The Ultimat Fundie Horror.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-31 12:41am

Forget Phelps, Falwell and Robertson. this is as scary as they get.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin.

P.S. I've got a title! W00t!

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-03-31 12:42am

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-31 12:47am

don't even ask wrote:Are you saying that all of the moral laws of the Old Testament are applicable to modern society? What about Old Testament laws that require stoning, such as Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called "harshness" of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant was just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? Has God changed? No! Has the Law changed? Jesus said: Not one jot! Therefore I ask: Why not now? Perhaps the problem is with us and not with the law?

However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one's parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment -- death -- is threatened.

In the United States of America, in this century, there were laws on the books in some states that said that a thief could be put to death for repeat offenses. This goes beyond what the Bible prescribes, but we see the same principle at work -- capital punishment for incorrigibility.

Rebellion against one's parents is listed together with the most heinous crimes in Romans. In this case, if he persisted in his rebellion against God, it would be the responsibility of the civil elders to deal with him. Isn't it likely that such a rebel would ultimately be put on trial for some other capital offense and be put to death?

The family is one of God's governmental units. Rebellion against the government is commensurate to treason. Today, we have no problem with seeing treason against the civil government as a capital crime. The problem is that we have a low view of the family today. The family is actually a higher form of government than the state and deserves greater protection. Rebellion against the family is an expression of rebellion against God's first established form of government and therefore against God himself.

Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. Sound harsh? Then what you are saying, in effect, is that God is harsh and that treason against the family is "not as bad" as treason against the state.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-31 01:06am

Stone them.

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2003-03-31 01:08am

Well, if they don't shut down their website on Sundays we can STONE THEM TO DEATH.(Exodus 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-31 01:13am

I'm utterly speechless.....

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-31 01:47am

Homosexuality is a capital offense. Right.

Too bad it actually doesn't say that in the Bible.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-31 02:04am

neoolong wrote:Homosexuality is a capital offense. Right.

Too bad it actually doesn't say that in the Bible.

Yes it does.

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."

This is why Old Testament laws are unacceptable.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-31 02:12am

Darth Wong wrote:
neoolong wrote:Homosexuality is a capital offense. Right.

Too bad it actually doesn't say that in the Bible.
Yes it does.
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."
This is why Old Testament laws are unacceptable.

Not quite. If you look at the originals ie, not the standard translations, it's different.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-31 02:16am

neoolong wrote:Not quite. If you look at the originals ie, not the standard translations, it's different.

Not that it matters much since Judeo-Christian interpretations of the Bible are usually based on KJV or NIV so they are as real as the Bible gets in this country, but what did the "originals" say?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-03-31 02:19am

neoolong wrote:Not quite. If you look at the originals ie, not the standard translations, it's different.

You speak Aramaic and Hebrew?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-31 02:20am

Darth Wong wrote:
neoolong wrote:Not quite. If you look at the originals ie, not the standard translations, it's different.
Not that it matters much since Judeo-Christian interpretations of the Bible are usually based on KJV or NIV so they are as real as the Bible gets in this country, but what did the "originals" say?

True.

Originally it varies a bit. Something about homosexual temple(I think it's not Christian temple) prostitution being a bad thing, not emphasizing the homosexual aspect of it, with a literal translation being something like two guys shouldn't have sex on a woman's bed, or in today's terms, don't be homosexual on a woman's bed, it's wrong. Not that homosexuality itself is bad. I'll have to dig up the exact reference on that, but that's the gist of it.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-31 02:21am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
neoolong wrote:Not quite. If you look at the originals ie, not the standard translations, it's different.
You speak Aramaic and Hebrew?

No, I looked it up after it was mentioned here before.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2003-03-31 02:38am

Darth Wong wrote:
neoolong wrote:Homosexuality is a capital offense. Right.

Too bad it actually doesn't say that in the Bible.
Yes it does.
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."
This is why Old Testament laws are unacceptable.

You notice Mike that in that statement it doesn't say if a man lies with a woman as one lies with a man....

So I guess we're scott free there.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 02:44am

neoolong wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
neoolong wrote:Not quite. If you look at the originals ie, not the standard translations, it's different.
You speak Aramaic and Hebrew?
No, I looked it up after it was mentioned here before.

Rev L. Robert Arthur, who has a Master's in Theology from Bob Jones University and had further graduate work in Greek, Hebrew, Ugaritic, Akkadian and Aramaic, wrote a work called Homosexuality And The Conservative Christian which systematically disproved biblical condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible as the work of mistranslations and misinterpetations of the original writing and intended meaning of words at the time they were written.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-31 02:48am

http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christ ... obibl.html - Ah, there's a copy of some of his writings here.

Captain Underling · Post by **Captain Underling** » 2003-03-31 03:44am

Typical fundies. They spout all the crap about laws, and how the world would be a better place and all that while forgetting the whole "Love thy neighbour" part. First thing they want to do is execute people. And kids, for heavens sake! Forget "Thy shalt not kill", these people obviously think its just a suggestion!

