sex without marriage is a great sin

[Naburus]

i think that other abrahamic faith has the answer to that one:

John 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Is Jesus saying that only god is allowed to stone women? Then why'd he have the original passage placed in the bible in the first place?

 

[First Thought]

Is Jesus saying that only god is allowed to stone women? Then why'd he have the original passage placed in the bible in the first place?

He is pointing out that all of the men who wish to stone the woman for her sins have sinned themselves. Thus, none of them are worthy to judge or stone her.

 

[Panache]

awesome. the common sense and morality i was born with tells me that i will be much better off if i kill you and take your stuff. please email me your address, and a good time when you are sleeping so i can come over

That is interesting. It seems to me that religion is useful only to those who lack compassion themselves. They need to be bribed with the carrot of Heaven, or threatened with the stick to Hell in order to behave.

Those who soul is not for sale don't barter it away for promises or let it be extorted from them through threats.

 

[hafez]

Is Jesus saying that only god is allowed to stone women? Then why'd he have the original passage placed in the bible in the first place?

I'm not doubting the wisdom of the quote my question is about the semantics and a disturbing question. Jesus states the " he who is without sin cast the first stone." Then jesus states that he does not condemn her either. The logician in me asks if these statements could be used to argue that jesus was indeed a sinner by his own logic since he lacked the ability to judge based on his own wisdom?

 

[Naburus]

He is pointing out that all of the men who wish to stone the woman for her sins have sinned themselves. Thus, none of them are worthy to judge or stone her.

I will admit my limited knowledge of specific passages in the bible. But, from my understanding there is nothing in there that says you must not have sinned to carry out punishment on a sinner. Punishments seem to vary widely based on what your sin may have been. If someone blasphemed against the holy ghost that is an unforgivable sin assuring your spot in hell from my understanding. But, there is no worldly punishment for it. Therefore, since there is no disclaimer when telling people to stone this woman that you must not have sinned, should the blasphemer be accepted if he stoned the woman? What gives Jesus the right to tell us to do things differently than what his father told us to do originally? But, isn't Jesus and his father the same person? So, isn't God actually telling us to do something differently, as Jesus, but not as God? Where does the holy ghost play into this, surely he has a say, since they are all personalities of one being...

I recognize the wisdom of the quote and I am obviously over-interpreting. There is a lot of wisdom contained in the bible. There is also a lot of similar wisdom in the secular world. To think that it should matter what is written in the bible any more than any other wise philosophical book is foolish in my opinion. Aesop had some very wise teachings in his fables, but there aren't statues or churches devoted to him.

 

[First Thought]

I will admit my limited knowledge of specific passages in the bible. But, from my understanding there is nothing in there that says you must not have sinned to carry out punishment on a sinner.

Jesus' comment was directed at the individuals whom he was speaking to. He was not quoting the Law of the Old Testament or anything else. He was merely pointing out that all of the individuals who were willing to stone someone for sinning had sinned themselves.

Punishments seem to vary widely based on what your sin may have been. If someone blasphemed against the holy ghost that is an unforgivable sin assuring your spot in hell from my understanding.

Some believe that. I do not. When you come to understand the Holy Ghost, you will have no reason to sin against it.

But, there is no worldly punishment for it. Therefore, since there is no disclaimer when telling people to stone this woman that you must not have sinned, should the blasphemer be accepted if he stoned the woman? What gives Jesus the right to tell us to do things differently than what his father told us to do originally?

Moses brought the Law, Jesus brought salvation and Love for God. You may heed Jesus' words, or not. That is your choice to make and yours alone.

But, isn't Jesus and his father the same person?

Jesus is God manifested. A mouthpiece for the Father, if you will. The Father of whom Jesus speaks encompasses both the Manifest(linear perception, physical reality/universe) and Unmanifest(nonlinear, invisible).

So, isn't God actually telling us to do something differently, as Jesus, but not as God?

Jesus and Moses manifested to do different things on this Earth. As stated previously, Moses came to bring the Law and Jesus came to bring salvation and Love.

