|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2006 05:43:36 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
So theSaj you downloaded and watched Dawkins 2 part documentary? |
MM,
How do you do the bit-torrent thing? Thanks. |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 06:08:10 PM · #152 |
"So as long as we kill without murdering we should be in good shape."
Shouts "No Death to Bacteria!"
But let's be a bit realistic. 2,000-4,000 yrs ago the means of keeping large numbers imprisoned were not very efficient. (Albeit, the Romans did fairly well.) But the risk for escape even then was quite high, even with the Romans.
Now let's go back earlier, to a nomadic lifestyle. Just tell me exactly how you would keep a violent criminal imprisoned when your civilation lives in tent encampments?
You couldn't...
About the only thing you could do besides execution was to either blind the perpetrator or cut off his fingers. However, both of these were essentially death sentences in and of themselves as they also removed said individual's ability to work and support themselves. Few would have the inclination and few stiller the means to support and take care of such an individual should they have the inclination. So such an action essentially condemned said individual not only to death but usually to a slow agonizing death.
So in a nomadic society, capital punishment really is the only way to deal with a violent perpetrator
Now, with the advancement of our means we have greater ability to ensure the protection of the common citizen, the member of society in good standing. The need for the death penalty is much less severe perhaps even questionable.
So yes, the fact that the Law specified a procedure, a requirement for evidence, and that such must be carried out by a legal body under just measures as opposed to an individual taking the right into their own hands (which was none to uncommon in that day and age) was in comparison a good thing.
Is it a good thing when any man dies, regardless of whether by execution, war, murder or an accidental tragedy. Of course not.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 06:08:48 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I never understood how religionists could intermingle science in their "pious" lives, such as when they seek medical care for help with health issues. It appears to be a hypocracy when they claim that their god is the source of all fates, but attempt to change that fate through science. |
Scripture is replete with references to physicians as well as "faith" healers. In the OLD Testament, many of the "laws" dealt with illness and diseases and usually involved sacrifice, and a visit to the high priest, along with quarantine. Miraculous healings were also attributed to the some of the prophets. But by the time of the New Testament, it is apparant that medicine had become a depended upon discipline - in fact Luke, writer of the Gospel of Luke, was a physician. Among the scriptures concerning physicians is the famous, oft quoted, "Physician, heal thyself".
If one prays to, and trusts in God for healing, it would be incongruous to dismiss or ignore His decision to use physicians and/or medications to accomplish that healing, when He has shown, through Scripture, that He has used such instruments in the Past.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 06:09:50 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
MM,
How do you do the bit-torrent thing? Thanks. |
This is bittorrent; Wiki Bittorrent.
Download this tiny free program; uTorrent and install. More info on uTorrent here; www.utorrent.com
When you click on the links I provided to download the Dawkins movie, use uTorrent to open. It's fairly easy.
Here is "The Root of all Evil?"
Part 1
Part 2
As far as downloading stuff, there are a million "bittorrent sites", google can help. If you are interested in documentaries I suggest this site.
A recent estimate by Wired magazine says 33% of all internet traffic today is through bittorrent.
Message edited by author 2006-02-07 18:19:39. |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 06:27:54 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
2,000-4,000 yrs ago the means of keeping large numbers imprisoned were not very efficient... |
Wow, you're reading quite a lot there in between the lines. I didn't realize there were clauses covering the technology or convenience of restraint, right to a fair trial, etc. So really, it's more like, "Thou shalt not kill other humans unless everybody generally agrees it's a bad guy and you have no other practical way to handle it." That seems like a pretty major rule for an all-knowing being to leave open to interpretation, don't you think? |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:12:11 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by theSaj:
2,000-4,000 yrs ago the means of keeping large numbers imprisoned were not very efficient... |
Wow, you're reading quite a lot there in between the lines. I didn't realize there were clauses covering the technology or convenience of restraint, right to a fair trial, etc. So really, it's more like, "Thou shalt not kill other humans unless everybody generally agrees it's a bad guy and you have no other practical way to handle it." That seems like a pretty major rule for an all-knowing being to leave open to interpretation, don't you think? |
To be fair, Scripture doesn't indicate that the decision to inflict capital punishment was only to be undertaken if "everybody generally agrees". Rather, under Mosaic law, it was left up to judges, even Moses. And, it was subject to the requirement that there be at least two reputable witnesses to the "crime" - circumstantial evidence was not considered reliable for capital punishment.
