Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Van Damme remarks 81

Journal by Chacham

Well, the convicted murdered was condemmed to death. I haven't as much a problem with that as I do with the remarks made afterwards.

Maybe I missed something. Was he actually convicted of raping her? This story seems to say that he put his hands in her mouth before killing her. The conviction was for kidnap and murder. Yet it is "heinous"?

How is this worse than the rape or murder of an adult? When an adult is raped, there is both physical and emotional damage. When a child is raped, there is sometimes some physical damage, and usually no emotional damage, simply because they haven't the slightest idea as to what is going on. (Unless it is with a family member who does it repeatably and tells them that it is a "secret".) I contend that rape of an adult is *much* worse than the rape of a child, simply in damage done.

As for murder, why is the murder of a child any worse than the murder of an adult? The adult has a life, more friends, and the murder affects not only them, but everyone else too. On top of that, the person is a "person". A child, has little life (they are still learning about it) has much fewer friends, and hardly any "real" ones, and is considered by most people to be just a "kid". I contend that the murder of a child is the same as the murder of an adult, yet the murder of an adult has a greater effect on more people (I don't mean reaction).

It just bugs me. People idolize children. The death of a child means more to most people than a normal death. The "putting of fingers" in a child's mouth if more heinous than the rape of an adult. What is it with people? I think everyone is crazy.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Van Damme remarks

Comments Filter:
  • Several reasons.

    Innocence
    Potential. Yeah. you take a way a child's potential. Most adults are more set in their ways. With a child, you never know what they could become.
    • Innocence

      Rubbish. Ignorance is a much better word.

      Potential. Yeah. you take a way a child's potential. Most adults are more set in their ways. With a child, you never know what they could become.

      Let me guess, an adult with no potential.....
      • Nah, I say. You and I seem to disagree on a lot of things.

        If you rape and murder a child, you take away any chance they had of doing anything with their life. It's plain and simple. An adult (as others here pointed out) can fight back. A child is innocent, and for the most part, won't understand what is happening to them.

        Now, as for the main question, why is it worse...well, go take a look at runaway statistics, as well as rapist and murder statistics. Almost every person that commits a "heinous" crime such as raping a child, had some form or another of abuse when they were a child occur to them.

        Dude, if your saying the loss of life doesn't matter, because it's the loss of life in general, not the age of the victim in question, then I see where you are coming from. If not, then I strongly disagree with your sentiments on the matter.
        • You and I seem to disagree on a lot of things.

          As an INTJ, I get excited by disagreement, as long as it is logical.

          If you rape and murder a child, you take away any chance they had of doing anything with their life.

          First, that's only murder not rape. Second, why is that so bad? If you are going to kill someone isn't it *better* to do it before they enter adulthood and have a career? By having a career, more people are involved.

          An adult (as others here pointed out) can fight back.

          Exactly! And the ability to fight back makes it worse! Not only does it make the physical aspect much more dangerous, the psycological dangers are greater as the person things about what they *could* have done. A child, has neither of these problems.

          A child is innocent,

          From what? Innocence means not guilty. What are adults guilty of that children are innocent of?

          I think you mean *ignorant*. Children are ignorant.

          and for the most part, won't understand what is happening to them.

          Which is good. If you are going to insult someone, which is worse, insulting someone who understand it or someone who doesn't?

          Almost every person that commits a "heinous" crime such as raping a child, had some form or another of abuse when they were a child occur to them.

          I'll call your bluff here. Three reasons. One, it has to start somehwere. Two, these are only people that were caught. And, if people rape children because something happened to them, I'd say that they aren't hormal anyway and are more apt to be caught. Three, all this nonsense about being abused as a child uses psycotherapy that has been debunked.

          Dude, if your saying the loss of life doesn't matter, because it's the loss of life in general, not the age of the victim in question, then I see where you are coming from.

          Exactly!!!

          That is exactly what I mean to say.
  • I'm just going to take a stab here... you don't have any kids, do you?
    • sorry, but given the topic, putting those two sentences together just sounded *so* wrong....
    • by Chacham (981)
      you don't have any kids, do you?

      True.

      Now let me take a stab. You're a Democrat, aren't you?

      I don't see how having kids changes the facts.
      • I don't see how having kids changes the facts.

        We're not talking about facts. We're talking about opinions. And a person who has kids may have a (very) different opinion of whether murdering a child is a more serious crime than murdering an adult. That's all I'm sayin'.
        • You're right it is opinion and nothing more. It was the opinion of a jury that he is guilty. And the further opinion that he should die.

          If you want some sort of justification as to why some believe the murder of a child is worse than the murder of an adult: adults can fight back, children cannot.

          But, honestly, murder is murder. It's all bad.
          • But, honestly, murder is murder. It's all bad.

            I can't agree with that statement. Yes, it's all bad. But not all illegal killings are equally bad. Accidentally killing someone during a fist fight is bad. Killing someone in a fit of rage is worse. Coldly plotting and carrying out someone's death is even worse.

            Murdering a child, I think, is one of the very worst things a human being can do. Why? Because my instinctive value system tells me that kids are more valuable than adults. Sorry, but it's true. A child's life is worth more than an adult's life to me.
            • by Chacham (981)
              A child's life is worth more than an adult's life to me.

              Why?

              The only reason I can think of is people who believe their life is not fulfilling and thus want to be fulfilled through another. But, most adults are noticably mindfully self-centered, and thus living their lives would be no better than their own. So, they find a child who is ignorant of social standards, and incapable of being as mindful of their self-centeredness and live their life.

              Why is a child so good? And, do they become automatically evil when they turn eighteen?

              • Don't make the mistake of thinking that this can be a rational or logical discussion. It's simply not. It's instinctive.

                My instincts tell me that children-- my own and other people's-- are precious, and deserve more than I, or any other adult, deserves. That includes the right to life: if placed in a situation where I had to choose death for either myself or for a child, I would have no choice but to sacrifice myself. I simply wouldn't be able to condemn a child. Is this logical or rational? Of course not. Is it true anyway? You bet it is.

                See, it's not hard to understand how one adult could come to murder another. I know plenty of people that I would happily murder if I were a person of no morals, empathy, or conscience, and there are people out there that due to disfunction or disinclination simply don't possess those qualities. It's sort of a, "There but for the grace of God go I" thing. But to murder-- or molest, or in any way abuse-- a child... that's just incomprehensible to me. Anybody who could do that is a monster who needs, for the good of society, to be put down immediately.
                • by Chacham (981)
                  Don't make the mistake of thinking that this can be a rational or logical discussion. It's simply not. It's instinctive.

                  I go with the Myers-Briggs-Jung idea that all decisions are either logic-judgements or value-judgements. Logic is something most can agree upon, and thus is a common ground for legislation. Values are not like that, and thus while important, legislation should not be based on it, nor should public opinion be formed by it.

                  Now, you don't have to be logical, and that is OK, but you must then have clearly defined values. I am trying to understand these values. I'm not asking for the comparison of values to be understandable, but, rather, for the values themselves. That requires delineration and consistency, and that is what I am not seeing.

                  if placed in a situation where I had to choose death for either myself or for a child, I would have no choice but to sacrifice myself.

                  I pity you. I respect your decision, but I pity your self-degradation. If you'd do it for anyone except the truly evil (e.g. hitler, arafat, etc..) I could understand. But to do it for a child, and not an adult, it pure idol worship.

                  I simply wouldn't be able to condemn a child.

                  Saving onesself is not condeming the other.

                  See, it's not hard to understand how one adult could come to murder another. ... But to murder-- or molest, or in any way abuse-- a child... that's just incomprehensible to me.

                  I cannot understand this. I don't see how one life can be more precious than another, especially a child who hasn't a true life anyway.

                  Anybody who could do that is a monster who needs, for the good of society, to be put down immediately.

                  Remind me not to vote for you. :-)
                  • I go with the Myers-Briggs-Jung idea that all decisions are either logic-judgements or value-judgements.

                    I go with the Twirlip(TM) idea that "Life just ain't that simple." I also go with the idea that psychology books really should be filed under fiction.

                    Remind me not to vote for you.

                    Right back atcha. ;-)
      • Having a kid doesn't change what happened. Having a kid changes the way you think about the world. FWIW, I'd expect a Republican to recognize this moreso than a Democrat. At least if they believe that 'family values' line.

        • by Chacham (981)
          Having a kid changes the way you think about the world.

          You are correct. Thank you for pointing it out.

          However, in my defense, I switched arguments from why they have a different perspective to justification of that position. Without clarifying it, it was a mistake.

          FWIW, I'd expect a Republican to recognize this moreso than a Democrat. At least if they believe that 'family values' line.

          This has nothing to do with Family Values. This has to do with logical-judgements versus value-judgements. Republicans are generally logical, Democrats are generally value-based.
          • Having a kid changes the way you think about the world.

            You are correct. Thank you for pointing it out.

            However, in my defense, I switched arguments from why they have a different perspective to justification of that position. Without clarifying it, it was a mistake.


            That's why I didn't touch too much on the issue except to explain where those of us with kids are coming from. There's something even worse than those who change the way they think when they have kids: those who don't. People who continue cavorting and carrying on like they did pre-kids are frightening.

  • The article you cite (referenced [cbsnews.com] in case of changes) does not contain the word "heinous", so I'm wondering how you can be outraged over something that does not exist.

    The Judge said, "The physical evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the victim then returned to his house with the victim, taking her from his house, to his car, to his motor home."

    The U.S. society generally deems child rape more evil than adult rape. It also deems child murder more evil than adult murder. From the folks I know, the rationale for burdening crimes against shildrem seems to be that a) children are most vulnerable and less capable of self defense (so the criminal is picking an unfairly easy target), b) children are naive, c) children are innocents, and d) an adult may have been doing something to make themselves more of a target (starting fights, being flirty, hanging with the wrong crowd, whatever).

    In general, any premediated crime is deemed more evil than crimes of passion. This one was a combination of multiple crimes, and many chances to NOT harm the girl. Why would anyone think it ISN'T a nasty, evil crime?

    P.S. My understanding is that rape is emotionally damaging to kids. I'll have to see if I can find a link for yuo. Hang on....
    • It [the US] also deems child murder more evil than adult murder.

      Ok, so how about I abduct a child and then keep the until they are old enough that killing them is not as "evil," and then I kill them. Does this abduction outway the child-is-too-young-to-muderder waiting period? I mean, think of the mental torture I could do during the waiting period.
      • I'm betting the public will still count that as a crime against the child since you'd be kidnapping a child. Do you disagree? And yeah, I'd bet the public would count it as heinous to kidnap a child with the intent to murder once they were old enough.
        • I'm betting the public will still count that as a crime against the child since you'd be kidnapping a child. Do you disagree? And yeah, I'd bet the public would count it as heinous to kidnap a child with the intent to murder once they were old enough.

          Oh, I by no means think there's going to be a ticker-tape parade for doing that, my question is on the level of bad-ness. I'm not saying it's good, but what is worse: killing a child, or abducting a child, keeping it, and killing the (now adult) child??

          The orig. post said that killing a child is worse than killing an adult (from the US public viewpoint) but is an abduction and subsequent murder worse? You're still killing the same entity and here you have the potential to add torture and what not during the "incubation" period. So what's worse?

          To me, I think the abduction option is "worse" due to the torture... but something tells me that the initial reactions of most in the US given two seperate news items (a kid is killed vs. a kill that was abducted and body found much later and it had lived for several years past the abduction) the public would be more upset with the just plain muder.

          Thougts?

          • I agree, I think it is far more sick to abduct a kid, keeps them, and kill them later than to merely kill them. Simplest reasoning: more crimes.

            Initial reactions.... hmmm.... I think the thing that gets folks in the lynch mob mentality is the intial report of a missing child, so you might be right that *initially* a child murderer found when the news is fresh might get a more hostile reaction than a child abductor who later killed the victim. Still, (and without any polling whatsoever) my gut intuition is that the public would quickly realize the sick and twisted mature of the delayed crime, and jurors for the latter case would be at least as harsh if not more so than jurors for the former.
    • does not contain the word "heinous",

      You are correct. I saw it in two [foxnews.com] other [msnbc.com] stories. I chose the cbs story because I thought it had the facts, and it was the last one I checked.

      • Ah, thank you! That makes a lot more sense. From the phrasing, it seems like the press is not calling it heinous, but that the parents are. The story says:
        • On Thursday, Danielle van Dam's parents filed a lawsuit accusing Westerfield of wrongful death in the "heinous murder" of the girl.
        Since the words are in quotes, it looks like the reporter(s) did not choose the wording. There's a note at the bottom of the msnbc story noting "The Associated Press contributed to this report." Google news turns up several AP stories using the exact same line. If the AP report is NOT citing the wording in the lawsuit, the reporter(s) should be barred.
    • I'm guessing you read the now widely repudiated report that the American Psychological Association published under the title, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples". It suggested that a number of college student who would admit to being raped as children also claimed that they were well adjusted.

      Here's one link [conservativenews.org] denouncing the report, and linking to the APA's denouncement -- but since that is no longer on line, this link [leadershipcouncil.org] has a reprint.

      Now I guess I better look up some barely remembered figures on prostitution to use as an example of how dubious it is to accept studies like one the APA published. Basically, a longitudinal study was done on U.S. prostitutes. While thus employed, they tended to self-report themselves well adjusted and happy in their career. Over time, and after career changes, they self-reported that they'd been unhappy. About 90% also reported that they'd been sexually abused before the age of 16. This study is NOT recent, and I don't know if it ever made it to the web. I remember reading it in the early to mid 80s. Not sure when it was published.
  • by Some Woman (250267) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:19PM (#5009386) Journal
    It forces children to learn about sex before they are ready, and their first sexual experience is a horrifying ordeal that teaches them to distrust men (in the case of a man raping a girl) and they will likely have difficulty forming intimate relationships. Being abducted and hurt in this manner will also probably make them think that they were "bad", because, in a child's mind, the world is fair and bad things don't happen to good people. This thought process could cause the child unnwarranted self-hatred.
    • Those are all learnt *after* the actions take place, usually in a psychriatrists office. The child herself doesn't know enough to actually be physocologically affected.
      • A child doesn't know anything about hot stoves, but they do know about pain. When they touch a hot stove, it hurts, and it affects the way that they view stoves in the future.

        Likewise with people. Children are nurtured and protected from their birth, so they have a blind trust of adults. If some man comes along and rapes a girl, that will affect the way that she percieves adults, especially men, in the future. They also understand they somebody caused them pain (rape involves a fair amount of physical pain as well as that involved in abduction). To the child, nobody would do something bad to them unless they had done something to deserve it.

        And all this without even getting into the issue of sexual intercourse.
        • I agree with SW on this. Raping a child does cause emotional and psychological damage. I used to date a girl who was raped when she was a child. I remember one time we were sitting together and I was giving her a back massage and she was fine. Then she just jumped up and recoiled, and I had to let her sit for a minute. I wasn't touching her in any sexual way, but something sparked a memory of the rape. I happened on several different occasions with seemingly unrelated stimuli. It is something that she still has to deal with. It was very hard on me to see her recoil from my touch, but I didn't push, I just let her be alone until she was ok, and then I would hold her and try to let her forget.

          So don't tell me it doesn't damage children. I know it does. And this wasn't something a shrink had told her, she just started remembering things, and only myself and her brother knew what had happened. Her mom suspected but was in denial.

          • So don't tell me it doesn't damage children. I know it does.

            I never said that it didn't. Just that it doesn't always, and that it is a learned response, not a natural one.

            Show me some kids that were raped but never went to a psycologist, and were never bombarded with the western idea that adult-child relations is bad. If that kid has issues, then I will believe it.
              • Show me some kids that were raped but never went to a psycologist, and were never bombarded with the western idea that adult-child relations is bad. If that kid has issues, then I will believe it.


              Dude, how about I come over there and stick a dildo up your rear end and see if you do not 'develop issues'

              Sheesh.

              First off sexual responses are deeply built into the human psychi. I know of more then one case of females who where raped at a very early age and knew right from that moment that something wrong had happened.

              • and were never bombarded with the western idea that adult-child relations is bad.


              Western idea? Exccuuuuseee me. The 16/18 year limit I will grant you, but the fact is that it is INSTINCTIVE in the human race to PROTECT children. This includes such things as, oh, say, not doing potential permanent physical harm to young children. In the very least it could severely hamper future reproductive capabilities, something which is not in the best interest of the species. That alone is reason enough for a "Wait until puberty" instinct.

              Rape is in the very least akin to intensely painful physical abuse. That alone has been proven to cause massive psychological trauma. In the majority of cases the base instinctive sex drives is awaken and in the very least tells the child that something is very very wrong!

            • As I said in my post, she has never been to a psycologist, psychiatrist or any other "head doctor." As for being exposed to western ideas, she was born in St. Petersburgh, Russia, and came over here before high school, which is where I met her. And she DOES have issues.
        • If some man comes along and rapes a girl, that will affect the way that she percieves adults, especially men, in the future.

          If she believes that the rape was bad. And that is learned.

          I watched an interview with some girl from the Davidian ranch. She claimed that she was raped (actual rape) when she was nine(?) and said simply that she didn't know what was going on. IIRC, she said she thought nothing of it (besides being forced to do anything) until after she got out, she said what happened, she was informed about how bad it was, and only then did she actually care.

          To the child, nobody would do something bad to them unless they had done something to deserve it.

          That actually matters very much on the age of the child and the values taught in the family. A child doesn't even understand right and wrong until about 3-4 years old. And then it takes a few years untill it truly sinks in. Using that logic, the younger a child is, the less they'd be affected. Second, I don't know how many kids that you have spoken to, but I do not see this sentiment amongst most of them.
          • If she believes that the rape was bad. And that is learned.

            I'm hesitant to ask what exactly your point is here? I'm really not sure where you intend to go with this discussion. Are you trying to convince the lot of us that rape and murder of a child is really less heinous than we currently believe it to be?
            • Are you trying to convince the lot of us that rape and murder of a child is really less heinous than we currently believe it to be?

              That wasn't the point of that statement.

              The point was that the psycological backlash of children to "abuse" is a learned behavior, not a natural one.

  • Children suffer a lot from rape/molestation. I'm free of such a stain, but either it is very common or I attract women who've been abused. One was abused before she was two years old, and remembers it, with scars.

    Also, you figure that a child has much more potential then an adult, so killing one kills what they can become. So add it up and it is more heinous many ways around.

    You see, there is an inherent blockades in people that keep them from doing bad things. People actually have to break down these psychological barriers before they do something wrong. Some have more barriers, and keep them better but that is not very material here as those are relative scales.

    In an aboslute sence, the mark of how "heinous" the crime is, is measured by how many barriers they had to knock down to get there. In the girls case there is the barriers of..

    1) Sneaking into your neighbors house and stealing something
    2) That something is more precious to them then anything else
    3) its also a human being
    4) Its also a kid, and most natural reactions to kids are "Aww how cute" and want to give them cookies and toys not torture them
    5) Or kill them

    There is all sorts of reasons we don't normally do such things. The fact that he broke them down to do them means he is a sick individual. Perhaps beyond our social means of redemption.

    I listened to the prosecutor on the radio, and I can't imagine what it would take to take some screaming, crying, freightened girl and do what he did.

    For an adult its also very bad. But you don't have near as many barriers. Its like the bull who gores someone, he gets stoned. But if he had a history of being pushy and the owner showed neglect then he is punished also.

    This guy is showing himself to be a very pushy bull. Its better to kill it now before I take the blame for him acting in the future.

    Thats my view of the death penalty anyway.
    • Also, you figure that a child has much more potential then an adult, so killing one kills what they can become. So add it up and it is more heinous many ways around.

      So "what could be" is worse than "what is"?

      Choose the most important adult who has reached the greatest potential. Would that be worse than killing an adult who hasn't reached such heights?

      You see, there is an inherent blockades in people that keep them from doing bad things.

      Yes. The law, and social conditioning.

      People actually have to break down these psychological barriers before they do something wrong.

      Or just not put them up, which is the case by most people.

      In an aboslute sence, the mark of how "heinous" the crime is, is measured by how many barriers they had to knock down to get there.

      Interesting idea. I disagree (not logically, just stimulus response), and I'll try to formulate an opinion over the weekend. So, you can expect *another* reply to this message.

      Sneaking into your neighbors house and stealing something

      And that's worse then if he was a family friend and she trusted him to babysit for her? If anything, sneaking in makes the crime *less* heinous.

      That something is more precious to them then anything else

      It's too bad. You are correct, but that people think of their children more than themselves is terrible. Those are the people that set up pygmilion projects on their kids.

      its also a human being

      This has been torn down by society long ago. This is no longer a barrier to the vast majority of people.

      Its also a kid, and most natural reactions to kids are "Aww how cute" and want to give them cookies and toys not torture them

      Which I'd say is a form of idol worship. In fact, I wonder if people notice the excitement that a child gives them and react sexually. That in effect makes that hit the wall of society and trade it in for idol worship.

      You are correct in calling it a barrier though.

      Or kill them

      True, a barrier, but the least of all. Human life means less and less the more times we hear of death happening.

      The fact that he broke them down to do them means he is a sick individual.

      So, the "sickness" is not because of the act itself, as it is of the current social stygmatisms?

      and I can't imagine what it would take to take some screaming, crying, freightened girl and do what he did.

      Desire, and laws against child pornography and the like. Restriction pushes people to extremes.

      Its better to kill it now before I take the blame for him acting in the future.

      So the possible end justifies the murder?

      Thats my view of the death penalty anyway.

      Maybe I'll set up another journal (tomorrow night) on the Death Penalty. It ought to be interesting.

      • You're looking at this from a social engineering viewpoint. I tend to look at things from the personal point of view.

        So "what could be" is worse than "what is"?

        If you "is" being murdered then I think your odds are that any possibility is better then that.

        Choose the most important adult who has reached the greatest potential. Would that be worse than killing an adult who hasn't reached such heights?

        What is worse is killing an individual before they have the opportunity to choose for themselves. This is what we mean by potential, its an individual pursuit of happiness, not some socialist "he would have done better for society then the other person".

        Or just not put them up, which is the case by most people.

        Not in this case. These barriers are there and have to be taken down, although I'll agree that most of our battle grounds are in excersising discipline to make our own barriers.

        And [sneaking in is] worse then if he was a family friend and she trusted him to babysit for her?

        Its definately a worse situation in that he wasn't a trusted friend so its a relevancy is "worse". In this case, these are the barriers he broke down, and they are certainly evil. I see no need for relativism to be applied to it.

        people think of their children more than themselves is terrible. Those are the people that set up pygmilion projects on their kids.

        Seeing how you interpreted that, I'll ammend my remarks to say that of their possesions, their children are their most valuable. I don't think that is out of proportion.

        Which I'd say is a form of idol worship.

        Thats probably too harsh. Nurturing children vs using them is exactly the barrier here. I don't see you mention classifies as "nurturing".

        So, the "sickness" is not because of the act itself, as it is of the current social stygmatisms?

        I don't think these barriers are stygmatisms, or the ill effects of indoctrination. The fact that society has adopted these over the years makes me think there is much more to them then arbitrary rule making. Morality is based in reality, or laws just don't make sense.

        Desire, and laws against child pornography and the like. Restriction pushes people to extremes.

        I wouldn't call "restriction" the thing pushing people to extremes. A vast majority of people live perfectly well inside the same restrictions that you say drove him. If anything you could argue that restrictions act as social capacitors, building energy and determination until they break through the restriction, leaving them to discharge that energy very rapidly.

        So the possible end justifies the murder?

        To some, like me it does. If you have a bull that you know you can't control, and will leave you open for social punishment, what would you do?

        Some may argue that jail would be plenty strong restriction, and I could agree. But thats only on a grand social engineering platform that I make those judgements. If it were me, myself that did it I'd beg for the death penalty.
        • What is worse is killing an individual before they have the opportunity to choose for themselves.

          So then "choice" is what we care about? So, as soon as a kid chooses their life, it is not as bad to kill them?

          Your original comment was, "Also, you figure that a child has much more potential then an adult, so killing one kills what they can become".

