Iran Will Stone Adulteress to Death
Iran is set to stone to death a young woman for the crime of adultery. Muslims constantly tell me that they believe Jesus is a prophet. Are we talking about the same Jesus here?John 8: 3-11
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.Michell Malkin puts out an urgent request to help Save Malak Ghorbany. Her execution has been stayed, for now, thank God, but adultery is still a capital offense in Iran. The disgusting part of what many human rights groups are urging is that Iran stop execution by stoning. The real problem is not stoning, but the death sentence for adultery! And many Lefties want to compare fundamentalist Christians with the mad Mullahs of Iran. Are they out of their frigging minds? If Monica Lewinsky was Persian, she'd be dead. John 11:35:
Posted by: canuck at September 22, 2006 04:33 PM
Posted by: Editor at September 22, 2006 04:40 PM
Posted by: Howie at September 22, 2006 04:42 PM
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 05:00 PM
Posted by: slug at September 22, 2006 05:06 PM
However, we are dealing with Old Testament enemies here. And, I am afraid, we are going to have to resort to Old Testament Ass-Whuppin's to survive this ordeal. The very idea of stoning makes me sick to my stomach. OH, wait! They must have evolved just a tad, because they actually allow the womento be buried deeper than the men, so their breasts won't be exposed to the freaking ROCKS they are throwing at them.
Excuse me, I have to go puke.
Posted by: EricInTexas at September 22, 2006 05:20 PM
In many states, Adultery is not a crime. Where I live, it's been completely decriminalized, and cannot even be admitted into divorce court as a primary reason for divorce!
Adultery destroys as many families as alcoholism or drug abuse. It is, in fact, more insidious, because it is invasive of marriage. It attacks the very core belief of marriage: trust. When that particular bond is broken, the damge can be as great as that from murder or suicide, and the aggreived spouse's greif as great as that resulting from death. families are destroyed, and children are left to ponder just what happened, because it's awfully hard to explain those emotions to a small child, or even an older one.
And what sort of example is adultery to a developing child, especially an adolescent?
Adultery is a terrible crime, which cuts a wide swath of destruction and leaves many innocents in it's wake.
There has to be some sort of strong punishment for adultery, if for no other reason than to protect society.
Posted by: Gwedd at September 22, 2006 05:33 PM
Wouldn't reverting back to Old Testament ways simply because we face a difficult enemy be in direct contradiction of Christ's teachings? His words were very plain in the New Testament and I'm fairly certain there was nothing about "Ass-Whuppin'" or anything similar in His teachings.
In fact, this seems to be precisely what the Pope was saying about the Muslim faith. My impression was he was comparing a violent Muslim approach to the more peaceful Christ-like approach to the world.
I guess my question is, do all the Christians here feel comfortable with ignoring the teachings of Christ for the purpose of battling an enemy? Isn't this the kind of test of your faith that's discussed throughout the New Testament and especially in the Revelation of John?
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 05:39 PM
Posted by: Editor at September 22, 2006 05:43 PM
We can all pray for fogiveness once we are not afraid of suicide bombers or airliners being flown into our buildings in the name of "Allah, the Fucking Merciful"...
Posted by: EricInTexas at September 22, 2006 05:46 PM
Posted by: Editor at September 22, 2006 05:46 PM
The commandent doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill". It says "Thou shalt not murder". God expects you to protect your own life, even if it means taking another.
Even Jesus demanded that those around him defend their own lives. Luke 23:36 says plainly "Then said he unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and like wise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Peter carried a sword at Gesthamane, and likely many of Jesus' followers did as well, becuase the Temple Guards who came for Jesus were backed up by a Cohort of Roman soldiers. That's a 600-man unit. That's a pretty large force to send for one man, unless there was a rather large following about him and the authorities anticipated trouble.
Responding to evil, especially that of a bilblical mindset, requires an appropriate response. I refuse to meet God and have to 'splain to Him that I squandered His most precious gift to me of life by allowing some dress-wearing, towel-headed introverted mysoginist to butcher me like some indolent sheep.
Posted by: Gwedd at September 22, 2006 05:56 PM
And please don't take my words out of context and apply them to Centanni.
Posted by: Editor at September 22, 2006 06:05 PM
Okay then, just what sort of punishment should adultery deserve? Should it be punished at all? By strong punishment, I was considering 2-4 years in jail and a heavy fine. Massachusetts still allows (IIRC) a 2-year jail sentence and a $10,000 fine for each count. Maine sees it as of no consequence. A big gap there. The Feds leave it up to the staes, although the military still considers it a seperate punishable offense and can impose stiff penalties for each count.
