|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 120 of 293:
| 
Dec 10 20:29 UTC 2003 |
re #111..JEP, you misread my last response, I said:
Conservatism ISN'T about rejecting change, anymore than
liberalism is about changing when its not necessary.
So I agree with you. In fact your diatribe should have been directed at klg,
it is KLG who sees conservatism as accepting given definitions and refusing
to change.
And who made this definition that marriage means between a man and a woman?
as leeron points out, polygamy used to be accepted in biblical times. This
is a different world now than it was a thousand or two thousand years ago,
or even a hundred years ago. We can't grow and develop as a society unless
we have the willingness to broaden and expand our philosophies and views to
reflect how the world has broadened and expanded.
Surely you can see that JEP. And no being liberal doesn't mean thinking that
ANY change that is a change is good either. We each have to decide for
ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and those judgements have to be
made every day, and we should make those judgements based on how the world
is today, now how the world was two thousand years ago.
|
klg
|
|
response 121 of 293:
|
Dec 10 20:33 UTC 2003 |
(I don't exactly remember. But it sure isn't sparing the rod. The
point is, though, the what is "permitted" is not practiced.)
|
richard
|
|
response 122 of 293:
|
Dec 10 20:39 UTC 2003 |
And JEP you are hypocritical if you defend conservatives as honest, passionate
and thoughtful, and don't see liberals as being such too. But you did, you
belittled me for being a liberal when in fact I specifically noted William
Safire, whose column I posted, is a conservative who disagrees with klg.
I think that a "realistic" political philosophy is one that accepts a world
where change is constant and people are continually growing and developing.
So I really don't know where you are coming from.
And Other, what was that "good luck" comment you posted for? klg is the one
who still wants to live in biblical times
|
klg
|
|
response 123 of 293:
|
Dec 10 20:45 UTC 2003 |
(Speak for yourself, Mr. richard.)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 124 of 293:
|
Dec 10 21:04 UTC 2003 |
Re 121 (I know the point that was being made. I'm still curious as to
what Jewish fathers are allowed to do to their rebellious sons)
|
willcome
|
|
response 125 of 293:
|
Dec 10 22:48 UTC 2003 |
Eat them.
|
jep
|
|
response 126 of 293:
|
Dec 11 05:18 UTC 2003 |
I stepped into something I shouldn't have; the klg-richard debate,
which doesn't really matter to me. Sorry. I'm out of that one again.
|
scott
|
|
response 127 of 293:
|
Dec 11 14:43 UTC 2003 |
It's always tempting to get involved, isn't it? ;)
|
lk
|
|
response 128 of 293:
|
Dec 11 16:36 UTC 2003 |
Klg, I'll concede the point that what is permitted is not always what
is practiced -- since that isn't a point I made.
In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that
Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to
practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the
Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread
this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.).
So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100
years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored:
More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!!
Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new
definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions.
Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man
and a Christian woman.
Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being
between a man and a woman of the same "race".
In turn, my definition is a superset of yours. (Shall we call
this the evolution of an idea and institution?)
The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the
past 100-150 years.
Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
"effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
be so.
I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
offend your God and weaken the institution?
|
twenex
|
|
response 129 of 293:
|
Dec 11 16:48 UTC 2003 |
You might want to try indenting, or otherwise marking, the bit's your
quoting, as in the post above it's qite difficult to discern which
parts are written by you, and which are quoted.
|
klg
|
|
response 130 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:12 UTC 2003 |
for mynxcat:
When a man has a son who is stubborn and a rebel one who does not
listen to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother and
they discipline him and he still does not listen to them.
Then his father and his mother are to grab him and drag him to the town
elders in the gates of his place And they are to say to the town
elders, "Our son is stubborn and a rebel he does not listen to our
voice he is a glutton and a drunkard!"
Then all the men of the town are to pelt him with stones so that he
dies. So shall you burn the evil out of your midst's and all Israel
will hear and be awed.
. . .
These are later rabbis' interpretations of my verse from the Torah:
When a man has a wayward and rebellious son who does not obey his
father or mother, they shall have him flogged. If he still does not
listen to them, then his father and mother must grasp him and bring him
to the elders of the city and say "Our son is a wayward and rebellious
child, he does not listen to us and he is an exceptional glutton and
drunkard"
In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13
and one quarter. The law does not apply to girls. The boy will be
flogged with 39 lashes only if he eats the meal of the rebellious son
which is forbidden.
Both the mother and father must agree to bring him to the local Supreme
Court of 23 judges.
By tradition, the rebellious son must steal money from his father, and
buy 50 dinars of meat, and eat it rare outside of his father's property
in bad company. This is the act which must be witnessed by two
additional people besides his parents in order for the son to be put to
death. He must also drink a half a log (5 ounces) of wine with the
meal. It is forbidden for a boy of this age to eat such a meal at any
time.
If the punishment is carried out, the boy will be hung up by his hands
just before sunset for the town to see and immediately taken down again
after sunset.
These laws have been put in by rabbis in earlier centuries and changed
and made into an interpretation of what the words mean so that there
will never be a child killed.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 131 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Interesting. Thanks klg
|
twenex
|
|
response 132 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:27 UTC 2003 |
Why 13 and 13 and 3/4?
|
klg
|
|
response 133 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:39 UTC 2003 |
That would be: "13 and 13 and 1/4"
Why? We would guess:
13 = the Jewish religious age of majority for males.
Have no idea why the "1/4." Perhaps based on some other source in
order to generate the shortest possible period consistent with the
subject under discussion. Feel free to search for the answer yourself,
if you care.
BTW - The whole of 130 was lifted from a website.
|
twenex
|
|
response 134 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:46 UTC 2003 |
Oh, you mean you can *start* between 13 and 13 and 1/4? The way i read
it was you can only stone boys between 13 and 13 and 1/4.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 135 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:47 UTC 2003 |
If they did their best to ensure the shortest possible time in which a child
could be killed, and worded it so that no child was killed, why bother having
that law in teh first place?
|
klg
|
|
response 136 of 293:
|
Dec 11 18:03 UTC 2003 |
"In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13
and one quarter."
Why??? The explanation would most likely depend upon one's
interpretation of the origins and meanings of the Torah. Our's would
be that it contains a moral/ethical message that goes beyond its
literal reading. Similar to "an eye for an eye," which "means" to us
the penalty for taking an eye is monetary compensation for the value of
the loss of an eye - not putting out the perpetrator's eye.
|
twenex
|
|
response 137 of 293:
|
Dec 11 18:07 UTC 2003 |
That's a good point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 138 of 293:
|
Dec 12 02:11 UTC 2003 |
What a pagan practice....
|
klg
|
|
response 139 of 293:
|
Dec 12 03:35 UTC 2003 |
You in favor of blinding the guy?
|
bru
|
|
response 140 of 293:
|
Dec 12 05:58 UTC 2003 |
and remember, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are maximums, not
minimums. You can never do more than that to the violater. You can do less.
|
lk
|
|
response 141 of 293:
|
Dec 12 08:05 UTC 2003 |
Actually, the saying has nothing to do with body parts (or, necessarily) money.
It's just saying that the penalty needs to be comensurate with the crime.
It's an idiom to the tune of "apples to apples" vs. "apples to oranges".
The latter which describes the drift we've just experienced. (:
Re#129: Jeff, I was not quoting anyone else in #128 (if you referred to me).
I was quoting what I said previously and clarifying it with more commentary
as per what klg had said in response.
|
twenex
|
|
response 142 of 293:
|
Dec 12 09:18 UTC 2003 |
Still, what you were quoting would have been clearer indented...
|
lk
|
|
response 143 of 293:
|
Dec 12 17:00 UTC 2003 |
OK, here it again, indented as requested:
(Though, as I was quoting myself, I changed a word or two for clarity.)
In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that
Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to
practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the
Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread
this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.).
So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100
years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored:
> More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
> dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
> arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!!
> Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
> accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new
definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions.
Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man
and a Christian woman.
Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being
between a man and a woman of the same "race".
In turn, my definition is a superset of yours. (Shall we call
this the evolution of an idea and institution?)
The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the
past 100-150 years.
> Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
> "effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
> be so.
> I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
> Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
> offend your God and weaken the institution?
|
twenex
|
|
response 144 of 293:
|
Dec 12 17:29 UTC 2003 |
Thanks.
|