quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And I know a lot of Orthodox Jews who would take issue with my talking about it somewhere like here, but it's still what Judaism says.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Oh man. Lisa? C'mon. Why are you discussing this?
Mipnei darkei shalom there are certain things that need a whole lot of context before explanation.
Case in point.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I believe that NOWHERE are Jews commanded to kill non-Jews for their beliefs. Even if they are worshiping idols, committing sexual immoralities and the like.
Well, I never actually said anything about killing non-Jews for idolatry. I spoke only about Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, what Lisa said, is definitely true about Jews. It does not apply nowadays where we have no real country that is governed as a Jewish theocracy. However, at times when everyone lived under Jewish theocratic rule, where all submitted to the laws of Torah and the Talmud, then if someone committed the worship of foreign gods, adultery, murder, or sifting flour on the sabbath day - these people, if warned beforehand, viewed by two witnesses, and found guilty through an elaborate court system - would be subject to the death penalty.
Nope. "One of these things is not like the other". Non-Jews are always allowed to sift flour on Shabbat. Only Jews get any punishment for it, let alone capital punishment.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, if asked if someone were to re-institute these laws these days, i guarantee that all Orthodox Jews would be vicious opponents. Such laws have no place in our time.
I guarantee you that you're wrong. Not in America, obviously, but in Israel? Once the Sanhedrin and batei din are back in order? Those laws are forever; they're just conditioned on the institution of the Sanhedrin and lesser batei din.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: We believe that in ancient times, the struggle was how to live in a world where God revealed Himself so openly, how to live with the divine and not hide from it - something that explains the otherwise ridiculous nature of the Jews in the desert.
posted
yeah, that was the (even though it may be different) - people stay away from putting God and curses in the same place.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Oh, and If i could just address the point about non-Jews coming to convert Jews.
As I said, first, i don't think any laws exist regarding that particular activity - if a non-Jew tries to convert you, thou shalt kill him. No.
I never said otherwise. Though if it's in Israel, that's a different story. Imprisonment or expulsion might be a better thing to do, though.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As for Hannukah and Lisa's claim about it, it didnt exactly go down that way. The Greeks were an occupying power that invaded, defiled the temple by forcing idol worship, they also decreed the death penalty upon all who would learn Torah and practice God's commandments.
Right. That was after what happened with Mattiyahu. Look it up.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The "sexually immoral" is as I described above. The "false gods" would mean any object or human being or animal or tree or imagined deity of any kind. I'm not sure what you mean by "directed specifically at Noachides".
Assume I'm skeptical about your definition "sexually immoral." Can you show me that your interpretation is correct?
For the answer to both questions, you can check out the book Path of the Righteous Gentile, which is also available on Google Books. I'm not sure what you'd accept as a source. The category called gilui arayot, which is translated as "sexual immorality" is defined the way I said. You can Google "gilui arayot" or "giluy arayot" or replace "arayot" with "arayos", and I'm sure you'll find a lot. If there's a specific type of source you'd like, I can probably find it for you.
This might be helpful as well, though I haven't seen everything on the site, so I can't endorse it generally.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Didn't even cross my mind, either. Is there anyone here who doesn't have severe reading comprehension issues?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the answer to both questions, you can check out the book Path of the Righteous Gentile, which is also available on Google Books.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Didn't even cross my mind, either. Is there anyone here who doesn't have severe reading comprehension issues?
Is there a reason why I can't see that post myself? I can only see your quoted version...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Christians might welcome the Jewish idea of only keeping the commandments enunciated in the time of Noah. That way they can set aside the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue. But Christians have to deal with Jesus' statement in Luke 2:28: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Notice that He did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews, He said the Sabbath was made for man. And it is on the basis of this that He next claimed: "Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath." (v. 29)
Genesis 2:2, 3 is the only place in Scripture that describes the actual establishment of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, which came at a time when Adam was the only human alive. Although the day of rest in Gen. 2:2,3 was not called the Sabbath, it was called the Sabbath explicitly in the fourth commandment (see Exodus 20:11; note this was originally written by God with His own finger).
