Let he who is without sin...

[Willum]

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?

[Divine Insight]

Please show the scripture that says we all have the knowledge of good and evil?

…It's all laid out here in the third chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 3
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
….

Sorry, that is what the serpent said to Eve. It is possible that he lied and even if he didn’t lie, it was said for Eve, not for all people.

Why did you stop reading at verse 5?

If you're going to read the Bible try reading the whole thing,...

Genesis 3
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

According to verse 7 the serpent was indeed telling the truth.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, this brings up another extreme problem with this absurd theology:

Genesis 3
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

What's up with this?

Is being naked a sin?

If so, then Adam and Eve had been sinning all along from the very beginning even without realizing it.

Also, why did this God not provide them with clothes if being naked is a sin?

People who fall for this theology apparently aren't prepared to question anything at all, they must just blindly suck it up without even considering whether or not it makes any sense.

I can (and have) demonstrated numerous flaws in this theology just in the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

There's really no need to read beyond Genesis chapter 3 as the theology has already exposed its self-contradictory nature in the first 3 chapters. And it only continues to go downhill from there. It doesn't get better. To the contrary only gets far more self-contradictory as it continues.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

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?

Of course it would be the same for all sins. So there is no hypocrisy.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."


It is not that adultery is now permissible (it is still a sin same as always), but we have no right to judge (condemn; cast a stone) another person for their sin. We all sin as well. Not only that, but even Christ - who was without sin - showed mercy instead (which is what His Father desires), and forgave the woman her sin.

"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice."



So if we are Christian, then we are not under the law of the old covenant- we are under Christ. We are to follow Him and obey HIS commands.

"Forgive and you will be forgiven."

"Be merciful and mercy will be shown you."

"Do not judge, or you will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and by the measure you use, it will be used against you."






Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

William: Essentially it is about learning not to be judgmental - which is an extremely big ask but still necessary for that.
Otherwise one continues to suffer a type of blindness caused by the filters judgmenatlism requires.

In relation to sin, if one is judging ones self - or indirectly/hypocritically judging ones self through judging others (Jung re "Projection") one will find sin therein.

[Willum]

[Replying to tam]

So, murder, theft, adultery and etc., of the Commandments, should not be punished?
Wow, that is hardcore!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by William]

This has already been covered. We are being punished according to the garden of Eden story, for having the ability to judge.
So, no.
The topic is what it says it is, not what you want to make it.

[1213]

Please show the scripture that says we all have the knowledge of good and evil?

…It's all laid out here in the third chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 3
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
….

Sorry, that is what the serpent said to Eve. It is possible that he lied and even if he didn’t lie, it was said for Eve, not for all people.

Why did you stop reading at verse 5?

If you're going to read the Bible try reading the whole thing,...

Genesis 3
[7] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

According to verse 7 the serpent was indeed telling the truth.

That is not same as “know good and evil�. And actually, is it really evil if person is naked?

[marco]

Should they be killed? Or should only those without sin kill them?

Not that it is my place or within my abilities to defend Jesus but let me try, Willum. Jesus did NOT say that only those without sin should stone; rather he invited the group to queue up and the person who was sinless could start off the proceedings. Had his mum been there she may have directed a missile at the adulteress and that would have allowed others to stone, since the first stone had been duly cast.

Of course the effect of his words was to deter the presumptuous, who would examine their conscience and wait for one of unblemished character to step forward. At no point did Jesus say: "Do not stone."

In fact if he is to be condemned it is not for overturning the law but for failing to condemn stoning unequivocally. It seems obvious to those of us who are lucky to live outside of theocracies today that throwing bricks at women is horribly wrong. Jesus was quick to condemn buyers and sellers - but hurling rocks at women is surely a lot worse. Alas, Jesus was a man of his time, steeped in bad customs.

[Willum]

[Replying to marco]

Marco, I am afraid you have gone over my head.
Perhaps you could make your analogy out to one where, instead of adultery, they had worshiped a graven image, stole or murdered?
Thanks and respectfully,

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

Marco, I am afraid you have gone over my head.
Perhaps you could make your analogy out to one where, instead of adultery, they had worshiped a graven image, stole or murdered?
Thanks and respectfully,

I'm sure I haven't gone over your head, Willum. Your criticism is justified, but the format of words used: "Let him who is without sin cast the FIRST stone" is subtle. In no way does it advocate disobedience of the law; it simply suggests, rather cleverly, how people should line up when throwing their stones. Naturally, nobody comes forward to be first, but the penalty has not been rescinded. Were Christ asked he would be justified in saying he gave no instruction to break the law. Crafty Christ.

I also think it is quite reprehensible that Christ did not condemn stoning as an act of brutality. That makes me suspicious about the man's credentials, as representative of heaven.