A Scripture example:
Deuteronomy 17:6 "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."
Note, too, that the death sentence was not carried out by "anonymous civil servants", rather the witnesses who testified against the defendant had to initiate the sentence themselves -
Deuteronomy 17:7 "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you."
Message edited by author 2006-02-07 19:15:46. |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:19:49 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In the OLD Testament, many of the "laws" dealt with illness and diseases and usually involved sacrifice, and a visit to the high priest, along with quarantine. |
Indeed, according to the Bible, the major ingredients needed to cure a man of his leprosy are two clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, hyssop, fresh water in a clay pot, a tent, a razor, two male lambs, one year old ewe, oil and a grain offering. He should be sure not to forget a priest who must rub some lamb’s blood on his right ear, right thumb and big right toe.
It’s all very scientific. |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:20:54 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
ATTN: LegalBeagle |
Okay - I am still struggling technologically, but you got my attention.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Professor Dawkins presents a highly intelligent, though admittedly strongly pro-scientific, argument."
[ I disagree. He provided and extremely subjective argument filled with numerous common fallacies. The above sentence is also merely a subjective statement. ] |
I am sorry, but the Prof did not become the Prof without being able to present an argument intelligently. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.
Originally posted by theSaj:
LegalBeagle, perhaps your intent was unobtrusive. But I think your method or pattern of thinking in relation to these topics put you on a poor path. Perhaps, a negative path is a more accurate description of the problem. For an atheist, you seem to be more caught up with religion than most anyone I know online. And I think your methods of presenting said discussion lay a negative foundation. Their divisive and de-constructive.
If this is really what you intend to do, then do it from a non-confrontational direction. (That's not to say conflict won't arise. It always will. Someone will ram religion down people's throats. And another will endeavor to prove them wrong and ram their own views down said first person's throat. It just happens. But at least it can be presented in a conducive way.) |
I have said it twice and will say it one more time: I presented another's argument for discussion. If I had made it entirely devoid of controversy, there would be no interesting discussion (see DPC Debate Thread (sorry Justin!)). I most certainly did not ram the argument down anyone's throat, though it could well be interpreted as a challenge to justify the alternative view.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Here are some examples:
1. the extent to which someone who preaches tolerance should be tolerant of intolerant people;
[ This is a better start. As long as it is kept there. Don't put the focus of tolerating onto any one group or lay blame from onset. Do we tolerate NAZI's? when should said toleration stop? how far should we go to understand? I believe that many pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates are both well intentioned. I do not think that pro-choice advocates get a kick out of aborting babies. I believe that it is their belief that they are helping a woman in need. Likewise, I've seen pro-lifers often described as being unconcerned about women. Which is also not true. But as they believe that baby is a life they believe they are helping to save a life. And it's a very gray area in the minds of many. Posting a thread by either the title of "Why to pro-choicers like to kill babies!" or "Why do pro-lifer's hate women!" is not conducive to discussion. Nor is it even a proper opening for a philosophical discussion. Rather, it opens with essentially an ad hominem and a few other fallacies. And does no one justice.
So, I am all for a discussion of "where the boundaries of tolerance stand, and how do we know where to place them". ] |
My point was very much more direct in the way that I stated it (I do not know how (or why) the Nazi party always ends up, capitalised, in your response to so many points...). It was a response to your accusation that I have double standards for preaching tolerance but then not being tolerant of religious bigots. My own view is that someone who preaches tolerance does not necessarily have to practise tolerance where he is faced with an intolerant person: in this one respect he has found his self proclaimed adversary or foe.[edit: for clarity, he does not have to tolerate the intolerance itself].
My argument does deal with the topic of the thread (focussing on religious aspects of the question) but does not branch out into discussion of fascism, abortion rights and start wandering from the discursive point as your does: in this regard, I would prefer that you maintain some degree of focus.
