Do They Really Believe That?

[Dan56]

20 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

But yes, it does seem some Christians (including Dan) really believe that stoning is an appropriate "punishment"... 

 

 

Its what God ordained, so what ever I think is appropriate is irrelevant.. And remember, they didn't have the electric chair, gas chambers, or lethal injection back then. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Yes, the distinction between punishment and suffering eludes Dan completely...

 

Why am I not surprised (any more, by Dan)...?

 

But yes, it does seem some Christians (including Dan) really believe that stoning is an appropriate "punishment"... 

 

 

 

In this context, punishment is another word for retribution.  The punishment of stoning   is the punishment for breaking God's law.  A non-virgin woman on her wedding day -- gets the same punishment as a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath.  The punishment is not for the severity of the crime, but for breaking God's Law.  When all violations of the law get equal punishment -- because the real crime is breaking the Law -- even the concept of justice becomes a joke.

 

Along comes Dan, who says that his sympathy is for the victim, instead of the assailant.  In this context -- the woman found guilty of adultery -- who is the assailant?  Yet Dan takes this as the example of his ability to nuance.

 

Continuing, in the Gospels, where is this situation dealt with?  The woman taken in adultery.  A woman is to be stoned to death, when Jesus is present.  What does Jesus do?  Does he commute the sentence?  Does he declare that the Law is unjust?  Does he say that the Law is being changed?  No.  He announces -- Let the one who is sinless cast the first stone.  What fool thinks this is a good solution?  Following that guideline -- nobody could enforce -- or punish -- the violation of any law.  It stinks of sanctimony, but there is nothing useful there.

 

Now, we can talk about equality before the Law.  Where in God's Law, is God demanding that men be virgins, on their wedding day?  There isn't any such command.  Of course.  Because concepts like equality and justice are not part of the structure of this Law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

39 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its what God ordained, so what ever I think is appropriate is irrelevant.. And remember, they didn't have the electric chair, gas chambers, or lethal injection back then. 

 

 

Socrates was put to death by Hemlock.     

 

 

[cuchulain]

So in regards to the idea of pacifism and the idea that Christian's don't practice what they preach, your answer is that your God couldn't come up with a better punishment than an extremely violent approach?  And that's supposed to be wisdom?  

[Dan56]

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

In this context, punishment is another word for retribution.  The punishment of stoning   is the punishment for breaking God's law.  A non-virgin woman on her wedding day -- gets the same punishment as a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath.  The punishment is not for the severity of the crime, but for breaking God's Law.  When all violations of the law get equal punishment -- because the real crime is breaking the Law -- even the concept of justice becomes a joke.

 

Along comes Dan, who says that his sympathy is for the victim, instead of the assailant.  In this context -- the woman found guilty of adultery -- who is the assailant?  Yet Dan takes this as the example of his ability to nuance.

 

Continuing, in the Gospels, where is this situation dealt with?  The woman taken in adultery.  A woman is to be stoned to death, when Jesus is present.  What does Jesus do?  Does he commute the sentence?  Does he declare that the Law is unjust?  Does he say that the Law is being changed?  No.  He announces -- Let the one who is sinless cast the first stone.  What fool thinks this is a good solution?  Following that guideline -- nobody could enforce -- or punish -- the violation of any law.  It stinks of sanctimony, but there is nothing useful there.

 

Now, we can talk about equality before the Law.  Where in God's Law, is God demanding that men be virgins, on their wedding day?  There isn't any such command.  Of course.  Because concepts like equality and justice are not part of the structure of this Law.

 

 

That's essentially true, breaking one law puts you in violation of the whole law, which makes us all sinners worthy of death. So spiritually speaking, we are all guilty, and the curse of the law (penalty) is death. Period.. Everyone is dead to sin.That's God's concept of justice, but of course Christ removed the curse of the law. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13).

 

The cheating woman would be the offender, not so much an assailant since we're talking about a moral law, but definitely the one who left her husband a victim of infidelity.