          To which I countered, "Choose the most important adult who has reached the greatest potential. Would that be worse than killing an adult who hasn't reached such heights?"

          How does, "What is worse is killing an individual before they have the opportunity to choose for themselves" answer the question?

          Morality is based in reality, or laws just don't make sense.

          Morality is based on personal values, not reality.

          A vast majority of people live perfectly well inside the same restrictions that you say drove him

          But do they have the same desires?

          If anything you could argue that restrictions act as social capacitors, building energy and determination until they break through the restriction, leaving them to discharge that energy very rapidly.

          This is only true if the person wants to be stopped. The US is a hedonistic society, thus, this doesn't apply.

          • So then "choice" is what we care about?

            Reducto-ad-absurdum, but this one I'll answer by saying that choice is important only Indirectly so. Jefferson put it well in the Constitution that we care about "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Since I don't see how you can have those without choice, I see that choice is important. But its not what "is" important.

            So, as soon as a kid chooses their life, it is not as bad to kill them?

            Your scraping for relativism here again. Lets just start that one murder being considered by someone as worse or better does not make it kosher. Nor would I try to make such an arguement.

            Once that is clear we can postulate on the worth of souls based on potential or the use of that potential. That some will consider murdering a child worse because it robs them of more their "pursuit of happiness" is perfectly alright in my book.

            That potential, as well as social potential is the reason to let people choose to live. That values we hold in that potential and the right to choose (liberty) as a society is what makes us detest the murder of children more then adults.

            Morality is based on personal values, not reality.

            I suggest laying off the Libertarian newsletters for a while (I've since dropped my membership with them). It was chiefly over this issue. Morality is measurable, and must be based in reality. The only holdouts in saying morality is based on something other then objectively identifiable social law are the drug-appologists.

            But do they have the same desires?

            To steal a play from your playbook, "So if you desire to do a murder its better then if you don't desire to do so?"

            Actually thats kind of tongue and cheek. You do realize that your clever counter questions fall under the category of "reducto-ad-obsurdum". They don't really respond to the points (at least in this round) they simply take the other person's arguement to an extreme.

            Well, I must admit that maybe its just that I don't see the point in that question. Perhaps I'm just not keeping up with you and mislabeling your arguement.

            This is only true if the person wants to be stopped. The US is a hedonistic society, thus, this doesn't apply.

            Two wrongs in that statement. If the person wants to be stopped the restrictions mean nothing, and thus mean nothing to the arguement that restrictions drive people to extremes. That is obvious.

            The more subjective falsehood comes from calling the US a "hedonistic" society. I assume you'd mean that its hedonistic, meaning it cares little for social restrictions.

            From most of the perspective I've obtained from my travels and associations the US lives in a rather puritain society. Even since the 50's its increasingly taboo to drink, smoke, etc... These things have been curbed more social then legally or even forcefully.

            Never the less, I'll respect that you have a different vantage point casts a hedonistic hue on US culture. But the fact that you choose to see it that way just for the purposes of making some contrarian point, doesn't make much of an impact.

            But even if we were hedonistic, then one would conclude that restrictions didn't mean anything in the first place, and therefore the point is irrelivant.

            Speaking of which there is one point you dropped on the table that I don't want to leave as a dead horse.

            You supposed that the posing the moral conflict between killing an adult that has reached his/her highest potential, and someone else would somehow invalidate the value that we place in a person's potential. I can't see how that is the case since you are talking about people that have reached their potentials.

            If you don't remember, I already countered that the value of a persons life is not hinged on the social value of their existence, so deciding either way casts no shadow on the value of someones potential. The value of their potential is individual also, in fact so much so that we enforce laws about murder more to protect our ability to live out our potentials more then hoping we'll get another Ghandi out of it.

            So in that way, it points out that killing someone as a child and taking away that potential is worse then either of those posibilities. That definately answers the question.
            • "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Since I don't see how you can have those without choice, I see that choice is important. But its not what "is" important.

              Life - Given without choice, taken without choice.
              Liberty - Given/taken without choice (accept in a few rare instances of independance wars)
              pursuit of happiness - only gets complicated with choice.

              If a person had no choices, they would be *much* happier. Choices bring on stress and wishes for what could be done. If the person didn't know that they existed, they wouldn't be so distressed.

              Once that is clear we can postulate on the worth of souls based on potential or the use of that potential.

              Why? I don't see how one soul is better than another. Life is life, regardless of whatever potential involved.

              That some will consider murdering a child worse because it robs them of more their "pursuit of happiness" is perfectly alright in my book.

              I don't see that. The child won't know what he's missing. The adult, however, experiences this pursuit of happiness, and understands it, thus, according to this line of argument, killing an adult would be worse.

              That potential, as well as social potential is the reason to let people choose to live. That values we hold in that potential and the right to choose (liberty) as a society is what makes us detest the murder of children more then adults.

              I think this "potential" thing is *way* overrated.

              I suggest laying off the Libertarian newsletters for a while

              Never touched 'em.

              Morality is measurable, and must be based in reality.

              If morality is defined by reality, then morality is no different from societal rules.

              They don't really respond to the points

              I take offense at that. They respond directly to every question asked. I challenge you--or anyone--to show me where my questions did not directly answer yours.

              If the person wants to be stopped the restrictions mean nothing, and thus mean nothing to the arguement that restrictions drive people to extremes.

              But who said most people want to be stopped? I'd say the overwhelming majority of people do not want to be stopped, and restrictions only makes it worse.

              I assume you'd mean that its hedonistic, meaning it cares little for social restrictions.

              No. I mean that it is hedonisitc. That the US citizens go after personal physical pleasure. It's that "pursuit of happiness" thing.

              From most of the perspective I've obtained from my travels and associations the US lives in a rather puritain society.

              So, you only travel to small heavily relgious cities?

              Even since the 50's its increasingly taboo to drink, smoke, etc...

              No it isn't! It is *less* taboo. Back then you knew what you were doing was correct or incorrect. Nowadays, all is considered ok.

              These things have been curbed more social then legally or even forcefully.

              No they haven't smoking goes up every year. What is this "curb" that you are referencing?

              Never the less, I'll respect that you have a different vantage point casts a hedonistic hue on US culture.

              To deny the hedonism of US culture is to deny reality. Anybody with two eyes can see the ads on tv are all about personal pleasure. Anyone can hear the radio having ads about...personal pleasure. No matter the store, no matter the ciry, no matter where one goes in the US, the culture is based around personal pleasure. So much so, that if someone refuses to eat or drink, they aren't just "not hungry", they must have a reason, for example, they must be on a diet or something.

              I don't see how anyone can say that the US is not a hedonistic society.

              But the fact that you choose to see it that way just for the purposes of making some contrarian point, doesn't make much of an impact.

              I think it is you who are guilty of this.

              But even if we were hedonistic, then one would conclude that restrictions didn't mean anything in the first place, and therefore the point is irrelivant.

              What? If people are hedonistic, people do not want to change. If people do not want to change, restrictions make the matter worse. What part of that is irrelevant?

              You supposed that the posing the moral conflict between killing an adult that has reached his/her highest potential, and someone else would somehow invalidate the value that we place in a person's potential. I can't see how that is the case since you are talking about people that have reached their potentials.

              *Your* oringinal statement was, "Also, you figure that a child has much more potential then an adult, so killing one kills what they can become." So, since an adult fails, and kids *could* succeed, it is bad. I merely want to know, what if an adult actually reaches all this potential. I think it is a fair question given your values.

              So in that way, it points out that killing someone as a child and taking away that potential is worse then either of those posibilities.

              Huh?

              That definately answers the question.

              No it doesn't. Anyone else think it does?

              • Life - Given without choice, taken without choice.

                I can't subscribe to this, even if it is off topic. Life brings choice, thats enough for this context. Or more specifically, you cannot be alive without having choices to make.

                Liberty - Given/taken without choice (accept in a few rare instances of independance wars)

                Another point that is wrong and off topic. You can't have liberty without choice, so if liberty is important to you then choice is also.

                pursuit of happiness - only gets complicated with choice.

                I wasn't sure about the others, but with this one I'm convinced your grasping for strawmen. So without a way to disaccotiate the pursuit of happiness from the choices you make you feel the need to label it a hinderance.

                I don't see how one soul is better than another.

                I think you are shooting past the mark here. Even though I've painstakingly pointed out that this is not a matter of measiring a soul's worth you still drum on about it. That would be alright if you were making a point by it, but I haven't seen it yet. But your trying to contradict my point with it, and its completely orthoganal.

                Its not about the worth of a soul as much as its about the worth of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a soul. To me that is the ultimate reason murder is wrong, and it also means murduring children is worse since they are cheated out of more of their pursuit.

                Now this rule isn't an absolute, but it is certainly in force in the Van Damme murder sentiment.

                The child won't know what he's missing... thus, according to this line of argument, killing an adult would be worse.

                What makes you think that anyone when dead knows what they are missing? Your arguement is useless. The people still living decide the sentences, and they know the value of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

                If morality is defined by reality, then morality is no different from societal rules. ... (waiting for the clue phone to ring)

                They respond directly to every question asked

                Who's arguing that they don't? Of course they are "responses", even if dubiously topical and logically useless they are still responses.

                By the way, the responses this time have much more meat to sink into. I appreciate that.

                I'd say the overwhelming majority of people do not want to be stopped, and restrictions only makes it worse.

                Although definately countering, its too vague and ideological to be of much use. Everyone has things they don't mind barriers keeping them from and things they want to tear down barriers to.

                No. I mean that it is hedonisitc. That the US citizens go after personal physical pleasure. It's that "pursuit of happiness" thing.

                I repect your view, but my experience has proven to me otherwise,

                So, you only travel to small heavily relgious cities?

                A vain attempt and pretty embarassing I would conclude. If you thought about it I sure you'd more likely see that heavily religious cities would share your view that everyone else is hedonistic compaired to their values. Its the more hedonistic people that would view everyone else as puritain (as I do). Either way, one need compare the billboards or TV with France, the commercials in Britain, and so forth to come up with a notion that the US is relatively puritain.

                To deny the hedonism of US culture is to deny reality.

                Since one cannot accurately claim that the US is purely hedonistic or puritain, I find this attempt at contradiction to be pretty useless (well thats just another way of fingering your arguement as ructo-ad-absurdum).

                If people do not want to change, restrictions make the matter worse.

                Clearly this is not so. If people don't want to move from where they are at, they won't care if a fence is built around them.

                I merely want to know, what if an adult actually reaches all this potential. I think it is a fair question given your values.

                My values are worked around potential, since both are equally and spent (I assume) then this metric produces no favor either way. However that doens't preclude another metric being usefull or in relevant. But that would be another topic.
                • I can't subscribe to this, even if it is off topic. Life brings choice, thats enough for this context. Or more specifically, you cannot be alive without having choices to make.

                  That is not true. Most of history is about people alive with no choices. The fact that the US brought on this radical idea of choice, does not change history.

                  Anyway, what I said was that life itself is given without choice. People do not have a choice if they want to be born or not. Same with death.

                  Another point that is wrong and off topic. You can't have liberty without choice, so if liberty is important to you then choice is also.

                  At least here you have a point. Liberty is about doing what you want, thus, choices are inherent. (Because if there were no choices, liberty wouldn't change anything.) However, again, it is not what I said. I said that Liberty is given and taken without choice. Rarely did people *choose* to be slaves, or be born under an oppressive culture.

                  Anyway, liberty is important because choice already existed. Jefferson didn't say, "Gee, we don't have enough choices in our lives....".

                  I wasn't sure about the others, but with this one I'm convinced your grasping for strawmen. So without a way to disaccotiate the pursuit of happiness from the choices you make you feel the need to label it a hinderance.

                  This is not really different than the liberty thing. And, the less choices one has, the happier they are. I'm not saying that we should removes choices, just that when there are two situations, one with many choices, and one with few, the person is generally happier with less choices. More choices brings stress, and feelings of despair.

                  Even though I've painstakingly pointed out that this is not a matter of measiring a soul's worth you still drum on about it.

                  Where did you point that out?

                  Lets see your comments.

                  1) "Also, you figure that a child has much more potential then an adult, so killing one kills what they can become."

                  2) "What is worse is killing an individual before they have the opportunity to choose for themselves."

                  3) "Once that is clear we can postulate on the worth of souls based on potential or the use of that potential."

                  All three comments of your say that since a child has choice/potential it is worse to kill them. Which means that killing a child is worse than killing an adult, because the child is better (because of said greater potential.) How is this not measuring a soul's worth?

                  Its not about the worth of a soul as much as its about the worth of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a soul. To me that is the ultimate reason murder is wrong, and it also means murduring children is worse since they are cheated out of more of their pursuit.

                  So, imagine a child is born in China and is a slave, and will never have choice. In fact, the child will probably die by age thirty. And then, there is an adult, who lives in the US, who is fantastically rich, and pursues happineess from morning until night. Would it then be worse to kill the adult because he has greater chances for pursuit and happiness?

                  What makes you think that anyone when dead knows what they are missing? Your arguement is useless.

                  Not that when dead they will know. I assumed that since we'll have to assume that death is the end of everything, after-death thoughts cannot be brought into the equation, thus I must look at the as if the person were still alive merely to recognize the loss.

                  Who's arguing that they don't? Of course they are "responses", even if dubiously topical and logically useless they are still responses.

                  I used the adjective "direct". And you are arguing that, both in this comment and the last one.

                  I still challenge you to show me where any of my responses did not ==>*directly *<== answer your questions.

                  By the way, the responses this time have much more meat to sink into. I appreciate that.

                  I believe that is what they call a left-handed compliment. Well, I'll accept it as a compliment; that even you couldn't deny that the thoughts were well expressed (and that denying that for four comments in a row would be silly.). :-)

                  Also, you mean that this was the first one that you read well. All my comments are well thought out and have the same "meat". It could be that the direction is different now, and thus you are happier with it, but it isn't any "better" than the others regarding "meat".

                  Although definately countering, its too vague and ideological to be of much use. Everyone has things they don't mind barriers keeping them from and things they want to tear down barriers to.

                  No, I think almost everyone minds. It is a rare individual that gives up on their own pleasure just to satisfy others rules. And the type that is most likely to (the NFs) tend to have issue later on in life and can lash back in their twenties. (Adahan estimates that eighty percent of all people who see psycologists are NFs.)

                  Going with Keirsy's groupings, there are four groups. The SPs (~35%-40% population) and the NTs (~6% population) reject things that they don't agree with. They only listen to laws because they do not want to be thrown in jail or pay fines. In fact, the SPs test boundaries all the time. (Which is why you'll find that most kids with "ADHD" are really SPs who refuse to listen to the rules.) The NFs (~15%) listen to authority because they want everyone to be happy, not because they want to listen to the rules. It is actually NFs that are the most apt to be protesting the government. Only the SJs (~35%-40%) want to listen to the rules because they believe that it betters society. However, even then, ISTJs (~10%) break with the rules when it makes no sense.

                  I repect your view,

                  Thank you.

                  but my experience has proven to me otherwise,

                  We should poll on this. I can't walk down the street, watch television, or listen to the radio, without being slammed with hedonism.

                  Either way, one need compare the billboards or TV with France, the commercials in Britain, and so forth to come up with a notion that the US is relatively puritain.

                  Comparison is not needed. The US is not *relatively* hedonistic. The US *is* hedonistic.

                  Since one cannot accurately claim that the US is purely hedonistic or puritain, I find this attempt at contradiction to be pretty useless

                  Actually we could easily attempt to judge this. Let's pick an idea and go through what happens in the average day. I'd say that the plethora of fast food restaurants alone showed the hedonism. But then there's movie theaters, bars, amusement parks, etc.

                  >If people do not want to change, restrictions make the matter worse.

                  Clearly this is not so. If people don't want to move from where they are at, they won't care if a fence is built around them.


                  If a person wants to do something, and then a law is made to bar that, should the person stop doing it (out of fear of being caught) the desires will build up inside the person and make him do things he otherwise would not have done.

                  My values are worked around potential, since both are equally and spent (I assume) then this metric produces no favor either way. However that doens't preclude another metric being usefull or in relevant. But that would be another topic.

                  I don't understnad. All you did was dodge the question.

                  • This has been entertaining, but this is where I jump off the train, however much your ill-formed attempts are like fish in a barrel to shoot down. Its time to go to work today.

                    You've clearly been leading a one-sided discussion with an overinflated sense of importance for your own misguided views. (i.e. "But this is what *I* said!" being used to re-enforce red-herrings, and "You must be saying my arguements are well expressed" when my post clearly shows otherwise, etc...).

                    Oh and by the way, Moses did have the Priesthood, performed Atonement and other sacrifices in behalf of Israel. Also ask your Rabbi the importance of "God is with us Doctrine" as part of the covenant on the mount, or just re-read Exodus 29.

                    But one new point I will address...

                    I'd say that the plethora of fast food restaurants alone showed the hedonism.

                    There is a difference between self-indulgence and self-sufficience. If your going to try to argue that people eating is fulfilling hedonistic desires then you truely well stop at nothing to be contrarian.
                    • This has been entertaining,

                      Glad I could help.

                      but this is where I jump off the train,

                      Enjoy your stay.

                      (The rest of this response is for the benefit of everyone else.)

                      blah blah blah

                      Well, by me an argument has all its responses directly opposing earlier statements. You avoided that, so I pointed it out. Oh well.

                      Oh and by the way, Moses did have the Priesthood, performed Atonement and other sacrifices in behalf of Israel. Also ask your Rabbi the importance of "God is with us Doctrine" as part of the covenant on the mount, or just re-read Exodus 29.

                      I cannot tell you what to believe. However, Moses did not have the priesthood. Only a few select people (Moses not included), at first the first-borns, and then Aaron and his children had the priesthood. Performing sacrifices is not automatic priesthood. Abraham made sacrifices yet he clearly was not a priest.

                      There is no "G-d is with us" doctrine. G-d is with us, but there is almost never a case where a miracle was made to show that. Usually, it was only prophecy with the occasional miracle to prove the prophet was actually a prophet.

                      >I'd say that the plethora of fast food restaurants alone showed the hedonism.

                      There is a difference between self-indulgence and self-sufficience. If your going to try to argue that people eating is fulfilling hedonistic desires then you truely well stop at nothing to be contrarian.


                      If people only ate to fill themselves, fast food restaurants wouldn't be so full of fat (which makes one hungrier) instead of carbohydrates (which fill one up). Also, advertisement aren't even "come here if you're hungry" they are "come in because <item> is delicious."
                    • I cannot tell you what to believe. However, Moses did not have the priesthood.

                      Of course you can't tell me what to believe, you can't even back up that assertion with anything more then personal conviction. You said before that priests were people who were authorized to service God. Therefore, for Moses to be authorized to perform Atonement sacrifices (not just any sacrifices mind you) he had to have been a priest (let alone sanctifying and consecrating temple wares, and ordaining Aaron.)

                      And since in my view Abraham had the priesthood, then there is no problem reconsiling that he did sacrifices. On the other hand, you'll have to explain why if how did acceptible (to God) sacrifices without the priesthood.

                      You avoided that, so I pointed it out.

                      No, it wasn't a "pointing out". This I rest with the jury of "other people", but I'm not so sure you took the time to actually understand what you were responding to. You seemed to just grab for this quip and that, and one of them being "You avoided the question". If you still want to persist with that assertiona, read the responce again, and you may see it this time.

                      There is no "G-d is with us" doctrine.

                      Its even part of the covenant on the mount! You clearly didn't read Exodus (or if you did, you did one of your "missing it".)

                      advertisement aren't even "come here if you're hungry"

                      Another blankly generalized assertion that is quickly refuted with commercials that actually do say "come here if your hungry". Even so, your grasping at strawmen here (again) if you want to make eating out to be grounds enough for calling someone "hedonistic". Who knows, your views on breathing might be enough to condemn someone.
                    • you can't even back up that assertion with anything more then personal conviction.

                      That all depends on how you define priesthood. If priesthood is defined by you, than I can only argue by what I feel. However, if priesthood has a set of laws, I can show you the laws.

                      Judaism has specific laws about priesthood, and specifically delineates who was and is a priest. I believe those laws define priesthood. Thus, I have laws, not just assertion, to back me up.

                      However, your arguments were based on your assertions, so I responded in kind with mine (because I cannot ask you to believe in the laws that I choose to believe in).

                      You said before that priests were people who were authorized to service God.

                      If that was what I said, then I was incorrect. A priest is someone "set aside" to service G-d.

                      And since in my view Abraham had the priesthood, then there is no problem reconsiling that he did sacrifices.

                      Then why did he need to give tithes to Malki-Tzedek, if he was already a priest himself?

                      You seemed to just grab for this quip and that

                      Again. Please point out any specific case where I used a quip and did not directly answer your point.

                      I have pointed out twice already where I directly answered your questions, and questioned your assertion that you didn't say something.

                      You, however, keep saying that I do not answer the points, yet have provided no backing. Just use the "parent" link to find all the comments we have back and forth. Please, show me at least one case where I didn't directly answer your points.

                      Its even part of the covenant on the mount!

                      Please tell me the exact verse or verses where it says that G-d used a miracle to point out that "He is with us". If it's there, than I missed it, and I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me.

                      Another blankly generalized assertion

                      That was not a generalized assertion. That was a specific case where hedonism is used.

                      that is quickly refuted with commercials that actually do say "come here if your hungry".

                      No, it isn't. First, even if there were these "other" commercials, it would not refute that the first set are based on hedonism. Second, I contend that those commercials aren't there. I'd be happy to test this out by you choosing a set time on TV, on a specific channel, and we'll both watch it and count how many fast-food commercials exist, and which message was an each.

                      Even so, your grasping at strawmen here (again) if you want to make eating out to be grounds enough for calling someone "hedonistic".

                      Not just "eating out". I said "fast-food" restaurants.

                      Who knows, your views on breathing might be enough to condemn someone.

                      Whose condeming? I just said that the US is hedonistic. How does that condemn anyone?
                    • Judaism has specific laws about priesthood, and specifically delineates who was and is a priest.

                      Yes they do. Without arguing their accuracy, they are sufficient to show that Moses had to have had the priesthood, as well as Abraham.

                      But beyond that, what you seem to be hanging on to as "law" seems to be better classified as rabbinical tradition, as interpreted by you and maybe the movement you subscribe to. (reformed? hassidic? chabad?)

                      Historicaly, and traditionally what you refer to as Judaic Law was given by Moses and called "Mosaic Law" (becuase it was given to Moses and not Judah). What you define as "priesthood" was only one order of priesthood (being the priesthood fashioned for Aaron and his seed), and sometimes reffered to the order of Aaron. Since the Priesthood existed before Aaron, and existed differently (you yourself mentioned Melchisidec's and other priests has not being a ancestral-order) then it would be narrow minded to assume that its practices held force for all other priesthood holders.

                      However I'll beat you to the counter here. Some practices would have to be simular since they mark the distinction of a priesthood holder from the general populace. Accepting tithes is one since that is God's money (as it were), as is atonement sacrifices, circumsisions since they denote passing on a covenant where God is one of the parties involved (like the atomement sacrifice, and you'll not that it was an ordinance that Abraham and Moses performed) and other rituals that perform ordinances that would be acceptible by God. If they aren't accepted they aren't in force, else Cain would have had no reason to be upset.

                      The circumsision example is very interesting. Do you know why the priest hands back the silver coin after performing the ordinance? (Hint: The answer might give you some leverage for a counter arguement.)

                      Never the less, I've gone over that point with you in vain since we have differing viewpoints on what priesthood is defined as. The only new thing here is that it still stands that by law (the one you've described so far), Moses had to hold the priesthood to do the things he did by my interpretation and yours.

                      To say he didn't becuase he just didn't is just following up with conviction. To say he didn't becuase a Rabbi told you that only Aaron did, is just backing it up with his assertion. But logically looking at the evidence independantly, I can't see where you can get to the conclusion that Moses didn't have the priesthood.

                      your arguments were based on your assertions,

                      Funny how you seem to have overlooked the evidence presented and just call it "asertion". This is another evidence of where you don't directly answer but just try to come up with a saving "quip". Moses performed the rituals he did is not from my assertion, but straight from the Torah! Not someone break off talmudic interpretation.