I do try and keep a modicum of objectivity in the phraseology of most of my posts: you are accusing me of something that we had quite a heated debate about when I accused you of using deliberately loaded phraseology (which you refused to accept). Not quite sure if you are deliberately trying to use the same arguments back at me to make a point, as you have tried to do elsewhere, but I do not think that it works here.
Originally posted by theSaj:
2. the extent to which morality is derived from religious principles, or the extent to which the religions we choose to believe (or perhaps devise) reflect something more innate (evidence for which is the apparent existence of moral judgments being made by non-religious social creatures, such as chimps);
[ Once again, why so much focus on religion? Why not an address more like thus: The vast majority of both atheists and religious people believe murder is wrong. Why? Sure, one might retort - "God said it!" but if he did, wouldn't he have reasons for doing so. So whether atheist or religious,...let's delve in to reason and see if we can come up with rational reasons that justify the common morality that most accept (Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not lie, etc.)
Heck, such would be a blast. Sure, a few will say "God said it, and that's good enough for me!" but that does not encompass the mindset of all religious people and sure does not encompass the mindset of the atheist "The God who does not exist said it and that's good enough for me!" *lol* obviously doesn't fly.
This is actually an enlightening discussion. One I've had with atheist friends to the great enjoyment and enlightment of all. We were able to come to some justification on murder, and even stealing. Others became more difficult. But there is only so much we could conclude in one night's philosophical discussion.
] |
You have previously tried to argue that morality and the concept of rights is founded (to an extent) in religious principles. I think that you are doing the same here, but cannot follow some of your sequiturs. If so, the topic is one that appears to meet with your approval. However, I do not think that your method of expression of the question is clearer or more neutral than mine; in fact less.
Originally posted by theSaj:
3. the extent to which the "one true God" aspect of Abrahamic religions, when taught/believed strictly, fundamentally creates a tension and intolerance that is unhelpful in modern society.
[ Once again, why focus on religion. Sure it might be the easiest example to point to. But in that, it is merely an example and not the argument which is more so "Do exclusive beliefs, religious or otherwise, have a place in modern society?" As tension and intolerance are derived from many beliefs when fundamentally held leading toward tension and intolerance. A common example: "All whites are responsible for slavery." This mentality has brewed much tension and intolerance within segments of certain communities. It's not a true statement. But the fundamental belief of such as held by some creates an extremely difficult situation within modern society. So the scope is not limited to religion. And by addressing such outside of a single arbitrary focus, perhaps we can find insights to resolving them all.] |
I am not sure that you mean to put the belief in one true god in the same category as the belief in whote supremacy: I don't believe in either, but some people may be offended by your comparison. The post is about religion, so I am not sure why I would want to make the point more broad. Certainly, your suggested re-wording makes the point vague and pretty irrelevant as a point for discussion.
Originally posted by theSaj:
The problem is, that when focus is targeted on one demographic, it will cause said demographic to become defensive. The end result is an offensive/defensive situation that results in great tension and conflict. And very little productivity. |
Maybe heated debate. I was not looking for a consensus, but I would be interested in hearing a well argued opposing view. I think that Paddles' well written response (posted at 02/04/2006 01:20:49 AM) was an interesting read, for example.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Oh yes, I am very much in need of learning from my own words...and others. And I do! A while back we had a debate on the death penalty, (re: Tookie Williams) and I came away a bit changed in my perspective. And I now approach the matter from a somewhat different angle than I once did. I may even vote differently in the future. (In truth, although it was lively I thought it was one of the best discussions we'd had in these rant boards. |
Why else bother, if not to learn about (and sometimes from) different points of view?
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 06:19:23.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:26:16 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
...according to the Bible, the major ingredients needed to cure a man of his leprosy are two clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, hyssop, fresh water in a clay pot, a tent, a razor, two male lambs, one year old ewe, oil and a grain offering. He should be sure not to forget a priest who must rub some lamb’s blood on his right ear, right thumb and big right toe.
