View Full Version : Was That Mercy?
Threadlike
13-02-07, 11:06 PM
From what I understand of Christianity about the story of Mary Magdalene is that she (Mary Magdalene) was supposed to be stoned by her people for being a prostitute, and then Jesus (PBUH) came and said to the people who were about to stone her what had meant, 'Whoever of you who has no sin shall cast the first stone'. Now, this is the point I don't get: There's a minute gap between mercy and the crime-rising mercy or leniancy. I obviously understand this was not the intention of Jesus (PBUH) but doesn't that just sound like leaving everything to be what it is because (technically) we all have sins! So this means that a judge shouldn't put a sentence to a convict because the judge has sins, and the policeman must release the first suspect he catches because he also has sins. So in that way, wouldn't crime be the commonest thing?
So according to Christianity:
If I want to put the bad social elements away, should I follow what Jesus did with Mary Magdalene and be completely merciful or should I use force and apply a punishment?
No, because Jesus wasn't arbitrating in a court of law.
This was tribal justice, stoning a woman because she had sinned.
In Christianity there is a clear distinction between church and state. Even Jesus said 'Give to ceasar what is Ceasars' and to God what is Gods'".
No, I don't think it means you can't punish people.
It means many things, not just one thing. Jesus sayings and teaching are usually rich and have many levels and it takes a lifetime to get to the bottom of them.
One thing it means is that you mustn't be self-righteous. Those people were motivated not by justice but by hatred and self-righteousness. They were a crowd of people enjoying themselves, killing someone because they could get away with it and claim it was God's work. They were hypocrites.
How easy is it to be a judge? Not easy. And one thing it requires is a sense of common humanity. What will happen if we meditate on our own unworthiness to condemn before we condemn others? And be as careful as we can, filling our judgments with mercy and compassion? What will you cry for, if you ever do evil under great compulsion and temptation and are faced with those who seek only to wreak vengeance on you? Won't you cry out for mercy as the rest of us would? Won't you be begging God for Mercy when He comes to judge you? And He is Merciful as Muslims proclaim every day. When we apply His law, we must imitate Him.
This story is an icon for meditation. It makes us reflect deeply again and again and bothers us and makes us doubt ourselves and try to capture a deeper humanity and love. It's not a RULE to be followed. It's an example to be entered into and lived with prayer and doubt and love.
And it COULD mean, not that judging is wrong in the abstract, but that where human lives are at stake and with crimes that are likely to stir us up and make us as evil as the original sinner, the law is okay, but we are not worthy to apply it. Or rarely so.
That's only the beginning of an answer. It's the sort of story that a roomful of people could discuss for a year! But I hope it helps a little bit at least in understanding how we look at it.
All off topic were deleted.
Keep you posting within the thread topic.
Any further off topic will be deleted.
In Christianity there is a clear distinction between church and state. Even Jesus said 'Give to ceasar what is Ceasars' and to God what is Gods'".
In other words secularism.
I remember the story you mentioned wudjab, you quoted a line not the whole text, the line WITH the text would explain it better!
My opinion would be similar to Jeff's and if you continue reading the story, you'll see that the jewish elders (if thats what they're called) threw the stones away and left the place, and then Jesus Christ (PBUH) remained there and the woman, and then he told her that she shouldn't sin again and she left.
It makes people look at themselves and the sins they committed before Judging people and hating them for their sins. There's a Hadith that has a similar idea. I don't think the point was to leave sinners alone because we have sins too, although it could be understood this way!
Christianity, IMHO, is similar to Islam when it comes to murderers, adulterers, theives, etc. because that's the Law of God!
In Christianity there is no room for stoning, beheading, chopping of hands, whips for adultery, nothing of that nature.
So I would disagree with your comment "Christianity, IMHO, is similar to Islam when it comes to murderers, adulterers, theives, etc. because that's the Law of God!"
"Chopping of hands" is mutilation and so not allowed, but I don't know where you got your information about the others. I think you can make an argument that the essential spirit of Christianity leads away from these things, but I can't see how to argue that they are simply wrong in themselves. Especially beheading: this was a common method of execution once among Christians. It's a relatively quick and painless and merciful method of execution if done correctly.
And God Himself commands stoning in the Old Testament, which we accept as the Word of God. God can't command evil. So we can say that there are better ways of handling it, but we can't simply condemn it. I mean are we going to say that the Jews of the OT were WORSE than the pagans because they followed the Mosaic Law and stoned adulterers and adulteresses?
Threadlike
14-02-07, 09:21 PM
Hang on...
So there is ABSOLOUTELY no relationship between state and religion in Christianity? Then why ARE there punishments mentioned in the Old Testament as you said Jeff?
