Religion - Some Questions

[Ebionite]

Almighty God..
..and of course, our own conscience.

The ethical domain of equity was originally called the Court of Chancery and was also known as the court of the king's conscience. When the U.S. became independent from from England the connection to this court was broken. This could explain why the Democrat states like New York can behave unfairly, since democracy without the rule of law in naturally unfair to minorities.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The ethical domain of equity was originally called the Court of Chancery and was also known as the court of the king's conscience. When the U.S. became independent from from England the connection to this court was broken. This could explain why the Democrat states like New York can behave unfairly, since democracy without the rule of law in naturally unfair to minorities.

???

 

[Quintessence]

It's contradictory for you say 'my claim may hold a ounces of water if I be specific about these "problems" as something is a "problem" because some human says it is - it's a value judgement and a subjective assessments'. Every religion make their rules and beliefs through ancient texts written by humans in an ancient time without a shred of any evidence.

False.

Part of why I am encouraging you to be more specific with what you mean by "religion" - identify which religions you are talking about - is because religion is extremely heterogenous. That is to say, it is extremely diverse and very little can be said about it at all that is true in all cases. What you say here is simply false. "Every religion" does not do these things. In fact, religion that grounds itself on "ancient texts" is a fairly modern development. Remember, written language is a fairly modern development for the human species just in general. Many religious traditions were not literary at all, they were oral traditions. Even modern religions that have become literate still have strong currents of their oral roots within them. That some religions went literate is a major reason why we have literacy at all today, but that's probably a story for a different time. Consider what being a pre-literate or primarily oral tradition would do to the structure of a tradition. Making fixed rules and laws isn't their thing. Many religious traditions are not dogmatic and not creedal. They are not about making rules one is expected to follow or else. Only some religions are like that.

Finally, to suggest the traditions developed by religion developed "without a shred of any evidence" is nonsensical. All human endeavors - religion, science, arts, everything - arise from human experiences and observations of the world. That experience is evidence. All evidence humans have of anything comes through human experience and observations. Whether or not you consider someone's experiences to be good evidence is a matter of personal preference and cultural conditioning.

 

[Ebionite]

???

The Court of Chancery came into being as a remedy for the defects of the English common law. Today common law is often described as judge-made law, but in fact it goes back to a blend of Judaic law and Christianity. This relates to the question of who gets to judge what is lawful because of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which excludes judges as being authoritative while Judaism doesn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Court of Chancery came into being as a remedy for the defects of the English common law. Today common law is often described as judge-made law, but in fact it goes back to a blend of Judaic law and Christianity. This relates to the question of who gets to judge what is lawful because of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which excludes judges as being authoritative while Judaism doesn't.

Ah, I see..
..but nevertheless, we all have a conscience.
All of the 3 major Abrahamic faiths are aware of the immorality of usury.

 

[Ebionite]

All of the 3 major Abrahamic faiths are aware of the immorality of usury.

And yet it was condoned in some circumstances.

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that YHWH thy Elah may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Deuteronomy 23:19-20

 

[muhammad_isa]

And yet it was condoned in some circumstances.

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that YHWH thy Elah may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Deuteronomy 23:19-20

Mmm .. I'm well aware of it.
I'm also aware of the mix-up between Ismael and Isaac.

Are YOU aware, that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for exaggeration and making unlawful
what is lawful, and vice-versa?

You may reject the Qur'an .. and G-d knows why we do what we do, and say what we say.

 

[Ebionite]

Are YOU aware, that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for exaggeration and making unlawful
what is lawful, and vice-versa?

He described it as making the law a burden. There's a pretty clear warning about Pharisee doctrine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He described it as making the law a burden. There's a pretty clear warning about Pharisee doctrine.

That is a very one-sided viewpoint.

Why is it that it's alright to fleece non-Jews?
..something's not right there.

I hear many Muslims say the same .. it's all right to fiddle non-Muslims, because
it's an economic war.
..but G-d does not say that .. we should treat people as we like to be treated ourselves.

The result of usury is that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
That's not G-d's guidance!

 

[muhammad_isa]

He described it as making the law a burden. There's a pretty clear warning about Pharisee doctrine.

..or..

It's alright to commit fornication and adultery .. everybody's doing it.

 

[Ebionite]

That is a very one-sided viewpoint.

What perspective do you think I'm missing?

Why is it that it's alright to fleece non-Jews?
..something's not right there.

