Stoning in Somalia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Brayton wrote:
pat wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.

Deuteronomy is a book of the Pentateuch, not a part of canon law. This would make it more applicable to Judaism than Christianity. Still I think you analysis is incorrect, but I do not have the time to really dig in to your thought process and attempt to dispel your agenda.

The Old Testament is a series of extremes existing in dichotomy in order to drive home a point. To really get it, I believe you really need to understand it’s audience. Sometimes they needed their ass whipped in to shape, sometimes they needed mercy, sometimes they needed the shit scared out of them.

They had to stay unified to stay strong enough to exist as a nation, otherwise they would have been slaughtered. These texts accomplished that for the unwashed masses.

I’m not really sure what my agenda is other than trying to clear up why Muslims cling to their less than favorable passages when most Christians don’t. That’s a good point about it being a part of the pentateuch.

There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.[/quote]

Well, basically it breaks down very simply. You judge a tree by it’s fruit. In this current age, muslims are doing horrific things in the name of God and their religion. I am talking in a general sense, not an individual sense. They masses call for the death of people, they seek to divide and spread hate and death. This in a religious sense, is a blasphemy; which is naughty speaking in religious terms. No other religious entity is performing wide-spread evil as the muslims are. Now, there are kooks everywhere and there some religious people from non-muslim backgrounds who do evil things, but it is not widely accepted by the religious community and is in fact often condemned. Where as in the muslim community evil deeds are met with celebration and exultation. It happens everyday it seems.

That is the difference. I do not know if it is an inherent problem in the religion itself, or if its waters have been poisoned by radicals…Honestly, I don’t care anymore. I just want it to stop.

42

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of.

43

[quote]Brayton wrote:
pat wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.

Deuteronomy is a book of the Pentateuch, not a part of canon law. This would make it more applicable to Judaism than Christianity. Still I think you analysis is incorrect, but I do not have the time to really dig in to your thought process and attempt to dispel your agenda.

The Old Testament is a series of extremes existing in dichotomy in order to drive home a point. To really get it, I believe you really need to understand it’s audience. Sometimes they needed their ass whipped in to shape, sometimes they needed mercy, sometimes they needed the shit scared out of them.

They had to stay unified to stay strong enough to exist as a nation, otherwise they would have been slaughtered. These texts accomplished that for the unwashed masses.

I’m not really sure what my agenda is other than trying to clear up why Muslims cling to their less than favorable passages when most Christians don’t. That’s a good point about it being a part of the pentateuch.

There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.[/quote]

I think a lot of it got lost in translation…Many biblical scholars have taken to learning greek so as to understand the original language, becuase there are so many damn translations that meanings tend to get lost at times.

44

Roman Catholic priests aren’t required to learn Greek and Hebrew?

45

[quote]Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.[/quote]

Deuteronomy is old testament you putz. The old testament is the old Jewish bible. In the new testament which is Christianity Jesus took a position against stoning.

46

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I bet the girl put a spell on these men. Or I bet that is what these men told their tribal elders and wives.

Also, it is usually the women of these societies who initiate violence against rape victims because they lose power and influence in their family when a man takes another “wife”.

My wife and I are friends with a Somali Muslim woman who has told us of these stories before. She is a very progressive Muslim who left her husband (and children) to come to the states to finish her education. Her family has lots of money so she never had to put up with what poorer Somalis have to.

This is what happens when civil society collapses. In other words, the normal state of the world.

Actually, that sort of shit only happens in civilized societies.

I think we’re about to get a lot more civilized in the US.

You have millions in cages because they dare to smoke or sell the wrong plant.

Just how much more civilized are you?

I´d say you are a tad more domesticated, but that is not the same as civilized because satiety and complacency does not equal ethical behavior.

Though not stoning women is kind of a good thing.

I was being sarcastic.[/quote]

I am being stoned.

47

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.

Deuteronomy is old testament you putz. The old testament is the old Jewish bible. In the new testament which is Christianity Jesus took a position against stoning.[/quote]

That’s a dumb response. The Old Testament isn’t just “the old Jewish bible”. If it was just and old jewish Bible then Christians wouldn’t spend so much energy over the book of Genesis and the creation account it describes. Take a lesson from PRCal and actually contribute to this conversation.

48

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of. [/quote]

The first that springs to mind is the role of women as submissive and obedient to their men. I’m specifically thinking of Peter and Paul. As in (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). And silly stuff like not allowing women to wear jewelry (out of Peter and elsewhere).

