Stoning adulterers may once again be reinstated in Afghanistan.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
Since Jesus preached love above all else, I assume it would be 'love based'.

Since the Bible says he will "rule with an iron rod", I think not- doesn't sound very loving.

babloyi
Since the Bible says he will "rule with an iron rod", I think not- doesn't sound very loving.

Revelation 2:27 ""that one will rule with an iron scepter and dash them to pieces like pottery" - just as I received authority from my Father.

Revelation ... rejected by early Christians for the first 500 years. Many of the church fathers rejected it. No one knows if it's prophecy or just the rantings of a pious old man with dementia. Therefore, Revelation isn't a source to go to in order to find out Who Jesus really is. It's unreliable. May or may not be accurate.

reply to post by FlyersFan


*Babloyi shrugs*
Half the bible was written by a man who never met Jesus, except in a vision he had in the blaring sun on the road to Damascus (and that is just the least sinister interpretation). For the first 300 years of Christianity, it wasn't even a settled debate on whether Jesus was a separate, subordinate entity from God.

(I was actually referring to Rev 19, not Rev 2, though, which while gives credence to some vile ideas of dominionism, doesn't involve Jesus DIRECTLY iron rodding).

Anyhow, Justin Martyr, one of the first to make an accepted "canon" for the Bible (Marcion was before that, and you might consider his canon more acceptable, considering he hated the OT and only accepted the Pauline epistles and Luke), accepted Revelations (and credited it to John) as early as 160AD. Irenaeus accepted it (although he didn't put it in his "canon", which only included the 4 gospels). Theophilus accepted it (both before 200AD). Titus Flavius Clemens, Origen, Methodius, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria accepted it soon after that. Eusebius recognised it in 330. Epiphanius accepted it around 375. The Council of Carthage accepted it around 394AD...and so on and on and on.
It may have been one of the last books to enter the "official canon" as we know it today, but so what? Hebrews and 2 and 3 John were debated just as well. The IDEA of an official canon came pretty late anyway, and isn't an argument against the book.

No one know if any of the Bible is prophecy or just the rantings of old men. I'm just saying that according to traditional christianity, as believed by the vast majority of Christians worldwide, Jesus's second coming is going to involve a lot less "love" and a lot more destruction and wrath.

reply to post by babloyi

No one know if any of the Bible is prophecy or just the rantings of old men.

Good morning, babs!

Yes, and no one knows if any of the Koran is "God's-words-via-Gabriel" or just the rantings of a violent, deluded, ostracized Arab orphan. This is the problem with "revealed" religion of any kind.

I don't mean to offend; you seem an okay sort. But really....talk about glass houses....

There is no proof the Koran is legitimate, just as there is no proof the OT/NT or ANY ancient, edited book is legitimate.

It's my agnostic opinion that they are all equally "illegitimate", and that "revealed" dogma/doctrine is ridiculous.

reply to post by wildtimes


*Babloyi shrugs again*

Hello to you too, wild. I don't quite see this as a case of people in glass houses...

I make no argument about the authenticity of the Quran here, or to FlyersFan elsewhere, except in where FlyersFan has rejected the Quran on hearsayed historicity, while denying that the exact same argument could be used on the Bible. In this specific case, it is not what I'm doing.

I accept the entire Quran as is, and I accept the proofs it provides for its validity. I recognise that others may not share my opinions. I'm not talking about that here, though. My point is, I don't dismiss one chapter or accept another, or disagree with a specific passage but feel okay with the rest.

I was simply putting forward my opinion on how accepting one part of the Bible but rejecting another because "it may have been the ranting of an old man" doesn't make logical sense to me.
It is all equally valid (or invalid), on faith alone. As you say, the Bible simply cannot be proved true on the basis of historicity. But If one slowly begins chipping away on this scripture or that epistle or passage, using textual historicity as evidence when in actuality it is the theological contents that are disagreed with, one might as well, as you say, toss out the entire Bible and revelation, and go with "This is how I feel God would be". It would be much more theologically freeing.

reply to post by babloyi

But If one slowly begins chipping away on this scripture or that epistle or passage, using textual historicity as evidence when in actuality it is the theological contents that are disagreed with, one might as well, as you say, toss out the entire Bible and revelation, and go with "This is how I feel God would be". It would be much more theologically freeing.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

But, just want to make certain you understand I'm not talking about "the book of Revelation", I'm talking about ALL so-called "revealed" religions (via prophets who were, in fact, human).

