Interesting discussion. I agree with you about the grievous harm the institutional church has done to people throughout history. I also question religion all the time, which is not the same as faith, though I question my faith, too. I don't believe there is such a being as Satan, that hell exists, or that a God of love would doom those he loves to eternal suffering. I don't even believe God sent Jesus to die for human sins (atonement theory) or the concept of "original sin." I'm not sure what happens after we die. Is there a heaven? Judgment day? I don't know. I do believe that both loving intent and evil (sin) infect human beings if they live long enough, however. My convictions are considered heretical by many Christians, yet I consider myself a Christian. What seems irrefutable is that if a creative and loving God (Holy Spirit, Divine Being, whatever you call her) exists, as I believe she does, it doesn't matter whether you, or I, or anyone else believes in her. As Neil de Grasse Tyson says about science: "It's true whether or not you believe in it." God is not Peter Pan.
That's a very thoughtful comment, thank you. What I want to do is expand the level of inquiry people permit themselves when it comes to religion. If you accept the possibility that Jesus was, at times, being deliberately deceitful, it changes your impression on everything he said. I think approaching any conversation with that perspective better equips us to uncover the truth that will best serve humanity.
I agree. I also don't believe in Bible inerrancy. What's written there is historical human beings' attempts to record their experiences. Did Jesus actually say and do what is recorded? I doubt it, especially considering the many translations that exist. Trying to parse his words, in Greek, Aramaic, or King James English, is a fool's errand. I do believe he provided us the best possible model of how human beings should relate to each other. The world would be a much better place if we all did so. This is the essence of Christianity for me.
"My biggest concern when it comes to religion is the fixation on punishment as a means to correct human behavior. Threatening people that they will burn for all eternity is not an effective means of motivation. Neither is threatening to hit them with stones." - Agreed, but.
My biggest concern is and has always been teachings based upon a book that has been translated many times, by many groups or scholars, and for many purposes. Most scholars believe that the New Testament was written within the first 100 years after the death of Christ. That's plenty of myth-making time.
The Bible is not the literal truth. It's story-telling. It's fairy tales. Yes, meant to educate. But also meant to control.
Stories are meant to evolve. Our societies may face similar problems but our environments are unique to our times. A stagnant story is not useful. A stagnant story is used to manipulate and control. As you say,
"The oversimplification of binary thinking that separates concepts into universally “bad” or universally “good” does not equip us to manage the complexities of our multifaceted world."
This oversimplification you speak of starts with teaching metaphorical truths as literal truths. Literal truths are not meant to be challenged. Metaphorical truths are intended to be discussed.
Well said. My purpose with this article was to arm people with a statement that could be the starting point to having the conversation you reference in your comment. When you say, "people without sin wouldn't have cast the stone" you plant a seed. Hopefully that seed grows into a recognition of the truth you discuss in your comment.
He didn't say the WEAK. He said the MEEK. The meek are those who are not so arrogant to think they have any power in their little bodies. They are those that have transcended the ego, and have realized that all power is in God, through God, and of God.
I still think that's wrong. The meek will certainly be rewarded, but it won't be with some material reward (like inheriting the earth). It will be with inner peace and a clear conscience.
I believe it will prove to be so in time. But we won't know for sure that he (or the humans who penned these words) was wrong until our species is gone from the Earth!
More proof the bible was written by stupid men. This is a GREAT essay Walter. I’m saving this one. I remember my childhood priests reading that gospel every year and how it was used to judge people, to test them. I think I’ve finally let go completely all the Catholic guilt I started my young life with and that my mom was so great at layering on.
Thank you Kert, and I know a lot of people have had experiences like yours. The simple question of "people without sin wouldn't have cast the stone" is the starting point to dismantle the idolized concept of Jesus. Use it well!
💯% Agree! And I consider the bible a fraudulent document because nearly all of it was written by people who didn’t witness anything they supposedly wrote about. Combine that with the fact that it wasn’t compiled as the "bible" until it was mandated by Emporer Constantine.
Me too, but if you start with "The bible is fraudulent" the conversation ends. If you say, "people without sin wouldn't have cast a stone," the people you're talking too might stick around to listen. If they listen, they might start to think.
