Yes. This verse we're discussing makes it clear that there are no witnesses in this scenario, so the necessary legal process leading to a death penalty could not be accomplished.
Upvote
0
Faith vs politics
- Thread starter BaconWizard
- Start date
Yes. This verse we're discussing makes it clear that there are no witnesses in this scenario, so the necessary legal process leading to a death penalty could not be accomplished.
It's exactly the same idea as modern systems use. If there is insufficient corroborated evidence the case is not proven.
Upvote
0
Let's say there were only 4 people around. Doesn't that mean the two adulterers can carry on as much as they want because there will never be more than 2 witnesses?
Upvote
0
I'm talking about the requirements to carry out the death penalty not to be guilty of the sin. The idea was to make it difficult to kill people in case the accusers were lying.
Upvote
0
It is adultery. It's just can't be proven to the extent required by the Law if there are not at least two or three eye witnesses.
Upvote
0
The accused are not counted as witnesses to their own crime. The two witnesses are technically sufficient, although as noted in the apochryphal "Daniel and Susanna," it's possible that a witness can be disqualified.
Upvote
0
Also remember that other penalties could be handed out if the evidence was there that it happened. It's just that, like the current situation in the United States, obtaining a sentence of death is harder than another sentence. Just thinking of what kinds of things that could be handed down, maybe a husband would be allowed to divorce his adulterous wife without having to pay the sum stated in the marriage contract in the case of divorce. Or the husband who cheated would be unable to divorce his wife and be forced to take care of her the rest of her life. There are plenty of options that could be used instead of death.
Upvote
0
Really....and where do u get this mesmerizing understanding?!? Maybe next u will tell me the eye translates as a foot...or the head is a tail......
Upvote
0
- Jul 21, 2008
- 8,384
- 1,654
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
If your religion requires that all people submit to one will (Christianity or Islam) then no. Otherwise all others are pretty much yes as its generally easier when you do not have to view every issue through the context of trying to convert all people.
That said, other religions can be politically involved and often are. My first thought of the slew of pagan groups participating in a pro-ecological lobbying. I think you can allow for more freedom and detachment when your goals are more narrow than "everyone needs to believe and be subjected to the same rules that I am"
In America, faith and politics are intermingled forever given the major focus on Christianity.
Upvote
0
Ah but who's idea of what that one will might be, or how it must be interpreted, is correct? MINE, and I'll kill you if you disagree!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Maybe "your womb will rot" is just a metaphor? Have anyone tested out this concoction? Did just the thigh rot?
I've seen "hate" translated to "love less".
Upvote
0
- Jul 21, 2008
- 8,384
- 1,654
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
Ah but who's idea of what that one will might be, or how it must be interpreted, is correct? MINE, and I'll kill you if you disagree!
We've seen it all through history, for sure and religion as a Raison d'etre for just about everything political certainly was the way of the Western world for a long time. It's potential impact to us in modern day is still quite present around the world.
Upvote
0
Jane_the_Bane
Gaia's godchild
- Feb 11, 2004
- 19,359
- 3,426
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Here's the thing: there were decidedly few non-religious world views in the past, and there still are very few of them around today. Not because of the strength of theism as an idea, but simply because for most of recorded history, "the supernatural" was the only available explanation for most natural phenomena.
Most of mankind still has a very sketchy understanding of most natural phenomena, and the most popular world views (religious or secular) reflect that limited understanding.
Most of mankind still has a very sketchy understanding of most natural phenomena, and the most popular world views (religious or secular) reflect that limited understanding.
Upvote
0
If the woman were actually "with child," that would have been determinable with just a "lodge a complaint and come back in three months for judgment." I suspect nothing serious usually happened after this rigamarole and in the vast majority of cases the husband's suspicions were determined unfounded.
And I suspect that was the intent of the rigamarole. I suspect that in the cases where the Law introduces such rigamarole, a null result was the actual intent. "You see? You were upset over nothing. Go home."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I didn't know Jews were so fertile!
Adultery doesn't always result in pregnancy.
But the problem of the suspicious husband is that there is no evidence of adultery. The woman was not caught in adultery, there are no witnesses to adultery...and eventually there may be no pregnancy either--there are only the husband's suspicions.
Remember, too, that the ancient concept of justice was not like the modern American concept of justice, particularly at the tort level (which i what this is). For Americans, tort justice is "there must be a winner, and winner takes all."
For the ancients, maintaining a placid society takes precedence over individual "winner takes all." In disputable cases, the best resolution for continued social placidity is often a firmly official refusal to decree that a problem exists: "You have not proven a case, go home and get over it."
Upvote
0
Don't forget that this would also be a rather public display of a husband's fears, which could turn some away from even attempting it. If he's wrong then everybody in the community would know he suspected his wife and she was faithful.
Upvote
0
This is actually not a lot different from how cases would resolve following Jesus' instruction in Matthew.
The ultimate goal is not "justice" as Westerners conceive it, but continued fellowship: "If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back."
Winning that person back into fellowship is the goal. But if the one-to-one encounter does not result in a confession, then witnesses to the sin are brought in:
"But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses."
What if there are no other witnesses? A variety of circumstances could be the case. Maybe there is no case. More likely, the situation falls to 1 Corinthians 6.
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
There are times that learning to "get over it" is the best action for all concerned.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Maybe I'm an evil person with devious thought. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.
If he's wrong, doesn't that mean open season for his wife? This would mean it's harder for the husband to accuse her the next time?
btw, do other commandments, like "shall not murder", carry such a high burden of proof?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