                      A priest is someone "set aside" to service G-d.

                      How is that different then being authorized? Methinks I smell semantical hair splitting. The only difference is that authorized means set aside and recognized by God. Being recognized by God is what gives the validity of the actions performed by them.

                      Besides, I have trouble seeing a God that needs to be serviced. God is the "I am" the self-existant one, the one who exists without needing support from external entities (unlike us).

                      Then why did he need to give tithes to Malki-Tzedek, if he was already a priest himself?

                      I'm not sure why this is a refutation. Although Aaronic full time priests who had no income and lived off of the tithes of the people might have been exempt from tithes, I see no reason that is a right of the priesthood in general. After all, the Aaronic order didn't come about until many hudred years after this event. It seems that if a member of the priesthood does make income (like Abraham did) then they should pay tithes.

                      Please point out any specific case where I used a quip and did not directly answer your point.

                      Again? Why don't you just read the posts again and save me the redundancy. You'll have to re-read it, and if you still aren't satisfied then I'll just let it rest with the court of other slashdotters.

                      yet have provided no backing.

                      Exhoneration by setting yourself up as a judge? This is a bold attempt!

                      that G-d used a miracle to point out that "He is with us".

                      Thats easy, but not neccisary. For instance the children of Israel in the wilderness were constantly crying that God was not with them becuase they didn't have water, food, or had chariots running after them etc (those hedonistic people?)..., which was answered with a miracle. Pharoah's doubts were also answered with miracles.

                      Emmanuel himself written in Isaiah may just be the miracle you are looking for, and mentioned by yourself but now seem to have forgotten. (You seem to do that often depending on what point your arguing).

                      However this is not required, as in Exodus the covenant on the mount includes a promise that God will be with them. Even if you attempt to refute everything else, you have to believe that it was important to God and the Israelites to be in that covenant. And as you asserted miracles show his promise in covenant relations.

                      Still, beyond that in every miracle that occurs, there is a message or proof that God is with us. Like I said, ask around. It won't always be classified as "Emmanual Doctrine", but there isn't a Rabbi that doesn't speak of the significance of God being with us, and how that is a recurring theme, even an heirship of the Jews.

                      it would not refute that the first set are based on hedonism.

                      Why would it need to? The first set are such poor attempts to bolster your claim. They would need to be overgeneralized just to fit the bill, blinded to ignore the rest of the evidence, and narrow minded to assume that eating is a hallmark of hedonism.

                      Naw, I'm not going to say there isn't a hedonistic strain in each of us. Just that wholesale condemnation of everyone in the US as a hedon is pretty, well, holier-then-thou and in my experience a mis-judgement.
                    • (I find you hilarious. I am beginning to wonder if the only reason that you are responding is to see if you can tick me off.)

                      >Judaism has specific laws about priesthood, and specifically delineates who was and is a priest.

                      Yes they do. Without arguing their accuracy, they are sufficient to show that Moses had to have had the priesthood, as well as Abraham.


                      Umm... Do you know what those laws are? We can go through them if you'd like.

                      But beyond that, what you seem to be hanging on to as "law" seems to be better classified as rabbinical tradition,

                      Rabbinical "Tradition" is separate from Rabbinical Law. This is law, not traditon.

                      as interpreted by you

                      Not interpreted. Handed down through the ages, and recorded in various works.

                      and maybe the movement you subscribe to. (reformed? hassidic? chabad?)

                      Funny, first you talk about Rabbinic Judaism, and then Reformed. Being the Reformed movement votes on whether they believe in G-d or not, it is not even a good example.

                      And that you consider Chasidim and Chabad to different things (yet comparable) is even more funny.

                      Anyway, I am Orthodox. Judiasm the way it always was. Reformed and Conservative have councils that changed things through the years, and Chassidim was a change in method in about the 17th century. Orthodoxy was, is, and always will be classic Judaism.

                      Historicaly, and traditionally what you refer to as Judaic Law was given by Moses and called "Mosaic Law"

                      True.

                      (becuase it was given to Moses and not Judah).

                      Not true. The Oral Law was also given to Moses, not Judah, but is not referred to as Mosaic Law. Also, we don't call them Aaronic priests (although the OT sometimes does reference them as the sons of Aaron), rather Jewish priests, even though they must be from Aaron, not Judah.

                      What you define as "priesthood" was only one order of priesthood (being the priesthood fashioned for Aaron and his seed),

                      Priesthood wasn't "fashioned" for anyone. Preisthood just is, and G-d gives it to whomever he deems fit.

                      and sometimes reffered to the order of Aaron.

                      True. Because G-d gave it Aaron and his children, because of Aaron. Thus all his kids and grandkids (except Phineous) had it because of him.

                      Since the Priesthood existed before Aaron, and existed differently (you yourself mentioned Melchisidec's and other priests has not being a ancestral-order) then it would be narrow minded to assume that its practices held force for all other priesthood holders.

                      There is a Priesthood, of that we agree. Before Aaron, G-d chose who to give it to, one by one. The priesthood is not inherently inhereted. Two things happened with Aaron. One, it was given to him, his kids, and grandkinds born after the promise, and their (the grandkids) descendants. Two, there was a tabernacle (and later on two temples) which required services. After dedication, G-d required such services to be done by priests.

                      Accepting tithes is one since that is God's money (as it were),

                      Tithes on money do not have to go to priests. We give tithes on money because of a promise that Jacob made. Anyway, *all* money is G-d's money.

                      Priests, however, do get tithes of certain foods, and other things, for a total of twenty-four "presents".

                      as is atonement sacrifices,

                      Atonement sacrifices, as well as all sacrifices after the Temple was built, were forbidden outside the Temple. Being only a priest could go into the Temple were the Altar was, only a priest could perform it. (Though on top of that there are requirements for a priest to do it anyway.)

                      And since circumsisions since they denote passing on a covenant

                      Circumcision doesn't "pass" anything. It is the "entrance" of a Jewish boy into Judaism The vereses say that clearly. Specifically the end of Genesis 17:7, "to be to you for a G-d, and to your children after you". That doesn't pass G-d down, rather it enters a Jewish boy into this group in which G-d will be their G-d.

                      Anyway, this is done by the father (or an appointee of the father), not a priest (unless the father (or his chosen apointee) is a priest).

                      (like the atomement sacrifice, and you'll not that it was an ordinance that Abraham and Moses performed)

                      And Joshua, and the millions of other Jewish males that have had a male child.

                      If they aren't accepted they aren't in force, else Cain would have had no reason to be upset.

                      Cain didn't do a good job. Verse 4:7 is an admonition for Cain's poor performance. Had Cain done a good job, G-d probably would have answered him too.

                      The circumsision example is very interesting. Do you know why the priest hands back the silver coin after performing the ordinance?

                      There's a silver coin involved in a circumcision?

                      Are you sure you aren't referring to the redemption of the first-born, where if a non-Levite's first-born is a boy, he must be redeemed with five silver coins?

                      Never the less, I've gone over that point with you in vain since we have differing viewpoints on what priesthood is defined as.

                      Yes. If we disagree on definition, there's no point in arguing it, unless the argument is about the definition itself.

                      The only new thing here is that it still stands that by law (the one you've described so far), Moses had to hold the priesthood to do the things he did by my interpretation and yours.

                      Moses did not have to hold the priesthood to do it. G-d told Moses to do it, and he did it. No priesthood involved. The law that I referenced says no such thing.

                      To say he didn't becuase he just didn't is just following up with conviction.

                      No. It is because before Aaron's great-grandchildren, everyone born was not a priest. To say that anyone was a priest requires proof. Since Moses was not a decendant of Aaron, you need to show me where G-d said that Moses was a priest. I assume that we agree that Moses wasn't born a priest. I say he never became one. You say he did. The onus of proof is upon you, not me.

                      To say he didn't becuase a Rabbi told you that only Aaron did, is just backing it up with his assertion.

                      Why do keep harping on this Rabbi thing?

                      But logically looking at the evidence independantly, I can't see where you can get to the conclusion that Moses didn't have the priesthood.

                      He wasn't born a priest, and the Bible doesn't say that it was given to him, nor does the Bible call him a priest. Further, the Oral tradition doesn't list him as a priest. IIRC, you are the first person I have ever heard to call him a priest.

                      >your arguments were based on your assertions,

                      Funny how you seem to have overlooked the evidence presented and just call it "asertion".


                      Where did you provide evidence?

                      This is another evidence of where you don't directly answer but just try to come up with a saving "quip".

                      How is that? You made a statment.

                      Let's see...

                      You said, "Of course you can't tell me what to believe, you can't even back up that assertion with anything more then personal conviction."

                      To which I responded, "However, your arguments were based on your assertions, so I responded in kind with mine (because I cannot ask you to believe in the laws that I choose to believe in)."

                      In other words, you said that we are arguing personal convictions. I reponded that it was true, since I cannot refer to laws that you may not subscribe to. How is that not a direct response?

                      Moses performed the rituals he did is not from my assertion, but straight from the Torah!

                      Yes, and therefore? How does performing a sacrifice prove priesthood?

                      Not someone break off talmudic interpretation.

                      The Talmud is part of the Oral Law. The Oral Law was given with the Written Law. I don't see how that is a "break off".

                      >A priest is someone "set aside" to service G-d.

                      How is that different then being authorized?


                      Authorized means the person can do it, but doesn't have to. Further, it implies that there are others (or if there aren't others, then the action is not required).

                      "Set aside" is someone that *must* do it, and generally is exclusionary.

                      The only difference is that authorized means set aside and recognized by God.

                      Authorized does not mean "set aside". "Set aside" includes "authorized" but means more as well.

                      Being recognized by God is what gives the validity of the actions performed by them.

                      If the action requires recognition.

                      Besides, I have trouble seeing a God that needs to be serviced.

                      So do I.

                      God is the "I am" the self-existant one, the one who exists without needing support from external entities (unlike us).

                      True. However, Judaism is based on the point that one thing people need to do is to recognize G-d. And that means realizing that G-d is everything, and we are nothing. If we required understanding why G-d needs to be "serviced" before we "serviced" Him, that would be like saying, "I'm not doing it until *I* understand it." We accept the rules merely because G-d gave them.

                      >Then why did he need to give tithes to Malki-Tzedek, if he was already a priest himself?

                      I'm not sure why this is a refutation.


                      Because priests do not give the priestly gifts.

                      Although Aaronic full time priests who had no income and lived off of the tithes of the people might have been exempt from tithes,

                      Exempt from all tithes, except tithes of money. I'm pretty sure of that. Though, maybe I'll checkup on that one.

                      I see no reason that is a right of the priesthood in general. After all, the Aaronic order didn't come about until many hudred years after this event. It seems that if a member of the priesthood does make income (like Abraham did) then they should pay tithes.

                      If you differentiate between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Abraham, then it is not a refutation. I see no such difference, however, nor does Judaism. Though, you are welcome to believe that which you wish.

                      >Please point out any specific case where I used a quip and did not directly answer your point.

                      Again? Why don't you just read the posts again and save me the redundancy. You'll have to re-read it, and if you still aren't satisfied then I'll just let it rest with the court of other slashdotters.


                      Amazing. You refuse to back up your claim that I did not answer your points. First you say that I should go look myself. And, if I don't find it, then we'll rely on everyone else.

                      As a request, please refrain from making claims in my journal entries that you will not back up.

                      >yet have provided no backing.

                      Exhoneration by setting yourself up as a judge? This is a bold attempt!


                      Where did I set myself up as a judge?

                      OK, lets do this again:

                      You said, "You seemed to just grab for this quip and that"

                      To which I responded, "You, however, keep saying that I do not answer the points, yet have provided no backing. "

                      In other words, you said that I didn't provide direct answers to your points. I responded by saying that you keep saying that, and yet have not once shown me an instance of this. Where is this a judgement?

                      Thats easy, but not neccisary.

                      No, it is very necessary. You said it was there, I said it wasn't. You need proof to prove your point.

                      For instance the children of Israel in the wilderness were constantly crying that God was not with them becuase they didn't have water, food, or had chariots running after them etc

                      They cried twice for food, twice for water, and once because of the chariots. Also the one by the chariots was a good crying, since it says specifically that they cried out to G-d. After they cried to G-d, it seems that some people complained to Moses as well, and that one wasn't so good. Though that was a specific complaint to Moses.

                      G-d said that the Children of Israel "tested" Him ten times. They were there for fourty years, yet only made ten mistakes. That is quite an amazing feast.

                      (those hedonistic people?)...,

                      The complaint for meat was partially hedonistic.

                      which was answered with a miracle.

                      Yes, they were. Water was answered with water, food with food. Being they cried out to G-d, there was no requirement to show that G-d was with them. They were hungry and thirsty, and wanted what to eat and drink. The main point of those miracles was not to show that G-d was with them. It was to answer a complaint.

                      Pharoah's doubts were also answered with miracles.

                      Which doubts are you referring to? And how was the main point of the response show the Children of Israel that G-d was with them?

                      Emmanuel himself written in Isaiah may just be the miracle you are looking for, and mentioned by yourself but now seem to have forgotten.

                      I didn't say there never was an instance of it. My words were, " but there is almost never a case where a miracle was made to show that."

                      I said "almost never". I didn't say "never". The reason I said that was to make room for this case. One out of the plethora of miracles qualifies as "almost never".

                      (You seem to do that often depending on what point your arguing).

                      Please show me where I said something somewhere, and then ignored it in another argument. I don't believe I have done this.

                      However this is not required, as in Exodus the covenant on the mount includes a promise that God will be with them.

                      Where? Do you mean the covenant referenced in Exodus 24:7-8?

                      If so, what miracle was associated with this covenant? And how was this convenants point to show that G-d was with them? This covenant was about accepting G-d's word (the Bible until that point, and the commandments at Marah).

                      Even if you attempt to refute everything else, you have to believe that it was important to God and the Israelites to be in that covenant.

                      Absolutely. I agree with this fully.

                      And as you asserted miracles show his promise in covenant relations.

                      Did I? Actions are required in a covenant, but I don't think miracles are. In the covenant in Exodus 24:7-8 there is no miracle.

                      Still, beyond that in every miracle that occurs, there is a message or proof that God is with us.

                      Not really. The word for miracle in Hebrew ("nayse") means "sign". Every miracle is a sign that G-d is there. It does not necessarily mean that G-d is with us (He is, but the miracle doesn't neccesarily show that.)

                      Like I said, ask around.

                      Why? One, I have never heard of this before you. Second, it just isn't true.

                      It won't always be classified as "Emmanual Doctrine",

                      It will never be called that. There is no such doctrine. I have seen thousands of pages on Judiasm and never have I seen such a thing. I have heard hours of speeches, and never once have I heard of such a thing. Why such a small miracle would be called a "doctrine" is beyond me.

                      but there isn't a Rabbi that doesn't speak of the significance of God being with us,

                      Actually, there are plenty. We know G-d is with us, and rarely does that need to be reinforced. Most Rabbis that I know of talk about how we need to see Him more, and act appropriately in front of Him.

                      and how that is a recurring theme,

                      Never heard that, and I have heard and read plenty of speeches from plenty of Rabbis.

                      even an heirship of the Jews.

                      I am not familiar with that term in reference to this.

                      >it would not refute that the first set are based on hedonism.

                      Why would it need to?


                      Because you said that it was. Specifically, "Another blankly generalized assertion that is quickly refuted with commercials that actually do say "come here if your hungry"."

                      The first set are such poor attempts to bolster your claim.

                      Not poor attempts. They were quick, yes, and maybe not even the best. But they are by no means poor. They are establishments set up almost specifically for a hedonistic people.

                      They would need to be overgeneralized just to fit the bill, blinded to ignore the rest of the evidence, and narrow minded to assume that eating is a hallmark of hedonism.

                      Again, not "eating". I said that the "fast-food" restaurants are an example. They are an example because they provide fatty food, when carbohydrates are much more suitable for satiation. Further, many advertisements are about coming to them becuase they taste good, not because they satiate hunger.

                      Just that wholesale condemnation of everyone in the US as a hedon is pretty, well, holier-then-thou and in my experience a mis-judgement.

                      Why is saying that people are hedonistic a condemnation?

                    • I am beginning to wonder if the only reason that you are responding is to see if you can tick me off.

                      The wicked take the truth to be hard, but rest assured I mean to tick off no one.

                      Do you know what those laws are?

                      Do you? Are you sure you know what laws existed before the Mosaic law? Your pretty double-handed here, at one time saying you don't but very willing to extrapolate the "law" that was given to Moses to apply to everyone beforehand.

                      As an Orthodox (a self proclaimed "we are the only ones that get it") which persuasion of Orthodox are you? Or is that a paradox asking an Orthodox if there are more then one way to consider oneself Orthodox?

                      You say it is five coins for redemption, where others say one. And you didn't mention why it is given back. Do you know your law?

                      you consider Chasidim and Chabad to different things

                      They consider themselves different and comparable, why do you not?

                      The Oral Law was also given to Moses.

                      So tradition tells you. But I've heard you allude oral law that obviously was not given to Moses but created from interpretations many years hence.

                      we don't call them Aaronic priests

                      Thats only becuase you know of no other kind. However Melchisidec was clearly not Aaronic, so there must have been at least one other order. From what I understand there were actually three, Patriarchal, Mechisidec (also known as Order of Enoch), and Aaronic.

                      Patriarchal was anti-deluvian, as I recall, and was, well patriarchal. Jacob, Isaac and Abraham worked under these orders when they gave paternal blessings to their children. Its order is "paternal" hence patriarchal.

                      The Melchisidec order is a bit different, it (as you pointed out correctly) is not based on ancestry, but given by a call of God. Melchisidec was the great high priest of his day, so much so that his city was taken into heaven like Enoch's (who's name carried the Order before Melchisidec).

                      See, your Oral Tradition isn't even half the story.

                      The Aaronic was fashioned for Aaron and his seed. Its order is much different that way. It has a High Priest, but that is not to be confused with the High Priesthood like Melchisidec held. Just to let you know.

                      Much of that tradition is held in Hebrew writings, so we know it was part of Oral and Written law at one point. But it appears that Oral traditions can be changed, and written ones lost. Especially if such traditions are picked up by people considered renegade.

                      Unfortunately the chism between Christian and Jewish worship is much the makeing of dark-age christians and jews as they fought and tried to distinguish themselves during that period. Thats another tip, free of charge.

                      rather Jewish priests

                      Only to distinguish them from Christian, Pegan, Hindu, or other priests. The tribe of Judah isn't "Israel" but they seem to be the only ones around that have remembered their heritage so they are confused to be the same by gentiles. Over time the Jews simply accepted it.

                      Priesthood wasn't "fashioned"

                      You know sometimes you blatently contradict yourself in the same sentance. This is one of those times...

                      for anyone. Preisthood just is, and G-d gives it to whomever he deems fit.

                      God giving the priesthood to whome he gives it, how he chooses to give it is "fashioning". No other order that I know if is ancestral, or had the passover and other rituals. Hence it was obviously fashioned for them. However, the 19 priestly gifts (of which were the priviledge of performing the ordinances spoken of before that were rites of the priesthood (hence Moses, Abraham and Isaac had to have had)).

                      Let me put it more plainly what I think your hangup is. You simply keep thinking that the Aaronic law applied to all the priesthood. That explains your justification for thinking they didn't have the priesthood since they were a part of a superceeding order. Well only somewhat justifies since you mentioned that only Priests entered the Tabernacle, and Moses definately did that. In fact Moses got much more time in the center, so how you can still think that the law doesn't signify that Moses had the priesthood is still pure assertion.

                      And Joshua...

                      Yes, Joshua definately had the priesthood. You see, you have to to officiate as a recognized, ordained prophet of God.

                      Had Cain done a good job, G-d probably would have answered him too.

                      Correct. With out that acceptance however, you know it wasn't done right, and if it was accepted then you know it was done right.

                      G-d told Moses to do it, and he did it. No priesthood involved.

                      There is another self-contradiction. If the priesthood (by your definition) is being set aside to service G-d (being the antecedent of "it" or more specifically the atonement sacrifices), then you basically just said that Moses had the priesthood right there, but then said he didn't. You said in essence that G-d set aside Moses to service, but no priesthood was involved.

                      You even said later... "'Set aside' is someone that *must* do it, and generally is exclusionary."

                      The law that I referenced says no such thing.

                      We've been over this already, the law you referenced that said that Moses wasn't a priest was for the Aaronic order (his brother), not the priesthood as a whole.

                      To say that anyone was a priest requires proof. Since Moses was not a decendant of Aaron, you need to show me where G-d said that Moses was a priest.

                      No, it is sufficient to show where he acted as only a priest could acceptably act before G-d. You on the other hand offer no counter other then someone told you otherwise (a.k.a Oral Law).

                      IIRC, you are the first person I have ever heard to call him a priest.

                      Better get used to it ;)

                      I reponded that it was true, since I cannot refer to laws that you may not subscribe to. How is that not a direct response?

                      As shown again in this post, you quipped that I did not show evidence. That is patently a verifiably false. I have shown evidence, that I believe you counter only to your own contradiction (which has been pointed out again for your benefit).

                      The Oral Law was given with the Written Law. I don't see how that is a "break off".

                      The Oral Law was given with the Written Law, but by rabbinical interpretation since 70AD, and even before that. But not to Moses on the mount. Moses wrote down everything he got on the mount, Oral law is just that, oral tradition that has been accepted interpretation over the ages.

                      "Set aside" includes "authorized" but means more as well.

                      That works for me. Many are called but few are chosen. ...If the action requires recognition.

                      As does circumsision, atonement, sanctification/concecration. These are all acts that need to be accepted and recognized by G-d.

                      Look up the words if you need help understanding that (not to speak condensendingly, but plainly).

                      If we required understanding why G-d needs to be "serviced" before we "serviced" Him, that would be like saying, "I'm not doing it until *I* understand it."

                      I agree with blind faith. Adam performed sacrifices, and it wasn't until later that he was told why. But thats probably not a part of the Law you ascribe to, but its part of mine and it means I can accept that.

                      However, since I think that "mediate" is still a better translation then "service" there is no need for me to make such a reconsilliation, although I respect your faith in the face of the contradiction. There are things that I simularly hold faith in.

                      Because priests do not give the priestly gifts.

                      That was reconsiled already, they didn't give tithing becuase they were expected to live off of tithing in part, and more importantly tend to its keeping (hence priestly shepards).

                      please refrain from making claims in my journal entries that you will not back up.

                      I've been through this before with someone else so I can understand the confusion. However, since I find self-assertion to be poor form, and the jury of peers to a more fair way of doing something like this I would rather defer.

                      But since you as, you asked if it is worse to kill a good man thena bad man and if you look at that response you'll see that I say very specifically that the metric of potential shows no favor of the two since they have both spent that potential. Go back and read it, the response is very specific to the question and answers it directly. I think you missed it in there, and that is why you accused me of dodging. Perhaps the mistake was innocent, but I cannot suffer ignorance as an excuse when a claim like that is wielded against me. In essence I'm saying you had better go back and make sure before you accuse me of that, becuase the answer is there in a fasion recognizable to the commone populace. It really is, go look.

                      Water was answered with water, food with food. Being they cried out to G-d, there was no requirement to show that G-d was with them.

                      I think you are playing here on that if they "cried to G-d" they must have believed he was there. That is not true, all that is needed is that they believe he can hear them which is not requisite for G-d. One need only read the psalms sing for G-d to hear their cry ro recognize that hearing and presence being there was not requisite.

                      The main point of those miracles was not to show that G-d was with them. It was to answer a complaint.

                      You did it again! They complained that God was not with them, and it was answered with a miracle. But you then say that it wasn't the point of the miracle. Well, I'll be fair here. You didn't say it wasn't a point of the miracle, just the main point. That is easy enough to handle and not so much a contradiction as I said before.

                      Please show me where I said something somewhere, and then ignored it in another argument.

