Posted on 07/03/2012 2:41:15 PM PDT by NYer
The Principle of Reciprocity, a.k.a., the Golden Rule, is the basis of all the claimed rights.
Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
As simple as that.
How many times do I have to say "What is the Halakhah? Maybe someone should invent a posting "bot" that would post it in answer to every one of your questions.
At any rate, are you referring to the ben sorer umoreh ("stubborn and rebellious son")? I assume that's what you mean.
I hope you realize that there is an official, authoritative interpretation of Biblical law called Halakhah that is part of the Oral Law, which means you don't get all the details from a mere surface reading of the Biblical text. With regard to the ben sorer umoreh, the list of requirements for the penalty to be applied is so long and unlikely that there is a Talmudic opinion that this sentence has never been carried out and will never have to be carried out (but that law was put in the Torah so Israel would get merit for studying it). However, another Sage claimed he had seen the grave of a son put to death in this very case.
At any rate, if (theoretically) all the contingencies and requirements are met that would require this sentence to be carried out, then of course it would have to be carried out.
How many more times do you want me to keep telling you the same thing?
Anything else you want to ask about? The virgin test? Animal sacrifices? Holy wars? `Ayin tachat `ayin, shen tachat shen (I'm surprised you haven't brought that one up already)?
In an meaningless, coincidental world, there are no rules, golden or otherwise.
Why should I join you in pretending there are any?
Just as many times as it takes for you to explicitly state them. And thanks for finally doing just that!
I guess we can call it a day for now. Good night, and enjoy your 4th of July (if you’re American, that is... or even otherwise).
"Finally?"
I basically said that if Jewish Law requires me to drown I should drown and I identified myself as a Theonomic positivist and you say I "finally" expressed myself on these matters?
Good gravy.
Without the Principle of Reciprocity applying, you (or I, to answer) wouldn’t have survived to this point to ask me that question, or have this discussion. That, in itself, validates its truth.
You may have “basically” said anything, but as I mentioned for the nth time (more gravy!), I wanted your words, specifically, explicitly answering the questions I asked. I didn’t want umbrella answers, and thanks for finally getting to the specifics, albeit after considerable effort.
No it doesn't. It merely means it's shown itself to be very useful, but usefulness is not the same thing as Truth.
If you and I are mere coincidences, what does it matter whether we have survived or not? You may find it "nice" that you have survived, but that doesn't mean anything objectively. You still came from oblivion and are headed for oblivion and your life will have been objectively meaningless, however much you may have enjoyed it.
You have as many presuppositions as I do. Have you ever noticed them?
Nonsense again, as expected. The diversions were comments similar to others replying to me, deviating from the arguments raised. Yours was more or less the same as theirs, and hence, the “usualness” of the replies.
Anyway, when I asked ZC the following:
“To distill all of your words, you agree that it is within the rights of the cited Jewish parents ordering the performing of the eighth-day circumcision of the prematurely born child, thereby endangering its life, in keeping with their cultural, dogmatic beliefs.”
ZC replied to it in comment #70:
“I agree that Halakhah should be followed, whatever it is. And they aren’t “cultural, dogmatic beliefs,” Charlie. They’re Divine commandments.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2902506/posts?page=70#70
Now, PA Engineer, do you believe it is in the right of someone holding an opinion similar to ZC’s, to endanger the life of a prematurely-born male child by forcing it to undergo an 8th-day circumcision?
Would you allow such a couple to “follow the commandments” or would you put the life of the child ahead of their personal religious beliefs?
The answer to this is the core argument of this entire thread.
You replied: No it doesn't. It merely means it's shown itself to be very useful, but usefulness is not the same thing as Truth.
What is "Truth"? How do you know it is *the* truth? Did you have specific, personally-delivered divine revelation give it to you? Or are you beholden to it by personal faith? As in, did you *receive* that truth from other humans, who claimed to have received it from more humans, ultimately with the claim that at the end of this chain, a god delivered it? If so, then your faith in what you call "truth" is contingent upon your faith in the humans who delivered it to you. By this aspect alone, your faith in those humans supersedes in importance your faith in the thing you call "truth". That is, without your faith in what those *mere* humans have told you is the truth, you cannot accept what you call "truth" as *the* truth.