It’s all very scientific. |
If you only had dirty birds and blue yarn available, could you reduce the leprosy to psoraisis or maybe just a rash? |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:29:36 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hoo, boy... I'm in trouble now! :-O |
Lucidity, the eighth deadly sin ... I've always found it odd that our name for Evil Incarnate means "bringer of light" ...
Message edited by author 2006-02-07 19:54:01. |
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:37:21 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by theSaj:
2,000-4,000 yrs ago the means of keeping large numbers imprisoned were not very efficient... |
Wow, you're reading quite a lot there in between the lines. |
Rather, under Mosaic law, it was left up to judges, even Moses. |
I am not sure that this overcomes the basic point that the death penalty does not sit comfortably with the comandment. And thSaj's point underestimates the spohistication of ancient civilisations. While imprisonment was an option (I have passed the cells where St Paul wrote his letters in Ephesus), there were many more creative methods of punishment available including reaonably sophisticated financial redress and social consequences, other forms of capital punishment and slavery.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2006 07:39:45 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
[ Catholics are a minority religious group? *ponders the fact* |
Material wealth and population counts do not exist in and sort of one-to-one correspondence, as an analysis of wealth in the USA clearly indicates. In the 1960 Presidential race, "whether a Catholic can be elected President" was a major issue in deciding whether to nominate John F. Kennedy, and he won in what is still one of the closest races (popular vote-wise) ever. I'm pretty sure there have been no Jewish Presidents; there have been to Quakers.
The Catholics may be close to being the largest single denomination in the US, but I'm pretty sure the various Protestant sects outnumber them within the Christian community.
Message edited by author 2006-02-07 19:40:21. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 08:52:39 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
In the OLD Testament, many of the "laws" dealt with illness and diseases and usually involved sacrifice, and a visit to the high priest, along with quarantine. |
Indeed, according to the Bible, the major ingredients needed to cure a man of his leprosy are two clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, hyssop, fresh water in a clay pot, a tent, a razor, two male lambs, one year old ewe, oil and a grain offering. He should be sure not to forget a priest who must rub some lamb’s blood on his right ear, right thumb and big right toe.
It’s all very scientific. |
While NOT very "scientific", the above rituals and ingregients were NOT, as Bill maintains, needed to CURE a man of his leprosy. Indeed, if a man DID have leprosy, Scripture does not indicate any cure other than devine intervention. Though, to be sure, sceptics would attribute any such cure to "self-remission".
In actually, the above mentioned were the ingredients and rituals needed to make a public declaration that the man, having been previously declared to be leprous, had been re-examined in accordance with the prescribed examinations, and was now determined to be CLEAN. It was not a "cure" but a public ceremony declaring to the congregation that the man was no longer leprous.
Those intent on mocking Scripture should first take the time to read and understand it beforehand, lest they expose their ignorance. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 09:26:14 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by theSaj:
2,000-4,000 yrs ago the means of keeping large numbers imprisoned were not very efficient... |
Wow, you're reading quite a lot there in between the lines. |
Rather, under Mosaic law, it was left up to judges, even Moses. |
I am not sure that this overcomes the basic point that the death penalty does not sit comfortably with the comandment. And thSaj's point underestimates the spohistication of ancient civilisations. While imprisonment was an option (I have passed the cells where St Paul wrote his letters in Ephesus), there were many more creative methods of punishment available including reaonably sophisticated financial redress and social consequences, other forms of capital punishment and slavery. |
Two points:
1) It doesn't have to sit comfortably with the comandment. God's instructions, given through Moses, were to execute those found guilty, in a court of law, of capital offenses - those offenses having also been defined by God, given through Moses.
While you, and others, may ask "how do we KNOW that God gave the law to Moses, it is not pertinent to the discussion. The law, whether given by God or not, was well understood by the people. They knew the law, and they knew the consequenses of breaking the law.
2) Incarceration in the time of Paul's writing, was under Roman rule, and in Roman facilities - and a VERY distant time than that of the Exodus. At the time the Commandments were given, the Hebrews were at the beginning of a 40 year period of wandering in the desert - and they had no permanent buildings during that time.
