You Done Yet?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-11-02 09:56 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 179 references Ignore this thread
You Done Yet?
[Comments enabled]  

Let's talk about religiously-inspired insanity and what this nation has to do to put a final and complete stop to it for anyone entering this nation.

Let's start here:

8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the Lord which sanctify you.

9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I see no fewer than eight commands to murder someone, one by burning (presumably at the stake), all for consensual adult conduct, one of them for mere speech.

Now let me point something out: I have not heard of one modern-day Jew or Christian that holds forth the belief that any of these commands are legitimate in the modern day.  Therefore, irrespective of one's claim to believe in the "Inerrant Word of God" that claim if "inerrancy" and "totality" is horse**** polemic and not factual within their belief system.

Both Jews and Christians, which I remind you share this part of their Holy Book intact, have eschewed those particular passages (among others) as not being actual commandments from divinity.

Any Jew or Christian who did profess that such commandments are real and in force would be a religious terrorist.  They would have laid claim to the right to arrogate to themselves a religious test for behavior, the failure of which brings upon common man not only the right but the duty to execute the violator(s).

This does not prevent someone from finding any of those consensual adult behaviors detestable.  You're free to look down your nose all you'd like. What you're not free to do is impose a religious test backed up with the threat or execution of murder.

I remind you that The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The highest law in the land prohibits any such religious test.  It also prohibits the criminalization of mere speech, which means that you are a terrorist if you believe that Leviticus 20:9 is a factual commandment from the divine.

It further prohibits the imposition of the remainder of Leviticus 20's prohibitions as a matter of enforcement of religious sanction since that would be the very definition of "establishment."

It is a fundamental duty of the United States Federal Government to prohibit the entry of non-citizen persons into this country or the continued presence thereof who hold a sincere belief that they have not only the right but a duty to violate the US Constitution, especially when said violation comes in the form of murdering others.

It is therefore not only defensible but required that the State Department and US Customs make reasonable and diligent inquiry of any non-citizen as to their beliefs in this regard.  Such beliefs may have as their basis any particular religion or religious text but such is neither necessary or sufficient to result in being barred.  As the US Constitution forbids establishment such cannot be predicated on mere religious affiliation but in fact the US Constitution and First Amendment demand that such inquiry be made and followed up irrespective of the well from which same flows, whether it be the Judeo-Christian books known as the Torah or Old Testament, the Quoran or any other source, secular, religious or political.

Political correctness in this regard is not only factually wrong it is in direct contravention of the requirements of the United States Constitution.  Any federal employee or office-holder who proclaims same has thus violated their oath of office and by doing so has effectively resigned, forfeiting not only their right to claim any sort of protection or special privilege of said office but also any benefit, financial or otherwise, that they would but for their conduct enjoy.

We must bar, today and forevermore, those who hold beliefs that are correctly described as that of a terrorist.  When such is associated with a religion, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise we must attach the correct label to such persons and their beliefs, whether it be "Muslim Terrorist", "Christian Terrorist" or, if the belief is simply secular, just plain old-fashioned "terrorist."  In all such cases among non-citizens irrespective of any other qualification those person must be barred from entry to the United States and, if already present and non-citizens, must be immediately removed.

Enough!

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info You Done Yet? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Radiosity
Posts: 106
Incept: 2009-03-05

Sunny UK
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
This **** will keep happening. Now these nutjobs have seen how effective it is to use everyday vehicles like trucks after the barbaric events of the Paris and other incidents, they'll keep ramping it up. ESPECIALLY since we refuse to do anything about it.

But naturally we need to ban guns for Reasons, because those are the real problem we face :/
Tdurden
Posts: 567
Incept: 2015-01-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'm having a hard time accessing my grief for the latest victims in NY. They demanded that these *******s have totally unrestricted access to their city...they got it...good and hard.

----------
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high of a price." -Vir Cotto Babylon 5
Flaps10
Posts: 6763
Incept: 2008-10-17

PNW
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Five of them were tourist buddies from South America on a bucket list trip.

