Is non-violence a tenet of the teachings of Christ?

[RolandtheHeadless]

I guess we should also be stoning homosexuals.

And people who work on the Sabbath.

 

[BrianLewis]

The fact that no one knows, and no one is taught is reason enough to not do it. That's my supposition, but I think it's sound enough. How can you punish someone for something that society does not teach or is even aware of?

 

[Half-n-Half]

The fact that no one knows, and no one is taught is reason enough to not do it. That's my supposition, but I think it's sound enough. How can you punish someone for something that society does not teach or is even aware of?

I think I'm a little confused by this post. Obviously people do know about them, as evidenced by Roland and yourself. You're saying society is not aware of homosexuals or working on the Sabbath? Or that the Bible says they should be punished? Both are blatantly wrong.

 

[BrianLewis]

Your right about that. I was referring to adultery and other crimes that the general public are not aware of.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Adultery is no longer a crime in the US, though it's a sin deserving stoning according to the Old Testament.

Another way Christ changed OT law deals with fornication, which wasn't a crime or sin under the code given by God to Moses. If a man had sex with a virgin, he was instructed to pay her father forty shekels. I don't recall any proscription against fornication with non-virgins.

But Christ said that fornication, even lusting in your heart, is a sin. He said nothing about absolution by paying money.

Another Gospel event is even more curious. The OT makes theft a crime, yet when Jesus grew tired of walking he sent his disciples to steal a donkey for him because he "needed" it.

 

[Mike Cash]

Adultery is no longer a crime in the US

Since when?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Your right about that. I was referring to adultery and other crimes that the general public are not aware of.

I really like the game dodge ball. But I hate playing it on forums.

Would you like stoning adulterers to come back? Surely we could educate everyone on the law, then start. Well?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Since when?

Okay, so adultery still is a crime in a minority of US states and the US military. But prosecutions outside the military are very rare.

 

[BrianLewis]

I really like the game dodge ball. But I hate playing it on forums.

Would you like stoning adulterers to come back? Surely we could educate everyone on the law, then start. Well?

That's a tough thing to say. If people were sufficiently educated and learned to follow those rules, then the fabric of our modern society would be changed to the point that we would likely not recognize that society. If capital punishment were expected for rape in our society, as it is commanded in the Old Testament, would that deter rapists in that society more so than in our own? One can't apply law to our society without also applying the philosophy of the culture as well. That's likely what makes such harsh kinds of deterrents difficult to imagine today. That's a mistake I see many philosophy and political science students/teachers make; they only consider half of the picture.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If sinning sends you to hell, then you sin every time you fail to stone an adulterer and will wind up in a very hot place. If you think not, why?

BrianLewis, you still are not telling us if YOU want to start stoning adulterers again. Please, just stop dodging the question. Should we obey this law of God's or not? Cause I don't think God is going to accept any of your excuses.

As for education, surely a TV commercial campaign of one year would be sufficient to let everyone know. No, it won't take a sea change in society to let everybody know. Once everyone knows, should we start? Is it or is it not the Christian thing to do?

And I don't know why God made this law. Deterrent? I have no idea. He may think of stoning adulterers the same as eradicating a disease. Prevention may not be his aim but rather purging society of that which is unholy. Its beside the point though. The point is that the OT law is clear. Did Jesus change it or not?

 

[BrianLewis]

No, Jesus said that he came not to change the law, but to fulfill it. That much is blatantly clear. What I am attempting to say is that if people respected the law and followed it, then those that chose to break it would accept the consequences from a judge (not some random man). I am a translator, not a judge, so I would not stone anyone.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

No, Jesus said that he came not to change the law, but to fulfill it. That much is blatantly clear. What I am attempting to say is that if people respected the law and followed it, then those that chose to break it would accept the consequences from a judge (not some random man). I am a translator, not a judge, so I would not stone anyone.

The only way I can make sense of this is that you occupy two (or more) totally contradictory positions. How can people respect and follow the law while breaking it at the same time? If some choose to follow and some don't, and both positions are respected, no one gets stoned. So why even have this law? How can the law of the OT be dismissed just for people choosing to ignore it?

So typical for people of faith though. A delusion of having your cake pristinely preserved, even though you ate it long ago.

And I am not asking you to judge anyone or be a judge in a literal sense. I am asking for your opinion and it seems to me you just keep fudging it.

Perhaps for you the true lesson of the "cast the first stone" incident is that, like Jesus, Christians have the right to obfuscate anything, even God's law.

Here is another question: If it were made the law of the land, and someone was condemned by a judge and court, and you were chosen for stoning duty, would you, as a good Christian, participate in stoning that adulterer to death?

I am not Christian. I would tell the authorities to go to hell. In fact I might fling my rocks at them!

