The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

But that's what God did, he mandated it by law. It's called "The Mosaic Law" not "The Mosaic Optional Guide of Recommendations You Can Either Choose To Abide By or Ignore".

Leviticus 23:22 "When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien. I am the LORD your God"

That's a command form, not a subjunctive form like a recommendation. It's a straight up command leaving no room for optional behavior. Paul clarified that breaking any one point of The Law makes you guilty of the entire Law. There is no minor violation, you break one rule you become guilty of the whole thing. Now before you talk about how we as Christians don't live under The Law, that's beyond the point. The point is that Jehovah of hosts in his infinite wisdom demanded that people provide a form of welfare by mandate of law, making said action moral and within the right of any authority. For you to say that mandating welfare by law is theft, is then impugning God's actions and marking them as theft. Thus heresy.

I highly doubt God called for the subversion of people's private property right.....perhaps the Jewish people's interpretation of God's commandments was a little faulty, as their interpretation of that particular command destroys the freedom of choice God gave us

[Annoyed]

Leviticus 23:22 "When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien. I am the LORD your God"

If that is an accurate copy of what is in the Bible, I'd have to say it sounds like an order to me.

[Falcon Horus]

Assuming that this:
is directly from the Bible, it looks pretty clear-cut to me. "Interpretations" are only needed if you want to argue that it means something different from what is written.

It is, and if you followed the link I left (not the article) you would have gotten the different versions from different versions of the bible. I believe I took the first in the list which is from the international version.

[Annoyed]

It is, and if you followed the link I left (not the article) you would have gotten the different versions from different versions of the bible. I believe I took the first in the list which is from the international version.

Well, that's something like what I was saying somewhere around here the past few days. That's why people want to re-interpret things like Bibles or more importantly Constitutions. They don't like what it says as it stands.

[jelgate]

I find this hilarious coming from you

[Gatefan1976]

I highly doubt God called for the subversion of people's private property right.....perhaps the Jewish people's interpretation of God's commandments was a little faulty, as their interpretation of that particular command destroys the freedom of choice God gave us

Isn't the popular term "God Given Rights"?
The lord giveth, and he taketh away........

[Womble]

I highly doubt God called for the subversion of people's private property right.....perhaps the Jewish people's interpretation of God's commandments was a little faulty, as their interpretation of that particular command destroys the freedom of choice God gave us

The way Jews see it, your property is never truly yours. You are not an owner but a caretaker; God is the true owner.

Biblical laws regulate what a man can do with his land. They nullify unpaid debts during Jubilee years. Land cannot be sold but only leased; during Jubilee years, all land reverts to the original owner:

The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me. Thus for every piece of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land.… (Leviticus 25:23).

I'll tell you more; for a long time in many Christian communities interpretation was the same. Gleaning was a legal right for cottagers in England until the 18th century, and village priests would ring church bells to let the peasants know that they can begin gleaning. It was banned in 1788 by a judge that claimed that Biblical law was irrelevant to common law and that gleaning encouraged "insolence of the poor".

[Gatefan1976]

Apropos of the current conversation of Thessalonians..............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrVorPuc3Us
Not entirely SFW as there is an F bomb in it, but it proves the point.

[Falcon Horus]

Well, that's something like what I was saying somewhere around here the past few days. That's why people want to re-interpret things like Bibles or more importantly Constitutions. They don't like what it says as it stands.

Actually the sentence is pretty much the same; just different wording to fit the language of the audience. Or the version of the bible -- international, English, King James. But the verse stays exactly the same.

[mad_gater]

The way Jews see it, your property is never truly yours. You are not an owner but a caretaker; God is the true owner.

Biblical laws regulate what a man can do with his land. They nullify unpaid debts during Jubilee years. Land cannot be sold but only leased; during Jubilee years, all land reverts to the original owner:

The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me. Thus for every piece of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land.… (Leviticus 25:23).

I'll tell you more; for a long time in many Christian communities interpretation was the same. Gleaning was a legal right for cottagers in England until the 18th century, and village priests would ring church bells to let the peasants know that they can begin gleaning. It was banned in 1788 by a judge that claimed that Biblical law was irrelevant to common law and that gleaning encouraged "insolence of the poor".

