Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[RedCelt69]

I reckon they are not so much taboos but fall into line with what you said earlier about settling down in Palestine after the Exodus. And you're right - it is interesting how the part about diet is just plain ignored by "Christians" - the major injunction that I know about is that to follow Jesus, you should be vegetarian, for instance. And that part of the Bible also goes through all the elements of hygiene and food prep as well. In itself quite an amazing collection of survival tactics all laid out for said settling down.

Setting out a political statement about how the people should live in their new homeland I, personally, wouldn't impose the death penalty for such frivolous iniquities. But this is now and that was then. Different rules for different cultures. And it would be a nonsense for people to try to apply those rules in a very different timeframe in a very different land.

For instance, amongst the long list of sexual taboos... not a mention of Paedophelia. Want to have sex with a child? Looks upward and sees a huge Yahweh-shaped thumbs-up amongst the clouds... God says "do it".

[malcolm166]

Setting out a political statement about how the people should live in their new homeland I, personally, wouldn't impose the death penalty for such frivolous iniquities. But this is now and that was then. Different rules for different cultures. And it would be a nonsense for people to try to apply those rules in a very different timeframe in a very different land.

For instance, amongst the long list of sexual taboos... not a mention of Paedophelia. Want to have sex with a child? Looks upward and sees a huge Yahweh-shaped thumbs-up amongst the clouds... God says "do it".

pretty much the same for me...........but the basic message behind that would "this is serious, we ain't messing around....so don't fkn do it!!!!" Usual rule - if you don't want to be punished then don't do it.

And to be honest, the absence of an injunction against paedophilia could just as easily reflect the fact that such an "abomination" - because it is no matter what fancy word we might use for it today - was something that probably had never occurred to them. They covered all the bases for what they regarded as the needs of the tribe but it would possibly/probably have been beyond them to have considered something like that. And also - the issue was of a)fertility and b) of legitimacy (of claim etc) And also, a "child" as such presumably covers all those up to and before the age of being able to reproduce. In their eyes, pretty much the same as "lying with animals" or "lying with a man" as in not a particularly fruitful pursuit as an adult. If it had been, then given the exhaustive nature of the list it probably would have been but I can't think of any example in the OT when it was ever raised as something that had to be discussed or ruled on.

[malcolm166]

What I find most interesting is the clear distinction between Christians and Paulians.......

pretty much right but I've always tended to see it more in an historical and political context. Rather than the spin it's given in the NT.

Saul - AKA Paul - was one of the most feared and enthusiastic persecutors of the Essenes - of which Christ was almost certainly a leading light - He was a Roman citizen, his father was well placed with the Emperor at the time and he had made himself a reputation and good living out of pursuing them and persecuting them. There is good reason to believe that he was present and actually instigated the death of James, Jesus' brother, in the Temple later on.

Interesting factoid is that this "Damascus" that's talked about, probably isn't the one we have been taught it is, but was actually another name for Qumran, just outside Jerusalem, where the Essenes were based and where he was headed, probably not on his own, to persecute them some more. When he basically "saw the light" and realised that persecution probably caused more martyrs and a better way was that "if you can't beat them, join them". Take over the system and then neuter it to the benefit of the Empire.

Which is essentially what he did. With his spin that not knowing Christ wasn't an impediment because God had spoken to him. He caused immense havoc among the Jewish community with his views on circumcision and deferring to authority which was precisely the mission and to his discredit in many eyes actually succeeded. I've always taken it that it was the greatest irony of all, that the Empire that assassinated Christ then took over a reworked distorted version of his teachings and became the HQ for them. I've no idea how Roman Catholics get their justifying heads around that one.

But it wasn't and isn't "Christianity" - which didn't actually exist in any case til the Romans invented it. What Christ and his brothers led was a Jewish sect committed to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth - ie the restoration of a Jewish state with Jesus as its secular head and someone like James as his spiritual counterpart, just as the OT had predicted. What they got was untrammeled unremitting persecution from another sect acting apparently in His name.

