Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

it's a sin to envy your neighbor having....

perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 1:06:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

Ye sperplexed, jealousy is a sin.

You should not become so focused on your neighbor that you want what he has and miss out on your own home, your own wife and family, and the ability to effect what you can.

Pray tell, how is it that in the land of atheism these days covetousness and jealousy have become admirable traits? How has rejecting them become ... evil?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:35:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 1:06:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

Ye sperplexed, jealousy is a sin.

You should not become so focused on your neighbor that you want what he has and miss out on your own home, your own wife and family, and the ability to effect what you can.

Pray tell, how is it that in the land of atheism these days covetousness and jealousy have become admirable traits? How has rejecting them become ... evil?

i'm sorry that me thinking owning another human being is a wrong...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:45:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.

There is no sin in emotion. Sinful emotion - envy - is an impetus for action. If you envy your neighbor for having a slave (or for any reason, really) and then that envy changes what your actions might otherwise have been, that is sin.

but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in pronoun usage in ancient texts, especially when even modern language lacks any good gender-neutral pronouns. Even books from the 20th century are heavy on masculine pronouns... some latin languages assign gender to nouns for seemingly no reason at all ("door" is feminine - GOTCHA). It's more a function of the language itself than it is of the ideas that people who used that language were trying to convey. Plato, for instance, has some chauvinistic language in his texts yet he espoused the idea that women were worthy of the highest honor - that of the philosopher-king - which was reserved for only the very few and very special intellectual elite.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:47:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:35:47 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 1:06:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

Ye sperplexed, jealousy is a sin.

You should not become so focused on your neighbor that you want what he has and miss out on your own home, your own wife and family, and the ability to effect what you can.

Pray tell, how is it that in the land of atheism these days covetousness and jealousy have become admirable traits? How has rejecting them become ... evil?

i'm sorry that me thinking owning another human being is a wrong..

.Yeah, it's clear what you meant perplexed but brother neutral always has to be contrary about his ideology because he's fixated on thinking he or it is being attacked wrongly. Not to have to mention that he's a very angry person who is limbo with religion much the same way you are.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

Leviticus 19:16-18 "You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD. You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD."
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:35:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:45:44 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.

There is no sin in emotion. Sinful emotion - envy - is an impetus for action. If you envy your neighbor for having a slave (or for any reason, really) and then that envy changes what your actions might otherwise have been, that is sin.

lets think about this for a second....
owning a slave is envying the power that person has over their own life, which is what would make them a slave in the first place.
so really owing a slave is the result of envy.

but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in pronoun usage in ancient texts, especially when even modern language lacks any good gender-neutral pronouns.
so HIS wife could also be understood as her wife...got it
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

This is another commandment I disagree with. It's is not a sin to want what your neighbor has. Often times this can motivate a person to work for those things he wants.

But it is a sin to steal what your neighbor has. This is immoral and criminal.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Bible has many, many errors of opinion. And since God wants to point mine out to the world, I have absolutely no problem pointing out the wrong opinions of even holy religious books.

We all have to mature and grow-up at some point in our lives.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.


additionally...
would that also be applied to the "love your neighbor as yourself"
meaning neighbor only means a fellow Israelite NOT everyone?
when jesus quotes that passage in leviticus he ONLY meant believing jews are the like minded ones who are neighbors...makes sense if you consider matthew 10:34-42
and of course that would also make sense considering matthew 25:40

and it also makes perfect sense, if your assertion is true, as to why paul would call unbelievers wicked and of the dark and not to be considered to be equal with in 2 cor 6:14 or that unbelievers are not to be regarded in 2 cor 5...unbelievers are not a believers neighbor but rather their enemy...

something to chew on.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:53:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:40:18 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

This is another commandment I disagree with. It's is not a sin to want what your neighbor has. Often times this can motivate a person to work for those things he wants.

