Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
Are you seriously advocating a geocentric view of the universe?
I advocate not jumping to any conclusions just because it is popular to do so. The mathematics show either method is a possibility, and quite frankly, I don't really care which is the absolute truth of the matter.
I could not have constructed a more self-indicting phrase for you if I had tried.
Are you saying that you do care, and that it actually matters to you?
See the 3rd paragraph here.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Are you seriously advocating a geocentric view of the universe?
I advocate not jumping to any conclusions just because it is popular to do so. The mathematics show either method is a possibility, and quite frankly, I don't really care which is the absolute truth of the matter.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
sudgy wrote:
There is a basis for the assumption that things are written how the writers think. Joshua 10:13 says "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." The thing is, the Earth actually stopped spinning, for that is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set. The writers didn't know this fact, however, so they said what they thought happened. God still inspired it. If it had said, "So the Earth stopped rotating" people in that time would have not gotten it. So yes, there is a basis in the assertion.
Where do you come off telling us that the world rotates as a fact and that the book of Joshua is wrong?
Maybe the entire universe spins around the earth in the opposite direction?
Edit: See the question here and the best answer.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
sudgy wrote:
There is a basis for the assumption that things are written how the writers think. Joshua 10:13 says "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." The thing is, the Earth actually stopped spinning, for that is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set. The writers didn't know this fact, however, so they said what they thought happened. God still inspired it. If it had said, "So the Earth stopped rotating" people in that time would have not gotten it. So yes, there is a basis in the assertion.
Where do you come off telling us that the world rotates as a fact and that the book of Joshua is wrong?
Maybe the entire universe spins around the earth in the opposite direction?
Edit: See the question here and the best answer.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Nach, I'm not attempting to say "this is how things are." I'm simply trying to open sudgy up to the possibility that the universe is that old. He seems closed to the possibility because he believes that the Bible is in conflict with it, so I'm am attempting to show that the Bible is not necessarily in conflict with an old universe.
Understood.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
We have many other reasons to believe that the universe is old
Not quite. We have many reasons to believe that the universe appears old.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
An interpretation which enjoys wide acceptance from your peers, by the way.
Be that as it may, none of us were actually there.
Believing that God is all powerful, he can create the entire world with all the people and items in it as it is now in a moment.
Science is unable to differentiate between what actually happened, and what data we have access to and can measure tell us happened.
Taking the Bible as true is all fine and good, but I for one have no idea what the beginning actually means. Maybe it means 7 literal days as we know them. Maybe it means 7 stages, each being an undefined length of time which may or may not have been of equal amounts. We really have no way of proving what actually happened.
The better question is: Who cares?
Does it matter to us if the world was created 7 days ago, and all things we know, and all memories, and this website are all planted? Or if it was created 7000 years ago in 7 days, or it was created 7**7**7**7**7**7**7 millennium ago in the same time frame?
The Bible is not a history book, as the Bible skips the ~1500 years of the generations between Adam and Noah as barely anything more than a footnote.
The real question is, why create the world in 7 days (whatever that means), and at the state it was created in? What positive things do we learn from this?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
One of the things that we know about nature is that time is relative, my 7 days is not necessarily the same as your 7 days. If we assume that the time frame presented is accurate, would it be possible that the 7 days presented is time dilated in such a way to allow for a 13.7 billion year old universe from our frame of reference?
The Bible itself mentions this idea.
Psalms 90:4
"For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HappyLee: Nice to see another amazing run. Way more entertaining than previous runs. Nice high score!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Is it just me or the IRC channel doesn't work?
It's just you.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
I'm telling you that the entire discussion only makes sense in a frame work which follows the Bible in its entirety.
You keep saying that, and you are missing the point.