The point is this: We have criminalized all sorts of anti-social behaviour, from being drunk in public, to drug use, to smoking in non-designated areas, to appearing top-less in public. Yet adultery gets, in most areas, a free pass. My question is why?
Certainly capital punishment, especially stoning, is way out of proportion here. I have no truck with you on that part, and agree with all of your article above. I just see a sort of lax attitude about something with potentially serious effects upon society. That's all. Sorry if my previous posting wasn't up to your standards. I'll try and do better.
Posted by: Gwedd at September 22, 2006 06:05 PM
Stop being such a buzz kill man, If after a few bongs some babes want to smoke my peace pipe, who am I to stop them? marriage is a Christian Taliban ideology pushed on the people by the Government, man, I should be able to spread my wild seed anywhere, as long as that chick has her vagina scraped and vacuumed afterwards, overpopulation is bad for the environment, and can cause baby seals to die.
There never will be a criminal penalty for Adultery, after all the very institution of marriage is under attack.
Posted by: davec at September 22, 2006 06:23 PM
prove to the blind world who's really in power!!
Posted by: one take jake at September 22, 2006 06:29 PM
What should the punishment be?
First, define adultery. Is casual conversation, making a strong connection with someone of the opposite sex and repeatedly meeting up for that adultery? Is looking at porn adultery? Well, let's see what Jesus says:
"You have heard that it is said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart.'"
What's the punishment for that? Is every man in American gonna go to jail?
Posted by: Editor at September 22, 2006 06:34 PM
Even from the verse of Luke Gwedd cited, it's obviously talking about defense of yourself or your property from an aggressor. I'm fairly certain the concept of preemptive self defense is not covered in the Bible, not that I remember at least, I'm of course open to being corrected.
While I know many Christians in the world do not consider his word to be the authority, even Pope John Paul II said the concept of preemptive self defense is not a just war in the eyes of the church. At the very least his word must carry some weight.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting though. Does most everyone here agree that many of the tactics encouraged on this site are sins and simply believe "We can all pray for fogiveness once we are not afraid of suicide bombers..."? To put it bluntly, I was always taught you can't use the Christian concept of forgiveness as a "get out of jail free card." In other words, if you pursue this course knowing full well it's implications within your faith, you're in a whole different ball field from a "standard" sin.
btw, Editor, I wasn't arguing that the NT directs Christians not to wage war. Quite honestly, I'm not arguing any point in particular. I'm merely curious about and, exploring out loud, the religious implications of some of the more extreme points of view being espoused on this site.
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 06:46 PM
Posted by: Editor at September 22, 2006 06:53 PM
I'd imagine any kind of indiscriminate warfare while still falling well short of genocide would be a sin.
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 07:07 PM
Posted by: canuck at September 22, 2006 07:10 PM
If you, your family, or friends are attacked, force is athorized. Apply as much force as you need to win. Then tie them up, even the dead ones. That's SOP.
I suggest living a good life, saying your prayers, and keeping your weapons clean, and ammo dry. It does't hurt to work out.
Posted by: Leatherneck at September 22, 2006 07:17 PM
There is no scientific proof that god exists.
And I don't have faith in faeries and trolls, why should I have faith in god?
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 22, 2006 07:22 PM
Did he ask you to have faith in God? or did he do a comparison of Jesus as a prophet and what he said in the Christian Bible?
Iran is set to stone to death a young woman for the crime of adultery. Muslims constantly tell me that they believe Jesus is a prophet. Are we talking about the same Jesus here?
I guess some people actually read the article?
Posted by: davec at September 22, 2006 07:30 PM
"If you, your family, or friends are attacked, force is athorized. Apply as much force as you need to win. Then tie them up, even the dead ones. That's SOP."
That's something I completely agree with but has little to do with the discussion here. Here I was talking about preemptive self-defense and the most extreme "defensive" tactics like genocide and their religious implications.
"I suggest living a good life, saying your prayers, and keeping your weapons clean, and ammo dry. It does't hurt to work out."
I definitely try to live a good life, I skip the prayers though, it's just not for me. As for weapons, I doubt I could fight WWIII from here but I'm well armed and everything is well maintained. Maintaining my property is plenty of a workout.
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 07:48 PM
Then there is a married man or woman engaging in sex with someone other than their spouse.
In civilized countries, two people unattached getting it on is considered healthy and normal as long as the relationship is as such. In no society I know of is cheating on your spouse considered acceptable behavior.
