hahahaha, Catholic Biden already bought himself a 4n indulgence ...
The issue with the 10 commandments I have is this:
The commandments all represent 1 value: honor property rights. 4 of them, and that includes the sabbath pertain to a relationship with God. Why are these rules important? Well, he bought the people, which is a owner ownee relationship i.e. property right. Stealing, coveting, false witness, lying, having sex with another man' s wife, honoring your parents, etc, all are property rights.
from point 1 you can glean that a negative can never convey the same strength as a positive. Simple honest language.
it is impossible to do NOT something. Example: do not think of the Eiffel Tower. What did your brain do? Picture the Eiffel Tower? In essence, the concept of a negative is done. Like Coveting, it takes place in the brain. Because first, you would have to contend yourself with grasping that concept, and then trying to evade it.
So, you do not need 10. You only need 1. honor the property of yourself and other people.
Concerning your own property: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The Ten Comandments are actually statements of identity. In the original Hebrew, they are written in the indicative, not the imperative, meaning they are DEscriptive instead of PREscriptive.
Read each in this manner, "You are a people who do not steal." That is a descriptive statement of God's people. We, being the fallen people we are, turn everything into a to-do list, so we read them as commands when they are really just describing what God's people do. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of great importance.
Identity is the key issue with any faith, which is why we are at such odds with LGBTQ on morality. We focus the conversation on perversion when the issue is actually identity. The LGBTQ community was genius in making identity to be at the center of their argument--now we are not arguing with what they do, we are in opposition to who they are.
The concept of not doing something still applies. So, the identity, you are the people who honor property rights, would then be more apt. That is an integer identity, otherwise it becomes fractured. And that can be clearly gleaned from the stories following these words, and the Talmud.
This also explains the source connection and why the LBTQ+ is just another iteration of this fractured identity. (Frankfurt school)
Fundamenatal rights are always expressed in the negative, due to the basic principle of liberty.
Each person has liberty, up to the point where they violate another person's rights.
You can swing your arms and kick your legs and run around in circles -- as long as you don't bash into someone else.
That's why it is expressed in the negative.
It's not about you, but rather a prohibition on how not to violate someone else. And they have the same rights and also obligation towards you. That's why rights come with responsibilities towards others. The two are intertwined.
It would be impossible to express every little thing you can do; but relatively easy to express what not to do.
And it's not specifically about property rights, per se. It is about bloodlines.
The 10 Commandments were directed at the Israelites, specifically, and not to anyone else.
The Israelites (who, btw, are not the jews), were to behave in a way that would allow them to prosper.
A man should not have sex with a married woman, because that confuses the bloodlines (no DNA tests in those days).
A man should honor his father and his mother by only marrying "his kind" (God's first law from Genesis 1 was "kind after kind"). Again, this ensures clean bloodlines. Noah was selected for his role specifically because he was "pure in his ancestry."
Don't steal, murder, or bear false witness because that creates animosity within the nation ("nation" has to do with bloodlines and families, not random groups of people stuck together due to land boundries).
The story of the Bible is about one particular bloodline, and the 10 Commandments were for these people, although other people should follow these laws, as well, because they work for any society.
You can trace this bloodline in the Bible: God > Adam > Seth > ... > Noah > Shem (aka, Sem, the "Semites") > ... Eber (the "Hebrews") > ... Abram/Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel > 12 sons of Jacob (aka, the "Israelites") > Judah > ... > Virgin Mary > Jesus (aka, God Himself, in the flesh on Earth).
This was the reason to keep the bloodline pure. The rules were made for these people, and for this purpose.
Fundamenatal rights are always expressed in the negative, due to the basic principle of liberty.
Question: whence commeth the need for negation? What is it about negation that makes us speak and write that way? It is ingrained in language, and we usually pronounce what is not. Yet, we still are far away from what it is.
The latter: what is it (manna; hahahaha) is the crux, right?
It takes a lot of effort to remain positively worded.
You are clearly mistaken, as you mix up positive thinking with positive language as opposed to negations. Try this thought experiment.
DO NOT PARK
vs
PARKING COSTS 500-$ a minute.
Added:
You have a point, and it concerns to what this is addressed:
The document containing such phrases is addresses to government, and by using such language, it shows that institution by man are by it's very nature infants.
Given the size of your response, I would like to at least honor you by not just responding to one item.
You can swing your arms and kick your legs and run around in circles -- as long as you don't bash into someone else.
Let' s try and construct this positively shall we?
When one would do so, is the sheer fact of bashing into another grounds for negation? Or is the consequence a transgression? Most probably: both are harmed. Striking someone causes a suit to be made whole.
