Christians are fond of the tales where Jesus (Joshua) abrogates the Judaic punishment for adultery with the wisdom... “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.�
Now adultery was one of the Commandments, and like the others, violation of it demanded death, according to God.
But some guy named Josh abrogated it with a bit of Hellenic wisdom.
Odd, to say the least.
Judaic law said the adulterer should be stoned, if I were Judaic, I wouldn’t see the problem.
But let’s expand the reasoning, shall we?
Say someone worships another god?
Should they be killed? Or should only those without sin kill them?
How about bearing false witness?
Should their sin be abrogated by “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone�?
How about murder?
Or is adultery the only Commandment that can be ignored in this way?
How does this all work out?
How does one address the hypocracy?
Let he who is without sin...
Moderator: Moderators
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #21[Replying to marco]
All I see is “He who is within sin...� and am honestly missing your point. Sorry.
All I see is “He who is within sin...� and am honestly missing your point. Sorry.
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #22Willum wrote: [Replying to marco]
All I see is “He who is within sin...� and am honestly missing your point. Sorry.
I am concentrating on the word FIRST. The meaning you extract would come from:
"Only the sinless can stone." He does not say this. Obviously he knows that it's a tough thing for someone to step forward and claim sinlessness, but if such a person does step forward, others who are sinful can then have a go. The sinless criterion applies to the first thrower only.
e.g. Jacob comes up: "I have done no one any harm. I will throw first."
What would Christ's answer be? He can't get into a secondary argument about Jacob's life, so from what he has said, the stoning would go ahead.
A more honest approach would have been to say: "Stoning is barbaric."
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #23[Replying to post 22 by marco]
Well, I get that, it’s a sophism. You might as well say “Let those who have a Roman Doctorate of Philosophy, have embarrassing genital growths caste the first stone.�
It is irrelevant to the crime who punishes it. If there were an atheist in the crowd, the story would have had a bloodier ending.
It’s like sayings... actually I have no clue what it really means. We’re I a Greek in that crowd, I certainly might have caste the first stone just to see what these backwater yokels would do.
Well, I get that, it’s a sophism. You might as well say “Let those who have a Roman Doctorate of Philosophy, have embarrassing genital growths caste the first stone.�
It is irrelevant to the crime who punishes it. If there were an atheist in the crowd, the story would have had a bloodier ending.
It’s like sayings... actually I have no clue what it really means. We’re I a Greek in that crowd, I certainly might have caste the first stone just to see what these backwater yokels would do.
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #24Willum wrote:
Well, I get that, it’s a sophism. You might as well say “Let those who have a Roman Doctorate of Philosophy, have embarrassing genital growths caste the first stone.�
It is irrelevant to the crime who punishes it. If there were an atheist in the crowd, the story would have had a bloodier ending.
It’s like sayings... actually I have no clue what it really means. We’re I a Greek in that crowd, I certainly might have caste the first stone just to see what these backwater yokels would do.
The scenario and the quote are just illustrations of Christ's compassion. The object of NT tales is to portray the hero as magnanimous but the writers are themselves caught in the biblical zeitgeist and can hardly imagine modern ways of seeing things for Jesus, so he is restricted by the imagination of his biographers in the same way as Yahweh is.
It's a clever statement that probably wasn't Christ's. I just think of the tales as poorer versions of Shakespeare, without the splendid iambic pentameters. Jesus sometimes rises to Hamlet status in his soliloquys but has a different view on the afterlife. He's portrayed here like Portia in Merchant of Venice, appealing for mercy: "The quality of mercy is not strained" becomes "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I prefer Shakespeare.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #25[Replying to marco]
Well, perhaps, but I do not think so. For, “whom God condemns, is it lawful to succor?
God suffers no adultery, How then can Jesus?
He can’t.
But then, now about the other Commandments? Do we also get to ignore them, because no one is without sin?
You see this makes sense only to gentiles. It is abomination to Jews and the logical.
Well, perhaps, but I do not think so. For, “whom God condemns, is it lawful to succor?
God suffers no adultery, How then can Jesus?
He can’t.
But then, now about the other Commandments? Do we also get to ignore them, because no one is without sin?
You see this makes sense only to gentiles. It is abomination to Jews and the logical.
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #26
This is one of those quotes we see so often that we overlook the fact that it is inaccurate. Here is the proper quote with the key difference bolded:
I suspect that Jesus knew this was a setup and the text states that it was. Jesus was asked this question in a goal to trick him. He knew those among the adulteresses accusers were not without sin because they sinned in their attempt to set Jesus up.
Jesus' response, as far as I can tell, isn't some grand declaration that stoning is wrong or that adultery is okay. It's simply a statement that in this one case, stoning would not be justified.
I think this story was created to cast doubt on the religious leaders of the time. Jesus, at least according to the mythology, was attempting to undermine the authority of those religious leaders and revealing their scheme advanced his goal.
Tcg
- “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.�
I suspect that Jesus knew this was a setup and the text states that it was. Jesus was asked this question in a goal to trick him. He knew those among the adulteresses accusers were not without sin because they sinned in their attempt to set Jesus up.
Jesus' response, as far as I can tell, isn't some grand declaration that stoning is wrong or that adultery is okay. It's simply a statement that in this one case, stoning would not be justified.
I think this story was created to cast doubt on the religious leaders of the time. Jesus, at least according to the mythology, was attempting to undermine the authority of those religious leaders and revealing their scheme advanced his goal.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #27
[Replying to post 26 by Tcg]
Jesus knew it was a setup, the prophets knew it was a setup, the Pharisee knew it was a set up, the adulteress wasn’t screaming she was pure, so she had to nbe part of the set up.
For pete’s sake, if EVERYONE knew, then what is the riddle?
Only the crowd?
NOW, since the topic isn’t about the SETUP, but the advice... can we please talk about whether murderers should not be punished... or idolators, or pagans?
Or that they can only be punished by those without sin.
I understand the usual objections.
I want to know how this bit of wisdom applies to the other commandments, with the same punishment.
Jesus knew it was a setup, the prophets knew it was a setup, the Pharisee knew it was a set up, the adulteress wasn’t screaming she was pure, so she had to nbe part of the set up.
For pete’s sake, if EVERYONE knew, then what is the riddle?
Only the crowd?
NOW, since the topic isn’t about the SETUP, but the advice... can we please talk about whether murderers should not be punished... or idolators, or pagans?
Or that they can only be punished by those without sin.
I understand the usual objections.
I want to know how this bit of wisdom applies to the other commandments, with the same punishment.
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #28
Willum wrote:
I want to know how this bit of wisdom applies to the other commandments, with the same punishment.
If my assessment is accurate, it wouldn't apply to any of the other commandments. In fact, it wouldn't even apply to other instances of adultery.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #30
I've already addressed that in post 26 when I stated the following:Willum wrote: [Replying to post 28 by Tcg]
So why does that wisdom not apply to all commandments equality?
- It's simply a statement that in this one case, stoning would not be justified.
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
