Total visitors right now: 89

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

A Brief Survey of our StandFirm Commenters - UPDATED SECOND TIME

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 • 5:11 am

[Update: An obscure spam-prevention setting has been preventing readers from making posts that are duplicates of other readers’ posts. I’ve switched it off (with registration we have little need of spam prevention), so if you’ve been unable to comment on this thread, please try it again. - G]


[In a few hours, later this afternoon, I will be closing this thread and launching the second survey that narrows things down a bit further.  Those who are going to respond should do so as soon as possible.]

StandFirm Commenters,

I was intrigued by one of the “Bishop Orama threads” of last week, which veered off on the subject of what is known as “theonomy” before the Commenatrix quashed it.

We at StandFirm would like to know how many of our commenters are “theonomists” and to help us learn that, we have created a two question survey, which you will find below.  We are hoping that our commenters would help us with the survey by responding in the comment thread to the two questions.

No matter how you answer, there will be no warnings or bannings based on your responses.  We’re just interested.

But if you choose to respond to this survey, you would need to adhere to some ground rules.

You would need to respond to the first question with only one word—“yes” or “no”.  And you would need to respond to the second question only if you answered “yes” to the first one, and then only using the letter “a” or “b” as your answer.

Any comments or responses that go beyond those ground rules will be deleted.

So with the above as a foundation, here are the two questions.

1) Ought adulterers to be put to death by all civil governments?”

[Please answer “yes” or “no”.]

2) If you answered “yes”, do you believe that the basis for that capital punishment by the State is
a) Because of the Mosaic Penal Sanctions mentioned in Leviticus
b) Some other reason not based on Holy Scripture

[Please respond with the answer “a” or “b”.]

To prove that this can be done, my response to the survey is as follows.

1) No.


175 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

1) No

[1] Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-11-2007 at 05:20 AM • top

1)  No.

[2] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-11-2007 at 05:26 AM • top

No

[3] Posted by johnp on 09-11-2007 at 05:29 AM • top

No.

[4] Posted by APB on 09-11-2007 at 05:39 AM • top

1) No.

[5] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 09-11-2007 at 05:41 AM • top

No

[6] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 09-11-2007 at 05:43 AM • top

1.  No

[7] Posted by more martha than mary on 09-11-2007 at 05:49 AM • top

1. No

[8] Posted by MargaretG on 09-11-2007 at 05:56 AM • top

No.—My response is in Spanish.

[9] Posted by rwkachur on 09-11-2007 at 05:56 AM • top

[comment deleted—explanatory]

[10] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-11-2007 at 06:07 AM • top

(1) NO

[11] Posted by Horseman on 09-11-2007 at 06:20 AM • top

(1) No.

[12] Posted by Florida Anglican [Support Israel] on 09-11-2007 at 06:41 AM • top

No.
This OT law was given up—declared no longer to be put into effect—by Judaism ca. C.E. 30. (Hmmm… wonder what else happened about A.D. 30?)

[13] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-11-2007 at 06:46 AM • top

That would be a “no” from me.

[14] Posted by David Ould on 09-11-2007 at 06:46 AM • top

1. No.

[15] Posted by Publius on 09-11-2007 at 06:47 AM • top

p.s.: My source for the cessation of the death penalty for divorce in Judaism is: Verhey, A. D.,  “[Divorce] In the NT”,  International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Page 977.

[16] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-11-2007 at 07:05 AM • top

1 No.
“But if you choose to respond to this survey, you would need to adhere to some ground rules.”
heh - this could have been a link to a ‘poll’ page. Let the user interface take care of it. (Although I’m not sure a poll could handle the conditional 2nd question).

[17] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-11-2007 at 07:13 AM • top

Nyet.

[18] Posted by Tar Heel on 09-11-2007 at 07:26 AM • top

1) No.
2) NA

[19] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-11-2007 at 07:51 AM • top

No—we have the example of our Lord, who saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death.

