AND the MAN found WITH her. Where was he? Remember, they "caught her in the v-e-r-y act". They did not follow the WHOLE law. They were "picking and choosing" and being "misogynistic". If they had brought the man as per law, there would not have been a story about "the woman caught in adultery".

Zep 3:5
The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.

You're blaming God for the actions of sinful men?

Archaic by modern society, but in light of the statistics on crime in modern society, how's that workin' for ya?

Fault by whose standard? Ps 18:30 -
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

The only sperm God provided was for His Son, Christ. The only perfect man that ever lived and still lives!

Again, by whose standards?

Men inspired by the Holy Ghost to pen the words of God AND Christ. The prejudices and personal motivations you speak of are the history/record of sinful men.

Jim Jones: Just another sinful man.

I have never seen any biblical support of that. I think a better argument is that if they brought the man to Jesus also, he would have still told the group that they were also guilty of breaking the law and thus cannot pass judgement. Did Jesus say anything about bringing the man to be punished? No. If your interpretation is correct, then Jesus did not follow the law because he let the guilty parties go without facing the death penalty. If my interpretation is correct Jesus is acting in accordance to his other teachings and maintaining a consistent position against the human act of retribution.

Actually, John 8 DOES record the Pharisees claiming they "caught her in the act". This would mean (I assume) that there was a man caught too.

It's pretty wide open to speculation as to why the man was not dragged in.

Personally, I believe the whole charade was nothing more than an attempt to trap Jesus. That was their main goal. Upholding the law was NOT their main goal.

It would certainly change the world, wouldn't it? Just imagine how much.

Rapists of that day were not like those of today. In the cases we read of (in the Bible) most were young men who were "smitten" by the young woman. Not all rapists were allowed to buy their victims. Read the 34th chapter of Genesis.

Whatever.
<shrug>

Jesus "set the woman free" because justice was not being served that day. THEY were condemning her to death and at the same time letting her "partner" free.

IMO, your interpretation is wrong. You should study the Jewish law. Read the book of Leviticus. Have you ever observed how Jews haggle over certain subjects? They do about the law as well. We have an accurate translation of the Bible because of their "exactness". It has to be correct. In the case of the woman they were about to stone, Jesus "called them on it". You notice none of them argued with Him. They knew He knew what He was talking about, and further, they knew He was right.

Jesus set the woman free because they did not follow the law. Why should the man go scot free while she paid with her life? If they had followed the law, both would have been executed...and Jesus wouldn't have said a word. BECAUSE HE also kept the law. He specifically said He did not come to destroy (or change) the law BUT TO FULFIL IT!

You can believe that He was acting in accordance to His other teachings and maintaining a consistent position against the human act of retribution, but there is more to it than that. You have to consider the whole law.

Why is this relevant?
Maybe he ran away and she got caught.
Maybe the church leaders were being hypocritical in leaving him alone while concentrating on her.

Where he was is irrelevant, unless you're just looking for an excuse...


So a MAN, singing the praises of God centuries after a lot of these atrocities were committed, somehow negates the heinous nature of these atrocities.
If a side-kick of Jim Jones said, "Jim Jones is blameless", then obviously we have to believe everything, eh?

Quoting Bible passages at me is just ignoring my point.


It's funny how when you SUPPORT the actions of "men of God", they are speaking FROM God.
But when you DO NOT support the actions of "men of God", they are suddenly just "sinful men".
Do you see how that's just a tad too convenient?
And how that establishes a precedent, quite clearly, of how things NOT OF GOD can be included in the bible as law and action? And therefore, the whole thing becomes suspect...


I'm referring to laws which state that a woman should be punished (I believe even with death) if she doesn't struggle hard enough against her rapist.
I'm referring to laws which allow a rapist to marry his rape victim if he pays the father a few shekels.

THAT is what I'm talking about with regards to "archaic".
Do you think re-instating those would bring down crime stats?


Bart Simpson: I didn't do it.
I guess they're both blameless!
<end sarcasm>

The guilty is typically not guilty by his or her own standards.
That is why we typically do not let the guilty decide their own guilt.


Taking my words out of context and avoiding my point...
I made that comment to prove a point about a specific comment you had made.
And now you have lost all context.