There's just too much fraud, too much deceit and clever double-speak in ALL of them to take them seriously.

Just my peeve, I guess....but, I don't trust ANY human being's claim that "God told me to say this" or "God wrote it, I didn't". It's just too easy. It boils down to 'charisma', and heaven knows we have enough LIVING SPECIMENS who do this that are KNOWN FRAUDS.

Why should we not doubt these "tomes" of "wisdom" from centuries/millennia ago?
Clearly, they ALL had agendae.

FlyersFan

nenothtu
So your god has no laws?
It must be really easy to be you!

Snarky.

Yeah. I've said repeatedly that I'm not a very nice guy. Bummer.

That's not what I said. Strawman.

It IS what you've said, as far as I've been able to suss out from your comments. You reject the Levitical Law, saying it is not from God, and then, in the post I specifically commented on, you reject the Ten Commandments as well, as not from God. Nowhere that I have been able to find have you admitted to God having ANY laws for us to follow. Ergo, your god has no laws, so it must be really easy to be you.

The question was ... what laws will Jesus impose when He returns?
My answer ... I know that he won't impose stoning people to death (the topic of the thread).

From what you've posted, it seems you believe that Jesus will "impose" whatever laws you happen to be happy with that day, from whatever book you care to choose as valid that day. Must be nice to be you. Answering what laws you believe Jesus WON'T "impose" is NOT answering what laws you believe he WILL impose.

Because if He approved of it, he would have stoned the woman caught in adultery.

You seem to be confusing the law with the punishment for breaking the Law. They are not the same, as I have pointed out. If your god approves of adultery, then more power to you. Have a ball with it.

Since Jesus preached love above all else, I assume it would be 'love based'.

Some "tough love" there in that little incident with the money changers, and more "tough love" I suppose in advising his followers to sell their coats to buy swords. I guess it DOES make the world a lot simpler when one can reduce their god to a unidimensional being, and not have to account for the little stuff. Just ignore the bits you don't like, call them "spurious inventions", and they'll just go away, eh?

In all seriousness, I don't think this particular conversation can go on between you and I, because your theology is all over the map as suits you at the moment. Your god is too changeable, at your whim. As an example, I'm given to believe that you reject the historical existence of Moses in one place, yet use the historical existence of Moses in another place simply to make a point which otherwise could not stand. How in the devil is anyone supposed to argue with twisted logic like that?

Therefore, have a nice day!

FlyersFan

nenothtu
Thanks for the how-to lesson, but I'm really not planning on stoning anyone in the near future. If however, I ever DO plan to stone someone, I'll be sure and refer back to your instruction manual.

This thread is about stoning people to death. It is keeping to the topic of the thread to post information showing exactly what stoning a person to death entails. It shows exactly what OpinonatedB, Logical, and Skorpion are saying is 'the law of God' . It is appropriate to the thread.

I'm not sure why you are being snarky about having the information posted.

Well, I suppose if posting it once is great, then posting it TWICE must be greater! Repeating oneself is a sign of dementia I'm told. Still, if you want to post it yet again, it can only get betterer and betterer, right? I mean, I might forget the specifics of it and NEED that manual to refer back to in case I ever want to chuck rocks at someone who pisses me off, so repeatedly posting the same thing IS a public service, I suppose, so that we get it right if we ever decide to use it.

As I understand it, the topic of the thread was WHY all 3 Abrahamic religions don't follow that law since they all have it in their books, not just how evil IS Islam, and not a request for a manual on how to stone folks in the Iranian way... especially when the OP specifically refers to stonings in AFGHANISTAN rather than stonings under Iranian Law. I can tell you that in Afghanistan there are far worse punishments meted out, but I don't feel the need to go into specifics and give myself nightmares again. I'll just say that I'd rather have them chuck rocks at me rather than some of the other barbaric ways they have to off folks. I REALLY don't feel the need to, for example, post a manual on how to impale a live person on a stake properly so that it goes right. I'll let you figure that out on your own.

While we're on the subject of repeating one's self, why do you feel a need to continually bring Mary into the discussion as if she were somehow relevant to it? What has she ever done to you to need dragging through the mud?

OR is Mary one of your gods too, such that her word carries some weight in a discussion on GOD'S laws?

nenothtu
From what you've posted, it seems you believe that Jesus will "impose" whatever laws you happen to be happy with that day, from whatever book you care to choose as valid that day.

