Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

[Raf]

1. For how many crimes do you feel it is appropriate to kill the perpetrator by having everyone in town surround him and throw heavy rocks at him until he dies?

1.a. Did a child being disobedient to his parents make the list?

1.b. Did picking up sticks after sunset on a Friday make the list?

2. If you were to start a society from scratch, how many laws regulating slavery would you require?

2.a. Would any of those laws crack your Top Ten list?

2.a.i. Why the hell not?

3. What difference should the marital status of a raped woman make in determining the punishment meted out to the rapist?

3a. Who is the victim in a rape case, and how much restitution is he due?

To be continued...

Edited November 12, 2014 by Raf

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Different laws for different cultures. Some morality in the culture of Israel and their laws, but their laws do not have the same morality that Jesus Christ brought to the church.

Matt 22:36-40 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." NKJV

And the religious Jews of the first century even sent their rocks after people like the great teacher Paul or maybe that was hanging him on a tree. No, that was what they did to my friend who I love Jesus Christ.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

Really?

Why could an omniscient God not make "Thou shalt not OWN PEOPLE" a commandment?

He found plenty of time to ban lobster and shrimp.

Different laws for a different culture? A morally just God was creating a society from scratch. He answered to NO ONE. All he had to do was say the word, and thousands of years of human suffering at the hands of our fellow man would have been averted.

When was it EVER moral on ANY culture for a rapist to be "sentenced" to marry the woman he raped?

Please.

[Raf]

When you have a God who embodies morality, his law should embody morality. The Law does not. Either it is not God's law, in which case, oopsie, or Yahweh is not moral.

The only other alternative is, slavery IS moral, stoning is a moral punishment for a petty misdemeanor, and marrying the person you raped is a fitting punishment for a rapist.

[Raf]

Matt 22:36-40 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." NKJV

Is that really true?

Do all the law and the prophets really hang on the principle of love God and/or love your neighbor as yourself?

When a man rapes a married woman, he is to be executed by stoning.

If it's in the country, the married woman's life is spared.

If it's in the city and she doesn't scream, then she's executed too. Because she could have yelled for help but didn't.

Apparently in those days, "Make a sound and I'll kill you" hadn't been invented yet.

So they are executed. BY stoning. A punishment that we reserve today for... NO ONE, because it's a flipping barbaric practice.

I guess God didn't know then that it was barbaric. Otherwise, maybe "thou shalt not stone people" would have been right there next to "thou shalt not own people," another commandment He found no room for while He was banning midgets from his tabernacle. I swear I didn't make that up.

But good news! If the rapist goes after an unmarried woman, she will not be killed! WHEW! Neither will the rapist. [Wait, what?] No, the rapist pays the victim 50 shekels. Oh, and by the victim, I mean the girl's father. The victim is not the one who was pinned down and forcibly violated. It's her father. The rapist also has to marry the girl. Because, you know, justice. I mean, heh heh, what's the father going to do, pass her off to some other man even though she's no longer a virgin? So dad gets rid of his damaged property, and he gets his 50 shekels. Meanwhile the rapist is saddled with a wife, a life sentence.

Was there EVER a time when this was moral?

How about, "Thou shalt not force yourself on a woman. Ever. And the punishment is the same whether the woman is married, unmarried, cute, ugly, a harlot, a nun, ANY WOMAN. Thou shalt not rape!" Surely we can move another equally necessary commandment out of the way to make room for something important like banning rape -- like the commandment against cooking a young goat in its mothers milk (which actually made the Top Ten. Well, the second Top Ten, the only set of laws actually CALLED "The Ten Commandments" in the Bible. You can find the list in Exodus 34. Is the concept of cooking a goat in its mother's milk covered by loving God or loving your neighbor as yourself? I can see why it gets a higher place than "thou shalt not stone people" and "thou shalt not own people." After all... Ok, I lied, I can't think of a single reason why goat cooking gets a commandment but the buying and selling of human beings as property does not).

A different law for a different culture?

A barbaric law for a barbaric culture. An immoral law for a culture that had a LOT to learn. Not the "holy, just and good" law of a loving God who could have instituted any law he wanted.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Raf

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Raf, you are clearly to me not understanding the words of Jesus Christ. In the Greek the word hang means to hang or suspend. Therefore this law was for their culture and not necessary for future cultures. Yes, it had some truth in it and may have been needful for some of the bad people of the Old Testament times, but Jesus Christ expands on this and suspends there law with his law of love.

And to verify from my bible software according to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the Greek word for hang is kremannumi and means "to hang up, to suspend".