Yes....but if there's no right to personal and private property....then why is there a commandment against theft? if there's no such thing as private property then there can be no such thing as theft

[Womble]

Yes....but if there's no right to personal and private property....then why is there a commandment against theft? if there's no such thing as private property then there can be no such thing as theft

If I loan Gatefan my car and you steal it, it is theft regardless of who owns it, is it not? If God made me a custodian of some wealth, and someone took that wealth, they are stealing whether or not it's private property.

[garhkal]

Yes....but if there's no right to personal and private property....then why is there a commandment against theft? if there's no such thing as private property then there can be no such thing as theft

Good point. Also if there's no private property what about the commandment about coveting what someone else owns?

[aretood2]

Well, that's something like what I was saying somewhere around here the past few days. That's why people want to re-interpret things like Bibles or more importantly Constitutions. They don't like what it says as it stands.

As FH mentioned, that has nothing to do with there being different bible versions. They exist due to different forms of English, and slight nuance differences that are negligible. There are however some versions that strive to be accessible, those I don't use because they aren't actual translations, but she didn't link anything to them.

I highly doubt God called for the subversion of people's private property right.....perhaps the Jewish people's interpretation of God's commandments was a little faulty, as their interpretation of that particular command destroys the freedom of choice God gave us

What private property right? Can you show me in scripture where that is found? That's the thing, you can't. It's a liberal worldly concept from the philosophes who at best ignored religion and at worst scuffed at the idea of "Christian law". As Womble pointed out, Christians (including Catholics) had the same interpretation until secular courts started to push back against it because the poor were seen as evil.

Please ask a priest or consult your Catholic resources for things like gleaning laws and free will, especially free will. You seem to grossly misunderstand or simply not know what free will is. Free will does not mean that God won't make laws and commandments that you have to follow or else. It means you can decide to obey or disobey knowing that there are consequences to both choices. Otherwise why bother making a law of 613 commandments only for those commandments' moral precepts to be repeated again by the Apostles?

Yes....but if there's no right to personal and private property....then why is there a commandment against theft? if there's no such thing as private property then there can be no such thing as theft

You do have "personal property" but as Apostle Paul mentioned, not even our lives or our own bodies are ours. Womble put it best with his example of being merely custodians. I mean, to say otherwise is to call tithing theft...are you truly prepared to do that?

Good point. Also if there's no private property what about the commandment about coveting what someone else owns?

Reread Womble's post.

[mad_gater]

As FH mentioned, that has nothing to do with there being different bible versions. They exist due to different forms of English, and slight nuance differences that are negligible. There are however some versions that strive to be accessible, those I don't use because they aren't actual translations, but she didn't link anything to them.



What private property right? Can you show me in scripture where that is found? That's the thing, you can't. It's a liberal worldly concept from the philosophes who at best ignored religion and at worst scuffed at the idea of "Christian law". As Womble pointed out, Christians (including Catholics) had the same interpretation until secular courts started to push back against it because the poor were seen as evil.

Please ask a priest or consult your Catholic resources for things like gleaning laws and free will, especially free will. You seem to grossly misunderstand or simply not know what free will is. Free will does not mean that God won't make laws and commandments that you have to follow or else. It means you can decide to obey or disobey knowing that there are consequences to both choices. Otherwise why bother making a law of 613 commandments only for those commandments' moral precepts to be repeated again by the Apostles?



You do have "personal property" but as Apostle Paul mentioned, not even our lives or our own bodies are ours. Womble put it best with his example of being merely custodians. I mean, to say otherwise is to call tithing theft...are you truly prepared to do that?



Reread Womble's post.

and yet again you fail to understand that God gave us free will

true charity is help for the needy that is offered FREELY, not forced out of someone, either by point of gun or by government fiat

[Gatefan1976]

Yes....but if there's no right to personal and private property....then why is there a commandment against theft? if there's no such thing as private property then there can be no such thing as theft

Who said there was no such thing as personal property?
If I am understanding the Jewish position on this correctly, it was a directive from G-d that these small parts of a harvest were to be given over to those in more need, which pretty much precludes the notion of theft. In fact, by withholding those portions directed by G-d it is "you" who are stealing from G-d and using the justification of MAN'S law to overturn G-D's law.

Good point. Also if there's no private property what about the commandment about coveting what someone else owns?

Again, who said there was no such thing as personal property? The notion of coveting your neighbours home, lands and "chattel" is a warning against Greed. A person who needs something to live, like food is not being greedy to take what should be -offered- to them, are they?