[20] Posted by In Newark on 09-11-2007 at 07:55 AM • top

nein

[21] Posted by DaveG on 09-11-2007 at 07:55 AM • top

1)  No

[22] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 09-11-2007 at 07:56 AM • top

1) No

[23] Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-11-2007 at 08:04 AM • top

[comment deleted—explanatory]

[24] Posted by Theodora on 09-11-2007 at 08:06 AM • top

1.  No.

[25] Posted by Maria Lytle on 09-11-2007 at 08:24 AM • top

1. Nien, non, NO

[26] Posted by Dan Crawford on 09-11-2007 at 08:31 AM • top

NO!

[27] Posted by Intercessor on 09-11-2007 at 08:31 AM • top

Ummmm…....................no

[28] Posted by The Pilgrim on 09-11-2007 at 08:33 AM • top

No.
But, wait a minute, was that with my spouse?

[29] Posted by Spiro on 09-11-2007 at 08:35 AM • top

answer to question 1: No

[30] Posted by kyounge1956 on 09-11-2007 at 08:44 AM • top

1. negative

[31] Posted by the snarkster on 09-11-2007 at 08:46 AM • top

A loud, clear NO!

[32] Posted by TnCANA on 09-11-2007 at 08:46 AM • top

Nein.

[33] Posted by Kevin Maney+ on 09-11-2007 at 09:01 AM • top

Neyt!

RSB

[34] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-11-2007 at 09:06 AM • top

ne

[35] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 09-11-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

Nyet

[36] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 09-11-2007 at 09:08 AM • top

No.
[comment deleted—explanatory]

[37] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 09-11-2007 at 09:09 AM • top

No—we don’t have enough space to bury that many bodies.

[38] Posted by David Fischler on 09-11-2007 at 09:11 AM • top

1) No.

John1

[39] Posted by john1 on 09-11-2007 at 09:22 AM • top

1. Nein

[40] Posted by Piedmont on 09-11-2007 at 09:24 AM • top

No

[comment deleted—off topic]

[41] Posted by Catholic Mom on 09-11-2007 at 09:26 AM • top

[comment deleted—explanatory]

[42] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-11-2007 at 09:33 AM • top

1 No

[43] Posted by Scruff on 09-11-2007 at 09:34 AM • top

1. Of course NO!

[44] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-11-2007 at 09:43 AM • top

<big>1. No.</big>

[45] Posted by gone on 09-11-2007 at 09:45 AM • top

Nope.

-j

[46] Posted by jjostm on 09-11-2007 at 09:49 AM • top

This is a trick question, right?  I mean, the question doesn’t mention whether the adulterer is male or female, and since everyone knows the issue is all about the power of white heterosexual males, the orthodox answer would have to vary depending on such factors as the race, gender, or sexual orientation of the adulterer.

[For the Via Media readers, tongue is planted firmly in cheek.  See the Bishop Iker thread.]

[47] Posted by William Witt on 09-11-2007 at 09:59 AM • top

No.  Adultery is sin which Jesus gave forgiveness to such in his mortal lifetime.

[48] Posted by Mtn gospel on 09-11-2007 at 10:01 AM • top

No. (and I am happy to hear from Wm Witt.)

[49] Posted by robroy on 09-11-2007 at 10:02 AM • top

naa

[50] Posted by Scott+ on 09-11-2007 at 10:07 AM • top

Dr. Witt, you forgot to mention that adultary such a “christian” concept, which we should never, ever, under any circumstances want to bring into the realm of civil government.  I mean after all the Constitution provides for a WALL of seperation and assures us all of a right of freedom from religion.

(Tongue very firmly placed in cheek)

RSB

[51] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-11-2007 at 10:09 AM • top

No

[52] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-11-2007 at 10:11 AM • top

No.

[53] Posted by Denise on 09-11-2007 at 10:12 AM • top

1)  No.

