Ladies and gentlemen, this is merely the fallacious Argument by Outrage over and over again. There's no substance to this "proof" at all except attempts to extrapolate exclusively Old Testament law to fit modern times, which doesn't work. One needs to understand the role of the law today before they continue reading this.
If you look in the Bible, there are an amazing number of people that God wants his followers to murder. For example, in Exodus 35:2 God lays down this commandment:
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.Think about that how many people work on the Sabbath -- all the employees of Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Linnens & things, grocery stores, convenience stores, power plants, airlines, hospitals, emergency services and on and on and on. Don't rabbis, priests and preachers work on the Sabbath? God wants all of them dead.
Yet, since Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, etc. wouldn't have existed in the time where this was written, this is a non-issue. You don't seem to grasp that this rule was given to very specific people.
Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.That is a whole lot of teenagers that we need to kill.
"The culture in which Deuteronomy was written is different. Sons still had the command to "honor their mother and father," be respectful to them and listen to their words. So how old is the "son" in this passage?
The Hebrew term for "son" (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes, but most often of the male. The word "son" here does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or to an adult son. Age must be determined from the context. In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins brought forth in testimony are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20).
Furthermore, the actions of this son are severe. This is not the case of a child who has failed to do his chores, spoke back to his parents, or even committed a serious act of disobedience, but of a son of dissolute character who is in full rebellion to authority. The text says that the son is "stubborn" and "rebellious." Both of these descriptive terms are active participles, thus indicating habitual action. The son does not display a stubborn streak now and then, or act rebelliously from time to time, but is continuously stubborn and rebellious. The word "stubborn" refers to one who is obstinate in his resistance to authority. This son is living a life without restraint, and is a serious danger to his family and to his community." (Holding)
Then there is Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.All homosexuals need to be killed. Of course (if this rule even still applied to anyone today), celibate homosexuals would be fine, wouldn't they?
What about this:
That's a lot of people who need to be killed. You need to understand that an offense of this nature in the ancient society would have resulted in widespread consequenses. Adultery back then in the first place was different than what we see today.If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
In other words, if we actually listened to what God says, we would need to kill at least half of the people in America tomorrow. After all, Isaiah 40:8 says, "The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever." The word of the Lord tells us to kill half of the U.S. population. It's rather silly for you to isolate Isaiah 40:8 from its context to make it seem like it's telling you that things like Leviticus must be followed today. In reality, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of law: It's talking about prophecies.
There are two things in this that show you that God is imaginary. First there is the utter stupidity of these verses. Oh, really? I think the only stupidity here is your arguments by outrage. Second, there is this fact: If God is an all-powerful being, he would kill them himself. There would be no need for people to do the murdering. These people would already be dead, and Wal-Mart would be closed on the Sabbath through lack of employees. Why? I see absolutely no reason to believe this is true. Because God is all-powerful doesn't mean that he's "all-doing."
Notice that believers completely ignore these parts of the Bible. No, we don't ignore them. We just understand that they were written for differen't people in very specific contexts. Deuteronomy, for example, was a covenant that people signed onto. We didn't sign onto the covenant, therefore we are not obligated to follow any of it's rules...Etc. That is because they know that the verses are insane. By acknowledging that their God is insane, they prove that their God is imaginary. Typical, bigoted, skeptical misunderstanding of the ANE culture.
© Copyright P-Dunn's Apologetics. All rights reserved.
11 comments:
anonymous drive by's feel great!Here are some random statements before I jet off.
http://craptaculus.com/eac/apologist/ (You must have the site memorized.)
I am humiliated to be of the same species as you.
Just like Hitler, Stalin and Mullah Omar, you will always think that the ideas you defend are the best thing since sliced bread and never think any other way.
I am not arguing from outrage, I am simply outraged at the sick twisted morals of your degenerate cult, and the disgusting fairy tales you have been programmed to believe.
ok, done now. bye.
Hello again, Dum Dum.
Once again, check that link I posted earlier for your stupid website.
So if I said the same about you thinking your ideas are "the best thing sliced bread," would that be invalid? You seem to be repeatedly posting that link as if it was an unbeatable critique of Christian apologetics.
You are too arguing by outrage. You've done nothing that I've seen to discredit Christianity other than posting a bunch of soundbites. You haven't shown anything to be a "disgusting fairy tale," yet. Mind posting examples of "sick, twisted morals," that you find in the Bible?
Try again once you are intellectually capable.
By disgusting fairy tales he means The Ten Commandments, or some other thing that implies that we must behave :P.
"http://craptaculus.com/eac/apologist/"
I'm thinking this site is from a sarcastic standpoint?
