They see gender pay gap as a problem but ...

[Immanuel Can]

That is so. And Jesus Christ Himself expanded on the Jewish Law in such a way as to show it to be more merciful...and also more demanding...than Moses may ever have imagined.

Christ didn't, if only because he did not have the authority to change God's law.

He didn't "change" it, though the Pharisees accused Him of that. He explained and expanded on it, revealing its true implications. But what He did not do was to walk in the stock sandals of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the leading Jewish religious authorities of the day. He was far outside the lines in which conventional Judaism preferred to walk.

But that's all in the famed "Sermon on the Mount," so you can see that for yourself, if you like.

That is exactly where Christ says that no letter will ever be changed to God's law.

And it's exactly where he explains and expands that Law.

War is just about violence and who ends up on top. It really doesn't have another "purpose."

Originally, war did have a purpose. There is a need to figure out which bull will mount which cow. The solution turns out to be simple. Let them fight over it

Again, that's a bad analogy. Few wars, if any, were ever fought for sex. Resources, language, geography, riches, racism, conquest, land, ideology...all these are far ahead in terms of motive. In fact, I think you'd have a hard time even finding one war the primary motive of which was sex. Maybe you could cite the fall of Troy, but even that was more likely fought for honour than merely for "cows."

War isn't about mating. If Islamists are telling you it is, then that's their personal dementia speaking. Historically, that's not been why wars are fought at all.

If you cannot face the truth about the dark side of human nature...

I can face it fine. I just think your explanation is wrong.

Judaism and Islam do not try to embellish anything, while Christianity wants to turn you into an idiot who in the fantasy of his head lives in delululand.

You've got a problem with that theory. Islam does not agree with Torah, either. Most of the things Mohammed is said to have thought he "remembered" about the Torah, the Torah never contained. (For example, the Koran gets Isaac and Ishmael reversed, or it says that Mary was the sister of Aaron. And it contains even more mistakes relating to the New Testament.)

What do you do with the fact that the Koran contradicts the Torah, but all the early manuscripts of Torah are highly consistent, and many long predate the Koran?

[godelian]

And it's exactly where he explains and expands that Law.

Christ had no authority to expand God's law.
The exhortations in his Sermon on the Mount were meant to encourage his audience to follow God's law.

In fact, I think you'd have a hard time even finding one war the primary motive of which was sex.

The mating season is the origin of war. I am referring to a situation that existed 10,000 years ago, when humanity were still hunter gatherers. We keep carrying that with us. In my opinion, we will keep fighting wars because we were preprogrammed to waging war at a very deep biological level. I do not care what motives people give for why they fight wars. These motives are irrelevant. We simply have it in us to fight wars and we will invent whatever excuse to justify why we are doing it.

Islam does not agree with Torah, either.

Islam considers the Torah to be a holy scripture.
Moses transmitted God's law into the Torah.

What do you do with the fact that the Koran contradicts the Torah, but all the early manuscripts of Torah are highly consistent, and many long predate the Koran?

The Quran does not contradict the Torah.

Quran 5:43. But why do they come to you for judgment, when they have the Torah, in which is God’s Law? Yet they turn away after that. These are not believers.

According to the Quran, Mosaic law is God's law.
The Quran contains God's law again.

In my opinion, it was necessary to re-transmit God's law and use another scripture, because of what Paul had written. Paul's aberrations even got bundled into the Bible:

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)

I don't want any dealings with Paul's bullshit. I also do not care what embellished interpretations anybody gives to what he wrote. I stick to the worst interpretation possible.

God's law is the essence of the Torah. It is also the essence of the Quran.

Paul and his epistles badly damage the Bible. You won't find that kind of discrediting of God's law neither in the Torah nor in the Quran. I consider Paul, the apostate of the law, to be an utmost fake individual.

