• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Deriving a moral philosophy from Jesus.

It's all about Love, I tell ya. The God of Love and Tender Mercy.
Yes.
That's His offer. That's what He would prefer.
But if you think that means...
a parent who lets their child do whatever they want, a police officer who looks the other way when a bank is getting robbed, and a judge who never finds anyone guilty
...then you're creating an imaginary god to your own liking.

Well, that wasn't quite what I was thinking. What you say here ignores bible verses that paint a different picture of God.

I don't ignore any part of the bible.
There's not one single chapter, verse or jot in the bible that I would prefer wasn't there.
There are certainly events in the bible I wish didn't happen. But that's not saying much because God thinks the same. (Hosea 7:13 Isaiah 5:4 Jeremiah 6:8 Matthew 23:37 etc etc)
 
Well, that wasn't quite what I was thinking. What you say here ignores bible verses that paint a different picture of God.

I don't ignore any part of the bible.
There's not one single chapter, verse or jot in the bible that I would prefer wasn't there.
There are certainly events in the bible I wish didn't happen. But that's not saying much because God thinks the same. (Hosea 7:13 Isaiah 5:4 Jeremiah 6:8 Matthew 23:37 etc etc)

So what do you think about the nature and character of God when the bible describes God killing people or ordering their deaths?
 
...the same as when I see a police officer handing out a speeding ticket.
There's a good reason for doing so.
 
Show me a man being killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
I must have missed that story.
 
Show me a man being killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
I must have missed that story.

Well, there's the problem, you need to get to know your bible better;


"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day...And the Lord said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.' And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." - Numbers 15:32

There are other verses describing God killing people directly.
 
Show me a man being killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
I must have missed that story.

Well, there's the problem, you need to get to know your bible better;


"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day...And the Lord said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.' And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses." - Numbers 15:32

There are other verses describing God killing people directly.

I'll make a safe prediction that Lion doesn't touch that one. And of course the giant god flood killed everyone and all animals except one family.
 
The narrative related to that verse has it that the man is a repeat offender, that Moses doesn't know what to do with him, so he asks God...who orders his death by stoning. Three strikes and you are out, apparently.
 
You can find the 613 commandments and dictates from the OT online. Some are bizzare even condering the times. There is a requirement to enact genocide on an enemy.

The ancient Hebrews were like in some ways the later conservative Muslims that came later. The Koran has harsh punishments. Up through the 90s there were public beheadings in Saudi Arabia for offense like apostacy and other violations.

You could say the Koran was an extension of the Old Testament. Mohamed referred to the Hebrews as people who lost their way in his times.

One of the gospel stories is about Jesus interfering with the stoning of a woman.

VERSE 3- 5: "The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?"
Although the scribes and Pharisees were not wrongly accusing this adulterous woman, their purpose was not to justify the law, if so they would have also brought the man. He had broken the law just as much she had. The law required that both be stoned to death, (Lev. 20:10).
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

The Jewish tradition that 613 commandments (Hebrew: תרי״ג מצוות‎, romanized: taryag mitzvot) is the number of mitzvot in the Torah began in the 3rd century CE, when Rabbi Simlai mentioned it in a sermon that is recorded in Talmud Makkot 23b.[1]
Although there have been a lot of attempts to codify and enumerate the commandments contained in the Torah, the most traditional enumeration is Maimonides'. The 613 commandments include "positive commandments", to perform an act (mitzvot aseh), and "negative commandments", to abstain from certain acts (mitzvot lo taaseh). The negative commandments number 365, which coincides with the number of days in the solar year, and the positive commandments number 248, a number ascribed to the number of bones and main organs in the human body.[2] Though the number 613 is mentioned in the Talmud, its real significance increased in later medieval rabbinic literature, including many works listing or arranged by the mitzvot. Three types of negative commandments fall under the self-sacrificial principle yehareg ve'al ya'avor, meaning "One should let oneself be killed rather than violate it". These are murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations.[3]
The 613 mitzvot have been divided also into three general categories: mishpatim; edot; and chukim. Mishpatim ("laws") include commandments that are deemed to be self-evident, such as not to murder and not to steal. Edot ("testimonies") commemorate important events in Jewish history. For example, the Shabbat is said to testify to the story that Hashem created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and declared it holy. Chukim ("decrees") are commandments with no known rationale, and are perceived as pure manifestations of the Divine will.[4]
Many of the mitzvot cannot be observed now, following the destruction of the Second Temple, although they still retain religious significance. According to one standard reckoning,[5] there are 77 positive and 194 negative commandments that can be observed today, of which there are 26 commands that apply only within the Land of Israel.[6] Furthermore, there are some time-related commandments from which women are exempt (examples include shofar, sukkah, lulav, tzitzit and tefillin).[7] Some depend on the special status of a person in Judaism (such as kohanim), while others apply only to men or only to women.

