Find me a home (now focusing on biblical Israel & the talmud)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.

---

Many western countries may well have "kind of stated" that position, but the fact remains that many also have religious provisions. Shari'a is merely a system and theory of law derived from philosophies of the Islamic religion. The fact that it is subverted in some countries into an abomination does not, of itself, prove the system wrong. Legal systems throughout the world are so subverted.

I can make a fairly strong case, for example, that the death penalty in the United States, is not only barbaric in its implementation, but tends to discriminate significantly and unfairly against coloured people. Does that render the entire legal system and philosophy of the United States similarly cruel and worthy of disdain? Or by extension, the system and philosophy of the United Kingdom, from which the former structure derives?

Tribunals using Shari'a structure are available to appellants if both parties agree. These tribunals do not over-ride the statutory rights of the participants. I agree that there are concerns about ensuring women (for example) participate in a full and equal manner - but one could voice these same concerns about the conduct of rape cases, where the odds in the UK are heavily stacked in the defendant's favour. Imperfections do not invalidate the whole proceeding, and I maintain we wouldn't be having these conversations if it wasn't for "teh Muslims R eval" prejudices. There is no indication that such inclusions to an already religion-infested system signal the End of Civilisation.

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

We all know that the position of islamic women is extremely vulnerable, calling it mutual agreement is way of, the state should protect them against the archaic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

---

Plus the Church of England has a habit of involving itself in the business of other established churches. I'm still raging at the 1712 Patronage Act, it undid all the good work of 1690. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I'm not sure if this is what Tribesman is talking about, but it deals with the issue of legal descrimination in Israel all the same.

Quite interesting.

http://http://newhumanist.org.uk/511

---

no, i think that was exactly what he was talking about.
my challenge to tribsey is for him to tell me which of the 613 mitzvot discriminate against women, and i will prove him wrong.
here- ive even given a link where you can read all of them.

btw your link doesnt work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

btw your link doesnt work.

---

Does it work now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Does it work now?

---

nope.

Odd, it works for me.

The link takes you to a page asking did you mean 'bla bla bla' click that and it takes you there...

Link seems to have Http:// wrote in twice... is that why it isn't working ?

still, no cigar.

This should work...

http://newhumanist.org.uk/511

there we go.

Quote:

---

A) We have terrorists? :inquisitive:

---

Catholics? Now there's a religion of terror if ever there was one.

You replied the above to Banquo. He is from Ireland. One's thoughts don't need to leave that very isle to find endless acts of Catholic bigotry and terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Unless of course you put it in context like how its talking about bequests to children , bequests they will recieve on reaching adulthood , at the time when they are able to get married , you know when the female recieves money and the male has to pay money . So the equivalent in Jewish law according to "God" would be the bit about doling out the dosh according to the needs of the recipients.:idea2:
Still I suppose both are better than the old traditional "christian" primogenture crap where all that matters to scoop the jackpot is that you are the eldest male...like Britain still has with the monarchy

Would that be like the "modesty guard" who beat the hell out of Jewish women in Israel for violating their religious law?

---

Good to see you Tribes, and a lovely post.

Quote:

---

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries.

---

Well, 'states' rather than countries. But they are indeed. Alas, we live on an island of reason surrounded by an ocean of superstition. Superstitions with endless legal priviliges at that.

tribsey, im still waiting for the laws within the 613 laws that descriminate against women.

im still waiting tribes...

There is no need to keep posting such reminders. Tribesman will answer or not as he wishes.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

im still waiting tribes...

---

Where to start ?
The role and status of women in society , perhaps thats too hard .
Lets go for something simple .
If a man doesn't like the dinner his wife cooked can he get rid of her ?
If he just fancies screwing someone else can he throw her out ?
If a man beats seven shades of #### out of his wife can she get rid of him ?