                      Actually I fashioned this post more along those lines to answer that request.

                      Actions are required in a covenant, but I don't think miracles are.

                      Nor did I say you said that.

                      It will never be called that. There is no such doctrine.

                      You really tend to extrapolate your universe alot. This is particularly bold seeing as even if you did hold to a law that says this you have no power to enforce it on everyone.

                      Why such a small miracle would be called a "doctrine" is beyond me.

                      Becuase it is. It means that it is important to God to be us. Its important to God and important to us. Methinks you may be making more of this then there is, or pre-emptively trying to rule out any nativity references (which I have made none). But that miracles do answer that G-d is with Israel (though as you point out may not be the main point) is clear. So important that it was included in the covenant with a sign (though not a miracle, the miracle of the minoura I believe would work there).

                      Most Rabbis that I know of talk about how we need to see Him more, and act appropriately in front of Him.

                      I agree fully. Miracles make for poor re-inforcement of belief, or modification of behavior as we already went over in the post-Elija Baal showdown.

                      me: even an heirship of the Jews.
                      I am not familiar with that term in reference to this.

                      Yes you are, you said yourself "We know G-d is with us, and rarely does that need to be reinforced." And you know that primarily by your lineage (Jewish) and the covenants with you and your fathers. That is an heirship.

                      They are establishments set up almost specifically for a hedonistic people.

                      Fast food restraunts? Even kosher ones? Come on, you are not about to crusade against fast food restraunts as hedonistic pleasure centers are you?

                      They are an example because they provide fatty food, when carbohydrates are much more suitable for satiation.

                      Although I agree with the science and reasoning there, I don't see the fat content in food as "hedonistic", nor its presentation. Sex, drugs, rock and roll are probably more appropriate targets as they have much more bearing based on content and presentation.

                      Further, many advertisements are about coming to them becuase they taste good, not because they satiate hunger.

                      Many say both, and some ambiguously point at both by saying it is "satisfying".

                      Why is saying that people are hedonistic a condemnation?

                      Hedonism is considered sinful. The state of human affairs, yes but still an unfavorable judgement (hence condemnation). Although your right, in a strict sence a condemnation is a punishment more then a judgement, but these days condemnation can just mean a disfavorable judgement.

                      >Why would it need to?
                      Because you said that it was. Specifically, "Another blankly generalized assertion that is quickly refuted with commercials that actually do say "come here if your hungry"."


                      No I said it was poor enough that more refutation shouldn't be needed, but I provided anyway. Indeed, you said that the US is hedonistic, just look at the fast food commercials. That may be enough to say there is a hedonistic strain (*may*), but is insufficient to prove the US is hedonistic.

                      Never the less, even if it did, the fact that there are plenty of commercials that do appeal to the need to eat for hunger would be enough to let it off the hook.

                      Don't confuse the multiplicity of attacks as a devision. Its just that your wrong on multiple places on this one. Hence, it doesn't need to but it does in any case.

                    • Oh and I'm reminded that although it is not referenced as "aaronic order" there are references to "levitical" order although they are considered by everyone to be the exact same (I don't think so, but its not something I would strongly assert at this point).
                    • >I am beginning to wonder if the only reason that you are responding is to see if you can tick me off.

                      The wicked take the truth to be hard, but rest assured I mean to tick off no one.


                      Did you just call me wicked? Also, why did you remove the first sentence, "I find you hilarious."?

                      >Do you know what those laws are?

                      Do you?


                      I'm pretty sure Maimonidies delineates them.

                      Are you sure you know what laws existed before the Mosaic law?

                      Yes. There were seven laws, until they reach Marah.

                      Your pretty double-handed here, at one time saying you don't but very willing to extrapolate the "law" that was given to Moses to apply to everyone beforehand.

                      I don't understand what you mean.

                      As an Orthodox (a self proclaimed "we are the only ones that get it")

                      I never said that we "get it". I said that we practice Judaism as it always was. Noone can deny that. In fact, to my knowledge, noone does deny that.

                      which persuasion of Orthodox are you?

                      That depends on who you ask. In America I'd be called "y'sheevish". In Israel I'd be called "Chahraydee". So, in the US, I'm just plain orthodox.

                      Or is that a paradox asking an Orthodox if there are more then one way to consider oneself Orthodox?

                      No, only people on the outside trying to slander the religious do that.

                      You say it is five coins for redemption, where others say one. And you didn't mention why it is given back. Do you know your law?

                      So you did mean to say redemption and not circumcision?

                      By redemption the Bible says five coins. Numbers 18:15-16. It does not mention giving it back. In fact the section talks about gifts for the priest, which implies that he keeps it.

                      Now, please back your claim up. Where do others say one? And where does it say that the priest has to give it back?

                      >you consider Chasidim and Chabad to different things

                      They consider themselves different and comparable, why do you not?


                      They do not consider themselves different. For one, the full name of people who are in Chabad is Lubovitcher Chassidim. Second, I know many people in Chabad, and they call themselves Chassidim. Third, Chassidim are followers of Chassidus. Chabad follows Chasidus. Chasidus is a general grouping, and Chabad is a sub-grouping. So they are not comparable.

                      >The Oral Law was also given to Moses.

                      So tradition tells you.But I've heard you allude oral law that obviously was not given to Moses but created from interpretations many years hence.


                      Please give me an example where I allude to Oral Law that obviously was not given to Moses? Except for decrees, all Rabbinical laws were passed down generation to generation. Where there was an argument there was a vote. Although, certain scenarios led the reasons to be disputed, and a matter of interpetation, though the laws themselves were passed down.

                      we don't call them Aaronic priests

                      Thats only becuase you know of no other kind.


                      Good point. However, what about the Oral Law? Those who believe it comes from (G-d giving it to Moses) do not refer to it as Mosaic Law.

                      However Melchisidec was clearly not Aaronic, so there must have been at least one other order.

                      That if there was an order. The Bible does not reference orders in regards to priesthood.

                      From what I understand there were actually three, Patriarchal, Mechisidec (also known as Order of Enoch), and Aaronic.

                      This is not in the Bible. This is not in the Oral Law. Where you get this from?

                      Patriarchal was anti-deluvian, as I recall, and was, well patriarchal. Jacob, Isaac and Abraham worked under these orders when they gave paternal blessings to their children. Its order is "paternal" hence patriarchal.

                      Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all born after the deluge. They are never referenced as priests.

                      The Melchisidec order is a bit different, it (as you pointed out correctly) is not based on ancestry, but given by a call of God.

                      Priesthood is never based on ancestry. G-d merely said to Aarton that He was giving to him and his children, and his children's children born after that. Without G-d specifically giving it to his children, Aaron alone (and Phineous) would have had it.

                      Melchisidec was the great high priest of his day, so much so that his city was taken into heaven like Enoch's (who's name carried the Order before Melchisidec).

                      The Bible says that he was a priest, is does not say that he was a "high priest". And his city, (Jeru)salem, is still here.

                      See, your Oral Tradition isn't even half the story.

                      It is the whole story. Well, all the factual story.

                      The Aaronic was fashioned for Aaron and his seed.

                      Where does it say that? G-d gave it to him, though it never says anywhere that he "fashioned" it for him.

                      Much of that tradition is held in Hebrew writings, so we know it was part of Oral and Written law at one point. But it appears that Oral traditions can be changed,

                      Where does it appear that Oral traditions were changed?

                      and written ones lost.

                      Do you mean the Written law as in the Bible? None of that has been lost. Do you mean the written down versions of the Oral Lawe? The ones we lost are mostly due to Christian persecution and burnings. Though, some of the stolen material can be found in the Vatican.

                      Especially if such traditions are picked up by people considered renegade.

                      Where are people considered renegade?

                      Unfortunately the chism between Christian and Jewish worship is much the makeing of dark-age christians and jews as they fought and tried to distinguish themselves during that period. Thats another tip, free of charge.

                      Jews tried to distinguish themslves by creating schisms? There were a few minor changes by Jews, but certainly not enough to be called a schism. Please give examples.

                      The Christians changed simply by believing that the Messiah came, and that the Old Testament was no longer in full force. The Jews have not changed.

                      >rather Jewish priests

                      Only to distinguish them from Christian, Pegan, Hindu, or other priests.


                      True. And amongst Jews, there are just called "priests". However, they are never call Aaronic priests.

                      The tribe of Judah isn't "Israel" but they seem to be the only ones around that have remembered their heritage so they are confused to be the same by gentiles.

                      The Jews are currently (mainly) made up of three tribes. Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The reason for this is that can be traced back to the split in kindoms after King Solomon. The "Ten Tribes" split off of Solomon's heir and made their own kingdom, leaving Judah, Benjamin, and part of Levi (Levi did not have a part of the land (except for a few cities) so they lived in the others' portions). When the Jews retuned from exile to rebuid the Holy Temple, only the two tribes returned. Thus, in general, Jews today are made up of only these two tribes (and some from Levi).

                      Anyway, I believe it was the gentiles that came up with the term Jew. The Jews themselves still call themselves the children of Israel. Although they do use the word Jew too.

                      >Priesthood wasn't "fashioned"

                      You know sometimes you blatently contradict yourself in the same sentance. This is one of those times...


                      How? My two sentences here were, "Priesthood wasn't "fashioned" for anyone. Preisthood just is, and G-d gives it to whomever he deems fit." How does that contradict itself?

                      >for anyone. Preisthood just is, and G-d gives it to whomever he deems fit.

                      God giving the priesthood to whome he gives it, how he chooses to give it is "fashioning".


                      No, it is not. Fasioning means how it was made, before it was given. Giving means after it was made. Thus, to fashion it for someone, means it is made specifically for that person, such as a sweater made specifically from the persons favorite color. The Priesthood itself has nothing to do with Aaron. The Priesthood was something that G-d created, and gave to anyone deserving of it. When Aaron came along, G-d gave it to him and his kids. No fashioning involved.

                      No other order that I know if is ancestral, or had the passover and other rituals. Hence it was obviously fashioned for them.

                      Priesthood is not ancestral.

                      However, the 19 priestly gifts

                      Why are you excluding five or the gifts?

                      (of which were the priviledge of performing the ordinances spoken of before that were rites of the priesthood (hence Moses, Abraham and Isaac had to have had)).

                      Where does it say this?

                      Well only somewhat justifies since you mentioned that only Priests entered the Tabernacle, and Moses definately did that. In fact Moses got much more time in the center,

                      Were does it say that Moses was in there (past the dedication)?

                      so how you can still think that the law doesn't signify that Moses had the priesthood is still pure assertion.

                      Again. I think we agree that Moses wasn't born a priest. Thereofre, the onus is upon ou to show me where he was a priest.

                      Yes, Joshua definately had the priesthood.

                      Where does it say this?

                      You see, you have to to officiate as a recognized, ordained prophet of God.

                      Prophets do not have to be ordained. Also, ordination does not mean priesthood. Oridination, as Joshua, the elders, the judges, etc, had, was ordination for leadership. Not priesthood.

                      >Had Cain done a good job, G-d probably would have answered him too.

                      Correct. With out that acceptance however, you know it wasn't done right, and if it was accepted then you know it was done right.


                      Not really. I know it because the verse adminishes him afterwards, and the admonition seems to mean (yes, conjecture) that had he done it correctly it would have been accepted. However, doing it correctly all by itself does not guarantee acceptance.

                      There is another self-contradiction. If the priesthood (by your definition) is being set aside to service G-d (being the antecedent of "it" or more specifically the atonement sacrifices),

                      No, I never said that. I said that the priesthood is given by G-d. However, the word for priest "koh'hayne" itself means one who ministers, and seems to be one that is set aside.

                      then you basically just said that Moses had the priesthood right there, but then said he didn't.

                      No, I never said that he had it. I just said that he was commanded to do it. Being commanded to do something does not mean that the person has the priesthood.

                      You said in essence that G-d set aside Moses to service, but no priesthood was involved.

                      I never said that G-d set aside Moses. I said that He commanded him.

                      You even said later... "'Set aside' is someone that *must* do it, and generally is exclusionary."

                      Yes, someone who is "set aside" must do it, but someone who must do it is not necessarily "set aside".

                      >The law that I referenced says no such thing.

                      We've been over this already, the law you referenced that said that Moses wasn't a priest was for the Aaronic order (his brother), not the priesthood as a whole.


                      We have not been over this already. Please show me where we've already been over it.

                      No, it is sufficient to show where he acted as only a priest could acceptably act before G-d.

                      This would be good enough if two conditions are satisfied. One, that the act actually was only one a priest could do. Two, he wasn't commanded to do so by G-d. That is not the case here.

                      You on the other hand offer no counter other then someone told you otherwise (a.k.a Oral Law).

                      No, that is not true. Even without the Oral Law I could easily counter that the Bible itself never says that he was a priest, nor must it be so. And I have offered that the entire time.

                      IIRC, you are the first person I have ever heard to call him a priest.

                      Better get used to it ;)


                      I better get used to you calling him a priest? Why?

                      >I reponded that it was true, since I cannot refer to laws that you may not subscribe to. How is that not a direct response?

                      As shown again in this post, you quipped that I did not show evidence.


                      I still say you have shown no evidence. Though, finally, in this reply you tried twice. Bad evidence, but at least you finally tried.

                      That is patently a verifiably false. I have shown evidence, that I believe you counter only to your own contradiction (which has been pointed out again for your benefit).

                      Where? I want you to show me outside of this reply where you have shown such evidence. You continuously say you have shown me, yet have never even tried (outside of this reply).

                      The Oral Law was given with the Written Law, but by rabbinical interpretation since 70AD, and even before that. But not to Moses on the mount. Moses wrote down everything he got on the mount, Oral law is just that, oral tradition that has been accepted interpretation over the ages.

                      OK, so you disagree on what the Oral Law is. Since I can only prove my point with the Oral Law itself, and you do not accept that, we cannot use it here.

                      (Just to finish off the point (you had your say, I'll have mine)) though not to discuss it, the Oral Law was not written down until somewhere about 500-700 CE. Until then, it was passed down, word for word, through the generations since Moses. It was recodified at one or two points for the sake of brevity. Though it is essentially the same Law that G-d gave to Moses.)

                      As does circumsision, atonement, sanctification/concecration. These are all acts that need to be accepted and recognized by G-d.

                      Where does it say that circumcision must be recognized by G-d? The Bible merely command every father to do it to his male children.

                      Go back and read it, the response is very specific to the question and answers it directly.

                      I am not talking about that. You responded about killing, and I probed your values, which I found to be ill-defined. You don't seem to require a well-defined value, and thus we differ.

                      Over here, I was asking for you not to claim that I didn't answer your comments, and then not bring up proof where I didn't answer them.

                      I think you are playing here on that if they "cried to G-d" they must have believed he was there.

                      Of course.

                      That is not true, all that is needed is that they believe he can hear them which is not requisite for G-d.

                      Huh? The verse says that they cried to G-d. How can that mean that they weren't crying directly to Him?

                      One need only read the psalms sing for G-d to hear their cry ro recognize that hearing and presence being there was not requisite.

                      I have read Psalms plenty of times. Where do you say that they say this?

                      You did it again! They complained that God was not with them, and it was answered with a miracle.

                      Where did they complain that G-d was not with them? I only see a complaint for food or water.

                      But you then say that it wasn't the point of the miracle. Well, I'll be fair here. You didn't say it wasn't a point of the miracle, just the main point.

                      I believe I have said that it wasn't the main point from the very beginning of this discussion.

                      That is easy enough to handle and not so much a contradiction as I said before.

                      Thank you.

                      Actually I fashioned this post more along those lines to answer that request.

                      Yes, I saw. You tried. You were incorrect, but you finally tried. I appreciate that.

                      >Actions are required in a covenant, but I don't think miracles are.

                      Nor did I say you said that.


                      From your last reply, "And as you asserted miracles show his promise in covenant relations." That would seem to mean that I said that miracles are required in covenants.

                      >It will never be called that. There is no such doctrine.

                      You really tend to extrapolate your universe alot. This is particularly bold seeing as even if you did hold to a law that says this you have no power to enforce it on everyone.


                      The Law does not mention such a doctrine. Thus, there is no such doctrine.

                      >Why such a small miracle would be called a "doctrine" is beyond me.

                      Becuase it is.


                      Where? The miracle is related in Isiah, but that's it.

                      Methinks you may be making more of this then there is,

                      Actually, by calling it a doctrine, it is you who have made it more than it is.

                      or pre-emptively trying to rule out any nativity references (which I have made none).

                      Yes, you have made none, but you keep referring to the "doctrine". So, I keep pointing out how it was a small miracle, and not a doctrine.

                      But that miracles do answer that G-d is with Israel (though as you point out may not be the main point) is clear.

                      Thank you. That was my point all along.

                      So important that it was included in the covenant with a sign (though not a miracle, the miracle of the minoura I believe would work there).

                      What's "minoura"? Sorry, I have to translate what you say into Hebrew to understand it, and I am not sure what this is. The closes thing would be the Menorah, or candelabrah, but I am not sure what miracle you are referring to.

                      me: even an heirship of the Jews.
                      I am not familiar with that term in reference to this.

                      Yes you are,


                      Maybe I should have been more clear. I am not familiar with the term "heirship" here.

                      you said yourself "We know G-d is with us, and rarely does that need to be reinforced." And you know that primarily by your lineage (Jewish) and the covenants with you and your fathers. That is an heirship.

                      If you say so. I still don't understand how the term "heirship" fits it here. I am not arguing. I just don't understand it. Sorry.

                      Fast food restraunts? Even kosher ones?

                      Are there any? I live in Detroit, and there are hardly any kosher restautrants here, and none that I would call "fast food".

                      I would assume in New York there are some, but I just don't know. But, if they are there, even them.

                      Come on, you are not about to crusade against fast food restraunts as hedonistic pleasure centers are you?

                      No, I am not on a crusade against them. People can do that which they want. They are hedonistic though.

                      are probably more appropriate targets as they have much more bearing based on content and presentation.

                      As I said earlier, I never said that it was the "best" example. Just a quick one, and one that shows it well. Further, I am not sure of the term "target". Whose targetting anything?

                      Many say both, and some ambiguously point at both by saying it is "satisfying".

                      Irrelevant. The fact that many ads try to grab people based on how delicious they are, shows hedonism. Besides, I still think that most are of that genre.

                      Hedonism is considered sinful. The state of human affairs, yes but still an unfavorable judgement (hence condemnation). Although your right, in a strict sence a condemnation is a punishment more then a judgement, but these days condemnation can just mean a disfavorable judgement.

                      That is your belief, not mine.

                      Its just that your wrong on multiple places on this one.

                      No, I am not.

                    • Did you just call me wicked?

                      Your the one saying that, not me. However, all I'm pointing out is that there are more to why you are getting ticked off then just than your arguements aren't holding up well.

                      Yes. There were seven laws, until they reach Marah.

                      Moriah? There were only seven laws? Your really extrapolating here if you think there weren't more. How many laws are there now?

                      I said that we practice Judaism as it always was.

                      You can't and thats the point of giving back the coins (at least for some movements that recognize that fact). To be a priest one must show lineage to Aaron, and there is no way to do that now that the temple records were destroyed in 70AD. Without priests you can't worship as you did before. Without a temple you can't either.

                      Chasidus is a general grouping, and Chabad is a sub-grouping. So they are not comparable.

                      Funny, but that is just what my friends from the Chabad center by my parents house say. Except the sub-grouping distinguishes them (hence have meat for comparison), not the other way around.

                      I'm compared to Christians all the time, even though I am one and a subgrouping of them.

                      I allude to Oral Law that obviously was not given to Moses?

                      I already have, Moses had the Priesthood and it was given to him by his father in law Jethro. Since your law says he wasn't, and he was, then that must have come about sometime between now and then.

                      what about the Oral Law? Those who believe it comes from (G-d giving it to Moses) do not refer to it as Mosaic Law.

                      Thats another selling point. They don't refer to the oral law as mosaic law becuase it wasn't given to Moses.

                      The Bible does not reference orders in regards to priesthood.

                      It doesn't? Isn't the Aaronic priestood confered based on ancestry (unlike any other) means with its own specific rites and observances a different order? Really, what do you think a "different order" means?

                      Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all born after the deluge. They are never referenced as priests.

                      I never said the patriarchal order died with the deluge, I said it dated before the deluge. Abraham Isaac and Jacob were infact referenced as "Patriarchs". Not just for them being fathers, but because they were part of that order. I think if you scratched the surface here, you'll find that is why your movement has decided its okay for fathers to do circumsision or appoint another.

                      Priesthood is never based on ancestry. G-d merely said to Aarton that He was giving to him and his children,

                      You realize you just contradicted yourself again. Re-read it to yourself, its like you don't understand what the word "ancestry" means.

                      it does not say that he was a "high priest". And his city, (Jeru)salem, is still here.

                      There is a city Jerusalem there, but it is not the same city by any means. And yes, it does call Melchisidec the "great high priest" (New Testemant references), and does mention the seperate order that bears his name.

                      PSALMS 110:4
                      The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

                      Where does it say that? G-d gave it to him, though it never says anywhere that he "fashioned" it for him.

                      Does it have to say "fashioned" for you to see it? You watch him fashion it in Exodus. But this is not new to you, you yourself mention the differences in its order. You're just having trouble understanding that differences in order make a different order. Or that G-d fashioning a whole new set of rites that didn't ever exist before, means he fashioned it.

                      Where does it appear that Oral traditions were changed?

                      Where you apperently allude to law that was obviously not given to Moses (like he didn't hold the priesthood. I guarantee you that if that was given to Moses at the time, it would have been news to him).

                      Written law as in the Bible? None of that has been lost.

                      Here's a list of references to lost books in the Bible...

                      Ex. 24: 7 took the book of the covenant.
                      Num. 21: 14 book of the wars of the Lord.
                      Josh. 10: 13 (2 Sam. 1: 18) book of Jasher.
                      1 Sam. 10: 25 Samuel . . . wrote it in a book.
                      1 Kgs. 11: 41 book of the acts of Solomon.
                      1 Chr. 29: 29 book of Samuel the seer.
                      2 Chr. 9: 29 book of Nathan the prophet.
                      2 Chr. 12: 15 book of Shemaiah the prophet.
                      2 Chr. 13: 22 acts of Abijah . . . in the story of the prophet Iddo.
                      2 Chr. 20: 34 book of Jehu.
                      2 Chr. 33: 19 written among the sayings of the seers.

                      All of these reference what was clearly considered authoritative and used as Law at the time. Where are they now? How about the Book of Enoch? That was known by Josephus to be a favorite of the Jews , and being lost sometime after that.

                      Jews tried to distinguish themslves by creating schisms? There were a few minor changes by Jews, but certainly not enough to be called a schism. Please give examples.

                      Paul's book of Hebrews has plenty of examples of things that were believed at the time, but later abandoned by the Jews (like Melchisidec order and Aaronic order, etc...). Later abandoned probably becuase it gained such distinction for the Christians by Paul.

                      However, they are never call Aaronic priests.

                      I used to believe you (like yesterday) so I double checked my references. Sure enough, Aaronic was a higher priesthood to the Levitical priesthood, and was distinguised yesterday and today as such. Although to me they were just different offices of the same general order.

                      But as you said before, since you acknowledge no other order, there is no need to diferenciate. But that doesn't mean it wasn't done by previous genererations of Israel.

                      Fasioning means how it was made, before it was given. Giving means after it was made.

                      Are you really saying that God made their priesthood after he gave it to them? And thus it isn't fashioned? That is grasping for straws.

                      Why are you excluding five or the gifts?

                      Depends on who you talk to is all.

                      I think we agree that Moses wasn't born a priest. Thereofre, the onus is upon ou to show me where he was a priest.

                      Conveniently ignoring the evidence placed before you, just as soon as its possible for you to do so. No, its up to you to explain how God set him aside to service (exclusively), which by your definition was the priesthood, but somehow isn't an indication that he had the priesthood at the same time.

                      Perhaps this is another of your contradictions you'll appeal to blind faith for. Becuase certainly you aren't dealing with that issue here with any evidence or reason.