[malcolm166]

Setting out a political statement about how the people should live in their new homeland I, personally, wouldn't impose the death penalty for such frivolous iniquities. But this is now and that was then. Different rules for different cultures. And it would be a nonsense for people to try to apply those rules in a very different timeframe in a very different land.

thinking on it, I missed the bit where you talked about "frivolous iniquities". These aren't frivolous.........producing unhealthy children or grandchildren as a result of "breeding" with your sister or aunt would cause huge problems for the welfare and future of a healthy tribe's future. Like I said, for whatever reason, they already knew that and anyone doing so would have been regarded as endangering the future of the tribe.

And also in a different way, the stability of the tribe when it came to producing children with your neighbours wife. Those descendants would have a possible claim to any land or goods left by the husband. Put far enough up the line and if the wife of the leader or King had children by another man, then that child, if a son, would have a claim on the Kingship. Which is precisely what happened when Abraham(?) had Ishmael by one of his servant girls. Out of that came her expulsion which led on to the establishment of the other Semite tribe we know as the Arab nations. That's not frivolous in the slightest and why there would have been capital injunctions made against it.

It's definitely different now - but back then the future and stability of the community would have been under threat by either of those conditions.

[RedCelt69]

thinking on it, I missed the bit where you talked about "frivolous iniquities".

Numbers 15:32-36
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

[jollytiddlywink]

I feel, before launching into this further, worth quoting where we got to with the last debate:

To summarise:

Your case is that the church bases its condemnation of homosexuality on three things:
The bible
church tradition and the teachings of the pope, using the authority of Jesus vested in that office, etc.
natural law

I note that you have not, so far, advocated killing gays and lesbians. Why are you being inconsistent?

The bible is inconsistent that is why we today cannot just pick it off the shelf and understand it from our 21st century outlook. It needs to be interpreted using the knowledge passed down from the Church fathers.

So, you cannot simply say "its in the bible" and base your bigotry on that, because it needs interpretation in light of the teachings of the church, which is infallible on moral and faith matters.
However, the infallible pope Honorius was declared a heretic (guilty of heresy: (n) an opinion or belief contrary to the authorised teaching) by the infallible 6th ecumenical council. Disproving infallibility is like finding the proverbial white crow. One instance and you can stop searching. Here we have two supposed infallibilities in conflict, on a matter of faith. Church tradition is not a safe or reliable guide for interpreting the bible, as you yourself conceded:

Tradition can help to inform the Church today in its mission and ongoing development of doctrine, but some aspects are better off left in the past.

'Natural law' is, according to you, either the arguments of a philosopher seven centuries old based on deeply unstable premises, or analogies that you drew from animal behaviour up to morals, rejecting competing evidence because it was immoral behaviour.
You might as well insist that democracy is immoral because Plato preferred dictators, or that humans should sometimes eat our young, because crocodiles sometimes do that (ignore all the animals that nurture their young; they know not what they do!).

So, in your own words, the bible is inconsistent, and needs the church to interpret it. But, again your own words, some tradition is better off left behind, and the infallibility of the pope and the church is actually fallible. So, recap complete, on we go...

Macgamer seems to spend most of his/her time on the sinner defending the orthodoxy of the catholic church. Especially the indefensible parts.

Slightly contradictory, the mere fact that I am able and willing to defend the Church's position on various matters which you hold an opposing view, means that there are defensible, albeit still rejected by you. Your arguments and those of wider society has neither convinced me or that of the Church. So I'd say we're doing a fairly good job at defending something you consider indefensible.

You are perfectly willing to defend the church position... it is your ability to do so that I doubt. Consider the above summary of our last discussion. Just because you try to defend something does not mean it is defensible. Custer's men at Little Bighorn tried to defend their position, but it was still indefensible.

Here's an example: The chief man in a funny hat of Jerusalem says that the organisers of the march and the government that allowed it to take place "care nothing for families?" Really? Its not as if all those gays sprang fully-formed and leather-clad from the earth (or from Zeus' forehead) one day. They've all got families.

Again I don't see you logic. Naturally homosexuals are the product of a family, which you have just acknowledged and affirmed is composed of a man and woman being father and mother to said individuals. The difference is that these individuals chose a to practice a lifestyle that is an avert rejection of the model of the family which created them. In that sense they 'care nothing for (that model of) families' as the Latin (i.e. in Communion with Rome) Patriarch said.

