DeletedUser
You just went against your own citation.Justin said:
As would the general population.
By the way, I think you forgot some in that list of sins that ought to get you killed.
By the way, I think you forgot some in that list of sins that ought to get you killed.
DeletedUser
Are you the one to say which "rules" are to be obeyed and which are not? Are you an expert on Jewish law and what is meant by the laws presented in Torah?
Consider for example the law concerning the Sabbath: "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou." - Deuteronomy 5:14 (KJV)
Notice the underlined portion. It says that one is not to do any work. So what does that mean? At this point it is apropos to quote the very verse you presented below. Do we go with your definition of work? Or do we follow some guy down the street? Whose definition do we follow?
You see there is both a Written Torah and an Oral Torah. Both were given to Moses at Mt Sinai. The Oral Torah which became the Talmud (it became necessary to write down the Oral Torah due to so many Rabbis being slaughtered by the Church). In the Talmud it sets forth what is meant by "work" (which is the 39 melachot). Lean not on your own understanding.
Now I have so often wondered why Christians that declare homosexuality such a viral sin (because it is an "abomination"?) do not do the same concerning women wearing men's clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5) as it is also called an abomination.
I think when it comes to interpretation of the law of God I will trust more my Rabbi who not only can read the actual Torah scroll and has spent his life dedicated to its understanding than I will someone who depends on their interpretation of a mistranslated text.
Justin Michael said:
Hmmmm.....so what about hermaphrodites? Which sex are they?
It would not matter to me what I am called. That does not make it true. Just like calling a man "god" does not make it true.Justin Michael said:
DeletedUser
Moishe said:
Haha, good one! How could I forget that citation?!
Allah! Justin, you are in for some tougher opposition now.
DeletedUser
No, I didn't. Explain yourself.
I didn't forget; I was being quick. You got my point.
I'm trying to tell you to obey all of them! You were the one making the excuse that if the Sanhedrin did it too often people would think him cruel.
I've wondered the same Moishe. Don't acuse me before you ask what my beliefs are. A woman who wears pants (man's clothing) IS in sin. She IS the same in the eyes of God as a homosexual. Your sarcastic point hit the nail on the head.
The same goes for long and short hair. A woman with short hair (or hair that is put up) is also in sin. A man with long hair is in sin.
I'm sorry I used the word "crap." I just got a little worked up.
DeletedUser
You misunderstood me on several points. First the Sanhedrin is not a "he", it is a "them". It is Seventy of them in fact. It is the Seventy top Rabbis who are selected as a type of Supreme Court.
And they did not fail to give out the death penalty because they were afraid people would think them cruel. They did not give out the death penalty because they decided the offense did not warrant execution. God's teachings require both justice and mercy.
Concerning obeying the laws; they are all not pertinent to everybody. Certain laws only related to Priests; other laws only related to women, or to men, or to farmers.
Justin Michael said:
I do not recall accusing you of anything. And a person is not in sin, they commit a break in the law which is sin.
BTW the law pertaining to women wearing men's clothing only refers to those cases where a women is trying to pass as a man. Just because she bought a pair of Levis does not mean she is sinning. At least that is Rabbinical determination. Perhaps you know more than they?
And you have evidence to prove this? (Other than the New Testament.)Justin Michael said:
Also, why did you fail to respond to my question about hermaphrodites?
DeletedUser
You are leaning on your own understanding, rather then trusting your god to sort them out.
According to your earlier arguments she is also the same as a murderer and a child-molester.
DeletedUser
And yet she does not deserve to die, but a homosexual does...
Also, can I interject that in many cultures, skirts or dresses are considered men's clothing. And in several other cultures, men and women wear the same clothing. So essentially you are saying that a woman who wears anything is sinning. Pervert.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Lol, Oisinallen.
As I said... I was pretty sure that you would not consider it a persuasive argument. But as John has pointed out, in defiance of the verse you quoted about "not leaning on your own understanding", you think your understanding is superior to everyone else's. To the best of my knowledge, the death penalty was made impossible under Jewish law almost 2000 years ago. Obviously, you don't share that religion so it isn't unexpected that you consider their understanding less perfect than yours, but a significant proportion of Christians around the world, relying on the same text you do, consider the death penalty abhorrent to god, because it is prideful and lacks mercy. Why is your understanding better than theirs, unless you are yourself "your own god" and all are sinners but you.