                      It would be fine if you weren't trying to apply truth by negation (as in your law doesn't say he got the priesthood). I mean if you actually had something in the Torah that said either way we would know. But without that, the evidence points to him having the Priesthood.

                      Prophets do not have to be ordained.

                      Oh yes, they do.

                      Also, ordination does not mean priesthood.

                      Ordination is simply putting someone in their place. It doesn't neccisarily mean priesthood, it could mean a mortar placing shells (for example). However, for the office of prophet, it requires proper recognition and authorization hence its own "ordination". Hence it requires priesthood to be able to mediate such a placement (or service if your stuck on that definition).

                      Oridination, as Joshua, the elders, the judges, etc, had, was ordination for leadership. Not priesthood.

                      I'm saying it required the priesthood to perform. Where you got that from what I'm talking about, I don't know.

                      doing it correctly all by itself does not guarantee acceptance.

                      Your hiding in a converse here. My point was that if it was accepted it had to have been done right. I'm not sure how you can argue that (and yet, you didn't either).

                      I said that the priesthood is given by G-d.

                      Exactly, like Moses gave it to Aaron becuase G-d told him to.

                      However, the word for priest "koh'hayne" itself means one who ministers, and seems to be one that is set aside.

                      Just like Moses was. Its all neat and tidy and wraped up here. And now your trying to dissacociate yourself even more with the definition of the words you are using.

                      Being commanded to do something does not mean that the person has the priesthood.

                      Again, your conveniently leaving out the key here. Your right, a person being commanded to do something doesn't mean they had the priesthood. However since he needs the priesthood to have performed the ordinanced he did, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist here.

                      So in essence your saying that he had the priesthood (was set apart, told to do something only priests can do by God) and then dissaccotiating yourself with the definition by saying "he didn't have the priesthood".

                      Where is the disjoint in that? Perhaps you argue that non-priests could perform Atonement sacrifices or sanctify/concecrate temple wares? Thats against the Law!

                      I never said that G-d set aside Moses. I said that He commanded him.

                      Yeah, you never said that G-d set aside Moses to do priestly ordinances, you just said that G-d told Moses alone go and (set aside) perform atonement sacrifices (priestly ordinances).

                      Yes, someone who is "set aside" must do it, but someone who must do it is not necessarily "set aside".

                      That person has to be exclusively told to do it? Like Moses was? Come on, your not making any useful distinction here.

                      This would be good enough if two conditions are satisfied. One, that the act actually was only one a priest could do. Two, he wasn't commanded to do so by G-d. That is not the case here.

                      Your right about one thing, that isn't the case here. Nor does it make sence your two conditions put together. How is *not* being commanded by God a sign of holding the priesthood? That is directly counter to everything that the priesthood is.

                      This is very poor of you actually. It reaks of a notion come up on the fly to try to back yourself out of a corner.

                      I could easily counter that the Bible itself never says that he was a priest

                      And all you would have succeded in doing is proving that the Bible doesn't directly refer to his priesthood.

                      nor must it be so.

                      Exactly, who said the Bible had to mention his priesthood for him to have it? Not I. After all there are many priests today and back then who were never mentioned as having the priesthood in the Bible.

                      I better get used to you calling him a priest? Why?

                      Becuase I'm not gonna be the last.

                      I still say you have shown no evidence.

                      I know, you will sit in ivory towers and cast judgement based on what you want the outcome to be, and say I have shown no evidence. I can't keep you from saying that, but I can't keep you from shooting yourself either.

                      As in...

                      Bad evidence, but at least you finally tried.

                      You continuously say you have shown me, yet have never even tried (outside of this reply).

                      What? I started this thread (here in this journal) mentioning Moses's performing priesthood ordinances on the mount. How can you say you haven't seen it until now? That was 4 posts ago!

                      You tried. You were incorrect,

                      The few places I was incorrect were in spelling and other trivial details.

                      You responded about killing, and I probed your values, which I found to be ill-defined.

                      And yet more attempt at self-exhoneration by self-judgement. Even so, you didn't call them ill-defined you called them non-existent. So you must have seen it if your backing off that assertion.

                      You don't seem to require a well-defined value,

                      What your calling "well defined" I suspect is to me too generalized to be usefull. Its like saying that a hammer is kosher becuase it cracks eggshells *and* pounds nails, when I use a different tool to crack egg-shells then pound nails.

                      Over here, I was asking for you not to claim that I didn't answer your comments, and then not bring up proof where I didn't answer them.

                      You didn't! You did the grand "no, the sky is blue, I see it!" counter to the notion that clouds turn different colors during the sunset. It was pointed out plenty of places (reference "quip").

                      Another great example of this is your following statement...

                      The verse says that they cried to G-d. How can that mean that they weren't crying directly to Him?

                      That was in response to pointing out Biblical evidence that God's presence doesn't have to be immediate to believe he hears us.

                      So in the face of evidence (the psalms cry "where are you God," and "hear my cry" almost constantly in that book) you simply re-assert yourself hoping to cover the evidence up.

                      Its classic, its quip-logic and it seems to happen from you a lot.

                      Where did they complain that G-d was not with them?

                      Exodus 17:7
                      And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?

                      This was brough up before, mind you... Clearly here the Israelites took the lack of water to mean that God must not be with them. The miracle was a main enough point that Moses named the place after it.

                      Additional references to God's presence being important to Israel are...

                      Gen. 21: 22 God is with thee in all that thou doest.
                      Ex. 13: 21 Lord went before . . . in a pillar of a cloud.
                      Ex. 19: 18 mount Sinai . . . the Lord descended upon it in fire.
                      Ex. 20: 20 God is come to prove you.
                      Ex. 29: 45 I will dwell among the children of Israel.
                      Num. 14: 14 (Num. 16: 3; Num. 35: 34) Lord art among this people.
                      Deut. 5: 4 Lord talked with you face to face in the mount.
                      1 Chr. 16: 27 glory and honour are in his presence.
                      Ps. 16: 11 in thy presence is fulness of joy.
                      Ps. 68: 2 let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
                      Ps. 140: 13 upright shall dwell in thy presence.
                      Isa. 4: 5 (2 Ne. 14: 5) upon every dwelling place . . . a flaming fire by night.
                      Isa. 64: 1 mountains might flow down at thy presence.
                      Jer. 30: 21 I will cause him to draw near.
                      Ezek. 20: 35 there will I plead with you face to face.
                      Joel 2: 27 ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel.
                      Nahum 1: 5 hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence.

                      Losing his presence

                      1 Sam. 16: 14 Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.
                      Ps. 51: 11 take not thy holy spirit from me.
                      Isa. 63: 10 vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy.

                      From those are meet for many arguements against your notion that the presence of God was not something that was wanted, or lost at times, or that he has signs of his presense that help show that he is with us.

                      But again, that it was something they felt G-d could be was tempted by, and they complained about it should be sufficient.

                      "And as you asserted miracles show his promise in covenant relations." That would seem to mean that I said that miracles are required in covenants.

                      It doesn't mean that at all. You can read that it into it, but that would be *you* reading into it.

                      The Law does not mention such a doctrine. Thus, there is no such doctrine.

                      Are you saying that becuase it isn't in your law, to never mind that its in the covenant on the mount or anything?

                      The closes thing would be the Menorah, or candelabrah, but I am not sure what miracle you are referring to.

                      Why the return to the temple after babylonian captivity of course, where the minora burned on very little olive oil.

                    • (Slashdot error:Your comment has too few characters per line) Oh well, here's the DOI.

                      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

                      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

                      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
                      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
                      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
                      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
                      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
                      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
                      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
                      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
                      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
                      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
                      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
                      He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
                      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
                      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
                      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
                      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
                      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
                      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
                      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
                      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
                      For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
                      For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
                      He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
                      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
                      He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
                      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
                      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

                      In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

                      Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

                      We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

                      ====================

                      Moriah?

                      No, Marah. The place with incident of the water.

                      There were only seven laws?

                      Yes, the seven Noahide laws.

                      Your really extrapolating here if you think there weren't more.

                      The Bible wasn't given, therefore there were no laws.

                      How many laws are there now?

                      613.

                      Without priests you can't worship as you did before. Without a temple you can't either.

                      Not the same actions in the temple, but that was a minority of Jewish life. But the laws are still the same. Anyway, the actions in the temple are completed through prayer and study instead.

                      Except the sub-grouping distinguishes them (hence have meat for comparison), not the other way around.

                      A general rule in logic is that a sub-grouping cannot ber compared to the group itself. It can only be comparted to other things in the group.

                      Really, what do you think a "different order" means?

                      An order is "a formal association of people with similar interests;". A "different order", therefore, would be a similar formal association, with similar interest, but with no association to the first order (unless they are both subgroupings of a common group).

                      PSALMS 110:4
                      The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.


                      That is a mistranslation. It does not say "after the order of". It says, "G-d swore; and he will not go back, you are a priest forever, on my words, Malkee-Tzedek". The words "on my words" in Hebrew are "al divruhsee". They do not mean, "in the order of". Further, the name at the end is two words, "Malkee-Tzedek", but attached with a line.

                      Ex. 24: 7 took the book of the covenant.
                      Num. 21: 14 book of the wars of the Lord.
                      Josh. 10: 13 (2 Sam. 1: 18) book of Jasher.


                      Those are all references to the Bible.

                      1 Sam. 10: 25 Samuel . . . wrote it in a book.

                      Yes, that was needed for the kings. We do not have that book, but all the laws are in the Bible anyway.

                      1 Kgs. 11: 41 book of the acts of Solomon.

                      Not a Holy Book. Sounds like more of a history.

                      1 Chr. 29: 29 book of Samuel the seer.

                      Which is the book known as Samuel.

                      2 Chr. 9: 29 book of Nathan the prophet.
                      2 Chr. 12: 15 book of Shemaiah the prophet.
                      2 Chr. 13: 22 acts of Abijah . . . in the story of the prophet Iddo.


                      All prophets wrote down their prophesies.

                      2 Chr. 20: 34 book of Jehu.
                      2 Chr. 33: 19 written among the sayings of the seers


                      These were chronicles of the kings.

                      Anyway, we do not have some of the books listed. They were nerver cannonized though, and thus was never part of the Old Testament.

                      Sure enough, Aaronic was a higher priesthood to the Levitical priesthood,

                      The levites were not priests.

                      Ordination is simply putting someone in their place.

                      In Judiasm, Ordination is given onlky by someone that is ordained. G-d gave it to Moses, who gave it to Joshua and the Elders, Joshua gave it to the Judges, etc...

                      Why the return to the temple after babylonian captivity of course, where the minora burned on very little olive oil.

                      You mean Chanukah? But again, that miracle's main point wasn't to show that G-d was with us. It was to keep the Menorah burning, everyday, while the temple existed.
                    • No, Marah. The place with incident of the water.

                      Now I'm with you...

                      Yes, the seven Noahide laws.

                      With 613 today, I can't presyme why there were only 7 then. But then some say there is only 2 (love G-d, love others), and everything else is an extrapolation of them. So who knows. Its probably how you look on it, but they had more guidance then 7 laws.

                      The Bible wasn't given, therefore there were no laws.

                      Again your overstepping the bounds of the Mosaic Law (or Bible as you have it). There were clearly laws before that other then the ones given to Noah on Ararat. What you can say is that there were at least seven.

                      And if you'd like to argue that "they aren't in the Bible", then I would counter that you yourself said that everything was in the Bible, even me. So maybe you just haven't found them yet.

                      This notion of the Bible being needed to define the whole law is something I have problems with a lot of people. The Bible has what is required for salvation, "the Law" then does that mean that everyone before Micah was lost?

                      Moses had the whole law after all, in Deuteronomy he points out that if anyone adds to it or takes it away will be condemned yet we have more books then that.

                      Don't get me wrong, I think the Bible is how it was meant to be, but to say it is the end all-be all of salvation for everyone that ever existed just doesn't fit.

                      As far as I'm concerned, it was given perfectly and purely by Adam, then lost then restored by Enoch, then lost and continued by Noah, then lost then continued by Abraham while everyone else was lost, then it was lost in egypt and restored by Moses, etc... Call it my "tending toward chaos and needing restoration constantly" second law of thermodynamics doctrine, but it makes more sence then this building up to a book, and then nothing.

                      A general rule in logic is that a sub-grouping cannot ber compared to the group itself.

                      A general rule of logic would be that without a determinate distinction (a way to compare) you can have no sub-group. In discrete mathmatics that need be no more then a designation of groups, as in a and b exist in A, and b exists in B, and a and b are the universe then you know B is a subgroup because it can be distinguished by comparison (being how its defined in this case). With out a comparison or distinction, there is no way to prove that B is a subgroup of A.

                      An order is "a formal association of people with similar interests;"

                      I've listed below the relevant definitions from dictionary.com...

                      5. The prescribed form or customary procedure: the order of worship.

                      The Aaronic order definately falls as an order of worship, especially since they had their own way of doing things.

                      # Ecclesiastical.

                      1. Any of several grades of the Christian ministry: the order of priesthood.
                      2. The rank of an ordained Christian minister or priest. Often used in the plural.
                      3. The sacrament or rite of ordination. Often used in the plural.

                      # Any of the nine grades or choirs of angels.
                      # A group of persons living under a religious rule: Order of Saint Benedict.


                      So if there is rank, there is "order". If there is a manner of doing things it is an order. This with how we say "Aaronic" order very well.

                      14. An organization of people united by a common fraternal bond or social aim.

                      Kind of good kind of weak. The Aaronic order was not a social club, but it was fraternal (brothers) litteraly. But that "order" was different then other orders of the Priesthood even.

                      Anyway, you can look up more so you can get a better definition of "order". And clearly the Aaronic priesthood was ordered differently, and had different rites and ordinances crafted just for them.

                      It says, "G-d swore; and he will not go back, you are a priest forever, on my words, Malkee-Tzedek". The words "on my words" in Hebrew are "al divruhsee".

                      Its roots in Dabar (daw-bar') which means to "to arrange" as in "to order" in that case. I do see that it has been used figuratively to mean "to speak" sometimes (i guess its like in english "I'll order fries and a milkshake, is a spoken request but it denotes an ordering of something). This particular use is in the feminine obect form "dibrah" (dib-raw') which denotes a reason, suit or style:--cause, end, estate, order, regard.

                      Therefore I see the translation as perfectly valid.

                      Those are all references to the Bible.

                      Well to books at one time in the Bible.

                      Which is the book known as Samuel.

                      There are two books of Samuel, neither written by him and are really first and second Kings (first and second Kings is really third and fourth Kings).

                      Besides it clearly states that the book of Samuel the Seer had the acts of David from beginning to end, but Kind David's appointing of Solomon was after the close of Samuel 2 (or Kings 2).

                      All prophets wrote down their prophesies.

                      And we don't have them now do we? This is Law that has been lost (law isn't just rules to live by, but knowing what G-d has spoken to us like in Ezekiel and Daniel).

                      Now I can't say we should have them now, but I am saying that we did at one time, and they were part of cannonized Law, and were lost.

                      These were chronicles of the kings.

                      Not sure how you got that, since it was alluded to as another set of books in Second Chronicles.

                      The levites were not priests.

                      The levites had the priesthood.

                      Joshua 18:

                      7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their binheritance:

                      Ordination is given onlky by someone that is ordained.

                      Now your getting it! Servicing... set apart... exclusively... mediating... (okay I threw that one in there).
                    • . The Bible has what is required for salvation, "the Law" then does that mean that everyone before Micah was lost?

                      We'll differ here. The Oral tradition teaches us that G-d created the Bible first, and the world was created from the Bible. So, *everything* is in the Bible.

                      The other holy books were cannonized becuase they teach and explain. They add nothing though.

                      Its roots in Dabar (daw-bar') which means to "to arrange" as in "to order" in that case.

                      No, it does not. That root word means "talk". The root word for "arrange" and "order" is "saydehr".

                      I do see that it has been used figuratively to mean "to speak"

                      It always means to speak.

                      This particular use is in the feminine obect form "dibrah" (dib-raw') which denotes a reason, suit or style:--cause, end, estate, order, regard.

                      The feminine form only means that "she" spoke (though inanimate objects are usually referred to as "she"), or, as in this case, it is a reference to the words themselves.

                      This is Law that has been lost

                      The Talmud relates that there have been millions of prophets. If we had all their books, we'd be lost in what to read. So, only that which was needed was cannonized.

                      That is the Jewish tradition. You are welcome to believe whatever you'd like though.

                      The levites had the priesthood.

                      Joshua 18:

                      7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their binheritance:


                      Interesting. It does say that they have "ch'hoo'noss" of G-d as their inheritance. Which is strange, since the priesthood is not an inheritance. That must be why all the commentators say that this is a reference to the presents (of which the Levites get some). Though, this relies on the Oral Tradition, which you don't agree to, so I cannot argue this point with you.
                    • The Oral tradition teaches us that G-d created the Bible first, and the world was created from the Bible. So, *everything* is in the Bible.

                      Thats much of what I believe, but I don't hold the Bible as we have it as that "book".

                      That root word means "talk".

                      Properly means to arrange or order, and figuratively to speak, just like the english word "order".

                      The feminine form only means that "she" spoke (though inanimate objects are usually referred to as "she"), or, as in this case, it is a reference to the words themselves.

                      No it doesn't, to speak is "amar" (aw-mar') check out dibrah's occurances in Job 5:8, Eccl 7:14, Eccl 3:18, Psa 110:4, Eccl 8:2. And compare that with the occurances of "amar"*

                      So, only that which was needed was cannonized.

                      This I don't doubt, but they were canonical at some point meaning that this cannonization is fluid as time goes on. Hence things get lost (like mention of Moses' priesthood).

                      this relies on the Oral Tradition, which you don't agree

                      Its not so much that I don't agree, its that I'm held by a different law and tradition. But its all cool. And even though I've been a punk, I appreciate you sharing your oral tradition with me. Although I may not take it the same way you do, it most often has given dimention and richness to the traditions I've learned.