As a child I had rocks thrown at me by the children from CCD classes as the Jew who killed Christ. Then pennies as I was told by them Jews are cheap. Surely the innocent children doing these hurtful actions were taught to hate Jews. There were no reprepercussions for what happened because as I can only surmise, I was the only sinner and it spanned all through school.
I'm sorry you had to endure that experience, but I thank you for sharing that story. It's a proof that the reckless words of Christ incite violence against the innocent. Thanks for sharing.
Sometimes I think we want this “perfect” savior because we are in such pain. We don’t want to do the hard work of saving ourselves, so we sink into wishful thinking. That desire is a trauma response, growing up believing we are sinful, and that punishment is just leaves us traumatized at the core. People want to feel safe. Safety is critically important and yet the strategy currently in use to be safe is a poor one, it is the opposite of what actually makes us safe. This is very common behavior of people with trauma.
Thank you for questioning the core. Who knows if Jesus was real. Paul is the bigger problematic creator of Christianity. Nevertheless, seeing Christ as this “perfect” being is also problematic.
Accepting our humanness in all its imperfection will help us. Even more necessary is healing from our traumas. Traumatized humans tend to traumatize others. The choice to heal, to “save” ourselves is ours. Denial, punishment, wishful thinking and strategies that lead us away from safety only keep us stuck in a system that is rotting from the inside out.
How you parent, that is a positive strategy.
I appreciate the courage you have to speak out the way you do consistently, because it does take courage to go against the pressure for conformity. In fact, because humans are made to belong, it takes great courage. It seems you have been doing this one way or another all your life, at least from all I have read that you have written. You are also honest about the mistakes you made. I appreciate these qualities. Thank you.
Thank you Maura! It's quite liberating to simply engage alternate viewpoints. When people refuse to recognize that it might be toxic and harmful to maintain a model of the divine in human form, I find it troubling. All I'm asking is that we consider it, and often when you consider things, solutions present themselves. Thanks again for your lovely words!
I am extremely grateful that you posted this, because it massively(!!) clarifies(!!) an earlier statement of yours that I found quite puzzling and confusing.
It is anybody's guess I suppose what Jesus meant by this statement, but I hope at least he was targeting religious hypocrisy through a "trick question" (although John 8:7 is not technically a question). And you are entirely correct in saying "if there had been a man or woman without sin in the crowd, their nature would have compelled them not to throw stones in the first place." I am not sure it is knowable whether Jesus understood this, but I certainly hope so.
I was never threatened with hell in my own religious upbringing, and in my teens had it pointed out to me that just about every single one of Jesus's "hellfire" statements were targeted at religious leaders who are hypocritical, never at ordinary folks doing ordinary screw-ups.
I find the Catholic church's understanding of "sin" especially troubling because of it's understanding of both "original sin" and "mortal sin" which are deeply damaging and destructive concepts.
The issue is that the Catholic church believed (until recently) everyone is born(!!) "deserving damnation", which is to say a "hell of a lot more" (double entendre intended) than to say everyone has gummed up here and there. (Catholics budged a bit on this in the 20th century but the damage has been done.)
If there are subsequent Christian teachers who made things far worse (which is what I think), the question remains why are the earlier teachings at least open to such draconian interpretations
As for the politicians, there may be some(!) malfeasances after which you can still hold public office, but there are surely others(!) that disqualify you, so the "Nobody's perfect" plea is a cop out.
It wasn't only slavery that was justified by troubling theology, it was also colonialism, and the "doctrine of discovery".
I could discuss about how the Hebrew word often translated as "sin" has a far far kinder, gentler meaning than its Western translations, but perhaps some other time later.
Incidentally, there is a running joke that in Poland you are allowed to say bad things about Jesus, you are just not allowed to say anything bad about John Paul II :)
“I don’t hit them. I don’t ground them. I don’t insult them. I don’t even raise my voice.”
That’s so cool. My Mom did all those things to me and I am now a mentally ill, emotionally traumatized adult. I want more kids to have a happy childhood like your kids have.