"...The text says that the son is "stubborn" and "rebellious." Both of these descriptive terms are active participles, thus indicating habitual action. The son does not display a stubborn streak now and then, or act rebelliously from time to time, but is continuously stubborn and rebellious. The word "stubborn" refers to one who is obstinate in his resistance to authority. This son is living a life without restraint, and is a serious danger to his family and to his community." (Holding)
So, I'd say a stubborn and Rebelious son, by Holding's definition - whoever he or she may be as I don't recognize the name and didn't see a citation who the work it was written in (not to say that there isn't one, just that I've failed to find it) - is someone who is living his life without restraint and is a serious danger to his family and community.
First, let's assume the son is seventeen. He has his liscense, and a car his parents bought him. He's from the U.S. of A, hence the liscense and car. At least four nights a week, he parties. On each occasion, he has at least one alcoholic beverage. He may or may not smoke a few joints. He may or may not become completely drunk. His blood alcohol level, is, however, consistently above .02 before he heads home (which isn't high at all, but enough for a teenage DUI in the US - not sure where you're from so I don't know if you are aware of that or not.) Ignoring the complete illegality of the joints and the equally illegal alcohol (as he's below drinking age), the son may be stubborn or rebellious as this point, but not a threat to society.
But he has a liscense, and his, we'll say pickup truck.
So now, it's 2 a.m. Far past the son's, whom we'll dub Bert, legal curfew. Not to mention that the parents of Bert want him home by eleven, the law doesn't allow him to drive after midnight. Both stubborn and rebellious, but still not a threat to society.
Bert revs the motor on his Ford pickup. And here, Bert becomes a threat to society. Bert is now driving legally intoxicated behind the wheel of a car.
"This son is living a life without restraint, and is a serious danger to his family and to his community"
Check and check. Clearly, he's not practicing restraint. We've already deemed him stubborn and rebellious. Now, he is a serious danger to his family and his community, because he is driving after drinking - and, for teenagers, one drink is all it takes to be legally intoxicated.
Millions of American teens do this every day. Under Holding's definition, Brain is entirely correct - that's a heck of a lot of teenagers we need to kill.
But Holding also said the son in the passage may be an adult. In that case, let us assume Bert grew up to be a theif. He remains the son of his parents. He refuses to listen when they tell him not to steal. Alternatively, they may not know, but still, all religious denominations using some form of the bible (including Judaism, although there it is in reference to kidnapping as opposed to the Biblical reference of stealing property) include somewhere the the ten commandments that you shouldn't steal. So clearly, this is both stubborn and rebellious. It is also REPEATEDLY stubborn and rebellious. Now, Bert has a way to make a quick two million by kidnapping the daughter of the mayor. The mayor is to drop out of the coming election, Bert gets his 2mil from the mayor's opponent, and the mayor gets his daughter back fine and healthy. So Bert kidnaps the daughter. Boom, capital offense. Bert is a threat to society. The 2 (3, if stubborn and rebellious are counted separate) conditions for Holden's different are met.
And yet, if Bert were on trial for this, he probably wouldn't receive capital punishment. He certainly will not be taken before the elders of his town by his parents, be declared a stubborn and rebellious by his parents (as well as a glutton and a drunkard, neither of which is mentioned in Holden's definition, but hey, we can say that Bert is fat due to gluttony in terms of food and continues to get drunk as he did in his teenage days) , and then stoned (to death) by all the men of his town. Nor will he be stoned to death by all the men of his parents town, nor any combination of the two.
And if he were, by some random act of chance, to get a death sentence instead of say, twenty-five to life, then he would be killed by the injection of some sort of drug into his veins, not by being stoned.
On to homosexuality:
Of course (if this rule even still applied to anyone today), celibate homosexuals would be fine, wouldn't they?
Sure, but why should homosexuals have to be celibate? Why doesn't this rule still apply? If Old Testament is the unchanging word of God and the New Testament is also the unchanging word of God, unchanging being the operative word, then both still apply and thus everything said in both still apply. Now, it is taken that Leviticus literally intends homosexuality to be bad. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any posters about Adam and Steve because there would be nothing morally wrong with homosexuality (I don't think there is anyway, but if I were Christian, perhaps I might.)
Then again, Leviticus also says that anyone who gets a tattoo has his blood on his hands, and yet we don't kill everyone who steps into a tattoo parlor.
You need to understand that an offense of this nature in the ancient society would have resulted in widespread consequences. Adultery back then in the first place was different than what we see today.
Please explain this, as I'm afraid I don't understand the difference, so it's hard to decide where I stand on that.
You claim it's silly to isolate Isaiah 40:8. But honestly. Paul says it, Peter says, it's probably in eighty other places throughout the Bible. They may not say, "The grass withers... will stand forever" but the point is the same. Whether Brain uses Isaiah or someone else, the fact that the word of God is and will be forever seems pretty much universally accepted by those who wrote the books in the Bible.
