If Devout Jews rule Israel: Should Shabbath breakers be killed?

[outhouse]

The law didn't change, nor was following the law stopped.

The punishment factually did change. And that was his context

 

[outhouse]

the penalty was NEVER enforced.

It was in the past !


Even the NT claims stoning women for adultery

 

[Godobeyer]

The law didn't change, nor was following the law stopped. The capital punishment was never allowed in certain contexts and we are simply obeying that requirement. For example, biblically, a death penalty requires 2 witnesses. If there weren't 2 witnesses, then the penalty was NEVER enforced. If, today, no one satisfied the biblical demands to qualify as "witness" then we are following the same law and process when we don't kill anyone. QED.

I get it, the law of punishement required two witnesses .

If there is two witnesses the law is ON , if there is no 2 witnesses it's OFF ?

 

[rosends]

The punishment factually did change. And that was his context

You should pay more attention to what the claim was. It wasn't just that the punishments changed (which they, strictly speaking, didn't) but "actual Jews are not practice Judaism as their first elders" when by NOT having those punishments, we are doing exactly what our elders DID DO in parallel situations.

 

[rosends]

It was in the past !


Even the NT claims stoning women for adultery

who cares what the gospels say? Why cite them. I only listen to credible sources.

 

[rosends]

I get it, the law of punishement required two witnesses .

If there is two witnesses the law is ON , if there is no 2 witnesses it's OFF ?

the punishment is off. So the law stays the same -- the law requires 2 witnesses and always has. By following an identical process, we show that we are doing just as our elders did.

Now, in fact, the issue isn't one of witnesses but there are other issues. Since you can see the logic, it is easy to transfer this to the actual details.

We don't have the right kind of court (among other things), so we follow the law which applies to the case in which we don't have the right kind of court, same as the elders did.

 

[Augustus]

Credible sources are required.

As someone who claims to teach at a tertiary level, makes constant demand on others to produce 'credible sources', and usually tells anyone who disagrees with you that they are 'arguing against knowledge and academia', why do you never refer to academic sources yourself in any thread you 'contribute' to?

As a tertiary level educator, surely you have at least a reasonable knowledge of contemporary scholarship and have countless sources at your fingertips or committed to memory.

I've seen you quote wikipedia and dictionaries, but never any actual academic literature.

It's always interesting when someone is able to contribute knowledge that goes beyond the laypersons understanding, especially when supported with scholarly sources that interested people can read further to expand their knowledge.

Why don't you start doing this?

 

[Godobeyer]

the punishment is off. So the law stays the same -- the law requires 2 witnesses and always has. By following an identical process, we show that we are doing just as our elders did.

Now, in fact, the issue isn't one of witnesses but there are other issues. Since you can see the logic, it is easy to transfer this to the actual details.

We don't have the right kind of court (among other things), so we follow the law which applies to the case in which we don't have the right kind of court, same as the elders did.

Edited correct typo error :
I get it , so the law is stopped temporary because the condition court , and may state is NOT exist as the past (elders).

 

[columbus]

So it's good that a religion because like Chameleon, the laws changed by "mode" of it's followers.

So let's make new law instead of old one,and store the other in memory (souvenir)!!!

Yes.
It is good when morals improve.

Ancient people were primitive. Including the ones who invented the Abrahamic religions.
Recognizing that modern people know more about morality than Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad is an improvement to the human situation. Jewish people are better at that than most Abrahamic people, as a group.
Individual Muslim people are sometimes better than individual Christians or Jews, but as a group modern Jews are the most moral Abrahamic religionists.
In my not so humble opinion.
Tom

 

[rosends]

I get it , so the law is stopped temporary because the condition court , and may state are exist as the past (elders).

no, the law is still there, but there are other laws about how the penalty is determined. So we follow ALL the laws, and because we are following one of them it means that we do things in a particular way.

 

[Godobeyer]

no, the law is still there, but there are other laws about how the penalty is determined. So we follow ALL the laws, and because we are following one of them it means that we do things in a particular way.

I don't get the point of follow all the laws , since the laws of punishment to adultery and homosexual and marry more than one woman, and slavery are allowed and they are laws too .

 

[rosends]

I don't get the point of follow all the laws , since the laws of punishment to adultery and homosexual and marry more than one woman, and slavery are allowed and they are laws too .

We follow the laws because that's what a religion is -- a code of life which has laws. The laws of punishment are as important and we have to follow them in the same way. If in the US there is a law which has the punishment of the death penalty, but the death penalty enforcement is determined by a law demanding a painless death, and we don't have a painless method of death, that doesn't make the initial behavior allowed. It just means we have to call it "illegal but we can't kill you for it because we are following a set of laws about enforcing penalties."

 

[outhouse]

modern people know more about morality than Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad

Funny is only two of those people have credibility as existing.


Moses factually has no historicity as ever existing. His role as leader of he Israelites, factually cannot be substantiated. The exodus as I already posted a credible source for, is called a myth.

 

[Godobeyer]

We follow the laws because that's what a religion is -- a code of life which has laws. The laws of punishment are as important and we have to follow them in the same way. If in the US there is a law which has the punishment of the death penalty, but the death penalty enforcement is determined by a law demanding a painless death, and we don't have a painless method of death, that doesn't make the initial behavior allowed. It just means we have to call it "illegal but we can't kill you for it because we are following a set of laws about enforcing penalties."

So you accept your religious laws about penalties,but you followed the laws of country that you living in?

 

[rosends]

So you accept your religious laws about penalties,but you followed the laws of country that you living in?

Well, I also accept the limitations on carrying out penalties based on time and circumstance, not just location. The temple was destroyed. After that, even in Israel, different implementations under the law were necessary.

 

[columbus]

Funny is only two of those people have credibility as existing.

At least you managed to form an almost grammatical sentence without torturing the word "factual".
I don't care if any of these characters existed. I only care about the here and now, and how that affects the future.
Tom

 

[Godobeyer]

Well, I also accept the limitations on carrying out penalties based on time and circumstance, not just location. The temple was destroyed. After that, even in Israel, different implementations under the law were necessary.

Does God law suppose changed by time ?!!
And what circumstance that could change God laws , for exemple ?
Why Practice Jewish laws required build a the temple ?

 

[outhouse]

At least you managed to form an almost grammatical sentence without torturing the word "factual".

Cannot let some theist have all the fun perverting context and words

only care about the here and now, and how that affects the future.
Tom

That's fine by me.

Many of the ancient and primitive aspects should have been dropped a long time ago.

 

[rosends]

Does God law suppose changed by time ?!!
And what circumstance that could change God laws , for exemple ?
Why Practice Jewish laws required build a the temple ?

Who said God's law changed? The enforcement and penalties are implemented following the law which accounts for different situations. We just covered this.

If we are commanded to bring sacrifices after sinning but only when there is a temple, when there is no temple we are commanded not to bring sacrifices. I don't understand your final question.

 

[columbus]

Does God law suppose changed by time ?!!

No.
God does not give laws. That's why nobody knows what the laws might be. People make up images and laws and stories about history, but they are not from God. They're from people.
And people are commonly wrong.
Tom