What does this phrase mean?

[Jazzy]

Who said "he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone"? What does this phrase mean?

 

[Lamb]

That verse is from John 8:7. A group of Pharisees approached Jesus in hopes of trapping him by what He might say or not say. Jesus gave them a very thoughtful answer and it was based upon the Law, that to accuse someone they must have witnessed produced...and the guilty man must also be stoned. They produced no further evidence and Jesus' statement was about searching your heart to see if it's pure before trying to cause harm to someone else.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

and Jesus' statement was about searching your heart to see if it's pure before trying to cause harm to someone else.

Which, if you think about it, makes zero sense, as a pure heart would not want to cause harm to anyone at all. If God had a pure heart, hell would not have been created. All beings who wanted to cause harm to other beings would just cease to exist.

 

[Josiah]

That verse is from John 8:7. A group of Pharisees approached Jesus in hopes of trapping him by what He might say or not say. Jesus gave them a very thoughtful answer and it was based upon the Law, that to accuse someone they must have witnessed produced...and the guilty man must also be stoned. They produced no further evidence and Jesus' statement was about searching your heart to see if it's pure before trying to cause harm to someone else.

I agree.

And of course, it applies to us, too. We need to not be so quick to condemn the speck in the other guy's eye but ignore the log in our own.



.

 

[tango]

Who said "he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone"? What does this phrase mean?

It was what Jesus said when he was challenged as to the fate of a woman "caught in adultery, in the very act". The Law demanded she be stoned, but the same Law also demanded that the man involved also be stoned. If she was caught "in the very act" it's safe to assume that the man involved wasn't too far away at the time she was caught, and yet he apparently was not to face justice.

Jesus' solution was a good one. She did deserve to be stoned - the Law was clear on that. But the invitation to the crowd - let him without sin be the first to throw a stone - made it clear to the crowd that they might not have committed that particular sin but that none of them were sinless. As the crowd dispersed she stood uncondemned - only Jesus had the right to throw that first stone, and he chose not to throw it.

 

[tango]

Which, if you think about it, makes zero sense, as a pure heart would not want to cause harm to anyone at all.

If anything it's the point. If you have no sin you have the right to cast the first stone, and the one person there who had no sin did decide not to cast the stone.

If God had a pure heart, hell would not have been created. All beings who wanted to cause harm to other beings would just cease to exist.

Why would God refuse the desires of someone who did not want to be with him? How can you claim that a being with a pure heart would force people to spend an eternity in his presence if they clearly didn't want to?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If you have no sin you have the right to cast the first stone

Why? What's the logic behind that? If you have no sin, you see the world as it truly is, namely flawed, corrupted, you see that no one acts badly from their own desires, but from corrupted desires, experiences and influences. We, the sinful, catch glimpses of these issues sometimes and are able to forgive others because we realize that their actions were heavily influenced by their experiential background. How much more would someone who sees the entire picture be able to understand this? And once you've understood that no one is truly guilty, you have no right to punish, no right to cast the first stone.

Why would God refuse the desires of someone who did not want to be with him?

I never said that. I said they would cease to exist. But even your option sounds more merciful. On a rational level, it truly is more merciful to force someone to be in a state of frustration within non-painful conditions for eternity than to force someone to be tortured in flames in a state of agony for existence. That's just a simple ontological truth.

How can you claim that a being with a pure heart would force people to spend an eternity in his presence if they clearly didn't want to?

Again, I did not claim that. I said that He would have designed the system in such a way that any creature who tried to sin would simply vanish away in a non-painful manner before being able to accomplish their sin. When Eve reached for the forbidden fruit, she would have simply vanished away into nonexistence.

But even if, hypothetically speaking, that wasn't possible and the entire human history had to happen, I think we can agree that if you were given the choice between having to spend the rest of your life being a house slave for, let's say, Hitler, having a place to live, good food, free from any type of harm or abuse,... and being tortured non-stop for the rest of your life, you would choose the former. It is my belief that any sane person would make that choice because it is ingrained in our human nature to avoid extreme suffering for long periods of time. Even spies who were tortured during war times had some sort of poison hidden in a tooth to avoid the torture.