Where does the holy ghost play into this, surely he has a say, since they are all personalities of one being...

The Holy Ghost does not "say" anything. The Holy Ghost is mediary for communication and unfoldment between the Linear and Nonlinear.

I recognize the wisdom of the quote and I am obviously over-interpreting. There is a lot of wisdom contained in the bible. There is also a lot of similar wisdom in the secular world. To think that it should matter what is written in the bible any more than any other wise philosophical book is foolish in my opinion. Aesop had some very wise teachings in his fables, but there aren't statues or churches devoted to him.

Wisdom and Truth are not solely expressed through religious mediums. The Bible is a valuable tool, as is the scientific method. To swear allegiance to either religion or secularism is to limit the tools one can use to navigate this mysterious world we live in.

 

[cpwill]

That is interesting. It seems to me that religion is useful only to those who lack compassion themselves. They need to be bribed with the carrot of Heaven, or threatened with the stick to Hell in order to behave.

Those who soul is not for sale don't barter it away for promises or let it be extorted from them through threats.

those who lack compassion themselves can be defined (dependent on the standard one is willing to employ for what marks "compassion) alternately as either nobody or everybody. everyone is willing, at some point, to let their own concerns override others.

this is like saying that Christianity is only useful for sinners. the proper response to which would be 'um... duh?"

 

[cpwill]

I'm not doubting the wisdom of the quote my question is about the semantics and a disturbing question. Jesus states the " he who is without sin cast the first stone." Then jesus states that he does not condemn her either. The logician in me asks if these statements could be used to argue that jesus was indeed a sinner by his own logic since he lacked the ability to judge based on his own wisdom?

Jesus pretty clearly puts himself into a different category, i think. do those who have recognized their sin condemn you then neither do i condemn you - now go and sin no more (folks always forget that last part).

Jesus entire mission was one of mercy, of a loving God unwilling to let our sinful natures condemn us.

 

[Panache]

those who lack compassion themselves can be defined (dependent on the standard one is willing to employ for what marks "compassion) alternately as either nobody or everybody. everyone is willing, at some point, to let their own concerns override others.

this is like saying that Christianity is only useful for sinners. the proper response to which would be 'um... duh?"

Well, you are claiming that religion is what stops you from killing people in order to take their stuff. You need an authoritarian figure to command you not to. Many atheists don't kill people in order to take their stuff, despite their lack of belief in such a figure. So how is it that atheists reap the same benefits which you ascribe to religion?

 

[OscarB63]

Marriage without sex is an even bigger sin. :lamo

 

[Geo Patric]

I'm not doubting the wisdom of the quote my question is about the semantics and a disturbing question. Jesus states the " he who is without sin cast the first stone." Then jesus states that he does not condemn her either. The logician in me asks if these statements could be used to argue that jesus was indeed a sinner by his own logic since he lacked the ability to judge based on his own wisdom?

you are having trouble with your semantics (meaning in words).

of course, we are dealing, in english words. with a statement not made in english words, but....

the 'either' (or 'not either') is key, here. 'either' distinguishes the speaker (jesus) from those he to whom refers (sinners).

if i ask that take the words of the prophet to heart and not defile other religions and i won't either, it does not mean that i am a muslim too... in fact, it suggests just the opposite.

geo.

 

[cpwill]

Well, you are claiming that religion is what stops you from killing people in order to take their stuff.

concience, a true desire to follow God's will rather than break it, and an appreciation for the consequences

You need an authoritarian figure to command you not to.

no, i still have free will.

Many atheists don't kill people in order to take their stuff, despite their lack of belief in such a figure. So how is it that atheists reap the same benefits which you ascribe to religion?

1. most athiests today belong to a culture who'se moral tones are historically set by Christianity. even an athiest raised and active in today's West is unlikely to escape Christianity's influence upon his moral sensibilities.
2. human beings are each of us born with an awareness of the moral law. the ability to break it is not indicative of the inability to feel it.