264 Commandments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: 264 Commandments
Aliza Wrote:But you made that claim that you are Jewish,
...All of a sudden when I challenge your Jewish education, you make this claim of being Jewish
when and where did I make this claim? I am confused now. I could tell someone about my grandpa being a Jew.
Aliza Wrote:You are, in fact, not Jewish. -And you know very well that you're not.
No, I am not. I never made this claim.
Aliza Wrote:I personally think it’s very distasteful of you to call yourself a Jewish refugee
I didn't call myself a Jewish refugee. Somebody else called me that - NYANA.
I never told them that I was a Jew. They had my passport. There was one line in this passport, in the line was stated that I was Ukrainian by blood, not a Jew.
In the the Soviet Union in passports they had lines: address, nationality by blood, names of children, name of spouse. Not like here in the USA.
Aliza Wrote:You didn’t come to the US in the “last wave”. The “last wave” of Jewish immigrants came before the First World War
Not true. You probably can check this info somewhere on the internet that in 1992 some Jewish people still were coming from the former Soviet Union as refugees. The reason why I think it was the last wave is because there was no more Soviet Union. Jewish people couldn't claim to be persecuted. Even at that time someone who interviewed us was very tough on my ex-mother-in-law. It didn't look like he really believed her.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: 264 Commandments
TO ALIZA

about the last wave, I found this

http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/ny...g_run_here

Waves of Jewish refugees came from Hungary in the late 1950s, and from Romania and Poland in the ‘60s, followed by the surge of emigration from RUSSIA and THE SOVIET BLOC in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: 264 Commandments
(18-05-2016 02:58 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(17-05-2016 06:33 PM)Aliza Wrote:  No, I'm actually very confused. Can you give me a verse number?

The threat is the underlined.

Quote:15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[/b]

This is totally a threat. The setup is what you quoted earlier and I also put in bold. If you do A then you will be rewarded. If you don't do A then I will punish you. If only the reward was offered, then that would not be a threat. However, since there is a severe penalty if A is not done this constitutes a threat. The entire second half of Deuteronomy 28 is a threat for not complying and the introduction of hell in the NT is entirely a threat. Demanding something be done or else you will suffer is absolutely a threat.

In an earlier PM, I apologized in advance to TOC for the sheer length (and wordiness) of my anticipated reply. Really, to demonstrate my position, I think the information I have included below is necessary to make and occasionally reiterate my point.

I would never ask you to believe the content of what I’m presenting, but I would ask you to consider that Judaism does present a different explanation for the verse that we’re discussing, Deuteronomy 30:15-20, and that it is consistent with Jewish theology.

I put my reply in a spoiler just because of the length. I know some people are just browsing through and don’t want to scroll past all these lines to get to the next post.

As a side note: I do not care what any other religion says. I am making an argument from the Jewish position. Other religions have their own views, and are not in any way, shape or form reflective of Jewish views.


Torah and Astrology
Deuteronomy 30:15, being at the very end of the Torah, assumes the reader has read –at least- the preceding portion of the Torah. In addition to that, there is a misconception commonly held by people from Christian backgrounds that assumes that the Torah is for us like the bible is for them. It’s not. This is not the sole central text that we use exclusively to create Judaism. Sometimes I hear people from Christian backgrounds argue with me that I should be tying everything back to the Torah because they think that it trumps everything else. For Jews, the Torah is like the cliff notes to the Oral Tradition (Currently recorded in the Talmud). There are holes and gaps in the explanations and people are expected to already have an understanding of what certain things mean throughout our texts. You’re supposed to have already attended the lecture before really getting into Torah.

If you do not understand that the Talmud and the Torah are partners in Jewish theology, then you are simply confusing Judaism with Christianity.

In the Talmud (Nearly equal significance to the Torah), we learn that Abram was very into astrology. G-d tells him that he’ll one day have kids that are more plentiful than the stars in the heavens, but Abram counters G-d saying that he’d already read the stars, and he understands that this isn’t in the works for him. G-d tells Abram that he’s no longer subject to what the stars say; he’s on a different path now. This is going to be a theme that the writer of the Torah assumes the reader understands.

Astrology is forbidden to Jews in the Torah –not because it’s “from the devil” as some Christians believe, but because Jews think that they’re not on the astrological system. They could be, but they’re not. We’re playing a different game at a different table and we’re using a different set of rules than everyone else.