Now of course such issues wouldn't matter in a country where personal issues even under a religious code still have to comply with the civil laws which take precendence even if both parties consent to the religious laws....like the UK which someone mentioned earlier .
But can you think of a country where religious laws about personal issues take precendence over any civil laws even when both parties don't consent to those religious interpretations ? (it starts with the letter I ends with the letter L and has 7 letters if you get stuck)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Where to start ?
The role and status of women in society , perhaps thats too hard .
Lets go for something simple .
If a man doesn't like the dinner his wife cooked can he get rid of her ?
If he just fancies screwing someone else can he throw her out ?
If a man beats seven shades of #### out of his wife can she get rid of him ?

Now of course such issues wouldn't matter in a country where personal issues even under a religious code still have to comply with the civil laws which take precendence even if both parties consent to the religious laws....like the UK which someone mentioned earlier .
But can you think of a country where religious laws about personal issues take precendence over any civil laws even when both parties don't consent to those religious interpretations ? (it starts with the letter I ends with the letter L and has 7 letters if you get stuck)

---

Israel is six letters sweetheart. Entire argument null and void.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Israel is six letters sweetheart. Entire argument null and void.

---

Tribesman in three words: Biden of the Backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Where to start ?
The role and status of women in society , perhaps thats too hard .
Lets go for something simple .

---

first of all, the role of women in society is completely dependent on the sect of judiasm. in modern orthodoxy as well as conservative and reform judaism, women play a huge role. in fact, my synagogue (modern orthodox), our president is a woman.
ultra-orthodoxy believes that women should be modest in all forms. of course, most non jewish people should regard this as descriminatory, but in ultra-orthodox eyes, it is in the name of modesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If a man doesn't like the dinner his wife cooked can he get rid of her

If he just fancies screwing someone else can he throw her out ?

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: nice lie. he needs to present a god reason to the jewish court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If a man beats seven shades of #### out of his wife can she get rid of him

---

yes, she can demand a divorce.

tribesman, your complete ignorance of judaism leads me to conclude you should refrain from posting such accusations. what astounds me is that you cited that the 613 commandments as descriminating agaisnt women, even though there is no evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

yes, she can demand a divorce.

tribesman, your complete ignorance of judaism leads me to conclude you should refrain from posting such accusations. what astounds me is that you cited that the 613 commandments as descriminating agaisnt women, even though there is no evidence.

---

Could you show me the passage? Deut. 24:1 perhaps?

Laws of Divorce

126 To issue a divorce by means of a "get" document Deut. 24:1

Deuteronomy 24
(New American Standard Bible)
Law of Divorce
1"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some (A)indecency in her, and (B)he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,

She might be able to divorse somehow, but it certainly isn't easy to find the passage for that.

Do you know what yibum is?

One personal OT favorite:

Exodus 21

7"(D)If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free (E)as the male slaves do.

Nice these old texts huh, being allowed to interpret them and all that.

you are forgetting that if you look in the laws of Nashim (book of the Mishnah) it plainly says that the woman can apply to the courts to force the hubby to giver her one. i will try to find it when i get home from NY.

and yes i know what yibum is. it has nothing to do with womens rights, rather to commemorate the name of the deceased father. i fail to see how it deals with womens rights.

EDIT: Ironside, i looked into that Exodus 21 pasage. turns out you are missing a critical part of the Pasuk(sentence).
it reads as follows in the jewish version of the bible. dunno what you non-jews are translating it as.
reads as follows (Ex 21:7-8):
"if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not be freed as male servants are. her master should designate her as his bride, and if she is not pleasing to her, he must let her be redeemed."

EDIT II: doing some looking in the commentaries, i found this:
by Rashi, on the "his daughter" part: only a minor girl may be sold.
by the Yad: he may only sell his daughter if he is absolutely destitute and has no other means of support.

Quote:

---

nice lie. he needs to present a god reason to the jewish court.

---

So explain this ....Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required.
or this .....

Quote:

---

The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her.

---

Quote:

---

yes, she can demand a divorce.

---

No physical violence is not grounds for a rabbi to demand a petition from the husband on behalf of the woman unless the woman and man have agreed to that specificly in their contract of marriage

Quote:

---

first of all, the role of women in society is completely dependent on the sect of judiasm.

