I’ve found this book interesting: “Biblical Literacy” by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. It’s surprisingly readable by non-scholars like me; and used copies are cheap. Quote: “ ‘An eye for an eye’, therefore, establishes two biblical principles of justice: Evil must be punished, and punishment must be proportionate to, and not exceed, the offense.” -- Yes I believe our laws should uphold both of those principles.

Also from this book: back then, the laws of surrounding peoples were harsh*. It was a big change to limit punishment to just one eye instead of two, and to forbid revenge on the offender’s innocent family members. In cases like this, the rabbi says, the (Jewish) courts had the offender pay a fine instead of losing an eye. The rabbi goes on to say (I’m paraphrasing) that the “turn the other cheek” philosophy is great on an individual level, but do you really want your society’s laws to let people off scott free when they do evil things? -- No, I don’t. I admire victim’s families who forgive murderers, but I still want those murderers dealt with under the law.

So, what’s a just punishment for a woman who so horribly kills her child? Well – after a due trial – it’s still difficult. Death? Sterilization? Prison? Is there anything she could ever do or say that would sufficiently pay that debt, regain her freedom? I’m glad I’m not a judge. On the face of it, I’d say “Life in prison, no parole.” I would only support the death penalty if there were more than one killing involved.

*Elmer brings up the Code of Hammurabi. Large parallels with Exodus and Deuteronomy (so I think they certainly borrowed from their surroundings!), but Hammurabi allowed for the child of the offender to be killed, if that offender had caused the death of someone else’s child. The rabbi puts it that Hammurabi and the other ancient codes focused on punishment of the guilty, the Torah (bible) focuses on restitution of the innocent. I think there’s a lot to be learned from careful study of all old texts -- so I'm thankful there are people equipped to do that! -- it gives us insights in to human nature that hasn’t really changed in 5,000 years of written history.

I was taught that the Old Testament is heavy on Fear and Punishment, while the New Testament takes a more contemplative, redemptive tack.

When I get to a computer tomorrow I will post more on this issue. The text is not as karmic nor as fear and punishment as many have interpreted. I studied this at the University of Chicago and teach it in my Bible as Literature course.

There would be a lot less crime if the eye for an eye was followed!

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't believe in that saying. I'm also against the death penalty and am glad we don't have it here.

It is also mentioned in the New Testament:

Matthew 5:38-42

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Regardless of the method of carrying out the death penalty, someone has to be the person to do it. I don't want to do it and I don't want to foist that responsibility/psychic burden on another human being. Killing the killer is still killing. Killing the killer does not restore the life of the victim.

Life in prison is suitable punishment as far as I'm concerned - with NO possibility for parole for heinous crimes.

Olychick, there have been more than one case in which (edited to add:) ACTING AS A LEGAL AGENT OF THE STATE I'd pull the trigger myself, the crime was so heinous. Not proud, and maybe not right, but that's honestly how I feel.

I support capital punishment, but I want it to be rare and used only in those cases where there is incontrovertible proof of guilt (like gacy with the bodies buried under his house) and where the perp is so deadly that escape from prison would represent a serious risk to society. For example, ted bundy escaped from jail before he committed his last killings.

Do I believe in eye for an eye? No.

When I hear a horrific story like the one you described with the mother who murdered her own child, my instinctual response is to want to inflict the same pain on her. To show her how much pain she caused. To "pay her back" for what she has done.

Doing so doesn't and wouldn't undo what her actions did. It wouldn't bring restitution to the victim. It wouldn't make me better than her.

In the end, my actions and results would be the same as the very ones I'm condemning. I'm fairly certain my response would be QUITE different if I were the parent of said child BUT, that is really the point, isn't it?

Acting in self defense or in the defense of others, stopping a madman who is harming or attempting to harm others is absolutely justified and necessary.

Holding a (currently) defenseless captive human being down so you can administer the punishment; whether it be removing an eye or taking their life, isn't justice, it's vengeance.