So why don't we look at YOUR standards.
By YOUR standards, is it okay to advocate genocide?
Is it okay to advocate that the army should capture and enslave the conquered troops?
Is it okay to advocate that if a woman doesn't struggle hard enough during a rape, she should be punished?
Is it okay to advocate that a rapist can marry the rape victim if he pays the rape victim's father some money?

Let's cut the obfuscating crap.
What are YOUR standards.


Like I pointed out earlier, if you like what they do or say, you claim "divine inspiration".
If you don't, then you claim "sinful men".
Here's a query.
The Bible is FILLED with examples of God correcting "sinful men" in their action and punishing them for their sin.
Why didn't he correct or punish anybody for THESE sins I am talking about???


You're either missing or avoiding my point.
Blindly believing the Bible to justify Biblical philosophy is nonsensical.
It's like having a convict on trial, and then advocating that the prosecution's witnesses can be completely refuted by pointing to the convict and saying he doesn't think he's guilty...

You are claiming the Jesus supported the law, but then you are arguing that he disobeyed it. I don't understand your position. The law did not state that if only one of two guilty people is prosecuted both should go free. I will ask again, if Jesus wanted to uphold the law and expose their double standard he could have demanded her partner to be brought forward too. If we are to follow this example as interpreted by you, if a man and wife go on a bank robbing spree and only the wife is caught, we should let the wife go, right?

Let me ask you this straight forward, if you believe that Jesus supported the death penalty in the case of adultery do you believe we should execute people who are caught in adultery (assuming both parties are brought forward)?

1. Although I agree it would change the world, that was not what I asked. I asked, "...since you seem to think the OT law should still be followed, do you advocate that a woman who has premarital sex should be killed?" I would love to see your opinion on this.

2. First, you have presented a claim with no evidence so I don't know why I should believe your claim. Second, assuming your claim is true, do you think a young man who is "smitten" by the young woman who forces himself upon her should be allowed to buy her and make her his wife and never get a divorce? Finally, I think it is terrible to say that some rapes are not that bad. Forcing someone to have sex with without their consent is rape and is a horrible crime. Oh yeah, about Genesis 34, should we act like the Israelites and take vigilante action without so much as a trial?

I do not argue that He disobeyed. He kept the law perfectly! He even said He did.

You need to think outside the box...there are several conclusions you can come to with this story about the "woman caught committing adultery all by herself".

Neither did it state that just one be put to death. How many does it take to commit adultery? And don't gloss over what they told Jesus: "We found this woman in the very act of adultery". It's a no-brainer that the man was with her when they caught her.

The law states that whosoever commits adultery shall be put to death. Can one commit adultery by themselves? These men most likely let the man go.

Yes, He could have. But He did expose their double standard. When He said, "You who are without sin cast the first stone" they all turned and left. More than likely some of these men who were ready to stone her to death had even been with her at one time or another.

No, we usually continue to look for the man and bring BOTH to trial.

I am for following all of God's law to the fullest. Christians are to be as much like Christ as we can be. However, since the Bible commands us to obey those in authority and the laws of our country, man (in his error) has found it convenient to disregard God's laws, but Christians are still obliged to obey, and the people suffer the consequences. In the case of Terri Schiavo, many came out protesting loudly that the State was wrong in allowing Michael (who was living with another woman) the "right" to have his wife put to death. I find it hypocritical to say the least that many in this country are against putting a heinous killer to death for his crimes for fear of imposing "cruel and unusual punishment" (even lethal injection), and completely overlook how he killed his victim(s) but think it's a mother's right to kill her unborn. That must not be "cruel".

We've taken the liberty to be lax in punishing pedophiles, child molesters, murderers, etc. If we would follow God's laws, our country would not be plagued with an out of control crime rate. Nor would our taxes be so high. Nor would we have heard about a plague called "AIDS", (and to answer your question about executing adulterers) nor would there be so many disfunctional people created through divorce.

If you'd read the secular history of Bible times, you would learn that their crime in that day was almost nonexistent. They "nipped it in the bud". And they did it by capital punishment. It's there. You just have to look for it.

Reflect on our laws on every "problem" that plagues our society today. In each and every problem whether it be the crime rate, fatherless children or welfare, it all goes back to how we address the problem and the punishment of those causing the problem.

To whom or what do you bow your knee? Who is your god? There is something...even if it is yourself.

Americans don't believe in theocracies.