Why not make the 10 Commandments enforceable (and punishable) law?

[Cuthberta]

In what language were the Ten Commandments originally written?

Hebraic?

Aramaic, as possibly Mel Gibson would have it?

 

[Booko]

Chumash = Torah

A little more than that, though, as part of one side of the page has commentaries. The translated text I already have. I don't read Hebrew, so half the pages are not much use to me.

Originally when I came here I didn't use translations, since coming here, jayhawker - a naturalist (a cute word for athiest ) convinced me to buy a set of the JPS, along w/ that I bought a stone adition Chumash.

The stone edition is good, but I actually perfer the JPS as far as translations go. I think the Stone gives better commentary in some aspects and explains it better for people who don't grow up with Chassidus. The whole eye-for-an-eye was never meant to be literal, which is why I blasted Dakota.

Ah, then probably the Stone would be better for me, considering I was raised a Protestant. Let's just say that I got some rather...er...interesting readings from that background. It was quite enlightening to find the Jewish perspective is completely different in some areas.

 

[kateyes]

I am going to assume someelse has brought this up. The Constitution of the United States:


Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


While the 10 commandments are a basic part of Judeo/Christian tenets--they are not part of any other religion in the world--to make them the Law of the land--would be in essence establishing a state religion.

 

[logician]

Sure, let's turn America into a religious state , where belief in god, preferably a xian god, is mandatory.

 

[sojourner]

Why stop there? Why not make the whole body of Levitican Law enforceable? I'd start throwing away all those 50/50 cotton/poly shirts, if I were you!!! Oh, yeah...and throw out those pork roasts...and quit your job that requires you to work on the weekends. And start keeping goats and pidgeons for those annual sacrifices...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why stop there? Why not make the whole body of Levitican Law enforceable? I'd start throwing away all those 50/50 cotton/poly shirts, if I were you!!! Oh, yeah...and throw out those pork roasts...and quit your job that requires you to work on the weekends. And start keeping goats and pidgeons for those annual sacrifices...

I'm sure that we could dress like the Taliban too.

The plight of women in Afganistan is an excellent modern case study of the lack of seperation of church and state.

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/

 

[Deut 13:1]

One question s2a, have you ever read the bible? Did you notice the areas where HaShem tell's you exactly how to set up courts? Or have you never just read it? Be honest.

 

[reyjamiei]

The 7th commandment would be uninforcable (and goodness knows we would not want to go back to the practices of some 3rd world countries where this law is applied).

There are some senators in the United States right now that are trying to make adultery a felony.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Ah, then probably the Stone would be better for me, considering I was raised a Protestant. Let's just say that I got some rather...er...interesting readings from that background. It was quite enlightening to find the Jewish perspective is completely different in some areas.

yup.

 

[s2a]

One question s2a, have you ever read the bible? Did you notice the areas where HaShem tell's you exactly how to set up courts? Or have you never just read it? Be honest.

Yes.
Yes.
To reiterate...yes.
I'm being honest.

Do you wish to test me?

I promise not to underestimate your sciptural insight/discernment in your informed and erudite evaluation of my own understanding of biblical texts, if you would only take caution not to question my own capacities therein.

I invite you to enlighten us all as to the precepts of Talmudic "indispensible oral law" (quote as you please from Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers).

Do you seek to instruct me as to Deuteronomy 17:8-13, and validate such by means of Numbers 27:5-6?
Perhaps I should know of what is proffered in the Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 32a?

From whence do I stray in my scriptural understanding, whilst employing a most implausably sardonic premise in my OP?

Hello.

;-)

 

[Bishka]

Because we are not a religious state (the US), as much as many of us Christians, Muslims, Pagans, etc. would wish us to be a exclusive religious state, we aren't, and that's for a good reason.

 

[s2a]

Because we are not a religious state (the US), as much as many of us Christians, Muslims, Pagans, etc. would wish us to be a exclusive religious state, we aren't, and that's for a good reason.

Okay. let's just pretend that most of us don't know what that "good reason" may be. Why does the concept of a separation of religion from government constitute "good reason"?

Do you mean to suggest that there are no historical examples of any governmental theocracy that actually promoted, invited, or encouraged both free inquiry and intellectual integrity as prospectively counter to rigid religious dogma? Are there no contempory examples of established theocratic rule worthy of emulating in freedom of thought, belief, or independent opinion? None? In the face and prospect of otherwise religiously adhered "absolute truths", how can this be so?

"God said it".
"I believe it".
"That settles it".

Isn't that enough to establish and maintain a free and civil society?

Why would any god frown upon the ultimate and unwavering imposition of His/Her/Their/Its will as a matter of enforcable law and justice within that free and civil society? Why would any god smile upon a unruly and rebellious population of independently minded heretical unbelivers? Isn't the very concept of plurality, diversity, and religious tolerance absolutely antithetical to virtually any and all dogmatic texts of dininely-proscribed obedience, servitude, and reverential worship?

