it a new thread.

BJClark · #42 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Darrell Roberson thought his wife was at home caring for the couple's three children. He called 19 times during the early morning hours of Dec. 11 before his 7-year-old daughter answered and told him that she had heard a knock at the door and thought her mother was outside.

Roberson ended his card game and drove from Dallas to his Arlington home in the 6100 block of Ivy Glen Drive. T

At about 1:33 a.m., Darrell Roberson began calling his home to speak to his wife. His daughter remained on the phone as he drove home, the affidavit said.

Unfortunately we do not know anything of their lives and can only speculate as to why she made the decisions she did...And though I do not agree with her decision it makes me wonder...

Why wasn't her husband at home with her and their kids at 1:30 in the morning instead of being out 'playing cards'?

How many other nights did he leave her home alone while he was 'out playing cards' leaving the door open for temptation. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

Yes, He called 19 times, but why didn't he leave for home when he couldn't reach her to begin with..say after the 5th or 6th call; no, he stayed and continued to play cards...why did he have a gun with him? was it his? did one of his card playing buddies give it to him (just in case?)..

had they fought previously about his all night card games?

Lots of unanswered and unasked questions in this article...to get the full picture, but they may have been answered at the trial..

But back to the topic...

And a question...if one desire's the government to punish by death the sin of adultery, what other sins should they also make punishable by death?

Do we also punish those who are caught up in lust (which Jesus Himself called adultery??) so anyone who buys or watches pornography should also be put to death...or even someone who looks at a women with lust? (Matthew 5:27-28) or should we just pluck all their eyes out? Or place a scarlet letter on their chest and/or flog them as well?

Or would that be too harsh?

And as far as not judging, what is typically ignored is the 'for with what judgment ye judge, ye, shall also be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
And shall we continue with Matthew 7 and reflect on the beam in our own eye?

If someone is found lying should their tongue be cut out? (how big a lie must it be?) as a lie effects others as well...what if it's a parent telling their child the picture they just painted is WONDERFUL when they know it's not?? Or what about the parent who tells his child "you played a good game" when he knows they didn't? Should the parents tongue then be cut out, for lying to their child?

What about stealing should their hand be cut off, does it matter what was stolen? Should they have their hands cut off if they steal their employers time while they use the employers computers to get online and use the internet for their own purposes as opposed to working? And couldn't spending money on pornography to feed a man's lust also be considered stealing from the family?

Granted, adultery is no longer punishable by law as some of these other sins are, but the spouse does have the choice to remain married to the person or not...which in itself causes those involved to suffer consequences..but I have seen it, where it brought into focus deep problems within the marriage, and the adultery was just another sin compounded on top of all the rest...that had been ignored and brushed under the rug for a long time..and the adultery was merely showing the hardened heart...but then there are others who commit adultery merely because they think it's okay..

BJClark · #43 (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:31 PM

puritan lad;

Quote:

If a child results from this, the state already does punish the male participant. Why not just take the next step and punish both?

I don't understand your line of thinking here...

How are his consequences any different than hers; is she not also required to support the child? Or how is he punished that is some how different than her?

holyfool33 · #44 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 03:28 PM

moral failings should be matters for the church not the state otherwise you risk falling into Theonomy what's next after that stoneing non Christans when does it end. but that's more an argument about the law not the role of civil goverment in enforceing morality wich I dont think the goverment should have any partenforceinglaws against adultury that's howI see things.

holyfool33 · #45 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.

The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.

A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.

We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword.

I see where your coeming frombut the mah\gistraite bares the sword for crimes like murder. Where under a new law and a new Law Giver. What makes your argument difrent then the Thenomists who argue for stoneing people for violateing the sabbath or fornicateing?

Daniel Ritchie · #46 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

moral failings should be matters for the church not the state otherwise you risk falling into Theonomy what's next after that stoneing non Christans when does it end. but that's more an argument about the law not the role of civil goverment in enforceing morality wich I dont think the goverment should have any partenforceinglaws against adultury that's howI see things.

