Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SerenityLives from other LGBTQ thread
I would like to also add that I believe not only that the Bible is from expressed through human writers and there are hints of human biases throughout the Bible. Just look at heinous tragedy of “spilling seed” in the case of Judah and his sons and Tamar. At the time, society was for propagating. And also take a look at the story of the adulterous woman the Pharisees brought to Jesus to have her stoned. If there was an adulterous woman, there must have had sexual relations with men, implicating them also in adultery. But where are these men? Were they punished as well or was only the woman punished (kind of like the witch trials in Salem)? Why is the Bible mute about thee men. Was the woman commiting adultery by herself? The interpretation that makes most sense is that the Bible including the New Testament was written mostly be men with biased patriarchical views based on the time period that they lived in, so to talk about stoning the men along with the woman must’ve prob been covered up. This shows that the Buble is a human book made by humans (with some divine inspiration but surely not completely). Then we have to wonder about the circumstances regarding the passages regarding clobber passages used by some Christians to condemn homosexuality as a sin.
|
The Bible can't trace every line of every interaction of every implied participant in every story it tells. It's not a secret that for the adulterous woman to be an adulterer, there was a man or men involved. But the side we see is the side that Jesus was involved in. That's why we see only the woman's side, because the NT follows the line that involves Jesus. Maybe they took the man off to be punished and just brought the woman to trap Jesus.
Additionally, if you want to assume they didn't punish the man, well....the law then was that both parties involved in adultery be put to death - man and woman. So the accusers were themselves caught in sin by accusing the woman only and apparently letting the man go free. This could be why Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".....because the men in front of him accusing the adulterous women had literally sinned right then by not dragging the man along to be brought to justice too.
It's very interesting that you'd take a passage most known to show the extent of God's grace and try to use it to claim biased patriarchal views. I mean.....the whole point of the passage is that Jesus DIDN'T go along with stoning her! How un-patriarchal can you get?!