I got it because that's entirely what you said. You gave a conditional statement.
No it is not entirely what I said. You are reading into my words what you want them to say. I am continuing with this to show that you do this regularly and you do tis with the words of scripture.
The conditional states that it's not wrong to beat your children to death for cracking a joke--
My statement did not provide the context for when it is appropriate to administer a death sentence to someone's grown children. You are not stating my position accurately when you place to condition that the offense is "cracking a joke". It is also not correct that an individual takes the law into their own hands, I did not say that either. Already you have twisted my words far past the intended meaning of the writer (me). But you are not finished yet. This is what you do to scripture. Do you think other readers don't see what you do?
and here's the kicker---if they aren't too young. Most interesting that you chose to word it like that and entirely omit information regarding children who are old enough to understand accountability.
The age of accountability was and remains a major affair in the hebrew culture.
You leave open the option that it's ok to beat children who are old enough.
I am aware of the passages you ripped this from and the proper context too (it has very little to do with capital punishment for young children who mock priests by the way). In our society people past our age of accountability are subject to capital punishment as well.
Given that you claimed OT rules were moral and good,
Yes
and murder, rape,
NO!
and these violent laws are part of the OT rules,
Yes.
and given you even claim it's perfection for a perfect being to insist on death
Yes
(referring to the killing of children who mock priests),
No, if you look back I claimed that scripture does not mention death for young children who mock priests. More of you changing my words.
this implies you likely contend the latter is Biblical "perfection" and good, although you don't come out and say it.
The version you have rewritten is certainly not.
You choose an ambiguous conditional on purpose for plausible deniability. If X then Y, X then Y. Not X = maybe Y, maybe not. I'll lean toward the former, given your comments.
If you would stop putting words in my mouth I could better explain. Alas, that would not meet your purpose. You are transparent.
Your quote, emphasis mine:
it is not proper to beat children to death if they are younger than the age of accountability. It is perfection for a perfect being to insist on death
Right. this is correct as written but not as you interpret it. People do have grown children (children past the age of accountability). It is not proper to put to death people who can not be held accountable. God however has dominion over all creation and can and will do with it as he pleases.
Given that the Bible advocates rape, murder, theft, genocide
No it does not.
and wanton death penalties for minor infractions against rules as part of the rules for behaviour, it therefore follows
No, sorry your givens are wrong so the balance is not substantiated.
that it's conception of perfection includes sociopathic behaviour and that you approve of it, since you honestly considered that "perfection." Again, it's not my fault you are morally bankrupt and brainwashed.
As I said, technocrat. You don't even try to understand. You are bankrupt.