In Jewish thinking, all people have free will, but they have a predetermined hand they’ve been dealt. How they play that hand is up to them, but the parameters of their lives are fixed. Judaism teaches that the Jewish nation has a mission to complete, and in order to complete the mission, we will still be dealt a hand, but we’ll be excused from the high-stakes poker game of life IF we keep the Torah. If we don’t follow the Torah, we’re put back in the game to play the hand we’ve been dealt. This functions on both an individual level and on a national level.

I’m not asking you believe this astrological stuff is real, of course. I’m just asking you to understand that from a literary perspective, this other information should be read in concert with this passage that you perceive is a threat from G-d.

Commandment vs. Mitzvot
The word commandment in English gives a kind of connotation like, “YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE!” It’s closer to the word “demand.”

But the Hebrew word “Mitzvot” is understood to be much softer. “Do this thing because it’s good for you.” “Don’t murder people because you’ll feel miserable and hurt others.” “Help the elderly and orphaned children because that’s how we make a proper society run smoothly.”

It’s a different word, it has a different meaning, and the English language simply lacks a more precise word to use in translation.

Jewish people believe that living in an ordered society where everyone plays their part to keep everything working smoothly is the proper way to live. Whether you agree with our way of life or not, the Mitzvot are like our laws to define what Judaism thinks is proper for Jews.

The Mitzvot are good things that Jewish people who are Torah observant want to follow, and they are not viewed as demands. If you don’t want to follow them, then you should not convert to Judaism. –Don’t worry, we will help you not convert.

You’re parachuting down at the very end of the Torah. Keep in mind that parameters in this text have been previously defined, and it’s assumed that the reader has read earlier chapters and recognizes that the Torah has previously been established as a contract between G-d and the Jewish people. –One which the Jewish people entered into voluntarily, and that there are conditions in that contract that they agreed to. You may not like the conditions, but the conditions are what they are, and they defined in texts previous to this and throughout the Talmud.

In this contract, the Jewish people agree to keep the Mitzvot and be a light to the nations. G-d agrees to pull us out of the high-stakes poker game of life, which will inherently provide us some protections. IF we do not keep the Mitzvot, then we are simply returned to the game to play our hand. This is no more a threat than denying a cookie to a child to refused to eat their agreed upon vegetables. Yes, the parent promised the cookie, but they did so with conditions. These conditions are relevant to the agreement and if the conditions are not met, then the kid doesn’t get the cookie.

… and with that, let’s examine the verses in question from a Jewish perspective.

11 For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 14 Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.

We have an agreement. G-d is basically saying, I do my part, and you do your part. Your part is something you’ve signed up to do, and I haven’t made any tricks here. It’s within your capacity as a nation to keep your end of the contract. Don’t tell me later that the Mitzvot are too hard and you just want to believe in this dead guy instead.

When I read this passage, I see it as game over for the Christian argument that the commandments were designed to be too hard to keep.

15 Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil, 16 inasmuch as I command you this day to love the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.

Everyone deals with good and bad. This is not a threat. This is just the way the world works.

IF the Jewish people keep their end of the contract, then they get to step away from the high-stakes poker game of life. They get inherent protections by stepping away from the table; their risk of loss is reduced if they’re not gambling. If they have to return to the poker game, they’re not deliberately dealt a bad hand out of retribution.

This isn’t a threat. This is a reminder of a term that was previously agreed upon.

17 But if your heart deviates and you do not listen, and you will be drawn astray, and you will prostrate yourself to other deities and serve them, 18 I declare to you this day, that you will surely perish, and that you will not live long days on the land, to which you are crossing the Jordan, to come and take possession thereof.

G-d is saying, "If you’re sloppy in your keeping of the Mitzvot, then before you know it, you’ll be worshiping idols, and the contract (that you agreed to) stipulates that you will lose the land of Israel." -These are the contract terms.

19 This day, I call upon the heaven and the earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live; 20 To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him. For that is your life and the length of your days, to dwell on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give to them.

G-d is saying, "Hey, don’t come crying to me if/when you break the contract, because I’m warning you in front of witnesses right now that if you’re not steadfast in your observation of the Torah, then you may very well (will) break the contract. The choice is yours."

Stick to your end of the deal and have the protection that we agreed upon, or do not stick to you end of the deal, and be returned to the high-stakes poker game where you risk loss if you play your hand poorly.

There is no, “You better do this or you die.”