 

[BrianLewis]

If it were my job to punish a criminal that was rightfully convicted, then yes I would do my job. To throw stone at a judge that was doing his job would mean your a rebel. That would get you thrown into prison. Society has not treated anarchists lightly throughout history, don't just pin that on Christian societies.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Does the OT say that the PEOPLE should stone these non-violent sexual criminals, or are the people allowed to pass the buck on this dirty business to judges and executioners?

It would be a lot easier to wash your hands of these executions and not watch than to be one of the people looking in the eyes of some other human being while you're trying to bash his skull in.

 

[BrianLewis]

In your mind's eye, your still seeing them as innocent victims. Do you even consider adultery to be morally wrong? How about socially wrong?

I see millions of fatherless children out there. A good number of which that have no parental supervision due to their mother working full time to support them. How many fatherless black males are in prison right now because they were not supervised, or worse, sought companionship with fellow street thugs? After all of the problems beyond emotional that adultery brings, do you think it's appropriate that the only deterrent should be a glare and some dirty words?

 

[Half-n-Half]

Is stoning/the death penalty an appropriate deterrent?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If it were my job to punish a criminal that was rightfully convicted, then yes I would do my job.

Sorry, but the excuse of Nazi death camp guards does not work. There are times when you refuse to do "your job" or follow bad orders.

Anyone convicted to death by stoning for adultery was most certainly not "rightly convicted" just because all the "i"s were dotted and the "t"s were crossed and the proceedures were followed. Not on your nelly. Death by stoning for a victimless crime like adultery is the crime here, and anyone meting out that punishment or following along with it is the one who should be stoned to death. In fact, anyone advocating it is the one who should be stoned to death.

To throw stone at a judge that was doing his job would mean your a rebel.

Yup. But you make it sound like its a bad thing to be a rebel. Most of my heroes are rebels, such as Thomas Jefferson and Claus von Stauffenberg.

That would get you thrown into prison. Society has not treated anarchists lightly throughout history, don't just pin that on Christian societies.

I didnt and was not about to pin that on Christian society, nor does rebellion make one an anarchist. John Adams and George Washington were not anarchists.

---------- Post added at 03:58 ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 ----------

In your mind's eye, your still seeing them as innocent victims. Do you even consider adultery to be morally wrong? How about socially wrong?

It is neither. It is no one's business what two consenting people do with their bodies, because their bodies are not owned by society or by one's parents or by one's spouse. And whether one's spouse knows or not is a separate question. Even swingers and spouses who permit affairs are guilty of adultery. But you would stone them to death?

While we are at it, how about defining adultery? What forms of adultery are so repugnant to you that they are morally and socially wrong, and what should be illegal and worthy of the death penalty?

I see millions of fatherless children out there. A good number of which that have no parental supervision due to their mother working full time to support them. How many fatherless black males are in prison right now because they were not supervised, or worse, sought companionship with fellow street thugs? After all of the problems beyond emotional that adultery brings, do you think it's appropriate that the only deterrent should be a glare and some dirty words?

How many children and teens are fatherless because of divorce or death of a parent? Perhaps we should just stone the lot to prevent these problems?

Look, I am an adulterer in every sense of the word. I had sex before I got married. I had sex while married with others besides my spouse. I divorced and had sex outside of marriage again. But guess what? Its the 21st century and I have access to birth control. I have zero illegitimate children and zero children left behind by divorce. My son is growing up with both parents and extended family.
But as an adulterer OT law decrees I should be stoned to death, and thus, my son would grow up without his father! Precisely the outcome you sought to prevent by stoning to death!

Think about it: any adulterer dumb enough to make an unwanted pregnancy may seek to make amends by getting married and taking care of the child. But your dumb OT law would not accept that and instead just kill the lot, quite possibly leaving behind children of one or both.
Every society that has done away with this nutter notion of legal punishment for adultery is much better for it, with generally better standards of living than those still doing it.

And as for your stares and dirty words; keep them to yourself. Our sex lives are seriously none of your business, so long as we are not making unwanted offspring that burden the welfare system. But if people are, what they need is education on BC, or sterilization, NOT stoning to death.

If JC said he was not here to change even that dumb law, I think he might have been misunderstood!

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

So when do we start the cyber-stoning of Zorro?

 

[nahadef]

In your mind's eye, your still seeing them as innocent victims. Do you even consider adultery to be morally wrong? How about socially wrong?
I see millions of fatherless children out there. A good number of which that have no parental supervision due to their mother working full time to support them. How many fatherless black males are in prison right now because they were not supervised, or worse, sought companionship with fellow street thugs? After all of the problems beyond emotional that adultery brings, do you think it's appropriate that the only deterrent should be a glare and some dirty words?

