|
On August 18 2009 02:30 kerpal wrote:
yeah. i recon there are more people who are not christian than are, hence the religious people are in the minority, (not saying it is a minority religion)
as to the rest.... i'm confused what the objection is about, i thought everyones problem with this law, was that somehow people were being indoctrinated into christianity....
i was replying to your post about only christian children learning about christianity.. ah well, i'm lost now
Well, Christianity is the dominant religion by far in North America (U.S., Canada and Mexico).
The objection is that some think this is a breech of the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court's rulings on separation of church and state.
|
On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism.
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
|
On August 18 2009 01:20 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:16 EchOne wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x. Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics.
So Judaism only sprang up during/after the Exile?
really?
|
On August 18 2009 01:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes. Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either.
Care to explain? My views on the free-market, Laissez-Faire, and Anarcho-Capitalism quite fall in line with the likes of Mises, Hayek, Friedman (more so in the later period of his life), Rothbard, and other various Economists in the Schools of Thought. I acknowledge that Government plays a role in society, however that is as limited as can be; especially Federally. In that sense, I am more in-line with the Anti-Federalists. In the marketplace the only role Government serves is to ensure fair practices and to make sure contracts, which are voluntary in a free-market are upheld. No intervention into the markets whatsoever should be ordained. This viewpoint is directly in-line with the teachings of Austrian School.
The two most influential persons in my life and my political philosophy are Thomas Jefferson and Ludwig von Mises. I listen to Beck for political commentary on contemporary issues; not as a guiding beacon on how to approach philosophy and politics. I would actually like to hear you explain how I am not a proponent of what I say I am. Of course, you don't believe that because what I say comes straight out of their contemporary pieces and I cite as such. You are merely trying to marginalize my views by associating me with a political commentator in which on these boards is seen as "loony", instead of accurately describing me with such intellectual giants and men of stature as Ludwig von Mises and Thomas Jefferson. Such a ruse.
I should one of these days go through the guiding books of the opposite side of the spectrum and highlight the drastic differences on these boards; that being Communist Manifesto (Which is the guiding book for both Socialism and Communism), the various Market Socialist Economists, and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
There really are a limited number of philosophers and Economists who support greater Government involvement. Most are in the opposite spectrum; reduced and limited Government. Montisqiue, Cicero, Burke, Locke, Paine, Tocqueville, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, Rand, Smith, and Bastiat.
On the opposite side you have Marx, Machiavelli, Keynes, Krugman, Russell, etc.
Then there are some who are in the middle and propose systems on both ends of the spectrum like Roussaeu.
|
On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
|
On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old.
That is beside the point.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews.
Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
|
On August 18 2009 02:39 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:20 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:16 EchOne wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:08 DrainX wrote:
Shouldn't it be
"The Bible is birthed directly from Judaism"
rather than
"Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible."? Semantics Any contention on the truth of one over the other is definitely not semantics. It's logic. x is y from z is a wholly different statement logically than z is y from x. Judaism came after the Bible was written and so the Bible birthed Judaism though its roots go back to pre-Biblical times. It's semantics. So Judaism only sprang up during/after the Exile? really?
Modern Judaism, yes. Judaism was being written from about 1,500 B.C.E. all the way up to about 500 B.C.E. so Judaism in its current state did not exist before then. It was quite a ways into the Hebrew scriptures before the tribe of Judah was dominant and the terms Judaism and Jew were born.
|
On August 18 2009 01:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes. Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics. Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
|
On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young."
I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
|
It should be allowed only because the Bible is still a good read regardless of the intentions of its writings.
|
i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
|
On August 18 2009 02:49 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites?
As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience.
|
On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote:
i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves
Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
|
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
|
On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights.
Israel and Israelite are two different words.
And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
|
On August 18 2009 03:08 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:49 HnR)hT wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites? As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience.
Hebrews are descendants from Eber, Israelites are descended from Israel (Jacob). All Israelites are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Israelites. That's the difference between the two.
|
On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah.
Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
|
On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
|
On August 18 2009 03:18 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:08 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 HnR)hT wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites? As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience. Hebrews are descendants from Eber, Israelites are descended from Israel (Jacob). All Israelites are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Israelites. That's the difference between the two.
Oh so now you accept that there is a difference?
That is correct, but I don't believe that is the distinction used by critics in historical analysis of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