But it is a sin to steal what your neighbor has. This is immoral and criminal.

here's a commandment....
thou shall not own another human being?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:55:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:53:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:40:18 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?



ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."


hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

This is another commandment I disagree with. It's is not a sin to want what your neighbor has. Often times this can motivate a person to work for those things he wants.

But it is a sin to steal what your neighbor has. This is immoral and criminal.

here's a commandment....
thou shall not own another human being?

That is a commandment I would definitely agree with, perplexed.

It's also a commandment many religions failed to live up to in ancient times.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:09:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:46:24 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.


additionally...
would that also be applied to the "love your neighbor as yourself"
meaning neighbor only means a fellow Israelite NOT everyone?

That's correct.

when jesus quotes that passage in leviticus he ONLY meant believing jews are the like minded ones who are neighbors.

Whether somebody is a believing Jew is irrelevant to the original command. The command applied to fellow countrymen, regardless of what they believed.

When Jesus quoted the command to love your neighbor in Matthew 5:43, he added to the command. When he said to love your enemy, he meant to love, not only your fellow Israelite, but to also love non-Israelites. In other words, his followers to to love not only their fellow Jews, but gentiles as well, including Romans.

and it also makes perfect sense, if your assertion is true, as to why paul would call unbelievers wicked and of the dark and not to be considered to be equal with in 2 cor 6:14

Paul didn't say unbelievers are "not to be considered equal." He said to not be unequally yoked with them. But this is irrelevant to the command to love your neighbor. It isn't because neighbor refers to fellow Israelites that Paul said unbelievers are wicked. The two have nothing to do with each other.

or that unbelievers are not to be regarded in 2 cor 5...unbelievers are not a believers neighbor but rather their enemy"

If you're referring to verse 16, I think you've got a misunderstanding about this passage. But it is also irrelevant to the command to love your neighbor.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:26:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

Well, philos, I understand what you're saying, but I think the commandment was badly written. I believe it actually says both things. Do not covet what belongs to someone else.

But I think it also communicates do not covet things other people have, as in material possessions and belongings, as way of communicating it's not okay to be greedy.

I actually disagree with this view. I think there is a place for greed, though it should be restrained inside of us so we don't do something foolish in jealousy.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:28:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The purchasing of things we need and things we want are essential to any regional economy . . . and this was true in antiquity as much as it's true today.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:31:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:26:52 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

Well, philos, I understand what you're saying, but I think the commandment was badly written. I believe it actually says both things. Do not covet what belongs to someone else.

But I think it also communicates do not covet things other people have

like their own freedom?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:32:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:28:22 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
The purchasing of things we need and things we want are essential to any regional economy . . . and this was true in antiquity as much as it's true today.

yea owning a person isn't generally understood to be a good thing...
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:35:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:31:36 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:26:52 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

Well, philos, I understand what you're saying, but I think the commandment was badly written. I believe it actually says both things. Do not covet what belongs to someone else.

But I think it also communicates do not covet things other people have

like their own freedom?

perplexed, excellent point!

Ancient hebrew people owned slaves (many of them fellow hebrew, but most the spoils of war). Those that were captured in war were not granted freedom except at the insistence of the slave owner. Hebrew slaves were legally obliged to go free after seven years.

It would have been disruptive to ancient hebrew society to allow people capture in war to go free, because then they would have become an active minority inside of their lands. Recall that at this period, the Hebrew made it law so that no other religions could be practiced at the time--with the threat of execution.

Perplex, I do agree with what you're getting at!
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:36:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

the disconnect is rather shocking i must say...
the 10 commandments doesn't say owning another human being is a sin...but coveting is..do you not see a problem in there somewhere?

guess what...owning another person is envying the freedom the other person rightfully owns for themselves.
so can we start from there...and then perhaps we can discuss what "neighbor" means?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:37:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

Ancient hebrew people owned slaves (many of them fellow hebrew, but most them spoils of war) . . .
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:36:30 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

the disconnect is rather shocking i must say"

What disconnect? Do you mean to say that I misunderstood what you were insinuating? If so, then why not just state your meaning plainly and take the guess work out of it for me?

the 10 commandments doesn't say owning another human being is a sin...but coveting is..do you not see a problem in there somewhere?

