Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
43 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 39 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,160 Year: 12,908/23,288 Month: 633/1,527 Week: 72/240 Day: 0/35 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Science And The Bible Meet
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 103 of 208 (444065)
12-28-2007 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by imageinvisible
12-23-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Qur'an and Science
quote:
You have to earn your way into allah's kngdom by killing infidels (like myself and the Jews)

What an original statement too. It is typical of those who have no laws: there is no such thing as islamic law. A law is that what is accepted by the world at large, in their institutions, family relationships, judiciary and civic systems. A law is not a dogma or related to a revered name.

There are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today, despite the time factor of 3500 years and the Jews being in ever dislodgement and targeted not to exist.

I see not a single Islamic law accepted by the world. Not a oner. The only place islamic laws are adhered to is where muslims are assured of death if they reject them. This appears to say something - which is beyond a mystery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by imageinvisible, posted 12-23-2007 7:03 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2007 6:49 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 12-28-2007 9:19 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 104 of 208 (444066)
12-28-2007 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by doctrbill
12-27-2007 3:27 PM


Re: War
quote:
But did you suspect that this is about war? It is, you know. Just look at the context:

"blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke." verse 30


The operative factor is not that this can refer to war and bloodshed, but that it can be over-turned.

The rule is, a positive pledge [as in a promise of goodwill] cannot be over turned - not even by the Creator - because the Creator represents truth. But a negative pledge [as in a curse or punishment] can be over-turned by man, based on the 13 Attributes given to Moses, which includes mercy, repentence, kindness, forgiveness and truth.

This is also the meaning in the verse, ISRAEL IS NOT RULED BY THE STARS - meaning all humanity, nationally and individually, can overturn every negative pledge. Equally, this premise has been exploited by many religions at different times, blaming their victims for their crimes - or assuming themselves as the healers when divine assistance comes.

I find the small nation of Israel was sustained and returned, despite every attempt to desroy her, and while her demise was made akin to a Gdly premise: both christianity and islam have attached their entire beliefs conditional to Israel's demise, inculcating unquenchable hatred into humanity, affecting Billions with a virus they cannot rid anymore: destroying this hate virus appears to impact on their core beliefs.

This is the reason for the irresolvable M/E conflict, now notoriously spinned by a host of false reasonings and dis-history. And to make it more blatant, both christianity and islam are in total M.A.D. contradiction of each other's doctrines: the jews would have been destroyed whichever of these they accepted! I feel certain that of any revered figures did actually manifest themselves, as is claimed by these two religions - then what their scriptures say cannot be attributed as true or correct. IOW, no Gdly agent could have said what is seen in the NT and Quran. Just my personal view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by doctrbill, posted 12-27-2007 3:27 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by doctrbill, posted 12-28-2007 9:30 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 105 of 208 (444067)
12-28-2007 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by imageinvisible
12-23-2007 8:21 PM


Re: Qur'an and Science
quote:
No one comes to the Father exept through Me."

No revered person could say so. Christianity failed by its own doctrine: Islam emerged and made the same claim, and christianity rejected it.

The fact is, this goes against numerous OT commands:

I AM THE LRD THERE IS NO OTHER

This means no one can speak on behalf of changing an OT law - specially not when they do not have the Creator by their side, as at Sinai. And the NT could not perform this feat - so they did the second best thing: bash the Jews!

Also, this makes a mockery of all the 613 laws given via Moses, which remains the only antidote against false beliefs. I fully reject that such would have been said by a Jew in Judea - it sounds more as a Hellenist/Pharoahic/Roman decree, which the Jews faught against and resisted with all their might, in the greatest defense in all recorded history.

WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by imageinvisible, posted 12-23-2007 8:21 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by imageinvisible, posted 12-28-2007 1:06 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 107 of 208 (444072)
12-28-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
12-28-2007 6:49 AM


Re: Where moral science and religious texts diverge
quote:
A good point. I can't remember the last time I boiled a baby goat in the milk of its mother (Ex 34:26)

You would never think this way had your knowledge been half reasonable. As it is, you are turning white to black. The law not to seed a kid [baby calf] in its mother's milk is one of the most humane laws imaginable. You obviously do not know what it means, and have obviously taken on board those distortive websites on the net.

