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.
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.