Total visitors right now: 90

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

A Second Brief Survey of our StandFirm Commenters [UPDATED]

Thursday, September 13, 2007 • 10:40 am


[UPDATE: Comments are now closed.  Thank you all for your answers—this has been most helpful.  We will probably introduce another thread later on in the month in order to have conversation about the topic, but for now we have a better grasp of where people stand, and that is because all of you participated.  So thanks again!]

As promised, here is the second brief survey, with three similar, but somewhat narrower questions, that follows up on the theonomy thread from the Bishop Orama story of last week.

The first survey was rather well received—and we hope this one gets a similar response. 

No matter how you answer, there will be no warnings or bannings based on your one-word 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 and third questions only if you answered “yes” to the first one, and then only using only one word—“yes” or “no” for question #2, and the letter “a” or “b” for question #3.

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) Is there any country in the world where adultery should be punishable by death?

a) Yes

b) No

2) Should adultery be punishable by death in your country?

a) Yes

b) No

3) If you answered “yes” to Question 1 or 2 (or both of those questions), why do you believe adultery should be punishable by death?

a) Because the Bible indicates that adultery should be punishable by death; or

b) For some other reason

My response to the survey is as follows.

1) No.


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

No.

[1] Posted by HumbleAccess on 09-13-2007 at 10:58 AM • top

No.

[2] Posted by CarolynP on 09-13-2007 at 11:00 AM • top

No

[3] Posted by paddy c on 09-13-2007 at 11:02 AM • top

No.

[4] Posted by Allan Bourdius on 09-13-2007 at 11:04 AM • top

Nope.

[5] Posted by mstuart4 on 09-13-2007 at 11:07 AM • top

no.

[6] Posted by pksundevil on 09-13-2007 at 11:09 AM • top

no

[7] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 09-13-2007 at 11:10 AM • top

1) No.

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

NO

[9] Posted by John Riebe+ on 09-13-2007 at 11:12 AM • top

No

[10] Posted by Summersnow on 09-13-2007 at 11:13 AM • top

“... should be punishABLE by death….”

With that qualification duly noted:

1)  Yes.
2)  Yes.
3)  b.  For some other reason.

[11] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-13-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

1) No.

[12] Posted by oscewicee on 09-13-2007 at 11:15 AM • top

1. Negatory

[13] Posted by the snarkster on 09-13-2007 at 11:15 AM • top

NO

[14] Posted by Paul B on 09-13-2007 at 11:17 AM • top

1) No.

[15] Posted by Randy Muller on 09-13-2007 at 11:18 AM • top

1) No.

[16] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 09-13-2007 at 11:22 AM • top

No

[17] Posted by wportbello on 09-13-2007 at 11:23 AM • top

No

[18] Posted by Judith L on 09-13-2007 at 11:25 AM • top

1) NO!
2) NO!

[19] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-13-2007 at 11:28 AM • top

No.  Although the editors of e.g. Cosmo and Playboy clearly deserve lengthy terms of penal servitude, that’s simply on the grounds of their bad taste.

[20] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-13-2007 at 11:30 AM • top

NO.

[21] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 09-13-2007 at 11:35 AM • top

No

[22] Posted by naab00 on 09-13-2007 at 11:36 AM • top

No.

[23] Posted by conley220 on 09-13-2007 at 11:37 AM • top

1) No.

[24] Posted by Deja Vu on 09-13-2007 at 11:37 AM • top

No.

[25] Posted by West Coast Cleric on 09-13-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

1) No

[26] Posted by Stu Howe on 09-13-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

1)NO

[27] Posted by Donal Clair on 09-13-2007 at 11:41 AM • top

Yes

Sorry misunderstood the question

No

[28] Posted by Anselmic on 09-13-2007 at 11:41 AM • top

1) No

[29] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 09-13-2007 at 11:42 AM • top

1) No

[30] Posted by Katherine on 09-13-2007 at 11:43 AM • top

no to both questions

[31] Posted by physician without health on 09-13-2007 at 11:46 AM • top

no

[32] Posted by AnnieCOA on 09-13-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

1) No

[33] Posted by Piedmont on 09-13-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

no.

[34] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 09-13-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

1) No

[35] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 09-13-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

Q1: A loud No

[36] Posted by TnCANA on 09-13-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

nay

[37] Posted by wchogan on 09-13-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

No

[38] Posted by Conoscenzo on 09-13-2007 at 11:54 AM • top

1) No.
2) No.

