Okay so Rape is okay but Abortion is a no no...

[Sunblink]

*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*

BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*

[Tapewolf]

*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*

BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*

Blasphemy and desecration!!!  Let's talk about Steeleye Span instead...

The Ups and Downs is another version, by the same band, with more or less the same plot. On the Parcel of Rogues album, if that helps.

What that song crucially misses is the penalty for rape that the king decrees (3rd verse down) which was why I thought of it.  In The Ups and Downs it's more a case of "Boy meets girl, shags her and runs away with no repercussions".  Whereas the forester guy almost danced the same jig as Dorcan did, so to speak.

So, no. You're not the only one to know of Steeleye Span. ;-]

Cool.

[Vidar]

*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*

BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*

* sets stack of the holy books of all religions on the floor *

Have fun, kids! Just remember not to poke each other's eyes out.

[Noone]

<snip> large piece of text by someone better versed in Judaic law than I </snip>

As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)

Except in the case of the rape of a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:29 says that the man ' may not put her away all his days.'
He can't file for divorce either, and so the woman is forced to be married to someone she hates for as long as they both shall live, with all the consequences of being his wife.

On the other hand, I don't think that many follow the exact wording of the old testament. Besides, a lot of it isn't meant to be taken literally, or at least, that's what I was taught.

Firstly, for practical, day to day living, the five books of Moshe aren't the only sources, indeed not really the primary source of direction. You can open up to some divorce law, but there is no mention of marriage law anywhere. On two occasions I can think of off the top of my head, (proper slaughtering of animals for food and tefellin), there is a mention of "Do it, like I told you", with no mention of how the law is meant to be carried out, just that it should be carried out.

Rather, for a lot of practical, day to day law, most information is contained in the Mishnah and the Gemara, originally oral bodies of work that were written down roughly 100 and 500 C.E. respectively.

To which, I would say that Mishnah and Gemara have a better handle on these issues, as they were answered by rabbinic counsels as these issues came to surface.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The Ups and Downs is another version, by the same band, with more or less the same plot. On the Parcel of Rogues album, if that helps.

What that song crucially misses is the penalty for rape that the king decrees (3rd verse down) which was why I thought of it.  In The Ups and Downs it's more a case of "Boy meets girl, shags her and runs away with no repercussions".  Whereas the forester guy almost danced the same jig as Dorcan did, so to speak.

Yeah, I think the hemp fandango is missing from the Ups & Downs. It's been a while since I listened to it, though. I'm working my way through the album now. After which I shall probably let the player keep churning through the Ohaikau Express, Voltaire, We Are Ferrets, The Cruxshadows (with umlaut), and Type O Negative.

Just to see where the player runs. After that it gets a bit strange, and I shall probably find something else to listen to.

So, no. You're not the only one to know of Steeleye Span. ;-]

Cool.

I thought so. But then, I listen to all sorts of weird stuff, so what would I know? ;-]

[Vidar]

<snip> large piece of text by someone better versed in Judaic law than I </snip>

As for divorce filing, yes, there you do have a chink in the armor. Technically, the man must file for divorce, and the woman if she wants to, can accept it. (You cannot just decide to universally ditch your wife if you're a guy.) However, in the past where Judaic courts had some authority (and in some Hasidic communities now) the courts do all sorts of things to persuade recalcitrant husbands into filing for a divorce if they're perceived to be holdouts, such as exclusion from community functions, seizing of assets, and possibly hiring goons to break the guys legs. (I kid you not.)

Except in the case of the rape of a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:29 says that the man ' may not put her away all his days.'
He can't file for divorce either, and so the woman is forced to be married to someone she hates for as long as they both shall live, with all the consequences of being his wife.

On the other hand, I don't think that many follow the exact wording of the old testament. Besides, a lot of it isn't meant to be taken literally, or at least, that's what I was taught.

Much of the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally, such as most of Genesis, but these are the laws the people of Israel were supposed to follow. I don't see how you can take these as allegory.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?

[Vidar]

Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?

Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?

Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

I'm more impressed by verse 30.

"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." (Source)

So... Crossdressing is fine, as long as your sons don't find your clothes? Hmmm...

[radarnocturn]

*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*

BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*

* sets stack of the holy books of all religions on the floor *

Have fun, kids! Just remember not to poke each other's eyes out.

Crap, I'm a Deist.  As far as I can tell, there is no bible for us!  *throws a science textbook instead*

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit Aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?

Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

I take issue with your translation that you used previously.


Devarim, Perek 22, Psukim 28       כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ

If a man comes across a young girl, that was not betrothed, and takes hold of her, and rapes her, and they are discovered.

Two points here.  בְתוּלָה is often used in Christian circles to mean virgin. I forget the exact line, but it's in Ezekiel somewhere (I think, might be Jeremiah. One of the later prophets anyway) that says along the liens of, and a  בְתוּלָה will give birth to a boy and......... Christian theology tends to take it as a prophecy predicting Jesus. Jewish theology tends to cite it as a prediction of immorality, that even girls under the age of marriage are giving birth. (And at least according to the letter of the law, a girl can get married at twelve.)  אֹרָשָׂה is usually given as betrothed, but that isn't quite correct. Technically, marriage in Judaism is a several step process. An אֹרָשָׂה has gone through the first step, but not the successive ones. She's still considered married though, albeit incompletely, so if she's sleeping with someone else consentually, (no direct bearing on this case, but earlier, the one about the possible death penalty, its because adultery carries the death penalty. Just fooling around before you are married only carries whipping as a penalty.) it's adultery. This however, says she is completely unattached.

29   וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ, לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ--חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף; וְלוֹ-תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ--לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו.

And the man that was with her shall give to the father of the woman 50 silver shekels; (Shekel is a unit of weight. This is an era before the idea of coinage really caught on. I'm not sure how much money that comes out to be.)  And he shall offer to marry her, because he has harmed her; he may not send her away, all of his life.

