I am seriously considering quitting this debate now, you have posited no evidence at all for your arguments, go on look for it, none! I'm also considering whether or not you are trolling me.
The only thing you posted _with evidence_ was a firm belief in empathy, and the neurological support for it, the link you posted to wikipedia only stated that there might be a link!
Sorry, we covered that. Your equivocation on "causing death" doesn't help you. It is translated as both and is the same commandment.
ARE YOU SERIOUS! This is literally in the link you posted:
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental.[3] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5]
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.[6][7]
Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.
"Pretty much" what the difference is, is that I am providing evidence for my arguments. You are simply reiterated unsubstantiated opinions. The bible is proof of nothing.
Show where you have given evidence, and I have not.
The most frustrating thing is your comment at the end
The bible is proof of nothing
I haven't used the bible as proof for something, despite the fact it is proof.
It's really funny though, you just posted something without making an actual argument, you just stated what you believe.
They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.
So the strongest group decides?
Sometimes.
When then?
Simply typing a few words after my comments is not support of your argument.
Neither is it for me, then neither is it for you.
The choice of papyrus was insignificant? OK, I think we're done here. You're either being disingenuous or have no concept of how the bible came to exist in its current form. If you aren't aware, google "bible papyrus scraps" or some such and learn that the bible is really just ancient Mad Libs with scraps of faded paper. The debate over translations and missing parts have done nothing but splinter the overall faith. If 42,000 denominations arguing over who is "right" isn't significant problems then you would have no concept of what is significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyriThe New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works, but here goes: When a book is first created, many copies are made, then as these copies wear out due to the nature of the material, new copies are made. Sometimes, small errors may enter if the scribe is not particularly diligent, however the changes are normally so small and un-noticeable that they are easily identified.
It does condone a specific form of slavery, namely the payment of debts. The idea was if you could not conceivably pay a debt you owed someone you would work in order to cover part of it.
Religion at its finest: "the bible doesn't condone slavery, it simply condones slavery"
I don't need any argument here because you are arguing for my point. Thank you!
I'm saying you're using slavery as a buzz word, the modern conception of slavery, that is man-stealing, was forbidden by death.
However, in the payment of debts, slavery was allowed, it's not that complicated really. This form of slavery is not immoral, and even your empathetical system should have no problem with it. This sytem is much better than simply putting the debtor to death.
I think it is plainly spelled out in the bible passages I have already posted, among others. The central thrust is to give everything you have away and "give no thought to the morrow" while following Jesus' teachings. Here's more bible teachings greed is causing you to ignore:
All the verses you quote are warning not to serve wealth, not to make wealth your master, and not to make wealth your treasure. The protestant work ethic naturally leads to wealth, but if that is your goal in life, only your wealth you have missed the boat.
There is no excuse for forcing a woman to marry her rapist. None.
Well, actually there is.
In biblical times if you were no longer a virgin, in fact raped, you basically had no chance of getting married. This is to assure that the woman doesn't just fall off the face of the earth. This does not force women to live with the rapist, only for the rapist to provide for her, this happening was common. By marrying the woman she has all the protections of a married woman.
