Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
Really. What ethnic tribe, inhabiting Judea, were they, then?
It is not, Don. It would be like saying Tory is just another word for Englishman.
Salvation is from the Jews, according to the Gospel of John.
For the sake of argument:
When the doctor slapped your butt and you drew your first breath in shock and pain, it was no longer a tabula rasa mind. The process of filling it had already been imposed by reality.
You were laid to your mother's breast and one of the only two instincts known to afflict man was rewarded, the urge to suckle, (the other being the fear of falling, no doubt left over from our simian ancestors living in the trees.)
That is also carved upon the blank slate. So far we have pain, necessity (of breathing) and pleasure (for reward of right action). By the time your first hour has passed your meager brain is overflowing with the wonder of it all, and you fall fast asleep so your burgeoning mind can try to make 'sense' of it all. It will take 500 days and ten times as many hours of experience and sleep before you will begin to accumulate enough experience to approach forming a concept.
The 'process' cannot 'process' without something to 'process.'
Salvation is denied the orthdox jews, according to the Gospel of John.
Again, what are you comparing the universe WITH when you want to make it a "better" place? For the comparison to even be coherent you MUST be referring to a standard that is not part of the universe. The evolutionary myth does not logically allow this incoherent comparison.
...For the orbit to even be coherent you MUST be referring to an existing orbit that is not presently part of the universe. The orbital myth does not logically allow this incoherent comparison.
...
In my opinion, too many big words have clogged up your brain. It is not a matter of any great puzzlement that I can imagine, and try to implement, moral precepts predicated on mundane observation of how the world works. As I said, the biggest difference is that I lack a precise math. This does not automatically make something transcendental--it makes it's abstractions vague.
Yet there is nothing in your description of adulterous behavior by men that indicates any approval or disapproval of such behavior,
Indeed. As the point was to illustrate how impotent an arbitrary transcendental morality would be in practice, where it conflicts with sound DNA strategy, not to argue a moral issue.
To repeat myself: people have a natural inherited tendency to be moral arising from obvious sources. It can be harnessed to ends it was not originally evolved for, such as universal human love--in an age of a-bombs (an ambition, I'll point out, that I can arrive at without obvious transcendental necessity), but that won't happen if you think it takes no effort of will and operate on the lotus dream that morals are provided to us by the Good Morals Fairy.
‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:39)
"A commission of public enquiry, conducted in a Western country recently, sounded a desperate note for the future of human relations. It warned: "The most pressing problem in this country seems to be for its people to learn to live again in a real community, where people are concerned for one another's welfare."
"Fyodor Dostoyevsky said: "I could never understand how one could love one's neighbor. It's just one's neighbors, to my mind, that one can't love-though one might love those at a distance. The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular."
"The sad truth of human beings is, that they can... love the idea of love---but find themselves incapable of practicing it."
"We easily talk of loving our neighbor, but baulk like Balaam's ass when it comes to doing it. In the last 100 years normal human beings have murdered one hundred million of their fellows. Since the two world wars of last century, we have readied ourselves to a shocking level of preparedness, to violate and exterminate our neighbors on an awful scale. Karl Barth commented, that it only needed the atom and the hydrogen bomb to complete the self disclosure of human nature. In other words, the stark malignancy of human evil-our unwillingness to love-is now writ large."
"Over against the disease of lovelessness, stands the injunction: "Love your neighbor as yourself." We know this law asks more of us than we can give, but we also know that without it, we shall perish. Our only hope, is that God will love us in spite of our weakness, and that he will patiently fashion us after his likeness."
What? Perhaps burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent.
If they are guilty of being witches is it OK to burn them by your standards?
Stone them. God specifically said stone them. Matthew apparently sez, as per Tribune7, that stoning is null and void, although being a witch is still a sin. Since stoning was verboten, I guess burning was taken to be prescribed. I believe it satisfies the golden rule, since, if you were a devout deputy of the inquisition, you'd want your soul scoured in the cleansing fires of God's Mercy were you to be shut off from God by witchery.
How say you Tribune7? Have you found a clear formulation for God's Law, as modified by the Gospels, that explains why I can't be a witch, but I can be a pig-eater?
A typical christian, transcendentally-based plan: stand around like sheep waiting for God to provide LOVE. Sheesh, no wonder the Romans slaughtered them.
So, hopefully we need not return to the possible confusion of Jew and Pharisee. Both are jew, but both are not Pharisee. If Kant had ever been our guide we could pick up from one of his elementary prolegomena,
Wenn man eine Erkenntniß als Wissenschaft darstellen will, so muß man zuvor das Unterscheidende, was sie mit keiner andern gemein hat, und was ihr also eigenthümlich ist, genau bestimmen könnenAnd if that can't be done with a simple distinction between Jew and Pharisee, we too will be tempted with a misologia while bumbling about trying to distinguish the several kinds of law --more than 2 by St. Paul--not to mention the tax on all our patience when posters, in their failed disinterestedness, make statements about one to apply to the other.
What does this mean? I've read it five times and I still don't know what you are saying. Is it that I didn't "notice" that I had "said" what the gospels intended? Or that "the gospels" hadn't noticed that "Pharasee meant orthodox Jew"?
At any rate, I don't see how the _New Advent Encyclopedia_ that you quoted supports your notions that "Pharisees is just another word for jews" and that the pharisees were an "ethnic tribe".
Nothing like the smell of fresh-roasted Jew to tickle the ribs, I guess.
Again you are about as clear as a pond full of carp. Whatever you meant, this appears to be ugly beyond any acceptable taste.
Reminds me of Decarte who knew that he existed because he knew that he was thinking. He didn't know anything else for sure though b/c he apparently thought it was possible to just think w/o actually thinking about something.
Quote the law please so that there is no confusion.
Give me a break.
Sorry. I didn’t realize this request was too difficult for you.
Also, please excuse me for thinking that you wanted to know which laws of the Bible still apply today, and in what manner. These statements of yours had me confused:
“Well, than, I'll repeat the question. How can I tell which are the "ceremonial" parts of the Old Testement, which I am allowed to regard as invalid and disregard? Is it an algorithm? Is it a list? I'd like the follow the Law, and be moral--how do you expect me to do that if I don't know what it is?” –donh, post 1017.
“Ok, but I still have no useful understanding about what the Law actually is. I cannot find the detailed lists that put some of the Old Testement under the aegis of "ceremonial" law, and some not. Is there a version of the bible that puts the "ceremonial" (ie, invalid) parts of the bible in, say, green, so that I can know to ignore them?” –donh, post 927.
"Are the 10 commandments rules a christian must consult, or are they not? Can I kill my father if it satisfies the Golden Rule? Is the Golden Rule the only moral law? Is it the moral law at all? Does Hebrews provide me a written alternative list to the 10 commandments? Why is the rule against letting witches live a "ceremonial" law, and the rule about honoring your mother and father is not? If it is not--I'm still not very clear." –donh, post 864.
But then I remembered this statement of yours…:
“Why can't both parties be an hallucination of a non-existent entity? Because you say so? If you can hallucinate me into being an entity that exists only in someone else's mind, I can certainly hallucinate an entity in an alternative universe that's doing the hallucinating.” -donh, post 556.
…and it hit me…the law against eating pigs was an hallucination of that noted anti-semite: Miss Piggy, Queen of the (not) Green Letter Bible.
******************
Question: What is the color of blind hatred?
Answer: Whatever donh says it is.
f. christian
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.