That part after the last semicolon is particularly significant. The phrase used to discuss divorce in the Tanach is "וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת" Literally, and he shall write her a book of separation. (or bill of separation might be better.) The line of לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו means more along the lines of "he is obligated to support her, and can't just kick her out on the street afterwards."

Then answer me. How come in Nazeken (It's a transliteration, but I don't know how to transmit Aramaic characters here) not one of any of the rabbis quoted takes "eye for an eye" literally when it comes to damaging another person?

Good point.
How would you explain Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

I'm more impressed by verse 30.

"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." (Source)

So... Crossdressing is fine, as long as your sons don't find your clothes? Hmmm...

I'm not crazy about this translation either. Not to begin with, at least in my edition, chapter 22 only has 29 psukim. The business about marrying the father's wife is the first pasuk of chapter 23.

לֹא-יִקַּח אִישׁ, אֶת-אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו; וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה, כְּנַף אָבִיו

could be rendered as, "A man shall not marry the wife of his father; (this includes if she's not biologically related to him by the way.) nor shall he remove his father's robe. I suppose כְּנַף could mean skirt, it refers to any sort of loose garment, but I don't think it means skirt here, in light of 22:5

לֹא-יִהְיֶה כְלִי-גֶבֶר עַל-אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה:

Male clothes shall not be worn on a woman, and a man shall not put on a females garb.

So no, you can't crossdress. Sowwy.


In conclusion, I want to mention how much of a pain it is to type in Hebrew. I have to point and peck for crying out loud!

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I'm impressed, Corgatha. Truly.

The level of dedication needed to explain all this (and the explanation is welcome, I might add) is over and above the call.

... Especially since I was more or less taking the piss - hence why I posted my source (Skeptics Annotated Bible? Yeah, like that's a reputable copy... If I was serious, I'd use the New King James or some other recent translation; sadly, I don't speak hebrew, nor aramaic, nor greek, and hence can't read the originals...)

I was aware that the bible frowned upon crossdressing. It seemed unusual to me, in light of that, that someone had translated it as "skirt" rather than "robe"...

Just because I'm now all curious and stuff: does "לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו", as you quoted above - and the previous sentence, for that matter - suggest to you that whilst he's expected to support her, he's not expected to be allowed any, ah, let's call them "conjugal visits", I suppose? I mean, being required to support a woman and not get any of the benefits is about what I'd expect, but I'm curious if that was the underlying meaning that they were referring to _then_, if you follow me...

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

I was aware that the bible frowned upon crossdressing. It seemed unusual to me, in light of that, that someone had translated it as "skirt" rather than "robe"...

Just because I'm now all curious and stuff: does "לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו", as you quoted above - and the previous sentence, for that matter - suggest to you that whilst he's expected to support her, he's not expected to be allowed any, ah, let's call them "conjugal visits", I suppose? I mean, being required to support a woman and not get any of the benefits is about what I'd expect, but I'm curious if that was the underlying meaning that they were referring to _then_, if you follow me...

Well, what constitutes male and female's clothing varies from culture to culture. It never says anywhere that I'm aware of what is defined as man's clothing and woman's clothing. I mean, a kilt is almost a skirt, right? And guys wear that.

*flees all the Scotsmen*



But as for the second point, I'm not really sure. The technicalities of what exactly a rapist is obligated in isn't something I've devoted a lot of time to. I suppose I could ask around a bit, look it up, but at  the level of a two second analysis, I think you hit it pretty squarely, that a rapist is expected to support his victim, especially since she might not be able to catch a husband to support her (working with the most common assumption that this is a man raping a woman.). But like I said, I don't really know offhand. I could look it up though, shouldn't take too long.

[Cogidubnus]

*immediately intervenes so this topic does not derail into flaming, since religious discussion is like that*

BIBLE FIGHT! *throws bibles*

!

*begins to beat on everyone's head until he hits neck!*

I shall take this as the prevailing wisdom and not continue this discussion here.

[Drase]

Well as I grew up in the church (a non denominational one, neither catholic or denominational), I can't say I know enough to translate it from the original Hebrew.  As I didnt feel like looking through my bible for a few small versus... I used Google.  Found a few things I read before but never really spent much time on.

After looking up 'rape in the bible' and 'murder in the bible' I found a few of the verses that I have read before but didn't really care to look up one by one. If you look it up yourself in google, you should get similar results, most of them biased though. But they do quote versus.

On rape, there are times where men were commanded to take wives of the virgins of a captured city.  All other men, women, and children were to be slaughtered, no exceptions.  This is found in the old testament, at least to the best of my knowledge.

One law of the old testament states "if men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (A footnote says 'or she has a miscarriage') but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Long, i know. That's in exodus 21:22-25.

So it seems that the bible, or at least the old testament, does allow rape in certain instances, but abortion or causing an unborn child to be harmed or killed, is a no no.

I just wanted to add that as what the scripture, or at least my bible, says.  Can't say i'm really biased for one side or the other, that's just what it says.

[Alondro]

The Old Testament's problems stem from the fact that it's composed of many pieces of text compiled over thousands of years.  The most erroneous are those that include a great deal Jewish military prowice.  There was a certain case with King Hezekiah having won a certain battle, when the archeaological evidence overwhelmingly reveals that Israel lost badly!

That's why I'm always hesitant to go into Leviticus and so forth for all the laws, because they tended to be overburdened and altered over time to fit what the leaders wanted. 

The Ten Commandments are the real basis of God's Law.  And if they were obeyed to the letter, we wouldn't have many problems in the world anymore!

[Jairus]

The Ten Commandments are the real basis of God's Law.  And if they were obeyed to the letter, we wouldn't have many problems in the world anymore!

