• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Brunei to implement stoning for adultery and amputation for theft next month

Mar 6, 2014 11:41 pm By Robert Spencer

Bolkiah“Starting in April, Brunei will begin implementing a version of Sharia that allows for penalties such as amputation for theft and stoning for adultery.” What version of Sharia does not allow for penalties such as amputation for theft and stoning for adultery? Why, there isn’t one. The mainstream media (of which the Daily Mail is, of course, one of the more witless examples), is confusing the fact that not all Muslim countries fully apply all elements of Sharia with the idea that they must have some other, more lenient version of Sharia. There are variations between the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, but none of them don’t contain these kinds of punishments. Amputation for theft is in the Qur’an (5:38) and stoning for adultery is based on numerous hadiths depicting Muhammad condoning stoning and even ordering it, and so these are core elements of Sharia wherever it is applied in full.

“Sultan of Brunei hits back at foreign criticism of looming implementation of Sharia law that will introduce amputations and stonings as punishments,” from the Daily Mail, March 6:

The sultan of Brunei has rejected foreign criticism of the countries impending introduction of a form of strict Islamic Sharia law, saying it is not a backwards step.

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah said all races should unite under Sharia law and that the new penal code was a ‘great achievement’ for the small Southeast Asian nation.

Starting in April, Brunei will begin implementing a version of Sharia that allows for penalties such as amputation for theft and stoning for adultery.

Under limited circumstances, punishments can be applied to non-Muslim residents of the oil-rich country, according to those who have seen the law.

Public criticism of the government is extremely rare in the country, but some citizens have turned to the Internet to express alarm at the law.

Around one-third of Brunei’s 440,000 people are non-Muslims, mostly Christian or Buddhist Chinese.

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah told legislators Thursday that all races should unite and support the laws, which he said were a ‘great achievement for the country, and not a backward or old-fashioned step.’

The plans have alarmed international human rights groups, but Bolkiah said ‘people outside of Brunei should respect us in the same way that we respect them.’

Brunei is a conservative country where alcohol is banned and Muslim courts already govern family affairs.

Officials have said that punishments under the new laws will not be carried out until around 2017.

Muslims in next door Malaysia are subject to a limited form of Islamic law that does not include amputation or capital punishment, as does Aceh province on the western tip of Indonesia.

In general, the interpretation and practice of Islam in Southeast Asia is more liberal than in parts of the Middle East and South Asia.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Brunei, Sharia Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Salah says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 12:08 am

    “..the new penal code was a ‘great achievement’ …”

    A great achievement !!!

    (graphic)

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/09/stoning-by-taliban-verminslapidation.html

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/islamic-amputations.html

  2. mortimer says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 12:11 am

    Another blow to free expression, another blow against women, another blow to equality.

    Anyone going Brunei can now be arrested much more easily and one of these excuses used to imprison and execute them.

    Western media had better pay attention. As the tide of Sharia moves their way, more journalists will be detained, tortured and murdered in prison.

    Western journalists are guilty of the sufferings of other journalists if they NOW DO NOTHING…not even REPORT it.

  3. Champ says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 1:27 am

    “WatchDawg” and “Watcher 1” are one in the same …

    marclouis exposes this person on another thread:

    marclouis
    March 6, 2014 at 9:59 pm

    Are you Kenneth Marcus Lowe? AKA WatchDawg, Watcher 1, Isa, Bookman…
    You might want to see a physiatrist about this multiple personality disorder, preferably a not a Jewish one.
    BTW can I ask if you were mentally ill before you picked up the koran, or was it the cause of the illness itself?

    Here’s the thread:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/egypt-muslim-scholars-call-for-destruction-of-theatres-showing-noah-movie/comment-page-1#comment-1017939

  4. Jay Boo says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 1:39 am

    Islam is so UNCLEAN

  5. Jay Boo says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 1:43 am

    Sharia stoning actually has nothing to do with adultery.
    Amputations are not really about theft.
    These are merely a diversion tactic to hide the Serpent Servant of Satan Muhammad’s filth.

    Islam is so very UNCLEAN.

  6. Jay Boo says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 1:55 am

    Look at the dumb soulless expressions on their faces.
    They surely must realize the awful unrelenting truth.

    Islam is filled with nothing but emptiness

  7. Champ says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 2:28 am

    sharia is evil! …same holds true for islam.

  8. inquisador says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 5:55 am

    To acknowledge the verses of stoning in the koran is only right; however the earlier origins in the Old Testament of the Bible must also be acknowledged.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Testament

    • JIMJFOX says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 8:11 am

      True- but of what relevance? Last I heard no Christian minister had ordered a stoning…

    • Bradamante says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 9:14 am

      The Jews made the stoning verses obsolete centuries ago. The Muslims are putting it into practice right now, in the 21st century. Apples and oranges.

      • Defcon 4 says

        Mar 7, 2014 at 1:01 pm

        When was the last time anyone Jewish ever stoned anyone to death for stoning? A millenia? Or more?

        • Bradamante says

          Mar 7, 2014 at 3:29 pm

          That’s my point. Jews haven’t stoned anyone to death for at least 2000 years. Jewish jurisprudence interpreted the laws so that stoning became obsolete. To defend sharia by pointing to Jewish halacha is to compare apples to oranges.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 1:00 pm

      Yes, and Muhammad, according to the Sira and the Hadith, chastised the Jews of his time for not implementing the punishment from the Torah. He forced the Jews under his jurisdiction to implement the punishment, against their own practice and interpretation.

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 1:04 pm

      The day that Christians or Jews start stoning, amputating, beheading, and mass-murderously exploding in our lands with a thousand plots (some of them horribly successful), I will be 100% in support of a “Crusade Watch” or an “Old Testament Watch” website that reports on that most worrisome trend.

      But since Christians or Jews are not doing these things, and Muslims are, all over the world, and only showing signs of metastasizing and getting worse, it is not only silly to raise your concern, it is downright obstructionist, getting in the way of our public safety.

      • RodSerling says

        Mar 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm

        voeg,

        I don’t think he’s necessarily suggesting that there’s a significant risk of mainstream Jews or Christians implementing the punishment of stoning for adultery. There was always a risk, though, that some “extremists” might come along and interpret those scriptures in a straightforward and selective manner. Muslims are those “extremists” who made use of those policies by appealing selectively to the earlier scriptures. The scriptural origins, used cynically in the fabrication of Islam in the service of its totalitarian program of control, are undeniable.

        • Defcon 4 says

          Mar 8, 2014 at 3:05 am

          There is ZERO chance of a Christian stoning anyone to death. Yeshua himself intervened in a stoning for adultery (which might have been a staged test). He sets the example for all Christians to follow.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm

          Defcon 4,

          Unless you have surveyed all the evidence, you have no basis for saying the chance of a Christian stoning someone to death for violating a Biblical law is zero. Surveys of Christians in Africa indicate significant percentages (large minorities to majorities) want to implement “Biblical law.” Of those, probably some would include the OT. There are indeed Christians, not only in Africa but also in the West, who want to implement the harsh OT punishments for homosexuality. Some of these Christians actually comment on this site. There are Christians who want people harshly punished for blasphemy. These kinds of Christians enable Islam. There are also many Christians in the West who support Islam’s campaign against free expression. Most Christians in the West are not of the anti-Islam mindset. They are pro-Islam, because they view it as a religion that is related to their own and which shares similar values.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm

          Here’s the survey of African Christians (median of 60% want Biblical law as the official law of the land) and Muslims (median of 63% want sharia as the official law of the land)
          http://pewforum.org/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa.aspx
          http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/sub-saharan-africa-topline.pdf

          Americans (note: Americans in general, not just Christians): about 1/3 want Christianity to be the State religion.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/christianity-state-religion_n_3022255.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 1:09 pm

      “To acknowledge the verses of stoning in the koran is only right;”

      The verses of stoning didn’t make it into the Quran; stoning is prescribed or shown to be exemplary in the Hadith and Sira.

  9. duh_swami says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 7:42 am

    Sharia versions? I got my version, you got your version, all Allah’s chilluns got a version. But there’s only one version for me, good old Quran and sunnah versions. If you don’t have that one, you have a fake. An original reproduction. Not autographed by Allah. The Sultan recognized the error and is now seeking to correct it.

  10. thomas_h says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 7:51 am

    @inquisador

    We are talking about ACTUAL stoning, HERE and NOW. Not what was WRITTEN about it THEN.
    There are websites dedicated to the subject of who-wrote-what over the past three thousand years. Why do you waste your time here peddling irrelevant information rather then contributing something valuable there?
    Of course you will be welcome back the moment the media reports a stoning ordered by a Rabbi.

    • inquisador says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 1:41 pm

      Why do I waste my time here?

      Because you are glossing over some uncomfortable facts.

      You know that an important part of the Islamic theology is the claim that Jews and Christians have corrupted the laws of God, and that only Muslims are still upholding those practices as specifically prescribed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest.

      This all appears quite persuasive to many Muslims, and must surely be a significant part of the appeal of the creed, and why they are so liable to feel superior to said Jews and Christians.

      It seems to me that a way out of this is to openly admit the truth of these Biblical embarrassments and to disavow all such calls to barbarism from whatever source. Even if that may entail admission of Biblical inerrancy.

      • inquisador says

        Mar 7, 2014 at 1:45 pm

        I meant ‘Biblical errors’.

        • thomas_h says

          Mar 7, 2014 at 8:16 pm

          @inquisador,

          “You know that an important part of the Islamic theology is the claim that Jews and Christians have corrupted the laws of God, and that only Muslims are still upholding those practices as specifically prescribed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest.”

          It is a part, but I don’t think it is important at all. Do you really think if Jews and Christians reinstated the Leviticus, but continued rejecting mohammed’s claim of being a prophet, the Moslems would stop their 1400 years old war against us? Would we, from day to day, have ceased being the filthy Kafir?

          ”This all appears quite persuasive to many Muslims, and must surely be a significant part of the appeal of the creed, and why they are so liable to feel superior to said Jews and Christians.”

          Our problem is not with moslems feeling superior to Christians and Jews ( and Hindu, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Animists, despite of they had nothing to do with the Leviticus).
          Our problem is with their savage and bestial Cult that proscribes converting, or murdering/enslaving the Infidel. Their feeling of superiority is only accidental and secondary. It comes as result of their obedience to the Cult. You are putting the carriage before the horse.

          ”It seems to me that a way out of this is to openly admit the truth of these Biblical embarrassments and to disavow all such calls to barbarism from whatever source. Even if that may entail admission of Biblical inerrancy.”

          The way out of what? What embarrassment you are talking about? Who exactly needs to be embarrassed? Jews and Christians?
          And how do you want “to disavow all such calls to barbarism”? Isn’t the disavowal made the facto by our not following these calls for two millennia?
          But why do you think that a formal “disavowal of such barbarism”, which it seems you suggest, will somehow make us less odious to moslems, who according to you, hate us for corrupting the true word of God? Can’t you see that a disavowal of the letter of the Law would, in the eye of the moslems, be a corruption much more egregious than a corruption of the spirit of the Law of God? Sorry, but I think your argument is quite incoherent.

          In my long life I have met thousands of Christians yet I have never met one embarrassed by something written in the O.T. three thousand year ago, but never carried out in the recorded history. Neither the many Jews I talked to including two rabbis never showed the slightest sign of embarrassment. Indeed they were quite proud to point out that Jews centuries before the birth of muhammedanism ceased the practice of stoning of adulterers despitethe prescribed by the Leviticus procedure.
          The greatness of the Jews and the deep humanity of these strange people made them dare to restrain the categorical order of the Leviticus and let the call of mercy and charity override that law. When I jokingly asked the Rabbi if that disobedience would not cause God’s wrath he responded that mercy has much greater worth in God’s eye than strict adherence to law. God loves such disobedience he said.

          I quote from Wikipedia (I think) :
          “As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.”

          and :

          “Prior to early Christianity, particularly in the Mishnah, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the effectiveness of capital punishment in general” (and stoning in particular) in acting as a useful deterrent. Subsequently its use was dissuaded by the central legislators. The Mishnah states:
          A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says that this extends to a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel.[10]
          In the following centuries the leading Jewish sages imposed so many restrictions on the implementation of capital punishment as to make it de facto illegal.…
          Philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote, “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”[11] He was concerned that the law guard its public perception, to preserve its majesty and retain the people’s respect. He saw errors of commission as much more threatening to the integrity of law than errors of omission.”[12]

          As far as I can see, for the Jews there is by a long way more to be proud for adding human Spirit to the Law than embarrassed by its Letter.

  11. JIMJFOX says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 8:13 am

    “The mainstream media (of which the Daily Mail is, of course, one of the more witless examples)”

    The Mail is actually the most honest of the dhimmi british media regarding Islamic filth so go easy on the acid, Robert

  12. inquisador says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Oops;

    Biblical errors.

  13. voegelinian says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Sharia Lite — now with 37% fewer extremist calories (or is it 47%… or 73%… or 91%…? We can never pin down the Moderate Muslim to specify…).

    How to concoct Pop Sharia:

    1) Make the unsubstantiated claim that Sharia is so “diverse” it can be anything you want it to be

    2) When someone asks you for evidence of #1, try to distract through logical fallacies, such as Tu Quoque, Ad Hominem, Red Herrings, and Straw Man)

    3) If you are actually influential in government and/or legal institutions in a Muslim society which depend parasitically upon the influence of the West in terms of institutions and laws (usually as enforced by the tin-pot Dictators-du-Jour that have abounded in Muslim societies — both under Colonialism and more recently under the post-Colonialist order), pretend as though the artificial situation of a Moderated, Adulterated Sharia that has evolved as a mutant creature of this parasitic arrangement of dependence on the West (coupled, as always, with a pathological hatred for the West) is, in fact, a perfectly Islamic phenomenon, when you know damned well it isn’t and cannot prove your claim using Islamic sources.