Yes! I am always saying that I don’t like Jesus and don’t think he’s great. In fact, I think he’s mean and it’s an extremely unpopular opinion, even among atheists, that I get criticized for.
Who knows if there really was a Jesus, or, if there was, that the Church and bible represented what he did or did not say or do. The Gnostics had to hide their gospels because the orthodox church wanted them destroyed. The church followed Paul who made out of the story what he wanted. The Council of Nicea, one of several, decided what went in the bible and what didn’t make it.
Most Christians have no knowledge of any of this maneuvering and prefer not to know so they can cling to their judgments and justify their hate.
As you point out, the doctrine of sin is one of the most destructive concepts ever promoted. The crimes that followed, by the most criminal organization in the world, are a devastating holocaust and created the mess we are in today.
Humans need safety to thrive. The church, with this doctrine, removed any sense of safety in this life and beyond. The men who ran the church demanded conformity and tortured, killed or imprisoned anyone who questioned. That is the sin!
The church should be divested of power and its wealth could be used for reparations. I know that will never happen. Too many people are still under its control.
Like you, the things I was taught in church never made sense to me. I lived in Germany my Jr HS year and the sickening wealth displyed byof the church opened my eyes to the corruption. Later, I read The Chalice and The Blade and so much about how Patriarchy tore down egalitarian societies was suddenly clear, so many questions I didn’t even know I had were answered.
We won’t actually ever know first sure what happened in the past, but its important to question the narrative because the past helps us understand where we are.
We could design our society in ways that promote human thriving. So many native cultures had systems more aligned with the best in human nature. We can learn so much from those suppressed histories and let go the arrogant ideas of superiority that mask the rot at the core of Western Civilization.
This is all so interesting. I've read through the comments/discussion.
I grew up with people who read the bible literally. (My mother still asks me, regularly, "What is a metaphor?") And I rejected such literalism--I thought--as a young person. I also rejected the faith, religion, and church I grew up in. It was only decades later that I realized that I, too, had come to read in a literal way. When really, the book is filled with paradox, contradictions, mysteries, questions with no answers... It's not an easy read. And yes, downright disturbing in parts.
The Qur'an is thought to be absorbed by the reader, even if they don't understand the classical language. I suspect all sacred texts are thought to have this property. Buddhist texts speak to absorbing the meaning, not the words. That aside though, and the question/nature of translation, and I have to say that I'm convinced that stories from the bible are to be mulled over. They're supposed to make us curious. (NOT something I was taught as a child. Only by reading the sacred texts of many faiths have I come to this.)
So this story, for instance, notes TWICE, that Jesus is focused on the ground. We never find out what he is writing in the dirt! (I'd love to know.)
But after setting out his challenge, he again focuses on the ground. I see this as being nonjudgmental; he is leaving those standing to make their choice. He doesn't watch as they go. What does this say? Why is it noted twice? Is he surprised to raise his head and see all but the woman gone?
We don't know. These stories never become complete. They become much like the parables he told. He never told a story that wasn't a parable.
When I wrestled with writing my memoir of caregiving, the childhood characters I read of--the biblical sisters of Mary and Martha--haunted me in my (binary) roles as "spouse" and "nurse." I saw them as analogous, with Mary having an artist's heart, and Martha, always the pragmatic one who "got things done." The preachers of my childhood always praised Mary. Even Jesus seems to have praised Mary, to have set her over Martha. (Though careful reading might say otherwise.)
The more time I spent with the two, the more I discovered about the nature of their stories (there are several in the book, not just the one of Mary at Jesus's feet) and that binary nature of the twosome began to disappear; I began to realize that if one is reading a sacred text in the most useful way, one needs to accept the dynamism of it, the mystical. Indeed, the reader becomes the tertiary piece to such binaries; we're intended to engage with the words. (Is this what we mean when we say it's "open to interpretation"?)
We are living in a too-rational world, post enlightenment and industrial revolution. In a world that sees everything in "practical" light, in which we measure all by its "value" in the marketplace we've created. Ironically, science is more accepting of the mysteries of life; it's how scientists arrive at the wonder-filled questions they do.
We are at an historical point where we might take the best of the mystical, and the best of "knowledge," and become truly caring instead of dismissive and divisive.
