Printable View
Actually I dare you to find any threads where Lewk says that. Go on. Lewk isn't shy of his religiosity - nor his strong Texan conservative values but I can't recall him ever saying "Fry 'em because the bible says to".Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
You know what's funny? When people who've obviously never read the Bible try to talk about what's in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Doesn't exclude the possibility either. As has been mentioned, there's really nothing in the Bible against polygamy (so long as one can afford to feed, clothe and fuck all his spouses), and like much of what social conservatives tend to champion, there's actually very little in the way of support for their positions in the religion they claim to adhere to. Societal standards rather than religious edicts and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I've mostly seen that passage used in attempts to discern what God prefers rather than what he demands and prohibits.
Maybe you should take a look at his arguments against homosexuality? I distinctly recall him using the Bible pretty liberally in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But thanks for mentioning his stand on the death penalty and his stance towards punishment - that's interesting as well, since the Bible actually very specifically forbids vengeance.
Er, no, it doesn't. What do you think cities of refuge were created for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
To give asylum for manslaughter?
I can see where the OT may permit eye-for-an-eye revenge (as opposed to monetary restitution) when it comes to big things like murder, where no atonement is possible.
I get the impression the Bible's stance on theft isn't very much like Lewk's.
And the reason they required asylum was because the family of the victim was permitted to exact vengeance for their loved one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
As far as theft was concerned, I believe the penalty was a minimum of double the value of the stolen item in restitution, and possibly more, depending on the circumstances of the theft and the recovery of the stolen goods.
If a criminal was killed during the commission of a crime, I don't believe the victim would typically be held liable for the death.
At least that seems to be my recollection of Levitical law.
I don't, I'd be interested to see some quotes, especially in regards to how he says the law should be. In fact I distinctly recall that his opinion of eg homosexual marriage was that the laws on it should be exactly the same as how he thinks the laws should be for heterosexual marriage. I.e. that the state should have nothing to do with either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
What a crock. I could find you plenty of biblical passages both supporting and opposing it so don't talk nonsense claiming its "very specifically" just one. But again, I don't want to speak for Lewk but my understanding is that he supports the death penalty for entirely secular reasons of believing it is the right thing to do.Quote:
But thanks for mentioning his stand on the death penalty and his stance towards punishment - that's interesting as well, since the Bible actually very specifically forbids vengeance.
And what is the Bible's general stance on personal revenge?
While I generally avoid Bible-study sites, it's useful to have a compilation of references and stuff
http://bible.org/seriespage/jesus-an...matthew-538-42
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You can't get much clearer than that. Even Leviticus has a similar passage:
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."
And I'm also highly dubious as to anyone who uses the Old Testament when we're talking about Christianity. Shouldn't the words of Jesus have a slightly higher priority than some prophet's ramblings? Jesus himself said "Don't take revenge, turn the other cheek!" Shouldn't that have some merit in a religion which is actually named after the guy? Or do we now call it "Leviticanism" since you guys seem to be so in love with this old fella?
Uhm... do you think there was a prophet named Leviticus? He wasn't an 'old' fellow'. Leviticus is so named because it begins with a discussion of the laws affecting the tribe of Levi, specifically the service of the priests and Levites in the Temple. It's not seen as a prophetic work except insasmuch as Moses (the purported author) was transcribing the word of God.
(The vengeance story is an interesting one, but somewhat more complex. I would argue that outside of the famous case of cities of refuge, vengeance is frowned upon, but that it is not seen as integral to the death penalty.)
Whatever. The point is: Revenge is specifically forbidden throughout the Bible. Even "Eye for an Eye" is intended to put a stop to taking revenge and instead turning it into justice (even if a harsh version of it).
:(
All the bible quoting is scaring Lewk away. I'm still waiting for him to explain himself on this extremely transparent attempt to justify Santroum's misquoted remark.
Well didn't he say he posted this before Santorum? Could Santorum be a copycat of our Lewk?
except that was a lie, and santorums remarks are years old.
I haven't had the experience. Is it something you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
No it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
See, and this is the exact same thing the fundies do, so congrats on being just like a religious fundie.
"Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord..." is a completely different meaning from "revenge is prohibited," but you don't care so long as you can find some flimsy pretense to justify your personal beliefs with some religious text.
Other than murder and possibly manslaughter, under what circumstances does even the OT permit--let alone encourage--the exacting of personal revenge?
Nowhere and never. Since the Bible is intended as a guiding point and a code of law, it would be highly detrimental to allow personal revenge. Instead the Bible sets guidelines and rules as to how justice in the face of a crime or wrongdoing is to be meted out, so that it does not end in a spiral of increasing violence and blood feuds.
That wasn't what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Much like polygamy and homosexuality and drug use and all those other things social conservatives jump on as being prohibited in the Bible, when there's actually very little said either way about them, the topic of revenge doesn't come up a whole lot and is mentioned factually rather than with a moral judgement one way or the other. (Vengeance and revenge being different things of course, though the presence of the distinction and a corresponding lack of an outright prohibition on the latter being somewhat telling, at least as far as I'm concerned.)
And pardon me if I don't seem all that interested in a discussion on Biblical matters, particularly around here - that would be primarily because I'm not. Between Khen's braying and the general ignorance on the topic, not to mention the general hostility to all things religious around here, I guess I just can't bring myself to care too much. Though, as I said, I do find it deliciously amusing that Khen and some of the others who rail so hard against the fundies are doing the exact same thing the fundies do, with the exact same book that the fundies do.
Okay then what do the rabbis say
Well, you'd have to ask the Rabbis, wouldn't you?
And, as with most things, you ask 5 Rabbis, and you'll get 10 different answers, so good luck with that.
By individuals... not society. In addition there's lot of self defense passages and praise of warriors in the bible. Capital punishment is not in any way prohibited by the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
capital punishment for toothpaste theft, or during the defense of toothpaste? :bulb: whether by society or by individuals. citation neededQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That "Eye for an eye" thing went clearly over his head. It's a pretty simple rule and yet he still does not grasp the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well, that clearly explains why he's not understanding the more complicated rules of laws we employ nowadays.
Was the toothpaste one not where the thief was killed during the commissioning of the theft?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Google
Again with the Old Testament. It's almost as if Christ had never been born!
Admittedly the sun had not risen but it wasn't exactly immediate and in defense. Moreover, the question wasn't about blood-guilt but rather about whether or not death is an appropriate punishment for theft. Most of what those parts of the bible have to say about theft seems to be about restitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think he was, I'm an atheist and think that the evidence of Christ having ever even lived as an individual is absolutely uncertain. Even if he did, which he may have I don't think we can know for certain, I do not think he was either the son of God or even that the gospels are his words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Either way though, you were quoting Eye for an Eye and that is Old Testament itself. Jesus goes further and opposes an Eye for an Eye itself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus