I cited example after example after example. You reduce it to one example, miss the point, and act as if there's simply nothing immoral about executing someone for a petty offense other than "I disagree."
"I disagree" is not the point. This is f-ing barbaric, and you refuse to even admit that because doing so would underscore my point, and the Last thing you can allow is for me to have a point.
Thats what makes your approach to this thread dishonest. For some reason you decided to troll my comments, ultimately landing on this thread, with constant babbling that doesn't hold up to rational analysis.
For whatever reason, you refuse to see it. Fine. But I'm done entertaining you. It is impossible to debate someone who changes definitions and distorts prior stated positions so constantly and shamelessly. If you can't say killing a child for investigating another religion is immoral, then you're a sociopath. I don't debate sociopaths.
I cited example after example after example. You reduce it to one example, miss the point, and act as if there's simply nothing immoral about executing someone for a petty offense other than "I disagree."
"I disagree" is not the point. This is f-ing barbaric, and you refuse to even admit that because doing so would underscore my point, and the Last thing you can allow is for me to have a point.
Thats what makes your approach to this thread dishonest. For some reason you decided to troll my comments, ultimately landing on this thread, with constant babbling that doesn't hold up to rational analysis.
For whatever reason, you refuse to see it. Fine. But I'm done entertaining you. It is impossible to debate someone who changes definitions and distorts prior stated positions so constantly and shamelessly. If you can't say killing a child for investigating another religion is immoral, then you're a sociopath. I don't debate sociopaths.
I looked into "sociopath" and I'm not sure that works in my case. I am sure you can finds some words that do.
This thread is clearly a work of satire. Since, "If God is so great why do we suffer and die" is probably the simplest form of the thread's argument. There is nothing that can't be argued as a lack of Yahweh's ability.
The argument has strict categorical thinking that makes it difficult to follow any flow of logic. A flow chart was intended to help find the missing thought or thoughts.
This article puts forward an alternative reading of Num 15:32-36 which takes seriously the fact that the cognitive structures that go into reading the biblical Sabbath laws are narrative and visual, rather than semantic and literal. This ‘narrative’ reading sees ‘food production’ as the typical case of ‘work’ and sees ‘food production on the Sabbath’ as the ‘paradigm case’ of Sabbath-breaking. Against this background, Num 15:32-36 is a hard case because the Sabbath-gatherer’s behaviour is sufficiently far removed from the paradigm of food production to raise the question of whether the Sabbath laws could be used to resolve the problem. The uncertainty ensures that the case must be resolved by the parties concerned and since, unusually, God is the only offended party, only God can determine whether capital punishment applies and, if so, the form it should take. Ultimately, the offender’s behaviour is judged to be sufficiently close to the paradigm to deserve death because it evokes Israel’s experience of total servitude in Egypt. ‘Sabbath-gathering’ reflects a desire to return to the economic conditions associated with Pharaoh’s rule and thus signifies the rejection of YHWH’s lordship.
It looks like the Law tried to prevent the worst possible scenarios that could be managed with the resources and understanding of the day. It was just the best they could do. (Without Yahweh wiping everyone's foot for them)
Slaves in the OT appear to have had it far better the slaves here in the United States did. Slaves in the U.S. of course had it FAR better than African slaves sent to the Arab world.
I see no profit in engaging in discussion with you. I don't think your tactics are intellectually honest or sincere. You missed the point of the thread even though it was pointed out using small words. You don't like the definition of God so you change it arbitrarily and accuse me of being "fundy" for engaging the biblical definition of Yahweh instead of the one you pulled out of your ass. You expect everyone to ignore the meanings of words and instead conform to your peculiar definitions (you can take the troll out of the cult...). Those factors alone disqualify you from honest debate. Your gish gallop will no longer be entertained.
I see no profit in engaging in discussion with you. I don't think your tactics are intellectually honest or sincere. You missed the point of the thread even though it was pointed out using small words. You don't like the definition of God so you change it arbitrarily and accuse me of being "fundy" for engaging the biblical definition of Yahweh instead of the one you pulled out of your foot. You expect everyone to ignore the meanings of words and instead conform to your peculiar definitions (you can take the troll out of the cult...). Those factors alone disqualify you from honest debate. Your gish gallop will no longer be entertained.
You don't have to respond to anything.
