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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (27301)	9/24/2009 2:21:38 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Just tell me why you condemn the rich man for an unproven and minor matter while you say nothing against Jesus violating the LAWS OF GOD?? You have not demonstrated that Jesus broke any Law of God. So there is nothing to speak against. As far as condemning the rich man for watching a man starve to death while he ate and drank I think God is completely justified to judge the man accordingly. As to Jesus treatment of the woman: I've already explained that Jesus was not obligated to carry out any legal sentence on the woman. If the legal authorities proved the charges and carried out the sentence according to the requirements of the Law then it would be considered an execution, not a murder. Get a dictionary and look at the difference between the two before you spread even more ignorance around. "Jesus (God) could have told the rich man to keep a better eye on his gateway, eh????" Just because Jesus did not act as a judge at that moment that He met the woman does not mean that she will never have to face the consequences of her life choices. The ultimate Judgement of God comes at the end of ones life not in the middle. I'm certain the rich man had many many chances to repent but sadly, never availed himself of them. "What are you fella--STUPID?????" What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously.

To: Solon who wrote (27301)	9/24/2009 3:11:45 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Instead of murdering the adulteress (who did nothing wrong) Jesus told her to stop having sex with that guy." Stoning adulteresses was a hebrew commandment and Jesus was a Rabbi. Rabbis were charged by the religious authority with judging and sentencing crimes. Sin at the time was synonymous with crime. So when the villagers came ready to punish the adulteress, it would not be murder according to religious doctrine of the day (Once a Rabbi had been consulted) but a lawful consequence for that sin/crime. Adultery was and is labeled as wrong behavior according to scriptural definitions of right and wrong...personal opinion not withstanding. The Roman civil authority backed by the Roman army had been invited in to Jerusalem by Jewish leaders to govern the region. Judgement and punishment of crime at the time had been given over to Roman authorities in an attempt to quell the violence between the factions (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, also Zealots who were not considered a legitimate faction) of the Jewish population which had been embroiled in a quasi civil war. It was now against the civil Roman law for Rabbis to have law breakers punished. Jesus was caught between a rock and a hard place. He had to acknowledge Rabbinical law or be tried as a heretic. Rabbis were still expected (by Jews) to determine right and wrong situationally for the populace. If he enacted the Jewish punishment, however, he would have violated Roman law. He was wise. He did not do as claimed in modern times (forgive the adulteress). He acknowledged the Rabbinical law and proclaimed her guilt when he told her to go and sin no more (it was wrong don't do it again) and had there been people in the crowd who themselves were innocent of sin/crimes (even one person) they had his permission to stone the adulteress. He did not violate Roman law since the sentence was not carried out, he did not violate Jewish law since he recognized her conduct as sin and provided a seemingly fair contingency for her punishment.