As for the idea of killing someone to prevent him from sinning, don't you think that God can take into account what he would have done, in judging him? This works for the good for those who are faithful to God. I like the way that Ellen G. White put it: "The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts." (Steps to Christ, pp. 57-58)
So if you lose your temper and swear at your spouse, then go out and get hit by a truck before you have had time to come to your senses and repent, you will not necessary be rejected by God. God can do this, because He can impute to us the perfect righteous life of Jesus Christ, as well as impute to us His death in satisfaction of the penalty for our violations of His law.
The only way that anyone human can be saved is through the imputed life and death of Jesus Christ. So even those Jews who are good and faithful Jews, still may be saved from eternal destruction and be accepted by God into the eternal life of bliss through what Jesus Christ did for them, whether they know it or not. Same for the Animist tribesman in New Guinea who is faithful to all he knows.
This is why Christianity is so attractive. It consists of good news about what God has already done for us in Another. Just as our race was constituted a fallen race under the dominion of sin because of the fall of Adam, so in the same way our race is given a new unfallen heritage in the New Adam, Jesus Christ--who has become the new Head of our race, by joining our humanity to His divinity. (See Romans 5:17-19.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, and I thought I was giving the poor, freezing young men who were at my door a break when I decided against giving them a piece of my mind about Prop 8. Killing them didn't even occur to me.
Didn't even cross my mind, either. Is there anyone here who doesn't have severe reading comprehension issues?
Is there a reason why I can't see that post myself? I can only see your quoted version...
Let's see. I replied to Speed too quickly, because I was irked. So I edited my post to a simple <yawn>. But he'd started replying already, so the following snippets made it through:
quote:I have no moral problem with the use of violence against someone trying to get a Jew to become a Christian.
Not that I've ever done so, but I'm certainly okay with it. If necessary, I'd simply view it as saving someone's life.
I didn't say anything about killing anyone. Nor did I say I considered violence when those two LDS guys came to my door. The only thing I considered that I didn't do was asking them in (it was cold outside). But I didn't want to give the wrong impression, and I had to get back to work, so I didn't. I felt bad about that, but that's life.
If I saw someone trying to get a Jew to become a Christian, and there was no other way to stop them, and I could do it without getting put in jail, I could definitely see preventing them physically. And I see no moral issues with that. But in practice, there's almost always a way to get them to stop, or otherwise interfere with them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Many Christians might welcome the Jewish idea of only keeping the commandments enunciated in the time of Noah. That way they can set aside the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue.
Nope. Non-Jews aren't allowed to keep Shabbat. Shabbat is for Jews only. Goy she'shavat chayav mita A non-Jew who keeps Shabbat is (metaphorically and not literally worthy of capital punishment according to God's law.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Christians have to deal with Jesus' statement in Luke 2:28: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Notice that He did not say the Sabbath was made for the Jews, He said the Sabbath was made for man.
Doesn't matter what he says. What God says is that the Sabbath day is "a sign between Me and the Children of Israel forever."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Genesis 2:2, 3 is the only place in Scripture that describes the actual establishment of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, which came at a time when Adam was the only human alive.
Nope. There are several other places in the Torah where it's commanded to rest on the seventh day because it's Shabbat. A commandment given only to Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is why Christianity is so attractive.
To whom?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It consists of good news about what God has already done for us in Another. Just as our race was constituted a fallen race under the dominion of sin because of the fall of Adam,
Speak for yourself. If you consider yourself to be "under the dominion of sin", fine. I'm sure it works well as an excuse, but don't use God's Torah to try and support such a gross idea. I wasn't born under the dominion of sin. Sin is what you do; not who you are. That's the whole basis of racism, believing that people are better or worse because of who they are and not what they do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, Since when are we getting into a discussion about the difference between Christianity and Judaism?
On the topic of the sabbath day, you are wrong. Exodus 20:11 states that sabbath is on the SEVENTH day. That was commanded to 600,000 Jews 2,000 years after the creation of the world, so Adam was not the only one around. I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
But thats what's interesting. Judaism believes in relationships. Relationships with human beings, with reality and with God. But Judaism very much stresses first understanding the reality you are trying to relate to.
I had this discussion on the Israel Gaza thread. Say that I am trying to relate to you - i first need to understand who you are so that I can properly be sensitive to you and react to your needs. Your reality obligates a reaction. It is not simply live and let live, but if you are poor, your existence obligates my charity. If you are hurt, your existence obligates me to give to you.