Of all the "western" developed nations, the USA is alone in still having the death penalty. If your hypothesis was true, the USA should have a lower crime rate than the others. It does not. In fact, the murder rate per capita in the USA is more than double that of Canada or the UK or Australia or any other equivalent nation. There is no statistical evidence to support the notion that capital punishment is a deterrant, and some which actually suggests there is a correlation between high murder rates and high numbers of executions. Your hypothesis is faulty.
As I said... I was pretty sure that you would not consider it a persuasive argument. But as John has pointed out, in defiance of the verse you quoted about "not leaning on your own understanding", you think your understanding is superior to everyone else's. To the best of my knowledge, the death penalty was made impossible under Jewish law almost 2000 years ago. Obviously, you don't share that religion so it isn't unexpected that you consider their understanding less perfect than yours, but a significant proportion of Christians around the world, relying on the same text you do, consider the death penalty abhorrent to god, because it is prideful and lacks mercy. Why is your understanding better than theirs, unless you are yourself "your own god" and all are sinners but you.
This is a theoretical argument and not a philosophical one, so let's test that theory.
Of all the "western" developed nations, the USA is alone in still having the death penalty. If your hypothesis was true, the USA should have a lower crime rate than the others. It does not. In fact, the murder rate per capita in the USA is more than double that of Canada or the UK or Australia or any other equivalent nation. There is no statistical evidence to support the notion that capital punishment is a deterrant, and some which actually suggests there is a correlation between high murder rates and high numbers of executions. Your hypothesis is faulty.
DeletedUser
It is a deterrent in one sense. If everyone who breaks a law is executed, you won't have many repeat offenders!
DeletedUser
Lol. But the same can be said of life imprisonment too, so...
DeletedUser
It depends on which rabbi you talk to. I lived in a Jewish neighborhood for a number of years and ALL the women wore dresses or skirts.
Should I ask you for a reference outside of the Torah for your beliefs? The New Testament says that nature should tell you that women should have long hair and that men should have short hair. You don't need any other reference.
I Corinthians 11:3-16
But I want you to understand that Christ is the ahead of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the chead of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate bfrom God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
This is not something that I can determine over the internet. I would have to know the person. However, they are one or the other.
You got it. Sin is sin.
Again, you got it.
PEOPLE! I didn't make up the rules. God did. They're right there in the Bible for you to read. Your argument isn't with me it's with God.
So essentially you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that and you know it. You just twisted it because you got an attitude. You didn't like what I said.
O.k., and how often do we actually use the death penalty? Hardly ever. We've got a bunch of liberal judges who won't use it. Why got a bunch of lefties on the Supreme Court who chip away at its use saying that it violates the 14th Amendment. You want statistics? Look into History. Crime is on the constant rise as the use of capital punishment is waning.
DeletedUser
Good thinking my man!
DeletedUser
Lol. But the same can be said of life imprisonment too, so...
...so lets keep feeding them and let them watch tv, work in the gym, and read in the library.
sounds like an o.k. life to me
doesn't sound like that bad of a punishment if you're a lazy guy...
DeletedUser
If you'll reread my response, you'll see I already pre-empted that argument by noting that there is a correlation between higher numbers of executions and higher numbers of murder. ie; there are more murders in nation states where there are more executions.
And your understanding of history, and of statistics, is limited. If you have statistical data, present it with references. And then I'll explain it to you.
Except, you don't need to bother doing that because....
...your "deterrent" argument is obviously just a red herring. It is punishment that you are really interested in.
Which brings us back to this...
1. On the basis of your religious text, you have failed to justify why a secular government should be the tool of your religious laws.
2. On the basis of your religious text, you have failed to justify why your understanding and interpretation is more valid than that of other Christians.
3. You have failed to even address the issue of the many passages in your religious text which instruct you that as you yourself are a sinner, you are not entitled to judge and that judgement is god's province alone. (Refer again to Post No.198)
In fact, if we follow the logic of your argument: As your bible tells you that you are a sinner, and that anyone guilty of one sin is in fact guilty of them all, you must perforce be guilty of capital crimes and be put to death immediately.
DeletedUser
I twisted nothing. I just proved that your argument was wrong by testing it in a "real life situation".
