4 ms·

> the one guilty was to be stoned to death because they had committed a crime deserving the death penalty. In comparison to crimes with similar punishment today

by adriand 11y ago

> the one guilty was to be stoned to death because they had committed a crime deserving the death penalty. In comparison to crimes with similar punishment today, how many would say to not judge a murderer unless you are blameless? Surely you are aware that the "crime deserving the death penalty", in this instance, was the "crime" of adultery. Based on that, I don't think your line of questioning holds up.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I don't see how our modern view of what was then a capital crime matters. When the quote was said, it was said to a group who were asking to carry out a death sentence for a capital crime. That is to say, the line of reasoning is that you should not carry out an execution for a capital crime unless you are without sin. To insist that this quote only applies to adultery and not to other actions which different societies may or may not judge as capital crimes is about as meaningful as insisting that this literally means to not throw the first stone, but other punishments, including other means of execution, are allowed.
- adriand 11y ago
  I don't agree. I think that this quote expresses a more modern understanding of human transgressions such as adultery than what was present in the culture at that time. It called into question whether in fact capital punishment was appropriate for a transgression of that sort. I'm reminded of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's comment when he defended a bill decriminalizing homosexual acts: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >I don't agree. I think that this quote expresses a more modern understanding of human transgressions such as adultery than what was present in the culture at that time. It called into question whether in fact capital punishment was appropriate for a transgression of that sort. Comes from the same set of books where anyone guilty of breaking one law is guilty of breaking them all, and comes from the guy who claimed to not only be the son of the one who made the laws that carried capital punishment, but who was there to give people a way to not be punished regardless of the crime. Nothing in His message was 'these crimes here are far worse than those crimes there'. As for the bedroom bit, I find that almost no one believe that as soon as you have either money exchanging hands or some person who has been around the sun one too few times.

by adriand 11y ago

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

I don't see how our modern view of what was then a capital crime matters. When the quote was said, it was said to a group who were asking to carry out a death sentence for a capital crime. That is to say, the line of reasoning is that you should not carry out an execution for a capital crime unless you are without sin. To insist that this quote only applies to adultery and not to other actions which different societies may or may not judge as capital crimes is about as meaningful as insisting that this literally means to not throw the first stone, but other punishments, including other means of execution, are allowed.

adriand 11y ago
I don't agree. I think that this quote expresses a more modern understanding of human transgressions such as adultery than what was present in the culture at that time. It called into question whether in fact capital punishment was appropriate for a transgression of that sort. I'm reminded of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's comment when he defended a bill decriminalizing homosexual acts: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >I don't agree. I think that this quote expresses a more modern understanding of human transgressions such as adultery than what was present in the culture at that time. It called into question whether in fact capital punishment was appropriate for a transgression of that sort. Comes from the same set of books where anyone guilty of breaking one law is guilty of breaking them all, and comes from the guy who claimed to not only be the son of the one who made the laws that carried capital punishment, but who was there to give people a way to not be punished regardless of the crime. Nothing in His message was 'these crimes here are far worse than those crimes there'. As for the bedroom bit, I find that almost no one believe that as soon as you have either money exchanging hands or some person who has been around the sun one too few times.