BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without
transgression of the law, throw the first Stone"
=================

I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no
student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to
show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I
interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that
to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or
otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted
correctly?

Tink says:
=================
the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them.
==================

From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of
"being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of
charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now
Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and
assistance to the needy where required?

On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger.

Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable.

frtzw906

frtwz, This promises to be interesting! and hopefully charitable!

To lay some ground work, so that we are on the same page, and
understanding that some of this has been discussed before.

Labels are very difficult to follow, and have switched ends of the
political spectrum many times, and add to that we are on different
sides of an adjoining border, with apparent political disparity in
abundance. To say the least, it is sometimes difficult to follow. Now I
don't mean to play word games with the words liberal and conservative,
just to say lets keep them in the corner of our eye. If we have a
misunderstanding it may be a good place to start to sort things out.

Add to the political label difficulties, that there have been as many,
and maybe even more religions label changes, we are trying to see
through some pretty thick fog, while sludging along, pulling our kayak
fully loaded, through some nasty mud flats. To say I can see clearly
now would be a serious understatement, and unless we maintain a good
sense of humor, the trek through the mud flats will eat our lunch.

First, briefly, I will approach the discussion from a "religous"
viewpoint. Jesus teaches us to be charitable, I don't know that anyone
has any particular claim that he taught us to be stingy and mean. Where
is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable. And would
that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a
deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make
clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and
debatable packages.

Now from a political viewpoint, you as a liberal are claiming that
Jesus taught charity as advocated and practiced by you and other
liberals. And of course Conservatives make the same claims. Now we have
apples and apples that can be compared, distinct packages that are
debatable. Am I making sense, and is my basic logic sound?

You say that the liberal philosophy concerning capial punishment is in
agreement with Jesus' teaching about "Throwing the first stone."

Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without
transgression of the law, throw the first Stone"
=================

I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no
student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to
show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I
interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that
to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or
otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted
correctly?

First off I would point out that I avoided using the Sin word inorder
to protect tender and sensitive ears that may have been listening to
our discussion. The word sin has many aspects, and way beyond our
discussion here. The issue with the men who brought the woman caught in
adultery, was that she was breaking a specific civil law. The
application to our day, and the civil law today, is then more apparent,
and the application more clear, though limited.

It is said that when confronted by the men, that Jesus squatted down
and wrote in the sand. Tradition has it that he wrote the first ten
laws of the civil code of the day, laws that we call the Ten
Commandments. When faced by what they read, and His challenge "Let him
that is without...", they all left the scene of the confrontation,
leaving Jesus and the woman. Whereupon Jesus said, "Neither do I
condemn you." Tradition would also have it that this woman was Mary
Magdalene who became one of his most ardent followers.

I went into this short description of the scene inorder to set the
stage since you have acknowledged that you are not a Bible scholar, and
I don't want to take your understanding or misunderstanding for
granted. Also I am well aware of the difficuties when a statement is
taken out of context as we were made well aware of in the ongoing saga
or K&r!

Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were
trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in
order to have grounds to arrest Him. They were not the least bit
concerned about the woman or her transgression. According to the civil
law, there were hundreds of ways a woman could be charged with
adultery, including just looking at another man than her husband.

When we say adultery, we have certain agregious activity in mind, but
for the Jew of that day, the charge of adultery was a convient way to
get rid of a wife who did not have your dinner ready when you got home
from a hard day of being religous at the temple. The penalty of a such
spurious charge of adultery was death by stoning! A rather harsh
penalty for a late dinner, but, never the less the legal penalty
according to their law.

The men brought the woman to Jesus figuring that he would deny the
legal claim of adultery with the resulting stoning. Jesus, in fact, did
not deny their claim based on the law, but instead acknowledged it, by
saying, "Let the stones fly". The fact that he showed them a higher
law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another issue.
He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital
punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law today
to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with the
liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative
position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding
the issue of capital law today.

There were many other issues being addressed in this great story, which
probably included the point that noone is without sin. However that is
not the only point, and certainly not the point regarding the issue of
capital punishment today. I would love to examine those other points
with you at some time in the future, but let us not be distracted at
this time.

I will stop babbling at this point and let you comment, and keep the
second issue of your post until later. TnT