Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 01-07-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

After Israel rebelled against God in the desert while he was among them he knew that Israel was rebellious and stiff-necked. A nation such as this is easily corrupted especially being surrounded by Paganism. So God in a attempt to preserve Israel had to make them afraid of rebelling against him not because he wanted to but because he had too. You cannot rule over a rebellious people meekly.

Clearly YHWH didn't impress the Hebrews, or they wouldn't have needed such threats. If they were so easily corrupted, their God obviously didn't appear to them to be very powerful. And if YHWH wanted such passive, worshipful subjects, He must have been very insecure. Of course, He was a "jealous God", which just proves a point made many times before: YHWH was a tribal God only, not the 'only' God he was later to become.

No it just proves that true rebels will not obey God period and not that God is weak. Whether through fear or meekness the rule of God will never be accepted by the rebel....thus the prophesied destruction of all rebels from off the face of the earth an end to evil and rebellion.

semiopen · 01-07-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

No it just proves that true rebels will not obey God period and not that God is weak. Whether through fear or meekness the rule of God will never be accepted by the rebel....thus the prophesied destruction of all rebels from off the face of the earth an end to evil and rebellion.

"Prove" is a strong word. It's a passage probably written over 2500 years ago. I suspect Joan's comment was ironic. Southern fundamentalist hillbillies might take offense at the anti-rebel tone here.

bacht · 01-07-2009, 08:40 AM

Yes but you're spoiling Bokoura's fun, he/she wants to demonstrate to those crazy literalists just how useless their scriptures are, and how superior us non-literalists are - wonderful game, so clever...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient laws are full of draconian punishments that were evidently rarely carried out - threats to get your attention that in practice would not be acted on.

The problem is that later literalists take these seriously. We have no record of the Jews stoning people for adultery, but later and some recent Muslims have in fact done that. And some American Dominionists have advocated a return to stoning as a solution to all of our problems. See "Invitation to a stoning"

Quote:

"The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do 'his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.

storytime · 01-07-2009, 08:55 AM

Well I agree with you Sugarhitman, the rule of the Hebrew/Israelite tribal god will never be accepted by a rebellous people who worshipped/worship their own gods. And therein, the biblical god is weak and ineffective, can't control the lives of others, and can only enslave HIS people, which seems to be lessening in number as we speak.

sugarhitman · 01-07-2009, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well I agree with you Sugarhitman, the rule of the Hebrew/Israelite tribal god will never be accepted by a rebellous people who worshipped/worship their own gods. And therein, the biblical god is weak and ineffective, can't control the lives of others, and can only enslave HIS people, which seems to be lessening in number as we speak.

The biblical God CHOOSES not to control people lives he allows them to make choices but He will punish evil.

Wrong again mate God doesnt enslave his people....for he came to set us free.

storytime · 01-07-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well I agree with you Sugarhitman, the rule of the Hebrew/Israelite tribal god will never be accepted by a rebellous people who worshipped/worship their own gods. And therein, the biblical god is weak and ineffective, can't control the lives of others, and can only enslave HIS people, which seems to be lessening in number as we speak.

The biblical God CHOOSES not to control people lives he allows them to make choices but He will punish evil.

Wrong again mate God doesnt enslave his people....for he came to set us free.

Actually, the biblical god had no choice but to accept what the authors wrote about him. His life was in their pen, so to speak.

According to the story, God bound his people to commandments of law. Enslavement, servitude. Punishment for disloyalty[sin] meant death.

Jesus didn't come to set us free. Nor to set YOU free. Non Jewish people had no laws to transgress, no binding precepts to that Jewish tradition. Jesus was sent to save the people of Israel only, and only those in Israel who were in error of doctrine as he believed it to be. Also, Jesus wasn't sent to save the righteous Jews who did not need a savior[physician]. "Those who are well need not a physician", "I came not to save the righteous[Jews]", who were judged in obeying the laws.

Not only did God enslave his people Israel via laws, he commanded they be put to death for pissing in the wrong direction. (recognizing non-Jews as His people) And Jesus changed not a thing in the protocols of Zion, so to speak.

sugarhitman · 01-07-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The biblical God CHOOSES not to control people lives he allows them to make choices but He will punish evil.

Wrong again mate God doesnt enslave his people....for he came to set us free.

Actually, the biblical god had no choice but to accept what the authors wrote about him. His life was in their pen, so to speak.

According to the story, God bound his people to commandments of law. Enslavement, servitude. Punishment for disloyalty[sin] meant death.

Jesus didn't come to set us free. Nor to set YOU free. Non Jewish people had no laws to transgress, no binding precepts to that Jewish tradition. Jesus was sent to save the people of Israel only, and only those in Israel who were in error of doctrine as he believed it to be. Also, Jesus wasn't sent to save the righteous Jews who did not need a savior[physician]. "Those who are well need not a physician", "I came not to save the righteous[Jews]", who were judged in obeying the laws.

