The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[eider]

“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts.

This is something that, if I were King of America, I would implement, even though it's directed at Israel (see 4-5)
Notice it doesn't say "should." Meaning it depends on the circumstances.

Of course you would! You cherry-pick what you like, and discard what you don't.
I noticed that it said 'Shall' which is a form or order.
Now, let's look at the bulk of this one:-
{15:1} At the end of [every] seven years thou shalt make
a release. {15:2} And this [is] the manner of the release:
Every creditor that lendeth [ought] unto his neighbour shall
release [it;] he shall not exact [it] of his neighbour, or of his
brother; because it is called the LORD’S release. {15:3} Of
a foreigner thou mayest exact [it again:] but [that] which is
thine with thy brother thine hand shall release; {15:4} Save
when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall
greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God
giveth thee [for] an inheritance to possess it:
{15:4} Save when there shall be no poor among you;
......... you see? This is the ideal, right there within the law....... the focus upon a land where there are no longer any poor folks..... not quite like today, eh? That's what you should be striving for, methinks.

 

[eider]

This indicates God is speaking directly to Israel.
“If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.[/BOX]
This is directed directly at Israel. It is not for all nations to follow. God has the right to tell his people to be charitable to their neighbor, and to warn them against wicked thoughts.
An earthly government, on the other hand, DOES NOT have the right to compel charity, nor is it even able to regulate the thoughts of men. We should be cheerful givers, to be sure. But only God can arbitrarily make such a law.

WRONG! READ YOUR OWN POSTS.......

Not what Jesus said:
[JESUS]For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.[/JESUS] - Matthew 5:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:18&version=NKJV

You quoted the above to suit your choices........ now you need to accept all of the 507......

I must go out now...... more tomorrow....

 

[eider]

Pretty straight forward. Accountability is the issue here, not the poor.
Straightforward.

“You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or the fatherless, nor take a widow’s garment as a pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this thing.

This is addressed to Israel, but applies to all.

Again, it can be seen from the above that you will reverse your 'stance' about 'laws to israel' if it pleases you, just as you flip from 'government to react' to 'God's direct punishment'.
In any event, it does look as if you do acknowledge all these laws, and all the others in the OT, excluding just the 106 sacrificial laws which Jesus was clearly opposed to?
One problem that you do seem to have raised is caused by your repeated (for the Israelites only' phrase, which could of course give opportunity for folks to agree with you about that in many more cases, such as to do with LGBT rights, more freedom of choice for women, etc etc?

 

[ok doser]

Again, it can be seen from the above that you will reverse your 'stance' about 'laws to israel' if it pleases you, just as you flip ....

pretty sure JR doesn't treat scripture on a whim, just to suit his own pleasure


pretty sure too that you're not bothering to read what he has to say, that you're just interested in playing a game of "gotcha!"

 

[JudgeRightly]

Again, it can be seen from the above that you will reverse your 'stance' about 'laws to israel' if it pleases you, just as you flip from 'government to react' to 'God's direct punishment'.

Not surprised that this is your response, that I would "on a whim" (so to speak) flip my stance seemingly at random, considering that you seemingly seem to think it's "all or nothing" when it comes to enforcing the Mosaic law.

In any event, it does look as if you do acknowledge all these laws,

Of course I acknowledge them. They're in the Scripture for a reason, a reason which seems to elude you... Especially for some of them.

and all the others in the OT, excluding just the 106 sacrificial laws which Jesus was clearly opposed to?

Please provide a reference to what you're talking about.

I'm not going to sit here and play find the pickle in the tree all day.

One problem that you do seem to have raised is caused by your repeated (for the Israelites only' phrase, which could of course give opportunity for folks to agree with you about that in many more cases, such as to do with LGBT rights, more freedom of choice for women, etc etc?

My repeated .... what? You opened your parenthetical statement but never closed it, and didn't seem to finish your statement.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Within context? Lovely! That means that I can quote the verses immediately before......
I'll just focus upon your reading of Ex22.21-24 this morning..... short on time.

Who wrote that? Why don't you just read from Exodus?

No idea who exactly wrote that. I imagine it was one of the translators of the NKJV.