Nadavegan
Posts: 61
Incept: 2017-05-03

The South
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
One of the reasons I left the religious world (temporarily? time will tell) is because of just so many bleeding heart types who insist that the government do the work of the Church. I am ALL FOR rescuing refugees. Go ahead, be my guest. Christ called the Church to DIE IN HIS NAME. Where I have the problem is when my neighbor or fellow parishioner feels free to apply his convictions on to me, my family, and the government. A core function of government is to protect its CITIZENS. When did we lose sight of that plain fact?

I hate going on to social media and seeing all the sob stories about such-and-such very sick refugee. "How are you OK with this??!!" Well, I am not happy that people suffer. But that doesn't necessitate overriding everything else just to scratch a moral itch. Live by your principles but count me out.

Funny, the same people still bitch about the theocracy of the Church through the Middle Ages, and yet they themselves would happily co-opt the government to impose their own theocracy. Who again is the hypocrite?
Vernonb
Posts: 1913
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
NYC. A place I refuse to live or visit of my own choice. The libtards have coddled these monsters for to long.

Hmmmm. A Cristian terrorist? He might make such a claim but such a person could not be a true Christian as he has abandoned Christ and his teachings in the entirety.

What we he have are people latching onto such "commands" to justify the worse of immoral behaviors in a civilized society- murder!

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Bjonsson
Posts: 1053
Incept: 2010-03-10

Ventura County, California
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Hmmmm. A Cristian terrorist? He might make such a claim but such a person could not be a true Christian as he has abandoned Christ and his teachings in the entirety.

Yep. A Christian going down that path would be completely ignoring the New Testament. Not much of a Christian, in that case.

----------
"If you don't have borders... if you don't have laws... you don't have a country."
Wa9jml
Posts: 50
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I have been reading the new translation of the New Testament by David Bentley Hart. He is an Orthodox theologian at St. Louis University. His brother brought me into the Catholic Church. Both are outstanding Greek scholars. Hart realized that most of the other translations of the New Testament are guided by theological perspectives, and that tends to obscure much of the original meaning of the text. One of the things that the translator noticed was that the original text is more hostile to the acquisition of great wealth than most of the other translations show. I would frequently lector for his brother, and then in his sermon, he would critique the translation done in the lectionary, and explain why this was important.

Dante, in his Inferno, places many Popes in hell, and for the reason that they wound up as political rulers due to the Donation of Constantine. Apparently, one cannot serve two masters, either God, or mammon, and it also seems to get dicey serving God, and political power at the same time. Jesus noted this in his conversation with Pilate. His Kingdom is not of this world. My parish and most others have been infected by Progressive ideology, and so I have departed from it.

As one who has had to set a tax levy, I am well aware that most taxation is theft. Taxation is certainly not charity. My experience is that even local governments soon become theme parks for sociopaths and psychopaths, and most of what is done reflects more on the egos involved than any notion of the public good. Even Plato had to acknowledge that lying was an essential part of ruling. So, how is this compatible with "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light"?



Uwe
Posts: 8303
Incept: 2009-01-03
A True American Patriot!
24091
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
KD wrote..
This does not prevent someone from finding any of those consensual adult behaviors detestable. You're free to look down your nose all you'd like.

According to the SJW Left, looking down your nose at such behaviors is committing an aggression should be punishable...

----------
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -- Robert Heinlein
Tristan
Posts: 595
Incept: 2009-04-08

Spirit of '76
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I understand the intent behind this--that specific religion is really not the issue--but I would like to share the perspective of one deemed a Christian terrorist.
Quote:
Both Jews and Christians, which I remind you share this part of their Holy Book intact, have eschewed those particular passages (among others) as not being actual commandments from divinity.

Any Jew or Christian who did profess that such commandments are real and in force would be a religious terrorist. They would have laid claim to the right to arrogate to themselves a religious test for behavior, the failure of which brings upon common man not only the right but the duty to execute the violator(s).

