Because Christianity

Although this is not my opinion of women, most likely she was punished because women were well known temptresses since Eve.

However, to be "fair" to Biblical injunctions, the man is to be put to death, as well:

Leviticus 20:10: "The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death"
Deuteronomy 22:22: "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then both of them shall die"

However, men were notoriously absolved for adultery for thousands of years before and afterwards. Men could have affairs and society turned a blind eye. Women were basically property and not given the same freedom as were men. The issue of paternity was also an issue: men were supposed to spread their seed and have as many children as possible for several reasons, one of which was to preserve the name and lineage. This is why men could have multiple wives; it also why a man could divorce a woman if she could not have kids. However, a man would not want to raise the child of another man born to his adulterous wife. This is also demonstrated in war when Jewish men could take virgin women as booty after a battle. However, he was not to have sex with her for a year; this was to ensure that she was not already pregnant by another man.

New Living Translation (NLT)
Numbers 31:18 Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Married women were put to death.

Women typically got the shaft when it came to sex. If a woman were raped in the city and did not cry out, both she and the rapist were put to death--never mind that he might have gagged her or she was in a state of shock.

In the country, there might not be anyone around to hear a raped woman cry out, so she was forced to marry the man who raped her and he could not divorce her because he had shamed her and no other man would want her.

Keep in mind that "rape" sometimes had a different connotation than it does today. It could mean premarital sex, not forced sex. If a woman and man wanted to get married but her father forbade it, being "raped" would have been an option to get married. On the other hand, being forced to marry a true rapist would have been torture for the woman.

Believing in Jesus is like believing in Popeye the Sailor.

Dude, seriously? Perhaps a focus group dedicated to the inexplicable and contradictory Bible is where this discussion belongs.

not being religious as in believe every word, no way, but sometimes , most of is is allegory, but got to admit it is true,

actually , if put all together, "JESUS" , these are just things that tell us, if anything that is about feminism and for women to be free and treated equally, so everybody calm down,

i.e. go ahead and do it, and wait for it, cause Karma is a Bitch, just wait for it, anyway, the Bible folks just try to turn his or other whatsoever's , they want Jesus the Healer, make him into sissy boy, for their reasons, but

anybody that is going to say you are an atheist or agnostic, then why are you afraid to read it???

nothing to be afraid of and you can bet I am a Biblical Scholar and also student of all the major religions and

if you are not even going to read them and the wisdom that is given by these ancients from 1000's of years ago, then you live in FEAR! and I do include THE BUDDHA , THE DALAI LAMA,

so really stop using that word spiritual!!!

so, what are you afraid of...

no reason to fear, never but be afraid very afraid, as the religious ones on this site, are nothing BUT FEARFUL

to defeat them, is not to be fearful as are they,

LOOK AT IT, STAND DOWN , AND NO YOUR ARE NOT

WE BETTER, AS IT SEEMS THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED;

SEPARATION OF STATE AND RELIGION!! SO THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE VERY AFRAID, VERY, IF THIS CONTINUES

FRANKLIN GRAHAM, JOHN HAGEE , AND THE KUSHNERS ARE!!!

also Margaret Atwood has just released her sequel to the Handmaid's Tale, and she wrote that in 80's, and now is the next one, so would suggest might want to read her! she is some kind of sage!!

IMHO

The guy seldom gets punished.

Historically, men have been blameless. Back in those days, women were either the property of their fathers or their husbands. Its funny though, cause it says: "He", when perhaps he was meaning all the out of control sluts.

Why who knows other biblical law a good reason against theocracy

That portion of the Bible is not found in any other the most historical versions of the Bible. Of course there are no originals of biblical texts. Just the copies of copies of copies of copies.

More importantly, this portion was probably made up by scribes who added it hundreds of years later.

Because in Christianity, men matter, women are expendable.

I think that the quote is "he who is without sin cast the first stone ". Like a similar quote "If a man lies with another man he should be stoned" Just a misinterpretation, Good grass in the desert back then.

The mythical Jesus figure cheated when he, as an immortal god, offered to sacrifice his life for whatever. The basic premise of the religion is a lie.

Why did she cheat? Do you seriously want us to speculate on something we can't possibly know? There are a million different scenarios that could have been the case if this even really happened. It could have been justified or not but is this even relevant?
Why didn't the man get punished? Maybe he did. The old testament says that both should get killed. But maybe there is also some sexism involved in this scenario, it's not like bible has a shortage of that.

I think you may have conflated a few different verses into a single incident. Besides, what does it matter? Religious stuff doesn't have to make sense, right?

Hi! I believe in the word of God.
The black screen helps you relax when using the computer too much.

Who cares its only fiction

Just imagine something like this today.
The members of a jury can only bring in a 'guilty' verdict if they've never broken a law before ! Criminals would have a field day !

The sermons I heard on this either ignored the inconsistency in the law or pointed to it being a set-up. Most of the sermons went on to hypothesize about what Jesus wrote and suggested he was listing all their sins.
Then the sermon would usually go to how even thinking bad things was the same as doing them and we are all horrible sinners.
Then the altar call.

Seriously

Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. Well, then it isn't one to you, since nothing is really good or bad in itself—it's all what a person thinks about it.
No Fear Shakespeare: Hamlet: Act 2 Scene 2 Page 11 - SparkNotes

That’s a cultural and not a Christianity question. Jesus here is questioning that cultural norm. You’ll probably find that the roots go into security of paternal lineage and social stability.

how might the answer to those make the point any clearer, do you think?

Why would you punish the man? Was he in another relationship and cheating as well? Did he know she was in a relationship? Not enough info. I don’t get it.

That pericope to which you refer is not found in many of the manuscripts and, when it does appears in wildly different places. So there's a lot of textual doubt about it.
Putting that to 1 side, no one knows why she cheated. There is no information provided to tell us, for it's not germane to the author's aim.
The man under Torah would have been punished. He may not have been married. However, this pericope focusses on her so as to make the point that those doing the stoning are hypocrites.

The whole pericope is a moral tale about hypocrisy but it's probably a fictitious tale

One note on that saying.
That was not in the older versions of the NT, it was added in the first King James Bible.
Actually, so were a lot of other quotes. and stories.