This is true ultimately on the God scale. Much of Jewish thought believes that the relationship between man and his brethren is meant to parallel the relationship between man and God. If I cannot learn how to properly relate to that which sits in front of me, how can I learn to relate to the Divine which is not always as apparent?
What I'm saying is that Jews believe that God already spoke to them. He made his intentions clear. Yea, he is God so He can ultimately judge all of us, why do we have to get involved? Well that's a rational argument, but it isnt when viewed in this context - Humans do not get to define morality, GOD does. Since God commanded us to set up courts, to judge, then that is what He wants! I mean, you beleive in the OT - check out the verses where God commands the death penatly for one who gathers sticks on the Sabbath. God clearly believes that it is important for humans not just to live and let live, but to become one, to be responsible for one another, not just in a secular court system, but in a religious one.
Unfortunately, we cannot practice in a religious court system as the world is currently not ready for that, but that doesnt meant that that isnt what God wants.
And lastly, I understand that Christians are happy with the sacrifice of Jesus for their eternal salvation, but for Jews, it doesn't quite fit. We are all imbued with purpose, with the betterment of the world, to recognize the creator in all that we do and to live life to the fullest, understanding that a simple bite of food is a conversation with God that is filled with kindness.
The OT says that God will never alter his covenant, so we're happy with what we have. As attractive as Christianity might be, we can only obligate ourselves to reality as we see it.
In order to relate to God, we believe we must first learn who God is. Included in that definition is the God who said that sabbath is on the 7th day, that court systems must be set up, and that in an ideal world, death penalties should be issued. It is the same God who tells me to wear strings off a 4 cornered garment, not to eat lobster, and to honor my father and mother. We cannot pick and choose that which we deem rationale and that which we do not.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've reviewed the link that Lisa posted, but not the book.
AND I have to say that I still have a great many problems with Judaism, if what the link reports is true.
This goes back to the idea that Speed put forward-- from an outsider's perspective on Judaism, it appears that God favors people born of Israel more than He favors the rest of the world.
There are seven laws ascribed to all humanity; but according to the link, the penalties for breaking those laws is more severe for Gentiles than for Jews.
From the link:
quote:The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachite.
quote:A gentile who curses God's Name, whether he uses God's unique Name or one of His other names, in any language, is liable to the death penalty. Blasphemy with one of the attributes of God's name is an action which, if committed by an Israelite, would not be regarded as criminal (Sanhedrin 56b).
quote:Similarly, a pursuer should be executed if he kills the person he is chasing when he could have saved the latter's potential victim by maiming one of the attacker's limbs. Under the same circumstances an Israelite would not be executed.
quote:A gentile is liable for sleeping with his mother even though she was seduced or raped by his father and never married to him. Regardless, she is his mother. He is liable for sleeping with his father's wife even after his father's death. He is liable for relations with a male whether a minor or an adult and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
quote:Furthermore, there are instances where a gentile would be held liable and a Jew will not, for a gentile is liable for a limb or flesh from a living creature whether from a domesticated animal or a beast, whether from a kosher or non-kosher species. Similarly, a gentile is held liable for the prohibition of a limb from a living creature, for a limb or flesh which is separated from an animal that is moving convulsively even though a Jew has already severed the two signs.
Is the link correct? Is there any way to see equanimity in the way that God deals with Jews and Gentiles in light of these?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. For most Christians, this became the day of the Lord, the day we honor Christ's resurrection and the hope it brings to all humanity. Through the years, it became known as the Sabbath among Christians-- even though calling it the Sabbath isn't technically correct.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: On the topic of the sabbath day, you are wrong. Exodus 20:11 states that sabbath is on the SEVENTH day. That was commanded to 600,000 Jews
Male Jews between the ages of 20 and 60. It was more like 2-3 million Jews all told.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 2,000 years after the creation of the world, so Adam was not the only one around. I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
He's a Seventh Day Adventist, or some such. He does it on Saturday. But he's not allowed to.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Unfortunately, we cannot practice in a religious court system as the world is currently not ready for that, but that doesnt meant that that isnt what God wants.
I must have missed the part where the commandment of having the system of batei dinim was conditioned on "the world being ready".