The thing is: Many Christians consider the Bible in its entirety to be the absolutely perfect moral ground upon which we should base our lives and behavior. However, they do not understand or outright ignore the very valid objections to this notion, as there are parts of the Bible that appear to be in drastic contradiction to what is universally considered the most basic human rights, even by these Christians themselves. In other words, these Christians say one thing but do another (with respect to which parts of this biblical moral code they actually enact in their lives, or even would enact in theory if they were confronted with such situation).
When confronted with this dilemma, the reactions vary. Some simply ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist, others try to make up excuses (which actually don't work, when scrutinized(*))
Well, different groups believe in different parts. Some people only believe in the first five books, some the first two dozen or so. The book of Maccabees is disputed. The New Testament is disputed in whole or in part, or even what is considered part of it. Then you have the book of Mormon...
Then on top of this, much of it is open to interpretation.
Warp wrote:
and, if I dare say it, the worst of the bunch actually artificially change their own moral standards to agree with what those laws say
Alternatively, you have murderers who have their own moral standard. Is it okay to leave them to it?
Warp wrote:
You seem to use one form of rationalization: That the laws are good, but only if all of them (as well as the entirety of the biblical principles) are held at once.
That, and that they have to be interpreted properly. Random layman reading is not proper interpretation.
Warp wrote:
You don't seem to realize that doesn't change anything. Giving the death penalty to someone for breaking the sabbath or owning people as property (and many other such laws) are morally questionable regardless of what other standards the society additionally upholds.
Is it?
You see the word slave and think it means slaves like they had in Malta, or like in the Sudan today. Maybe it means the classical "domestic worker"?
When I said take the Bible in whole, I didn't just mean all the laws, I meant you must reconcile all the text to make it a worthwhile law guide.
Case in point, you think that a slave is property. Let's see what it says.
Deut 22 1-3:
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him. And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself.
So one must return all lost possessions, correct?
Then in 23 16-17:
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a bondman that is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him.
So unlike property, you do not return the "bondman"/"slave" (the original word for slave is probably mistranslated throughout all biblical translations). In fact, it seems the slave can leave whenever he feels like it.
To push the point further, I found this excerpt from the Talmud while searching via Google on the topic: "If thy daughter is of marriageable age, free thy slave and give her to him in marriage".
It seems that idea was gleaned from the Bible right afterwards in verse 18 talks about one's daughter.
Warp, it's easy to condemn a cryptic text, but if you actually take the time to really understand it, it seems to be suggesting something quite different than what it seems to.
Warp wrote:
(*) As one example (of many) of an excuse that many Christians give for the more uncomfortable laws is that the Old Testament laws have been superseded when Jesus died and don't have to be upheld anymore. What these people do not understand is that what they are effectively implying is that the laws are indeed immoral, and that God gave immoral laws, and that they were then removed later.
The biggest problem with that idea is that the earlier texts says that the laws would never be changed, they are to remain as is. I can quote related verses if need be.
Warp wrote:
Also, ironically and hypocritically, these exact same people don't have any problem in condoning the ten commandments, even though they can't explain why they are an exception.
Even more ironically, there is no such thing as "the ten commandments".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Warp wrote:
Make large code blocks collapsible.
This post once again demonstrates why this feature would be useful. I suppose that by now there are no plans to actually implement this (or upgrade to a version of phpbb that might support this; I don't know if newer versions do)?
I was looking into it, then got sidetracked.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
AnS wrote:
Nach wrote:
I agree that there are massive issues with slavery outside of this framework. There is something seriously wrong if someone uses some statement in the Bible to condone slavery without taking the Bible as a whole as binding. Either take it in whole, or take none of it, because you'll be perverting the intent otherwise.
If you agree that nowadays slavery is not okay, why don't we just call this framework and this Bible obsolete? Like we did with Ancient Greece's pantheon.
Time is not the deciding factor, the framework as a whole is.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
Have you actually studied how slaves were treated in ancient Israel?
Ok, I don't have any other option left than to give up. I don't know how many times I have to repeat "that's not the point" before it comes across, but seemingly no amount is enough.