But you still don't kill the cheater over it. You ostracise them from your social group ie family, clique etc. You don't friggin stone them to death. And when children are involved, you handle it with dignity regardless of how undignified the situation really is.
Posted by: SeeMonk at September 22, 2006 07:49 PM
Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. God created the Universe and all things in it, including yourself. Science is simply mankind's attempt to try and understand how God did it.
Somethings, however, are beyond our simple minds. Can you scientifically prove that love exists? Love is not physical, although certain effects of it may be. We cannot SEE love. We cannot TOUCH love. We cannot TASTE love, and yet there it is. We can deduce it's existence because of it's effects upon our physical environment. We recognize love's presence through it's results. God is the same.
As for Fairies and Trolls and other such creatures, whose to say they don't exist? Just because you haven't seen one doesn't mean they aren't around..... there was a rather large whoops! When Neanderthal was discovered. Same thing with Dinosaurs. No one believed Vikings actually made it to America until a few decades ago when the settlement was discovered. Whoops.
Sit back and enjoy the ride. It's too darned John Calvinist like to put everything into a box labled SCIENCE and say "THERE! That's ALL THERE IS!".
Come to think of it, there are some rather unsettling similarities between certain science supporters and certain middle-eastern religious extremists.......
Posted by: Gwedd at September 22, 2006 08:05 PM
News flash. people screw. It happens.
Posted by: Howie at September 22, 2006 08:21 PM
Posted by: Howie at September 22, 2006 08:24 PM
Let us take Iraq for example. I wish we were not there; However, after 12 years of UN B.S. Bush took the country in. Iraq supported Hamas with $20,000.00 per Jewish bus. There are other examples, but I will leave it at that.
So, we pre-blasted their ass. You would think, the other moon god worshippers in the area would lie low. Hardly.
War has been declared. These last few days I think the world has awoke. They want the Pope dead, they have declared war, (again), on Christians. That's me.
I ask you, why should we wait any longer. I realize we are suppose to be the good guys, but screw it, let them have what they asked for.
Posted by: Leatherneck at September 22, 2006 09:04 PM
I think what I was trying to discuss here may be a bit too much theology for this site and so, off topic. I was trying to be careful with my wording and not cite Iraq specifically because I was curious about the ideas Iraq represents as it relates to Christian dogma and not Iraq specifically.
The concept of a preemptive strike doesn't strike me as wrong however, I'm not a Christian. You see what I'm getting at?
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 09:26 PM
you are such a damn drama queen.
why should i compare a fictional christian character to a murderer and pedophile who actually existed?
should i compare paul bunyan to hitler?
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 22, 2006 09:27 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 22, 2006 09:28 PM
I never said god does not exist.
I just said there is no scientific proof. I implied that to accept god then requires faith. but why have faith in something that there is no evidence for?
there is evidence for one person's love for another, even if you cannot see that love.
but there is no evidence for god, faeries or trolls.
i personally think that jesus was a fictional character though.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 22, 2006 09:42 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 22, 2006 09:42 PM
you are right, but the correct verb tense is "exists".
jesus exists and is a simonizer is east Los Angeles. He speaks espanol.
at least the jesus i know.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 22, 2006 09:45 PM
So in that sense, no, they are NOT "talking about the same Jesus here". They claim to be speaking about the same character, but in fact they have a very different view of what he said, and they certainly don't consider the Christian Bible an authoritative source.
Posted by: Infidel753 at September 22, 2006 09:50 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 22, 2006 10:46 PM
As for the Christian response to Islam, now you're getting into an interesting area. I'm aware of the history between the two especially as it pertains to the run-up to the various crusades. While the initial motivation for the first crusade was pure self-defense, I hope you're not arguing that the Christian's hands were clean in the ensuing *13* crusades.
"Christianity has already given enough blood to Islam. These people who desire to return the World to the 7th C. need to be stopped at all costs. Even it if takes war."
Now, back to my original point/question. The quote of yours above, while understandable, doesn't strike me as inline with Christ's teachings. This touches on the exact question I've been driving at. How do you, as a Christian, make that position fit with Jesus' teachings?
I mean, not to sound condescending or overly simplistic but WWJD?
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 10:52 PM
Posted by: sandpiper at September 22, 2006 11:04 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 22, 2006 11:14 PM
Just a note, I am pro-death penalty however, I respect the idea of Amnesty International and most of the work they do.