It also show, even if it happens by accident, the knowledge of the position: when and where is absent. It is childish behavior.
So, your reasoning is rather weak for accepting the premise.
And it's not specifically about property rights, per se. It is about bloodlines.
That may very well be the case. It is a utilitarian argument in relation to with whom sex is being had. Let' s consider the example of famous (or infamous) King David or even his son Absalom.
My goodness, bloodline considerations where totally adhered to. [/s].
We could go one step further back in time, to the book of judges, where the story of Benjaminites was related where they were lying in wait (which was against the law) to seize a girl of their liking. There were reasons other than bloodlines in consideration here.
Then there is the story of Ruth. Clearly, an example of how a marriage of convenience was made to allow the name of a deceased to arise a new over his land.
Clearly, the argument of bloodlines is a weak one, although the effect eventually was had.
And this leaves my summary of the essential values within the construct of the 10 commandments in tact: honor property rights.
And this idea is applicable to them, as well as to all mankind.
thought process can be tricky to control, but with time you can train and develop that as well. instilling the commandments in your heart is how you begin to train yourself to follow all ten of them.
every single one serves an important purpose.
i have acknowledged that thought process can be very difficult to manage. but your original statement was that it is impossible to not do anything. thought process is one aspect. not taking a physical action is much easier. so would you like to change your original statement? because it is clearly false.
You left out the element of sin. Sin is either an offence against God or an offence against another human. Or both. Murder is a sin against God and the person who was killed.
When Jesus was asked what is the first (greatest) of all commandments
Jesus answered
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
There are thousands of laws that are/were given in the bible, and they all fall under these two Greatest Commandments. perfect Love for God and perfect love for fellow man will keep you from breaking all other God - given laws.
But we are not perfect, we are fallen creatures, so we needed Jesus to die a horrible death on the Cross to pay for our offences. God's Perfect Plan of Salvation.
God will be just as earnest about your soul if you get earnest about Him:
Jeremiah 29:13
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
I am considering responding with" yes, I did", but then I should also admit: "on purpose". And this brings me then to the point, of being negligent in mentioning it. And to that the answer is: "no". As the purpose was to indeed, not mention it for the following reason:
The root word in our Germanic language does not contain the moral connotation, as it simply means: offense, transgression. these were always considered from man to man.
Indeed, we are not perfect in relation to a proposed idea of what a man is supposed to be. Any behavior that can be considered as "sin" starts with the person contemplating such behavior. The transgression always starts with transgressing against one self, as expressed in the words: Sir, you forget yourself!
So, I am not saying, that your views are to be rejected. Far from it. It is a nice crutch to lean on. If that is what you need, I am fine with it. What I am saying, is that when we go to the nitty gritty of any transgression, this usually is a transgression against property rights, either of one self or oneself and the other.
There is even a biblical support for this notion. I belief it is somewhere in the 6th chapter Paul writes about transgressions against self. So, at the very least, the concept is acknowledged. And here I agree. My views however, deviate from Paul' s views as I look deeper into the nature of transgression.
In terms of positive and simple language, it is admissible that honoring our own and each other' s property rights is the basic idea.
For instance: it is easy to see how stealing something is a transgression against the owner of that particular item, yet, the person stealing is still forgetting himself. I will come to that in a bit.
People who still need to learn what it means to honor their property rights and that of others means, indeed, such are in need of instruction by means of differentiation:
Don' t do this.
Don't do that.
Do this.
4 Do that.
As Paul famously wrote:
when I was a child I spoke, thought and reasoned/estimated like a child, nephios or infant. The later Latin word means exactly what is conveys: someone unable to speak and act according to law. Nephios is not just a child or minor, but also unskilled and untaught, wheras the opposite: aner, the one being of dynamic energy (vril: viril) (Andros from aner-dros = adjective) is very capable of doing so.
Interesting, to read the excruciating nature of description as it is written: manhood (mannelijkheid: state (hood/heid) of being man-ly (ly = lijk= appearances, akin to). So, yes, in such a state as a babe, or child below the position of man, that where crutches are needed.
(Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (over at biblegateway is a nice resource))
This stands in accordance with what Cicero in De Officiis wrote his own son, when the latter was studying Greek philosophy, he mentions: "a mind well-moulded by Nature"
And now I will be circling back to a point made earlier: "forgetting himself" in relation to 1 Cor 13:
I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.
I would suggest you humble yourself before Him. I have seen 3 year old children saved by the simple message of the Gospel. God Himself became a man, lived among us, taught us, had pity, compassion, and came to rescue us. He was judged in our place on Calvary for every one of our sins, the Great Substitutionary Death. " Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the World"
It is personal, He came to save you. If you were the only one to ever have sinned, He still would have come down from Heaven just to save you. Don't reject Him. Life is short. You only get one turn at the wheel.