What is you point? That the Bible allows for slaves, and people may mistreat them?
Warp wrote:
It doesn't help that you seem to ignore everything I have written previously (in this case that I know perfectly well the arguments on the alleged differences between slavery in Israel and everywhere else), you only seem to concentrate on the last thing I have written and make deductions based on that alone. (I'm honestly wondering if you are subconsciously using this tactic in order to avoid actually considering the issues that have been raised. If you only concentrate on the narrow section of the conversation which you are most comfortable with, you don't have to think about the more troubling parts, and pretend that your apologetics work on those too.)
I'm telling you that the entire discussion only makes sense in a frame work which follows the Bible in its entirety. See Bisqwit's post on that.
I agree that there are massive issues with slavery outside of this framework. There is something seriously wrong if someone uses some statement in the Bible to condone slavery without taking the Bible as a whole as binding. Either take it in whole, or take none of it, because you'll be perverting the intent otherwise.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
As the verse only indicates indemnification for a single strike with a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children, there is no reason to suggest indemnification against a more serious attack.
The most common apologetic tactic: Read between the lines and add things that aren't there. Try to soften things up bit by bit, until it appears more innocuous and conforms more to the modern notions of secular morals and human rights, and is more palatable. Now the rod is "a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children". Right. It says it right there, between the lines. (And since the verse doesn't explicitly mention hitting many times, that must mean hitting only one time and, by implication, that hitting many times is punishable. Never mind that no passage says the latter. But it can be read between the lines, of course.)
Anyways, discussing the type of rod and how many times the slave was hit is egregiously missing the point. Probably on purpose, to draw attention away from the actual issue: That owning other people as property and beating them is allowed (completely regardless of how many times and with what).
Have you actually studied how slaves were treated in ancient Israel? Call me apologetic all you want, what I explained is roughly how they understood the laws, and acted back then.
Here's an excerpt from a book:
If you want to get a full idea how slaves were treated though, read Maimonides's Laws of Slaves, it covers A to Z every single detail as to how slaves were treated in ancient Israel. It explains how various biblical verses were interpreted and used as a practical matter of law.
You may not like "reading between the lines" as you called it, but that is precisely what the people who actually practiced the text did. You can read lists of rules how to understand the bible. They broke it down to an exact science.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Truncated wrote:
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
Where did you get the "once" from? Not from the quoted passage.
In the original verse, the word is singular.
Whenever someone tries the old "well actually, in the original hebrew" trick, you can always check a page such as http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ and compare different translations. In the 30 or so listed there, not one says "once" or anything of the sort.
Which of your translations shows it to be plural?
The word is an active verb. When so and so will strike so and so.
Truncated wrote:
It is of course possible that you (Nach) knows how to translate the bible better than the several hundreds of scholars involved in all those translations. I somewhat doubt it. I also checked wikipedia's page on old Hebrew grammar, and didn't see anything to support that verbs were inflected for the number of times an action was performed.
Normally true, but tenses and other minor changes are made to indicate amounts.
See the same chapter verse 28 and 31. A singular verb is used to indicate the goring of a man or child. But in verse 29, where it discusses an ox which gored yesterday and the day before (multiple times), the verb changes slightly.
I recommend buying this book on the topic of verbs and amounts.
As the verse only indicates indemnification for a single strike with a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children, there is no reason to suggest indemnification against a more serious attack.
One also has to bear in mind that this book "Exodus" was given to a people who were all slaves. A people who understand how a slave feels and would not want to be mistreated. The way they would treat "slaves" is drastically different how anyone else would treat slaves.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
Or conversely I can say I hope you don't acquire slaves, since from your description, it sounds like you'll mistreat the human beings that they are.
Most of us don't need a book to tell us not to "own" people, much less how to treat them.
Tell it to EA and other corporations.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tub wrote:
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
And you honestly have no problems with any of that? People owning other people as property, and having the right to beat them with a rod?
