How is Deuteronomy 13:6-11 different than the Islamic approach to apostasy?

[stone]

x

 

[Globalnomad]

I'm surprised that there is so much argument about this story. Its meaning has been taught to us very clearly and unambiguously, for all the centuries of the existence of the Church. It's really part of the Tradition that we hold sacred.

Jesus's message when he stopped them from stoning her was a reinforcement of that of the Sermon on the Mount: the change from the thoughtless application of the letter of the old (primitive) Law to a more civilized, reflected human application. Adultery remains a sin ("go, and sin no more"), but who among us can know what pushed the woman to do it? Perhaps she was desperately in need of money and someone seduced her. Perhaps she had been forced to marry someone else, but this was the man she had loved all her life. Perhaps her husband was failing in his marital duties, and she was under social pressure to produce a child. These things would not take away the sinfulness of what she did, but would certainly very much reduce it. If you don't accept to take them into account in her case, you have no right to invoke any mitigating excuses for anything you ever did wrong in your life, either - and who among us can afford that?

Another important point: if you apply the death penalty to a sinner, you are sending him to Hell. The Christian way is to let him live and repent.

In fact, this story (plus the Sermon on the Mount) are the Christian's answer to the question put in the original post.

(I am still waiting for my rabbi-student friend's reply from the Jewish side. I'll be interested. You too, I hope.)

 

[DarkNLovely]

The way I understand, and remember I'm a Protestant so I'm not sure what the Catholic church teaches, is this: The CIVIL laws of the OT were written to a specific people, in a specific place about specific things. That was the Civil Code of the Isrealites. Even if you read in other places in the OT, the laws varied from that particular time. The MORAL law or guidelines however, stay as they are eternal. While we may not punnish sin the same, it's still sin. Make any sense?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Old Testament was written by and for people living in an ancient tribal culture, where day to day survival was the norm.

They were surrounded by pagan and barbaric tribes, who were constantly a threat.

Its best to read the OT, in the context of when and where it was written. It doesn't diminish the spiritual lessons, but in fact enriches them.


Jim

 

[stone]

x

 

[Lady Bug]

This should be an example of how misinformation can mislead. I know where that info came from too, not gonna mention any names.

The way I understand, and remember I'm a Protestant so I'm not sure what the Catholic church teaches, is this: The CIVIL laws of the OT were written to a specific people, in a specific place about specific things. That was the Civil Code of the Isrealites. Even if you read in other places in the OT, the laws varied from that particular time. The MORAL law or guidelines however, stay as they are eternal. While we may not punnish sin the same, it's still sin. Make any sense?

that makes sense to me but I would like to make sure it's correct

 

[Rhamiel]

Jim

They were surrounded by pagan and barbaric tribes, who were constantly a threat.

what and we arn't?

ladybug

that makes sense to me but I would like to make sure it's correct

I think i have heard some Catholics say this to, there is not just one school of thought in the Church but many philosophies and differant ways of thinking, on an issue like this there might be more then one "Catholic answer"

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Rhamiel

Jim what and we arn't?

Not even close.

Jim

 

[stone]

x

 

[Globalnomad]

DarknLovely, I simply LOVE your rat! Where did you get that cute picture?

 

[DarkNLovely]

DarknLovely, I simply LOVE your rat! Where did you get that cute picture?

Hi Global! I found him on google! Here ya go!

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-hamster-kiss-glass.jpg

 

[Globalnomad]

OK everyone, I had dinner with my rabbi-student friend yesterday and he spent half an hour explaining this point to me! Not so simple, as you will see! But then, as we joked, nothing is simple in Judaism - it's a VERY legalistic religion - we spent the next half hour comparing the "moral principle" approach of Christianity and the legal principle of Judaism - which is not so simple either, as we Christians have plenty of hairsplitting legalism too, especially in the Western theological tradition.

The gist is, to quote him, that "the Bible is only the beginning of the Law." The death penalty prescribed in the Torah for apostasy is basically a standard, intended to set down the gravity of the act. Yes, it COULD be carried out in reality, but Jewish tradition - set out in the Talmud and a vast number of other books - has strict rules for its application; for example :

- it neeed to be witnessed by two male witnesses; there is a myriad rules about who these witnesses could be and what would make their testimony valid or not (one interesting point is that they would have had to warn the sinner, beforehand, that what he was intending to do was a grave matter that could be punishable by death. Fat chance of that happening in practice!)
- and never since the fall of Jerusalem, because any death sentence could only be imposed by a tribunal of at least 23 judges ordained by someone from the line of David, and that line was lost at the fall of Jerusalem.

In summary, he says that the ancient Rabbis deliberately put so many safeguards and obstacles in the path of this law (and others), as to ensure that it would never be carried out in practice, but remain only as a warning principle. He says that he has no memory, from all his studies, of any instance when this sentence was actually carried out, even in ancient times.

 

[Globalnomad]

Bump. What, nobody is quizzing me on my dinner with the rabbi? I feel neglected!

(Seriously. Is this explanation of interest? I found it fascinating.)