Letter from a man whose mother was stoned to death

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello,

I just want to understand whats the problem with capital punishment ?

Didnt God order the sinner to be stoned?

To make all of you happy , i say that i am for stoning of adultrers if married and flogging them if they arent. However ofcourse this is in case its bieng done by the authorities and in accordance with the law. If a law would be introduced to implement this punishment then i would vote it. As i would do for every law that goes in accordance with Gods laws.

Thats how Gods tests are folks, not every thing is what you are comfortable with . But who said that life isnt a test from God?

Stoning is horrible, painful, and a hporrible thing to see. No one wishes it fpr any of his relatives or sons or mothers or family members.

Thats why when this little devil that tries to get me offtrack have some extra energy on a moment of a weak faith from my side there would be plan B that would scare the hell out of me and get me back on Gods tracks.

If some people believe that your fathers religion gets obsolete by time then others will see YOUR CURRENT faith today as obsolete by time.

In Islam its take it or leave it . NO Public relation campaings .

thanks
 
Eden said:
Is Pro saying the Church burned people. To be accurate, it was secular authorities who actually did the burning, not members of the Church.

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
Click to expand...

I’ve never found that reply convincing, not when I was an Anglican, & not in the all years I’ve been a Catholic either.​

I don’t see that we have to try to defend these things - the Church is supposed to be Christian after all, & if (& as) the Church in her official capacity has done unChristian things, ISTM that we should admit it - & not be afraid to do so.

If the Church were a political party, this would be suicidal behaviour, because we would be losing face. I don’t see that this anything to be afaid of, because the Church is anything but a political party. We claim to “believe in the Church” - so shouldn’t we try to avoid defending it as though the least admission of wrong or guilt would be fatal to it ? If the Church is really what we claim it is, no power on earth can destroy it, not even our sins.

Clearing up misconceptions about the Church’s history is a different issue: explaining that the Spanish Inquisition (say) is not the blood-drenched fiend of some Protestant accounts, & showing that in certain respects it was less inhumane than some other legal entities of its times, does something to correct errors - but it does not mean that SI was authentically Christian, or anything other than a lamentable phenomenon in the history of the Church. It was not required by Catholic doctrine, and its practice involved things which, infrequent or not, are completely incompatible with the teaching of the Church in the CCC.

Explanation =/= vindication as right.

The Church did not invent the burning of heretics alive - it took it over from the laws made by the Emperor Frederick II; who relied on Roman Law; which in turn owed the penalty to a law of the Emperor Diocletian in 297 against the Manichees. But it used that penalty, so it cannot escape moral involvement in the use of it, whether one is thinking of the various inquisitions, or of the execution of heretics tried by episcopal courts (the Protestant martyrs burned under Mary I of England from 1555 to 1558 were burned in virtue of a 1401 statute; the Inquisition was not involved).

But for the authority of the Church in the Middle Ages, countries outside the Empire (such as England, France, Scotland) would not have burned heretics - the 1224 law
of Frederick II had no force outside his own dominions. It was the burning of heretics by the Church which made burnings in those three countries possible. Sodomites were burned, because sodomy was reckoned to fall under heresy - & it is the Church, not secular authorities, that decides what constitutes heresy.

The Church provided the clergy, the theological assessors, the inquisitors, much of the law. When the Popes allowed or regulated the use of torture after 1252, or rebuked inquisitors for being dilatory, or were themselves zealous & solicitous for the Roman Inquisition & its work, they were acting as churchmen, doing what they believed they were obliged to do. That we may find their activities inhumane & unChristian, does not for one moment mean that they thought like that. But neither does it mean they were right.

Paul IV, Pius V, the English bishops in the time of Mary I, the English bishops who presided over the trials of those who were burned as Lollards, were not “secular” authorities. St. Peter Martyr & St.Peter Arbues & other martyred Inquisitors were ecclesiastics, not secular authorities. The same goes for Bernard Gui, who was inquisitor in the region of Toulouse from 1307 to 1321 - after which he was made a bishop; he can hardly not have been an ecclesiastic. The accounts of many trials are found in the registers of churchmen, not in other sources: it is because his have survived, that we know of 930 trials at which he was the judge, & of their results

Burning heretics had come to be regarded as not wrong; it was not seen as cruel or wrong or unChristian - these men thought they were Christians; they were thought to be (Cardinal Alessandrino was admired both for his personal holiness & for his zeal as an Inquisitor; which is why he was elected Pope & took the name of Pius V); several have been canonised or beatified; if they were not Christians, if they did not represent the Church, then there are going to be gaps in the visibility of the Church, & in the Apostolic Succession. ##
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

I’ve never found that reply convincing, not when I was an Anglican, & not in the all years I’ve been a Catholic either.​

Click to expand...
Well I am convinced by Thomas Madden’s article. I’ve seen the way the Church is grossly misrepresented today: as persecuting homosexuals, as a Church full of pedophile priests, as the enemy of women and their right to “choose” - all kinds of media manipulations by the enemies of the Church. After careful and prayerful consideration of the evidence I have researched about the Inquisition, I believe that the image we have of that time period is heavily influenced by the “media” of their day - the enemies of the Church.
 
