SOS message to Christian women and men: Do you accept the stoning of women for reasons of adultery

[Eliot Wild]

BTW - I think all those Christians who try to get Ten Commandments monuments put up in courthouses and city halls would disagree with you about the relevance of the OT.

Ohhh, excellent point. That was frubalicious.

 

[kejos]

Ohhh, excellent point. That was frubalicious.

What would skeptics do without their stooges?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Christians don't do such things, do they.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What would skeptics do without their stooges?

What would poets do without their Muses

 

[kejos]

"No True Scotsman" fallacy?

The No True Scotsman Fallacy fallacy.

And the idea that Christians can only disagree with the OT because it is inaccurate is another bit of nonsense.

 

[kejos]

What would poets do without their Muses

Work much harder.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think so, and there are several ways of interpreting the text.

(1) Paul, for example, theorized that the "law" was given to us because we had hardened hearts - both the breaking of the law and the execution of the punishment were indicators of the sin and uncleanliness of everyone. Paul was trained as a Jewish teacher in Jerusalem....

The implication of this is that, perhaps due to extenuating circumstances, it was still the best option available. No?

(2) The later rabbis practiced a rather wild form of exegesis. They would not interpret this literally at all. The stoning of an adulteress could mean that the stones are bread and the religious people should not eat it on the day that they find an adulteress.

I can't even wrap my head around the mental gymnastics required to go from "kill adulterers" to "don't eat breat if you find an adulterer".

I think that it's quite evident that most Jews did not keep the execution laws - or much of any other laws. The ones that did take the laws were extremists and often persecuted the more moderate Jews.

Fair enough, though I don't think it's so much a question of practice as what regard they gave to their scriptures.

Of what concern is it to non-Christians?

I find it interesting to explore all sorts of ideas, regardless of their source. If your position is logically consistent, it'll still be logically consistent to a non-Christian.

Why are Jews never asked such questions?

Who says they aren't?

Christians don't do such things, do they.

You're being sarcastic, right?

BTW - you do realize that the definition of "mortal sin" that is used by the world's largest Christian denomination relies entirely on the Ten Commandments (i.e. the Old Testament), don't you?

 

[Eliot Wild]

What would skeptics do without their stooges?

I don't know, they'd probably start believin' everything they're told, and hang on every cryptic word penned in ancient texts. Then, perhaps, they'd start calling people names rather than forming cogent, competent arguments for their positions.

You think?

No, most likely, they'd continue to rationally assess and challenge fallacious arguments regardless of whether or not there was anyone else to agree with them.

But resorting to name calling in the absence of reasonable opposition, that is obviously reserved for others.

 

[kejos]

I don't know

I do. They'd have no YECs, legalists, liberals, magic healers of any other of the absurd phoneys that populate America. They'd have to do some real work, not just tilt at windmills.

Or give up, most likely.

 

[kejos]

I find it interesting to explore all sorts of ideas, regardless of their source. If your position is logically consistent, it'll still be logically consistent to a non-Christian.

So is there some possibility of conversion in this?

Who says they aren't?

I do.

You're being sarcastic, right?

Why should I be?

BTW - you do realize that the definition of "mortal sin" that is used by the world's largest Christian denomination relies entirely on the Ten Commandments (i.e. the Old Testament), don't you?

Christianity is nothing much to do with denominations.

And few are chosen, anyway.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can't even wrap my head around the mental gymnastics required to go from "kill adulterers" to "don't eat breat if you find an adulterer".

It's not a mental excersize. It's rabbinic exegesis, which is (to me) completely unpredictable.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The implication of this is that, perhaps due to extenuating circumstances, it was still the best option available. No?

No, I don't think so.

The best option was not stoning. I would argue that it would be quite rare - if it was a common thing to do, there would be little need for divorce.

For example, there is the teaching of Jesus that divorce is only lawful if there has been adultery - but no mention of stoning. [The story in John 8 is a later tradition]

Jesus's teaching aligns with the opinion of Gamliel, a popular rabbi of his time.