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 2:14 pm

      ” the artificial situation of a Moderated, Adulterated Sharia that has evolved as a mutant creature of this parasitic arrangement of dependence on the West”

      And this describes the prevalent situation of the Muslim world in the decades that transpired in the wake of the dissolution of the global order of Western Colonialism (which had prevailed for centuries, since at least the 17th century). This situation of ragged rapprochement — transacted through tin-pot Muslim Dictators and their corrupt relations with America (and/or the USSR) — was always resented by the ordinary Muslim as a “Deal with the Devil” and as a betrayal of their fanatical obsession with Islamic “purity”. This Islamic discontent had been brewing for decades, and helped facilitate the growth industry of jihadist cells and organizations throughout the Muslim world. It finally more recently exploded in the “Arab Spring” by which these tin-pot Dictators were overthrown in coups-cum-revolutions, overturning the ancien regime and heralding the dawning of a new, more Islamic era on the long road to a global revival and renewal of the pan-Islam that was the main source and motivator for a millennium of warfare from the 7th to the 17th centuries against the Other (most especially worrisome for us, the Western Other).

    • Defcon 4 says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 4:01 pm

      Defense of islam is like a smorgasbord of fallacies of argumentation. I’ve also seen the No True Scotsman fallacy of argumentation employed as well (in the light of they’re not real muslimes).

  14. duh_swami says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Muslims are still upholding those practices as specifically prescribed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest.

    And I thought they followed the Quran and the examples of Mahound. Did Gabriel tell Mahound about ‘Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest’?

    • inquisador says

      Mar 7, 2014 at 4:11 pm

      “And I thought they followed the Quran and the examples of Mahound. Did Gabriel tell Mahound about ‘Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest’?”

      Sure they follow the Koran and the examples of Mahound. Now I’m damn sure that Gabriel never told Mahound anything. But we know that he picked up enough from Christian sources to gain some knowledge of Bible stories; enough for him to include garbled versions of them in his ‘revelations’ that made up the Koran. King Solomon and the talking ants is my favourite.

      Now call me stupid, but I can’t see the point in patting ourselves on the back for not stoning people; while refusing to accept that the people who still do stone people (and amputate limbs and crucify and gouge out eyes..), got the ideas from our religion in the first place. And continue the practice because God said that we should do so, according to our holy books ( copied to the Islamic texts).

      However, Didn’t Mohamed claim his daughter-in-law for himself as I recall?

      According to Leviticus 20:12 –

      “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

      • voegelinian says

        Mar 7, 2014 at 7:17 pm

        “but I can’t see the point in patting ourselves on the back for not stoning people; while refusing to accept that the people who still do stone people (and amputate limbs and crucify and gouge out eyes..), got the ideas from our religion in the first place. And continue the practice because God said that we should do so, according to our holy books”

        Your priorities are outrageously distorted. I will pat myself on the back all day long, seeing as my civilization merely has some dusty old ideas not practiced at all anywhere. The distance between Us and Them is so motherf**(*&ngly astronomical, any comparison-drawing between them is not only asinine, but downright dangerous to our safety. You and your inane ilk in the West are endangering my life and the lives of my loved ones.

        • inquisador says

          Mar 8, 2014 at 11:07 am

          voegelinian,

          Those dusty old ideas are actually foundational texts of Jews and Christians; still accepted as divine will of God today.

          Could it not be argued that Mohammed accepted capital punishments for apostasy, adultery and other sins, in his new religion, because the existing precedent set by Jews and Christians made it easy for him?

          I accept the fact that these things have not been generally practiced in a long time. This is a tribute to the teachings of Jesus.

          But I cannot help but wonder why they are still allowed to stand. Is there not a case for striking them from the Torah?
          Would there not be a strong position then from which we could argue against their retention in sharia law?

          Could you please explain how I am endangering the life of you and your loved ones?

      • thomas_h says

        Mar 7, 2014 at 8:56 pm

        ““…I can’t see the point in patting ourselves on the back for not stoning people; while refusing to accept that the people who still do stone people (and amputate limbs and crucify and gouge out eyes..), got the ideas from our religion in the first place. And continue the practice because God said that we should do so, according to our holy books ( copied to the Islamic texts).”

        No, they did not “get the ideas from our religion in the first place”. They got the idea from what our religion discarded because of its mercilessness. The thing that made us discard the ideas is exactly the thing that made islam pick up and embrace these ideas.
        There are quite a few noble and humane ideas in our religion, which they did not copy into their Koran. Why don’t you ask why did they make a specific choice what to copy and what not? Isn’t obvious that copiers who manufactured the evil Cult must have been absolutely evil?
        Do we need to blame ourselves for that?

        • Defcon 4 says

          Mar 8, 2014 at 3:09 am

          The muslimes certainly didn’t take the ideologies and concepts that Hillel or Yeshua proposed and/or preached.

  15. Jimbo says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Was that pic really taken in Brunei? It looks like Dennis Kucinich and one of his voters.

  16. duh_swami says

    Mar 7, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    got the ideas from our religion in the first place.

    Speak for yourself. If you choose to feel guilty for what ancient people may have done, that is your business. I do not feel the least bit guilty about it. I’m more concerned about current events.

    • inquisador says

      Mar 8, 2014 at 9:22 am

      Not guilty.

      None of us should feel the slightest guilt, and I too am more concerned about current events.

      But there is an issue here and it has a relevance to current events.

      • Defcon 4 says

        Mar 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm

        Please mention one specific, historical instance when Christians have ever imposed stoning as the punishment for adultery, or, just for laughs, when anyone Jewish has.

        • inquisador says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 10:48 am

          Stoning was imposed as the punishment for adultery by the author of Leviticus 20:10, ” And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

          Since it’s there in the Bible, I guess it must have been the law.

          As for examples of actual stonings; there may have been many, there may have been none at all, who knows?

  17. inquisador says

    Mar 8, 2014 at 10:46 am

    Thomas H:-

    You know that an important part of the Islamic theology is the claim that Jews and Christians have corrupted the laws of God, and that only Muslims are still upholding those practices as specifically prescribed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest.”

    It is a part, but I don’t think it is important at all. Do you really think if Jews and Christians reinstated the Leviticus, but continued rejecting mohammed’s claim of being a prophet, the Moslems would stop their 1400 years old war against us? Would we, from day to day, have ceased being the filthy Kafir?

    Reply:
    No I don’t think so. And I think that rather than following the hideous examples of the jihadist Muslims, we should be distancing ourselves from them as much as possible. We should give them no support for their sharia punishments; but explicitly denounce them. But that would mean renouncing parts of our own texts as no longer valid for our times. We should do that too.

    ”This all appears quite persuasive to many Muslims, and must surely be a significant part of the appeal of the creed, and why they are so liable to feel superior to said Jews and Christians.”

    Our problem is not with moslems feeling superior to Christians and Jews ( and Hindu, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Animists, despite of they had nothing to do with the Leviticus).
    Our problem is with their savage and bestial Cult that proscribes converting, or murdering/enslaving the Infidel. Their feeling of superiority is only accidental and secondary. It comes as result of their obedience to the Cult. You are putting the carriage before the horse.

    Reply:
    You make an excellent point here when you nail the central problem. However if we give them a stick to beat us with (in the matter of supposed corruption of God’s law) then that helps us not at all.

    ”It seems to me that a way out of this is to openly admit the truth of these Biblical embarrassments and to disavow all such calls to barbarism from whatever source. Even if that may entail admission of Biblical inerrancy.”

    The way out of what? What embarrassment you are talking about? Who exactly needs to be embarrassed? Jews and Christians?
    And how do you want “to disavow all such calls to barbarism”? Isn’t the disavowal made the facto by our not following these calls for two millennia?
    But why do you think that a formal “disavowal of such barbarism”, which it seems you suggest, will somehow make us less odious to moslems, who according to you, hate us for corrupting the true word of God? Can’t you see that a disavowal of the letter of the Law would, in the eye of the moslems, be a corruption much more egregious than a corruption of the spirit of the Law of God? Sorry, but I think your argument is quite incoherent.

    Reply:
    Never mind the letter or the spirit. We are talking about the explicit orders of God. According to most Jewish and Christian theologians, the Torah, or Pentateuch, which is where all these gory capital punishments for sins great and small originate, this is still very much God’s divine will even today. Whether practiced or not. The perfect motivation for every Dominionist nitwit.
    So no wonder that my argument is incoherent; surely the position of our religion(s) is also quite incoherent.

    So let us cohere it.

    In my long life I have met thousands of Christians yet I have never met one embarrassed by something written in the O.T. three thousand year ago, but never carried out in the recorded history. Neither the many Jews I talked to including two rabbis never showed the slightest sign of embarrassment. Indeed they were quite proud to point out that Jews centuries before the birth of muhammedanism ceased the practice of stoning of adulterers despitethe prescribed by the Leviticus procedure.
    The greatness of the Jews and the deep humanity of these strange people made them dare to restrain the categorical order of the Leviticus and let the call of mercy and charity override that law. When I jokingly asked the Rabbi if that disobedience would not cause God’s wrath he responded that mercy has much greater worth in God’s eye than strict adherence to law. God loves such disobedience he said.

    Reply:

    How are mere humans supposed to know which laws to obey and which laws to disobey?
    Where does it say in the Torah that God will allow humans to alter or disobey his laws?

    I quote from Wikipedia (I think) :
    “As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment.”
    and :

    “Prior to early Christianity, particularly in the Mishnah, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the effectiveness of capital punishment in general” (and stoning in particular) in acting as a useful deterrent. Subsequently its use was dissuaded by the central legislators. The Mishnah states:
    A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says that this extends to a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel.[10]
    In the following centuries the leading Jewish sages imposed so many restrictions on the implementation of capital punishment as to make it de facto illegal.…
    Philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote, “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”[11] He was concerned that the law guard its public perception, to preserve its majesty and retain the people’s respect. He saw errors of commission as much more threatening to the integrity of law than errors of omission.”[12]

    As far as I can see, for the Jews there is by a long way more to be proud for adding human Spirit to the Law than embarrassed by its Letter.

    Reply:

    This is all actually quite wonderful. Sincerely. That such draconian laws could be circumvented for humane reasons says a lot for the humanity and compassion of some people.

    If only we could say the same for all religious people.

    In fact, if the explicit commands of God were so wrong at times as to require human correction
    perhaps we would have been better off writing our own laws and commandments.

    Or did we?

    • thomas_h says

      Mar 8, 2014 at 6:10 pm

      Thanks for your comment, inquisador.

      Unfortunately, it seems to me we are talking at cross purposes. Besides, sometimes I really don’t understand what you are trying to say.
      Perhaps this is not the best subject for us to discuss. So, maybe we should meet on some thread, hopefully more productively.
      Regards,
      Thomas H.

      • inquisador says

        Mar 9, 2014 at 7:51 am

        It’s been a pleasure, Thomas H.

        Perhaps what I’m trying to say is a little unsuitable for this site at times. What I would really like is to see a common front with open debate between the religiously minded and the hell-bound secularists like me.

        I look forward to more debate in the future.

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 2:22 pm

      Inquisador wrote:

      You know that an important part of the Islamic theology is the claim that Jews and Christians have corrupted the laws of God, and that only Muslims are still upholding those practices as specifically prescribed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and all the rest.
      ……………………………..

      There are a number of fallacies here.

      Firstly, I have never heard any Muslim cite Leviticus or Deuteronomy—you are assuming that Muslims are referring to these verses.

      Instead, Islam more generally claims that the Torah and Bible were in accordance with the Qur’an and other “holy” texts of Islam before they were “corrupted”.

      But even were this the case, your “solution” is for Jews and Christians to more pointedly disavow or even remove such verses.

      What would the effect of this be? In terms of Jewish and Christian behavior, it would, as noted, make no difference, since Jews and Christians are not practicing Shari’ah savagery anyway.

      And would it make a difference for Muslims? Would they decide to stop stoning people to death?

      Well, no—they would take it as yet further proof that Jews and Christians were “corrupting” their texts, which they accuse them of now, anyway.

      So you have either not thought this through, or else your agenda is one rather different than ending Islamic savagery.

      • inquisador says

        Mar 11, 2014 at 10:08 am

        Gravenimage,

        You said:-

        “Firstly, I have never heard any Muslim cite Leviticus or Deuteronomy—you are assuming that Muslims are referring to these verses.”

        No. I am suggesting that perhaps Mohamed introduced laws such as stoning to death for adultery, because those laws were already established in the Torah and therefore familiar to the Jews and Christians of that time and therefore likely to be accepted widely in Mohamed’s new religion.

        I’m not suggesting that Muslims cite Leviticus 20:10 or any of the many other Biblical verses that call for capital punishment for other offences.

        “Instead, Islam more generally claims that the Torah and Bible were in accordance with the Qur’an and other “holy” texts of Islam before they were “corrupted”.”

        This is close enough to what I was saying. In any case, to put it plainly, the OT with it’s obscenely horrific punishments, is in agreement with Sharia law, which was written over a thousand years later.

        “But even were this the case, your “solution” is for Jews and Christians to more pointedly disavow or even remove such verses.

        What would the effect of this be? In terms of Jewish and Christian behavior, it would, as noted, make no difference, since Jews and Christians are not practicing Shari’ah savagery anyway.”

        Not in the west, perhaps. But as Rod Serling has shown on this thread, the Pew Forum has poll results from Africa that show some extremely worrying figures. Here again, with another nod to Rod:-

        “Here’s the survey of African Christians (median of 60% want Biblical law as the official law of the land) and Muslims (median of 63% want sharia as the official law of the land)
        http://pewforum.org/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa.aspx
        http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/sub-saharan-africa-topline.pdf”

        This all hinges on what is meant by ‘Biblical Law’ (sharia we know about).
        But given the current trends in many parts of Africa against ‘witches’ and homosexuals, there can be little room for optimism that this is just some harmless NT interpretation.

        “And would it make a difference for Muslims? Would they decide to stop stoning people to death?

        Well, no—they would take it as yet further proof that Jews and Christians were “corrupting” their texts, which they accuse them of now, anyway.”

        Well then in that case, there would be no further harm done. And how can you be sure that none of them would follow a humane example?

        How about we just do it because it’s the right thing to do?

