Flogging adulterers and adulteresses one hundred times

[inJESUS]

I’ll ignore the veiled ad hominem here simply to stress that I am not defending Islam. I am merely trying to couch discussions between Christianity and Islam to the singular text that is common to both.

I fully accept that Jesus is Lord and that on a philosophical level Christianity surpasses all other faiths in its discovery of the “goodness” of Gd.

i didn’t mean to attack or offend so sorry if you felt like this. What you call a common text is understood differenty and its application is different that is why a Jewish court which puts to death “One person in seventy years” is called murderous. Others say, “If we had been in the Sanhedrin, no one would have ever been put to death.” (Makkot 7a). What 23 judges should not do in 70 years, Muhammad in his 23 years did much more without even applying the Jewish criteria and giving a totally blind eye to the Messianic covenant. Picking and choosing coupled with ignorance is a dangerous road.

 

[planten]

** I wonder what would be the punishment of adultery in church system? Will any one be punished or let off scott free? Will the act of adultery be a sin? If it is a sin then what punishment will the Pope prescribe for an adulterer? Please help the world understand your system. Thanks.

We have learnt about the punishment in Judaic system and the Islamic system. Let us now have the knowledge about the christian system.**

 

[paarsurrey]

Clearly, therefore, while the Torah supports the death penalty in principle, it places formidable obstacles to its implementation, and it was rarely implemented.

Hi

Do you mean that Jews and Catholics have always been endeavoring to subvert the law in stead of implementing it? Then; why have a Law to start with?

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

**The Sanhedrin’s powers were tempered by “sensitivity to the importance of each soul,” **created in the image of God (another obstacle) to the extent that the technical requirements for carrying out the death penalty were next to impossible to fulfill…you cannot just kill a person based on circumstancial evidences because you might end up killing an innocent soul that is why a full conviction was nearly impossible.

Hi

So, you mean, if God (CatholicGod, Father or Son) made a mistake Sanhedrin corrected it?!

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

 

[ralphinal]

** I wonder what would be the punishment of adultery in church system? Will any one be punished or let off scott free? Will the act of adultery be a sin? If it is a sin then what punishment will the Pope prescribe for an adulterer? Please help the world understand your system. Thanks.

We have learnt about the punishment in Judaic system and the Islamic system. Let us now have the knowledge about the christian system.**

A sin is judged by and punished by God and God alone. We are not God and can neither judge a man’s heart nor carry out divine justice.

You system allows for a certain level of deception that you do not see. By saying that man can do God’s work, if the guilty are not found out, they escape punishment. We do not allow for that because God knows. Assuming that they are caught, they may lose their family, their standing in the community, and more, but none of that is from the Church

The role of the Church is to bring sinners to God. Beating sinners does not make them love God. Cutting hands off of people does not make them love God. Stoning people does not make them love God.

Now, I will ask this question again: are the floggings and stonings open to public viewing?

 

[Valke2]

And for the record OT punishment for adultery (and OT is really the only applicable benchmark to Islam):

“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22: 22)

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death” (Leviticus 20: 10).

As the Qu’ran demands a flogging rather than death, it would appear that Islam is rather more hospitable (in this highly relative comparison) wouldn’t you say?

Yes. It would appear so from reading those two verses. However, the reality is that Jews rarely, and I mean rarely, ever executed anyone. This highlights a major difference between Jews and Muslims in how they read their sacred texts. Much like “an eye for an eye” was viewed as too violent to be taken literally, the Jewish court would almost never find a case of adultry or breaking the sabbath clear enough to warrant the death penalty. As opposed to the more extreme branches of Islam which feel they are forced to stone a rape victim because she may have done something to encourage her attackers, like find herself alone with them.

 

[inJESUS]

Valke, that’s what i’ve trying to say and maybe for some it is better to read it from a Jew…on a side note, i read somwhere that while some think eye for eye is violent, it actually means something to the effect of “do to others what you want done for yourself”.

 

[inJESUS]

Hi

Do you mean that Jews and Catholics have always been endeavoring to subvert the law in stead of implementing it? Then; why have a Law to start with?