I prefer how Jesus (funny how even in works of fiction where God is a big giant prick Jesus is still a decent and cool dude) basically boiled it down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No surprise that Confucius came up with pretty much the same thing five hundred years earlier.

And George Carlin "proved" that you could cut it down to only three commandments...
"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nooky."
"Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man from the one you pray to."
"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

But, yes. The Ten Commandments are the most basic and fundamental of the laws that the three Abrahamic faiths should be following, but seem to have a few problems doing so. It's a shame. They'd be a lot more popular if they did.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I think the problem is not the people following those ten. It's the people who aren't, who are giving all the rest a bad name.

Which, as you say, is a shame. It's a great idea - how wonderful it would be if we could all be nice to each other for a change.


(and then get nailed to a tree for making such a heinous suggestion...)

[Jairus]

I think the problem is not the people following those ten. It's the people who aren't, who are giving all the rest a bad name.

Which, as you say, is a shame. It's a great idea - how wonderful it would be if we could all be nice to each other for a change.


(and then get nailed to a tree for making such a heinous suggestion...)

The irony is just sickening. And it's always the ones who don't play nicely who give the rest a bad name. Which sucks.

[Vidar]

The Ten Commandments are the real basis of God's Law.  And if they were obeyed to the letter, we wouldn't have many problems in the world anymore!

I have a few issues with those commandments.

First of all, there are 3 chapters with 10 commandments in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27
These are not exactly the same, but for brevity, let's pick the most commonly agreed set.

The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other god before me

This flies in the face of religious freedom. No civilised nation would want this in their law for good reason. It makes a country a theocracy. Not everyone is a christian, and non-christians tend to get pissy when other people start forcing their faith on them with the power of a blunt object like the law.

The second: Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.

You should look around in old churches: graven images of things in the heavens are abundant and openly displayed.
Also, I bloody well make anything I want. If I want to carve myself a small statue of anything, then noone has the right to stop me from doing so. If I then want to pray to said statue, I still have the right to do so.

The third: thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.

This goes against the freedom of speech. If I want to curse like a sailor then I bloody well have the right to say 'goddamnit'. If someone is offended by it, tough shit: you do not have the right to not be offended.

The fourth: Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy

Religious freedom again. I am not christian, nor a jew. I do not observe the sabbath, and I take issue with someone making me do so. The sabbath is for me just another day, and I will do on that day whatever I want, and I will not be prohibited from doing so based on someone else's beliefs.

The fifth: Honor thy father and mother.

Respect is earned, not bestowed. If parents want the respect of their children, they have to earn it by being good parents. Often it is a good idea for kids to listen to their parents, but not always. Abusive parents (for instance) should not be honored, but turned over to the cops.  Legislating that kids should respect their parents is a retarded idea.

The sixth: thou shalt not kill / murder

In a society as ours during peace time, that is a good idea. During war, you can't always survive without killing the bastard that is trying to kill you.

The seventh: thou shalt not commit adultery.

You first have to define exactly what is adultery. The religious view in this is often that even looking at someone attractive is committing adultery. If a beautiful woman comes along in skimpy clothes, I will ogle, and I resent anyone who tries to make me feel bad about it because their particular deity takes issue with a basic biological drive.
Shacking up with someone else's wife is a whole different ball-game, but should still not be enfoeced by the law. Some people have an open relationship, and would happily let others in their relationship. Would you make their lifestyles illegal base don nothing but your holy book?

The eighth: thou shalt not steal

I can agree with this one.

The nineth: thou shalt not bear false witness

I agree with ths one too, mostly. There are times when lying is needed, like in the second world war. You didn't think that the resistance were always honest with the nazis, now do you?

The 10th: thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor their slave, ox, donkey, or anything else.

George Carlin already said this one: our whole economic system is based on coveting. You neighbour has a cool new toy, you want, you buy.


Also, the 10 commandments say absolutely nothing about slavery, rape, child molestation, etc. They are completely inadequate as a legal system. Good thing that we can do better. the legal system isn't perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than these 10 rules, of which the first four blatently pander to god's ego.

[TheDXM]

I prefer how Jesus (funny how even in works of fiction where God is a big giant prick Jesus is still a decent and cool dude) basically boiled it down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No surprise that Confucius came up with pretty much the same thing five hundred years earlier

In a perfect world this one little law would be the basis for all society. Until then we'll just have to settle for what we've got.

[Jairus]

I prefer how Jesus (funny how even in works of fiction where God is a big giant prick Jesus is still a decent and cool dude) basically boiled it down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No surprise that Confucius came up with pretty much the same thing five hundred years earlier

In a perfect world this one little law would be the basis for all society. Until then we'll just have to settle for what we've got.

Of course, then you have to factor in the nutjobs who enjoy giving and receiving horrible evil... but that's stretching the topic just a little.

And personally, I would like people to respect that I am an atheist and not try to force their beliefs on me, so I in turn respect their beliefs and don't try to "convert" them. So far, it seems to work out okay, though I'm betting that someday I'll bump into some jackass for whom that isn't good enough and thinks I'm the spawn of Satan or something like that. In that case, I'll probably just take a leaf from the decent dude Jesus' book and turn the other cheek.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I note you keep shifting the goalposts, Vidar.

I'll demonstrate:

First of all, there are 3 chapters with 10 commandments in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27
These are not exactly the same, but for brevity, let's pick the most commonly agreed set.

The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other god before me

This flies in the face of religious freedom. No civilised nation would want this in their law for good reason. It makes a country a theocracy. Not everyone is a christian, and non-christians tend to get pissy when other people start forcing their faith on them with the power of a blunt object like the law.

I'm sorry? Who said these needed to be applied to everyone? Sure, if everyone follows them - love your neighbour like yourself, be nice to people, don't kill - then everyone would be better off.

However, the only people we're talking about applying them to are those who are claiming to follow these already, yet are screaming about killing the heathens. I don't notice you in that crowd - was there something you wanted to tell us?

