Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are getting into the area of the purpose of the gospels. Today that episode is held up as mercy and forgiveness as distinct from applying religious law strictly. But to me it is just about bashing Jewish law and practice again and again and again.
And for me, as a lifetime non -Christian being asked whether I think the gospels .what did he ask?..
" Fine. Then there was no Jesus. So what do you think of the fictional guy's teachings?"
I said "Crap, mostly, and Jew-hating, frequently."
And this woman taken in adultery story was produced as an exception supposed to disprove my 'rule'. It does not. I stand by it - from my point of view, at least.
A woman was about to be stoned to death based on Jewish religious law and practice. I'd say that needed some bashing.
A woman was about to be stoned to death based on Jewish religious law and practice. I'd say that needed some bashing.
So would I - based on current humanist thought. But christian thought would have her burning eternally for not being Christian. The point of the tale is not to preach forgiveness (which needs further work before you can apply it, anyway) but to make Jewish law and practice look bad. Remember, this is based on God's laws which are still referenced (on a "pick the ones you like" basis) by Christians today. so whi are we to find fault with stoning - if we are not atheists who prefer human morality to Biblical?
So Jesus rolls up saying you can't condemn or accuse anyone (the penalty is not the issue) if you have ever done anything (or thought anything) wrong yourself.
Rites and customs laid down in Leviticus are brushed aside as unimportant compared to - well, a vague being good.
Sabbath is kicked into touch again on the 'doing good' pretext. You don't sideline God's laws even if you think some injustice is done. Who are we to judge? Can the pot dictate to the potter?
So the Pauline Christians had to find all manner of reasons to dismiss God's laws, because they didn't want to be bothered with them. Jesus was then reinvented as a proto-Christian bashing Jewish rites, Jewish teachers and, in the end, Jews.
That is partial reason why I do not find the gospels instructive or inspiring, and the 'woman taken in adultery' story no more than the rest.
Human polls don't decide the existence of a god/creator.
Of course humans decide, we are discussing a belief system which involves faith. Judging by the poll results, most of us do not believe that your god exists.
A woman was about to be stoned to death based on Jewish religious law and practice. I'd say that needed some bashing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So would I - based on current humanist thought. But christian thought would have her burning eternally for not being Christian. The point of the tale is not to preach forgiveness (which needs further work before you can apply it, anyway) but to make Jewish law and practice look bad. Remember, this is based on God's laws which are still referenced (on a "pick the ones you like" basis) by Christians today. so why are we to find fault with stoning - if we are not atheists who prefer human morality to Biblical?
So Jesus rolls up saying you can't condemn or accuse anyone (the penalty is not the issue) if you have ever done anything (or thought anything) wrong yourself.
Rites and customs laid down in Leviticus are brushed aside as unimportant compared to - well, a vague being good.
Sabbath is kicked into touch again on the 'doing good' pretext. You don't sideline God's laws even if you think some injustice is done. Who are we to judge? Can the pot dictate to the potter?
So the Pauline Christians had to find all manner of reasons to dismiss God's laws, because they didn't want to be bothered with them. Jesus was then reinvented as a proto-Christian bashing Jewish rites, Jewish teachers and, in the end, Jews.
That is partial reason why I do not find the gospels instructive or inspiring, and the 'woman taken in adultery' story no more than the rest.
So, you agree that based on human morality (which you, presumably, adhere to) it wasn't crap. The person who came up with the idea, whether it was Jesus or someone who added the story later on, was human. Whether that person was "channeling" divine morality or simply a higher human morality, you agree that stoning people to death needed bashing. Wherever that tidbit of morality came from, it was apparently before it's time.
And, why do you assume that the moral of the story was NOT that condemning people TO DEATH (or in the case of some Christian dogma, to eternal death) isn't in line with a higher ideal of morality? Just because some people may have, in some instances, used the Jesus narrative in a negative way does not mean that the narrative was meant that way to begin with.
You don't seem to like that Jesus was saying to people that there's a higher form of morality than just blindly following rules that you've been told God gave you. Yet, isn't that the very thing you argue when you are discussing current issues with fundamentalists? I do.
So, you agree that based on human morality (which you, presumably, adhere to) it wasn't crap. The person who came up with the idea, whether it was Jesus or someone who added the story later on, was human. Whether that person was "channeling" divine morality or simply a higher human morality, you agree that stoning people to death needed bashing. Wherever that tidbit of morality came from, it was apparently before it's time.
And, why do you assume that the moral of the story was NOT that condemning people TO DEATH (or in the case of some Christian dogma, to eternal death) isn't in line with a higher ideal of morality? Just because some people may have, in some instances, used the Jesus narrative in a negative way does not mean that the narrative was meant that way to begin with.
You don't seem to like that Jesus was saying to people that there's a higher form of morality than just blindly following rules that you've been told God gave you. Yet, isn't that the very thing you argue when you are discussing current issues with fundamentalists? I do.
Nice try. I say it is crap as a reliable record of what Jesus did and it is crap in a practical way. That there is a smidgeon of misplaced mercy to be detected if you look hard enough does not make it other than crap.
And you cannot mix and match human morality and God's laws. That is simply self -delusive hypocrisy - using human morality and then claiming it's God's. And I have reasons to believe that the whole 4 gospels have an agenda of scrapping Jewish ritual law - a process begun by Paul in Romans - and snarling at the Jews, their customs, teachers and nation as a whole, begun by Paul, just slamming his Jewish opponents (who I suspect were Jesus' actual followers - who were observing Jews) and culminating in John's 'you have the devil for a father' and Matthew's 'his blood be on us and our children'. The woman taken in adultery fits into that agenda like a cultivated banana into Ray Comfort's sweaty fist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