Thanks

no, am saying that both understood better than Muhammad’s picking and choosing based on misinterpretation of what he thought the law is.

 

[planten]

A sin is judged by and punished by God and God alone. We are not God and can neither judge a man’s heart nor carry out divine justice.

You system allows for a certain level of deception that you do not see. By saying that man can do God’s work, if the guilty are not found out, they escape punishment. We do not allow for that because God knows. Assuming that they are caught, they may lose their family, their standing in the community, and more, but none of that is from the Church

The role of the Church is to bring sinners to God. Beating sinners does not make them love God. Cutting hands off of people does not make them love God. Stoning people does not make them love God.

Now, I will ask this question again: are the floggings and stonings open to public viewing?

That apparantly seems to be a good explanation for not punishing any one for their crimes. But it could never be the right course. Not practical, it would be un-natural and unreal course for mankind.

About your question at the end, Yes, the punishments, some of them must be given in public so that every one comes to know the result of those bad deeds.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, that’s what i’ve trying to say and maybe for some it is better to read it from a Jew…on a side note, i read somwhere that while some think eye for eye is violent, it actually means something to the effect of “do to others what you want done for yourself”.

The traditional Jewish (and I believe christian?) interpretation is that the verse teaches that one must compensate for injury done to another. ANd that compensation is usually in the form of money (or sheep, depending on the time period).

Of course I mean that in the near future when money is no longer of value, compensation will again be in the form of sheep

 

[ralphinal]

That apparantly seems to be a good explanation for not punishing any one for their crimes. But it could never be the right course. Not practical, it would be un-natural and unreal course for mankind.

About your question at the end, Yes, the punishments, some of them must be given in public so that every one comes to know the result of those bad deeds.

Crimes and sins are not always the same. Crime is a violation of Civil law. Sin is a violation of God’s law. The two may or may not occure together. Punishing criminals for crimes is the job of the governement. Punishing sinners is not. Besides, does committing a crime, or a sin, make someone give up basic human dignity?

Have you ever studied human behavior? Witnessing violence makes people more violent. That is fact. Period. Beating or killing someone in public does not make others not do it, it makes them more likely to beat or kill someone else.

 

[eldestofvic]

i didn’t mean to attack or offend so sorry if you felt like this. What you call a common text is understood differenty and its application is different that is why a Jewish court which puts to death “One person in seventy years” is called murderous. Others say, “If we had been in the Sanhedrin, no one would have ever been put to death.” (Makkot 7a). What 23 judges should not do in 70 years, Muhammad in his 23 years did much more without even applying the Jewish criteria and giving a totally blind eye to the Messianic covenant. Picking and choosing coupled with ignorance is a dangerous road.

Actually I’ve been looking for my response (just found the search function under my profile… surprised me I didn’t think of that earlier ). I was reflecting after I had posted and found myself seeing it from your perspective.

I also just returned from the funeral of one of our local soldiers (blown up by one of those oh so brave IED’s). Standing in the choir looking into the eyes of his daughter I suddenly realized ya know I really don’t give a whit about civility to these freaks of nature anymore. Pope JPII, I’m sorry but I think you were a bit confused in your old age. I say “nuke the 'f’ing lot of them”… let Allah sort out the mess.

 

[inJESUS]

yes Eldestofvic, from a purely human point of view, hatred and vengeance are usually the first thing that come to mind but hatred and vengeance never solve a problem, on the contrary, they continue it and affect the life of the one who has hatred in a very negative way. We have tribal families in here, if one of the tribes kills a member of another tribe, they will kill someone back, and it is a closed circle, until they agree to forgive, only then there is peace among them. Hatred and vengeance are never the solution, and when jesus says to do repay evil with evil, that’s because He knows best.

 

[eldestofvic]

Save your preaching for the choir. I was just venting.

Though I still think JPII was a bit confused I fully realise that what ever personas of vermin these people put on they are still created in the likeness of Gd.

 

[Valke2]

Save your preaching for the choir. I was just venting.

Though I still think JPII was a bit confused I fully realise that what ever personas of vermin these people put on they are still created in the likeness of Gd.

I’m just venting here as well. Do you mean to say "you’re preaching to the choir?

 

[ChristIsLord]

playing devils advocate here but it is widely believed that the story of jesus saying “he is without sin cast the first stone” is largely a fabrication by early scribes. i believe it is, as the saying seems to insinuate that jesus is saying, unless one is perfect they cannot execute civil punishment on criminals. which of course makes no sense. to believe that saying and apply it to daily life. a jury is in no position to execute judgment on a pedophile on trial since no one on the jury is without sin. it really makes no sense if you think about it.

to be honest the way we’ve allowed the left to decriminalize adultery, no fault divorce, and make fornication and adultery not only socially acceptable but a topic driven at our tv audience as something hip and fun is pathetic. i particularly think women are the main focus, as any popular show driven towards women typically involve bizarre love triangles, affairs, and other debauchery. i wouldn’t mind going back to a few stripes for things like adultery.

 

[eldestofvic]

I’m just venting here as well. Do you mean to say "you’re preaching to the choir?

Nah just beating the **** out of a metaphor. Metaphor mixing and to boldly split infinitives, these are a few of my favorite thinks.

 

[eldestofvic]

playing devils advocate here but it is widely believed that the story of jesus saying “he is without sin cast the first stone” is largely a fabrication by early scribes.

Not sure if I’m even interested in the rest of this post. However, I was wondering if you could back up the bolded part of your statement. I think it fair that even “devil’s advocates” have their facts straight.

It would seem from the research done by others here that Jesus was tapping into a well understood measure of the Sanhedrin’s jurisprudence in this statement. His words would have been clearly understood by his audience in their ramifications. I see no reason why he couldn’t have said them.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Not sure if I’m even interested in the rest of this post. However, I was wondering if you could back up the bolded part of your statement. I think it fair that even “devil’s advocates” have their facts straight.

It would seem from the research done by others here that Jesus was tapping into a well understood measure of the Sanhedrin’s jurisprudence in this statement. His words would have been clearly understood by his audience in their ramifications. I see no reason why he couldn’t have said them.

misquoting jesus by bart ehrman is the main source i got this from, but he uses countless sources in his book. from my understanding this story does not exist in any of the earliest manuscripts and none of the early church fathers can be read quoting this story although most other famous stories and parables can be found quoted. this story doesn’t begin showing up until the 5th or 6th century, and when it does, it is located in differing gospels.

 

[ralphinal]

playing devils advocate here but it is widely believed that the story of jesus saying “he is without sin cast the first stone” is largely a fabrication by early scribes. i believe it is, as the saying seems to insinuate that jesus is saying, unless one is perfect they cannot execute civil punishment on criminals. which of course makes no sense. to believe that saying and apply it to daily life. a jury is in no position to execute judgment on a pedophile on trial since no one on the jury is without sin. it really makes no sense if you think about it.

Anyone who comes to this conclusion is missing part of the story. If Jesus said do not kill her, he is in violation of Mosaic law. If he said do kill her, he is in violation of Roman law. What he did was dodge the issue while placing a new understanding in the minds of people. We are NOT to punish people for their sins. We can punish for their crimes. They are two different things.

to be honest the way we’ve allowed the left to decriminalize adultery, no fault divorce, and make fornication and adultery not only socially acceptable but a topic driven at our tv audience as something hip and fun is pathetic. i particularly think women are the main focus, as any popular show driven towards women typically involve bizarre love triangles, affairs, and other debauchery. i wouldn’t mind going back to a few stripes for things like adultery.

Should adultry be a crime? Should it be punished by jail time? If a man is found to be in adultry, gets sent to jail, loses his job and his family loses their home, who is punished? Children.

You are half right: women are the focus of the corruption of society, but not the target. Society is trying to de-value women by hypersexualazation.

Instead of beating the hell out of adulterers, why don’t we try to teach people to value themselves and their sexuality? Fear of punishment is not the same as Love of God.