I'm not surprised that you don't see my logic. You seldom do. I think my parents would be interested to know that I have overtly (not avertly) rejected their model of the family. Never have I gone home and announced, "I reject your model of the family. Oh, and Mum, what's for tea?"
I care for my family a great deal, as they care for me. Is that model of the family one that I will use personally when I find a partner? No. Does that mean that I think any less of that model? No. It simply means that I will use a different model.
Gays/families is a false dichotomy, and a lazy and ignorant false dichotomy at that.


Right, that said, please do take the time to consider the awkward fact: the 6th ecumenical council (an organ deemed infallible) declared Honorius (a pope deemed infallible) to have erred on a matter of faith. One of them is in error. Infallibility falls.
Or do you wish to defend the indefensible a bit more?

[macgamer]

You are perfectly willing to defend the church position... it is your ability to do so that I doubt. Consider the above summary of our last discussion. Just because you try to defend something does not mean it is defensible. Custer's men at Little Bighorn tried to defend their position, but it was still indefensible.

Custer and his men died and failed. I and the Church's position have not been altered by criticism.

I'm not surprised that you don't see my logic. You seldom do. I think my parents would be interested to know that I have overtly (not avertly) rejected their model of the family. Never have I gone home and announced, "I reject your model of the family. Oh, and Mum, what's for tea?"
I care for my family a great deal, as they care for me. Is that model of the family one that I will use personally when I find a partner? No. Does that mean that I think any less of that model? No. It simply means that I will use a different model.
Gays/families is a false dichotomy, and a lazy and ignorant false dichotomy at that.

The fact that children are descended from a mother (female) and a father (male) makes this the fundamental unit of a family. Without one or other parent it will impoverished more than just economically, and children are a necessary component in family. Granted homosexuals are from a family and part of one and may be part of extended family as aunts or uncles. However the infertile and single sex nature of such unions means that no children are produced and any adopted have an impoverished upbringing lacking either male or female nurture. So same-sex or wilful single-parent families are a rejection of the true nature of family.

Right, that said, please do take the time to consider the awkward fact: the 6th ecumenical council (an organ deemed infallible) declared Honorius (a pope deemed infallible) to have erred on a matter of faith. One of them is in error. Infallibility falls.
Or do you wish to defend the indefensible a bit more?

Once again you are misunderstanding the nature of infallibility of the Church and the Pope. An encyclical letter, which Pope Honorius I's letter to a Monothelite could at most be considered an early example of. However encyclical letter despite their being addressed to all the faithful are not intrinsically infallible, because they do not contain an ex cathedral statement. I fail to see any evidence to say that Honorius I made any ex cathedral statements whatsoever during his reign. This being the case he never said anything infallible. So the Council was correct in labelling him a heretic if he actually held those views.

Even if he made an ex cathedral statement, it would only be a problem if that statement was disputed, a Pope can still be a heretic and make infallible statements. There has not been an instance where Papally defined doctrine on faith or morals has been rejected by a subsequent Council of the Church.

[RedCelt69]

Custer and his men died and failed. I and the Church's position have not been altered by criticism.

And that, in a single word, constitutes your biggest failure. You aren't less wrong by insisting that you aren't.

Next time you find yourself in need of medical attention, be sure to tell the doctors that their medication is contrary to Natural Law. And remind yourself of that each time you switch on your computer.

Humans are a part of nature. Ergo, everything humans can do is natural. Unless you find one who can break the laws of physics... although you'd probably catalogue them into the heavenly heirarchy. God and all of his angels, cherubim and other heavenly counterparts all fail to abide by Natural Law. You worship the unnatural, whilst condemning things which you deem to be unnatural (which actually aren't).

Sucks to be you.

[macgamer]

And that, in a single word, constitutes your biggest failure. You aren't less wrong by insisting that you aren't.

We have opposing views. The onus on each other to convince either one. Although by you comment: 'You aren't less wrong by insisting that you aren't.', I am intrigued that you may just believe in an objective truth and perhaps even an objective morality.

Next time you find yourself in need of medical attention, be sure to tell the doctors that their medication is contrary to Natural Law. And remind yourself of that each time you switch on your computer.

Once again you seem to be in a misunderstanding of the idea of natural law. From Aquinas:
'Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.

[...] the natural law is nothing but a participation of the eternal law.