According to an English dictionary suspend means as follows:

"temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect"

One more thing historically as I see it all nations before Jesus Christ had a lot of death sentences in their laws.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

that's just proved to me that the law of Israel was no different from all the other man made laws.

are you seriously arguing that it was moral to execute a man by stoning him to death for the crime of picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

are you seriously arguing that there is a moral way for one human being to literally own another?

I would expect the perfect law of a perfectly moral God to be more moral and to stand out from the moral codes or the legal codes of other cultures.I would not expect the perfect the law of a perfect God to be indistinguishable from the savage and brutal legal codes of other cultures of the time.

quibbling about which Greek word Jesus used while speaking Aramaic to his disciples does nothing to undermine a single point I am making.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Raf

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Wow, you think the Old Testament Law was as good as other nation's laws? Giggle giggle!

From what I have read from the Old Testament law there are some good points in it. Some parts very harsh though.

However, the Jewish religious leaders of the first century were not even following this law. They were mostly just after political power when they stoned people for talking out loud, for example the very truthful and bright believer, Stephen. For this see the last verses of Acts chapter 7.

[Raf]

So you agree that the Old Testament law was not God's law?

What Jewish leaders were doing in the first century is totally irrelevant to this discussion and my point. It would be nice if you stayed on topic.

For this, see my posts.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

So you agree that the Old Testament law was not God's law?

What Jewish leaders were doing in the first century is totally irrelevant to this discussion and my point. It would be nice if you stayed on topic.

For this, see my posts.

No, I did not say that the Old Testament law was not God's Law. Instead I said Jesus Christ IMPROVES God's Law. And in the future when all of humanity is under Jesus Christ he will make it perfect for humanity and make all humanity perfect and under His authority. Then he will turn all back to God his Father so that God will be "all in all". For this read 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

And you were in part the one that was first mentioning the Jewish leaders of the first century not following the Old Testament law with your mentioning of Stoning or as you called it "surround him and throw heavy rocks". No, often when they stoned people or wanted to stone people they were NOT following the Old Testament Law. Jesus Christ corrected them on this a number of times.

And my teacher the apostle Paul, who had a great knowledge of the Old Testament often relates the Old Testament to the New Testament to help our understanding.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mark Sanguinetti

[Raf]

please clarify whether you are arguing for my position or against it. I am having trouble keeping up with you.

Mod Edit: The issue of who was first to bring up first century Jews is off topic. All references from this post onward are being deleted.

My question is whether you are more moral than God. You are.

[Raf]

The One who directed that a man be executed by stoning because he worked on the sabbath was Yahweh, not the Hebrews in the desert, not the first century Jews, not the 1960s hippie counterculture. God. Promising that Jesus is going to make it all better someday does not mitigate the fact that Yahweh Himself was singularly responsible for directing a man's brutal execution for a petty, petty offense.

If you think that was a moral penalty for his offense, ever, then I have serious doubts about your morality.

In reality, I do not doubt your morality at all. But I am somewhat entertained by the contortions you twist yourself into in order to avoid saying yeah, that was a flat out immoral instruction.

If it were Allah, you would not hesitate to condemn his barbarism. And you would exhibit not one second of patience for anyone who suggested it was okay then because it was a different time then in a different culture then.

There are laws in the Old Testament that are far, far worse than "very harsh." They are cruel, inhumane and (I'll say it again) barbaric. Why should anyone be impressed that Jesus will make it better when Jesus is supposedly the perfect representation of the moral monster who established such a barbaric law in the first place?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Raf

[Mark Sanguinetti]

I admit that the death penalty of this day and age was very harsh and I am sure that other cultures of this day were equally harsh. However, some of the Old Testament Law is more favorable and less harsh to the population than the laws of nation's today. Here is an example of this from Exodus 22:25-27.

25 “If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. 26 If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. 27 For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.

In contrast today for profit companies are legally allowed to pay very high interest rates on credit cards. This would have been outlawed under the Old Testament law. I hope you can see that this is good and favorable to people who need financial help the most.

[Raf]

And that makes up for stoning a man to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? (Not a rhetorical question. There IS a correct answer).

[Raf]

Please stop referring to it as the "death penalty of this day and age." It was the death penalty prescribed by Yahweh. By definition, it SHOULD be the most moral death penalty ever. Pointing out that it is "equally harsh" in comparison to other cultures only serves to reinforce my point. You are more moral than the God you worship.

[Raf]

God had a choice between abolishing slavery (which we deem today to be ALWAYS wrong) and abolishing interest (which can be abused, but is not ALWAYS morally wrong). God chose to abolish interest. And shellfish. Interest and shellfish are banned in the Bible. Slavery is regulated.