As far as I can tell it is a form of tribute

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
John 4:22

I hear many Muslims say the same .. it's all right to fiddle non-Muslims, because
it's an economic war.
..but G-d does not say that .. we should treat people as we like to be treated ourselves.

Both the Torah and the Quran teach the value of just judgement.

It's alright to commit fornication and adultery .. everybody's doing it.

The Pharisees didn't make that up, it was part of the pre-existent law that Yeshua (Isa) endorsed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Both the Torah and the Quran teach the value of just judgement..

No .. dealing with usury is a sin.
A major sin .. as is adultery.

G-d forgives whomsoever He wills .. but without repentance, forgiveness is not possible.

OK .. I understand that in war, one might do all sorts of deeds that are not lawful.
..but that is just how terrorists justify themselves.

 

[Ebionite]

No .. dealing with usury is a sin.
A major sin .. as is adultery.

The penalty for adultery was death, but there was no penalty for usury.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The penalty for adultery was death, but there was no penalty for usury.

Those who are not spiritually blind, can see that a society that becomes
immoral, destroys itself .. is that not a punishment?

 

[Ebionite]

Those who are not spiritually blind, can see that a society that becomes
immoral, destroys itself .. is that not a punishment?

The idea that usury is the highest sin is aligned with the Pauline teaching that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Paul was a Pharisee, and there was a warning about Pharisee doctrine. Also, Paul and his doctrine is absent from the Quran.

 

[GardenLady]

If Jesus was a theocrat, why did he say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's"?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Trinitarians do not dare quote this verse and yet it is the pinnacle point of Phil 2, that though Jesus Christ was EMPOWERED with the Spirit of God and could have made himself earthly rich, an earthly king, been a world military leader, made himself ‘A God to humanity’ - Almighty God, the Father, is STILL IN CHARGE: Pharoah was still in charge over Joseph even as Joseph’s was ‘made to rule for a period of time…! Joseph could not have usurped Pharoah’ THRONE!!.
So, this is why the verse reads… INSTEAD, he made himself as nothing… setting himself LAST as though a Servant to mankind and giving himself over the law, even to insults, beatings, flogging, being spat on, being unbelieved (imagine telling 100% truth and no one believes you!!!) and DYING A GRUESOME DEATH the likes of which was reserved for those committing sedition against Rome.

Not just sedition but treason and injured majesty.
What the Pharisees could Not do they got the Romans to do their dirty work by having Jesus falsely charged.
Yes, a GRUESOME death for Jesus, but his God 'who can Not die' (Psalm 90:2) resurrected dead Jesus.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If Jesus was a theocrat, why did he say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's"?

Why ? because of the hypocrisy found at Mark 12:14-17.
The 'powers that be ' (Romans 13:1 B) are put in place by God ( to be in a relative position to God's absolute position )
Please notice Romans 13:6-7 because the 'tribute tax' does provide schools, roads, traffic laws, etc. for mankind.
Jesus nor his followers never tried to 'operate the machinery' of government on Earth, but placed 'theocratic order' as the order to live by - Acts 5:29.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

‘Controlling’ nature is fraught with problems. This has been written about in fiction and is not to far from the truth.
Notice that Jesus only CALMED the storm because the disciples were SO AFRAID…
Jesus, himself, was just sleeping through it.
Man, given such powers, would exploit if politically and to the detriment of all on the globe… remember that ‘a leaf falling in the forest on the other side of the world has an eventual effect on us on the other side, too / whether (???) for bad of fog good - who is to say!!

What Jesus demonstrated by calming the restless sea is giving us a glimpse of the future under Christ - 1st. Cor. 15:24-26.
Jesus, Not man, will regulate the weather conditions on Earth for us.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's the point and you agree 'I find even as atheist can be a neighborly good-person Samaritan in showing practical love for others.'
If this is so, knowing about Gods Kingdom etc is not necessary.
We don't need Jesus to tell us how to be good, could it be anyone with as much love in his heart?

Problem I find is that our imperfect hearts can be treacherous - Jeremiah 17:9, 10:23
Back in Noah's day corrupted man's heart was inclined toward badness/ violence - Genesis 6:5,11.
Which one of man's governments/ kingdoms can bring lasting love on Earth ?
Men live and die so governments/kingdoms change hands ( Often quickly )
Whereas, God's kingdom government will be permanent in the hands of eternal Jesus - Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14.
What man can bring about the conditions as found at 1st Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8 ________________