Note: the above is in no way meant to lend agreement / disagreement with theSaj's reasoning ( He is fully capable of formulating his own responses ) - merely to clarify the issue for some. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 09:28:09 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The Catholics may be close to being the largest single denomination in the US, but I'm pretty sure the various Protestant sects outnumber them within the Christian community. |
Unless one defines "Pro test ant" as simply a protesting catholic. The common phrasing of using a short vowel "a" (ah) instead of a long "O" for Pro, has effectively allowed protestants to avoid association with their root, which was catholicism. They are merely protesting catholics.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 09:29:50 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...Scripture does not indicate any cure other than devine intervention. ...Those intent on mocking Scripture should first take the time to read and understand it beforehand, lest they expose their ignorance. |
Leviticus 14-
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ...if I put a leprous infection on any house of the land you occupy, the owner of the house shall come and report to the priest, 'It looks to me as if my house were infected.' The priest shall then order the house to be cleared out before he goes in to examine the infection, lest everything in the house become unclean. ...If he finds that the infection has spread on the walls, he shall order the infected stones to be pulled out and cast in an unclean place outside the city. The whole inside of the house shall then be scraped, and the mortar that has been scraped off shall be dumped in an unclean place outside the city. Then new stones shall be brought and put in the place of the old stones, and new mortar shall be made and plastered on the house. ...If the priest finds, when he comes to examine the house, that the infection has in fact not spread after the plastering, he shall declare the house clean, since the infection has been healed. To purify the house, he shall take two birds, as well as cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop. One of the birds he shall slay over an earthen vessel with spring water in it. Then, taking the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn, together with the living bird, he shall dip them all in the blood of the slain bird and the spring water, and sprinkle the house seven times. Thus shall he purify the house with the bird's blood and the spring water, along with the living bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet yarn."
Scripture does indeed offer a cure for leprosy, albeit for infected houses (presumably this was before homes were vaccinated). The "cure" in this case was scraping and replastering the walls. The house was then declared clean before all the other magic ingredients were used to "purify" the house. Those intent on defending Scripture should heed their own advice. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 10:28:39 AM · #167 |
Did you know that, if you are poor, you can get a discount for your “cleansing”? If your were poor, you could go down to your local Sacrifices-“R”-Us wholesale store and purchase one male lamb, two doves, two pigeons, about six quarts of grain and a log of oil. You still have to go through getting a blooded ear, thumb and big toe, however.
Oh, don’t get too attached to any of the animals. Jehovah apparently has thing for smeared blood and the scent of burning animal flesh on an altar. He gets pleasure out of the smell.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:01:45 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...Scripture does not indicate any cure other than devine intervention. ...Those intent on mocking Scripture should first take the time to read and understand it beforehand, lest they expose their ignorance. |
Leviticus 14-
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ...if I put a leprous infection on any house of the land you occupy, the owner of the house shall come and report to the priest, 'It looks to me as if my house were infected.' The priest shall then order the house to be cleared out before he goes in to examine the infection, lest everything in the house become unclean. ...If he finds that the infection has spread on the walls, he shall order the infected stones to be pulled out and cast in an unclean place outside the city. The whole inside of the house shall then be scraped, and the mortar that has been scraped off shall be dumped in an unclean place outside the city. Then new stones shall be brought and put in the place of the old stones, and new mortar shall be made and plastered on the house. ...If the priest finds, when he comes to examine the house, that the infection has in fact not spread after the plastering, he shall declare the house clean, since the infection has been healed. To purify the house, he shall take two birds, as well as cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop. One of the birds he shall slay over an earthen vessel with spring water in it. Then, taking the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn, together with the living bird, he shall dip them all in the blood of the slain bird and the spring water, and sprinkle the house seven times. Thus shall he purify the house with the bird's blood and the spring water, along with the living bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet yarn."
Scripture does indeed offer a cure for leprosy, albeit for infected houses (presumably this was before homes were vaccinated). The "cure" in this case was scraping and replastering the walls. The house was then declared clean before all the other magic ingredients were used to "purify" the house. Those intent on defending Scripture should heed their own advice. ;-) |
When quoting me, please do not take my statements compeletly out of context and then attempt to use my words against me. The complete quote is ( emphasis mine ): "Indeed, if a man DID have leprosy, Scripture does not indicate any cure other than devine intervention."