Your attempt to insult is pretty pathetic and not even close to being accurate. I never even came close to saying any such thing. Another strawman from you.

Answering what laws you believe Jesus WON'T "impose" is NOT answering what laws you believe he WILL impose.

I said very clearly that I have no ideas what he would impose, but that I do know what he WON'T .. because of His actions in sparing the woman found to be in adultery. Therefore, he won't be imposing death by stoning, or else he would have done it that day when the situation called for it.

You seem to be confusing the law with the punishment for breaking the Law.

No. It's the Muslims who are saying that they go together. I"m not.

nenothtu
Well, I suppose if posting it once is great, then posting it TWICE must be greater! Repeating oneself is a sign of dementia I'm told. ecide to use it.

blah blah blah .... Grow up. My posting abilities are just fine. The person those were directed to didn't respond the first time so I reminded him of the information.

As I understand it, the topic of the thread was WHY all 3 Abrahamic religions don't follow that law since they all have it in their books,

Nope. The topic of the thread was that stoning a person to death is being legalized in Afghanistan so it follows 'Islamic rule'.

I REALLY don't feel the need to, for example, post a manual on how to impale a live person on a stake properly so that it goes right. I'll let you figure that out on your own.

Goodie for you. that's your problem. This is a thread about stoning a person to death and the chart shows exactly what stoning a person to death entails. Deal with it.

While we're on the subject of repeating one's self, why do you feel a need to continually bring Mary into the discussion as if she were somehow relevant to it?

Mary is highly respected in Islam (and Christianity) as a person who follows God's law. The discussion was about the fact that Jesus, who is believed to be a prophet in Islam (and God Incarnate to Christians), didn't stone someone to death and neither did His mother. If they believed the law was from God, then they would have picked up the rocks and bashed in the womans head. Since they didn't, then it obviously isn't God's law.

FlyersFan
reply to post by nenothtu

 

WarminIndy presented a peaceful thing that people could do for others ... pray for them.
It is a MUCH better thing to call people to do than to go stone others because they don't
believe the same as you do.

Well, you keep on praying then, but pass ME the ammo please if someone is about to start chucking rocks at us! I mean, isn't it a Christian thing to say that "God helps those who help themselves"? I'll count on your prayers to influence God to guide my hand - fair enough?

If you wish to think that Christianity is barbaric, that's your
choice. However, Christians TODAY aren't stoning people to death over religion ... Muslims are.

Puh-leeze! Christians today are STILL killing off people in some of the most inventive ways imaginable! I don't want to hear about how "those aren't REAL Christians", either, since you reject the argument that "those aren't REAL Muslims!" from the other side. Fair is fair, and what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

And that's the topic of this thread .... it's 2013 and people are still stoning each other to death.

Aye, it is and they are. It's 2013, almost 2014, and Christians are STILL burning witches in Africa, too! I reckon it's ok to ignore that, though, since you seem to think that the topic of the thread is really just about bashing the other guy's religion, and whatever your own does is fine by you, of no relevance. Here's a crazy notion that I picked up out of some old dusty book somewhere. Can't recall just who said it or who's law it involves, but how about first pulling the beam out of YOUR OWN eye before trying to flick the speck of sawdust out of someone else's? Getting rid of that beam makes it a lot easier to see the speck clearly, you know? It's only logical, so I guess we can just chuck THAT law out, too. Who needs logic in a religious discussion?

If you wish to start a thread about how barbaric you think Christians are because they
commemorate Jesus murder from 2000 years ago ... go right ahead. But this thread is
about stoning adulterers to death in the here and now. If you find information about
Christians or Buddhists (etc) stoning adulterers to death, now in 2013, we'd be interested in seeing it.

oh no - it's NOT just about a "celebration" that makes it barbaric, it's HOW they celebrate it! Chrisitians of some varieties actually believe they are eating the actual meat and drinking the actual blood of that crucified guy! Not a very nice thing to do to a corpse, cannibalizing it, but you know, those wacky Christians are ALWAYS entertaining, if nothing else! A Muslim might beat me to death with a rock, but I doubt he'd eat me afterwards!

"Do as I say, not as I do" is evidently the whole of the NEW law for modern Christians.