And Justin, which clothes are considered men's clothes? Which culture gets the right to dictate how all the other cultures are forced to dress?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
THat's pretty funny, because if you do not interfere with nature, IE cut the hair, I'm pretyt sure men will be beareded and long-haired, but I guess tht is an abomination unto God.Justin said:
Then she should be put to death, same as you demand for the homosexuals and murderers.
I approve of this summary.Violette said:
DeletedUser
Justin, imagine if a bunch of fanatics took over and slaughtered everyone who has ever been on the internet, because their religion told them to. Would you support this? Of course you wouldn't, because that would mean that you would be put to death.
However, that is exactly what you are recommending.
However, that is exactly what you are recommending.
DeletedUser
Matthew 7:1 & Capital Punishment
Jesus is sometimes quoted as having said, “Judge not!” The implication would be that this is an absolute prohibition.
Well, not quite! I have mentioned previously that there is a common tendency to read the sixth commandment in isolation from the larger context of the Pentateuch. In the present case, the tendency is carried even farther, when only part of a verse is considered authoritative. The full verse reads, “Judge not, that you not be judged.” Even so, one still gets the impression from modern conversation that the entire verse was meant to be a condemnation of reaching a negative evaluation of anyone for anything: “If you don’t want to be judged, then don’t judge,” or perhaps even, “God doesn’t recommend that people make judgments.” Hence even the dean of a theological seminary (Methodist) has stated, on the basis of this text, that the Christian “is warned that it is not for him to . . . judge the moral deserts of other persons.”
The wider context makes the true meaning clear: “For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get” (v. 2). That is, one should not expect to be judged by God by a different standard than one customarily uses to judge others. Clear enough, and fair enough! This has no bearing, however, upon the undeniable necessity to judge others. Indeed, such judgment is something which Moses, Jesus, and Paul regularly do. Nonetheless, the Bible stresses that judicial decrees within Israel must be fair and equitable. For example, “You shall appoint judges . . . and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment” (Deut. 16-18).
Does “righteous judgment” include the execution of a murderer? The Bible asserts this from beginning to end, without a single demur. The sentence is set by God’s torah, and a judge cannot have discretion in the matter.
Jesus’ words, in the text under discussion, concern interpersonal relationships between disciples. They do not have the judicial system of the larger society in mind and thus should not be brought into a discussion of capital punishment.
(Source: Bailey, Lloyd R. Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says. Abingdon Press, 1987. pp. 66-67.)
Jesus is sometimes quoted as having said, “Judge not!” The implication would be that this is an absolute prohibition.
Well, not quite! I have mentioned previously that there is a common tendency to read the sixth commandment in isolation from the larger context of the Pentateuch. In the present case, the tendency is carried even farther, when only part of a verse is considered authoritative. The full verse reads, “Judge not, that you not be judged.” Even so, one still gets the impression from modern conversation that the entire verse was meant to be a condemnation of reaching a negative evaluation of anyone for anything: “If you don’t want to be judged, then don’t judge,” or perhaps even, “God doesn’t recommend that people make judgments.” Hence even the dean of a theological seminary (Methodist) has stated, on the basis of this text, that the Christian “is warned that it is not for him to . . . judge the moral deserts of other persons.”
The wider context makes the true meaning clear: “For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get” (v. 2). That is, one should not expect to be judged by God by a different standard than one customarily uses to judge others. Clear enough, and fair enough! This has no bearing, however, upon the undeniable necessity to judge others. Indeed, such judgment is something which Moses, Jesus, and Paul regularly do. Nonetheless, the Bible stresses that judicial decrees within Israel must be fair and equitable. For example, “You shall appoint judges . . . and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment” (Deut. 16-18).
Does “righteous judgment” include the execution of a murderer? The Bible asserts this from beginning to end, without a single demur. The sentence is set by God’s torah, and a judge cannot have discretion in the matter.
Jesus’ words, in the text under discussion, concern interpersonal relationships between disciples. They do not have the judicial system of the larger society in mind and thus should not be brought into a discussion of capital punishment.
(Source: Bailey, Lloyd R. Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says. Abingdon Press, 1987. pp. 66-67.)
DeletedUser
Did you just copy paste that?
Because you use a diffrent language than you usualy do.
Because you use a diffrent language than you usualy do.
DeletedUser
Yes, I did. The source is at the bottom.