Some of the Church Fathers argue that the Ebionites revered James the Just, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, as the true successor to Jesus (rather than Peter) and an exemplar of righteousness.[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

The Ebionites rejected the Pauline Epistles,[3] and, according to Origen, they viewed Paul as an "apostate from the Law".[70] The Ebionites may have been spiritual and physical descendants of the "super-apostles" — talented and respected Jewish Christian ministers in favour of mandatory circumcision of converts — who sought to undermine Paul in Galatia and Corinth.[71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

When Paul arrives in Jerusalem to deliver the money he raised for the faithful there, it is to James that he speaks, and it is James who insists that Paul ritually cleanse himself at Herod's Temple to prove his faith and deny rumors of teaching rebellion against the Torah (Acts 21:18). This was a charge of antinomianism.

God's law is an essential societal tool.

We need to insist on the supremacy of God's law to rein in the inclination of the ruling mafia to overrule it. If the ruling mafia does that anyway, they lose the mandate of heaven, i.e. the monopoly on the use of violence. The solution is then to overthrow the ruling regime as to effect regime change and then to warn the new regime not to ever try that again.

The ruling mafia does not need to enforce God's law. That is not needed at all. They must just refrain from overruling it.

If the ruling mafia claims that the laws that they invent are above God's law, then the time has come to eradicate such political regime.
It is, however, not possible to count on Christians to do that, because in line with Paul's heresies, they believe that God's law is a curse.

[Immanuel Can]

And it's exactly where he explains and expands that Law.

Christ had no authority to expand God's law.

But He did. And He did have the authority. Check the Sermon on the Mount. I can tell you haven't read it.

Here's just one passage:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27)

The place where the Jews had "heard it said" was in Torah, in Exodus 20:14, as a matter of fact: it was in the very core of the Mosaic Law, the 10 Commandments. Every Jew in Jesus Christ's audience knew it. But what does He do? He expands it. He makes it immeasurably more demanding than it was in Exodus, even. He explains what God was really telling people all along -- namely, that adultery is more than a mere act; it's an attitude as well. And a man can be damned for the wickedness he has in his heart, just as he can be damned for the improper woman he actually takes in his arms.

Jesus does this repeatedly in Matthew 5. He does the same with the prohibition against murder, in Matt. 5:21. He does the same with revenge, in verse 38, with swearing oaths, in verse 33, with enemies, in 33-34...

So not only does Jesus Christ expand and expound the Law, He does so with an authority and depth that the Jews around him would never have imagined, and of which Moses himself probably never dreamt. He speaks as if He, like God, has authority to say what every commandment truly implies and means.

In fact, I think you'd have a hard time even finding one war the primary motive of which was sex.

The mating season is the origin of war.

It wasn't, actually. There's no evidence for that supposition at all. The ancient wars of which we know anything at all were fought for land and tribe, not merely for sex opportunities.

I do not care what motives people give for why they fight wars. These motives are irrelevant.

Hardly. It was you who brought this up, and you who rested important claims on it. I just think there's no evidence for what you said.

Islam does not agree with Torah, either.

Islam considers the Torah to be a holy scripture.

Then which is right: Torah, or Koran? For example, is Isaac the child of divine promise, or is Ishmael?

The Quran does not contradict the Torah.

It actually does. And it's in fairly significant ways. But if you want to talk about them, I do have a Koran right here...

According to the Quran, Mosaic law is God's law.

Yes, it does. And that's a big problem for Islamists.

Because if the Koran contradicts the Mosaic Law, the Torah, then there can only be one conclusion: the Koran cannot be right. And why? Because the Koran itself declares that it, itself cannot be right, in that case. It affirms the prior authority of the Mosaic Law, which, as we see, is different from Koran.

The same pertains, of course, to the New Testament. If Mohammed claimed that Jesus Christ was a prophet, and Mohammed told his folowers to kill infidels, and Jesus told people to love their enemies, as in Matthew 5, then it can only be Mohammed who is doing the wrong thing: for Mohammed says so...he says Jesus is a true prophet.

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)

I don't want any dealings with Paul's bullshit.

But you asked me. I respected you by answering. Are you now angry with me because I give you honour?

[godelian]

But He did. And He did have the authority. Check the Sermon on the Mount. I can tell you haven't read it.

