Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gawen · 10-17-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

How about:
Leviticus 21 (KJV)
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

Good call. So Jesus killed some beasts. I don't believe Jesus 'made good'. But is it a sin?

Godless Wonder · 10-17-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Greed/Avarice - He had none for material wealth.

What about Mary anointing Jesus feed with a pound(!) of spikenard, then wiping his feet with her hair? Seems pretty pimped out to me. I could see it on one of those rap videios. 2ml of spikenard is $6.70 on ebay today. Don't know what a pound goes for, but it'd be a lot. (if it has the same density as water, by my calculations, it'd be about $1500 worth of unnecessary ointment.)

pharoah · 10-17-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

Good call. So Jesus killed some beasts. I don't believe Jesus 'made good'. But is it a sin?

According to the Xian definition, a sin is disobeying a commandment of God, so Jesus's failure to "make good" as God commanded would be a sin.

lpetrich · 10-18-2006, 12:51 AM

Godless Wonder, do you have chapter and verse on that anointing? I recall it, but it seemed like a gift from an overenthusiastic follower.

And pharoah, that's from Leviticus 24, not 21. Here are two modern-English translations:

Quote:

" 'If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution—life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' " (Leviticus 24:17-22, NIV)

"'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life. If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death. 'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'" (Leviticus 24:17-22, NASB)

But pharoah is correct that Jesus Christ never bothered to pay any restitution to the owners of those unfortunate Gadarene Swine.

Though I'm not sure if an exception may reasonably be made for wicked animals like pigs.

dzim77 · 10-18-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Godless Wonder, do you have chapter and verse on that anointing? I recall it, but it seemed like a gift from an overenthusiastic follower.

And pharoah, that's from Leviticus 24, not 21. Here are two modern-English translations:

But pharoah is correct that Jesus Christ never bothered to pay any restitution to the owners of those unfortunate Gadarene Swine.

Though I'm not sure if an exception may reasonably be made for wicked animals like pigs.

This is the best point I've seen yet on the thread (imo).

Also consider that Jesus did not *directly* kill the pigs. He allowed demons (whom he graciously cast out of a tortured man) to go into the pigs.

The demons were the guilty party in destroying the pigs. Perhaps this is why the pig owners could not lawfully persecute Jesus? It would be hard to convict him of such a crime given the unique nature of the case.

Either way, you can see that this is not a cut-and-dry case of breaking Levitical law.

Atheos · 10-19-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vashtarah

Just as a devil's advocate here, I'd like to point out that the Seven Deadly Sins are not a biblical concept. They were introduced by a pope in the 7th century. Maybe this means Jesus is off the hook...

Well to be fair, the OP did mention that this list came from the "Seven Deadly Sins of medieval Catholicism" so that point was already conceded. However there is a biblical list of seven sins that one writer claimed Yahweh found particularly abominable:

Quote:

Proverbs 6
:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

So from this passage we get the following list:

Pride
Lying
Murder
Lust(?)
Mischeviousness
Lying (again)
Being disruptive

Interestingly, "Lying" is on the list twice, which may explain why the writer couldn't decide whether to call it six or seven things. Maybe he had such a short attention span he didn't notice the duplicate. Also it's worth noting that Yahweh would evidently approve of IIDB's forum rules which clearly prohibit being disruptive. :thumbs:

post tenebras lux · 10-19-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proverbs 6:19

:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Well the first part rules out those YEC's who claim that 'maybe God just made the earth/universe look old' as that would mean that natural revelation was a false witness.

Whilst the second part rules out any of the wishy-washy ecumenical crowd as - given the discord down the ages between the various abrahamic crowds - the christians, jews and muslims can't all be 'brethren' worshipping the same god but each in his own style and way - so only one of the special revelations could be god-sent.

Coleslaw · 10-19-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Well to be fair, the OP did mention that this list came from the "Seven Deadly Sins of medieval Catholicism" so that point was already conceded. However there is a biblical list of seven sins that one writer claimed Yahweh found particularly abominable:

<snip>

Interestingly, "Lying" is on the list twice, which may explain why the writer couldn't decide whether to call it six or seven things. Maybe he had such a short attention span he didn't notice the duplicate. Also it's worth noting that Yahweh would evidently approve of IIDB's forum rules which clearly prohibit being disruptive.

I think the writer may have had in mind two types of lying-the "lying tongue" meaning lying when confronted in order to avoid trouble (No, I didn't drink all the milk and then leave the empty carton in the refrigerator), and the false witness that speaketh lies meaning making up lies about another and spreading them around. And "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him" could mean that while the writer was thinking of the list, another item for the list popped into his mind.

lpetrich · 10-19-2006, 10:08 AM

I consulted some modern-English translations:

Quote:

There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(NIV)

There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
(NASB)

Seems like its writer had not thought it out very clearly.

As to Jesus Christ, he may be guilty of the first one by implying that he was God, and of the last one for wanting to break up people's families.

Betelnut · 10-19-2006, 04:41 PM

Give me a break! If Jesus is a "god" he could vanquish demons without killing a herd of swine. He could have just snapped his fingers and "disappeared" the damned beings!

Jesus deliberately tortured 2000 animals. That is a sin.

Jesus deliberately killed a fig tree. That is a sin.

True, these are very petty things, but they are in the "Bible"--the "Word of God" so, how trival can it truly be? (Unless you Xians think that some parts of the Bible are just filler?)

I point out these two events because everyone else has done a pretty good job on the Sabbath breaking, parent disrepecting side of Jesus.

But it is hard to respect a man who would wantonly destroy the property of other people (fig trees and pigs) and who is cruel to animals.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2006, 04:41 PM	#80
Betelnut Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Maryland Posts: 177	Give me a break! If Jesus is a "god" he could vanquish demons without killing a herd of swine. He could have just snapped his fingers and "disappeared" the damned beings! Jesus deliberately tortured 2000 animals. That is a sin. Jesus deliberately killed a fig tree. That is a sin. True, these are very petty things, but they are in the "Bible"--the "Word of God" so, how trival can it truly be? (Unless you Xians think that some parts of the Bible are just filler?) I point out these two events because everyone else has done a pretty good job on the Sabbath breaking, parent disrepecting side of Jesus. But it is hard to respect a man who would wantonly destroy the property of other people (fig trees and pigs) and who is cruel to animals.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.