There is awesome science and maths in the OT. One of its 613 laws says, one cannot take a mother and its offspring together for consumption. This directly relates to the law you have found one to ridicule, but it is sheer ignorance, sorry to say. While a human cannot identify which animal a portion of milk has come from - the animal can! So how would you know that mixing milk did not come from a mother of the kid about to be slaughtered? You cannot know - thus the law not to do so. You will find that ALL animal rights laws come from the OT - not a single one comes from elsewhere.

Additionally, the law of animal sacrifice is the reverse of what you infer. Far from condoning animal sacrifices, the OT is the first document which forbid human sacrifice, and mandated that animal sacrifice cannot be made for the nullification of intentional sins/crimes. Further, that all animal sacrifices was subject to a thankgiving or accidental sin only, and to be performed only at one particular place, namely the temple: in one stroke, 99% of all animal sacrifices became nullified, without abusing the 1000s of years of this tradition in humanity. IOW:

'HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE OF MAN'

quote:

and I never offer blood sacrifice with leaven (Ex 34:25) and no male I know has had sex with another male - not without getting a compulsory eath sentence anyway! (Let 20:13), and God forbid (literally) any Brit from eating Black Pudding.

Wrong again - on both counts. Blood is forbidden for consumption; capital punishment is negattable for an equally appropriate sentence and according to a generation's mindset: that is why israel became the first nation to forbid Cap Punishment 3000 years ago.

quote:
Once again, you're right. Every country in the world has wisely rejected the Islamic law forbidding murder (5:32), perjury and perverting the course of justice (4:135), and thank God we are allowed to kill our children to alleviate poverty (17.31).

No sir. The law against murder is not an islamic one: precedence applies, and most so with any touted revelation, which infers something new [enlightenment]. The law against wanton murder precedes even the OT, and was known in Noah's time [one of the 7 Noahic laws]. The OT including this law in the Mosaic is an act of affirmation it is a correct law.

quote:
It certainly says something. Confirmation bias seems to be in play. The OT and the Koran do really bad when it comes to agreement with contemporary laws as practiced in countries with a long enough history of religious freedom.

Now we all agree that murder is bad, but when is killing someone murder and when is it justified? Is it generally justified to kill Uri Gellar or Russell Grant or other spiritualists/mediums? Go to any free country and you'll find the answer is basically 'no.'. Go to the Bible and the answer is 'yes' (Lev 20:27; Ex 22:18).


Your wrong again. There is never a justification for killing an innocent; numerous OT laws affirm this. In every case where there is murder, you will find an explanation for it. It is also true, the OT is a book of truth, depicting the contemporanous times it is set in accurately - the reason it is harkened more than any other document in existence. These were times of superstitition, and in some kinds of wars, no prisoners were taken - this applies only to certain kinds of wars; in all wars which do not come under this particular premise, there are mandated laws how a prisoner is treated, as well as its women and children: this is where the geneva Convention comes from.

Stop reading what you see as condoning your own wish list, but which is based on total gibberish when deliberated. These are usally based on selective omissions of the facts. You will not find this law any place else but the OT:

'ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY - THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER'

You did not factor this in. The laws of proving a man guilty of murder are also most stringent, and is adopted by the west judiciary to the letter - it comes excluively from the OT, including the 2 independent [non-biased, armslength] witnesses. There is no question of bias against one from another creed, a poor or a stranger: equal justice for all. This is in absolute contrast to the law of infidels and rejecters.

With distorted and selected omissions, one can unilaterally decide if his cup is half full or half emopty, or if black is white, or falsehood is truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2007 6:49 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2007 7:57 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 109 of 208 (444075)
12-28-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Modulous
12-28-2007 7:57 AM


Re: Where moral science and religious texts diverge
quote:
Huh? I have never done it, I don't know anyone who has ever wanted to do it. My point was that some Biblical laws are followed by coincidence. I don't think to myself "I'd better not boil any baby goats today. But if I really do want to, I must make sure to avoid using it's mother's milk"

You never done it - because of the OT! This was rampant as was human sacrifice at one time. Nor can you make out so seperated from your inference the OT makes nonsensical laws: I gave you clear, connectivity of reasonings WHY one should not seed a kid in milk: it is a most humane law - far from meriting ridicule.

quote:
And I have never ever ever offered a blood sacrifice in the manner prohibited by the Bible. The point I was making was not a moral judgement on whether certain sacrifices are good or bad - but that I would have not engaged in said religious sacrifices anyway.