The UN however is a joke when it comes to human rights. They obviously don't care outside of politics. Rawanda was the turning point and their lack of meaningful action in Sudan shows the UN couldn't care less about human rights. Don't even get me started on the makeup of their various "human rights commisions."
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 11:17 PM
I'm the other christian on this blog. It's basically just JJ and me. The concept of "just war" and Jesus's teachings do not contradict, so the premise of your question-- that they do contradict-- is moot.
"Turning the other cheek" does not apply to war because war is a communal endeavor, while "turning the other cheek" is personal. In other words, you cannot turn the other cheek for others who have been slapped (which is what you would have to do if the notion applied to war), you can only turn the other cheek for yourself. In war, your christian duty is to defend the oppressed from the oppressor, even using violence. That's just war.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 22, 2006 11:22 PM
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 22, 2006 11:44 PM
I'll repeat/rephrase some of my earlier questions and comments just to get it all in one place:
I don't believe a preemptive action would be considered a just war. Pope John Paul II said exactly that. Yes I realize you may not recognize his authority but, his opinion surely must carry some weight.
Would a largely indiscriminate action be justifiable? Yes, I understand war is messy but, seeing people advocating a war against all Muslims (or a moderately large percentage) is obviously indiscriminate.
Are all tactics in a just war also just? Even the most extreme such as genocide or something just short of that?
I may have pulled the two wrong people into my public train of thought. While I disagree with you and JJ on many topics I don't think you two hold some of the more extreme points of view I was interested in exploring. And while you two may be the only "real" Christians on here you are hardly the only ones that claim to be.
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 11:54 PM
I've actually been trying quite hard to be respectful while doing my exploring. I apologize if you feel under attack. While I've been guilty of it in the past, that's not my intent this time.
Posted by: Rich at September 22, 2006 11:59 PM
The man existed. The man had the power.
Jesusland Joe: Don't understand why you don't get this.
Perhaps it is because I am an infidel secular JOOOOOO.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 23, 2006 12:20 AM
Jesus did not say to kill either. Jesus did not say to carpet bomb jihadis or pummel them with AC-130 gunships. Jesus did not say to waterboard your enemy.
You are such a good Christian. A very good Christian.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 23, 2006 12:25 AM
The problem in Iran is their description of adultery includes women who have been raped and cannot produce 4 men of good character as witnesses to the crime committed. As we seen in the past, this is the common reason why most women in places like Iran and Pakistan are executed for adultery. They haven't actually committed adultery but have been raped. And then there's the problem of these women being killed by their families in honor killings because they have brought shame to their families.
Jesus was writing on the ground (Greek word grapho was used in the original text which can mean to write or figuratively to describe). We are not told what He was writing.
As to whether Jesus is the same Jesus for Muslims, Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55 Number 640 says that when Muhammad went on his night of ascension, when he reached the second heaven he saw John the Baptist and Jesus and they greeted Muhammad saying "Welcome, O Pious Brother and Pious Prophet?" Pious doesn't mean pedophile, murderer, thief, etc. so it can't be the same Jesus. Muhammad also said that he met Jesus after Jesus came out of the bathroom in the second heaven and Jesus was embarrassed.It's just so laughable. And since Muslims believe that Allah substituted someone else for Jesus on the cross (Quran An-Nisa 4:157)and brought Jesus up unto himself, doesn't that mean that Allah's "divine" intervention is responsible for the world's largest religion?
Posted by: Stan the Infidel in Indonesia at September 23, 2006 04:08 AM
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 23, 2006 10:31 AM
I believe you can be saved. Try a big shot of testosterone.
Is the women subject in this post a muslim. And would she have more little muslims who would grow up to hate us?
Bomp, bomp, bomp. Another one bites the dust.
This is war. Time to leave the goodie, goodie humanitarian feelings behind and win the war.
Did we feel sorry for the moderate Germans when we bombed their cities and civilians? Same for the Japanese.
First you win. Then you can feel quilty if you so please.
Posted by: greyrooster at September 23, 2006 11:19 AM
There is no definite scientific evidence that human activity is causing global warming, yet everybody and their grandmother seems to be believing in that tripe.
There is no evidence that the US caused 9/11, yet there is a whole legion of sockpuppets like Greg who believe it.
Everyone, except those who accept reason, has got religion. Greg, Al Gore and Billy Graham are all men of faith.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 23, 2006 11:24 AM
Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2006 10:02 PM
Posted by: greyrooster at September 23, 2006 11:28 PM
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 24, 2006 09:40 AM
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0112 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0054 seconds, 63 records returned.
Page size 45 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.