Video Surfaces Showing Kurdish Girl Stoned to Death for Relationship With Iraqi Sunni Boy

Thanks from some comments on the glass house matter.

You said — “Though the specifics of many punishments for “sins” commanded in the old testament, are not considered biblical commands, with that specificity, to “Christians”, many of the “sins” that those old testament punishments referred to did continue to carry equal weight of “sinfulness” to “Christians” and Jews, and many punishments relative to those sins, in the early centuries of Christianity and up through the late Medieval age would be considered “inhumane” or “brutal” in the context of most “western” Jewish and Christian societies today.”

—

Okay, what you say is true. But, the question is “Why is it true?” Is it merely that as society moved along (in its progession through history) that it drifted further away from God’s absolute commands, or that society is simply rejecting what God has said? Is that it?

If that’s it, and the reason why we’re not taking them seriously today is simply that we reject God’s original commands and/or that we’re drifting away from what God originally commanded for us — then we’ve got a problem.

The problem is that we’re *not being faithful* to God’s original commands — in that case.

HOWEVER, that’s not what I was saying in response to this issue. And I see I’m “getting it” from “both sides” (i.e., the side that wants to say that this is a God I want nothing to do with, and the side that says we’re not doing as God told us to do).

What I’m saying is that this has to be seen in light of (1) whom the commands were meant for, and (2) that these conditions that they were meant for, no longer exist today (i.e., in terms of “national Israel and the “dispensation” that we’re in).

In saying that, again, I get it from both sides. The one side saying that God doesn’t change and we have to maintain his standards, while the other side says that — if you’re not accepting this God of the Old Testament and are dong something different now, then He must have been a figment of your imagination (back then).

But, no..., God is exactly who He is, He hasn’t changed; He remains the same; He doesn’t change the standards. This is definitely understood — within the context — of dispensationalism, from that — that we’re currently in the Age of Grace.

God does uphold all those standards, and He did intend for national Israel to enforce them exactly as He gave them. This was the dispensation (or age) of Law. The Jews *failed* in those duties and responsibility that God gave them, that “test” that He gave them. So, God removed that divinely-granted sovereignty of national Israel from them — and they are *no longer* in a position to act upon or enforce *any* of those commands that He gave to them (in the capactity of “national Israel”, although “individuals” can still practice *certain* aspects of it on their own, but that doesn’t meet the requirements of “national Israel”).

And since these commands were *never* given to the Gentiles and since with the passing of the dispensation of “the law” — we have now entered (at the time of Jesus Christ), the age or dispensation of Grace. National Israel is no longer operative. A new set of conditions and requirements and responsibilities have been laid down upon mankind and it’s *not* those which were laid down to national Israel.

Now, we’re in the Age of Grace in which the Law points to sin (i.e., exposes it and makes it “that much more sinful”) thus pointing the way to salvation through Jesus Christ, which derives from the Grace extended to us from God the Father, through His Son, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

The Law is still the same, the requirements of all of the 613 commandments (given to national Israel) do not apply to us, but the universal law of God does apply in terms of setting up God’s “standard” and pointing out the sin condition that is inherent in all of mankind (as the Apostle Paul so abundantly makes clear).

We are to “proclaim the Gospel” in this “Age of Grace” and we are *not* to take up the laws which were given to national Israel (they are not here now) for the purpose of enforcement.

And it’s true that government authorities are placed here by God for the punishment (and control) of evil-doers — but it must also be recognized that there is *no requirement* that these government authorities take up the commands which were given to national Israel and it’s methods for dealing with sin (i.e., one example being death for cursing parents, or stoning for a violation of the law, in one respect or the other). In fact, we see that government authorities *rarely ever* enforce any of the aspects of the laws of national Israel, only restraining evil to a *bare minimum* — at the best. So, that is a far cry from carrying out the commands as God gave them to national Israel.

In light of the above analysis, then we can see, the “process” by which God is working in the world, and that He works in different time periods (those “dispensations”) in which he gives a “test” to mankind for following through and obeying those commands for that time and for those certain people. And consistently, mankind has failed every single test in *every dispensation* and will continue to do so, until Jesus Christ hands over the Kingdom to God (as we are told in the Bible), having fulfilled everything that has been foretold.

