PDA

View Full Version : Why the death penalty for some sexual sins.



Delmar
April 18th, 2005, 04:16 PM
Why do you suppose the biblically prescribed consequences for some sexual sin seems so much harsher than for others? The people caught in adultery or homosexuality are to be put to death while the consequences for two single people having sex is to get married.

Seems to me that the institution of marriage, as God defines it, is pretty important to him!

Balder
April 18th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Do you think these laws should still be enforced?

Berean Todd
April 18th, 2005, 04:30 PM
Do you think these laws should still be enforced?

In a non-Jewish society, no. But they are indicitive of God's feelings on the subject of things like homosexuality and it's sinful nature, which has not changed. It didn't change in the millenia separating the giving of the law and the time of the apostles, and it has not changed in the millenia since then.

Everglaze
April 18th, 2005, 04:41 PM
Even if laws were enforced today in non-Jewish society, nothing would change the direction. I mean, people will always invent new ways of doing evil, whether it's sexual sins or other kinds of perversion.

billwald
April 18th, 2005, 06:53 PM
Being forced to marry is sufficient punishment.

Delmar
April 18th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Being forced to marry is sufficient punishment.Why did I know some joker would go there?

Delmar
April 18th, 2005, 07:16 PM
Do you think these laws should still be enforced? Adultery and homosexuality should be considered crimes ,yes.

julie21
April 18th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Berean Todd: In a non-Jewish society, no. But they are indicitive of God's feelings on the subject of things like homosexuality and it's sinful nature, which has not changed.
Can you explain why not in a non-Jewish society please... Are you saying that in the case of having to get married for having sexual relations outside of that institution, God as changed His mind perhaps?...yet not re the other points noted? I am sincerely interested in your reasoning.

Everglaze
April 18th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Adultery and homosexuality should be considered crimes ,yes.

I used to agree on this...and I still do to a certain extent. However, it doesn't really change anything, because in the end, people will still commit them.

It's the same thing with drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.

Take fornication for example. Even if people know the risk and harms and even if protection doesn't guarantee, they're still in it for the pleasure. They'll continue to do this. So, by making it illegal, people would still do this.

Lucky
April 18th, 2005, 11:04 PM
So, by making it illegal, people would still do this.
Not if the punishment is death. :dead:

julie21
April 19th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Not if the punishment is death. :dead:
I think you would find it wouldn't deter all...of course, those who had been killed, would not have the chance to do it more than once...
And, out of interest, would this death penalty for adultery only be in reference to practicing Jews or Christians, or unbelievers as well?

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 06:45 AM
In a non-Jewish society, no.
Why not?

Do you feel the same way about rape and murder?

beanieboy
April 19th, 2005, 07:20 AM
I think you would find it wouldn't deter all...of course, those who had been killed, would not have the chance to do it more than once...
And, out of interest, would this death penalty for adultery only be in reference to practicing Jews or Christians, or unbelievers as well?

Would there be any non-believers?
Elijah killed the worshippers of Baal.
Where is the line drawn?
Would there be an execution of all non-believers as well?

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 07:28 AM
I think you would find it wouldn't deter all...of course, those who had been killed, would not have the chance to do it more than once...Are you only talking about for adultery here, or do you mean that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent in general?

And, out of interest, would this death penalty for adultery only be in reference to practicing Jews or Christians, or unbelievers as well?Criminal justice should not discriminate based on a person's religious beliefs or practices. The pain and dysfunction that adulterous unbelievers inflict upon their families and the families of their "lovers" is just as real.

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 07:29 AM
Would there be an execution of all non-believers as well?No, just like there wouldn't be an execution for anyone who does yardwork on Saturday.

Rimi
April 19th, 2005, 07:44 AM
I used to agree on this...and I still do to a certain extent. However, it doesn't really change anything, because in the end, people will still commit them.

It's the same thing with drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.

Take fornication for example. Even if people know the risk and harms and even if protection doesn't guarantee, they're still in it for the pleasure. They'll continue to do this. So, by making it illegal, people would still do this.


God instituted the death penalty for murder, and yet some people still murdered. Just because some dingbat slob continues to sin/commit crime doesn't mean you do away with the penalty.

beanieboy
April 19th, 2005, 08:20 AM
No, just like there wouldn't be an execution for anyone who does yardwork on Saturday.

Some commandments are just suggestions?

Everglaze
April 19th, 2005, 08:55 AM
God instituted the death penalty for murder, and yet some people still murdered. Just because some dingbat slob continues to sin/commit crime doesn't mean you do away with the penalty.

But the point is, even if you had the penalty and even if the criminal was "stopped," there'd still be people committing it elsewhere at any time, and even in secret.

How many adulterers do you think there are in this world? That'd be a lot of people receiving the punishment. And yet, people won't stop because hedonism goes beyond their ability to think of the consequences.

You can punish them, sure...but that's not my point. I'm only saying that it won't make much of a difference.

Of course, there's a bunch of theories to this "deterrence" thing though -- take Sociology of Deviance class :)

billwald
April 19th, 2005, 11:01 AM
The problem is the ability to detect the "Christian" invention of the thought crime. Christianity teaches that the contemplation of sin produces as much (technical) guilt as the actual carrying out the sin. In OT times, only the act of adultary could be punished. Thanks to lie detection, we now have the ability to punish the criminal thought of adultary and the church would disappear.

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 11:33 AM
The problem is the ability to detect the "Christian" invention of the thought crime. Christianity teaches that the contemplation of sin produces as much (technical) guilt as the actual carrying out the sin. In OT times, only the act of adultary could be punished. Thanks to lie detection, we now have the ability to punish the criminal thought of adultary and the church would disappear.
Nice straw man. billwald, you really are a fool. Not all sins are crimes, and no one is advocating prosecuting anyone for sinful thoughts that are not carried out in action. Even in "OT times" God commanded against not just stealing and committing adultery, but coveting:


"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." Exodus 20:17

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 11:36 AM
But the point is, even if you had the penalty and even if the criminal was "stopped," there'd still be people committing it elsewhere at any time, and even in secret.But many of them would refrain, for fear of the punishment they would receive if they were to be caught.


