Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

[Darth Executor]

If He has no authority, then how could He break any law? That's why it's irrelevant.

He had no legal authority to execute her, He could still lead a lynching mob.

Right, they were trying to get Him to render an opinion that they could use against Him. But, if He had no authority to execute someone, it was an accusation against His beliefs.

And if He had done what you claim He did (disobey Mosaic law) then He'd have fallen into their trap. They don't look all that victorious to me, because He didn't violate Mosaic law or Roman law.

Well...technically, He agreed that she could be stoned, but stipulated that those without sin should start it.

Yes, the law requires that the witnesses be both blameless of the sin and be the first ones to stone her. They all took off instead, so there was nobody else left to testify against her and get the stoning going as required by Mosaic law. Christ even says He won't condemn her because nobody else did.

So, we shouldn't use Christ's examples when possible?

It's not possible in this case, because you are using Christ's example with regards to a lynching and trying to apply it to a lawful execution. It was not lawful under mosaic law to execute a woman for adultery when nobody would testify against her. I agree that we should follow Christ's example when possible and not lynch people.

[Littlejoe]

No, the point is highly relevant.

I truly do not see the relevance. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

LJ: but if Christ did not condone the stoning of the Woman caught in adultery, neither should we.
DE: Christ had no legal authority to execute her.
How is Christ's legal authority related to His condoning the stoning since neither did the Pharisees have the authority.

Well, I was speaking in general; before saying we should do what Jesus did, we should see why Jesus did what He did. In this instance, Jesus was constrained politically from openly advocating stoning her or taking part in doing so. On the other hand, the Law clearly mandated stoning for adultery. On the other other hand, Jesus uniquely has the power to forgive.

As we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, we are not obligated to enforce its penalty for breaking it. The Church's remedy is loss of communion with the offending party, with the goal of eventual restoration of communion.

I agree. I don't think death penalty for adultery is justified.

[One Bad Pig]

But DE's point was he had no authority to put someone to death. That point is irrelevant. You are agreeing with my position it seems?

No, the point is highly relevant.

certainly...how am I taking it out of context?

Well, I was speaking in general; before saying we should do what Jesus did, we should see why Jesus did what He did. In this instance, Jesus was constrained politically from openly advocating stoning her or taking part in doing so. On the other hand, the Law clearly mandated stoning for adultery. On the other other hand, Jesus uniquely has the power to forgive.

As we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, we are not obligated to enforce its penalty for breaking it. The Church's remedy is loss of communion with the offending party, with the goal of eventual restoration of communion.

[Jedidiah]

I imagine that scenario is possible, but to me it's akin to putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to convert. Christian's did something like that in the past, and the conversions were halfhearted at best. I think that the longer a person has to live, the more opportunity they have to come to a free will conversion. I realize that you disagree since you've made your disagreement abundantly clear in prior posts.

The two are not even close. The man being executed will not save his life by converting. His only relationship in this case is God.

[Darth Ovious]

[Littlejoe]

It's not irrelevant, because he could be portrayed as advocating breaking a law.

But DE's point was he had no authority to put someone to death. That point is irrelevant. You are agreeing with my position it seems?

Shouldn't we take care not to take Christ's examples out of context?

certainly...how am I taking it out of context?

[One Bad Pig]

If He has no authority, then how could He break any law? That's why it's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, because he could be portrayed as advocating breaking a law.

Right, they were trying to get Him to render an opinion that they could use against Him. But, if He had no authority to execute someone, it was an accusation against His beliefs.

Well...technically, He agreed that she could be stoned, but stipulated that those without sin should start it.
So, we shouldn't use Christ's examples when possible?

Shouldn't we take care not to take Christ's examples out of context?

[Littlejoe]

It's not irrelevant, and He wasn't "asked His opinion", they were trying to get Him to break Roman law:

If He has no authority, then how could He break any law? That's why it's irrelevant.

If Jesus consented to the execution, He broke Roman law. If He didn't, He broke Jewish law.

Right, they were trying to get Him to render an opinion that they could use against Him. But, if He had no authority to execute someone, it was an accusation against His beliefs.

So Jesus came up with a way to avoid doing either. What you are saying is that we shouldn't lawfully execute adulterers because Jesus didn't lynch a woman.