 

[tango]

Why? What's the logic behind that? If you have no sin, you see the world as it truly is, namely flawed, corrupted, you see that no one acts badly from their own desires, but from corrupted desires, experiences and influences. We, the sinful, catch glimpses of these issues sometimes and are able to forgive others because we realize that their actions were heavily influenced by their experiential background. How much more would someone who sees the entire picture be able to understand this? And once you've understood that no one is truly guilty, you have no right to punish, no right to cast the first stone.

Perhaps if you have no sign then, and only then, are you in a place to judge others for their sin?

And, as you say, if you have no sin you may not feel the need to judge, as indeed Jesus demonstrated when he chose not to condemn the woman. But we can also note the "go and sin no more" side of what he said to her.

I never said that. I said they would cease to exist. But even your option sounds more merciful. On a rational level, it truly is more merciful to force someone to be in a state of frustration within non-painful conditions for eternity than to force someone to be tortured in flames in a state of agony for existence. That's just a simple ontological truth.

Again, I did not claim that. I said that He would have designed the system in such a way that any creature who tried to sin would simply vanish away in a non-painful manner before being able to accomplish their sin. When Eve reached for the forbidden fruit, she would have simply vanished away into nonexistence.

But even if, hypothetically speaking, that wasn't possible and the entire human history had to happen, I think we can agree that if you were given the choice between having to spend the rest of your life being a house slave for, let's say, Hitler, having a place to live, good food, free from any type of harm or abuse,... and being tortured non-stop for the rest of your life, you would choose the former. It is my belief that any sane person would make that choice because it is ingrained in our human nature to avoid extreme suffering for long periods of time. Even spies who were tortured during war times had some sort of poison hidden in a tooth to avoid the torture.

Your entire argument here rests on "I don't think God should have done it this way". We don't get to decide that.

Curiously you then undermine the entire argument with your comment about the way to avoid the suffering. God provided just such a way, it's just that some people choose not to accept it. To use your analogy it would be loosely like the spy who was captured and tortured but chose not to use their conveniently stashed cyanide pill. Which poses the question, why don't people accept the way to avoid the separation from God?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

We don't get to decide that.

And I think that's a problem because it is unjust, so God can't call Himself just if He doesn't solve this issue.

God provided just such a way, it's just that some people choose not to accept it.

Only if you believe in "sola fide" (faith alone), which the majority of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) do not. Sure, you can find verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that only believing is required for salvation, but there are way more verses which highlight the necessity of struggling to live a righteous life in order to obtain salvation.

Jesus told people more times to pick up their crosses and to act righteously and to walk on narrow paths than He did telling people to just believe that He died for their sins.

 

[tango]

And I think that's a problem because it is unjust, so God can't call Himself just if He doesn't solve this issue.

Or, in other words, God is not just unless Lucian Hodoboc thinks God is just?

Only if you believe in "sola fide" (faith alone), which the majority of Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) do not. Sure, you can find verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that only believing is required for salvation, but there are way more verses which highlight the necessity of struggling to live a righteous life in order to obtain salvation.

Jesus told people more times to pick up their crosses and to act righteously and to walk on narrow paths than He did telling people to just believe that He died for their sins.

Sure, that's exactly what Jesus said to do. Wasn't it awfully nice of him to describe what people needed to do?

Much of life is about choices. If you sit on your rear end all day and stuff your face with garbage you'll get fat and unhealthy. If you want to get fit you need to make an effort to move around and watch what you eat. If you work hard you'll probably earn more money than someone who can't be bothered to work. If you practice playing a musical instrument you'll play a lot better than someone who doesn't practice. The common theme is that if you put in the effort you're more likely to see some results.

Nobody says it's unjust that the person who spends hours at the gym lifting weights has a better physique than the person who sits in front of the TV eating pies. And yet when Jesus said what we needed to do to receive eternal life people wring their hands and say how unjust it is, even though what God expects is based on what we actually have to offer rather than something that may be impossible for us.

