Just saw this on CNN, A Nigerian woman was found guilty of adultery, the punishment. Death By Stoning, hmmm, and people wonder why I have little good to say about that part of the world...


[pyro]

Maybe they have the right idea.

USPC40


[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img]
[url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url]
[url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]

[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]

Hmmmmmmmm.  It has been my experience that lots of folks who are stoned commit adultery.

Yep..and let me catch you stealing some of my shit and you'll wish I had only chopped off your hand.

I say "stone away!"

[:D]

Good one sub-dued.

[:D]

Didja realize that is the REQUIRED punishment in the Jewish Torah?????

[}:D]

With a few exceptions, Torah basically = the Christian OT.

And agreed, thank God for grace. Christ set the example for how we are to deal with the adulterous today.

Speak thou of forgiveness?

The Jewish leaders of Christ's day brought to Him a woman caaught in the very act of adultery.

They said "Moses law commands us to stone her. What do YOU say?"

Scripture makes it pretty clear their intent was to trick Christ.

He said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

They ALL walked away. And Scripture adds the intersting note, they walked away starting with the oldest, ending with the youngest.

Then Christ said to the woman "I don't condemn you either. [b] Go and sin no more.[/b]

That WHOLE story is the proper approach to the subject of the sin of adultery (as well as any other sin)

Two points emerge:

1. Final judgment / condemnation is NOT the goal.

2. Strong castigation of sin, and encouragement to righteousness is NECESSARY, not just some mealy mouthed "Awww, try to do better next time."

One of the biggest differences, outside of the two covenants themselves, between Old and New is that the OT was written to a government, and the New is written to individuals (ok, ok, a group, but the point is Not Government)

God never gave governments the right to acquit the guilty (or condemn the innocent, the Lord detests them both). When God gave capital punishment to us Goy however, he only stipulated it as a requirement for murder.


However, also in the Torah - is that a couple who had a rebellious son was to take them before the elders and have them stoned. Today - whenever someone has a rebellious son, they go get themselves stoned.

THIS is one of the reasons I doubt the wisdom of strict incorporation of Biblical principles into modern gov'ts.

If the OT teaches us anything, its that gov't is ill equipped to FORCE righteous living. God wants obedience from the heart - NOT obedience forced by gov't.




"goy" is a derogatory name that means "dog" , isn't it????

I mean, if someone ELSE wants to call you a dog, hey, whatever. But I'd recommend against calling yourself a dog. [:D] Or worse, calling ME a dog. [:D]




LOL  [:D]

I can't seem to find it anywhere but if I remember correctly this woman is charged with adultery and sentenced but she was actually raped.  However, the law does not make a distinction.  I could be mistaking it for a very similar case.

Post from garandman -

Nope.

The Torah is simply the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the enirety of which is referred to as the [i][b]Tanakh.[/b][/i]

Nope, again.

'Goy' comes from the Hewbrew word [i][b]'Goyim'[/b][/i], meaning '[the] nations', which simply means the non-Jewish world, and is not, in and of itself, a derogatory term.

It is likely, however, that the word 'Goy' can be used in a derogatory manner in the same way and to the same extent that the word 'Jew' is used!

Am I right? Of course, I am! [:D]

Eric The(Learned)Hun[>]:)]

I wouldn't know. When I use "Jew," I mean, someone who is, ya know, Jewish in nationality.

I don't think calling someone by their nationality is derogatory.



You are a legend in your own mind. No doubt about that. [:D]

Post from garandman -

Give it up, you've been wrong too many times this morning on this single thread!

Judaism, and being a 'Jew', is not a [u]nationality[/u], but a [u]religious[/u] affiliation!

There is [u]no[/u] nationality known as 'Jew.'

Can you think of one? And please do not use 'Israeli', for one can easily be an Israeli Arab, or an Israeli Christian.

Eric The(SeldomMistaken)Hun[>]:)]

If that is true, then the modern "Jew" has NO Old testament claim to the land of Israel, as the claim was based on his BLOODLINE lineage to Abraham (i.e. nationality.)

And the Palys would be RIGHT in their attmepts (tho wrong in their methods) to drive modern "Jews"  into the sea. Or at least have every right to wage war against these "Jewish" interlopers in the land of Palestine.

But this thread isn't about "Jews" per se.

Start another one, and we can "discuss" it YET AGAIN. [rolleyes]

garand(OnSecondThought,Don'tBother)man

If that is true, there's a WHOLE bunch of American calling themselves "Jews" who don't practice anything remotely related to "Judaism."

Not to mention Israeli "Jews."

'If that is true'? What do you mean by that? [:D]

Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]

If - a qualifier, indicating several possibliities exist

That - the thing qualified. A demonstrative used to indicate a particular thing.