 

[kejos]

The best option was not stoning.

It wasn't an option at all. The Romans deprived the Sanhedrin of capital jurisdiction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So is there some possibility of conversion in this?

Heh... I wouldn't hold your breath. Internal consistency is a requirement for truth, but it's not the whole story.

I do.

Then you're wrong. Jews do get asked questions like this. I remember a debate I had with one of the Jewish members here a while back about the death penalty, where he based his position on a literal reading of certain OT commands. I was (hopefully) emphatic with him that I felt that particular command was immoral.

Why should I be?

Because anyone who paid even a little bit of attention to the media over the last decade or two would already know the answer to your question.

Christianity is nothing much to do with denominations.

Sure it doesn't.

But just for you, I'll re-phrase: it is easily demonstrable that at least one-third of practicing Christians place great emphasis on at least some parts of the Old Testament. This is in addition to the many more that consider the Old Testament to be important whose position has less obvious evidence associated with it.

And few are chosen, anyway.

Ah... so you are going for the "No True Scotsman" thing, aren't you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It wasn't an option at all. The Romans deprived the Sanhedrin of capital jurisdiction.

The Romans would not allow the Sanhedrin to practice crucifixion, but stoning was perfectly within their jurisdiction.

​

Jewish Criminal Law and Legal Procedure Author(s): Max May Source: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951), Vol. 31, No. 4 (Nov. - Dec., 1940), pp. 438-447 --- see note 16

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Stoning, as we have seen it, was neither among the Greeks nor the Romans a legal punishment. In this these nations are opposed to the Jews, by whom it was legally employed."

​

Notes on Stoning among the Greeks and Romans Author(s): Arthur Stanley Pease Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 38 (1907), page 17

 

[kejos]

The Romans would not allow the Sanhedrin to practice crucifixion, but stoning was perfectly within their jurisdiction.

For Temple violations only.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For Temple violations only.

 

[kejos]

Heh... I wouldn't hold your breath.

I didn't think I'd have to.

There really is an explanation for this, as there is for everything in the OT (and NT), but I think it would be oh so nice to be asked rather than a gun put to one's head. So to speak.

Then you're wrong. Jews do get asked questions like this.

Perhaps, but I've never seen it happen. In contrast to the daily experience on the 'net.

I remember a debate I had with one of the Jewish members here a while back about the death penalty, where he based his position on a literal reading of certain OT commands. I was (hopefully) emphatic with him that I felt that particular command was immoral.

Well, down in Texas they might disagree.

Because anyone who paid even a little bit of attention to the media over the last decade or two would already know the answer to your question.

So people can tell me who's a Christian? Because even the angels don't know that.

it is easily demonstrable that at least one-third of practicing Christians

Whoah! All of those claiming to be Christians cannot be Christians, because they have mutual contradiction about what a Christian is. Unless God is schizoid.

Abraham had no Ten Commandments, and he was 'a friend of God'. Like Israel (Jacob), after whom the, er, Israelites were named. So work that one out, if you can.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, down in Texas they might disagree.

Red herring.

So people can tell me who's a Christian? Because even the angels don't know that.

Depends what you mean by "Christian". The standard definition is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." What a person professes is evidenced by what they say; you don't need to look into someone heart of hearts to tell that.

Whoah! All of those claiming to be Christians cannot be Christians, because they have mutual contradiction about what a Christian is. Unless God is schizoid.

Wait a minute - you just said that nobody can tell who's a Christian. Now you're telling me that you know people aren't Christian? This seems contradictory to me.

In any case, as I pointed out above, it seems like you're working from a different definition of "Christian" than the rest of us.

... and how do you know God isn't "schizoid", anyhow?

Abraham had no Ten Commandments, and he was 'a friend of God'. Like Israel (Jacob), after whom the, er, Israelites were named. So work that one out, if you can.

Abraham and Jacob also weren't Christians, so I don't see how they're relevant to this discussion.