God is love or we Get Infinite punishment for our finite sins

[IamJoseph]

You obviously have a different definition of "law" than the rest of us.
For example most of us tend to see "law" as something along these lines:

“ 1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3

That is not law. A correct law will examine a custom or tradition if it agrees with the correct law, and one which can be defended elsewhere. An example refers to such toppled laws of certain customs and traditions:

IT IS A BLESSING TO KILL THE INFIDELS.

INFINITE PUNISHMENT FOR NON-CHRISTIANS.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You see?
You have your own definition which doesn't accord with anyone else's.

 

[IamJoseph]

Oh my! I just noticed this:

Winking leads to incest?
Skipping does?

Oh hell, I remember winking at my dad once.
I'm DOOOOOMED!!!

Its no point to argue each law - the first faulty impression of some laws which appear alarming is not correct when further examined - clesarly the fcus is on justice and respect for all humans equally. Its a set of laws which is greater than anything any place else, and worth knowing before making judgements. It is devoid of the horrific stuff seen elsewhere, and if one follows these laws they cannot be a bad person to deal with. One can trace every active good law today from here.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Its a set of laws which is greater than anything any place else

Nope.

and worth knowing before making judgements.

Nope.

It is devoid of the horrific stuff seen elsewhere

Bull.

One can trace every active good law today from here.

And again you show how you fail utterly to learn. You have been corrected on this more than once.

 

[IamJoseph]

You see?
You have your own definition which doesn't accord with anyone else's.

Thou shall not follow a corrupted multitude.


Arafat got 96% voting success - but Sadaam beat him with a 100% result.

 

[Doreen]

It is devoid of the horrific stuff seen elsewhere, and if one follows these laws they cannot be a bad person to deal with.

You can own slaves, execute your child if he or she curses, stone to death someone who touches Mt. Sinai and be incredibly judgmental and a horrible person to be around and follow all those rules.

As one example.

You can be an utterly evil person and follow those rules. And the rules contribute to the evil in the above example.

Those with Judaochristian rules managed to be the bad guys in interactions with indigenous groups without those rules all over the world. And it wasn't just technology that was at issue.

Still waiting to find out what half I got right about stoning a woman who remarries.

 

[IamJoseph]

You can own slaves,

The laws actually turned slaves to contracted workers with rights.

execute your child if he or she curses,

The punishments vary according to the generations. There were no law courts or legal defense mechanisms at this time. One cannot execute by themselves, and capital punishments were first forbidden in ancient Israel. The pivotal factor is respect of parents, and cursing does not mean what you think.

stone to death someone who touches Mt. Sinai

That is not a law.

and be incredibly judgmental and a horrible person to be around and follow all those rules.

As one example.

You can be an utterly evil person and follow those rules. And the rules contribute to the evil in the above example.

The reverse applies. One law cannot contradict another law, so your reading is deficient. Judgement is subject to strict laws, and being a horrible person contradicts LOVE THE STRANGER.

 

[Doreen]

Its no point to argue each law - the first faulty impression of some laws which appear alarming is not correct when further examined - clesarly the fcus is on justice and respect for all humans equally..

Not women.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Not slaves.

 

[glaucon]

I highly suspect that this character is, as the Brits say, taking the piss.

 

[Doreen]

The laws actually turned slaves to contracted workers with rights.

No they were still slaves, but there are restrictions on how they are treated. Workers are free to leave.

The punishments vary according to the generations. There were no law courts or legal defense mechanisms at this time. One cannot execute by themselves, and capital punishments were first forbidden in ancient Israel. The pivotal factor is respect of parents, and cursing does not mean what you think.

I quoted from your own posts, you should read them. A child who curses his parents is to be killed. And I know perfectly well what cursing someone means. It does not matter. It would be evil to kill such a child. Especially since the laws allow mistreatment of children by adults, it would be a sin to tell parents it is OK or even right to kill a child who curses them.

That is not a law.

From your own post

59. Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." 19:12-13

The reverse applies. One law cannot contradict another law, so your reading is deficient. Judgement is subject to strict laws, and being a horrible person contradicts LOVE THE STRANGER.

You mean the stranger that when you put holy oil on them you will be banished from your people, that one. How about the stranger who is your slave? Amazing that one can love someone and treat them like that. Love is a vague term. People say they love people they treat horribly. And clearly people following those rules could be horrible to others and still think they are loving. That you do is really strange. It is as if we have learned nothing since those texts were written.

