cm:
I agree with you, Chaim. IF God says something, then that’s that. But how do you know what God says? There’s no way “scripture” is a reliable and credible indicater of what God’s are.
Scripture smipture.
As Zev acknowledged earlier, anything which purports to be “God’s laws” are just somebody’s opinions. So how can we tell what God’s real laws are?
Leave it to you to sum it up so succinctly. 
Thanks.
I find it interesting that your god is ambivalent about human enslavement but seems to care a great deal about who loves who. And here I thought love was the most important law - who knew?
Esprix
Could we get over the idea that laws against theft and murder come from the Bibile? Every society in the world has laws against theft and murder. Although every society defines and punishes them differently. Like we define and punish them differently then the ancient Hebrews.
I don’t think anybody’s proposing rejecting a law just because it’s also in the Bible, are they? But of course the standard is a law must have a secular purpose to be consitutional.
Hey, I never said that!
I said that I (and other Orthodox Jews) believe the Torah to contain God-given commandments. I also said that I didn’t expect anyone to observe those same commandments on my say so. But, I never said that God’s laws were just someone’s opinions
sqweels:
I believe there is another thread currently running that addresses the question of why religious believers like myself and Zev believe our holy scriptures to be the word of G-d.
However, if you’re willing to admit that you have no idea what G-d says, then it’s quite prejudicial of you to say “There’s no way that it can be scripture…”
Esprix:
Correction: who has sex with whom. I think this distinction has been beaten to death in other threads.
And (another issue beaten to death in other threads) you might as well ask why he seems to care a great deal about who eats what, who works when, who wears what, who grows what agricultural products, who breeds what animals…I know you’re gay, Esprix, and that that issue is therefore one of importance to you specifically, but you’ve got to realize that G-d’s laws cover many aspects of what we consider our private lives.
As for enslavement, I would like to once again repeat that slavery in ancient Judea was a condition quite different than slavery in the antebellum U.S. South. Do not conflate the dehunamizing condition of slaves of the latter sort with the far different condition of slaves of the first sort.
Refresh my memory. Love of G-d? Love of one’s neighbor like one’s self? Or sex between two loving patners? Which of these is the “most important law?”, and in what religion?
Chaim Mattis Keller
Ah, yes - you can be gay, you just can’t do those gay things. Pardon me while I :rolleyes: .
All very true, and all on the list of why I’m getting decidedly more and more Atheist as the years go on.
Slavery is slavery, IMHO, regardless of when it was practiced. That your god would allow it in any form yet care specifically about what weave of fabrics you’re wearing tells volumes about Judaism and Christianity.
My understanding was that Jesus taught love as his highest commandment - no specifications given, just “love.” I suppose I’m a bit less clear about what God gave the Jews as his highest command - care to enlighten? I can’t imagine it’s anything less than love.
Getting back to the OP (anyone remember that?), it seems clear to me that anyone can suitably rebuke any argument using the Bible as a weapon. Really - what would G’Kar think if someone did that with the Book of G’Kwan?
Esprix
All right, a fellow Babylonian! :secret handshake:
**Zev wrote:
We have a bunch of laws that have a basis in the Bible already on the books; everything ranging from murder and theft, down to blue laws in certain localities. All I’m saying is don’t automatically reject a proposed law out of hand simply because it comes from the Bible. If you find some other valid reason to reject it, then fine.**
I disagree. As betenoir pointed out, many laws about secular matters (murder, lying, thievery) have their own history that’s not religiously mandated. As you and Chaim have pointed out so well; there’s no real defense against this. God said it and there’s no arguing the point.
It’s when the Dr. Lauras of the world try to pass into secular law the moral codes of the Torah or NT that the real problems occur. Those moral codes were meant for their respective people, not as general laws of our country. To make them secular law is a major violation of SoCaS, I think.
One other point. I can’t speak for Esprix but I think he’ll agree with me. What I find astounding is the blind obedience that the Judeo-Christian God demands of His followers. You can question, but only to a certain point, after that you simply follow the law, no matter how irrelevant it is to your situation. I cannot, in good conscience, follow such a religous/moral system.
**
Yes, but, with all due respect, it’s not the Dr. Laura’s of the world who are out there trying to change laws. It’s the active gay and lesbian communities who are out there seeking to change long-standing legislation, not the other way around. I don’t think there’s been a single bill sent to Congress in quite a while stating something along the lines of “homosexual behavior is illegal and will land you in prison.”
And that’s fine. I’m not asking you to believe in my God. However, it’s not completely illogical. Just as I want my children to obey me (even if I don’t tell them WHY they should), so to sometimes we should listen to God without asking the “W question.”
Zev Steinhardt
Esprix:
It does, but not in the rather cynical way you think it does. Until and unless you’re willing to look at religious beliefs in their own context rather than through the external context of 20th-century Western morality, though, trying to explain will do little good.
Well, trying to use him as a reference to talking to me about religion won’t get you very far… 
That’s kind of hard to say. The Rabbis have pointed out, “Be as careful with a ‘lighter’ commandment as with a ‘stronger’ commandment, because you don’t know which one is more important in G-d’s eyes.”