People do it with their children throughout the world. There are of course movements to stop physical reprimands as well as child labor laws. The two really aren't all that different, except with a slave it goes on throughout their lives.
There are so many things wrong with that statement that I'm beginning to hope you don't reproduce.
Or conversely I can say I hope you don't acquire slaves, since from your description, it sounds like you'll mistreat the human beings that they are.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Where did you get the "once" from? Not from the quoted passage.
In the original verse, the word is singular.
Warp wrote:
And inferring that it has to be a rod or else he is punished is stretching it quite a lot, given that nowhere it says that.
The verse says rod. The various commentaries require it to be a rod.
Warp wrote:
The text tells us since he is his property he has a right to discipline, but he has no right to overdo it.
And you honestly have no problems with any of that? People owning other people as property, and having the right to beat them with a rod?
People do it with their children throughout the world. There are of course movements to stop physical reprimands as well as child labor laws. The two really aren't all that different, except with a slave it goes on throughout their lives.
Warp wrote:
Warp wrote:
2) You break the Sabbath, you get the death penalty by stoning.
You intentionally break the Sabbath after being told not to, and are insubordinate to your king and ungrateful to your savior.
By that logic all transgressions should carry the death penalty. They don't.
All transgressions in regards to the Sabbath do indeed carry the death penalty, as do all the transgressions against God where there is no personal benefits involved.
Cursing God carries a death penalty, as does worshiping false deities, sorcery, and so on.
Warp wrote:
For example, eating pork is forbidden. The punishment? Nothing, except that you are unclean until the evening (and you have to wash yourself etc).
I'm not sure of your source for the impurity bit. And as the first few chapters of Leviticus elaborates on, you would need to bring a sacrifice.
But in any event, I don't see how it's an affront to the king, and eating is directly personal benefit.
Wearing mixed garments is forbidden, it does not seem like an affront to the king, and surely there is personal benefit. So no death penalty.
Eating leaven on Passover for example is an affront to the king's help, but that is something which is directly tied to personal benefit. But on the other hand, it does carry a punishment of being cut off, probably because it's an affront to the king.
You need to categorize the various transgressions on why they're wrong, and what the punishments are, a pattern becomes apparent.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
What neither of you have really answered is the question of why anyone should accept the idea that such a disproportionate punishment for such a seemingly minor infraction would be the moral standard and ideal that we should all uphold.
I'd like to register yet again that this is not a moral standard or an ideal for all.
Warp wrote:
1) You can own people as your property(*) and you can beat them. If you beat such a person and he/she dies in a couple of days from his wounds, you get no punishment.
Let's see what the text actually says:
Exodus 21:20-21: "And if a man hits his slave, or his maidservant, with the rod, and he dies, under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he stands a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."
So let's be clear, if he hits him and he dies immediately, the master is killed. We can also infer that if he uses something other than the rod - the object used for discipline, we'll also kill him. If he hits him multiple times, we'll kill him.
The only time we don't kill him is if he hit him with the rod once, and the slave continued walking around and then died a few days later, and then we suspect he died from that hit a few days earlier.
The text tells us since he is his property he has a right to discipline, but he has no right to overdo it.
Warp wrote:
2) You break the Sabbath, you get the death penalty by stoning.
You intentionally break the Sabbath after being told not to, and are insubordinate to your king and ungrateful to your savior.
If a king did a favor for someone and then that person goes and spits in the king's face, do you expect anything other than the king having him killed on the spot?
Warp wrote:
The sense of proportional punishment is completely backwards. Why exactly should anybody accept this kind of moral laws?
I answered this already.
Nach wrote:
Now an outsider who was not rescued by the king, who did not accept any laws of the king is unable to appreciate those laws. He doesn't understand why would anyone choose to live in the king's city, the death penalty for some crimes is excessive! He didn't believe that anyone was rescued by the king or really lived in a city he built. Not that anyone could blame him, he did not see any of it with his own eyes. Those however who have chosen to follow the king's law's and appreciate all the king has done for them are enthusiastic about enforcing them.