The sermon is very short. Of course, I have read it. It is not law, if only, because of the disclaimer that it contains that no letter of the law will ever be changed. Christ did not have the authority to modify the law. He knew that perfectly well. That is why he did not do it.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27)
But what does He do? He expands it. He makes it immeasurably more demanding than it was in Exodus, even. He explains what God was really telling people all along -- namely, that adultery is more than a mere act; it's an attitude as well.

The law does not care about attitudes. It only cares about actions.
Christ simply recommends not to put yourself in a position that facilitates adultery, which is obviously just common sense.

So not only does Jesus Christ expand and expound the Law

He doesn't. Nothing in what he said, can be interpreted as modifying the law or creating new obligations burdening the keeper of Mosaic law.

He speaks as if He, like God, has authority to say what every commandment truly implies and means.

If any commandment required mandatory clarification, it would already contain it.
He merely gave recommendations based on common sense.
None of it introduced any new obligation.

Jesus told people to love their enemies, as in Matthew 5

That is not law. Christ had no authority to change the law.
He never meant to create new or additional obligations that would weigh on the keeper of Mosaic law.
Mosaic law has always been enough.
It just means that believers should acknowledge the humanity of even their enemies.


Furthermore, there are no jurisprudential rulings possible on the basis of the canonical gospels.
In Mosaic law, rulings can in fact only refer to the Torah. In Islamic law, rulings can only refer to the Quran.
The Gospels do not have legal weight. They are just recommendations, similar to Kings, Judges, or Psalms in the old testament.

So, forget about it. The Gospels have never had legal weight and will never have any. They don't in Judaism. They don't in Islam. And they even don't in Christianity, if only, because Christianity rejects the very notion of religious law.

[Immanuel Can]

But He did. And He did have the authority. Check the Sermon on the Mount. I can tell you haven't read it.

The sermon is very short. Of course, I have read it. It is not law, if only, because of the disclaimer that it contains that no letter of the law will ever be changed. Christ did not have the authority to modify the law. He knew that perfectly well. That is why he did not do it.

Actually, you can see He did just that. Not contradicting, but definitely expanding and expounding, adding things that were not explicitly written in Moses's words.

Only God has the right to expound His Law authoritatively. Jesus Christ, the one whom Mohammed declared a "true prophet" did just that.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27)
But what does He do? He expands it. He makes it immeasurably more demanding than it was in Exodus, even. He explains what God was really telling people all along -- namely, that adultery is more than a mere act; it's an attitude as well.

The law does not care about attitudes. It only cares about actions.

That's one of the huge differences between Judaism and Christianity, and Islam: Islam thinks all that is necessary is physical "submission." Christianity says one's heart must be made right. Jesus Christ declares that hating your brother is equivalent to murder; and lust is equivalent to adultery. You can read the words, and you cannot miss their significance.

Let me ask you this: is God greater if He only cares about what people do, or if He cares about what kind of people we are, in addition to what things we do? Is God greater if He is concerned for our hearts, or if He only takes thought for what our hands do? Is love of God a matter of the hands, or of both hands and heart?

You know the answer, don't you?

None of it introduced any new obligation.

Moses said nothing explicit about the use of one's eyes in adultery, did he? And did he speak about hating your brother, or only about actually murdering him?

Jesus told people to love their enemies, as in Matthew 5

That is not law. Christ had no authority to change the law.

It's the full meaning of the Law that God had always given. Remember: He is a true prophet, according to Mohammed. Will you contradict Mohammed?

[godelian]

Actually, you can see He did just that. Not contradicting, but definitely expanding and expounding, adding things that were not explicitly written in Moses's words.

It is just common-sense clarification. The idea is not to put yourself in a position that facilitates the sin. That is all he said.

Christianity says one's heart must be made right.

It is merely a recommendation.
Furthermore, it may not even be possible to do that.
Last but not least, Christianity does not even have a religious law. So, what's even the point?