But you would. If this was not addressed in the OT. The point.

quote:
In fact: just about all the major moral principles that are universally practiced throughout the world either precede the OT (Such as murder and theft) or come massively after it (enlightenment principles). That was kind of my point - just because a moral principle was codified in a text doesn't mean that the text was the first instance of this moral principle being practiced.

The OT remains the only document containing all accepted moral.ethical laws. None come from the enlightenment: feel free to name one, or any law accepted by the world, and not contained in the OT: just ONE will do. I note here, that the suggestion of Bigamy came from Rome, but this is less than authentic.

The laws which predated the OT are true and correct, but this is misunderstood. Many can understand MC2 if they deliberated upon it: but how many can edit and correct it, to make it more correct? Having said this, the Hamurabi documents have recently been established as Post-OT! This makes the Noahic laws the correct predating ones, and these are found only in the OT. It means, yes, there is wisdom and rightiousness in all nations, while it is the OT which exclusively contains all the comprehensive laws which are correct. IOW, if its not in the OT - its out!

quote:
Of course not, that would be murder. What is classified as 'innocent' is under question. Psychics and sorcerers and witches are not considered 'innocent' - they commit crimes against God...the worst crime possible.

This is again your error. Sorcerors and phychics in ancient times were not your pretty lady in a tent with a crytal ball and fine incense. These were once peoples who commited horrific crimes, human sacrifice and some very obscence things. There is no law in the OT to murder one from another belief or one who is a disbeliever: 'LOVE THE STRANGER' includes one from a different belief system. As I said, your premise is based on distortion and omission. The OT mandated murder for those kind of sorcerors, same as it did against other wanton murderers; while witches were murdered in medevial Europe for totally different and illegitimate reasons. Know the difference.

quote:
If we look at things from a certain angle the Koran becomes a wonderful enlightened text of wisdom and beauty. Likewise we can do so with the OT.

Where, according to the Quran, is the Jewish homeland - which predated both the quran and the arab race? As I said, if a document is perported as divinely enlightened - it should give some enlightenment: which islamic law does that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2007 7:57 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2007 9:16 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 12:38 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 115 of 208 (444352)
12-29-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
12-28-2007 9:16 AM


Re: Code of Hammurabi
quote:
You've said this once before, but I can't find any info on a current discovery concerning the Code of Hammurabi and when it was written.
Is the year different than what is in Wiki?

I have also posted a time-line of history before in this regard. There are many web sites today denying the origins of the OT, with revionism and distortion, and not a single one has escaped being exposed as a sham. The last debacle by atheist scholars concerned King David being a myth, overturned so those scholars can never recover from their shame. These wbesites also posit the name PALESTINIAN via the same revisionism, while all sane historically minded people know, this name was not existent between 1300 BCE and 70 CE, the latter being the year Rome resurrected it against the jews after its war in 70 CE.

When we delve further into the Hamurabi issue, we find that aside from these websites touting their preferred choice of history [read, anti-Israel], that this relic was not found in Meso-Iraq/babylon, but in Persia, not so long ago; this says it was either written in Persia - which now came in contact with Israelites in babylon for the first time - or that the babylonians made this document for the same reasoning. The Babs conquered Israel and took captive there all of Israel's elite, leaving behind only the lowest of poor and common people; at this time, the OT and numerous Hebrew prophetic books were already concluded - signifying that Israel already observed these laws - but Hamurabi's code was not followed in Babylon! I find that the Talmud was intitiated in Babylon: did no one there accuse the Israelites of robbing their own history? This is an important factor - because those webstes disregard the operative facts here, and no not even consider them in the equation, relying only on its own doctored C14 evidence, which is blatantly in contradiction of 1000s of historical facts. We know that Greece begat much of its knowledge after the OT was translated when these two nations came in contact the first time. We know this would be more similar with Babylone, which appointed Mordercai, a captive jewish sage, as its prime Council, and Esther made a queen. Do the maths!

And we know that Israel had no contact with Hamurabi prior to the babylon invasion; also, the difference, rather than the commonality, is the operative factor between these two belief systems. We find that Noah's flood is also mentioned by that relic, but w/o any historical details of time, dates, names, places, etc - as is seen in the OT - which means this was a copy/paste job; and this syndrome also is seen with the laws in Hamurabi - they are presented in simple headings, w/o any background explanation. I say, those who copy, will be them who do not give all the details associated with a story; while those who present specifics and extended background would be less likely to plageurise.