Is - a word SOME lawyers typically have trouble with. Means "a state of being" something.

True - the opposite of false. A reality. The "state of being" that (oops, sorry for using a word you don't understand - see above) "is" refers to.

Am I going too  fast for you???




"If that is true" = "If we accept your premise" or "based on your logic"

Example:

According to your logic, since there is no such thing as a nationality called "jewish" the interlopers and trespassers commonly referred to as Jews are only people who have adopted a convenient religion (convenient in the sense that ONLY Jews by nationality have OT claim to the "Holy Land") and the curent residents of Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Galilee have NO Old testament Claim to the land, but are tresspassers and interlopers. Squatters, if you will.

Your words and logic (which happen to agree with mine)

Yer learnin'. Slower than others, but yer learnin'.

I'll bill you.

[}:D]

In the 1946 film noir classic, [b]The Stranger[/b], directed by Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson is a federal agent trying to track down a Nazi war criminal after the war.

He tracks him to a small town in Connecticut.

He is at a small dinner party, when one of the guests makes the statement 'Well, Marx was a German.'

Thereupon, the Welles character makes the reply, 'Karl Marx was no German, he was a Jew.'

Immediately, Edward G. Robinson knew that he had found his man!

Eric The(MovieBuff)Hun[>]:)]

Duck and cover!  They're at it again!  [:D]

More like Eric The (Irrelevant,ButLovesTheNaziSmear)Hun

Post from garandman -

Now just [u]who[/u] did I smear with that bit of movie trivia? Huh?

Eric The(Huh?ISayAgain)Hun[>]:)]

Why bring Nazi into a discussion with me, if not to smear me??

Only a fool could miss your CLEAR implication and innuendo.

Only a lawyer would deny it.

The Jewish leaders of Christ's day brought to Him a woman caaught in the very act of adultery.

They said "Moses law commands us to stone her. What do YOU say?"

Scripture makes it pretty clear their intent was to trick Christ.

He said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

This little old lady standing next to him picks up a rock and lets it fly.  Whack! Right in the noggin.

Jesus turns to her and says, "you know mom, sometimes you really piss me off."

Then Christ said to the woman "I don't condemn you either. [b] Go and sin no more.[/b]

Post from garandman -

And only the struck dog would bark! [:D]

Eric The(YouAreSimplyMistaken)Hun[>]:)]

yeah, whatever eric.

But that's all just a distraction from the FACT that you said there is NO SUCH THING as  "Jewish" nationality today, in these days and times. Something I've actually said myself in the past.

And ANY reading of Scripture makes it CLEAR that Jewish nationality is REQUIRED for inheritance of the so-called "Holy Land."

So, in one fell lawyer-like swoop, you smear me, and distract from the discussion.

You are good at what you do.

[rolleyes]

Post from garandman -

How can you be so right about this, and so wrong about everything else?

Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]

I had initially missed the masterfulness of this.

Both employing the smear, and denying using the smear, in the same breath.

That's pretty funny, even though Mary was not sinless.

BTW, all you hijackers: Get your own thread.

And why are you avoiding responsibility for your own words??? Why keep distracting from the discussion???

Cuz you know your own words damn you whole position re: Israel.

Those claiming to be "Jews" do NOT have ANY claim thru bloodline to Abraham, and therefore no Biblical mandate to the land. (as you said, there is NO SUCH THING as a "Jewish" nationality.)

Game, set, match. The Middle East SHOULD BE  a free-for-all for the land. May the best man win.

If that is Israel, I'm cool with that, and actually would prefer it.

Why is it that it's always the woman accused/convicted/stoned for adultery?

Wow!!!  This is really cleaver.  I truly mean that.  I hope I can have permission to use this in my next dinner conversation with someone who questions our nations support of Israeli occupation.  It is so much so much more subtle than calling someone 'Anti-Semitic'.  Thanks!

I agree, I alway prefer sidestepping a logical discussion of the issue at hand with an anecdote suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your position on this issue must be a Nazi [rolleyes]

ETH has just talked himself into a logic corner, and I'll bet money that he doesn't respond to Gman's statement that the Jews of today have no biblical claim to Israel, based on ETH's OWN statements.

Juggernaut

Post from BarSundown -

Do not thank me, for [b]The Stranger[/b] was written by Orson Welles, but he's dead, so you may have to contact the Agency representing his heirs for their approval!

And, sorry, but I would hesitate in using it when someone simply '...questions of nation's support of Israeli occupation...'!

I would save it for someone, such as the evil Nazi war criminal Rankin suggests that simply by being a Jew, you have no other nationality.

You do understand that this was what the ex-Nazi Rankin was doing, don't you? That Karl Marx was not a German, oh no! He was a Jew! He could not possibly have been a German.

