Sorry, busy for a few days.

I clarify as follows:

1- You agree that the New Testament orders sons or daughters be killed who curse their parents.

Yes, agreed.

2- You think that sons or daughters who curse their parents should NOT be put to death.

Yes.

3- But you also think that it was ok from their point of view (about 2000 years ago) to kill sons and daughter who curse their parents.

Yes.

Why do you think it was ok to kill sons and daughters who cursed their parents about 2000 years ago and why the same thing is not ok today?

I didn't say it was okay. I said I think it was okay from their point of view.

So I don't understand your last question. Are you asking why I think they thought it was okay?

JKJ,

On Your
<<I clarify as follows:

1- You agree that the New Testament orders sons or daughters be killed who curse their parents.

Yes, agreed.

2- You think that sons or daughters who curse their parents should NOT be put to death.

Yes.

3- But you also think that it was ok from their point of view (about 2000 years ago) to kill sons and daughter who curse their parents.

Yes >>

And your last question

<<Are you asking why I think they thought it was okay?>>

Go ahead with your why do you think it was okay for them to “kill sons and daughter who curse their parents.”

Now it may be in your response, would help if you comment on THEIR RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY THOUGHT OKAY FOR THEM IN THEIR TIME centuries before the present time, even though it is not okay to do the same in the current time.

NC,

Pretty obviously, what might have been tolerated a couple of thousand years ago cannot be tolerated these days: in the intervening millennia, people have fought hard for an extension of their rights, freedom not be to be killed or eaten or enslaved for being in a different group, freedoms to criticise their lords and kings and chiefs.

So clearly, in a civilized world, we do not condone actions which may have been condoned hundreds, or thousands, of years ago. People have rights now, at last in civilized countries, right of expression, rights to be represented democratically, rights of movement, rights of worship, rights to marry who they like, and so on. What was accepted then is not accepted now. Societies progress.

Yes, barely a few hundred years ago, my Scottish and Irish forebears were butchering each other in interminable and idiotic battles, perhaps eating each other, because each group thought all of the others were not quite human. Aztecs and Australian Aborigines exterminated neighbouring groups. One Aboriginal group here in South Australia was entirely exterminated in the 1880s by neighbouring groups on the pretext that some of the men had married 'wrong'. Another group was wiped out by a neighbouring group up in the gulf of Carpentaria in about 1906, according to Dick Roughsey. Barbarism happened in the past, but there is no excuse for it now. None.

Is that your point ?

Joe

"Go ahead with your why do you think it was okay for them to “kill sons and daughter who curse their parents.”

I didn't say it was. And I told you I didn't think it was.

Therefore you knew that I didn't think it was, and you knew that I didn't say it was.

Is that the best you can do? You are obviously and deliberately trying to confuse what *I* think is okay, with what *other people* think is okay. Idiot.

Now stop your snivelling dishonest half-witted evasions, and answer the question.

Do YOU think it's okay for a 54-year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl?

Not OTHER PEOPLE.

YOU.

Do YOU think it's okay.

Other people also thought armed robbery, rape, slavery and mass murder were okay, didn't they?

The question is how YOU reconcile that with YOUR moral code, you lying idiot.

Jardine, Language, you use is not the language, decent people use and it also indicates utter helplessness in the face of lack of force of logic and reason.
I am disappointed. I did not know you could stoop so low. Low you were, in your knowledge and reason, as evident by the contents of your posts, but so low in manners and maturity, I did not know.

Sitting on judgement, on actions of people over a thousand years ago, is some thing that a sane person would avoid. An action is to be judged in accordance with the ground realities and norms at the time. Judging actions of the past with the standards of present, is both rash and extremely misleading.
Only a childish mind or utterly ignorant person would proceed with the assumption that world has always been, the way it is now.
Some people just can not imagine that there was time on this planet that there were so few people and living so far apart that people of same kind were not available to these nomadic tribes at all. They did not enjoy the choices in marriage available to people these days. Hence a particular tribe, who would not marry outsiders, had to resort to kinship marriages:-
" Kinship marriages amongst the patriarchs includes Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarai;[Gen.20:11,12] the marriage of Abraham's brother, Nahor, to their niece Milcah;[Gen.11:27–29] Isaac's marriage to Rebekah, his first cousin once removed;[Gen.27:42–43;29:10] Jacob's marriages with two sisters who are his first cousins;[Gen.29:10,Ch.29] and, in the instance of Moses's parents, a marriage between nephew and aunt (father's sister).[Exod.6:20]"

Brothers and sisters marriages continued for centuries even after this period. Cleopatra, a Hellenic, married two of her brothers. One of wives of Darius was his sister. These marriages were permissible at the time. There are certain other unions, unimaginable these days, which appear to have been, forced by the isolation of a family and absence of any other choice except father and daughters for example;
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:36 (King James

Continued...

Jardine, Language, you use is not the language, decent people use and it also indicates utter helplessness in the face of lack of force of facts and reason.
I am disappointed. I did not know you could stoop so low. Low you were, in your knowledge and reason, as evident by the contents of your posts, but so low in manners and maturity, I did not know.

Sitting on judgement, on actions of people over a thousand years ago, is some thing that a sane person would avoid. An action is to be judged in accordance with the ground realities and norms at the time. Judging actions of the past with the standards of present, is both rash and extremely misleading.
Only a childish mind or utterly ignorant person would proceed with the assumption that world has always been, the way it is now.
Some people just can not imagine that there was time on this planet that there were so few people and living so far apart that people of same kind were not available to these nomadic tribes at all. They did not enjoy the choices in marriage available to people these days. Hence a particular tribe, who would not marry outsiders, had to resort to kinship marriages:-
" Kinship marriages amongst the patriarchs includes Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarai;[Gen.20:11,12] the marriage of Abraham's brother, Nahor, to their niece Milcah;[Gen.11:27–29] Isaac's marriage to Rebekah, his first cousin once removed;[Gen.27:42–43;29:10] Jacob's marriages with two sisters who are his first cousins;[Gen.29:10,Ch.29] and, in the instance of Moses's parents, a marriage between nephew and aunt (father's sister).[Exod.6:20]"

Brothers and sisters marriages continued for centuries even after this period. Cleopatra, a Hellenic, married two of her brothers. One of wives of Darius was his sister. These marriages were permissible at the time. There are certain other unions, unimaginable these days, which appear to have been, forced by the isolation of a family and absence of any other choice except father and daughters for example;
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:36 (King James

Continued...