Brain says "If god were an all powerful being, he would kill these people himself" in reference to all of those who work on the Sabbath.
Now, this is not necessarily true. He may be all powerful (which is infinitely unlikely, but for other reasons), but find it entertaining to have the village elders do the smiting he COULD do himself. Which doesn't change the fact that Wal-Mart would be closed on the Sabbath due to lack of workers. But you are entirely right in the fact that God being "all-powerful" wouldn't make him all doing.
I'll ignore the bottom paragraph for the fact that whether or not you signed onto Deut, the fact that it is part of the unchanging word of god would make it true, but neither Brain nor you knows what people actually are thinking when they decide which parts of the Bible they are going to ignore.
Brain, however, successfully proves that God does not have all of these people killed. The actively gay people have not been stoned to death. They are not even dead. The actively stubborn and rebellious people are neither stoned nor dead. The teenagers who are both stubborn and rebellious AND a threat to society, as well as gluttons and drunks, thus fitting both the Bible verse and Holden’s definition, are not killed. Yes, a few of them of dead because they’ve gotten into car accidents and killed themselves and others. Score one for “Threat to Society”. Yet they are not all dead.
Now, Brain’s closing statement is somewhat lacking. By proving all the people God wants dead are not dead, he proves there is not an all-powerful god. If god is not all-powerful, then he is not the Christian god that is benevolent and all-powerful, and therefore, he is imaginary. But he doesn’t close by pointing that out, instead claiming that the Christians acknowledge their god’s insanity and by ignoring it, prove him imaginary. Which could also be true, but is more difficult to prove because Christians may not knowingly acknowledge that the reasons they ignore such passages is because they are insane.
"http://craptaculus.com/eac/apologist/"
I'm thinking this site is from a sarcastic standpoint?
Indeed.
So, I'd say a stubborn and Rebelious son, by Holding's definition - whoever he or she may be as I don't recognize the name and didn't see a citation who the work it was written in (not to say that there isn't one, just that I've failed to find it) - is someone who is living his life without restraint and is a serious danger to his family and community.
Essentially. In the Ancient Near East, your family was your lifeline. Doing anything to endanger the welfare of your family was quite literally a death sentence, not just to the offender, but to the family as well. In order to keep the society from falling off the deep end into chaos, this extreme law was put into place.
First, let's assume the son is seventeen. He has his liscense, and a car his parents bought him. He's from the U.S. of A, hence the liscense and car. At least four nights a week, he parties. On each occasion, he has at least one alcoholic beverage. He may or may not smoke a few joints. He may or may not become completely drunk. His blood alcohol level, is, however, consistently above .02 before he heads home (which isn't high at all, but enough for a teenage DUI in the US - not sure where you're from so I don't know if you are aware of that or not.) Ignoring the complete illegality of the joints and the equally illegal alcohol (as he's below drinking age), the son may be stubborn or rebellious as this point, but not a threat to society.
But he has a liscense, and his, we'll say pickup truck.
So now, it's 2 a.m. Far past the son's, whom we'll dub Bert, legal curfew. Not to mention that the parents of Bert want him home by eleven, the law doesn't allow him to drive after midnight. Both stubborn and rebellious, but still not a threat to society.
Bert revs the motor on his Ford pickup. And here, Bert becomes a threat to society. Bert is now driving legally intoxicated behind the wheel of a car.
"This son is living a life without restraint, and is a serious danger to his family and to his community"
Check and check. Clearly, he's not practicing restraint. We've already deemed him stubborn and rebellious. Now, he is a serious danger to his family and his community, because he is driving after drinking - and, for teenagers, one drink is all it takes to be legally intoxicated.
Millions of American teens do this every day. Under Holding's definition, Brain is entirely correct - that's a heck of a lot of teenagers we need to kill.
Suppose I said, "Yes. We need to put to death anyone who drinks and drives." What would you say to me back? Would you call that immoral, or unfair? What standards of morality would you be using to determine either of these?
But that's beside the point. Our society today is not built on the family unit to the extent that that it was when this law was actually meant to be followed. There is no need for such a law today, and there's a good reason for why the law was fulfilled in Christ.
You would accuse me of cherry-picking, no doubt. But I would accuse you of not taking an educated stance on this.
But Holding also said the son in the passage may be an adult.
Because the Hebrew "ben" doesn't give any indication of age, yes.