I include it because it's a summation of what follows. And getting an overview of a passage of scripture helps to understand the details.

And please note that verses 16 onwards include demands such as you have grasped to before and would certainly execute for if you could. So these laws are ALL very important (like all of the 507)

nd so, do you feel that you can ignore and dismiss God's laws if warning of punishment is not published?

No. I just have a better understanding of the context of the passage than you do.

Interesting. And I think that you have misread the para......

I didn't. You're just not paying attention to what I'm saying.

the children of Israel WERE strangers, all of them, as a people, in Egypt.

Duh.

That's why I said this immediately afterward:

That last point makes verse 21 a symbolic ordinance. Not that it would be ok for anyone to mistreat or oppress a stranger, but that this command was intended specifically for Israel.

Note: You really don't want to help the poor....... do you!?

Red herring, begging the question, and somewhat of an ad hom attack, all rolled into one.

Address my argument please.

ALL of the laws were intended for Israel.

Correction:

SOME of the laws were intended ONLY for ISRAEL. The rest apply EQUALLY to all men, Jew or Gentile.

Eider, do you agree that it is absolutely wrong to kill an innocent person?

You don't actually think that the surrounding tribes were expected to obey them, do you?

See above.

You think that God needs to use swords?

I think God uses the tools He has available to Him.

Eider, this is a relevant question, though not immediately obvious that it is:

Has God been interacting with the world for the past two thousand years, doing things like miracles, signs, wonders, healings, etc? or has He been mostly silent?

You've already pointed lout that you think that verses 16 onwards are either ceremonial or moral laws. Clearly this law isn't ceremonial, and so, like sleeping with beasts (before) it's very very moral in its legislation.

See above, RE: God's interaction with man.

You think that a fatherless child or a widow (back then) was living comfortably?

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't know about your country, but where I live such laws could possibly have been in our common-law, I might look at that some other time.

I live in America, for reference.

And you do that.

You really don't like coughing up your dollars for the welfare of the poor, the sick and the oppressed, do you?!!

Again, not relevant to the discussion, an ad hominem, and begging the question.

Please stay on topic.

I will be reviewing the whole post as I find time, but at first sight this looks to me as if you are going to struggle and wriggle and wrangle in efforts to avoid and evade obeying these laws. It's almost a joke, because the laws only a couple of verses before these are:-
{22:18} Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. {22:19} Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put
to death.................... and I expect that you would be supporting such executions with some zeal?

Law against witchcraft? Nope.

Law against bestiality? Yep.

And you'll have no idea why that's my position, because you don't understand the context.

Please stick to the quoted verses, eh?

No, I'm not going to address your points based on cherry picked verses. I'm going to show you the context of what is being said so that you can come to an understanding of what is being said.

You're personal ideas about my IQ are just insults.

I said nothing about your IQ. Just that if you thought that this passage was about...

THE POOR

... you weren't too bright, because it has nothing to do with...

THE POOR

Unless you want to measure the brightness of a bulb by IQ points... :think: Not sure how well that would work...

You miss the point of this law.

Oh really? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It's a clear 'for instance' communication, and the two main factors are 'a person who doesn't even like you', and 'a situation of adversity'.

Ok, and...?

And even taking it word for word, you go and get it wrong!

I do?

Your sentence: Either way, this law only applies.......' and you forget to include 'a hater' or 'enemy' in your Judgement.

That sentence (if you can even call it that...) made no sense. Could you rephrase please? Thanks!

This law is extremely important because it is a COMMUNAL COHESIVE FACILITATOR,

Whatever that means...

and all the poor laws are as such.

You're forgetting one really important thing...

This law has nothing to do with the poor.

You would race to verses before or after this

... to understand the context of what is being said.

Since you don't, it's no wonder you have the position you have.

in order to justify your self-righteous judgement of others,

Is this an attack against me? or my position? Seems like the former...

And don't get me started on "judging," You'll lose, badly.

mostly involving sharia-like executions,

So now you're comparing God's law to man's wicked perversion of His law?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

but you have never taken note of this law.......

Are you absolutely sure?

Don't make such broad statements.

you've been cherry picking, I think.

