Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:04 PM
149 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 144 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   do you really Believe we are damned?
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 88 (48251)
07-31-2003 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
07-31-2003 5:59 PM


quote:
If the Bible is true, how is it that it can be so easily disproven and refuted? Surely the truth can withstand inquiry?
If you have to accept the Bible without query, without discernment, without putting it under the microscope, how is it at all evidence?

Hey crash. I mean no disresepct, but please don't take me for a Christian who can't think for myself. I have conducted extensive research into the veracity of the Bible. The way you respond shows that you think I am someone who lives by blind faith and is willing to ignore everything I don't want to see. I guess I'm asking for you not to label me .

I know this is treading on thin ice with this crowd, but I have conducted much inquiry into the Bible and its reliability. I have struggled with a lot along the way, but I haven't been exposed to evidence that has taken my faith out of the Bible as God's word. Granted, I probably can't help but unconsciously approach some evidence from a Christian background, but I have also been trained to be able to take an objective approach to anything.

In my own studies I have rarely had someone make a point that could not be explained or refuted from a biblical perspective with further evidence or thought. Occasionally there are some that you just have to say, "that doesn't prove anything, but I can't explain it." The same is certainly true for the opposing side, in my experience. I make no challenge to anyone here, as I am sure nearly all points you may make have come up at one point or another in literature and discussions. The same may be true for any arguments that I may present, so I'd like it if we could put that off for some other time. My point is only that I have put the Bible under close scrutiny, ready to be deeply challenged. I have been, and each time my faith is bolstered. You say it's easy to refute the Bible, and most informed Christians would say that it's easy to support the Bible. Depends on where we want to come from, I suppose.

I think any Christian who accepts the Bible without query and discernment is cheating himself out of a degree of spiritual maturity. Faith without testing can be a bit of a crutch, and blind faith is not usually true faith, in my humble opinion. I have admiration for those who accept the Bible as truth without ever hearing both sides of the story, but I certainly don't identify.

quote:
If the evidence it takes to believe is only accessable/revealed after you already believe, then it's not evidence for your belief. It's just circular reasoning with faith-based blinders. Real evidence is objective. Real evidence is convincing no matter what belief you already have - assuming you're of a mind to go with what evidence implies.

Your point is taken regarding evidence being revealed after one believes. It is not evidence in the sense of being useful to persuade myself, as I have weighed both sides and have already been persuaded by other means. It is nonetheless evidence in the sense that it supports the existence of God. Real evidence is objective and convincing, of course. I have had that evidence from God, and it is just as valuable and convincing to someone else as to me, provided my word is worth anything.

In short, something was revealed to me before it happened, to someone whom I didn't know. The "revelation" came in a dream, from which I woke up with confidence that it was from God. A close friend was also involved, as something pivotal happened in her life (in the dream). The next day the first event came true, with someone I had never met and who I recognized solely from my dream, exactly as had been revealed. I took that to be God's promise that the second event (involving my friend) would occur. A year later it happened just as I saw it. Take that as you will, although I'm sure it will be dismissed (hehe, as I would probably do if someone else told me ). I told some people what I had been shown by God, and they considered it very hard evidence when they saw things come true just as God said it would. One of them was an athiest but now is a Christian.

I realize this doesn't mean a whole lot after the fact, but it shows that my own experiences of God can be evidence for others. However, this kind of experience doesn't seem to be an everyday experience and, as I mentioned above, is not something all Christians will necessarily have.

Okay, enough out of me. It's your guys' faults I'm wasting all this time! hehe, thanks again for the replies.

Jake

(edited for a bit of grammar )
[This message has been edited by Jake22, 07-31-2003]

[This message has been edited by Jake22, 07-31-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2003 5:59 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 07-31-2003 8:04 PM Jake22 has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 88 (48253)
07-31-2003 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by NosyNed
07-31-2003 7:33 PM


quote:
"no matter"? no, that isn't true, it is possible for pretty smart mind to be blinded by belief in spite of pretty well any evidence.

Absolutely correct.

quote:
That's even true on the scientific side. New concepts sometimes are finally accepted as a consensus rather than with unanimity.

Actually, new concepts in science are always accepted as a consensus, and never on the basis of one, or even several, opinions.

Evidence is brought forth.

Others examine the methodology of the experiment or otherwise examine the evidence.

If everything checks out so far, others still then repeat the experiment to see if they get similar results.

quote:
The ability to ignore evidence is pretty much all powerful if the belief is strong enough, I would say.