You hurt me (us, society, etc) so we are going to hurt you back.

Do you know how much time I have spent teaching toddlers that we don't hit/bite/kick others because we are angry or because they took something of ours or they hurt us?

Yes, it IS my instinctual response, if I'm hurt I react like any other creature on the Earth and I try to protect myself and lash out.

Luckily I was also born with a mind, capable of fully fleshing out the future realities of my current thoughts and actions.

I had to learn, as a small child, to reign in that "lash out" response.

I feel like we, as a society, still have a lot of "learning" to do.

We live in a society that has violence night and day on TV. Anger is all over the place. So many kids are absorbing it. It's a scary world. People think it's ok to do hurtful stuff or lose control.

What is the solution for people out of control? I would like to see people giving back something of value in return for committing these awful crimes. Some are too dangerous to live among us but maybe they can give something back during their captivity. It won't be equal to the evil they did but it's something. Maybe they could be searching for cures to disease or working to provide the resources for finding cures.

I don't know why some people don't have empathy. Some scans show a lack of brain density in the regions where empathy is created in some people like those with NPD. One day we'll understand it better.

I do think much suffering is generated by our current economic system. When you have large numbers of people going without, it's never good. I'd like to see meaningful work for everyone and healthcare including mental health as a right.

Last, I don't think humans are inherently violent or angry as a species. We can change our destinies whenever we decide it's time. It's time.

I agree with Annie. I support capital punishment with absolute proof that the person committed the crime. I do believe that many, many people (mainly mentally ill or non-white) have been put to death for a crime they did not commit. I don't live my life using the philosophy of an eye for an eye.

As an aside, I could be one of those executioners. Every time I read about one of those botched executions, I cringe. I know the drugs to give in the dosages to give. They are all anesthesia drugs I use for every general anesthetic. There is no reason for the screw ups that occur. I just don't understand it.

I'm against capital punishment for two reasons. The main reason is, if they wrongly accuse the person, there's no way to reverse it. The second is more personal and esoteric. If anyone knows who to overcome the first one, I'd reconsider, but it aint happening.

Some other considerations are the huge expenses to taxpayers for long prison sentences. But does the 'slap his hand and let him go' view do any good? Punishment is complex, there are no easy answers.

I am in favor of capital punishment for several reasons. One that no one has spoken of yet is that with the advent of numerous and powerful gangs, a lot of gang business is done by those in prison, including ordering 'hits' on others. So not only is a long or life sentence expensive to the taxpayers, it is no guarantee that the person imprisoned for murder will not take more lives, directly or indirectly.

As someone who has survived domestic abuse and who has lost a sister in law and niece to murder I am a big advocate of an eye for an eye. I put my monster in jail, it's ironic though that my taxes paid benefited him. Kept a roof over his head, fed, clothed, medical care etc. The murderer who took the lives of my sister in law and niece took his own life, we had no satisfaction from that. I believe in the death penalty and I'm sick and tired of the people that think its too harsh. The only other alternative, give these people their own island, let them take care of each other. I mean that literally and figuratively. Sorry, don't mean to sound so harsh but it's reality in my family. I forgave the individuals, some of us haven't been able to do that though and have paid dearly for it.

I'm probably significantly more "liberal" than many to whom that label is applied, but I'm strongly in favor of capital punishment. I realize and acknowledge the risks of someone being wrongly convicted -- it has happened, it does happen, so that would have to be taken into account, but there are also cases where the person's guilt is incontrovertible and the perpetrator's actions have amply demonstrated that they are not human. In those cases the punishment should be swift and sure and final. And then the severity of the crime should affect the severity of the capital punishment. In Connecticut about ten years ago two men broke into a house severely injured a man, and then spent the next several hours raping, torturing and eventually killing his wife and daughters. They deserved an as-imaginatively, brutally-painful, awful an execution as could be devised -- severe enough that upon hearing of it, hardened criminals would weep. Instead at least one of them is still sitting in prison being housed and fed at our expense.

Opponents of capital punishment often say "It costs more to put a prisoner to death than to keep them in prison." or "To sit in prison for the rest of your life is a worse punishment than to be executed." or "Capital punishment is not a deterrent" and to these claims I would merely say "That's cause you're doing it wrong."

Bob, I remember that Connecticut case you are talking about. I'm very liberal in some ways too. But I too believe in the death penalty for cases like that one. No one doubts the guilt of those monsters and they need to be removed from this earth. I don't understand the tendency of some people to pigeon hole things into liberal vs conservative either. Most people fall on a spectrum and can have wildly different views depending on the hot topic at hand.

Vengence is mine, says the Lord. If you reference the bible I think it only fair to tell the whole truth. The Bible and its rules of behavior were all tweaked, explained by Christ's coming to bring the laws of love. Forgiveness is the biblical MANDATE. God is the only one able to decide punishment. We lock people in jail to keep us safe from them. We are supposed to be rehabilitating, helping when they are ill and I can't imagine this mom isn't very ill. We don't get to kill a person because they are inconvenient for us, because they do horrid things because we prefer not having to face how they chose to live. God gives life, ALL LIFE. It is His to take away. He will decide what punishment is earned by the evil acts of others. Eye for an Eye? That is an antiquated concept that has no place in an "enlightened" society.

The US is a secular country and our laws aren't derived from the bible or other religious beliefs. Everyone is free to have any personal religious belief they want for themself but they're not free to impose their beliefs on others. These issues are about ethics, morality and politics, not anyone's particular religious doctrine.

Arcy, you just put into words exactly what I have been thinking as I've read through these posts. And you've done a much better job of it than I could have, thank you!

Scot, I'm very interested to read what you have to say on the matter. I didn't realize you teach the Bible as literature.

Rusty

We are a Christian country--still. It is going fast, true. Our constitution was inspired by the New Testament. I hear ya though. Of course, you can believe whatever. BUT the poster ASKED a specific question Elmer. Perhaps you should read from the beginning.

I thought we were founded on freedom from religious persecution? Oh well.

"We are a Christian country"

I think you're mistaken. There's nothing to that effect in the Constitution at all, nor in any subsequent laws, to my knowledge.

I hate proselytizing. Just because you believe what you believe doesn't mean everyone does.

I think it's safe to say the founding fathers were from a Christian background. Being educated men they probably were conversant with the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, many Old Testament stories and New Testament parables, all those letters Paul wrote, etc. So ... does any wording in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or other state document parallel or obviously derive from any such part of the Bible? Educate me :-) maybe in a new thread, though :-) :-)

THE DECALOGUE

By Scott, under the supervision
of Professor Michael Fishbane, University of Chicago

The Decalogue, sandwiched structurally
between the theophanies that take place on Sinai (Exocus 19 and 24),
and a collection of both ethical and cultic laws, encapsulates two
major relationships: between God and man, and the relationship
between man and man.

(It’s hard to determine textually if
the Decalogue is historically “primitive” or dates from a later
period; the text is probably a dense interweaving of various strands
of tradition.)

In the narrative, the Decalogue seems
to be inconsistently placed; Moses goes down to the people and speaks
to them in 19:25, but then in 20, God speaks. Note that the Law comes
from God; not from a king, a transformation of the suzerainty treathy
pattern.

God speaks in verse one of the
Decalogue, setting a historical framework for the laws. He is the
one who brought Israel out of Egypt; the saving act of the previous
chapters is always the context. Therefore, he requires loyalty to him
alone.

The ban on graven images (verse 4)
seems to hearken back to a topos of Genesis 1: God is above creation;
he cannot be identified with any specific natural force, which he
demonstrated earlier in the plague cycle and the narrative of the
parting of the Red Sea.

This God is zealous, alive, living
though; not an abstract cosmological force, like Marduk or Tiamat,
but one who intervenes personally in history.