Still, I guess you're right - that's probably a topic for another thread.I can't be assed to start it, though, so it'll doubtlessly go ignored.

nenothtu
since you seem to think that the topic of the thread is really just about bashing the other guy's religion, and whatever your own does is fine by you, of no relevance.

Knock it off. The topic of this thread is stoning being made legal in Afghanistan to meet Islamic law. That's what we are supposed to be discussing. YES we can bash the hell out of stoning a person to death for Adultery. You don't like us saying it's barbaric? That's too damn bad. Deal with it. Oh .. and I don't have 'a religion' that fits into a box ... and it's not the topic of this thread anyways.

Here's a crazy notion that I picked up out of some old dusty book somewhere. Can't recall just who said it or who's law it involves, but how about first pulling the beam out of YOUR OWN eye before trying to flick the speck of sawdust out of someone else's?

Here's a crazy notion .. how about you stay on the topic of this thread - which is 'stoning made legal in Afghanistan so it meets Islamic law' .... and then start another thread about how bad Christians are. That way you can get on topic and stop whining and spewing on off topic subjects.

reply to post by wildtimes


Hiya Wild One!

As nearly as I can tell, ALL religions are "revealed" religions. If one is to worship something higher than the self, would that "something" not have to reveal itself? Else how would one know to even worship it? That goes for Wicca, "NeoWicca", Druidism, "NeoDruidism", and all of the "pagan" religions as well as every other religion on Earth.

My best guess is that if it was not "revealed" to you, then it wasn't for you, and therefore not to be worried about in the pursuit of your own dieties.

When we worry over much about the Other Guy's gods, our own go unattended to.

FlyersFan

Your attempt to insult is pretty pathetic and not even close to being accurate. I never even came close to saying any such thing. Another strawman from you.

Screaming "STRAWMAN!" does not make it one. It was not an insult, it was an observation on the mutability of your "religion". If you consider it an "insult", then perhaps a bit of introspection on your part is in order.

I said very clearly that I have no ideas what he would impose, but that I do know what he WON'T .. because of His actions in sparing the woman found to be in adultery. Therefore, he won't be imposing death by stoning, or else he would have done it that day when the situation called for it.

Yes, you did say that. Now you've said it again, and answering what he WON'T do is STILL not the answer to what you believe he WILL do. Funny how YOU are the one who asked the question in the post I referred to, yet are entirely incapable, by your own admission, of answering it.

No. It's the Muslims who are saying that they go together. I"m not.

You are correct again. You are NOT saying that, since you are not even sure if God HAS any laws at the moment, much less if there are punishments attached.

blah blah blah .... Grow up. My posting abilities are just fine. The person those were directed to didn't respond the first time so I reminded him of the information.

well, that person still hasn't responded, so why not post it again? Some folks probably can't get enough of the vicarious pleasures of Iranians chucking rocks at other Iranians!

Nope. The topic of the thread was that stoning a person to death is being legalized in Afghanistan so it follows 'Islamic rule'.

Ah. Didn't read the OP then, I guess. Here, let me help you out a bit:

Opening Post

...

But I actually wanted to have a discussion, specifically about the religious aspect since this is a religious issue.

Looking at these religious texts, the Bible (including the OT) and the Koran, we find that there are a bunch of crimes punishable by death, including adultery. For now, we'll put aside the concept of Grace and focus on "the Law" (predominantly in the OT).

My question is, if both these books call for the death penalty for, in this case, adultery, why is it that the Moslems are the only ones who actually follow or want to follow these "laws"?

...

The topic is right there in black and white - or whatever your screen colors are.

Goodie for you. that's your problem. This is a thread about stoning a person to death and the chart shows exactly what stoning a person to death entails. Deal with it.

In IRAN. The chart shows how it's done IN IRAN. I could have sworn Afghanistan was the country in question in the thread title, but let me check again. It may be that you are right, and IRAN is the country in question. If so, I extend my sincerest apologies.

Mary is highly respected in Islam (and Christianity) as a person who follows God's law. The discussion was about the fact that Jesus, who is believed to be a prophet in Islam (and God Incarnate to Christians), didn't stone someone to death and neither did His mother. If they believed the law was from God, then they would have picked up the rocks and bashed in the womans head. Since they didn't, then it obviously isn't God's law.

Mary is highly respected for giving birth to Jesus, and for later watching him die - I've not read much in the Bible that would give her pre-eminence over other folks in observance of God's law. Can you demonstrate that Mary was even there at the time? Can you demonstrate that she would not have been stoned herself for usurping male authority by picking up a rock? Can you demonstrate that, as a woman, she had authority under the law to execute the law? Was she somehow transformed into a rabbi?

