Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Honor killing was not invented by the Muslims.
Nice strawman, although you admit rebelliousness is not a minor offense. You are having great difficulty reading words.
Have a nice day then.
Thank you.
If you think I said that then your comprehension is down on a level with your ability to make your own position clear. Avoid my "strawman" if you see it as that by clearly explaining your own position in this matter.
Because that is the word used in the Bible.
My position is clear, "No" to your loaded question. You've already been shown to change words expressed in the Bible. I told you, that if you had further questions that they would be answered on the religion forum. Now clearly understand this, I avoid your strawman by pointing it out. Normal people understand the word "son", "glutton", and "drunkard". They know that children, in the sense that you obviously intended, are not drunkards. Now, your fishing for some answer with which you can further attempt to build strawmen will recieve my previous answer, I don't do dances. Go to the religion forum for your answers.
Actually it makes perfect sense if you look at DNA and the genome like a computer program. Programmers reuse code all the time. No need to write code that draws a window everytime you write a new program, you just link to a library that already has that code, or you copy and paste code from one program to another.
Why wouldn't God reuse his own code?
And McVeigh was rightly executed for rebelliousness, not mass murder. My mistake.
Strawman. McVeigh was rebellious, demonstrating that rebellion is not a minor offense.
You have an extremely strange idea of what constitutes a strawman argument. I am unclear on your position though. Do you genuinely advocate executing every adult who is rebellious?
No, I see the strawman you build. First, I did not use the word "girl". Second, I did not say anything about the execution of McVeigh, you did(in the construction of your strawman). Third, you are trying to fish and I told you I will not cooperate with you. Now understand clearly my position on your fishing expedition, "NO".
Dear oh dear.
I didn't introduce McVeigh into discussion of those Leviticus verses, you did, in a dishonest attempt to slide the issue into whether mass murder is deserving of capital punishment as opposed to rebellion referred to by Leviticus. McVeigh is completely irrelevant in this context as there is are separate Biblical injunctions against murder. And you know it.
You implied some important difference between the word "son" and the word "children" in this context. The only construction I can place on that is that you don't think that those Leviticus verses apply to female children. If you mean that there is some other important distinction then I am afraid that you'll have to explain it more clearly. At no stage did I indicate that I thought the verses were referring to little kids, so your statements in that regard were attacking a straw man.
I am not sure what you mean by "you are trying to fish". I am trying to understand your attitude to those Leviticus verses. Do you believe that parents who have a stubborn and rebellious son, one who gets drunk and has been warned about his conduct (chastened) should be helped in stoning him to death? Would you help your neighbours do this? Would you expect them to help you if your sons were stubborn and rebellious and got drunk repeatedly? If not why not? What would your justification be for ignoring the clear Biblical instructions; the inspired Words of God?
Your attempt at mind reading is as bad as your argumentation. I told you what the purpose of McVeigh was. I did not mention murder you did. I mentioned rebellious. McVeigh was rebellious. You cannot deny that. And you still cannot understand that "son" is "son". By your argumentation you further prove that your intent was little children. And you keep trying to fish by expanding the universe of the subjects. Your last question was idiotic, "Do you genuinely advocate executing every adult who is rebellious?". Every adult was not the topic. And I told you to go ask your questions on the religious forum. They will be adequately answered there. You seek no answer to a burning question of morality. You seek some advantage with which you can build another strawman to attack. I will not participate. Go pound sand.
You brought the irrelevant McVeigh into it. He committed serious crimes. He was not executed for being stubborn and rebellious. Examining an online biography I find no evidence that he was stubborn and rebellious in the manner described in those Leviticus verses.
By your argumentation you further prove that your intent was little children.
You are just making that up. Why? I guess it gives you a good excuse for dodging the question.
And I told you to go ask your questions on the religious forum. They will be adequately answered there. You seek no answer to a burning question of morality. You seek some advantage with which you can build another strawman to attack. I will not participate. Go pound sand.
Rant noted. You really don't want to think about what those Leviticus verses instruct you to do, do you?
I'm not a mind reader, but I don't believe you. However, you can believe this. Go pound sand.
Failure to confront the meaning of those Leviticus verses noted.
Failure to understand English on the part of Thatcherite, adequately proved.
Theory, theory, theory.
Your privilege, I guess. I'll continue to ponder how someone who views the Bible as the inspired word of God should handle those verses. You butted into a discussion that was about these issues, and now you are telling *me* to take the discussion elsewhere! Hilarious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.