Verse eight is significant; the
Israelites are commanded to remember the Sabbath because it
memorializes the first act of creation; their Sabbath day corresponds
to God’s rest day. The emphasis here is theocentric, as in the
Priestly tradition; the reason for the observance directly hearkens
back to Genesis 1:11.

Verse nine shifts the focus to the
relationship between humans; it’s notable that 13, bearing false
witness, comes after the others, perhaps reflecting a degree of
sinfulness. The text could thus imply that deception is the worst of
sings, because it adversely affects all relationships beyond the
family (the phrase “your neighbor”).

Verse 14 adds a more internal dimension
to sinfulness: coverting. House comes before wife (she being part of
collective property). Perhaps one can find here an echo of the Cain
and Abel story and other narratives in Genesis (Jacob and Esau,
Joseph and his brothers, Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah) that
reveal the damage to social order (in these contexts a mirror of the
sacred) order by envy, or as Rene Girard terms it, “mimetic
desire.” The implication is that such feelings create ruptures in
the social order, which should be a reflection of the initial order
of creation. God through the Decalogue is “recreating” the state
of creation before the fall.

Now these commands are apodeictic, not
casuistic, like the commands in Exodus 21 that deal with cultic
practices. In other words, they are to be applied not to
specific cases only, but an ethic, or theonomy, that is supposed to
support of the whole of human life.

In Exodus 21, one finds a; rather
loose, noncodified collection of laws, some of which are apodeictic,
and some of which are casuistic. How does one attempt to find any
underlying structure, both surface and deep? It is difficult to tell,
as well, which laws date from a specific time period

Specific parallels with the Code of
Hammurabi can help determine what topos or overarching theme holds
various parts of this collection together.

According to Moshe Greenberg, in the
Torah, there is a different emphasis: the value of human life (which
comes from the living, zealous God, see Exodus 23:23).

Rules regarding slaves illustrate this
difference. Exodus 21:2 gives a rule for manumission, not dissimilar
to a law in Hammurabi; but in Hammurabi, there is no provision for
lifelong slavery because of “love.” The slave functions socially
as property in Babylon. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a slave is sold
to another person for debt, and the person forecloses, the slave is
no longer redeemable at all. The collection in Exodus is not
concerned with financial repercussions (no parallel provision in
Exodus).

In the Code of Hammurabi, the penalty
for striking one’s parents is the cutting off of the hand of the
offender; in Exodus 20:15, the penalty is death. Why this harsher
penalty? The emphasis is on life. The parents gave life to the child;
in essence this action violates the bond. (And this verse also
hearkens back to the Decalogue; honor your father and mother is the
first of the commandments that shift the emphasis to human
relationships.) This verse is also apodeictic rather than casuistic,
linking it to the level sacral directives like those in Exodus 22:17
and 22:30. This subtle linking thus implies this action thus
violates the holy mission of Israel as a kingdom of priests, the
result of its covenantal relationship with God.

Other comparisons reflect the shift in
emphasis to life. In Exodus 20:20, limits on corporal punishment of
slaves are outlined, If one strikes a slave, “he must be avenged.”
In the Code of Hammurabi, monetary compensation is sufficient. In
Exodus, it is “life for life.” There is a distinction between
free and slave (see verse 32), but not between social classes. For
example, if the ox gores a slave, monetary compensation is due. The
directives apply to all (verse 31, the minors, if gored, “shall be
dealt with according to the same rule.”)

Most significantly, tying into the
overarching topos of a theonomy, amidst a group of predominantly
sacral or cultic directives beginning in Exodus 23:17 and ending in
30, is a directive neither apodeictic or casuistic, perhaps not
really a directive, but more a call to past memory which in turn
becomes a call to present and future action. I argue this entire
covenant collection of laws is founded on this directive: justice for
the needy, the less fortunate, because as in verse 20, “you were
strangers in the land of Egypt.”