Life here on this earth has been a “test” for mankind, corporately speaking and individually speaking (as each of us goes about our daily lives).

.
.

In regards to Islam and what it’s trying to do, it’s okay to look at it in a historical context and see what is trying to be accomplished. But, this should give it absolutely no validity at all, no matter what historical context into which it is placed.

The reason it should be given absolutely no validity, is that they are not following (or ever started with) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Bible, the One who sent Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, the promised one, first promised from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They are operating from an *anti-God* position — one which fits the *characteristics* of Satan, as he is specifically described in the Bible. Thus, from that description of Satan, we have to conclude that Islam was started as a “demonic act” of Satan, relaying lies and hatred to Mohammed, who then converted them into the “reality” (on this earth) of Islam.

No matter what their history is and no matter what kinds of justifications they may want to bring to the table, they are simply an outgrowth of demonic intrigues, directed towards Mohammed, and accomplished with his enthusiastic help.

.
.

You said — “The larger difference is that Islamic fundamentalists seek to restore a “pure” Islam and a pure culture founded on Islam, which was the culture that destroyed their “Empire” because its brutality and domination was (1)rejected by the west, and (2)that rejection led to the crusades which led to the Renaissance, which led to the “reformation” and the Enlightenment, which steadily moved western culture from its own 7th century rigidities - a process that the Shia Mullahs of Iran, the Wahabi clerics of Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fundamentalists seek to prevent from happening within Islam and within cultures dominated by Islam.”

Well, to state it so antiseptically and in such non-moral terms (”rejected by the west”) — makes it sound as if they said, “No thanks, I’ve looked it over but I don’t think I’ll buy into that. Thanks anyway...”

Nope..., they had to fight for their mere survival, having been attacked by the Muslim hoards, trying to kill and subjugate entire regions of the West. Then they decided to “take the fight to them” instead and that resulted in the Crusades.

It’s the same way today. Once again, Islam is not merely giving an academic discussion and saying, “Well..., what do you think about our wonderful religion...?” Nope, they’re blowing up buildings, ships, shooting down planes, and taking down buildings in New York City. Once again, they’ve decided to take the war to the West and bring it right to our own doorstep. They took the first move and now — we’re responding and we’ve taken the fight over there — just like happened before in history.

And their “religion” is not a religion, actually. That’s where most peple fall short in their analysis of this situation. It’s actually a “religio-fanataical-governmental idealogy” which is called Islam, and which was started by a maniacal and oppressive dictator, listening to the evil lies of Satan, in order to oppress and subjugate the entire region that he lived in — with the purpose of doing the same to the entire world. They are once again acting on that original purpose of Mohammed, carrying out this evil intent with their many evil deeds.

I see that we’re right back to the 613 now — once again. You just can’t get away from those 613 Commandments, can you?

You are the one that can't see that the verses I linked deal DIRECTLY with the 10 commandments, not the 600+ items like shaving you brought up.

Thou shall not murder.. covers most of those I posted.. " "Honor your father and your mother the other" ...

The 10 Commandments are etched in stone, the penalities were somewhat unavailable to fit as you might imagine. But were somewhat very suggested in them...

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments. EX 20:5-6

for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Ex 20:7

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long ......" EX 20:12

When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." Ex 20:18

Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning." Ex 20:20

Then in the next three chapters he further explains a lot of circumstances that might arrive in trespassing of those commandments..

Points can be made that yes, some do relate directly to only their heritage, some directly do relate to how todays courts should rule in similar instances. (ie. abortion as it pertains to murder of innocent life).

Even kidnapping can be included under "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." EX 20:17

Some of these codes have made their way into our justice system.. some not..

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. EX 22:2

Others one can truly say are Jewish fitting only... and were later modded to fit.

"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day." EX 22:29-30

But the wisdom of a strong justice system with tough penalties I will not bother arguing with you. I see it's advantages, you may not. God did.

Some offer great gems to society...