Every act of reason and will in us is based on that which is according to nature, for every act of reasoning is based on principles that are known naturally, and every act of appetite in respect of the means is derived from the natural appetite in respect of the last end. Accordingly the first direction of our acts to their end must needs be in virtue of the natural law.

Consequently we must say that the natural law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the same for all in the majority of cases, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge; and yet in some few cases it may fail, both as to rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to generation and corruption fail in some few cases on account of some obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).


Natural law is a philosophical (rational) approach to ethics and morality. It attempts to demonstrate that one can objectively decided what is moral and immoral. It considers actions and motives. It considers the nature of things, what is their intrinsic purpose, does the use of a particular thing contravene its intrinsic purpose - it that action unnatural?

Ergo, everything humans can do is natural.

Paedophilia perhaps? Is that natural? If not why not?

God and all of his angels, cherubim and other heavenly counterparts all fail to abide by Natural Law. You worship the unnatural, whilst condemning things which you deem to be unnatural (which actually aren't).

God, angels and the heavenly hierarchy are not part of nature as we are, they are part of the supernatural.

[RedCelt69]

We have opposing views. The onus on each other to convince either one.

Pretty much everything that can be done has been done. Your failure to recognise that is an issue for you, not others.

Although by you comment: 'You aren't less wrong by insisting that you aren't.', I am intrigued that you may just believe in an objective truth and perhaps even an objective morality.

I've said elsewhere (recently) what morality is. There is no over-reaching right and wrong. The best we can do is to make sure that our rights don't prevent others from attaining their rights. Because then they become wrong. A man who feels that it is right to put his penis in another man's anus... affects your rights not one iota. You are delusional if you think otherwise - or that you have any grounds whatsoever to prevent them from doing so. Live your life. Let them live theirs. Else they'd be perfectly justified in returning the favour wrt something you consider right. Show some consideration if you expect to receive consideration.

Once again you seem to be in a misunderstanding of the idea of natural law. From Aquinas:

/facepalm
Aquinas? Again?

'Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.

Says who?
Aquinas, naturally, but where did he get a mandate to impose laws? Natural Law or Eternal Law... let's make up any Law we want to make up and try and justify it. Of course, that justification can fail, but so long as we call it a Law we can somehow pretend that it has a universal truth that must be applied.

You, Macgamer, are governed by the Anachronistic Denial Law. According to the ADL, you apply the reasoning of centuries-dead men to somehow justify your denial of simple, graspable truths.

Let's apply the ADL to the humble penis.

1. Penile (and clitoral) stimulation give pleasure.
2. The pleasure is an evolutionary tool ('scuse the pun) which causes men to have sex more often.
2a. Penile pleasure = more sex = more offspring.
2b. Penile pain = less sex = less offspring.
3. Penile stimulation, regardless of the adjunct surface (vaginal wall, mouth, anus or (in your case) hand) is a means to an end.
4. Not all means require that evolutionary end. Pleasure is pleasure.

The ADL would have it that only the evolutionary end justifies those means.

Again, I've raised this point on here with you before. Your state of denial (/wave ADL) refused to accept it as I didn't die centuries ago and have something called the Roman Catholic Church adopt my reasoning... but some prices are too steep to pay.

So let's try again.

1. The stimulation of taste buds give pleasure.
2. The pleasure is an evolutionary tool which causes people to eat a certain set of foods.
2a. Sugar is found in small quantities, naturally, and the brain is triggered to enjoy foods containing it.
2b. The same applies to salt... and every other part of food that our palate desires.
3. The stimulation of taste buds (regardless of the tasty food being eaten) is a means to an end.
4. Not all means require that evolutionary end. Pleasure is pleasure.

If you apply ketchup to your chips, lemon-juice to your oysters or salt in your soup... you are doing so for means other than the intended means for a very different end.

You violate your own Natural Law every time you eat a tasty meal, you ADL fuckwit.

So drop your homophobic, bigoted drivel. Grow a set of balls (fondle them, if you want to) and admit that the tiny closet of denial you call your brain is in desperate need of ventilation in a world which isn't regulated by ridiculous, invented rules which have no relevance to anything or anyone but those who choose to "live" by them. If such can be called "living".

Paedophilia perhaps? Is that natural? If not why not?

Of course it's natural. It happens in nature. Watch a bit of David Attenborough.