To those who can read and understand, it should be extremely obvious from the introductory phrase, that the latter portion of my statement was in reference to a MAN, and a MAN only, not a house.
Message edited by author 2006-02-08 11:02:37. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:06:41 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I never understood how religionists could intermingle science in their "pious" lives, such as when they seek medical care for help with health issues. It appears to be a hypocracy when they claim that their god is the source of all fates, but attempt to change that fate through science. |
Scripture is replete with references to physicians as well as "faith" healers. In the OLD Testament, many of the "laws" dealt with illness and diseases and usually involved sacrifice, and a visit to the high priest, along with quarantine. Miraculous healings were also attributed to the some of the prophets. But by the time of the New Testament, it is apparant that medicine had become a depended upon discipline - in fact Luke, writer of the Gospel of Luke, was a physician. Among the scriptures concerning physicians is the famous, oft quoted, "Physician, heal thyself".
If one prays to, and trusts in God for healing, it would be incongruous to dismiss or ignore His decision to use physicians and/or medications to accomplish that healing, when He has shown, through Scripture, that He has used such instruments in the Past. |
********
Where in scripture does god say it's ok to use open-heart surgery, or genetically engineered medication for disease alleviation? Seems to me that religionists require...demand, blind deference to their god, except when it suits their purposes otherwise. If in the Christian view this life on earth is a mere passage to the final "glory of god" that awaits all those good christians after death, then why protest or rebel against a disease that was inflicted by the ultimate source of all fates, god? Why question god's actions? |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:35:15 AM · #170 |
"Wow, you're reading quite a lot there in between the lines. I didn't realize there were clauses covering the technology or convenience of restraint, right to a fair trial, etc. So really, it's more like, "Thou shalt not kill other humans unless everybody generally agrees it's a bad guy and you have no other practical way to handle it." That seems like a pretty major rule for an all-knowing being to leave open to interpretation, don't you think?"
A large aspect is understanding the meaning and context of the word prior to translation. It's not about general agreement but rather judges made the determination, just as they do in our society. The Ten Commandments as they are referred to are personal admonitions to the individual. Admonitions to government (and judges) are addressed seperately.
I am really puzzled why this seems such an incredulous thing to understand as it is identical within our society. Let's throw the death penalty right out. We'll just focus on life sentence. I am not allowed by our society to sentence someone to a life sentence. Albeit, the government does have said authority to do so. And in lines with the established precepts for such a judge can sentence someone to life imprisonment. Of note, that judge cannot sentence just anyone to life imprisonment. He has no authority on his own to do such. He cannot imprison his neighbor for life. It must be through the act and dictates and establishment of the government. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:36:34 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by RonB:
To those who can read and understand, it should be extremely obvious from the introductory phrase, that the latter portion of my statement was in reference to a MAN, and a MAN only, not a house. |
OK, suit yourself... scripture offers no cure for a man with leprosy, only for HOUSES with leprosy. Yeah, that makes so much more sense. But I'm still confused... if in fact those those items are only used for a cleansing ceremony after a person is cured of an infectious skin disease, why aren't dermatologists or priests stockpiling doves and yarn? Was there some point at which God later said oh, nevermind... it's OK to skip all those old mandatory regulations? |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:44:30 AM · #172 |
| TheSaj, I really wish you'd state the name of the poster of who's quote you are responding to. It would really help in the readibility of this thread, thanks. |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:45:29 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The Ten Commandments as they are referred to are personal admonitions to the individual. Admonitions to government (and judges) are addressed seperately. |
Alrighty then... thanks for the clarification. So now we have, "Thou individual people shalt not kill other humans, unless you're acting in an official government capacity and there's no other practical way to handle the bad guys" or something to that effect. Can you please point me to the separate government commandments or exclusion clauses for personal reference? |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:45:59 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
TheSaj, I really wish you'd state the name of the poster of who's quote you are responding to. |
That would be me. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/08/2006 11:51:08 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Can you please point me to the separate government commandments or exclusion clauses for personal reference? |
LOL keep em comin! |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:43 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:43 PM EDT.
|
