Talk:List of actions prohibited by the Bible/Archive1

List
Just list the actions and remove the ridiculous running commentary. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 134.117.196.223 / talk / contribs
 * Um, no.

--Edgerunner  76

--Edge  runner  76

--PRO  MH   QEUS   - FORE THOUGHT

 -- ΠΡΟ  ΜΗ   ΘΕΥΣ   - FORE THOUGHT

14:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Name
I see that the name has been changed to "..... the old testament". This is correct - but it was also correct before. It's in the bible. Same as shellfish and homosexuality.--Bob_M (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Of course, terminology could become an issue. I don't know as much about the New Testament and it's variety of cannon works, but my folks don't really recognize an "Old Testament", not having a new one.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:01, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Remember, unless, like Andy, you believe that everything you have been told is a lie, Christianity (and so anyone including the NT as canon) prohibits the death penalty. 'He who is without sin ...' and all that. --ויִ<font color="#220066">כִּ<font color="#550044"> נ<font color="#770022">תֶּ<font color="#aa0000">ר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!
 * There are lots of reasonable interpretations of Christianity which do not prohibit the death penalty, or at least plenty of Christian scholars who make the argument. Despite many of Christ's teachings, Christianity is not a mandatory pacifist and anti-death religion.  There is much dispute.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:06, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * There would seem to be plenty of people who take the bible literally who have no problem with the death penalty. The more literal the more death as far as I can see.--Bob_M (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * In my experience (no data available) the complete pacifist, complete anti-death thing, is rare and beautiful.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:20, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Palm ^ - it's a goal to work towards - a difficult one, but at least it can be all peoples' Φαρος.

One has to have a fairly selective reading of the NT to support the Death Penalty -

'The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, 4 they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" 6 They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. 7 But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. 9 They, when they heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest, even to the last.'

That would seem to be fairly solid anti- evidence.

I can't find any quotes which actually back execution up, however. --<font color="#000088">ויִ<font color="#220066">כִּ<font color="#550044"> נ<font color="#770022">תֶּ<font color="#aa0000">ר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!


 * This man argues that it doesn't say what it appears to mean.http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/cap-pun.html and this one says that it was a fake later addition. http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl2.htm --Bob_M (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, but they don't know what they're talking about. It also really doesn't make much sense to simply lump the Old and the New Testaments as one big "The Bible" - it is, after all, two entirely different pacts, and the relationship between them is much more complex than that. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:38, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Not only that, but each book is many books, especially in the Torah. There are many texts thrown merged together in Genesis, for instance.  The NT has books that seem to have some single authors, but most of the early OT is closer to its mythic, pre-literate past.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:39, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Wasn't Onan's sin denying Tamar a child by pulling out (and not just pulling out)? Dyskolos 14:21, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I believe so...and many fundies object to ANY sexual gratification that cannot lead to conception. Bastards.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:23, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I think calling it "the Bible" is fair and legitimate. If modern Christian denoms disagree with parts of the OT, they de-canonize them.  Most sects use the same OT, full of all these punishments.  Now, are they abrogated by jesus in the NT?  If so, where, and add that to the article.  Then they'd be like a law still "on the books" by declared invalid by a court (in the US, anyway). To me, "Bible" = "OT" + "NT". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 13:58, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That's my feeling too. It's obviously one book. Look at it.  But see below.--Bob_M (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok, I'm looking at one right now. What exactly am I looking for? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:12, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Great. Pick it up.  How many books are you holding in your hand?--Bob_M (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * In terms of physical format, one. In terms of content, thirty-nine. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:21, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * OK, when I said, "Pick it up." were you confused? Did you think, "But which of these thirty nine books am I supposed to pick up?"? Of course not. Like everybody else you understand the bible to be physically one thing, and you know exactly what I am referring to when I say "the bible".  Now, it may suit liberal Christians to  believe that the nasty bits don't really belong in "their" bible - but there are plenty of others who see it as a whole both physically and doctrinally.  OK, I understand you don't. --Bob_M (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright. The Bible begins with Genesis. Authorship unknown, probably oral transmission, ancient Jewish culture, sometime around 10th-9th century BCE. The Bible ends with the Revelation. Written by John of Patmos (whoever he was), late 1st century CE, Principate Graeco-Roman culture. Now, please explain how in the world I am supposed to deal with these two in every way completely different works as part of a whole. Because yes, I must admit to being a bit confused. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:57, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

