Foul! You can't do that. If it's stated there then it should be argued there. But YOU brought it HERE. ;)
Anyway, you can't say they can do it better because neither of you have done it.

Are you saying there are no stupid people? How about people that opt out because they don't like the deal. Must they be stupid?

While these two quotes are clearly parallel, it doesn't mean one is a derivative. Any idea that is pleasing to people in general, will reoccur periodically. I'll bet this thought has been stated in every language and thousands of phrasings from the beginning of civilization.

Probably so. Treating everyone the same regardless of background is just good common sense. But in the context of the times, it's more likely that the notion came from biblical text than, say, from a lama.

Or a camel.

Maybe a sheep?

[/lame humor]

No, it's more likely it came from popular sentiment, and NOT from any religious teaching of ANY persuasion.

I don't think so. Even if I believed in God's existence, I wouldn't feel any need to worship Him. I would consider it pretty creepy for a being to create intelligent beings, and then require worship. And if I felt that God was threatening hell id I didn't worship Him, then I might go through the motions, but it wouldn't be true worship, because I would be under duress.

Well the first two and the second half of 20:13 are certainly not reflected in US law, and the others are pretty common in human society. Every society will have people who trip blind people, people who laugh at it, and people who disaprove. (not always different people...)

These quotes are too different, in both phrasing and meaning, to be matched up. One is saying that no man is inherently inferior based on the social class or nation into which they were born. The second is saying that differences don't matter because everyone is inferior to Jesus.This is an obvious way to decrease the chances of "murder by perjury", but the wording is somewhat similar, so it may well have been an inspiration.These seem to share the barest of meanings, but are quite different. The first seems to say that property confiscated in a treason trial must be returned when the subject dies (is this respected in any current law? Odd.). The other restricts executions to the criminal, but not their family. Both put a restriction on how much a family can be punished for the crimes of one member, but they do so in extremely different ways.

I never said that our law was plagarized from the OT. I said that biblical precepts were instrumental in helping the FF's write law. They even say it themselves (don't feel like goin into finding quotes - spent all night with a stomach virus, and I can barely keep my head up).

I was referring to your "old-time religion" quote more than anything. I got off-thread.

In Jewish society, people who weren't Jews were considered to be a lesser class. Greeks, in particular, were seen as one step above dung. That verse is very much a "social class doesn't matter" reference, and Paul's hardline Jew associates detested his feelings on that matter. Again, it's not a direct link, it's a parallel.

The important connection is "corruption of blood". It was common, when someone broke the law and couldn't pay their dues, for the perps family (sometimes for several generations) to be held accountable for the tab. That passage is specifically about treason (a death penalty offense, btw), but the corruption of blood issue is directly parallel.

I pick the sex angle because it's the easiest one to find points that get people fired up. Nothing prurient. Most sexual rules are rooted in insuring the gene pool keeps its integrity.

What we need are some representatives of other religions to weigh in with their varients on those rules. I'm sure that we'd find them in most of the religions out there. There is no exclusivity for Christianity. One could say that the laws are rooted in Zaroastrianism via Christianity.

You could as easily say that our laws are rooted in sun-worship, ancestor-worship, Hinduism, or anything else, if you follow that tack. The question is, is it more likely that in helping to draft the founding documents, one would have been drawing on his knowledge of Sikh ethics, or the bible of the predominant religion of the western world?

Look, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Christianity. But when otherwise intelligent folks start jumping through hoops to totally discredit its effect on any historical event (unless, of course, it has to do with killing people or something generally evil), it's just silly. Nobody has convinced me yet that I'm wrong on my original premise.

Christianity certainly had a major effect on world civilization, but I believe that US federal law deliberately omits uniquely Christian rules. I think it is based on secular humanist ethics, which sometimes agrees and sometimes disagrees with Christian ethics.

I agree that the flavor of the constitution/gov't is christian, but I also think that the importantce of that influence is overstated. A lot of the ideas in the bible are rooted in good social mechanics, but a lot of the ideas in the bible are also rooted in social control techniques to maintain their power structure.

That being said, christianity is no different from any other religion in wanting to maintain their power base. And there is no stronger power base than a popular oligarchy .

Ah, yes, but according to religion, it's the FAITH that matters. If you have to have proof, then the belief isn't worth it. "Faith in things unseen," and all that. I'm not saying it's right, just what I've observed. It's kinda like a woman saying, "If I have to TELL him to get flowers for me, it isn't worth it." Just on a cosmic scale.

Well, if it weren't for Catholicism, there wouldn't be Protestantism. All Protestant beliefs are just leftovers from what they decided to keep from Catholicism.

Before you jump on me for that, let me say I'm not Catholic. I'm a good ol' pagan. I think you're all crazy ;)

As to the confusion issue, I'd say that for believers, the "miracles" would prove the existence of God to them. Why would a demon show a picture of the Virgin Mary in a tortilla, after all? Seems they'd be more likely to write "Satan Rocks" in the guacamole dip...:D

I see it as more similar to a medium saying that the seance won't work if someone brings bad vibes into it. In other words, turning a weakness of the religion into a moral failing on the part of the skeptic.

That would probably be true. Christianity took a lot of its ideas from Zoroastrianism. For instance:

The idea of a completely good god

The idea of a completely evil god which opposed the good one

The idea of an armageddon in which good and evil would war, with good winning

The idea of "brotherhood"

and a few others...