Moses transmitted a copy of the law.
Muhammad transmitted a copy of the law.
These two versions of the law give rise to legal systems built on top of them.
That is what you can see being used today.
What you are referring to, is simply not suitable as a legal system. That is why it is not one and will never be one.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, you can see He did just that. Not contradicting, but definitely expanding and expounding, adding things that were not explicitly written in Moses's words.

It is just common-sense clarification. The idea is not to put yourself in a position that facilitates the sin. That is all he said.

No, you can see he said much more. It's that the man who is lustful "has committed adultery already with her in his heart." This, Moses might have intended, we might guess: but he certianly never wrote it or said it.

Only God can legitimately add to the words of God. Who will tell Him what He meant, or how He should explain it?

Christianity says one's heart must be made right.

It is merely a recommendation.

Not at all. You can see. It's a requirement. It's part of that self-same Law which Jesus Christ declares shall not in the least pass away.

Moses transmitted a copy of the law.
Muhammad transmitted a copy of the law.

Why were they different?

And why was the Law as Christ explained it much more than either Moses or Mohammed told us?

[godelian]

Why were they different?

They are essentially the same.

The differences are immaterial. I really don't care about them. People who do care, have all kinds of explanations that I don't give a flying fart about.

What.matters, are the results.

It gave rise to two functioning legal systems, one based on Mosaic law and one based on Quranic law. It works absolutely fine for Jews and Muslims.

A clean break with any existing forgeries and other Christian interpolations was clearly the best solution. Therefore, the transmission of the Quran was necessary.

And why was the Law as Christ explained it much more than either Moses or Mohammed told us?

Christ did not transmit a new copy of God's law.

Unlike Moses and Muhammad, Christ wasn't even in a position to successfully do that because he wasn't the leader of his society. The Romans and the Rabbis happened to run the show.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christ's recommendations concerning Mosaic law. Unlike Paul, the incorrigible heresiarch, Christ did not attempt to abolish God's law.

Christianity is Paul's religion. In reality, it is Paul that Christians follow and not Christ.

By trying to keep a usable version of Mosaic law, Muslims are much more the followers of Christ than the Christians.

In fact, even though they reject him, even Jews are arguably better followers of Christ than the Christians. At least, they have a functioning legal system based on Mosaic law.

There is simply no salvation in following Paul, the apostate of the law. It is not God's law that is a curse. It is Paul himself who is.

[Immanuel Can]

Why were they different?

They are essentially the same.

Well, in the sense that what Christ explains includes everything Moses said, yes; but in that it is also much more full and much morally higher than anything Moses explicitly said, no. Christ is a whole level more challenging, morally speaking, than anything the Jews had come to understand from the old Law. That's one thing that makes the Sermon on the Mount so extraordinary.

The differences are immaterial.

Not at all. The Jews and His disciples certainly didn't think so.

It gave rise to two functioning legal systems, one based on Mosaic law and one based on Quranic law. It works absolutely fine for Jews and Muslims.

Hmmmm...not doing so well with each other, lately. A whole lot of people are pointing out that the Mosaic and Koranic laws haven't prevented Muslims and Jews from killing each other.

And why was the Law as Christ explained it much more than either Moses or Mohammed told us?

Christ did not transmit a new copy of God's law.

Nobody said He did. In fact, you can see He didn't "copy" at all. He expanded and expounded, going far beyond anything Moses explicitly stated.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christ's recommendations concerning Mosaic law.

You can see they weren't "recommendations." These were commandments, issued by the One that even Mohammed called "a true prophet." If you believe Mohammed, why don't you believe him about this?

Muslims are much more the followers of Christ than the Christians.

You never answered my question. As you can easily confirm, the Torah and the Koran contradict each other...one way is over who is the child of promise given to Abraham. So I'll ask you directly: do you believe the child of promise was Ishmael, or Isaac?

Pick the one you think it truly is.

[godelian]

Christ is a whole level more challenging, morally speaking, than anything the Jews had come to understand from the old Law.

All of that is irrelevant because Christ did not have the authority to "expand" Mosaic law, nor was he in a position to do so. That is why there is no legal system based on that.

