[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s what I thought you’d do, cite references that pertain to ancient Judaism and not Christianity like you claimed.
[/quote]
Either way it’s just a list of crimes/laws and the punishment once found guilty. There are plenty of crimes today with a death punishment, I don’t see any difference other than the time period.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
in Christianity or Islam, violence is encouraged towards sinners/blasphemers.
[/quote]
In your experience are modern Christians generally violent people?[/quote]
I could make up a red herring for you if you want. I’m sure you could do it yourself though. You know what a red herring is right?
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
For example, democracy, at its roots, is not about violence but about equality and freedom, yet
[/quote]
Oh my…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
‘Duck Dynasty’ to resume filming with Phil Robertson, A&E announces
“The network added that â??Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man’s views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family, a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A&E Networks also feel strongly about”
The network forgot to mention their core values of profit and audience ratings over the Christmas period.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
I will be using King James Bible:
[/quote]
The Jews back then could not live by faith alone. They required a “sign”. So God gave them the LAW. It was so utterly impossible to follow on purpose. It was designed to show them that they could NOT follow the law and that they can only get by on faith. Letting their pride get in the way they stuck to the law. When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled countless scriptures and said “It is finished”, meaning the LAW was put to death and salvation thru faith in Jesus’ works was the way to God. The wages of sin is spiritual death. Christ paid our sin debt, Past present and future sins for ALL man kind.
Why do you hate your God so much?
[quote]StrengthDawg wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
I will be using King James Bible:
[/quote]
The Jews back then could not live by faith alone. They required a “sign”. So God gave them the LAW. It was so utterly impossible to follow on purpose. It was designed to show them that they could NOT follow the law and that they can only get by on faith. Letting their pride get in the way they stuck to the law. When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled countless scriptures and said “It is finished”, meaning the LAW was put to death and salvation thru faith in Jesus’ works was the way to God. The wages of sin is spiritual death. Christ paid our sin debt, Past present and future sins for ALL man kind.
Why do you hate your God so much?[/quote]
Why does faith/belief in God equate to faith/belief in Christ? Could there not be a Creator that has nothing to do with the God of the Bible?
[quote]corndiggity wrote:
[quote]StrengthDawg wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
I will be using King James Bible:
[/quote]
The Jews back then could not live by faith alone. They required a “sign”. So God gave them the LAW. It was so utterly impossible to follow on purpose. It was designed to show them that they could NOT follow the law and that they can only get by on faith. Letting their pride get in the way they stuck to the law. When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled countless scriptures and said “It is finished”, meaning the LAW was put to death and salvation thru faith in Jesus’ works was the way to God. The wages of sin is spiritual death. Christ paid our sin debt, Past present and future sins for ALL man kind.
Why do you hate your God so much?[/quote]
Why does faith/belief in God equate to faith/belief in Christ? Could there not be a Creator that has nothing to do with the God of the Bible?
[/quote]
which diety did you have in mind specifically? Zuel from Ghostbusters, Odin, Zeus? Man has made up many, many false ‘gods’ throughout our history.
To answer your question, God required a blood sacrifice each year to pay for sins. Each family had to offer up a sacrifice each year. Not some random animal but one that was spotless. The best of the best. One that basically was part of the family. This was largely due to the Hebrews failure to live by faith alone. They required the law, so they got it. Anyways, man sins became so bad that God became flesh, we call him Jesus of nazareth, God made the ultimate sacrifice so that man can be reconciled with God. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me.
HE’S BACK!
As I stated before, the suspension of Phil was just a reaction to a loud minority group. Now the pendulum swings toward a different group; I think it’s the angry- gainfully employed- middle aged- God fearing- white male group.
[quote]gregron wrote:
‘Duck Dynasty’ Under Fire Following Star’s Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks
[i]Speaking with GQ, Robertson lamented that when “everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong … sin becomes fine.” So just what qualifies as sinful in his book?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there; bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,”
Phil probably should have cut himself off at this point, but instead he paraphrased Corinthians. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers; they won’t inherit the kingdom of God,” he warned. “Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”[i]
I really enjoy Duck Dynasty, especially Uncle Sy, but fear this really could bring down the show.