[39] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 09-13-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

To be consistent I would like to add that even though the Bible says this is the punishment, Jesus has said that the only one that could possibly carry this out is He who is without sin. Therefore, only God has the right to this “remedy”. So no snarking about “Well gee you are willing to throw this out so why not the edict on homoerotic sex?”

[40] Posted by Conoscenzo on 09-13-2007 at 12:02 PM • top

1)No,  is this any different from the first survey?

[41] Posted by Rocks on 09-13-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

No and no.

[42] Posted by Fisherman on 09-13-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

no.

[43] Posted by birminghamer on 09-13-2007 at 12:05 PM • top

No

[44] Posted by IBelieve on 09-13-2007 at 12:08 PM • top

No, to both, for the reason Conoscenzo has already posted,

[45] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 09-13-2007 at 12:14 PM • top

Nope…

[46] Posted by rwkachur on 09-13-2007 at 12:17 PM • top

No.

[47] Posted by NancyNH on 09-13-2007 at 12:22 PM • top

As long as we are qualifying I would still say NO, but not for the reason Conoscenzo posted.

[48] Posted by Rocks on 09-13-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

No on both questions.

[49] Posted by Sue Martinez on 09-13-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

No.

[50] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 09-13-2007 at 12:38 PM • top

1.  No

[51] Posted by more martha than mary on 09-13-2007 at 12:40 PM • top

No.

[52] Posted by DaveB in VT on 09-13-2007 at 12:41 PM • top

no

[53] Posted by lizzie2 on 09-13-2007 at 12:47 PM • top

No

[54] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 09-13-2007 at 12:47 PM • top

No.

[55] Posted by BabyBlue on 09-13-2007 at 12:49 PM • top

1)  Yes - in certain extreme circumstances

2)  Yes - in certain extreme circumstances

3)  a & b

[56] Posted by young joe from old oc on 09-13-2007 at 12:49 PM • top

No

If by “Punishable” you mean by human authorities, then no.  If by “Punisable” you mean punished by God with death, then I am not going to put God in a box and tell him what not to punish or what unjust punishment is.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[57] Posted by Philip Snyder on 09-13-2007 at 12:52 PM • top

1. Yes
2. No
3. a and b

[58] Posted by Antique on 09-13-2007 at 12:57 PM • top

no

[59] Posted by AngloTex on 09-13-2007 at 12:59 PM • top

1. No.

[60] Posted by jamesw on 09-13-2007 at 01:00 PM • top

BTW, an unnamed reporter told me that CANA has secretly tinkered with the blogging software and is rendering all “Yes, Yes, A” answers into “No” answers.

And realize that your simple denial will not be accepted.  You have to prove this and then retract and apologize for the “yes” answers.

[61] Posted by jamesw on 09-13-2007 at 01:02 PM • top

No to both.

[62] Posted by Passing By on 09-13-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

No

[63] Posted by Laytone on 09-13-2007 at 01:08 PM • top

No.

[64] Posted by BrianInDioSpfd on 09-13-2007 at 01:14 PM • top

No

[65] Posted by evan miller on 09-13-2007 at 01:15 PM • top

No to both.

[66] Posted by Dhimmi on 09-13-2007 at 01:16 PM • top

No.

[67] Posted by DietofWorms on 09-13-2007 at 01:16 PM • top

Nuh-uh.

[68] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-13-2007 at 01:17 PM • top

1. yyyee…. no

[69] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 09-13-2007 at 01:20 PM • top

Neg-o-reeno! However, liturgical dancers should be beaten… and often: http://www.stpaulstjames.org/Pages/LiturgicalDancers.html

[70] Posted by JimmyMac on 09-13-2007 at 01:20 PM • top

no

[71] Posted by robroy on 09-13-2007 at 01:23 PM • top

NO1!

[72] Posted by Ruth Ann on 09-13-2007 at 01:24 PM • top

NO.

[73] Posted by Charles III on 09-13-2007 at 01:24 PM • top

no

[74] Posted by jadykoch on 09-13-2007 at 01:35 PM • top

No.

[75] Posted by mactexan on 09-13-2007 at 01:35 PM • top

1)  No.

[76] Posted by Fr. Greg on 09-13-2007 at 01:35 PM • top

No (again).

