Stoning Adult Children-More Craziness On Puritan Board

[debrand]

Why do we not discuss this site more often? It is a lot of offensive insanity rolled up into a big ball of self righteous superiority.

William Einwechter wrote an article in Chalcedon explaining to people that the Old Testament allows the stoning of disobedient adult children. In the last few sentences of the article, he tells Christians that not only are they not to be embarrassed by the Old Testament verses about stoning but that anyone who isn't happy about them isn't a real Christian. Because nothing says Jesus love quite like throwing a hard object repeatedly at someone's head until they die a slow, agonizing death

Someone comes up with the acronym, STWTAYAYWHTSTWTAO which several posts later is revealed to mean spank them when they are young and you won't have to stone them when they are older.

The guy from Kentucky says

A few parents in our church carry "whackies" in their pocket to discipline their kids on the spot. It's rare in the States. They have them in Ireland? Common, uncommon? Never heard of them?

puritanboard.com/f54/william-einwechter-stoning-disobedient-children-33845/

These people are the Christian Taliban. The only reason that they don't blow anything up or actively rebel is because there aren't enough of them and they are too chicken shit(thankfully) These are the kinds of cowards that only act when they have power. I wish that the public was more aware of them but there is such a persecution complex among American Christians that I don't see this information becoming a major news story any time soon.

[Cleopatra7]

I think it's only a matter of time until we read about some culty fundamentalist neo-Calvinist church that actually does practice stoning.

[debrand]

I think it's only a matter of time until we read about some culty fundamentalist neo-Calvinist church that actually does practice stoning.

I think that you are right and I think that it will be the younger Calvinists who have never been allowed to leave their bubble who will be among the first to call for it.

[debrand]

puritanboard.com/f54/homosexuality-vs-church-state-81894/

In this thread they have a discussion about stoning people including homosexuals and idolaters. A few posters are concerned with the idea of stoning people but not enough to be outraged.

So God did Israel a grave injustice in giving the law? And it wasn't just for Israel in transit, but Israel after they returned from captivity, when the law was read out loud and everybody assented to it. Assenting to the law was said to be a good thing. How can one even respect a God who got it so wrong, much less worship Him? It seems to me that the very first commandment of the big 10 obliges us to shut our mouths and learn from the Word of God. The basic premise should be that God's sense of justice is right and we are wrong. The discussion should be how the principles that He laid down should work out in real life in our society. It's not our place to criticize His law.[/

Because the answer to a troubling law is to shut up as long as your god says it is okay. And that is completely different approach than Muslim extremists because we say so.

This is what happened, after all, for donkey's years when Christianity was more established than it is now. E.g. certain homosexual practices were illegal in Scotland from time immemorial until 1980.

Even in our present very secular societies, sins such as bigamy, polygamy, beastialism, incest, and sexual relations with minors, are dealt with by the police and courts, and no-one says that that is OTT. It is because public attitudes to the evil of these things has not, so far, changed in comparison to how public attitudes to the evil of homosexuality, which has changed radically, in an unbiblical direction.

It frightens me that these people not only want to stone people but don't understand the difference between consensual sex and nonconsensual sex with minors and animals

Someone says that they have only two options 1. Wait for god's return 2. Try to establish a Christian state now.

He also expresses disbelief that Russia is now more godly than the United States.

The poster who invented the acronymin my first post writes:

Understandably, it seems cruel to punish people who have not heard the gospel or been instructed in biblical morality. Although this is only a psychological objection and not a logical objection (thus it carries no real authority), it is one that the establishmentarian position can easily overcome. This is because establishmentarians do not believe in a merely negative piety on the part of the magistrate. On the contrary, the ruler is not only bound to negatively enforce the moral law by punishing heinous transgressions, but he is also to foster and encourage the outward observance of both tables of the law and is required to see that his people hear the gospel and receive religious instruction (see Samuel Rutherford on the civil ruler’s duty to promote religious instruction | Reformed Covenanter). Thus under a confessional establishment, people would be required to attend their parish church, where they would have ample opportunity to hear the gospel.

So, force people to go to church so that you don't feel bad about stoning them later?

Ken Lamb points that stoning homosexuals isn't god honoring but self righteous

Reformed Coventer (acronym man) Writes:

So is calling for the criminalization of paedophilia or man-stealing "self-righteous"? Were the Reformers and Puritans who advocate the very thing you reject as "not God honoring" also "self-righteous" (and no, I do not believe they were modern Reconstructionist Theonomists) because they believed that the law of nature stipulated such a penalty.

Someone says that if we stone homosexuals we prevent them from repenting and becoming Christians later

However another person says:

We might say that we ought not execute first degree murderers, since some have been saved from their sins when spared.

Some might actually make that argument.