Thoughts?[/quote]
I honestly don’t care about what he said about gay people. I’ve also seen worse, and what he said isn’t that offensive.
[quote]StrengthDawg wrote:
[quote]corndiggity wrote:
[quote]StrengthDawg wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
I will be using King James Bible:
[/quote]
The Jews back then could not live by faith alone. They required a “sign”. So God gave them the LAW. It was so utterly impossible to follow on purpose. It was designed to show them that they could NOT follow the law and that they can only get by on faith. Letting their pride get in the way they stuck to the law. When Jesus died on the cross he fulfilled countless scriptures and said “It is finished”, meaning the LAW was put to death and salvation thru faith in Jesus’ works was the way to God. The wages of sin is spiritual death. Christ paid our sin debt, Past present and future sins for ALL man kind.
Why do you hate your God so much?[/quote]
Why does faith/belief in God equate to faith/belief in Christ? Could there not be a Creator that has nothing to do with the God of the Bible?
[/quote]
which diety did you have in mind specifically? Zuel from Ghostbusters, Odin, Zeus? Man has made up many, many false ‘gods’ throughout our history.
[/quote]
There is really no such thing as a made up god. Early humans used personification and identification to understand natural phenomena . Most religions equate the sky with life and growth (food) and the ground with death (burial and excretion- even though Brawndo is what plants crave, they prefer corpses and shit).
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
in Christianity or Islam, violence is encouraged towards sinners/blasphemers.
[/quote]
In your experience are modern Christians generally violent people?[/quote]
I could make up a red herring for you if you want. I’m sure you could do it yourself though. You know what a red herring is right?[/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
“A lot of atrocities were done under religious systems, but they have nothing to do with religious systems. Christianity isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It just so happened to be that the guy(s) at the top was drunk with power and a fucking cunt.”
That you can’t or won’t see that is just willful closed-mindedness and blind faith that your ideology is better than the one you oppose. It’s precisely the type of zealotry that has resulted in all the worst of religious history.[/quote]
Except it’s very clearly stated in the quran and bible to kill sinners.[/quote]
If you are going to say something as inflammatory as that you will need to cite your proof.[/quote]
It’s not necessarily an inflammatory statement. Both Judaic law and Shari’a specify death for a number of offences, many of them also capital offenses in secular legal systems. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in a number of countries, and was a hanging offence in England until the end of the 17th century. [/quote]
Within the Judaic Laws and Shari has there been any interpretation of another text to deduce these laws? If so then I think it thrws that argument out. But now we are down to splitting hairs and that is pointless in a debate.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. What “argument” do you think merits being “thrown out” and for what reason?
Clarify what you mean by “interpretation of another text to deduce these laws”. Christian and Shari’a laws were both developed in the context of Judaic law, which likely had its roots in Babylonian and Egyptian law. Capital crimes today were capital crimes in the time of Hammurabi.
[/quote]
If we are speaking of if the Bible specifically promotes murder.
Some of the mitzvot d’oraita are clear, explicit commands in the text of the Torah (thou shalt not murder; you shall write words of Torah on the doorposts of your house), others are more implicit (the mitzvah to recite grace after meals, which is inferred from “and you will eat and be satisfied and bless the L-rd your G-d”), and some can only be ascertained by deductive reasoning (that a man shall not commit incest with his daughter, which is deduced from the commandment not to commit incest with his daughter’s daughter).
Source - Judaism 101: Halakhah: Jewish Law
I was referring to the fact that some of the Judaic Laws have been deduced from the bible.
[/quote]
Who claimed that the Bible promotes murder? No holy book, as far as I am aware, promotes or condones murder. They all condemn murder, but, like our present legal system, they go to extensive lengths to specify all the kinds of killing that “don’t count” as murder.