The second: Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.

You should look around in old churches: graven images of things in the heavens are abundant and openly displayed.
Also, I bloody well make anything I want. If I want to carve myself a small statue of anything, then noone has the right to stop me from doing so. If I then want to pray to said statue, I still have the right to do so.

You're paraphrasing the original meaning, and then picking the paraphrasing to pieces and objecting to it. The original is "thou shalt not make graven images of your god" - which, if you look in the old churches, is usually pretty accurate. There are no images of god. There are lots of images of saints, angels, cherubim, seraphim, you name it. No god.

The only exception to this is the cross, and only the Roman Catholics keep god nailed to it, as it were. Even then, there's a little poetic licence to let you sneak around the edges - it's not an image of God, theoretically, it's a reminder of his sacrifice on our behalf. Or so I understand.

The third: thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.

This goes against the freedom of speech. If I want to curse like a sailor then I bloody well have the right to say 'goddamnit'. If someone is offended by it, tough shit: you do not have the right to not be offended.

And here you demonstrate a fairly pivotal misunderstanding of "free speech". You're free to talk. I'm free to be offended. I'm free to not listen. I'm free, in fact, to do anything that does not impinge on your right to speak. I'm NOT free to punch you in the nose if I don't like what you said.

I have EVERY right to be offended if you say something that I take exception to. That's what free speech is. Your right to speak. My right to respond. Neither of us is free to make an affray, or riot, or break things. I'm perfectly allowed to speak right back, though.

Unless you're trying to infringe on MY right to free speech, whilst asserting your own? A touch inconsistent, there.

The fourth: Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy

Religious freedom again. I am not christian, nor a jew. I do not observe the sabbath, and I take issue with someone making me do so. The sabbath is for me just another day, and I will do on that day whatever I want, and I will not be prohibited from doing so based on someone else's beliefs.

Correct.

But who said you should? You're taking all these rules as being applied to you directly, again. I don't recall anyone saying we should - were you professing to be a fundamentalist southern baptist, a hardline Jewish rabbi, or a jihad-toting Islamic Imam?

On could argue that the idea is that one doesn't work every day of the week, and take some time off from work to ponder the universe around you, which isn't a bad idea, but it's not in the specific wording, so we'll just let that idea slide for the moment.

The fifth: Honor thy father and mother.

Respect is earned, not bestowed. If parents want the respect of their children, they have to earn it by being good parents. Often it is a good idea for kids to listen to their parents, but not always. Abusive parents (for instance) should not be honored, but turned over to the cops.  Legislating that kids should respect their parents is a retarded idea.

Honor. Not respect. You should care for your parents in the same way that they care for you.

It's understood that everyone fails, sometimes, and all that is asked is that you keep trying to be better.

And, once again, you've dragged this legislation thing into it. Nobody suggested legislation. We just suggested that it'd be nice if the folks claiming they're already doing it were actually to do so.

The sixth: thou shalt not kill / murder

In a society as ours during peace time, that is a good idea. During war, you can't always survive without killing the bastard that is trying to kill you.

... And, if everyone - all around the world - avoiding killing anyone, how would a war start, then? Who's first?

The seventh: thou shalt not commit adultery.

You first have to define exactly what is adultery. The religious view in this is often that even looking at someone attractive is committing adultery. If a beautiful woman comes along in skimpy clothes, I will ogle, and I resent anyone who tries to make me feel bad about it because their particular deity takes issue with a basic biological drive.
Shacking up with someone else's wife is a whole different ball-game, but should still not be enfoeced by the law. Some people have an open relationship, and would happily let others in their relationship. Would you make their lifestyles illegal base don nothing but your holy book?

Thou Shalt Not Get Nooky Outside Of Marriage, because it pisses people off, and tends to result in children who don't have parents to support them. These aims are reasonable, I would have thought.

Marriage is left up to the local judges. If the judges are happy to let you have three husbands, I'm certainly not going to argue with them. The only reason it's usually one of each is that that's the optimal for reproducing. Anything more is harder to get started. Particularly when you're talking about teenagers, whose brains are in their pants.

Once you get older, it's more organised. And that's one of the reasons that western societies are starting to branch out - people are living longer, getting married later, and hence starting to consider marriage after the testosterone/oestrogen has a chance to wear off. But that's a conversation for another thread.

The eighth: thou shalt not steal

I can agree with this one.

So glad.

The nineth: thou shalt not bear false witness

I agree with ths one too, mostly. There are times when lying is needed, like in the second world war. You didn't think that the resistance were always honest with the nazis, now do you?

If the German army had been following these rules, it wouldn't have been a problem, would it?

Situational ethics is a slippery slope, though. It's hard to say where you should draw the line, because it's so easy to move it...

The 10th: thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor their slave, ox, donkey, or anything else.

George Carlin already said this one: our whole economic system is based on coveting. You neighbour has a cool new toy, you want, you buy.

And that's worked so well for the USA, hasn't it. What was your economy doing just now? What was that thing that happened the other year, oh, about 8 years ago now? Obviously unrelated to the conspicuous consumerism of the States, obviously.

Also, the 10 commandments say absolutely nothing about slavery, rape, child molestation, etc. They are completely inadequate as a legal system. Good thing that we can do better. the legal system isn't perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than these 10 rules, of which the first four blatently pander to god's ego.

Did we say they covered everything? No. We just suggested that it might be a nice idea if people started following them. Not exclusively, just at all. Screaming for your followers to kill other people isn't exactly following number 6, now, is it?


I believe we were suggesting, at least for the Southern Baptist types, that perhaps what Jesus is reported to have said might be a better idea to follow:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

According to wikipedia, Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5[/ur], and [url=http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=19:18&src=HE]Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18, respectively.