This thread illustrates, I think the problem in the U.S. and perhaps the western world. When we, a narrow small Puritan reformed community, disagree so strongly as to: 1) whether It should be illegal 2) whether It should be punished and 3) how It should be punished. . .

no wonder we have the homo rights juggernaut defiling us to this extent. If the trumpet is uncertain, what can the righteous do?

The church as a whole has GOT to get it together on this issue.

And yes, I think it should be punished, as should adultery and rape and bestiality and pornography and necrophilia and etc.

[Cleopatra7]

Although there have been punishments of varying degree for homosexuality throughout the ages, I don't think adultery was ever a prosecutable offense in the Christian world, and being a disobedient child certainly wasn't. The Jewish tradition has never suggested bringing back stoning. Since I'm sure these modern-day Puritans are all "small government conservatives" how do they propose funding all the prisons for all the people they want to incarcerate? Or are they all just going to be stoned once the accusation is made?

[RosyDaisy]

Not even gonna mind my words here. I would like stick some of those stones up the asses of these fundies.

[Sola]

They're all mouth, except for the spanking kids part - that's easy because kids are small and can't fight back. If they lived in the country of their ideals, Afghanistan fir example - theocracy, stoning, patriarchy, no rights for women etc, they'd shit themselves at the first mention of stoning.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

"man-stealing"?

And if they are going to start punishing people for checking out porn I'm afraid the courts are going to be so clogged that justice will come to a complete stand still. Even my very religious fundie father-in-law checks out porn on the internet. We know this because when he has my husband help with the computer his history is jammed pack with naughty stuff.

[doggie]

why is it the find the stoning parts ok but the he who is free of sin cast the firs stone part? I am sick of the lack of Christ in Christians. God needs to be putting some hurt on these people that use him for hate. Come on god step upto the plate and do something.

[Coconut Flan]

Adultery was and maybe still is a crime under the UCMJ.

And surprisingly the statute was on the books in some states: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 6_ST_N.htm

[RachelB]

puritanboard.com/f54/homosexuality-vs-church-state-81894/

In this thread they have a discussion about stoning people including homosexuals and idolaters. A few posters are concerned with the idea of stoning people but not enough to be outraged.

Because the answer to a troubling law is to shut up as long as your god says it is okay. And that is completely different approach than Muslim extremists because we say so.

It frightens me that these people not only want to stone people but don't understand the difference between consensual sex and nonconsensual sex with minors and animals

Someone says that they have only two options 1. Wait for god's return 2. Try to establish a Christian state now.

He also expresses disbelief that Russia is now more godly than the United States.

The poster who invented the acronymin my first post writes:

So, force people to go to church so that you don't feel bad about stoning them later?

Ken Lamb points that stoning homosexuals isn't god honoring but self righteous

Reformed Coventer (acronym man) Writes:

Someone says that if we stone homosexuals we prevent them from repenting and becoming Christians later

However another person says:

Hell, just stone everyone. That is what these assholes really want to do.

[mamallama]

Everybody must get stoned!

Does anyone know if there is a specific biblical passage that forbids sex with children?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Everybody must get stoned!

Does anyone know if there is a specific biblical passage that forbids sex with children?

Came in here for this...! :lol:

[Revolennon]

So....are they legit modern day puritans? This is gonna sound weird but I've been wondering if Puritans still existed ever since we read The Scarlet Letter and studied the Puritan Code back in 11th grade. It seemed so unbelievably extreme to me; I wondered if there could possibly be people still following the Puritan code to this day. I've googled "modern day Puritans" many times over the years but never found anything. Have I finally found my long-awaited answer?

[Soulhuntress]

Came in here for this...! :lol:

A little bit of pot?

[Cleopatra7]

So....are they legit modern day puritans? This is gonna sound weird but I've been wondering if Puritans still existed ever since we read The Scarlet Letter and studied the Puritan Code back in 11th grade. It seemed so unbelievably extreme to me; I wondered if there could possibly be people still following the Puritan code to this day. I've googled "modern day Puritans" many times over the years but never found anything. Have I finally found my long-awaited answer?

Puritanism in the historical sense refers to a specific 17th century British Protestant movement to purge the Church of England of any residual "papism." Modern-day Puritians seem to be those who are in the Reformed/Calvinist camp and also look favorably upon the Puritans who formed the Massachusetts Bay Colony. One problem among many with the modern Puritans is that they seem to have a libertarian bent (at least in the economic sense), while the historical Puritans understood the importance of living in a community, albeit one that only consisted of like-minded people. I think that the original American Puritans would have considered it to be extremely strange to have these bunker-like family units.

[salex]

It frightens me that these people not only want to stone people but don't understand the difference between consensual sex and nonconsensual sex with minors and animals

It appears to me that they don't believe in the concept of consensual sex. Sex is only allowed within marriage. Having sex outside of that is disallowed in any situation.

