The unimportant news thread

[SimonNZ]

If you call Christians people who by their deeds and teachings implicitly rejected Jesus Christ's own deeds and teachings as recorded, then what do you call people who by their deeds explicitly followed in the footsteps of Muhammad's own deeds and teachings as recorded? Muhammadians?

Do you reject all of old testament law and the acts of its prophets then?

[Florestan]

So you've upgraded from ignorance to bigotry, since you are saying that both Islam and Judaism "have no place in" Western society.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I am indeed saying, and maintaining, is that insofar as both halach and sharia impose the death penalty on homosexuals they have no place in the legal framework of any Western society. And I really want to believe that Islam and Judaism are not limited to sharia and halacha --- yet you do your best to prove me wrong

You remain my friend,

So do you.

but please understand that you seem to know a lot less on this topic than you think you do.

but please understand that so long as you'll sweep under the carpet any discussion, under pretext of my being ignorant and bigotted, or the discussion being too long, you run the risk of losing credibility in my eyes.

[Florestan]

Do you reject all of old testament law and the acts of its prophets then?

I reject all that Jesus Christ rejected implictly or explicitly.

[Ken B]

You are being mendacious. Mansur is a candidate for a party that is, to use your terms, both anti-immigrant and anti-immigration.
I am not saying anything different. Your claims of what I said are not accurate.
Or are you so cynical that the idea that a politician supports his own party's platform just doesn't register with you?

I do not accept your characterization of the party. I was working ad arguendo. You are the one making hostile characterizations.
I reject the charge of mendacity.

[SimonNZ]

I reject all that Jesus Christ rejected implictly or explicitly.

And how does that align with the leaders of your faith? Are you responsible if they still advocate laws you personally reject?

[Florestan]

And how does that align with the leaders of your faith? Are you responsible if they still advocate laws you personally reject?

The leader of my faith is Jesus Christ. If the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, who is no Pope anyway, would ever advocate laws contrary to Jesus Christ's own teachings and deeds, let him be anathema! (cf. Galatians 1:8 ) As of today, he's in no such danger.

[Ken B]

The leader of my faith is Jesus Christ. If the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, who is no Pope anyway, would ever advocate laws contrary to Jesus Christ's own teachings and deeds, let him be anathema! (cf. Galatians 1:8 ) As of today, he's in no such danger.

Lucky you're not an Anglican!

[JBS]

The Rabbis have made the imposition of capital punishment by a beis din practically impossible because of the standard of proof: Two reliable witnesses who independently saw the violation first-hand.  This is almost never able to be found.  Also there is a quote in the Talmud to the effect it is better to allow [some large number] of guilty men go free (due to a lack of sufficient proof) than to convict/kill one innocent man.

The Rabbis decided it was best to leave to G-d matters of putting sinners to death.

I don't know if Sharia law has the same restraint.

More complicated than that.

Actually, the same source requires murderers who could not be convicted because of those rules, but whose guilt was clear, to be imprisoned and a given a diet that was meant to result in their death soon after. And kings had a residual right to impose death sentences despite verdicts if not guilty.

[Florestan]

Lucky you're not an Anglican!

[Florestan]

Actually, the same source requires murderers who could not be convicted because of those rules, but whose guilt was clear, to be imprisoned and a given a diet that was meant to result in their death soon after. And kings had a residual right to impose death sentences despite verdicts if not guilty.

Do you support those requirements and rights?

[drogulus]

Do you support those requirements and rights?

     Nothing is made wrong by someone telling you. The point was made by Plato in the mouth of Socrates. I kind of hate those guys but it was the greatest statement in human ethics ever so I have to swallow my pride.

     Socrates: Do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?

     Me: Right, it's on me, thanks a lot, asshole.

[Florestan]

   asshole.

Nice signature.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[JBS]

Do you support those requirements and rights?

Of course I do.  But the halachic process is actually a good deal more flexible than you seem to think
https://morethodoxy.org/2012/01/11/homosexuals-in-the-orthodox-community-by-rabbi-zev-farber/

[JBS]

I do not accept your characterization of the party. I was working ad arguendo. You are the one making hostile characterizations.
I reject the charge of mendacity.

The party platform calls for heavy restrictions on immigration, and an end to multiculturalism. It mimics the anti immigration and anti immigrant rhetoric of Trump's supporters.
If you think that is not proof that it is anti-immigrant and anti-immigration, then you have a weird definition of anti-immigration  and anti-immigrant.

[Florestan]

Of course I do.  But the halachic process is actually a good deal more flexible than you seem to think
https://morethodoxy.org/2012/01/11/homosexuals-in-the-orthodox-community-by-rabbi-zev-farber/

It doesn't matter how flexible or not it is. What matters is that you support a doctrine which, given enough flexibility, and more importantly, enough political power, would result in death for homosexuals.

Now, I am opposed to gay marriage, gay adoptions and so forth, but killing homosexuals is just that: killing.

[JBS]

It doesn't matter how flexible or not it is. What matters is that you support a doctrine which, given enough flexibility, and more importantly, enough political power, would result in death for homosexuals.

Now, I am opposed to gay marriage, gay adoptions and so forth, but killing homosexuals is just that: killing.

And you support a doctrine which, given enough flexibility, and more importantly, enough political power, would result in death for homosexuals.

In fact, has resulted in death for homosexuals and plenty of others.

[Ken B]

It doesn't matter how flexible or not it is. What matters is that you support a doctrine which, given enough flexibility, and more importantly, enough political power, would result in death for homosexuals.

Now, I am opposed to gay marriage, gay adoptions and so forth, but killing homosexuals is just that: killing.

By the "Mansur standard" I think we must conclude Jeffrey is anti homosexual and is in favor of killing them.
I think that suggests this whole ratchet games is bogus but what's pudding for the goose ....

[Florestan]

And you support a doctrine which, given enough flexibility, and more importantly, enough political power, would result in death for homosexuals.

Again: please cite chapter and verse the Orthodox Church's canon law regarding homosexuals.

[JBS]

By the "Mansur standard" I think we must conclude Jeffrey is anti homosexual and is in favor of killing them.
I think that suggests this whole ratchet games is bogus but what's pudding for the goose ....

Explain to me how a party whose platform is explicitly anti immigration and anti immigrant is not anti immigration and anti immigrant, and I will concede you are right about Mansur.

[Ken B]

Explain to me how a party whose platform is explicitly anti immigration and anti immigrant is not anti immigration and anti immigrant, and I will concede you are right about Mansur.

An argument for X is not an argument for more X. Nor is an argument for more X an argument for Y.
I don't want any more wives, but I am not anti wife nor anti my wife. My wife and I recently decided not to adopt another cat, but we still like the ones we have. It certainly doesn't mean we want to expel one.
I also don't think anyone who describes himself as Jewish necessarily wants to kill me for wearing cotton polyester shirts. Your mileage may vary.