Leviticus 20 sounds extreme and unfair to us, but there are a few things to keep in mind:
  • These are laws given to Moses by God for the Israelites to follow within their own nation, not to apply to those outside of their nation
  • This is the same thing as the rule of law in any nation; if a few witnesses say you committed a capital crime, you can be convicted and put to death
  • Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law by living a perfect life and sacrificing himself for the rest of us

It seems to me any Jews who reject Christ and choose to continue living under the old law would be breaking it by eschewing the parts of it they don't like. But if they follow it among themselves as the rule of law, they are not terrorists, just a nation of different and fearful laws.

Christians who profess the reality of the fullness of the law of Moses are also not terrorists, since they are covered by Christ. I have been brought into God's family--his chosen people--not by converting to Judaism and being circumcised and placing myself and anyone around me under the judgment of the law, but simply by following Christ. He says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved." (Matthew 5:18) If I am a Christian--which by definition is a follower of Christ--how can I possibly say that Leviticus 20 is not really what God meant and try to explain it away? The beauty of it is found in Christ's fulfillment of it and the freedom that we know because of his sacrifice.

A Christian who eschews this law may be even worse off than a Jew who does the same:
Hebrews 10:26-31 wrote..
Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. There is only the terrible expectation of Gods judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings Gods mercy to us. For we know the one who said,

"I will take revenge.
I will pay them back."

He also said,

"The Lord will judge his own people."

It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Bull****.

Pilate to Jesus: "Do you claim to change the law? (the Law of Moses)"
Jesus: "No, I come to fulfill it."

Where do you see that the law has been repealed? Oh, you find places in the letters from Apostles that make such a claim, but who are they standing to do so? They are neither taking words allegedly directly from God (as is the case in Leviticus) communicated to a person (Moses) to be taken as law, NOR are they from Christ, who specifically denounced repealing any part of Mosaic Law. In fact, he lived to said law himself.

Of course you can twist and contort things all you want, but I call such "Black Sharpie Marker" religion -- we just black out what we don't like. If you argue that's NOT what it is then the 10 Commandments LIKEWISE do not adhere, because that too is part of the Law of Moses.

You can't have this both ways: If, as a Christian, you can eat a Ham Sandwich (violating dietary laws in the Old Testament) under the rubric that Christ made it ok then none of the 10 Commandments, say much less Leviticus 20, apply to you either.

So why have the Old Testament at all in the Christian Bible? If Christ ripped it all up and replaced it with "Love one another", three little words, then why is it there, in short, especially considering that Jesus was specifically asked that very question by Pilate.

Your "interpretation" makes utterly NO sense whatsoever -- unless you are simply picking and choosing what parts of the Holy Book you deem to actually BE Holy, and further, you're ALSO claiming that mere men (the apostles post-Christ's resurrection) get to arrogate FOR CHRIST what he both said and meant and change it to suit YOUR interpretation.

Which, incidentally, is what "growing up" is about -- discernment and understanding that man edited said book, man made choices, man decided what to include and not.

Man, not God.

And Man is fallible, which means said book is fallible and must be evaluated against both logic and, as knowledge advances, physical fact. This is the difference between people who CHOOSE to live in the stone age where an eclipse comes because of someone's sin, and those who choose to live in a world where we understand that an eclipse comes because one celestial body occludes the light from a second celestial body.

The Nuns will all tell you that you'll go blind and grow hair on your palms if you play with yourself. Is that the truth? Of course not. Yet nobody believes a holy woman (nun) can arrogate to herself the power of God or Christ -- do they? Demonstrably and factually, what she told you is wrong.

It's perfectly ok to write various pieces of literature to persuade. What's not ok is to claim that such persuasion is actually law handed up or down by some greater power than man.

Again it comes down to the reality of it: Jews and Christians have both grown up from behaviors that 2,000 years ago were considered not only ok but actually commanded by God.