  18. ecosse1314 says

    Mar 8, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    “go away and sin no more” ” love thy neighbour as yourself” now please tell me what part of Christian theology do you not understand?????

    • inquisador says

      Mar 8, 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Do unto others as you would be done by.

      That about sums it up for me.

      As for what part of Christian theology dont I understand?

      Well, loads, quite frankly.

      For instance I still don’t get why the Lord had to tell Moses to have a man stoned to death for gathering sticks on a Sabbath? And he apparently was stoned to death.

      Not for stealing from his neighbour or for swindling orphans, but for collecting firewood!?

      Numbers 15:32-36.

      And plenty of other weird laws where that came from. Please explain if you can.

      • Defcon 4 says

        Mar 8, 2014 at 7:35 pm

        Your comments on this story have been all been critical of Judaism’s past history (because I don’t think you can find a SINGLE, historical instance of anyone Christian stoning anyone to death for any reason), yet have never been critical of the subject of this article, which is the implementation of barbaric sharia law in the here and now.

        • Foolster says

          Mar 9, 2014 at 3:04 am

          Don’t bother, Inquisitor apears to be just another anti-Christian bigot who doesn’t understand Christian/Judism theology (hint: stoning was prescribed for a single time and place) and likes to throw out tu-quo-que arguments about stoning.

          While Rodserling seems a strong opponent to Islam at least and is talking on topic, he seems to be not able to help himself to throwing out anti-Christian/anti-judism remarks and vague assertions such as that Christians here want to implement OT style or even NT Christian law (I’m curious, who? I don’t think it’s more than maybe 1-2, and probably not the frequent posters here) over the country.

          The citing of a Huffington post (huffing paste) poll is ridiculous. It’s open web poll with no connection of how many of the people being polled are Christian. Not exactly scientific, but helps push the leftist agenda talking point that Christians are fascists and just as bad as Islam!

        • inquisador says

          Mar 9, 2014 at 7:41 am

          Hi Defcon 4,

          You are right. i admit that I have been critical of Judaism’s past history.

          However you are mistaken if you think that I’m cozy with Sharia in the here and now.

          Sharia is a form of totalitarian rule; where Islam can thrive and dominate at the expense of human rights, freedom, creativity and tolerance.

          I may be critical of Judaic history, but Jews and Christians have, as I said above, earned praise for their humanizing influence on the draconian laws that were handed down to them.

          There’s no comparison between Islam with it’s abhorrent Sharia; and the other two Abrahamic religions as they are practiced these days.

        • inquisador says

          Mar 9, 2014 at 8:10 am

          I’m as shocked by this story as anyone.

          Judging by the expression of the Sultan in the photo; could it be that forces have been at work on him?

          Remember the deal made by the Al Saud family in the 19th Century?
          Maybe he is being faced with a choice between introducing sharia or having to deal with some kind of jihadi insurgency threat?

          If he’s doing this on his own initiative then he must be insane (or a convert to Islam).

        • gravenimage says

          Mar 10, 2014 at 2:35 pm

          inquisador wrote:

          I’m as shocked by this story as anyone.

          Judging by the expression of the Sultan in the photo; could it be that forces have been at work on him?

          Remember the deal made by the Al Saud family in the 19th Century?
          Maybe he is being faced with a choice between introducing sharia or having to deal with some kind of jihadi insurgency threat?

          If he’s doing this on his own initiative then he must be insane (or a convert to Islam).
          …………………………..

          What are you talking about? The Sultan of Brunei *is* Muslim—and he’s not a convert.

          Saudi Arabia is quite evil, but there is no reason to believe that they are behind Brunei’s increasing Islamization.

          Many parts of the Muslim world are imposing Shari’ah now, especially in the emboldening wake of the “Arab Spring”.

          Unless you believe that Saudi Arabia “got to” Indonesia, Nigeria, Mali, Syria, etc, etc…

        • inquisador says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 8:34 am

          Gravenimage’

          My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

          What i was trying to say was that the Sultan, who is of course a Muslim, may be being shoved in a fundamentalist direction by more fanatical Muslims behind the scenes.

          I was referring to a possibly analogous situation in Saudi Arabia’s history (1744, not 19thC) in which a similar kind of situation developed which resulted in the alliance between the Al-Saud clan and the Sheik al-Wahhab.

          http://www.ucdp.uu.se/gpdatabase/gpcountry.php?id=134&value

          I was not suggesting any current connection between the two countries. In any case it was only speculation.

  19. RodSerling says

    Mar 9, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Foolster,

    You accuse Inquisador of ignorance and “bigotry” for merely criticizing, in a gentle fashion in which he carefully indicates that he has no major problems with Christians and Jews today who largely ignore or explain away troublesome elements of their scriptures.

    “(hint: stoning was prescribed for a single time and place)”

    Therefore okay? Do you oppose it or not? Are you a relativist?

    “…and likes to throw out tu-quo-que arguments about stoning.”

    It’s not a tu quoque fallacy in this case. He was pointing out the origins of the punishment; and he explicitly denied that Jews and Christians practice it.

    “While Rodserling seems a strong opponent to Islam”

    “Seems to be”? Lol. Unlike our own resident IslamoChristians, I also oppose punishing homosexuals, and blasphemers (of any religion), “sorcerers”, etc., and I oppose those Christians on this site who claim God allowed 9/11. If you don’t think such Christians exist on the site, you haven’t been paying attention. In any case, I oppose Islam’s bad elements, and I oppose it in the whole or package sense as well.

    This is to say nothing of
    -the significant minorities to majorities of Christians in the West who think Islam is acceptable
    -the Christian leadership which is committed to interfaith dialogue with Muslim leadership whilst the brothers in faith of the latter persecute Christians worldwide.
    -the members of the Christian and Jewish leadership who support Islamic law in the West in order to buttress their own interests.

    “…at least and is talking on topic, he seems to be not able to help himself to throwing out anti-Christian/anti-judism remarks”

    Nice spin. I was responding to a sub-discussion started by inquisador, noting that the punishment of stoning for adultery comes from the Torah. That’s where authors of Islam said they got the idea. They said they were enforcing rules that the Jews had failed to enforce. Some Christians responded to him, to I joined the discussion.
    I then responded to another commenter who claimed that there were “zero” Christians who wanted to use the punishment of stoning. I find that highly unlikely, given the beliefs of African Christians, for example. Probably a significant percentage of them would approve of stoning to death for homosexuality, given some of the attitudes and laws pertaining to homosexuality in some African countries, given that the majority of African Christians want “Biblical law” to be implemented. For the same reason, I doubt the percentage of support for stoning for adultery is zero.

    “…and vague assertions such as that Christians here want to implement OT style or even NT Christian law (I’m curious, who? I don’t think it’s more than maybe 1-2, and probably not the frequent posters here) over the country.”

    Read just about any thread on homosexuality.

    “The citing of a Huffington post (huffing paste) poll is ridiculous. It’s open web poll with no connection of how many of the people being polled are Christian. Not exactly scientific, but helps push the leftist agenda talking point that Christians are fascists and just as bad as Islam!”

    First of all, you completely ignored my citation of the huge Pew summary of polls taken of African Christians, showing that a median of 60% want “Biblical law” to be the official law of the land. You must come to terms with those data.

    Secondly, the HuffPo poll was also a YouGov poll. The HuffPo is for the most part mainstream leftish, not leftist. There is no justification for your arbitrary dismissal of this data, short of providing me with data from polls that show that only zero or some insignificant percent of Christians in the U.S. want Christianity to be the state religion (either state-wise or nationally).

    And again, it’s not even difficult to find Christians on this site who support Christianity as a state religion. Just ask them. In a recent thread, Robert asked people to sign a petition which called for opposing state religion in principle, in the context of Pakistan with its harsh blasphemy laws. At least one Christian refused to sign it, explaining that he did not agree with the principle. That is, there are not only Christians in the general populations of the West who enable Islam by insisting on opposing the principle of separation of religion and state, but there are Christians right here on the site who express these views.

    • Defcon 4 says

      Mar 9, 2014 at 3:07 pm

      @RodSerling
      The Catholic Church stood up to and defeated islam0nazism in Europe. If they hadn’t, there would have been no Renaissance or Enlightenment.

      I still would like to see a single, historical example of Jews and/or Christians ever imposing the stoning death penalty for adultery. Christians wouldn’t, because Yeshua himself clearly disapproved of it — and he’s a somewhat important figure in Christianity.

      • Champ says

        Mar 9, 2014 at 3:12 pm

        I still would like to see a single, historical example of Jews and/or Christians ever imposing the stoning death penalty for adultery. Christians wouldn’t, because Yeshua himself clearly disapproved of it — and he’s a somewhat important figure in Christianity.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Bravo, Defcon 4! …so true, Jesus defended the woman caught in adultery and saved her from *being* stoned. As true Christians, we are to follow Christ’s example.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Question: “What was Jesus writing in the dirt when the Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery?”

        Answer: The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 8:1-11. Briefly, the story involves the scribes and Pharisees who, in their continuing efforts to trick Jesus into saying something they could hold against Him, brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They reminded Him that the Mosaic Law demanded her to be stoned to death. “But what do you say?”, they asked Him. At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt. When He straightened up, He said, “”If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left.

        Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-writing-dirt.html#ixzz2vUxeZ36G

      • RodSerling says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 6:07 pm

        Defcon 4,

        “The Catholic Church stood up to and defeated islam0nazism in Europe. If they hadn’t, there would have been no Renaissance or Enlightenment.”

        At times yes, at times, no. Currently, no. Instead, they are facilitating the Islamization of Europe in the interests of defeating what they see as the rise of secularism and atheism, which they believe has a negative effect. Francis is somewhat softer on atheists than was Benedict, though both are pro-Islam, Francis more so.

        “I still would like to see a single, historical example of Jews and/or Christians ever imposing the stoning death penalty for adultery. Christians wouldn’t, because Yeshua himself clearly disapproved of it — and he’s a somewhat important figure in Christianity.”

        I didn’t say this punishment for adultery was carried out by Jews and Christians historically. It may or may not have been; I haven’t researched that question, and I’m quite sure, neither have you. If it was, I doubt that it ever became a mainstream practice, otherwise we’d be hearing about it endlessly from apologists of the “all religions are bad” sort. But what you suggested, that the risk is zero, also sounds suspect to me, as I said, given what significant percentages of African Christians believe (and practice). African Christians in significant numbers practice FGM (chiefly an Islamic practice today, not a Jewish or Christian one), and sometimes they kill people for “witchcraft”. Many of them want to put homosexuals to death, or subject them to other harsh punishments. If they believe and do all of that, some of it based, and some of it not based, on the Bible, why would it be such a stretch to suppose that a greater than zero percentage want to implement the punishment of stoning for adultery? Plus all of that, there are always going to be a few nuts here and there who decide to kill someone for adultery, then cite the Bible as justification.

        In any case, you’ve presented no evidence that the percentage in question is zero. Cite me polls showing that across the African countries and the Middle Eastern countries, zero Christians (out of how many millions) support the punishment of stoning for adultery.

        In any case, what I said originally was that there was not a significant risk of Jews and Christians implementing the punishment of stoning for adultery. Why are we having this discussion?

      • RodSerling says

        Mar 11, 2014 at 5:56 am

        Defcon 4,

        “I still would like to see a single, historical example of Jews and/or Christians ever imposing the stoning death penalty for adultery. Christians wouldn’t, because Yeshua himself clearly disapproved of it — and he’s a somewhat important figure in Christianity.”

        The latter sentence indicates a surprising level of naivety: The same entity (God, OT) ordered the death penalty for it in general, and the instance in which the same entity (God, NT) excused one particular woman is sufficiently ambiguous as to permit multiple interpretations. If we accept the premise that punishments can only be doled out by those who are without sin, then no punishments would ever be doled out for anything–that’s one possible interpretation. In addition, the NT passage in question says nothing about what to do if people don’t “sin no more”; what if they keep on sinning and refuse to stop?

        In any case, as to the former sentence, if you really wanted to find out if there were a case, you’d look it up. There is more than one instance of the death penalty being carried out for adultery, by Christians. The death penalty for adultery was used in some European countries historically, based on appeals to Biblical authority.
        http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ad0_J6T-YDQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=adultery&f=false
        A Lutheran Plague: Murdering to Die in the Eighteenth Century

        Enter the word adultery into the search window at the linked page, and up should come the examples. (I also entered witchcraft, finding more examples–but the killing of witches by Christians historically is more well-known).

        Let me guess: These examples are inadequate because they don’t seem to involve the method of stoning, but merely death.

        Here also is an interesting example, about Jewish legal conceptions of minimizing harm in executing the death penalty. Included is an example of a woman put to death by burning, for adultery. There is objection to the method of punishment, but not to the death penalty per se. Stoning–by way of dropping the offender from a high enough height onto a stone surface thus presumably resulting in a quick death–is recommended as a better punishment.
        http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html

  20. Foolster says

    Mar 9, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    Rodserling:

    Perhaps I misunderstood the order of events in my accusation that you were posting off-topic (replies to replies can be a bit confusing here). I apologize.

    “Unlike our own resident IslamoChristians, I also oppose punishing homosexuals, and blasphemers (of any religion), “sorcerers”, etc., and I oppose those Christians on this site who claim God allowed 9/11. If you don’t think such Christians exist on the site, you haven’t been paying attention. In any case, I oppose Islam’s bad elements, and I oppose it in the whole or package sense as well.”

    Again this is vague. Who are they? Are they grequent posters here? I’m certainly against these things myself. I’ll have to look at those posts and see who you mean, but I have a feeling they are not frequent posters here. I’m not arguing that none of these people exist, but it seems you are striking at windmills here when it is Muslims who are here and now the threat, not Christians or Jews.

    “First of all, you completely ignored my citation of the huge Pew summary of polls taken of African Christians, showing that a median of 60% want “Biblical law” to be the official law of the land. You must come to terms with those data.”

    That is still extremely vague. What does it mean to want “biblical law”? Does this mean they want to impliment it and impose it on others, or are simply showing a preference that their goverment was ruled by Christian laws? Both are absolutely not the same thing. I would of course being a Christian would prefer our country follow Christian princibles, (so perhaps I would answer “yes” on the poll), but I would absolutely not want it to be by force, but because a vast majority want to follow Christian princibles. The poll’s question is yes/no, and so it’s very easy to mislead and be mislead with polls.