How are we going to save the planet if we don't see the sacred in it? How are we going to love others--strangers--when we don't see the sacred in them? Is this not the one thing that might bring us together? I've been thinking it's really the only way. But it's hard. In the new testament, we are left with only 2 commandments, all the others pushed aside. And the second is to love your neighbour as you do yourself. The planet would be a changed place if this happened. (If this one commandment was posted on classroom walls... imagine...)
Maybe those people setting down their stones, deciding not to throw them, saw the sacred in the woman they were judging moments before. Maybe they did this because they sensed the sacred in the man who offered the question. It is a question. Maybe they sensed the sacred in themselves, and that they can rise above…
We are in an age of needing to live with open hearts, to accept, to cause others and ourselves to stop before throwing rocks; what will it take?
You raise some very good points, Walter. I think Jesus is essentially setting up a paradox to consider. Sin is a greek word meaning "to miss the mark" Viewed in that light, Sin is merely a wrong way of thinking. A wrong way of looking at the world. As the representation of enlightened man, Jesus has no sin and therefore would not harm anyone. And he knows that if you would hurt someone - out of anger, out of fear, out of defense of your body or identity - you ARE sinning. You have missed the point of existence. You are not seeing through the eyes of infinite love.
Therefore, he should have known that anyone without sin wouldn't have cast the stone. But the fact that he offered that as a possibility is either deceitful, or it implies he doesn't understand the nature of sin.
Being ambivalent as I am about the existence of a person called Jesus, I would agree that the writers of the gospels could have had some misunderstanding of the nature of sin. There were simply creating allegories to help people discover the truth behind existence. Also I have found significant differences it the translations of the bible. Especially in the way people in the western world have interpreted eastern symbolism and mysticism. Plus there are always human motivations to consider, as you have stated. None of this stuff is black and white. It’s all open to interpretation.
At the jump I wanna say I get where you're coming from emotionally in this piece. Your take on modern notions of "Sin" and the Church making it so we're all wretched I agree with.
However being a student of biblical history and religion I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the story of the adulterous woman, and you make a couple of fallacious leaps of logic. I'm not saying this as a slam on you personally. A lot of people don't know this stuff. I studied it as a reaction to being thrust into a fundamentalist culture in East TN. That's where this comes from.
First the book of John was most likely written by Greek authors. We don't know who the actual author was but it was John who might not have existed. Bart D. Ehrman might be someone you'd be interested in. He's a prominent biblical scholar, history not theology.
Second this story was clearly written for an audience using Greek Tragedy as a framework. You can tell by the Greek structure and how its cast of characters plays out. Jesus is cast in the greek hero's role as a teacher like Socrates. He's teaching in front of a temple in what would the Agora like a Greek Philosopher might. Then the State (Phar
And actually Jesus is rejecting the notion associated with what we think as Sin which came from Augustine and Manichaeism which the Roman Catholic Church adopted later. He's stating the same rule he states in Luke with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Help people. Don't judge them.
You've got a straw man fallacy saying Jesus' teaching holds no utility because we have to accept it as "pure". Yeah that's false. Remove the divinity from Jesus, Jewish people and Muslims do, and this is a worthwhile story. Change "Sin" if you like to "Let he who is without moral failings cast the first stone" and passes your own test.
The story also illustrates a major shift in moral thinking. It's a bridge between shame culture, and community inflicted punishment, and sin culture which is internal and individually focused. It's a private affair.
In your own words: "We need to reject the idea that punishment is acceptable in some cases. This should be our ideal. We should treat all human beings with love and compassion."
That's exactly Jesus' point in the story.