[77] Posted by selah on 09-13-2007 at 01:40 PM • top

OK, I’ll take a stab at the unfashionable answer.

1. Yes
2. No

1. Since the Kingdom of God on Earth is not here I have to suppose that God still allows for the “local option” of having a false god (like say Bal).  In this instance we have our friends the followers of Islam.  since God has allowed them their free will to have their false revelation then does not he allow them sharia law. 

I’m not saying its right jsut that it should be allowed in an islamic nation.

I am sure someone will correct my theology.

RSB

[78] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-13-2007 at 01:43 PM • top

1) NO

[79] Posted by LINEMAN21 on 09-13-2007 at 01:43 PM • top

No

[80] Posted by JackieB on 09-13-2007 at 01:48 PM • top

No.

[81] Posted by APB on 09-13-2007 at 01:49 PM • top

No, though if pressed, I too might carve out the liturgical dancer exception.  ;  )

[82] Posted by Steve Lake+ on 09-13-2007 at 01:52 PM • top

1) No

[83] Posted by Branford on 09-13-2007 at 01:56 PM • top

No

[84] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 09-13-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

no to both

[85] Posted by episcopalindian on 09-13-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

1. No.
2. No.
3. b. See John 8:3-11: Jesus clarified many things for us. Regarding traditional beliefs about the Law and the Prohets, Jesus held his followers to a higher standard, as in the Sermon on the Mount—but casting stones?—Jesus casts out demons and heals brokeness. How can we as Christians answer in any other way than “No.” We hear the Master’s voice and follow the Way the Truth and the Life. Jesus does not ignore sin, because it can destroy us! He tells the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus teaches us the heart of the Law and the Prophets. He does not say sin isn’t sin, but this, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).  “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you,” (John 15:12)  In The Love of Christ Jesus, Maud

[86] Posted by Maud on 09-13-2007 at 02:21 PM • top

No

[87] Posted by The Pilgrim on 09-13-2007 at 02:36 PM • top

NO

[88] Posted by Horseman on 09-13-2007 at 02:53 PM • top

1. NO
2. NO

[89] Posted by Baruch on 09-13-2007 at 02:53 PM • top

No.

[90] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 09-13-2007 at 02:54 PM • top

1.  nope.

And speaking of liturgical dancers - the rector is one of ‘em.  EGAD! (but not surprising).

[91] Posted by Greg Sample on 09-13-2007 at 02:58 PM • top

1. No.

[92] Posted by Maria Lytle on 09-13-2007 at 03:03 PM • top

!) NO

[93] Posted by Duckster on 09-13-2007 at 03:07 PM • top

No.

[94] Posted by GillianC on 09-13-2007 at 03:14 PM • top

No.

[95] Posted by Nevin on 09-13-2007 at 03:15 PM • top

1. No.

[96] Posted by Publius on 09-13-2007 at 03:21 PM • top

NO!

[97] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 09-13-2007 at 03:31 PM • top

no

[98] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 09-13-2007 at 03:32 PM • top

No, No

[99] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 09-13-2007 at 03:48 PM • top

NO

[100] Posted by st. anonymous on 09-13-2007 at 04:14 PM • top

1. No.

[101] Posted by David Fischler on 09-13-2007 at 04:14 PM • top

NONONONONO

[102] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-13-2007 at 04:16 PM • top

Nyet!

[103] Posted by Bill C on 09-13-2007 at 05:00 PM • top

No

[104] Posted by Bill Thompson+ on 09-13-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

No

[105] Posted by Petra on 09-13-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

1. No
2. Nein

[106] Posted by Kevin Maney+ on 09-13-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

1.) Possibly yes.

2.) No

3). Mostly a.

Pax Christi Vobiscum,
Eluchil

[107] Posted by Eluchil on 09-13-2007 at 05:24 PM • top

No

[108] Posted by MasterServer on 09-13-2007 at 05:24 PM • top

NO no no no no

[109] Posted by Eclipse on 09-13-2007 at 05:28 PM • top

No.

[110] Posted by RonMcK3 on 09-13-2007 at 05:28 PM • top

1) No

[111] Posted by Uncle Jimmy on 09-13-2007 at 05:34 PM • top

No

[112] Posted by Marcia on 09-13-2007 at 05:40 PM • top

Sorry, been on the road.

No.

[113] Posted by john1 on 09-13-2007 at 06:29 PM • top

No.