    I find yourdefense of the huffington post as “leftish” and not far left. the huffington post has a history of defaming Chrsitians, trying to persaude people against freedom and defame freedom lovers like Mr. Spencer. If you think the HuffPo is “leftist” I wonder what you think is “far-left!”.

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 9, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      The bottom line is that we should not be indulging in comparisons and contrasts between Islam and Judaeo-Christianity. There is a time and place for those; and there are contexts where it is positively deleterious to the mission of the Counter-Jihad. An inquasidor can with disingenuously sincere eyebrows raised over innocent eyes protest that a) he’s still more anti-Islam than he is anti-Bible; and that b) he’s only raising these points out of some kind of lofty dispassionate love of Truth — but that would be, on his part, to indulge in a reckless obliviousness to the Forest for the Trees. The forest is on fire all around him and many of his own people are agonizing in pain when they are not being burned alive, and he’s busy studying the patterns on the barks of individual trees — then incoherently and irresponsibly drawing generalizing conclusions about those trees as some kind of alternative forest that has no practical value as a present reality, of a cognitive dissonance outrageously out of synch with the actual forest fire raging around him.

      Another way to put it is he is elevating a quaintly anachronistic curio of cultural anthropology into some kind of principle relevant to the pragmatic exigency of our political science today — whilst claiming, in a slippery way, that there is some pragmatic (and/or ethical) relevance.

      • inquisador says

        Mar 9, 2014 at 2:49 pm

        Voegelinian,

        This is the second time that you have implicated me as somehow endangering lives, or, this time as being guilty of indifference to the suffering of persecuted people.

        I’m still waiting for an answer to my earlier reply asking you to explain exactly how my words are endangering lives.

        The Biblical laws that you suggest are now irrelevant, may yet become more relevant. Especially as Rod Serling’s links show the worrying trend towards support for religious laws both Koranic and Biblical, in African states.

        Biblical laws could even be taken to mean stonings for a wide range of offences, as in the Koran. One more reason why I would like to see these horrific laws struck out of the Torah by agreement with all the church leaders, to prevent them being dragged up again in some kind of theocratic state.

        Let’s cast the beam out of our own eye.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 7:12 pm

      Foolster,

      Some of these commenters become coy when questioned, and of course I immediately get taken to task by some for even questioning them. There was recent incident with JessieJames, who cited Leviticus and somewhat ambiguously said he agreed with God (who orders the death of homosexuals in that book), plus another passage from the NT which implied that those who commit homosexual acts worthy of death. He never confirmed or denied whether he supported the death penalty (and even his quotes were clipped in a way to conceal that), apparently believing that it was more morally justified to engage in absurd insults, accusing me of being possessed by the devil, or of being a homosexual, etc., than to simply answer my question. Then there was Salah, who cited favourably and repeatedly a series of articles in which Ann Barnhardt states that homosexuality should be a felony crime and homosexuals punished accordingly. Questioned on that, Salah became coy and ambiguous and never really gave a clear statement on his position.

      “Who are they? Are they grequent posters here?”

      Another is Kepha. Ask him. Bring him here. You insist on names, so I request him as exhibit A. He clearly supported Uganda’s punishment of homosexuals, though he did not respond to my replies.

      Kepha, 9/11 as an act of God who has a hand in all things:
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/obama-reads-biblical-passage-at-911-ceremonies-implying-that-911-was-an-act-of-god/comment-page-0#comment-819683

      There are more commenters, but I don’t have time to dig them all up, which is what addressing your request more fully would require.

      “I’m certainly against these things myself. I’ll have to look at those posts and see who you mean, but I have a feeling they are not frequent posters here. I’m not arguing that none of these people exist, but it seems you are striking at windmills here when it is Muslims who are here and now the threat, not Christians or Jews.”

      You are missing the point of what started this discussion: inquisador’s comment about the Islamic punishment for adultery originating in the Torah.

      We can talk about the various things in the West that currently enable Islam. Some Christians and Jews are enabling Islam, even enabling Islamic law, in the belief that they are honouring the spirit of their own religions by doing so. To me, to say this should be no more controversial than to say that political correctness and multiculturalism are enabling Islam.

      As for the terms left and right, they are pretty vague, we are stuck with them due to prevalent usage, and I don’t see why you view my characterization of Huffpo as leftish as “troubling”. Geert Wilders uses the same word to refer to politicians of a similar, perhaps even more leftward, mindset. I think the Huffpo are a bunch of wooly-headed apologists for Islam. Leftist though is a lot more hardcore than leftish, though both are deemed on the left side of the political spectrum. If Huffpo was leftist in any hard sense, they’d lose readership big time. As for any alleged bias in my citation of it, note that Forbes also cited the same study:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/07/north-carolina-religion-bill-killed-but-one-third-of-americans-want-christianity-as-official-religion-of-usa/

      Surely Forbes is not a leftist publication, or somehow suspect for doing so? Is a YouGov poll invalidated by its sponsor? Then blame the Economist too, and any number of other organizations that commission polls from YouGov.

      The hard left in Canada is approx 2% of the population. Probably the overall % is similar in the U.S. In any case, you ignored my Pew citation, again. Moreover, my claim needn’t depend on the Huffpo citation. Other evidence is consistent with my claim:
      http://www.statista.com/statistics/220284/us-public-opinion-on-the-separation-of-church-and-state/
      http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/qzxtmn5798/econTabReport.pdf
      http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/qzxtmn5798/econTabReport.pdf
      http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/qzxtmn5798/econTabReport.pdf

      • Salah says

        Mar 13, 2014 at 11:07 am

        “Questioned on that, Salah became coy and ambiguous and never really gave a clear statement on his position.”

        You don’t seem to undestand. My position is clear: Every sinner deserves to die including you and me, including the man jamming his erect penis into the feces-laden descending colon of another man, and then using the descending colon as the point of masturbatory friction.
        SODOMY is evil, GAYS are not. Is it clear enough?
        I am judging acts, not people.
        That’s why, when talking about Jihad, I always say: ISLAM is evil, MUSLIMS are not.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 15, 2014 at 2:05 am

          Salah,

          You’re still being coy. I asked you if you thought people who commit homosexual acts (gay or lesbian) should be legally punished, or what you think should be done with them, especially if they refuse to quit doing it.

          “Every sinner deserves to die including you and me,”

          That is a nonsense slogan that you are repeating without careful consideration. Do adulterers deserve to die?

          “I am judging acts, not people.”

          Nonsense. Acts are not the recipients of judgements and penalties; the people who commit them, who are responsible for them, are.

          You say that someone deserves to die for committing certain actions, but you are not judging them? Please. This is silly.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Foolster,

      “That is still extremely vague. What does it mean to want “biblical law”?

      What do you think it means to African Christians, many of whom think homosexuals should be punished harshly, some of whom think witches/sorcerers should be killed, etc.?

      I think a lot of people here confuse the term “Christian” with “modern liberal Westerner”, and are thus incredulous when they find that Christians elsewhere have different views. The vast majority of Christians are neither westerners nor modern.

      I should add that I didn’t cite that “Biblical law” poll to “prove” anything. I cited it to show that it is highly unlikely that a previous commenter’s claim re “zero” Christians supporting such punishment was correct.

      • Foolster says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 8:02 pm

        “What do you think it means to African Christians, many of whom think homosexuals should be punished harshly, some of whom think witches/sorcerers should be killed, etc.?”

        I don’t see that in any of the polls you cited, except for this line in the pew survey:
        “Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Christians and Muslims alike express strong opposition to homosexual behavior, abortion, prostitution and sex between unmarried people. ”
        with no numbers or data to back this up.

        You are still missing my point that asking should a government be lead by biblical principles in no way proves that they mean they want to impose a religious theocracy. Adding more polls that back up your claim, but are just as vague doesn’t help.

        So some people think the desperation of state shouldn’t be absolute, but what does that mean? We get no clue. Do they mean, that religion should play into laws made? That the polled people bevel the use of “seperation of chruch and state” has gone toot far in curtailing religious rights (i.e. prayer and public showing of faith in schools, preferring non-religious non-profits over religious ones). We simply can’t tell, so that is why I hardly take polls like this seriously without more data.

        “Surely Forbes is not a leftist publication, or somehow suspect for doing so? Is a YouGov poll invalidated by its sponsor? Then blame the Economist too, and any number of other organizations that commission polls from YouGov.”
        Of course I wouldn’t say their leftist because they cite the poll. I call huffigton post far left because they have a far-left stance and harshly defame conservatives and freedom fighters. That doesn’t make the polls any more useful to the point you are trying to make.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 4:28 am

          Foolster,

          “That the polled people bevel the use of “seperation of chruch and state” has gone toot far in curtailing religious rights (i.e. prayer and public showing of faith in schools, preferring non-religious non-profits over religious ones). We simply can’t tell, so that is why I hardly take polls like this seriously without more data.”

          Lol. Click on the links I provided and read them.

          “Of course I wouldn’t say their leftist because they cite the poll. I call huffigton post far left because they have a far-left stance and harshly defame conservatives and freedom fighters. That doesn’t make the polls any more useful to the point you are trying to make.”

          These claims about leftism have nothing to do with the actual data provided by the polling organization. Are you saying that the YouGov poll data were fabricated? Exactly what are you claiming about the data, other than casting vague aspersions?

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 4:47 am

          Foolster,

          “You are still missing my point that asking should a government be lead by biblical principles in no way proves that they mean they want to impose a religious theocracy.”

          They didn’t say Biblical principles. They said the Bible as the official law of the land. That is a theocracy.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 5:31 am

          Foolster,

          I wrote: “What do you think it means to African Christians, many of whom think homosexuals should be punished harshly, some of whom think witches/sorcerers should be killed, etc.?”

          You responded: “I don’t see that in any of the polls you cited,”

          I didn’t say that was in the survey. I was citing background knowledge with which to give some context as to what Christians in many of these African countries probably believe about Biblical law. It is well-known that homosexuality is illegal and is harshly punished in several African countries, including several that are Christian-majority.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa

          It is well-known, or at least I thought it was, that there are many cases of people being accused of witchcraft/sorcery, and persecuted and even killed for it in African countries, including by Christians.
          Excerpt:
          “In Nigeria, several Pentecostal pastors have mixed their evangelical brand of Christianity with African beliefs in witchcraft to benefit from the lucrative witch finding and exorcism business—which in the past was the exclusive domain of the so-called witch doctor or traditional healers. These pastors have been involved in the torturing and even killing of children accused of witchcraft.[119] Over the past decade, around 15,000 children have been accused, and around 1,000 murdered. Churches are very numerous in Nigeria, and competition for congregations is hard. Some pastors attempt to establish a reputation for spiritual power by “detecting” child witches, usually following a death or loss of a job within a family, or an accusation of financial fraud against the pastor. In the course of “exorcisms”, accused children may be starved, beaten, mutilated, set on fire, forced to consume acid or cement, or buried alive. While some church leaders and Christian activists have spoken out strongly against these abuses, many Nigerian churches are involved in the abuse, although church administrations deny knowledge of it.[120]

          In Malawi it is also common practice to accuse children of witchcraft and many children have been abandoned, abused and even killed as a result. As in other African countries both African traditional healers and their Christian counterparts are trying to make a living out of exorcising children and are actively involved in pointing out children as witches.[121] Various secular and Christian organizations are combining their efforts to address this problem.[122]”
          End of excerpt
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Africa

          FGM is practiced by significant minority of Christians in Africa. This does not establish a Biblical dependency, since the practice is not approved in the Bible, but it does establish that many have no qualms about engaging in barbarically brutal acts in order to control a woman’s sexuality.

          The fact that some JW readers are ignorant of these sorts of things, or are unwilling to look them up in a discussion, and instead tell each other that the problems are zero and nothing to worry about, does not make it so.

          except for this line in the pew survey:
          “Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Christians and Muslims alike express strong opposition to homosexual behavior, abortion, prostitution and sex between unmarried people. ”
          with no numbers or data to back this up.”

          Again, if you follow the links, you’ll find all the numbers to back up those particular statements. See the topline questionnaire at the side of the page, open the pdf, enter the appropriate key words to search the document (e.g., re FGM, enter circumcision, then you’ll see results for daughter, then you’ll see what %s of Christians admit they’ve done it…these are minorities and less than the Muslims, but still it translates into millions of girls)
          http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/04/sub-saharan-africa-topline.pdf

      • Foolster says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 8:04 pm

        “I should add that I didn’t cite that “Biblical law” poll to “prove” anything. I cited it to show that it is highly unlikely that a previous commenter’s claim re “zero” Christians supporting such punishment was correct.”

        If all you’re trying to say is that there aren’t zero Christians supporting such punishments, (which I already said I agree with) then I’m not sure what this was all about. I do disagree that Christianity or Judeism is any sort of danger to freedom of religion who are just waiting to impose a theocracy on people.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 4:31 am

          Foolster,

          “I do disagree that Christianity or Judeism is any sort of danger to freedom of religion who are just waiting to impose a theocracy on people.”

          Christianity is a danger in some African countries, at least. Again, not much of a danger in the West, due to secular influences which have tamed and limited the role of religion, bit by bit, over the recent centuries and decades. Unfortunately, Christian and Jewish leadership continues to play a major role in the enabling of Islam in the West.

  21. Foolster says

    Mar 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    ^That is, I find yourdefense of the huffington post as “leftish” and not far left troubling. (Addition in bold)

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 9, 2014 at 3:56 pm

      The sociopolitical compass of the entire West has become skewed Leftward over the past half century: what may be termed “Leftish” now was “far Left” before. When a flaming Marxist Revolutionary can be elected — twice — to the U.S. Presidency under color of being a Leftist Democrat, that indicates the loss of a reliable compass.

