Boaz, you are kidding no-one except yourself.

>>Forget that its a 'religious' text.. for this exercise..its just 'text'... As I said..this is not any kind of trick question.. the only thing I'm heading towards is simply 'What the words on the page mean in everyday language'.<<

The giveaway is, of course, that you have chosen bible verses as the basis of your disingenuous safari into the steamy depths of language and meaning.

If you were sincere - which of course you are not - you would be content to use Darwin or Grisham.

But that would not suit your purpose, would it? A purpose which you are becoming increasingly impatient to reveal to us.

>>I'm not 'letting the cat out of the bag' or it would be pointless.<<

But you actually want to let it out, Boaz, don't you? Because we're not playing nicely and sitting attentively at our desks, instead we're banging the lids and sending teacher running back to the staff room.

You'd like to send Fractelle and myself to stand outside the headmaster's study...

>>It looks like Pericles and Fractelle are beyond help with their biases...<<

...which has to be the most rib-tickling piece of pot-and-kettle you've produced for a while.

Biased? Boaz? Naaaah, surely not.

But I'm afraid I at least will be here until the bell goes, as I have appointed myself to the position of lookout, ready to pounce the moment you turn this into a whack-a-mozzie attack.

Oh, and I'm also blackboard monitor.

Can I look after the fish?

boaz>>''Are you a 'British Israelite' believer?''<<

Not in the least ,i got persicuted by mens law thus had to study it
then had to study gods law ,then found out courts dont use either ,but en-act contract law [the law of the seas [maritime law]

Judges make it up as they go

[knowing the higher court wont find against their ruling [because of the use of word meanings ;ie deciet/trickery ,

[ie if you have a lawyer [the court deems you lawfully in-compitant] the legal term is imbisile [but no lawyer tells you that]

further a lawyer is a 'servant' of the court [not the client]

When your standing before the court you are asked by the judge do you under-stand [yes] they are two sepperate words [you see in court it is all about standing [understanding means you acknowledge the power of the court to judge you]

Standing is required [meaning you are personally affected ][a point no procicutor will tell you]

They dont legally have standing [but no judge is going to point that out[because you all ready said you 'under'stand , thus claim to know it allready]

To try to explain it all dosnt work in a few word spaces ,people must be prepared to try and 'get' it..[not UNDERstand to it]

If people cant understand my cryptic efforts they will never understand either law.

But many arnt here to explain or understand anything [i note so many get off on ridiculing [or name calling [or critisisng posting teqnique],thus possably are being paid to distract or disrupt serious postings

But not even trying to reply or understand that being posted ,

our jails [and hell'sss] are full of them .
[ie jokers who think the court is there to protect their rights ,hah]

and they also think the police are there to keep peace
[not police us for our revenue raising fine defaulting]

one under god,
I interpret by the attitude in your last post you do not see Australian laws worthy - to be respected; therefore you may not be a citizen of Australia and have no allegiance to our institutions.

Because citizens swear allegiance to our laws and institutions. Since you dispise lawyers, police and our Australian laws then it is suggested that you should be watched carefully, such attitudes are characteristic of Muslim terrorists. Though you claim to be "under one god" it is not the God whom Christ represented but rather a god of rebellion and disorder.

Christ though a peaceful teacher and innocent Citizen under Roman laws governing Palestine at his trial before Pilate; Pilate stated "I find no fault in this innocent man". He was crucified by the incitement of religious zealots who incissantly shouted "Crucify him, he is a blasphemer" who they claimed dispised God's laws. In fact Christ had more praise for the Romans than for the religious zealots who were supposedly interpreting God's laws.

By your un-Australian ungodly attitudes you neither know God nor respect the institutions of this Great country. Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Esther, all foreigners in captivity in a foreign land displayed their relationship to God by their contribution to the nation of their captors and adherence of the governing laws. I strongly suggest you learn of their God and follow their devoted attitudes to the laws and institutions of this Nation.

Posted by Philo,

..>>I interpret by the attitude in your last post you do not see Australian laws worthy - to be respected; therefore you may not be a citizen of Australia and have no allegiance to our institutions<<..

WRONG on all counts bro

dear phillo see your reply 6-May-2008-10:28:22

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1757&page=0#34825

>>we vote to elect governments to represent the majority of the people's will. However in NSW the will of the people seems to be violated by a current Dictator<<

yes that is my point egsactly philo.

>>Any other system of law demonstrating mercy and justice must be educated logically to convince the majority of the population of its superiority and balance.<<

Well we have been taught this in school philo

But the reality is police arnt there to serve amnd protect you
nor are the polititions [nor the courts!

They are OUR public instruments THAT have been subverted to serve THEIR special intrests!

[like as per your prior winge in the first quote]

To wit to sell of OUR public assets , or ensure there are huge trust funds for PUB-licking-servants ,judges, po-lie-trick-ians etc sucking us dry VIA ever more hiden taxation and a court systen for just-us and revenue raising.


>>Then representatives elected to formulate the will of the people.<<

wrong bro its been done THROUGH the education system
[and the dumbed down media]
and further by double talking bloggers ,
blindsided by the very systems re-working of laws via changing the word's meanings

<<Let us hear of these superior, true and just laws. Otherwise the proposition is merely a racial winge.<<..

hear hear

so which supirior laws ?[gods command-meant-s]
see my previous post
OR your WEST-mine-ster F-laws ,that rat-if-y us into common oppression via evermore vile acts [
most VILE/EVIL/VEIL
[D-evil F-law EN-act]

..>>it is suggested that you should be watched carefully,
such attitudes are characteristic of Muslim terrorists<<..

does thiS apply to YOU TOO?

>>By your un-Australian ungodly attitudes you neither know God nor
respect the institutions of this Great country.<<

WHY ARE YOU PERSISTING IN TRYING TO SERVE TWO MASTERS philo?

One under god... for starters, calm down.

You state: "They are OUR public instruments THAT have been subverted to serve THEIR special intrests!"

Ah. The old 'them' chestnut. Who are 'they'? I have a sneaking suspicion that they're just people, like the rest of us. As for the entire system being one big conspiratorial edifice, my view is that whilst I think lawyers have subverted the profession somewhat to turn a faster buck, our government departments are often wasteful and inefficient and many politicians aren't particularly competent, I reject the idea of a vast conspiracy.
Those things I mentioned are just human nature, not a grand plan.
No offence, but that's just what crackpot conspiracists like to believe, and if you carry on in a similar vein to the post above, that's all you will sound like to most posters here. I'm not saying this to be harsh, I'm giving honest advice.

Boaz:

You state: "I honestly think you are just playing with semantics to avoid actually confronting 4 verses of text."

I could say the same for you and the many, many criticisms that have come your way in this thread... but it is not semantics at all.

The analogy you present is for a very specific end result. Religious texts in particular have no definitive measurable outcome. Instead, you attempt to make a correlation with laws, but again, laws have a more measurable outcome, and more importantly, they are open to change. They have been put in place comparatively recently and the meaning has been carefully explained by people in this culture, still practicing the same laws, so there is much less need for 'interpretation'.

Cont'd.