1 Corinthians 1:20-31
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Proverbs 19:16 - “Keep the commandments and keep your life; despising them means death.”
Perfectly played Sir! 🫡
I don't think the bits about bearing false witness go down too well with the Left, either.
The people who don't want the 10 commandments want drag queens performing for toddlers.
hahahaha, Catholic Biden already bought himself a 4n indulgence ...
The issue with the 10 commandments I have is this:
So, you do not need 10. You only need 1. honor the property of yourself and other people.
Concerning your own property: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Simple, straight forward and morally correct.
The Ten Comandments are actually statements of identity. In the original Hebrew, they are written in the indicative, not the imperative, meaning they are DEscriptive instead of PREscriptive.
Read each in this manner, "You are a people who do not steal." That is a descriptive statement of God's people. We, being the fallen people we are, turn everything into a to-do list, so we read them as commands when they are really just describing what God's people do. It's a subtle difference, but it's one of great importance.
Identity is the key issue with any faith, which is why we are at such odds with LGBTQ on morality. We focus the conversation on perversion when the issue is actually identity. The LGBTQ community was genius in making identity to be at the center of their argument--now we are not arguing with what they do, we are in opposition to who they are.
Indeed. Correct addition.
The concept of not doing something still applies. So, the identity, you are the people who honor property rights, would then be more apt. That is an integer identity, otherwise it becomes fractured. And that can be clearly gleaned from the stories following these words, and the Talmud.
This also explains the source connection and why the LBTQ+ is just another iteration of this fractured identity. (Frankfurt school)
Fundamenatal rights are always expressed in the negative, due to the basic principle of liberty.
Each person has liberty, up to the point where they violate another person's rights.
You can swing your arms and kick your legs and run around in circles -- as long as you don't bash into someone else.
That's why it is expressed in the negative.
It's not about you, but rather a prohibition on how not to violate someone else. And they have the same rights and also obligation towards you. That's why rights come with responsibilities towards others. The two are intertwined.
It would be impossible to express every little thing you can do; but relatively easy to express what not to do.
And it's not specifically about property rights, per se. It is about bloodlines.
The 10 Commandments were directed at the Israelites, specifically, and not to anyone else.
The Israelites (who, btw, are not the jews), were to behave in a way that would allow them to prosper.
A man should not have sex with a married woman, because that confuses the bloodlines (no DNA tests in those days).
A man should honor his father and his mother by only marrying "his kind" (God's first law from Genesis 1 was "kind after kind"). Again, this ensures clean bloodlines. Noah was selected for his role specifically because he was "pure in his ancestry."
Don't steal, murder, or bear false witness because that creates animosity within the nation ("nation" has to do with bloodlines and families, not random groups of people stuck together due to land boundries).
The story of the Bible is about one particular bloodline, and the 10 Commandments were for these people, although other people should follow these laws, as well, because they work for any society.
You can trace this bloodline in the Bible: God > Adam > Seth > ... > Noah > Shem (aka, Sem, the "Semites") > ... Eber (the "Hebrews") > ... Abram/Abraham > Isaac > Jacob/Israel > 12 sons of Jacob (aka, the "Israelites") > Judah > ... > Virgin Mary > Jesus (aka, God Himself, in the flesh on Earth).
This was the reason to keep the bloodline pure. The rules were made for these people, and for this purpose.
Interesting salient point:
Question: whence commeth the need for negation? What is it about negation that makes us speak and write that way? It is ingrained in language, and we usually pronounce what is not. Yet, we still are far away from what it is.
The latter: what is it (manna; hahahaha) is the crux, right?
It takes a lot of effort to remain positively worded.
Thinking positive has nothing to do with the fact that writing laws requires the negative.
Look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law ..."
"No person ..."
"Shall not be infringed."
Has to be that way to ensure the positive of liberty.
interesting position.
You are clearly mistaken, as you mix up positive thinking with positive language as opposed to negations. Try this thought experiment.
DO NOT PARK
vs
PARKING COSTS 500-$ a minute.
Added:
You have a point, and it concerns to what this is addressed:
The document containing such phrases is addresses to government, and by using such language, it shows that institution by man are by it's very nature infants.
Given the size of your response, I would like to at least honor you by not just responding to one item.
Let' s try and construct this positively shall we?
When one would do so, is the sheer fact of bashing into another grounds for negation? Or is the consequence a transgression? Most probably: both are harmed. Striking someone causes a suit to be made whole.
It also show, even if it happens by accident, the knowledge of the position: when and where is absent. It is childish behavior.