[114] Posted by HeartAfire on 09-13-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

No.

[115] Posted by Conego on 09-13-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

All kidding aside:
1. No.
2. No.

Wolverine

[116] Posted by Wolverine on 09-13-2007 at 06:46 PM • top

No and No. I am, however, all in favour of adultery being a civil tort

[117] Posted by David Ould on 09-13-2007 at 06:48 PM • top

No

[118] Posted by Gordon on 09-13-2007 at 07:02 PM • top

David,

Should it be a tort for the tart too?

[119] Posted by JimmyMac on 09-13-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

no

[120] Posted by Gigs Girl on 09-13-2007 at 07:07 PM • top

JimmyMac,
At least, tort for tart would be tit for tat. 
(And perhaps the puns should be carried no further, for decency’s sake!)

[121] Posted by Conego on 09-13-2007 at 07:25 PM • top

1.  No
2.  No
Christ Jesus has already endured the penalty for adultery, thievery, murder, et al…
Pax Deus,
Andy

[122] Posted by aterry on 09-13-2007 at 07:28 PM • top

No, but…the operative word is “should”. I cannot say that it should be punishable by death, even though it clearly may and would not be a bad thing, for nothing God commands can be considered evil or illegitamate. Yet for such a punishment to be warranted and effective all manner of sins must be taken more seriously than they are in any country now on earth.

So, again, no.

And to the second, no…at least until we become a society so concerned with the seriousness of sin that we punish all grave sins with death (and adultery is a grave sin). I have no aversion to this hypothetical possibility as a Christian. I find cheap forgiveness to be as problematic societally as harsh judgment.

But before we get to that point we have to start with the child molestors, the child murderers that call themselves doctors, the pornographers and pollutors of men’s souls, and the garden variety murderers that serve 5-10 years.

[123] Posted by Christopher Hathaway on 09-13-2007 at 07:55 PM • top

1. No

[124] Posted by Milton on 09-13-2007 at 08:37 PM • top

Institution of marriage seems so far defunct in the West that adultery seems scarcely worse than infidelity except, of course, that there are dire financial consequences in divorce. It’s unrealistic to think we’re not in the midst of a sexual free for all. Married people even seem to relish the added spice of adultery.

[125] Posted by henryleroi on 09-13-2007 at 08:40 PM • top

1) No

[126] Posted by Allen Lewis on 09-13-2007 at 08:41 PM • top

1. No

[127] Posted by Derek Smith on 09-13-2007 at 08:43 PM • top

No

[128] Posted by CradleEpisc on 09-13-2007 at 08:48 PM • top

<big>No.</big>  Punishable by civil law, as David said, and possibly by some small criminal penalty (something like a few weekends in jail—enough to express strong disapproval of adulterers, but not to harm their families any further).  The state has a clear interest in the preservation of families.

[129] Posted by gone on 09-13-2007 at 08:51 PM • top

Yes.
Yes.
b. Because it would lower the divorce rate, which is a problem in families today.

[130] Posted by Tom Dupree, Jr. on 09-13-2007 at 08:54 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic]

[131] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-13-2007 at 10:02 PM • top

NO!

[132] Posted by lambswool on 09-13-2007 at 10:05 PM • top

no

[133] Posted by RoyIII on 09-13-2007 at 10:12 PM • top

no

[134] Posted by Johng on 09-13-2007 at 10:34 PM • top

No.

[135] Posted by terrafirma on 09-13-2007 at 10:54 PM • top

No

[136] Posted by Dee in Iowa on 09-13-2007 at 11:28 PM • top

Question #1: yes
Question #2: no
Question #3: b. I answer “yes” to #1 because R S Bunker made me think. If I believe (and I do) that the system of government and laws of a country should be chosen by the citizens thereof, I must allow for the possibility that they may choose Sharia or other legal systems with severe punishments for adultery.
And if I can sneak it in, my reason for answering “no” to #2 is that I think (when compared to the penalties for other crimes) capital punishment for adultery would be a “cruel and unusual” punishment, which is unconstitutional. I also find reasons for saying no to #2 in the Bible, but IMO basing the civil law on those reasons would be establishment of religion, which is also unconstitutional.

[137] Posted by kyounge1956 on 09-14-2007 at 12:25 AM • top

No.

[138] Posted by kailash on 09-14-2007 at 12:27 AM • top

Yes.
Yes.
b. Because it would lower the divorce rate, which is a problem in families today.