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The OT says that God will never alter his covenant, so we're happy with what we have. As attractive as Christianity might be,
Does it? To you, I mean.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jews believe that when the world began there was no distinction among its members - all were here for the same divine purpose.
But after 1500 years, mankind pretty much failed. Abraham chose God, so God, in turn, chose Abraham. The initial covenant with the non-Jews stands, and that is the 7 noahide laws, but for those who seek a stronger relationship with God, God is willing to have a stronger relationship with them.
Judaism is open to all who want that relationship, but for those who cannot handle being that close to God, God, in his infinite mercy, is alright with that.
And what I mean by "can't handle being close to God" is complicated. Judaism does not believe that a relationship is about who you are with your partner, but about what you put in. God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
Jews are taught to bear this yoke, with the perspective that 80 years of human effort in struggling to uphold God's commandments is trite and pales to compare to the good of this world and the good of eternity that God gives us.
Yes you are right in saying that Jews and Gentiles are not dealt with in the same way - but as I said, anyone who so wishes to become a Jew may become one. Because Judaism recognizes how great a burden Judaism is, we are not obligated to convert people.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa - you're right about the world being ready thing. But I didn't want to launch upon an explanation of the reasons why Sanhedrin stopped judging cases of diney nefashot, and the general reasons why we do not practice capital punishment nowadays - darkei shalom probably included.
As for the attractiveness of Christianity? I personally am not attracted. If I had to choose another religion - Buddhism is the way to go. Elimination of suffering and self discipline, Buddhisms tenants, to me, cooincide greatly with my favorite parts of Judaism.
But yes, studying Jewish-Christian relations, I understand what made Christianity attractive over the many years. It is, after all, Judaism's largest spinoff religion.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is the link correct? Is there any way to see equanimity in the way that God deals with Jews and Gentiles in light of these?
Do you mean "equanimity", or do you mean "equality"? The former means "mental or emotional stability or composure, esp. under tension or strain; calmness; equilibrium." The latter... well, we don't believe everyone is equal. Of potential equal value, yes, but everyone has different obligations and different rules. My cousin is a Kohen, and he can't go into a cemetary except to bury his parents or children (and maybe siblings and spouse, but I'm not sure about that). I'm not limited in that way. Men are obligated to put on tefillin every day; women are not. Jews are obligated to cut the foreskin off of their male children, and failing to do so carries a punishment of karet, which is the most severe punishment in Jewish law. Non-Jews are not obligated to do so (except possibly Arabs).
We discriminate. We differentiate. Between Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim. Between adults and children. Between men and women. Between married people and single people. Between Jews and non-Jews. Between certain non-Jews and other non-Jews. Between light and dark and between Shabbat and weekdays. It's probably the most defining characteristic of Judaism, the distinctions we make.
There are a very, very few cases where the laws are more stringent for non-Jews. They are far outweighed by those where the laws are more stringent for Jews. I don't think it's something we need to apologize for.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I never understood how Christians went about changing that to sunday even if you believe that Sabbath was made for man.
When the Church consecrated Sunday to the public worship of God, it did not consider itself to be "changing" the Sabbath from one day to another. It was viewed as a different thing, although with some obvious similarities.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This goes back to the idea that Speed put forward-- from an outsider's perspective on Judaism, it appears that God favors people born of Israel more than He favors the rest of the world.
I wasn't taught this.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
Btw, I'm not sure what your problem was with this one. If a Jew commits bestiality, you kill the Jew and the animal. If a non-Jew commits bestiality, you kill the non-Jew, but not the animal. That's more of a technicality of law than any kind of inequality, I'd think. Or did you think the Jew gets off free and we only kill the animal?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Reason does not provide me with an understanding for why God-- who apparently sees "potential equal value" in everyone-- would have a Gentile killed for bestiality, but preserve the life of the animal, but allow a Jew who commits bestiality to live, but the animal has to die.
Do you understand how that appears to me, looking in from the outside of your religion? It definitely sends the impression that the life of a trespassed-against goat is more important to God than a perverted-gentile.
Can you explain the lowered standards of proof regarding culpability for Gentiles, in light of the idea that God sees "equal potential value" in all people, regardless of heritage? I mean, for goodness sakes-- gentiles don't even have to be warned of the law, sometimes, before they're put to death.