49

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.

Deuteronomy is old testament you putz. The old testament is the old Jewish bible. In the new testament which is Christianity Jesus took a position against stoning.[/quote]

I’m not trying to be a dick, but I don’t need any more “help.”

50

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of. [/quote]

And thanks.

I still have a hard time understanding how to reconcile God’s OT behavior even in the light of Jesus’ contributions. Prior to Jesus, the only behavior of God’s that you had to work with was from the OT and it’s just such a mess. How do you reconcile those behaviors with the idea that God is wholly benevolent? Or is the reasoning that he didn’t have to be because the situation of man was different prior to Jesus and therefore different moral justice applies to those peoples? It’s a hell of a snare for me.

51

I just realized I opened up a whole new discussion with that last post. You don’t have to go there.

52

[quote]Brayton wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of.

The first that springs to mind is the role of women as submissive and obedient to their men. I’m specifically thinking of Peter and Paul. As in (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). And silly stuff like not allowing women to wear jewelry (out of Peter and elsewhere). [/quote]

That’s hardly in the same category as some of the stuff in Deuteronomy. The NT does affirm the creation order, which makes the man the head over the woman in the marriage. It’s a matter of rank, though, not quality. We typically call women who wear the pants “shrews” and deride their men, whether they’re religious or not.

Anyways, the ethic governing marriage is found in Ephesians 5:

The women aren’t allowed to preach or hold the office of elder or deacon in the church. That doesn’t mean they’re inferior, that’s just the order of things given in Genesis 2 and affirmed by Jesus and the apostles, all of whom were men. Again, that’s hardly in the same category of “stoning adulterers” and the like. Feminists enjoy getting offended by that sort of thing, but from what I’ve seen, women in the church prefer it that way.

53

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Brayton wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of.

The first that springs to mind is the role of women as submissive and obedient to their men. I’m specifically thinking of Peter and Paul. As in (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). And silly stuff like not allowing women to wear jewelry (out of Peter and elsewhere).

That’s hardly in the same category as some of the stuff in Deuteronomy. The NT does affirm the creation order, which makes the man the head over the woman in the marriage. It’s a matter of rank, though, not quality. We typically call women who wear the pants “shrews” and deride their men, whether they’re religious or not.

Anyways, the ethic governing marriage is found in Ephesians 5:

The women aren’t allowed to preach or hold the office of elder or deacon in the church. That doesn’t mean they’re inferior, that’s just the order of things given in Genesis 2 and affirmed by Jesus and the apostles, all of whom were men. Again, that’s hardly in the same category of “stoning adulterers” and the like. Feminists enjoy getting offended by that sort of thing, but from what I’ve seen, women in the church prefer it that way. [/quote]

Good response and you’re right - it’s not nearly in the same category as the OT.

54

[quote]Brayton wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of.

And thanks.

I still have a hard time understanding how to reconcile God’s OT behavior even in the light of Jesus’ contributions. Prior to Jesus, the only behavior of God’s that you had to work with was from the OT and it’s just such a mess. How do you reconcile those behaviors with the idea that God is wholly benevolent? Or is the reasoning that he didn’t have to be because the situation of man was different prior to Jesus and therefore different moral justice applies to those peoples? It’s a hell of a snare for me.[/quote]

Man’s situation was/is the same before and after Jesus:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VI.html

People were reconciled to God through Christ in the same way in the Old Testament as in the New, except that those in the New had what the Old pointed to (Gen. 3:15): Jesus.

Old Testament saints were justified (declared righteous) by believing in the promised Messiah that would accomplish salvation for those the Father chose (“Abraham saw my day, and was glad” John 8:56, see the entire book of Hebrews). See also this:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VIII.html

The last question is answered in Galatians, I believe.

55

[quote]Brayton wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.

Deuteronomy is old testament you putz. The old testament is the old Jewish bible. In the new testament which is Christianity Jesus took a position against stoning.

That’s a dumb response. The Old Testament isn’t just “the old Jewish bible”. If it was just and old jewish Bible then Christians wouldn’t spend so much energy over the book of Genesis and the creation account it describes. Take a lesson from PRCal and actually contribute to this conversation.[/quote]

When the Christian bible was being assembled there was a whole school of thought that said the old testament did not belong in the Christian bible and did not want to include it. The Gnsostics had a different view of creation from Genesis also.

You are too hung up on the Roman orthodoxy that has been presented as the consenus view of Christianity right from the beginning. I have news for you it isn’t. The Romans tore entire testaments out of the bible that did not support their world view.