Muslims, it appears, at least in significant percentage, have not.

----------
Winding it down.

Tristan
Posts: 595
Incept: 2009-04-08

Spirit of '76
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Sorry, this turned out really long and I can't possibly expect you to spend your time reading it. But it's your forum, so I submit for you to do what you will with it:

We aren't entirely in disagreement, I think. Along with the command to "love others", Jesus summarized all of the Law and the Prophets with "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind." This definitely means "growing up" spiritually and always seeking truth and having humility to recognize it even when it counters our preconceptions or black sharpie approach. It means studying the trove of information he's given us and allowing ourselves to be transformed as we do. I never will have it all figured out in time... but I'm running the race anyway.

So with regard to the law, let me explain a bit more explicitly what I bungled through before. I am not saying I have to follow the letter of the Old Testament and I am also not saying it has been repealed, so apologies if that was implied. Blacking that out would be akin to blacking out Christ's purpose. And in fact he says that God's true requirements are even deeper than the laws of Moses. Where the law says "do not commit adultery," he says looking at a woman with desire in your heart is sin already. So any hope we have of pleasing God on our own goes from dismal to forget-about-it, at that point. But of course that isn't where it ends. His Father knows that what he expects of us is impossible, so he makes a way. He sent his Son to do what we never could, and while the full weight of the law is still there, as it always has been, it now rests on the only one who can shoulder it. The wages of sin is death, but I don't have to slaughter lambs to atone for my mistakes; Christ's body was broken and his blood poured out to that purpose. I can eat a ham sandwich because Jesus said it just turns into a turd anyway -- it's what comes out of my heart that is important. And in fact that last part means in some cases I may not eat a ham sandwich, if my doing so would cause someone less secure to lose faith. As Jesus demonstrated, love is sacrifice, and I am called to love. In the end, God wants his prodigal son home, he wants the lost sheep. I need to have his heart in this and focus on leading others back to him, even if that means giving up my bacon or going to dark places that Jews would consider unclean (Samaria, I guess, or Denny's). I can't be worrying about whether I have it all together first so my theology doesnt miss a beat. If I'm called on the Sabbath, I need to go, not fret over my scorecard. It really isn't about me... and I'm confident that I am forgiven should I break a commandment, because God knows my heart. So is it right that one Israelite be put to death for anally assaulting a goat in the sight of two or three witnesses? Yes -- but guys, before you cast that first stone, there's a better Way...

The only other thing, then, is the validity of Scripture. It was all written by man and thus we should be careful and evaluate it, but on that I can say the following:
  • Every time I can't believe something in there, my mind ends up changed
  • When I ask God to explain something I don't understand--and I am willing to hear the answer--I'm never unsatisfied
  • Translators flex things a bit and that is ok; the NLT changes Leviathan to "crocodile" and Behemoth to "hippopotamus", which I think is stupid, yet if differences in such trivial details allow the underlying message of the book of Job to reach someone else, God is still at work in it and I need to get over myself
  • Though man wrote the words, there is overwhelming evidence that those words have not been corrupted in any significant way over time
  • Though man wrote the words, I have faith that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit in doing so; and Jesus says we must come to him with such child like faith... it's an act of humility that he requires in order for us to know him, otherwise we will have our black sharpies out by Genesis 1:2
  • A collection of 66 books with 40 authors over a timespan of some 1,500 years has a seeming singularity of purpose and an incredible depth of intricacy that I cannot attribute to the Council of Nicea (though kudos to them for their part in it)
  • The more I read and understand, the less faith is required of me and the more faith is given to me
  • No other book that has lain before my eyes has ever breathed meaning to my life, or seemed to speak to me in a way that is both familiar and completely unknowable; God proves himself to me by its pages

Your example of the eclipse could be a good one, I think, of where an apparent contradiction is really not a problem for God at all. In the stone age, the eclipse was a sign. Today, it's physics and astronomy. Yet God is timeless and does not change; it has always been astronomy, and he has always known at what point in time an eclipse is visible--and where on the earth--and throughout Scripture he has caused that to be a sign to be taken seriously. So does God intend this latest one to be a sign of coming punishment in the U.S.? I'm inclined to think anyone who believes that would not be ill served by it... regardless of whether you or I read so much into it (we have other reasons to believe, besides).

