I think you are on the wrong website to be quoting he bible ?

I thought it was a prostitute they were going after.
And if that’s the case, why not not the Toms.
Still stands to this day.

For the same reason that Hermey the Elf is practicing dentistry instead of building Santa's toys... both are fiction.

In other news, the Bible was written and edited by men who were a wee bit misogynistic.

Given the excessive misogyny found in almost all religions and Christianity in particular, for the life of me I never understood why any women would go along with it

The story is a very late addition to the bible, possibly only added in the middle ages, and even if the bible is not total fiction, this story almost certainly is. And in any case the woman is not the point of the story but only exists to show up the falsehood of her accusers, it would work just as well if she were a man or a thief or a murderer the details are trivial.

There is a very common hypothesis among historians that most of the more liberal of the Jesus teachings are the later additions, and that the hard line old testament preachings were the only ones in the earliest lost copies.

Believing in Jesus is like believing in Popeye the Sailor.

That pericope to which you refer is not found in many of the manuscripts and, when it does appears in wildly different places. So there's a lot of textual doubt about it.
Putting that to 1 side, no one knows why she cheated. There is no information provided to tell us, for it's not germane to the author's aim.
The man under Torah would have been punished. He may not have been married. However, this pericope focusses on her so as to make the point that those doing the stoning are hypocrites.

The whole pericope is a moral tale about hypocrisy but it's probably a fictitious tale

All the New Testament is mostly fiction but that particular story is even more questionable as it is not in the most ancient documents therefore to take it into consideration is a waste of time.

Historically, men have been blameless. Back in those days, women were either the property of their fathers or their husbands. Its funny though, cause it says: "He", when perhaps he was meaning all the out of control sluts.

Just imagine something like this today.
The members of a jury can only bring in a 'guilty' verdict if they've never broken a law before ! Criminals would have a field day !

There is a third question. Who gives a shit?

Nobody wonders why he didn't just insist NOBODY should be throwing stones? By leaving the criteria open to personal subjective interpretation, he's still endorsing a situation in which it's ok to throw stones. Typical religious hypocrite. Violence is still an acceptable solution when and if I determine it is.

Why would you punish the man? Was he in another relationship and cheating as well? Did he know she was in a relationship? Not enough info. I don’t get it.

Right after Jesus said that a meteor crashed into the ground leaving a smoking crater where the woman stood. Jesus looks to the sky, exasperated and says," Thanks Dad, I was trying to make a point."

It doesn't matter. The point is that everyone had sinned so no one was qualified to stone her.

Who cares its only fiction

Garbage book, trash ideas!

1. She wanted some dick
2. He was probrably a politician and paid some hush money

Pretty sure I’m right on both answers

Hi! I believe in the word of God.
The black screen helps you relax when using the computer too much.

Because in Christianity, men matter, women are expendable.

Which Jesus? The White one, the Black one, the Korean one or the one cobbled together from a bunch of minor prophets to make the early Xstian religion?
He who is without sin, cast the first stone/
I don't do sin, I try to be good but I want to be bad, that's not a sin, it's just human nature.

The sermons I heard on this either ignored the inconsistency in the law or pointed to it being a set-up. Most of the sermons went on to hypothesize about what Jesus wrote and suggested he was listing all their sins.
Then the sermon would usually go to how even thinking bad things was the same as doing them and we are all horrible sinners.
Then the altar call.

Why who knows other biblical law a good reason against theocracy

That portion of the Bible is not found in any other the most historical versions of the Bible. Of course there are no originals of biblical texts. Just the copies of copies of copies of copies.

More importantly, this portion was probably made up by scribes who added it hundreds of years later.

Although this is not my opinion of women, most likely she was punished because women were well known temptresses since Eve.

However, to be "fair" to Biblical injunctions, the man is to be put to death, as well:

Leviticus 20:10: "The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death"
Deuteronomy 22:22: "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then both of them shall die"

However, men were notoriously absolved for adultery for thousands of years before and afterwards. Men could have affairs and society turned a blind eye. Women were basically property and not given the same freedom as were men. The issue of paternity was also an issue: men were supposed to spread their seed and have as many children as possible for several reasons, one of which was to preserve the name and lineage. This is why men could have multiple wives; it also why a man could divorce a woman if she could not have kids. However, a man would not want to raise the child of another man born to his adulterous wife. This is also demonstrated in war when Jewish men could take virgin women as booty after a battle. However, he was not to have sex with her for a year; this was to ensure that she was not already pregnant by another man.

New Living Translation (NLT)
Numbers 31:18 Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Married women were put to death.

Women typically got the shaft when it came to sex. If a woman were raped in the city and did not cry out, both she and the rapist were put to death--never mind that he might have gagged her or she was in a state of shock.

In the country, there might not be anyone around to hear a raped woman cry out, so she was forced to marry the man who raped her and he could not divorce her because he had shamed her and no other man would want her.

Keep in mind that "rape" sometimes had a different connotation than it does today. It could mean premarital sex, not forced sex. If a woman and man wanted to get married but her father forbade it, being "raped" would have been an option to get married. On the other hand, being forced to marry a true rapist would have been torture for the woman.