I think you need to re-examine this and check your bias. Look at with fresh eyes for what the writers intended the story to be. What Jesus teaches still applies today in
Interesting discussion. I agree with you about the grievous harm the institutional church has done to people throughout history. I also question religion all the time, which is not the same as faith, though I question my faith, too. I don't believe there is such a being as Satan, that hell exists, or that a God of love would doom those he loves to eternal suffering. I don't even believe God sent Jesus to die for human sins (atonement theory) or the concept of "original sin." I'm not sure what happens after we die. Is there a heaven? Judgment day? I don't know. I do believe that both loving intent and evil (sin) infect human beings if they live long enough, however. My convictions are considered heretical by many Christians, yet I consider myself a Christian. What seems irrefutable is that if a creative and loving God (Holy Spirit, Divine Being, whatever you call her) exists, as I believe she does, it doesn't matter whether you, or I, or anyone else believes in her. As Neil de Grasse Tyson says about science: "It's true whether or not you believe in it." God is not Peter Pan.
That's a very thoughtful comment, thank you. What I want to do is expand the level of inquiry people permit themselves when it comes to religion. If you accept the possibility that Jesus was, at times, being deliberately deceitful, it changes your impression on everything he said. I think approaching any conversation with that perspective better equips us to uncover the truth that will best serve humanity.
I agree. I also don't believe in Bible inerrancy. What's written there is historical human beings' attempts to record their experiences. Did Jesus actually say and do what is recorded? I doubt it, especially considering the many translations that exist. Trying to parse his words, in Greek, Aramaic, or King James English, is a fool's errand. I do believe he provided us the best possible model of how human beings should relate to each other. The world would be a much better place if we all did so. This is the essence of Christianity for me.
Very good, I think it's helpful to doubt the word of Jesus for a variety of reasons.
"My biggest concern when it comes to religion is the fixation on punishment as a means to correct human behavior. Threatening people that they will burn for all eternity is not an effective means of motivation. Neither is threatening to hit them with stones." - Agreed, but.
My biggest concern is and has always been teachings based upon a book that has been translated many times, by many groups or scholars, and for many purposes. Most scholars believe that the New Testament was written within the first 100 years after the death of Christ. That's plenty of myth-making time.
The Bible is not the literal truth. It's story-telling. It's fairy tales. Yes, meant to educate. But also meant to control.
Stories are meant to evolve. Our societies may face similar problems but our environments are unique to our times. A stagnant story is not useful. A stagnant story is used to manipulate and control. As you say,
"The oversimplification of binary thinking that separates concepts into universally “bad” or universally “good” does not equip us to manage the complexities of our multifaceted world."
This oversimplification you speak of starts with teaching metaphorical truths as literal truths. Literal truths are not meant to be challenged. Metaphorical truths are intended to be discussed.
And in our discussions lies our salvation.
Well said. My purpose with this article was to arm people with a statement that could be the starting point to having the conversation you reference in your comment. When you say, "people without sin wouldn't have cast the stone" you plant a seed. Hopefully that seed grows into a recognition of the truth you discuss in your comment.
It's best to remember Christ in one of his better sayings: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth."
I think he was wrong about that too :)
Maybe it's better to paraphrase Monty Python: "What has Jesus ever done for us?"
He didn't say the WEAK. He said the MEEK. The meek are those who are not so arrogant to think they have any power in their little bodies. They are those that have transcended the ego, and have realized that all power is in God, through God, and of God.
I still think that's wrong. The meek will certainly be rewarded, but it won't be with some material reward (like inheriting the earth). It will be with inner peace and a clear conscience.
Yes, Earth as used here is a bit misleading. I think there may be something lost in the translation.
That's one possibility, another possibility is that Jesus was wrong.
I believe it will prove to be so in time. But we won't know for sure that he (or the humans who penned these words) was wrong until our species is gone from the Earth!
More proof the bible was written by stupid men. This is a GREAT essay Walter. I’m saving this one. I remember my childhood priests reading that gospel every year and how it was used to judge people, to test them. I think I’ve finally let go completely all the Catholic guilt I started my young life with and that my mom was so great at layering on.
Thank you Kert, and I know a lot of people have had experiences like yours. The simple question of "people without sin wouldn't have cast the stone" is the starting point to dismantle the idolized concept of Jesus. Use it well!
💯% Agree! And I consider the bible a fraudulent document because nearly all of it was written by people who didn’t witness anything they supposedly wrote about. Combine that with the fact that it wasn’t compiled as the "bible" until it was mandated by Emporer Constantine.