So that being said, I'm going to keep the cap on my sharpie for now and I expect continue to find peace and contentment in doing so. I hope you've found some value in this discussion, too... and that something comes out of me beyond the used ham sandwich.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
So to distill that all down into a single sentence or two its this:

The Holy Bible is NOT "the inerrant word of God" to be taken and lived to literally, word-for-word.

That is called "growing up."

In somewhat-longer explanatory terms it's understanding that Jewish dietary laws were all about the fact that unrefrigerated and then improperly cooked pork and shellfish KILL PEOPLE. God didn't tell you not to eat pig because it's unholy. MAN told you not to eat it because MAN saw people eat it and die, and MAN said (incorrectly) "oh it's cursed, God doesn't want you to eat that" and wrote THAT down in a book proclaimed to be "Holy."

Just like the eclipse situation: MAN saw the sun disappear and said "Jane over there sinned and God is punishing us; we better burn her at the stake for sleeping with someone she shouldn't have SO THE SUN COMES BACK OUT."

They wrote that down as a "command" from God but no such command nor any such causality EVER EXISTED.

MAN INVENTED THE "COMMAND" TO BURN JANE AT THE STAKE AS A RESULT OF IGNORANCE.


GROWING UP means accepting that MAN wrote a bunch of crap down in a book called holy claiming causation and a commandment to exact punishment as allegedly "required" by God out of ignorance when the facts are that no such commandment to murder others EVER existed.

It wasn't a law that was repealed, it wasn't a law that only applies to certain other people IT NEVER EXISTED AS A DIVINE REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

MAN MADE IT UP AND IT IS AND ALWAYS WAS BULL****, TO BE BLUNT.

This does NOT mean you cannot call something "sin" or look down your nose at some act on theological grounds. But the difference between being a SAVAGE TERRORIST and an intelligent human being is that since we now KNOW that the CAUSE of such proscriptions were IMAGINED and NOT commanded we not only do not have to follow them we have no justification for doing so when the proscription involves doing harm to others, and should we do so anyway WE ARE TERRORISTS AND NOT FOLLOWERS OF A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS PATH.

----------
Winding it down.
Tristan
Posts: 595
Incept: 2009-04-08

Spirit of '76
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'm all for putting away childish things. So how do we know that such laws as avoiding pork or requiring Israelites to put to death someone caught in adultery were imagined rather than commanded? Unless your premise is that God is imagined, which is a completely different argument.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
I'm all for putting away childish things. So how do we know that such laws as avoiding pork or requiring Israelites to put to death someone caught in adultery were imagined rather than commanded? Unless your premise is that God is imagined, which is a completely different argument.

On the contrary; my assertion is quite-simple and predicated on logic:

I assert that no God that is "good", by any objective standard, would command that mortals commit murder for consensual adult conduct. Therefore either (1) man imagined it for their own purposes, an intentional and since the command is to kill it is an evil act or (2) your God is in fact not good and said command is an evil act by an evil and malevolent deity.

Either way it's an evil act and if you subscribe to that you're a terrorist.

----------
Winding it down.

Tristan
Posts: 595
Incept: 2009-04-08

Spirit of '76
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It's sound logic if modern western culture is the basis, but it blurs the line between who is God and who is not, so to me ends up rather illogical. Why would I or anyone else surrender sovereignty to a god whose character and actions must be confined by parameters that I set? This would either make me the superior of the god I claim to serve--and thus I would be a god myself, certainly not in need of anyone else's rules or opinions to govern me--or the god I claim to serve is nothing more than a figment of my imagination.