That's true, but in science, those people are considered crackpots.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2003 7:33 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 8:22 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 88 (48254)
07-31-2003 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jake22
07-31-2003 7:44 PM


quote:
Real evidence is objective and convincing, of course. I have had that evidence from God, and it is just as valuable and convincing to someone else as to me, provided my word is worth anything.

The problem you have is the "objective" part.

You aren't an objective observer in this situation.

So I'm afraid that what you have is a "testimonial", not independent, verifiable, objective "evidence".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 7:44 PM Jake22 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 8:18 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 88 (48256)
07-31-2003 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
07-31-2003 8:04 PM


quote:
The problem you have is the "objective" part.
You aren't an objective observer in this situation.
So I'm afraid that what you have is a "testimonial", not independent, verifiable, objective "evidence".

Point taken. However, if someone says, "I believe there is a God and I experience him. Last night he revealed to me that something very particular will happen to two people, one of whom I haven't met but I can describe him perfectly"...if one were to say this and something that was impossible to know occurred exactly as described, would that not be evidence? The events were completely objective, witnessed and verified by several independent observers. Agreed it is not proof, but I disagree that it would not be evidence.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about objectivity. I think our biases keep us from all sorts of knowledge and experiences, Christian and athiest alike.

Regards,
Jake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 07-31-2003 8:04 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 07-31-2003 8:34 PM Jake22 has responded

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 88 (48257)
07-31-2003 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
07-31-2003 7:59 PM


quote:
"The ability to ignore evidence is pretty much all powerful if the belief is strong enough, I would say...."
That's true, but in science, those people are considered crackpots.

hehe .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 07-31-2003 7:59 PM nator has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 88 (48259)
07-31-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Jake22
07-31-2003 8:18 PM


Jake,

However, if someone says, "I believe there is a God and I experience him. Last night he revealed to me that something very particular will happen to two people, one of whom I haven't met but I can describe him perfectly"...if one were to say this and something that was impossible to know occurred exactly as described, would that not be evidence?

No. The evidence has to be observable to all, or it's mere hearsay at best. Hence most of the "supposed" evidences of God, aren't. Anyone of any other religion could provide evidence exactly as convincing as you that another religion is true, if that were the case.

Would you accept that evidence?

I have conducted extensive research into the veracity of the Bible.

Have you? You would be able to provide independent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, then? Or that he was the son of God? Or even EXISTED as a biblical truth? Or that Moses parted the red sea, or even EXISTED, for that matter? Or what about the Big One, that an ID created life?

No one denies that the bible was written with real places in mind, but then so was Watership Down. Or are you suggesting that rabbits can talk?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 8:18 PM Jake22 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 9:15 PM mark24 has responded

    
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 88 (48262)
07-31-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mark24
07-31-2003 8:34 PM


quote:
No. The evidence has to be observable to all, or it's mere hearsay at best. Hence most of the "supposed" evidences of God, aren't. Anyone of any other religion could provide evidence exactly as convincing as you that another religion is true, if that were the case. Would you accept that evidence?

No, I wouldn't accept that evidence, and I do not claim that what I described is evidence for everyone, such as you. I claim it was evidence for those who experienced the fulfillment of a dream. I don't blame you if you don't believe me. Hehe, in fact, I would trust your sense of judgment far more than someone who responds with, "wow, cool!" My point was merely that the experience was evidence of a revealing God for two other people, and thus a supernatural revelation was not merely a personal occurrance.

Evidence is not characterized by universality of experience. I have no evidence that my father had a baseball card collection as a kid. No pictures, no cards, nothing, just his word. My grandmother saw the cards and was exposed to them many years ago. Was seeing the baseball cards in my father's hands not evidence to my grandmother that he had a collection? Sure it was, but it is not evidence to me because I don't share in that experience. It is nonetheless evidence, or am I missing something important?

quote:
Have you? You would be able to provide independent evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, then? Or that he was the son of God? Or even EXISTED as a biblical truth? Or that Moses parted the red sea, or even EXISTED, for that matter? Or what about the Big One, that an ID created life?

I have indeed explored both sides. I am confident that I have researched the issue far more than most people, whether they accept or reject the Bible. One reason I like this site is because most people here have indeed researched the issue, although I do feel that there are some who blindly accept evidence that they wish to believe. We are all guilty of that to some extent, though.

There are several issues in your quote, and I won't address them all. I will simply sum up by saying that I have not found any evidence that makes a convincing case to the contrary. There is evidence, and yes there is also evidence for the truths found in the Bible. As I mentioned before, though, I'd like to keep that for some other post, as I'm sure the debate has been extensively covered here. I don't mean to pass judgment at all, but please do not stereotype me and assume I am seeking subjective ends. Again, I don't mean any sort of offense or challenge, and I very much enjoy reading the respectful material this site offers, but please do not insult me with assumptions. <---smiley face = flag of peace.

Alright, thanks for the reply Mark. Take care,

Jake

[This message has been edited by Jake22, 07-31-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 07-31-2003 8:34 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 07-31-2003 9:34 PM Jake22 has responded
 Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 08-01-2003 6:36 AM Jake22 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 68 of 88 (48263)
07-31-2003 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jake22
07-31-2003 9:15 PM


Jake,

Evidence is not characterized by universality of experience. I have no evidence that my father had a baseball card collection as a kid. No pictures, no cards, nothing, just his word. My grandmother saw the cards and was exposed to them many years ago. Was seeing the baseball cards in my father's hands not evidence to my grandmother that he had a collection? Sure it was, but it is not evidence to me because I don't share in that experience. It is nonetheless evidence, or am I missing something important?

YES! The evidence isn't available to all, & isn't repeatable. Your Grandmother may have thought she saw the cards in the same way Schizophrenics think they hear voices. She may have been lying, they both might have been. How can you tell?

I will simply sum up by saying that I have not found any evidence that makes a convincing case to the contrary. There is evidence, and yes there is also evidence for the truths found in the Bible.

Now there was an evasive answer! Perhaps I should formalise the question. Is there independent evidence that the non-trivial, & supernatural suppositions of the bible actually happened?

I don't mean to pass judgment at all, but please do not stereotype me and assume I am seeking subjective ends.

Fair enough. But you have made a claim into having studied both sides. So, it is difficult to see how you aren't seeking "subjective" ends when you allow subjective, rather than objective evidence.

I put it to you that the bible is evidentially unsupported as regards the parts that are critical to Christianity. That is, God exists, Jesus was the Son of God, he rose from the dead, the universe was created in 6-days etc. If you remove what is unsupported from the bible & you are left with what, exactly, that convinces you of the Truth?

Again, I don't mean any sort of offense or challenge, and I very much enjoy reading the respectful material this site offers, but please do not insult me with assumptions.

What assumptions? I am discussing with you the nature of legitimate evidence as regards the bible.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2003]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-31-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 9:15 PM Jake22 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 10:08 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 88 (48265)
07-31-2003 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by mark24
07-31-2003 9:34 PM


Hey Mark...

quote:
YES! The evidence isn't available to all, & isn't repeatable. Your Grandmother may have thought she saw the cards in the same way Schizophrenics think they hear voices. She may have been lying, they both might have been. How can you tell?

I certainly see what you're saying and I agree. My grandmother seeing and touching baseball cards is not evidence of a card collection to me or anyone else. It is not "admissible" evidence. My point is that for my grandmother, who saw and touched, it was evidence that convinced her. It was evidence to her, by very definition. Her subsequent testimony would be hearsay, but that is not the point. She was convinced with evidence.

You are right, some evidence cannot be repeated or made available to all. This does not invalidate its role as evidence within its original, limited context. The scientific method calls for repeatability, but why do you assume evidence requires that parameter as well?

I don't want to continue to argue specifics than neither of us really case about . By definition, what I described was evidence to the two people I mentioned. I do not claim it is evidence for you or anyone else.

quote:
Now there was an evasive answer! Perhaps I should formalise the question. Is there independent evidence that the non-trivial, & supernatural suppositions of the bible actually happened?

I mentioned twice that this is not the point of my post. I don't wish to debate the matter...it would be exhausting and accomplish nothing for anyone. I'm sorry if that's evasive to you.

quote:
Fair enough. But you have made a claim into having studied both sides. So, it is difficult to see how you aren't seeking "subjective" ends when you allow subjective, rather than objective evidence.

I merely would contend that something like what I described was evidence, and quite objective within its limited context. I've offered my reasoning, and I understand that people will twist words and ignore relevant aspects to disagree (which I am not accusing you of, by the way). When I tell people about it, it is only hearsay, yes. That is why I am not trying to argue that it "really happened." It was very real evidence in forming a conclusion for those involved. As I said, I just wanted to share because it was relevant to the discussion, not using it as evidence here. Please don't misunderstand me.

Phew! I gotta go grab some more coffee! Interesting posts, Mike. Thanks. Oh, and when I mentioned your assumptions, I meant about me, not in your logic.