Of course, there's a bunch of theories to this "deterrence" thing though -- take Sociology of Deviance class :)Or better yet, give God the courtesy to at least find out what He says on the matter.

Gerald
April 19th, 2005, 01:16 PM
Question: if adultery is declared a capital crime, how much effort is reasonable to expend in policing it?

Remember, you're only in trouble if you get caught, and most folks are not going to involve the authorities in something like adultery.

So, here's your problem: you know the adulterers are out there. Now, how do you go about catching them?

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Some commandments are just suggestions?No. God was deadly serious when He told Israel that they should not do work on the Sabbath.

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. Numbers 15:32-36

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 03:35 PM
Question: if adultery is declared a capital crime, how much effort is reasonable to expend in policing it?The same as with any other crime.


Remember, you're only in trouble if you get caught, and most folks are not going to involve the authorities in something like adultery.Criminals try not to get caught? Get outta here!


So, here's your problem: you know the adulterers are out there. Now, how do you go about catching them?Why do you think it would be different than catching any other criminals?

Gerald
April 19th, 2005, 03:55 PM
The same as with any other crime.I'm sure police would be lining up to volunteer for adultery stings... :rolleyes:

Why do you think it would be different than catching any other criminals?Because the police can only go after crimes that are reported; if it isn't reported, it didn't happen, as far as law enforcement is concerned.

If I suspect my neighbor is engaging in a bit of extra-cirricular activity, what incentive do I have to report him? He neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

And if I caught you snooping around on my property, trying to see if I was doing something naughty, and I blacked your eyes, broke your nose and split your lip, would you go running to the police claiming I had attacked you?

I thought not. :chuckle:

julie21
April 19th, 2005, 05:21 PM
So...a non-believer many years ago commits adultery. They then get divorced from their spouse and marries the one they committed adultery with. This couple are non-believers for many years, but are trulyfaithful to each other. Some years later, they both become Christians and live their marriage according to the ways of the Lord. The one who committed adultery feels very sorry that they did what they did.
Should this once adulterer have suffered the death penalty for adultery? If so, then they would have had no chance to see the errors in their lives and become Christian, wanting to follow the Lord's way...or doesn't that matter?

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 07:21 PM
If I suspect my neighbor is engaging in a bit of extra-cirricular activity, what incentive do I have to report him? What if instead of your neighbor, it were your wife?

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 07:29 PM
So...a non-believer many years ago commits adultery. They then get divorced from their spouse and marries the one they committed adultery with. This couple are non-believers for many years, but are trulyfaithful to each other. Some years later, they both become Christians and live their marriage according to the ways of the Lord. The one who committed adultery feels very sorry that they did what they did.
Should this once adulterer have suffered the death penalty for adultery? If so, then they would have had no chance to see the errors in their lives and become Christian, wanting to follow the Lord's way...or doesn't that matter?
Sorry Julie.....I disagree here. Divorce alone is devastating at worst and emotionally wrenching even in the best of circumstances. If adultery causes a divorce, that is in effect the death of a marriage and if children are involved, it's the death of a family. Who pays for that....the one(s) left behind.
The statistics say that those who leave their spouse for another man/ woman, are twice as likely to commit adultery on them too. It's a fairy-tale ideal to believe that both adulterers would remain truly faithful to each other.
Changing of one's mind doesn't absolve one of the consequences of sin.

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 07:36 PM
So...a non-believer many years ago commits adultery. They then get divorced from their spouse and marries the one they committed adultery with. This couple are non-believers for many years, but are trulyfaithful to each other. Some years later, they both become Christians and live their marriage according to the ways of the Lord. The one who committed adultery feels very sorry that they did what they did.
Should this once adulterer have suffered the death penalty for adultery?Assuming that adultery was a capital crime at the time, yes.

I could make a scenario in which an adulterous couple repented prior to their swift executions, recognizing that they were receiving their just punishment and turning to the Lord for salvation. But if they had lived in a country were adultery is tolerated, they would haved lived out their lives in rebellion against God.

I could make up another scenario in which they never committed adultery to begin with because of the Godly criminal justice system that was in place.

Wouldn't it be better to figure out what God says is best and advocate that?


If so, then they would have had no chance to see the errors in their lives and become Christian, wanting to follow the Lord's way...or doesn't that matter?Was God unwise to say that adulterers should be executed?

It may be that we maximize the likelihood that they will repent by sentencing them to death. (One of the criminals who was executed with Christ repented and acknowledged that he was receiving his just punishment.)

And what's better, many of them wouldn't become adulterers to begin with.

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Julie, could you please clarify this statement?



I think you would find it wouldn't deter all...of course, those who had been killed, would not have the chance to do it more than once...
Are you only talking about for adultery here, or do you mean that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent in general?

julie21
April 19th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Sorry Julie.....I disagree here. Divorce alone is devastating at worst and emotionally wrenching even in the best of circumstances. If adultery causes a divorce, that is in effect the death of a marriage and if children are involved, it's the death of a family. Who pays for that....the one(s) left behind.
The statistics say that those who leave their spouse for another man/ woman, are twice as likely to commit adultery on them too. It's a fairy-tale ideal to believe that both adulterers would remain truly faithful to each other.

You of course are entitled to disagree, just as I am with your views.
I have apparently been living in a fairy-tale for the past 18 years then, according to your opinion...and who says that they can't come true? Neither my husband nor I have even contemplated...even in the really bad times of our marriage when we were not Christians...in committing adultery. And now that we are Christians, there is absolutely no way this will ever happen...but you are entitled to say that this is a load of rubbish, but how does anyone know the heart of another, except God? And it is He who has strengthened this 2nd marriage, through His being included in it and blessed it in many ways since coming to Him...if it's wrong, then why would He do that? There is no evidence of 'consequences that have come about from my actions.
You say that children of a divorce caused through adultery suffer...I can get my son to tell you how he feels, living with a father who does not drink alcohol to the point where it is dangerous to all concerned. And that he enjoys the relationship his father, mother and stepfather all enjoy, where his father is still a part of the new family unit, to the point that he goes on family holidays with us. Friends...not raging enemies.