My problem isn't with differentiation of duty. It's the apparent discrepancies in mortal legal judgment between two people who committed the same sin, but who are born from different bloodlines.
quote:God's closeness obligates. The closer you want to be with God, the more obligations fall upon you. So Abraham, who actively sought out God, was rewarded with a stronger relationship, but was also burdened with "ol malchus shamayim" - the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.
In Mormonism, we have a similar belief-- that knowledge of the truth raises one's responsibility for obedience.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Reason does not provide me with an understanding for why God-- who apparently sees "potential equal value" in everyone-- would have a Gentile killed for bestiality, but preserve the life of the animal, but allow a Jew who commits bestiality to live, but the animal has to die.
Scott, this looks like it may be a misinterpretation. See Lisa's post above:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... Btw, I'm not sure what your problem was with this one. If a Jew commits bestiality, you kill the Jew and the animal. If a non-Jew commits bestiality, you kill the non-Jew, but not the animal. That's more of a technicality of law than any kind of inequality, I'd think. Or did you think the Jew gets off free and we only kill the animal?
quote:did you think the Jew gets off free and we only kill the animal?
Lisa, the part you quoted definitely implies that to me.
Here's the pertinent part of the quote:
quote:He is liable for relations with a male whether a minor or an adult and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
Is the article you linked wrong?
The specific example aside, the tenor of my post above remains.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Reason does not provide me with an understanding for why God-- who apparently sees "potential equal value" in everyone-- would have a Gentile killed for bestiality, but preserve the life of the animal, but allow a Jew who commits bestiality to live, but the animal has to die.
You misunderstand. The Jew dies. The only difference between the two cases is whether the animal dies as well.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can you explain the lowered standards of proof regarding culpability for Gentiles, in light of the idea that God sees "equal potential value" in all people, regardless of heritage? I mean, for goodness sakes-- gentiles don't even have to be warned of the law, sometimes, before they're put to death.
Part of it is that these laws are considered to be pretty much no-brainers. But I don't believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) that a non-Jew who violates one of these laws in good conscience, out of complete ignorance of the law, merits capital punishment. The "warning" we talk about in such cases is a whole procedure. Basically, you have to tell the person the parameters of the law at the time the event is happening, citing your sources, and have them say in front of witnesses that they understand and are going to do it anyway. That's the kind of warning that's required for capital punishment for a Jew and not for a non-Jew.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My problem isn't with differentiation of duty. It's the apparent discrepancies in mortal legal judgment between two people who committed the same sin, but who are born from different bloodlines.
There are comparable differences between subgroups of Jews as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
rivka, I have learned a good deal about Judaism from your discussions here of the Noachide laws. I know Scott (like all of us) has been in and out for bits here and there, and I can certainly believe he quite honestly missed them.
I just wanted you to know they are held in fondness by me and to give you thanks for the time and patience you spent getting me to understand.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is the article you linked wrong?
No, but maybe it should have occurred to them that it wouldn't be obvious to all readers that a Jew who commits bestiality gets killed. I mean, I'm just as guilty. I looked at that quote and it totally didn't occur to me that it could be read as exempting the Jew, because it's so obvious to me from other sources. If you hadn't said something, I never would have imagined it could be read that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Lisa, I expect the background assumptions make one parsing of the sentence seem obvious to someone who is immersed in the culture, whereas (I think) Scott reads a different parsing:
quote:He is liable for relations with a male whether a minor or an adult and with an animal whether young or old. In the latter instance, only the gentile is executed and not the animal. Jews are only commanded to kill an animal with which a Jew engaged in relations.
Interpretation 1, last sentence: [Other] Jews are only commanded to kill an animal. [i.e., They are commanded to kill only the animal.]
Interpretation 2: [Other] Jews are only commanded to kill an animal in one case, but not the other case.
---
[note some changes for clarification below]
The "only" modifies the commandment to kill the animal, not the extent of the killing in general. That is, it should be read as "only commanded to kill the animal," not "commanded to kill only the animal." I think.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa is correct. The Jew dies in the case of bestiality as well.
As for the discrepancies regarding standard of proof? I'm not sure that there are any.
I mean, i know that some commentators believe that the commandment to set up court systems is to enforce the other 6 noahide laws. If that is the case, then it's possible that the gentile courts would be more leninent than the Jewish ones.
