How stupid do you have to be?...

[Jackalope]

I stand corrected. Drich, you're a monster. I'm glad the law is on our side.

Law be damned. Be Glad God doesn't want us hunting atheists down.

Bring it, tough guy.

[Faith No More]

Do you have any idea of what 50 shekels amounted to? no one knows for sure but it was a king's ransom for sure. (Christ was sold out for only 30 shekels. 1500 years later) With that same 30 Judas' 'resting place' was purchased.

The 80 shekels was a deterrent. and if one could not pay he would have been sold into slavery till he could pay off his debt.

Without proper context, I agree it seems like a pittance. In context it is something to be feared.

Your god charges a fine, and the woman is then forced to live with her rapist. You think this is the best an omniscient deity could come up with?

[Faith No More]

Bring it, tough guy.

[Minimalist]

I just learned something thanks to you, Drippy. Nothing you said, of course. That remains universally worthless.

In checking out the shekel shit I learned that this was originally a Babylonian unit of measurement which, like everything else apparently, they stole from the Babylonians.

Another blow against the OT being written before the Babylonian conquest.

Thanks for the tip.

[Bad Writer]

Whoa...good call!

[Jiggerj]

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?

Well, if you want to see the silliness in Christianity how about this:

Christianity is based on Jesus being crucified for your sins. Seeing as god is supposed to be GOD, he could have simply said, "I now forgive sins."

Was the crucifixion like a witches spell that forced 'almighty' god into forgiving sins? Of course not. The crucifixion did nothing.

[Minimalist]

People like Drippy are not embarrassed by this at all. To a mind like his this apparently makes sense.

[Angrboda]

In checking out the shekel shit I learned that this was originally a Babylonian unit of measurement which, like everything else apparently, they stole from the Babylonians.

Another blow against the OT being written before the Babylonian conquest.

I thought about this while watching the video version of "The Bible Unearthed." Finklestein argues that elements of the text are clearly anachronistic if one accepts the traditional dating of them, and suggests a 7th century composition. However, while the anachronisms clearly suggest a late recording of the texts, they do not in and of themselves fix a date of composition, as changes during oral transmission, as well as accretions, can account for anachronisms without critically impugning the integrity of the text. (There are other ways for anachronisms to innocently creep into texts, but I don't remember them offhand. Given that the Hebraic texts weren't normalized until centuries later, some as late as the second century CE, there's plenty of room for inadvertent anachronisms to creep in.)

[Bad Writer]

Yet another nail in the coffin of something that is supposedly unerring.

[Mystical]

Well I'm pleased you found me fit to answer my post on this subject, this time around. I was beginning to believe you
had blocked me I'm impressed if you actually went through each verse and reworded it yourself..

Pet peeve: being labled a 'liberal Christian' simply because I am not a legalistic one. If you have read the
NT you will see a separation from the OT. If you are a biblical believing Christian you also have to acknoweledge and
honor this separation in your faith. while all the while still acknoweledgeing the OT as we are instructed.

How is "the law is not abolished" and "follow the law" not a clear cut commandment to follow OT and NT commandment law?
If we are lifelong sinners, and break the laws anyways but Christians can atone for that with prayer, then what keeps
Christians on the straight and narrow if the law is negligible through atonement and you don't even bother following most
of it anyways? I mean, do you cut your hair? Or sleep next to your wife in bed during her menses? What clear cut
from the Bible mode of operation do you follow to decide what is and isn't important to uphold?

Why does sin require a death punishment and how were Adam and Eve sinning if they didn't know right from wrong in the
first place? Also do you mean physical or spiritual death (since we all die physical ones anyways)?

You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?

That just it! nothing in the Law has Changed. What was a sin still is a sin.

That's what I'm sayin

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is
accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

You do know being 'least in the kingdom' is the coveted position here right?
(Mat 20:16)

This seems non sequiter to me. Mat 20:16 states, "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Meaning (and correct me if I'm wrong), but the last in this physical reality will become first in heaven.
But Matthew 5:18 speaks of someone who leads their followers astray by being lenient on the law to be followed.
Therefore if you relax even the least of gods commandments then you shall be put in as the least in heaven which is
a punishment?
If parents took their drunkard teens to get stoned to death in the public square then and it was acceptable even dictated
by god, then would you nowadays do the same thing to your son if the law didn't prohibit it? For that matter, do you condemn
muslims for following the same procedures for their god to this day or do you call it barbaric?