I understood that we are only to say yes or no; but what makes you think that it would reduce the divorce rate when it doesn’t even reduce the murder rate - THAT is a fact.  The majority of murders are crimes of passion committed by someone in the family or very close to the family.
AND
God should be our model.  Cain killed his brother; Moses killed a soldier; David killed his paramour’s husband.  Did God kill them?  I wonder sometimes if we really believe that there is a final judgment or if we would rather see a person’s soul burn in hell rather than go into the vineyard at the last hour.  I find it quite fascinating that those who consider abortion murder (which it is, but is “legal”) and don’t find capital punishment murder (which it is, but is “legal”).  Thanks be to God that we are not judged by God as we are by other human beings.  Do you really think gossip (the killing of someone’s reputation) is less a sin than killing their body?

[139] Posted by Gigs Girl on 09-14-2007 at 12:56 AM • top

No

[140] Posted by desert mother on 09-14-2007 at 01:21 AM • top

NO because God will judge!

[141] Posted by tom on 09-14-2007 at 01:36 AM • top

1. No.

[142] Posted by iceworm on 09-14-2007 at 01:52 AM • top

John 8. I am not without sin. No.

[143] Posted by Boring Bloke on 09-14-2007 at 02:50 AM • top

No.

[144] Posted by Charles Maggs on 09-14-2007 at 03:03 AM • top

Is there any country in the world where adultery should be punishable by death?

Again, the key word for me in this question is ‘punishABLE.’  I guess the way I understand the question is this:

“Is it morally permissible (i.e., per God) for any civil government to sanction against crimes of adultery, with the death penalty?”

By ‘crimes of adultery,’ I am assuming that this could mean a subset of such crimes (e.g., someone being convicted of rape for the third time), rather than to all such crimes (i.e., the entire continuum ranging from impure thoughts to garden-variety adultery to homosexual sex to rape). 

My reading of the New Testament (one which yields exegetical precedence to the epistles, in interpreting the Gospels as well as the Old Testament) is that the question of which sanction for the civil government to impose upon sex-crimes, is adiaphora.  In other words, I don’t believe that God requires civil governments to punish adulterers with death;  and I don’t believe that God requires civil governments to never punish adulterers with death;  however I do believe that God has given civil governments the authority to punish (e.g.,) adultery with various means, up to and including the death penalty. 

To assert otherwise, I think we need to ask whether the civil government can sanction against crimes of any nature, with traditional means of punishment. 

Is it okay for Judge Bean to incarcerate a thief?

But I don’t understand the survey question to be addressing what the response of Joe Christian (private citizen) ought to be to the adulterer.  Except in the sense that it is not the prerogative of ‘Joe Christian’ (private citizen) to punish crimes, within his society. 

FWIW, I’ve been in several heated debates with theonomists, for these very views.  smile

1)  Yes
2)  Yes
3)  (a) -or- (b).

[145] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-14-2007 at 04:11 AM • top

No.
Agree with Christopher Hathaway.

[146] Posted by Spencer on 09-14-2007 at 06:21 AM • top

1. No

[147] Posted by Ol' Bob on 09-14-2007 at 07:11 AM • top

1. No

[148] Posted by Phil on 09-14-2007 at 08:49 AM • top

No.

[149] Posted by mactexan on 09-14-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

Moot: SHOULD means far more than just “morally permissible.” It refers to what is RIGHT, what is morally obligatory.

[150] Posted by Irenaeus on 09-14-2007 at 09:54 AM • top

Irenaeus,

The statements,
“Should porcupines be huggable,” and “Should porcupines be hugged,” are quite different. 

While I understand the ethical significance of the word, ‘should’, grammatically I see this as applying to the word, ‘punishable.’  On the other hand, if the survey question read “should … punish-ED-…,” then I would answer differently, for reasons I’ve stated in my previous post (Johannesburg springs to mind, but that’s another discussion). 

However, before we could ask that kind of question, we’d really have to determine whether governments have the moral right to sanction against sex-crimes with capital punishment.  Since having the moral right and exercising it are different considerations, I maintain that I answered appropriately.  smile

Prefer-ably-, I would rather live in a context where academic types would be the only ones asking such questions.  Unfortunately, the question is all too relevant.  :(

[151] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-14-2007 at 10:50 AM • 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.