Would it not have been more moral to ban slavery and regulate interest? Not a rhetorical question. There IS a correct answer.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Raf

[Raf]

4. You have the ability to instantaneously kill someone by turning him into a pillar of salt. On whom do you demonstrate this ability?

A. A couple in the process of fatally torturing their 3-year-old son.

B. A modern day pedophile.

C. Cain, a split second before he makes Abel the first murder victim.

D. A woman fleeing her burning home who takes a look back to watch everything she knows going up in flames.

E. Hitler.

F. No one. You demonstrate this horrifying ability on no one.

[waysider]

Way Theology is fond of using dispensationalism to resolve such problems, citing the contrast in administrations...."We're in a different administration now, the OT doesn't apply to us on these matters."...This, of course, invites a sense of elitism. That's seldom a good thing. Doesn't the Bible say that God is not a respecter of persons? This then is countered with a discourse of how God may not be a respecter of persons but He is a respecter of conditions....Eventually, what gets lost in the shuffle is that it's the same God at the heart of the discussion. (In speaking of His nature, God says, "I am the Lord, I change not." ...Malachi 3:6).......So, the same God who metes out severe punishments for minor infractions in the OT appears again in the NT as a God who is all love and light, all goodness and no evil.... Administrations become irrelevant. Conditions become a moot point.

Edited November 13, 2014 by waysider

[Raf]

Dispensationalism is a valiant attempt to put some distance between the patently immoral Law of God recorded in the Old Testament and our modern sensibilities, which have a bit more in common with the New Testament (not withstanding Jesus's wholehearted endorsement of the Old Testament law). Dispensationalism raises many fascinating issues, but I would submit none of those issues have any bearing on the points I am raising.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Off topic content deleted.

You want to imply that Yahweh is not moral. How does God show he is moral or is not moral if it is not through the Old Testament Law or the acts or words of Jesus Christ His Son who always did the will of God His Father?

[Raf]

The topic of this thread, again, is "Are You More Moral than Yahweh? (Spoiler alert: the answer is Yes)."

1. For how many crimes do you feel it is appropriate to kill the perpetrator by having everyone in town surround him and throw heavy rocks at him until he dies?

1.a. Did a child being disobedient to his parents make the list?

1.b. Did picking up sticks after sunset on a Friday make the list?

2. If you were to start a society from scratch, how many laws regulating slavery would you require?

2.a. Would any of those laws crack your Top Ten list?

2.a.i. Why the hell not?

3. What difference should the marital status of a raped woman make in determining the punishment meted out to the rapist?

3a. Who is the victim in a rape case, and how much restitution is he due?

4. You have the ability to instantaneously kill someone by turning him into a pillar of salt. On whom do you demonstrate this ability?

A. A couple in the process of fatally torturing their 3-year-old son.

B. A modern day pedophile.

C. Cain, a split second before he makes Abel the first murder victim.

D. A woman fleeing her burning home who takes a look back to watch everything she knows going up in flames.

E. Hitler.

F. No one. You demonstrate this horrifying ability on no one.

You want to imply that Yahweh is not moral.

Incorrect. I am saying outright that Yahweh is not moral. "Implying" implies that I'm holding back in some way. I am not. Yahweh is immoral.

How does God show he is moral or is not moral if it is not through the Old Testament Law or the acts o words of Jesus Christ His Son who always did the will of God His Father?

Have a look at question 4 above for an answer to your question.

[Raf]

If God shows through one part of the law that He is not moral (say, prescribing the death penalty in a barbaric manner for a petty offense), but shows through another part of the law that He is capable of establishing a compassionate microeconomic policy, does that make Him moral?

I would expect YOU to be able to come up with a compassionate microeconomic policy WITHOUT prescribing the death penalty for a petty offense. That makes you more moral than God, which is the topic of this thread.

Mod edit: off topic content deleted.

[Raf]

I'm just curious -- why are you spending more time attacking me than you are defending your God? By not challenging the premises of my argument, are you conceding that God was responsible for ALL the Old Testament laws (the good, the bad, and the utterly barbaric)?

[Raf]

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. (Deut. 21:18-21)

If you disagree with stoning children to death for being disobedient, you are more moral than Yahweh.

[Raf]

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

If you disagree that exercising freedom of religion should be punishable by death by stoning, you are more moral than Yahweh.

Deuteronomy 13:

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things[c] are to be found in your hands...

If you disagree with killing an entire town, men, women, children, and pets, because someone in that town -- or, hell, the entire town -- converted to a different religion, you are more moral than Yahweh.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Raf