You Evil Parents!

[Darth Executor]

Jesus had no legal authority to execute anyone, that's why He was put into that situation, to force Him to either betray Jewish law or Roman law. He also never explicitly forgives the woman (nor does the woman ask for his forgiveness), He basically tells her she got lucky and to not do it again.

[Darth Ovious]

I know some men whom I'd consider genuinely bossy but aren't called that.

Here is a challenge for you. Go and have a look at gaming apps that allow you to abuse your boss. Now look at the gender of the boss in those gaming apps. Now play one and see what ways in which you can abuse you boss.

[Darth Ovious]

The point is that it will inevitably lead to a large government because the vacuum will be filled.

In a sense you are correct because every civilisation has a tendency to fall over time. Usually it's because of what you mention but that doesn't mean there can't be resistance along the way to try and stop it.

This doesn't say anything about whether the punishments weren't part of the Law.

The ten commandments were the ones put on stone. Those commandments did not bear any punishments that were to go along with them. The laws in Leviticus were based on the ten commandments with attributed punishments for those who broke the law.

I don't think argument from the Pericope Adulterae alone is going to be very firm, given the scholarly doubt over its authenticity.

So you doubt the passage as being a legitimate biblical passage?

Let's set aside for now the question about which parts of the Law apply after Jesus came, since the first point to establish is that before He came the Law, including the punishments, fully applied.

I'm not having a go at the Israelites for using said punishments. They needed to as a form of deterrent in a society that evolved from anarchy. Like I said jail cells were not an option back then.

This distinction doesn't matter. In the Law was included the command that people were supposed to stone certain transgressors.

The tablets did not say that. I'm not sure how I can explain this better. The punishment to a crime is not the moral law. Capital punishment may be used as a punishment but it is not moral to kill someone as a base action and thus not a moral action. The capital punishment may be allowed but it is not at it's base a moral action.

As part of the basic Jewish story the Law was given by God. Where on earth did you get the notion that God gave just the ten commandments, and the rest was thought up by Moses?

because a punishment to a crime is not a basic moral action. Otherwise how do you distinguish from Thou shalt not kill and stoning people to death? You have to conclude that the latter is allowed as a punishment for breaking a moral law to begin with and thus a lesser evil.

[Darth Ovious]

Jesus had no legal authority to execute anyone, that's why He was put into that situation, to force Him to either betray Jewish law or Roman law. He also never explicitly forgives the woman (nor does the woman ask for his forgiveness), He basically tells her she got lucky and to not do it again.

I understand that Jesus had no legal authority but his answer is very telling when he tells them to throw the first stone but only those who haven't sinned. I suppose you're right that he doesn't explicitly forgive the women but he does say to her that he doesn't condemn her either despite he is the only one left there.

[Paprika]

The ten commandments were the ones put on stone. Those commandments did not bear any punishments that were to go along with them. The laws in Leviticus were based on the ten commandments with attributed punishments for those who broke the law.

So what? They were all given by God.

So you doubt the passage as being a legitimate biblical passage?

Indeed.

I'm not having a go at the Israelites for using said punishments. They needed to as a form of deterrent in a society that evolved from anarchy. Like I said jail cells were not an option back then.

Right. The question is whether God commanded it back then.

The tablets did not say that. I'm not sure how I can explain this better. The punishment to a crime is not the moral law.

I don't care if you consider it 'not moral law', it is still part of the Law.

Capital punishment may be used as a punishment but it is not moral to kill someone as a base action

because a punishment to a crime is not a basic moral action. Otherwise how do you distinguish from Thou shalt not kill

It's 'Thou shalt not murder'.

and stoning people to death? You have to conclude that the latter is allowed as a punishment for breaking a moral law to begin with

Not merely allowed. Commanded by God.

[Darth Executor]

I understand that Jesus had no legal authority but his answer is very telling when he tells them to throw the first stone but only those who haven't sinned.

Telling of what? We don't know His thoughts on the legitimacy of executing adulterers because He is in a situation where He has to avoid pronouncing judgement either way.