Jake

P.S. I don't think the 6 days are critical to Christianity at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 07-31-2003 9:34 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by John, posted 08-01-2003 1:18 AM Jake22 has not yet responded
 Message 72 by doctrbill, posted 08-01-2003 12:03 PM Jake22 has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 88 (48268)
08-01-2003 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Jake22
07-31-2003 10:08 PM


quote:
I merely would contend that something like what I described was evidence, and quite objective within its limited context.

From what I can tell, the evidence was not objective in any context-- not your grandmother and the baseball cards, but the religious experiences.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 10:08 PM Jake22 has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 88 (48288)
08-01-2003 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jake22
07-31-2003 9:15 PM


Jake22 writes:

quote:
Evidence is not characterized by universality of experience.

Actually, that is precisely what characterises evidence: The fact that it works for everyone. If it only works for you, then it is a subjective experience and not evidence.

The reason science comes up with accurate answers is because it is dependent on the results being replicated by independent experimenters. It isn't a question of "being there." After all, if we claim that the only way to know if something happened is if you are a direct witness, then the entire field of forensics goes right out the window. Instead, the question is whether or not you can duplicate the results. If you can, then you have just shown that the results are consistent with the process.

If your results cannot be duplicated by independent observers, if they are only observable by you, then it isn't evidence.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 9:15 PM Jake22 has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 810 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 72 of 88 (48325)
08-01-2003 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Jake22
07-31-2003 10:08 PM


Jake22 writes:

P.S. I don't think the 6 days are critical to Christianity at all.


I looked back along this thread but couldn't find any previous mention of the "six days." If you mean the six days of creation week, then I must ask:

Are the Ten Commandments a part of Christianity? Have you considered the Fourth Commandment, and the stated reasons for its existence?

quote:
... the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God. No work may be done then ... In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:8-11 New American Bible (Catholic)
If I am not mistaken, the ten commandments are indeed a part of Christianity.

BTW; A death penalty is attached for those who fail to respect this commandment:

quote:
... whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.... It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Exodus 31:15,17 Revised Standard Version
In other words: Israel is commanded to rest after six days of labor because God rested after six days of labor. This mimics the lunar calendar:

Creation time begins with first-light in the dark primordium and ends on the evening of the sixth day (beginning of the seventh).

Lunar calendar time begins with first-light in the dark moon and ends its first week on the evening of the sixth day (beginning of the seventh). {first quarter} See Shabbat

That the Omnipotent One needs to "rest" and is subsequently "refreshed" may be understood in the context of a moon-god which Yahweh has replaced. See Moon God

db

------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Jake22, posted 07-31-2003 10:08 PM Jake22 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Jake22, posted 08-01-2003 3:27 PM doctrbill has responded
 Message 75 by THEONE, posted 08-01-2003 7:10 PM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 77 by THEONE, posted 08-01-2003 9:57 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 88 (48342)
08-01-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by doctrbill
08-01-2003 12:03 PM


quote:
In other words: Israel is commanded to rest after six days of labor because God rested after six days of labor. Creation time begins with first-light in the dark primordium and ends on the evening of the sixth day (beginning of the seventh).

You may very well be right about the literal six days being important to Christianity in that way. This is not something that I have spent much time exploring, so I'm sure you folks know more than I. I have heard the cliche Christian evolutionist view that the days may be symbolic of ages. Some even say that the Hebrew word is interchangeable? What you said certainly makes sense, and if I knew more about it then I'd have something to say .

However, even if one argues that the days must be literal days, I don't see that as central to Christianity. What I mean is this...in God's plan of justification for mankind (according to Christianity), there are some key beliefs one must hold concerning sin, Jesus, God, etc. The rest is certainly important but not pivotal. If someone believes that Moses never existed, they may be wrong but still have relationship with God. If someone believes that Jesus never existed, then they are not justified before God and are not a "Christian." Does that make sense? If God did create the world in 6 days and a Christian believes in an old earth, they would be wrong but would be set straight in heaven . It's not a central belief in that way. This is all, of course, according to Christian belief.

I would lastly note that the ten commandments are a part of Christianity, but generally only in a historical sense (although other Christians I'm sure would disagree). Christians are not bound by the Ten Commandments in the ways that the Israelites were (I posted on the idea of deliverance from the Mosaic Law in more detail elsewhere). In short, the Law was fulfilled so that those accepting Jesus' sacrifice are delivered from it. A new standard of morality was set forth in the NT, and interestingly only 9 of the 10 commandments were reiterated as moral conduct Christians were to have. The only command not "carried over" was that regarding the Sabbath, which of course got Jesus into some trouble with the religious folk.