[Baal Hadad]

I don't know how we got to the "Ten Commandments" from rape vs. abortion, but to continue the off-topic I just have a couple of things to say:

First of all, there ARE no "Ten Commandments."  In the original Jewish tradition, they're more like declarations of faith.  The first is "I, THE LORD, am your God."  That's it.  Period.  Is that a commandment, as we understand the term?  I suppose you could interpret it as the commandment, "Worship ME," coming from Yahweh, but the way it's phrased it doesn't seem to be commanding anything.

Secondly, if you really look it up in the Bible, there are only NINE commandments, not ten.  That's why the religious traditions have to interpret what exactly makes up the "ten" Commandments, as ten sounds more official (as George Carlin put it), and that's why Jews, Catholics, and Protestants each have different reckonings of what the "ten" are.  Going by Vidar's reckoning (which is the Protestant reckoning), the first two "commandments" are actually only one.  God is basically saying "Worship ME, and ME alone."  The "first" commandment is "Worship NO ONE except me," and the "second" is "Worship NOTHING except me."  Not a whole world of difference there.

Catholics are even weirder, splitting the LAST commandment into two, such that the "ninth" Commandment becomes "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife."  That doesn't make any sense at all, since 1) "wife" is NOT the first thing the Bible says NOT to covet, "house" is; and 2) "wife" doesn't even get its own sentence aside from any other things we're told not to covet, only "house" does.  If they wanted to split that last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," into two, it would have made more sense to have the "ninth" be "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house."  Also, why of all the commandments would they split up that one anyway?

Third, the "Ten Commandments" are just another example of JEWISH law being considered the "Word of God" by CHRISTIANS (like the creation story).  It was the ISRAELITES to whom Yahweh said only to worship Him, and to keep the Sabbath (which meant Saturday, the seventh day of the week).  Christians were never required to follow these laws because they're part of the "Old Testament," that is, the "Old Covenant" with God (meaning with the tribes of Israel).  If Christians were required to follow these, then they should follow the 613 mitzvot (or "commandments") that the Jews are supposed to follow as well--which in its turn means that Christians should really NOT be Christians as we understand them today, but should instead be Jews (plus belief in Jesus as mashiach, or messiah)--makes perfect sense to me, since that's more or less what Jesus and his followers were, but do you hear anyone arguing for that?

Back to the whole abortion thing....

My view is that, once the fetus is developed enough that it has a good chance of survival outside the womb (irrespective of whether it will actually BE outside the womb yet), that's the point where "abortion" becomes "murder."  Before then I consider it a ball of unspecialized cells that are being parasitic to the mother (granted with a different set of chromosomes than she has, inherited from conception), so while I'm not pro-abortion even then, I believe the mother has the right to decide whether to allow that to develop into a genuine person or whether to eliminate it from her system--that is, until the decision becomes made for her.  Treat the "thing" as what it IS, not what it could potentially be.

And as thoroughly against rape as I am, my view on this matter doesn't change if the fetus was conceived from a rape--if the one who was raped waits too long and the pregnancy doesn't affect her adversely, I would prefer that she have the baby and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it.  At most, get a C-section and have it removed, but not actually killed (since it has a good chance of surviving outside the womb by then anyway).  Before that critical point in pregnancy, of course she has the right to kill the parasitic spawn of the man who did this to her, but after that I consider it an innocent person who never did anything intentional to harm her.

My view also doesn't change if the baby is the product of incest--how do you think the royal family does its business?    If they're going to be weak and sickly anyway, let nature weed them out, but don't raise a hand to help them along the way (again, AFTER it becomes developed enough to survive outside the womb).

My apologies if I sound heartless, but I'm trying to remain emotionally distant and only (or at least mostly) use my brain to decide my opinions on this matter.

[TheDXM]

Of course, then you have to factor in the nutjobs who enjoy giving and receiving horrible evil... but that's stretching the topic just a little.

Oh, I don't know about that. I find it unlikely at best that anyone sincerely wants to be harmed. Some people aren't exactly afraid of breaking the ice, so to speak, but that doesn't mean they want to be hurt by anyone else.

But unfortunately we're speaking in ideals here so that's simply never going to happen. Or at least, not in my life time, I think.

[Vidar]

I note you keep shifting the goalposts, Vidar.

I'll demonstrate:

First of all, there are 3 chapters with 10 commandments in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27
These are not exactly the same, but for brevity, let's pick the most commonly agreed set.

The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other god before me

This flies in the face of religious freedom. No civilised nation would want this in their law for good reason. It makes a country a theocracy. Not everyone is a christian, and non-christians tend to get pissy when other people start forcing their faith on them with the power of a blunt object like the law.

I'm sorry? Who said these needed to be applied to everyone?

Alondro did, actually. He calls the commandments 'the basis of god's law', and wants them to be ' followed to the letter'. Now, a law applies to everyone, unless stated otherwise in the law itself.
If you could choose which law you follow and which you could ignore, then you have anarchy.

Sure, if everyone follows them - love your neighbour like yourself, be nice to people, don't kill - then everyone would be better off.

Those are descent guidelines, to be sure, but ' love your neighbour' and ' be nice to people' aren't part of the 10 commandments. You are changing goal posts now.

However, the only people we're talking about applying them to are those who are claiming to follow these already, yet are screaming about killing the heathens. I don't notice you in that crowd - was there something you wanted to tell us?

Just that the 10 commandments are deeply flawed, and claiming that if everyone followed them the world would be a better place is probably false. We can make better laws ourselves, and have done. It's currently called 'the law'. It's a work in progress, and can be improved, but we've come a long way since the bronze age.

The second: Thou shalt not make yourself an idol.

You should look around in old churches: graven images of things in the heavens are abundant and openly displayed.
Also, I bloody well make anything I want. If I want to carve myself a small statue of anything, then noone has the right to stop me from doing so. If I then want to pray to said statue, I still have the right to do so.