Blaze’s initial statement, which you viewed as inflammatory, was that the Bible and the Qur’an both specified death as a punishment for sin.
My response to that was, “yeah, so?”
We kill sinners all the time in our enlightened, secular society. Sinners who have sinned against society or humanity, perhaps, rather than against God, but those same sins would have been met with the same punishment in the days of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Or, indeed, Hammurabi. [/quote]
I didn’t necessarily find his statement inflammatory personally. To do that I would have actually had to have cared what he was saying, but for the purpose of debate I was looking for him to support his statement with fact. [/quote]
So do you believe that the statement “it’s very clearly stated in the Quran and Bible to kill sinners” is not supported by the texts themselves?[/quote]
In case it has not been pointed out yet, blaze was rather obviously advancing the argument of religion condoning mass genocide in their holy books. He was not referring to capital punishment. If he had been, your response was well said.
Or you’re messing with people again with that sort of devil’s advocate thing you do. it’s late and I can’t tell.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
“A lot of atrocities were done under religious systems, but they have nothing to do with religious systems. Christianity isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It just so happened to be that the guy(s) at the top was drunk with power and a fucking cunt.”
That you can’t or won’t see that is just willful closed-mindedness and blind faith that your ideology is better than the one you oppose. It’s precisely the type of zealotry that has resulted in all the worst of religious history.[/quote]
Except it’s very clearly stated in the quran and bible to kill sinners.[/quote]
If you are going to say something as inflammatory as that you will need to cite your proof.[/quote]
It’s not necessarily an inflammatory statement. Both Judaic law and Shari’a specify death for a number of offences, many of them also capital offenses in secular legal systems. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in a number of countries, and was a hanging offence in England until the end of the 17th century. [/quote]
Within the Judaic Laws and Shari has there been any interpretation of another text to deduce these laws? If so then I think it thrws that argument out. But now we are down to splitting hairs and that is pointless in a debate.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. What “argument” do you think merits being “thrown out” and for what reason?
Clarify what you mean by “interpretation of another text to deduce these laws”. Christian and Shari’a laws were both developed in the context of Judaic law, which likely had its roots in Babylonian and Egyptian law. Capital crimes today were capital crimes in the time of Hammurabi.
[/quote]
If we are speaking of if the Bible specifically promotes murder.
Some of the mitzvot d’oraita are clear, explicit commands in the text of the Torah (thou shalt not murder; you shall write words of Torah on the doorposts of your house), others are more implicit (the mitzvah to recite grace after meals, which is inferred from “and you will eat and be satisfied and bless the L-rd your G-d”), and some can only be ascertained by deductive reasoning (that a man shall not commit incest with his daughter, which is deduced from the commandment not to commit incest with his daughter’s daughter).
Source - Judaism 101: Halakhah: Jewish Law
I was referring to the fact that some of the Judaic Laws have been deduced from the bible.
[/quote]
Who claimed that the Bible promotes murder? No holy book, as far as I am aware, promotes or condones murder. They all condemn murder, but, like our present legal system, they go to extensive lengths to specify all the kinds of killing that “don’t count” as murder.
Blaze’s initial statement, which you viewed as inflammatory, was that the Bible and the Qur’an both specified death as a punishment for sin.
My response to that was, “yeah, so?”
We kill sinners all the time in our enlightened, secular society. Sinners who have sinned against society or humanity, perhaps, rather than against God, but those same sins would have been met with the same punishment in the days of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Or, indeed, Hammurabi. [/quote]
I didn’t necessarily find his statement inflammatory personally. To do that I would have actually had to have cared what he was saying, but for the purpose of debate I was looking for him to support his statement with fact. [/quote]
So do you believe that the statement “it’s very clearly stated in the Quran and Bible to kill sinners” is not supported by the texts themselves?[/quote]
In case it has not been pointed out yet, blaze was rather obviously advancing the argument of religion condoning mass genocide in their holy books. He was not referring to capital punishment. If he had been, your response was well said.