[54] Posted by Jeff in VA on 09-11-2007 at 10:13 AM • top

1)  No

[55] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-11-2007 at 10:14 AM • top

1) No

[56] Posted by Karen B. on 09-11-2007 at 10:15 AM • top

Noo.

[57] Posted by Paul B on 09-11-2007 at 10:15 AM • top

1. No

[58] Posted by Derek Smith on 09-11-2007 at 10:16 AM • top

No

[59] Posted by naab00 on 09-11-2007 at 10:20 AM • top

1. No

[60] Posted by Fisherman on 09-11-2007 at 10:21 AM • top

no

[61] Posted by JackieB on 09-11-2007 at 10:22 AM • top

And, seriously, No.

[62] Posted by William Witt on 09-11-2007 at 10:24 AM • top

no

[63] Posted by Enough on 09-11-2007 at 10:25 AM • top

No.

[64] Posted by Sparky on 09-11-2007 at 10:26 AM • top

1) NO   Not all or even any.

[comment deleted—off topic]

[65] Posted by Rocks on 09-11-2007 at 10:31 AM • top

1. NO!

[66] Posted by Paula on 09-11-2007 at 10:34 AM • top

No.  Nein.  Nyet.

[67] Posted by Fr. Greg on 09-11-2007 at 10:35 AM • top

no

[comment deleted—off topic]

[68] Posted by Chazaq on 09-11-2007 at 10:38 AM • top

Non!

[69] Posted by dogmatix on 09-11-2007 at 10:39 AM • top

1. No.  (But you better not ask me about heretics. wink )

[70] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 09-11-2007 at 10:43 AM • top

No.

[71] Posted by ExEpiscop on 09-11-2007 at 10:43 AM • top

non, non, non

[72] Posted by oscewicee on 09-11-2007 at 10:44 AM • top

1) No

[73] Posted by Deja Vu on 09-11-2007 at 10:44 AM • top

1) No!

[74] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 09-11-2007 at 10:49 AM • top

No.

[75] Posted by HeartAfire on 09-11-2007 at 10:50 AM • top

no

[76] Posted by Philip Snyder on 09-11-2007 at 10:53 AM • top

No.

[77] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 09-11-2007 at 10:56 AM • top

no

[78] Posted by Tony Romo on 09-11-2007 at 10:59 AM • top

1) No

[79] Posted by Sue Martinez on 09-11-2007 at 11:00 AM • top

Doh!

[80] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-11-2007 at 11:07 AM • top

No

[81] Posted by Petra on 09-11-2007 at 11:07 AM • top

No.

[82] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-11-2007 at 11:09 AM • top

No

[83] Posted by marney on 09-11-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

No.

[84] Posted by BabyBlue on 09-11-2007 at 11:12 AM • top

No.

[85] Posted by Randy Muller on 09-11-2007 at 11:12 AM • top

1)  ¡¡ NO !!

[86] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-11-2007 at 11:13 AM • top

Nope.

[87] Posted by mstuart4 on 09-11-2007 at 11:16 AM • top

no

[88] Posted by James Manley on 09-11-2007 at 11:17 AM • top

No

[89] Posted by Avin Fernando on 09-11-2007 at 11:20 AM • top

Nay!

[90] Posted by Bill C on 09-11-2007 at 11:25 AM • top

(1) No.

[91] Posted by Rich Gabrielson on 09-11-2007 at 11:25 AM • top

No

[92] Posted by terrafirma on 09-11-2007 at 11:25 AM • top

Nuh-uh.

[93] Posted by West Coast Cleric on 09-11-2007 at 11:26 AM • top

No way.

[94] Posted by Scott K on 09-11-2007 at 11:26 AM • top

No.

[95] Posted by Rough Hugh on 09-11-2007 at 11:29 AM • top

No

[96] Posted by Allan Bourdius on 09-11-2007 at 11:32 AM • top

No.

[97] Posted by Jennifer on 09-11-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

No.
But you cannot bless it, for sin cannot be blessed.

[98] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 09-11-2007 at 11:41 AM • top

no.