I suppose there are some ways to measure the relative level of importance attached to commandments, but discussion of those would probably be seriously off-topic. Let’s just suffice it to say that (in the Orthodox Jewish view) G-d gave all the commandments to be kept, and while love is important, specific expressions of love are not supposed to take a form that are contrary to G-d’s commandments.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Zev, we want our children to obey us because at that age they don’t understand. I think most parents hope that one day our children will grow up and be able to cope in the world on their own. I guess my question is, why does God want his people to always be child like never to question or grow beyond unquestioning obedience?
I do understand what you’re saying, but the juxtaposition of “gay sex will always be bad” vs. “slavery is relatively ok under certain circumstances” still strikes me as incomprehensible, then and now. You can accept it, but I could never align myself with a god whose morality on something as abhorrent as human enslavement is open to changing with the times, but carnal relations between two loving individuals is forever a sin. It just don’t make sense to me (and this is, of course, just one among many things I find disturbing about the Judeo-Christian version of god).
OK. A wholly unacceptable doctrine to me, but thank you for the explanation.
Esprix
Addendum to rules for understanding scripture:
Understanding of biblical scripture requires the interpretation of each verse(if not each word) by biblical scholars that understand several ancient languages.
Perhaps if someone could post a list of those words and/or verses that don’t mean what we think they mean, and a list of the approved scholars to do the interpreting, we could put this baby to rest and get on to more important matters.
Esprix:
Well, then, since this is a message board dedicated to comprehension, I will attempt to explain here the underlying principles that can reconcile this juxtaposition. However, if you have further questions about specific aspects of Biblical-based religion, they should probably spawn a separate thread.
Principle # 1: G-d is the owner of everything in the world. Human “ownership” is a convenience he allows, but ultimately, no one other than he has genuine possession of something.
Principle # 2: The human soul is a holy piece of G-d himself, and any vessel that can contain it is holy as well. Willful destruction of such is, therefore, sinful.
Principle # 3: G-d created male and female as complementary parts of the same entity, and one is only half-a-soul without the other. (I realize that this a sticky point for you, but I’m not trying to convince you here that it’s true, merely trying to illustrate the underlying principles of the Jewish faith that explain what you see as inconsistent, so you understand it in context.)
Hence, what is referred to as slave ownership in the Bible is not the principle that we found repugnant regarding Southern slave ownership in America. The idea that one human being can actually be considered to be owned by another is foreign to the Biblical social system. All humans belong to G-d. However, by acquiring a slave, one enters into a contract that binds all products that the slave produces to the owner, in exchange for indefinite support: food, lodging, etc.
However, unlike slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum U.S. South, the master was required to not abuse his slave. If the owner so much as knocked out the slave’s tooth, the slave became a free man. And if the slave ran away from his master to seek shelter from abuse, the shelterer is not allowed to return him to the master, and on top of that, the society is required to habilitate him to a degree of comfort, not just allow him into the poorhouse.
That degree of protection extends (no Monty Python jokes, please) human sperm. It is an ingredient in the creation of a human life-sustaining vessel…and the only one which can willfully be wasted. To do so is sinful.
The only way in which non-procreative sex (e.g., for infertile couples, during pregnancy, after menopause) is not forbidden is if it, too, serves the purpose of enhancing a vessel for the human soul…i.e., strengthening the bond of marriage, which joins two halves of the soul together to make that soul complete.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Of course I want my children to grow up and be able to cope with the world on their own. However, God (for whatever His reasons) chose not to tell us the reasons for His commandments. We can question, but, ultimately, it all boils down to “because He said so.” I know that it may not please everyone (hell, it doesn’t always please me), but that’s the way it is.
Zev Steinhardt
cmkeller, thanks for clarifying, but nothing you said is news.
Esprix
“Because I said so!”?!?
Would you raise your children that way?
Which reminds me-Are we God’s children, or God’s property? If we are his children, the fact that he seems to be unable to answer the simplist questions without resorting to the above stock blow-off answer shows us what kind of parent he is.
If, on the other hand, we are his “property”, as intelligent creatures I feel it is our duty to overthrow this “master”. We would expect no less an effort from any slave.
**
If it involved matters that they could not understand on their own, yes.
If I were raising a child who (God forbid) couldn’t understand the concept of not playing in traffic because they might get hurt, then, yes, I would want them to listen to me “because I said so!”
It’s an interesting question you raise Czarcasm.
On Rosh HaShannah (which in Judaism is the day of judgement) there is a short little prayer that is said each time after the Shofar blows. This little prayer asks for God’s mercy in judgement on BOTH counts (whether we are considered as God’s children or as God’s servants).
Zev Steinhardt
Yesterday, I was talking to a friend’s father (complaining, actually, about an argument I was having with someone else), and he told me:
“You’re not going to win the argument. The two of you are debating values, not facts, and values are shaped by all the experiences you have in life, and so they can’t be changed by a good argument.”
Wise man, my friend’s father…
zev, the first answer a parent gives to a child should never be “Because I said so!”. First, you try your best to give a correct answer, in a way that the child can understand. If your god is all-knowing, this shouldn’t be a problem for him.
Of course, if we are mere property of your god, I can see why he might not want to extend any effort to helping us understand his reasons for doing things. We might get uppity and try to make some decisions for ourselves.