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.
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
You Evil Parents!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by fm93 View PostI know some men whom I'd consider genuinely bossy but aren't called that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThe point is that it will inevitably lead to a large government because the vacuum will be filled.
This doesn't say anything about whether the punishments weren't part of 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.
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.
This distinction doesn't matter. In the Law was included the command that people were supposed to stone certain transgressors.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostJesus 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostThe 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 you doubt the passage as being a legitimate biblical passage?
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.
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
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostI 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."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
To separate things:
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostIn 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostSo what? They were all given by God.
Indeed.
Right. The question is whether God commanded it back then.
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.
It's 'Thou shalt not murder'.
Not merely allowed. Commanded by God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostTelling 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 doesn't condemn her to be executed. That's not the same as forgiving her.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostAre 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?
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?
It's not moral to kill someone.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostHe could have said you want to stone her so you do it."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostTo 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostAnd the caveat?"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Today, 04:10 AM
|
23 responses
117 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 09:45 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:44 AM
|
13 responses
87 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 05:15 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-30-2024, 03:40 PM
|
10 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 04:58 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 04-30-2024, 09:33 AM
|
16 responses
83 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 12:27 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-30-2024, 09:11 AM
|
82 responses
447 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 03:26 PM
|
Comment