The websites which state their bold writings never tell us how come Hamurabi's writings also contains what is the absolute antithesis of the OT: head-bashing dieties battling for supremecy: where did monotheism come to the OT from? After all, the OT's primal message is Monotheism!

I find the hamurabi laws eerily similar to the OT, and this gave me cause for pause too. Then I made further enquirey. I found that none of the laws depicted in hamurabi ever had a history of its observence in the entire M/E; that this kingdom followed in the exact mode of the other nations [read, differently from the Hebrews]; their court systems never operated on the laws depicted in that relic - a syndrome which continues to this day in this region w/o pause. I found also, the datings set for Abraham, was miss-repped and contorted. I found that only israel followed these laws - exclusively and w/o pause: does one observe another nation's laws with a greater emputus - nay, even when that nation does not and never did? I found similar distortions concerning how the hebrews got it from ancient Egypt - also a massive distortion.

It is encumbent on those who see a controversy or contradiction - to do likewise: check it out as if it was a lie - and then conclude.

I post again, excerpts of this world time-line map, the relevents marked ####, so no one can accuse me of making things up!

quote:
Historical Events
The major historical events throughout the world, arranged in chronological order.

PreHistory

Precambrian
-4.6 Billion years
Cambrian
-570 million years

Mesozoic
-225 million years

Holocene
(Recent era)
-10,000 years

Paleolithic
-9000

Neolithic
-4500 in India

Calcolitic
(copper)
-3150
B.C./B.C.E. (Before Christ / Before the Common Era)
3.8-4 million BC ? First bipedal human in Ethiopia
500,000 BCE ? Peking Man, Java Man
Dinosaurs lived in the Mesozoic era
35,000 Upper Paleolithic Period, when first humans are believed to arrive in North America and Asia.
15,000 Wall paintings made in caves at Lascaux, France and Altamira, Spain.
Year of creation: 5762 by Alan D. Corré, 4004 by Irish Irish Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656)
Nephilim (Genesis 6:4-6)
Creation Research Society and Creation Science and other Creationism sites that bend time
Jan 1, 4712 BC - First Julian Date
4043 BC ? Adam created by God (Gen 2)
4003 BC ? Adam & Eve's expelled from Garden of Eden (Gen 3)
Planet Rahab, located between Mars and Jupiter, destroyed into the Asteroid Belt. (Job 26:11-14, Psalm 89:9-14, Isaiah 51:9-16) In the process, creating Earth's Moon.
3913 BC Seth born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3)
3808 BC Enosh born when Seth was 105 (Genesis 5:6)
Gregorian date Oct 7, 3761 BC, Hebrew (lunar) calendar starts on a New Moon (Molad) on 1 Tishrei (New Year).

3114 BC the epoch (beginning) of the Mayan calendar (on 11 Aug)
3100 First war recorded (in Egyptian hieroglyphics). Pharaoh Narmer "Menes the Fighter" unites Upper and Lower Egypt.
Enoch translated (midway between Adam & Abraham)
3500-4500 Neolithic Age of Conscience until the Flood
2686 Beginnings of Egypt's Old Kingdom.
2646 Pyramid of Zoser built at Saqqara, Egypt.
2590 Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza begins.
2348 Methuselah died at 969 years old (Gen 7:27) the year of the flood.
2348 (2387 / 2350 BC Ussher) Noah's Arc in the Flood on 17th Nisan Beginning of 427-year Dispensation of Human Government
Post-diluvian times:
2350 Akkadian kingdom established by Sargon.
2234? The races are dispersed after Tower of Babble in Iraq (Genesis 10:10,11;11:1-9) during Bronze Age of Human Government
Job of the Chaldeans leaves Iraq
2200 First pyramids built
2205-1765 Hsia dynasty in China.
##### 2035 Abram (father of many) from Ur, Assyria Mesopotamia (Iraq) born (Gen 11:26-32; Gen 12:4; Acts 7:4)
1930 Ishmael cast out (Gen 21:8-10) and Isaac weaned
Issac (Genesis 26:17-25) wife Rebecca from Iraq (Genesis 24:4,10)
Jacob (=by might) (Gen. 28:10-12, 32 & 35:1-7), Jesse
Semite Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed
##### 1775 casuistic (case) law Code established by Hammurabi (1792/1728-1686), the most famous Amotittian ruler of Babylonia.
1766-1121 Shang Dynasty in China is known for its use of acupuncture, elaborate bronze ritual vessels, oracle bones to determine the future, and the earliest standardized form of Chinese characters.
1747 Famine (Gen. 42:6)
1674 Joseph dies
1628 Volcano erupts in Thesus (modern day Satorini, Greece) destroys the Minoan civilization on the island of Crete, an art-loving culture Homer calls Atlantis.
1590 Kassites take power in Mesopotamia and Palestine.
1500 Hinduism begins