Says the one who doesn't like it when I quote the surrounding verses to understand the context of what is being said.

Hypocrite.

Next one tomorrow......

Oh don't worry about the Levites! You are going to give to the stranger, the orphan and the widow who come for succour!

What do I have to do with any of this?

Please address my point.

ALL of the laws of the OT were for the Israelites......

Again, CORRECTION:

SOME of the laws were SPECIFICALLY for Israel.

The REST of the laws are for the wicked, Jew or Gentile.

you don't actually think that the surrounding tribes kept to them, do you?

See above.

Ergo, anybody can argue that these laws were only for Israelites.

The only person who would argue that is someone who doesn't understand the difference between moral and symbolic (which includes ceremonial) laws, which you clearly don't.

If you think you do, answer this question:

Is it absolutely wrong (iow: wrong in all circumstances, at all times, in all places, in all ways) for a man to rape a woman?

But you don't...... you cling to the laws that you would use

... if I were King, yes.

if your Church ever might control a land or more.
More later.......

My church? Talk about a straw man...

I'm a monarchist, not a theocratist (yes, I had to look that one up, I'm ashamed to say, as its spelling wouldn't work the same as "monarchist"... anyways, it means "one who advocates a theocracy").

Of course you would! You cherry-pick what you like, and discard what you don't.

Again, this coming from the hypocrite who says (or at least implies) that I shouldn't look at the surrounding verses to understand the context of a verse...

:yawn:

I noticed that it said 'Shall' which is a form or order.

And?

Now, let's look at the bulk of this one:-
{15:1} At the end of [every] seven years thou shalt make
a release. {15:2} And this [is] the manner of the release:
Every creditor that lendeth [ought] unto his neighbour shall
release [it;] he shall not exact [it] of his neighbour, or of his
brother; because it is called the LORD’S release. {15:3} Of
a foreigner thou mayest exact [it again:] but [that] which is
thine with thy brother thine hand shall release; {15:4} Save
when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall
greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God
giveth thee [for] an inheritance to possess it:
{15:4} Save when there shall be no poor among you;
......... you see? This is the ideal, right there within the law....... the focus upon a land where there are no longer any poor folks..... not quite like today, eh? That's what you should be striving for, methinks.

"Methinks" you completely ignored my point about "except when there are no poor among you..."

"Methinks" you also ignored the part where I said that I would implement this if I were king of America.

Go read the post again. Please.

WRONG!

Oh? How so? Please explain.

READ YOUR OWN POSTS.......

:AMR:

Done. Now what?

You quoted the above to suit your choices........ now you need to accept all of the 507......

Why? Why would I have to accept ALL the laws, when NOT ALL the laws are meant for the world?

I do accept.... that some laws are intended ONLY for Israel, and that the rest are for those who need the law, aka the wicked.

I must go out now...... more tomorrow....

:yawn:

 

[ok doser]

...

you have more patience than I

 

[fool]

Where does it say in that verse that the government is supposed to step in and take it by force, and then redistribute it to everyone in the nation?

Well, it was written a couple thousand years ago so it might need need some tweaking in letter but I think the intent is pretty clear.

 

[ok doser]

Well, it was written a couple thousand years ago so it might need need some tweaking in letter but I think the intent is pretty clear.

scriptural process: the poor have the means to support themselves

big government process: the poor are supported by big government

 

[fool]

Because all I see in that verse (and perhaps I'm missing something) is God telling the individual, to leave some grain for the one following behind the workers to do some work for themselves and gather wheat that is intentionally left on the ground BY THE WORKERS, not the government.

So if you don't have a wheat field or vineyard then don't sweat it?
I don't think that was the point.
The government is just facilitating THE WORKERS leaving some product for the poor and getting it from A to B. Since trucking the poor out of the cities to the fields to glean isn't really cost effective.