Jewish courts are not so much about making sure punishments get meted out as they are about absolute certainties. There is no beyond a reasonable doubt, it's beyond the absolute shadow of any doubt. The warning system that Lisa referenced along with an enormous amount of technicalities made it so that a court that executed someone once in 70 years was considered a murderous court.
I don't know the laws of judging non-Jews well enough to comment on whether there are discrepancies or not.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My problem isn't with differentiation of duty. It's the apparent discrepancies in mortal legal judgment between two people who committed the same sin, but who are born from different bloodlines. _____
There are comparable differences between subgroups of Jews as well.
That doesn't improve things, IMO.
NOTE:
I recognize the ironies inherent in a Mormon (with Mormonism's history of discrimination) arguing this topic.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know the laws of judging non-Jews well enough to comment on whether there are discrepancies or not.
From the link:
quote:The Seven Noahide laws are general commandments with many details. Transgressing any one of them is considered such a breach in the natural order that the offender incurs the death penalty. Apart from a few exceptions, the death sentence for a Ben Noach is Sayif, death by the sword / decapitation, the least painful of the four modes of execution of criminals (see the Rambam's Hilchos Melachim 9:14). (The four methods of capital punishment in Torah are: S’kilah - Stoning; S’rifah - Burning; Hereg - Decapitation; Henek - Strangulation.) The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachite. The latter may be convicted on the testimony of one witness, even on that of relatives, but not on that of a woman. He need have had no warning from the witnesses; and a single judge may pass sentence on him (Sanhedrin 57a, b; Rambam, Hilchos Melakim 9:14).
posted
Lisa, here are two quotes from the same post. I have a question about them.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nope. Non-Jews aren't allowed to keep Shabbat. Shabbat is for Jews only. Goy she'shavat chayav mita A non-Jew who keeps Shabbat is (metaphorically and not literally worthy of capital punishment according to God's law.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It consists of good news about what God has already done for us in Another. Just as our race was constituted a fallen race under the dominion of sin because of the fall of Adam,
Speak for yourself. If you consider yourself to be "under the dominion of sin", fine. I'm sure it works well as an excuse, but don't use God's Torah to try and support such a gross idea. I wasn't born under the dominion of sin. Sin is what you do; not who you are. That's the whole basis of racism, believing that people are better or worse because of who they are and not what they do.
In the first quote, you are stating what someone who doesn't share your beliefs is not allowed to do under your belief system. You do not qualify the statement in any way.
In the second quote, you seem to be objecting to someone making a statement about people in general under his religious belief system.
I can't quite see any distinction between what you posted, and what you objected to Ron posting, in terms of speaking for oneself. It appears you did the same thing you objected to Ron doing, in the same post.
However, as you pointed out, your religion is one of many distinctions and discrimination, so I'm wondering if you perceive a distinction that I'm missing. I mean, other than that you think you're right and Ron's wrong. That's self evident and doesn't need pointing out. (As, I would think, it doesn't need pointing out that you don't consider Ron's beliefs to be applicable to yourself.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
If I had to answer this, just with the limited background of Jewish Philosophy that I have, and in line with my previous post:
Like I said before, the closer you get to God, the more obligations are incumbent. A vast amount of the 613 commandments relate to the laws between man and friend. For instance, there are many laws that relate to honesty in business, civil disputes, kindness to your fellow man, all that the 7 noahide laws do not cover.
Presumably, if I were to extend the ideas i mentioned before, that is because adherence to those laws demand a level of obligation that not everyone is capable of. As such, as I mentioned, Judaism is certainly open to those who are capable, and those laws may even be volunteered by noahides who do not wish to convert.
The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life. No sane Western country employs these methods.
Two witnesses? Warning AT THE TIME of the crime? 71 judges as opposed to a judge and a jury of 12? Murderers and rapists would be on the streets if such laws were extended to non-Jews. The idea could be that the tolerance and restraint expected when being so cautious is too much to ask of one who keeps only the 7 Noahide laws.
(btw - Another point is that the Jewish court system was based on the notion that whatever the courts don't catch - God will.)
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: In the second quote, you seem to be objecting to someone making a statement about people in general under his religious belief system.