So my assertion is rather that:
  1. The Bible is the objective moral standard that God has given to the world; and
  2. apparent contradictions with modern moral developments likely do not exist within an eternal perspective.

Of course, this requires faith that God, in line with his character of absolute goodness, knows what is best for us. It requires there being more to the picture than just the narrow view that we see. This is all described in the Bible in great detail; there is a greater good at work even in suffering (Job, Romans 8:28) and God even calls us "blessed" when we suffer (the Beatitudes). Without faith, this is all utter foolishness, but with faith, it can be seen that death is nothing more than a consequence of evil. It is not evil in and of itself and is even used to the accomplishment of good. So just as we now know that improperly cooked pork can lead to death, so we may one day know that the wrong kind of consensual adult conduct can lead to consequences worse than death--so as Jesus puts it, "it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Clearly this is not a worldly perspective! And so because of my faith, I can accept the importance of the Rule of Law as commanded from God to Moses, and further I can appreciate the significance of the sacrifice that frees me from executing the consequences of that Law or from being on the receiving end of such judgment.

One further example of apparent injustice, since this is one of the best:
2 Samuel 6:1-7 wrote..
Then David again gathered all the elite troops in Israel, 30,000 in all. He led them to Baalah of Judaha to bring back the Ark of God, which bears the name of the LORD of Heaven's Armies, who is enthroned between the cherubim. They placed the Ark of God on a new cart and brought it from Abinadab's house, which was on a hill. Uzzah and Ahio, Abinadab's sons, were guiding the cart as it left the house, carrying the Ark of God. Ahio walked in front of the Ark. David and all the people of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, singing songs and playing all kinds of musical instruments--lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets, and cymbals.

But when they arrived at the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled, and Uzzah reached out his hand and steadied the Ark of God. Then the LORD's anger was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him dead because of this. So Uzzah died right there beside the Ark of God.


Though Uzzah's intent was good, he violated the Law. There is nothing more complicated about it than that. There was much celebrating and thankfulness being expressed to God at the time, but then the Law was broken and Uzzah had to die. As a mortal man, I don't know the true scope of such a consequence, but as a father I can appreciate that in disciplining one child I am disciplining them all; and if I fail to discipline one, I fail to discipline them all. The difference is that I only have 3 children and 25-30 years of parenting to do, while God has billions and some 3,000 years to consider just since Uzzah. I might ask some questions about his methods, but he's the Good Father... I'm just one trying to stumble through it.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
It's sound logic if modern western culture is the basis, but it blurs the line between who is God and who is not, so to me ends up rather illogical.

Bull****.

You either denounce the premise that you have the right to murder others for consensual adult conduct, irrespective of what that conduct is, or you don't.

You say this is "modern western culture" based. I say it is based on the premise that underwrites our nation and makes it unique among others today:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that nowhere does it say "Except where my consensual conduct with another consenting adult is contrary to what some book says, in which case I have forfeited THE RIGHT TO LIFE THAT EXISTS SIMPLY BECAUSE I AM HUMAN."

If you hold forth the claim that YOU have the right under some religious text to murder someone because of their consensual adult conduct then you have admitted that such a right or duty exists in the first instance, which means we now get to argue not over the first principle (can you murder) but which "book" is correct and which one is not, since there are many out there in existence today and over human history there have been some FIVE THOUSAND separate religious paths, all of which have at least SOME difference between them.

I argue that if you disagree with this FIRST PRINCIPLE then you have claimed SAVAGERY AND RELIGIOUS TERRORISM as your birthright as the ONLY difference between you and a Muslim Terrorist who throws gays off buildings or chops the head off someone who insults their "prophet" IS WHICH ALLEGED PARTICULARS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DIVINE YOU ADHERE TO.

So which is it?

Are you part of the myriad religious sects that have grown up -- and recognize that they have neither a right or duty to do such a thing because it is NOT actually commanded under penalty of a deity or are you still mentally, emotionally and ethically in the same place as those who burned people at the stake during an eclipse?

THAT is the question.