All actions one does in accordance with
the Torah are thus rooted in an awareness of the saving act of
“recreation” that occurred during the Exodus.

Note the discussion of turning the other cheek, putting it in the social context of the time (I teach this in my course):

http://www.publicchristian.com/turn-cheek-means-resist-violently/

Isn't "life in prison" actually a tax on society? This means that the public gets to feed and provide shelter and medical care for this individual to the end of his life. Would it be more equitable if the prisoner had to perform productive labor that returned something to society for his upkeep?

The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists (God is in his heaven, all's right with the world thinking), and their interpretation of natural law was more in line with belief than say the more theological interpretations of that concept by Aquinas. One could argue that the general ethical values (very general) were Judaeo-Christian, but what isn't in much of Western civilization? Also, don't assume the Pharisees were rigid legalists. Jesus actually was a more liberal Pharisee, his teachings more in line with Hillel, though his teaching on divorce was more in line with the hardliner Shammai. The issue going on in Judaism at that time was how to interpret the Torah. The Pharisees accepted oral interpretations as authoritative, while the Sadducees and to some extent the school of Shammai were literalists; not unlike current disputes on the Constitution!

Rabbi Hillel: Don't do to others what you would not want done to you.

Some compelling arguments here.

jemdandy, yes, it would cost a great deal of tax payer dollars to house/feed a person for the rest of their lives. But, I've heard the argument that someone on death row costs us millions more by way of litigation. When given a life sentence, there is only allowed one appeal, while with a death sentence it's 3 appeals. These appeals can cost the state several million$ and last 20 years or longer. Most people on death row die from natural causes than from actually being put to death.

But, to think that inmates are no longer a threat to our communities is a misconception. They still must have interactions with people... doctors, lawyers, law enforcement. What kind of labor could they be given that would not have them in contact with yet more people? Even prison programs have to have instructors. More materials have to be brought in... more material going out.

My daughter is a correctional officer. In October, after an attempted escape that left 4 officers dead, the prison sewing factory was permanently shut down. To sew, one would need things such as scissors, etc. These types of programs make a prison, and the surrounding communities, vulnerable.

In my opinion, the "eye for an eye" signifies making the punishment commensurate with the crime.

I am shocked at the number of people who profess to be Christians, and celebrate the conception of Jesus Christ on December 25...yet believe that abortion is OK, because it is not a living thing. If you celebrate Christ's conception, you are acknowledging that life begins at conception (as the Bible tell us), so killing an unborn infant is first-degree murder in the eyes of the Lord. Deep down, I believe these women know that the child is alive--they can feel it grow and kick. Even the most liberal state of California has penalties for anyone--other than the mother and her doctor--who murder an unborn infant. Case in point: Scott Peterson got the death penalty for a double homicide (his wife and unborn son). If the son was a non-person, how could they find him guilty of a double homicide? If his wife had killed the baby, it would have been OK. Something is wrong with that thinking....

I am absolutely for the death penalty in cases of first-degree murder. The Bible (Leviticus) clearly sets forth the circumstances under which the death penalty is required, as well as the manner of execution.

What I want seen, is animal abusers put in cages and used in place of animals for testing. Seriously. "Does this drop of acid hurt your eyes?"

When I read of people who put their dog's ears in a vice to dock them and other such cruelty it just makes me sick.

I and many others would experience issues interpreting everything in Leviticus literally. Even Jewish Orthodox rabbis who believe the Torah was literally dictated to Moses on Sinai do not do so because they also like the Pharisees of thetime of Jesus believe in the oral Torah. They believe Moses received the oral Torah there but did not reveal it all. It became revealed as the rabbis began to interpret the literal or written Torah. Also the Catholic Church did not always interpret life as beginning at conception. Aquinas whose teaching became authoritative claimed it began when the child quickened in the womb. About the fourth month. I think he was influenced by a teaching of Aristotle that the soul did not join with the body until that time. Not sure about that.