 

[Doreen]

I highly suspect that this character is, as the Brits say, taking the piss.

Oh, that would be fun. I don't think you are right. But I will truly find it and my own getting fooled more pleasant and rather funny.

 

[glaucon]

Oh, that would be fun. I don't think you are right. But I will truly find it and my own getting fooled more pleasant and rather funny.

I agree. I do hope I'm right however. The alternative would be quite sad, as it's rare to see such an addled brain.

 

[Alan McDougall]

That is not law. A correct law will examine a custom or tradition if it agrees with the correct law, and one which can be defended elsewhere. An example refers to such toppled laws of certain customs and traditions:

IT IS A BLESSING TO KILL THE INFIDELS.

INFINITE PUNISHMENT FOR NON-CHRISTIANS.

From the New Testament:-

You whited tombs you are like the graves of the prophets all white on the outside but inside like dead man's bones

 

[Doreen]

I agree. I do hope I'm right however. The alternative would be quite sad, as it's rare to see such an addled brain.

I think it may be a case of a core insight that may have merit being confused with a blanket adulation. I think a decent case could be made that there are many ideas in that list that are worthwhile and that the overriding principles have had a major influence on many nations.

But it is as if someone of that time appeared among us from a time machine, unaware of all that has happened, and assumes that no improvements could have been made, that no other cultures may have come up with similar ideas - even without some of the problematic features of that list - and that the list might have problems. Apparantly the problems with the laws are only apparant.

I don't know why the idea that people were fallibly doing the best they could a long time ago is so threatening to people.

 

[IamJoseph]

No they were still slaves, but there are restrictions on how they are treated. Workers are free to leave.

A worker under the Hebrew law gets automatic freedom in the Jubilee year, regardless of what moneys were owed by him. Like any contracted worker today, he also gets 1 day a week rest from work with pay, has the right to marry and raise a family, get compensation for mistreatment and accidental injury, and must be given a measured sum of money when he leaves [Superannuation and retirement funds come from here]. This is where all worker's rights come from, and they fully antithesise what was perpetrated in Rome and medevial Europe.

I quoted from your own posts, you should read them. A child who curses his parents is to be killed. And I know perfectly well what cursing someone means. It does not matter. It would be evil to kill such a child. Especially since the laws allow mistreatment of children by adults, it would be a sin to tell parents it is OK or even right to kill a child who curses them.

From your own post

Yes, you did - and I explained that curses and cursing does not mean what we think today - nor can one law contradict another.

You mean the stranger that when you put holy oil on them you will be banished from your people, that one.

That is not a stranger but a convert. The Hebrew antithsies the Gospels here - declaring not to cheat, lie or insult one from another belief, and guarantees equal rights as the inhabitant of the land. These are the laws which the American Constitution was founded upon.

How about the stranger who is your slave? Amazing that one can love someone and treat them like that. Love is a vague term. People say they love people they treat horribly. And clearly people following those rules could be horrible to others and still think they are loving. That you do is really strange. It is as if we have learned nothing since those texts were written.

Love is not a vague term in the Hebrew bible - it has critical and impacting conditions. You are totally misrepresenting the Hebrew bible's designation of a stranger in its polar extremity mode, while disregarding a host of majestic laws not seen elsewhere and introduced to humanty for the first time. It is the laws, not the Jews, which have proven as a light unto the nations.

 

[IamJoseph]

Not women.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Not slaves.

Re.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
(OLD TESTAMENT)
Passages treating women as inferior to men


Sponsored link.




How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression.

Your source:

We do believe:

In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human. Unfortunately, we have not reached a consensus on when human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person. On this matter, our lack of agreement on when personhood begins mirrors that of society at large.

It forgets that as a hardline antisemtic org, the Gospels mandates any who don't follow Jesus are damned to hell - so how is every person worthy of respect? Nor does this source's founders allow any Jews to counter its silly, unilateral fictional statements.

The factors it points of women also disregards the general, historical status of women in ancient times - that they could not live alone or work as a man, even mandating the onus of protection for a widow on the brother. Then it totally omits that the first women's rights come from the Hebrew bible. In total contradiction of its articles, the Hebrew bible deems the women the final and highest spiritual force, making even the greatest Prophets harken to their visionary than their own:

'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'

How does a sane person accept such stuff!? :shrug:

 

[IamJoseph]

Nope.