In that case, let us assume Bert grew up to be a theif. He remains the son of his parents. He refuses to listen when they tell him not to steal. Alternatively, they may not know, but still, all religious denominations using some form of the bible (including Judaism, although there it is in reference to kidnapping as opposed to the Biblical reference of stealing property) include somewhere the the ten commandments that you shouldn't steal. So clearly, this is both stubborn and rebellious. It is also REPEATEDLY stubborn and rebellious. Now, Bert has a way to make a quick two million by kidnapping the daughter of the mayor. The mayor is to drop out of the coming election, Bert gets his 2mil from the mayor's opponent, and the mayor gets his daughter back fine and healthy. So Bert kidnaps the daughter. Boom, capital offense. Bert is a threat to society. The 2 (3, if stubborn and rebellious are counted separate) conditions for Holden's different are met.
And yet, if Bert were on trial for this, he probably wouldn't receive capital punishment.
Probably not. But you're still using straw men arguments. And you still haven't addressed whether or not they actually deserve the capital punishment.
He certainly will not be taken before the elders of his town by his parents, be declared a stubborn and rebellious by his parents (as well as a glutton and a drunkard, neither of which is mentioned in Holden's definition, but hey, we can say that Bert is fat due to gluttony in terms of food and continues to get drunk as he did in his teenage days), and then stoned (to death) by all the men of his town. Nor will he be stoned to death by all the men of his parents town, nor any combination of the two.
And if he were, by some random act of chance, to get a death sentence instead of say, twenty-five to life, then he would be killed by the injection of some sort of drug into his veins, not by being stoned.
Perhaps because stoning was one of the few methods of execution back then. They didn't have lethal injection.
Or, are you insinuating that the Bible should have included such things as lethal injection? You'd be surprised at the amount of atheists that actually say things like that and really mean it.
Sure, but why should homosexuals have to be celibate?
Because homosexual activity is a sin, just like heterosexual activity outside of God's given standard is a sin. This was repeated in many places in the New Testament.
Why doesn't this rule still apply? If Old Testament is the unchanging word of God and the New Testament is also the unchanging word of God, unchanging being the operative word, then both still apply and thus everything said in both still apply.
No, Amy. Let's go through this really slow, just for you. There are three types of laws in the Old Testament:
1) Universal Moral Laws.
2) Cultural Universal Laws.
3) Ceremonial Laws.
Furthermore, books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus are written out in the style of ancient treaties that would have been signed by specific people. It was a covenant, of sorts.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the covenant, superceding the ceremonial laws and a great many of the cultural universals. Hebrews lays this out pretty well, if you're interested in reading.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html
Now, it is taken that Leviticus literally intends homosexuality to be bad. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any posters about Adam and Steve because there would be nothing morally wrong with homosexuality (I don't think there is anyway, but if I were Christian, perhaps I might.)
Then again, Leviticus also says that anyone who gets a tattoo has his blood on his hands, and yet we don't kill everyone who steps into a tattoo parlor.
Exactly. This is a classic example of what's known as a ceremonial law. This was about cleanliness before God.
Please explain this, as I'm afraid I don't understand the difference, so it's hard to decide where I stand on that.
I mentioned it earlier, but I would recommend Education in Ancient Israel by Crenshaw if you're interested in a better explanation.
You claim it's silly to isolate Isaiah 40:8. But honestly. Paul says it, Peter says, it's probably in eighty other places throughout the Bible. They may not say, "The grass withers... will stand forever" but the point is the same. Whether Brain uses Isaiah or someone else, the fact that the word of God is and will be forever seems pretty much universally accepted by those who wrote the books in the Bible.
Paul says it? Really? Isn't it Paul who wrote that we are saved by grace, not works alone? Isn't it Paul who wrote that Christ redeemed us from "the curse of the law" in Galations 3:13?
Have you ever read Romans, Galations or Hebrews, by any chance?
I'll ignore the bottom paragraph for the fact that whether or not you signed onto Deut, the fact that it is part of the unchanging word of god would make it true, but neither Brain nor you knows what people actually are thinking when they decide which parts of the Bible they are going to ignore.
Actually, there's a great deal of research on this topic, as I'm sure you'll notice if you read the link.
Brain, however, successfully proves that God does not have all of these people killed. The actively gay people have not been stoned to death. They are not even dead. The actively stubborn and rebellious people are neither stoned nor dead. The teenagers who are both stubborn and rebellious AND a threat to society, as well as gluttons and drunks, thus fitting both the Bible verse and Holden’s definition, are not killed.
Because "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law." There is no need to follow that anymore.
Yes, a few of them of dead because they’ve gotten into car accidents and killed themselves and others. Score one for “Threat to Society”. Yet they are not all dead.
Now, Brain’s closing statement is somewhat lacking. By proving all the people God wants dead are not dead, he proves there is not an all-powerful god.
Didn't you just concede that I was right in relation to this point?