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in
righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

Amen so what you say?

It's only stating here that teaching and correction from the OT are still applicable today.
One example: spare the rod, spoil the child.

Christian parents Biblically beat child to death with a Biblical rod

The most recent of the three child killings captured headlines this fall. On Sept. 29,
Larry and Carri Williams of Sedro-Woolley, Wash., were charged with homicide by abuse
after their adopted and home-schooled daughter, Hana Williams, was found dead.
Her
naked and skeletal body was discovered face down in the family’s backyard.


The girl had been beaten with a 15-inch plastic tube on the day she died, the sheriff’s report
said — the very instrument the Pearls recommend for spankings. Ms. Williams was a big fan
of their book and gave a copy to a friend, the report also said.

Last year, Lydia Schatz, seven, also home schooled and adopted from Liberia,
died after her parents beat her for hours, with frequent breaks for prayer.. She was
held down for several hours by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of
her body, causing massive tissue damage according to Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey.
She was being disciplined for apparently mispronouncing a word.[4][6] She died in the hospital on
February 6, 2010.[8] Her sister Zariah, 11 years old, was also beaten for "being a liar and a bad
influence on the 7-year-old."




Her father, Kevin, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and torture and Elizabeth, her mother, to voluntary
manslaughter and unlawful corporal punishment. They are serving prison sentences.

A copy of To Train Up a Child was found in the family’s home, as was a piece of the
Pearl-endorsed plumbing pipe.

When asked by CNN what may have influenced the Schatzes to beat their daughter to death, Mike Ramsey, district
attorney for Butte County, Ca., said, “The book by Mr. Pearl, there’s no doubt about that.”

The Pearls teachings have also been linked to the death of Sean Paddock, four.
The couple’s teachings were discussed during the trial of his adoptive mother, Lynn.



The tube is just one version of the “rod” the Pearls advocate in their literal interpretation of Proverbs 13:
“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

They also suggest using a 10- to 12-inch-long willow branch on a child as young as one. Or a one-foot ruler,
belt or three-foot cutting of a shrub. Something flexible that inflicts pain but doesn’t bruise
the skin or leave marks.

The Pearl training method begins in infancy, teaching children not to engage in undesirable
behaviour by placing something appealing before them and striking them with a switch when they reach for it.

It’s an act the Pearls liken in their book to how the Amish train their “stubborn mules.” And it’s
a strategy Mr. Pearl says parents must carry out with love, not anger. It will prevent them from
greater harm down the road, they say, and perhaps even the fiery pits of hell.

“Everybody thinks they’re emotionally stable, everybody thinks they’re not angry” when they
discipline a child, said the child clinical psychologist and professor of family social sciences at the
University of Manitoba.

“For a parent to hit a child when they’re not angry, that flies in the face of any kind of reality. If you’ve
got a cool mind, why can’t you think of something better to do?”

The Pearls’ advice is the polar opposite of what decades of child development research
recommends, she said, a point echoed by George Holden, a professor of psychology at
Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who has researched corporal punishment in the religious context.

“I just recently bought a copy of that book. [Pearl is] scary,” said Prof. Holden, who
co-authored a study in 1999 that found conservative Protestant parents are more likely to use
corporal punishment than parents from other religious groups.

“He’s very much into breaking the will, which was a concept back in the early part
of the 20th century that is totally outmoded and it’s totally out of touch with what
developmental psychologists know about how children develop. There’s a lot of dangerous
things here that would likely result in abusive behaviour.”

Let's look past the fact that all three cases were connected to a book written by one of your brethren.
The first child was found skeletal meaning she was malnourished. The second child victim was killed
for mispronouncing a word.
The last one died rolled up in a carpet FGS. All of these people believed they were justified and safe in their actions
based on your apparent word of god, whether they were or not. Do you think those kids might be
alive today were it not for your book? Doesn't that concern you? If those families hadn't fallen into your god trap then maybe
those kids would be alive. If those parents had read books by REAL PSYCHOLOGISTS instead of some old era nonsense flooded
and backed up by being the unerring word of god: this wouldn't have happened.