Changing of one's mind doesn't absolve one of the consequences of sin.
Then isn't it funny how He has blessed our marriage in so may ways? What did Jesus do with the adultress woman?...do you think that after stopping those who were sinful in themselves stoning her, as the Law stated...that after He told her to " go and sin no more", that she then suffered from the consequences of her previous sin? I don't believe that she did...He forgave her, she went and sinned no more [ in my opinion] and lived a worth life.
Respectfully yours, even though we differ in opinion.

julie21
April 19th, 2005, 07:58 PM
So Turbo...would you be without sin so that you could personally cast that first stone at me?

julie21
April 19th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Julie, could you please clarify this statement?
I believe that you will never have a 100% effective deterrent for any capital crime...and if you personally want to include adultery, then go ahead. Society has those for whom the death penalty is nothing to them...they will do as they do. Look at Dahmer, and others of his ilk...they knew what was waiting for them.
The same logic is used by kids who race at idiotic speeds in cars, thay believe it will never happen to them. And sometimes, criminals are spurred on by the thrill of trying to get away with it, outsmarting the law. Doesn't adultery also cover women who leave their husbands and marry again or co-habitate with another male, even though their husband is the one who may have instigated the thing in the first place [ Honest question for verification please :)]

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 08:57 PM
So Turbo...would you be without sin so that you could personally cast that first stone at me?Was adultery a capital crime in your country when you cheated on your husband?

Julie, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus.

they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. John 8:4-6

The Romans were occupying Israel, and they did not allow the Jews to execute criminals (see John 18:31). The Pharisees wanted to provoke a conflict between Christ and the Roman authorities. They had absolutely no interest in justice. (Note that they said she was caught in the act, yet the man she was with wasn't also brought to Jesus.)

The Lord did not repeal the death penalty in John 8 any more than He did in 2 Samuel 12 when He forgave David and allowed him to live. (David, by the way, did not go on to oppose God's criminal justice system just because things happened to work out for him.)

God has delegated to governments the responsibility to execute capital criminals (see Romans 13:1-4). But of course God does not expect these governing authorities to be sinless; otherwise He never would have commanded the death penalty to begin with. In fact it is sinful and rebellious of governments not to execute those criminals whom God commands should be executed.

julie21
April 19th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Turbo:
Was adultery a capital crime in your country when you cheated on your husband?
I anm sure you are well aware it isn't. My question to you is this... Do you advocate that it should be imposed as a crime worthy of the Death Penalty, and if it were, would you be capable of carrying out that sentence on me?
Julie
, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus
I am very aware of this point. And am also aware that the case stil remains that she had been caught in adultery, [ and that oddly enough the male was not brought along with her!] as mentioned by Jesus saying to her, "Go and sin no more". His grace was extended to her.


The Romans were occupying Israel, and they did not allow the Jews to execute criminals (see John 18:31)
I was always led to believe that it was the Jews who claimed that they were not allowed to take a life, according to the Law of Moses? As in ...

John 18:31 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
31Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
Pilate gave them the option of doing what they wanted to Jesus according to their Law, not because of Roman Law?

Crow
April 19th, 2005, 09:24 PM
I was always led to believe that it was the Jews who claimed that they were not allowed to take a life, according to the Law of Moses?

Julie, you are misunderstanding the historical context. At the time of the crucifixion, the Jews were under Roman rule, and Rome did not give them the authority to execute criminals. The Jews, prior to Roman rule, did execute criminals. There were capital sentences prescribed for certain crimes.

Turbo
April 19th, 2005, 09:40 PM
I believe that you will never have a 100% effective deterrent for any capital crime... I agree. :doh: I misread/misunderstood what you said before. I thought you were saying "I think you would find it wouldn't deter [at] all..." Sorry about that. :o

Do you agree that although it would not deter 100%, a government that swiftly and consistently executes murderers will have a considerably lower murder rate than one that doesn't, assuming all else equal?


Society has those for whom the death penalty is nothing to them...they will do as they do. Look at Dahmer, and others of his ilk...they knew what was waiting for them.Dahmer was not sentenced to death.

The same logic is used by kids who race at idiotic speeds in cars, thay believe it will never happen to them. And sometimes, criminals are spurred on by the thrill of trying to get away with it, outsmarting the law. But that's not true of people in general, or even criminals in general. Most criminals are deterred by the threat of certain death. (That's why mobsters seldomly double-cross their bosses.)


Doesn't adultery also cover women who leave their husbands and marry again or co-habitate with another male, even though their husband is the one who may have instigated the thing in the first place [ Honest question for verification please :)]In that case, wouldn't it be the husband who left the wife?

No, a woman who is abandoned/divorced by her husband is no longer legally bound to him.

Delmar
April 19th, 2005, 09:52 PM
I believe that you will never have a 100% effective deterrent for any capital crime...and if you personally want to include adultery, then go ahead. Society has those for whom the death penalty is nothing to them...they will do as they do. Look at Dahmer, and others of his ilk...they knew what was waiting for them.
The same logic is used by kids who race at idiotic speeds in cars, thay believe it will never happen to them. And sometimes, criminals are spurred on by the thrill of trying to get away with it, outsmarting the law. Doesn't adultery also cover women who leave their husbands and marry again or co-habitate with another male, even though their husband is the one who may have instigated the thing in the first place [ Honest question for verification please :)]

There will,of coarse, never be a 100% effective deterrent for any crime or sin, but think for a minute how much differently you and the rest of society would view adultery if from the time you were born and long before it had been a capital crime. Think of the social stigma against it. Think what the world would be like if not 100% of people, but at least most people viewed adultery to be as serious a crime as murder. Don't you think that would be a fairly darn effective deterent.