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Law of God/THE 613 LAWS of the OLD TESTAMENT.pdf
 
Show me a man being killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
I must have missed that story.

Wtf. How did you not know that story?

I forgot. (Not the first time. Won't be the last.)
One time I forgot that Moses himself killed someone.

Now, to DBT's actual point. Did God have a good reason for imposing such a strict discipline for the Israelites at that time.
I would still say yes.
 
Show me a man being killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
I must have missed that story.

Wtf. How did you not know that story?

I forgot. (Not the first time. Won't be the last.)
One time I forgot that Moses himself killed someone.

Now, to DBT's actual point. Did God have a good reason for imposing such a strict discipline for the Israelites at that time.
I would still say yes.

So killing people for trivial reasons is fine? Gathering sticks on the Sabbath is a capital offence in the eyes of the God of Love and Tender Mercy?

What happened to 'though shalt not kill' as principle that God is said to value?
 
There's strong theology behind the concept a need for dividing The Law into two streams - casuistic and apodictic.

God's Chosen (covenant) people were more strictly disciplined because they would need discipline.
 
Strict discipline is one thing, prophesing the value of 'though shall not kill' while having a man killed is another.

The point Lion is making is that theologically anything can be justified, excused, made acceptable. Theology is politics on steroids.

The horrors of Auschwitz first became known to the Allies in 1944. Men escaped and brought their stories first to Slovakia. Their story was so incredible that it was met with disbelief and denial, but history shows us that it was happening.
 
Show me a man being killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
I must have missed that story.

Wtf. How did you not know that story?

I forgot. (Not the first time. Won't be the last.)
One time I forgot that Moses himself killed someone.

Is there any pattern to the things you forget and the things you don't forget, I wonder? ;)

I've had psychoanalysis. I know how such things can go. The brain can cherry-pick without us knowing.

Now, to DBT's actual point. Did God have a good reason for imposing such a strict discipline for the Israelites at that time.
I would still say yes.

You would. Because you believe there's a god involved. I don't believe that, so all I would say is that there were good reasons for such strict discipline to be imposed for the Israelites at that time. It's basically what you are saying, without the god part.

In other words, I'm seeing god as redundant to the explanation. You're not, because you think there is a god involved, and also that some particular writers in some particular place at some particular time were able to know what he allowed (what his rules were). Slavery, for example. At least they knew that was what he allowed. Ripping open the bellies of the pregnant wives of one's enemies and dashing their children to pieces (I doubt you've forgotten those delightful parts of 2 Kings and Hosea). No, hang on, did they get those bits right?

I think DBT's main point was more to do with an apparent contradiction.

Forgetting, along with denial (they might even be the same thing in some cases) are possible ways to avoid dealing with awkward contradictions.
 
Last edited:
Strict discipline is one thing, prophesing the value of 'though shall not kill' while having a man killed is another.

The point Lion is making is that theologically anything can be justified, excused, made acceptable. Theology is politics on steroids.

The horrors of Auschwitz first became known to the Allies in 1944. Men escaped and brought their stories first to Slovakia. Their story was so incredible that it was met with disbelief and denial, but history shows us that it was happening.

History shows us a lot more horrors in that war alone! More than any other time in history:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU[/YOUTUBE]

Just civilians at 7.40 mark.

People suffered everywhere.

Politics of the WW1 also sent farmers, butchers, greengrocers, and boys to war in the trenches to make the numbers. They would just walk forwards when ordered to, step by step across the fields without cover towards 'hails of fire'. Very brave men with the expectation they are likely to fall before reaching the otherside. Those that suffered shell shock or deserted with understandable fear, were shot.
If you didn't go over the trench you got shot.
 
Last edited:
So, what is better, saviors or no saviors, gods or no gods, woo or no woo? It seems to me to be better to make peace not war, love not hate, friends not enemies.

Who would god kill, who would jesus kill, who would the bible kill, who would the gospels kill?

Who would you kill?
 
I was responding to the "disbelief and denial" bit.

(I'm with you BTW on the, make peace not war. And as we see the history, not ALL people (who usually start it) are for it).
 
Back
Top Bottom