There is especially no, “You better get other people to do this, or everyone is going to burn in hell for all eternity.”

In the real world, if you stop paying your mortgage, do you still get to keep your house? If you enter into a contract that is signed by witnesses, aren’t you held legally accountable if you break the terms?

It’s a Jewish text, not a Christian text. Certainly, it’s not a Mormon text. We do not have this Christen concept of a benevolent, all loving G-d who just wants to shower us with presents and spoil us rotten if only we'll just believe in him. The Jewish concept of G-d is that all people (Jews and Gentiles) come to this world to be challenged and to grow. When you screw up, you’re accountable for your actions and when you do good things, you’re rewarded for your goodness.

-But this passage is ultimately just a reminder and a warning to the Jewish people that they signed a contract, and they’re expected to uphold their end of the deal. It is not a taken as a threat in Jewish theology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
19-05-2016, 10:37 PM
RE: 264 Commandments
(19-05-2016 04:20 PM)Alla Wrote:  
SitaSky Wrote:I don't think you get to tell an entire group of people they are wrong about their religion that your religion copied,
At least I don't call those wise men who wrongly interpret scriptures "con men". I am better than that.
Oh, and that religion do NOT belong ONLY to Jewish people(tribe of Judah). Tribe of Joseph can claim this religion, too. And tribe of Levi, and any other tribe of house of Jacob. I belong to tribe of Joseph, particular Ephraim, so I have not just the right but the privilege to claim this religion.

Where I come from, people who are convicted of fraud are called con men.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
20-05-2016, 04:17 AM
RE: 264 Commandments
(19-05-2016 07:21 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(19-05-2016 07:17 PM)julep Wrote:  Do Mormons consider envy and jealousy sins?

Didn't mean to offend? Laugh out load

Maybe time to switch writers, sounds like somebody's burnt out.

Why would I want to offend Aliza?
Everyone on this forum likes Aliza including me.
If I could I would give her positive rep. Unfortunately, I don't have this privilege.

I don't pretend to understand your pathology, so I can't answer that question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
20-05-2016, 05:47 AM
RE: 264 Commandments
(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Commandment vs. Mitzvot
The word commandment in English gives a kind of connotation like, “YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE!” It’s closer to the word “demand.”

But the Hebrew word “Mitzvot” is understood to be much softer. “Do this thing because it’s good for you.” “Don’t murder people because you’ll feel miserable and hurt others.” “Help the elderly and orphaned children because that’s how we make a proper society run smoothly.”

It’s a different word, it has a different meaning, and the English language simply lacks a more precise word to use in translation.

"The Ten Recommendations" just wouldn't have made a good movie title.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
20-05-2016, 01:08 PM
RE: 264 Commandments
Thanks for the excellent reply. The spoiler was a great idea. Now, my apologies for my lengthy reply. Smile

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  In an earlier PM, I apologized in advance to TOC for the sheer length (and wordiness) of my anticipated reply. Really, to demonstrate my position, I think the information I have included below is necessary to make and occasionally reiterate my point.

I would never ask you to believe the content of what I’m presenting, but I would ask you to consider that Judaism does present a different explanation for the verse that we’re discussing, Deuteronomy 30:15-20, and that it is consistent with Jewish theology.

I put my reply in a spoiler just because of the length. I know some people are just browsing through and don’t want to scroll past all these lines to get to the next post.

As a side note: I do not care what any other religion says. I am making an argument from the Jewish position. Other religions have their own views, and are not in any way, shape or form reflective of Jewish views.

You don't have to apologize for a lengthy response. I enjoy them as long as they are actually written and not a copy/paste which you don't do. You actually think about it and I respect that.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Torah and Astrology
Deuteronomy 30:15, being at the very end of the Torah, assumes the reader has read –at least- the preceding portion of the Torah. In addition to that, there is a misconception commonly held by people from Christian backgrounds that assumes that the Torah is for us like the bible is for them. It’s not. This is not the sole central text that we use exclusively to create Judaism. Sometimes I hear people from Christian backgrounds argue with me that I should be tying everything back to the Torah because they think that it trumps everything else. For Jews, the Torah is like the cliff notes to the Oral Tradition (Currently recorded in the Talmud). There are holes and gaps in the explanations and people are expected to already have an understanding of what certain things mean throughout our texts. You’re supposed to have already attended the lecture before really getting into Torah.

