Deuteronomy

[freereason]

Probably one of my favorite books of the bible, and probably the least preached. I'd like to hear a preacher justify verse 22:

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Does anyone here advocate killing adulterers?

 

[AlexBP]

Well, I'll quote from one of my favorite books of the Bible. The Gospel of John, chapter eight.

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Even before the time of Jesus, though, it wouldn't be accurate to say that the Jews advocate killing adulterers. To understand law and punishment in ancient Jewish society, one needs to read not only the canonical books of the Old Testament but also the Talmud, which is the collection of traditional rabbinical teachings that governmented the application of the law.

The Talmud set extremely high bars to clear for capital punishment cases. Before there can be an execution there had to be a trial before a panel of 31 judges called the Sanhedrin. There had to be multiple independent witnesses to the crime. The case was tried before a jury of 71 people. If a few jurors did not find the defendant guilty, there was no execution. If all the jurors found the defendant guilty, there as no execution, because this suggested a mob mentality was at work. The defendant had the right to a get a lawyer for free, cross-examine witnesses, ask for a delay, and so forth. Given the difficulty of actually imposing a capital punishment, it's no surprise that it happened very rarely.

It's also worth noting that the Law of the Old Testament imposed the death penalty for many fewer crimes than the laws of surrounding nations. The famous law code of Hammurabi imposed execution for scores of crimes including very minor ones, as well as using bizarre forms of mutilation and torture. Both the Greeks and the Romans used execution much more often than the Jews did. When Rome became a Christian society in the 4th century A.D., one of the biggest changes was a movement away from execution and torture towards more lenient punishments.

So, to summarize, once the facts are known, we see that the mention of execution in the Pentateuch is not the slam dunk that some atheists think it is.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wuld advise members not to post in this potentially "controversial" thread.

 

[freereason]

Well, I'll quote from one of my favorite books of the Bible. The Gospel of John, chapter eight.



Even before the time of Jesus, though, it wouldn't be accurate to say that the Jews advocate killing adulterers. To understand law and punishment in ancient Jewish society, one needs to read not only the canonical books of the Old Testament but also the Talmud, which is the collection of traditional rabbinical teachings that governmented the application of the law.

Perhaps so, but the bible still advocates death as the penalty for adultry. I think it's a clear indication of the value of life at the time. Times have changed, at least here in the US. I think its clear that killing someone for committing adultery is immoral.

The Talmud set extremely high bars to clear for capital punishment cases. Before there can be an execution there had to be a trial before a panel of 31 judges called the Sanhedrin. There had to be multiple independent witnesses to the crime. The case was tried before a jury of 71 people. If a few jurors did not find the defendant guilty, there was no execution. If all the jurors found the defendant guilty, there as no execution, because this suggested a mob mentality was at work. The defendant had the right to a get a lawyer for free, cross-examine witnesses, ask for a delay, and so forth. Given the difficulty of actually imposing a capital punishment, it's no surprise that it happened very rarely.

So if the difficult process of proof was satisfied and if judge and jury convicted the couple, is it ok to kill them?

It's also worth noting that the Law of the Old Testament imposed the death penalty for many fewer crimes than the laws of surrounding nations. The famous law code of Hammurabi imposed execution for scores of crimes including very minor ones, as well as using bizarre forms of mutilation and torture. Both the Greeks and the Romans used execution much more often than the Jews did. When Rome became a Christian society in the 4th century A.D., one of the biggest changes was a movement away from execution and torture towards more lenient punishments.

I also find it interesting that most laws have adjusted as our sense of morality has evolved. It is clear to me, and I would imagine anyone who thinks about it for a moment that death as a penalty for adultery is immoral.

So, to summarize, once the facts are known, we see that the mention of execution in the Pentateuch is not the slam dunk that some atheists think it is.

That may summarize your point, but not mine. Which is that the bible is full of atrocities that preachers routinely ignore because the ideas are immoral.

 

[freereason]

I wuld advise members not to post in this potentially "controversial" thread.

“The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.” - Henry Steele

And another favorite:

“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.” - George Bernard Shaw

 

[Chesterton]

YouTube - Johnny Paycheck-(Pardon Me) I've Got Someone To Kill

 

[GrowingSmaller]

“The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.” - Henry Steele

And another favorite:

“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.” - George Bernard Shaw

Forum Rules.

 

[freereason]

Forum Rules.

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

 

[AlexBP]

Perhaps so, but the bible still advocates death as the penalty for adultry. I think it's a clear indication of the value of life at the time. Times have changed, at least here in the US. I think its clear that killing someone for committing adultery is immoral.

Well, the book of Deuteronomy says nothing about law in the United States. It is a series of speeches delivered by Moses concerning the Old Covenant which involved the ancient Jews only. I would be happy to point you to the verses which establish this, but since Dueteronomy is one of your favorite books of the Bible, you doubtlessly know it already.

So if the difficult process of proof was satisfied and if judge and jury convicted the couple, is it ok to kill them?

I've already answered this question, but since you apparently missed my answer the first time, I will post it again. John 8:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
​

What Jesus said is my answer.

I also find it interesting that most laws have adjusted as our sense of morality has evolved. It is clear to me, and I would imagine anyone who thinks about it for a moment that death as a penalty for adultery is immoral.

It doesn't seem terribly immoral to me as compared to many of the laws in place in our modern, secular society. Consider, for example, that in the past few days, the government has threatened me with:

- thousands of dollars in fines for littering.

- $2,500 fine or jail time for interrupting deliver of junk mail.

- $5,000 fine for smoking in the wrong place.

- jail time for storing chemicals incorrectly.

- jail time for digging on my own property.

- punishment by the FBI for removing tags on my mattress and hair dryer.

- etc...

So it seems to me like the penalties imposed by the law have not grown more lenient and more moral as our morality has evolved. Rather, the severe penalties for minor crimes have multiplied to the point of absurdity. If you're so deeply concerned about inappropriate legal punishments, why don't you protest the laws that are on the books in the United States right now, as opposed to whining about a law that the Jews had thousands of years ago?

 

[Sphinx777]

Deuteronomy or Devarim (literally "things" or "words") is the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible, and the fifth of five books of the Jewish Torah/Pentateuch.

The book consists of three sermons or speeches delivered by Moses, a recounting of the law (thought to be the Book of the Covenant found in Josiah's time), and supplementary material, including an account of Moses' death.

Theologically the book constitutes the renewing of the covenant between YHWH, the Jewish God, and the "Children of Israel".

One of its most significant verses is considered to be Deuteronomy 6:4, which constitutes the Shema, a definitive statement of Jewish identity: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD (YHWH) (is) our God, the LORD is one."

 

[Drathnor]

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

I think he ment this topic is for the Christian philosophy forum(which is further above this one on the main page) or the ethics one in this section