<< No one's saying it makes sense, but "believers", especially "true believers", assert that every word, from Genesis to Revelations, is the work of one Author. Writing through many people. "The Bible" literally means "The Book". There are so many references to it as such (the good book, etc.) that to split it arbitrarily here just seems silly. Now, I think we should note that if all these refs are OT, and especially if any are altered in the NT by the Good News of our Saviour Jesus Christ the Lord. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 16:14, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That would be a rather extensive undertaking, I suspect. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:50, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe, but we could ask a Schiblical Bolar. Or even google it.  I bet it's no real secret what various denoms positions are on NT revisions of the OT. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 18:07, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not a secret, no, it's just... insanely complicated. We're talking about one of the really heavy-weight subjects in biblical exegesis here. I'll try to see if I can find the time to put something together, though. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:01, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Bible not one book ?
In one sense it's obviously one book. It's two covers and paper in the middle. We can quite happily talk about "The Bible" and know what we're talking about. Fundamentalist Christians see it as one book. However as it has "a few" contradictions other Christians are obliged to emphasize some parts, skip over others or claim there are different covenants.--Bob_M (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, strictly speaking - no, it isn't, and no, we can't. Usually, of course, it is seen in the format of a book, but that does not mean that it is one book. It's just like if you had an anthology such as the "20th Century Philosophy Reader" or something like that - lots of different works that are related, but which have entirely different styles and viewpoints. The fact that most people, whether pro or contra, rarely realize this is another matter. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:30, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, it is obviously an anthology - and the anthology is called "The Bible", right? Usage example - whenever you find a whole bunch of bible cites to back something up, they usually are from all over the OT and the NT, without calling them separate bibles.  And keep in mind that, as I said above, the denoms pick what they canonize, and most include the OT and NT. When people seek to explain why buttsex is a greivous sin, they quote "the bible", not "the OT".   And so should we. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 14:12, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm. I would submit that it would be to our advantage to maintain somewhat higher academic standards than our dear opponents. In any case, it's not so much a question of there being two different bibles, as of "The Bible" being a big library of a number of texts which are often so different from one another that it can make comparisons almost meaningless. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:18, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That's certainly a valid criticism of the bible. But, to my, perhaps simple, mind, it doesn't stop it being fairly obviously one book. --Bob_M (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That just doesn't seem like a fruitful way of approaching the subject, because it is much more than just one book. It is an extremely complicated collection of texts that have appeared over the course of a millennium, by God knows how many different writers, and under vastly different cultural and historical circumstances. When dealing with the Bible, there are lots of distinctions that simply need to be made, otherwise one ends up with a fundamentally flawed premise. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:49, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree that the Bible is one book, but depending on the context, it should be mentioned that it is one book comprising a collection of several books. Heart  ♥  Gold tx 10:20, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Spilling seed.
I don't want to be unreasonable, so I've removed this one for now. ---*Spilling one's "seed" upon the ground. (Gen 38:9) (No need for a trial, the LORD will take care of this one His own Self) God Killed Onan for this, but I don't think he actually made it a law did he? Or can we assume that as god killed him that this was a message to kill all onanists?--Bob_M (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That was mine. That's why I added the "no need...", since it might have been a case-by-case basis. The real "reason", of course, wasn't the seed spilling but Onan's refusal (by such actions) to allow his wife to becomes pregnant by him knowing that the child would not be "his" in the cultural code of the times, but his deceased brother's.
 * I'm fine with it being left out. CЯacke ®  00:25, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's included in Examples of God personally killing people.--Bob_M (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Clean-up time
Decided to be bold and do a major re-write of this, because, frankly, the sheer anachronisticy in the previous version made my teeth ache. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 07:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Promiscuity
That the word promiscuity has had its meaning changed over the years is not relevant. The word is used in recent English translations, and, consequently, it was decided by a committee of experts that the English word promiscuity was the best. In any event, I changed it to "Premarital fornication". Heart ♥  Gold tx 09:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Does fornication only mean sex or does just the tip and "heavy petting" count too? Jr  ss  r5  10:06, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * If you read the references, you'll be able to form your own opinion. Heart  ♥  Gold tx 10:12, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

DT 22:13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, `I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

DT 22:20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.