A whole lot of people are pointing out that the Mosaic and Koranic laws haven't prevented Muslims and Jews from killing each other.

Of course not!

Does God's law for cattle prevent the bulls from fighting with each other during the mating season?

Preventing war is simply not a stated purpose of God's law (for humans). Therefore, any evaluation of God's law in terms of its ability to prevent war, is spurious.

Humanity fights wars because that is part of its nature.

Males are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than females, because males are preprogrammed to ruthlessly and mercilessly confront other males during the mating season.

In a world that functions like you would want it, every male is gullible simp, who believes that everybody is his friend. That is fantasia. That is not the real world. As men we enjoy killing other men, simply because we may have to do it some day. So, we could as well have fun in the process of doing so.

Nobody said He did. In fact, you can see He didn't "copy" at all. He expanded and expounded, going far beyond anything Moses explicitly stated.

The people who actually have a legal system based on God's law, i.e. Jews and Muslims, do not see it that way. Christians may see it in that way but that is irrelevant because they do not have a legal system built on top of God's law.

Mohammed called Christ "a true prophet."

Yes, of course, but prophet Muhammad never used anything Christ allegedly said in any of his jurisprudential rulings. Show me one Islamic ruling that mentions anything Christ said as a justification or as an argument.

Christ was a prophet but in terms of the day to day practice of both Mosaic and Quranic law, he is mostly irrelevant.

Christians often overstate his practical importance.

The man who is truly important for Christianity, is Paul, the incorrigible heresiarch, because it is him who misled the Christians into believing that they do not need to keep God's law.

Pick the one you think it truly is.

The answer is irrelevant to the day to day practice of Islamic law.

[godelian]

A whole lot of people are pointing out that the Mosaic and Koranic laws haven't prevented Muslims and Jews from killing each other.

The problem is that you and this whole lot of people seem to live in Christian lalaland, most likely even in its capital city, Delulu. You'd better figure out that not everybody is your friend. Otherwise, you will inevitably get badly disappointed with reality. It is funny that I never have to say that kind of things to Jews or Muslims because they know that already.

[attofishpi]

Humanity fights wars because that is part of its nature.

Males are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than females, because males are preprogrammed to ruthlessly and mercilessly confront other males during the mating season.

It never ceases to amaze me how similar Muslims are to the animal kingdom.

Mor Ham Mad based his 'religion' on Abrahamic texts - stemming from Judaism and Christianity.

Clearly he was particulary stupid to base his religion of a death cult upon God's actual commandment:- Thou shalt not kill.

He really should have made up his own crap for his warlord KILL everyone that doesn't bow to me cult, rather than attempting to validate his shite with ACTUAL divinity.

[godelian]

Humanity fights wars because that is part of its nature.

Males are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than females, because males are preprogrammed to ruthlessly and mercilessly confront other males during the mating season.

It never ceases to amaze me how similar Muslims are to the animal kingdom.

Mor Ham Mad based his 'religion' on Abrahamic texts - stemming from Judaism and Christianity.

Clearly he was particulary stupid to base his religion of a death cult upon God's actual commandment:- Thou shalt not kill.

He really should have made up his own crap for his warlord KILL everyone that doesn't bow to me cult, rather than attempting to validate his shite with ACTUAL divinity.

I was born a Catholic. One reason why I am attracted to Islam (and Judaism as well but less so), is because quite a few Christians seem to live in the capital city of Delulu in Lalaland. Atheists are not much better in that regard, actually. On the contrary, they are probably even worse in that respect. Especially in Western Europe, I predict that they are seriously running the risk of getting pushed from the 12th floor out of the window. They are surrounded now by hordes of illegal immigrants who are sooner or later going to eat them alive. There is that dangerous combo of arrogance and delusion that will inevitably backfire on them. But then again, everybody tends to get what they have asked for.

[Immanuel Can]

Christ is a whole level more challenging, morally speaking, than anything the Jews had come to understand from the old Law.

All of that is irrelevant because Christ did not have the authority to "expand" Mosaic law, nor was he in a position to do so.