I suppose you're right that he doesn't explicitly forgive the women but he does say to her that he doesn't condemn her either despite he is the only one left there.

He doesn't condemn her to be executed. That's not the same as forgiving her.

[Paprika]

To separate things:

In a sense you are correct because every civilisation has a tendency to fall over time.

I'm not merely stating that trivial fact but that 'small government' is an illusive dream and counterproductive since instead of trying to enforce a better form of control you create a power vacuum and cede control to those who would enforce political correctness, for example.

Usually it's because of what you mention but that doesn't mean there can't be resistance along the way to try and stop it.

It's one thing to resist and build in check and balances; it's another to have a pipe dream that if the government was smaller and freedom maximised all would be well.

[Darth Ovious]

So what? They were all given by God.

Are you saying to me that I should support stoning as a punishment? So I've to advocate that my government stone people to death for say adultery?

Indeed.

OK. Well I hold a view that the Bible is a holy book influenced by God and put together in the name of God.

Right. The question is whether God commanded it back then.

So what about now? Does he command it now?

Personally I don't see the stoning punishment as being of divine order. I think God allowed it because it was necessary to create order from Chaos. If you believe that God commanded it in the past then do you believe that he commands it now?

I don't care if you consider it 'not moral law', it is still part of the Law.

Yes but what part? The legal part?

It's not moral to kill someone.

It's 'Thou shalt not murder'.

You are correct, my mistake. Some texts say kill and some say murder but the intent behind it is Thou shalt not murder. However killing as a base action is not moral. The death penalty is used as a form of punishment and is allowed. However the base action is not a moral one.

Not merely allowed. Commanded by God.

So God commands me to stone people to death?

[Darth Ovious]

Telling of what? We don't know His thoughts on the legitimacy of executing adulterers because He is in a situation where He has to avoid pronouncing judgement either way.

He could have said you want to stone her so you do it. However he added the caveat of saying that only those without sin can do it.

He doesn't condemn her to be executed. That's not the same as forgiving her.

Ok granted. I get the point.

[Paprika]

Are you saying to me that I should support stoning as a punishment? So I've to advocate that my government stone people to death for say adultery?
...
So what about now? Does he command it now?

Personally I don't see the stoning punishment as being of divine order. I think God allowed it because it was necessary to create order from Chaos. If you believe that God commanded it in the past then do you believe that he commands it now?
...
So God commands me to stone people to death?

As far as possible I'm still trying to avoid the "does the Law still apply now" of the discussion (long discussion with Soyeong has made me sick of it). What I want to establish was what the Law did command. In any case whether it still applies now is independent of whether it was commanded then.

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites:...If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Yes but what part? The legal part?

The Law does not itself make such a distinction.

It's not moral to kill someone.

Well, then God commanded a lot of immoral acts, didn't he? Incidentally, there goes Divine Command Theory.

You are correct, my mistake. Some texts say kill and some say murder but the intent behind it is Thou shalt not murder. However killing as a base action is not moral. The death penalty is used as a form of punishment and is allowed.

Not only allowed, but commanded.

[Darth Executor]

He could have said you want to stone her so you do it.

That's basically what He did.

[Darth Ovious]

To separate things:


I'm not merely stating that trivial fact but that 'small government' is an illusive dream and counterproductive since instead of trying to enforce a better form of control you create a power vacuum and cede control to those who would enforce political correctness, for example.

Those with control though use it control people in an unfair manner. So large governments tend towards this.

It's one thing to resist and build in check and balances; it's another to have a pipe dream that if the government was smaller and freedom maximised all would be well.

Ok, checks and balances are something I agree with but a small government can do that. All I mean by small government is a government that doesn't pass a lot of laws to intrude into peoples freedom.

[Darth Ovious]

That's basically what He did.

And the caveat?

[Darth Executor]

And the caveat?

The caveat is that they couldn't carry out the sentence without condemning themselves so they had to leave.

[Darth Ovious]

I think I need to start a post under the Christianity forum about this. A lot of I thought about these passages is being challenged here and by more than one person. So I think I better get a view from multiple others on this topic in order to gain clarity on it.