Warp wrote:
(*) Yes, I know all the arguments about why slavery in the Old Testament was "not that bad". I have used all the arguments myself. The argument goes something like:
"The so-called 'slavery' in the Old Testament has nothing to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the United States before the abolition, or the slavery in the neighboring countries of the time. Slaves in Israel were more like servants. They were treated well, they lived in the same house as their masters, they could buy their freedom, and each seventh year all slaves were freed by law, if they wanted to leave."
This argument, however, ignores many of the other details of slavery in the OT. For instance, most slaves were captured from neighboring countries with which Israel was at war, against their will.
...
You seem to be confusing many different accounts in the OT. There are four different kinds of servants/slaves enumerated in the Bible. The Bible prescribes different rules for governing each.
1) The man who needs rehabilitation.
2) The female charge/ward.
3) The actual slave.
4) The seducer of war.
Only the first two kinds were treated well, neither of them are considered property, they can buy their freedom and so on. Not so with the latter two.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
For someone who does not think the law applies to them, I think it would be extremely wrong to kill them for violating [the law].
What a wonderful ideal for psychopaths and anarchists.
The word I substituted with "the law" was "the Sabbath".
Now, the Biblical principle for pathological violation of the law involved two punishments. Death, or eviction from the nation (num. 15:30–31). If you are part of the commonwealth of Israel, you are subject to YHWH's laws, whether you want or approve of it or not. If you don't abide by those laws, you are not going to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel, in a way or another, and you are not going to enjoy the protection of Him, who keeps Israel (psalm 121:4, luke 13:27).
You are correct, I misspoke. In this case I did mean the interpretation of the laws of Sabbath.
My larger intention was that joining a religion is optional. Joining the law of a country is also optional. If you don't like your country's laws, you're free to move elsewhere (usually).
I'm also against forced conversion.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
IMO God killed the dinosaurs because they started to show homosexual tendencies.
The Bible actually has a reference to just that, Genesis 6:12 "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." This is followed by the great flood which destroys all the old life.
Now I'm starting to suspect you are a poe.
What is a "poe"?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
IMO God killed the dinosaurs because they started to show homosexual tendencies.
The Bible actually has a reference to just that, Genesis 6:12 "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." This is followed by the great flood which destroys all the old life.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
You asked me hypothetically if I had a friend who believed the law applies to them, do I think it should be applied:
That's not what I asked. I asked that if a friend or family member of yours (or anybody, really) clearly and unambiguously breaks the sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? What that person thinks or believes is inconsequential. (Obviously nobody in their right mind would advocate capital punishment for themselves, unless they are suicidal or highly delusional.)
I disagree with your statement that "What that person thinks or believes is inconsequential".
I would not advocate stoning someone who does not believe themselves to be held to the laws of the Bible.
Warp wrote:
I can't give an opinion though as to how laws of the Bible should be upheld outside of a Bible centric framework which your question suggested, the idea is illogical to me.
Now I'm extremely confused. You accentuated that you never said that the Bible should be held as the moral standard by which we should live, and then you are saying something like the laws and standards given in the Bible should apply only for people who believe in them and live according to them, but not to anybody else, and you would not advocate the punishments given in the Bible for people who do not believe in them. So is the Bible the ultimate moral standard or not? Are some of the punishments disproportionate or not?
Does the Bible even contain a moral standard for all people? Or does it contain a moral standard for people who live their live according to the framework therein?
Is anything about the Sabbath moral? The Bible itself says in Deut chapter 5: "And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."
Why should it apply to those who were not in Egypt?
There are punishments given to those who don't properly uphold the laws of Passover. Is Passover for everyone or just the Israelites from Egypt?
