Could it become illegal to criticise religion, and Islam in particular?

[Santiago 10]

The whole thrust of Christianity is love of neighbour and to do no harm to others, in fact we are told not to judge and to leave it to our heavenly Father on judgement day and if you don't believe in that then nothing is going to happen on judgement day, and for those who follow Christianity it wont happen on earth. (I'm saying nothing about those outside of Christianity)

 

The whole teaching of Jesus was about peace and if you notice in practical terms it was the Jews who were going to stone the woman taken in adultery which is something Christians have never done.

 

.

 

Yes, but Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. In the story you mention, he was a Jewish rabbi preaching to a Jewish audience.

[EbonyBranch 10]

The whole teaching of Jesus was about peace and if you notice in practical terms it was the Jews who were going to stone the woman taken in adultery which is something Christians have never done.

 

The other point to make here, if i remember the context correctly, is that this scenario was suppposedly sprumg on jesus as a trap to challenge his assertions about his own divinity. In the story he recognises the nature of the thing and turns it back on his critics by stipulating that 'he who is without sin cast the first stone', having first scribbled something, possibly a list of the sins of those present, in the dust. The whole thing was a clever rhetorical ploy on jesus's part to deflect criticism.

 

As far as i remember there is no mention in the bible of how many other stonings he may have strolled past indifferently!

[Santiago 10]

So are we saying Jesus can be regarded as tolerant of stoning - or even pro-stoning - because every example of his opposition to it was not recorded?

 

I think Jesus was pretty consistent in saying don't judge others before you have judged yourself - this is reflected in the stoning story.

[Grahame 10]

The other point to make here, if i remember the context correctly, is that this scenario was suppposedly sprumg on jesus as a trap to challenge his assertions about his own divinity. In the story he recognises the nature of the thing and turns it back on his critics by stipulating that 'he who is without sin cast the first stone', having first scribbled something, possibly a list of the sins of those present, in the dust. The whole thing was a clever rhetorical ploy on jesus's part to deflect criticism.

 

As far as i remember there is no mention in the bible of how many other stonings he may have strolled past indifferently!

 

I said in my previous reply that Christ's reply was wholly in line with the thrust of His teaching. One of the things that people remember is the Old Testament injunction of an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, meaning there is a limit on punishment and to kill someone for committing adultery goes way beyond that. Besides which it is breaking the commandment not to kill, so yes what Jesus said was in line with both Old Testament law and His own teaching.

.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Grahame

[Berlin 10]

Anyway the things atheists are saying has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous and I cannot be bothered any more.

.

 

Afternoon Grahame

 

I'm only saying one thing. There is no god. That's neither sublime nor ridiculous. Just fact.

[Grahame 10]

Afternoon Grahame

 

I'm only saying one thing. There is no god. That's neither sublime nor ridiculous. Just fact.

 

Afternoon Berlin.

 

I will tell you another fact. Whether you believe in God or not there is nothing finer than Christianity.

[Berlin 10]

Afternoon Berlin.

 

I will tell you another fact. Whether you believe in God or not there is nothing finer than Christianity.

 

Haven't you heard of chocolate?

[Grahame 10]

Haven't you heard of chocolate?

 

I like it.

 

Berlin, you know your stuff, can you remind me about the Rabies in the temple, wasn't a lot of Old Testament law their own construction?

 

.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Grahame

[Berlin 10]

I like it.

 

Berlin, you know your stuff, can you remind me about the Rabies in the temple, wasn't a lot of Old Testament law their own construction?

 

.

 

Is this a Freudian Slip, or do you know something I don't?

[Berlin 10]

Berlin, you know your stuff, can you remind me about the Rabies in the temple, wasn't a lot of Old Testament law their own construction?

 

.

 

As far as I know the Rabbis were only charged with interpreting the "Law of Moses" as it was known. At the time of Christ, this consisted of the 5 books of the Torah (or Pentateuch). Everything else was added later.

[Grahame 10]

Is this a Freudian Slip, or do you know something I don't?

 

Slap wrist.

 

Change that to Rabbi. What do you know? Didn't their laws take precedence and that was one of the problems Jesus had with them?

 

.

[Grahame 10]

As far as I know the Rabbis were only charged with interpreting the "Law of Moses" as it was known. At the time of Christ, this consisted of the 5 books of the Torah (or Pentateuch). Everything else was added later.

 

Thanks Berlin. I feel I need to look further into rabbinical law but time is limited. Cheers.

.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Grahame