 

[ok doser]

So if you don't have a wheat field or vineyard then don't sweat it?
I don't think that was the point.
The government is just facilitating THE WORKERS leaving some product for the poor and getting it from A to B. Since trucking the poor out of the cities to the fields to glean isn't really cost effective.

you know all those poor thugs in Chicago who are so distraught at not having jobs or a future that they're killing each other?

truck them off to work as farmhands - get them out of the cities and away from their hopeless toxic environment

teach them the value of hard work

maybe they'll learn to support themselves and their families


and fewer mexicans will have to illegally enter

 

[JudgeRightly]

you have more patience than I

Nah, I just have a lot of time on my hands.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, it was written a couple thousand years ago so it might need need some tweaking in letter but I think the intent is pretty clear.

So you would change what scripture says to support your position? Is that what you're saying?

In other words, you're admitting that your position is invalid unless that scripture is changed. Right?

You don't get to change scripture just so it fits your beliefs.

Yes, it was written over a period of about 1600 years, ending nearly 2000 years ago. But it's still just as relevant today as it was back then, and for all intents and purposes, it hasn't changed.

You're reading your beliefs into scripture, instead of basing your beliefs on what scripture says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So if you don't have a wheat field or vineyard then don't sweat it?
I don't think that was the point.

Of course not. The reason God gave that rule was so that people would be encouraged to work, because work is a good thing.

The government is just facilitating THE WORKERS leaving some product for the poor and getting it from A to B.

The government is facilitating laziness and reluctance to work, by stepping in for those who won't, and they're making it nearly impossible for those who do work and want to work to be charitable.

Since trucking the poor out of the cities to the fields to glean isn't really cost effective.

About 80% of the time I take the exit I normally take in St. Louis, MO to get to the shipper they send me to, there's a random person (usually a different person every time or so it seems, though probably not) standing at the intersection at the bottom of the ramp, holding the typical cardboard sign that says "homeless please help" or something along those lines.

You know what's interesting about people like that? They spend all that time trying to get handouts from passersby, instead of going right down the street to the businesses there (that even have signs saying "NOW HIRING!" in big bold letters) and applying for jobs.

And when the occasional driver gives them money, it's a reward for standing around for hours on end doing nothing. And then instead of using that money to buy themselves a meal, or saving it so they can buy a taxi to the nearest hiring business, they spend it on booze or drugs. And rinse and repeat.

Pastor [MENTION=510]Bob Enyart[/MENTION] shares occasionally that, whenever he saw someone standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that says "will work for food," or "homeless," or anything along those lines, he would pull over to the side of the road and offer the vagrant a job moving wood piles around his yard and offer to pay him a decent wage, and offer to give him a place to eat and sleep, and tell him he would have to pay rent, but he's welcome to stay until he can get back on his feet financially. Then the vagrant would, of course, decline and mumble that he has a dentist's or doctor's appointment, or something else to try to sound polite as he declines Bob's offer. And so, Bob being Bob, would go to the trunk of his car and pull out a sign with a big arrow and big lettering that says "He's Lying," and Bob would stand next to the vagrant with the arrow pointing at him until the guy left.

And unfortunately, it wasn't long after that that that same guy would be back at it again, "begging" for money. Not once, as far as I'm aware, since Bob has been sharing that story, has any vagrant accepted the job offer or been grateful for the offer.

If it weren't for the fact that I have a job that requires me to travel, I would do the same thing. I'd go out, and find someone on a street corner, offer them a job doing menial work, pay, and if they decline, pull out the same kind of sign and stand next to him.


My point is this:
Handouts (especially government handouts) make it easier for people to be lazy. They don't promote a worker mentality. They allow those who would rather live off of someone else's dime instead of providing for themselves or loved ones to do so without any say from the person who's dime they're living on.

 

[fool]

So, if you own a plumbing business, you should leave ??? for the poor to glean?

Bathroom fixtures?

Left over rolls of solder?

Old pipe?

"Do not throweth away any recyclable metals in thy dumpster that may be of value to some one. Instead, maketh thy a pile of metal that no one will wonder where went to and let the crack heads have it."
-fool

 

[fool]

when i harvest the crop in my field, i leave all of it - it all goes to the birds and the critters and whoever wants it

i suspect you do the same

Spoiler

I bag my clippings and the pay the city to pick them up ($2/bag) then they compost them and give them back to the city for free.