I have a friend who is a paraplegic. He is confined to a wheelchair and so can't do a lot of the exercises I enjoy doing. Since the accident that left him in a wheelchair he has visibly gained weight, which is hardly surprising since his options to exercise are very limited. Another person I know is of very limited financial means, so can't give anywhere near as much money as other people I know. But God doesn't expect people to do the things they are clearly incapable of doing - the story of the widow's mite indicates that God puts more value in our hearts than what is immediately visible. The widow had very little but gave all of what she had, which was worth far more to God than the billionaire writing a check for a few million.

In the physical world if I'm out hiking and decide to ignore the map and ignore the posted trail signs and choose my own path I don't get to complain if I end up lost in the woods. Why should the spiritual world be any different?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Or, in other words, God is not just unless Lucian Hodoboc thinks God is just?

I'm pretty sure that the majority of humans agree that forcing people to do something against their will and torturing them if they refuse to comply is unjust. If they don't agree in theory, they will once they are subjected to such a system.

Much of life is about choices.

The thing is that making some choices every single day for a lifetime is incredibly difficult. And it's more difficult for some people than for other for reasons that are outside their power and will. Moving around is a lot easier for someone who was born healthy than for someone who was born disabled. Losing weight is a lot easier for someone who was born with a normal metabolism than for someone who was born with a messed up metabolism that makes them prone to diabetes. Dieting is a lot easier for someone who was born with a functional digestive system than for someone who was born with biliary dyskinesia. Same thing for working hard, having hobbies and all the other stuff you mentioned.

Which means that your previous claim, that God provided a way to avoid suffering, false. He did not provide a way to avoid suffering. He provided a way to obtain a long period of time devoid of suffering by forcing us to display a certain type of behavior (obedience and allegiance to His cause) while going through a shorter period of time filled with suffering that is inescapable.

 

[tango]

I'm pretty sure that the majority of humans agree that forcing people to do something against their will and torturing them if they refuse to comply is unjust. If they don't agree in theory, they will once they are subjected to such a system.

Nobody is forced, we are given options and consequences.

Where I live we have guns and a legal concept called the castle doctrine. The short version of what that means is that if you break into my house I'm allowed to shoot you. Whether you think this is just or not makes exactly zero difference - if you break into my house there's a good chance that consequence of your decision is that you'll be meeting your maker very shortly afterwards. If you don't want me to shoot you, you're very welcome to not break into my house.

The thing is that making some choices every single day for a lifetime is incredibly difficult. And it's more difficult for some people than for other for reasons that are outside their power and will. Moving around is a lot easier for someone who was born healthy than for someone who was born disabled. Losing weight is a lot easier for someone who was born with a normal metabolism than for someone who was born with a messed up metabolism that makes them prone to diabetes. Dieting is a lot easier for someone who was born with a functional digestive system than for someone who was born with biliary dyskinesia. Same thing for working hard, having hobbies and all the other stuff you mentioned.

Which means that your previous claim, that God provided a way to avoid suffering, false. He did not provide a way to avoid suffering. He provided a way to obtain a long period of time devoid of suffering by forcing us to display a certain type of behavior (obedience and allegiance to His cause) while going through a shorter period of time filled with suffering that is inescapable.

You completely missed the point about the widow's mite. If the idea was that we have to give $1,000,000 to charity throughout our lifetime to earn a place in heaven it's a bit of a bum deal for the person born with mental disabilities who is barely able to cope with dressing themselves and has little to no chance of ever holding down any form of meaningful employment. If you had to run a sub-3 hour marathon that's just too bad for the person born without legs. As you say different people have different circumstances.

If you look at how Jesus summed up the most important commandment it's pretty simple - love God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your strength. If you're the kind of person who makes Albert Einstein look like a bimbling halfwit then "all your mind" means quite a lot, as seen from outside. On the other hand if you're the person who got your tongue frozen to the flagpole six times so far this month then, from the outside, "all your mind" looks like a much lesser offering. But what God wants is what we have. If you're physically disabled then "all your strength" means something very different to you than it does to someone who is a world-class athlete. God is demanding that you love him with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength. Not all my heart, all my mind, all my strength. You can't love God with all of my strength because it's not your strength. I can't love God with all of your mind because it's not my mind.