Delmar
April 19th, 2005, 10:04 PM
You of course are entitled to disagree, just as I am with your views.
I have apparently been living in a fairy-tale for the past 18 years then, according to your opinion...and who says that they can't come true? Neither my husband nor I have even contemplated...even in the really bad times of our marriage when we were not Christians...in committing adultery. And now that we are Christians, there is absolutely no way this will ever happen...but you are entitled to say that this is a load of rubbish, but how does anyone know the heart of another, except God? And it is He who has strengthened this 2nd marriage, through His being included in it and blessed it in many ways since coming to Him...if it's wrong, then why would He do that? There is no evidence of 'consequences that have come about from my actions.
You say that children of a divorce caused through adultery suffer...I can get my son to tell you how he feels, living with a father who does not drink alcohol to the point where it is dangerous to all concerned. And that he enjoys the relationship his father, mother and stepfather all enjoy, where his father is still a part of the new family unit, to the point that he goes on family holidays with us. Friends...not raging enemies.


Then isn't it funny how He has blessed our marriage in so may ways? What did Jesus do with the adultress woman?...do you think that after stopping those who were sinful in themselves stoning her, as the Law stated...that after He told her to " go and sin no more", that she then suffered from the consequences of her previous sin? I don't believe that she did...He forgave her, she went and sinned no more [ in my opinion] and lived a worth life.
Respectfully yours, even though we differ in opinion. As far as criminal law goes, it should be what God has comanded! As far as your current marraige is concerned under current law... Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Knight
April 19th, 2005, 11:43 PM
Being forced to marry is sufficient punishment.:D OK... I admit it.... I laughed when I read that.

Knight
April 19th, 2005, 11:51 PM
Was adultery a capital crime in your country when you cheated on your husband?

Julie, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus.

they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. John 8:4-6

The Romans were occupying Israel, and they did not allow the Jews to execute criminals (see John 18:31). The Pharisees wanted to provoke a conflict between Christ and the Roman authorities. They had absolutely no interest in justice. (Note that they said she was caught in the act, yet the man she was with wasn't also brought to Jesus.)

The Lord did not repeal the death penalty in John 8 any more than He did in 2 Samuel 12 when He forgave David and allowed him to live. (David, by the way, did not go on to oppose God's criminal justice system just because things happened to work out for him.)

God has delegated to governments the responsibility to execute capital criminals (see Romans 13:1-4). But of course God does not expect these governing authorities to be sinless; otherwise He never would have commanded the death penalty to begin with. In fact it is sinful and rebellious of governments not to execute those criminals whom God commands should be executed.:first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=730604#post730604)

BillyBob
April 20th, 2005, 04:14 AM
:D OK... I admit it.... I laughed when I read that.

Me too. :chuckle:

julie21
April 20th, 2005, 04:26 AM
Julie, you are misunderstanding the historical context. At the time of the crucifixion, the Jews were under Roman rule, and Rome did not give them the authority to execute criminals. The Jews, prior to Roman rule, did execute criminals.
Thankyou for that Crow...I understood that the Jews fell under Roman rule, but was waylaid by Mark 14:54 where it is said , " And they all condemned him to be guilty of death", in reference to the High Priests and his Jewish council.
Of course, that was merely condemnation of His guilt according to their Jewish Law. They pressured Pilate into releasing Barabbas and called for crucifixion, which of course Pilate decreed with his acting as Rome's proxy in Jerusalem.

julie21
April 20th, 2005, 05:29 AM
Turbo:Do you agree that although it would not deter 100%, a government that swiftly and consistently executes murderers will have a considerably lower murder rate than one that doesn't, assuming all else equal?
It would deter those who had been executed 100% from doing it again, and would also cut them off from the grace of Christ in being able to repent of their sin! ;)
I don't have stats for whether the level of capital crime , [we'll say 'murder' of a premeditated kind], has gone down in those US states where the death penalty is incorporated into individual State law.
I will concede that yes, it would probably have a lowering effect on some in society who have the mind to weigh up the consequences of their actions, ahead of the event. Of course, we know that in a fit of rage, there are those so overcome with emotion that common sense and any time for consideration of the penalty would not come into play at all in their thinking.
There are also those in society who have a lowered mental capacity, and therefore would not be capable of this ability to determine such things as cause and effect, and rational logic in halting their actions.

Dahmer was not sentenced to death.
I stand corrected on this statement [ he died at the hand of an inmate?]
Was it Timothy McVeigh I was thinking of then?
I could not see people of the same ilk as Charles Manson worrying about the Death Penalty waiting for them. As I stated, there will always be individuals who will thumb their nose at the law, and even go harder at it as in a game of Russian Roulette. People still tend to play that game, don't they, even knowing what their chances are? The same as with those who get into the heavy drug scene...there are always the percentage who will still do it...no matter what the penalty is.
[I guess that this can be shown, in an abstract way, even through those who are atheists being told that they will end up in eternal Hell if they do not accept Christ...but still not caring what the ultimate penalty is]


Most criminals are deterred by the threat of certain death. (That's why mobsters seldomly double-cross their bosses.)
But see, death is ONLY certain for them IF THEY GET CAUGHT, and are found guilty in a juried court system, after having the luxuryof a lawyers defence, as given by the governing authorities of our day.
Mobsters, as far as I can determine, are usually executed without having the chance for a fair hearing by a jury of their peers, and certainly not within the Legal system...a bit like the Sanhedrin pulling the adultress up to Jesus, isn't it, except that Jesus was full of grace and knew of their ulterior motives. Now they were of a mobster mentality!


