As the OP says, he is not religious.
As the OP says, he is not religious.
Could you elaborate on this part a little more? How do we know what sort of things have truth values, and which don't? And why do counter-factuals necessarily lack truth values, anyway? Of course, it seems that there could be some counter-factuals that are untrue, but also some that would be. For instance, let's say: "if Saul/Paul of Tarsus had died at the age of 2, then he would never have been a major figure in the early Christian church." He didn't become a player until much later in life, so if he died early on, then he couldn't have affected Christianity in any substantial way; that seems very reasonable to me. Yet this statement is definitely contrary to the facts, as Paul survived into adulthood to write many letters, and affect the course of Christianity, and so on. While I suppose you could say that we can't truly know 100% that Paul wouldn't have had an impact if he'd died at 2, that seems like an absurdly skeptical position to take. So it seems to me that at least some counter-factual statements can be known to be true, even by human beings. (And it could probably be argued that God, being more knowledgeable and more perfect than human beings, could know even more counter-factuals, if counter-factuals are knowable) Am I wrong, or is that just a bad example of a counter-factual? (Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "truth value" or "counter-factual" - I'm open to that possibility, of course)Plotinus said:The problem, of course, is that we have no way of knowing what would have happened if that child had lived. There is a school of thought that says that even God wouldn't know (because it is a counter-factual conditional, and counter-factual conditionals have no truth value, so even an omniscient being would not know whether they are true or not).[
I've always heard it said that Jesus could indeed have thrown the first stone - but that He was saying that you only could throw the first stone if you were without sin, not that you had an obligation to do so if you were without sin. (Also, I'm pretty sure he was talking about sin in general, not the particular sin of adultery - that sounds like it's implied in your post, although I may just be misreading it - I doubt every person there was an adulterer!)I've got a simple one, I think:
Why didn't Jesus throw the first stone at the adulteress? My theory is that he also didn't qualify, since he (like everyone else there) had committed the same crime himself. Prove me wrong!
You mean because he, like everyone else there, had committed adultery? Jesus didn't say that was the case, he said those "without sin", ie even the non-adultering potential stone throwers were still sinners.
I'm sure you know that this question and answer format and the discussions that have followed could make an excellent book.
So you expect proof that Jesus was a sinner and in particular an adulterer? In what form would you like this proof? What would you accept as proof? There is little sense in looking to provide you with something you won't accept.I've got a simple one, I think:
Why didn't Jesus throw the first stone at the adulteress? My theory is that he also didn't qualify, since he (like everyone else there) had committed the same crime himself. Prove me wrong!
Well, why didn't Jesus demand the presence of the man?
Was there some component of Moses's law that didn't allow someone like Jesus to be involved in the stoning process? I think there's something special about those who were first to throw the stones, but I don't see how Jesus wasn't qualified to be one of the throwers.
If she was just an object lesson, what was the lesson? To let adultresses go free? That Moses's laws were too strict?