The idea of "sin" is wrong.

[playhavock]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

[playhavock]

blue, if you are asking about my avatar, it is me holding my fav book "informal logic, a pragmatic aproch" and doing the volcan thing - that spock from startrek did - but he got this from peeking at the Jewish people as they prayed, I am aware of that but it is not intended to be about the Jewish symble but about logic, since that is Mr. Spocks "thing" in Startrek. And I like logic. I was told on some other fourm that shallremainnameless that I was Spock. And the picture in avatar was my responce to that "insult" (actualy I felt quite pleased that I would be consedered smart, scientific and logical) anyway... so I know nothing about the Jewish ideas and/or myths, tridations, and so on - other then some bits here and there.

[Ankhhape]

Ankhhape

-from the Gospels of Nag Hammadi:
Testimonial of Truth
"the God whom most Christians worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is 'himself' one of the fallen angels, from whose tyranny Christ came to set human beings free.

TOT (3:4-5)
it reveals truth only when one reads it in reverse, recognizing that God is actually the villain, and the Serpent (Lucifer) the holy one

Darn I thought for sure I had come up with this idea on my own! Sigh! But yeah, it makes WAY more sence this way – I don’t buy it anyway, but it would make sence. I’ve never heard of this gospel of Nah Hammadi – where does it come from , histroicaly speaking? When was it written, who wrote it, who accepts it, etc etc – what languge and so on?

It was discovered in Egypt in 1945, it includes many of the 'removed' gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Truth, Secret Book of John, Gospel of Mary and 47 other treatise. Some of them date to the 2nd century AD. Most were written in Coptic and translated from Greek.

I… would not understand how the devil comes to tempt Christ plays into the above eather, so yeah… but none of this really resolves the orginal issue.

The metaphorical explanation is that Man (Jesus) in order to spiritually evolve, must confront and defeat His Shadow Self (Devil).

[Quath]

This cherry picking is what leads to some commandments looking horrible. In the context of HaTorah as a whole, making a man provide for a woman he has raped for the rest of her life without any relief for any reason does make sense. However, there are several biblical presuppositions in that statement that those who do not take HaTorah seriously have also discarded. Allowing a man or woman to destroy their children's childhood simply because they don't "feel loved" is also horrible. However, in the context of current western culture it is not considered a sin. So, when looking at a concept such as "sin" it is important to look at the entire context.

I agree that some of the rules that were put in place in the Bible were improvements over what had been done. But they are barbaric by today's standards. The problem is that people treat these as rules that are perfect and should be for all times (at least according to the Bible).

You are talking more about historical context in which I agree. However, this fails by today's standards.

You can ask yourself. Are the laws perfect and eternal or do you disagree with the Bible? Would you support a law that required a rapist to marry his victim and take care of her?

[bluethread]

I agree that some of the rules that were put in place in the Bible were improvements over what had been done. But they are barbaric by today's standards. The problem is that people treat these as rules that are perfect and should be for all times (at least according to the Bible).

You are talking more about historical context in which I agree. However, this fails by today's standards.

You can ask yourself. Are the laws perfect and eternal or do you disagree with the Bible? Would you support a law that required a rapist to marry his victim and take care of her?

I was not speaking of historical context, but of cultural context. It is interesting that you should call HaTorah barbaric by today's standards. This is the term used by the romans for those who were not greek or roman. The romans were viewed with similar distain by the people of Adonai as the goyim. Every society sees those who do not live by their standards as barbaric or goyish. If one were to strip away the cultural norm of women being able to receive funds from the government that it aquires from others by means of extortion, how would an "unwed mother" provide for herself? The standards of any culture are not random edicts that are enacted without consideration for the rest of the standards. That is why many modern standards that I personally do not like are unlikely to be changed any time soon. If one is removed it effects the others and if one is not careful even more suffering results from trying to remove what one sees as a horrible practice.

[Quath]

Every society sees those who do not live by their standards as barbaric or goyish.

I think societies have progressed over time to accept more diversity, be more tolerant, give more rights and promote prosperity. In that trend, most older societies will be barbaric (in its modern meaning) or savage.

If one were to strip away the cultural norm of women being able to receive funds from the government that it aquires from others by means of extortion, how would an "unwed mother" provide for herself? The standards of any culture are not random edicts that are enacted without consideration for the rest of the standards. That is why many modern standards that I personally do not like are unlikely to be changed any time soon. If one is removed it effects the others and if one is not careful even more suffering results from trying to remove what one sees as a horrible practice.

I think this is a good example. If God were really trying to fix things up for a raped woman, he has many, many options.

