Banning/criminalizing

Not to mention that these beliefs are an affront to God.


We could definitely use less posers making a disgrace of their religion.

Crow: That would mean we would have to turn our non-ASV bibles in, and we would be criminals to have any other bible.

Bi0Hazard: To be fair, reading blasphemy might not be considered evil in his ideal world.

Crow: Probably not, but I thought they stoned for blasphemy.

Bi0Hazard: Oh yeah, so I guess it would be evil to have free speech and available information.

Krazy advocates for those two things, and you cannot have religious law and basic american civil liberties without being hypocritical.

Bi0Hazard: However, there is disagreement on what is right and wrong.
Correct. A lot of people disagree with God.

Many believe homosexuality is not immoral...
Many also believe that pedophilia is okay. If you are implying that majority determines what's right and wrong, that is a very dangerous belief.

there is disagreement on whether euthanasia is wrong
Same thing. Majority opinion means nothing.

You seem to be advocating a society's laws based on biblical principles
You are correct.

Which would make blasphemy a crime as well.
It should be. And that use to be United States law as well, until the 20th century when the country started straying from biblical principles rapidly.

Crow: He thinks anything that is not an ASV translation protestant bible is blasphemy.
I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I believe.

Krazy: .....

Krazy: Many also believe that pedophilia is okay. If you are implying that majority determines what's right and wrong, that is a very dangerous belief.
No, I am not, but there are different cultures and values, so I was wondering which ones should be accepted over the others.
You are correct.
So, its the old Israel society, I doubt Jesus would advocate a society like that.

Bi0Hazard: No, I am not, but there are different cultures and values, so I was wondering which ones should be accepted over the others.
The Bible. That should be accepted over everything.

So, its the old Israel society
No. Jews today don't believe the Bible. I wouldn't advocate a society like that. Jesus already paid for the sins of the whole world; so there's no more need for animal sacrifices. And the ceremonial laws don't apply anymore as they're not part of God's moral character and Christ is end of the law as well as the fulfillment of it.

I doubt Jesus would advocate a society like that.
Well neither would I. Many parts of ancient Israel society are not applicable after the coming of Jesus.

Krazy: The Bible. That should be accepted over everything.

It is tiring that you keep saying "The Bible" without specifying which one.

No. Jews today don't believe the Bible. I wouldn't advocate a society like that.

The protestant old testament holds a majority of the Jewish torah. All those laws you promoted about execution, lashing, and fines come from Jewish law, which was written by the Jewish priestdom.

You do not understand the origin of the bible, which is why it is so naive and stubborn when you claim it is the word of god.

Crow: It is tiring that you keep saying "The Bible" without specifying which one
There's only one Bible. Again, I gave you a very good explanation of how we got the Bible in that other thread. You just deny it. And then used lies to support your arguments further. I really have no interest in debating this again.

The protestant old testament holds a majority of the Jewish torah
The Bible actually has all of it, but okay.

All those laws you promoted about execution, lashing, and fines come from Jewish law...
God never used he prison system to punish His people. He only used those 3 main punishments. It would be wise for us to do the same. He knows the human psyche better than anybody (He created it), so we should use His system.

...which was written by the Jewish priestdom.
The Bible was written by God.

You do not understand the origin of the bible, which is why it is so naive and stubborn when you claim it is the word of god.
You can't understand the origin of the Bible because you don't know Who wrote it.

Krazy: There's only one Bible. Again, I gave you a very good explanation of how we got the Bible in that other thread. You just deny it. And then used lies to support your arguments further. I really have no interest in debating this again.

You mostly just kept reasserting that there was only one bible.

At one point you declared the true bible was the protestant one. Ignoring that there is actually more than one kind, you never justified why that one is legitimate.

The Bible actually has all of it, but okay.

Neither the standard protestant or catholic bible contain the full torah. Pretty sure a couple of the Orthodox ones do, but according to you, those are illegitimate.

God never used he prison system to punish His people. He only used those 3 main punishments. It would be wise for us to do the same. He knows the human psyche better than anybody (He created it), so we should use His system.


And when exactly did he declare all these punishments? Did he do it through the mouths of the jewish priestdom in power at the time?

The Bible was written by God.


So you think God wrote a bible by hand, and sent it down to the earth via stark?

Come on, even you must know that the bible was written by humans. In the New Testament, the disciples even refer to themselves as the writers. Sure, you could say the holy spirit influenced the disciples and priests, but they disagreed among each other, so to say they were the hands and mouth of God would be directly ignoring that key piece of hypocrisy,

You can't understand the origin of the Bible because you don't know Who wrote it.

M8, for your own good, stop loathing in this foolishness.

No one likes a poser or a sham. Especially God.

Crow: Again, you were given a perfectly good explanation. It was an excerpt from a website.

You keep using lies and mis-truths as in that other thread, so I'm tired of arguing with you.

Krazy: I disagree. Your explanation was not good. No explanation that refers you to a third party site is acceptable on a discussion site for that matter.

Why not just restate your argument? Do you expect everyone to immediately understand something the first time you (or your third party website) explains it?

I guess it is up to you to continue being cowardly and ignorant. If you weren't so busy using God as a tool, you might come to understand that the guy expects wisdom and perseverance when it comes to defending him. You are just willing to give up like that? What a shame, or so God probably thinks.