                      * (Gen 1:3, Gen 1:6, Gen 1:9, Gen 1:11, Gen 1:14, Gen 1:20, Gen 1:24, Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 1:29, Gen 2:18, Gen 2:23, Gen 3:1, Gen 3:1, Gen 3:2, Gen 3:3, Gen 3:4, Gen 3:9, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:11, Gen 3:12, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:14, Gen 3:16, Gen 3:17, Gen 3:22, Gen 4:1, Gen 4:6, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:9, Gen 4:10, Gen 4:13, Gen 4:15, Gen 4:23, Gen 6:3, Gen 6:7, Gen 6:13, Gen 7:1, Gen 8:21, Gen 9:1, Gen 9:12, Gen 9:17, Gen 9:25, Gen 9:26, Gen 10:9, Gen 11:3, Gen 11:4, Gen 11:6, Gen 12:1, Gen 12:7, Gen 12:11, Gen 12:18, Gen 13:8, Gen 13:14, Gen 14:19, Gen 14:21, Gen 14:22, Gen 15:2, Gen 15:3, Gen 15:5, Gen 15:5, Gen 15:7, Gen 15:8, Gen 15:9, Gen 15:13, Gen 16:2, Gen 16:5, Gen 16:6, Gen 16:8, Gen 16:8, Gen 16:9, Gen 16:10, Gen 16:11, Gen 16:13, Gen 17:1, Gen 17:9, Gen 17:15, Gen 17:17, Gen 17:18, Gen 17:19, Gen 18:3, Gen 18:5, Gen 18:6, Gen 18:9, Gen 18:9, Gen 18:10, Gen 18:13, Gen 18:15, Gen 18:17, Gen 18:20, Gen 18:23, Gen 18:26, Gen 18:27, Gen 18:28, Gen 18:29, Gen 18:29, Gen 18:30, Gen 18:30, Gen 18:31, Gen 18:31, Gen 18:32, Gen 18:32, Gen 19:2, Gen 19:2, Gen 19:5, Gen 19:7, Gen 19:9, Gen 19:9, Gen 19:12, Gen 19:14, Gen 19:17, Gen 19:18, Gen 19:21, Gen 19:31, Gen 19:34, Gen 20:2, Gen 20:3, Gen 20:4, Gen 20:5, Gen 20:5, Gen 20:6, Gen 20:9, Gen 20:10, Gen 20:11, Gen 20:13, Gen 20:15, Gen 20:16, Gen 21:1, Gen 21:6, Gen 21:7, Gen 21:10, Gen 21:12, Gen 21:12, Gen 21:16, Gen 21:17, Gen 21:24, Gen 21:26, Gen 21:29, Gen 21:30, Gen 22:1, Gen 22:1, Gen 22:2, Gen 22:5, Gen 22:7, Gen 22:7, Gen 22:7, Gen 22:8, Gen 22:11, Gen 22:11, Gen 22:12, Gen 22:14, Gen 22:16, Gen 24:2, Gen 24:5, Gen 24:6, Gen 24:12, Gen 24:17, Gen 24:18, Gen 24:19, Gen 24:23, Gen 24:24, Gen 24:25, Gen 24:27, Gen 24:31, Gen 24:33, Gen 24:33, Gen 24:34, Gen 24:39, Gen 24:40, Gen 24:42, Gen 24:45, Gen 24:46, Gen 24:47, Gen 24:47, Gen 24:50, Gen 24:54, Gen 24:55, Gen 24:56, Gen 24:57, Gen 24:58, Gen 24:58, Gen 24:60, Gen 24:65, Gen 24:65, Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23, Gen 25:30, Gen 25:31, Gen 25:32, Gen 25:33, Gen 26:2, Gen 26:7, Gen 26:9, Gen 26:9, Gen 26:9, Gen 26:10, Gen 26:16, Gen 26:22, Gen 26:24, Gen 26:27, Gen 26:28, Gen 26:28, Gen 26:32, Gen 27:1, Gen 27:1, Gen 27:2, Gen 27:11, Gen 27:13, Gen 27:18, Gen 27:18, Gen 27:19, Gen 27:20, Gen 27:20, Gen 27:21, Gen 27:22, Gen 27:24, Gen 27:24, Gen 27:25, Gen 27:26, Gen 27:27, Gen 27:31, Gen 27:32, Gen 27:32, Gen 27:33, Gen 27:34, Gen 27:35, Gen 27:36, Gen 27:36, Gen 27:37, Gen 27:38, Gen 27:39, Gen 27:41, Gen 27:42, Gen 27:46, Gen 28:1, Gen 28:13, Gen 28:16, Gen 28:17, Gen 29:4, Gen 29:4, Gen 29:5, Gen 29:5, Gen 29:6, Gen 29:6, Gen 29:7, Gen 29:8, Gen 29:14, Gen 29:15, Gen 29:18, Gen 29:19, Gen 29:21, Gen 29:25, Gen 29:26, Gen 29:32, Gen 29:33, Gen 29:34, Gen 29:35, Gen 30:1, Gen 30:2, Gen 30:3, Gen 30:6, Gen 30:8, Gen 30:11, Gen 30:13, Gen 30:14, Gen 30:15, Gen 30:15, Gen 30:16, Gen 30:18, Gen 30:20, Gen 30:23, Gen 30:24, Gen 30:25, Gen 30:27, Gen 30:28, Gen 30:29, Gen 30:31, Gen 30:31, Gen 30:34, Gen 31:3, Gen 31:5, Gen 31:8, Gen 31:8, Gen 31:11, Gen 31:12, Gen 31:14, Gen 31:16, Gen 31:24, Gen 31:26, Gen 31:31, Gen 31:31, Gen 31:35, Gen 31:36, Gen 31:43, Gen 31:46, Gen 31:48, Gen 31:49, Gen 31:51, Gen 32:2, Gen 32:8, Gen 32:9, Gen 32:16, Gen 32:20, Gen 32:26, Gen 32:26, Gen 32:27, Gen 32:27, Gen 32:28, Gen 32:29, Gen 32:29, Gen 33:5, Gen 33:5, Gen 33:8, Gen 33:8, Gen 33:9, Gen 33:10, Gen 33:12, Gen 33:13, Gen 33:15, Gen 33:15, Gen 34:11, Gen 34:14, Gen 34:30, Gen 34:31, Gen 35:1, Gen 35:2, Gen 35:10, Gen 35:11, Gen 35:17, Gen 37:6, Gen 37:8, Gen 37:9, Gen 37:10, Gen 37:13, Gen 37:13, Gen 37:14, Gen 37:16, Gen 37:17, Gen 37:19, Gen 37:21, Gen 37:22, Gen 37:26, Gen 37:30, Gen 37:32, Gen 37:33, Gen 37:35, Gen 38:8, Gen 38:11, Gen 38:11, Gen 38:16, Gen 38:16, Gen 38:17, Gen 38:17, Gen 38:18, Gen 38:18, Gen 38:21, Gen 38:22, Gen 38:22, Gen 38:23, Gen 38:24, Gen 38:25, Gen 38:26, Gen 38:29, Gen 39:7, Gen 39:8, Gen 40:8, Gen 40:8, Gen 40:9, Gen 40:12, Gen 40:16, Gen 40:18, Gen 41:15, Gen 41:25, Gen 41:38, Gen 41:39, Gen 41:41, Gen 41:44, Gen 41:54, Gen 41:55, Gen 42:1, Gen 42:2, Gen 42:4, Gen 42:7, Gen 42:7, Gen 42:9, Gen 42:10, Gen 42:12, Gen 42:13, Gen 42:14, Gen 42:18, Gen 42:21, Gen 42:28, Gen 42:31, Gen 42:33, Gen 42:36, Gen 42:38, Gen 43:2, Gen 43:5, Gen 43:6, Gen 43:7, Gen 43:8, Gen 43:11, Gen 43:16, Gen 43:18, Gen 43:20, Gen 43:23, Gen 43:27, Gen 43:29, Gen 43:29, Gen 43:31, Gen 44:4, Gen 44:7, Gen 44:10, Gen 44:15, Gen 44:16, Gen 44:17, Gen 44:18, Gen 44:20, Gen 44:22, Gen 44:25, Gen 44:26, Gen 44:27, Gen 44:28, Gen 45:3, Gen 45:4, Gen 45:4, Gen 45:17, Gen 45:24, Gen 45:28, Gen 46:2, Gen 46:2, Gen 46:3, Gen 46:30, Gen 46:31, Gen 47:1, Gen 47:3, Gen 47:3, Gen 47:4, Gen 47:8, Gen 47:9, Gen 47:15, Gen 47:16, Gen 47:18, Gen 47:23, Gen 47:25, Gen 47:29, Gen 47:30, Gen 47:31, Gen 48:2, Gen 48:3, Gen 48:4, Gen 48:8, Gen 48:9, Gen 48:9, Gen 48:11, Gen 48:15, Gen 48:18, Gen 48:19, Gen 48:21, Gen 49:1, Gen 49:29, Gen 50:6, Gen 50:11, Gen 50:15, Gen 50:18, Gen 50:19, Gen 50:24, Exo 1:9, Exo 1:16, Exo 1:18, Exo 1:19, Exo 2:6, Exo 2:7, Exo 2:8, Exo 2:9, Exo 2:10, Exo 2:13, Exo 2:14, Exo 2:14, Exo 2:18, Exo 2:19, Exo 2:20, Exo 2:22, Exo 3:3, Exo 3:4, Exo 3:4, Exo 3:5, Exo 3:6, Exo 3:7, Exo 3:11, Exo 3:12, Exo 3:13, Exo 3:14, Exo 3:14, Exo 3:15, Exo 3:17, Exo 4:1, Exo 4:2, Exo 4:2, Exo 4:3, Exo 4:4, Exo 4:6, Exo 4:7, Exo 4:10, Exo 4:11, Exo 4:13, Exo 4:14, Exo 4:18, Exo 4:18, Exo 4:19, Exo 4:21, Exo 4:25, Exo 4:26, Exo 4:27, Exo 5:2, Exo 5:3, Exo 5:4, Exo 5:5, Exo 5:17, Exo 5:19, Exo 5:21, Exo 5:22, Exo 6:1, Exo 6:2, Exo 6:26, Exo 6:30, Exo 7:1, Exo 7:14, Exo 8:8, Exo 8:9, Exo 8:10, Exo 8:10, Exo 8:16, Exo 8:19, Exo 8:20, Exo 8:25, Exo 8:26, Exo 8:28, Exo 8:29, Exo 9:1, Exo 9:8, Exo 9:13, Exo 9:22, Exo 9:27, Exo 9:29, Exo 10:1, Exo 10:3, Exo 10:7, Exo 10:8, Exo 10:9, Exo 10:10, Exo 10:12, Exo 10:16, Exo 10:21, Exo 10:24, Exo 10:25, Exo 10:28, Exo 10:29, Exo 11:1, Exo 11:4, Exo 11:9, Exo 12:21, Exo 12:31, Exo 12:33, Exo 12:43, Exo 13:3, Exo 13:17, Exo 14:5, Exo 14:11, Exo 14:13, Exo 14:15, Exo 14:25, Exo 14:26, Exo 15:9, Exo 15:26, Exo 16:3, Exo 16:4, Exo 16:6, Exo 16:8, Exo 16:15, Exo 16:15, Exo 16:19, Exo 16:23, Exo 16:25, Exo 16:28, Exo 16:32, Exo 16:33, Exo 17:2, Exo 17:2, Exo 17:3, Exo 17:5, Exo 17:9, Exo 17:10, Exo 17:14, Exo 17:16, Exo 18:3, Exo 18:6, Exo 18:10, Exo 18:14, Exo 18:15, Exo 18:17, Exo 18:24, Exo 19:8, Exo 19:9, Exo 19:10, Exo 19:15, Exo 19:21, Exo 19:23, Exo 19:24, Exo 20:19, Exo 20:20, Exo 20:22, Exo 23:13, Exo 24:1, Exo 24:3, Exo 24:7, Exo 24:8, Exo 24:12, Exo 24:14, Exo 30:34, Exo 32:1, Exo 32:2, Exo 32:4, Exo 32:5, Exo 32:8, Exo 32:9, Exo 32:11, Exo 32:17, Exo 32:18, Exo 32:21, Exo 32:22, Exo 32:23, Exo 32:24, Exo 32:26, Exo 32:27, Exo 32:29, Exo 32:30, Exo 32:31, Exo 32:33, Exo 33:5, Exo 33:12, Exo 33:12, Exo 33:14, Exo 33:15, Exo 33:17, Exo 33:18, Exo 33:19, Exo 33:20, Exo 33:21, Exo 34:1, Exo 34:9, Exo 34:10, Exo 34:27, Exo 35:1, Exo 35:30, Lev 8:5, Lev 8:31, Lev 9:2, Lev 9:6, Lev 9:7, Lev 10:3, Lev 10:4, Lev 10:6, Lev 16:2, Lev 17:12, Lev 17:14, Lev 20:24, Lev 21:1, Num 3:40, Num 7:11, Num 9:7, Num 9:8, Num 10:29, Num 10:29, Num 10:30, Num 10:31, Num 10:35, Num 10:36, Num 11:4, Num 11:11, Num 11:16, Num 11:21, Num 11:21, Num 11:23, Num 11:27, Num 11:28, Num 11:29, Num 12:2, Num 12:6, Num 12:11, Num 12:14, Num 13:17, Num 13:27, Num 13:30, Num 13:31, Num 14:2, Num 14:4, Num 14:11, Num 14:13, Num 14:20, Num 14:31, Num 14:41, Num 15:35, Num 16:3, Num 16:8, Num 16:12, Num 16:15, Num 16:16, Num 16:22, Num 16:28, Num 16:34, Num 16:46, Num 17:10, Num 18:1, Num 18:24, Num 20:10, Num 20:18, Num 20:19, Num 20:20, Num 21:2, Num 21:7, Num 21:8, Num 21:14, Num 21:34, Num 22:4, Num 22:8, Num 22:9, Num 22:10, Num 22:12, Num 22:13, Num 22:14, Num 22:16, Num 22:18, Num 22:20, Num 22:28, Num 22:29, Num 22:30, Num 22:30, Num 22:32, Num 22:34, Num 22:35, Num 22:37, Num 22:38, Num 23:1, Num 23:3, Num 23:4, Num 23:5, Num 23:7, Num 23:11, Num 23:12, Num 23:13, Num 23:15, Num 23:16, Num 23:17, Num 23:18, Num 23:19, Num 23:23, Num 23:25, Num 23:26, Num 23:27, Num 23:29, Num 23:30, Num 24:3, Num 24:10, Num 24:12, Num 24:15, Num 24:20, Num 24:21, Num 24:23, Num 25:4, Num 25:5, Num 26:65, Num 27:12, Num 27:18, Num 31:15, Num 31:21, Num 31:49, Num 32:5, Num 32:6, Num 32:16, Num 32:20, Num 32:29, Num 36:2, Deu 1:14, Deu 1:20, Deu 1:22, Deu 1:25, Deu 1:27, Deu 1:29, Deu 1:39, Deu 1:41, Deu 1:42, Deu 2:9, Deu 2:31, Deu 3:2, Deu 3:26, Deu 4:10, Deu 5:1, Deu 5:24, Deu 5:28, Deu 9:12, Deu 9:25, Deu 9:26, Deu 10:1, Deu 10:11, Deu 17:16, Deu 18:17, Deu 29:2, Deu 31:2, Deu 31:2, Deu 31:7, Deu 31:14, Deu 31:16, Deu 31:23, Deu 32:20, Deu 32:26, Deu 32:46, Deu 33:2, Deu 33:7, Deu 33:8, Deu 33:9, Deu 33:12, Deu 33:13, Deu 33:18, Deu 33:20, Deu 33:22, Deu 33:23, Deu 33:24, Deu 34:4, Jos 2:4, Jos 2:9, Jos 2:16, Jos 2:17, Jos 2:21, Jos 2:24, Jos 3:5, Jos 3:7, Jos 3:9, Jos 3:10, Jos 4:5, Jos 5:2, Jos 5:9, Jos 5:13, Jos 5:14, Jos 5:14, Jos 5:15, Jos 6:2, Jos 6:6, Jos 6:7, Jos 6:16, Jos 6:22, Jos 7:3, Jos 7:7, Jos 7:10, Jos 7:19, Jos 7:20, Jos 7:25, Jos 8:1, Jos 8:18, Jos 9:6, Jos 9:7, Jos 9:8, Jos 9:8, Jos 9:9, Jos 9:19, Jos 9:21, Jos 9:24, Jos 10:8, Jos 10:12, Jos 10:18, Jos 10:22, Jos 10:24, Jos 10:25, Jos 11:6, Jos 13:1, Jos 14:6, Jos 15:16, Jos 15:18, Jos 17:16, Jos 18:3, Jos 22:2, Jos 22:26, Jos 22:28, Jos 22:31, Jos 23:2, Jos 24:2, Jos 24:16, Jos 24:19, Jos 24:21, Jos 24:22, Jos 24:22, Jos 24:24, Jos 24:27, Jud 1:2, Jud 1:3, Jud 1:7, Jud 1:12, Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15, Jud 1:24, Jud 2:1, Jud 2:1, Jud 2:3, Jud 2:20, Jud 3:19, Jud 3:19, Jud 3:20, Jud 3:24, Jud 3:28, Jud 4:6, Jud 4:8, Jud 4:9, Jud 4:14, Jud 4:18, Jud 4:19, Jud 4:20, Jud 4:22, Jud 5:23, Jud 6:8, Jud 6:10, Jud 6:12, Jud 6:13, Jud 6:14, Jud 6:15, Jud 6:16, Jud 6:17, Jud 6:18, Jud 6:20, Jud 6:22, Jud 6:23, Jud 6:25, Jud 6:29, Jud 6:29, Jud 6:30, Jud 6:31, Jud 6:36, Jud 6:39, Jud 7:2, Jud 7:4, Jud 7:5, Jud 7:7, Jud 7:9, Jud 7:13, Jud 7:14, Jud 7:15, Jud 7:17, Jud 8:1, Jud 8:2, Jud 8:5, Jud 8:6, Jud 8:7, Jud 8:15, Jud 8:18, Jud 8:19, Jud 8:20, Jud 8:21, Jud 8:22, Jud 8:23, Jud 8:24, Jud 9:3, Jud 9:7, Jud 9:8, Jud 9:9, Jud 9:10, Jud 9:11, Jud 9:12, Jud 9:13, Jud 9:14, Jud 9:15, Jud 9:28, Jud 9:29, Jud 9:36, Jud 9:36, Jud 9:37, Jud 9:38, Jud 9:48, Jud 9:54, Jud 10:11, Jud 10:15, Jud 10:18, Jud 11:2, Jud 11:6, Jud 11:7, Jud 11:8, Jud 11:9, Jud 11:10, Jud 11:15, Jud 11:19, Jud 11:30, Jud 11:35, Jud 11:36, Jud 11:37, Jud 11:38, Jud 12:1, Jud 12:2, Jud 12:4, Jud 12:5, Jud 12:5, Jud 12:5, Jud 12:6, Jud 12:6, Jud 13:3, Jud 13:7, Jud 13:8, Jud 13:10, Jud 13:11, Jud 13:11, Jud 13:12, Jud 13:13, Jud 13:13, Jud 13:15, Jud 13:16, Jud 13:17, Jud 13:18, Jud 13:22, Jud 13:23, Jud 14:2, Jud 14:3, Jud 14:3, Jud 14:12, Jud 14:13, Jud 14:14, Jud 14:15, Jud 14:16, Jud 14:16, Jud 14:18, Jud 14:18, Jud 15:1, Jud 15:2, Jud 15:3, Jud 15:6, Jud 15:7, Jud 15:10, Jud 15:11, Jud 15:11, Jud 15:12, Jud 15:12, Jud 15:16, Jud 15:18, Jud 16:5, Jud 16:6, Jud 16:7, Jud 16:9, Jud 16:10, Jud 16:11, Jud 16:12, Jud 16:13, Jud 16:13, Jud 16:14, Jud 16:15, Jud 16:17, Jud 16:20, Jud 16:20, Jud 16:23, Jud 16:24, Jud 16:25, Jud 16:26, Jud 16:28, Jud 16:30, Jud 17:2, Jud 17:2, Jud 17:3, Jud 17:9, Jud 17:9, Jud 17:10, Jud 17:13, Jud 18:2, Jud 18:3, Jud 18:4, Jud 18:5, Jud 18:6, Jud 18:8, Jud 18:9, Jud 18:14, Jud 18:18, Jud 18:19, Jud 18:23, Jud 18:24, Jud 18:25, Jud 19:5, Jud 19:6, Jud 19:8, Jud 19:9, Jud 19:11, Jud 19:12, Jud 19:13, Jud 19:17, Jud 19:18, Jud 19:20, Jud 19:23, Jud 19:28, Jud 19:30, Jud 20:3, Jud 20:4, Jud 20:18, Jud 20:18, Jud 20:23, Jud 20:28, Jud 20:32, Jud 20:32, Jud 20:39, Jud 21:3, Jud 21:5, Jud 21:6, Jud 21:8, Jud 21:16, Jud 21:17, Jud 21:19, Ruth 1:8, Ruth 1:10, Ruth 1:11, Ruth 1:15, Ruth 1:16, Ruth 1:19, Ruth 1:20, Ruth 2:2, Ruth 2:2, Ruth 2:4, Ruth 2:5, Ruth 2:6, Ruth 2:7, Ruth 2:8, Ruth 2:10, Ruth 2:11, Ruth 2:13, Ruth 2:14, Ruth 2:19, Ruth 2:19, Ruth 2:20, Ruth 2:20, Ruth 2:21, Ruth 2:21, Ruth 2:22, Ruth 3:1, Ruth 3:5, Ruth 3:9, Ruth 3:10, Ruth 3:14, Ruth 3:15, Ruth 3:16, Ruth 3:17, Ruth 3:17, Ruth 3:18, Ruth 4:1, Ruth 4:2, Ruth 4:3, Ruth 4:4, Ruth 4:5, Ruth 4:6, Ruth 4:8, Ruth 4:9, Ruth 4:11, Ruth 4:14, 1 Sam 1:8, 1 Sam 1:11, 1 Sam 1:14, 1 Sam 1:15, 1 Sam 1:17, 1 Sam 1:18, 1 Sam 1:22, 1 Sam 1:23, 1 Sam 1:26, 1 Sam 2:1, 1 Sam 2:15, 1 Sam 2:16, 1 Sam 2:20, 1 Sam 2:23, 1 Sam 2:27, 1 Sam 2:30, 1 Sam 3:5, 1 Sam 3:5, 1 Sam 3:6, 1 Sam 3:8, 1 Sam 3:9, 1 Sam 3:11, 1 Sam 3:16, 1 Sam 3:17, 1 Sam 3:18, 1 Sam 4:3, 1 Sam 4:6, 1 Sam 4:7, 1 Sam 4:7, 1 Sam 4:14, 1 Sam 4:16, 1 Sam 4:16, 1 Sam 4:17, 1 Sam 4:22, 1 Sam 5:7, 1 Sam 5:8, 1 Sam 5:11, 1 Sam 6:3, 1 Sam 6:4, 1 Sam 6:20, 1 Sam 7:5, 1 Sam 7:6, 1 Sam 7:8, 1 Sam 8:5, 1 Sam 8:6, 1 Sam 8:7, 1 Sam 8:11, 1 Sam 8:19, 1 Sam 8:22, 1 Sam 8:22, 1 Sam 9:3, 1 Sam 9:5, 1 Sam 9:6, 1 Sam 9:7, 1 Sam 9:8, 1 Sam 9:10, 1 Sam 9:11, 1 Sam 9:12, 1 Sam 9:18, 1 Sam 9:19, 1 Sam 9:21, 1 Sam 9:23, 1 Sam 9:23, 1 Sam 9:24, 1 Sam 9:24, 1 Sam 9:27, 1 Sam 10:1, 1 Sam 10:11, 1 Sam 10:12, 1 Sam 10:14, 1 Sam 10:14, 1 Sam 10:15, 1 Sam 10:15, 1 Sam 10:16, 1 Sam 10:18, 1 Sam 10:19, 1 Sam 10:24, 1 Sam 10:24, 1 Sam 10:27, 1 Sam 11:1, 1 Sam 11:3, 1 Sam 11:5, 1 Sam 11:9, 1 Sam 11:10, 1 Sam 11:12, 1 Sam 11:12, 1 Sam 11:13, 1 Sam 11:14, 1 Sam 12:1, 1 Sam 12:1, 1 Sam 12:4, 1 Sam 12:5, 1 Sam 12:6, 1 Sam 12:10, 1 Sam 12:12, 1 Sam 12:19, 1 Sam 12:20, 1 Sam 13:9, 1 Sam 13:11, 1 Sam 13:11, 1 Sam 13:12, 1 Sam 13:13, 1 Sam 13:19, 1 Sam 14:1, 1 Sam 14:6, 1 Sam 14:7, 1 Sam 14:8, 1 Sam 14:11, 1 Sam 14:12, 1 Sam 14:12, 1 Sam 14:17, 1 Sam 14:18, 1 Sam 14:19, 1 Sam 14:28, 1 Sam 14:29, 1 Sam 14:33, 1 Sam 14:34, 1 Sam 14:36, 1 Sam 14:36, 1 Sam 14:36, 1 Sam 14:38, 1 Sam 14:40, 1 Sam 14:40, 1 Sam 14:41, 1 Sam 14:42, 1 Sam 14:43, 1 Sam 14:43, 1 Sam 14:45, 1 Sam 15:1, 1 Sam 15:6, 1 Sam 15:13, 1 Sam 15:14, 1 Sam 15:15, 1 Sam 15:16, 1 Sam 15:16, 1 Sam 15:17, 1 Sam 15:18, 1 Sam 15:20, 1 Sam 15:22, 1 Sam 15:24, 1 Sam 15:26, 1 Sam 15:28, 1 Sam 15:30, 1 Sam 15:32, 1 Sam 15:32, 1 Sam 15:33, 1 Sam 16:1, 1 Sam 16:2, 1 Sam 16:2, 1 Sam 16:4, 1 Sam 16:5, 1 Sam 16:6, 1 Sam 16:7, 1 Sam 16:8, 1 Sam 16:9, 1 Sam 16:10, 1 Sam 16:11, 1 Sam 16:11, 1 Sam 16:11, 1 Sam 16:12, 1 Sam 16:15, 1 Sam 16:17, 1 Sam 16:18, 1 Sam 16:19, 1 Sam 17:8, 1 Sam 17:10, 1 Sam 17:17, 1 Sam 17:25, 1 Sam 17:28, 1 Sam 17:29, 1 Sam 17:32, 1 Sam 17:33, 1 Sam 17:34, 1 Sam 17:37, 1 Sam 17:37, 1 Sam 17:39, 1 Sam 17:43, 1 Sam 17:44, 1 Sam 17:45, 1 Sam 17:55, 1 Sam 17:55, 1 Sam 17:56, 1 Sam 17:58, 1 Sam 18:7, 1 Sam 18:8, 1 Sam 18:11, 1 Sam 18:17, 1 Sam 18:17, 1 Sam 18:18, 1 Sam 18:21, 1 Sam 18:21, 1 Sam 18:23, 1 Sam 18:25, 1 Sam 19:4, 1 Sam 19:14, 1 Sam 19:17, 1 Sam 19:17, 1 Sam 19:22, 1 Sam 19:22, 1 Sam 20:1, 1 Sam 20:2, 1 Sam 20:3, 1 Sam 20:4, 1 Sam 20:5, 1 Sam 20:9, 1 Sam 20:10, 1 Sam 20:11, 1 Sam 20:12, 1 Sam 20:18, 1 Sam 20:27, 1 Sam 20:29, 1 Sam 20:30, 1 Sam 20:32, 1 Sam 20:36, 1 Sam 20:37, 1 Sam 20:40, 1 Sam 20:42, 1 Sam 21:1, 1 Sam 21:2, 1 Sam 21:2, 1 Sam 21:4, 1 Sam 21:5, 1 Sam 21:8, 1 Sam 21:9, 1 Sam 21:9, 1 Sam 21:11, 1 Sam 21:14, 1 Sam 22:3, 1 Sam 22:5, 1 Sam 22:7, 1 Sam 22:9, 1 Sam 22:12, 1 Sam 22:13, 1 Sam 22:14, 1 Sam 22:16, 1 Sam 22:17, 1 Sam 22:18, 1 Sam 22:22, 1 Sam 23:2, 1 Sam 23:3, 1 Sam 23:4, 1 Sam 23:7, 1 Sam 23:9, 1 Sam 23:10, 1 Sam 23:11, 1 Sam 23:12, 1 Sam 23:12, 1 Sam 23:17, 1 Sam 23:21, 1 Sam 24:4, 1 Sam 24:4, 1 Sam 24:6, 1 Sam 24:9, 1 Sam 24:10, 1 Sam 24:16, 1 Sam 24:17, 1 Sam 25:5, 