Mosaic Age of Law
1898 Joseph sold into slavery
1885 Joseph rules Egypt
1805 Joseph dies
Moses rescued from the Nile by Hatshepsut (1503-1482)
1458 Tuthmosis III (1516-1426) seiges Meggiddo during his 1504-1450 reign of Egypt's 18th dynasty
1445 / 1500 Exodus of Moses Hyksos from Aktarus (late date based on 1Kings 6:1 - 480 years from 965BC); Ten commandments given.
(not 2450, 430 years after the Promise was given Abram) Moses leads Exodus, then given normative apodictic (beginning of Judaism)

More: http://www.wilsonmar.com/1history.htm


Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2007 9:16 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 116 of 208 (444354)
12-29-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by doctrbill
12-28-2007 9:30 AM


Re: War
quote:
I have asserted that the text is not an astronomical statement but rather a description of war.

What is the relevance of your reply?

I am not interested in your theology.

Please don't waste my time.


Ok, fine - your not interested in my theology. But in fact I was responding not theologically, but historically. Theology, which fronts up by 'belief' is not debatable anymore; history is! Your post was littered with NT references of the OT: these are theologicsl no goes!

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by doctrbill, posted 12-28-2007 9:30 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 117 of 208 (444355)
12-29-2007 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by sidelined
12-28-2007 9:19 AM


Re: Qur'an and Science
quote:
What do you mean accepted by the world at large? The majority of the world is not aware of them so this statement is rather inane I think.

The world majority follows the OT laws - but I concur most do not know where these laws come from. Many are under the impression it comes from Islam [as in 57 muslim countries, which had no acces to real history], and because Christianity presented the OT as one of its assets. There are no laws which the world accepts from either of those belief systems: not a ONER. All world accepted laws are contained exclusively and comprehensively only in the OT.

The 613 laws contain ritual laws, such as observances of one nation, and these are followed by Jews, prefixed with 'UNTO THEE'. Aside from these ritual laws, the moral/ethical laws in the world's institutions come from the OT, including all judiciary laws; human, workers and animal rights laws; inalienable human rights; Democrasy and Liberty; equal justice for all; copyright & contractual laws; compensation, retirement and social welfare laws; war and borders laws; environmental laws; Creationism and Monotheism; etc.

Even atheist nations follow these laws in any Interaction with the world at large. Those who do not follow these laws are deemed outside of the law. This is the only claim to fame of Israel. The OT is also called, in the OT itself, as THE BOOK OF LAWS - it is not presented as a religion, and acknowledges the full and encumbent rights of atheists and different belief adherants of equal rights - unlike the rejecter, disbelievers and infidel doctrines. The latter non-discrimanatory laws of the OT were flaunted by both christianity and islam.

In Europe, as a mode of disassociating itself with Israel - these laws were called COMMON LAW - but this is not the case. Islam presents itself as an originator of the laws enshrined in its scriptures - but none of its laws which differ from the OT are accepted, while some 90% of its laws are already OT contained, some 2500 years before islam emerged. The NT also presents the OT laws as an incidental output of what it terms THE BIBLE. When the matter is deliberated via historical study - all these laws point to the OT, and that none of the NT or Quran followers of today observed these laws for 2500 years while Israel did; both those religions are aghast at Israel's return from the dead. They are affronted by it, in direct contradiction of theoir own doctrines of love and peace. They know not they are tested via the israel card, and they will be judged only how they react here. We see that today's chos of religion stems from here. We find that Buddhists, hindues and non-christians and non-muslims have no deep, unresolvable hatreds - because they are not guilty of robbing.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 12-28-2007 9:19 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 208 (444619)
12-30-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Modulous
12-29-2007 12:38 PM


quote:
You made a scientific claim that there were 613 moral laws in the OT and that they were accepted in the world at large. I mentioned one law about boiling baby goats in their mother's milk. You defended the law, admitting that it was indeed one of the laws you were considering. It is not one of the 613 laws cited anywhere I have seen:- thus there are more that 613 moral laws in OT. Choosing a subset of that may be considered cherry picking.