      • voegelinian says

        Mar 9, 2014 at 3:58 pm

        P.S.: Somehow I doubt, though, that Rod Serling is aware of this dynamic, much less agrees with its accuracy. He probably sincerely thinks HuffPo is mildly Left of center, and probably has little awareness of the fact that the Center has shifted due to major sociopolitical tectonic disturbances in the past half century (with precursors before that time).

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm

      No, characterizing Huffpo as mainstream leftish is not a defense. It was a response to your inaccurate (and irrelevant) claim that they were leftist. The poll was done by YouGov. Deal with it.

      • Foolster says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 8:07 pm

        I suppose defaming freedom fighters and conservatives has become “mainstream” in our media, but if you don’t think that makes such a news source irreparable then I don’t know what to say.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 4:33 am

          Again, the actual poll was conducted by YouGov. Your claim of leftism is irrelevant, grasping at straws.

  22. Infidel says

    Mar 9, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Is that owl his wife? Is he implementing SHaria so he can get unlimited concubines?

  23. Foolster says

    Mar 9, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    You mean the link to the incredibly vague and misleading poll on pewforum, or the incredibly vague and misleading link to the poll on a far-leftist anti-freedom pro-jihad pro-defamation news site?

    voegelinian is correct, you seem obsessed with pointing out the problems with Christianity on a site that is concerned with the more serious threat: Islamic Jihad.

    • Foolster says

      Mar 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm

      (^That was @Inquisitor)

    • inquisador says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 10:59 am

      Hi Foolster,

      I meant the link to the Pew report. I don’t often read Huffington because of the left/liberal polemical slant.
      Pew is a respected organization though, and the report makes interesting reading, relevant to this debate.
      I’ll post it again, with a nod to Rod Serling:
      http://www.pewforum.org/2010/04/15/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa/

      • Foolster says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 3:19 pm

        I wasn’t questioning whether they were respected, only that, as I’ve already said it is vague and misleading to use as proof that Christians want to implement some sort of totalitarian Christian state on a “yes/no” question that doesn’t ask how a Christian state religion would come about.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 7:17 pm

      Foolster,

      Do you support the separation of religion and state, yes or no?

      • Foolster says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 7:45 pm

        I’ve already said I do.;

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 7:21 pm

      The majority of Christians in Africa supports “Biblical law.” I don’t know about you, but if someone asks me if I support that, with a yes/no option, I choose no.

      How about you? Do you support Biblical law?

      • Foolster says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 8:05 pm

        When did you stop beating your wife?

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 11, 2014 at 4:38 am

          The difference is I don’t assume you support Biblical law. I asked you to respond to the question. If you did respond, clearly, without hedging and without ambiguity, games, evasion, etc., then I could ask follow-up questions. Or, you could simply give your answer and elaborate on it, giving specifics.

          By contrast, your question makes the assumption that I’m guilty of what you seek to accuse me of doing, without having established any of your premises.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 pm

      “voegelinian is correct, you seem obsessed with pointing out the problems with Christianity on a site that is concerned with the more serious threat: Islamic Jihad.”

      Nonsense. Would it be helpful for me to point out that you, voeg, and others are obsessed with atheists, because you guys frequently use these threads to rail against them, even when they’re criticizing Islam?

      As I said, the factors that enable Islam are discussed extensively on this site, and one of the factors which enables Islam, which is not discussed as much by commenters, is Christianity in the West, specifically the sorts of Christians and Christians leaders that Spencer cites frequently in a critical fashion. Also, as inquisador noted, that Islam’s punishment of stoning for adultery comes from the Torah. Do you think there is no such punishment in the Torah? Are you a relativist and think it was okay “back then”?

      • voegelinian says

        Mar 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm

        “you, voeg, and others are obsessed with atheists, because you guys frequently use these threads to rail against them, even when they’re criticizing Islam”

        I never rail against atheists even when they are criticizing Islam — unless their apparent criticism of Islam is couched in pernicious Equivalencism.

        • Foolster says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 4:52 pm

          Me too. Serling’s claim is nonsense.

  24. RodSerling says

    Mar 11, 2014 at 6:06 am

    An observation on the above exchanges between myself and Foolster and Defcon: I presented evidence to support my claims. They presented zero evidence to support theirs.

    • Foolster says

      Mar 11, 2014 at 6:20 am

      I pointed out the vagueness of a “yes/no” poll, and how there is not enough data of a simple “yes/no” question, including definitions of what is meant by to “estalbish” a Christian law, or what even “biblical law” means to then establish that Christians in any large number are facists who want to impose blibical law.
      (and again, if you are merely saying you’re just saying there there are more than zero of such Christians, then I already agreed, and I don’t see your point.)

      I also pointed out how you mentioned that one of the polls claims that many Christians want to burn witches and stone homosexuals, but there is no numbers in that poll to back this up.

      No evidence! (Sorry if this a double, there was an error)

      • RodSerling says

        Mar 11, 2014 at 5:41 pm

        Foolster,

        “I also pointed out how you mentioned that one of the polls claims that many Christians want to burn witches and stone homosexuals, but there is no numbers in that poll to back this up.”

        Again, you are lying. I never claimed the poll showed that Christians in Africa wanted to kill witches. I repeat: I cited the fact that some do want to kill witches as contextual evidence in support of the idea that it is plausible that significant numbers of them would also support other harsh Biblical legal punishments, such as killing adulterers. In an additional reply (see my post March 11, 2014 at 5:31 am) to your denials, I already cited evidence above that some Christians in Africa do kill witches and do want homosexuals to be severely punished (because they are severely punished legally in several Christian-majority countries). Did you not read my response?

        How do you respond to the evidence I presented?

        On the issue of the yes/no question in response to making Biblical law the official law of the land, yes is it frustratingly ambiguous, but it is clear enough in the context of the present discussion to support my claims and raise serious doubts about yours. If you were correct, we should not see majorities and large minorities of Christians in Africa answering “yes” to the question.

        “that Christians in any large number are facists”

        I didn’t claim that they were fascists. Do you even know what the word means? The majority appear to be theocrats, according to the Pew results.

  25. Foolster says

    Mar 11, 2014 at 6:11 am

    @Rod Serling said:
    “The difference is I don’t assume you support Biblical law. I asked you to respond to the question. If you did respond, clearly, without hedging and without ambiguity, games, evasion, etc., then I could ask follow-up questions. Or, you could simply give your answer and elaborate on it, giving specifics.

    By contrast, your question makes the assumption that I’m guilty of what you seek to accuse me of doing, without having established any of your premises.”

    I’m not at all sure what you mean by this. Do you seriously think I’m accusing you of beating your wife? Of course not! What nonsense! if you mean accusing you of using a trap question, then yes, the question does clearly sound like a trap (since I’ve already established how vague this is if only a “yes” or “no” answer is given.

    If I answered simply “yes” you could say “aha! You DO support stoning homosexuals and burning witches !”, and if I said “no” you could say “aha! you don’t believe in the divinity of your scriptures”. You’ve been confrontational so far, so I think it’s pretty reasonable as seeing this question as being confrontational.

    But since you mention me being able to elaborate, then perhaps I was wrong in this assumption.

    I’ll answer. Yes, I support people following a “biblical law”, in that it follows the merciful teachings of Jesus, and in a way that is not imposed, but through the normal process of law (voting elected officials.)

    And the thing about the HuffingtonPost was a side note of disagreement. It is, as you said, irrelevant to whether or not the poll, or the conclusions drawn from them are correct, I was merely disagreeing with your characterization of it. No straws being grasped at here.

  26. RodSerling says

    Mar 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Foolster,

    “I’m not at all sure what you mean by this. Do you seriously think I’m accusing you of beating your wife? Of course not! What nonsense!”

    That is absurd, so why would you even suggest that reading? Clearly, my point was that the poll question and my addressing of it to you is not a many questions fallacy. It is a straight up question that accuses you of nothing, and in this thread you have the opportunity to elaborate on your answer in any way you wish. In fact, you have the opportunity to clear things up, and get past the vagueness of the question you are complaining about, and state exactly which Biblical laws you support and which you oppose.

    “You’ve been confrontational so far, so I think it’s pretty reasonable as seeing this question as being confrontational.”

    Confrontational? Lol. You started this whole exchange by taking a non-substantive swipe at me while I was addressing another commenter.

    “I’ll answer. Yes, I support people following a “biblical law”, in that it follows the merciful teachings of Jesus, and in a way that is not imposed, but through the normal process of law (voting elected officials.)”

    Again, you are making use of the vagueness you decry. Which laws?

    Do you support any legal punishment for…
    -homosexual acts?
    -witchcraft/sorcery?
    -adultery?
    -blasphemy?

    Do you accept or reject those passages of the OT that call for the death penalty for such sin-crimes as the above?

    Do you accept or reject the NT passages indicating that (a) homosexual acts are among the sins deemed worthy of death, and that (b) blasphemy against the “holy spirit” will never be forgiven?

    Do you support, or oppose, those Christian-majority African countries with regards to the punishment of homosexuals, for example?

    Do you support, or oppose, those Christians in Africa who kill witches?

    Here’s your chance to clarify.

  27. Foolster says

    Mar 11, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    “That is absurd, so why would you even suggest that reading? Clearly, my point was that the poll question and my addressing of it to you is not a many questions fallacy.”

    I’ve already shown how the question could be taken that way. If I misunderstood, I apollogize, but surely you can see how it apears to be that way.

    Yes, you are being confrontational, insinuating that a large number of Chrisitans are toltarians who want to impose blasphamy laws, using the flimsy evidence of a poll that fails to define who the poll takers are, and what the terms are used in the poll, on a site dedicated to talking about the real threat: Islam.

    I still “Do you support any legal punishment for…
    -homosexual acts?
    -witchcraft/sorcery?
    -adultery?
    -blasphemy?”

    No to all.

    “Do you accept or reject those passages of the OT that call for the death penalty for such sin-crimes as the above?”

    I reject them as relevant today, but do believe they had a place as the laws of ancient Isreal at that time and place.

    “Do you accept or reject the NT passages indicating that (a) homosexual acts are among the sins deemed worthy of death, and that (b) blasphemy against the “holy spirit” will never be forgiven?”

    You’re going to have to point me where a verse says that homosexuality is deserving of death (i.e. punishment on earth.). Blasphemy against the holy spirit is never forgiven by God. You’re going to have to show me the verse that says that something should be done to someone who blasphemes the holy spirit (besides ex-communication).

    “Do you support, or oppose, those Christian-majority African countries with regards to the punishment of homosexuals, for example?”
    Well, if I said no to your first question above, then obviously my answer would be no.

    And yes, these questions do sound accusitory and do carry a air or iomplication of guilt.

    “Again, you are lying. I never claimed the poll showed that Christians in Africa wanted to kill witches. I repeat: I cited the fact that some do want to kill witches as contextual evidence in support of the idea that it is plausible that significant numbers of them would also support other harsh Biblical legal punishments, such as killing adulterers. In an additional reply (see my post March 11, 2014 at 5:31 am) to your denials, I already cited evidence above that some Christians in Africa do kill witches and do want homosexuals to be severely punished (because they are severely punished legally in several Christian-majority countries). Did you not read my response?”

    I’m not “lying”, but I missed a post response with more evidence to the claim
    “What do you think it means to African Christians, many of whom think homosexuals should be punished harshly, some of whom think witches/sorcerers should be killed, etc.?”. I was thinking you were taking a single unsourced setence form a poll you posted, but I didn’t see the other links you gave.

    “On the issue of the yes/no question in response to making Biblical law the official law of the land, yes is it frustratingly ambiguous, but it is clear enough in the context of the present discussion to support my claims and raise serious doubts about yours. If you were correct, we should not see majorities and large minorities of Christians in Africa answering “yes” to the question.”

    If the questions are too vauge to correctly gague what a peson means when they answer yes by establishing such a biblical law, or what the law means, then how many people answer yes doens’t raise doubts at all (as I said, I probibly would say “yes” more likely than no, but I do oppose forcing Christianity as a stat religion), since there’s inscificent information to infer what it means.

  28. RodSerling says

    Mar 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Okay Foolster,

    We are making progress, I think. I apologize for saying you were lying when it was only a matter of missing a comment.

    “No to all.”

    Good, from a practical standpoint. I did not suspect you did support any of those punishments, because the majority of Christians in the modern West don’t, and thus a guess based on the baseline probabilities would suggest you don’t support such punishments.

    There are some Christians right here on the site who think there should be legal punishment for homosexuality, for example. As I said, Kepha applauded the Ugandan government for its punishment of homosexuals, and there is more.

    “I reject them as relevant today, but do believe they had a place as the laws of ancient Isreal at that time and place.”

    That’s not good, from a theoretical standpoint, because it implies moral relativism: How can it be okay to kill people for homosexuality, adultery, sorcery/witchcraft, blasphemy, etc., in any time or context? It’s simply murder.

    “You’re going to have to point me where a verse says that homosexuality is deserving of death (i.e. punishment on earth.).”

    Leviticus 20:13 is clear on this. As for the NT, Jihadwatch commenter JessieJames cited favourably from a passage in which homosexual acts are listed amongst a litany of sins that are “worthy of death” (Romans 1:27-32), and then of course he/she refused to answer my repeated requests for clarification as to whether he/she supported the death penalty.

    The passage in Romans could be taken as implying that God will punish them and no more than that, but it could easily be taken to support the punishment clearly commanded in Leviticus. That is, there is support for the idea that believers are sinning if they fail to punish arch-sinners such as blasphemers, homosexuals, witches, etc. Moreover, if the Bible says some behaviour is worthy of death, that must be taken very seriously by Christians who take the Bible seriously.

    “Blasphemy against the holy spirit is never forgiven by God. You’re going to have to show me the verse that says that something should be done to someone who blasphemes the holy spirit (besides ex-communication).”

    1. Leviticus 24:14-16, death penalty. And unlike the adultery punishment which many Christian apologists claim is removed by Jesus in the NT, the possibility of forgiveness for blaspheming the holy spirit is ruled out in the NT. It would seem that the OT still applies on that one. Certainly, punishment of blasphemers, including the death penalty, was carried out for example, in Europe previous centuries. This is touched on the book link I cited in my reply to Defcon 4, March 11, 2014 at 5:56 am (after which he has not appeared).