1 Sam 25:10, 1 Sam 25:13, 1 Sam 25:19, 1 Sam 25:21, 1 Sam 25:24, 1 Sam 25:32, 1 Sam 25:35, 1 Sam 25:39, 1 Sam 25:41, 1 Sam 26:6, 1 Sam 26:6, 1 Sam 26:8, 1 Sam 26:9, 1 Sam 26:10, 1 Sam 26:14, 1 Sam 26:15, 1 Sam 26:17, 1 Sam 26:17, 1 Sam 26:18, 1 Sam 26:21, 1 Sam 26:22, 1 Sam 26:25, 1 Sam 27:1, 1 Sam 27:5, 1 Sam 27:10, 1 Sam 27:10, 1 Sam 28:1, 1 Sam 28:2, 1 Sam 28:2, 1 Sam 28:7, 1 Sam 28:7, 1 Sam 28:8, 1 Sam 28:9, 1 Sam 28:11, 1 Sam 28:11, 1 Sam 28:13, 1 Sam 28:13, 1 Sam 28:14, 1 Sam 28:14, 1 Sam 28:15, 1 Sam 28:16, 1 Sam 28:21, 1 Sam 28:23, 1 Sam 29:3, 1 Sam 29:3, 1 Sam 29:4, 1 Sam 29:6, 1 Sam 29:8, 1 Sam 29:9, 1 Sam 29:9, 1 Sam 30:7, 1 Sam 30:13, 1 Sam 30:13, 1 Sam 30:15, 1 Sam 30:15, 1 Sam 30:20, 1 Sam 30:22, 1 Sam 30:23, 1 Sam 31:4, 2 Sam 1:3, 2 Sam 1:3, 2 Sam 1:4, 2 Sam 1:5, 2 Sam 1:6, 2 Sam 1:8, 2 Sam 1:9, 2 Sam 1:13, 2 Sam 1:14, 2 Sam 1:15, 2 Sam 1:16, 2 Sam 2:1, 2 Sam 2:1, 2 Sam 2:1, 2 Sam 2:5, 2 Sam 2:14, 2 Sam 2:14, 2 Sam 2:20, 2 Sam 2:21, 2 Sam 2:22, 2 Sam 2:26, 2 Sam 2:27, 2 Sam 3:7, 2 Sam 3:8, 2 Sam 3:13, 2 Sam 3:16, 2 Sam 3:21, 2 Sam 3:24, 2 Sam 3:28, 2 Sam 3:31, 2 Sam 3:33, 2 Sam 3:38, 2 Sam 4:8, 2 Sam 4:9, 2 Sam 5:2, 2 Sam 5:8, 2 Sam 5:8, 2 Sam 5:19, 2 Sam 5:20, 2 Sam 5:23, 2 Sam 6:9, 2 Sam 6:20, 2 Sam 6:21, 2 Sam 7:2, 2 Sam 7:3, 2 Sam 7:18, 2 Sam 9:1, 2 Sam 9:2, 2 Sam 9:2, 2 Sam 9:3, 2 Sam 9:3, 2 Sam 9:4, 2 Sam 9:4, 2 Sam 9:6, 2 Sam 9:7, 2 Sam 9:8, 2 Sam 9:9, 2 Sam 9:11, 2 Sam 10:2, 2 Sam 10:3, 2 Sam 10:5, 2 Sam 10:11, 2 Sam 11:3, 2 Sam 11:5, 2 Sam 11:8, 2 Sam 11:10, 2 Sam 11:11, 2 Sam 11:12, 2 Sam 11:23, 2 Sam 11:25, 2 Sam 12:1, 2 Sam 12:5, 2 Sam 12:7, 2 Sam 12:13, 2 Sam 12:13, 2 Sam 12:18, 2 Sam 12:19, 2 Sam 12:19, 2 Sam 12:21, 2 Sam 12:22, 2 Sam 12:22, 2 Sam 12:27, 2 Sam 13:4, 2 Sam 13:4, 2 Sam 13:5, 2 Sam 13:6, 2 Sam 13:9, 2 Sam 13:10, 2 Sam 13:11, 2 Sam 13:15, 2 Sam 13:16, 2 Sam 13:17, 2 Sam 13:20, 2 Sam 13:24, 2 Sam 13:25, 2 Sam 13:26, 2 Sam 13:26, 2 Sam 13:32, 2 Sam 13:35, 2 Sam 14:2, 2 Sam 14:4, 2 Sam 14:5, 2 Sam 14:7, 2 Sam 14:8, 2 Sam 14:9, 2 Sam 14:10, 2 Sam 14:11, 2 Sam 14:11, 2 Sam 14:12, 2 Sam 14:12, 2 Sam 14:13, 2 Sam 14:15, 2 Sam 14:17, 2 Sam 14:18, 2 Sam 14:18, 2 Sam 14:19, 2 Sam 14:19, 2 Sam 14:21, 2 Sam 14:22, 2 Sam 14:24, 2 Sam 14:30, 2 Sam 14:31, 2 Sam 15:2, 2 Sam 15:2, 2 Sam 15:3, 2 Sam 15:4, 2 Sam 15:7, 2 Sam 15:9, 2 Sam 15:14, 2 Sam 15:15, 2 Sam 15:19, 2 Sam 15:21, 2 Sam 15:22, 2 Sam 15:25, 2 Sam 15:27, 2 Sam 15:31, 2 Sam 15:33, 2 Sam 16:2, 2 Sam 16:2, 2 Sam 16:3, 2 Sam 16:3, 2 Sam 16:3, 2 Sam 16:4, 2 Sam 16:4, 2 Sam 16:7, 2 Sam 16:9, 2 Sam 16:10, 2 Sam 16:10, 2 Sam 16:11, 2 Sam 16:16, 2 Sam 16:17, 2 Sam 16:18, 2 Sam 16:20, 2 Sam 16:21, 2 Sam 17:1, 2 Sam 17:5, 2 Sam 17:7, 2 Sam 17:8, 2 Sam 17:14, 2 Sam 17:15, 2 Sam 17:20, 2 Sam 17:20, 2 Sam 17:21, 2 Sam 17:29, 2 Sam 18:2, 2 Sam 18:4, 2 Sam 18:10, 2 Sam 18:11, 2 Sam 18:12, 2 Sam 18:14, 2 Sam 18:18, 2 Sam 18:19, 2 Sam 18:20, 2 Sam 18:21, 2 Sam 18:22, 2 Sam 18:22, 2 Sam 18:23, 2 Sam 18:25, 2 Sam 18:26, 2 Sam 18:26, 2 Sam 18:27, 2 Sam 18:27, 2 Sam 18:28, 2 Sam 18:28, 2 Sam 18:29, 2 Sam 18:30, 2 Sam 18:31, 2 Sam 18:32, 2 Sam 18:33, 2 Sam 19:5, 2 Sam 19:19, 2 Sam 19:21, 2 Sam 19:22, 2 Sam 19:23, 2 Sam 19:25, 2 Sam 19:26, 2 Sam 19:29, 2 Sam 19:29, 2 Sam 19:30, 2 Sam 19:33, 2 Sam 19:34, 2 Sam 19:41, 2 Sam 19:43, 2 Sam 20:1, 2 Sam 20:4, 2 Sam 20:6, 2 Sam 20:9, 2 Sam 20:11, 2 Sam 20:17, 2 Sam 20:17, 2 Sam 20:20, 2 Sam 20:21, 2 Sam 21:2, 2 Sam 21:3, 2 Sam 21:4, 2 Sam 21:4, 2 Sam 21:6, 2 Sam 22:2, 2 Sam 23:3, 2 Sam 23:15, 2 Sam 23:17, 2 Sam 24:2, 2 Sam 24:3, 2 Sam 24:10, 2 Sam 24:13, 2 Sam 24:14, 2 Sam 24:16, 2 Sam 24:17, 2 Sam 24:18, 2 Sam 24:21, 2 Sam 24:21, 2 Sam 24:22, 2 Sam 24:23, 2 Sam 24:24, 1 Ki 1:2, 1 Ki 1:16, 1 Ki 1:17, 1 Ki 1:24, 1 Ki 1:24, 1 Ki 1:28, 1 Ki 1:29, 1 Ki 1:31, 1 Ki 1:32, 1 Ki 1:33, 1 Ki 1:36, 1 Ki 1:39, 1 Ki 1:41, 1 Ki 1:42, 1 Ki 1:43, 1 Ki 1:48, 1 Ki 1:52, 1 Ki 1:53, 1 Ki 2:4, 1 Ki 2:13, 1 Ki 2:13, 1 Ki 2:14, 1 Ki 2:14, 1 Ki 2:15, 1 Ki 2:16, 1 Ki 2:17, 1 Ki 2:18, 1 Ki 2:20, 1 Ki 2:20, 1 Ki 2:21, 1 Ki 2:22, 1 Ki 2:26, 1 Ki 2:30, 1 Ki 2:30, 1 Ki 2:31, 1 Ki 2:36, 1 Ki 2:38, 1 Ki 2:42, 1 Ki 2:44, 1 Ki 3:5, 1 Ki 3:6, 1 Ki 3:11, 1 Ki 3:17, 1 Ki 3:22, 1 Ki 3:22, 1 Ki 3:23, 1 Ki 3:24, 1 Ki 3:25, 1 Ki 3:26, 1 Ki 3:26, 1 Ki 3:27, 1 Ki 5:7, 1 Ki 8:12, 1 Ki 8:15, 1 Ki 8:18, 1 Ki 8:23, 1 Ki 8:29, 1 Ki 9:3, 1 Ki 9:13, 1 Ki 10:6, 1 Ki 11:2, 1 Ki 11:11, 1 Ki 11:21, 1 Ki 11:22, 1 Ki 11:31, 1 Ki 12:5, 1 Ki 12:6, 1 Ki 12:9, 1 Ki 12:26, 1 Ki 12:28, 1 Ki 13:2, 1 Ki 13:6, 1 Ki 13:8, 1 Ki 13:13, 1 Ki 13:14, 1 Ki 13:14, 1 Ki 13:15, 1 Ki 13:16, 1 Ki 13:18, 1 Ki 13:26, 1 Ki 14:2, 1 Ki 14:5, 1 Ki 14:6, 1 Ki 17:1, 1 Ki 17:10, 1 Ki 17:11, 1 Ki 17:12, 1 Ki 17:13, 1 Ki 17:18, 1 Ki 17:19, 1 Ki 17:20, 1 Ki 17:21, 1 Ki 17:23, 1 Ki 17:24, 1 Ki 18:5, 1 Ki 18:7, 1 Ki 18:9, 1 Ki 18:10, 1 Ki 18:15, 1 Ki 18:17, 1 Ki 18:21, 1 Ki 18:22, 1 Ki 18:24, 1 Ki 18:25, 1 Ki 18:27, 1 Ki 18:30, 1 Ki 18:33, 1 Ki 18:34, 1 Ki 18:34, 1 Ki 18:36, 1 Ki 18:39, 1 Ki 18:40, 1 Ki 18:41, 1 Ki 18:43, 1 Ki 18:43, 1 Ki 18:43, 1 Ki 18:44, 1 Ki 18:44, 1 Ki 19:4, 1 Ki 19:5, 1 Ki 19:7, 1 Ki 19:9, 1 Ki 19:10, 1 Ki 19:11, 1 Ki 19:13, 1 Ki 19:14, 1 Ki 19:15, 1 Ki 19:20, 1 Ki 19:20, 1 Ki 20:2, 1 Ki 20:4, 1 Ki 20:5, 1 Ki 20:7, 1 Ki 20:8, 1 Ki 20:9, 1 Ki 20:10, 1 Ki 20:11, 1 Ki 20:12, 1 Ki 20:14, 1 Ki 20:14, 1 Ki 20:14, 1 Ki 20:18, 1 Ki 20:22, 1 Ki 20:23, 1 Ki 20:28, 1 Ki 20:28, 1 Ki 20:31, 1 Ki 20:32, 1 Ki 20:32, 1 Ki 20:33, 1 Ki 20:33, 1 Ki 20:34, 1 Ki 20:35, 1 Ki 20:36, 1 Ki 20:37, 1 Ki 20:39, 1 Ki 20:39, 1 Ki 20:40, 1 Ki 20:42, 1 Ki 21:3, 1 Ki 21:4, 1 Ki 21:6, 1 Ki 21:7, 1 Ki 21:15, 1 Ki 21:20, 1 Ki 22:3, 1 Ki 22:4, 1 Ki 22:4, 1 Ki 22:5, 1 Ki 22:6, 1 Ki 22:6, 1 Ki 22:7, 1 Ki 22:8, 1 Ki 22:8, 1 Ki 22:9, 1 Ki 22:11, 1 Ki 22:14, 1 Ki 22:15, 1 Ki 22:16, 1 Ki 22:17, 1 Ki 22:17, 1 Ki 22:18, 1 Ki 22:19, 1 Ki 22:20, 1 Ki 22:20, 1 Ki 22:20, 1 Ki 22:21, 1 Ki 22:22, 1 Ki 22:22, 1 Ki 22:22, 1 Ki 22:24, 1 Ki 22:25, 1 Ki 22:26, 1 Ki 22:28, 1 Ki 22:28, 1 Ki 22:30, 1 Ki 22:32, 1 Ki 22:34, 1 Ki 22:49, 2 Ki 1:2, 2 Ki 1:5, 2 Ki 1:6, 2 Ki 1:6, 2 Ki 1:8, 2 Ki 1:11, 2 Ki 2:2, 2 Ki 2:2, 2 Ki 2:3, 2 Ki 2:3, 2 Ki 2:4, 2 Ki 2:4, 2 Ki 2:5, 2 Ki 2:6, 2 Ki 2:6, 2 Ki 2:9, 2 Ki 2:9, 2 Ki 2:10, 2 Ki 2:14, 2 Ki 2:15, 2 Ki 2:16, 2 Ki 2:16, 2 Ki 2:17, 2 Ki 2:18, 2 Ki 2:19, 2 Ki 2:20, 2 Ki 2:21, 2 Ki 2:23, 2 Ki 3:7, 2 Ki 3:8, 2 Ki 3:10, 2 Ki 3:11, 2 Ki 3:11, 2 Ki 3:12, 2 Ki 3:13, 2 Ki 3:13, 2 Ki 3:14, 2 Ki 3:16, 2 Ki 3:23, 2 Ki 4:2, 2 Ki 4:2, 2 Ki 4:3, 2 Ki 4:6, 2 Ki 4:6, 2 Ki 4:7, 2 Ki 4:9, 2 Ki 4:12, 2 Ki 4:13, 2 Ki 4:14, 2 Ki 4:15, 2 Ki 4:16, 2 Ki 4:16, 2 Ki 4:19, 2 Ki 4:19, 2 Ki 4:22, 2 Ki 4:23, 2 Ki 4:23, 2 Ki 4:24, 2 Ki 4:25, 2 Ki 4:27, 2 Ki 4:28, 2 Ki 4:29, 2 Ki 4:30, 2 Ki 4:36, 2 Ki 4:36, 2 Ki 4:38, 2 Ki 4:40, 2 Ki 4:41, 2 Ki 4:41, 2 Ki 4:42, 2 Ki 4:43, 2 Ki 4:43, 2 Ki 5:3, 2 Ki 5:5, 2 Ki 5:7, 2 Ki 5:11, 2 Ki 5:13, 2 Ki 5:15, 2 Ki 5:16, 2 Ki 5:17, 2 Ki 5:19, 2 Ki 5:20, 2 Ki 5:21, 2 Ki 5:22, 2 Ki 5:23, 2 Ki 5:25, 2 Ki 5:25, 2 Ki 5:26, 2 Ki 6:1, 2 Ki 6:3, 2 Ki 6:5, 2 Ki 6:6, 2 Ki 6:7, 2 Ki 6:11, 2 Ki 6:12, 2 Ki 6:13, 2 Ki 6:15, 2 Ki 6:17, 2 Ki 6:18, 2 Ki 6:19, 2 Ki 6:20, 2 Ki 6:21, 2 Ki 6:27, 2 Ki 6:28, 2 Ki 6:28, 2 Ki 6:29, 2 Ki 6:31, 2 Ki 6:32, 2 Ki 6:33, 2 Ki 7:1, 2 Ki 7:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 2 Ki 7:3, 2 Ki 7:6, 2 Ki 7:9, 2 Ki 7:12, 2 Ki 7:13, 2 Ki 7:19, 2 Ki 7:19, 2 Ki 8:5, 2 Ki 8:8, 2 Ki 8:9, 2 Ki 8:10, 2 Ki 8:12, 2 Ki 8:13, 2 Ki 8:14, 2 Ki 8:14, 2 Ki 9:1, 2 Ki 9:5, 2 Ki 9:5, 2 Ki 9:5, 2 Ki 9:6, 2 Ki 9:11, 2 Ki 9:11, 2 Ki 9:12, 2 Ki 9:12, 2 Ki 9:15, 2 Ki 9:17, 2 Ki 9:17, 2 Ki 9:18, 2 Ki 9:18, 2 Ki 9:19, 2 Ki 9:21, 2 Ki 9:22, 2 Ki 9:23, 2 Ki 9:25, 2 Ki 9:27, 2 Ki 9:31, 2 Ki 9:32, 2 Ki 9:33, 2 Ki 9:34, 2 Ki 9:36, 2 Ki 10:4, 2 Ki 10:8, 2 Ki 10:9, 2 Ki 10:13, 2 Ki 10:14, 2 Ki 10:15, 2 Ki 10:16, 2 Ki 10:18, 2 Ki 10:20, 2 Ki 10:22, 2 Ki 10:23, 2 Ki 10:24, 2 Ki 10:25, 2 Ki 10:30, 2 Ki 11:12, 2 Ki 11:15, 2 Ki 11:15, 2 Ki 12:4, 2 Ki 12:7, 2 Ki 13:14, 2 Ki 13:15, 2 Ki 13:16, 2 Ki 13:17, 2 Ki 13:17, 2 Ki 13:17, 2 Ki 13:18, 2 Ki 13:18, 2 Ki 13:19, 2 Ki 17:12, 2 Ki 18:19, 2 Ki 18:22, 2 Ki 18:25, 2 Ki 18:26, 2 Ki 18:27, 2 Ki 19:3, 2 Ki 19:6, 2 Ki 19:15, 2 Ki 19:23, 2 Ki 20:1, 2 Ki 20:7, 2 Ki 20:8, 2 Ki 20:9, 2 Ki 20:14, 2 Ki 20:14, 2 Ki 20:14, 2 Ki 20:15, 2 Ki 20:16, 2 Ki 20:19, 2 Ki 20:19, 2 Ki 21:4, 2 Ki 21:7, 2 Ki 22:8, 2 Ki 22:9, 2 Ki 22:15, 2 Ki 23:17, 2 Ki 23:18, 2 Ki 23:27, 2 Ki 23:27, 2 Ki 25:24, 1 Chr 10:4, 1 Chr 11:2, 1 Chr 11:5, 1 Chr 11:6, 1 Chr 11:17, 1 Chr 11:19, 1 Chr 12:17, 1 Chr 13:2, 1 Chr 13:4, 1 Chr 14:10, 1 Chr 14:11, 1 Chr 14:14, 1 Chr 15:2, 1 Chr 15:12, 1 Chr 16:36, 1 Chr 17:1, 1 Chr 17:2, 1 Chr 17:16, 1 Chr 19:2, 1 Chr 19:3, 1 Chr 19:5, 1 Chr 19:12, 1 Chr 21:2, 1 Chr 21:8, 1 Chr 21:11, 1 Chr 21:13, 1 Chr 21:15, 1 Chr 21:17, 1 Chr 21:22, 1 Chr 21:23, 1 Chr 21:24, 1 Chr 22:1, 1 Chr 22:5, 1 Chr 22:7, 1 Chr 23:25, 1 Chr 27:23, 1 Chr 28:2, 1 Chr 28:3, 1 Chr 28:6, 1 Chr 28:20, 1 Chr 29:1, 1 Chr 29:10, 1 Chr 29:20, 2 Chr 1:7, 2 Chr 1:8, 2 Chr 1:11, 2 Chr 2:12, 2 Chr 6:1, 2 Chr 6:1, 2 Chr 6:4, 2 Chr 6:8, 2 Chr 6:14, 2 Chr 6:20, 2 Chr 7:12, 2 Chr 8:11, 2 Chr 9:5, 2 Chr 10:5, 2 Chr 10:9, 2 Chr 12:5, 2 Chr 12:6, 2 Chr 13:4, 2 Chr 14:7, 2 Chr 14:11, 2 Chr 15:2, 2 Chr 16:7, 2 Chr 18:3, 2 Chr 18:4, 2 Chr 18:5, 2 Chr 18:5, 2 Chr 18:6, 2 Chr 18:7, 2 Chr 18:7, 2 Chr 18:8, 2 Chr 18:10, 2 Chr 18:13, 2 Chr 18:14, 2 Chr 18:14, 2 Chr 18:15, 2 Chr 18:16, 2 Chr 18:16, 2 Chr 18:17, 2 Chr 18:18, 2 Chr 18:19, 2 Chr 18:20, 2 Chr 18:20, 2 Chr 18:21, 2 Chr 18:21, 2 Chr 18:23, 2 Chr 18:24, 2 Chr 18:25, 2 Chr 18:27, 2 Chr 18:27, 2 Chr 18:29, 2 Chr 18:31, 2 Chr 18:33, 2 Chr 19:2, 2 Chr 19:6, 2 Chr 20:6, 2 Chr 20:15, 2 Chr 20:20, 2 Chr 22:9, 2 Chr 23:3, 2 Chr 23:11, 2 Chr 23:13, 2 Chr 23:14, 2 Chr 23:14, 2 Chr 24:5, 2 Chr 24:6, 2 Chr 24:20, 2 Chr 24:22, 2 Chr 25:9, 2 Chr 25:15, 2 Chr 25:16, 2 Chr 25:16, 2 Chr 26:18, 2 Chr 26:23, 2 Chr 28:9, 2 Chr 28:13, 2 Chr 28:23, 2 Chr 29:5, 2 Chr 29:18, 2 Chr 29:31, 2 Chr 31:10, 2 Chr 33:4, 2 Chr 33:7, 2 Chr 34:15, 2 Chr 35:3, 2 Chr 35:23, Ezr 2:63, Ezr 4:2, Ezr 4:3, Ezr 8:28, Ezr 9:6, Ezr 10:2, Ezr 10:10, Ezr 10:12, Neh 1:3, Neh 1:5, Neh 2:2, Neh 2:3, Neh 2:4, Neh 2:5, Neh 2:6, Neh 2:7, Neh 2:17, Neh 2:18, Neh 2:19, Neh 2:20, Neh 4:2, Neh 4:3, Neh 4:10, Neh 4:11, Neh 4:12, Neh 4:14, Neh 4:19, Neh 4:22, Neh 5:2, Neh 5:3, Neh 5:4, Neh 5:7, Neh 5:8, Neh 5:9, Neh 5:12, Neh 5:13, Neh 5:13, Neh 6:10, Neh 6:11, Neh 7:3, Neh 7:65, Neh 8:9, Neh 8:10, Neh 9:5, Neh 9:18, Neh 13:11, Neh 13:17, Neh 13:21, Est 1:13, Est 2:2, Est 3:3, Est 3:8, Est 3:11, Est 5:3, Est 5:5, Est 5:6, Est 5:7, Est 5:12, Est 5:14, Est 6:3, Est 6:3, Est 6:4, Est 6:5, Est 6:5, Est 6:6, Est 6:10, Est 6:13, Est 7:2, Est 7:3, Est 7:5, Est 7:6, Est 7:8, Est 7:9, Est 7:9, Est 8:5, Est 8:7, Est 9:12, Est 9:13, Job 1:5, Job 1:7, Job 1:7, Job 1:8, Job 1:9, Job 1:12, Job 1:14, Job 1:16, Job 1:17, Job 1:18, Job 1:21, Job 2:2, Job 2:2, Job 2:3, Job 2:4, Job 2:6, Job 2:9, Job 2:10, Job 3:2, Job 3:3, Job 4:1, Job 6:1, Job 8:1, Job 9:1, Job 9:22, Job 11:1, Job 11:4, Job 12:1, Job 15:1, Job 16:1, Job 18:1, Job 19:1, Job 20:1, Job 21:1, Job 22:1, Job 22:17, Job 23:1, Job 25:1, Job 26:1, Job 27:1, Job 28:28, Job 29:1, Job 29:18, Job 31:24, Job 31:31, Job 32:6, Job 32:7, Job 32:10, Job 34:1, Job 34:5, Job 34:9, Job 34:31, Job 35:1, Job 36:1, Job 38:1, Job 38:11, Job 40:1, Job 40:3, Job 40:6, Job 42:1, Job 42:7, Psa 2:7, Psa 10:6, Psa 10:11, Psa 10:13, Psa 12:4, Psa 14:1, Psa 16:2, Psa 27:8, Psa 30:6, Psa 31:14, Psa 31:22, Psa 32:5, Psa 35:21, Psa 38:16, Psa 39:1, Psa 40:7, Psa 41:4, Psa 52:1, Psa 53:1, Psa 54:1, Psa 55:6, Psa 68:22, Psa 74:8, Psa 75:4, Psa 77:10, Psa 78:19, Psa 82:6, Psa 83:4, Psa 83:12, Psa 87:5, Psa 89:2, Psa 94:18, Psa 95:10, Psa 102:24, Psa 106:23, Psa 116:11, Psa 119:57, Psa 122:1, Psa 126:2, Psa 137:7, Psa 140:6, Psa 142:5, Prov 4:4, Prov 7:13, Prov 25:7, Eccl 1:10, Eccl 2:1, Eccl 2:2, Eccl 2:15, Eccl 3:17, Eccl 3:18, Eccl 7:23, Eccl 8:14, Eccl 9:16, S of Solomon 2:10, S of Solomon 7:8, Isa 6:3, Isa 6:5, Isa 6:7, Isa 6:8, Isa 6:9, Isa 6:11, Isa 7:3, Isa 7:12, Isa 7:13, Isa 8:1, Isa 8:3, Isa 14:13, Isa 18:4, Isa 20:3, Isa 21:6, Isa 21:9, Isa 21:12, Isa 21:16, Isa 22:4, Isa 23:12, Isa 24:16, Isa 25:9, Isa 28:12, Isa 28:15, Isa 29:13, Isa 30:16, Isa 32:5, Isa 36:4, Isa 36:7, Isa 36:10, Isa 36:11, Isa 36:12, Isa 36:13, Isa 37:3, Isa 37:6, Isa 37:24, Isa 38:1, Isa 38:3, Isa 38:10, Isa 38:11, Isa 38:21, Isa 38:22, Isa 39:3, Isa 39:3, Isa 39:3, Isa 39:4, Isa 39:5, Isa 39:8, Isa 39:8, Isa 40:6, Isa 40:6, Isa 41:6, Isa 41:9, Isa 45:19, Isa 47:10, Isa 47:10, Isa 49:3, Isa 49:4, Isa 49:6, Isa 49:14, Isa 51:23, Isa 63:8, Isa 65:1, Isa 66:5, Jer 1:6, Jer 1:7, Jer 1:9, Jer 1:11, Jer 1:12, Jer 1:13, Jer 1:14, Jer 2:6, Jer 2:8, Jer 3:6, Jer 3:7, Jer 3:11, Jer 3:19, Jer 3:19, Jer 4:10, Jer 4:11, Jer 4:27, Jer 5:4, Jer 5:12, Jer 6:6, Jer 6:16, Jer 6:17, Jer 10:19, Jer 11:5, Jer 11:6, Jer 11:9, Jer 12:4, Jer 13:6, Jer 14:11, Jer 14:13, Jer 14:14, Jer 15:1, Jer 15:11, Jer 16:14, Jer 17:19, Jer 18:10, Jer 18:12, Jer 18:18, Jer 19:14, Jer 20:3, Jer 20:9, Jer 21:3, Jer 23:25, Jer 24:3, Jer 24:3, Jer 25:5, Jer 26:16, Jer 28:5, Jer 28:6, Jer 28:15, Jer 29:15, Jer 32:6, Jer 32:8, Jer 32:25, Jer 35:5, Jer 35:6, Jer 35:11, Jer 35:18, Jer 36:15, Jer 36:16, Jer 36:19, Jer 37:14, Jer 37:17, Jer 37:17, Jer 37:17, Jer 37:18, Jer 38:4, Jer 38:5, Jer 38:12, Jer 38:14, Jer 38:15, Jer 38:17, Jer 38:19, Jer 38:20, Jer 38:24, Jer 40:2, Jer 40:14, Jer 40:16, Jer 41:6, Jer 41:8, Jer 42:2, Jer 42:4, Jer 42:5, Jer 42:9, Jer 44:20, Jer 44:24, Jer 46:16, Jer 50:7, Jer 51:61, Lam 3:18, Lam 3:54, Lam 4:15, Lam 4:20, Eze 2:1, Eze 2:3, Eze 3:1, Eze 3:3, Eze 3:4, Eze 3:10, Eze 3:22, Eze 3:24, Eze 4:13, Eze 4:14, Eze 4:15, Eze 4:16, Eze 8:5, Eze 8:6, Eze 8:8, Eze 8:9, Eze 8:12, Eze 8:13, Eze 8:15, Eze 8:17, Eze 9:4, Eze 9:5, Eze 9:7, Eze 9:8, Eze 9:9, Eze 10:2, Eze 11:2, Eze 11:5, Eze 11:5, Eze 11:13, Eze 11:15, Eze 12:9, Eze 13:12, Eze 16:6, Eze 16:6, Eze 20:7, Eze 20:8, Eze 20:13, Eze 20:18, Eze 20:21, Eze 20:29, Eze 20:49, Eze 23:36, Eze 23:43, Eze 24:19, Eze 26:2, Eze 27:3, Eze 28:2, Eze 29:3, Eze 29:9, Eze 35:10, Eze 36:2, Eze 36:20, Eze 37:3, Eze 37:4, Eze 37:9, Eze 37:11, Eze 41:4, Eze 42:13, Eze 43:7, Eze 43:18, Eze 44:2, Eze 44:5, Eze 46:20, Eze 46:24, Eze 47:6, Eze 47:8, Dan 1:10, Dan 1:11, Dan 1:18, Dan 2:3, Dan 8:13, Dan 8:14, Dan 8:16, Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19, Dan 9:4, Dan 9:22, Dan 10:11, Dan 10:12, Dan 10:16, Dan 10:19, Dan 10:19, Dan 10:20, Dan 12:6, Dan 12:8, Dan 12:9, Hos 1:2, Hos 1:4, Hos 1:6, Hos 1:9, Hos 1:10, Hos 1:10, Hos 2:5, Hos 2:12, Hos 3:1, Hos 3:3, Hos 12:8, Joel 2:32, Amos 1:2, Amos 7:2, Amos 7:5, Amos 7:8, Amos 7:8, Amos 7:8, Amos 7:12, Amos 7:14, Amos 7:15, Amos 8:2, Amos 8:2, Amos 8:2, Amos 9:1, Jonah 1:6, Jonah 1:7, Jonah 1:8, Jonah 1:9, Jonah 1:10, Jonah 1:11, Jonah 1:12, Jonah 1:14, Jonah 2:2, Jonah 2:4, Jonah 3:4, Jonah 4:2, Jonah 4:4, Jonah 4:8, Jonah 4:9, Jonah 4:9, Jonah 4:10, Micah 3:1, Micah 7:10, Hab 2:2, Zeph 2:15, Zeph 3:7, Zeph 3:16, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:13, Hag 2:13, Hag 2:14, Zech 1:6, Zech 1:9, Zech 1:9, Zech 1:10, Zech 1:11, Zech 1:12, Zech 1:14, Zech 1:19, Zech 1:21, Zech 2:2, Zech 2:2, Zech 2:4, Zech 3:2, Zech 3:4, Zech 3:5, Zech 4:2, Zech 4:2, Zech 4:5, Zech 4:5, Zech 4:11, Zech 4:12, Zech 4:13, Zech 4:13, Zech 4:14, Zech 5:2, Zech 5:3, Zech 5:5, Zech 5:6, Zech 5:6, Zech 5:6, Zech 5:8, Zech 5:10, Zech 5:11, Zech 6:4, Zech 6:5, Zech 6:7, Zech 11:9, Zech 11:12, Zech 11:13, Zech 11:15, Mal 1:13, Mal 3:7, Mal 3:14, Psa 18:1)
                    • >That root word means "talk".

