Thread: Hey I back home!!!

You could say that.

Then you might want to recall what Jesus said to certain scribes and Pharisees who were so eager to stone a prostitute to death: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

I do not recall reading any qualification on "without sin like that".

Originally Posted by laserlight

Then you might want to recall what Jesus said to certain scribes and Pharisees who were so eager to stone a prostitute to death: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

I do not recall reading any qualification on "without sin like that".

I started to stay out of this topic when it started because it involved Govtcheez being an idiot beyond which I have seen of him until recently and Queatrix being Queatrix.... But then I forgot what this topic was about and ended up opening it again and deciding I could skip the garbage, which unfortunately does not appear possible.

Anyway, I am always amazed at how many people bring this Biblical story up with some intent to show that people should not condemn either what they see as a sin, or a person who has committed what they see as a sin.

Some points I would like to raise with regard to your narrative of the story:

1. The crime was adultery and not prostitution, hence the woman was not described as a prostitute in the Biblical account.
2. By the conclusion that some ascribe to this story, one might conclude that no sin should ever be punished or condemned. That is stupid.
3. The context was that the Pharisees and scribes in question already knew the judgment proscribed in the Mosaic Law and challenged Jesus over it as a trick question.

I am of little doubt that my posting this might result in a larger flamewar over religion, but I am irritated when people throw quotes around out of context with regard to casting stones and judging people.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

It's a web based class.

I think I've already graduated.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Some points I would like to raise with regard to your narrative of the story:

1. The crime was adultery and not prostitution, hence the woman was not described as a prostitute in the Biblical account.
2. By the conclusion that some ascribe to this story, one might conclude that no sin should ever be punished or condemned. That is stupid.
3. The context was that the Pharisees and scribes in question already knew the judgment proscribed in the Mosaic Law and challenged Jesus over it as a trick question.

Since I'm fairly undecided what I think about your comments, I'll play. Of these, I'll only address the second and the third. The first is simply getting the story straight.

I think a more likely conclusion to draw from this story is that "no sin should ever be punished or condemned by man". Obviously Jesus is without sin, so it is up to him to cast the first stone. Man, on the other hand, cannot answer to the challenge. That conclusion is not without precedent. Consider Paul in Romans 12:19 and 14:4. Who are we to judge someone else's servant?

Of course, then the question turns to context. Romans 12 talks of reserving revenge for God. What purpose does punishment serve other than to assuage society's moral outrage? Romans 14 talks about maintaining civility with other Christians of different beliefs. If we can't even agree on sin, then how can we in good conscience punish someone? The context of the story may be one thing, but it certainly communicates the message that punishment is reserved for God alone.

As an aside, I've always found this interesting. Here is a woman brought forward for punishment for adultery...um, except it takes two, so where's that other person?

Originally Posted by pianorain

I think a more likely conclusion to draw from this story is that "no sin should ever be punished or condemned by man". Obviously Jesus is without sin, so it is up to him to cast the first stone. Man, on the other hand, cannot answer to the challenge. That conclusion is not without precedent. Consider Paul in Romans 12:19 and 14:4. Who are we to judge someone else's servant?

Perhaps in the larger picture, but I think that one that walks away with what you're saying might lose sight of the importance of judgment. If there is not judgment, no focus on the terribleness of sin, no real negative value of sin, why did Christ die?

Consider times that judgment was executed and executed by in a manner some may say was harsh:

• Numbers 25: Phinehas' execution (literally) of judgment, which was approved by God.
• II Kings 1: Elijah called down fire from heaven on two companies, each one consisting of fifty soldiers.
• Acts 13: Paul cursing the sorcerer.

Originally Posted by pianorain

Of course, then the question turns to context. Romans 12 talks of reserving revenge for God. What purpose does punishment serve other than to assuage society's moral outrage? Romans 14 talks about maintaining civility with other Christians of different beliefs. If we can't even agree on sin, then how can we in good conscience punish someone? The context of the story may be one thing, but it certainly communicates the message that punishment is reserved for God alone.