Well...technically, He agreed that she could be stoned, but stipulated that those without sin should start it.

Not disputed. Also not relevant to whether we should execute adulterers.

So, we shouldn't use Christ's examples when possible?

[Adrift]

Free will has nothing to do with fear.

I disagree.

Converting out of fear is no less a free will conversion than converting out of feelgood.

Is it your opinion that those who converted by the sword converted out of free will, and would you be fine with modern Christian conversions in that vein?

Also, plenty of people who aren't on death row feign Christianity to show they've reformed to the point of parody, so sparing someone the death penalty can and does have the same effect you complain about.

Hmm.

You're not the least bit concerned it could have the opposite effect?

Not really, no.

[Darth Executor]

Seems more likely to me that a Capital Punishment conversion would be based out of fear, rather than love or true loyalty. That isn't to say I think no genuine conversions come from fear of death, but in the long run I question the free will element that comes purely from a fear-based commitment to Christ. If you are unable to comprehend that, I don't think it's something I can explain.

Free will has nothing to do with fear. Converting out of fear is no less a free will conversion than converting out of feelgood. Also, plenty of people who aren't on death row feign Christianity to show they've reformed to the point of parody, so sparing someone the death penalty can and does have the same effect you complain about.

I disagree. I think the more time available to someone, the more opportunity awaits.

You're not the least bit concerned it could have the opposite effect?

I don't remember that, but at any rate, I don't doubt that a desperate man might express any number of things when it comes down to the wire. Confessing with one's mouth is one thing, believing in one's heart is another.

[Adrift]

How? The execution is presumably for some heinous crime, it's not a conversion tool in and of itself.

Seems more likely to me that a Capital Punishment conversion would be based out of fear, rather than love or true loyalty. That isn't to say I think no genuine conversions come from fear of death, but in the long run I question the free will element that comes purely from a fear-based commitment to Christ. If you are unable to comprehend that, I don't think it's something I can explain.

My point was that having time, in and of itself, does not translate to conversion opportunities.

I disagree. I think the more time available to someone, the more opportunity awaits.

Without data it's a meaningless argument that could swing either way.

Yes, and IIRC I cited last words for executed prisoners and the bulk of them expressed faith in God.

I don't remember that, but at any rate, I don't doubt that a desperate man might express any number of things when it comes down to the wire. Confessing with one's mouth is one thing, believing in one's heart is another.

[Darth Executor]

I imagine that scenario is possible, but to me it's akin to putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to convert.

How? The execution is presumably for some heinous crime, it's not a conversion tool in and of itself. My point was that having time, in and of itself, does not translate to conversion opportunities. Without data it's a meaningless argument that could swing either way.

Christian's did something like that in the past, and the conversions were halfhearted at best. I think that the longer a person has to live, the more opportunity they have to come to a free will conversion. I realize that you disagree since you've made your disagreement abundantly clear in prior posts.

Yes, and IIRC I cited last words for executed prisoners and the bulk of them expressed faith in God.

[Adrift]

What if capital punishment would have forced an individual to face his sinful nature and by taking it off the table the individual never comes to Christ?

I imagine that scenario is possible, but to me it's akin to putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to convert. Christian's did something like that in the past, and the conversions were halfhearted at best. I think that the longer a person has to live, the more opportunity they have to come to a free will conversion. I realize that you disagree since you've made your disagreement abundantly clear in prior posts.

[Darth Executor]

I don't believe in unconditional election, if that's what you're asking.



Christ is the final arbiter, of course, but no, I don't think it's the case that one has the ability to repent and submit to Christ once they're dead. If so, then I question why anyone would need to evangelize when Christ can do it himself when a person dies.

What if capital punishment would have forced an individual to face his sinful nature and by taking it off the table the individual never comes to Christ?

[Adrift]

Do you believe that by Capital Punishment we can override God's will as to the possible repentance of the individual executed?

I don't believe in unconditional election, if that's what you're asking.

Does not said individual have full opportunity to repent and submit to Christ when ever he or she dies?

Christ is the final arbiter, of course, but no, I don't think it's the case that one has the ability to repent and submit to Christ once they're dead. If so, then I question why anyone would need to evangelize when Christ can do it himself when a person dies.