 * If I recall my Biblical etymology correctly, "fornication's" root was from the Latin "fornix", which were the low walls that lined Roman roads. It was there that prostitutes would ply their trade. The point being that even though fornication is an older word it's not old enough, but then we're transliterating from Hebrew into English. That said, I rather like your version ♥ , as it gives that "old time religion" feel to the piece.  CЯacke ®  10:14, 12 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Actually, Cracker, I was confused; promiscuity wasn't used in these verses. Fornication is my summary of the above verses.  If you deem the word too imprecise, go ahead and modify the article.  However, I think it is fairly accurate; modern dictionaries define the word fornication with "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other".  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 10:18, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, no, no. As the lastest sentence above I think it flavors the article wonderfully. Now, Jesus' definition of "marriage" (which He needed to clarify to define "divorce" to the 12) right about Matt 19:5 [Jesus] ...said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," seems to equate the sex with the state of being married. Put more crudely than I'd like: If Joe boinks Mary-Sue at the county fair they are "married" in the eyes of God, even though they secretly detest each other and break up that summer and Joe marries a woman from Maine six years later and Mary-Sue marries a bartender that worked for her father. (Anyway, Jesus Hisself is okay using "fornication" a couple of verses later, so fornication is just alright with me). CЯacke ®
 * Umn, okay. Tough to follow your train of though.  But I think we agree about fornication?  Or maybe not.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 11:43, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * My train of thought frequently pulls out of the station without me, so I know how you feel. And yes, "fornication" is fine. CЯacke ®  12:00, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You were probably wise to put "fornication" in quotation marks Cracker.--Bob_M (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Fortune telling and astrology.
I see we have a "citation needed" against the assumption that astrology is form of fortune telling. I'm tempted to remove it as it seems obviously true. But if someone can tell why it's required I won't.
 * Now, I must admit that my Hebrew is woefully inadequate, but looking at the Septuagint version, it seems like the verse refers only to prophesy through talking with spirits and such. Compare with e.g. Deuteronomy 18:11, which uses the same term, "ἐγγαστρίμυθος" - actually a ventriloquist if memory serves, or in other words, a person who lets a spirit talk through him or her. Astrology would be something else entirely. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:29, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Interesting. Though It's a bit tough on the ventriloquists.  :-) On a more serious note I agree it is spiritualism rather than fortune telling. I note in passing that Deuteronomy 18:11 prohibits divination, sorcery, interpreting omens and witchcraft; which might cover astrology somewhere - but merely marks them as "detestable" rather than specifically allowing the death penalty.  So I'll edit accordingly.--Bob_M (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Even more awkward (but accurate) title?
I think some of these simply resulted in being struck dead. Consequently, we might want to somehow work in the idea of repplacing "demand" in the title with "demand or resulted in". Gets unweildly, I know, but the title is misleading if the article is about both Hebrew law and punishment, as well as isolated incidents of God stricking a Biblical person dead. 21:05, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I beg to differ with you. I think I have checked all of these and they say that people who commit these actions should die - though it's always possible that I may have made a mistake. I covered the "struck dead" ones in Examples of God personally killing people. Perhaps "Biblical Death Penalties" would be better? --Bob_M (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Just pointing out that if possible, the title should match the subject. You differed with me, so Biblical Death Penalties would not be necessary, but if you concurred that at least one cited instance did not necessarily apply to all, Biblical Death Peanlties might be sufficiently inclusive.   09:31, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Why change the name? It IS a list of Actions which demand the death penalty in the Old Testament.

If you don't agree with the stuff that's in there, you should complain to God (if you really believe God wrote the Bible), in any case we didn't write the Bible. MiddleMan 09:37, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I was under the impression it was a list of actions which either demand or demanded the death penality.  09:42, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * It is. As I said, I think that I've checked them all but if there is an error then feel free to remove it.--Bob_M (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Why the past tense? The Bible hasn't changed, you're either a literalist, or you're not. MiddleMan 09:55, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I could be a metaphorical literalist. CЯacke ®


 * Past tense: continuing my initial point, that some of the cases were not universial laws but specific instances, in which case, it would have been an action that demanded the death penalty.  Am I being unclear, or are you just being argumentative?   13:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Heart. For the third time these are all "Actions which demand the death penalty" They are all laws of the type "If you do this you should be killed" type. A user added one for "Onan" but it was removed for the reason you state - it was an isolated divine assassination.  All of these should be OT laws.--Bob_M (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

