Priestly apologetics in a sermon this a.m.

[FebruaryOfReason]

While I would never condone stoning anyone for adultery, isn't there a bit of a flaw in Jesus' argument here?

Isn't he effectively saying that - because we've all done something wrong at some stage in our lives - nobody is in a position to punish anyone for anything?
How would that work in practice?

"Sorry your Honour, but as you broke the speed limit driving to court, you can't sit in judgement on this child-murderer."

"Yes, your honour, it was me wot done the post-office job with Fingers Maginty, but you've been shagging an exotic dancer behind your wife's back, so you can't send me to prison."

WTF???

The story ties into the stories about not judging other people because if you do then the standard that you used to judge them will be applied to you.  Matthew 7:1-5.

If he was trying to get people to judge others to the same standard as they judge themselves, then IMHO what Jesus should have said was:

"He who has never committed adultery or done something similarly bad, let him cast the first stone"


Or maybe

"He who has never committed adultery or has done so and would be prepared to be stoned to death for it, let him cast the first stone"?


But I think what he should have said was:

"Stoning someone for adultery is many times worse than adultery itself. Get a sense of proportion you vindictive bastards."


I concede this would probably not have had the same salutary effect. But it would have made a better legal precedent.

[Minimalist]

I'm guessing the pious fuck didn't know that story was a forgery added centuries later, huh?

http://garthright.blogspot.com/2014/02/f...hrman.html

Do you always just choose from information which fits your narrative?

You claim (on multiple occasions) that Jesus never existed:

Read Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" and find out how wrong you are.

No way.

Yet I see you referencing Bart Ehrman to prove your point. You do realize that according to Ehrman, Jesus did in fact exist?

http://www.bartdehrman.com/did-jesus-exist/

In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

Since you CLEARLY disagree with Ehrman on whether or not Jesus existed, Why do you all of the sudden agree with him in this case?

Because unlike fucktards like you, the manuscript evidence that this happy horseshit was not in the earliest copies of your fucking bible is irrefutable.

Got it now, dickhead?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The story ties into the stories about not judging other people because if you do then the standard that you used to judge them will be applied to you.  Matthew 7:1-5.

If he was trying to get people to judge others to the same standard as they judge themselves, then IMHO what Jesus should have said was:

"He who has never committed adultery or done something similarly bad, let him cast the first stone"


Or maybe

"He who has never committed adultery or has done so and would be prepared to be stoned to death for it, let him cast the first stone"?


But I think what he should have said was:

"Stoning someone for adultery is many times worse than adultery itself. Get a sense of proportion you vindictive bastards."


I concede this would probably not have had the same salutary effect. But it would have made a better legal precedent.

If he had sais any of those things the woman would have been stoned to death because not everyone in a random large crowd has committed adultery.  Besides, his own mother was technically guilty of adultery.

[Drich]

So, today's sermon was about the woman caught in adultery.  Jewish law said she should be stoned to death. 

---

Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

And Jesus comes back with the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit.  Which ya gotta admit is a pretty brilliant response, whether the guy actually said it or not.  

---

 John 8:7 - He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

---

And then the priest went into this convoluted explanation - that he thought Jesus was perfecting the law, and even maybe that God gave the law so that humans would grow and CHANGE it, after all, God changes his mind repeatedly throughout the OT . . . 
     I just really felt sorry for the guy.  I mean, he has spent his entire life, trying to make excuses for his god and his book.  What must that do to a human being?

     I also noticed that he completely left out the part where the law says both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.

---

 Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

Where was the guy?  And the fact that the passage makes it clear that it's only adultery with someone else's property: wife or mother.  But this guy is yammering on about Jesus "perfecting" the law, surely a priest in his 60's knows Matthew 5:17-19 . . . ?

---

 Matthew 5:17-19 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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. 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.

---

   You guys can discuss the passage if you wish, or the priests' take on it . . . probably some theists will jump on it.  I just really feel sorry for this priest though.  He's a nice guy, and he was just tying himself in knots, saying "maybe Jesus" this and "maybe God" that.

It absolutely breaks my heart when I see a 'lifer' (especially a person who takes the role of a teacher) struggle.

The problem? A "priest's" first duty is to the doctrine of his domination and not God. He has to toe the company line. It's his job to sell what his given church has in their product catalog. Rather than teach what is in the bible. Often times it leaves the 'teacher' wondering about God/struggling to make sense seemingly contradictory messages. (the bible clearly says X here but the church's teaching says 'Y'= "God works in mysterious ways".) Never once questioning that their doctrine could be what is in error. That God could indeed be a known/knowable quantity in so far as what He has chosen to tell us in the bible.