You're paraphrasing the original meaning, and then picking the paraphrasing to pieces and objecting to it. The original is "thou shalt not make graven images of your god" - which, if you look in the old churches, is usually pretty accurate. There are no images of god. There are lots of images of saints, angels, cherubim, seraphim, you name it. No god.

The following image can be seen on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel:



Tell me, who is that on the right?

I'm pretty sure this is not the only image of god in a church.
Also, the commandment does not limit to images of god. It forbids making 'idols' of  'anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth', and that would include angels, cherubim, seraphim, devils, demons, and satan.

The only exception to this is the cross, and only the Roman Catholics keep god nailed to it, as it were. Even then, there's a little poetic licence to let you sneak around the edges - it's not an image of God, theoretically, it's a reminder of his sacrifice on our behalf. Or so I understand.

The third: thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.

This goes against the freedom of speech. If I want to curse like a sailor then I bloody well have the right to say 'goddamnit'. If someone is offended by it, tough shit: you do not have the right to not be offended.

And here you demonstrate a fairly pivotal misunderstanding of "free speech". You're free to talk. I'm free to be offended. I'm free to not listen. I'm free, in fact, to do anything that does not impinge on your right to speak. I'm NOT free to punch you in the nose if I don't like what you said.

Saying 'goddammit' is a far cry from punching you in the face.

I have EVERY right to be offended if you say something that I take exception to. That's what free speech is. Your right to speak. My right to respond. Neither of us is free to make an affray, or riot, or break things. I'm perfectly allowed to speak right back, though.

You are indeed allowed to state you opinion on my swearing, however, you are not allowed to stop me from doing so, and that is exactly what this commandment does: it forbids me from swearing.

Unless you're trying to infringe on MY right to free speech, whilst asserting your own? A touch inconsistent, there.

Not quite. I never said you could not speak out against me, or my use of language. I'm defending myself against the commandment that Alondro would like to see everyone adhere to.
It seeks to limit what I can and cannot say.

The fourth: Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy

Religious freedom again. I am not christian, nor a jew. I do not observe the sabbath, and I take issue with someone making me do so. The sabbath is for me just another day, and I will do on that day whatever I want, and I will not be prohibited from doing so based on someone else's beliefs.

Correct.

But who said you should? You're taking all these rules as being applied to you directly, again. I don't recall anyone saying we should - were you professing to be a fundamentalist southern baptist, a hardline Jewish rabbi, or a jihad-toting Islamic Imam?

I'm an atheist, actually. I've already stated that Alondro would like to see everyone follow the 10 commandments. I take issue with that since I do not follow the christian faith, and I take issue with someone wanting to apply the rules of his faith unto me.

On could argue that the idea is that one doesn't work every day of the week, and take some time off from work to ponder the universe around you, which isn't a bad idea, but it's not in the specific wording, so we'll just let that idea slide for the moment.

You could argue that that is the idea, however, the commandment specifically mentions the Sabbath, and not just a random day of the week.
Remember, in the bible the Apostles where getting flack for grinding a small amount of wheat in their hand on the sabbath, and in another verse someone was stoned to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath. Biblical laws are not taken liberally in the bible. Why would you interpret them otherwise?

The fifth: Honor thy father and mother.

Respect is earned, not bestowed. If parents want the respect of their children, they have to earn it by being good parents. Often it is a good idea for kids to listen to their parents, but not always. Abusive parents (for instance) should not be honored, but turned over to the cops.  Legislating that kids should respect their parents is a retarded idea.

Honor. Not respect. You should care for your parents in the same way that they care for you.

It's understood that everyone fails, sometimes, and all that is asked is that you keep trying to be better.

And, once again, you've dragged this legislation thing into it. Nobody suggested legislation. We just suggested that it'd be nice if the folks claiming they're already doing it were actually to do so.

Honor and respect go hand in hand. If you respect someone, you honor them.
And again, Alondro would have everyone follow the 10 commandments as law.

The sixth: thou shalt not kill / murder

In a society as ours during peace time, that is a good idea. During war, you can't always survive without killing the bastard that is trying to kill you.

... And, if everyone - all around the world - avoiding killing anyone, how would a war start, then? Who's first?

Wars have lots of causes. Religion, economics, attempted world conquest by a madman, natural resources, etc.
Also, the 'if' you propose is quote a big 'if', unfortunately. There's over 6 billion people packed on this world, and it's almost inevitable that someone is going to kill someone.

The seventh: thou shalt not commit adultery.

You first have to define exactly what is adultery. The religious view in this is often that even looking at someone attractive is committing adultery. If a beautiful woman comes along in skimpy clothes, I will ogle, and I resent anyone who tries to make me feel bad about it because their particular deity takes issue with a basic biological drive.
Shacking up with someone else's wife is a whole different ball-game, but should still not be enforced by the law. Some people have an open relationship, and would happily let others in their relationship. Would you make their lifestyles illegal base don nothing but your holy book?

Thou Shalt Not Get Nooky Outside Of Marriage, because it pisses people off, and tends to result in children who don't have parents to support them. These aims are reasonable, I would have thought.

Marriage is left up to the local judges. If the judges are happy to let you have three husbands, I'm certainly not going to argue with them. The only reason it's usually one of each is that that's the optimal for reproducing. Anything more is harder to get started. Particularly when you're talking about teenagers, whose brains are in their pants.

Once you get older, it's more organised. And that's one of the reasons that western societies are starting to branch out - people are living longer, getting married later, and hence starting to consider marriage after the testosterone/oestrogen has a chance to wear off. But that's a conversation for another thread.

Quite so. Still, not everyone has the same ideas about marriage. Some couples like to exchange partners for a night as an adventure of sorts. The commandment would abolish this sort of thing, just because that is the rules.

The eighth: thou shalt not steal

I can agree with this one.

So glad.