DOMINIONISM
Anybody interested in the real way-out super literalists should read this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm It's one of the links on the article now - but who clicks them?--Bob_M (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Just looked at it. I would rather see an article supporting it by one of its adherants, so that I can make up my own mind.   13:52, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's got lots of references.--Bob_M (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Using that critical article to find references to adherants would be like comeing to RW to find a good church in my neighborhood.  14:11, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Modern points of agreement
The argument about the bull (and any other dangerous animals). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed if a bull somehow gets loose and kills someone, clearly the farmer must die. A tiger gets out of the zoo and kills? The zookeeper must die. What the fuck is wrong with you?ArchieGoodwin (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The only item on the list where 'modern views' would agree that 'summat ought to be done' ... and, more generally.

What fate should befall bankers and politicians? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we have a show of hands from all those who are slightly baffled by the above? (Hand)--BobSpring is sprung! 18:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hand. Is BoN talking about the death penalty for bankers and politicians? Тy Yes? 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page for this IP I think it's some kind of bot.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs a shorter name.
How about you create a template that expands to a link to this page? Because the page title is too long. User:BootmiiUser talk:Bootmiiwanna play nomic? 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Were these actually enforced?
Is there documented proof the Israelites even followed these laws to the letter? If so, that explains why they were always under attack, they were too busy stoning people to notice! --TheLateGatsby (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ancient law codes tend to focus more on fines, corporeal punishment, and capital punishment than modern law codes do. (Primarily for the reason that imprisonment in a barely more than subsistence society is a really dumb idea.) Compared to other ancient Near East law codes (e.g., Hammurabi's Code), the Torah isn't unusually bloodthirsty at all. What you must understand is that these penalties were not just randomly enforced by vigilante justice. There were trials back then (originally probably before priestly courts; later, rabbinical courts), and the Torah even has a primitive system of appeals. Notably, the standard of evidence was much higher at the time; at the very least, you needed two kosher eyewitnesses of the offending act, and to be kosher the witnesses had to be observant male Jews. Consequently, there were probably many fewer actual executions than you'd think, given the severity of the law code. Later jurisprudence raised standards for capital cases; by the time the Mishnah was compiled in the 200s CE, the standards for evidence in capital cases were so high that a conviction would have been practically impossible. To be convicted of gay sex, for instance, you'd have to have two kosher witnesses that saw you just before the moment of insertion, verbally warned you that it was a capital offense, and you'd have to reply that, yes, you knew, and you were going to do it anyway. 05:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

tora cut
I have cut the following from the article as it is really about the redevelopment of Jewish law and not about what is in the OT.

Cut begins:

The rules in the Torah still form a part of the body of the Jewish law, though they fortunately cannot be considered a complete description of Jewish law. This is because no legal system can be fully understood without also considering the way its rules are being interpreted and applied in practice by the courts and other institutions of its society - or, for that matter, the body of rituals and social conventions surrounding such institutions. For example, a Jewish court could not say that it was acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery, even if that is the alternative to killing her for a misdeed. Today various Islamic courts still apply the death penalty for apostasy and sexual crimes in addition to the many honor killings which claim to be legally sanctioned.

Therefore the rules on which death penalty could be sentenced were quite strict: the crime had to have four witnesses, the convict himself had to declare committing a capital crime with full intention, and the Sanhedrin had to approve the sentence.

Note that the ancient Israelites used a stricter standard of evidence than modern judicial systems; four Torah-observant male eyewitnesses were required for conviction, and confessions were not considered admissible. Therefore, actual convictions leading to an execution would have been rarer than modern readers would assume. Later Jewish jurisprudence in the Talmud further restricted the standards for a capital conviction to the point where being convicted of a capital crime is practically impossible under modern Jewish law. A Sanhedrin who had sentenced one person to death in average of seven years was considered a very Draconian one.

The Western Jews ceased to apply the Halakha on capital crimes in the 3rd century CE. The Eastern Jews ceased to do so in the 12th century. All in all, the rule of thumb in Judaism is that when secular criminal law and religious criminal law contradict, the secular law is followed; the religious criminal law is observed only when secular criminal code is non-existent. This is quite the opposite the situation in Islam.

Cut ends.

