679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 212:
Line 212: + +
→Historical/Cultural Bias
:::: The article on [[Capital punishment]] does cite biblical law. I don't think that a separate section for adultery punishment is needed, as there isn't much to say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: The article on [[Capital punishment]] does cite biblical law. I don't think that a separate section for adultery punishment is needed, as there isn't much to say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
It's cited in a separate section. You have been applying the Biblical defniition of adultery as if it were THE definition of adultery today. It isn't, any more than is the Biblical definition of a capital offense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Who is Bloslooper? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Who is Bloslooper? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:It should be defined as a breach of faith, in whatever context, marital or spiritual. The scripture is probably the best source for this. A discussion of penalties, then and now, is really a different matter, and could go under a seperate subhead. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:It should be defined as a breach of faith, in whatever context, marital or spiritual. The scripture is probably the best source for this. A discussion of penalties, then and now, is really a different matter, and could go under a seperate subhead. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)