The call is simple - "whatever I gave you, use it for me". My paraplegic friend isn't likely to win very many cross-country races but he can (and does) spend a lot of time reading and studying Scripture. His body may be broken but his mind still works just fine, so he gives God what he can.

 

[Albion]

Why? What's the logic behind that? If you have no sin, you see the world as it truly is, namely flawed, corrupted, you see that no one acts badly from their own desires, but from corrupted desires, experiences and influences.

What that says is that a sinless being understands that there are temptations and human weaknesses which play upon the individual. But to excuse sin in a being that has free will cannot be justified simply because someone was tempted and "gave in" to temptation. The Bible is more than clear about that!

We, the sinful, catch glimpses of these issues sometimes and are able to forgive others because we realize that their actions were heavily influenced by their experiential background.

You might see it that way yourself, but nothing in Scripture agrees with such a view.

God extends mercy to sinners--on account of the sacrifice of Jesus--but that's quite different from saying that wrongdoing should be or is excused merely because an evildoer "was heavily influenced by. (his) experiential background" to transgress against God's laws.

How much more would someone who sees the entire picture be able to understand this? And once you've understood that no one is truly guilty, you have no right to punish, no right to cast the first stone.

I think we all can agree that it is wrong to punish someone who is not guilty.

When and if you find such a person (Jesus Christ excluded), let us know who he is.

 

[prism]

If God had a pure heart, hell would not have been created.

So we are into judging God now by our puny reason?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
FAQ: What was Jesus writing on the ground?

REPLY: Well; I think it was perhaps the names of girlfriends those guys had on
the side that they thought nobody knew about.

FAQ: Why didn't Jesus stone the woman?

REPLY: Jesus wasn't a legitimate witness. Plus; he would've been arrested for
murder seeing as an impromptu stoning would've been a lynching rather than due
process. And besides, the girl's accusers didn't bring her to Jesus to stand trial;
only to see whether he agreed with Moses.

BTW: There was a case under trial in San Diego municipal court one year wherein
a street walker was called as a witness. Upon taking the stand she exclaimed, in so
many words: Oh, hello there! I didn't know you were a judge. (chuckle) I just wish
I'd been there to see that man's face when his favorite hooker exposed his preference
for naughty girls.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
● Rom 13:1-4 . . Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that
exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the
authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will
bring judgment on themselves.

. . . For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and
he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong,
be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent
of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

It appears to me that criminal justice wouldn't exist in this world of ours were it not
that God took the bull by the horns to instigate it.

Take for example the pre Flood world. I see no indication in the Bible of either law
or law enforcement back then; and the result was a world gone mad with evil; so
evil in fact, that it had to be nuked from orbit, so to speak, and begun over again;
beginning with capital punishment for murder.

● Gen 9:6 . .Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed

We can't lay the enforcement of that rule upon God in the post Flood world because
He said "by man shall his blood be shed" and it's been that way ever since.
_

 

[Manonfire63]

There had to be a falling away for the son of man to come.

Were the people of Judah, who had been living under the pagan Greeks, who had been living under the pagan Romans, were they moral and good, or were they all in sin? About 100 years before Christ, someone like Cato The Younger had been lamenting the loss of Roman virtue. Rome was known to be full of sin.

The woman caught in adultery, what was her real crime in the community? Was her crime adultery, or that she was caught, and her private life was made public? They may have all been guilty of something. She was caught. She was a scapegoat?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Jesus isn't saying "Don't Judge." Don't be a hypocrite. A judge is Your Honor or The Honorable. Given someone was not honorable, do they have the right to judge? Someone may have to clean their honor.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

~
Had Jesus problems with "mommy issues" that incident would've been a golden
opportunity to take them out on someone, but instead he was a perfect gentleman
with that woman: a fallen woman no less.

NOTE: There are working girls on the street corners of every major city like Los
Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle. Granted their way of life is unbecoming, and
Christ doesn't condone it, but he harbors no ill will towards any of them (cf. Luke
7:36-50) In point of fact; Jesus was thinking of them the same as all the rest of us
when he voluntarily went to the cross for the sins of the world.

Submitted for moderator approval 02/05/2024 @ 09:37 am Pacific Time
_