"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit." Ex 23:2

Again this can be tracted back to EX 20.. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Some are directly un-PC in todays terms.. but God sure didn't mind at the time... I guess you were not allowed to claim bankruptcy back then... you paid with servitude when deemed.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. EX 21:20

Manners of death as penalties were probable varied.. but stoning was an option.. most were left blank on how exactly to do the death penalty.

"If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death" EX 21:28..

Gotta go to work, will read your posts if I get a chance tonight.

I said in the last post, as you quoted me — “I see that we’re right back to the 613 now — once again. You just can’t get away from those 613 Commandments, can you?”

Then you responded thusly — “You are the one that can’t see that the verses I linked deal DIRECTLY with the 10 commandments, not the 600+ items like shaving you brought up.”

—

What I directly see are the commandments that you’ve listed, as given to national Israel, are inside of the 613 commandments, and indistinguishable from any of the other, as they are *all* given to Israel. You’ve simply pulled some out and said — “Look here, these are the ones that are relevant to us and the rest of them aren’t.”

Well, I say that they *all* are relevant — to whom — they are given. They were relevant then, they are *all* relevant now, and they will continue to be relevant in the future (all of them). The point is — that the people they were given to, which is national Israel, is not in existence right now, because God removed their sovereignty as a nation under God’s divine ordination for them. God *will* bring back national Israel, once again, and they *will* fulfill their mandate, under God, in the Kingdom Age. But, now we’re in the Age of Grace, not the Kingdom Age.

You see, one of the main principles in determining what the Bible means in all that it says — is to *first* determine *who* it is talking to. Is it talking to the Gentiles? Is it talking to the Jews? Is it talking to the Church? (those are the three main groups and categories). And you don’t take what God *directed* towards the Jews and apply it to the Gentiles. Or you don’t take what He directed towards the Jews and say, “This is for the church.”

This was *specifically* directed towards the Jews, as national Israel and it is *never* directed towards the church or to the Gentiles. That is *specifically why* you don’t find the Christian church cutting their hair in a certain way or stoning people or offering sacrifices or those other things that the “law” specifies. And that’s why you don’t find the Gentiles doing it either.

And the reason why you don’t find the current-day Jews doing it either, is because their divinely given sovereignty has been removed by God and they have no ability to do it. We are out of the Age of the Law. We are currently in the Age of Grace.

And by the way, you keep referring to the 10 Commandments, when it actually is only 9 that apply to others, as God’s universal law for mankind. The one for the Sabbath *only* applies to the Jews and not to the rest of us.

And as a side note here, the *only* distinguishing difference in all those 613 Commandments are *just* the “Ten Commandments” which were given to Moses by the very hand of God, Himself. That’s the *only* distinguishing difference of the entire bunch of them. Those ten are included in the 613, but they stand out in just that one respect, by the hand of God, and the significance of that is that they are the universal ones. The *rest* of the 613 are for the *specific application* by national Israel and no one else.

And so, these are the Universal Laws that God has given to all, which He also gave *specifically* to national Israel as part of the 613 commandments and laws. And of those 10 Commandments, only 9 apply to us, as outside of national Israel (or also, not being a Jew, in the case of the Sabbath, as the Jews will keep that, individually). And those 9 Commandments are relevant *today* — in the Age of Grace in that they *convict* of sin and that makes it so that sin and offenses abound

Romans 5:20-21

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,

21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord

Additionally, all 10 Commandments will be relevant in the Kingdom Age, and they will be unversally applied, at that time. They are not, at this time, as it is specifically stated that the Sabbath is for a sign for the Jews.

—

And so..., it is *that law* that Paul talks about, when he says it convicts of sin, so that it may abound all the more. Without the “law” (not the 613, no..., not that..., the universal law that applies to all of mankind in all ages) — we have no knowledge of conviction of sin. With the law, it actually causes all the more sin (to occur) as Paul explains to us.

But, Paul was writing in the Age of Grace, and thus Paul did not say, because of the law, we now are to stone those who break it. Or, we are to put to death those who curse their parents. Nope! Not at all! The Apostle Paul never said that, when writing in the Age of Grace, after Jesus died on the cross and was raised from the dead.

What he said was that we have now found the more perfect way to salvation that the law was never meant to do — and could not (ever) do. Paul did not proceed from the “law” and then go to “put them to death”! Never!