Can you demonstrate that your goddess has any bearing on the discussion at all?

Flyer'sFan, I still consider you a friend, which is what makes this discussion so much fun! Teach me something and make it a great day!

FlyersFan

Knock it off.

No, but thanks for asking. I call 'em like I see 'em, and if you can't see the thrust of your arguments, then I can't help you, nor is that MY problem. You can veer off topic if you like, and go Islam-bashing rants against the explicit statement of the purpose of the OP (aka "the topic of the thread") but if YOU can, then so can the rest of us when we call you on it. As a matter of fact, we HAVE to, in order to cal you on it.

The topic of this thread is stoning being made legal in Afghanistan to meet Islamic law.

That is the topic of the thread TITLE, indeed, but actually reading the OP sets the parmeters for the discussion. I still can't find Iran mentioned in it.

That's what we are supposed to be discussing. YES we can bash the hell out of stoning a person to death for Adultery. You don't like us saying it's barbaric? That's too damn bad. Deal with it.

I've said myself that it's barbaric, because it IS. That's not a problem for me. Stereotyping people and tarring an entire religion with a small brush like that, however, IS a problem for me. I think turnabout is fair play in such situations. otherwise, it's just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Daddy loves you better than the other kids, eh?

Oh .. and I don't have 'a religion' that fits into a box ... and it's not the topic of this thread anyways.

That is apparent. It appears that you don't have a religion that is even the same from one day to the next, so how is it that you can suddenly take the moral high ground to specify what is and isn't right in someone else's religion? Should you not be able to expound clearly on your own first?

Here's a crazy notion .. how about you stay on the topic of this thread - which is 'stoning made legal in Afghanistan so it meets Islamic law' .... and then start another thread about how bad Christians are. That way you can get on topic and stop whining and spewing on off topic subjects.

I'm just a man - we whine. Lots. I know that's true, because I've talked to girls before, and they all say the same thing.

As far as staying on topic goes, I will if YOU will. Even in your limited definition which goes entirely off the thread title and not the OP which I quoted, you are veering far afield into thoroughly off topic areas, such as Iran. I'm sitting right next to a Muslim who says it's wrong for Afghanistan to stone people, and you haven't heard it at all.

Because you don't want to. That would not fit into your worldview of Evil Islam. It would not allow you to keep bashing those Evil, Possessed Muzzies.

reply to post by nenothtu

My best guess is that if it was not "revealed" to you, then it wasn't for you, and therefore not to be worried about in the pursuit of your own dieties.

When we worry over much about the Other Guy's gods, our own go unattended to.

BRILLIANT, neno.
Yep. If it wasn't revealed to you, it doesn't apply.

I firmly believe we are ALL on our own path....

reply to post by wildtimes


That's exactly what I believe - we are all on our own path. "God", "The Deity", whatever you want to call it relates to each in terms that person can understand and comprehend - else there is no point in relating at all, and no one would need or be capable of any relationship to the Divine at all.

Now, I also firmly believe that it is not for me to try to knock someone else off of THEIR path - unless they are trying to dig a pit in mine, or otherwise trying to thwart me. I guess it goes without saying that if they are trying to kill me, then either their path or mine is going to end abruptly, but there are lesser degrees of infraction that must be called on the carpet, the answers to which fall short of violent defense.

In trying to push someone else off their path, my feet necessarily must leave mine. I hinder myself when that happens, because then I have to backtrack and find my way back to my own.

I don't do that lightly.

The same is true of others. It is up to them, however, to realize that. I can point it out, but THEY must internalize it for themselves... or else just keep continually backtracking to find their own way after leaving their path for no better reason than to push the Other Guy of of his.

nenothtu
it was an observation on the mutability of your "religion".

I don't have a religion. I have beliefs that change as I learn more. (which is a healthy thing to do)
And again .. I"m not the topic.

If you consider it an "insult", then perhaps a bit of introspection on your part is in order.

Over this discussion? No need.

and answering what he WON'T do is STILL not the answer to what you believe he WILL do.

Asked and answered. I said I have no idea what he will do. But keeping with the topic of this thread, I said clearly what I know he won't be doing - stoning. He already showed that. If he believed in stoning, he would have done so. But he refused to and he told others not to. Jesus is a 'prophet' to the muslims. According to them, they should be listening to what he teaches. He taught ... no stoning.