The ninth: thou shalt not bear false witness

I agree with this one too, mostly. There are times when lying is needed, like in the second world war. You didn't think that the resistance were always honest with the Nazis, now do you?

If the German army had been following these rules, it wouldn't have been a problem, would it?

Situational ethics is a slippery slope, though. It's hard to say where you should draw the line, because it's so easy to move it...

It's called 'moral relativism'. Some people don't like it, but that's because they can afford to hold moral near absolutes in the civilization we have constructed for ourselves. At times the rules of life that we have are no longer sufficient, and we have to rely on our own wisdom to decide whether following a rule is the right thing to do or not.

The 10th: thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor their slave, ox, donkey, or anything else.

George Carlin already said this one: our whole economic system is based on coveting. You neighbour has a cool new toy, you want, you buy.

And that's worked so well for the USA, hasn't it. What was your economy doing just now? What was that thing that happened the other year, oh, about 8 years ago now? Obviously unrelated to the conspicuous consumerism of the States, obviously.

Not quite. The current financial crisis can't be reduced to 'people by too much stuff' so easily, but that's for another thread.

Also, the 10 commandments say absolutely nothing about slavery, rape, child molestation, etc. They are completely inadequate as a legal system. Good thing that we can do better. the legal system isn't perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot better than these 10 rules, of which the first four blatantly pander to god's ego.

Did we say they covered everything? No. We just suggested that it might be a nice idea if people started following them. Not exclusively, just at all.

They most certainly don't cover everything. In fact some of them are outright discriminating.
We can do better, and have done better, many times over. We have laws that apply equally on everyone, regardless of belief, skin color, gender, and hopefully soon also on sexual preference.
The 10 commandments don't even give people basic human rights, and that should be the basis of the law.

Screaming for your followers to kill other people isn't exactly following number 6, now, is it?

It isn't, yet god tells the Israelites to kill the Canaanites mere verses after the 10 commandments. He makes the rules, and then commands his people to violate them at his command? What's up with that?

I believe we were suggesting, at least for the Southern Baptist types, that perhaps what Jesus is reported to have said might be a better idea to follow:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

According to wikipedia, Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5[/ur], and [url=http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=19:18&src=HE]Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18, respectively.

[/quote]

It's a nice sentiment, but I don't believe in your god, and I most certainly don't love him above all. Making that into law would, again, lead to a theocracy, and I object to that.
'Love your neighbour' is something that I might be able to do if my neighbours would actually do the same. Right now, however, they are more interested in shoving their respective faiths down my throat and gleefully telling my I will burn in hell for all time, rather than show any kind of love, respect, or even dignity.
I might have more respect for christianity if the christians  would follow their own rules and show compassion for their fellow human beings.

The clergy catholic church has now shown what the claims of love from them are worth: nothing. They regard adherence to their dogma more valuable than the life and well-being of a 9 year old rape victim to such an extent that they would condemn everyone who helped this girl to hell.
This is not a position that I can respect.

</wall of text>

[Robbychu]

...Okay, this situation makes me sick. And fills me with murderous rage, but that's another story for another time.

Anyone who doesn't condemn that bastard for what he did needs either a crowbar to the face or a serious reevaluation of their morals. And I don't object to a thorough application of both. And the bastard himself? Let's get old school here and start chucking stones. I may be a sinner, but I've never done anything as horrible as this thing-I-refuse-to-admit-is-even-human has done.

And no, I'm never backing down from this rather extreme position. I can't stand people who do this, and it's the kind of thing that sparks my inner world-conquerer/destroyer into shrieking "KILL THEM ALL". Things like this are why the death penalty should exist, but once again, that is a debate for elsewhere.

[techmaster-glitch]

...I think most of us do agree with you, Robbychu, even if we aren't as vehement about it. I certainly agree with you.

[Baal Hadad]

...Okay, this situation makes me sick. And fills me with murderous rage, but that's another story for another time.

Anyone who doesn't condemn that bastard for what he did needs either a crowbar to the face or a serious reevaluation of their morals. And I don't object to a thorough application of both. And the bastard himself? Let's get old school here and start chucking stones. I may be a sinner, but I've never done anything as horrible as this thing-I-refuse-to-admit-is-even-human has done.

And no, I'm never backing down from this rather extreme position. I can't stand people who do this, and it's the kind of thing that sparks my inner world-conquerer/destroyer into shrieking "KILL THEM ALL". Things like this are why the death penalty should exist, but once again, that is a debate for elsewhere.

Sadly, I fear the anti-abortionists would see this as proof that they're right and that those who condemn the rapist father are wrong.  You're basically supporting killing there (never mind the context), and they claim they're dead set against killing (seeing abortion in that category), and they probably see killing as worse than rape, since rape at least allows the victim to live.

I don't know about a "moral spectrum" whereby one could judge whether it's worse to end someone else's life or to emotionally scar them for life, but this is precisely why I personally have gotten out of the habit of idealism and crusading for moral absolutism.  I'm not telling you what to do, just giving my own experience.  As depraved as that father is, I personally don't want to sink to his level (or possibly below it) because I should know better, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I contributed to that kind of evil, even if it were only in thought and not direct deed (and especially if I did so in the name of good).

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Alondro did, actually. He calls the commandments 'the basis of god's law', and wants them to be ' followed to the letter'. Now, a law applies to everyone, unless stated otherwise in the law itself.
If you could choose which law you follow and which you could ignore, then you have anarchy.

So he did. My apologies - both to you and to Alondro.

Sure, if everyone follows them - love your neighbour like yourself, be nice to people, don't kill - then everyone would be better off.

Those are descent guidelines, to be sure, but ' love your neighbour' and ' be nice to people' aren't part of the 10 commandments. You are changing goal posts now.

True, and I feel slightly ashamed at that.

The following image can be seen on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel:



Tell me, who is that on the right?