How ironic it is that you speak of Romans 12 and 14, yet you skip Romans 13, which speaks of how rulers in government are setup with God-given authority to rule!

Ruling is necessary, and rulers are God's ministers. Furthermore, if rulers are God's ministers, then should we not expect judgment from those that "beareth not the sword in vain"?

Originally Posted by pianorain

As an aside, I've always found this interesting. Here is a woman brought forward for punishment for adultery...um, except it takes two, so where's that other person?

Indeed. I've heard this point raised before, and it is amusing I admit, however, the Pharisees and scribes needed only one condemnation of death for their purposes.

To better sum up my position on the subject, I'd like to clarify some things. First of all, I'm not against showing mercy, and I hope what I have written does not come across this way. I disagreed with the post because this is how the events appeared to me:

1. Queatrix says or hints (I do not really care to check) that homosexuality is a sin.
2. laserlight introduces this story to conclude that Queatrix cannot judge with regard to the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Basically, it's either a sin or it's not, and if it is, I fail to see the point of bringing the story up. All laserlight has managed to do is to encourage the notion that homosexuality is indeed a sin by the comparison, and asking Queatrix to withhold his judgment anyway. Either argue it's not a sin and stand in that camp, or hold that it's a sin, but by no means try to state that it's a sin, yet we cannot speak ill of it.

At no point did Jesus ever say adultery wasn't bad or say we could not object to it. In fact he told the woman to "go and sin no more", showing that he was, obviously, against all forms of sin. I think some are missing the point. If something is indeed a sin, it should be condemned.... should it not?

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Perhaps in the larger picture, but I think that one that walks away with what you're saying might lose sight of the importance of judgment.

In a way, that's exactly what I'm trying to get across, though slightly adjusted: not that we lose sight of the importance of judgement, but of judgement by man. What good does it do for me to be judged by someone else? In most cases, it will bring a defensive reaction, emotions will rise, and minds will close off. I believe understanding that one is in a state of sin is important, but I also believe that understanding can only come from within one's self. You can preach to me seven ways 'til sundown, but until I realize that I am guilty, then I cannot understand the rest of the message. From the accused's point of view, it can be difficult to separate who is judging and condemning from who is simply being the bearer of bad news.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

How ironic it is that you speak of Romans 12 and 14, yet you skip Romans 13, which speaks of how rulers in government are setup with God-given authority to rule!

Ruling is necessary, and rulers are God's ministers. Furthermore, if rulers are God's ministers, then should we not expect judgment from those that "beareth not the sword in vain"?

Not exactly ironic; I just searched for passages that I remembered. I was somewhat surprised that they were so close together.

I am not altogether convinced that ruling is necessary, nor am I convinced that rulers are God's ministers. I have a great deal of difficulty with this passage due to the reality of unjust governments. If rulers are God's ministers, then they would minister. However, who is called to be God's judge? In the New Testament, there are a couple of different lists of spiritual gifts. Neither includes judgement. I realize there's an entire books called Judges; unfortunately I haven't studied it.

In brief, I would find it difficult to live my life in good conscience expecting to universalize some concept of sin that I might come up with. Really, I don't need to do that. We don't have to go searching in the nooks and crannies of the rulebook to find something that convicts us. At best, I can only judge myself, and even there I might fail.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

I started to stay out of this topic when it started because it involved Govtcheez being an idiot beyond which I have seen of him until recently

Hahahahhaaha, what?

I love this thread. It's the best thread ever!

>>GayCheeze

ROFL hard...

best. thread. ever.

>>Is my butt going to have a baby?<<

I am so putting that on my sig on another board (i don't visit this one enough)

While debate and discussion are good, and joking with each other is fine. Please be careful to avoid outright flames.

I went searching for the best thread ever and this one topped the list. Last I remembered it was about summer vacation. How it went from that to Queatrix casting a terrible light on Christians is a bit beyond me...it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.