Can no one stop this???

[DuncanONeil]

Arguably true, but we weren't talking about theology, but about appeals to the Bible for mundane law. And people looking for rules generally refer to the OT, because Jesus's reported sayings are way too liberal-hippie for most Biblical literalists' taste. (Though of course there is a rich seam of dictatorial and misogynist pronouncements from Paul.)

I really have not seen much of this assignment of modern society to the laws set out in the Bible. Admittedly I have not read Leviticus. But the "laws" therein can not be much different or worse than the Code of Hammurabi. I have read some of those.

If you really believe there is no current movement for Christian religious law, you're not following the news: http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...186#post881186

News! I am not sure this qualifies as news. While some in the blogosphere do a creditable job in presenting news articles this one is quite weak. Much of what is said seems to be a leap of conclusion, or faith if one chooses. The author does not provide much in the way of support for their conclusions. There are precious few quotes from Ms Angle, I remember none. Suffice to say I do not qualify this as news.

In the first place, ... Once they were in a position to replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it, but that came too late to be part of the Book.

Humans are a cantankerous bunch. Just which events do you have in mind when speaking of "replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it"?

And if you think the OT is more liberal than the Quran, note that it doesn't even require witnesses before a woman is put to death for adultery...

I believe the comment was based on the fact that the Bible becomes more tolerant and the Qu'ran less tolerant as time progressed through the books. That is the Bible begins 'violent' and lessens through its pages. The Qu'ran begins 'violent' and becomes more so. I seem to remember the break in the Qu'ran is after Medina. Whatever happened to the Prophet in that time soured him quite a bit and it is carried into his writings.

As I have noted, much of the OT is concerned with lists of the various tribes which the Israelites are proud to record that they slaughtered to the last man. (And, by implication, raped to the last woman, but that's another issue.) There is no record of their god or his priests showing anything but approval for these massacres, nor for other piecemeal killings of assorted enemies. A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

In and among my readings and viewings I picked up a tidbit, which I do not remember the source. But the point is that the word "kill" is a mistranslation. The actual prohibition was for that of murder. "In Exodus 20:13 we have the Fifth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Take a good look at that word “Kill”. In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means: Murder; ie - to Murder, a Murderer; to dash to pieces. Thus, Exodus 20:13 Actually reads “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”. Next, look to Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. Here, the Hebrew word translated ‘Smiteth’ is “Nakah”, which means: Murder, To Slay, to make slaughter. Thus, Exodus 21:12 Actually reads “He that Murders a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. " (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=31043 & http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/6_37.pdf) They both say essentially the same thing one is a bit easier to read.