No doubt if others disagree they will replace it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-sex
Given that many 'anti-sex jumping up and downers' cheerfully eat pig meat, and prohibited seafood, as well as wearing clothing of mixed fibres, they are due for a slight problem explanation-wise when getting to the Pearly Gates. Besides, why did God create unclean animals? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, not again. There is a distinction drawn between the moral and ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law, viz., the ceremonial part was abrogated with the coming of Jesus (Colossians 2:16-17) and never applied to Gentiles in the first place. 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Snark against their cherry-picking. 'Do what you wish so long as you are consenting adults and do not frighten the horses' is a much better rule than those applied by the jumpers. To what extent are such people also pro-gun (despite the commandment)? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus says - what?
I see that we have a section including comments on what "Jesus said". Pretty obviously we have no idea of what Jesus might have said on any subject as there were no people taking notes at the time of his alleged utterances.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Food and Drink
Eating a cheeseburger is not specifically prohibited by the bible. The prohibition was against boiling a kid in it's mothers milk. This was added later to Jewish Kosher laws based on tradition. All that the bible says is that you must not boil a kid in it's mothers milk- which was not only a pagan practice at the time, but was cruel and went against principles of love, mercy and the intent of the milk, etc.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 104.162.5.94 / talk / contribs
 * Cruelty, and going against the principles of love and mercy? Why, the very virtues the biblical God represent so well! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the correlation between 'banned foodstuffs' and 'high chance of food poisoning/nasty parasites at the time and location of the injunction'? Ditto potential real problems with some of the other prohibited actions(God as Elf and Safety inspector/reducing recessive genetic problems etc.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

List of actions NOT prohibited by the Bible
I would like to see a list of immoral or possibly immoral actions not prohibited by the Bible, but I have several questions regarding this:

1. Should it be a separate page, or not? 2. What would specifically qualify an action as moral or not? 3. What actions would be listed?

Derp cat (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say X?
Where does the bible say masturbation is wrong? Where does the bible say rape is legal? Pages like this are why some people have 0 faith in Wikipedia, there's not even extra biblical sources cited for these statements.

Since rape and masturbation are not mentioned in the old testament as having a defined punishment then maybe it falls under other commands like Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself."
 * "No, they can't call it rape, if she concedes her body to me" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Heeerreee we go. Go crack open that Bible of yours and start reading. See Exodus 21:7-11, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Judges 5:30, Judges 21:10-24, 2 Samuel 12:11-14, and Zechariah 14:1-2. These are verses where rape is mentioned - or worse, condoned - in the Bible. I've put them in order of the books so that you can move quickly from reference to reference without having to skip around from Numbers to Judges to Exodus and such. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 13:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What
...in the name of ever-loving fuck is the point of the vote icons to the left of each item on the list. They are literally so frivolously useless I had to make an account just to ask what justification you could possibly have for letting people check off their bible sins like a minigame. I get that a lot of people probably consider editing this wiki to be a grand old source of amusement, but seriously. These icons are confusing to newcomers, and add absolutely nothing to the article. At the very least, this annoying widget should be moved to the talk page.

Jalamookoofoo (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It helps us keep track of how many times we've angered God. You have to rack up 1 million sins to get admitted to the highest level of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy! --Ymir (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Jetc They are rather silly. Pippa (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think they're neat. I know people who have stuck around to actually read them all just to get to play the "minigame" of tossing a vote; e.g. seeing if they've broken the rule or not. It really helps to communicate how nonsensical these rules are, if you ask me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And just for the record, Jalamookoofoo - you didn't need to sign up to ask this question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anonymity is for cowards and those in compromising political or legal situations, of which I am neither. When I bitch about pointless things on the internet, you're damn sure gonna know who's behind it!! ...that feel when you initially post this reply without a signature. Jalamookoofoo (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's unclear what readers are supposed to be voting for or how this is supposed to aid our understanding or coverage of the topic. 08:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing the fundamentalists
Discuss how many of the food-restrictions they have violated, and then complain that they are trying to convert you to another religion. 31.51.114.58 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That borders on tu quoquo. But a good thought. #Can'tComeUpWithACleverSignature 13:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Bible Quotes Put Downs' can be a useful tool. 31.51.114.58 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Slightly confusing
I'm inferring that you vote up if you have done it, and down if you haven't. Could use clarification. —Kazitor, pending 06:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)