If god is not all-powerful, then he is not the Christian god that is benevolent and all-powerful, and therefore, he is imaginary. But he doesn’t close by pointing that out, instead claiming that the Christians acknowledge their god’s insanity and by ignoring it, prove him imaginary. Which could also be true, but is more difficult to prove because Christians may not knowingly acknowledge that the reasons they ignore such passages is because they are insane.
They're insane only when you look at them from a purely 21st century standpoint, not caring to actually research anything about the Ancient Near East.
I hope you'll get reading, for both of our sakes.
I honestly can't understand why you feel so compelled to constantly defend God by saying he is a loving God even after he randomly makes up rules that say when murder becomes justified killing for ANY reason, no matter WHAT time period it was done in. I can't wrap my brain around it.
And then you say it makes it all better when these rules get changed.
Brain should just rephrase it to "Count all the people God wanted to murder, then made a law to make it justified killing, then changed it again."
I honestly can't understand why you feel so compelled to constantly defend God by saying he is a loving God even after he randomly makes up rules that say when murder becomes justified killing for ANY reason, no matter WHAT time period it was done in. I can't wrap my brain around it.
Despite that sentence not making any sense at all, I'll try to address it.
These laws are not random by any means. If you think they are, consult our law code today, and realize how it's essentially the same. "Murder" is punishable. Dishing out the death penalty is not.
And then you say it makes it all better when these rules get changed.
Murder is still wrong. That's not changed.
Brain should just rephrase it to "Count all the people God wanted to murder, then made a law to make it justified killing, then changed it again.
Show me where the laws about criminal murder were changed, Luke. Please.
These laws are not random by any means. If you think they are, consult our law code today, and realize how it's essentially the same. "Murder" is punishable. Dishing out the death penalty is not.
They are random by all means. Throughout the Old Testament, God is sporadically giving out these stupid commands to put people to death when they do the most trivial of things. When he does this, it's saying it's ok to murder people for those reasons. So you say "God made that rule, so it's not 'ratsach' anymore, it's justified killing." When God says "Those who work on the Sabbath shall be put to death," he's commanding people to kill someone the very second they do anything that is considered to be work on the Sabbath. To not do so would be disobeying God. God has commanded people to kill whether those things are still applicable to this day or not.
Think about it this way. You lived back then, and you worshipped God, but your mother didn't, nor did she obey any of his laws. The very day God made a rule to put someone to death for a specific reason, you would have to kill your mother the very second she did something God said a person should be put to death for. To not kill her would be disobeying God's orders to put someone to death. You would be the sinner. There's no difference between "thou shall not," and "thou shall," because each one is a command. To do something you're NOT supposed to do is a sin, and to not do do something you ARE supposed to is also a sin. You would sin if you didn't kill your Mother in that case because God said you shall put her to death for it. Whether or not it is still applicable today is irrelevant. God said it in the first place at a certain point in time. That doesn't sound like a loving God to me. God could come down here and say "Thou shalt put those to death who do not go to bed by 11:00pm," and you would still rationalize that it's for a good reason because God said it.
Murder is still wrong. That's not changed.
Except when God changed it, which you defend.
Show me where the laws about criminal murder were changed, Luke. Please.
Brain listed quite a few of them from the old testament. The day God gave any reason that "justified" murder is the day that it was changed to killing, as you suggest there is a difference for.
They are random by all means. Throughout the Old Testament, God is sporadically giving out these stupid commands to put people to death when they do the most trivial of things.
Trivial to you, in your 21st century mindset. None of them were "trivial" in the Ancient Near East. Do your research.
When he does this, it's saying it's ok to murder people for those reasons.
It's not "murder," once again. Murder implies criminality, and there is nothing criminal about executing someone for breaking the law.
So you say "God made that rule, so it's not 'ratsach' anymore, it's justified killing."
There was never a point where it was "ratsach" Luke.
When God says "Those who work on the Sabbath shall be put to death," he's commanding people to kill someone the very second they do anything that is considered to be work on the Sabbath.
Not the very second, Luke. Those people would be taken in front of the elders and tried first, and if they were found guilty, then the penalty is execution.
What's your issue?
To not do so would be disobeying God. God has commanded people to kill whether those things are still applicable to this day or not.
And he has the right to do such a thing. Since he makes the law, he can set the punishment, and since he is the author of life, he has the right to do so.
Think about it this way. You lived back then, and you worshipped God, but your mother didn't, nor did she obey any of his laws. The very day God made a rule to put someone to death for a specific reason, you would have to kill your mother the very second she did something God said a person should be put to death for.
Actually, I wouldn't. My mother, since she was a member of a different religion or belief system, would not have signed onto the covenant agreement, and therefore wouldn't have had to follow the laws.