    Moreover, blasphemers are still punished in many countries today for insulting Christianity; this is not a dead letter. It all goes back to those scriptures that Christian apologists here always insist no longer apply.

    2. Are you saying you support excommunication for an imaginary crime like “blasphemy”?

    “If the questions are too vauge to correctly gague what a peson means when they answer yes by establishing such a biblical law, or what the law means, then how many people answer yes doens’t raise doubts at all (as I said, I probibly would say “yes” more likely than no, but I do oppose forcing Christianity as a stat religion), since there’s inscificent information to infer what it means.”

    Support of the Bible as the official law of the land is clear enough to establish that those choosing that option probably want a theocracy. Remember, we are not talking about some modern western secularized liberal Christians interpreting the Bible here. We are talking about African Christians who believe lots of things that modern Western Christians do not believe or haven’t believed in a long time. Uganda’s punishment for homosexuality is reportedly quite popular among Ugandans, and was promoted by some American Christian leaders, pastors, etc. Negative attitudes toward homosexuals can go together with negative actions and policies toward homosexuals. Uganda and other Christian-majority African countries are examples of this.

    • Foolster says

      Mar 12, 2014 at 1:55 am

      “JessieJames cited favourably from a passage in which homosexual acts are listed amongst a litany of sins that are “worthy of death” (Romans 1:27-32)”
      (as an aside, there are only 27 verses in Romans 1, I think you (and JJ) meant 1:22-27). You point out exactly what I was going to say in your first sentence:

      “The passage in Romans could be taken as implying that God will punish them and no more than that, but it could easily be taken to support the punishment clearly commanded in Leviticus.”

      Easily, yes, if you ignore that Leviticus was for a specific time and palce (as a vast majority of Christians do) and understand this verse in a way that none of the vast majority of Christians and denomoinations understand it.

      “That is, there is support for the idea that believers are sinning if they fail to punish arch-sinners such as blasphemers, homosexuals, witches, etc. ”

      Suport in what way? From scripture? Perhaps you could show the new testiment verse that commands Christians to punish unbeleivers, or says they are sinning by not punishing sinners by carrying out judicial punishments (beatings, stonings, death penalty). I’ve read the new testiment a few times, and I don’t think you’re going to find it.

      “Moreover, if the Bible says some behaviour is worthy of death, that must be taken very seriously by Christians who take the Bible seriously.”

      Yes, it should, but unless there is scriptural proof that they are told to carry out those punishemtns (as opposed to saying something deserves punishment of death from God) then to say that the new testiment commands.

      “2. Are you saying you support excommunication for an imaginary crime like “blasphemy”?”
      Huh? Are you being serious?! Excommunication means excommunication from a church, that is among fellow Christians. Yes, people who blaspheme against God probably don’t belong in a church, and probably don’t want to be there anyway. That’s about having standards within ones own groups. That’s like objecting to someone complaining of being kicked out of a knitting club for the “imaginary crime” of hating knitting and railing against it at a meeting!

      • voegelinian says

        Mar 12, 2014 at 2:38 am

        “2. Are you saying you support excommunication for an imaginary crime like “blasphemy”?”

        Wow, RodSerling is complaining about excommunication as some kind of human rights violation? There are some serious screws loose there.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 4:19 am

          Voeg, you of all people claiming that excommunication is no big deal?

          lol.

        • voegelinian says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 5:02 am

          Christian excommunication in the West is no big deal — the vast majority of time it’s like the Shriners telling you that you can’t wear their goofy red fez anymore.

      • Champ says

        Mar 12, 2014 at 2:41 am

        Hi, Foolster …

        Here is Romans 1:32:

        “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

        It’s so clear that the phrase “worthy of death” is referring to God’s judgment, not capital punishment; or stoning, in this case. Notice the opening phrase: “Who knowing the judgment of God”. The first part of the sentence gives the reader the context: God’s judgment, and then the remaining phrase. Anyone inferring that this is capital punishment is not being honest or fair, and they aren’t reading the whole passage correctly. Instead they are taking only a portion of this passage and building a false narrative around it.

        Additionally, from the original Greek Lexicon the phrase, “worthy of death”, ἄξιος θανάτου, does not mean capital punishment, but it means God’s judgment.

        And then we have Jesus, our living example, who saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death. If Jesus supported capital punishment, then of course He would have been among those casting stones at her. But He didn’t. Instead He said …

        “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” — John 8:7

        It’s abundantly clear that capital punishment is not the directive given in Romans 1:32.

        Take care, my friend!

        • Champ says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 3:07 am

          ps Foolster …

          I just found this commentary from CARM that’s very interesting:

          “Does Romans 6:23 refer to spiritual death or physical death?”
          by Matt Slick

          “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rom. 6:23).

          This verse can be interpreted to mean both spiritual and physical death. However, notice that it speaks of death and life. It says that “the wages of sin is death” and then speaks of “eternal life.” Eternal life means that a person has a saving relationship with God and will not face eternal damnation. Consider what Jesus said in Matt. 25:46, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Also John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” In these two verses, along with many others, eternal life is contrasted with eternal punishment and perishing. Therefore, it would seem that the primary meaning of the text would be that the phrase “the wages of sin is death” is referring to spiritual death which would be eternal separation from God, damnation.

          However, we also know that sin has brought physical death into the world. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, they eventually died physically. Sin, which is breaking the law of God (1 John 3:4), brings both physical (Rom. 5:12) and spiritual death (Isaiah 59:2). So, Romans 6:23 can legitimately be interpreted to include both spiritual and physical death when it speaks of “the wages of sin.”

          http://carm.org/romans6-23-spiritual-physical-death

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          There’s a similarity between Romans 1:32–where it states, “worthy of death”, and Romans 6:23– where it states, “wages of sin is death”. In both cases the word “death” is referring to spiritual death, which results in God’s judgment. That said, Matt Slick also points that physical death came into the world as a result of sin. But in no way is either passage in Romans, chapter 1 or 6, referring to capital punishment.

      • RodSerling says

        Mar 12, 2014 at 4:17 am

        Foolster,

        “(as an aside, there are only 27 verses in Romans 1, I think you (and JJ) meant 1:22-27)”

        No, I just checked four major versions, there are 32.

        “Easily, yes, if you ignore that Leviticus was for a specific time and palce”

        Again, that’s your interpretation. I was pointing out that not everyone interprets it that way, and it hasn’t always been interpreted as practically irrelevant or inapplicable as you see it.

        Re excommunication, if someone cares about their membership in a church or religious community, then they would be greatly affected by being excommunicated over a difference in theological interpretation or expression. Since when is critical feedback “blasphemy”? You support then in principle an idea which you purportedly reject: earthly punishment for “blasphemy.” For a hypothetical example, you have an argument with another Christian over some theological question, and you have the power to boot him out of the organization, and do so if you judge what he says to be blasphemy. You think that’s justified? How? How do you know exactly what offends God? Maybe the other guy has it right and you have it wrong? Or more realistically, there is no practical way to decide the issue because God’s not around to adjudicate. So humans need to make up the rules, and in this case your rules rule, so to speak.

        “Yes, it should, but unless there is scriptural proof that they are told to carry out those punishemtns (as opposed to saying something deserves punishment of death from God) then to say that the new testiment commands.”

        Nonsense. Even if there was clear unambiguous scriptural proof that everyone could agree upon, the punishments for such things as we are discussing should be rejected. The fact that something is in a religious scripture in and of itself carries zero moral weight; weight is assigned to it subjectively by believers in that scripture.

        • voegelinian says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 5:04 am

          Any organization has the right to “excommunicate” someone. If it hurts the feelings of the excommunicant, tough beans. Since when is this a human rights issue?

      • RodSerling says

        Mar 12, 2014 at 5:26 am

        Okay Foolster,

        I finally found what I was after, the whole reason I cited the Pew study in the first place, but, my apologies, I had gotten distracted and forgot where this data was reported, and didn’t want to make a claim in this case based on something I could only vaguely recall.

        Anyhow, here are the results (see the topline questionnaire, pdf)
        http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/04/sub-saharan-africa-topline.pdf

        “ASK IF CHRISTIAN
        Q94 And do you favor or oppose the following?
        d. stoning people who commit adultery
        ”

        You can see the results if you scroll down to Q 94 d. Based on my calculations, an average of approximately 13.6% of Christians across 16 African countries surveyed favor the punishment of stoning people for adultery, 83.6% opposed it, and 2.8% don’t know/refused to respond.

        In addition to this question, there were a few other questions that are relevant to giving the above result some comparison and context.

        “ASK IF CHRISTIAN
        Q94 And do you favor or oppose the following?
        c. punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”

        Overall average of 19.1% across the 16 African countries favor these forms of corporal punishment, 78.5% oppose, 2.5% dk/ref.

        Next,
        “Q88 Some people think that the tactic of using arms and violence against civilians in defense of their religion is justified. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. How about you? Do you personally feel that the tactic of
        using arms and violence against civilians in defense of your religion can be often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

        (Averaging across 16 countries, as above, for Christians) often 7.7%, sometimes 12.75%, rarely 13.6%, never 59.7%, dk/ref 6.7%.

        Combining results for often and sometimes, approximately 20% of African Christians say the tactic of violence against civilians in defense of religion is often or sometimes justified.

        Among Muslims, the level of support for the above punishments and violence, in response to the same questions, was overall higher, as one would expect.

        Also among African Christians (my notes):
        Q 85 e) – majority think drinking alcohol is morally wrong
        f) – majority think “Sex between people who are not married to each other” is morally wrong
        i) – homosexual behavior: approx 85-90% overall think it is morally wrong

        ———————

        The main point though is, as I said, there is a significant minority of African Christians, approx 14% (which translates into roughly 50 million people!), that supports the punishment of stoning for adultery.

  29. RodSerling says

    Mar 11, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    Why is any of this discussion of Biblical scriptures, Christian beliefs, etc., relevant to this thread?

    As inquisador indicated, Muslims (or the authors of Islam) made use of the Torah, explicitly referring to it as authoritative, in establishing and implementing the Islamic law of punishing adulterers. This is what the Islamic texts themselves claim. One can’t simply quote the hadiths of stoning and claim that Muslims came up with this all by themselves. As I noted, the Islamic texts claim that the Jews in Muhammad’s time and place were not practicing stoning for adultery and were clearly strongly averse to the practice. Muhammad of course cited this as an example of the Jews’ alleged rebellion and hypocrisy, pointed out that the penalty was in the Torah (thus citing the Torah as authoritative), and attempted to promote himself and his Muslims as more pious and obedient to God/Allah by actually implementing such punishments (and forcing the Jews to do the same).

    As I said above, the risk with maintaining as authoritative scriptures such as those commands in the Torah is that eventually some “extremists” are going to want to come along and implement those punishments because they are God’s commands. Muslims, most of them according to polls and other evidence, are those extremists.

    I’ll add to this that there is a principle in Islamic law, whereby if an issue is unclear, and Muslims are unable to come to a decision on some policy based solely on the Quran and words and deeds of Muhammad and the companions, then they can turn to the previous scriptures. The previous scriptures, according to the Quran, are the “Torah” and “Gospel.” The Quran itself exhorts Muslims and even Muhammad to consult the People of the Book on such matters. Hence, the connection between Islam and Christianity and Judaism is not just some illusory, erroneous perception of critics (such as atheists) of the latter two. Islam itself makes that connection, insists upon it, is built upon it, and assumes that it is the final and correct version of what is allegedly the same monotheism.

  30. voegelinian says

    Mar 12, 2014 at 5:08 am

    This is the kinder, gentler version of Mr. Dude’s Christian-bashing. Same specious argumentation; more polished veneer.

  31. inquisador says

    Mar 12, 2014 at 6:56 am

    voegelinian,

    So you can tell that Rod Serling is a specious arguer.

    There’s no fooling you is there?

    The giveaway is his correct grammar, spelling and use of logic.

    Got any actual examples of his specious argument in this thread?

    Got the answer to why I’m endangering lives yet?

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      inquisador,

      I’ve learned a few new things in this thread as a result of the sub-discussion you initiated, so thanks for that. The knee-jerk challenges and sweeping denials made by some Christian apologists led me to do a bit of new research, and digging up old files and refreshing my memory.

      BTW, thanks for taking voeg to task. He has a habit of making claims without being willing to support them with evidence. He is more recently in another thread accusing me of complaining about Christian proselytizing on the site, which I haven’t.

      I have highlighted some empirical evidence that refutes the challenges made by Defcon 4 and Foolster. I have shown that, historically, some Christians did implement the death penalty for adultery (though it’s not clear they used the method of stoning or something else). [1] I have shown that there are in current times approximately 50 million African Christians (approx 14% of African Christians) who want the punishment of stoning for adultery to be implemented. [2] Also, interestingly, I learned that, according to Jewish legalists, the punishment of “stoning” needn’t involve throwing stones, but can involve dropping a person from a high height onto a stone surface, killing them on impact, and that at least some Jewish legalists approved of and implemented the death penalty for adultery [3].

      [1] http://books.google.ro/books?id=Ad0_J6T-YDQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=adultery&f=false

      [2] http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/04/sub-saharan-africa-topline.pdf

      [3] http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html

      ——————————————

      It is disappointing when commenters like Defcon 4 and Foolster make challenges demanding evidence, then when the evidence is presented they disappear. But perhaps I am being too impatient.

      Defcon 4? Foolster? Where are you?

      • inquisador says

        Mar 12, 2014 at 6:08 pm

        Tumbleweed!

        • Foolster says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 8:22 pm

          Thanks for waiting a whole half-hour to post, and waiting less than a whole day for me to post back, and assuming it’s because I’m afraid!

          You both seem to be making assumptions about Christians (lying, cowardly, wanting to impose their religion on others ), and notice I make no such assumptions about you (I disagree with what you say, and some of the conclusions you are drawing, but I do believe you genuinely believe it). The contrast is amazing!

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 12, 2014 at 11:50 pm

          Foolster,

          I think I was being too impatient in your case. I apologize. No, I don’t assume you are cowardly. There are any number of reasons why people don’t return to a conversation.