The result of this? What you believe as truth is merely personal opinion, just as would be with your declaration of the Judeo-Christian trinitarian god as falsehood. Personal opinion. Personal beliefs.
If you and I are mere coincidences, what does it matter whether we have survived or not? You may find it "nice" that you have survived, but that doesn't mean anything objectively. You still came from oblivion and are headed for oblivion and your life will have been objectively meaningless, however much you may have enjoyed it.
It matters we have survived because *right now* our existence is contingent upon the truth of it. We know nothing from experience of our prior state before our existence, and nothing from experience of our state after our current existence. And our existence is all we have to realise the reality of our situation. All else rests on faith - which has the risk of it being falsehood.
I can only suggest reading more of the NYDN in that case. As for Fox, they have been shifting leftward for some time, and entertain occasional libertarian viewpoints though they do not predominate. I don’t see that geographical location would be an impediment to further discovery in that vein, even via the internet.
I am from Australia and it is a tad difficult for people down here to be familiar with what kind of a "liberal" source NYDN would be. However, we are familiar that Fox News (NewsCorp over here) can hardly be described as "liberal"
In post 10, I made a direct quote from the Fox article that directly cited the Daily News. The JTA cited the Jewish Week of New York, a publication that prints articles with a slant against the Orthodox community and favoring the more liberal streams of Judaism FWICS.
Fox News cited the NYDN article. Likewise, the Jewish newspaper JTA did so, too. And they don't claim NYDN as their source
Are you claiming by contrast that they are printing absolute and complete truth?
Now are you saying all of this amounts to "liberal bias" regarding the incident? All of them are citing the incident because they don't hold any truth? Really?
That’s quite a big blanket statement. Includes the false assumption that male circumcision is genital mutilation, stated as though it were fact. I maintain it is not, and the burden of proof is on you to show that it is; therefore I am afraid it very much is a personal opinion on your part. Mutilation means that something is maimed and cannot function as it ought to. I assure you I am not maimed nor have I ever sustained permanent physical or mental harm (disclosure: my late father was Jewish and had a bris performed on me at eight days old, albeit not of this apparently-rare type where it is claimed that the mohel orally suctions blood from the wound; I certainly never heard of such a thing . . . my mother is Catholic and I was raised Christian). Female “circumcision” by contrast is most definitely a mutilation of the genitals; it alters the function, causes permanent pain, and leaves the victim open to further damage and/or disease.
It is not a "personal" view to see a problem with genital mutilation. Also parental consent has boundaries - a parent cannot cause permanent physical harm to a child - and I specified as much, but you pretend to ignore, and hope that I don't notice your deletion and selective quotation
Highly upside-down claims. Trying to mark liberal viewpoints as conservative now? Anti-family viewpoints? Strict “individualism” where it clashes with the rights of the family is absolutely not conservative. At best, it is libertarian. Trampling on the rights of religions vis-à-vis harmless physical ritual (repeatedly insisting that something is harmful is not proof that it is) is also not conservative in any way, shape or form—and I don’t see evidence that it is libertarian either (libertarians lean towards anarchy and totally eschew statism), so that heads right into the hard-left sphere.
As others have mentioned before, the entire argument is about how much of your body's physical structuring you have a right to, and how far others can go in lopping off sections of it. This is a core aspect of the rights an individual possesses, and the failure to recognise as much hardly makes you a conservative. In fact, your claim to the same would be HIGHLY suspect
As usual, more hot-air pontification with absolutely no substance to any of the claims made by you.
Curiously though, you cleverly avoided answering what was asked in #90 (and at least beginning to contribute to the discussion positively), instead finding ample time to compose that verbose garbage full of baseless accusations as a substitute to a valid response.
Did that question in #90 put you in a spot? Why else did you ignore it? Don’t worry, I already know the answer.
LOL, my friend, call it silver or golden - one of the oldest known versions of it is this:
“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”
- Buddha, circa 6th century, BC.
Do you know why this version is superior to the “positive” form? Simple. Consider the case of the masochist. What would a masochist do unto others that the masochist would want done unto him?
:^)
The reason why you continue to persist in obfuscating is because you have no answer to the the question posed regarding a very realistic, plausible scenario. It messes your dogma up, one way or another.
All your empty threats and labels are the result of the situation arising out of the above flawed condition.
Have a great day!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.