brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Tue Jul 30 03:02:30 EST 2002

JDay123 at (Jd) wrote:
>In  Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's, 
>Bob LeChevalier wrote... 
>>>>Which has nothing to do with Christianity, unless you have a Bible verse
>>>>commanding that you own a gun.
>>>As a matter of fact I do.  Are you sitting down? The following is
>>>from Jewish Law, from a Jewish website, concerning that very Bible
>>>verse.  But first, please don't tell me Jewish Law has nothing to do
>>>with Christianity because this has to do with the sanctity of life
>>>in the eyes of God.
>>Convince the nincompoop that Christians are bound by anything in the Talmud,
>>and I'll be surprised.
>There you go again.  I mean before even addressing the point, you
>mention John Knight.  I think the word "Talmud" as well as a great many
>of the  words of the english language remind you of John Knight.

Only in this thread, which I am involved in because I enjoy the sinful
pleasure of toying with the nincompoop, who I suspect is reading this.  Rest
assured that in a serious thread, I would address the topic differently.

>>Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?  Is that command of Christ's
>>overridden by your interpretation of Talmud?
>What? I've never read the Talmud as I've said several times before.

Then why did YOU bring up the Talmud?  On what basis can you use it as an
argument on how Christians should be behave?  Do you really think that
Christians should care what one extremist Jewish political group uses as
arguments against another extremist Jewish political group?  For that matter,
do you think that ANY person, especially an extremist, trying to win a
political argument will interpret Scripture honestly and in a way unaffected
by his political stance?  (Picking and choosing only those verses that can be
read to support his cause.)

>Perhaps you missed those threads but I doubt it.

Probably, since I've never read you in any other thread.

>I think you're only being deceptive ...

I have no need to be deceptive in order to slam the nincompoop.  He walks
right into my fist, metaphorically speaking.

>If you'll re-read what I wrote, you'll see that the author of that fact

That was NOT a "fact sheet".  That was a political opinion.  Do you really
think that everything on the Internet is "fact"?

>refers to the Torah (which I quoted from) as being the basis for
>the argument.

Actually, it did not.  Here is the relevant text.

>"From the sanctity of Life comes an imperative to safeguard Life.
>Thus, it is written in the Talmud -- the 70-volume Code of Jewish
>Law -in at least three places, "And the Torah says, 'If someone
>comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.'" The Torah is the
>Five Books of Moses; this injunction is rooted in Exodus, Chapter
>22, Verse 1. This injunction occurs twice in the section of the
>Talmud dealing with Blessings (TractateB'rachos), on pages 58A and
>62B. It also is found in the section of theTalmud dealing with
>Administration of Justice (Tractate Sanhedrin) page 72A. The
>contexts are all different, but the message is consistent: forJews,
>self-defense is an individual duty. As nothing in the Five Books of
>Moses, or the Talmud, is ever repeated without a reason, that this
>injunction is three times repeated suggests it is a powerful
>injunction, indeed. "
>Here I must interject that the verse numbers in the Jewish English
>translation of Hebrew scriptures (Torah) do not match the verse
>numbers of the KJV.  I made this discovery myself while in a verse
>by verse debate with Orthodox Jews over the events that occured at
>Mt. Sinai when Moses received the 10 commandments.  The reason I
>said that is because Exodus 22:1 KJV says...
>Exodus 22:1  If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or
>sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a
>...and I'm sure the Jewish version of sanctity of life (self
>defense, gun ownership) isn't tied to a property law. It's tied to a
>moral law whereby a man can shoot first and ask questions later if
>his life is immediatly at stake. Such is the case in verse 2 of the
>Exodus 22:2	If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that
>he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Now first of all, if there is some question as to what the Jewish Torah says,
because of different numbering of the verse numbers, THAT is something it is
appropriate to seek on-line assistance for.  30 seconds with a search engine
gave me:
and the only Torah verse cited:

>Penalties for Stealing
>22:1 If a burglar is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is not considered an act of murder. 
>22:2 However, if he robs in broad daylight, then it is an act of murder [to kill him]. 
>[A thief] must make full restitution. If he does not have the means, he must be sold [as a slave to make restitution] for his theft.
>22:3 If the stolen article is found in his possession, and it is a living ox, donkey or sheep, he must make double restitution. 