It is definitely one of the 613 laws, but the world does not follow this law, deeming it a ritual, dietary law. But it is more than that, alligned with not taking the mother and offspring together, thereby also a law of ecology, conservatism and law against wanton cruelty. The ritual laws are nonetheless followed and active, as they are prefixed with 'UNTO YOU'; some christian denominations do follow this law, and it should be high on the agenda of animal rights groups. I have seen reports of hinterland villages also observing ths law. Its a majestic law.

quote:

Further, you go on to say that no ethical principles exist that are not in the OT. There is no ethical principle in the OT that forbids capital punishment (indeed, the methods are explicitly given: decapitation, strangulation, burning and stoning)
- an ethical principle that is accepted by much of the world. There is no ethical principle forbidding the eating of all animals, an ethical principle many hold. There is no ethical principle of acceptance of sexually active homosexuals or the equality of the genders. The ethical principles that the rights of the people outweighs deference to deities - a principle many hold to today.


Just the term ethical is sibjective, unless mandated as a law. The law of capital punishment for wanton murder is a good law; if it is replaced by another appropriate punishment, then that too is fine, the point being it is against the law not to secure an appropriate punishment for this crime. There is no law which says meat consumption is unethical; but cruelty to animals outside of consumption is the crime. The lion is not bad for eating the cow and the cow is not good for not eating the lion: there is no option here. This affirms the OT law correct, the enforced vegetarianism not right. I say this while being a 90% vego, and I have found meat eaters far more kinder people than the vegos - probably because they observe the animal rights laws better!

quote:

Some of the 613 moral laws are dietary: many of which are entirely ignored by the world.

Yes, there is no requirement for the ritual laws to be observed by the world. But I say, the law not to mix a kid in its mother's milk surpasses the ritual factor.

quote:

Another is that God is One.


Many confuse this as a jewish law, but it predates Judaism, and is a Noahic law: it is encumbent upon all humanity to believe in ONE God. Most belief systems agree with its veracity, even logic and philosiphy does, however, most people cannot uphold this law w/o have the embellishment of an image or agent. This does not impact on the law, but the deficiency of humanity at this time. There is no alternative to this law - if you pursue all the beliefs of any religion, it ultimately comes to monotheism. Science does too.

quote:

Very few people write a scroll of the Torah themselves.

This is a ritual law, not a moral/ethical one, and not directed to the world at large. But the law to educate offspring is a mandated law accepted by the world at large.

quote:

Interfaith marriages are now accepted by many - but are forbidden in the 613 laws.

It is not forbidden. Moses and most prophets married outside. The prohibition is man made. One must 'LOVE THE STRANGER'.

quote:

We castrate our pets, work on the Sabbath and during Passover, and most people do not fast on Yom Kippur, we loan and borrow at interest, we do not think that certain tribes can become the property of other tribes for eternity, we cross-breed animal species (cattle and birds), transvestitism is accepted in many parts of the world, we don't commonly think that menstruating women are 'unclean' and that this uncleanliness is contagious and we don't treat Hanson's Disease by shaving the hair off the sufferers.
These are all ritualistic laws, and as with all things, the degree to follow is accordingly subject to one's orthodoxy. Some murder and steall too: this does not make the law wrong.

quote:

You suggest that the command to slay psychics was because psychics were for a short time committers of vile deeds. I say that if this was commonly known at the time:- why didn't God simply command that those that commit vile deeds should be slain? Why specify psychics and sorcerors? Surely, due to the fact that the practices of these people would come to change it would certainly lead to innocent deaths - a grave sin. It was a terrible mistake to give ambiguous moral commands.


The ancient form of sorcerors is different from today. Then you could buy a spell to have a wife poisoned for a price, and her oragans have to be eaten to please the spirits. This was a vile faculty, and millions were killed on the dictates of these sorcerors - this occured even in native America with the aztecs and mayans. The OT is the first document which forbid sorcery and human sacrifice.

quote:

Your hypothesis stands falsified. I hope you enjoyed this meeting of science and the Bible.