You have misrepresented a number of points. I am going through all the misinformation you have deliberately planted. It's like reading JCING again.
As far as genocide, there seems to be a similar argument as with the law and the flood. You're supposed to read something fierce about God's character and judgement. There was a process prior to genocide.
Genocide and warfare itself of course, is not limited to humans.
I see no profit in engaging in discussion with you. I don't think your tactics are intellectually honest or sincere. You missed the point of the thread even though it was pointed out using small words. You don't like the definition of God so you change it arbitrarily and accuse me of being "fundy" for engaging the biblical definition of Yahweh instead of the one you pulled out of your ass. You expect everyone to ignore the meanings of words and instead conform to your peculiar definitions (you can take the troll out of the cult...). Those factors alone disqualify you from honest debate. Your gish gallop will no longer be entertained.
Having re-read the thread, I found this worth repeating, even though it wasn't many posts ago.
On another front, I did take some time to consider whether my views here were myopic (maybe that's the wrong word, but I'll explain).
If it is true that I am guilty of looking at things only from a temporal perspective instead of from an eternal perspective (which is to say, God's point of view), then maybe I really am being a little too hard on Him.
If God kills a man, only to grant that man eternal life, then has God wronged that man? If God orders Israelites to kill women and children (and according to scripture, he did exactly that), then grants eternal life to the children, has He really wronged the children? Is it not the case that the person who suffered the most was the soldier who had to carry out the executions?
So maybe the criticism that I have failed to take the eternal perspective into account has some merit.
Having re-read the thread, I found this worth repeating, even though it wasn't many posts ago.
On another front, I did take some time to consider whether my views here were myopic (maybe that's the wrong word, but I'll explain).
If it is true that I am guilty of looking at things only from a temporal perspective instead of from an eternal perspective (which is to say, God's point of view), then maybe I really am being a little too hard on Him.
If God kills a man, only to grant that man eternal life, then has God wronged that man? If God orders Israelites to kill women and children (and according to scripture, he did exactly that), then grants eternal life to the children, has He really wronged the children? Is it not the case that the person who suffered the most was the soldier who had to carry out the executions?
So maybe the criticism that I have failed to take the eternal perspective into account has some merit.
the temporal versus eternal is always something to consider. scripture for the fundamentalist is to me leading towards self-denial.
One of the problems though with humans trying to look through the eternal which they are not really geared to do is then all human life starts to look cheap with respect to larger ideas of good and evil.
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...
Raf I struggle with OT concepts and morality. To me the best I can reconcile a lot of it is it being a "Mad Max Thunderdome" time of trying to follow God to the best of people's ability. And that God had to scale good down to look at least a little like the neighbors or people would reject it outright.
But I have no great theological scriptural interpretation answers. Actually maybe one. The story of Abraham and his son. Maybe people mixed in their stupid idea laws with God's ideas. And literally every word of that Levite law wasn't directly from God, but a board of elderly men that look kind of like the Ayatollah. I mean there are OT intersections with Sharia law too.....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
I cited example after example after example. You reduce it to one example, miss the point, and act as if there's simply nothing immoral about executing someone for a petty offense other than "I disagree."
"I disagree" is not the point. This is f-ing barbaric, and you refuse to even admit that because doing so would underscore my point, and the Last thing you can allow is for me to have a point.
Thats what makes your approach to this thread dishonest. For some reason you decided to troll my comments, ultimately landing on this thread, with constant babbling that doesn't hold up to rational analysis.
For whatever reason, you refuse to see it. Fine. But I'm done entertaining you. It is impossible to debate someone who changes definitions and distorts prior stated positions so constantly and shamelessly. If you can't say killing a child for investigating another religion is immoral, then you're a sociopath. I don't debate sociopaths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Perhaps the missing piece is key to Waybrain.
Why withhold that information?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I am rereading and reading this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I looked into "sociopath" and I'm not sure that works in my case. I am sure you can finds some words that do.
This thread is clearly a work of satire. Since, "If God is so great why do we suffer and die" is probably the simplest form of the thread's argument. There is nothing that can't be argued as a lack of Yahweh's ability.