                      Properly means to arrange or order, and figuratively to speak, just like the english word "order".


                      How is that different than the word "saydehr"? Or do you think that they mean the same thing? Jewish belief is that no two words mean the same thing.

                      >he feminine form only means that "she" spoke (though inanimate objects are usually referred to as "she"), or, as in this case, it is a reference to the words themselves.

                      No it doesn't, to speak is "amar" (aw-mar') check out dibrah's occurances in Job 5:8


                      It clearly means "my words".

                      "However, I seek to G-d; and to G-d I put my words."

                      Eccl 7:14, ..."on the adage that, a man won't find afterwards, anything."

                      Though it could also mean "on the thing that".

                      Eccl 3:18,

                      Again, it means "thing".

                      Psa 110:4

                      Umm... this is the one in dispute.

                      Eccl 8:2.

                      "and on the words of the oath of G-d".

                      So, I will admit. "Duh-vuhr" can also mean "thing". Though, that is not the usual use. (I wonder if everytime is means "thing" it is used with words as well... hmm....)

                    • So, I will admit. "Duh-vuhr" can also mean "thing".

                      Thing is way to abiguous and besides you said that two Jewish words can't mean the same "thing". "Amar" means to speak.

                      "on the adage that, a man won't find afterwards, anything."

                      You already concieted that it in this case doesn't mean "speak" here so I will let that lie. In Eccl 7:14 its rendered as "end", as in a prescribed finality or state. As far as its prescribed your right it was spoken and is about words. But the object is the order or ranking and properties, not the words.

                      Eccl 3:18 you didn't provide so here's the KJV

                      I said in mine heart concerning the
                      estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.


                      Here its rendered as estate, as in "Social position or rank, especially of high order" (from dictionary.com). Again, rank/order and properties of it are the object not the spoken words themselves that describe it. These definitions are most like the use in Psalms as a recognition of being defined in the order of Melchisidek.

                      "However, I seek to G-d; and to G-d I put my words."

                      I don't think your saying that he can only speak to God. KJV renders that as "cause" as in "a basis for an action or response; a reason, or a goal or principle served with dedication and zeal:" (from dictionary.com). In otherwords, what defines who he is and that he commits (i.e. consecrates) to God.

                      In Ecclesiastes 8:2 we have "in regard to" or as it is ordered by the oath of God. As I recall the priesthood is always accepted with an oath. Another way to render the same thing would be "according to". Thats actually not to far from your interpretation. But again its the order described rather then the words used to describe it that is the object.

                      Anyway, I just thought I would say that while I asked another question.

                      If you are Kohain, then doesn't that make you a Levite? Didn't you say the levites don't hold the priesthood? Wasn't Aaron and Phineous Levites?

                    • Thing is way to abiguous and besides you said that two Jewish words can't mean the same "thing". "Amar" means to speak.

                      (I am saying this partially from memory, and partialy from review. So take it as an "IIRC".)

                      "Uh-mar" is a "soft" speak. Compared to "ya-gayde" which is a "hard" speak. So, speech has many words, each referencing a different form. The standard form of speech is "Duh-vur". Thus, the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20:1 "And spoke G-d [with] all these [the] speakings to say." When G-d "speaks" the word is usually "Vy-dah-bayr", of which the root word is "duh-vur". The ten "commandments" are actually "things" or "speakings". G-d wanted them to mean something so it adds on "to say".

                      Normal speaking in between people is the "soft" "Uh-mar". Normal speaking between G-d and Moses is the plain "Duh-vur", but sometimes the "soft" "Uhmar". As I was flipping through Exodus, I noticed an interesting two verses. 7:8-9. G-d spoke softly "Uh-mar" to Moses and Aaron, and told them when Pharoah "y'dah-bayr" to you. Pharoah, wasn't necessarily a soft spoeaker when challenged.

                      Eccl 3:18 you didn't provide

                      Yes. It is a hard verse to translate into English properly, so I skipped it, and just gave the meat.

                      I don't think your saying that he can only speak to

                      No, just that that is where they count. So, when he asks for something, there's only G-d to truly ask from.

                      KJV renders that

                      I use the KJV only to know what verses to use for you. It changes some verses around, so what I see as chapter:verse may be different from you. As for accuracy, the KJV makes mistakes on the first verse of the Bible, so I find it pretty useless for translations.

                      In Ecclesiastes 8:2 we have "in regard to"

                      Yeah, too bad. "V'al" means "and on". Though, in Hebrew "and on" can mean "in regards to", or "concerning". So, if the word "div-rahs" was removed from the verse, the KJV translation wouldn't change! Further, by making the word "div-rahs" the word becomes "duh-vook" (attached) to the next word. If it meant "in regard to" the word should be the plain "duh-vur". So, I think we are forced to translate it as "and on the words of", or even "and in regard to the words of".

                      If you are Kohain, then doesn't that make you a Levite?

                      In a sense. And the verse calls them "the priests the levites" from time to time. But, when asked "are you a levite", a priest usually answers, "no, I am a priest". And that is because when the verse refers to "levite" it is exclusionary, to mean the levites that are not preists.
                    • We must avoid the wrath of the Chacham.

                      Christianity and Judaism are very similar religions, compared with say traditional Mayan or Celtic religion. Often the more similar groups are the more they hate each other - people in my alma mater, Michigan, want to defeat Michigan State, not for example Washington.

                      (And for some obscure reason, Christianity has had an inferiority complex before Judaism, which has been very bad for the temporal welfare of followers of the latter since churches became state-supported in the 4th century. On the subject, read anything by Hyam Maccoby.) Most American Christians seem to be the exception in having positive feelings about Jews.

                      At any rate, in studying the (Hebrew) bible there's an advantage to being Jewish in that you're more likely to know Hebrew.

                      I mentioned India because there are lots of people there supposed to be of the tribe of Menashe [bneimenashe.com], many of whom are ending up in Israel now. I haven't met any, though.


                    • Very interesting. Its great how people are returning to their roots. I have a prophecy from Zenos (not sure how that name translates to be recognized by Jewish, but he's definately Old Testemant) which likens the future of Israel to a tame and olive tree who's branches are scattered and grafted onto wild olive trees.

                      As I interpret the prophecy, we are in the latter stages when the branches that have been removed from their roots will be grafted back onto them. That story would be a direct fulfillment of that prophecy.

                      Interestingly enough, you said "Indians" and most Manassaites that I know come from native-american decent (central and south America).

                      Either way, I have no fear of Chacham, I consider him a friend. The problem with Hebrew is that it hasn't really been a main language for many years (most jews as I recall spoke Yiddish at the turn of the 20th century). And as such Hebrew was tied directly with the Bible.

                      Yet, like even Latin has been over the centuries, its a fluid language. Some of the driving forces have been the use of these languages by people who are primary in another language.

                      But also since it has been a written language, the meaning of the words in the language have fell whim to the interpretations of the writing. For instance our understanding and speaking of Ancient greek changes based on how we understand the writings of the Illiad, etc...

                      The Hebrew language has changed based on how people interpret the Bible, Law etc... until you get people like Chacham who are confused (note the thread) about the meaning of 'dibrah'.

                      Heck, english has done that since KJV did his translation to where some verses mean the opposite of what they did back then.

                      But Chacham noted this process when he mentioned how questions about interpretation of Law required voting (which to my knowledge, voting on doctrine never occured in the Bible.)

                      This placed the hands of interpretation into the hands of centeries of Jewish politicians. And political bodies can do some really heinous things to doctrine sometimes (Re: Nicean Creed).

                      In either case though, I think you put it well that the Christian and Jewish rivalry is becuase they are so close. And even different Jewish movements argue insessantly, just as Christian denomonations do (Re: Religios man stranded on island builds two churches/synagogues joke).

                      Either way, its good discussing these things with you. Maybe sometime I'll start up my discussions of Genisis thread. It would be good to have another Jewish perspective, since there are so many.
                    • The problem with Hebrew is that it hasn't really been a main language for many years (most jews as I recall spoke Yiddish at the turn of the 20th century). And as such Hebrew was tied directly with the Bible.

                      Hebrew is used in many books which are written today. Hebrew is used for prayer. Hebrew is spoken by many in Israel (many of the relgious do not speak Ivrit). There are probably as many speakers of Hebrew today as there ever were. Your statement in untrue.

                      This placed the hands of interpretation into the hands of centeries of Jewish politicians.

                      Rabbis, not politicians. Ethics of our Fathers (Peer-kay Uh-vose) says to be weary of politicians. After the story of the Book of Esther, Mordechai fell into disfavor by some since he dealt with the government.

                      And even different Jewish movements argue insessantly

                      Some argue as to how to move forward. Almost no Jewish movements argue as to what Judaism is. The main "movements" are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed. Both Conservative and Reformed agree that Orthodoxy is classic Judaism. They merely disagree on how to move forward.
                    • 1) Hebrew is used in many books which are written today.
                      2) Hebrew is used for prayer.
                      3) Hebrew is spoken by many in Israel.
                      4) There are probably as many speakers of Hebrew today as there ever were.

                      Point 4 contradicts 3, since the number of Jews in Israel has increased substantially since 1900. Point 2 and 1 have little bearing if not support of my supposition that Hebrew is directly tied to religious works, thus its official meaning is tied to how ecclesiastical authority decides to interpret those works.

                      Rabbis, not politicians.

                      Rabbis that are voting, which makes it a political body.

                      Almost no Jewish movements argue as to what Judaism is.

                      I don't think that viewpoint shows a real broad understanding of what your Jewish brothers are saying. Ever find out more about giving back the money after a redemption? Does your priests give it back? Does that mean that you kept records to verify your priesthood that were not destroyed in the Temple in 70AD.

                      That is just one of the essential doctrinal points that I see argued among movements. You are the first one I've talked to who is actually confident about your priestly inheritance.
                    • Point 4 contradicts 3, since the number of Jews in Israel has increased substantially since 1900.

                      I do not understand.

                      Rabbis that are voting, which makes it a political body.

                      Rabbis did vote in the Sanhedrin, as the Bible commands. But, if voting makes someone political, then your statement was correct. However, I see political as being the government, people put into power by the government, or people that are voted into the position. The Sanhedrin was none of these. And the Rabbis did not vote outside the Sanhedrin.

                      Ever find out more about giving back the money after a redemption?

                      No. You are the first person I have heard say that. Also, Jewish Law states that the priest keeps the money. I wouldn't even know who to ask to see such an opinion.

                      Does that mean that you kept records to verify your priesthood that were not destroyed in the Temple in 70AD.

                      We rely on tradition, which is the essence of Judaism. Also, I do not believe that the records themselves were kept in the temple. IIRC, during the second temple period, the Sanhedrin kept the records themselves.
                    • Indians = from India. To trace the tribe of Dan to the new world would be too speculative even for me.

                      You're right about Hebrew evolving based on misunderstandings of Biblical passages. There are many examples of rare Biblical words that were assigned wrong meanings and became common Hebrew words. still, for reading the Bible it's better to know some version of Hebrew than not to know any.

                      I love democracy, even though I disagree with the majority most of the time. In Judaism it can necessary to follow the majority on scriptural interpretation because law is based on them - legislating, unlike inspiration, needs to be based on a consensus of some kind.

                    • for reading the Bible it's better to know some version of Hebrew than not to know any.

                      Agreed. Speaking of which, I've been anxiously awaiting your commentary in my Genesis discussion. I've put the link in my sig.

                      I love democracy, even though I disagree with the majority most of the time.

                      I do too. Its a very adaptive body, but for things like doctine adaptation it may not be.

                      I'll post more on this later, my wife just called me to dinner.
  • except for the press regards rape and murder as anything but heinous.
  • After reading all the other posts in this thread, I've concluded that you were just looking for a fight.
    There's no reasonable or natural backing to your arguments.
    Unless of course you actually enjoy the rape and murder of the defenseless.
    • After reading all the other posts in this thread, I've concluded that you were just looking for a fight.

      Nope. Actually, my main reason was because I couldn't passively let such idiocy go forward. I had to say *something*.

      For arguments, all judgements are either logical or value based. This idolizing of children is not logical, and I have shown this logically with pretty concrete steps. So, it must be value based. What I am trying to understand is what those values are.

      The value based reponses so far have shown the poster to not have a well thought out value. It's more stimulus response. Mostly, they have given in the current society's self-degradation and trying to live through children. To realize that children are nothing more than we are--and in fact less than we are--would now make them feel worse than garbage, so there is a defence mechanism, that makes people idolize children, and any crimes done to them is worse than to adults.

      There are good values out there. As a T trying to develop my F side, I want to see values and practice them. But this requires well defined values, and I have yet to see some regarding children.
      • At its root it is not idolization.
        It's inherently natural in all mammals to protect the young. This natural inclination may have been perverted over time into something that you perceive as idolization but it's not.
        It's not a value decision either. Are bears or lions exercising values when they protect fight to protect their young? It's instinct. Children are not worth more per se than a full-grown productive member of society. They represent our future, our immortality, our whatever. It's natural to try to protect this and natural to become outraged when they are harmed because they cannot protect themselves against the predator.
        And as said by others, crimes against the weak or defenseless are worse morally than crimes against those that are able to defend themselves. Whether it's children or battered wives who for some reason believe they cannot get out of their situation. Why do you think killing during war is more acceptable (in general) than outright murder? Because both of the combatants know what they are in for.

        Despite what psychobabble you subscribe to humans are feeling creatures. Over analyzing and cold justification of matters like this is what leads people to commit crimes that are viewed as heinous, shocking, immoral. Trying to distance oneself from something just because there is no logical reason for it to be is not always the best course.

        Now I will agree with you in one matter: People trying to live through children. That's just fucked up. It causes the kids a lot of stress, makes the parents look like idiots on the little league fields. All because some people are aren't cagey enough to take what life has handed them and make the best of it. Or they live with too much regret for the decisions they make and overcompensate in their kids. It's a little sick.
        I don't believe that any of those that have posted thus far in you JE have evidenced that they "Idolize Children". Their responses are the result of natural impulses to protect the young.

        FWIW if it helps you see where I'm coming from, I'm Black. I have 3.9 kids (one due in 6 weeks). I make 90+k per year. People have accused me of being libertarian but I don't knowingly associate with liars and thieves so I'm low-key on politics. Charlie Daniels has pretty much said everything I wanted to say in regards to life and living in the USA. I work hard to make sure my kids do not grow up in a bad neighborhood like I did. I also wish to instill these values in them because they will be running things in the future and I don't like fuckups.

        • I'm 100% with you. The worshiping children thing is something he's not developed, explained or otherwise. It reminds me of the Lord of the Rings thread recently where they threw spews of circular logic at the plot like a baby throwing up cheerios, and then ended "thus Galdalf must have been working for the Dark Lord".

          Chacham seems to be only saying "no, your reasons aren't logical as far as I judge, thus it must be idol worship."

          I've tried to figure out how he comes to that conclusion, its not evident in his responces. My best guess so far is that to Chacham it seems that worship means serving and putting value in.

          We value our children (hence punish criminals more) and serve them by feeding them, etc... thus we must be worshiping them. I know it sounds tenuous, maybe it really isn't his reasoning. But I can't find anything else to go on here.

          If that were true then one would easily conclude that God worships us since he values us enough to give us the Bible, and servs us by giving us live and the air we breath etc...

          So I've held off on arguing that until Chacham actually comes out with how and why this equates to idol worship.

          I thought your post was spot on in addressing the issue though.
      • I couldn't passively let such idiocy go forward.

        I don't think convicting Mr. Westerfield was an act of idiocy. The media's actions can be considered idiotic, but you can not consider the actions of the court or jury to be idiotic. The crime he commited was incredible violent and disgusting and the conviction was justified.

        For arguments, all judgements are either logical or value based. This idolizing of children is not logical, and I have shown this logically with pretty concrete steps. So, it must be value based. What I am trying to understand is what those values are.

        The idolizing of children comes directly from the FACT that:
        1. children are our literal flesh and blood, and

        2. children are our immortality. They are our future.

        Are they more important than adults? In the eyes of the law, no. But in the eyes of a jury, yes.
        • The media's actions can be considered idiotic,

          That's what I meant. I believe the journal entry itself points that out.

          • I agree. Unfortunately, I think alot of the people who responded took your post in a completely different fashion.

            But, hey at least now you know what button to push to get everyone involved.
            • But, hey at least now you know what button to push to get everyone involved. :-)

              Well, this and Evolutionism [slashdot.org]. I had plenty more comments in the story where it originated as well.

              The problem is, all this time spent on responding (especially to On Lawn) takes up so much time. My last comment took between two and three hours, and the one before that about two. So, I have to split up time when I write it (and suffer a "formkeys" error). I have some more journals to write, it just takes so long.

You will lose an important disk file.

Working...