If you do not understand that the Talmud and the Torah are partners in Jewish theology, then you are simply confusing Judaism with Christianity.

In the Talmud (Nearly equal significance to the Torah), we learn that Abram was very into astrology. G-d tells him that he’ll one day have kids that are more plentiful than the stars in the heavens, but Abram counters G-d saying that he’d already read the stars, and he understands that this isn’t in the works for him. G-d tells Abram that he’s no longer subject to what the stars say; he’s on a different path now. This is going to be a theme that the writer of the Torah assumes the reader understands.

Astrology is forbidden to Jews in the Torah –not because it’s “from the devil” as some Christians believe, but because Jews think that they’re not on the astrological system. They could be, but they’re not. We’re playing a different game at a different table and we’re using a different set of rules than everyone else.

In Jewish thinking, all people have free will, but they have a predetermined hand they’ve been dealt. How they play that hand is up to them, but the parameters of their lives are fixed. Judaism teaches that the Jewish nation has a mission to complete, and in order to complete the mission, we will still be dealt a hand, but we’ll be excused from the high-stakes poker game of life IF we keep the Torah. If we don’t follow the Torah, we’re put back in the game to play the hand we’ve been dealt. This functions on both an individual level and on a national level.

I’m not asking you believe this astrological stuff is real, of course. I’m just asking you to understand that from a literary perspective, this other information should be read in concert with this passage that you perceive is a threat from G-d.

I was familiar with some Jewish viewings of the Torah and Talmud but nice explanation.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Commandment vs. Mitzvot
The word commandment in English gives a kind of connotation like, “YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE!” It’s closer to the word “demand.”

But the Hebrew word “Mitzvot” is understood to be much softer. “Do this thing because it’s good for you.” “Don’t murder people because you’ll feel miserable and hurt others.” “Help the elderly and orphaned children because that’s how we make a proper society run smoothly.”

It’s a different word, it has a different meaning, and the English language simply lacks a more precise word to use in translation.

Jewish people believe that living in an ordered society where everyone plays their part to keep everything working smoothly is the proper way to live. Whether you agree with our way of life or not, the Mitzvot are like our laws to define what Judaism thinks is proper for Jews.

The Mitzvot are good things that Jewish people who are Torah observant want to follow, and they are not viewed as demands. If you don’t want to follow them, then you should not convert to Judaism. –Don’t worry, we will help you not convert.

You’re parachuting down at the very end of the Torah. Keep in mind that parameters in this text have been previously defined, and it’s assumed that the reader has read earlier chapters and recognizes that the Torah has previously been established as a contract between G-d and the Jewish people. –One which the Jewish people entered into voluntarily, and that there are conditions in that contract that they agreed to. You may not like the conditions, but the conditions are what they are, and they defined in texts previous to this and throughout the Talmud.

In this contract, the Jewish people agree to keep the Mitzvot and be a light to the nations. G-d agrees to pull us out of the high-stakes poker game of life, which will inherently provide us some protections. IF we do not keep the Mitzvot, then we are simply returned to the game to play our hand. This is no more a threat than denying a cookie to a child to refused to eat their agreed upon vegetables. Yes, the parent promised the cookie, but they did so with conditions. These conditions are relevant to the agreement and if the conditions are not met, then the kid doesn’t get the cookie.

Thanks for clarifying that detail. I would like to point out that your reply merely adds "please" to the end of the statement. Regardless of the tone of voice, this is still a "do this or I will wreak havoc on you." So if you do not keep the Mitzvot, what happens? If I understood you correctly, you essentially say that god will remove his protections and this will allow others to come in and destroy or harm the Israelites. Not that god instigates the violence, but rather does not offer any protection. That is how I took it, if that is wrong, please let me know.

You also provided and analogy about a parent just not giving a cookie to the child that refused to eat vegetables. So what does the Torah say about what happens when someone refused to eat their vegetables? (I am sticking with the bible here because I am much more familiar with it than the Talmud.)

Numbers 11 tells of the Israelites being upset at their hardships in the desert. For their bitching, god sends a fire. It does not say whether anyone died but the point here is there was a punishment for being upset.

Numbers 14 specifically states that god punishes the fourth generation of the perpetrators of rebellion. If what you say is true, why would he revoke protection of a child who willingly accepts and follows the Mitzvot. Either he protects the children who follow the Torah or this passage (v 18 to be more specific) says he will not. Which is it? I opted for your prior definition of removing protection as the English word for “Punish” may have a different meaning in Hebrew. I am interested in that, actually.