Much if not all of the aspects of Christianity that people find distasteful are a result of the Roman takeover. Take some time and study what the first three hundred years of Christianity were like before the Romans usurped the religion.

56

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

No, this is what happens when shari’ah wins. They’re just doing what Mohammed did when he was alive.

Too many people are willing to ignore this.

I have no problem with individual Muslims but there is enough of this stuff in Islam to cause trouble. I wish there was a solution.

So true. And unlike modern Christians they haven’t learned to ignore a lot of their canon. The answer probably lies there.

Why do most Christians ignore the advice of their own God (Deuteronomy 12, 23) who commands stoning “your wife, son, daughter, brother…” for advocating another religiong?

There is a reason why a number of passages like that one are not heeded by Christians these days - we should be looking into that and trying to get some of that over in the Middle East.

Deuteronomy is old testament you putz. The old testament is the old Jewish bible. In the new testament which is Christianity Jesus took a position against stoning.

That’s a dumb response. The Old Testament isn’t just “the old Jewish bible”. If it was just and old jewish Bible then Christians wouldn’t spend so much energy over the book of Genesis and the creation account it describes. Take a lesson from PRCal and actually contribute to this conversation.

When the Christian bible was being assembled there was a whole school of thought that said the old testament did not belong in the Christian bible and did not want to include it. The Gnsostics had a different view of creation from Genesis also.

You are too hung up on the Roman orthodoxy that has been presented as the consenus view of Christianity right from the beginning. I have news for you it isn’t. The Romans tore entire testaments out of the bible that did not support their world view.

Much if not all of the aspects of Christianity that people find distasteful are a result of the Roman takeover. Take some time and study what the first three hundred years of Christianity were like before the Romans usurped the religion. [/quote]

Thanks and that’s a good point. It is sort of an aside in regard to what I’m talking about with PRCal but I agree it’s worth mentioning. It’s a whole other discussion.

57

That’s what the Reformers did.

58

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Brayton wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There is plenty in the New Testament that is less than savory that also gets ignored, though, for seemingly the same reasons. But that wouldn’t really jibe with what PRCal is saying… I dont think.

I can address individual issues, but I’m not a mind reader. If you’re more specific, I’ll try to explain whatever it is you’re thinking of.

And thanks.

I still have a hard time understanding how to reconcile God’s OT behavior even in the light of Jesus’ contributions. Prior to Jesus, the only behavior of God’s that you had to work with was from the OT and it’s just such a mess. How do you reconcile those behaviors with the idea that God is wholly benevolent? Or is the reasoning that he didn’t have to be because the situation of man was different prior to Jesus and therefore different moral justice applies to those peoples? It’s a hell of a snare for me.

Man’s situation was/is the same before and after Jesus:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VI.html

People were reconciled to God through Christ in the same way in the Old Testament as in the New, except that those in the New had what the Old pointed to (Gen. 3:15): Jesus.

Old Testament saints were justified (declared righteous) by believing in the promised Messiah that would accomplish salvation for those the Father chose (“Abraham saw my day, and was glad” John 8:56, see the entire book of Hebrews). See also this:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VIII.html

The last question is answered in Galatians, I believe. [/quote]

If man’s situation is the same before/after Jesus, then what is with the radical attitude shift in God?

Sorry but I havent read those links yet if that’s directly addressed within them. But do you have a brief answer?

59

[quote]If man’s situation is the same before/after Jesus, then what is with the radical attitude shift in God?
[/quote]

I can’t identify a shift in God’s attitude in the New Testament. Man is under the same wrath before and after Jesus, it’s just that God isn’t dealing with man in terms of visible calamities, as he did with Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, and Israel. This is because the types and shadows of the Old Testament have been fulfilled in the New. Of course, the judgments in the Old are also typological of the Day of Judgment, but that hasn’t yet happened.

60

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If man’s situation is the same before/after Jesus, then what is with the radical attitude shift in God?

I can’t identify a shift in God’s attitude in the New Testament. Man is under the same wrath before and after Jesus, it’s just that God isn’t dealing with man in terms of visible calamities, as he did with Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, and Israel. This is because the types and shadows of the Old Testament have been fulfilled in the New. Of course, the judgments in the Old are also typological of the Day of Judgment, but that hasn’t yet happened. [/quote]

Thats got to be the best answer I’ve been offered yet. Thanks. You’ve given me enough to chew on. There ought to be more Christians with minds as clear and thorough.