[99] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 09-11-2007 at 11:44 AM • top

<a >Nope</a>.

[100] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-11-2007 at 11:47 AM • top

No!

[101] Posted by Albeit on 09-11-2007 at 11:49 AM • top

No

[102] Posted by physician without health on 09-11-2007 at 11:49 AM • top

No sir.

[103] Posted by alfonso on 09-11-2007 at 11:50 AM • top

1) No

[104] Posted by tjmcmahon on 09-11-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

Are you kidding?  Absolutely, not.

[105] Posted by khawk858 on 09-11-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

No

[106] Posted by ambsadr4Christ on 09-11-2007 at 11:58 AM • top

Nooo,
but wouldn’t it make an interesting rumor?  ; )

An apocryphal story about a preacher’s conference that got suddenly cleared out by somebody sending each attendee a telegram, “All is discovered!”

Robert

[107] Posted by Robert Easter on 09-11-2007 at 11:58 AM • top

NO! Jesus, forgives.
George

[108] Posted by george on 09-11-2007 at 12:00 PM • top

Negative!

[109] Posted by Charles III on 09-11-2007 at 12:06 PM • top

No

[110] Posted by Baruch on 09-11-2007 at 12:12 PM • top

No

[111] Posted by Capn Jack Sparrow on 09-11-2007 at 12:12 PM • top

no

[112] Posted by lizzie2 on 09-11-2007 at 12:13 PM • top

NO!

[113] Posted by Donal Clair on 09-11-2007 at 12:15 PM • top

My answer is NO.  What a barbaric thought!
Tom of San Joaquin

[114] Posted by tom on 09-11-2007 at 12:17 PM • top

no

[115] Posted by GillianC on 09-11-2007 at 12:20 PM • top

No.

[116] Posted by HumbleAccess on 09-11-2007 at 12:24 PM • top

no

[117] Posted by wportbello on 09-11-2007 at 12:29 PM • top

No.  But I would be interested in an anonymous survey to see how many would admit to adultry.

[118] Posted by Elizabeth on 09-11-2007 at 12:32 PM • top

No!

[119] Posted by IBelieve on 09-11-2007 at 12:34 PM • top

no

[120] Posted by Ed McNeill on 09-11-2007 at 12:34 PM • top

no

[121] Posted by frwalkeratsaintalbans on 09-11-2007 at 12:35 PM • top

no

[122] Posted by leonL on 09-11-2007 at 12:38 PM • top

No

[123] Posted by Anglican Observer on 09-11-2007 at 12:39 PM • top

No

[124] Posted by carl on 09-11-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

No.

[125] Posted by NancyNH on 09-11-2007 at 12:46 PM • top

No.

[126] Posted by Antique on 09-11-2007 at 12:52 PM • top

Exit polling of early voters by CBS News indicates a strong trend towards ‘Yes’ in this special election.  However, CBS News is not yet willing to call the outcome.  This is Dan Rather reporting.

[127] Posted by carl on 09-11-2007 at 12:57 PM • top

No.

[128] Posted by r3ussell on 09-11-2007 at 12:58 PM • top

No

[129] Posted by BillB on 09-11-2007 at 01:00 PM • top

Nyet

[130] Posted by Piedmont on 09-11-2007 at 01:10 PM • top

I. No

[131] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-11-2007 at 01:11 PM • top

1. no

Sure glad to know I can now vote.

[132] Posted by bob+ on 09-11-2007 at 01:12 PM • top

1) no

[133] Posted by William P. Sulik on 09-11-2007 at 01:12 PM • top

1) No

[134] Posted by texex on 09-11-2007 at 01:24 PM • top

Negatory!

[135] Posted by JimmyMac on 09-11-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

No

[136] Posted by Betty See on 09-11-2007 at 01:41 PM • top

1.) no.

