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

[Dhimmi]

That about sums it up.

...

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

Oh, but I'm sure that you can Grahame, and you will; after all, Jesus needs you to spread the word of the Father. Listen to the voices Grahame... the voices...

[EbonyBranch]

errrr....do i know you?

 

i don't recall ever having touched your thunder dude....let alone stealing it

 

It's a bit complicated...on this threadflamingjimmy jumps in with a detailed response to a long post by bazooka which I'd been planning to respond to and I had a tongue-in-cheek whinge about him stealing my thunder. Then wildcat joined in later on in the thread.

 

When I saw your post above I mis-remembered the names and thought that you were congratulating wildcat on starting the thread that I'd started, so I had another tongue-in-cheek whinge about it (because by then I'd forgotten who'd done what on the other thread and was confusing wildcat with flamingjimmy), causing confusion.

 

You know; now I've explained it, it looks even stupider....!

[EbonyBranch]

You may remember that Jesus stepped in and saved the life of the woman caught in adultery.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:1-11;&version=31;

 

During the 16th Century, Western European scholars sought to recover the most correct Greek text of the New Testament, rather than relying on the Latin translation. It was noticed that a number of early manuscripts containing John's Gospel lacked John 7:53-8:11; and also that some manuscripts containing the verses marked them with critical signs, usually a lemniscus or asterisk. In the lectionary of the Greek church, the set gospel reading for Pentecost runs from John 7:37 to 8:12, but skips over the twelve verses of this story.

 

Although in line with many stories in the Gospels and probably primitive, most scholars agree that the woman taken in adultery story was not part of the original text of John's Gospel. The standard Greek texts of John, and almost all modern translations, mark it off with double brackets—[[...]]—indicating this opinion.

 

Despite growing evidence that the story was a later insertion, Xtians have tried the 'have-your-cake-and-eat-it' approach to scholarship in their treatment of this passage, for example:

 

J.B. Lightfoot, R.C. Trench, C.J. Ellicott, The Revision of the English Version of the NT, intro. P. Schaff, (Harper & Bro. NY, 1873) Online at CCEL (Christian Classic Ethereal Library)

"The passages which touch Christian sentiment, or history, or morals, and which are affected by textual differences, though less rare than the former, are still very few. Of these, the pericope of the woman taken in adultery holds the first place of importance. In this case a deference to the most ancient authorities, as well as a consideration of internal evidence, might seem to involve immediate loss. The best solution would probably be to place the passage in brackets, for the purpose of showing, not, indeed, that it contains an untrue narrative (for, whencesoever it comes, it seems to bear on its face the highest credentials of authentic history), but that evidence external and internal is against its being regarded as an integral portion of the original Gospel of St. John."

 

In other words; it's not part of the original text but it must be true because we like it.

[Grahame]

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.

 

.

[flamingjimmy]

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).

Why not?

 

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.

Well this Christian would like it to be introduced in America!http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/?page=entire

 

What a nut, eh?

[EbonyBranch]

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.

 

.

Ok, well assuming we take the story at face value, why would god mandate stoning in the pentateuch, then send jesus down a few thousand years later to suddenly rescind it? Also, it's a nice little ethical parable, but if we were to follow it through into our current justice system there'd be virtually no one in prison. After all, how many jurors, judges, prison wardens, poloce, guards, etc. are entirely 'without sin' in the xtian terms? Just thinking lustfully is a sin, never mind actually acting in any way! this is a warrant to release every killer, rapist, thief and fraudster!

[Santiago]

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]

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]

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]

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.

.