And we see that the cited text from the Bible does NOT in fact say what the
article said that it did.  And checking against the KJV, we find that the
numbering difference is precisely ONE verse number off:

>[2] If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
>[3] If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

And we see that, having totally confused the issue with references to Torah
and Talmud that you obvious did not understand, the verse cited in the Jewish
group's argument was PRECISELY the same one that you cited, and it did NOT
say what they said, that it occurs in a discussion of penalties for stealing
and does NOT in fact give blanket authority to "arise quickly and kill him"
in either the Jewish Torah or the KJV translation of the Torah.

The notes on the translation of the Jewish Torah do however tie to the
self-defense question, and gives relevant Talmud sections, incidentally
showing that the Talmud is merely a collection of Biblical commentaries that
has somewhat more authority for their people than any single Christian
commentary has for Christians:

>breaking in
>  (Hirsch). Cf. Jeremiah 2:34, Ezekiel 8:8; Amos 9:2, Job 24:16. Or, 'digging in' (Radak, Sherashim); or, 'with deadly intent' (Rashbam).
>not considered an act of murder
>  Literally, 'he has no blood.'
>in broad daylight
>  (Rashbam; Ibn Ezra; cf. Saadia). Literally, 'if the sun shines on him,' an idiom. Or, 'if it is clear (that he has no deadly intent' (Mekhilta; Sanhedrin 72a; Rashi); or 'if it is done publicly [in the presence of witnesses]' (Targum; Ramban).

But a quick look at nearby verses in the KJV shows the context of this whole
discussion.  In Exodus 21 we find:
[12] He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

And we now see that Exodus 22:2 is merely an exception to a general rule that
killing another is subject to the death penalty.  If you kill another when he
breaks into your house as a thief at night with deadly intent, then you are
not subject to the death penalty.  This does not mean that you are without
guilt; you've still violated the commandment.  It just means that the penalty
is not death.

And NONE of this has anything to do with guns.  

Most especially, the Bible does NOT entitle you to defend yourself with
lethal force EXCEPT in one particular circumstance, and it says nothing about
using a weapon in that circumstance.

Are you, JD, in the habit of misquoting the Bible to win an argument?
Because indeed, if you cite the article's supposed basis in Exodus 
(as you say above "refers to the Torah (which I quoted from) as being the
basis for the argument") that is precisely what you did.  And the Bible verse
in question did not say what the Jewish article said it did, NOR did the
verse as you cited.

Why should anyone believe ANY argument you make based on scripture when you
allow yourself to use misquotes from a false source.  

Furthermore, since you have made it clear that you consider Jews to be
wicked, why do you violate Scripture (from Exodus 23):
>[1] Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

>As far as "turning the other cheek", why do you think there's a hell
>prepared for the devil and his followers?

I see no relevance to the question with respect to "turning the other cheek",
and hence cannot answer relevantly/

>You only see 2 possibilities...
> 1) the aggressor 
>     and 
>  2) the victim
>... because of your liberal "victim" mentalitity.

I will thank you not to tell me what I "see" nor what I "believe".  And again
I again see no relevance either to "turning the other cheek" or to your newly
proposed distraction regarding the devil and hell.

>I've observed you
>portraying yourself as the "victim" and me the "aggressor" on several

I think you are imagining things.  We haven't had all that many exchanges.  I
don't feel that you have been particularly aggressive towards me, and I
hardly feel victimized by you or anyone else in this discussion

>Liberals do this subconsciously (I suppose) to prey on emotions.

I wouldn't know, since I don't purport to guess the subconscious motivations
of others.  The conscious ones are hard enough to guess.