Me too, but if you start with "The bible is fraudulent" the conversation ends. If you say, "people without sin wouldn't have cast a stone," the people you're talking too might stick around to listen. If they listen, they might start to think.
*Emperor
As a child I had rocks thrown at me by the children from CCD classes as the Jew who killed Christ. Then pennies as I was told by them Jews are cheap. Surely the innocent children doing these hurtful actions were taught to hate Jews. There were no reprepercussions for what happened because as I can only surmise, I was the only sinner and it spanned all through school.
I'm sorry you had to endure that experience, but I thank you for sharing that story. It's a proof that the reckless words of Christ incite violence against the innocent. Thanks for sharing.
Sometimes I think we want this “perfect” savior because we are in such pain. We don’t want to do the hard work of saving ourselves, so we sink into wishful thinking. That desire is a trauma response, growing up believing we are sinful, and that punishment is just leaves us traumatized at the core. People want to feel safe. Safety is critically important and yet the strategy currently in use to be safe is a poor one, it is the opposite of what actually makes us safe. This is very common behavior of people with trauma.
Thank you for questioning the core. Who knows if Jesus was real. Paul is the bigger problematic creator of Christianity. Nevertheless, seeing Christ as this “perfect” being is also problematic.
Accepting our humanness in all its imperfection will help us. Even more necessary is healing from our traumas. Traumatized humans tend to traumatize others. The choice to heal, to “save” ourselves is ours. Denial, punishment, wishful thinking and strategies that lead us away from safety only keep us stuck in a system that is rotting from the inside out.
How you parent, that is a positive strategy.
I appreciate the courage you have to speak out the way you do consistently, because it does take courage to go against the pressure for conformity. In fact, because humans are made to belong, it takes great courage. It seems you have been doing this one way or another all your life, at least from all I have read that you have written. You are also honest about the mistakes you made. I appreciate these qualities. Thank you.
Thank you Maura! It's quite liberating to simply engage alternate viewpoints. When people refuse to recognize that it might be toxic and harmful to maintain a model of the divine in human form, I find it troubling. All I'm asking is that we consider it, and often when you consider things, solutions present themselves. Thanks again for your lovely words!
I am extremely grateful that you posted this, because it massively(!!) clarifies(!!) an earlier statement of yours that I found quite puzzling and confusing.
It is anybody's guess I suppose what Jesus meant by this statement, but I hope at least he was targeting religious hypocrisy through a "trick question" (although John 8:7 is not technically a question). And you are entirely correct in saying "if there had been a man or woman without sin in the crowd, their nature would have compelled them not to throw stones in the first place." I am not sure it is knowable whether Jesus understood this, but I certainly hope so.
I was never threatened with hell in my own religious upbringing, and in my teens had it pointed out to me that just about every single one of Jesus's "hellfire" statements were targeted at religious leaders who are hypocritical, never at ordinary folks doing ordinary screw-ups.
I find the Catholic church's understanding of "sin" especially troubling because of it's understanding of both "original sin" and "mortal sin" which are deeply damaging and destructive concepts.
The issue is that the Catholic church believed (until recently) everyone is born(!!) "deserving damnation", which is to say a "hell of a lot more" (double entendre intended) than to say everyone has gummed up here and there. (Catholics budged a bit on this in the 20th century but the damage has been done.)
If there are subsequent Christian teachers who made things far worse (which is what I think), the question remains why are the earlier teachings at least open to such draconian interpretations
As for the politicians, there may be some(!) malfeasances after which you can still hold public office, but there are surely others(!) that disqualify you, so the "Nobody's perfect" plea is a cop out.
It wasn't only slavery that was justified by troubling theology, it was also colonialism, and the "doctrine of discovery".
I could discuss about how the Hebrew word often translated as "sin" has a far far kinder, gentler meaning than its Western translations, but perhaps some other time later.
Incidentally, there is a running joke that in Poland you are allowed to say bad things about Jesus, you are just not allowed to say anything bad about John Paul II :)
“I don’t hit them. I don’t ground them. I don’t insult them. I don’t even raise my voice.”
That’s so cool. My Mom did all those things to me and I am now a mentally ill, emotionally traumatized adult. I want more kids to have a happy childhood like your kids have.