No, a woman who is abandoned/divorced by her husband is no longer legally bound to him.
Matthew 5:31-33 (King James Version)
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
I know this passage has had problems with the translation of two major words re fornication/ adultery in the original text..and will not argue on that point as I am not schooled in Old Greek , but I can, having only my mere Bible translations to look to, take it as translated above. Therefore, to me it reads that if a married woman is divorced by her husband is committing adultery if not divorced for the right reason...and that any man who marries her is guilty of that crime as well. Not so?

julie21
April 20th, 2005, 05:46 AM
Turbo: The Lord did not repeal the death penalty in John 8 any more than He did in 2 Samuel 12
He did infact repeal the death penalty for these two instances..the meaning of the word 'repeal' is to revoke...which He chose to do in these cases.
Repeal: To cancel (normally a law)...from http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/glossary.html#r
God repealed the Law for them and instigated grace and mercy for their crimes.
Of course, this does not mean that the Biblical law's penalty that you refer to and argue for was repealed overall and forever more.

Gerald
April 20th, 2005, 08:42 AM
What if instead of your neighbor, it were your wife?I still wouldn't involve the authorities; I can handle such things perfectly well without their help.

billwald
April 20th, 2005, 11:29 AM
"Even in "OT times" God commanded against not just stealing and committing adultery, but coveting"

EXACTLY! St Paul "confessed" to the one sin (commandment) that could not be prosecuted under the Mosiac Covenant because there was no way to know what a person was thinking. Now there is a way to know what people are thinking.

Say, for example, a simpler version of the lie detector was invented. One that analyzes speach. When a candidate for church member ship is interviewed he could be asked about his covetous and adulterous thoughts. Of course this wouldn't apply to the elders.

Balder
April 20th, 2005, 11:40 AM
If it is sinful not to follow God's commands WRT crimes that should be prosecuted with execution, should we also still be stoning people for those crimes? Or is there Biblical precedent for leeway in that area?

Crow
April 20th, 2005, 11:47 AM
If it is sinful not to follow God's commands WRT crimes that should be prosecuted with execution, should we also still be stoning people for those crimes?

No. Paul pointed out that we as believers are subject to the laws of our government. Our government does not prosecute by stoning.


Or is there Biblical precedent for leeway in that area?

Check out Jesus's trial. The Sanhedrin did not execute Him because they were forbidden to by the ruling Roman government, so they took Him to Pilate to plead their case for execution.

Balder
April 20th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Okay, that makes sense. In an ideal world, though, would we return to stoning people (and sometimes burning them for infidelity among certain in-laws) under Judeo-Christian law?

Delmar
April 20th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Okay, that makes sense. In an ideal world, though, would we return to stoning people (and sometimes burning them for infidelity among certain in-laws) under Judeo-Christian law? Is there another method that you would prefer?

Balder
April 20th, 2005, 01:17 PM
If we're going to do it, it should be painful and horrific, no? Really humiliating and physically excruciating, 1) so that the offenders really grasp what they have done (adultery, homosexuality, etc), 2) so we can have the feeling of satisfaction that evil is getting its just reward by being really inflicted with evil itself, and 3) so people witnessing it can have some sense of the real torment that is in store for them if they do not obey the law and God's commands.

The traditional Biblical methods seem well-suited for the above, but maybe someone can improve on them, if that's Biblically permissible.

Crow
April 20th, 2005, 01:18 PM
Okay, that makes sense. In an ideal world, though, would we return to stoning people (and sometimes burning them for infidelity among certain in-laws) under Judeo-Christian law?
Nope, in an ideal world, people wouldn't commit adultry.

Balder
April 20th, 2005, 01:27 PM
How about an ideal social order?

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 02:05 PM
If we're going to do it, it should be painful and horrific, no? Really humiliating and physically excruciating, 1) so that the offenders really grasp what they have done (adultery, homosexuality, etc), 2) so we can have the feeling of satisfaction that evil is getting its just reward by being really inflicted with evil itself, and 3) so people witnessing it can have some sense of the real torment that is in store for them if they do not obey the law and God's commands.

The traditional Biblical methods seem well-suited for the above, but maybe someone can improve on them, if that's Biblically permissible.

Yes, they are. They're nice and sadistic.

Agape4Robin
April 20th, 2005, 05:40 PM
You of course are entitled to disagree, just as I am with your views.
;)

I
have apparently been living in a fairy-tale for the past 18 years then, according to your opinion...and who says that they can't come true? Neither my husband nor I have even contemplated...even in the really bad times of our marriage when we were not Christians...in committing adultery.
So, both of you were married when you met?
Congrats on the 18 years! :BRAVO:


And now that we are Christians, there is absolutely no way this will ever happen...
Never say never......


but you are entitled to say that this is a load of rubbish, but how does anyone know the heart of another, except God?
I'm not questioning your heart's intent or your husbands, I just stated what the marriage statistics say. When it comes down to it, it's the level of commitment that both people in a marriage have to have for it to be successful according to God's standards.


And it is He who has strengthened this 2nd marriage, through His being included in it and blessed it in many ways since coming to Him...if it's wrong, then why would He do that?
This is the key here......


There is no evidence of 'consequences that have come about from my actions.
No? Hhmmm.....sin without consequence? :think: None? :confused:

You say that children of a divorce caused through adultery suffer...I can get my son to tell you how he feels, living with a father who does not drink alcohol to the point where it is dangerous to all concerned.
With all due respect, I have been through severe issues of dependency in my marriage and we worked very hard at getting through those issues. God was the only thing that held us together. I am convinced of that. Yes, there were times when my children would have rather we split up than go through the hell that they went through watching their parents hurt each other, but if you ask them now, they would tell you that they have seen the lives of their friends whose families have fractured and splintered off and they feel grateful that we stuck it out and worked like crazy through pain and anger and resentment and came out of it with a stronger and more blessed life for it. If you asked them, they would tell you they are blessed to have both parents who love them and each other.



Then isn't it funny how He has blessed our marriage in so may ways? What did Jesus do with the adultress woman?...do you think that after stopping those who were sinful in themselves stoning her, as the Law stated...that after He told her to " go and sin no more", that she then suffered from the consequences of her previous sin? I don't believe that she did...He forgave her, she went and sinned no more [ in my opinion] and lived a worth life.