The argument has strict categorical thinking that makes it difficult to follow any flow of logic. A flow chart was intended to help find the missing thought or thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you've got $30 this looks interesting.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/004249310x12597406253283
This article puts forward an alternative reading of Num 15:32-36 which takes seriously the fact that the cognitive structures that go into reading the biblical Sabbath laws are narrative and visual, rather than semantic and literal. This ‘narrative’ reading sees ‘food production’ as the typical case of ‘work’ and sees ‘food production on the Sabbath’ as the ‘paradigm case’ of Sabbath-breaking. Against this background, Num 15:32-36 is a hard case because the Sabbath-gatherer’s behaviour is sufficiently far removed from the paradigm of food production to raise the question of whether the Sabbath laws could be used to resolve the problem. The uncertainty ensures that the case must be resolved by the parties concerned and since, unusually, God is the only offended party, only God can determine whether capital punishment applies and, if so, the form it should take. Ultimately, the offender’s behaviour is judged to be sufficiently close to the paradigm to deserve death because it evokes Israel’s experience of total servitude in Egypt. ‘Sabbath-gathering’ reflects a desire to return to the economic conditions associated with Pharaoh’s rule and thus signifies the rejection of YHWH’s lordship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And apparently a simple google search clears up that picking up sticks isn't simply about picking up sticks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I looked into other items, but obviously being forced to marry your rapist is beyond uncomfortable to imagine.
http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-could-the-bible-command-a-rape-victim-to-marry-her-rapist/
Again, there's more to the story.
https://stephenjgraham.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/does-the-old-testament-force-rape-victims-to-marry-rapists/
It looks like the Law tried to prevent the worst possible scenarios that could be managed with the resources and understanding of the day. It was just the best they could do. (Without Yahweh wiping everyone's foot for them)
Edited by Bolshevikadd another link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html
Slaves in the OT appear to have had it far better the slaves here in the United States did. Slaves in the U.S. of course had it FAR better than African slaves sent to the Arab world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Great galloping gish!
The only thing worse than a fed troll is a hungry one.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No need to feed.
I've still got to look into genocide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I see no profit in engaging in discussion with you. I don't think your tactics are intellectually honest or sincere. You missed the point of the thread even though it was pointed out using small words. You don't like the definition of God so you change it arbitrarily and accuse me of being "fundy" for engaging the biblical definition of Yahweh instead of the one you pulled out of your ass. You expect everyone to ignore the meanings of words and instead conform to your peculiar definitions (you can take the troll out of the cult...). Those factors alone disqualify you from honest debate. Your gish gallop will no longer be entertained.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You don't have to respond to anything.
You have misrepresented a number of points. I am going through all the misinformation you have deliberately planted. It's like reading JCING again.
Edited by Bolshevikwrong book reference
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And atheism and fundy being on the same coin is not something I pulled out of my foot. It's a helpful rule of thumb.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
As far as genocide, there seems to be a similar argument as with the law and the flood. You're supposed to read something fierce about God's character and judgement. There was a process prior to genocide.
Genocide and warfare itself of course, is not limited to humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Having re-read the thread, I found this worth repeating, even though it wasn't many posts ago.
On another front, I did take some time to consider whether my views here were myopic (maybe that's the wrong word, but I'll explain).
If it is true that I am guilty of looking at things only from a temporal perspective instead of from an eternal perspective (which is to say, God's point of view), then maybe I really am being a little too hard on Him.
If God kills a man, only to grant that man eternal life, then has God wronged that man? If God orders Israelites to kill women and children (and according to scripture, he did exactly that), then grants eternal life to the children, has He really wronged the children? Is it not the case that the person who suffered the most was the soldier who had to carry out the executions?
So maybe the criticism that I have failed to take the eternal perspective into account has some merit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No one bought that, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
the temporal versus eternal is always something to consider. scripture for the fundamentalist is to me leading towards self-denial.
One of the problems though with humans trying to look through the eternal which they are not really geared to do is then all human life starts to look cheap with respect to larger ideas of good and evil.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf I struggle with OT concepts and morality. To me the best I can reconcile a lot of it is it being a "Mad Max Thunderdome" time of trying to follow God to the best of people's ability. And that God had to scale good down to look at least a little like the neighbors or people would reject it outright.
But I have no great theological scriptural interpretation answers. Actually maybe one. The story of Abraham and his son. Maybe people mixed in their stupid idea laws with God's ideas. And literally every word of that Levite law wasn't directly from God, but a board of elderly men that look kind of like the Ayatollah. I mean there are OT intersections with Sharia law too.....
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.