1) That would apply ONLY an Israelite, living within the boundaries of biblical Israel. It does NOT apply to other nations, who are NOT subject to the 10 commandments. From the point of view of the Old Testament, all other nations are free to worship (or not) as they wish.

2) Okay, so a normal, balanced person will have understood the diifference by now. Raoul is not an Israelite, nor are he, or I, living in ancient Israel. So, let's assume just for the sake of argument that you are a normal, balanced person capable of understanding this distinction. Then, the question follows:

If - this refers to ancient times - these other nations happen to be residents within the borders of Israel, they probably would not be permitted to worship other gods. Would they then be killed according your selectively chosen paragraph?

You didn't register, or understand, or just plain read, the caveats in my original post about matters like this. Why not read this again:


The stringent demands on witnesses in capital cases rendered almost impossible the likelihood that a defendant would be convicted. To ensure that a witness's testimony was not based on conjecture (e.g. circumstantial evidence), hearsay, simple rumor, or the observations of another witness, the court would "fill the witness with fear." Witnesses were asked to establish the day and hour of the crime and explain the circumstances surrounding it (Sanhedrin 2B). They were then warned that they would be subject to rigorous questioning and relentless cross-examination and held personally responsible should the accused be falsely condemned. Bearing false witness in a capital case was in itself a crime punishable by death (Sanhedrin 9B, 32B, 86A, & 89A). A witness in a capital case had to have seen the entire crime as it was being committed; circumstantial evidence was inadmissible. For example, Rabbi Simeon ben Shatach witnessed the following incident: "I saw a man chasing another man into a ruin; I ran after him and saw a sword in his hand dripping with the other's blood, and the murdered man in his death agony...." Even though he was convinced of the man's guilt, the rabbi could not testify against him, because he did not see the actual crime (Sanhedrin 37b). Not only did witnesses have to see the crime take place, they had to have warned the perpetrator prior to the act that he was about to commit a capital offense. According to Rabbi Judah, a warner even had to inform the perpetrator of the type of execution prescribed for his crime (Sanhedrin 8B). The perpetrator was then obliged to have verbally acknowledged this warning by saying something like, "I know I am warned not to do this"; to have admitted his liability to death by adding something like, "even though I shall be punished by such-and-such manner, yet I want to go ahead and commit this crime"; and to have committed the murder within the time needed to make such an utterance (Makkot 6A) ... Furthermore, two or three witnesses had to have similarly interacted with the accused.

And on the unlikely chance that such witnesses could be found, the Court could convict the accused only if guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Talmud, "A doubt in capital charges should always be for the benefit of the accused" (Baba Batra 50B, Sanhedrin 79A). In reaching a verdict, a judge was free to argue in favor of the accused, but not against him. A judge who had argued initially for condemnation could subsequently argue for acquittal, but one who had argued for acquittal could not argue later for condemnation. Acquittal in capital cases required a majority of one vote, condemnation a majority of two.

A verdict could be reversed for acquittal if errors were revealed, but no new evidence was allowed which would reverse a decision from acquittal to condemnation.

Staying the Execution Following a guilty verdict, provisions were made to stay the execution. A herald was dispatched to announce something like: "So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such-and-such offense, and so-and-so are his witnesses. If anyone has anything to say in his favor, let him come forward and state it."

If someone offered to make a statement in favor of the condemned man, a retrial followed. A person was stationed at the door of the court holding a signaling flag, while a horseman stood at the ready within sight of the signalman.

If one of the judges said he had something further to state in favor of the condemned, the signaler waved his flag, sending the horseman to postpone the execution. Indeed, even if the condemned said he had something further to plead in his own favor, the court was obliged to reconvene (Sanhedrin 42B)

This ruling does not mean the rabbis dispensed with punishment altogether. On the contrary, they expressed no compunction about decreeing corporal punishment--harsh physical suffering. If the rabbis/judges were convinced of a defendant's guilt in a capital case, but the high standard of evidence did not permit execution, he would be sentenced to prison on a ration of bread and water.


- See? It's not so hard to understand, especially for a normal, balanced, sane individual like yourself who begins spreading his wisdom with "I don't want a fight", and then proceeds with a barrage of provocative posts. At least Raoul comes from a place of honest questioning. You OTOH always seem to come from blind, raging hatred. Do that with other threads if you wish but personally I am only bothering to reply to you here, for the sake of the other readers - to correct any false impressions they may have as a result of your garbage.

One final thing: there is a certain anonymous aspect to these boards, where posters' identities may be kept private. Be careful not to characterize me in any way, by writing in the subject box, what "I am commanded to do", one way or the other. Note that my original reply to Raoul, could have been written by anyone simply concerned for the truth, not necessarily by a believer. Can you in your genius, understand this point? My reply to Raoul could have been written by an atheist. Just someone concerned for truth for its own sake.

Please, please do kindly NOT reply to this with ten thousand self-referential replies in capitals - I will not reply to any of them. I have a personal "conservation of energy" principle you know ... this reply was more for the benefit of other readers, to correct possible misunderstandings resulting from your spew.