Gosh, I hate having to explain the obvious, but I am always willing to do it, as required!

Eric The(Flattered)Hun[>]:)]

Love your keen insight, BarSundown.

But I love Eric's repsonse to your post even more.

[:D]

Post from Juggernaut -

Sorry, [b]Jug[/b], old pal, but I wasn't sidestepping any logical discussion here.

I was simply showing that anyone who believes that being a Jew is a [b]nationality[/b] and not a religious affiliation, is simply wrong.

Edward G. Robinson's character 'knew' that it was Rankin who was the Nazi war criminal simply because to Rankin, being Jewish precluded being German, and that, my dear friend, is nothing more than Nazi rhetoric!

Simple Nazi rhetoric, and no matter how you puff it up, and put some new refinements on it, it is still BULLSHIT!

[b]BULLSHIT in 1933, BULLSHIT in 1946 when 'The Stranger' was released, and BULLSHIT today![/b]

Nowadays, folks just say that being a 'Jew' means that you cannot be a 'real' American, or a 'real' any other nationality.

Being [b]Jewish[/b] trumps all other considerations!

[b]Now what [u]enlightened[/u] nation and people believe THAT? Hmmmm?[/b]

I always hesitate in discussing Scripture with Garandman for one reason and one reason only - [b]we no speaka de same language![/b]

But this is [u]not[/u] a religious discussion, if it were my answers may be totally different.

If you'd like to have a religious discussion with me, [b]Juggernaut[/b], please do so offline at my e-mail address: [email protected].

I am certain that I can dispel any problems you may have with my orthodoxy, or my views on the 'Jews.'

And I, too, will be willing to bet that I will [u]not[/u] engage in the fruitless bickering that [b]garandman[/b] loves to engage in regarding the 'Jews.'

He has made his opinions known, I have made mine known, and when the 'Search' feature on this site is fixed and searches of longer than 30 days are permitted once again, you may go back and refresh your memory on what our views are!

Eric The('Jew')Hun[>]:)]

Post from garandman -

Frankly, I do too, but unfortunately I had to remove the pic of Welles as the evil Rankin, cause it just wouldn't post right.

Eric The(ButThanks!)Hun[>]:)]

Sorry, [b]raf[/b], but as you can plainly see, we've gotten pretty far afield from the original [b]Islamic[/b] Court's decision in this thread!

[:D]

Eric The(SoAshamedOfHimself,Sorta)Hun[>]:)]

Yes she was.

"The infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin.... From the first moment she began to live she was free form all sin."
[i]~Martin Luther (yeah, that one!), Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God"[/i] [Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception right up until his death]

Hey, this thread's been hijacked by others, so I figured I'd do the same.

Sorry, [b]loonybin[/b], but Martin Luther is [b]not[/b] the be-all, end-all answer on all things that pertain to Christianity.

And I'll save the rest of my comments for some future thread that's more on point than this one!

Eric The(Orthodox)Hun[>]:)]

I know what you mean.......I am not worthy to post in their threads only lurk and learn.[;)]

What you are ALSO de facto  saying is that since the current occupants DO NOT have  national distinction as "Jews", they have NO tie to Abraham as one of his descendants.

Therefore, they have no Biblical claim to the land, and have essentially hijacked the Jewish religion to gain a spurious claim to the land.

And lastly, your logic demands that the REAL claim to the land over there can be settled ONLY by war, and who owns the land as of this moment. There is NO inheritance right to the land inherent in being  a Jew by religion only. Inheritance DEMANDS national affiliation, and that doesn't exist today (as you said)

I'll GLADLY concede to your point of "Jewish" being a religion NOT a nationality (again, something I've already said), if you'll just follow your own logic to its inescapable conclusion.

Precisely- I don't need to retype what garandman just said, but that's exactly the logical fallcy I was tryin to point out.

Juggy(WhyDidIstartInOnThisMess?)Not

Post from garandman -

No, not at all. These are [b]two[/b] separate and distinct matters that you are trying to combine into one single view, to simply suit your particular purposes and your beliefs.

What you are confused about, and what I will address, are these two issues:

The nation known as 'Israel', with its citizens known as 'Israelis', and it's right to exist.

The religion known as 'Judaism', with its adherents known as 'Jews', and their place in God's unfolding plan, and in the land known as 'Israel.'

The disputed issues boil down to (1) Does Israel have the right to exist, and (2) Does a [u]Jewish[/u] Israel have any continued significance in God's Plans from a Christian viewpoint.

Let me explain [u]my[/u] views for you, and the others.

[b]1. Does Israel have the right to exist?[/b]

First, you must forget the Bible, altogether, forget Moses, forget any talk of 'Covenants', forget 'Dispensations', and simply look to the question of the status of the State of Israel, as someone who has no [u]preconceived[/u] view on whether the State of Israel has a right to exist, or not.

The 'right to exist' was established more than 54 years ago, by an Act by the United Nations, and by the actions of the Israelis.

For whatever reason, and we all think we know what the reason,the United Nations established a State of Israel and gave it defined borders. The obviously then-recent events in Germany and Eastern Europe concerning the attempted extermination of the Jews were probably uppermost in the minds of the UN members, but that is neither here nor there.

When the Arab Legions attacked this newly created State, the new 'Israelis' fought back valiantly, lost some ground that had been partioned to them, and gained some ground that had not. These Israelis were comprised of Jews who were ancient natives of the area, European Jews who had entered the British Mandate since the end of WWII, and certain Bedouin and Druze tribes who aligned themselves with Israel for one reason or the other. Christian Arabs also fought for the Israelis.

That was in 1948, the War for Independence, which they won. Or at least safeguarded their existence, for the time being.

More wars followed in 1956, 1967, and 1973, all of which were resoundingly won by that nation! In the 1967 Six Day War, the State of Israel conquered and occupied land that was previously held by Jordan (the West Bank) and Egypt (the Gaza strip).

So, if anyone asks me whether Israel has a right to exist, as a matter of law, I would say of course they do, they won their freedom from people who were trying to take it away.

As Americans, we should all appreciate what they accomplished, for what they did in the latter half of the 20th Century, we had done before in the latter half of the 18th Century, and during the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Ask any American Indian you wish.

We started as Colonists, granted charters and deeds to lands in the New World by a British Monarch who had never so much as set foot there, rebelled against that same Monarch, and conquered the rest of the Continent, in our own name.

So, if Israel's right to exist as a nation is suspect, then, by the same arguments, so is ours, buddy, so is ours. The only difference being in the time periods that have elapsed since the creation of each state.

There is simply no requirement in this part of my discussion that requires any 'Jewish' national identity in order for Israel to exist.

No more so than there is a requirement for a 'Christian' national identity in order for the United States to exist.

Any atheist, agnostic, Jew, Christian, Moslem, or whatever, should agree to the foregoing without any reference whatsoever to either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament.

[b]2. Does a 'Jewish' Israel have any continued significance in God's Plans, from a Christian perspective.[/b]

I firmly believe that it does.

You believe, on the other hand, from what I have gathered, in the so-called 'replacement theology' in which the Church of Christ has, for all intents and purposes, replaced the Jews as God's people, and that [u]any[/u] promises that the Lord had previously given to the Jews, were now promised to the Church.

In other words, the promises were not 'from everlasting', but conditioned on the Jews continued obedience to God's word.

Yet, we are told that [b]nowhere[/b] in the New Testament. [b]Nowhere![/b]

Isn't that a pretty great leap to make without one commandment to make such a leap?

And what amazes this old Church of Christ boy even more is that, although the promises of God to the Jews were somehow conditioned on their faith in keeping God's commandments, the promise of salvation for the Christian is not!

[b]'Once saved, always saved'[/b] is the new motto for some claiming to be in His Church.

Yet, the [b]Jews[/b] cannot simply say [b]'Once His People, always His people'[/b] and get away with it in the beliefs of those very same folks, eh?

Jesus said this concerning the Jews and His Holy City of Jerusalem:

[red][b]And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and [u]Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled[/u].[/b][/red] Luke 21:24

When was [u]that[/u], [b]garandman[/b]? When was the 'times of the Gentiles' fulfilled?

I believe that there is an actual date on which this prophecy was fulfilled. [b]June 7, 1967[/b], the date that the Israeli Army overran the last Jordanian defenders in Jerusalem and secured the city.

I doubt that any person in his right mind would have 'essentially hijacked' the Jewish religion in order to get a square foot of the land formerly known as the British Mandate of Palestine!

When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was deserted. By the beginning of the 20th century, that all began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland and began preparing the land for productive use.

All matters in Heaven and Earth are settled by wars, [b]garandman[/b], even the very final conflict between Good and Evil! The only good news is that we know, beforehand, who wins!

No it doesn't! Show me the verse in the Bible where the Lord requires a 'national identity' or anything of the kind, in order for His promises to be fulfilled!

No, actually [b]garandman[/b], you said just the opposite in fact. You said precisely this:

Just what does 'Jewish in nationality' mean?

Eric The(Let'sSeeYourScriptureNow)Hun[>]:)]

AMEN!


Othodox?!?!?  Hardly!  You said you were Church of Christ, a Fundamentalist.  That's a far cry from Orthodox.  I'm closer to being Orthodox than you are.

edited:
oh, wait.  You mean [b]o[/b]rthodox, not [b]O[/b]rthodox.  nevermind.