Like another poster pointed out, where was the man she was caught with? The illustration was not so much about the adultery as the intent of the Pharisees in seeking to trap Jesus. But I do see your point.

Delmar
April 21st, 2005, 10:23 PM
Turbo: The Lord did not repeal the death penalty in John 8 any more than He did in 2 Samuel 12


He did infact repeal the death penalty for these two instances..the meaning of the word 'repeal' is to revoke...which He chose to do in these cases.
Repeal: To cancel (normally a law)...from http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/glossary.html#r
God repealed the Law for them and instigated grace and mercy for their crimes.
Of course, this does not mean that the Biblical law's penalty that you refer to and argue for was repealed overall and forever more. Incorrect! The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. In John:8 the witnesses all took off when Jesus wrote in the sand. No witness no conviction. In 2 Samuel the only witness against David was Nathan and he could only testify to what God had revealed to him. He did not witness the crime or the physical evidence that we know of.

julie21
April 22nd, 2005, 08:22 AM
Incorrect! The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. In John:8 the witnesses all took off when Jesus wrote in the sand. No witness no conviction. In 2 Samuel the only witness against David was Nathan and he could only testify to what God had revealed to him. He did not witness the crime or the physical evidence that we know of.
Okay...the witnesses took off after Jesus asked that he who had no sin cast the first stone, and whilst He wrote in the sand, the eldest moved away first then the youngest, for as with us all, they were not perfectly sinless. They were still witnesses...more than one of them...and they 'testified' to Jesus what the woman had done. Jesus knew the reasons for their bringing her to them - without the male, as we know- and so took the stand he did. The matter did not go to a court/council for official ruling. Jesus grace came into play against the self-righteousness of the Sanhedrin.
Yes you are correct re the parable of 2 Samuel as well... :)

I'll get back to you with more soon....;)

julie21
April 22nd, 2005, 09:10 AM
Deardelamar...you stated that their were no witnesses, therefore no conviction.
I tell you now that Jesus did convict the adulteress...Jesus refused to condemn the woman.

After the scribes and Pharisees drift away (probably because Jesus wrote their sins in the sand!), our Lord stands up and he says to her, "Has no one condemned you?" She replies, "No one, sir." To which Jesus responds, Neither do I condemn you

But he still does convict her.
He convicts her of her sin by what he says in the very next line of the text. Immediately after our Lord says to her, "Neither do I condemn you,’ he adds the instruction, ‘Go, and from now on do not sin anymore."

He labels the deed a sin, and commands her not to do it again.

There is a big difference between "convicting" and "condemning"?

Simply put, to convict is to identify or expose a particular sin;
to condemn is to say or imply that someone is damned. During his earthly life, Jesus very often did the first, but he never, ever did the second—as we see evidenced in this Gospel. But Jesus is God—which means that on the Day of Judgment he will do the second. Or, to be a little more accurate, he will ratify the fact that certain people have condemned themselves.

You are not God! And neither am I!
Consequently, because we are imperfect, fallible human beings, we never have the right to condemn! Only God is qualified to do that, because only God knows the heart [ and that is how he will judge those guilty of 'lusting in the mind' a woman who is not their wife- thus committing 'adultery]; only God knows how culpable a person is for his or her sins. We do not—even if we think we do, have the right to throw that first stone or switch or whatever...for neither you, nor I, are free from sin.
And that is what the Gospel tells us, throughout.

Another point in this argument re punishment by stoning to death adulterers etc, according to Deuteronmy law, is that these laws were a Covenant Law between God and Israel [ the Laws and the punishments to be meted out],
I don't really think that I am Israel...would I not , along with a heap of other people in society today, be considered as Gentile...that is if we are looking at the OT Laws of Deuternomy? Whereas Christ came with His new Covenant of redemption forgiveness through the act of His grace and mercy, and this Covenant is now for all, Jew- as in Israel, and Gentile?:think:

Delmar
April 22nd, 2005, 09:43 AM
Deardelamar...you stated that their were no witnesses, therefore no conviction.
I tell you now that Jesus did convict the adulteress...Jesus refused to condemn the woman.


True but he also never stated that the government would have been wrong to do so. Jesus was not a governmental leader....yet!

billwald
April 22nd, 2005, 10:35 AM
"The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. "

And for prosecuting any criminal offense. In other words, circumstantial evidence is not allowed. In other words, 90% of modern criminal convictions should be tossed. For example, there are no witnesses to testify against Teb Bundy, "Green River Killer," The Mad Bomber" . . . .

Turbo
April 22nd, 2005, 11:16 AM
"The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. "

And for prosecuting any criminal offense. In other words, circumstantial evidence is not allowed. In other words, 90% of modern criminal convictions should be tossed. For example, there are no witnesses to testify against Teb Bundy, "Green River Killer," The Mad Bomber" . . . .
Not again! :bang:

billwald, we've been through this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=321534#post321534) again (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=521467post521467) and again (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=547997#post547997).

A "witness" is not necessarily an eye-witness. Why do you cling to this inane idea that is so obviously not true?

billwald
April 22nd, 2005, 10:07 PM
It is the conclusion of 2000 years of Jewish study - by the people who gave us the OT.

Turbo
April 23rd, 2005, 03:04 PM
It is the conclusion of 2000 years of Jewish study - by the people who gave us the OT.No, the people who gave us the OT died long ago. If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight? Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah? Upon what evidence is their conclusion based? Your appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) is a logical fallacy.

I've shown you where the Bible refers to "witnesses" that are not eye-witnesses. And I've shown you the example of the rapist who God says should be put to death even though the only eye-witness is the victim. I've even shown you dictionary entries that confirm that the definition of a "witness" is not limited to an eye-witness. One could say that I've presented two or three witnesses that testify against your ridiculous assertion.

Didn't you used to be a police officer? Surely you know that criminals generally don't have the courtesy to perform their crimes before an audience. Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something? Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims?