Or you’re messing with people again with that sort of devil’s advocate thing you do. it’s late and I can’t tell.
[/quote]
Except that when blaze goes on to cite examples on page 13, the majority of those examples refer to capital punishment.
Edit:
Having reread those examples, not one of them calls for holy war or genocide to be visited on the unbelievers. Each of them calls for the death penalty to be applied to an individual living within the Israelites’ society as a result of a specific transgression.
Some codify religious orthodxy into law, but most deal with criminal law, family law or sexual morality and are geared toward maintaining strict civil order as much as religious purity. Many ancient cultures, regardless of religion, sought to maintain order in similar manners.
Incidentally, even if not punishable by death, many of those behaviours are still considered unacceptable if not outright prohibited by law (i.e. theft, murder, sex with your: mother-in-law, father-in-law, daughter-in-law, livestock etc).
Did gays actually believe this guy was a fan? I assume that gays know that Christians believe homosexual behavior (though not necessarily homosexuality) is a sin but draw the line at a Christian actually expressing that belief. This is why I don’t think most gays really care about what he said.
Oh yes, I’m quite aware what the examples cited actually call for, and varq is right as are you. but that wasnt what blaze was aiming at. he spent the previous pages talking about what a disease religion was and then went on to say religion is sll about “expanding the religion and killing all who dont agree” (paraphrased), which is exactly genocide, unless you prefer the term jihad. He clearly lumped all religion together there and he next said that the holy books call for killing sinners followed by citing the above. the train of his argument was clearly pointing toward mass killing even though he cited examples of a code of law with capital punishment for certain crimes in a certain society. wrong on multiple levels but especially wrong when used in tandem as some sort of “evidence” that “Religion” calls for mass murder of unbelievers (I.e. repent or be killed).
He won’t admit to that, but it was exactly what he was trying to do if you folloeed the train of his posts.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
“A lot of atrocities were done under religious systems, but they have nothing to do with religious systems. Christianity isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It just so happened to be that the guy(s) at the top was drunk with power and a fucking cunt.”
That you can’t or won’t see that is just willful closed-mindedness and blind faith that your ideology is better than the one you oppose. It’s precisely the type of zealotry that has resulted in all the worst of religious history.[/quote]
Except it’s very clearly stated in the quran and bible to kill sinners.[/quote]
If you are going to say something as inflammatory as that you will need to cite your proof.[/quote]
It’s not necessarily an inflammatory statement. Both Judaic law and Shari’a specify death for a number of offences, many of them also capital offenses in secular legal systems. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in a number of countries, and was a hanging offence in England until the end of the 17th century. [/quote]
Within the Judaic Laws and Shari has there been any interpretation of another text to deduce these laws? If so then I think it thrws that argument out. But now we are down to splitting hairs and that is pointless in a debate.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. What “argument” do you think merits being “thrown out” and for what reason?
Clarify what you mean by “interpretation of another text to deduce these laws”. Christian and Shari’a laws were both developed in the context of Judaic law, which likely had its roots in Babylonian and Egyptian law. Capital crimes today were capital crimes in the time of Hammurabi.
[/quote]
If we are speaking of if the Bible specifically promotes murder.
Some of the mitzvot d’oraita are clear, explicit commands in the text of the Torah (thou shalt not murder; you shall write words of Torah on the doorposts of your house), others are more implicit (the mitzvah to recite grace after meals, which is inferred from “and you will eat and be satisfied and bless the L-rd your G-d”), and some can only be ascertained by deductive reasoning (that a man shall not commit incest with his daughter, which is deduced from the commandment not to commit incest with his daughter’s daughter).
Source - Judaism 101: Halakhah: Jewish Law
I was referring to the fact that some of the Judaic Laws have been deduced from the bible.
