Who ordered the murder/execution of adherents of Judaism who refused to accept him as a prophet?

[Boojatta]

Poll question: Who ordered the murder/execution of adherents of Judaism who refused to accept him as a prophet?

[Taverner]

1. Read your Bible and Koran

Both have it

Of course, Judaism has the same penalty for refusing to accept it.

[Hardrada]

2. I guess we're pretty much left with Buddhism!

[Sanctified]

3. Can you cite the Bible passage? n/t

[Taverner]

6. Here's a page full of them from the Jewish and Christian Bible(s)

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

[Sanctified]

22. Not one of the mis-quotes in your link shows Jesus ordering the murder or execution of Jews

who refused to accept him as a prophet.

[Meshuga]

4. Penalty (execution) for refusing to accept what?

And penalty for whom? Please be more specific.

[Taverner]

5. The stories of Joshua are filled with genocide after genocide

It seems to be a trend in religion

[Meshuga]

7. I understand that there are stories of genocide

But you claim, "Judaism has the same penalty for refusing to accept it."

Where in Jewish Law does it say that there should be such a penalty for refusing to accept "it" (whatever "it" is) and who should accept "it"?

Are you claiming genocide is (or it should be) part of Jewish practice just because it is in the bible? I'm confused.

[Taverner]

8. If you are a Jew, Leviticus offers severe penalties for not following

[Meshuga]

9. For not following what?

FYI: there is more to Judaism and Jewish law than what is written in the Bible.

There are texts and more texts of codes and commentaries that constitutes Jewish law/folkway for Jews to follow the religion. There is nothing in Jewish Law/folkway commanding Jews to kill others or each other for not following Judaism. There is nothing in the law urging Jews to convert others to Judaism either.

Biblical passages alone mean nothing if you don't look at them in the context of the entire twofold law.

You are trying to make a point based on your assumptions and ignorance about Judaism and how scripture is viewed in the religion.

[Taverner]

10. Look - I'm not saying Judaism, Christianity and Islam haven't changed

I'm just saying they all have "holy books" which condone killing for not following said laws.

The Talmud has done a lot to humanize these Bronze Age codes of ethics, as have various modernizing forces in all of these faiths.

Where would Christianity be without St Augustine, St Francis of Assisi or St Benedict?

Where would Judaism be without Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (more responsible for modern Judaism than anything in the OT)?

All have modernized, but that does not detract from the bloodthirsty nature of their "good books."

Oh, and by the way, I'm Jewish (ethnically, not philosophically.)

[Meshuga]

12. Without the Pharisaic revolution

And the tannaim (like Zakai, whom you mentioned) Judaism would not exist today. Without the twofold law, Judaism would go extinct with the fall of the temple.

You told me that all you're saying is that they all have "holy books" which condone killing for not following the religion. I agree with you. They do. But I was stuck with your original claim: "Of course, Judaism has the same penalty for refusing to accept it" because Rabbinical Judaism (which is the religion we know today as Judaism) doesn't have such a penalty since it is based on the twofold law.

The biblical stuff is embarrassing but Judaism is never going to get rid of the biblical stuff because it is part of our heritage, not because it is a book of valid literal laws. The bible contains the Jewish story and a record of the values of an ancient people. It can be embarrassing but it is a record of where we were as a people.

[Taverner]

13. If Christians and Muslims aren't embarassed by their books - they should be

I guess my main complaint is the embracing of a Bronze Age code of Ethics, rather than a Modern one.

[SidneyCarton]

15. One problem with the Bible, is that it was never intended to be a single book.

It is an amalgamation of various venerated books, some containing prophecy, holy writ and law, some history, and some pseudopornographic love poetry (The Song of Solomon) Despite the protestations of the fundies, it cannot be said to contain the entirety of the word of God, for it was arbitrarily assembled by the Fathers of the Church, men who openly admitted that they did not have the gift of Revelation to do so. Hence, the Bible has to be taken with at least a grain of salt.

Call us Mormons crazy (It's okay you do it all the time) But a belief in ongoing revelation allows us to reconcile the Bronze Age ethics with the Modern world.

[Taverner]

18. Definitely a plus for the LDS

BTW...if you're Mormon maybe you could answer a question for me.

Why is it so many Mormons are Republican? I know you aren't - and many aren't.

But the majority are.

And it makes no sense because the Republican Party was partially founded on anti-Mormonism. They were the party to persecute them big time. Missouri and Illinois were VERY Republican at the time when Mormons were driven out to Utah.

[SidneyCarton]

19. A lot of this mess was before my time...

After all Utah went for Roosevelt all 4 times.

In essence I would assume it's a result of the 1960's, the ERA, Roe v. Wade Reagan and his BS...

The church is conservative, yet we have a massive welfare program, (go figure) I've often marveled myself at the arch reactionary stance taken by many members. Sure if Abortion or Gay Marriage was the only issue in the world, I might understand being a Republican, but considering the current state of things, the reason Provo county is the reddest county in the union is mostly lackadaisical denial.

[Taverner]

20. The Democratic Party needs a Mormon Strategy

I mean, shit, the Dem Senate Maj Leader is Mormon.

[SidneyCarton]

21. Maybe we do!

That said, I think part of this mess in generational. I'm a Dem in part because my parents were converts. Most Members of my parents generation are pretty conservative. Strangely enough, this doesn't totally track in my generation, indeed we have numerous independents, including Mrs. Carton herself. Her good friend's husband actually ran for Congress in Washington as a Democrat, (he never had a chance and was eliminated in the primaries) And this friend's grandfather, who served in some small role in the Reagan Administration has been vehemently critical of the Bush Administration and its Unitary Executive policies. (Something about the Constitution....)

Anyhoo, given time and positive engagement I think some Mormons would come around. Am I promising Utah would become a Blue state, no probably not in the next 30 years, but we exist in fair numbers across the South west and Big Sky, areas that Senator Obama is giving particular notice to anyway.

It would be nice not to be so alone in an election year someday...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Jesus no, (although many of his followers yes); Mohammed only in certain circumstances.

Jesus never ordered his followers to convert others by force because he never imagined that it would be possible - he was running a small cult in the midst of a powerful empire.

Besides, his priorities appear to have been focused around mysticism and the afterlife, rather than affairs in this world, and it seems likely that he would have had little interest in his followers claiming temporal power or their interactions with others beyond making converts in spirit (as opposed to in name or behaviour)

However, as and when Christians became the dominant group in many areas, they undoubtedly did kill a lot of people for not converting.




Mohammed, by contrast, was a powerful and successful warlord, and as well as the supernatural he clearly intended his religion not merely to convert, but to dominate those who didn't adhere to it, and he took a keen interest in the running of secular society.

His orders to his followers regarding converting others by force appear to vary in different places and are highly controversial, but clearly do involve killing others for their unbelief in certain circumstances.

[Taverner]

14. But Jesus (if he even existed) had nothing to do with the New Testament

So we really have no idea what Jesus thought. Chances are, being Essene and all, he was as you described.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. That's an exaggeration.

There are of the order of a hundred years between Jesus and the New testament, about the same distance as between Lincoln and Brown vs Board of Education (well, give or take a factor of two).

[Taverner]

17. Ahhh but in that time you have the destruction of Jerusalem (the center of Christianity)

As well as how history was recorded differently back then.

There wasn't an ongoing Supreme Court to keep up a precedent.