Nope.


Bull.


And again you show how you fail utterly to learn. You have been corrected on this more than once.

Brilliant debating counters.

 

[Doreen]

It forgets that as a hardline antisemtic org, the Gospels mandates any who don't follow Jesus are damned to hell - so how is every person worthy of respect? Nor does this source's founders allow any Jews to counter its silly, unilateral fictional statements.

Complete with citations. I notice that you do not counter their points, despite your own list offering a good deal of support for their positions. And the logic that they are antisemitic because they are Christian is silly.

The factors it points of women also disregards the general, historical status of women in ancient times - that they could not live alone or work as a man, even mandating the onus of protection for a widow on the brother. Then it totally omits that the first women's rights come from the Hebrew bible.

NO. This is just silly. You are so judaocentric that you don't even consider how many cultures running in parallel where women had various degrees of rights. See Gimbutas on how even matricentral communities existed before the Torah was written. Let alone the roles assigned to women in many indigenous groups in the Americas for example.

In total contradiction of its articles, the Hebrew bible deems the women the final and highest spiritual force, making even the greatest Prophets harken to their visionary than their own:

Yeah, that's why she can't become a priest and is not given the same rights and respect by men. She can be sold into slavery by her father and forced to marry men who rape her. Please.

'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'

How does a sane person accept such stuff!? :shrug:

You mean that when there are contradictory messages - which abound - I should assume that the exception is the rule, rather than what is systematically presented? Why would a sane person do that?

 

[Doreen]

Yes, you did - and I explained that curses and cursing does not mean what we think today - nor can one law contradict another

So you think it would be OK to kill a child who curses in that sense? As far as one law contadicting another. You mean that they say stoned to death, but since this really contradicts other laws, they jsut ignore this meaning? That makes no sense. Why confuse people?

That is not a stranger but a convert. The Hebrew antithsies the Gospels here - declaring not to cheat, lie or insult one from another belief, and guarantees equal rights as the inhabitant of the land. These are the laws which the American Constitution was founded upon.

The constitution was also heavily affected by the organization of the Eastern tribes of the US. These people were very individualistic, very skeptical of permanent power, women had rights, children actually had childhoods -something that shocked and confused the Europeans - and so on.

It is not enough for you to respect certain parts of the Judaic system, you need to make it seem like all morals and laws are dependent on them which is just loopy.

Love is not a vague term in the Hebrew bible - it has critical and impacting conditions. You are totally misrepresenting the Hebrew bible's designation of a stranger in its polar extremity mode, while disregarding a host of majestic laws not seen elsewhere and introduced to humanty for the first time. It is the laws, not the Jews, which have proven as a light unto the nations.

I am noting that a list of laws includes an injunction to love people AND lists ways that one can and should mistreat or kill people for reasons that are silly or simply immoral.

You intone mysteriously that really people are not stoned for touching Sinai or cursing their parents despite this going directly against the information you are providing. AS if these people were so stupid as to make laws they did not mean, really.

I mention that one should be stoned for touching Mt. Sinai - a law that is not, by the way accepted by most people.
You tell me this is not a law.
I point out where it is in your own citation.
Then you tell me the law does not mean what it says.

You did not acknowledge that you were wrong about it being a law.
You do not acknowledge that this law and many others on your lists have not been accepted by the majority of humanity, which goes against what you said earlier.
When confronted with a law that is immoral, you then say that it does not mean what it says.
As if these people were stupid.

 

[Lori_7]

You define good and evil as a universal value (i can see and feel the effects of good and evil all around me every day). How would you then define those words? The point I'm getting at is this: All and any values, may that be good, evil, pretty, fast, holly or smart, are judgments of the individual. They are not universal, measurable values, like temperature for example. An action can be a good deed for one and an evil for another. How can you decide which is valid and why?

About that: well perhaps that's the problem. perhaps that is beyond our scope because we did not create the law, and perhaps communion with the creator would enlighten us.

Then how can we be expected to follow someone's rules without having them being explained properly. You don't tell your children to only do what you like, because they cannot know what you like.

Lori, please acknowledge that good and evil are personal values that vary from individual to individual.

i don't think they are. i think they are universal and measurable, like temperature. and i think you could put different people in the same environment and they'll all experience it differently.

i think that experiencing good and evil, and having to live with the effects, is the best explanation god could provide.