So, your reasoning is rather weak for accepting the premise.
That may very well be the case. It is a utilitarian argument in relation to with whom sex is being had. Let' s consider the example of famous (or infamous) King David or even his son Absalom.
My goodness, bloodline considerations where totally adhered to. [/s].
We could go one step further back in time, to the book of judges, where the story of Benjaminites was related where they were lying in wait (which was against the law) to seize a girl of their liking. There were reasons other than bloodlines in consideration here.
Then there is the story of Ruth. Clearly, an example of how a marriage of convenience was made to allow the name of a deceased to arise a new over his land.
Clearly, the argument of bloodlines is a weak one, although the effect eventually was had.
And this leaves my summary of the essential values within the construct of the 10 commandments in tact: honor property rights.
And this idea is applicable to them, as well as to all mankind.
Your responses are completely incoherent, at least to me.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with you (maybe I do; maybe I don't), but that I am reading a word salad that makes no sense.
So, no point in continuing this.
it's impossible to not do something?
for people with zero impulse control it is.
thought process can be tricky to control, but with time you can train and develop that as well. instilling the commandments in your heart is how you begin to train yourself to follow all ten of them.
every single one serves an important purpose.
Do not think of the EIFFEL TOWER.
What is the picture in your mind? Impulse control?
i have acknowledged that thought process can be very difficult to manage. but your original statement was that it is impossible to not do anything. thought process is one aspect. not taking a physical action is much easier. so would you like to change your original statement? because it is clearly false.
You left out the element of sin. Sin is either an offence against God or an offence against another human. Or both. Murder is a sin against God and the person who was killed.
When Jesus was asked what is the first (greatest) of all commandments Jesus answered
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
There are thousands of laws that are/were given in the bible, and they all fall under these two Greatest Commandments. perfect Love for God and perfect love for fellow man will keep you from breaking all other God - given laws.
But we are not perfect, we are fallen creatures, so we needed Jesus to die a horrible death on the Cross to pay for our offences. God's Perfect Plan of Salvation.
God will be just as earnest about your soul if you get earnest about Him:
Jeremiah 29:13
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
I am considering responding with" yes, I did", but then I should also admit: "on purpose". And this brings me then to the point, of being negligent in mentioning it. And to that the answer is: "no". As the purpose was to indeed, not mention it for the following reason:
The root word in our Germanic language does not contain the moral connotation, as it simply means: offense, transgression. these were always considered from man to man.
Indeed, we are not perfect in relation to a proposed idea of what a man is supposed to be. Any behavior that can be considered as "sin" starts with the person contemplating such behavior. The transgression always starts with transgressing against one self, as expressed in the words: Sir, you forget yourself!
So, I am not saying, that your views are to be rejected. Far from it. It is a nice crutch to lean on. If that is what you need, I am fine with it. What I am saying, is that when we go to the nitty gritty of any transgression, this usually is a transgression against property rights, either of one self or oneself and the other.
There is even a biblical support for this notion. I belief it is somewhere in the 6th chapter Paul writes about transgressions against self. So, at the very least, the concept is acknowledged. And here I agree. My views however, deviate from Paul' s views as I look deeper into the nature of transgression.
In terms of positive and simple language, it is admissible that honoring our own and each other' s property rights is the basic idea. For instance: it is easy to see how stealing something is a transgression against the owner of that particular item, yet, the person stealing is still forgetting himself. I will come to that in a bit.
People who still need to learn what it means to honor their property rights and that of others means, indeed, such are in need of instruction by means of differentiation:
As Paul famously wrote:
Interesting, to read the excruciating nature of description as it is written: manhood (mannelijkheid: state (hood/heid) of being man-ly (ly = lijk= appearances, akin to). So, yes, in such a state as a babe, or child below the position of man, that where crutches are needed.
(Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (over at biblegateway is a nice resource))
This stands in accordance with what Cicero in De Officiis wrote his own son, when the latter was studying Greek philosophy, he mentions: "a mind well-moulded by Nature"
And now I will be circling back to a point made earlier: "forgetting himself" in relation to 1 Cor 13:
And this is it, the center of it all.
I would suggest you humble yourself before Him. I have seen 3 year old children saved by the simple message of the Gospel. God Himself became a man, lived among us, taught us, had pity, compassion, and came to rescue us. He was judged in our place on Calvary for every one of our sins, the Great Substitutionary Death. " Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the World"
It is personal, He came to save you. If you were the only one to ever have sinned, He still would have come down from Heaven just to save you. Don't reject Him. Life is short. You only get one turn at the wheel.
1 Corinthians 1:20-31
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.