Should the state punish anything? If so what? And where do you go in Scripture to prove what it should punish?

Daniel Ritchie · #47 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

moral failings should be matters for the church not the state otherwise you risk falling into Theonomy what's next after that stoneing non Christans when does it end. but that's more an argument about the law not the role of civil goverment in enforceing morality wich I dont think the goverment should have any partenforceinglaws against adultury that's howI see things.

Also, Theonomy does not believe in "stoning non Christians", it believes that criminals who have committed crimes (not sins in general) worthy of death should be justly executed.

Anton Bruckner · #48 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

moral failings should be matters for the church not the state otherwise you risk falling into Theonomy what's next after that stoneing non Christans when does it end. but that's more an argument about the law not the role of civil goverment in enforceing morality wich I dont think the goverment should have any partenforceinglaws against adultury that's howI see things.

sorry man, every penalty that is on the law books of a secular state is to enforce morality. Mankind cannot escape morality and religiosity. Even Atheists are religious and subscribe to laws that govern morality which must be enforced when broken.

The fact that God judged Babylon, Egypt, Rome etc all non covenanted nations should make us tremble, since His laws doesn't change, and the wages of every sin is DEATH.

Daniel Ritchie · #49 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

moral failings should be matters for the church not the state otherwise you risk falling into Theonomy what's next after that stoneing non Christans when does it end. but that's more an argument about the law not the role of civil goverment in enforceing morality wich I dont think the goverment should have any partenforceinglaws against adultury that's howI see things.

sorry man, every penalty that is on the law books of a secular state is to enforce morality. Mankind cannot escape morality and religiosity. Even Atheists are religious and subscribe to laws that govern morality which must be enforced when broken.

The fact that God judged Babylon, Egypt, Rome etc all non covenanted nations should make us tremble, since His laws doesn't change, and the wages of every sin is DEATH.

Exactly. The question is never morality vs. no morality, but whose morality is to be enforced? The morality of the God of Scripture, or the morality of an idol?

Backwoods Presbyterian · #50 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 09:38 PM

Daniel...

Brad · #51 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 09:55 PM

Yeah. I always laugh when I hear a lib say government can't legislate morality. So then just what are they legislating? Chopped liver?

Daniel Ritchie · #52 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Yeah. I always laugh when I hear a lib say government can't legislate morality. So then just what are they legislating? Chopped liver?

Nice one.

Southern Presbyterian · #53 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

moral failings should be matters for the church not the state otherwise you risk falling into Theonomy what's next after that stoneing non Christans when does it end. but that's more an argument about the law not the role of civil goverment in enforceing morality wich I dont think the goverment should have any partenforceinglaws against adultury that's howI see things.

sorry man, every penalty that is on the law books of a secular state is to enforce morality. Mankind cannot escape morality and religiosity. Even Atheists are religious and subscribe to laws that govern morality which must be enforced when broken.

The fact that God judged Babylon, Egypt, Rome etc all non covenanted nations should make us tremble, since His laws doesn't change, and the wages of every sin is DEATH.

Well said.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #54 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

Yeah. I always laugh when I hear a lib say government can't legislate morality. So then just what are they legislating? Chopped liver?

Nice one.

staythecourse · #55 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:35 PM

Let the State do whatever it wants. Any laws the state puts in place we believers ought to be doing anyway unless it's sinful to obey. If adultery is punished with capital punishment, we excommunicate. If that's my stance, does it have a name?

Daniel Ritchie · #56 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staythecourse

Let the State do whatever it wants. Any laws the state puts in place we believers ought to be doing anyway unless it's sinful to obey. If adultery is punished with capital punishment, we excommunicate. If that's my stance, does it have a name?

Why should the state do what it wants? After all, is it not the "servant of God" and thus required to obey His word? While we should obey the state's commands except when they require us to sin, this is not a blank check for the civil government.