        • RodSerling says

          Mar 13, 2014 at 2:03 am

          Foolster,

          “Thanks for waiting a whole half-hour to post”

          Half an hour? What are you talking about?

          The time of the comment to which I referred:
          March 12, 2014 at 5:26 am

          And you still haven’t addressed the evidence. Call me impatient, but don’t claim half an hour.

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 12, 2014 at 6:46 pm

      “the risk with maintaining as authoritative scriptures such as those commands in the Torah is that eventually some “extremists” are going to want to come along and implement those punishments …” — RodSerling

      This is pure, anxious speculation. Meanwhile, Muslims are

      1) actually doing such things;

      2) doing them grotesquely;

      3) doing them massively in numbers and dispersion all over the globe

      4) doing them as part of the same fanaticism that

      a) has been killing us for CENTURIES

      and

      b) is actually killing us NOW

      and,

      c) it is rational to suppose (far more rational than RodSerling’s speculation) threatening to kill more of us in the years and decades ahead.

      Why did I have to waste 45 seconds of my life explaining to you what you should already know?

      • voegelinian says

        Mar 12, 2014 at 6:53 pm

        P.F.S. (Post-Fucking-Script):

        The disparity between Mohammedan fanaticism and Judaeo-Christian fanaticism is a rational measurement.

        It reveals a distance between the two in quantitative and qualitative terms.

        It reveals it most acutely (and grotesquely) in the nature of the actualization of Mohammedan fanaticism (and, by contrast, the absence of same in its supposed comparison, Judaeo-Christian fanaticism).

        This distance, in its staggeringly astronomic proportions, is directly and clearly mirrored in the obtuse avoidance of it by sincerely benighted fools like RodSerling, Mr. Dude, and inquisador (among others). They attain heights (or depths) of monstrous silliness which would be reckless and would endanger our lives were they translated into sociopolitical policy.

        • Champ says

          Mar 13, 2014 at 12:51 am

          This distance, in its staggeringly astronomic proportions, is directly and clearly mirrored in the obtuse avoidance of it by sincerely benighted fools like RodSerling, Mr. Dude, and inquisador (among others). They attain heights (or depths) of monstrous silliness which would be reckless and would endanger our lives were they translated into sociopolitical policy.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Bravo, Voegelinian!! …and sooo true!

  32. Foolster says

    Mar 12, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    @Rod Serling:
    “It is disappointing when commenters like Defcon 4 and Foolster make challenges demanding evidence, then when the evidence is presented they disappear. But perhaps I am being too impatient.”

    Indeed you are being impaitent, it’s been less than a day! I didn’t disapear, but wanted to give myself enough time to reply. I’ve been pretty busy today. How charitable to assume it’s because I’m trying to hide from you!

    “Nonsense. Even if there was clear unambiguous scriptural proof that everyone could agree upon, the punishments for such things as we are discussing should be rejected. The fact that something is in a religious scripture in and of itself carries zero moral weight; weight is assigned to it subjectively by believers in that scripture.”

    As I thought, you can’t actually provide new testiment verses that say someone is sinning if they don’t punish non-believers, or any NT supprt for the idea that the OT law still applies today. You are moving the goal posts.

    A religion is not simply what the followers believe, but what the actual doctrines (scriptures and word of the leader/founder) teaches. It’s not at all nonsense. If there is no clear command to enact judgement reserved for God, to claim that NT following Christians are in any way enact this is nonsense. Are you seriously saying that merely the act of calling something a “sin” or wrong, even without called for earthly consequences should be rejected?

    You claim you are providing evidence, but what you are providing are assertions. and not the same as evidence.

    1.)You asserted that the NT supports earthly punishment for homosexuality and other sins, but provide no actual evidence for this, besides a verse saying it is a sin. Whether or not it was followed by Christians through the century, Christian doctirne (see: Hebrews 8:13, Acts 10, Acts 15, Col 2:11) and teachings (see the council of jeruselem) clearly teaches the setitng side of the old law practices.

    2.You asserted that “Support of the Bible as the official law of the land is clear enough to establish that those choosing that option probably want a theocracy. “..

    You use the word “probbibly” which shows you have no definite evidence. But even if they did, there is no biblical new testiment evidence that such a desire follows actual Christian teaching. While a Muslim might claim that violent muslims are going against Islam, I can point to the Quoran and Hadiths and show the verses that are opened ended, and how violent verses superscede peaceful ones (they are after). The reverse is true in the bible where peaceful verses come after, and give no support to imposing religion on others.

    3.You asserted that excommunication is some sort issue to object to, but you give no clear reason why (would you as strongly condemn a Christian being kicked out of an athiest club if he denounced athiesm?). Yet you accuse me of being “knee-jerk”!

    You also move the goal posts (whether you meant to or not because you forgot the main context), since I first mentioned excommunication as a result of a major rejection of scripture (blasphemy against the holy spirit) that shows one doesn’t want to belong to the group anyway, but then later you talk about it as possibly being a result a minor point of “difference in theological interpretation or expression.” which would be an unscurptural reason for excommunication., amnd downright silly!

    “I have highlighted some empirical evidence that refutes the challenges made by Defcon 4 and Foolster. I have shown that, historically, some Christians did implement the death penalty for adultery”

    I never argued that some Christians have never done so, so this sounds like a straw man argument. What I objected to was your conclusions drawn.

    As I said above, that SOME Christians did a thing doesn’t mean it automaticly makes it in line wsith scripture.

    This is the same sort of reasoning some athiests have used that I’ve debated that Hitler was Christian, merely because he claimed to be Christian (and the person could not come up with any strong evidence to show that Hitler was following his example by murdering a group of people he and his followers belong to).

  33. Foolster says

    Mar 12, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    And while yes the Muslims claim the Bible as part of their own religion, they also at the same time claim it is “corrupted” (which in itself makes no sense since our bible is the same as before Mohammad was born), and so the idea that rejecting OT laws such as stoning, that are no longer applicable today would have any effect on Muslims who gladly pick and choose verses that they like from the Bible and claim the rest that contradict their prophet as “corrupt” is laughable. There is no profit in this except to bash Christianity.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 13, 2014 at 1:46 am

      Foolster,

      “…and so the idea that rejecting OT laws such as stoning, that are no longer applicable today would have any effect on Muslims who gladly pick and choose verses that they like from the Bible and claim the rest that contradict their prophet as “corrupt” is laughable.”

      I disagree. The more people who reject the punishment of stoning for adultery and the elements of scripture that support it, the better. This is especially important for our leaders, who have more social influence. They can’t enact policies against countries that still kill adulterers without rejecting elements of their own scriptures. Obama, Bush, Blair, Clinton, Cameron–all Christians, all pro-Islam, and none of whom were willing to oppose the worst elements of Islamic law, because of their religious beliefs.

      Secondly, it’s just the right thing to do. Killing someone for adultery is rightly viewed as murder, and texts that support murder should be rejected, not defended.

      “There is no profit in this except to bash Christianity.”

      Again, we are talking about murder. Which is worse: Defending murder, or criticizing Christian scriptures (OT commands) that were used by Muslims?

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16 am

      “There is no profit in this except to bash Christianity.”

      And worse than that, it tends to help reinforce the PC MC paradigm that minimizes the problem of Islam by ready comparison with “religious fanaticism” in general. One reasonably supposes that the PC MC disease is, to a degree, present in RodSerling’s heart and mind (he wouldn’t be alone in this regard, in the Counter-Jihad).

  34. RodSerling says

    Mar 13, 2014 at 12:25 am

    Foolster,

    The topic of this thread is the adultery punishment, and the sub-discussion dealt with the scriptural sources of Islam’s use of it. You are attempting to take this discussion all over the map, though to be fair I contributed to it by addressing things you raised like excommunication, etc. I’m sure neither of us has time for an open ended, endless discussion. I really am most interested in your response to the empirical evidence about the adultery punishment that I presented in my comment March 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm. Because this deals with implementation of the penalty for adultery, or the desire to implement it among real people alive today (as shown by the Pew results), I think focusing the discussion there would be much more manageable than one that dwells in arguments about our respective personal interpretations of verses.

  35. RodSerling says

    Mar 13, 2014 at 1:32 am

    Foolster,

    I will however address a few claims you make about my alleged “assertions” and assumptions:

    “How charitable to assume it’s because I’m trying to hide from you!”

    I didn’t assume you are trying to hide. I observed that you hadn’t appeared to address my empirical evidence. You still didn’t address it, now that you are back and have quite a lot to say.

    “As I thought, you can’t actually provide new testiment verses that say someone is sinning if they don’t punish non-believers, or any NT supprt for the idea that the OT law still applies today.”

    Don’t assume that I don’t provide them because I “can’t.” I don’t have time for that discussion.
    Secondly, you make quite a distinction between the OT and the NT, whereby you believe all those nasty laws in the former are somehow abrogated by the latter. Your interpretation is obviously not the interpretation of those Christians who in fact do want to implement the punishment for adultery, not for entertainment because they think they have a duty to do so. They read the same NT and OT you do.

    “You claim you are providing evidence, but what you are providing are assertions. and not the same as evidence.”

    Actually, I did provide empirical evidence. March 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm. You ignore it.

    “1.)You asserted that the NT supports earthly punishment for homosexuality and other sins, but provide no actual evidence for this, besides a verse saying it is a sin.”

    Actually, what I said was the passage (with “worthy of death”) could be interpreted as supporting an earthly punishment, in light of the OT clear command to kill homosexuals and in light of the fact that the NT passage in question lists those who commit homosexual acts, among many others (including murder), as “worthy of death.” Obviously, that’s not the only interpretation available, nor did I claim that.

    Show me the verse that says don’t kill homosexuals.

    “Whether or not it was followed by Christians through the century, Christian doctirne (see: Hebrews 8:13, Acts 10, Acts 15, Col 2:11) and teachings (see the council of jeruselem) clearly teaches the setitng side of the old law practices.”

    But I’ve presented evidence that some Christians followed the old law practices, March 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm.

    “2.You asserted that “Support of the Bible as the official law of the land is clear enough to establish that those choosing that option probably want a theocracy.”
    You use the word “probbibly” which shows you have no definite evidence.”

    If they want a theistic religious scripture to be the official law of the land, that is by definition a theocracy.

    “But even if they did, there is no biblical new testiment evidence that such a desire follows actual Christian teaching.”

    Obviously, the Christians who want these laws disagree with you.

    “While a Muslim might claim that violent muslims are going against Islam, I can point to the Quoran and Hadiths and show the verses that are opened ended, and how violent verses superscede peaceful ones (they are after). The reverse is true in the bible where peaceful verses come after, and give no support to imposing religion on others.”

    Again, that all rests on your interpretation, whereby all those nasty OT laws are cancelled.

    “3.You asserted that excommunication is some sort issue to object to, but you give no clear reason why (would you as strongly condemn a Christian being kicked out of an athiest club if he denounced athiesm?). Yet you accuse me of being “knee-jerk”!”

    (Lol. I really don’t want to address this but….) To excommunicate someone who wants to remain in such a group entails cutting off a major part of their life and restricting them, excluding them from their social networks in that organization, ending whatever projects and ambitions they had within the organization, etc. It’s like being dumped by your friends or getting fired. It has a serious impact on the individual. If you’re going to do that, you need sufficient justification. We are talking about excommunicating someone for blasphemy. How do you justify that? Who said blasphemy was wrong and should be punished? How do you prove that someone has blasphemed? How do you know you haven’t blasphemed? Ultimately, you need to call God to the witness stand to claim injury, but that (for all practical purposes) can’t be done. You are left to try to justify something that can’t be proved.

    And how do you get them out of there without using force, if they refuse to leave? (I don’t expect to discuss this further, just thought the question should be raised). It seems unjustified to me to be using force over what ultimately amounts to a theological difference of opinion, be it major or minor.

    “You also move the goal posts (whether you meant to or not because you forgot the main context), since I first mentioned excommunication as a result of a major rejection of scripture (blasphemy against the holy spirit) that shows one doesn’t want to belong to the group anyway,”

    That’s a matter of interpretation. Obviously, lots of Christians differ in their interpretations, and may end up accusing each other of blasphemy.

    “… but then later you talk about it as possibly being a result a minor point of “difference in theological interpretation or expression.” which would be an unscurptural reason for excommunication., amnd downright silly!”

    You mean expressions of minor theological differences never result in charges of blasphemy?

    “As I said above, that SOME Christians did a thing doesn’t mean it automaticly makes it in line wsith scripture.”

    Some interpret it as they believe it is line with scripture, others disagree, and claim that commands to kill adulterers, etc., no longer apply. A common interpretation among Christians in the modern west is that it was okay to kill adulterers a long time ago, but not now, because God changed his mind between the OT and NT.

  36. voegelinian says

    Mar 13, 2014 at 4:03 am

    Perhaps I should spend the next dozen comments and interminable hours agitating for RodSerling’s banning — like he did against me many moons ago. Goose, gander.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 13, 2014 at 7:03 pm

      Foolster,

      Re one of your challenges:

      “As I thought, you can’t actually provide new testiment verses that say someone is sinning if they don’t punish non-believers, or any NT supprt for the idea that the OT law still applies today.”