[slh12280]

It appears to me that they don't believe in the concept of consensual sex. Sex is only allowed within marriage. Having sex outside of that is disallowed in any situation.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... thics.html

[salex]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... thics.html

Yes. Step outside the box and get stoned...

[Palimpsest]

Adultery was and maybe still is a crime under the UCMJ.

And surprisingly the statute was on the books in some states: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 6_ST_N.htm

Yes, and historically a felony under English Common Law too. Generally seen as a serious crime against property if it concerned a married woman and a man not her husband. From Wikipedia: "In 1707, English Lord Chief Justice John Holt stated that a man having sexual relations with another man's wife was "the highest invasion of property" and claimed, in regard to the aggrieved husband, that "a man cannot receive a higher provocation"."

To go back to Debrand's original question: Why don't we discuss the Puritan board more often?

Good question. I very occasionally read there - or go there to see whether they are reacting to something like the Downfall of Doug the Tool - but I find it chillingly Reformed/Calvanist/Legalistic in attitudes. This discussion is quite typical, and probably counts as lighthearted fun as they discuss stoning, wackies and acronyms. Ugh.

They also seem to spend a lot of time collecting and quoting bible verses to support their POV, or alerting each other to what I call obscure dead preacher quotes. Boring rather than terribly snarkable?

One interesting thing is that the Puritan Board is international. So if anyone believes that their nation is free from Fundieism of the worst sort it's worth checking to see where the posters are from. Note the Irish guy on that thread! I was shocked a while ago when I realized a medical missionary I actually met once or twice was posting there under her own name and including the name of her hospital in the posts. I'd never have guessed she thought like that from meeting her. :ew:

[lawlifelgbt]

Um, if any of them throw stones at me, then they're getting slapped. With a suit, that is. And that's only if my WIFE (I'm female) doesn't beat them up first.

[JesusFightClub]

Do they actually know what stoning looks like? They can google it and find lots of...interesting...videos. It's fairly nasty, and not very quick.

Imagine having to watch that in person. Your kids would be watching as well, to steer them away from the bad paths in life. Bit like watching executions in North Korea, except they're over and done with much more speedily.

Some people don't know what they're asking for.

[Vex]

I saw a video on youtube where a typical fundie strawperson glanced over the issue of homosexuality not hurting anyone (I assume because there is consent and love) she argued that actually homosexuality DOES hurt people because AIDS. She completely ignored such important factors as:

- The highest number of new cases are amongst the white hetero crowd

- That the rate of AIDS amongst the gay community was only so high because people didn't understand how it was spread initially

- That anal sex (between gay men or hetero partners) has the highest chance of transmission

- It is very very hard for lesbians to transmit HIV

- Most importantly, HIV and AIDS occur in heteosexual people too, so if you're going to use that as the ONLY reason gay relationships hurt anyone, you logically have to say hetero relationships are just as harmful, and that lesbian relationships are less harmful than hetero relationships based on the number of HIV transmissions.

[DomWackTroll]

Yes, and historically a felony under English Common Law too. Generally seen as a serious crime against property if it concerned a married woman and a man not her husband. From Wikipedia: "In 1707, English Lord Chief Justice John Holt stated that a man having sexual relations with another man's wife was "the highest invasion of property" and claimed, in regard to the aggrieved husband, that "a man cannot receive a higher provocation"."

To go back to Debrand's original question: Why don't we discuss the Puritan board more often?

Good question. I very occasionally read there - or go there to see whether they are reacting to something like the Downfall of Doug the Tool - but I find it chillingly Reformed/Calvanist/Legalistic in attitudes. This discussion is quite typical, and probably counts as lighthearted fun as they discuss stoning, wackies and acronyms. Ugh.

They also seem to spend a lot of time collecting and quoting bible verses to support their POV, or alerting each other to what I call obscure dead preacher quotes. Boring rather than terribly snarkable?

One interesting thing is that the Puritan Board is international. So if anyone believes that their nation is free from Fundieism of the worst sort it's worth checking to see where the posters are from. Note the Irish guy on that thread! I was shocked a while ago when I realized a medical missionary I actually met once or twice was posting there under her own name and including the name of her hospital in the posts. I'd never have guessed she thought like that from meeting her. :ew:

There are many threads that are VERY boring-- nothing but quotes from Dead White Guys You've Never Heard Of. But the good ones, OMG... The fighting over Christmas, Easter, homeschooling, alcohol, whether Mark Driscoll is a heretic, anything regarding pop cuture, etc. never gets old for me.

[uber frau]

There are many threads that are VERY boring-- nothing but quotes from Dead White Guys You've Never Heard Of. But the good ones, OMG... The fighting over Christmas, Easter, homeschooling, alcohol, whether Mark Driscoll is a heretic, anything regarding pop cuture, etc. never gets old for me.

For me it's a bizarre combination of deathly boring and way too triggery. I think it takes a special kind of sadist to put themselves through that.