Immoral Laws

Originally posted by moonbus
(total neutrality about everything is also a nonsense position which need not be refuted because no one holds it).

Yet you seem to be trying very hard to do so. To be honest, I really don't know what your position is at all. You appear to keep contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by FMF
"He did not apologize for the law of God in the least." Does this mean Jesus endorsed it?

How many other "laws of God" were unenforceable because those who might have enforced them were not "free from being just as guilty"?

"He did not apologize for the law of God in the least." Does this mean Jesus endorsed it?

If I reply you will probably answer that you do not "subscribe" to the Bible. So you don't need to listen to anything from it.

But that Jesus said not one dot or one serif would not pass from the law until all was accomplished indicates that He did [NOT] [edited] teach God was wrong.

American Standard Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Darby Bible Translation
Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

In the instance of John 8, the woman caught in the act of adultery, He shined a more penetrating light deeper into man's problem. This is not "endorsing" in the sense of encouraging the stoning to take place. But neither is it discarding the law of Moses.

It is making the issue more penetrating to show everyone is equally under righteous condemnation. He alone had the ground to condemn the adulterous woman, and He did not. I think He empowered her to rise and not commit the same sin again by His word "Go and sin no more".

My opinion is that that encounter with Jesus Christ changed her life.

He follows this episode with His immortal words that He is the light of the world. Look at the last verses in that section and the first verse in the next:

(John 8:9-11) - "And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? And she said, No one, Lord.

And Jesus said, neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.

(John 8:12) Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

So Jesus did not condemn the law or endorse that a stoning should take place according to it. He shined Himself into the situation as a greater and more penetrating light which both exposes man's secret sins yet also grants the grace to overcome sin's power.

That's my Jesus. Don't you just want to love Him ?

He's the Great Physician who looks beyond our faults and sees our needs.

Here again Jesus affirms that the law of Moses had its function which will not pass away.

He said -

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

As for His Father, He called Him the Righteous Father whom the world did not know.

"Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me." (John 17:25)

How many other "laws of God" were unenforceable because those who might have enforced them were not "free from being just as guilty"?

I didn't say a law was unenforceable. I said Jesus as the light of the world came and shined a more penetrating light into the consciences of both the crowd with the stones eager to selectively keep a law and the woman herself.

The law of Moses contained many ordinances for atonement, redemption, pardon, and forgiveness. Jesus was the reality of all of these offerings. We have the picture in the Old Testament and the caption underneath the picture in the New.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you seem to be trying very hard to do so. To be honest, I really don't know what your position is at all. You appear to keep contradicting yourself.

I am not without values. I just don't impose them on others; perhaps that is what seems strange to you.

Originally posted by sonship

Is a law requiring a woman to be stoned to death immoral?

Could you specify what law you have in mind?
This is too general and I'd like to consider the particular text and context .

If you need context I presume you think that
in some circumstances it is a moral law.

What would those circumstances be?

btw: I had no law in mind as I cannot conceive
of a law requiring stoning to death as moral.

Originally posted by moonbus
I am not without values. I just don't impose them on others; perhaps that is what seems strange to you.

It does seem strange to me, but I also think you are somewhat inconsistent about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It does seem strange to me, but I also think you are somewhat inconsistent about it.

I suppose that to someone for whom morality is a fixed set of immutable absolutes, anything else seems confusing.

Originally posted by moonbus
I suppose that to someone for whom morality is a fixed set of immutable absolutes, anything else seems confusing.

Surely if ones moral code is not immutable it is worthless?

Do you change your morals on a whim or as and when convenient?

Originally posted by moonbus
I suppose that to someone for whom morality is a fixed set of immutable absolutes, anything else seems confusing.

What is confusing, is that you are inconsistent about it.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Surely if ones moral code is not immutable it is worthless?

Do you change your morals on a whim or as and when convenient?

Morality has neither intrinsic reality, nor intrinsic objectivity, nor intrinsic identity nor intrinsic referentiality
😵

Originally posted by sonship

"He did not apologize for the law of God in the least." Does this mean Jesus endorsed it?

If I reply you will probably answer that you do not "subscribe" to the Bible. So you don't need to listen to anything from it.

But that Jesus said not one dot or one serif would not pass from the law until all was accomplished indicate ...[text shortened]... ngs. We have the picture in the Old Testament and the caption underneath the picture in the New.

Do you think not condemning the judicial killing of women for adultery was a conscious moral decision by Jesus and therefore an example of his morality?

Originally posted by sonship
I didn't say a law was unenforceable. I said Jesus as the light of the world came and shined a more penetrating light into the consciences of both the crowd with the stones eager to selectively keep a law and the woman herself.

If Jesus was without sin, why didn't he uphold the law and stone the woman to death?

Originally posted by FMF
If Jesus was without sin, why didn't he uphold the law and stone the woman to death?

Because he was repealing the law.

If God says that adulteresses are to be stoned (viz. Lev.) and says that adulteresses are not to be stoned (viz. Jesus "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and he does not cast a stone although he is without sin)--then:

a) God is inconsistent
b) supposedly immutable laws are not immutable
c) that which is immutable is worthless
d) all of the above

Originally posted by moonbus
Because he was repealing the law.

If it was his intention to repeal the law then wouldn't it have been more morally sound to condemn the law, which was presumably unenforceable from the very beginning according to Jesus' criterion for its implementation, rather than to fudge the question of the law's validity and its intrinsic moral deficit by shifting the onus to the behaviour of those who sought to enforce it. I see rather weasely posturing here by Jesus where Christians presumably see 'shining moral example'.

Originally posted by FMF
If it was his intention to repeal the law then wouldn't it have been more morally sound to condemn the law, which was presumably unenforceable from the very beginning according to Jesus' criterion for its implementation, rather than to fudge the question of the law's validity and its intrinsic moral deficit by shifting the onus to the behaviour of those who soug ...[text shortened]... rather weasely posturing here by Jesus where Christians presumably see 'shining moral example'.

I don't agree with that assessment. I think Jesus was shifting the moral ground from the act to the intention--generally, not only with regard to adultery.

As a further example, Jesus says, 'What defiles you is not what you put into your mouth, but what comes out of it.' [Matt 15:11] That is a clear reference to the obsessive food restrictions of the Kashrut--not only the animals permitted, but the manner in which they were to be slaughtered and prepared, was minutely regulated. Jesus throws that overboard and says, rather, what comes out of our mouth (i.e., the things you say) is what matters. Pretty radical stuff at the time.

It is clear that Jesus was rewriting some of the OT laws. So much for "immutability."

Originally posted by FMF
If it was his intention to repeal the law then wouldn't it have been more morally sound to condemn the law, ......

It would have, but it would have either got him killed, or at a minimum lost him most of his followers. Then as now, directly criticizing the scriptures was just not on.