I'm sorry, but that is not an honest argument. You say adultery is the cause of street gangs? That's very very simplistic and ignores so much about social conditions.

Adultery is a case by case thing. Sometimes the adulterer is a scumbag, that should be glared at, as you wrote. But it's a case by case thing, and I could make a number of cases where there is an argument for adultery. Really, it's none of your business what other people do in bed.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Also, remember that a lot of guys who father children and abandon them aren't married, and neither is the mother -- so they can't be guilty of adultery.

Fathering children and abandoning them is irrelevant to the adultery issue, which is purely a moral judgment. Thank God we don't have a theocracy in the US.

 

[nahadef]

Thank God we don't have a theocracy in the US.

Yet... yet.

People are working night and day on it

 

[BrianLewis]

There is a huge difference between a death and abandonment. Kids are smart enough to know the difference.

 

[Mycernius]

There you go. Like I said when this whole thing got started, there are real Christians and there are people who just call themselves Christians. Warring Christians are Christians in name only. They are not the real deal.

I love it when good old fallacious arguments appear to defend faiths because you don't seem to like the idea of violence in a violent religion. This is the No True Scotsman fallacy and is often used, usually by theists when they do not want to accept that their religion does condone violence.
Ultimately it comes down to the god of the bible, and that is one nasty SOB. Claims of scripture being god breathed means that you do not get to cherry pick as it is supposed to be inspired directly form your god. Jesus said nice things, but he also advocated and stood by some real nasty shite. Which leads to the conclusion that the bible is not divinely inspired, but a book of ancient mythology full of contradictions and it any christian is honest they should admit that they only pick the good bits, or the morally acceptable, to live by. After all if the bible was inerent, as clamed by some, then you wouldn't need apologist making things up to get around the immoral practices within the bible.

I will also point iut that trying to parts of the bible as historical facts is a joke. Exodus never happened. Not one single piece of actually evidence backs up this fairy tale. Like trying to justify violence by quoting Lord of the Rings.

---------- Post added at 09:03 ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 ----------

No, Jesus said that he came not to change the law, but to fulfill it. That much is blatantly clear. What I am attempting to say is that if people respected the law and followed it, then those that chose to break it would accept the consequences from a judge (not some random man). I am a translator, not a judge, so I would not stone anyone.

Cherry picking there Brian. How about the entireity of the passage? It isn't "blantantly clear". Jesus believed in the OT laws, that is what is clear.
The entire piece Matt 5:17-20
NIV
[/B]17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Those are the words of a man condoning the OT laws. Apologists always fail on this passage, then they have the gall to accuse non-believers of cherry picking. Look to your own house.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

"Ultimately it comes down to the god of the bible, and that is one nasty SOB."

It all hinges on that. Sometimes he is nasty. Sometimes he isn't. If he chooses to be nasty in the OT epoch, then that is then. If he chooses to be kind and generous in the NT epoch, then this is now. I believe the explanation is that he has commanded his followers differently in the different epochs, so if their is any illogic and any hypocrisy, it would be God's. However, God may be compensating for the simple fact that humanity progressed. If he didn't, it would be like saying its hypocritical that a parent grounded their child at 12 for not obeying a curfew, but never grounded them after 18 for anything. In a very, very simplistic way, its hypocrisy. But its not that simple.

Mind, you do bring up some great points, and a lot of this I find to be simply inconclusive as to God's will and intent, because of all the contradictory evidence. But if I am going to define what a real Christian is, its going to be the example of the first ones, not the revisionists who came later, basing everything on translations of translations of their holy book, with so many interpretations coming from organizations with a vested political interest in the outcome, such as the Vatican.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Also, remember that a lot of guys who father children and abandon them aren't married, and neither is the mother -- so they can't be guilty of adultery.

Just like the definition of virgin, adultery means different things to different people and definitions have changed over time. One definion of adultery is "sex out of wedlock" precisely the situation you describe.

Even with the more strict definition of one person being married and one not, both are adulterers. So if a single man impregnates a married woman, he too is an adulterer. And if both he and the husband abandon her (which is common enough) you get fatherless children.

Fathering children and abandoning them is irrelevant to the adultery issue, which is purely a moral judgment.

I wish I could say that is 100 percent correct. Its close. But here in Japan for example those having extra-marital affairs get screwed if a divorce happens, so there are legal consequences. But those consequences are totally based on morality, and are civil rather than criminal, so you are 99 percent correct.

I think its screwy. Our bodies are our own. So long as we pass no diseases the law should stay out. And yes, I do believe there should be legal consequences for passing STDs. I would erase entire volumes of sex laws if I could and start over with concepts like that, because there is nothing wrong with sex itself, but there is a lot wrong with causing unwanted pregnancy, passing STDs and forcing people to do it.