Jenn:

You death penalty fans need to spend a little time researching Kirk Bloodsworth.

"So ... does any wording in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or other state document parallel or obviously derive from any such part of the Bible? "

nickel, I'll try this briefly. I dislike it when my questions are ignored and so I try to be fair to others.

I think the answer to your question is No but I'm not completely certain and also not a lawyer. Try looking around and see what you find.

Remember that at the time of independence, the colonists were fed up with the system in England and very intentionally set up a system for the US the was the most opposite, or at least as different, as was possible.

In England, the majority party in Parliament names the Prime Minister and has rather unfettered power to do nearly anything it wants. By contrast, the US system was set up to have three "co-equal" branches with overlapping powers and various means and rights of a branch in some circumstances to overturn or control in some way the actions of another branch. The so-called checks and balances.

In England, there is an individual with a lifetime position, autonomy and significant power, the Monarch. In the US system, the highest ranking individual is the President, who has a temporary position and powers significantly controllable by the other two branches.

Lastly, in England, there is a national religion, the Church of England, the head of which is the Monarch. In the US constitution, the very first article is the so-called Establishment Clause, that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". In other words, no one religion is to control or be favored by the government. Some call this the separation of church and state but it's much more than that. The first article goes on to provide freedom of religion too but that's an individual rather than a governmental matter.

Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion, which was a source of notoriety for now infamous Roy Moore of Alabama. When he was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he had a "monument" of the biblical Ten Commandments installed in the state judicial building. Several lawyers, who said they feared prejudicial treatment from Justice Moore should their clients not share his religious views very frequently expressed in public, filed suit in federal court saying that the monument should be removed from the government building because it violated the Establishment Clause. They prevailed (won) and a federal court ordered this display be removed. Moore refused. The remaining justices on the Supreme Court acted without him and voted to order the removal of the monument. Moore was later himself removed from Supreme Court for misconduct, failing to follow the order of a federal court.

Sorry, not too short, but hopefully this addresses your question?

“Isn't "life in prison" actually a tax on society? This means that the public gets to feed and provide shelter and medical care for this individual to the end of his life. Would it be more equitable if the prisoner had to perform productive labor that returned something to society for his upkeep?”

I believe it is. I think the waste of labor hours that could be found within our prison system is ridiculous. The “chain gangs” may not have been a humane way to utilize the man power, but the concept of putting prisoners to work absolutely was.

Elmer, thank you, your response does address my question. I didn’t
know of any particular overlap between our founding documents and the Bible, but wanted to give people an opportunity to correct me if I was wrong.

I liked your summary of Roy Moore’s 10 Commandments display. There’s a big difference between “we as individuals” and “we as a collective society.” It’s okay for Mom to make you go to church. It’s wrong for any part of our government to thrust, intimidate, trick, or coerce any type of religious behavior from you. Conversely, it’s also wrong for any part of our government to stop you from your desired religious behavior, so long as it doesn’t conflict with any of laws protecting individual rights (no stoning of adulterers -- sorry Old Testament fans, lol.)

Back to the original question … did anyone have thoughts on using sterilization in such cases? Assuming the murderous parent was given a complete and fair trial and no extenuating circumstances found, etc. Part of me thinks that’s fair, and part thinks yow that’s a dangerous precedent.