Yes! I am always saying that I don’t like Jesus and don’t think he’s great. In fact, I think he’s mean and it’s an extremely unpopular opinion, even among atheists, that I get criticized for.
Did you read any commentary on the passage, or even the whole story?
Of course. I'm right.
Another great article. 😊👏
Who knows if there really was a Jesus, or, if there was, that the Church and bible represented what he did or did not say or do. The Gnostics had to hide their gospels because the orthodox church wanted them destroyed. The church followed Paul who made out of the story what he wanted. The Council of Nicea, one of several, decided what went in the bible and what didn’t make it.
Most Christians have no knowledge of any of this maneuvering and prefer not to know so they can cling to their judgments and justify their hate.
As you point out, the doctrine of sin is one of the most destructive concepts ever promoted. The crimes that followed, by the most criminal organization in the world, are a devastating holocaust and created the mess we are in today.
Humans need safety to thrive. The church, with this doctrine, removed any sense of safety in this life and beyond. The men who ran the church demanded conformity and tortured, killed or imprisoned anyone who questioned. That is the sin!
The church should be divested of power and its wealth could be used for reparations. I know that will never happen. Too many people are still under its control.
Like you, the things I was taught in church never made sense to me. I lived in Germany my Jr HS year and the sickening wealth displyed byof the church opened my eyes to the corruption. Later, I read The Chalice and The Blade and so much about how Patriarchy tore down egalitarian societies was suddenly clear, so many questions I didn’t even know I had were answered.
We won’t actually ever know first sure what happened in the past, but its important to question the narrative because the past helps us understand where we are.
We could design our society in ways that promote human thriving. So many native cultures had systems more aligned with the best in human nature. We can learn so much from those suppressed histories and let go the arrogant ideas of superiority that mask the rot at the core of Western Civilization.
This is all so interesting. I've read through the comments/discussion.
I grew up with people who read the bible literally. (My mother still asks me, regularly, "What is a metaphor?") And I rejected such literalism--I thought--as a young person. I also rejected the faith, religion, and church I grew up in. It was only decades later that I realized that I, too, had come to read in a literal way. When really, the book is filled with paradox, contradictions, mysteries, questions with no answers... It's not an easy read. And yes, downright disturbing in parts.
The Qur'an is thought to be absorbed by the reader, even if they don't understand the classical language. I suspect all sacred texts are thought to have this property. Buddhist texts speak to absorbing the meaning, not the words. That aside though, and the question/nature of translation, and I have to say that I'm convinced that stories from the bible are to be mulled over. They're supposed to make us curious. (NOT something I was taught as a child. Only by reading the sacred texts of many faiths have I come to this.)
So this story, for instance, notes TWICE, that Jesus is focused on the ground. We never find out what he is writing in the dirt! (I'd love to know.)
But after setting out his challenge, he again focuses on the ground. I see this as being nonjudgmental; he is leaving those standing to make their choice. He doesn't watch as they go. What does this say? Why is it noted twice? Is he surprised to raise his head and see all but the woman gone?
We don't know. These stories never become complete. They become much like the parables he told. He never told a story that wasn't a parable.
When I wrestled with writing my memoir of caregiving, the childhood characters I read of--the biblical sisters of Mary and Martha--haunted me in my (binary) roles as "spouse" and "nurse." I saw them as analogous, with Mary having an artist's heart, and Martha, always the pragmatic one who "got things done." The preachers of my childhood always praised Mary. Even Jesus seems to have praised Mary, to have set her over Martha. (Though careful reading might say otherwise.)
The more time I spent with the two, the more I discovered about the nature of their stories (there are several in the book, not just the one of Mary at Jesus's feet) and that binary nature of the twosome began to disappear; I began to realize that if one is reading a sacred text in the most useful way, one needs to accept the dynamism of it, the mystical. Indeed, the reader becomes the tertiary piece to such binaries; we're intended to engage with the words. (Is this what we mean when we say it's "open to interpretation"?)