---

As far as personal disputes and relationships are concerned what is the only real sect in the Jewish State when it comes to legal issues ?

Quote:

---

it is in the name of modesty

---

Thats what they say in Saudi Arabia isn't it .

Quote:

---

tribesman, your complete ignorance of judaism leads me to conclude you should refrain from posting such accusations. what astounds me is that you cited that the 613 commandments as descriminating agaisnt women, even though there is no evidence.

---

Errrr... excuse me Hooah but where are these passages that set out the discrimintory laws against women (that are for modesty honestly)? How are those applied in everyday life under the only real Jewish sect because all the other sects just ain't Jewish:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There is no need to keep posting such reminders. Tribesman will answer or not as he wishes.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

---

The Backroom has regained its liveliness since Tribes' return. Probably to the moderators' distress, but damn it makes for entertaining reading.

The Backroom simply wasn't complete without Tribesy. :2thumbsup:

Agreed. Our "bogtrotter"* does make for interesting reading.

* ~;) Just having fun Tribes, welcome back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nice these old texts huh, being allowed to interpret them and all that.

---

Yes, that was how this whole issue showed up, as somehow Jews can ignore obsolete part of the Bible or other holy texts, while the muslims cannot according to some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

and yes i know what yibum is. it has nothing to do with womens rights, rather to commemorate the name of the deceased father. i fail to see how it deals with womens rights.

---

Yibum seems to mean more stuff then, I was thinking of marrying the childless brother's widow. The wife seems to have quite little to say in the matter (except insulting the brother if he's not doing his duty and marries and bangs her to honour his brother). Deut 25: 5-10 I like the 11 and 12 aswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

EDIT: Ironside, i looked into that Exodus 21 pasage. turns out you are missing a critical part of the Pasuk(sentence).
it reads as follows in the jewish version of the bible. dunno what you non-jews are translating it as.
reads as follows (Ex 21:7-8):
"if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not be freed as male servants are. her master should designate her as his bride, and if she is not pleasing to her, he must let her be redeemed."

---

Interesting about the translations. Appearently "countrymen" (Lev 39-46) cannot be proper slaves but are to be released after 6 years, unless you happen to be female. Proper slaves are from the "temporary residents" or other people. So slave might be too hard, but servant is too weak.

Exodus 22:16-17, won't quote it since your version seems to difffer (care to name it? I switched to the new international version that doesn't use slave in that context). Can you spot the second meaning in 22:17?

I also wonder if there's a male equivalent to numbers 5:11-31 (that sounds possible to rig anyway)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

EDIT II: doing some looking in the commentaries, i found this:
by Rashi, on the "his daughter" part: only a minor girl may be sold.
by the Yad: he may only sell his daughter if he is absolutely destitute and has no other means of support.

---

So it's ok as it's only selling children to be wives? And not at all discrimatory to women?

And the million dollar question is, does it still apply or is that part considered obsolete nowadays? :book:

I belive Tribesy is refering to Tractate Kethuboth in Talmud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Errrr... excuse me Hooah but where are these passages that set out the discrimintory laws against women (that are for modesty honestly)? How are those applied in everyday life under the only real Jewish sect because all the other sects just ain't Jewish:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

so before i set out and crush your other claims, lets start out by asking a question:
earlier you said that the 613 mitzvot descriminated against women. before we go on, id like you to tell me which laws within the 613 mitzvot, which i posted a list earlier in the thread, did that. then we will go on with our debate.

70s early 300s late 500s early 600s

are you sure you posted that in the right thread? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

are you sure you posted that in the right thread?

---

Certain:yes:
Would you like to read them again ? or perhaps you should consult a Rabbi on the meanings first

Well, Tribesman, I've checked the 613 Mitzvot but I could find little concerning the treatment of women, only that a man should not wear female garments and the other way around.

However, I do find them very fascistic and xenophobic to be honest. To name just a few:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

#
# Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
# Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
# Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
# Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17

---

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.

Quote:

---

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.

---

Thats not fair , you have to put the passages in context:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.