You ask really good questions, Threadlike!
*I* didn't say there is absolutely no relationship between state and religion in Christianity! Far from it! Wudjab said that!
There is a certain distinction and probably far more than in Islam. A Christian state isn't a necessary part of the Christian religion, but a Christian state is a good and helpful thing.
But the New Testament fulfills and transforms the Old. The Old is not simply revoked or superseded, but it is fulfilled and transformed. The Old Law and way of doing things passes away as imperfect things pass away when the perfect comes. So there is a much stronger relationship between at least historical Judaism and the state than between Christianity and the state.
Under Sharia Law, the punishment for theft is chopping off the hand at the wrist.
That is still practiced in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan.
There is no room in Christianity for any such barbaric practice.
Threadlike
15-02-07, 12:05 AM
Why is it barbaric exactly? The punishment is fit for the crime!
And what does Christianity have to say on theft and theives?
This is the year 2007, not 600AD.
Cutting off hands and feet for theft is barbaric, no matter how you slice it or dice it.
I am also against the death penalty, just so that you know where I am coming from.
I certainly believe that some exceptional criminals who deserve to be executed for the crimes they commit (child rapists, mass murderers for example) but I still believe it is not our place or time to take anyone's life.
God will be the ultimate judge.
Threadlike
15-02-07, 12:12 AM
^...And until then we should live in chaos with criminals? What kind of sick logic is this?!
before you get all excited wudjab I said it is SIMILAR, not exactly the same, and yes I was talking about the OT, which Jesus Christ said that he fullfills :)
and we have already gone through the conditions where the theives' hand are to be chopped or not, for more info PM me or check the other threads. Next time I would appreciate keeping your comments regarding Islamic practices for urself, yes, we love you too :)
Ah but I disagree.
There is nothing similar in the the way punishement might be imposed if there was ever such a thing as a state being run under purely Christian laws. Most of Western civilization has evolved our of Judaic/Christian principles but the legal system, specifically the death penalty, finds no basis in Christian beliefs.
Back to the topic, are you disagreeing that the punishment for theft under Sharia law is the amputation of the limb ?
And threadlike, you seem confused. I do not say that criminals should be let free. What I am saying is that execution of criminals is not right.
Ah but I disagree.
There is nothing similar in the the way punishement might be imposed if there was ever such a thing as a state being run under purely Christian laws. Most of Western civilization has evolved our of Judaic/Christian principles but the legal system, specifically the death penalty, finds no basis in Christian beliefs.
Back to the topic, are you disagreeing that the punishment for theft under Sharia law is the amputation of the limb ?
And threadlike, you seem confused. I do not say that criminals should be let free. What I am saying is that execution of criminals is not right.
Just for the record.
As a practical matter, the recent Popes have said that it is advisable given today's conditions not to execute people and that we should look for more merciful alternatives.
But there has NEVER been a condemnation of capital punishment in principle, in fact the opposite is true. Here is our official teaching on the justice in principle of capital punishment from the Catholic Catechism:
The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
Catholic Catechism, Article 5, Par. 2267.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html
Many Catholics today still support capital punishment and the present Pope sent a letter to the American bishops before he became Pope when he was in charge of all official Catholic teaching saying that they are free to do so:
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
http://www.tldm.org/News7/Ratzinger.htm
I told you wudjab we discussed this before in another thread, you can look it up..
just a reminder of the topic, the story of the woman who was claimed to be Mary Magdalene and the jews trying to stone her
The only one of these punishments that could not at least arguably find a place in the juridical structure of a Christian state is severing of hands.
In Catholic teaching, serious mutilation of the body by severing limbs or gouging out eyes, etc., is never permissible as a punishment. Such a thing could be allowed if it were necessary for physical health only.
All the rest are allowed in principle. Whether they the Christian spirit of mercy would exclude all or some of them as excessively cruel or would propose more effective and just punishments is arguable. Wudjab would probably be in the majority in arguing that a Christian state should exclude them. They are NOT however excluded in principle, and Christian States, basing themselves on the Bible and Tradition have used all of them, except perhaps stoning, though I am not sure about that.
I think that the story of the woman taken in adultery certainly influences Christian teaching in the direction of more merciful punishment, but as I said, it is not a RULE, but an icon from which to draw inspiration and wisdom.
But..
it is all a direct consequence of your claim "Christianity, IMHO, is similar to Islam when it comes to murderers, adulterers, theives, etc. because that's the Law of God!"
yeah and you asked me then I explained to you, you want to discuss this more? be a good boy and open a new thread about it :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.