No such thing as science w/o the OT; no such thing as bible/religion with the OT laws. The world will simply not operate anymore if the OT laws were discarded. It is the most comprehensive list of laws in existence. It is not a matter of rejection or ridicule, but a document which has prevailed many tests, and acquired acceptence without any enforcement on anyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 12:38 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:57 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 122 of 208 (444850)
12-31-2007 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Modulous
12-30-2007 9:57 AM


quote:

So your argument that "there are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today" (emphasis mine) is trivially false, agreed?


Those who do not follow these laws, are deemed outside the law, or to put it differently, follow laws which are rejected by the west and its judiciary, civil and civic institutions.

quote:

The law of capital punishment for wanton murder is a good law

My point being that not everybody agrees with this ethical principle. In fact many many people disagree strongly with it. Thus: your argument is falsified.


Everyone agrees that wanton, unwarrented murder is the greatest crime. Any disputation is limited to what mode of punishment must apply. I say, as long as the alternative punishment fits the crime, it is fine.

quote:

There is no law which says meat consumption is unethical

OK, but it is definitely an ethical principle that exists outside of the Torah. I was talking about principles when you replied to me, since you didn't raise this objection then, I assumed you were happy to go with that.


Meat consumption by humans began post-Noah; previous to this, all humans were vegos - their fingers too were stuck together for a long time. The OT appears to say that observing the laws of animal rights, transcends being a vegetarian, as far as premises such as animal cruelty is cncerned. In any case, those laws are far more onerous to observe than not consuming meat. Try this for size: FEED THE ANIMAL BEFORE YOURSELF [this refers to an animal in your possession, which is now totally dependent on you], and 'ASSIST AN OVER-LOADED ANIMAL - EVEN IF IT BELONGS TO YOUR ENEMY' [this can call for a war or battle, a syndrome of compulsion we see in fervent animal rights groups]. Other laws such as NOT TO LEAVE AN OPEN HOLE IN AN ANIMAL'S VICINITY [means clean, safe environment even when transporting animals for slaughter]; NOT TO MUZZLE AN ANIMAL WHILE IT WORKS THE FIELDS; NOT TO TAKE THE MOTHER WITH THE OFFSPRING; etc show great respect for animals, which transcend vegetarianism.

quote:

However, it is law to treat homosexuals as complete equals, which is not, as you claim, a ritual law.

Yes, gay rights are good; equal rights are not, and a lie: this will hurt gays far more. The punishment of death/stonings etc refer to the modes of ancient times, whereby stealing bread resulted in hand choppings. The punishment factor is upto each generation's norms. The law of capital punishment, seen in the OT, was successfully prevailed upon by Israel 3200 years ago, by using the by-laws. The OT sages declared the applicable here, with the preamble the death penalty is correct, but will be conditional upon the law of kindness, forebearence and mercy [enshrined OT premises]. They declared any nation which conducts more than 1 death sentence in 70 years must be deemed a cruel nation, which is against the premise of the OT. Basically, laws are sometimes the testers how one will go: a cruel person will deduce cruely, and commit a crime.

quote:

As I pointed out. A simple 'do not be cruel to animals' would be a much better ethical principle for maintaining relevance and sidestepping ambiguity.


I don't agree. Everyone knows it is wrong to murder and steal, but this is not real till mandated in writ. Besides, do not be cruel to animals is very subjective and open to corruption and failure. They both amount to the same thing, but the OT enshrines it, making cruelty to an animal equal to murder of a human {there is difference of status between the OT laws. This also means, where a law is not specifically and clearly put to writ and enshrined in the judiciary - one cannot be charged for a crime.

quote:

Since you now accept that all of the 613 laws are not accepted by the world at large, could you actually give me a number of laws which are accepted?

Of the 10 Commandments, for example, some are ritual laws, or can be posited as such, namely the first two and the 4th, which relate to Creator; Monotheism and the Sabbath; the rest are moral/ethical/family laws which are accepted. All the judiciary laws are accepted in the west systems, as well as worker's and animal rights, war and border laws, environmental laws, and most of the family laws - there are variants what constitutes incest, and this is very copiously listed in the OT: a man can marry his neice while a woman cannot marry her nephew, and when all blood lines are traced, it appears correct.

quote:

In the most used list of 613 laws it states "Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3)"


This refers to 'THEIR WAYS' - meaning not to abandon the laws. But yes, this can be seen as you do, because it concludes in the same premise. How can one maintain Monotheism, for example, while one spouse cannot operate without images and dieties?

quote:

Many confuse this as a jewish law, but it predates Judaism, and is a Noahic law: it is encumbent upon all humanity to believe in ONE God.