By which, I mean, watch a bit of David Attenborough's work. I wasn't suggesting that he's a paedophile. If he was, he wouldn't be doing something unnatural. Harmful and damaging to the child, certainly. But lot's of unpleasant things happen in nature. Red in tooth and claw, etc.

[Haunted]

Thomas Aquinas apparently believed he could fly. No real point to this information but I only learned it recently and it seems worth consideration when discussing the strength of his mental faculties.

[macgamer]

You, Macgamer, are governed by the Anachronistic Denial Law. (I like that) According to the ADL, you apply the reasoning of centuries-dead men to justify [universal] truths .

Let's apply the ADL / Natural Law to the humble penis.

1. Genitalia are parts of the anatomy that have evolved to facilitate the transfer of gametes or the passing of liquid waste. These are their evolved 'natural' functions.
2. The pleasure associated with sex and genital stimulation evolve to promote sex.
2a. Penile pleasure = more sex = more offspring.
2b. Penile pain = less sex = less offspring.
3. Penile stimulation, without regard for the adjunct surface (vaginal wall, mouth, anus or hand), point 1 is violated.
4. Therefore penile stimulation that does not involve the transfer of gametes is a disordered (unnatural) use of the genitalia.

Man has faculties of reason and is not a slave to his desires and pleasure. Man can exercise self-control.

Example 2.

1. The acquisition of resources is necessary for survival.
2. The pleasure associated with eating has evolved to promote people to eat a certain set of foods.
2a. Sugar is rich in calories and normally found in small quantities, naturally, and the brain is triggered to enjoy foods containing it.
2b. The same applies to salt... and every other part of food that our palate desires.
3. The over-consumption of calories and salt is associated with poor health.
4. Eating is necessary and good 'natural', however eating without regard for quantity and requirements ignores the fact of point 3.
5. Eating more than necessary endangers the health and is wrong.

Man has faculties of reason and is not a slave to his desires and pleasure. Man can exercise self-control.

but those who choose to "live" by them. If such can be called "living".

I am quite happy being a living anachronism. Especially because time and passing fashions and customs have nothing to do with determining morality.

Of course it's natural. It happens in nature. Watch a bit of David Attenborough.

By which, I mean, watch a bit of David Attenborough's work. I wasn't suggesting that he's a paedophile. If he was, he wouldn't be doing something unnatural. Harmful and damaging to the child, certainly. But lot's of unpleasant things happen in nature. Red in tooth and claw, etc.

Natural Law and paedophilia

1. For the genes of an individual to be sustained they must be transferred to the next generation.
2. Obligate sexual organisms, such as humans, can only transfer their genes via sexual reproduction.
3. This requires selection of a suitable mate, one of high fitness likely to produce a large number of high quality offspring.
4. Sexual selection has evolved in order that individuals are able to select mates via traits associated with high fitness.
5. A suitable mate must be of reproductive age.
6. Sexual attraction to unsuitable individuals such as those of the same sex, or of non-reproductive age is disordered because any sexual encounter will not result in offspring.

[macgamer]

Thomas Aquinas apparently believed he could fly. No real point to this information but I only learned it recently and it seems worth consideration when discussing the strength of his mental faculties.

He also said of his own writing: 'All that I have written seems like straw to me.'

[RedCelt69]

Macgamer. Edit your post so that my name isn't attributed to the shit you posted.

And enjoy your next meal. Take pleasure where pleasure is an unnecessary by-product, you discreditor of Natural Law, you.

[RedCelt69]

Natural Law and paedophilia

1. For the genes of an individual to be sustained they must be transferred to the next generation.
2. Obligate sexual organisms, such as humans, can only transfer their genes via sexual reproduction.
3. This requires selection of a suitable mate, one of high fitness likely to produce a large number of high quality offspring.
4. Sexual selection has evolved in order that individuals are able to select mates via traits associated with high fitness.
5. A suitable mate must be of reproductive age.
6. Sexual attraction to unsuitable individuals such as those of the same sex, or of non-reproductive age is disordered because any sexual encounter will not result in offspring.

Rape isn't disqualified by any of the above. It abides by your Natural Law. And hey, if we insert the word "universal" before a Law, it doesn't make it any more real. You do realise that, don't you? You ascriber of the Universal Law of Anachronistic Denial, you.