Numbers 16 tells the story of Korah who was accusing Moses and Aaron of setting themselves higher than the whole community and says that the entire community is holy. It appears that they were challenging why the priesthood held all the power and the community was subservient to the priesthood. How could you blame them? From their perspective, the priests were the only ones giving the orders and they were demanding to know why. The text says “insolent” but can you really blame them? For this crime, god kills 250 men and when the others (who may not have known what happened, doesn’t say) thought that was excessive, god kills nearly 15,000 of them.

Additionally, Leviticus 26 also specifically says there will be a punishment for noncompliance. Incidentally, I am curious if “mitzvot” also used in verse 14 because this clearly is a threat. This is not the removal of protection, but a declaration of actively smashing individuals.

This is a bit more than merely not giving a cookie for not eating veggies but rather going and shooting up a KFC because your neighbor didn’t mow the lawn correctly.
Also, in your opinion, is it a sin for a Jewish menstruating woman in this day and age to defile a chair that she sits on and would this constitute not keeping with the Mitzvot? I am asking because there is no clear line defined to my knowledge on when the Mitzvot is broken.

Your final statement implies that these folks had much of a choice in being Jewish. I realize that part of the coming of age practices in pretty much every society involves a child having some rite of passage but consider the alternative. Would that not put them in the category of either following other religions and thus should be killed per Deuteronomy 13 or 17? If so, where then is the choice? Much like what many here have faced with being ostracized by family or knowing that they will be ostracized, it is a choice at knifepoint.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  … and with that, let’s examine the verses in question from a Jewish perspective.
11 For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" 14 Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
We have an agreement. G-d is basically saying, I do my part, and you do your part. Your part is something you’ve signed up to do, and I haven’t made any tricks here. It’s within your capacity as a nation to keep your end of the contract. Don’t tell me later that the Mitzvot are too hard and you just want to believe in this dead guy instead.

When I read this passage, I see it as game over for the Christian argument that the commandments were designed to be too hard to keep.

Well, I agree with you here. I also don’t think for 1 second that even if what is in the gospels is what Jesus actually said, that it invalidated any Jewish law. Especially considering in Matthew 23, he specifically says to follow what the Pharisees say since they sit on the seat of Moses. If the intent of the author of Matthew was to do away with many of the laws, why would he have Jesus sending instructions to the people to go to the Pharisees who will follow the Torah? It makes no sense if the laws were changed or no longer in effect.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  15 Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil, 16 inasmuch as I command you this day to love the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.

Everyone deals with good and bad. This is not a threat. This is just the way the world works.

IF the Jewish people keep their end of the contract, then they get to step away from the high-stakes poker game of life. They get inherent protections by stepping away from the table; their risk of loss is reduced if they’re not gambling. If they have to return to the poker game, they’re not deliberately dealt a bad hand out of retribution.

This isn’t a threat. This is a reminder of a term that was previously agreed upon.

I agree, this isn’t a threat. It is as you referred to before as offering the cookie. However, I think there are numerous examples where god directly dishes out retribution. I have stated a few examples before.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  17 But if your heart deviates and you do not listen, and you will be drawn astray, and you will prostrate yourself to other deities and serve them, 18 I declare to you this day, that you will surely perish, and that you will not live long days on the land, to which you are crossing the Jordan, to come and take possession thereof.

G-d is saying, "If you’re sloppy in your keeping of the Mitzvot, then before you know it, you’ll be worshiping idols, and the contract (that you agreed to) stipulates that you will lose the land of Israel." -These are the contract terms.

Fine. However, as we see in other books and chapters, god metes out punishment directly but here that is not overtly stated. Also, at what point is too “sloppy?” I raise this point because is having sex with your wife on her period as awful a sin as accidentally adding yeast to the bread offering? Or is starting a fire so your baby doesn’t freeze to death on the Sabbath the same offense as planting 2 different types of crops on the same field? The point here is that if there is no known line, you will have no idea how you are doing.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  19 This day, I call upon the heaven and the earth as witnesses [that I have warned] you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live; 20 To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him. For that is your life and the length of your days, to dwell on the land which the Lord swore to your forefathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give to them.