[137] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 09-11-2007 at 01:44 PM • top

no

[138] Posted by The Rev. Father Brian Vander Wel on 09-11-2007 at 01:51 PM • top

no

[139] Posted by Katie in Georgia on 09-11-2007 at 01:55 PM • top

Chan eil
(one form of “no” in Scots Gaelic)

[140] Posted by Jill C. on 09-11-2007 at 01:55 PM • top

1. No

[141] Posted by Allen Lewis on 09-11-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

No.

[142] Posted by Lorian on 09-11-2007 at 02:03 PM • top

1.  No not all.

Pax Christi vobiscum,
Eluchil

[143] Posted by Eluchil on 09-11-2007 at 02:04 PM • top

1. No

[144] Posted by jamesw on 09-11-2007 at 02:05 PM • top

No.

[145] Posted by Pounding Sand on 09-11-2007 at 02:08 PM • top

Responders should be advised that the act is adultery only when the female involved is married to another. Otherwise, it is fornication. The marital status of the male is irrelevant.

[146] Posted by Pounding Sand on 09-11-2007 at 02:16 PM • top

No.

[147] Posted by birminghamer on 09-11-2007 at 02:23 PM • top

Negatory.

[148] Posted by Reason and Revelation on 09-11-2007 at 02:26 PM • top

No.

[149] Posted by Jason Miller on 09-11-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

No.

[150] Posted by pksundevil on 09-11-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

1) No

[151] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 09-11-2007 at 02:43 PM • top

1. No.

[152] Posted by BrianInDioSpfd on 09-11-2007 at 02:45 PM • top

1. No.

[153] Posted by Veronique on 09-11-2007 at 02:46 PM • top

No

[154] Posted by John Riebe+ on 09-11-2007 at 02:49 PM • top

No.

[155] Posted by mactexan on 09-11-2007 at 02:52 PM • top

1) no

[156] Posted by episcopalindian on 09-11-2007 at 03:02 PM • top

1) Ought adulterers to be put to death by all civil governments?”

[Please answer “yes” or “no”.]

The answer is no.  As a strong believer in privatization I think the job of offing adulterers should be that of their spouses and not the government.  Of course this could only be allowed if the spouse could prove they had never, ever, ever sinned either by omission or commission.  That they had never looked at another with lust in their hearts and that too could claim the title Immaculate Conception.  Ok is that clear.  Put down the stone and start plucking those motes and beams.

[157] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-11-2007 at 03:04 PM • top

no

[158] Posted by pilgrim kate on 09-11-2007 at 03:06 PM • top

Ahem (clearing thoat). NO.

[159] Posted by AngloTex on 09-11-2007 at 03:07 PM • top

No.

[160] Posted by Nevin on 09-11-2007 at 03:09 PM • top

1. NO!

[161] Posted by WillyBill+ on 09-11-2007 at 03:15 PM • top

1 No

[162] Posted by Paul Stanley on 09-11-2007 at 03:20 PM • top

1. No

[163] Posted by Milton on 09-11-2007 at 03:35 PM • top

No.

[164] Posted by carpprop on 09-11-2007 at 03:38 PM • top

1. Sure, why not?
2. I was being sarcastic.

Wolverine

[165] Posted by Wolverine on 09-11-2007 at 03:41 PM • top

1. No

[166] Posted by FrRick on 09-11-2007 at 03:44 PM • top

no

[167] Posted by JonG on 09-11-2007 at 03:48 PM • top

No

[168] Posted by Bill in Ottawa on 09-11-2007 at 04:02 PM • top

No

[169] Posted by Spencer on 09-11-2007 at 04:16 PM • top

No

[170] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 09-11-2007 at 04:43 PM • top

No.

[171] Posted by CarolynP on 09-11-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

No.

[172] Posted by Unsubscribe on 09-11-2007 at 05:10 PM • top

no

[173] Posted by JanDioMA on 09-11-2007 at 05:15 PM • top

no

[174] Posted by Jimmy DuPre on 09-11-2007 at 05:20 PM • top

Comments are closed.

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.