I believe so. But whether He did or not doesn't change the historical fact, which has nothing to do with belief, that the Torah is Jewish law, whether man-made or not.

 

The "Ten Commandments" are the first ten of 613 laws _for Jews_. At no point did Moses say that they were for "every man". You are confusing Moses' law with Noah's law. Noah's law is more general.

 

The "Ten Commandments" are the first ten of 613 commandments and they apply to _Jews only_.

 

No, it isn't. Atheism is a belief, not an action. Only actions can be sins; improper thoughts cannot. The "Ten Commandments" prohibit the worshipping of other gods. Atheists do not worship other gods.

And again, these commandments are for Jews, not gentiles.

Excellent summary.

I don't believe that.

I believe G-d gave a single copy of the Torah (first part of the "Old Testament") to the Jewish people. "Humanity" has nothing to do with that. I believe G-d gave other peoples other laws.

 

It's still done by hand. Every synagogue has a hand-written copy of the Torah scrolls.

 

That's why we have rabbis and judges who interpret the laws and judge accordingly.

 

I have found several examples of that happening.

1. "like a lion" became "he pierced".

2. "the land" became "the whole planet".

3. "a young woman" became "a virgin".

The Hebrew text is in many strategic places quite different from the English and German translations I read. And for me only the Hebrew/Aramaic text is authoritative and even then it is only authoritative for Jews.

 

Lets look at it this way, Pilgrim, you act as if 'your' science is uncorrupt, unbiasaed. Yet you phrase everything in the rhetoric of a fanatical preacher 'Almighty God tells us' etc. This is not the language of a rational, empicial approach (Where does it say? When did he tell us? How did he tell us? And don't say the bible, everyone should know by now that document is unreliable, innaccurate and, as Ambrose Bierce once said, its covers are too far apart.)
Now, I may be an atheist, but I will at least admit that, should science come accross something that could not be explained except by God, I would be willing to conceed the possibility of his existance. You claim, a priori there is a God, and go through linguistic gymnastics to prove it, and scramble for niche, ideological texts as 'proof' that someone religion begat science. Philosophy created science, religion, as a dominant cultural force, merely went along for the ride.

The implication is that the Rabbis and judges can do that, interpret things in a biased manner. Seriously, simple concept.
Look at Justice Eady, the judge all too ready to indulge 'libel tourism' when the rest of his profession find it distasteful and unconstitutional - judges (and Rabbis - all holy men) are just as flawed, if not more so because of the inflated effects of their actions caused by their high social position.

Rabbis and judges are not "holy men". Where do you get this stuff?

Society relies on judges and teachers. I find it weird that you seem to have a problem with that.

 

Wow! Alot to read and ponder...and that I will do over the weekend....until then may all of you keep  the Commandment of God to honor your mother as Sunday is Mother's Day.

I'll obey holy Mammon's first commandment and work on sunday as is due.

Leauki, I hadn't intended to comment on any religion other than the Christian faith in my previous postings, since discussing more than one religion at a time can make it hard to keep information straight.

 

If you were to answer one question on my part, I would ask only this: Why do you think that the teachings and suppositions of the Church of Scientology are incorrect?  To restate it another way, why does your current religious choice make sense to you, and this other one does not?

The teachings of the "Church" of Scientology contradict scientific discovery and Scientologists do not allow room for interpreting their "holy scripture" non-literally where it contradicts science.

Scientology are also unwilling to reveal what they know without payment. In contrast to that anyone can walk up to, say, a rabbi or any Christian cleric and ask about Judaism's or Christianity's beliefs about the universe and get all the information for free. Furthermore participating at Jewish or Christian prayer services is free, Scientology demand payment.

 

My "current religious choice"? What do you think religion is?

I am with my people. It's not just a "choice".

 

I think there's a lot of evidence, much of it provided by former Scientology adherents, as to what's really going on inside that religion. It's...not a pretty picture. It needs serious reform.

Leauki,

I would argue that religion is a choice - you choose to be with your people rather than stand apart or against (two separate ideas there). That doesn't make it superficial or less profound for being that choice. I just think it's too easy to naturalize the idea that certain choices are not choices at all until you choose to go against the grain. And I also think it absolves everyone of their agency as thinking human beings by claiming that staying with tradition is simply who they are and not a choice (as if these two concepts were somehow exclusive of each other).

Although you said "It's not just a choice," which may mean I misunderstood your intent.

BTW, I really liked your posts you linked a few pages back. Good stuff.

LOL scientology.

 

That being said, I don't think I've ever actually met a scientologist.

Oh do learn to analyse texts correctly - there was no imputation that judges are holy men. Rabbis are however, since they are the interpreters and arbiters of a religious faith's doctrines, just as priests and immams are. The idea was, however, that where there is something to be interpreted, you cannot assume the interpreter to be automatically impartial or infallible.
Everyone has a view like this - in the case of judges, the right tend to view them as out of touch, too lenient. The left tend to view them as establishment figures who side with authority too often. Either way, they are never assumed to be above social and cultural influences.

And society relies on teachers, yes, but they cannot simply be imparters of knowledge, they have to teach how to approach issues, think critically, so that those being taught can grasp how to address a subject. It is not the imparting of knowledge from a book, but the cultivation of wisdom. A good history teacher doesn't reel off facts to be memorised, they show their students how to approach texts so as to extract and interpret their contents. A carpenter doesn't give step-by-step instructions to his apprentice, but teaches basic techniques and skills. (See Cziko, Without Miracles)
Judges, on the other hand, as a profession, are a result of the standardised, modern system we live in. There are alternative methods, notably those employed by the Autonomous Indigenous Commitees in southern Mexico.

Excellent summary."

No, it's not. It is a mere description of a religious moral-realist position. It says nothing about how morals are constructed, precieved, or analysed. Instead, it shows a remarkable lack of willingness to think critically, simply reinforcing orthodoxy and conformity, which, as Russell said, brings only death of the mind and of hope.

Oh do learn to analyse texts correctly. A judge is more than a rabbi and neither rabbis nor judges are "holy men". Rabbis are also absolutely and positively NOT the same as priests. Imams are community leaders and are a third category still.

 

Yes, that is what makes in an excellent summary.

 

But only to a religious person who believes in God. If you weren't a monotheist (belief in one powerful god), or were a polytheist (belief in multiple gods), a pantheist (believes in a God that is everywhere, like an energy force or something), or a follower of a religion believing in no divine beings (Buddhism, for instance), or an athiest, or an agnostic, or any other of a massive amount of ideaologies/religions, you wouldn't agree with this.