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 03:21 PM
No, the people who gave us the OT died long ago. If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight? Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah? Upon what evidence is their conclusion based? Your appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) is a logical fallacy.

I've shown you where the Bible refers to "witnesses" that are not eye-witnesses. And I've shown you the example of the rapist who God says should be put to death even though the only eye-witness is the victim. I've even showed you dictionary entries that confirm that the definition of a "witness" is not limited to an eye-witness. One could say that I've presented two or three witnesses that testify against your ridiculous assertion.

Didn't you used to be a polic officer? :Patrol: Surely you know that criminals generally don't have the courtesy to perform their crimes before an audience. Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something? Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims?
Well said!!!!! :BRAVO:

billwald
April 23rd, 2005, 07:08 PM
"If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight?"

Jesus never criticized their theology, only their personal practice.

"Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah?"

No, but they can read historical documents.

"Upon what evidence is their conclusion based?"

Historical evidence indicating that the "eye for eye" was not physically enforced but converted to a monetary penalty. The Sanhedron went out of they way to give legal protectionc to the accused as does American Jurisprudence.

"Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something?"

No one goes unpunished. "What goes around, comes around." Trust God. Don't seek revenge in this life.

Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims? "

Like the NAZIs gassing the Jews?

Delmar
April 23rd, 2005, 08:15 PM
Would there be any non-believers?
Elijah killed the worshippers of Baal.
Where is the line drawn?
Would there be an execution of all non-believers as well?
In that case you would never know the answer to your own question

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 08:22 PM
In that case you would never know the answer to your own question
:chuckle:

Turbo
April 24th, 2005, 12:54 PM
"If Jewish scholars automatically interpret scripture properly, why did Jesus spend so much time setting them straight?"

Jesus never criticized their theology, only their personal practice.No, Jesus said things like this:


He said to [the Pharisees], "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." Mark 7:9

And this:


Jesus answered and said to [the Sadducees], "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Matthew 22:29-32

And this:


And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], "Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning "made them male and female,' 5and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:4-6




Do the Jewish scholars you are referring to even recognize that Jesus is the Messiah?
No,...Then they do not believe Moses either.


Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.” John 5:45-46


...but they can read historical documents.

Historical evidence indicating that the "eye for eye" was not physically enforced but converted to a monetary penalty.All that proves is that the Israelites rejected God's commandments in favor of their own ideas and traditions. No surprise there. That's a recurrent theme throughout Scripture.

I've read in Deuteronomy 22 God said that a rapist who commits his crime with no one around to see or hear should be put to death. How do you (or your favorite gurus) explain that?

And I've also have read other passages where God refers to "witnesses" that are not eye-witnesses and are not necessarily even people. How do you (or your favorite gurus) explain that?



The Sanhedron went out of they way to give legal protectionc to the accused...You mean like when they went to Pilate to beg him to execute a totally innocent Man? The Sanhedron hated God.


He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Proverbs 17:15


...as does American Jurisprudence.And we have a crime epidemic because of that. American Jurisprudence is not based on God's ideas about criminal justice. Why do you reject God's commandments for your own traditions, billwald?



Do you like to let criminals go unpunished or something?

No one goes unpunished. "What goes around, comes around." Trust God. Don't seek revenge in this life. Are you therefore against punishing criminals altogether? Why in the world did you become a police officer?

I don't seek to avenge myself, but I do give place to wrath.

God has given governments the responsibility to punish criminals and He has told us which punishments are appropriate for which crimes, and how much evidence is necessary to convict. And I do trust God that His ideas are best.

But instead of trusting what God says you trust what those who reject Him say, even though those ideas would lead to a crime rate that would rival the days leading up to the Flood.



Why would God want to make it so easy for criminals and so hopeless for their victims?
Like the NAZIs gassing the Jews?Unresponsive. Is there a point you're trying to make here?

Delmar
April 24th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Forensic patholigists are great wittnesses but the rarley see the crime happen!

Turbo
April 24th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Forensic patholigists are great wittnesses but the rarley see the crime happen!
Unless they saw the crime actually take place, their testimony is to be dismissed. Thus saith billwald.

billwald
April 24th, 2005, 02:02 PM
We now know that circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable and impartial than eye witnesses.

Turbo
April 24th, 2005, 02:20 PM
We now know that circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable and impartial than eye witnesses.
:confused: Yet you (erroneously) say that God wants us to disallow all evidence that is not eye-witness testimony.

You're all over the map.

Irenaeus
April 25th, 2005, 07:22 AM
Why do you suppose the biblically prescribed consequences for some sexual sin seems so much harsher than for others? The people caught in adultery or homosexuality are to be put to death while the consequences for two single people having sex is to get married.

Seems to me that the institution of marriage, as God defines it, is pretty important to him!

My take on this question is that God's Law doesn't extend much beyond the 10 Commandments, but the Law of Moses did because it had to be tailored to the Israelites, who were a notoriously stiff-necked, chaotic and unfaithful people. Remember that God gave Moses the Law to teach the Israelites how to live and to put a name on the transgressions that lead to death (see Romans 5:18-21). The fact that the Law of Moses called for the death penalty to be meted out for sex crimes shows that Israelites were not up to regulating the moral standards of their communities peacefully by accord. (See Luke 12:57-59: "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?").

If you take the 10 Commandments together with the provisions of the Law of Moses mentioned in the New Testament (prohibitions against sexual immorality and divorce except in response to infidelity), exclude the provisions regarding uncleanliness (see Peter's vision in Acts) and ritual worship ("I demand mercy, not sacrifice"), then you get a divine law that Christians of any culture and of adequate faith can easily live and prosper under. This law does not require sinners to be put to death, but rather characterizes sin as a crisis of faith requiring repentance and redoubled efforts to acquire the amount of faith necessary to render the law less burdensome to live under (see Romans 7-8).