G-d is saying, "Hey, don’t come crying to me if/when you break the contract, because I’m warning you in front of witnesses right now that if you’re not steadfast in your observation of the Torah, then you may very well (will) break the contract. The choice is yours."

Stick to your end of the deal and have the protection that we agreed upon, or do not stick to you end of the deal, and be returned to the high-stakes poker game where you risk loss if you play your hand poorly.

I agree.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  There is no, “You better do this or you die.”

What part of “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse” does not mean exactly that? There is a clear dichotomy here.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  There is especially no, “You better get other people to do this, or everyone is going to burn in hell for all eternity.”

Who brought up hell? Agree with you 100% considering hell is a christian invention and as far as I am aware, Sheol is never made out to be like a burning torture chamber.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  In the real world, if you stop paying your mortgage, do you still get to keep your house? If you enter into a contract that is signed by witnesses, aren’t you held legally accountable if you break the terms?

Except I have no texts from Well Fargo or Citibank stating that if you don’t keep with the terms, my children would be eaten by wild animals. Granted, I do think that if they could do it they would if they thought it would get them their money.
(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  It’s a Jewish text, not a Christian text. Certainly, it’s not a Mormon text. We do not have this Christen concept of a benevolent, all loving G-d who just wants to shower us with presents and spoil us rotten if only we'll just believe in him. The Jewish concept of G-d is that all people (Jews and Gentiles) come to this world to be challenged and to grow.

Again, I agree, you could get this from many places in the text.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  When you screw up, you’re accountable for your actions and when you do good things, you’re rewarded for your goodness.

Except for those times when the culprit is NOT punished but someone else is or god says that someone else will be punished.
See: 2 Samuel 12, Exodus 12 (who was under the influence of god), Exodus 23, Genesis 12 (although would this count because it is pre-Moses? Still, if it is not in god’s nature to punish those who were innocent, Pharoah was definitely innocent because Abram lied to him.), Exodus 20, Exodus 34, if a man rapes a betrothed woman in a town, she is also stoned according to Deuteronomy 28.

(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  -But this passage is ultimately just a reminder and a warning to the Jewish people that they signed a contract, and they’re expected to uphold their end of the deal. It is not a taken as a threat in Jewish theology.

Just because you don’t take it as a threat does not mean it isn’t one. You will find christians who will say that Jesus’ introduction of hell is not a threat as well. Does that make it true? I disagree. If someone, anyone, says to me that if I do not comply, my children, grandchildren, wife, family, friends, or whatnot will suffer, that is absolutely a threat. Like I said before, if it only was “do this and you will be rewarded, don’t do this, and I will not protect you,” I would not really view that as much of a threat. But considering the other passages where a direct punishment or whatnot is laid out for not complying, that is a threat.


"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
20-05-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: 264 Commandments
(20-05-2016 04:17 AM)julep Wrote:  
(19-05-2016 07:21 PM)Alla Wrote:  Why would I want to offend Aliza?
Everyone on this forum likes Aliza including me.
If I could I would give her positive rep. Unfortunately, I don't have this privilege.

I don't pretend to understand your pathology, so I can't answer that question.

this was a rhetorical question, your answer was not required. Smile

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2016, 04:07 AM
RE: 264 Commandments
(20-05-2016 05:47 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-05-2016 09:20 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Commandment vs. Mitzvot
The word commandment in English gives a kind of connotation like, “YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE!” It’s closer to the word “demand.”

But the Hebrew word “Mitzvot” is understood to be much softer. “Do this thing because it’s good for you.” “Don’t murder people because you’ll feel miserable and hurt others.” “Help the elderly and orphaned children because that’s how we make a proper society run smoothly.”

It’s a different word, it has a different meaning, and the English language simply lacks a more precise word to use in translation.

"The Ten Recommendations" just wouldn't have made a good movie title.

I'd have preferred 'The 10 Suggestions'. Tongue

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-05-2016, 04:26 AM
RE: 264 Commandments
(20-05-2016 04:32 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(20-05-2016 04:17 AM)julep Wrote:  I don't pretend to understand your pathology, so I can't answer that question.

this was a rhetorical question, your answer was not required. Smile

Nope, it's actually a real question. You've been deliberately offensive to Aliza for quite some time. I don't believe you like Aliza even a little bit. Not surprising to see another lie from you, but I do wonder why it is that she gets under your skin so much.

I'll answer whatever the fuck I please, by the way. You don't get to tell me whether my answer is required.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like julep's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: