Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man. — Agustino
Not legally, just morally. There is a difference there. I think adultery, unlike fornication, should be illegal, and not just immoral. — Agustino
It is for a limited time, and it is no different than incarcerating the mother or father for theft for example. Of course it will negatively affect the children, but so does their action (their father stealing, or their father committing adultery). It's not an argument not to punish someone because punishing them will negatively affect others. If, say, a single father steals in order to feed his children, and he is caught, arrested, and sentenced, of course it will negatively affect the children. I agree that in such cases the law should be more lenient in the punishments given, but not that the punishments should be absent. — Agustino
Only if you define your right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to include things like theft, adultery, murder etc. if they make you happy. I disagree that those should be permissible choices — Agustino
It is a bit objectifying to claim that women generally dress a certain way just because they want sex. Not only that, it seems to me to be a bit hyper-sexualised, as if we view other people solely as objects of sexual interest, or as if clothing, etc. is all about sex. — Agustino
↪fdrake Oh yeah, blabbering your mouth is certainly an argument. Again, all those people who just blabber their mouths in this thread provide no arguments as to why adultery should not be a crime. — Agustino
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man. — Agustino
Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man.
— Agustino
:rofl: — frank
Got curious about this because it doesn't even sound like it comes from a Christian. It's associated with someone named Sarah Rush. Lunatic apparently. — frank
No it's not hilarious at all, you two are just being ignoramuses. The interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees follow a certain pattern throughout the Bible. The Pharisees always attempt to set up TRAPS for Jesus, and show that he is a false prophet because he does not respect the Law. The Law demands death for adultery under certain given conditions. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to say "Stone her", because then he would have broken the law.I agree: it's hilarious. So, like, if they had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've been like, "Go ahead. Stone away!". — Sapientia
Maybe, you can certainly make this case.Adultery being cheating is already quasi-legal (you can get a potentially lucrative divorce if your spouse cheats on you), but incarceration is going a bit far don't you think? — VagabondSpectre
It would be, except that, as far as I know, you don't lose "more than half your stuff". And what is "half your stuff" isn't very clear. What if all my stuff is, on paper, owned by my mother, but actually I control it? Clearly I won't lose it. What if I acquired that stuff prior to my marriage? Then again, my wife would not be entitled to it. It is only wealth that is acquired over the duration of the marriage that can be disputed.Losing more than half your stuff, and possibly custody of your children, isn't punishment enough? — VagabondSpectre
Yes - from my observation, force works as a deterrent. It is almost the only way to keep people at a mass level in check. That is why in organisations where obeying rules is of the utmost importance - such as the army - there are very harsh punishments for disobedience. There, disobedience is rare.So you think we should be making examples of adulterers by making them suffer in prison as a deterrent? — VagabondSpectre
I see, then we disagree on this legal principle. This is a much more general matter though, whether the law should be rehabilitative or punitive (or perhaps both). It's a discussion that merits its own thread.I think abusing the freedom of some individuals to set an example for others is unjust, but that's just me. I think incarceration should be rehabilitative. — VagabondSpectre
But what about the justice of the law? Shouldn't the law be just?But in the case of a father stealing to feed his children, incarcerating him at any expense which could otherwise feed said hungry children would be a greater crime. — VagabondSpectre
Well that depends. I'm talking strictly about adultery here, which isn't just consensual casual sex, it is a breach of the marriage agreement, which does directly impact third parties.You can't just equate consensual casual sex with theft and murder. Theft and murder directly impact third parties, while consensual sex behind closed doors does not. — VagabondSpectre
Sure, there no doubt are such women, but not everyone is like this. Some women just like to be pretty and admired, for example, and don't want sex. Obviously being pretty and admired involves being attractive - but it's not the same thing as desiring sex.Some women do dress a certain way because they want to be sexually attractive or want sex, same goes for men. It's a fair generalization. Clothing which accentuates sexual organs sends pretty clear signals.. — VagabondSpectre
Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself.Eating McDonald's hamburgers increases the likelihood of developing a variety of health issues. We should throw McDonald's employees in jail for four months to five years, depending on calories sold. — Maw
Well, Jesus is God, so He knew what was in the woman's heart. If she repented in her heart (changed her ways), then He chose to forgive her since she would sin no more in the future. If she wasn't guilty on the other hand (which is also a possibility - that the Pharisees were merely testing Jesus), then obviously letting her go was the right thing to do.No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"? — Noble Dust
What was the trap that the Pharisees were trying to set up for Jesus? — Agustino
Why would the Pharisees have asked Jesus what to do if they were already following the Law? Again, if you look at through the rest of the Gospel texts, you NEVER find instances of the Pharisees saying something like "Shall we do X?" where X is something in accordance with the Jewish Law. But you always find instances of the Pharisees trying to trick Jesus.You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong. — Sapientia
Why do you reckon Jesus would have intervened if, for example, they were going about their business according to the Law? Didn't Jesus say that He came NOT to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it?Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong. — Sapientia
Why? You have provided no explanation or reasons for why this should be the case.If your twisted interpretation were right, then Jesus would not deserve any followers, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian. — Sapientia
Why not? If this was the case in all other stories between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible, shouldn't this be the case here too?It doesn't really matter whether they were or weren't trying to trick Jesus. — Sapientia
The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality.Jesus would've said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", whether they'd brought the woman only or the couple together. He was like the Good Samaritan. — Sapientia
You've implied that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, then Jesus would've had no reason to say what he did, and that he would've allowed the stoning to go ahead without saying anything of the sort to make them think twice. That's wrong. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.