In IRAN. The chart shows how it's done IN IRAN.

It's the same procedure. The only chart that I could find had the Iran title on it.
But they both follow the same Islamic rules for stoning.

Mary is highly respected ...

In Islam Mary is highly respected for being the mother of the 'prophet' Jesus and for being the best example of how a woman is supposed to behave. Her home in Turkey is a place of pilgrimage for Muslims. Many Muslims also visit Fatima (a Catholic site). The fact that she didn't bash a womans head in with a rock is an example to Muslims not to do it. The fact that her son, a 'prophet' refused to bash a womans head in with a rock, is an example to muslims not to do it.

Can you demonstrate that your goddess has any bearing on the discussion at all?

Mary isn't a Goddess to me or anyone else that I know. So don't call her 'my goddess'.
And it's not 'dragging her through the mud' to point out how revered she is, and how
she behaved in a civilized manner by not stoning people to death.

Flyer'sFan, I still consider you a friend, which is what makes this discussion so much fun!

Okay. Glad to hear it.

Mary's House in Turkey
Mary's Last Home

Christians may find it incongruous to see Muslims at this site, but many Muslims also consider Mary to be an important religious figure. In Turkish Muslim custom, small pieces of white rags are tied to trees along the paths leading to and from the house, representing prayers to be answered.

For further reading
Mary in Islam

Mary (مريم Marīam in Arabic), the mother of Jesus (Isa), is considered one of the most righteous women in the Islamic tradition. She is mentioned more in the Quran[1] than in the entire New Testament and is also the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran.[2] According to the Quran, Isa was born miraculously by the will of God without a father. His mother is regarded as a chaste and virtuous woman and is said to have been a virgin. The Quran states clearly that Isa was the result of a virgin birth, but that neither Mary nor her son were divine. In the Quran, no other woman is given more attention than Mary and the Quran states that Mary was chosen above all women:

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations. —Quran, sura 3 (Al Imran), ayah 42[3]

The nineteenth chapter of the Quran is named after her and is, to some extent, about her life. Of the Quran's 114 suras, she is among only eight people who have a chapter named after them. Mary is specifically mentioned in the Quran, alongside Asiya, as an exemplar for all righteous women.[4] Mary plays an important role in Islamic culture and religious tradition, and verses from the Quran relating to Mary are frequently inscribed on the mihrab of various mosques, including in the Hagia Sophia.[5]

There is nothing said that it's only men who do the stoning. It's just 'crowd' or 'mob'. MOST of the people who are murdered are women. But of those picking up the rocks ... it's not said that I can find. Reenactment videos shown previously show men and women both in the crowd.
Frequently Asked Questions About Stoning

nenothtu
I also firmly believe that it is not for me to try to knock someone else off of THEIR path - unless they are trying to dig a pit in mine, or otherwise trying to thwart me.

I usually go along with that.

There are hundreds of paths up the mountain he only person wasting time is the one who runs around the mountain telling everyone that his or her path is wrong. - Hindu Proverb.

However, I have no problem stating that murder by stoning is uncivilized.

reply to post by wildtimes

wildtimes
But, just want to make certain you understand I'm not talking about "the book of Revelation", I'm talking about ALL so-called "revealed" religions (via prophets who were, in fact, human).

I understood perfectly what you meant. But what should they be, if not human? Angels? Gods?

wildtimes
Why should we not doubt these "tomes" of "wisdom" from centuries/millennia ago?
Clearly, they ALL had agendae.

Out of curiousity, what "agendae" do you think the author of the Quran (whoever it may be) had? What goal do you think that person hoped to achieve?


reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
It's the same procedure. The only chart that I could find had the Iran title on it.
But they both follow the same Islamic rules for stoning.

Odd you mention that, considering that the Iranian judiciary hasn't used the sentence of death by stoning for any case since at least 2002 (when a moratorium was placed on stoning as a punishment), and the last person to be executed by them via that method was a man convicted of murder (before 2002) who was executed in 2009. Before that, another man (for adultery) in 2005. I cannot find the last woman to be executed by stoning by the Iranian judiciary. Still, it is funny to see you quoting an Amnesty International document- I don't see anywhere that it is the same procedure.

FlyersFan
The fact that her son, a 'prophet' refused to bash a womans head in with a rock, is an example to muslims not to do it.