Remember that Christ is the narrow door (see Luke 13:23-25), and it is only through faith in Christ that we are saved. This narrow door extends into the past before Jesus when the Law of Moses applied, and into the future after Christ's ascension (see Romans Romans 5:12-21). Because Christians are on the other side of the narrow door, the law that we're under is the revised code taught by Jesus and the apostles.

billwald
April 25th, 2005, 11:51 AM
"My take on this question is that God's Law doesn't extend much beyond the 10 Commandments, "

Then please list which of the remaining 603 statements it extends to.

Irenaeus
April 27th, 2005, 02:43 PM
"My take on this question is that God's Law doesn't extend much beyond the 10 Commandments, "

Then please list which of the remaining 603 statements it extends to.

If you know something of law, then you'll know what I mean when I say "in rem" and "in personam". "In rem" refers to legal rights and obligations that attach to physical property. The Law of Moses gave rights and assigned obligations to property owners, but only to those who owned property located within the Promised Land. Such provisions are in rem and inapplicable to Christians.

In addition, the Law of Moses assigned ritual and social duties to individual Israelites as well as to Israelite communities. "In personam" refers to legal rights and obligations that attach to relevant individuals and communities. Given that God's covenant with the Israelites was a social contract (look up Thomas Hobbes and John Locke if you're not conversant with this term), I propose that Christians, whose faith in God is not guaranteed an earthly reward, are under none of the provisions of the Law of Moses that govern Israeli society and Hebrew ritual worship.

If you're still in doubt, then consider Matthew 9:16-18. Are Christians not the patch of unshrunk cloth and the new wine?

billwald
April 27th, 2005, 07:42 PM
That's my theory. The Mosiac Covenant was a social contract for people living in Israel, not Gentiles in Milwaukee. Not one verse refers to gentiles outside the land or to the next life.

aikido7
April 30th, 2005, 01:23 AM
These harsh proscriptions are part of the Levitical Holiness Code. Weren't they devised during the Jewish diaspora, or some social historical catasrophe that threatened to further break up and/or assimilate normative Judaism into another tribal empire?

You cannot strive for empire if your people are having unprocreative sex.

Real estate: location, location, location
History: context, context, context

Lighthouse
April 30th, 2005, 02:43 AM
You cannot strive for empire if your people are having unprocreative sex.
Your parents should have had unprocreative sex.

aikido7
April 30th, 2005, 02:45 AM
Your parents should have had unprocreative sex.
You have God's word, and you know how to use it.

Frank Ernest
April 30th, 2005, 05:26 AM
These harsh proscriptions are part of the Levitical Holiness Code. Weren't they devised during the Jewish diaspora, or some social historical catasrophe that threatened to further break up and/or assimilate normative Judaism into another tribal empire?
No.


You cannot strive for empire if your people are having unprocreative sex.
Wrong. You can't maintain an empire that way.


Real estate: location, location, location
History: context, context, context
:yawn:

aikido7
April 30th, 2005, 12:02 PM
No.

Wrong. You can't maintain an empire that way.

:yawn:

"...The book of Leviticus was composed during the Babylonian Exile in the latter years of the sixth century BC primarily by a group of Jewish religious leaders who came to be known as 'the priestly writers.' It was a survival decument, calling and shaping the Jewish people [into} a dedication strong enough to continue their existence as a people...."
--"A Guide to Understanding the Bible" by Harry Emerson Fosdick

Frank Ernest
May 1st, 2005, 04:37 AM
"...The book of Leviticus was composed during the Babylonian Exile in the latter years of the sixth century BC primarily by a group of Jewish religious leaders who came to be known as 'the priestly writers.' It was a survival decument, calling and shaping the Jewish people [into} a dedication strong enough to continue their existence as a people...."
--"A Guide to Understanding the Bible" by Harry Emerson Fosdick
:darwinsm: So you and Fearless Fosdick think it was all made up?

Sure didn't work, did it?

:Commie: :loser: atheist

Delmar
May 1st, 2005, 05:38 AM
:darwinsm: So you and Fearless Fosdick think it was all made up?

Sure didn't work, did it?

:Commie: :loser: atheist
;)

Rimi
May 4th, 2005, 06:42 AM
But the point is, even if you had the penalty and even if the criminal was "stopped," there'd still be people committing it elsewhere at any time, and even in secret.

How many adulterers do you think there are in this world? That'd be a lot of people receiving the punishment. And yet, people won't stop because hedonism goes beyond their ability to think of the consequences.

You can punish them, sure...but that's not my point. I'm only saying that it won't make much of a difference.

Of course, there's a bunch of theories to this "deterrence" thing though -- take Sociology of Deviance class :)

Sorry I've taken so long to respond. SIL in hospital, MIL was, then niece. Everyone I know is in the hospital.

It doesn't matter that people won't stop committing sin/crime: if it's wrong, it's wrong. If the majority of them say murdering all blonde women between the ages of 21 and 25, it's still wrong. We are to punish those caught to the fullest extend (of God's law, preferrably). If they continue in adultery, then they'd better get real good at hiding it. And it DOES make a difference: it deters the ones caught. If we execute a murder, then he can't murder anymore. Bottom line, it's a matter of justice, not deterrence.

Rimi
May 4th, 2005, 08:19 AM
I am very aware of this point. And am also aware that the case stil remains that she had been caught in adultery, [ and that oddly enough the male was not brought along with her!] as mentioned by Jesus saying to her, "Go and sin no more". His grace was extended to her.

True, both man and woman should've been brought before Jesus if they were going to test Him properly with the Law. As it was, the Leaders were breaking the law themselves by only charging one of the two, as both were to be stoned to death per the Law. It'd be interesting to know what Jesus would've said had the Pharisees had done this properly.

As for Jesus pardoning her, sure, because Jesus has that authority. Judges do not, Pharisees do not, we do not.

Rimi
May 4th, 2005, 08:25 AM
True but he also never stated that the government would have been wrong to do so. Jesus was not a governmental leader....yet!

Jesus didn't have the chance to because it wasn't a fair test. The Jewish leaders were disobeying the law themselves by only condemning one of the two found in adultery.