Try again.
To not kill her would be disobeying God's orders to put someone to death. You would be the sinner.
Only if she had agreed to follow the law, which she wouldn't have.
There's no difference between "thou shall not," and "thou shall," because each one is a command. To do something you're NOT supposed to do is a sin, and to not do do something you ARE supposed to is also a sin. You would sin if you didn't kill your Mother in that case because God said you shall put her to death for it.
God said that only people who signed onto the covenant would have to follow those laws, which is why we don't have examples of Jewish people in the Ancient Near East going into neighboring towns that were not Jewish and killing everyone for working on the Sabbath day.
Whether or not it is still applicable today is irrelevant.
It's very relevant, actually. The New Covenant has superceded the old one, and the commandment about the sabbath was part of ceremonial law.
God said it in the first place at a certain point in time. That doesn't sound like a loving God to me.
A God that tolerates blasphemy and sin against him and does nothing to punish it doesn't sound loving to me, Luke.
God could come down here and say "Thou shalt put those to death who do not go to bed by 11:00pm," and you would still rationalize that it's for a good reason because God said it.
Well, if an omniscient God came down and said such a thing, there would undoubtedly be a good reason for it. Would you at least concede that much?
Except when God changed it, which you defend.
There is no place in scripture...ever...where God says it's okay to murder someone.
Brain listed quite a few of them from the old testament.
Yes, and I responded to them. Thank you and goodnight.
The day God gave any reason that "justified" murder is the day that it was changed to killing, as you suggest there is a difference for.
There is quite easily seen difference. You feel differently about someone who killed someone out of self-defense and someone who killed someone because they were wearing blue on the Blood's street, do you not?
Trivial to you, in your 21st century mindset. None of them were "trivial" in the Ancient Near East. Do your research.
Trivial to me in MY 21st century mindset? What century is your mindset in? Apparently, like you, they didn't give it a second thought when they believed some jerk who wrote that "God said it, so it's ok."
It's not "murder," once again. Murder implies criminality, and there is nothing criminal about executing someone for breaking the law.
What you don't seem to understand is that whoever manipulates the law is manipulating the so-called "difference" between murder and criminal execution. It doesn't make that person the good guy, or a loving person at all. Murder is murder, and the only difference you see is what the Law is.
Not the very second, Luke. Those people would be taken in front of the elders and tried first, and if they were found guilty, then the penalty is execution.
What's your issue.
It doesn't matter if they didn't die that very second, or had to wait. Both lead to execution. My issue is this; How would people get a chance to repent or be forgiven if they get put to death for breaking just one little trivial law God "says" they should be put to death for?
((Think about it this way. You lived back then, and you worshipped God, but your mother didn't, nor did she obey any of his laws. The very day God made a rule to put someone to death for a specific reason, you would have to kill your mother the very second she did something God said a person should be put to death for.))
Actually, I wouldn't. My mother, since she was a member of a different religion or belief system, would not have signed onto the covenant agreement, and therefore wouldn't have had to follow the laws.
Try again.
ROFL, I'll try again then and do the thinking for you. (No offense.) You're very intelligent, and I respect ya, but you gotta stop taking things at face value at just any one point and think on everything as hard as you can. You have to consider ALL the implications right down to the very last detail. So here's the new example for you to consider.
You lived back then, and you worshipped God. "So did your mother, who signed onto the covenant agreement." The very day God made a rule to put someone to death for (insert ridiculous reason here), you would have to "take your mother to the elders, prove her guilt, and get her executed" as soon as she did something God said a person should be put to death for. And remember, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. In this case, your mother. Wouldn't that also mean you're not honoring your mother and father by having them put to death, then?
To not turn in transgressors of God's laws to the elders is disobeying God. EVERYONE would be doing that to each other, and that society would ultimately kill themselves. The elders and the executioner would be the only ones left, lol. Since they obviously didn't self destruct, then they were obviously all sinners. No one lives a perfect life and does everything perfectly after they "sign on to the covenant." No one can even do that now. Just ONE of those little mistakes, and God has them put to death, which means they don't have a chance to repent or be forgiven after the one mistake. Even if God does forgive them before they die, then it's stupid anyway because their life gets cut short. I'm sure God knew THAT counterfactual. Either God's "execution" laws are moronic, or man's law that they "said" God told them are moronic.
Well, if an omniscient God came down and said such a thing, there would undoubtedly be a good reason for it. Would you at least concede that much?
Hell no, especially if his reason instills fear by death. And what would you say a good reason for it is if he doesn't know the definite future and what definite impact his rediculous execution laws would have outside of individual cases on humanity as a whole too far into the future?
There is no place in scripture...ever...where God says it's okay to murder someone.