      I didn’t want to spend time on this, as it gets into personal interpretation of verses, which doesn’t interest me very much. The results of such discussions seldom justify the time invested, in my experience. As I suggested, what matters from a practical standpoint is that some Christians do think those OT commands still apply. However, I think I can address your challenge, keeping in mind the rather modest limits of what I actually claimed. I have to go back to my original statement to see the context. Here’s what I wrote [edits in brackets, bolding added]:
      QUOTE
      “Leviticus 20:13 is clear on this [death penalty for homosexuality]. As for the NT, Jihadwatch commenter JessieJames cited favourably from a passage in which homosexual acts are listed amongst a litany of sins that are “worthy of death” (Romans 1:27-32), and then of course he/she refused to answer my repeated requests for clarification as to whether he/she supported the death penalty.
      The passage in Romans could be taken as implying that God will punish them and no more than that, but it could easily be taken to support the punishment clearly commanded in Leviticus. That is, there is support for the idea that believers are sinning if they fail to punish arch-sinners such as blasphemers, homosexuals, witches, etc. Moreover, if the Bible says some behaviour is worthy of death, that must be taken very seriously by Christians who take the Bible seriously.”
      END QUOTE
      —————–

      The possible support for the idea that they are sinning if they fail to punish a wide range of sins that they are commanded to punish is in the cited passage itself, in Romans 1:32 [my bold, my edits]:

      “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NIV

      I don’t think there is any issue of interpretation over whether “approv[ing] of those who practice them” is presented as good, neutral, or bad; it’s obviously presented as a bad thing, wrong, sinful. If, on the other hand, if there is any verse that says it’s okay to sit back and do and say nothing about homosexuality and the wide range of sins suggested in the passage, when one does have the power to do or say something about those sins, you will have to present it, because I’m not aware of it. Consequently, based on my understanding of this, I’d say tacit approval such as sitting back and doing and saying nothing about other peoples’ sins that are so bad that those people “deserve death,” whether in this life or the next, is sinful according to this passage.

      You present what appears to be an assumption that true Christians think the OT laws can be disregarded. However, the scripture itself seems rather contradictory and muddled on this point.
      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

      In the span of two consecutive verses in one of the four canonical Gospels, the apparent contradiction is made (Luke 16:16-17; I’ve included verse 18 because adultery is mentioned):

      16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
      18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16&version=NRSV

      The next example is somewhat clearer:

      Matthew 5:17-30

      QUOTE:

      The Law and the Prophets

      17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[c] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[d] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

      Concerning Anger

      21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire. 23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister[i] has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister,[j] and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court[k] with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

      Concerning Adultery

      27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.[l] 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.[m]”

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&version=NRSV

      END OF QUOTE

      There’s nothing there saying not to implement some kind of punishment, even death, for adultery. When there is an explicit statement that emphatically confirms the old laws, and no explicit statement that says to reject them, then the passage is in favour of the old laws.

      Since Christ (God) himself in the Gospels seems on the balance to be leaning more in the direction of maintaining the old laws as valid, and at least not telling people they would be wrong to apply those laws, let’s have a look at what he says in the OT about people who fail to implement the laws punishing various kinds of sinners:

      Leviticus 20:8-10
      “8 Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you. 9 All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them. 10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of[a] his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”

      Leviticus 26:14-33 (etc.)
      “Penalties for Disobedience
      14 But if you will not obey me, and do not observe all these commandments, 15 if you spurn my statutes, and abhor my ordinances, so that you will not observe all my commandments, and you break my covenant, 16 I in turn will do this to you: I will bring terror on you; consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down by your enemies; your foes shall rule over you, and you shall flee though no one pursues you. 18 And if in spite of this you will not obey me, I will continue to punish you sevenfold for your sins. 19 I will break your proud glory, and I will make your sky like iron and your earth like copper. 20 Your strength shall be spent to no purpose: your land shall not yield its produce, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit.
      21 If you continue hostile to me, and will not obey me, I will continue to plague you sevenfold for your sins. 22 I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock; they shall make you few in number, and your roads shall be deserted.
      23 If in spite of these punishments you have not turned back to me, but continue hostile to me, 24 then I too will continue hostile to you: I myself will strike you sevenfold for your sins. 25 I will bring the sword against you, executing vengeance for the covenant; and if you withdraw within your cities, I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into enemy hands. 26 When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven, and they shall dole out your bread by weight; and though you eat, you shall not be satisfied.
      27 But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, 28 I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins. 29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars; I will heap your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. I will abhor you. 31 I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. 32 I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it. 33 And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste. […]”

      [and so on].

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+26&version=NRSV
      ——————————–

      In other words, you are sinning to the point of incurring God’s wrath and destruction if you don’t implement those commands.

      ———————————-
      Deuteronomy

      “Warnings against Disobedience
      15 But if you will not obey the Lord your God by diligently observing all his commandments and decrees, which I am commanding you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you:
      16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
      17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.
      18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock.
      19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
      20 The Lord will send upon you disaster, panic, and frustration in everything you attempt to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me. 21 The Lord will make the pestilence cling to you until it has consumed you off the land that you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will afflict you with consumption, fever, inflammation, with fiery heat and drought, and with blight and mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you iron. 24 The Lord will change the rain of your land into powder, and only dust shall come down upon you from the sky until you are destroyed.
      25 The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you shall go out against them one way and flee before them seven ways. You shall become an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26 Your corpses shall be food for every bird of the air and animal of the earth, and there shall be no one to frighten them away. 27 The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt, with ulcers, scurvy, and itch, of which you cannot be healed. 28 The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness, and confusion of mind; 29 you shall grope about at noon as blind people grope in darkness, but you shall be unable to find your way; and you shall be continually abused and robbed, without anyone to help. 30 You shall become engaged to a woman, but another man shall lie with her. […]”

      [and so on]

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028&version=NRSV
      ——————————-

      Again, it is clear that God punishes harshly for the sin of the neglect, the failure, to implement his punishments. If they have the power to implement the commandments, his followers are not allowed to tolerate the existence of the kinds of sinners he identifies, e.g.:

      Exodus 22:18
      18 “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.”

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022&version=NRSV

  37. Foolster says

    Mar 13, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    “Actually, I did provide empirical evidence. March 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm. You ignore it.”
    (snip)
    “But I’ve presented evidence that some Christians followed the old law practices, March 12, 2014 at 5:30 pm.”
    (snip)
    “Secondly, you make quite a distinction between the OT and the NT, whereby you believe all those nasty laws in the former are somehow abrogated by the latter.”

    Over and over you claim I’m ignoring evidence, but I am not. I replied directly to it a number of times, and in fact I agreed with the evidence, what I objected to was the conclusions you are drawing from it. To say I’m ignoring the evidence that Chrisitans applied capital punishment for homosexuality or adultry is a straw man argument and patently false. You might say I haven’t answered you to your satisfaction, but that’s not the same as “ignoring”.

    Are you saying that despite the verses I gave that contradict such behavior that it is refuted simply by the fact that some Christians do it, ignoring those verses? I gave quite a few passages that clearly draw a line between OT and NT law. (and yet you claim I’m the one ignoring evidence!). This is a balance fallacy.

    If you really believe this then this opens a lot of troubling logical problems since a work isn’t judged on what a work says, but what a group of people says te work means.

    “Don’t assume that I don’t provide them because I can’t. I don’t have time for that discussion.”

    Either there is evidence to support this claim or there isn’t. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that if someone says they won’t/can’t provide evidence for something that they don’t have it.

    “Show me the verse that says don’t kill homosexuals.”
    Apeal to lack of evidence, reversing burden of proof falacy.

    “Obviously, the Christians who want these laws disagree with you.”

    So then you can quote the verses they quote to support this view? Otherwise this is once again just an assertion.

    “Again, that all rests on your interpretation, whereby all those nasty OT laws are cancelled.

    And again, interpretation is based on the fact of what a work says. I gave evidence for my views why the OT laws are abridged. You still have brought zero evidence that OT laws should still be in effect today according to Christian theology.

    “Half an hour? What are you talking about?”
    Notice my post was in reply to Inquisitor, who did wait only have an hour after your post.

    I think this will be my last post. We both are just repeating ourselves and getting nowhere.

    To summarize: Yes, Christians did and use OT laws, but they do so in spite of a number of biblical teachings that set aside OT as for a time and place. There have been no scriptural evidence presented to support such a view is a correct one.

    To claim that it’s a valid interpretation of the NT because simply some Christians do so is logical fallacious.

    • RodSerling says

      Mar 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm

      Foolster,

      “Are you saying that despite the verses I gave that contradict such behavior that it is refuted simply by the fact that some Christians do it, ignoring those verses? I gave quite a few passages that clearly draw a line between OT and NT law. (and yet you claim I’m the one ignoring evidence!). This is a balance fallacy.”

      I read them, but they’re unclear with respect to the issue at hand, which requires precision, explicitness, and specificity. The NT is unclear on this issue of following the old laws, which ones can still be followed, whether any can still be followed, what should be done if someone does follow them, etc. A compilation of some of the contradictions in the Bible on this issue of following/ not following the old laws is made here:
      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

      And by the way, as the above link indicates, several of the OT verses cited say the laws apply for all time. Why should the NT verses that appear to contradict them take precedence?

      In light of this, we’d need something pretty clear to settle the issue. The Book of Matthew is Gospel, is authoritative, and is clear that Christ came to confirm the old laws, every detail of them (see my prev post to you which was accidentally posted as a reply to voeg, March 13, 2014 at 7:03 pm). Christ says it himself, as quoted in Matthew.

      The verses/passages you cited in support of your view that Christians are no longer allowed to implement the old laws in question, such as death penalties for adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, etc. were these:

      Hebrews 8:13, Acts 10 and 15, and Col 2:11.

      My replies:

      1. Why don’t you quote the words attributed to Christ as reported in the Gospels? The Gospels carry much more weight than these other chapters from which you cite.

      2. I’ve read the verses/passages you cited. They say nothing about whether the contents of the old laws are all excluded. For example, does the new covenant mean that you do not now punish people for murder and theft, as commanded in the old laws? If it is still permissible to punish people for murder and theft, then why not for adultery, homosexuality, etc.? There is no prohibition against implementing the old laws in question, nor the old laws generally. In short, it is not clear what is included or excluded in the new covenant as compared to the old one.

      3. It would seem from Matthew that adultery and murder are both still included (see my quote above) in the new convenant.

      4. Probably the clearest evidence you’ve got to support your claim is Hebrews 8:13, which says “In speaking of “a new covenant,” he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.”

      (a) But that’s someone commenting on what Jesus said. In Matthew, Jesus is quoted.
      (b) Again, the respective contents of the new and old covenants are not listed. Adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, etc., are not mentioned. Are we to assume that under the new covenant, Christians are not supposed to follow and implement any laws that are in the old set? Are we to assume that Christians are not to implement any punishment for the sorts of crimes punished in the old set, including such crimes as theft and murder? I frankly doubt that that was the intention of the author(s) of Hebrews.

      “Either there is evidence to support this claim or there isn’t. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that if someone says they won’t/can’t provide evidence for something that they don’t have it.”

      Not reasonable when I told you I didn’t have time to do so, and when you ought to know the examples that I could cite. In any case, I have now presented evidence from the NT (see above), and Romans 1:32 was already cited originally in the context of my claim.

      ““Show me the verse that says don’t kill homosexuals.”
      Apeal to lack of evidence, reversing burden of proof falacy.”

      There is no “reversal.” The burden is on both of us. You are obligated to support your claims by citing scripture to support your view that Christians are prohibited from punishing homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, etc., or at least that they are no longer obligated to do so (whilst still being obligated to punish thieves and murderers, etc.). In other words, you seem to be proposing a scenario in which some old laws are no longer relevant, but some still are. Where are the passages in the NT that support this kind of partial rejection, partial retention, of old laws or old law precedents?

      ““Obviously, the Christians who want these laws disagree with you.”
      So then you can quote the verses they quote to support this view? Otherwise this is once again just an assertion.”

      I have already cited the verses that command killing homosexuals and adulterers. I assume the Christians who want such punishments know the Bible commands these things.

      ““Again, that all rests on your interpretation, whereby all those nasty OT laws are cancelled.
      And again, interpretation is based on the fact of what a work says. I gave evidence for my views why the OT laws are abridged. You still have brought zero evidence that OT laws should still be in effect today according to Christian theology.”

      Well, I have now. Perhaps you have not seen my response. I have responded to your citations, which aren’t from the Gospels, and which aren’t clear on the issue at hand (see above).

      ““Half an hour? What are you talking about?”
      Notice my post was in reply to Inquisitor, who did wait only have an hour after your post.”

      Okay, but that was in reference to you and Defcon 4. The latter hadn’t come back after days. Sorry I put you both in the same box.

      “I think this will be my last post. We both are just repeating ourselves and getting nowhere.
      To summarize: Yes, Christians did and use OT laws, but they do so in spite of a number of biblical teachings that set aside OT as for a time and place. There have been no scriptural evidence presented to support such a view is a correct one.”

      There are no verses in the NT to my knowledge that clarify the issue, to an adequate degree, with respect to the crimes and punishments we’re talking about. The Matthew 5:17-30 example seems to be the clearest, most authoritative statement on this issue. Anyone who claims the old laws can be tossed away has to contend with Christ quoted there as categorically confirming all of them. Adultery and murder are both mentioned there, and the old law punishments for neither of them are rejected.

      To claim that adultery is no longer to be punished, some will quote from John chapter 8:
      “8 1 while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground.[a] 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.”[b] And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”]][c]”

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3B7&version=NRSV

      If we assume this story is authentic,* and take this to mean no one should be punished by stoning for committing adultery, then there is a conflict between the OT and the NT. How to resolve such an apparent contradiction, assuming God does not truly contradict himself? The statement in Matthew 5:17-30 adamantly and categorically supports the OT law. A question that arises for me is What if she disobeys the command to “sin no more”? What if she commits adultery again, disobeying what Jesus (God) told her? What if the judges later decide to put her do death anyway? What happens to them if they do so? Are they to be punished and by whom? I will not attempt to interpret a way of resolving the discrepancy. It is enough to note here that the NT itself has contradictory statements about punishing adulterers (passages in Matthew versus John, cited here), and as far as I can see there is no decisive verse or passage that settles the discrepancy. That leads to competing interpretations, and partly explains why some Christians want to impose punishment for adultery, whereas others don’t.

      *There is some doubt as to whether it is authentic.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

      “To claim that it’s a valid interpretation of the NT because simply some Christians do so is logical fallacious.”

      I didn’t claim the interpretation was valid because some people hold it. I’ve been saying it’s practically important that some people hold the view that adulterers etc. should be legally punished in this world.

      • voegelinian says

        Mar 13, 2014 at 10:35 pm

        If we’re going to be adducing Gospel verses, one comes to mind of searingly acute pith in this context:

        You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

        Matthew 23:24

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Shaman on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Boycott Turkey on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.