What are the Christian theological bases for burning at the stake, murdering abortionists, bombing other Christian sects etc.?

What are the Islamic theological bases for stoning adulterers, bombing infidels?

Just wondering if there is some equivalence here.
 
meedo said:
Hello,

I just want to understand whats the problem with capital punishment ?

Didnt God order the sinner to be stoned?

To make all of you happy , i say that i am for stoning of adultrers if married and flogging them if they arent. However ofcourse this is in case its bieng done by the authorities and in accordance with the law. If a law would be introduced to implement this punishment then i would vote it. As i would do for every law that goes in accordance with Gods laws.

Thats how Gods tests are folks, not every thing is what you are comfortable with . But who said that life isnt a test from God?

Stoning is horrible, painful, and a hporrible thing to see. No one wishes it fpr any of his relatives or sons or mothers or family members.

Thats why when this little devil that tries to get me offtrack have some extra energy on a moment of a weak faith from my side there would be plan B that would scare the hell out of me and get me back on Gods tracks.

If some people believe that your fathers religion gets obsolete by time then others will see YOUR CURRENT faith today as obsolete by time.

In Islam its take it or leave it . NO Public relation campaings .

thanks
Click to expand...
I’ll only speak for Judaism (and even then not for every jew) when I say that while we have acknowledged God’s laws, we have also acknowledged that they are for man. So that while capital punishment was the remedy for a varity of crimes, it was rarely carried out. And I mean rarely.
 
Valke2 said:
I’ll only speak for Judaism (and even then not for every jew) when I say that while we have acknowledged God’s laws, we have also acknowledged that they are for man. So that while capital punishment was the remedy for a varity of crimes, it was rarely carried out. And I mean rarely.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was the same in Islam. Not because people wouldnt apply them, but because the burden of proof was very hard.

1- 4 men have to see the act of sinning very clearly ( No hugging or kissing or fonlding or cuddling or or or…) Simply explicit intercourse. If three firmly swears they saw it and the 4rth was hesitant the 4 of them will be flogged for defaming !!!

2- You are not allowed to pry into any bodys home or private property in any way . This proof wont be accepted .

3- The Jursidiction Islamic rule always applies ( Push Punishments with doubt) . Which mean , when in doubt assume innocense!

4- The Judge would not accept any body who is confessing of sin to be punished untill he is sent away many times so that he go and rethink , may be he is not in a good mental state or may be he thought he commited sin but actually he didnt do the actual intercourse.

5- The Judge has the option of sending a confessor away and to tell him ‘’ Just repent’’ The Judge is not responsible for investigating nor persuing or fetching for sinners!

6- if a woman says she was raped. Then she is aquited . ( YES by just saying she was raped).

Sinners exist all the time!! Islam will not abolish sin. Islam will give you a street where sin IS THE EXCEPTION not the rule!!! If you want to sin sure go ahead , but fortify yourself inside your home and be sure nobody in teh society ever knows that there is even a sin taking place . Why?

Simply because sin propagates by people finding it bieng more and more shown and accepted in Society!!!

We are humans and not angels. Islam acknowledges that . We have a good side of us and a bad side. The bad side needs deterrence when the good side is week .

hope i get my point accross

salam

These are the rules that would have to be all fulfiulled for a capital punishment in the example of sin be established
 
Thank you meedo. For admitting that stoning women is an essential part of Islam and that you approve of it. That should satisfy pro who also has said nothing against stoning. I think the case is clearly proven. So if you want sharia law this is what you get. It is easy to see how terrorism and Islam fit together so well.

That all being said. I find it utterly revolting and it absolutely shows me that Islam is not from God.
 
pro_universal said:
Classic tactics: deny deny deny, and then when you see proof, make excuses.

You support burning people.
Click to expand...
Actually, the classic tactic is yours pro: you make a blind statement and then fail to back it up with anything. When someone asks for proof…you run and hide and make more blind statements. Pretty much the foundation of Islam now that I think about it.
 
Our friend meedo has not denied. He embraces flogging and stoning as part of Islam “take it or leave it”. Exactly what I have been saying and pro denying. Now suddenly pro is quiet. It is hard to say I am lying when the Muslims all agree I am telling the truth.

