lpetrich

dk:
... and the Rule of Law tracks back to the 1st of the Ten Commandments or the 1st of the Two Greatest Commandments.

Except that they are beaten in antiquity by Hammurabi's Law Code.

It was composed around 1780 BCE, about a thousand years before any of the laws in the Bible had been written down.

Also, dk chooses to ignore the numerous other laws in the Bible, including a second set of "Ten Commandments", the one with such profound laws as "do not cook a baby goat in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19).

He also ought to note Exodus 20:26, which states that one must not climb up upon an altar, because one would expose oneself to it if one did.

lpetrich

dk: (quoting the 10C's)
[b]"Thou shall not have false God's before me"[b]

DK has misquoted that law -- the original does NOT have "false" in it.

Also, when I mention the continuity of Greek ethnicity, dk brings up a lot of irrelevant stuff, like the Peloponnesian War and the Crusaders' sacking of Constantinople.

More to the point is lack of political independence for some centuries, but that criterion would disqualify the Jews for much of their history.

Also, Orthodox Jews traditionally recognize 613 precepts, and not just 10 of them. And they recognize a lot of Talmudic law, like the wickedness of eating meat with milk.

Ion

To dk's "...I am not basing my argument on the existence of God, but the merits of the Jewish people that have for the last 3,000 years held themselves apart from the rest of humanity the Chosen People accountable to the Mosaic Law...":

you thing that a 'God' from the Bible gave humans the natural ability to discern right from wrong, and that's you theory on the inalienable human rights making up a Law;

however, '...the Chosen Poeple...' that's an idea from the Bible which mainly promotes the idea of a 'God';

my argument is that 'God', '...the Chosen People...', '...the Law...', and other concepts from the Bible, are proven non-existent, therefore cannot be invoked; 'God' -as defined in the Bible- who "...knows all things.", in fact doesn't know that a female who is not bleeding at first intercourse is not automatically a non-virgin, Noah-like people who lived hundreds of years (like in Genesis 5:31) have no fossils but normal mortals from that era left fossils, the Chinese and the Greek culture are older than the '...Chosen...' Jewish people, and the UN Code of Human Rights is just a social contract in society, it doesn't exist for humans in wilderness where the nature doesn't give humans a code of conduct.

dk

lpetrich: dk: (quoting the 10C's)
"Thou shall not have false God's before me"
DK has misquoted that law -- the original does NOT have "false" in it.
dk: Aquinas in the Summa Theologica asks “Whether the first precept of the Decalogue is fittingly expressed?” and concluded, “Therefore in the 1st precept of the Law the worship of false gods is excluded. Augustine said in a letter to Nectarius, “For this reason He hath both foretold and commanded the casting down of the images of the many false gods which are in the world.”
o
lpetrich: Also, when I mention the continuity of Greek ethnicity, dk brings up a lot of irrelevant stuff, like the Peloponnesian War and the Crusaders' sacking of Constantinople.
dk: Since ethnicity is ordered by racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origins Sparta and Athens being the most powerful and influential of the Ancient Greek City States are ethnically significant. You shouldn’t have brought up the Byzantines and Ottoman Empires if you thought they were irrelevant, but once you brought it up I was obliged to respond.
o
lpetrich: More to the point is lack of political independence for some centuries, but that criterion would disqualify the Jews for much of their history.
dk: That might be true if I submitted the Temple in Jerusalem as evidence, because it was destroyed in 70 AD by Rome. However my evidence is living breathing Jews, God’s Chosen People, and their submission to the Decalogue for 3,000 as evidence.
o
lpetrich: Also, Orthodox Jews traditionally recognize 613 precepts, and not just 10 of them. And they recognize a lot of Talmudic law, like the wickedness of eating meat with milk.
dk: In objective order the Ten Commandments to a Jew takes precedent, just as the Greatest Two Commandments to a Christian take precedent over the Ten Commandments.

lpetrich

LP: dk: (quoting the 10C's)
"Thou shall not have false God's before me"
DK has misquoted that law -- the original does NOT have "false" in it.
dk:
Aquinas in the Summa Theologica asks ?Whether the first precept of the Decalogue is fittingly expressed?? ...?