I don't know what that has to do with women having wives or neighbors being fellow Israelites which is what you and I were talking about.

guess what...owning another person is envying the freedom the other person rightfully owns for themselves.

What does this have to do with whether "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites or whether women have wives?

so can we start from there...and then perhaps we can discuss what "neighbor" means?

I told you what "neighbor" meant because you asked, "What qualifies one to be a neighbor?" That's the only reason I'm in this thread.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:43:18 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:36:30 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

the disconnect is rather shocking i must say"

What disconnect? Do you mean to say that I misunderstood what you were insinuating? If so, then why not just state your meaning plainly and take the guess work out of it for me?

the 10 commandments doesn't say owning another human being is a sin...but coveting is..do you not see a problem in there somewhere?

I don't know what that has to do with women having wives or neighbors being fellow Israelites which is what you and I were talking about.

it has nothing to do with it...

do you see a problem with saying it is a sin to covet while it is NOT a sin to own another human being?
yes or no....
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:45:29 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:43:18 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:36:30 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 4:17:06 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:52:11 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:36:50 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.

so a woman can also have a wife?
ok...

Now, you're just being silly.

no i am not
you are not owning what you said....

I fully own what I said. I just think the insinuation you're making is silly. Since you didn't make it explicitly, let me tell you what I think you're getting at. Maybe I've misunderstood you.

I assume what you mean is that since there's a command that says not to covet your neighbor's wife, and since "neighbor" refers to fellow Israelites, then that must mean a woman can have a wife. After all, some fellow Israelites are women.

But the command does not entail that every single Israelite even has a wife. The thought behind the command is that you shouldn't covet what belongs to your fellow Israelite, regardless of what it is. It lists wives, servants, oxen, donkeys, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." It does not imply that every Israelite has wives, servants, oxen, or donkeys.

So your insinuation that because "neighbor" means fellow Israelite, some of whom are women, and because there's a command not to covet your neighbor's wife, that must mean some women had wives is silly. It's ridiculous, and I have a hard time believing you're being serious.

the disconnect is rather shocking i must say"

What disconnect? Do you mean to say that I misunderstood what you were insinuating? If so, then why not just state your meaning plainly and take the guess work out of it for me?

the 10 commandments doesn't say owning another human being is a sin...but coveting is..do you not see a problem in there somewhere?

I don't know what that has to do with women having wives or neighbors being fellow Israelites which is what you and I were talking about.

it has nothing to do with it...

do you see a problem with saying it is a sin to covet while it is NOT a sin to own another human being?
yes or no....

I do understand your argument. I don't think your argument is sound. But I am not in this thread to talk about the merits of that argument. I got in this thread to answer a specific question of yours--the meaning of "neighbor" in the context of the command not to covet. After answering your question, you responded by asking, rhetorically I thought, whether that meant women have wives. So I thought you meant the subject of women having wives was supposed to have some bearing on the definition I gave of "neighbor" and that you were maybe challenging that definition by leading me to a reductio ad absurdum. I thought your reductio was silly and said so, and you responded that you were being serious. So I explained why I thought your insinuation was silly. You responded by saying "the disconnect is rather shocking," which I thought meant that I had misunderstood you. Then you went on to ask about coveting and slavery, and I asked what that had to do with what we were talking about, and you admitted it had nothing to do with what we were talking about. So you've just been leading me down a rabbit trail.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 4:09:54 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 3:46:24 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:50:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:
...slaves but it isn't a sin to have a slave.
but lets not stop there...what qualifies one to be a "neighbor"...being a man?