1) What he did according to the Bible is say that the man shall pay a fine to the father and marry the woman. This is the idea of "you break her, you bought her." Probably an improvement for the time, but you would have a hard time selling this idea today.
2) Solve it by design. He's God. So he could have made it so men have no desire to rape. Or that a man goes impotent if a woman is not willing. Or a woman can control whether she gets pregnant. Or there is no sexual desire until marriage.
3) Solve it with a different rule. He could say, "If a woman is raped, then I curse the man and bless the woman. Whomever marries her will feel my blessings." This way at least she is not forced to marry her rapist.
4) Or yet another rule. God could say that if a woman is raped, the tribe will support her until the time she marries.

The solution in the Bible is clearly a rule where woman are seen as property and they assign the solution to "God" so people will obey the rule.

[Ankhhape]

I think this is a good example. If God were really trying to fix things up for a raped woman, he has many, many options.

Please, you're talking about a god that impregnated a 14 yr old virgin that was already married, and then turns around and tells you it's a Sin.

[bluethread]

I think this is a good example. If God were really trying to fix things up for a raped woman, he has many, many options.

Please, you're talking about a god that impregnated a 14 yr old virgin that was already married, and then turns around and tells you it's a Sin.

So, you believe voluntary artificial insemination is rape? I guess that follows the trend. The life of the child is in the mind of the mother.

[Ankhhape]

I think this is a good example. If God were really trying to fix things up for a raped woman, he has many, many options.

Please, you're talking about a god that impregnated a 14 yr old virgin that was already married, and then turns around and tells you it's a Sin.

So, you believe voluntary artificial insemination is rape? I guess that follows the trend. The life of the child is in the mind of the mother.

Heh? How is immaculate conception voluntary insemination? Do you know what coveting another man's wife means? I see a lot of hypocrisy in this god.

[bluethread]

Every society sees those who do not live by their standards as barbaric or goyish.

I think societies have progressed over time to accept more diversity, be more tolerant, give more rights and promote prosperity. In that trend, most older societies will be barbaric (in its modern meaning) or savage.

Precisely my point. Of course, you think that this makes societies barbaric. Those are the cultural norms you prefer.

If one were to strip away the cultural norm of women being able to receive funds from the government that it aquires from others by means of extortion, how would an "unwed mother" provide for herself? The standards of any culture are not random edicts that are enacted without consideration for the rest of the standards. That is why many modern standards that I personally do not like are unlikely to be changed any time soon. If one is removed it effects the others and if one is not careful even more suffering results from trying to remove what one sees as a horrible practice.

I think this is a good example. If God were really trying to fix things up for a raped woman, he has many, many options.

1) What he did according to the Bible is say that the man shall pay a fine to the father and marry the woman. This is the idea of "you break her, you bought her." Probably an improvement for the time, but you would have a hard time selling this idea today.
2) Solve it by design. He's God. So he could have made it so men have no desire to rape. Or that a man goes impotent if a woman is not willing. Or a woman can control whether she gets pregnant. Or there is no sexual desire until marriage.
3) Solve it with a different rule. He could say, "If a woman is raped, then I curse the man and bless the woman. Whomever marries her will feel my blessings." This way at least she is not forced to marry her rapist.
4) Or yet another rule. God could say that if a woman is raped, the tribe will support her until the time she marries.

Those are certainly alternatives. I have addressed option 2 in another thread. Suffice it to say that biomechanics and neuromuscular system design face the same difficulties of interdependency that moral standards do, if not more so.

I know of no society that has enacted a moral imperative like no. 3. Possibly because it might encourage women who take part in consensual adultery and fornication to claim rape. That is not unheard of as it is.

Option 4 is the one currently being experimented with in these United States. The problem with that one is that many choose not to get married. That makes them perpetua. mwards of the state.

The solution in the Bible is clearly a rule where woman are seen as property and they assign the solution to "God" so people will obey the rule.

That is how you see option 1, given your current cultural bias. It is my understanding that women are seen as a protected class. You left out the point that he may not divorce her. There is nothing that I know of in HaTorah that requires her to do anything. If this is a property sale, it's a pretty lousy deal. He can not dispose of this "property" nor can he do anything with that "property". She is only required to do what she wants when she wants and he has to meet all of the requirements of a husband. Also, (Ex. 21:10) "(i)f he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." It pretty much looks like he is the property here.

That shows again how intertwined these things are. Pull on a thread and the whole garment is effected.

[bluethread]

So, you believe voluntary artificial insemination is rape? I guess that follows the trend. The life of the child is in the mind of the mother.

Heh? How is immaculate conception voluntary insemination? Do you know what coveting another man's wife means? I see a lot of hypocrisy in this god.

I am sure you do. That is because you do not know the Scriptures. (Lk. 1:38) "And Mary said, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word'. And the angel departed from her." There is also no record of sex. Therefore, this is voluntary insemination. In fact, you do not even seem to be aware of RCC dogma. The "immaculate conception" does not refer to the conception of Yeshua(Jesus), but the conception of Miriam(Mary).