Thanks db for the info. What is your impression of the day/age issue...is it the same Hebrew word or symbolic, or is it a compromise that doesn't fit the wording? I always thought that this didn't fit with the account in Genesis mentioning that the sun rose and set, and that was the nth day. Then again, I suppose that could be symbolic, too .

Jake

[This message has been edited by Jake22, 08-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by doctrbill, posted 08-01-2003 12:03 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by John, posted 08-01-2003 7:08 PM Jake22 has not yet responded
 Message 79 by doctrbill, posted 08-02-2003 12:32 AM Jake22 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 88 (48349)
08-01-2003 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Jake22
08-01-2003 3:27 PM


quote:
Some even say that the Hebrew word is interchangeable?

Just a short note. As far as I can tell, the word used for 'day' in Genesis does not also have an alternate meaning of 'long span of time.' I asked a Rabbi once, and he looked at me like I was insane. However, if you use the word in its plural form, it can have such a meaning. ( Go figure? ) I bring this up because people have presented me with verses from the Bible which prove that 'day' can mean 'a long span of time.' The verses presented read 'days' not 'day.'

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Jake22, posted 08-01-2003 3:27 PM Jake22 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by THEONE, posted 08-01-2003 7:18 PM John has responded

  
THEONE 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 75 of 88 (48350)
08-01-2003 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by doctrbill
08-01-2003 12:03 PM


What you said certainly makes sense, and if I knew more about it then I'd have something to say

Well, I'll help you out on that one... After all you did promise to not call my wife anymore!


doctrbill wrote:

In other words: Israel is commanded to rest after six days of labor because God rested after six days of labor

Almost. Israel is commanded to rest on Shabbat because God told them to rest on Shabbat. If you look at the sequence of commandments you will see that first comes the commandment to Know God, then not to belive in other gods..., then Keep Shabbat .... and only after this do we get to Honor parents, Don't kill... and so on.

On a side note: All of this was said to Hebrews, no Christians were even in the making at that time. With regards to Shabbat it is said "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates." Ex. 20:8-10 notice that this commandment states excactly who should keep it (Hebrews, their sons and dauters, man/maidservants, their animals or anyone in their gates (i.e. if a Roman or Greek decides to stay over for the weekend at a Jewish house, he or she must honor laws of Shabbat). But nowhever does it mention gentiles. (It mentions animals so that a hebrew would not say "Well, it's Shabbat I won't work but my bull can plow the field" that would be a "no-no" according to the commandmet and this particular hebrew would be punished just the same as if he was working himself)

So the question is: Why does God put laws of Shabbat before killing and things of that nature??? Is it more important to keep Shabbat than not to kill?

Jewish understanding is that if you keep Shabbat, you are constantly reminded that there is God who created you and everything around you. God who gave you Bible which describes how this world works (and I'm not talking about laws of physics or biology. I'm taliking about laws of morality). Keeping Shabbat, is a testimony to first three commandments. If you don't keep it once, you are more likely to not keep it again... and again... slowly it will lead a person away from God and away from fulfilling our purpose. If you keep Shabbat, more then likely (not for sure) you won't kill and do other "messy" things.

BTW; A death penalty is attached for those who fail to respect this commandmentr

Indeed. This capital punishment is attached by the Sanhedrin (the Hebrew "Supreme Court", it consisted of seventy one great Bible Sages). Sanhedrin only existed in times of Holy Temple (ended almost 2000 years ago). In regards to Shabbat it established 39 labor categories not to be performed during the day of rest and many more derivative labors from those 39 general categories.

However, as with all capital offenses, one could not be executed unless he acted deliberately i.e. with knowing knowlege that what he was doing was prohibited. Moreover, for the court to impose this penalty the act must have taken place :

(a) in the presence of two proper witnesses, and
(b) immediately after the perpetrator had been warned by them of the transgression and its consequences.

If either of these conditions were not met, the matter no longer fell under the jurisdiction of the courts, but was subject of Heavenly punishment (meaning God will decide on that one)

Another thing you probably didn't know is that if Sanhedrin (Court) sentenced more then 3 people to death in 7 years it (Sunhedrin) was considered a "Killer Court" and was to be completely reassembled with new Judges (even if 3 sentencees were murderers). It was Court's essence to exercise mercy.

Now, compare this court system with all the other ones of that time (about 3000 - 1900 years ago) and tell me what you think.

In case you want reference: Gemara, 1st Vol. on Shabbot, Talmud Bavli, Tractate Shabbos, Tulmud on Sanhedrin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by doctrbill, posted 08-01-2003 12:03 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019