So he wanted to "correct" the Bible?

dk:
However my evidence is living breathing Jews, God?s Chosen People, and their submission to the Decalogue for 3,000 as evidence.

I wonder when dk will convert to Orthodox Judaism. I'm half-thinking of starting a poll on that subject.

The 10C's are only a small part of the laws of the Bible, and one has to give credit to Orthodox Jews for recognizing 613 precepts.

But even Orthodox Jews don't equip their houses of worship with all the stuff specified for the Temple in the later parts of Exodus. Although they could rationalize that by claiming that their houses of worship are not the real Temple, and thus unfit for such accoutrements.

Ion

The problem here, dk, is that your Biblical 'God' is proven a false god too.

So what Augustine writes applies to the Biblical 'God' also, and applies to you dk investing years in a false god.
"In objective order..." nothing takes precedence:
the Two Commandments don't take precedence over the 10 Commandments for example, since this precedence is subjective to the believers as religious interpretations.

The Bible writes them without any precedence, and the Bible is opposed in the 1st Commandment by the Article 18 of the UN Code of Human Rights.

dk

Originally posted by Ion
The problem here, dk, is that your Biblical 'God' is proven a false god too.
So what Augustine writes applies to the Biblical 'God' also, and applies to you dk investing years in a false god.
dk: I’ll take that as a dogmatic statement
o
Ion: "In objective order..." nothing takes precedence:
the Two Commandments don't take precedence over the 10 Commandments for example, since this precedence is subjective to the believers as religious interpretations.
dk: Analogously then : 2 + 3 / 4 = 3 / 4 + 2 : therefore 5/4 = 1/2 = 11/4
o
Ion: The Bible writes them without any precedence, and the Bible is opposed in the 1st Commandment by the Article 18 of the UN Code of Human Rights.
dk: I’ll take that as a dogmatic statement. .

dk

dk: Aquinas in the Summa Theologica asks ?Whether the first precept of the Decalogue is fittingly expressed?? ...?
lpetrich
So he wanted to "correct" the Bible?
dk:
No, he studied the Bible to discern the fullest extent of truth from the text.
o
dk: However my evidence is living breathing Jews, God?s Chosen People, and their submission to the Decalogue for 3,000 as evidence.
lpetrich
I wonder when dk will convert to Orthodox Judaism. I'm half-thinking of starting a poll on that subject.
dk:
I can appreciate and admire Jewish people without converting to Orthodox Judaism.
o
lpetrich
The 10C's are only a small part of the laws of the Bible, and one has to give credit to Orthodox Jews for recognizing 613 precepts.
But even Orthodox Jews don't equip their houses of worship with all the stuff specified for the Temple in the later parts of Exodus. Although they could rationalize that by claiming that their houses of worship are not the real Temple, and thus unfit for such accoutrements.
dk:
I agree, and in a sense all Human Laws distance people from God, and therein lies the tension between Grace and Law, Life and Knowledge, good and evil, . If Laws didn’t exist then people couldn’t break them, so the law is certainly an obstacle. The only justification for any law is the restoration of people to a meaningful life through prayer, suffering, forgiveness, contrition, and penance.

Ion

dk,

you take "...that as a dogmatic statement." as often as your reasoning is left behind and you want to escape reasoning.

That's in the same vein as your "It's circular..." and 'fallacy'.

You are using these tactics pretty often in this thread, by now.

Contrary to your pretense of reasoning, you are not taking as a dogmatic statement the claim of a Biblical 'God' making up a 'Law', whose existence is disproven by inconsistencies.

Ion

dk,

do you notice that your "I take that as a dogmatic statement." when avoiding reasoning, applies in fact here to your own:
"I agree, and in a sense all Human Laws distance people from God, ..."?

This is because your Biblical 'God' has never been proven existent, but proven non-existent due to Biblical inconsistencies.

How more dogmatic can one get than invoking an unproven 'God', dk?