 

Christ was willing to forego the punishment for adultery for a couple of reasons, it takes 2 to Tango and the ones condemning her were likely the other side of that equation. Whereby, "Let he who is without sin (or who hadn't been with that woman) cast the first stone". Remember the law in Deuteronomy 22: 23-24, "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you". Secondly, Jesus did not come to condemn sinners, but to save them by suffering the punishment himself.

 

As shown in the above verse, the man was to be stoned along with the betrothed damsel, because it was considered adultery with his neighbors wife. I know you don't agree with the penalty, but there's your equal justice.  

 

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

So in regards to the idea of pacifism and the idea that Christian's don't practice what they preach, your answer is that your God couldn't come up with a better punishment than an extremely violent approach?  And that's supposed to be wisdom?  

 

I imagine God could have rendered a less severe punishment, but He didn't.. He likely considered taking a vow and then breaking it to be a heathenistic practice He needed to discourage among his people. I reckon that most pacifist would fall to their knees and brown nose law breakers... Is that the 'wisdom' your espousing?

[RevBogovac]

On 1/22/2020 at 9:53 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Its what God ordained, so what ever I think is appropriate is irrelevant.. And remember, they didn't have the electric chair, gas chambers, or lethal injection back then. 

 

Sure. Why should one think for himself if he has such a god, right? But, like Jonathan said (even if you believe the death penalty is something that humans should be entitled to do):

 

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Socrates was put to death by Hemlock.     

 

 

 

But yes, your god is much more cruel and spiteful than that. Lord forbid (pun intended) that someone would "insult" him...

 

 

[RevBogovac]

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

[...] Continuing, in the Gospels, where is this situation dealt with?  The woman taken in adultery.  A woman is to be stoned to death, when Jesus is present.  What does Jesus do?  Does he commute the sentence?  Does he declare that the Law is unjust?  Does he say that the Law is being changed?  No.  He announces -- Let the one who is sinless cast the first stone.  What fool thinks this is a good solution?  Following that guideline -- nobody could enforce -- or punish -- the violation of any law.  It stinks of sanctimony, but there is nothing useful there.

 

Now, we can talk about equality before the Law.  Where in God's Law, is God demanding that men be virgins, on their wedding day?  There isn't any such command.  Of course.  Because concepts like equality and justice are not part of the structure of this Law. [...]

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I pause now for some religious humor.

 

The scene is the woman taken in adultery.  We all know the story.  The crowd has gathered their stones and the execution is about to begin.  Jesus makes his big statement to the crowd.   Let the one who is sinless, cast the first stone.  From out of the crowd comes a rock, that draws first blood.  Jesus turns to see who threw the first stone -- and says -- Oh, Mother!  

 

   

 

😛   

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

Socrates was poisoned.

 

So was Arius. He argued Jesus was a man filled with the spirit rather than a God. The early church banned him and then invited him back and poisoned him.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

Socrates was poisoned.

 

So was Arius. He argued Jesus was a man filled with the spirit rather than a God. The early church banned him and then invited him back and poisoned him.

 

 

How Godly of them.  God kills his enemies.  Why not the Church?

 

 

[cuchulain]

What would jesus do?  Well, he was supposed to be god on earth, so probably something god would have done...yep.  Killed his enemies.

[Key]

On 1/22/2020 at 12:53 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Its what God ordained, so what ever I think is appropriate is irrelevant.. And remember, they didn't have the electric chair, gas chambers, or lethal injection back then. 

Just to highlight another theory that's out there:

Dan, there are still many who don't think so at all. That the laws were written by men who then proclaimed it was "given" to them by God. In a time when it was blasphemy to question religious leaders on the subject of God with any doubt, which was generally punishable by death then, I don't think many would have argued against them.

Could be another reason some rules seem to have been relaxed after Jesus, too, because someone placed their own agenda in it to keep the masses in line via appeasement.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Key said:

Just to highlight another theory that's out there:

Dan, there are still many who don't think so at all. That the laws were written by men who then proclaimed it was "given" to them by God. In a time when it was blasphemy to question religious leaders on the subject of God with any doubt, which was generally punishable by death then, I don't think many would have argued against them.