---

true, i must admit.
but you are forgetting one thing: judasim does not advocate killing all non-believers. only certain nations that were in disgust of G-d and tried to destroy us, like Amalek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

true, i must admit.
but you are forgetting one thing: judasim does not advocate killing all non-believers. only certain nations that were in disgust of G-d and tried to destroy us, like Amalek.

---

What was Jericho then, where every man woman and child were slaughtered? Ai, where the city was raised to the ground?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.

---

There is a difference, old testament is full of immoral texts, but (most of) it are old accounts if things that have already taken place, 'god wanted us to do it' 'god was with us' etc. You will find much worse in the Makkabees (sp?). Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared. It's the difference between telling someone what you have done and telling someone what he should do.

Quote:

---

Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

1. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
2. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
3. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19

---

Seems pretty timeless to me, eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

[/LIST]
Seems pretty timeless to me, eh.

---

Yes, but where are the canaanites and all the other by now, it is not our reality. Happened, and it happened a lot. No significance for any of us. But there just happens to be a certain group of people who just can't come to terms with certain things that happened so very very long ago.

Quote:

---

Yes, but where are the canaanites and all the other by now, it is not our reality. Happened, and it happened a lot. No significance for any of us. But there just happens to be a certain group of people who just can't come to terms with certain things that happened so very very long ago.

---

Like the Zionists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Like the Zionists?

---

Of course. Their reality as well, you are dutch you know polderen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There is a difference, old testament is full of immoral texts, but (most of) it are old accounts if things that have already taken place, 'god wanted us to do it' 'god was with us' etc. You will find much worse in the Makkabees (sp?). Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared. It's the difference between telling someone what you have done and telling someone what he should do.

---

:yes:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke beautifully on the subject, I think it is on YouTube somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There is a difference, old testament is full of immoral texts, but (most of) it are old accounts if things that have already taken place, 'god wanted us to do it' 'god was with us' etc. You will find much worse in the Makkabees (sp?). Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared. It's the difference between telling someone what you have done and telling someone what he should do.

---

I'm sure hooahguy or any of the other practising Jews residing here are fully up to the task of marrying thier older brother's wife should the brother die, banging the wife and naming thier first-born son after the older brother. Or selling thier under aged daughter off to permanent servitude with the intent of selling her as a wife.

Those are ageless RULES, commands by GOD.

It's all about interpretation and appearently Christianity and Judaism get a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but Islam is trapped to it's millenia old ways. Or so some people claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

What was Jericho then, where every man woman and child were slaughtered? Ai, where the city was raised to the ground?

---

the people of jerico and Ai were part of the 7 nations within Cannan that G-D wanted us to destroy. numerous reasons why, such as one reason i heard somewhere, all the nations were offered the chance to become the chosen ones, but these 7 nations were ones who refused AND cursed G-d at the same time, thus he anted them destroyed. not sure where i heard that though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I'm sure hooahguy or any of the other practising Jews residing here are fully up to the task of marrying thier older brother's wife should the brother die, banging the wife and naming thier first-born son after the older brother. Or selling thier under aged daughter off to permanent servitude with the intent of selling her as a wife.

---

um, no. we have long since thrown away the practice of yibum and selling children/ourselves for slavery.

Quote:

---

Those are ageless RULES, commands by GOD.

---

Hey, you're not allowed to say that name! STONE HIM!

Quote:

---

the people of jerico and Ai were part of the 7 nations within Cannan that G-D wanted us to destroy. numerous reasons why, such as one reason i heard somewhere, all the nations were offered the chance to become the chosen ones, but these 7 nations were ones who refused AND cursed G-d at the same time, thus he anted them destroyed

---

Surely the sign of a just and merciful God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I'm sure hooahguy or any of the other practising Jews residing here are fully up to the task of marrying thier older brother's wife should the brother die, banging the wife and naming thier first-born son after the older brother. Or selling thier under aged daughter off to permanent servitude with the intent of selling her as a wife.

Those are ageless RULES, commands by GOD.

It's all about interpretation and appearently Christianity and Judaism get a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but Islam is trapped to it's millenia old ways. Or so some people claim.

---

Christianity is not bound by Mosaic Law, or any other pre-Christian Law aside from the Ten Commandments. The New Covenant itself is very vague about Laws in general, the only parts that deal with Christian laws are the Epistles, and you can get around them quite easily.

I'm really not sure about the justification for selecting from Mosaic Law in Judaism though.

I'm curious, why do Jews no longer offer sacrifice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's all about interpretation and appearently Christianity and Judaism get a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but Islam is trapped to it's millenia old ways. Or so some people claim.

---

I cannot speak for Judaism, though I am sure hooahguy can make an admirable case in its defence. However, Christianity does get a relatively large amount of leeway on the subject. Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla made an excellent post on the subject. Islam, on the other hand, seems to get relatively little - I am still trying to find the excellent talk made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the subject. She mentions it in passing at 4:04, though not in depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

but Islam is trapped to it's millenia centuries old ways. Or so some people claim.

---

You think it isn't? Let's just take it at face value and compare society's, backward is too agressive a word for the islamic world as a whole but archaic it certainly is.

Quote:

---

I cannot speak for Judaism, though I am sure hooahguy can make an admirable case in its defence. However, Christianity does get a relatively large amount of leeway on the subject. Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla made an excellent post on the subject. Islam, on the other hand, seems to get relatively little - I am still trying to find the excellent talk made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the subject. She mentions it in passing at 4:04, though not in depth.

---

Don't be ridiculous, please. How would you know this? Do you know any Muslims in the west? I spoke with my father (who is Islamic, yes) about praying, and he said that it is more a form of meditation than real prayer, and he acknowledged that there are always irrelevant things. Also know that some Arabic words are difficult to translate into the Germanic and Roman languages, and as thus some parts from the Qu'ran could be mistranslated. The best way to read it is to learn Arabic and then read the Qu'ran in Arabic.

Islam is different from Judaism and Christianity due to the fact that its origins are very clear. After Muhammed's death virtually everything he had said was recorded and written down in the series of stories we know as the Qu'ran. Judaism's history is very unclear as we cannot state when exactly the Old Testament was really made. Dates range between 3,000BC and 40BC. The new testament was finally recorded in Nicaea in 325AD (if I'm not mistaken). As such, Islam is the only monotheistic religion whose origins are fairly well known.

But seriously, Fragony, EMFM..have you ever been to an Islamic country?

Quote:

---

Islam, on the other hand, seems to get relatively little

---

None of the Muslims I know have tried to kill me.

Yes, been to Turkey and Marocco, guess what I have dated maroccan girls, and I have muslim friends nah they never believe that.

Islam is different from Judaism and Christianity due to the fact that its origins are very clear. After Muhammed's death virtually everything he had said was recorded and written down in the series of stories we know as the Hadith

fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

um, no. we have long since thrown away the practice of yibum and selling children/ourselves for slavery.

---

Sorry, bad case of sarcasm not going through the internet. That you don't do it anymore is the whole point.
Why did (all?) Jews stop following that part of the Bible btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You think it isn't? Let's just take it at face value and compare society's, backward is too agressive a word for the islamic world as a whole but archaic it certainly is.

---

I'm mainly suspicious about the implying about Islam never being able to change, that the societies built on an islamic fundation are archaic in some ways I can agree on (interestingly it's often a relativly new movement that created the most archaic ways though).

Was thinking of millenium old, but missed the singular grammar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Islam is different from Judaism and Christianity due to the fact that its origins are very clear. After Muhammed's death virtually everything he had said was recorded and written down in the series of stories we know as the Hadith

---

Still not something that goes against my thesis that there are considerble space for reforms inside Islam.

Quote:

---

Still not something that goes against my thesis that there are considerble space for reforms inside Islam.

---

well the thing is that fundamentalism , which is the problem in all of the big three , is a reaction against the reforms which have taken place .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

well the thing is that fundamentalism , which is the problem in all of the big three , is a reaction against the reforms which have taken place .