Paul went from breaking the law, to the forgiveness that is found in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. Here is what Paul says about breaking the law and the result, after accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

Paul says — “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He doesn’t say who will deliver me from being stoned to death.

And then, the *answer* is — “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,* who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

The context is as follows below...

Romans 7:20-25

20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.

22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8:1-9

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

So, we see that Paul says that in the “inward man” he delights in the law (is that delighting in putting to death? no..., it’s delighting in the universal law of God for all people, not the stoning or putting to death).

But, he finds that the law has already “put him to death” — without the stoning, without the commandment to put to death, without the action of anyone on this earth. In other words, the law, instead of bringing life — has resulted in “putting him to death” (and not that someone else has done it to him, by legal action).

However, he says, what the law *could not do* — Jesus Christ has done, in that we “walk in the spirit” and “not in the flesh” (i.e., we’re not following the commandments and putting to death people who disobey, but directing them to Jesus Christ as the *way to salvation*). *That* is the message of the “Age of Grace” — versus — the message of the “Age of Law”.

The law is *not to put to death* — but — to convict of sin and direct to the One who does offer salvation, namely Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

.
.

Finally, the rest of what you’re saying in your previous post is simply listing off the various commandments and trying to maintain that they are supposed to be followed today. Nope, they’re not. We are in the “Age of Grace” to live “in the spirit” and not “in the flesh” (i.e., of “stoning” and “putting to death”). As *Christians* — we don’t have to “put to death” anyone at all — the “Law” has done that *already*, as Paul says. That’s an accomplished fact, already, without anyone in mankind doing a thing about it.

We are (as *Christians* in the “Age of Grace”) to direct all to Jesus the Messiah of Israel in this present “Age of Grace” — which will close in not too much more time. So, it’s better for everyone to listen while they still can.

“Okay, what you say is true. But, the question is “Why is it true?” Is it merely that as society moved along (in its progession through history) that it drifted further away from God’s absolute commands, or that society is simply rejecting what God has said? Is that it?”

I think it is more complex than that. I think a lot of it relates more to the change in our political “morals” due to the corruption observed in both the “church” and the state that resulted when the “church” itself held too much “secular” authority and became, itself, entwined in the natural corruption of secular authority.

With religious freedom, real and absolute religious freedom, came the freedom for individuals to more frequently ignore the consequences of sound advice from religious precepts. The west has come to believe that that is the “either/or” we must accept - religious freedom or religious tyranny - and in that freedom the individual becomes more responsible, independently, for making right moral choices, or not. They can be put before the individual, and they need to be and should be, but, we have begun to limit the extent and degree to which we can force the acceptance of them or secular punishment for lack of acceptance of them. I think the limits can be too much or too little at times, but I think the concept that to have some limit “between church and state” works out best for both in the long run.

That is why the “west” is so misunderstood in “7th century” societies, as most Muslim societies are, because, in the “west” people like Madonna co-exist in the same country with some of the most righteous people in the world - which, from a Muslim point of view is itself a “sin” - to allow the freedoms we allow to a Madonna, even though a good many of us do want to be like her at all. (I’m just using “Madonna” as an example. Use whatever “slut-like” character you want as your example.)

When I look at the “American society”, I don’t look for or expect it to “represent me” and me alone, or only those that think as I do, religiously. “My society” is the society of people I associate with, the people I freely choose to associate with. I chose them in part for our moral agreements with each other. When someone in “America” offends those moral precepts of mine and my associates, and they are someone with whom I have no association and would have no association - I do not take it as something that “shamed” me, because I don’t associate with them in the first place. I am not looking to determine their moral fate or allow them or their actions to determine mine.

If others - like fundamentalist Muslims - want to judge “America” as morally corrupt, for the tolerated existence of people like Madonna in America, I look at that as simply their distaste for what the tolerated existence of people like Madonna really means in America - freedom, politically and religiously - which Muslim fundamentalists abhor. I don’t have to like or appreciate her personally at all - and I don’t - but I can and do appreciate why the laws of our society, our culture, permits and tolerates her - our fundamental freedoms that exceed our religious differences.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.