'Questions for penal substitution'

Simon's done a post about some stuff that I've also been wondering about for a lot of my life as a Christian, but particularly over the last year. Read it here.
(In case you're wondering, penal substitution is the idea that God wouldn't or couldn't forgive human beings of their sin unless Jesus died.)

Northern Lights

(a.k.a. The Golden Compass)

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Genesis 3:19)

Just finished reading Northern Lights a couple of hours ago. It's set in a parallel universe that has a lot in common with ours. In this world the Christian church is still very powerful, and it doesn't seem like there has been a Reformation.
The book is largely concerned with the discovery of elementary particles called Dust, which are attracted to people. The church believes Dust is the cause of original sin and, ironically, is conduting cruel experiments on children to try and work out how Dust (and sin) might be destroyed.

Apparently some Christian groups have been upset by this book and the rest of the trilogy. I think it's still pretty under the radar though. There'll probably be more of a fuss when the film comes out.
It seems to me more that Philip Pullman's bothered by the church's stumblings into dogmatism and hypocracy than by the Christ himself. I'll see what I think once I've finished the trilogy.

Scribbling in the dirt

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
(John 8:3-6)

Because of what Jesus eventually ends up saying*, it's been suggested that Jesus could have been writing down the sins of this woman's accusers.
One idea I had when I read this last week was that he could have just been scribbling, testing their patience.
Another idea I had, while typing this up, is that maybe he was doodling to help himself think about how to respond.

Another thing I notice is that there is only mention of the adulteress. There is nothing said about the man she had sex with, as though he could do what he wanted, just because he was a man.

*'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.' (John 8:7)

Jesus and his family

Last Thursday, at lunch time, me and some of the guys from my UG (I was asked to keep leading it until last week) were having a discussion with one of our friends, who is a polytheist, while playing pool in the Zoo Lounge.
One thing she reckons is that within the context of Jewish family heirarchy was Jesus supposed to be the head of the family after Joseph died, because he was the oldest son. Apparently this was very important in First Century CE Jewish society.
I also brought up the part of the story where Jesus family come looking for him:

While he [Jesus] was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'
Matthew 12:46-50

It seems like Jesus is disrespecting his mother and breaking the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:12).

Later that day I brought this up with some other Christians. One person said that if Jesus had disrespected his mother, he would've been killed with rocks. But I don't think that necessarily means Jesus wasn't disrespectful. It could be just interepreted as a plot-hole ina made-up story.
This guy also reckoned, because of the story of little Jesus at the Temple (Luke 2:41-51), that Jesus was obedient to his parents, but just wasn't your average person.

Another person reckoned that since nothing that happened for the rest of the day is recorded, Jesus might have spent the rest of the day with his family.

Another person was pretty sure Jesus was disrespectful to his parents, and that he was about to get his head bitten off for saying so.
He was then told by someone else, 'Jesus was completely blameless in his walk on earth. Do you really think breaking one of the ten commandments was really in him? ... If you do, then everything the Bible is about is all wrong and flawed. So what are you "pretty sure" about? We know his heart and motive was never to disrespect his mother. Why we do presume it was so?'
Much as I agree that Jesus didn't have any sin, (I'm just trying to understand what was going on) I don't think saying that Jesus was blameless helps to show that Jesus was blameless.

Any other thoughts regarding this would be welcome.