Yes there is, which Brain lists. Before God gave those commands, it was murder. The very minute he said "(insert rediculous reason here) shall be put to death" is saying it's not murder anymore and that it's okay. It doesn't make it right at all. Any loving, moral, perfect God wouldn't do such a thing. I sure as hell wouldn't for ANY reason, so I'm more of a moral person than God in "my 21st century thinking."
Only if she had agreed to follow the law, which she wouldn't have.
Then she would be a blasphemer, and you would have to have the elders put her to death for that reason. Also, if blasphemy is unforgivable, then it's impossible for an Atheist who had previously denied God to turn Christian and be forgiven of that. I don't see how it's the "continual rejection" if the very first denial is labeled as blasphemy in the first place.
It's very relevant, actually. The New Covenant has superceded the old one, and the commandment about the sabbath was part of ceremonial law.
I thought the 10 commandments were unchanging? What else is changed in the 10 commandments, then? My friend would argue with you to the death that the Sabbath was never changed to Sunday from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. He's very intelligent and has done his research as well, so I'm more inclined to believe him over you. Idol worship was apparently changed, too since people were told to worship Jesus in the New Covenant. What if Jesus is in fact not the Son of God and it's just a story that was made to fit him in with the Jewish God to start another branch of jewish religion? (Much like every other denomination in existence today.) Then everyone's worshipping an idol. Maybe that's why Jews and Islams don't acknowledge Jesus as the son of God and don't worship him. They might be on to something. To say they're wrong is arrogant, because they have as many intelligent, credible theists and researchers as any other religion. SOMEONE is wrong. So why are you more certain of it than other people who have way more credentials under their belts than yourself?
A God that tolerates blasphemy and sin against him and does nothing to punish it doesn't sound loving to me, Luke.
But he DOESN'T (or didn't, as you'll put it) tolerate sin and blasphemy against him, which is EXACTLY why he said people should be put to death for those mundane reasons and blasphemy in the first place. You're agreeing that he isn't loving. How can you not see that?
There is quite easily seen difference. You feel differently about someone who killed someone out of self-defense and someone who killed someone because they were wearing blue on the Blood's street, do you not?
To not defend yourself against attempted murder is suicide if you let it happen without fighting back. That's like not moving out of the way of an oncoming bus in traffic.
Trivial to me in MY 21st century mindset? What century is your mindset in?
Whatever century scholars trying to interpret these passages are in.
Apparently, like you, they didn't give it a second thought when they believed some jerk who wrote that "God said it, so it's ok."
Rather, there are numerous tests given in those very books like Deuteronomy that have a clear test for what a legitimate prophecy is and how to determine who's legit. Once again, I ask you to merely do your research.
What you don't seem to understand is that whoever manipulates the law is manipulating the so-called "difference" between murder and criminal execution.
Yep, you're definitely against the death penalty of all sorts.
It doesn't make that person the good guy, or a loving person at all. Murder is murder, and the only difference you see is what the Law is.
And yet, you yourself agree that there are different degrees of taking a life. Irony.
It doesn't matter if they didn't die that very second, or had to wait. Both lead to execution.
And "execution" and "murder" are not interchangeable.
My issue is this; How would people get a chance to repent or be forgiven if they get put to death for breaking just one little trivial law God "says" they should be put to death for?
They wouldn't, but they wouldn't really want to either: They would be well aware of such a consequence when they committed the action.
For the last time, this is a covenant. A covenant means that you must sign on to it, agree to the terms of it. If someone breaks the law of the covenant they signed onto, they are without excuse, Luke. They knew exactly what they were doing. The law isn't structured in such a way that people can break these by accident...A slip up, if you will. You can't accidentally rape someone, for example.
You lived back then, and you worshipped God. "So did your mother, who signed onto the covenant agreement." The very day God made a rule to put someone to death for (insert ridiculous reason here), you would have to "take your mother to the elders, prove her guilt, and get her executed" as soon as she did something God said a person should be put to death for.
I probably would, just as you would, if you were an honest citizen, report your mother if she was committing a serious crime, or treasonous activity.
And remember, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. In this case, your mother. Wouldn't that also mean you're not honoring your mother and father by having them put to death, then?
It would be dishonoring your parents to let them continue breaking the law and endanger others.
To not turn in transgressors of God's laws to the elders is disobeying God. EVERYONE would be doing that to each other, and that society would ultimately kill themselves.
Well, not really. Most of the laws in the old covenant do not earn the death penalty. Only the severe ones, some of which still carry the death penalty in some cases today.
The elders and the executioner would be the only ones left, lol. Since they obviously didn't self destruct, then they were obviously all sinners. No one lives a perfect life and does everything perfectly after they "sign on to the covenant."
