Raf

Pea FAL.

If someone else thinks of something first, go ahead.

"Whatcha gonn' do to get into another one of these here rock 'n' roll songs?"

Ok, so let's bring it home: If it's immoral today to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night, then it was always immoral to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night. Therefore, it was immoral to decree a law that says a man who picks up sticks on a Friday night is to be executed. But that law WAS decreed, by Yahweh. And it was decreed by Yahweh centuries before Israel asked for a king. It was also decreed by Yahweh centuries before the invention of the printing press, the moon landing, and the Bush v. Gore election fiasco. It was decreed by Yahweh centuries before an uncountable number of irrelevant events. Israel asking for a king had no more effect on Yahweh's decree than the moon landing had. They were completely unrelated events. The decree that a man who picked up sticks on a Friday night (to be fair, it could have been Saturday morning, which would make a world of difference... to flippin no one) should be executed for his crime was immoral by today's standards. It was not immoral by Yahweh's standards. (How do we know this? Because it was HIS law, not Israel's, not the surrounding nations' and not Neil Armstrong's). But wait! There was another law that said if you stole something, you should have to repay it. That was moral, right? In my humble opinion, yes, that was pretty moral. So we can agree that some of Yahweh's laws were quite moral. Now, getting back to the laws that were NOT moral, the ones that were barbaric, bloodthirsty, cruel, misogynistic and tolerant of intolerable institutions like slavery... No! I want to talk about the moral laws! But the moral laws are not in question or dispute. No one is arguing that ALL of Yahweh's laws are immoral. One would expect SOME laws to be moral. The issue is whether ALL of Yahweh's laws are moral. If Yahweh's laws are not moral, then by what standard to we credit Him with being moral? And please don't tell me the answer is by New Testament standards, because by New Testament standards, the Old Testament law was "holy, just and good." Except it was not holy, just and good. It was cruel, barbaric and inhumane (among other things). If, by today's standards, we can see that some of Yahweh's law is moral and some of it is really, REALLY not, are we not by definition operating on a higher moral standard than Yahweh's? Incidentally, I don't believe in Yahweh, so if you substitute "ancient Israel" for "Yahweh" in the preceding sentences, you will see that nothing I am saying is even remotely controversial. It is only controversial if you think ancient Israel's laws were decreed by Yahweh. I don't believe Yahweh is a moral monster, because I don't believe he exists. I believe ancient Israel had some monstrous laws, but in that, they were no different from any other nation, culture or religion -- exactly the result one would expect if their laws were man-made and not the decrees of an Author of Morality.

Yeah, but what if a few centuries from now, students in a future class WANT A to be smaller than B. Can A be smaller than B now to accommodate the whims of a future class of students?

So. Umm. Do we agree that executing a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath is immoral?

Gotcha.

5. You own two slaves, a man and a woman. You decide to give the woman to the man. They have two sons. After six years, the man is supposed to go free. But you still own the woman and the two sons. What do you do? A. Set the man free, but keep the woman and boys. They are your property, after all. B. Give the man a chance to stay with his wife and sons by committing to be your slave for life. C. Set the sons free, because they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keep the wife because she's a good cook and can work a plow, if you know what I mean wink wink. D. You effing own effing slaves? What the eff are you effing doing owning effing slaves?

Please elaborate on what you mean by "finite criteria." If I think Halle Berry is more attractive than Rosanne Barr, does that mean I'm holding them both to a "finite criteria"?

New question. Why does the Old Testament contain some laws and punishments that are barbaric by today's higher moral standards? A. Who said today's moral standards are higher? God is the standard of morality. His law is holy just and good. We should get back to it. Start stoning some heathens and Sabbath breakers. Rape my daughter? pay me 50 shekels and marry her and we'll call it even. B. God gave Israel barbaric laws in Exodus - Deuteronomy in response to Israel's demand for a king hundreds of years later. C. The laws were not given by God but concocted by a society that was no more morally advanced than other societies of the time.

MOD EDIT: off topic content deleted. According to the Bible, God instituted these barbaric laws. Stop trying to pass the responsibility for their barbaric immorality to the Israelites. Israel RECEIVED the law. Israel didn't concoct it. At least, not unless the Bible is false. If the Bible is false, then Israel, not God, is responsible for the barbaric nature of the Old Testament law. What a concept.

Are you reading your own posts? "All I am doing now is a short evaluation of God's Laws. However, if you want to actually read a bible you might see that God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. Instead they originally had a system of judges. It was only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death." Those be your words. And they be ridiculous. The law preceded the kings by GENERATIONS. MOD EDIT: off topic content deleted

Well, shucks, I'm sorry, but you're kind of sort of wrong. You see, the issue is NOT whether the barbaric law prescribed by God was ever carried out. The issue is whether the barbaric law was prescribed by God. The question is GOD'S morality, not ancient Israel's. Or modern Israel's. Or first century Israel's. The sick thing is that the laws are patently immoral and yet presented to us as though they are God's Word. If these laws are God's Word, then God's Word is immoral, and if God's Word is immoral, God is immoral. It makes not one whit of difference if no one ever carried it out. In fact, if it was never carried out, it goes down in Israel's ledger as a positive achievement. Mark, being patronizing doesn't become you, especially when you're so demonstrably flipping WRONG about the point you're making. "God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Every law I have cited is from the Pentateuch, which LONG precedes the reigns of the judges and the kings. That law that prescribes death by stoning for the crime of picking up sticks on the sabbath? That's in Numbers. That's a little bit before Judges. I cited three strict capital offenses in recent posts, just for kicks. NOT ONE of them fits your description of being "only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death."

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

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

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)?

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.

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

All Summer Long ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?