1/5 of the world is Muslim. 1/3 is Christian. Jews are negligible. Hindus make about a 1/10. That's a slight majority of monotheists, but Hinduism doesn't really keep in line with the laws on the nature of God and Christians often don't either (god is three is one is different than god is one). Either way that still leaves billions of people that simply don't agree that god is one and the subsequent laws regarding said one god. Only the Muslim world has made it a crime to not follow this law, so your idea that these laws have to enshrined in civic law to be counted topples you entirely here.


Monotheism is very difficult when this is tried the first time. Equally, once it settles, it becomes impossible to discard. I see all polytheists ultimately believing in ONE God, and the numerous dieties are aspects of God, or agents of spiritual forces. This is the breakthrough seen with Abrahamism: in his space-time, it was a greater leap to think mono, than today, thus it says he had to flee a death sentence, along with his entire family, for even thinking such heresy. Monotheism is a scientific, logical, intelligent and truthful advocation and belief in the Creator, whereby the buck must stop at one. However, a good polytheist is better than a bad monotheist, based on the law, ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNEST SHALL PAY.

quote:

Gender equality and the fair treatment of transexuals are mandated by law - thus I gave you examples of ethicial principles mandated by law that do not come from the 613 laws. I also gave you some examples of 613 laws that are not mandated by law in many places.


Gender equality is OT enshrined. The first femenist deliberation occured between Moses and four sisters who lost their father and there were no sons. The women argued that their rights were not represented with the law, and not clarified. They won the case. The pnly impacting factor here is, that women have an immunity from any law which requires obervance by a specific time factor or specific place - because she may be pregnant and thus not able to fullfill responsible duties elsewhere. This can also have a negative perception with today's mordern world, whereby some sectors allow women Rabbis. This issue has become highlighted today, because it is applied very differently under Islam, whereby work, education, driving a car, etc is forbidden. This has no equivalence in the OT. The law to educate offsrping is not marked as MEN ONLY. The oT record numerous female prophets, judges and war Generals. In the OT, the female is deemed the highest and final point of creation, and even the greatest Prophets were told: 'WHGATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT' [Gen].

quote:

Repeating yourself isn't going to make the problem go away. You claimed that it wasn't sorcery or mediumship or what have you that was being forbidden (on pain of death) but the vile deeds associated with them. Why could god not foresee that the mediums would change their vile practices once a crackdown on vile practices had taken place (thousands of years later)? Why not just make the laws about vile practices, listing them, rather than just give a broad statement forbidding sorcery and witchcraft?

The law was correct. It primarilly impacts on the belief in God. Thus, 'ISRAEL [OR ANY NATION OR INDIVIDUAL] IS NOT RULED BY THE STARS'. These are signs and omens, but whatever is claimed by a medium is not conclusive, and usually totally false.

quote:

You made a hypothesis that "there are 613 laws in the OT - all of them being active and accepted by the world at large today" and added that 'active and accepted' meant mandated by law. I have shown your hypothesis to be false. Accept it and move on, that is science. Deny it and repeat it, that is faith. Your choice.


What am I deny, I stated that a law is not a law unless enshrined in writ and constitionlised in its judiciary. Ritual laws are not included here, while these are active nonetheless. If the west is seen as the applicable factor here, it is correct even when some nations and philosophies do not follow these. The ratio is similar to one whp commits murder - it does not make the law less credible. if China does not observe a moral/ethical/judiciary law - it means it is acting outside of the accepted law. Also, the time factor must be considered: the majority of the world is not educated enough even to understand their own laws and scriptures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:57 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AdminPD, posted 12-31-2007 5:33 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 7:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 125 of 208 (445066)
01-01-2008 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Modulous
12-31-2007 7:55 AM


I excluded the dietery laws, which comes under 'ritual' laws. However, these ritual laws are still all active today, excepting only those which refer to the Temple sacrifices: indicating the advent of all animal sacrifices by early mankind has ended. These are now replaced by prayer and deeds:

'EXCEPT THE SACRIFICE OF MY LIPS' [PSALMS]

Cheers.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2007 7:55 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020