Which was why there were three different levels of law, all of which necessitated three different consequences.
No one can even do that now. Just ONE of those little mistakes, and God has them put to death, which means they don't have a chance to repent or be forgiven after the one mistake.
Again I say unto you, most of the laws in the old covenant were not worthy of death.
Even if God does forgive them before they die, then it's stupid anyway because their life gets cut short. I'm sure God knew THAT counterfactual. Either God's "execution" laws are moronic, or man's law that they "said" God told them are moronic.
I think it's more likely that you are the only thing moronic here.
Hell no, especially if his reason instills fear by death.
So then, you believe that an omniscient God wouldn't know what he was doing?
And what would you say a good reason for it is
I don't know. The situation is too far fetched to even consider, and I don't know why you even brought it up.
Yes there is, which Brain lists.
Brain listed several reasons where the death penalty was applicable, not where "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another" was permissible.
By the way, that definition does not apply to the death penalty, since it is lawful, non-malicious, and it is not one human being killing another, but the government killing a human being. Sorry, Luke.
Before God gave those commands, it was murder.
And your evidence of this is?
The very minute he said "(insert rediculous reason here) shall be put to death"
Yeah, "ridiculous" reasons like rape, murder, and child sacrifice.
is saying it's not murder anymore and that it's okay. It doesn't make it right at all. Any loving, moral, perfect God wouldn't do such a thing.
So you're saying that God's "moral" nature excludes him from the punishment of his creations?
I sure as hell wouldn't for ANY reason, so I'm more of a moral person than God in "my 21st century thinking."
That's because you're not thinking this through. You're merely convincing yourself that the death penalty is murder, which is a ridiculous position to hold, and applying that unjustly to the Bible.
Then she would be a blasphemer, and you would have to have the elders put her to death for that reason.
Not if she hadn't signed onto the covenant saying she wouldn't blaspheme. You're making this a great deal more complicated than it actually is.
Also, if blasphemy is unforgivable, then it's impossible for an Atheist who had previously denied God to turn Christian and be forgiven of that.
The "unforgivable" aspect of blasphemy is the lifelong rejection, not temporary rejection.
I don't see how it's the "continual rejection" if the very first denial is labeled as blasphemy in the first place.
There are two levels of blasphemy. One is forgivable, one isn't.
I thought the 10 commandments were unchanging?
Who says they changed? Superceded doesn't mean changed.
What else is changed in the 10 commandments, then? My friend would argue with you to the death that the Sabbath was never changed to Sunday from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
And I would have no interest whatsoever in such an argument.
He's very intelligent and has done his research as well, so I'm more inclined to believe him over you. Idol worship was apparently changed, too since people were told to worship Jesus in the New Covenant.
Which, if the concept of the trinity is true, is not idol worship.
What if Jesus is in fact not the Son of God and it's just a story that was made to fit him in with the Jewish God to start another branch of jewish religion?
Where's your evidence of this claim? Or are you merely resulting to speculation, like atheists always do when making this sort of claim?
(Much like every other denomination in existence today.)
Actually, it's apples to oranges. Christians threw out thousands of years of Jewish traditions and customs seemingly overnight.
Then everyone's worshipping an idol. Maybe that's why Jews and Islams don't acknowledge Jesus as the son of God and don't worship him.
Did you really just say Islams? I believe you mean Muslims.
They might be on to something. To say they're wrong is arrogant, because they have as many intelligent, credible theists and researchers as any other religion.
To say that they're wrong is a statement of fact. I could turn it right around and say that you saying I'm wrong is arrogant, but you would probably disagree.
SOMEONE is wrong.
I'm so glad you agree.
So why are you more certain of it than other people who have way more credentials under their belts than yourself?
I've never claimed to be "more certain of it." I merely claim to have examined the evidence and found it conclusive.
Especially in the example of Islam...Islam's arguments against the divinity of Christ are some of the worst out there, far below the intellectual level of atheists.
But he DOESN'T (or didn't, as you'll put it) tolerate sin and blasphemy against him, which is EXACTLY why he said people should be put to death for those mundane reasons and blasphemy in the first place.
Which is exactly what we would expect from a holy God that demands holiness and punishes evil.
You're agreeing that he isn't loving. How can you not see that?
Because I think that God punishes sin precisely because he is loving. You seem to be content with God just letting everything happen.
To not defend yourself against attempted murder is suicide if you let it happen without fighting back. That's like not moving out of the way of an oncoming bus in traffic.
So you agree in such a situation that fighting back is a logical thing to do? If you had a gun in such a situation, would killing someone about to kill you be a justified taking of life? You would certainly agree.
So therefore, you acknowledge that there is more to it than simply "it's all murder."
Post a Comment