And yet Mohammed called him a "true prophet," and He did that very thing. How can you explain that?

Does God's law for cattle prevent the bulls from fighting with each other during the mating season?

That's not the reason for wars. Nor does God's law allow rape, murder, kidnapping, torture, bombing, or any other such thing.

Humanity fights wars because that is part of its nature.

Well, that might be true. But as you and I probably agree, much of mankind's nature is evil, and should be resisted rather than excused. War is an evil, beyond question, and one of the worst evils, really, since it is the source of so many other evils.

I also have to ask you -- and please don't take this as merely insulting; I'm genuinely curious -- why are you so preoccupied with the getting of women you regard as mere "cows" to be used? That seems a singularly unhealthy and imbalanced preoccupation, to me. Rather than looking strong and "bull like," it looks more desperate and weak, to me.

If "simping" is bad, how much worse is a person who can't even "simp," but can only rape? But you seem to characterize the getting of women by violence and force...

Nobody said He did. In fact, you can see He didn't "copy" at all. He expanded and expounded, going far beyond anything Moses explicitly stated.

The people who actually have a legal system based on God's law, i.e. Jews and Muslims, do not see it that way. Christians may see it in that way but that is irrelevant because they do not have a legal system built on top of God's law.

I think anybody who looks at it clearly is going to see that what I'm saying is true.

The point of Islam and traditional Judaism seems only to be to have a set of rules to follow. The purpose of Christ was to go beyond that, and change the human heart. And isn't that something on which we agree? Do we not both agree that both men and women right now are in different dysfunctional states? You see men as preoccupied with war for cows, as you put it, and women as treacherous and entitled...if that's so, then what's more necessary than that both men and women should be transformed into better people?

But neither Islam nor Judaism ask that. But why would God be interested in the mere "submission" of people whose hearts are far from Him? As it is written, "This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me." So says God, in Torah, Isaiah 29:13, and again in Ezekiel 33:1, and Jesus Christ also says this, in Matthew 15:7-9...when God so repeats a concern, saying that the heart is his real interest, not mere submission of body, should we not also listen?

Mohammed called Christ "a true prophet."

Yes, of course, but prophet Muhammad never used anything Christ allegedly said in any of his jurisprudential rulings.

True.

So now, use your logic.

Mohammed said Christ is a true prophet.
Mohammed did not follow this true prophet.
What does that tell you about Mohammed?

Pick the one you think it truly is.

The answer is irrelevant to the day to day practice of Islamic law.[/quote]
Not at all. You have insisted that Koran and Torah agree. But you can see they do not, even on a basic fact, let alone on doctrine.

Look, G. I'm not going to tell you that you have to agree with the New Testament or Torah, if you are committed not to do so. But really, let's not have any more nonsense about Torah or the Gospels being the same as Koran. That story is just one that no person who can read is ever going to believe, obviously. One can only believe it by keeping oneself from reading.

[Immanuel Can]

A whole lot of people are pointing out that the Mosaic and Koranic laws haven't prevented Muslims and Jews from killing each other.

You'd better figure out that not everybody is your friend.

Jesus Christ already spoke quite clearly concerning this fact. And He taught us, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who abuse you." You'll see that in Matthew 5, in the Sermon on the Mount, again.

He knew it, we know it, and it's why we Christians give charity to all people -- those who are not Christians, those who are other religions, and even those who hate Christians. We are not afraid of our enemies; and we are obeying the Lord in showing them love instead of bitterness, cruelty, hatred or disregard. They are not a threat to us; for they can only destroy the body, but can do nothing to the soul. And whenever we show mercy to our enemies, we are following the Law of God, as expounded by Jesus Christ Himself, the true prophet.

All men are "made in the image of God," as Torah says. Those who understand that are duty bound to give the respect of human rights to all people, regardless of their beliefs. And for Christians, as for God Himself, as you can see from Torah, belief is at the heart of the matter. Submission, and particularly forcible compulsion, is simply not enough. It does not change the heart.