The Founding Fathers were also influenced by the Enlightenment, which claimed ultimately that not just reason but scientific discoveries could inform the value systems that create and hold societies together. Mostly in the upper social echelons of France and England and Germany, many persons were reacting against the religious violence that tore apart Europe during the early modern period. Voltaire, fore example, really tore into what he termed was the "priestcraft" of the French Catholic Church. A good study of this shift is Thomas' Religion and the Decline of Magic. Now, in 18th century England (I read a book on this issue), patriarchy survived, and even though the practices of the Established Anglican Church were lacking in spirituality, the overall social structure valued the presence of a Church (some might argue it was a means of social control). Also, increased urbanization in England led to a decline in the traditional remnants of feudal rural life such as a centralized parish and a big manor house which was the foundation of the economy, but this structure was already declining for some time since the sixteenth century with the enclosure of common lands to raise sheep for the wool trade which developed in the textile mills of the early Industrial revolution. The colonists came from different religious backgrounds, but it is interesting that the Anglicans of Virginia and the like never tried to establish a strict theocracy which occurred in Massachusetts. The Puritan/Anglican divide (not just religious, but social) which led to the English Civil War arrived in the colonies. The Founding Fathers were I think aware of the impact of religious violence, which the state encouraged (byproduct of early modern nationalism, one unified state, one religion). Also, Protestants reading the Bible figured out that ancient Israel was a theocracy, and because the Bible was their main inspiration, some sects made many attempts to model themselves on what they thought was Israel. The Professor is now retiring for a nap, LOL.

wanda, Although I do not consider myself a "Christian" I was raised as a Catholic. I think you might be wrong, my recollection is that Christmas has always been a celebration of the birth of Jesus. The supposed "immaculate conception" took place at some earlier unspecified date.

Furthermore the case that Joseph Corlett linked to shows that the eyewitness accounts of someone that supposedly was there can't be trusted to be accurate even a year (or less) later. The stories in the Bible that purport to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, existed as an oral tradition for quite some time, being told and retold and retold, eventually after many decades, they were written down for the first time, not necessarily by the person to whom they are ascribed. Since then they've been translated, and translated again, and again, and colloquialized and interpreted. So the notion that the Bible is any sort of factual account of events that occurred long ago seems far-fetched to me.

To me any argument that starts with "It says in the Bible that blah blah blah" deserves a shrug and a "So what."

In Luke and Matthew the conception of Jesus is the virginal conception. In Matthew the wording that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus literally means Mary was not a life long virgin. Jews of that period other than sone ofcthe Essenes did not espouse virginity as a physical social or spiritual goal. The term immaculate conception refers to Mary conceived in the womb of her mother Anna without original sin. Anna and Joachim had sexual relations in order to conceive Mary after years of infertility. This story is not in the Bible. Much of it comes from the Protevangelion of James. The dogma developed later in the Middle Ages but was not made official until the mid 19th century. Many people confuse the virginal conception with the immaculate conception. Sorry for going way off topic.

Bob, that leads me to a funny thought -- the way I was raised (Lutheran), the full wording of the response to "The bible says so and so" is "So what does this mean? "

Which is a pretty good habit to have developed ... always question authority.

I understand your perspective and in that context that's fine. I would say "not exactly" in a broader sense, nickel, to recognize that many today don't consider the Bible as an authority they follow or consult.

My religious parents raised me in church and my mom taught me that if anyone told me something was in the Bible, to ask them to show me where and explain how those words have that meaning.

She did this because she didn't want someone to "twist" the word of God to mean something it didn't and lead me astray.

My take away was to question everything, which I did including said religious upbringing and I no longer believe any of it.

Talk about irony.

Elmer -- This is most certainly true.

TG, I'm sure your parents are most proud of you and your family. Maybe there is some irony in a way, as you suggest, but good advice is good advice and shouldn't be limited as to applicability.

"The Bible (Leviticus) clearly sets forth the circumstances under which the death penalty is required, as well as the manner of execution."

It certainly does. Don't forget those doctors and nurses working on the Sabbath that must be put to death. Sassy children too.

What is written in this Bible should be kept out of the laws of any country. Religion and Politics are two separate things. If religion is in politics, which religion and whose bible do you choose?

Debby, I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly!

I must admit in animal abuse cases in my moments of rage and horror when I hear about them punishments in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy do come to mind combined with tortures of the Inquisition. We are the stewards of the animals. If you can't take care of an animal give the creature to a shelter. Joseph Corlett see my post in this thread on the Decalogue regarding those disobedient children.