---

Hardly true for Christianity - fundamentalism was a result of the Reformation. Not necessarily man-walked-with-dinosaurs fundamentalism, but the Reformed theologians at Geneva termed themselves as 'Biblicists'.

I'll get back to your righteous outrage in a moment Hax.

Quote:

---

I'll get back to your righteous outrage in a moment Hax.

---

Righteous outrage?! I'll take that as a compliment, my dear friend.

No sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Hardly true for Christianity - fundamentalism was a result of the Reformation.

---

Very true for Christianity , after all what were they upset with in the way the church had developed and changed over the centuries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Very true for Christianity , after all what were they upset with in the way the church had developed and changed over the centuries

---

Not really, some of the bad practices which emerged might have tipped the balance, but few of the reformers viewed themselves as trying to return to an earlier, purer church. This is in contrast to many Muslims who look back to the Caliphate.

Quote:

---

Not really, some of the bad practices which emerged might have tipped the balance, but few of the reformers viewed themselves as trying to return to an earlier, purer church.

---

Yes really , luther was well pissed with some of the changes and developments , he even changed some the words in the bible to show everyone how pissed off he was . He wanted a return to a "purer" church .

Quote:

---

This is in contrast to many Muslims who look back to the Caliphate.

---

Many Muslims ? I thought this was about the fundies . say for example the saudi fruitcakes who harp on about a return to the good old Caliphate yet follow a sect that opposed the good old Caliphate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes really , luther was well pissed with some of the changes and developments , he even changed some the words in the bible to show everyone how pissed off he was . He wanted a return to a "purer" church .

---

Yes he wanted to sort out some of the corruptions which had emerged such as indulgences and some funny doctrines, but he was quite disillusioned with the whole Papal-style church system by the end of his life, not just its incarnation during his time. And Luther only represents the first phase of the Reformation, Calvin could harldy be said to be looking backward to a mythic past church, his doctrines were all new, even if he was influenced somewhat by Augustine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Many Muslims ? I thought this was about the fundies . say for example the saudi fruitcakes who harp on about a return to the good old Caliphate yet follow a sect that opposed the good old Caliphate

---

There's nothing wrong with looking back to Islam's golden age. If Christians and Muslims could get on in Andalusia a millenia ago, you would think they could do it nowadays. There's nothing wrong with Christians or Muslims looking back to such times, at least not from a secular point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm curious, why do Jews no longer offer sacrifice?

---

because we no longer had the Temple in Jerusalem. the concept of altars besides th eones in the Mishkan and the Beit Hamikdash was, and still is, looked down upon. if there is no holy temple for G-ds spirit to reside in, we clearly are not worthy of offering sacrifices. but our substitue is daily prayer, which we do 3 times a day, to replace the 3 daily sacrifices: at morning, afternoon, evening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Why did (all?) Jews stop following that part of the Bible btw?

---

well, for one thing, society changed. what was then normal practice became a taboo. same goes for many of the practices. also, when the Jewish courts (called the Sanhedrin) no longer became the head of the judiciary system (especially around the times of the Romans), there was no way to do this, plus the hethens prevented us, trying to stamp out judasim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Surely the sign of a just and merciful God.

---

if he wasnt a merciful god, he would have smote my people countless times, like after the sin of the golden calf, for example. if you want i can give many, many times in which G-d was about to smite all the Jews, but then decided not to.

just curious Hax, why did you bring up the 7 nations thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Not really, some of the bad practices which emerged might have tipped the balance, but few of the reformers viewed themselves as trying to return to an earlier, purer church.

---

That's not true that was more or less the point, reformers were inspired by the thinkers of the renaissance who believed that the closer you were to the life of Jezus and his apostels the better, to yes return to a purer form of christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That's not true that was more or less the point, reformers were inspired by the thinkers of the renaissance who believed that the closer you were to the life of Jezus and his apostels the better, to yes return to a purer form of christianity.