Is there any theistically derived or founded religion that openly accepts other deities (with their accordant doxologies) as equally merited and acceptably "true"? Does your faith allow that the rules and laws derived of man can or should be deemed as superior or penultimate to those as decreed by the deity Himself[themselves]?

So...why shouldn't the very first commandment (Exodus 20:2-3) be enforcable law within a "Christian Nation" like the U.S.? What is the "good reason" why it is not (or should not be so)? Is there any Biblical support that suggests that "man's law" should supercede, or reign superior, over God's own spoken commandment?

 

[logician]

Christianity is definitely making a deternined effort to become majorly involved in politics in the U.S., this certainly is no secret.

 

[JerryL]

Do you mean to suggest that there are no historical examples of any governmental theocracy that actually promoted, invited, or encouraged both free inquiry and intellectual integrity as prospectively counter to rigid religious dogma? Are there no contempory examples of established theocratic rule worthy of emulating in freedom of thought, belief, or independent opinion?

Well? Can you name one?

 

[Deut 13:1]

Yes.
Yes.
To reiterate...yes.
I'm being honest.

Do you wish to test me?

I promise not to underestimate your sciptural insight/discernment in your informed and erudite evaluation of my own understanding of biblical texts, if you would only take caution not to question my own capacities therein.

I invite you to enlighten us all as to the precepts of Talmudic "indispensible oral law" (quote as you please from Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers).

Do you seek to instruct me as to Deuteronomy 17:8-13, and validate such by means of Numbers 27:5-6?
Perhaps I should know of what is proffered in the Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 32a?

From whence do I stray in my scriptural understanding, whilst employing a most implausably sardonic premise in my OP?

Hello.

;-)

Now what does verse Deut 17:9 say?

 

[Ody]

Christianity is definitely making a deternined effort to become majorly involved in politics in the U.S., this certainly is no secret.

You sure like your smiles ehh?

 

[logician]

"Because we are not a religious state (the US), "

We're definitely headed in that direction.

 

[s2a]

Now what does verse Deut 17:9 say?

Gee whiz, you mean specifically within the broader context of Scripture I have already cited?

Have you no ready Biblical translation/version available? Is this part of my test?

OK then, I'll quote (at your request) from the NIV translation, the contextual passages I referenced previously (being Deuteronomy 17:8-13), with Deut. 17:9 resident within (highlighted in boldface text in suit to your particular inquiry).

"If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the LORD your God will choose. Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again."

Chapter and verse, provided as requested.

Now, do you present any actual point to be addressed, or some rebuttal to offer?

Setting aside (for the moment) the salient facts that I neither reside in Israel, nor do Levite judges retain any enforcible or dispensational legal authority within these United States either over myself or any other citizen, let's recall that of the numerous initial motivations that led to revolution and national independence for these United States was a fundamental rejection (and armed rebellion) against concepts of singularly religious interpretations of creedal commandment and "divine law" as a communal/state/national form of administered justice. No longer could or would the state's government be permitted to charge and punish citizen "sinners' for the "crimes" of apostasy, sacrilege, heresy, or "uncleanliness" (never mind "demonic possession", "witchcraft", and "sorcery"). Dispensation of justice would be derived by means of newly established, "man-made" laws; a presumption of innocence of all allegations would be provided (no concepts of "original guilt"), charges of which to be deliberated upon by a jury of one's collective peers...under the auspices of an objectively pluralistic judge (being either appointed and confirmed by elected representatives, or democratically elected outright). This judicial concept of law and order is radically different from any suggested in biblical Scripture (as noted/quoted above). Fortunately, quibbling with some priest's or judge's interpretation of "God's Will" is not an automatic death sentence, nor is rendered opinion from such religious "authority" of any legally applicable or binding consequence (even amongst like-minded, same-faith adherents).

Ya know...one of the best parts of being a U.S. citizen is the security provided by the Constitution in affording both the rights and protections of free religious belief and practice beyond and removed from governmental bias, favor, or persecution (or legal prosecution). Every citizen retains both the right and liberty to hold themselves accountable to any constraints or limitations of religious adherence or worship, behavior, creedal tenants, or personal conscience. If you feel that challenging the opinions of priests is is worthy of "ultimate" punishment, then you are certainly welcome to jump off a high cliff as proper retribution in your hoped-for redemption of offense (public square stonings or fiery purgings just seem a tad too painful). If you engage a homosexual act and feel/deem yourself immoral in so doing (or perhaps found "in flagrante delicto"), you're free to self-flagellate or simply refrain from such further indulgences in your personalized righteous repentant guilt.

Help yourself. It's a free country, dontchaknow? You're free to utterly abide by/to all priestly decrees, or--and here's the good part--completely ignore, and/or otherwise merrily ridicule such rote devotions to ancient superstition and "divinely-inspired" (or mandated) justice.

Apologies. I sometimes rant on (counter my better discretions) in reply to vapid and pointless rhetorical questions.

Allow me to dismount this high horse I ride, and consider your point...which was exactly what again?

 

[s2a]

Well? Can you name one?

Nope.

Can you?

;-)

 

[s2a]

*sigh*

So many pointed questions...

....so many vague and empty replies...

I should know better.