Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Achilles who wrote (56333)	7/14/1999 11:33:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>I don't believe I made any such suggestion [that Jesus overlooked sin]. Well. You tried to use Jesus' lack of condemnation of the adulteress to mitigate against the fact of His hatred of sins such as homosexuality. This is the issue, and you ought not insult yourself by use of semantics. >In any case, I'm unsure why you think that this passage is about prostitution (the woman was caught in adultery, whether she was paid for it is not stated).< Yes. I mistakenly used the word “prostitution,” as it pertains to another sinner I had in mind as I posted to you in a rush. Your attempt is nevertheless thwarted, as the principle I underscored in my post remains untouched. The Scripture verses simply cannot be used to show Jesus' acceptance of what was roundly held by the Jews and their God as an abomination. Jesus simply used the circumstances presented to Him, to skewer the Pharisees, who maliciously used the Law against Him, similarly to how you've attempted to use the New testament account against Him. You ought not claim He winked at adultery and homosexuality. It is quite ridiculous. >If the woman was married, the man would also have been guilty of adultery. If she was not married, he was not. (That, at any rate, is my understanding of what adultery meant in the OT.)< This is really beside the point, despite its enticing absurdity. You attempted to use the Scripture verses to discount the notion of Christ's wholesale rejection of sinful practices such as homosexuality. You cannot use the verses in this manner with any reason. Jesus most certainly detests homosexuality by virtue of His love for the Law and the Apostles, all of which condemn homosexuality. Your attempt is destroyed. >It seems to me, in any case, that this passage may have something to tell Christians about overly zealous application of OT law?< Or perhaps the passage has more to say about willfully sinful non-Christians (such as the Pharisees and sanctimonious modern day Bible heathens) who attempt to use the Scriptures to get Christ to say something He certainly would not say. Indeed, looking at the text, I would say it is dang near irrefutable that this is precisely what it is about.