[/quote]
Who claimed that the Bible promotes murder? No holy book, as far as I am aware, promotes or condones murder. They all condemn murder, but, like our present legal system, they go to extensive lengths to specify all the kinds of killing that “don’t count” as murder.
Blaze’s initial statement, which you viewed as inflammatory, was that the Bible and the Qur’an both specified death as a punishment for sin.
My response to that was, “yeah, so?”
We kill sinners all the time in our enlightened, secular society. Sinners who have sinned against society or humanity, perhaps, rather than against God, but those same sins would have been met with the same punishment in the days of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Or, indeed, Hammurabi. [/quote]
I didn’t necessarily find his statement inflammatory personally. To do that I would have actually had to have cared what he was saying, but for the purpose of debate I was looking for him to support his statement with fact. [/quote]
So do you believe that the statement “it’s very clearly stated in the Quran and Bible to kill sinners” is not supported by the texts themselves?[/quote]
In case it has not been pointed out yet, blaze was rather obviously advancing the argument of religion condoning mass genocide in their holy books. He was not referring to capital punishment. If he had been, your response was well said.
Or you’re messing with people again with that sort of devil’s advocate thing you do. it’s late and I can’t tell.
[/quote]
Except that when blaze goes on to cite examples on page 13, the majority of those examples refer to capital punishment.
Edit:
Having reread those examples, not one of them calls for holy war or genocide to be visited on the unbelievers. Each of them calls for the death penalty to be applied to an individual living within the Israelites’ society as a result of a specific transgression.
Some codify religious orthodxy into law, but most deal with criminal law, family law or sexual morality and are geared toward maintaining strict civil order as much as religious purity. Many ancient cultures, regardless of religion, sought to maintain order in similar manners.
Incidentally, even if not punishable by death, many of those behaviours are still considered unacceptable if not outright prohibited by law (i.e. theft, murder, sex with your: mother-in-law, father-in-law, daughter-in-law, livestock etc).
[/quote]
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Did gays actually believe this guy was a fan? I assume that gays know that Christians believe homosexual behavior (though not necessarily homosexuality) is a sin but draw the line at a Christian actually expressing that belief. This is why I don’t think most gays really care about what he said. [/quote]
Well, what’s even more ludicrous is that if he’d said “my religion teaches that traditional marriage is the way” nobody would have batted an eye. it’s the same fucking thing, exact same, as saying what he did only in more euphemistic words. So really they’re not even objecting what he said as much as they are offended by blunt straightforward manners of speaking.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Did gays actually believe this guy was a fan? I assume that gays know that Christians believe homosexual behavior (though not necessarily homosexuality) is a sin but draw the line at a Christian actually expressing that belief. This is why I don’t think most gays really care about what he said.
[/quote]
Well it was only a token suspension, so nobody really cares. Certain lifestyles magazines, like Men’s Health and GQ attract gay readership for the content, but aren’t gay interest. All of the criticism has been directed towards the studio, yet the controversy is all about a magazine article. A & E get lambasted (although ratings are up), but GQ is where the quote was printed and they haven’t been threatened with boycotts.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Oh yes, I’m quite aware what the examples cited actually call for, and varq is right as are you. but that wasnt what blaze was aiming at. he spent the previous pages talking about what a disease religion was and then went on to say religion is sll about “expanding the religion and killing all who dont agree” (paraphrased), which is exactly genocide, unless you prefer the term jihad. He clearly lumped all religion together there and he next said that the holy books call for killing sinners followed by citing the above. the train of his argument was clearly pointing toward mass killing even though he cited examples of a code of law with capital punishment for certain crimes in a certain society. wrong on multiple levels but especially wrong when used in tandem as some sort of “evidence” that “Religion” calls for mass murder of unbelievers (I.e. repent or be killed).
He won’t admit to that, but it was exactly what he was trying to do if you folloeed the train of his posts.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]JCMPG wrote:
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
“A lot of atrocities were done under religious systems, but they have nothing to do with religious systems. Christianity isn’t necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. It just so happened to be that the guy(s) at the top was drunk with power and a fucking cunt.”