I always think it's funny how they put "Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestents" As if Catholics are soething else. Maybe I just take it personally as I'm a Catholic.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-03-31 06:44am

fgalkin wrote:Forget Phelps, Falwell and Robertson. this is as scary as they get. D

At least they're honest about their fanaticism.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-03-31 10:17am

6. Are you saying that all of the moral laws of the Old Testament are applicable to modern society? What about Old Testament laws that require stoning, such as Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called "harshness" of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant was just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? Has God changed? No! Has the Law changed? Jesus said: Not one jot! Therefore I ask: Why not now? Perhaps the problem is with us and not with the law?

However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one's parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment -- death -- is threatened.

In the United States of America, in this century, there were laws on the books in some states that said that a thief could be put to death for repeat offenses. This goes beyond what the Bible prescribes, but we see the same principle at work -- capital punishment for incorrigibility.

Rebellion against one's parents is listed together with the most heinous crimes in Romans. In this case, if he persisted in his rebellion against God, it would be the responsibility of the civil elders to deal with him. Isn't it likely that such a rebel would ultimately be put on trial for some other capital offense and be put to death?

The family is one of God's governmental units. Rebellion against the government is commensurate to treason. Today, we have no problem with seeing treason against the civil government as a capital crime. The problem is that we have a low view of the family today. The family is actually a higher form of government than the state and deserves greater protection. Rebellion against the family is an expression of rebellion against God's first established form of government and therefore against God himself.

Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. Sound harsh? Then what you are saying, in effect, is that God is harsh and that treason against the family is "not as bad" as treason against the state.

Whee, lets stone teens to death for having pre-marital sex...

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-31 11:03am

Lord_Xerxes wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
neoolong wrote:Homosexuality is a capital offense. Right.

Too bad it actually doesn't say that in the Bible.
Yes it does.
Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death."
This is why Old Testament laws are unacceptable.
You notice Mike that in that statement it doesn't say if a man lies with a woman as one lies with a man....

So I guess we're scott free there.

Ooh! The bible advocates sodomy! I'll have to propose that to my bible-thumping girlfriend.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-31 11:06am

6. Are you saying that all of the moral laws of the Old Testament are applicable to modern society? What about Old Testament laws that require stoning, such as Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called "harshness" of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant was just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? Has God changed? No! Has the Law changed? Jesus said: Not one jot! Therefore I ask: Why not now? Perhaps the problem is with us and not with the law?

However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one's parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment -- death -- is threatened.

In the United States of America, in this century, there were laws on the books in some states that said that a thief could be put to death for repeat offenses. This goes beyond what the Bible prescribes, but we see the same principle at work -- capital punishment for incorrigibility.

Rebellion against one's parents is listed together with the most heinous crimes in Romans. In this case, if he persisted in his rebellion against God, it would be the responsibility of the civil elders to deal with him. Isn't it likely that such a rebel would ultimately be put on trial for some other capital offense and be put to death?

The family is one of God's governmental units. Rebellion against the government is commensurate to treason. Today, we have no problem with seeing treason against the civil government as a capital crime. The problem is that we have a low view of the family today. The family is actually a higher form of government than the state and deserves greater protection. Rebellion against the family is an expression of rebellion against God's first established form of government and therefore against God himself.

Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. Sound harsh? Then what you are saying, in effect, is that God is harsh and that treason against the family is "not as bad" as treason against the state.

Does this vaguely remind anyone else of Pat Buchanan's views on torture? Arguments like, "It was ok a long time ago, so why isn't it ok now?" and "If you can kill a bank robber, why can't you viciously maim a jaywalker?"

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-03-31 11:18am

I'm speechless, but not suprised.
Fucking assholes. Stone a fucking kid when they disobey their parents.

I say we stone THEM!

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-31 11:28am

Hmm...

[/pacifism] [Killjoy from "It"]

Stoning is too good for those fuckers. If you REALLY want to get back at them, tie them to a table, and take a acetyline (sp?) torch to every inch of their flesh until they pass out. Then when they wake up again, resume.

You could even get a bunch of PETA people and force them to watch, and explain as you were ruthlessly frying this pathetic excuse for a human being that frying the surface of the skin provides a rich texture while sealing the juices into the meat for a delicate, tender taste. And acetyline gives the flesh a pungent aftertaste, too, similar to hickory-smoking a rack of beef ribs.

Reminds me of a scene from that terrible movie "Vulgar" where the guy lights his torch and looks at his victim and says, "This is how I kiss. And I'm gonna kiss you all over."

[/"A Clockwork Orange" meets "Misery"]

[Pacifism] That would be true justice, though horrible.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-03-31 11:29am

Truly sad. Guess I need to be stoned to death for arguing with my parents.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-31 11:37am

dont forget intent equals deed, and adultery is death. ever fantasized about a chick? time to die!

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Ultimat Fundie Horror.

The Ultimat Fundie Horror.

Re: The Ultimat Fundie Horror.