---

A purer form of christianity yes, but not a purer past form of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, why would they not establish their own Papacy?

my bad misunderstood you

i learned a very interesting piece on the 7 nations issue.
the rambam answers that G-d needed a monotheistic society in Israel. he offered to the 7 nations that if they would believe in him they could stay, but if not, they had to be expelled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

the people of jerico and Ai were part of the 7 nations within Cannan that G-D wanted us to destroy. numerous reasons why, such as one reason i heard somewhere, all the nations were offered the chance to become the chosen ones, but these 7 nations were ones who refused AND cursed G-d at the same time, thus he anted them destroyed. not sure where i heard that though.

---

I heard one reason in one place from that one guy who knows this one thing about that.

You haven't provided a reason for the "defence" against Jericho and Ai.

well Jerico and Ai were part of those 7 nations.
and when did i say it was defense?

[QUOTE=hooahguy;2217399]certain nations that were in disgust of G-d and tried to destroy us,QUOTE]

Guilt by association, eh?

guess so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

guess so.

---

So Jericho and Ai, two cities whose people did not attack the Israelites nor bear any offense to them, were still deserving of destruction in a war of religious conquest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

So Jericho and Ai, two cities whose people did not attack the Israelites nor bear any offense to them, were still deserving of destruction in a war of religious conquest?

---

that is debatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

that is debatable.

---

Go ahead, I have my Bible right here.

thats the thing.
the talmud is rarely to be taken at face value. imagine it like a burger. to take the bible as it is without the commentary of the rabbis is like eating the bun and not the meat part.
ready to start pouring over countless pages of difficult Aramaic texts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

thats the thing.
the talmud is rarely to be taken at face value. imagine it like a burger. to take the bible as it is without the commentary of the rabbis is like eating the bun and not the meat part.

---

I am awaiting the casus belli, I am awaiting the great offensive tooken by Jericho and Ai to destroy the Israelites, and not the other way around.

Please don't avoid the question.

i will quote myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i learned a very interesting piece on the 7 nations issue.
the rambam answers that G-d needed a monotheistic society in Israel. he offered to the 7 nations that if they would believe in him they could stay, but if not, they had to be expelled.

---

bear in mind that "the great offensive" doesnt need to be a military attack. could be societal or something.
also, what are you trying to prove?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i will quote myself.

---

Your quote simply shows that the Israelites were religious zealots that wished no more than to spread their religion across Canaan, no matter how many men, women and children they killed to get their.

Quote:

---

bear in mind that "the great offensive" doesnt need to be a military attack. could be societal or something.

---

Ok. Can you prove that Jericho and Ai made any attack on the Israelites, military, economic, societal, that gave the Israelites the right to destroy them and massacre the populations?

before i go furthur, what exactly are you trying to prove? that judasim is a violent, evil religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

before i go furthur, what exactly are you trying to prove? that judasim is a violent, evil religion?

---

No, that the Israelites were not these poor souls that had to defend against the evil women of Jericho, and that the Canaanite conquest was simply a crusade that killed mercilessly. (I do like hearing about how Islam was a religion spread by the sword, UH OH I DOG GONE DID IT.)

Still awaiting the evidence.

ah. i never said that the israelites were defending. one could argue about the crusade part, though we werent spreading judasim. in fact to this day there arent many (if any at all) jewish missionaries, since it is so hard to convert in the first place (at least to orthodox judasim).

and about before, i do not have the exact citing right now, im sure since you have the bible with you you could look it up.
when Lavan chases after Yaakov and they make a pact with the stones and the deal with the idols and that whole mess, the rabbis translate that as an attempt to destroy jacobs heritage. you can tell my the pact with the rocks. jacob had one rock, which signified one people with one culture and one identity. Lavan had multiple rocks, which meant that his descendants would be many nations and cultures. Lavan wanted their descendants to intermarry, thus destroying the identity of Jacob and judasim. according to some, the 7 nations, including Ai and jerico, were the decedents of Lavan, and had to go.
there we go.

So we have death to the unbelievers in the name of god and don't have sex with the locals because your blood won't be pure .
oh and people trying to destroy you by not attacking you so they had to be ethnicly cleansed
You shoulda let it rest Hooah:yes:

theres more than one way to attack others. doesnt have to be militarily.