The passage of Jesus with the adulteress is universally accepted to be a later (5th century) insertion into John. It wasn't there before. Hilariously enough, I actually learnt this from the Conservapedia (yes, that is a real thing ) Bible project, where they specifically mentioned excluding this because

Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

Is John included in your personal canon of acceptable Biblical scripture, FlyersFan?

FlyersFan

I don't have a religion. I have beliefs that change as I learn more. (which is a healthy thing to do)
And again .. I"m not the topic.

Maybe you don't have one today, but you did yesterday, and you may again tomorrow. You have argued that you are a Christian, which means you have had a religion. It's probably not convenient to have one today, because it would hinder your arguments in this thread, but I have confidence that you may again claim Christianity in the future, when it suits. I once saw a chameleon that was less changeable. Maybe the leopard CAN change his spots!

Over this discussion? No need.

Of course not. Why question your own religion when you are busy setting the rest of the world straight? I apologize. I don't know what I was thinking when I mentioned that whole beam and speck thing. Let's not let any religion enter a religious discussion!

Asked and answered. I said I have no idea what he will do.

My bad. I apologize. I keep forgetting that "I dunno" is an answer to the unanswerable. it's a rather easy out to pose a question to try tripping other folks up but becomes amusing when you yourself stumble over it.

But keeping with the topic of this thread, I said clearly what I know he won't be doing - stoning. He already showed that. If he believed in stoning, he would have done so. But he refused to and he told others not to.

No, he did not tell others not to. He told them to have at it when they could find a sinless man to toss the first stone. That is a far cry from saying "don't do it".

Jesus is a 'prophet' to the muslims. According to them, they should be listening to what he teaches. He taught ... no stoning.

Again, no. He taught to keep you own house clean before cleaning other folks' houses. We have no business imposing punishments on others for things which we ourselves are guilty of. THAT was the teaching, not "don't do it". He seemed to be a fairly articulate man. Had he meant don't do it, he could have said so.

In IRAN. The chart shows how it's done IN IRAN.

It's the same procedure. The only chart that I could find had the Iran title on it.
But they both follow the same Islamic rules for stoning.

No, they don't. Iran is Shi'a, and a putative Islamic Republic. Afghanistan is neither. To know the Afghan procedure, you will have to find and read the Afghan laws in the matter. I can tell you that culturally, that is NOT how they do it in Afghanistan, but I can't speak to their laws, since I have not read them. Sunni and Shi'a take their laws from different books, and in each area those laws are influenced by local cultural factors. Stoning is not in the Qur'an. They take their laws in such matters from hadith, and Sunni and Shi'a recognize different hadith. their laws are different.

In Islam Mary is highly respected for being the mother of the 'prophet' Jesus and for being the best example of how a woman is supposed to behave. Her home in Turkey is a place of pilgrimage for Muslims. Many Muslims also visit Fatima (a Catholic site).

I have never heard of a Muslim taking pilgrimage to Fatima to worship Mary, nor has any Muslim I know ever heard of it. Perhaps your are getting Mary of Fatima confused with Fatima the daughter of Mohammed. Islamically, both Mary and Fatima hold the same status as women to emulate. Muslims take pilgrimage to Fatima's suspected grave site, but I've never heard of one taking pilgrimage to the Catholic Fatima.

The fact that she didn't bash a womans head in with a rock is an example to Muslims not to do it.

I didn't either, but then I wasn't there.

And neither was Mary.

The Catholic fascination with injecting Mary into every little conversation never ceases to amuse me.

In any case, Mary would not have done it any how. Women did not have authority to execute legal judgements. As a virtuous woman, Mary would have refrained in any event.

Can you demonstrate that your goddess has any bearing on the discussion at all?

Mary isn't a Goddess to me or anyone else that I know. So don't call her 'my goddess'.

Then why do you worship her? I.E. The reverence of Fatima and other alleged Marian apparitions. Mary was mortal. She died. She doesn't come back from heaven at random for brunch, nor is she to be worshipped at alleged apparitions of her spook. Even Jesus himself doesn't jump around the Earth at random, so why it is folks believe Mary does? That would give her more power than Jesus himself, would make her more of a god(dess) than even the quaint Christian conception of Jesus as a god!

And it's not 'dragging her through the mud' to point out how revered she is, and how
she behaved in a civilized manner by not stoning people to death.