Pro, if they are stoning a woman convicted of adultery will you take part?
 
meedo said:
Yes, it was the same in Islam. Not because people wouldnt apply them, but because the burden of proof was very hard.

1- 4 men have to see the act of sinning very clearly ( No hugging or kissing or fonlding or cuddling or or or…) Simply explicit intercourse. If three firmly swears they saw it and the 4rth was hesitant the 4 of them will be flogged for defaming !!!
Click to expand...
So kissing another person whilst married to another is not adultery?
40.png
meedo:
2- You are not allowed to pry into any bodys home or private property in any way . This proof wont be accepted .
Click to expand...
So as long as you don’t get caught hey?
40.png
meedo:
3- The Jursidiction Islamic rule always applies ( Push Punishments with doubt) . Which mean , when in doubt assume innocense!
Click to expand...
Is that the same as innocent until proven guilty?
40.png
meedo:
4- The Judge would not accept any body who is confessing of sin to be punished untill he is sent away many times so that he go and rethink , may be he is not in a good mental state or may be he thought he commited sin but actually he didnt do the actual intercourse.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of any man that wasn’t sure whether he made penetration
40.png
meedo:
Sinners exist all the time!! Islam will not abolish sin. Islam will give you a street where sin IS THE EXCEPTION not the rule!!! If you want to sin sure go ahead , but fortify yourself inside your home and be sure nobody in teh society ever knows that there is even a sin taking place . Why?

Simply because sin propagates by people finding it bieng more and more shown and accepted in Society!!!

We are humans and not angels. Islam acknowledges that . We have a good side of us and a bad side. The bad side needs deterrence when the good side is week .
Click to expand...
So you can sin in Islam as long as no-one sees? So that it won’t spread?

Isn’t Our Almighty God All-Seeing ??

He knows our very thoughts. By just looking at a man with lust in my eyes, I have sinned against God.

Now I know Islam is very mixed up 😦
 
kellie said:
So kissing another person whilst married to another is not adultery?

So as long as you don’t get caught hey?

Is that the same as innocent until proven guilty?

I have never heard of any man that wasn’t sure whether he made penetration

So you can sin in Islam as long as no-one sees? So that it won’t spread?

Isn’t Our Almighty God All-Seeing ??

He knows our very thoughts. By just looking at a man with lust in my eyes, I have sinned against God.

Now I know Islam is very mixed up 😦
Click to expand...
If I’m married to the other woman. How is it adultery?
 
December, 1484 marked the publication of the Bull of Pope Innocent VII, which delegated Heinrich Kramer and Jakob Sprenger as inquisitors. These two men in turn created the Malleus Maleficarum, which details the tortures that could be used to obtain confessions to Witchcraft. It was this sinister work that sparked a hysteria which spread rapidly across Europe. I don’t think anybody truly knows how many people were burned, tortured or otherwise killed during that time - although scholarly estimates put the number between 40,000 and 100,000 - but the ironic thing is that the vast majority of them were not Witches. Most are believed to have been devout Christians who were wrongly accused. Victims were the elderly, the senile, homosexuals and freethinkers. During this time, people were gradually being taught to blame all of their problems on Witches and Witchcraft. Protestants taught that magic was sinful because it implied a belief in Divine assistance in the physical world. Witches soon were blamed for every misfortune - they were thought to have the power to raise the dead, turn water into wine, control the weather and foresee the future. Once denounced, a suspected Witch was arrested and then hideously tortured into a confession. Suspects were subjected to thumbscrews, the rack, boots which broke the bones of the legs; they were deprived of sleep, starved and beaten.

I’m not sure what the prior poster meant when they said the Church was not responsible.
 
cestusdei said:
Our friend meedo has not denied. He embraces flogging and stoning as part of Islam “take it or leave it”. Exactly what I have been saying and pro denying. Now suddenly pro is quiet. It is hard to say I am lying when the Muslims all agree I am telling the truth.

Pro, if they are stoning a woman convicted of adultery will you take part?
Click to expand...
Not to worry, Pro gets like that. Pro is somewhat famous for making statements that cannot be backed up. He is also famous for getting declaring a jihad on anyone who calls him on that practice.

Cheers!
 
Valke, I am not overly concerned with 500 years ago. It’s today’s stonings that bother me.

Pro, please tell us. If there was a stoning according to sharia law would you take part?
 
I would like to hear pro’s answer. If he wants to embrace Islam he must embrace all of it. Including lapidation.
 
Being the fair minded guy that I am I will offer pro a third strike to answer if he would throw the first stone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top