>As a Christian, you should have some ideas about the following third
>party (but you don't because you can't deny leftism).
>1Corinthians 6:2  Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?
>and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the
>smallest matters?
>1Corinthians 6:3   Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more
>things that pertain to this life?

What "third party", and what does "leftism" have to do with the above?  You
seem to have concocted a most elaborate world view based on fictional
interpretations of the motives of others, based in turn on your choice to
label them with such non-biblical labels as "liberal" and "leftist".

The verses in question appear in a context discussing judgments IN LAW on
disputes between two people.  The specific verses appear to refer to a future
time when the saints will judge all.

>>>...and I'm sure the Jewish version of sanctity of life (self
>>>defense, gun ownership)
>>Self defense is not the same thing as gun ownership, and neither has much to
>>do with the sanctity of life.
>Obviously, you disagree with the Constitution, and all Americans who
>have guns in order to protect themselves and their families.

Are you arguing on the basis of Jewish law, or on the Christian
interpretation of the Bible, or on the Constitution?

The Jewish "sanctity of life" appears not to have relevance to guns.
You appear not to have any Christian biblical basis supporting the use of
guns, in the face of "turn the other cheek".
You now turn to the Constitution, which refers to a right to bear arms either
justified by or in keeping with the value of "a well-regulated militia",
depending on subtle interpretations of punctuation.

That verse does not say anything about how those arms may or shall be used.
There is in particular NO mention of "self defense", nor of protection of
self or of families.  The words say "being necessary for the security of a
free State", which has NOTHING to do with "families" or "self".

>>>Exodus 22:2	If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that
>>>he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
>>Smitten, not shot.  There is no mention of guns in the Bible.  It appears to
>>say, however, that you have the right to defend yourself with bare arms.
>Now you're flip flopping again as Mr. Knight pointed out upthread.  One
>the one hand, you say it's ok to believe Jesus smoked pot because the
>Bible is silent on the matter, but on the other hand you infer that self
>defense using "bare arms"  only is valid since the Bible doesn't mention
>anything about guns.

You read falsely.  If you want to establish a parallel between my views on
these two issues, then read what I say, and not what you wish I said.

The Bible is silent on the matter of what Jesus may or may not have smoked.
You can believe whatever you want on the matter, BUT NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE
BIBLE which is silent on the matter.

You may believe whatever you want on the matter of possessing guns, BUT NOT
ON THE BASIS OF THE BIBLE which is silent on the matter.

I DO NOT say that "it's ok" to believe Jesus smoked pot.  I said ONLY that
the Bible cannot be used as the basis for disbelief.  I do not say that it is
NOT ok to own a gun, but only that the verse in question cannot be used as a
basis for saying that it is ok.

You cannot argue, on the basis of the Bible, what the Bible does not address.

>Besides that, they didn't have guns back then.

Well, then perhaps for a Biblical literalist who believes we should live
absolutely according to the Bible, one should not use guns.  There are
Christians who believe that there should be no musical instruments in
churches because the Bible does not mention them in religious services.  The
logical extension of this is that we must live strictly as did the people of
the Bible and eschew modern conveniences as non-Biblical.  And indeed the
Amish among others follow this practice.

But I again challenge you with the first sentence quoted above:
>>>>Which has nothing to do with Christianity, unless you have a Bible verse
>>>>commanding that you own a gun.

To which you replied that "in fact you do".  There is no "flip flop" in my
pointing out that in fact you have no such thing, and in trying to distract
from the fact that you ave no such verse, you have in fact brought in Jewish
extremist interpretations of Talmud (as if you had some especial respect for
Jews or Talmud), a verse that removes the death penalty for self-defense
against a thief with lethal intent, a prediction that saints will judge the
world, the Constitutional right to bear arms, the question of whether it is
OK to believe that Jesus smoked pot, and whether I may have "flip-flopped".

Now devoid of all of these side issues, let us see "a Bible verse commanding
that you own a gun", since you CLAIMED to have one.  Or did you lie when you
>>>As a matter of fact I do.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list