 

[ok doser]

I bag my clippings and the pay the city to pick them up ($2/bag) then they compost them and give them back to the city for free.

and you deny the poor the opportunity to glean your leavings? :sozo2:


bad fool! :sibbie:

 

[ok doser]

btw - i really miss sozo and sibbie

 

[eider]

No. I just have a better understanding ..........
You're just not paying attention ............
Duh
Red herring.............
SOME of the laws were intended ONLY for ISRAEL.
Has God been interacting with the world for the past two thousand years...miracles, signs, wonders, healings, etc?
Please stay on topic.
Law against witchcraft? Nope.
Law against bestiality? Yep.
This law has nothing to do with the poor.
So now you're comparing God's law to man's wicked perversion of His law?
Hypocrite.
SOME of the laws were SPECIFICALLY for Israel.
The REST of the laws are for the wicked, Jew or Gentile.
Is it absolutely wrong ................for a man to rape a woman?
I'm a monarchist, not a theocratist.
Again, this coming from the hypocrite .................
Why would I have to accept ALL the laws, when NOT ALL the laws are meant for the world?
I do accept.... that some laws are intended ONLY for Israel.
:yawn:

The above were just some of your many points..........
Moving forward, let's just see if I have got your opinions sorted, OK?
You support capital punishment for Murder, Kidnap, Death by criminal negligence, Adultery, Sodomy, Bestiality, Incest, Rape, Human sacrifice, Manslaughter during crime and abortion and your opinion is linked to the Old Testament laws because you quote the above from the bible in a jpeg pic..... yes?
You do accept that Jesus wanted ALL of the law (507) to be kept excepting for sacrificial practices (106). You quoted Jesus thus:-
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
You're not sure why the sacrificial laws should be excluded because you asked me for evidence of this......... OK, there's no shame in being honest..... here it is:- Jesus and the Baptist both challenged Temple practices by redeeming sinners through immersion in the Jordan, the Baptist despised the p[riesthood utterly, and Jesus said:-
Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew {12:7} But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice.................................

And so, in review, you have a list of crimes with sentences from the OT laws, you accept that Jesus supported ALL the laws, and you might now accept that the sacrificial 106 were done away with.
BUT........ you wish to ignore or dismiss other laws which Jesus supported, nearly 500 of them, is that correct?
But........ you wish to ignore death sentence crimes like practicing witchcraft and more, is that correct?
But....... the vast majority of the OT laws you think were only written for Israelites, even though Jesus supported them all, and you have quoted Jesus on this.
Let's just take it from there, OK?

 

[jgarden]

The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

It should be noted that before the ministry of the Apostle Paul, Gentiles were expected to become Jews (circumcision) before converting to Christianity - this resulted in his confrontation with Peter and the "Judaizers" as described in 2 Galatians.

As for imposing the death penalty based on the Mosaic Law, adultery was a stoning offense, but when the Pharisees brought the "woman caught in adultery" before Jesus He circumvented their plans by stating that. “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

In truth, only Jesus was in a position to throw that first stone, but He showed compassion and chose not to enforce the Mosaic Law despite the fact that she was a Jew.

JUDAIZERS- is a term for Christians who decide to adopt Jewish customs and practices such as, primarily, the Law of Moses. They are distinct from Jewish Christians in that they were not originally Jewish, though often consider themselves descended from various lost tribes of Israel. This term Judaizer is derived from the Koine word Ἰουδαΐζειν (Ioudaizein) used once in the Greek New Testament (Galatians 2:14) where Paul publicly challenges Peter for compelling gentile converts to Early Christianity to "judaize," also known as the Incident at Antioch.

This term includes groups who claim the necessity of continued obedience to the Law of Moses found in the first five books of the Old Testament.[3] Members of such groups, notably the Seventh-day Adventist Church, dispute the use of the term because "Judaizers" is typically used as a pejorative.

The formal Christian belief is that much of the Old Covenant has been superseded, while according to some modern Protestants it has been completely abrogated and replaced by the Law of Christ. The Christian debate over Judaizing began in the lifetime of the apostles, notably at the Council of Jerusalem and the Incident at Antioch. It has been carried on parallel to continuing debates about Paul the Apostle and Judaism, Protestant views of the Ten Commandments, and Christian ethics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers