No Robots

Of which few are not guilty:

But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.--Mt 5:28

Toto

It's not necessarily atheist criticism of Christianity. It is most people's criticism of a certain American nutjob fundamentalist that your country had the sense to ban.

Here's the parody: God Hates Shrimp

On a more serious note, there are commentators who distinguish between the ritualistic laws in teh Hebrew Scriptures and the moralistic laws. I don't have a ready reference, and thought the argument was rather contrived, but you can probably find it if you search this forum for threads with "Homosexuality" in the title.

IamJoseph

Check the judiciary laws in your country's institutions. Only the penalty is changed from stoning to hi-tech electric chairs, excecutions and long term sentences where Capital punishment is abolished - the latter fully sanctioned in Genesis, and the reason death sentences were first negated in Israel 3000 years ago. This vindicates the Hebrew bible laws.

IamJoseph

And the NT is incorrect here. Not only because that advocation is not accepted by any institution today, but also because it mis-reps the Hebrew bible in essence, which says one's thoughts are not crimes - unless turned into actions. This allows a person the right of re-considering between a good and bad thought, the former being in many cases involuntary.

There is no merit where there is no choice factor and one did not struggle and deliberate. A decent person is greater than an innocent person; one who breaks a law then repents it - is greater than one who never broke any law.

Toto

I've checked the laws in my country. Adultery may be a sin, but is not a crime in most states. There are no laws that forbid eating shrimp, pork, bacon cheeseburgers, ham and cheese sandwiches, or beef stroganoff. Most states have no laws forbidding working on the sabbath (except for selling liquor in certain hours.) Nor are there any laws forbidding wearing cotton-wool-linen blends. What are you talking about?

IamJoseph

Eating shrimp, which is a scavenger [one never knows what it consumed, including other dead life forms and thereby toxics and poisons], can cause big time medical problems, and also contradicts a host of other laws, such as not eating parts of a live animal, and that it is forbidden to slaughter an animal in a cruel manner or in the sight of its mother or kin [we cannot determine if a shrimp will take a life in the sight of its mother - but the mother can]. Consumption of scavenging animals are liable to breach all those laws and cause negative consequences.

This law also impacts on the law not to mix a kid with its mother's milk, and thus not to mix milk with meat: there is no way we can differentiate if the milk came from the kid's mother - but the mother can; animals have a greater ability of smell than humans. This is also why Jews cannot eat Halal but Muslims can eat kosher. The Hebrew laws are very exacting, mathematical and scientific, alluding to an intrinsic understanding of biology.

QuestionMark

IamJoseph

The dietery laws are directed to Jews only, prefixed 'unto you', probably because the ancient Hebrews were inculcated with this 40 years in the desert, and required to perform a host of other such ritual laws for a different purpose. Thus you are not comitting a sin or crime not following this law ['HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE OF MAN'; 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES']. However, when it comes to non-ritual moral/ethical/judiciary laws - you will find the Hebrew bible prevails over the NT or the Quran. That is why I asked you to check your laws - it was directed to non-ritual laws.
It does not mean if you do not follow these ritual laws that there is no absolute veracity in them, either.

About 10 years ago, there was a massive legal case in Canada, when an animal rights group initiated a legal action to forbid kosher slauthering. The plaintiff brought a host of scientists and biologists to the trial, and claimed that the slaughter of cows via slithing the throat was cruel and that the animal suffered. They brought sectional pictorials and films of the throats of animals, which showed four vessels, one of which was attached to the brain, and thereby the blood flow caused pain to the animal upon the slitting of the throat - that the blood carried nerve cells to the brain.

The defense then put up its own counter proof. They showed that only those animals with split hooves and those who chewed their cud [as per the Hebrew bible's crieria], had a unique valve in that vessel which was connected to the brain, and that all blood flow ceased within 3 seconds when this vessel was cut. No other animals except those with split hooves and which chewed its cud - had this valve. The pig specifically does not have this valve because it habours only one of the two traits, namely it has split hooves, but does not chew its cud - the reason it was mentioned as a stand out, and not to be confused. Remarkably, the pig is forbidden only because of the pain it incurs when killed, while the cow does not undergo pain in this system: no throat vessels are connected to the brain.

The case was won by the defense - and all costs allocated to the animal rights group, with the requirement that court's deliberations and findings be exhibited in any further actions.

IamJoseph

Sin = crime in biblespeak. If adultry is not a crime, it has to be specifically and boldly eliminated in any marraige vows. Yes/no?

Toto

Sin is not crime.

How do you decide which laws are ritual and which are "non-ritual moral / ethical / judiciary?" Where does working on the Sabbath fall? adultery?