It's one thing to "point something out", and quite another to support that contention. Unless you have a concise and thoroughly detailed account of Mary's life, you can't say for certain what she did and did not do during it. We can say that, as a virtuous woman, she is likely not to have involved herself in the affairs of legal punishments administered by men, but that is the extent of it, and only a supposition. We cannot say for certain that she did not, and did not flout the cultural mores of the times. As a matter of fact, refusing to participate in a required stoning in that civilzation would have itself been quite uncivilized, by definition. It would have run counter to the civilization she found herself in if she were required to and refused to do so. She is unlikely to have been revered as a virtuous woman by a civilzation that she ran counter to at every toss of the coin. As confirmation, just look att how Jesus himself was treated by that civilization when he ran counter to it.

Jesus was eminently "uncivilized". That's why he's my hero!

Mary's House in Turkey
Mary's Last Home

Christians may find it incongruous to see Muslims at this site, but many Muslims also consider Mary to be an important religious figure. In Turkish Muslim custom, small pieces of white rags are tied to trees along the paths leading to and from the house, representing prayers to be answered.

Turkish Muslims participate in witchcraft too? See - now THERE is something I never knew! Congrats! You've educated me today! I know Syrian Muslims, Palestinian Muslims, Afghan Muslims, Lebanese Muslims, and a few other sorts with whom religious discussion has occasionally arisen. I knew a couple of Turks, but never discussed religion with them. All I can tell you about them is that they were thorough badasses, but that's about it, so now I know more about them than I knew this morning! No wonder thy were so quick to pop a knife in a man, or cut his throat - probably didn't want to run the risk of having a Christian burn 'em at the stake for witchcraft!

For further reading
Mary in Islam

Mary (مريم Marīam in Arabic), the mother of Jesus (Isa), is considered one of the most righteous women in the Islamic tradition. She is mentioned more in the Quran[1] than in the entire New Testament and is also the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran.[2] According to the Quran, Isa was born miraculously by the will of God without a father. His mother is regarded as a chaste and virtuous woman and is said to have been a virgin. The Quran states clearly that Isa was the result of a virgin birth, but that neither Mary nor her son were divine. In the Quran, no other woman is given more attention than Mary and the Quran states that Mary was chosen above all women:

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations. —Quran, sura 3 (Al Imran), ayah 42[3]

The nineteenth chapter of the Quran is named after her and is, to some extent, about her life. Of the Quran's 114 suras, she is among only eight people who have a chapter named after them. Mary is specifically mentioned in the Quran, alongside Asiya, as an exemplar for all righteous women.[4] Mary plays an important role in Islamic culture and religious tradition, and verses from the Quran relating to Mary are frequently inscribed on the mihrab of various mosques, including in the Hagia Sophia.[5]

The sources contradict themselves. Either Mary was NOT the only woman mentioned in the Qur'an, OR Aisha was not mentioned, OR Aisha was not a female. I am informed by Muslims that Aisha was mentioned in the Qur'an as an example of what NOT to do, and as an example of the patience and forbearance of Mohammad. They tell me she was strong willed and disobedient, a spoiled brat, told lies, and went so far as to get Mohammed in trouble by telling lies.When she was once instructed to stay in her house, she responded by leaving and starting a war. What a charmer, what a shining "exemplar for all righteous women"!

I'm not sure I can trust your sources, being that they contradict not only themselves, but the adherents of the religion.

There is nothing said that it's only men who do the stoning. It's just 'crowd' or 'mob'. MOST of the people who are murdered are women. But of those picking up the rocks ... it's not said that I can find. Reenactment videos shown previously show men and women both in the crowd.
Frequently Asked Questions About Stoning

In Afghanistan, women are as quick to chuck a rock at you as men are. I don't know about Iran. In the biblical Levant, women were relegated to second class status, and I've never heard of one participating in the masculine pastime of beating people to death with stones (which is not to say unequivocally that they didn't), of administering judicial punishments in a male dominated judiciary. This is the point I'm trying to get across - there IS no standard for stoning other than to kill folks with rocks. The details are all determined culturally, and Afghanistan has a different culture, a different dominant religion, than Iran does.

Stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an at all (I guess the goat ate that page) - it's a cultural phenomena masquerading as a religious one, unlike the stonings in the Bible, which were religious mandates.It's very convenient to say "my god told me to do it!", but then finding where God said to becomes problematic.