The more-serious issue with implications in the present day is that you CANNOT denounce Muslim Terrorism say much less refuse to accept and even CONDONE it should THEIR strictures be violated while holding forth that ANY such stricture is valid irrespective of what "Holy Book" it appears in, including the particular one YOU revere.

----------
Winding it down.

Tristan
Posts: 595
Incept: 2009-04-08

Spirit of '76
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Good points... to be clear, I make no such murderous claims personally, but rather suggest that:
  • A modern Jewish religious state that does not recognize the new covenant of Christ must either continue to adhere to the Law of Moses--whatever that looks like--or their religion is man-made and self-serving
  • Once you start crossing out scripture that doesn't align with relatively-modern principles, you contradict any claim of reverence to the God said to have caused it to be written

This last bit is really where I'm focused, since I'm not a Jew (religiously or culturally) and have no interest in murdering anyone. What your points are making me realize is that I'm also not a scholar of ancient Israel and I really don't know why there would have been such harsh punishments for things. Some reading of actual Old Testament scholars may shed some light on it:

Quote:
Only a few chapters later Deuteronomy 24:15 deals with a case where a woman was divorced for committing adultery; the woman was clearly not executed, as she married another man in verse 2. This makes sense if the capital sanctions for adultery functioned as admonitory devices and in practice a ransom was made as a substitute, but it does not make sense if the woman was required to be executed.

...

Perhaps the clearest example is in Numbers 35. At least seven times in close succession the text states, "the murderer shall be put to death"; however, the text proceeds to state, "'Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death." Here the text assumes that a practice of substituting a fine for capital punishment exists, but the Lawgiver does not wish to see it applied in this circumstance, so the fine is explicitly forbidden. Sprinkle contends, "The availability of ransom seems to have been so prevalent that when biblical law wants to exclude it, as in the case of intentional murder, it must specifically prohibit it."

http://www.equip.org/article/stoning-adu....

So I very well accept that I don't know much of anything about the justice system in ancient Israel and that this makes a whole lot more sense then what I had in mind. It all might just be a cultural misunderstanding; it would be interesting to read through these Old Testament books with this perspective to see if it brings clarity or causes any contradiction. Thanks for leading me to continue thinking and apologies for any pain on your end.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Oh, no pain at all.

I'm simply pointing out that both Jews and Christians grew up.

If they hadn't there would be a hell of a lot of terrorists out there. Instead we have one religion left that appears to have refused to grow up, and is responsible for 99% of the terrorists.

----------
Winding it down.
Tristan
Posts: 595
Incept: 2009-04-08

Spirit of '76
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
I'm simply pointing out that both Jews and Christians grew up.

Well this is why the above link is so interesting to me. There is strong historical implication that Jews rather did not go around murdering each other, but had a sort of ransom system understood in their culture. So if you messed around with some other guy's wife or raped a goat, legally your life was forfeit and a price must have been paid if you were going to get it back, i.e. not be killed. The biblical evidence for this is described in the quotes from that article, both where a woman was divorced for adultery (and thus was not killed for it) and where the directive for dealing with a murderer states to never accept a ransom for his life -- implying that ransom should be accepted in other cases.

So it might be that Jews never needed to outgrow savagery, if the laws given to them communicated the gravity of offenses more so than described a system of continuously executing wrongdoers, as you or I have been reading it today. The example of Christ as ransom for the transgressions of the world also fits right into this concept, which I should know better than to be surprised by...
Tickerguy
Posts: 150417
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
As I said many times in this thread already, "Meh."

Rationalizing extortion (which might either be refused or unpayable as the person "obligated" might not have it) as a way to "buy out" a murder is rather ridiculous -- as that's still savagery.

Is it "ok" if a Muslim today says to a man today "Stop ****ing men, **** women only, and by the way pay $500,000 or I throw you off the building?"

C'mon. That's horse**** and you know it; it's exactly the same savagery as just tossing the guy off right up front.

----------
Winding it down.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