In the context of the Law, "neighbor" refers to a fellow Israelite.


additionally...
would that also be applied to the "love your neighbor as yourself"
meaning neighbor only means a fellow Israelite NOT everyone?

That's correct.

when jesus quotes that passage in leviticus he ONLY meant believing jews are the like minded ones who are neighbors.

Whether somebody is a believing Jew is irrelevant to the original command.
it is relevant to what jesus meant, yes or no?


When Jesus quoted the command to love your neighbor in Matthew 5:43, he added to the command. When he said to love your enemy, he meant to love, not only your fellow Israelite, but to also love non-Israelites.
so what about matthew 10:34-35?
where an "enemy" is to replace an unbelieving son, mother, daughter etc?
i see that as a person who has wronged you but are fellow believers....

In other words, his followers to to love not only their fellow Jews, but gentiles as well, including Romans.
not according to the passages i listed in 2 cor....
or matthew 10...or even the parable of the 10 minas...so clearly we have a problem with an inconsistent message...what does neighbor mean in it's proper context...

and it also makes perfect sense, if your assertion is true, as to why paul would call unbelievers wicked and of the dark and not to be considered to be equal with in 2 cor 6:14

Paul didn't say unbelievers are "not to be considered equal." He said to not be unequally yoked with them.
why? are believers wicked and of the dark...isn't that demeaning the unbeliever?

But this is irrelevant to the command to love your neighbor.
depends if neighbor means a fellow believer or not

It isn't because neighbor refers to fellow Israelites that Paul said unbelievers are wicked. The two have nothing to do with each other.
however it did when jesus said it in matthew 10

or that unbelievers are not to be regarded in 2 cor 5...unbelievers are not a believers neighbor but rather their enemy"

If you're referring to verse 16, I think you've got a misunderstanding about this passage. But it is also irrelevant to the command to love your neighbor.
no it isn't
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 4:59:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even though I do believe the Holy Bible can transmit many accurate views to us about God and his will, it is also quite evident that one of the issues the Bible (and its writers) were absolutely wrong on was the entire issue of slavery.

Here are a few reasons:

--The majority of non-Hebrew slaves were captives of war from surrounding areas; their belongings and their children were distributed among the Hebrew; according to the Bible, they were not treated as equals:

Numbers 31:25-28. "The Lord said to Moses, 'You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep.'"

--Unlike a Hebrew slave, a non-Hebrew slave was kept until the slave owner sold him or decided he should go free, there was no time limit.

Children born to non-Hebrew slaves were automatically slaves; owning non-Hebrew slaves was customary and a popular business practice:

Genesis 14:14. "When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan."

Ecclesiastes 2:7. "I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house."

--Foreign slaves had no religious or cultural freedom among the twelve Hebrew tribes:

Genesis 17:12. "For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner"those who are not your offspring."

Joshua 24:23. "Now therefore put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to Yahweh, the God of Israel."

--In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul commanded that slaves be obedient to their masters:

Ephesians 6:5-7. "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men."

--In the Old Testament, beating a slave was permitted if he did not do his master's bidding:

Exodus 21:21. "But they [masters] are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two [of being beaten], since the slave is their property."

--There is absolutely nothing humane about slavery, either in ancient Israel or anywhere else. In the United States, the Confederacy used both the Old and New Testament to justify the practice of slavery and to secede from the Union. Ultimately providence would see the Confederate states lose and the practice abolished altogether.

It's also interesting that no popular Christian denomination today advocates slavery, even though it is readily permitted in the Bible.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 5:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:35:31 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/29/2014 2:45:44 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:50:59 PM, perplexed wrote:

hmmmm....
i see something very very very wrong here....

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in pronoun usage in ancient texts, especially when even modern language lacks any good gender-neutral pronouns.
so HIS wife could also be understood as her wife...got it

It can because all pronouns in old texts were masculine. No need for sarcasm.

Maybe you should retake remedial English to prevent your making such mistakes in future.