Not only did God enslave his people Israel via laws, he commanded they be put to death for pissing in the wrong direction. (recognizing non-Jews as His people) And Jesus changed not a thing in the protocols of Zion, so to speak.

For there is none righteous so Jesus came to save all.

"Non Jewish people had no laws to transgress" how nice of the Gentiles to be anarchists.

God punished Israel not because they recognized non Jews but because they adopted their evil anarchists Pagan practices, so get it right.

Jesus does indeed offer freedom, which is why you are not living in a Pagan society where there was no freedom.

storytime · 01-07-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Actually, the biblical god had no choice but to accept what the authors wrote about him. His life was in their pen, so to speak.

According to the story, God bound his people to commandments of law. Enslavement, servitude. Punishment for disloyalty[sin] meant death.

Jesus didn't come to set us free. Nor to set YOU free. Non Jewish people had no laws to transgress, no binding precepts to that Jewish tradition. Jesus was sent to save the people of Israel only, and only those in Israel who were in error of doctrine as he believed it to be. Also, Jesus wasn't sent to save the righteous Jews who did not need a savior[physician]. "Those who are well need not a physician", "I came not to save the righteous[Jews]", who were judged in obeying the laws.

Not only did God enslave his people Israel via laws, he commanded they be put to death for pissing in the wrong direction. (recognizing non-Jews as His people) And Jesus changed not a thing in the protocols of Zion, so to speak.

For there is none righteous so Jesus came to save all.

"Non Jewish people had no laws to transgress" how nice of the Gentiles to be anarchists.

God punished Israel not because they recognized non Jews but because they adopted their evil anarchists Pagan practices, so get it right.

Jesus does indeed offer freedom, which is why you are not living in a Pagan society where there was no freedom.

Your points are of course arguable. Why would you think non Jewish practices were "evil anarchists Pagan?"

Jesus offered nothing to Gentiles, but seemed to be receptive of their desire to convert to Judaism. "Salvation iis of the Jews". Salvation was not of Gentiles. Probably because salvation had need of laws to transgress before redemption could be valued.

sugarhitman · 01-07-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

For there is none righteous so Jesus came to save all.

"Non Jewish people had no laws to transgress" how nice of the Gentiles to be anarchists.

God punished Israel not because they recognized non Jews but because they adopted their evil anarchists Pagan practices, so get it right.

Jesus does indeed offer freedom, which is why you are not living in a Pagan society where there was no freedom.

Your points are of course arguable. Why would you think non Jewish practices were "evil anarchists Pagan?"

Jesus offered nothing to Gentiles, but seemed to be receptive of their desire to convert to Judaism. "Salvation iis of the Jews". Salvation was not of Gentiles. Probably because salvation had need of laws to transgress before redemption could be valued.

Read the history of Pagan nations.

If nations adopted the teachings of Jesus sincerely corruption and discord would be close to non-existant. The Reformation brought about freedom never before experienced in any Gentile nation and that freedom was established on Christian morality.....Jesus offered freedom to Gentiles....and we in America only tasted a small measure of it and that was great....imagine if the west had adopted 100% the teachings of Christ.

semiopen · 01-07-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well I agree with you Sugarhitman, the rule of the Hebrew/Israelite tribal god will never be accepted by a rebellous people who worshipped/worship their own gods. And therein, the biblical god is weak and ineffective, can't control the lives of others, and can only enslave HIS people, which seems to be lessening in number as we speak.

The biblical God CHOOSES not to control people lives he allows them to make choices but He will punish evil.

Wrong again mate God doesnt enslave his people....for he came to set us free.

This is getting a little off topic.

In the passage God tells the people to kill their rebellious sons. If someone has what they consider a rebellious son and doesn't kill them does that make them evil also? Also there seems to be a possibility that one might think one's son is rebellious (perhaps he has a mental illness) and has them killed by mistake. What are the implications to this?

Also, it seems the passage isn't neccessarily referring to the worship of false gods, certainly not entirely.

Finally, you may be referring to Jesus taking this responsibility away from us for some reason. Is your position that anyone in the world who doesn't accept Jesus is rebellious and therefore will be destroyed?

Thanks for clearing this up.

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

01-07-2009, 08:55 AM	#24
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Well I agree with you Sugarhitman, the rule of the Hebrew/Israelite tribal god will never be accepted by a rebellous people who worshipped/worship their own gods. And therein, the biblical god is weak and ineffective, can't control the lives of others, and can only enslave HIS people, which seems to be lessening in number as we speak.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.