[macgamer]

Rape isn't disqualified by any of the above. It abides by your Natural Law.

It depends on the observable first principles that you start with.

1. Man has free will, that is he has an intellect sufficient to recognise his internal desires and inclinations and decide whether to satisfy them. Free will is an intrinsically good quality.
2. Man is also able to recognise that other individuals have a similar free will and that their will does not necessarily accord with his own.
3. Man is able to appreciate that just he wishes to exercise their will freely and fully, so too will another.
4. For an individual to exercise his free will in full knowledge that it restricts another to exercise theirs is therefore wrong.

You ascriber of the Universal Law of Anachronistic Denial, you.

Sounds like the making of an uncyclopedia entry.

[RedCelt69]

1. Man has free will, that is he has an intellect sufficient to recognise his internal desires and inclinations and decide whether to satisfy them. Free will is an intrinsically good quality.
2. Man is also able to recognise that other individuals have a similar free will and that their will does not necessarily accord with his own.
3. Man is able to appreciate that just he wishes to exercise their will freely and fully, so too will another.
4. For an individual to exercise his free will in full knowledge that it restricts another to exercise theirs is therefore wrong.

A few points...

1. Free will is an enticing illusion... but an illusion is what it is.
2. In no way does the above assertion about free will require that anyone has to allow others their own free will. That relies on something entirely missing from what you wrote.
3. If you truly believe your (4) then shut the fuck up about gay people being gay.

[malcolm166]

Numbers 15:32-36
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
......................

aye - I'd agree - pretty frivolous on the face of it. Although I had thought we had been talking about Granny banging and sheep shagging.

Mind you, I reckon if I had been Moses or Aaron I would have been pretty miffed. You go to the trouble of spelling out just what will happen in certain circumstances. And then some twonk breaks a law - and gets caught - and is brought to you. Sticks - for fire - would probably have been as precious a resource as water for them and to find that someone had been gathering the stuff in on a day when everyone else accepted that no one should and had been essentially stockpiling for his own benefit and to the disadvantage of everyone else probably was a pretty serious matter in as "basic" an environment as that.

And there you are now, being watched by a couple of thousand eyes watching you expectantly for what you will come up with. And at least one pair of eyes probably watching you very very carefully to see how you will deal with it. and already composing the speech to make a bid for leadership. Along the lines of "he makes the Laws yet is partial in its delivery and is favouring someone he is probably related to. How can you trust him in larger matters if he can't even follow through on this one. Trust me instead." I know! - that is all speculation. But these Laws must have been there for a reason otherwise they would never have existed.

And what makes it even worse is that regardless of the explanations, regardless of just how bad a week I've had yer honours, you've also essentially lost a (presumably) good pair of hands from the community to boot. And all because, for whatever reason, he doesn't put off taking his share of what resources there are as everyone else had until the next day.

[RedCelt69]

aye - I'd agree - pretty frivolous on the face of it. Although I had thought we had been talking about Granny banging and sheep shagging.

Well, yes, we were... but I expanded it a little to cover other (what I would class "frivolous") crimes which shouldn't (ideally) warrant a death penalty.

Just... you know... if you're in a position, in a new social order, to set some rules... there's some "crimes" that could be dealt with by a punishment that didn't include the loss of a life. A life = a producer of more life. A life = a worker. A worker = productivity and more children and more produce = a good thing, surely?

As an aside, those that stoned him to death - would the picking up of rocks not be the same as the picking up of sticks? "They've just done some work on the Sabbath! Stone the stoners! Oh, wait... OK, I picked up a stone. Stone me, too... aha! Now you must be stoned, too..."

I'm trying not to conjure up a Monty Python film-sketch

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, Jehovah! Oops..."

[malcolm166]

I'm trying not to conjure up a Monty Python film-sketch

- aye - but, no but............we can dae that on Monday....weather permitting!

It's true tho - which is why I reckon that Moses and Aaron must have been pretty miffed. If nothing else, notwithstanding the fact that he was mebbe screwing over everyone else by grabbing what he could for himself, it shows up something (maybe) that we aren't told about as to why some or all did bring it to their attention knowing the end result as laid down by law.

Pressures of Kingship and Priesthoodshipness being put it a position like that and knowing what was expected of them - illogical tho it was.