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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Reed who wrote (2754)	5/11/1999 1:05:00 AM
From: Richard Babusek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

Dave, I agree about not opening a theological sub topic on this thread. I felt provoked by what I interpreted as a dismissal of Christianity as a moral vehicle, and read some sort of irony in your statement about lack of God's justice under the sun. At the risk of being out of place: I believe your first and second citations both have the same source, and are teaching not against judgment, but inappropriate judgment generally, and against hypocrisy specifically. John 8,1-11 (The woman caught in adultery) is one of the most powerful “gotchas” ever recorded. The confrontation was between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees, who intended to use their knowledge of the law to entrap Him. There were so many things wrong with their attempt, that it was pathetic. 1. Adultery takes two, if she were caught in the act, where is the man? 2. This was not a legal tribunal, but a lynch mob, very much illegal. 3. According to the Mosaic Law, they were citing to Jesus; (a.) The punishment for false testimony was the punishment for the crime at hand (stoning to death in this case), and (b.) The witnesses to a capital case (it takes two to convict) were required to cast the first stone. So by the same law by which they were trying to entrap Jesus, they were liable to stoning, either by bringing false testimony against the woman, letting her partner in crime out of his just rewards, or by other irregularity they are responsible for in a capital case. That is why the elders first (those most knowledgeable of their culpability) crept away, then the others followed. There is more, like speculation about what He was writing on the ground. It is said in the Hebrew scriptures (of which these provocateurs are experts), that those who keep the commandments will have their name written in the book, and the evil will have their name written in the dirt. We don't know what He was writing, and we don't know if anyone present knew either. But they must have at least wondered about it. There are additional lessons and insights as well, but my main point is against isolating a quote from the lips of Jesus, and using it to forward an idea that is antithetical to scriptural teaching. So it causes me distress when the meaning of the provocative line is couched in terms to infer an ulterior meaning; “let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her”, is often used to imply only the faultless among us can make moral judgments. By this reason, only saints can confront evil. I do feel this post is somewhat out of place, but this specific scripture is so often misquoted I couldn't resist the opportunity to vent a little. It's sort of like when someone throws a grenade at you, its hard to ignore. Ricardo