On 7/30/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My biggest problem with Rodwell is his unsympathetic footnotes.
I'm afraid they would put more negative perconceptions in your
head. Rodwell is a Chritian missionary, after all.
Yusuf Ali with footnotes is pretty good. So is Muhammad Asad.
GS: I think I'd heard there was a geometrically increasing
fine for
adultery but I don't think I'd heard of the public humiliation
of
adulterers.
SM: I'm not sure what Ron is referring to here either.
SC: Not *public* but, ...in the world to come...
God hath imposed a fine on every
SC: Not *public* but, ...in the world to come...
Ah yes. Let's not forget that traditionally adultery has been punished by
stoning. And no, Jesus never explicitly did away with that, He simply
refused to uphold a double standard which punished women and let men off
scot free.
The
On 7/31/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SC: Not *public* but, ...in the world to come...
Ah yes. Let's not forget that traditionally adultery has been punished by
stoning. And no, Jesus never explicitly did away with that, He simply
refused to uphold a double standard which
I've heard similar things but I don't think I've ever heard/read a
good explanation of exactly was the scope and intent of Let he who is
without sin cast the first stone.
Dear Gilberto,
Well one thing we do know is that it was a woman brought before Jesus (and
not the man she presumably
On 7/31/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard similar things but I don't think I've ever heard/read a
good explanation of exactly was the scope and intent of Let he who is
without sin cast the first stone.
Dear Gilberto,
Well one thing we do know is that it was a woman
Hello Dr. Maneck,
Previous dialogue snippets:
Sandra Chamberlain: Not *public* but, ...in the world to come...
Dr. Susan Maneck: Ah yes. Let's not forget that traditionally
adultery has been punished by stoning. And no, Jesus never explicitly
did away with that, He simply
refused to uphold a
Hello Sandra and Dr. Maneck,
Concerning Public Humiliation for Adulterers, as prescribed by the Aqdas:
from a previous dialogue:
GS: I think I'd heard there was a geometrically increasing
fine for
adultery but I don't think I'd heard of the public humiliation
of
adulterers.
SM: I'm not sure
Even today, there are some reconstructionist
Christians who want to establish a theocracy and want stoning
implemented as punishment.
Perhaps, but it has never been done in historical Christianity.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail)
is sent by
I would be surprised. Even today, there are some reconstructionist
Christians who want to establish a theocracy and want stoning
implemented as punishment.
Dear Gilberto,
I might add something about Christian Reconstructionalism, at the risk of
offending your sensibilities. I think Christian
But I am very surprised to hear a Baha'i scholar talk like this. It is
my understanding, from my readings of the Writings of the Baha'i
Central Figures, particularly Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi, that we
as Baha'is are diametrically opposed to such revisionists. That is,
our Central Figures
Susan,
At 04:44 PM 7/31/2005, you wrote:
Perhaps, but it has never been done in historical Christianity.
Christian reconstructionists, or theonomists, are post-millennialists who want
to institute Old Testament law, not the principles of the New Testament. They
believe that, before Christ will
In a message dated 7/31/2005 2:12:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for
the Bible, as you know, I know it. The stoning incident is animportant
one. But I do not think your interpretation is viable. It isnot consistent
with the rest of the New
Thank you Popeye,
Very much.
Ron
On 7/31/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/31/2005 2:12:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for the Bible, as you know, I know it. The stoning incident is an
important one. But I do not
Christian reconstructionism are probably the closest Christian movement to
the Taliban.
And to the takfir wa hijr movements in general. In fact, I'm suggesting
there may be a historical connection.
warmest, Susan
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto
Paul's commentary on the Law is every bit as binding and authoritative
as any other part of the New Testament."
Here is my understanding:
Although Paul was certainly a very important figure in the development
of the early Christian community, he was not a Manifestation
of God, he was not
Susan,
At 06:04 PM 7/31/2005, you wrote:
And to the takfir wa hijr movements in general. In fact, I'm suggesting there
may be a historical connection.
The connection you made is interesting. If there is a difference with Takfir wa
Hijra, it is in the rejection of violence.
Actually, I think
The connection you made is interesting. If there is a difference with
Takfir wa Hijra, it is in the rejection of violence.
Dear Mark,
I don't think all Reconstructionalists reject violence. In fact some of them
support militias and quite a few believe believe in arming themselves to the
teeth.
On 7/31/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be surprised. Even today, there are some reconstructionist
Christians who want to establish a theocracy and want stoning
implemented as punishment.
Dear Gilberto,
I might add something about Christian Reconstructionalism, at the
On 7/31/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even today, there are some reconstructionist
Christians who want to establish a theocracy and want stoning
implemented as punishment.
Perhaps, but it has never been done in historical Christianity.
I'm going to be skeptical since I'm
There are certainly no shortage of fundamentalist Christians who hate
Islam but think that the Old Testament is full of wisdom and guidance.
I doesn't take alot of imagination to think that implementing the OT
would be a good idea.
Dear Gilberto,
Strictly speaking the Reconstructionalists are
I'm going to be skeptical since I'm generally suspicious of
categorical claims like that. I find it really hard to believe that
Christians were fine with burning people at the stake but found it out
of the question to stone people to such agree that it has NEVER been
done. Especially since the
Hi, Susan,
At 08:54 PM 7/31/2005, you wrote:
I don't think all Reconstructionalists reject violence. In fact some of them
support militias and quite a few believe believe in arming themselves to the
teeth.
Some people associated with various factions of the Christian Identity movement
Gilberto,
At 09:10 PM 7/31/2005, you wrote:
Another name of someone who is also considered a founder is Cornelius Van Til
but he is from the Netherlands.
Van Til's Calvinist presuppositionalism may have influenced Rushdoony to a
degree, but Van Til was not an advocate of any version of
Susan,
At 09:35 PM 7/31/2005, you wrote:
Strictly speaking the Reconstructionalists are not Fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists are typically Dispensationalists, a position quite the
opposite of Reconstructionalism.
That was true until recently. However, increasing numbers of fundamentalists,
Dear Mark,
I'm not thinking of Christian Identity. I'm thinking of the some of the
Reconstructionalists that were on the Bill Moyer documentary. One of them
that was really into guns was Rushdoonie's son-in-law.
warmest, Susan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Yes. That is Gary North. He has since dissociated himself from Christian
reconstructionism and has started associating with Christian Identity
types.
Yeah, that was the guy I was thinking of. I didn't realize he had gone over
to Christian Identity, though I was aware he had broken with
On 7/31/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are certainly no shortage of fundamentalist Christians who hate
Islam but think that the Old Testament is full of wisdom and guidance.
I doesn't take alot of imagination to think that implementing the OT
would be a good idea.
Dear
28 matches
Mail list logo
