mic wrote:...It's NOT a contradiction! Nor subjective!...
Phatman & Skarjo (altogether now...) wrote:...OOHHHH YES IT IS..!
With regards to the
sixth commandment "thou shall not kill", this is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." Clearly, the Bible does not consider all taking of life to be murder, which is only the
unlawful taking of human life. Neither does the command not to kill apply to animals or plant life, as God suggested that we could eat certain kinds.
Obviously killing during war would not be considered as murder. Some criminals (murderers, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers) could also be
legally executed, as could those practicing certain abominations. It was therefore quite appropriate, back then, for homosexuals to be executed (let me finish!). Now, however, is quite a different story...
God had a plan for the Jews (Israelites),
and they blew it!
Remember, God was in their presence (in the form of the Shekinah). However, now that God's church is among the gentile (non-Jewish) nations, it would be ludicrous to kill everyone for their abominable practices! There'd be nobody left!
Again, the Jews had God's presence - Richard Dawkins himself would not have been able to convince them of His non-existence. More recently, we only have the Bible as evidence... don't you think that calls for a bit more leniency? Hence, it isn't that the Levitical laws are no longer valid (God LOVES gays - He just doesn't like it when they bum or poke each other in the mouth - sorry), but rather that God (and surely therefore by extension His believers?) are much more lenient towards abominable sins while they take the time to learn of Him (or not).
I don't really expect anyone else to appreciate this admittedly fine distinction, but there you go.
Skarjo wrote:…When did I ever say that? That's such a curveball statement that you nearly got me off guard…!
You can’t blame me for trying… I’m dyin’ out here!
Skarjo wrote:… I shall concede that to the best of my knowledge most religions instruct that the law of the land should be respected…
Much obliged.
Phatman wrote:...It suggests something is wrong with that book if justification for an awful action can be found...
Skarjo wrote:… If they, as they very easily can, can point to a Bible passage and say 'this supports what I have' then it is, at the very least, the start of a discussion and debate over whether this is correct...
Nothing wrong with debate – especially if the perpetrator is using misapplied or out of context evidence. For example (here we go again): if I read Darwin’s ‘Origin’, went on a killing spree of benefits cheats and then claimed that my victims were merely animals and, as they were a drain on resources, were therefore not fit enough to survive in modern society, necessitating my 'naturally selecting' them for termination, would all Ev-Bio’s* then be responsible?
*You may not like my example.