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

that passage in context:16 We told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. We told you about his coming. The things we told you were not just clever stories that people invented. No, we saw the greatness of Jesus with our own eyes. 17 Jesus heard the voice of the great and glorious God. That was when he received honor and glory from God the Father. The voice said, “This is my Son, the one I love. I am very pleased with him.” 18 And we heard that voice. It came from heaven while we were with Jesus on the holy mountain.[a]

Second Epistle of Peter:
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if Peter the Apostle wrote this epistle then it must have been written prior to his death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Erhman, Bart (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. p. 31 "Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.". ISBN 978-0-06-182514-9.
cant earn righteousness by adhering to the law

Despite this, I read the original scripture to be quite clear cut.
The entire bible was written by man under the spiritual influence of god therefore it's gods word you disobey if
you alter it or disobey it.

This is important because to disobey god is a sin guilty of death.

Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

*in Drich context
‘Whoever says anything bad to their father or mother must be killed.’[c] 11 But you teach that people can say to their
father or mother, ‘I have something I could use to help you, but I will not use it for you. I will give it to God.’ 12
You are telling people that they do not have to do anything for their father or mother. 13 So you are teaching that it is
not important to do what God said. You think it is more important to follow those traditions you have, which you pass on
to others. And you do many things like that.”

there is a pattern, do you see it yet?

A pattern of ridiculousness, is all I see. That's like the law giving parents free reign to kill their children whenever they want.
The bolded part is what I don't get, one bit at all what your point is.

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

This scripture says to me that adultery is punishible by death--the act and the lustful thoughts. Therefore, thought crime that's punishible in an eternity of hell (according to the wording).

19 Moses gave you the law, right? But you don’t obey that law. If you do, then why are you trying to kill me?”

20 The people answered, “A demon is making you crazy! We are not trying to kill you.”

21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle on a Sabbath day, and you were all surprised. 22 But you obey the law Moses gave you about circumcision—and sometimes you do it on a Sabbath day. (Really, Moses is not the one who gave you circumcision. It came from our ancestors who lived before Moses.) Yes, you often circumcise baby boys on a Sabbath day. 23 This shows that someone can be circumcised on a Sabbath day to obey the Law of Moses. So why are you angry with me for healing a person’s whole body on the Sabbath day? 24 Stop judging by the way things look. Be fair and judge by what is really right.”

This has nothing to do with what is being discussed

Well, actually it does. Unintentional on my part, but hey. What's Jesus doing? Sounds to me like he's doing exactly what
2 Peter talks about, interpreting the law that was written by god. He's making allowances for the ridiculousness of his fathers'
law by giving an exception to that law because his intentions were to praise god. Now if god specifically said "hey guys
you shouldn't do anything on the sabbath unless it's for the glory of my name," then we'd be getting somewhere. The only exception
I know is if a life is in danger. As far as I know one guy got killed for merely collecting wood. To Live. Perhaps Jesus
would have been better off waiting till monday to heal the person. Sound to me like Jesus was saying to them, Hey you
guys circumsize on the sabbath, I heal bodies on the sabbath. God'll get over it.

Nothing is being broken 'missy.' For the Same 'law' that identifies sin also provides a caveat for atonement. In other words atonement is just as much apart of the law as the 'thou shalt nots.' The Thou shalt nots are only 1/2 of the law. to over look the atonement part is to be guilty of ignoring that part of scripture. and you have provided enough BCV to know one can not do that.

Ah, but Jesus didn't save all of us automatically with his atonement offering, did he now? Nope. If he did, THEN I'd agree with you. But as things stand,
according to your bible, I and everyone ever born have been guilty of a sin we never committed, and are asked to submit
to a god too ridiculous for me to fathom.

who has provided a way to avoid said 'dickieness.' Meaning if you get dicked then it is your own fault.

Being born into sin is hardly anyone's fault, and a just and righteous god would recognize it as such.