That you can’t or won’t see that is just willful closed-mindedness and blind faith that your ideology is better than the one you oppose. It’s precisely the type of zealotry that has resulted in all the worst of religious history.[/quote]
Except it’s very clearly stated in the quran and bible to kill sinners.[/quote]
If you are going to say something as inflammatory as that you will need to cite your proof.[/quote]
It’s not necessarily an inflammatory statement. Both Judaic law and Shari’a specify death for a number of offences, many of them also capital offenses in secular legal systems. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in a number of countries, and was a hanging offence in England until the end of the 17th century. [/quote]
Within the Judaic Laws and Shari has there been any interpretation of another text to deduce these laws? If so then I think it thrws that argument out. But now we are down to splitting hairs and that is pointless in a debate.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. What “argument” do you think merits being “thrown out” and for what reason?
Clarify what you mean by “interpretation of another text to deduce these laws”. Christian and Shari’a laws were both developed in the context of Judaic law, which likely had its roots in Babylonian and Egyptian law. Capital crimes today were capital crimes in the time of Hammurabi.
[/quote]
If we are speaking of if the Bible specifically promotes murder.
Some of the mitzvot d’oraita are clear, explicit commands in the text of the Torah (thou shalt not murder; you shall write words of Torah on the doorposts of your house), others are more implicit (the mitzvah to recite grace after meals, which is inferred from “and you will eat and be satisfied and bless the L-rd your G-d”), and some can only be ascertained by deductive reasoning (that a man shall not commit incest with his daughter, which is deduced from the commandment not to commit incest with his daughter’s daughter).
Source - Judaism 101: Halakhah: Jewish Law
I was referring to the fact that some of the Judaic Laws have been deduced from the bible.
[/quote]
Who claimed that the Bible promotes murder? No holy book, as far as I am aware, promotes or condones murder. They all condemn murder, but, like our present legal system, they go to extensive lengths to specify all the kinds of killing that “don’t count” as murder.
Blaze’s initial statement, which you viewed as inflammatory, was that the Bible and the Qur’an both specified death as a punishment for sin.
My response to that was, “yeah, so?”
We kill sinners all the time in our enlightened, secular society. Sinners who have sinned against society or humanity, perhaps, rather than against God, but those same sins would have been met with the same punishment in the days of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Or, indeed, Hammurabi. [/quote]
I didn’t necessarily find his statement inflammatory personally. To do that I would have actually had to have cared what he was saying, but for the purpose of debate I was looking for him to support his statement with fact. [/quote]
So do you believe that the statement “it’s very clearly stated in the Quran and Bible to kill sinners” is not supported by the texts themselves?[/quote]
In case it has not been pointed out yet, blaze was rather obviously advancing the argument of religion condoning mass genocide in their holy books. He was not referring to capital punishment. If he had been, your response was well said.
Or you’re messing with people again with that sort of devil’s advocate thing you do. it’s late and I can’t tell.
[/quote]
Except that when blaze goes on to cite examples on page 13, the majority of those examples refer to capital punishment.
Edit:
Having reread those examples, not one of them calls for holy war or genocide to be visited on the unbelievers. Each of them calls for the death penalty to be applied to an individual living within the Israelites’ society as a result of a specific transgression.
Some codify religious orthodxy into law, but most deal with criminal law, family law or sexual morality and are geared toward maintaining strict civil order as much as religious purity. Many ancient cultures, regardless of religion, sought to maintain order in similar manners.
Incidentally, even if not punishable by death, many of those behaviours are still considered unacceptable if not outright prohibited by law (i.e. theft, murder, sex with your: mother-in-law, father-in-law, daughter-in-law, livestock etc).
[/quote]
[/quote]
What God’s own action were as describe in the Bible is very different than what Blaze stated, at least in the way I understand the Bible.