I'm pretty sure this is not the only image of god in a church.
Also, the commandment does not limit to images of god. It forbids making 'idols' of  'anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth', and that would include angels, cherubim, seraphim, devils, demons, and satan.

I'm not sure. I know who it appears to be to me, but tha may or may not be what the original artist intended.

Further, it's not the matter of making images of things. It's the matter of worshipping them - something clearer, I think, in the original Hebrew, but sadly difficult to succinctly explain in English.

And here you demonstrate a fairly pivotal misunderstanding of "free speech". You're free to talk. I'm free to be offended. I'm free to not listen. I'm free, in fact, to do anything that does not impinge on your right to speak. I'm NOT free to punch you in the nose if I don't like what you said.

Saying 'goddammit' is a far cry from punching you in the face.

True. However, it's infringing on your rights in the same way that stopping you from speaking is. My right to swing my arm about ends where your nose begins, is the phrase I had in mind - I may not have been as clear as I'd like.

Unless you're trying to infringe on MY right to free speech, whilst asserting your own? A touch inconsistent, there.

Not quite. I never said you could not speak out against me, or my use of language. I'm defending myself against the commandment that Alondro would like to see everyone adhere to.
It seeks to limit what I can and cannot say.

You have a point.

Correct.

But who said you should? You're taking all these rules as being applied to you directly, again. I don't recall anyone saying we should - were you professing to be a fundamentalist southern baptist, a hardline Jewish rabbi, or a jihad-toting Islamic Imam?

I'm an atheist, actually. I've already stated that Alondro would like to see everyone follow the 10 commandments. I take issue with that since I do not follow the christian faith, and I take issue with someone wanting to apply the rules of his faith unto me.

I'm an apathetic agnostic. Interesting that it's us two arguing over the biblical rules, isn't it? ;-]

And your point about Alondro is fair enough. I'm perfectly happy to have rules for me, and I might suggest they be useful rules for you, but I'm not going to force them down your throat. If you want to follow them, neat.

Sadly, many people fail to respect your decision, and your ability to make it. :-/

You could argue that that is the idea, however, the commandment specifically mentions the Sabbath, and not just a random day of the week.
Remember, in the bible the Apostles where getting flack for grinding a small amount of wheat in their hand on the sabbath, and in another verse someone was stoned to death for gathering sticks on the sabbath. Biblical laws are not taken liberally in the bible. Why would you interpret them otherwise?

There is the side of things that we're talking about the old testament, here, and the new one has some new rules that supercede the old ones. But that's getting a bit far afield.

Honor. Not respect. You should care for your parents in the same way that they care for you.

It's understood that everyone fails, sometimes, and all that is asked is that you keep trying to be better.

And, once again, you've dragged this legislation thing into it. Nobody suggested legislation. We just suggested that it'd be nice if the folks claiming they're already doing it were actually to do so.

Honor and respect go hand in hand. If you respect someone, you honor them.

... and if they don't respect you, and fail to care for you, it'd be nice if you can, but we won't hold you to it. That's the general idea of the New Testament, as I understand it. I could well be wrong, this is not unusual for me, but I do try to keep an open mind...

I'll admit the rules as written don't exactly agree with me, here, though. ;-]

Wars have lots of causes. Religion, economics, attempted world conquest by a madman, natural resources, etc.
Also, the 'if' you propose is quote a big 'if', unfortunately. There's over 6 billion people packed on this world, and it's almost inevitable that someone is going to kill someone.

It was meant to be a huge, overly demanding if, yes. I don't expect such a case to be. I'm merely suggesting the thought experiment.

It's called 'moral relativism'. Some people don't like it, but that's because they can afford to hold moral near absolutes in the civilization we have constructed for ourselves. At times the rules of life that we have are no longer sufficient, and we have to rely on our own wisdom to decide whether following a rule is the right thing to do or not.

Mmm. It's still a slippery slope.

Screaming for your followers to kill other people isn't exactly following number 6, now, is it?

It isn't, yet god tells the Israelites to kill the Canaanites mere verses after the 10 commandments. He makes the rules, and then commands his people to violate them at his command? What's up with that?

Sod if I know. Apparently he has a plan; it doesn't make sense to me.

I believe we were suggesting, at least for the Southern Baptist types, that perhaps what Jesus is reported to have said might be a better idea to follow:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

According to wikipedia, Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5[/ur], and [url=http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Leviticus&verse=19:18&src=HE]Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 18, respectively.

It's a nice sentiment, but I don't believe in your god, and I most certainly don't love him above all. Making that into law would, again, lead to a theocracy, and I object to that.
[/quote]

Point of order - he's not my god. I'm not so sure he even exists; something else for another thread somewhere else.

'Love your neighbour' is something that I might be able to do if my neighbours would actually do the same. Right now, however, they are more interested in shoving their respective faiths down my throat and gleefully telling my I will burn in hell for all time, rather than show any kind of love, respect, or even dignity.
I might have more respect for christianity if the christians  would follow their own rules and show compassion for their fellow human beings.

The clergy catholic church has now shown what the claims of love from them are worth: nothing. They regard adherence to their dogma more valuable than the life and well-being of a 9 year old rape victim to such an extent that they would condemn everyone who helped this girl to hell.
This is not a position that I can respect.

</wall of text>

Point. I'm more than happy to agree with you about the clergy of the catholic church, as long as you limit it to those directly responsible for this travesty, and their superiors - all the way up to Pope Benedict, if necessary. Not that that is all that far, as I understand it.

I know a number of priests who would be as horrified as you at what's happened here. I'm sure they'd feel this was overkill, and that there's a much better way of dealing with it. I'm not sure what that would be, as they're far more forgiving than I am - my solution would involve anthills and stakes, probably - but I feel sure they'd have some clever ideas.


Or maybe not so clever ideas, in some cases. They're only human, they get to make mistakes like the rest of us. And who knows, maybe this particular bishop is one of those people making mistakes...