Could be another reason some rules seem to have been relaxed after Jesus, too, because someone placed their own agenda in it to keep the masses in line via appeasement.

 

 

Yes.  Of course.        

 

 

[Pete]

It's  funny but if the OT God was a human and went about saying kill without remorse or compassion or empathy, he would be labelled a psychopath.  To insist that someone had to die for each transgression and have his son die for that reason then they have a severe personality disorder. Yet, when they say they are God then all this is overlooked. I don't get it. They worship a psychopath and someone with severe personality problems. 

Yet, I just think people wanted to have law in a deeply religious population and what better way to control them by saying God said it. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

It's  funny but if the OT God was a human and went about saying kill without remorse or compassion or empathy, he would be labelled a psychopath.  To insist that someone had to die for each transgression and have his son die for that reason then they have a severe personality disorder. Yet, when they say they are God then all this is overlooked. I don't get it. They worship a psychopath and someone with severe personality problems. 

Yet, I just think people wanted to have law in a deeply religious population and what better way to control them by saying God said it. 

 

 

To my understanding; God is a projection.  A cruel people, will project that cruelty, onto their God.  It is the God that makes sense to them.  Even now -- look and see who resonates with that God.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

10 hours ago, Key said:

Just to highlight another theory that's out there:

Dan, there are still many who don't think so at all. That the laws were written by men who then proclaimed it was "given" to them by God. In a time when it was blasphemy to question religious leaders on the subject of God with any doubt, which was generally punishable by death then, I don't think many would have argued against them.

Could be another reason some rules seem to have been relaxed after Jesus, too, because someone placed their own agenda in it to keep the masses in line via appeasement.

 

The stiff penalties attached with the Law of Moses were answered by Christ, who became the curse of the law. So the change was not an agenda to appease anyone. It was never a democracy open to change, the strict enforcement of Mosaic Law was necessary to govern and preserve God's chosen people, to pave the way Messiah would come.

[Pete]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The stiff penalties attached with the Law of Moses were answered by Christ, who became the curse of the law. So the change was not an agenda to appease anyone. It was never a democracy open to change, the strict enforcement of Mosaic Law was necessary to govern and preserve God's chosen people, to pave the way Messiah would come.

So your saying killing non virgin brides would of stopped Jesus coming. Yeah right and I suppose wearing two types of cloth also would of stopped him. You can excuse any brutality that ran for years but I can't. 

I see some are wanting an apocalyptic war to bring him back again 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/millions-of-evangelical-christians-want-to-start-world-war-iii-to-speed-up-the-second-coming/29362

Sheer madness.

[Pete]

It seem the bible defence that without the bible how would atheists know good from evil Lays hol!ow. It seems believers are the ones who don't know and need a 2000 year old document to tell them. That is why they cannot see crushing the skull of a none virgin wife is wrong. 

[Key]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The stiff penalties attached with the Law of Moses were answered by Christ, who became the curse of the law. So the change was not an agenda to appease anyone. It was never a democracy open to change, the strict enforcement of Mosaic Law was necessary to govern and preserve God's chosen people, to pave the way Messiah would come.

Two things about this comes to mind, Dan.

One, how do we know the Laws were given by God to Moses were there witnesses not of his circle? After all, he was then in a seat of power, so to speak. Or maybe the laws were dictated to the people by his "aides", with his trusting assumption they were telling what he received?

Second, I don't believe the Jews recognize the New Testament, with its attribution of authority given to Jesus. Thus, as "God's chosen people", they are still awaiting for a Messiah to come the first time. On this point, I could be mistaken, as I don't know anything about Judaism.

[Pete]

Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the messiah and he does not fulfill their scriptures on the topic. Fundies insist he does. Judaism have no records that Jesus existed or the events of his death like the temple curtain being ripped, darkness ascending, or the dead walking.

On your first point it seems with all at gods disposal a couple of stones were used to write with. Then there are so many laws that moses must of been the strongest man who ever lived or have been crushed under their weight.