I can't quite see any distinction between what you posted, and what you objected to Ron posting, in terms of speaking for oneself. It appears you did the same thing you objected to Ron doing, in the same post.
However, as you pointed out, your religion is one of many distinctions and discrimination, so I'm wondering if you perceive a distinction that I'm missing. I mean, other than that you think you're right and Ron's wrong. That's self evident and doesn't need pointing out. (As, I would think, it doesn't need pointing out that you don't consider Ron's beliefs to be applicable to yourself.)
There are two things. One is that even aside from religion, the idea that people are born bad just squicks me out. It makes the whole thing unfair from the get go. Saying that there are differences between people is nothing at all like saying people are inherently bad.
The other is that he's using our books as a source for what he's saying. Stephen King has a book called Danse Macabre, which is non-fiction. He talks about the difference between fear and dread and horror. And he points out that The Creature from the Black Lagoon is always going to be more horrifying than the Blob, or than a microbe, because it's like us, but wrong.
I don't think Hinduism is any better than Christianity (on the contrary), but Christianity bothers me more. And Ron's brand even more than that. Because Hindus are something completely "other". Whereas Ron takes something of ours, something of inestimable value, and perverts it into the opposite of itself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life.
But not to Gentiles?
Again, from the outside looking in, it seems an awful lot like the life of the Gentile was not considered nearly as important as the life of the Israelite.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As such, as I mentioned, Judaism is certainly open to those who are capable, and those laws may even be volunteered by noahides who do not wish to convert.
Except for Shabbat. And certain sacrifices when the Temple is standing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life. No sane Western country employs these methods.
Interestingly, several Muslim countries -- with some variations, of course -- do. The interesting thing about it is that while these initially seem like quite high standards of proof, in reality so many things justify capital punishment that merely being caught alone in a car with someone of the opposite sex by two policemen looking to persecute someone can be a fatal -- or, at the very least, expensive -- experience even in places as "liberal" as Libya.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life.
But not to Gentiles?
Again, from the outside looking in, it seems an awful lot like the life of the Gentile was not considered nearly as important as the life of the Israelite.
That's not true generally speaking, but in some cases, yes, we're more solicitous towards our own. That doesn't mean that God views non-Jews as being "less than", only that the Torah recognizes the natural fact that people care for themselves first.
In the laws of tzedaka, for example (roughly: charity), the order of priority for giving goes (1) local Jews, (2) local non-Jews, (3) Jews elsewhere, (4) non-Jews elsewhere. You can say that it's terrible that we prioritize our own people, but what surprises me about that list is that it puts local non-Jews before Jews elsewhere.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life.
But not to Gentiles?
Again, from the outside looking in, it seems an awful lot like the life of the Gentile was not considered nearly as important as the life of the Israelite.
Yes, perhaps it relates to a larger presumption of innocence - Jews, who have taken upon themselves the greater burden of the Kingdom of Heaven, perhaps logic demands that their day in court, where the very assumption of their innocence stands in jeopardy, are assumed a much larger probability of innocence.
I know what it looks like from the outside looking in. But these things need to be looked at in context. I myself have seen these laws for the first time and have studied them, be'iyun (in-depth) - the perspectives I am offering are rudimentary, and that's not very good. When I become more learned, perhaps I can offer you a better one?
Just out of curiosity, and if you don't mind me asking, what faith do you practice, if you do indeed practice a faith?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The laws of Jews, to be judged in capital cases by a court of 71 judges, to be warned at the time of committing a crime, and the laws of testimony all relate to the extreme sensitivity that Jews are demanded to give one another when it comes to the sanctitiy of life. No sane Western country employs these methods.
Interestingly, several Muslim countries -- with some variations, of course -- do. The interesting thing about it is that while these initially seem like quite high standards of proof, in reality so many things justify capital punishment that merely being caught alone in a car with someone of the opposite sex by two policemen looking to persecute someone can be a fatal -- or, at the very least, expensive -- experience even in places as "liberal" as Libya.
Tom, the police officer thing is plausible but the warning is not. In the Jewish court system, you must be warned and acknowledge the warning before the act is committed. You must say - hey you two! stop canoodling! Don't you know...xyz...and they they must say: yeah, we hear your warning, but we don't care...etc.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