We are living in a too-rational world, post enlightenment and industrial revolution. In a world that sees everything in "practical" light, in which we measure all by its "value" in the marketplace we've created. Ironically, science is more accepting of the mysteries of life; it's how scientists arrive at the wonder-filled questions they do.
We are at an historical point where we might take the best of the mystical, and the best of "knowledge," and become truly caring instead of dismissive and divisive.
How are we going to save the planet if we don't see the sacred in it? How are we going to love others--strangers--when we don't see the sacred in them? Is this not the one thing that might bring us together? I've been thinking it's really the only way. But it's hard. In the new testament, we are left with only 2 commandments, all the others pushed aside. And the second is to love your neighbour as you do yourself. The planet would be a changed place if this happened. (If this one commandment was posted on classroom walls... imagine...)
Maybe those people setting down their stones, deciding not to throw them, saw the sacred in the woman they were judging moments before. Maybe they did this because they sensed the sacred in the man who offered the question. It is a question. Maybe they sensed the sacred in themselves, and that they can rise above…
We are in an age of needing to live with open hearts, to accept, to cause others and ourselves to stop before throwing rocks; what will it take?
Yes, it's good to ask questions. Always.
I think the idea that punishment is never the answer is the philosophy that will take us forward. Thanks for the thoughtful response Alison!
You raise some very good points, Walter. I think Jesus is essentially setting up a paradox to consider. Sin is a greek word meaning "to miss the mark" Viewed in that light, Sin is merely a wrong way of thinking. A wrong way of looking at the world. As the representation of enlightened man, Jesus has no sin and therefore would not harm anyone. And he knows that if you would hurt someone - out of anger, out of fear, out of defense of your body or identity - you ARE sinning. You have missed the point of existence. You are not seeing through the eyes of infinite love.
Therefore, he should have known that anyone without sin wouldn't have cast the stone. But the fact that he offered that as a possibility is either deceitful, or it implies he doesn't understand the nature of sin.
Being ambivalent as I am about the existence of a person called Jesus, I would agree that the writers of the gospels could have had some misunderstanding of the nature of sin. There were simply creating allegories to help people discover the truth behind existence. Also I have found significant differences it the translations of the bible. Especially in the way people in the western world have interpreted eastern symbolism and mysticism. Plus there are always human motivations to consider, as you have stated. None of this stuff is black and white. It’s all open to interpretation.
At the jump I wanna say I get where you're coming from emotionally in this piece. Your take on modern notions of "Sin" and the Church making it so we're all wretched I agree with.
However being a student of biblical history and religion I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the story of the adulterous woman, and you make a couple of fallacious leaps of logic. I'm not saying this as a slam on you personally. A lot of people don't know this stuff. I studied it as a reaction to being thrust into a fundamentalist culture in East TN. That's where this comes from.
First the book of John was most likely written by Greek authors. We don't know who the actual author was but it was John who might not have existed. Bart D. Ehrman might be someone you'd be interested in. He's a prominent biblical scholar, history not theology.
Second this story was clearly written for an audience using Greek Tragedy as a framework. You can tell by the Greek structure and how its cast of characters plays out. Jesus is cast in the greek hero's role as a teacher like Socrates. He's teaching in front of a temple in what would the Agora like a Greek Philosopher might. Then the State (Phar
And actually Jesus is rejecting the notion associated with what we think as Sin which came from Augustine and Manichaeism which the Roman Catholic Church adopted later. He's stating the same rule he states in Luke with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Help people. Don't judge them.
You've got a straw man fallacy saying Jesus' teaching holds no utility because we have to accept it as "pure". Yeah that's false. Remove the divinity from Jesus, Jewish people and Muslims do, and this is a worthwhile story. Change "Sin" if you like to "Let he who is without moral failings cast the first stone" and passes your own test.
The story also illustrates a major shift in moral thinking. It's a bridge between shame culture, and community inflicted punishment, and sin culture which is internal and individually focused. It's a private affair.
In your own words: "We need to reject the idea that punishment is acceptable in some cases. This should be our ideal. We should treat all human beings with love and compassion."
That's exactly Jesus' point in the story.
I think you need to re-examine this and check your bias. Look at with fresh eyes for what the writers intended the story to be. What Jesus teaches still applies today in