In terms of how to deal with man to man on an interpersonal level, I find the Bible to set a standard to an extent. But many laws in the Bible are of a nature specific to a specific group of people, I see no reason why they should apply to everyone. Nor should it be a standard for others to stick to in those areas.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nowhere have I said I'm an atheist.
I apologize for misunderstanding where you're coming from then. It seemed that previously you suggested that you were against the notion that the world was created by a higher power.
Warp wrote:
It's just that since you quite clearly seem to believe the entirety of the Bible to be the moral standard by which humanity should live
I did not say that, nor is it what I believe.
You asked me hypothetically if I had a friend who believed the law applies to them, do I think it should be applied:
Warp wrote:
If a close friend or family member of yours clearly and unambiguously breaks the Sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? Would you say it's morally acceptable?
(Some Christians resort to the cop-out that the law in question was only given to the Hebrews and it does not apply to gentiles. That doesn't really change anything. Just assume that your friend is Jewish. Would you advocate capital punishment?)
Warp wrote:
You said that you honestly think deep inside that capital punishment for breaking the sabbath is ok, but I hope you don't get offended if I don't believe you. I think that deep inside you do not think like that, but you are deliberately and actively shutting up that doubt.
For the case provided where someone wants to believe that capital punishment applies to them, deep down, I do believe it without any doubt.
For someone who does not think the law applies to them, I think it would be extremely wrong to kill them for violating the Sabbath.
Warp wrote:
This conversation would be "going somewhere" if you and I were on the same page about views of existence.
In an honest conversation both parties try to understand what the other is saying and tries their hardest to not to misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or make a mockery of the other person's position. Your "I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?" was a clear indication to me that you are not willing to have this kind of rational, understanding discussion, but instead want to resort to argumentative fallacies and distortions. That's why I wrote that.
Under the conditions provided, only laws of the Bible have any meaning. Therefore any crime not within is not a crime. If you wanted to argue about the US legal code on the other hand, I'd be happy to discuss that too.
I can't give an opinion though as to how laws of the Bible should be upheld outside of a Bible centric framework which your question suggested, the idea is illogical to me.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?
*sigh*
And I thought this conversation was going somewhere.
May I be so bold as to offer an explanation? You may correct me if any of my assumptions about your own opinions are incorrect.
You understand crimes of man against man, and can understand why some feel capital punishment is necessary for certain crimes.
You do not understand crimes of man against God, since you do not believe in one, and therefore any punishment for those crimes are excessive, disproportional, inhumane, barbaric and so on.
Others like myself however understand crimes against God, and therefore see nothing wrong with these punishments or deterrents. This conversation would be "going somewhere" if you and I were on the same page about views of existence.
Let me provide you a parable:
A great architect acquired his own continent and designed a magnificent country. For six years he labored building a magnificent city in the heart of it. Once complete, the entire seventh year he threw a party to celebrate it. From then on, the architect now king of his own country would celebrate every seventh year.
Later on, a group of people living in a different country were persecuted, tortured, and killed in horrific ways. The aforementioned king stepped in and rescued them. He offered them the option of moving to the great city he built. But in order to live there they would have to agree to his laws. His laws might seem strange, but it was the condition given.
Among laws between man and his fellow man, the king included a list of crimes against the crown. One of the crimes against the crown was marring the celebrations that took place every seven years in honor of the city's completion. The punishment for this crime if warned immediately before violation was death. As this crime was nothing other than ingratitude for all the king did, and insubordination to the crown.
Now an outsider who was not rescued by the king, who did not accept any laws of the king is unable to appreciate those laws. He doesn't understand why would anyone choose to live in the king's city, the death penalty for some crimes is excessive! He didn't believe that anyone was rescued by the king or really lived in a city he built. Not that anyone could blame him, he did not see any of it with his own eyes. Those however who have chosen to follow the king's law's and appreciate all the king has done for them are enthusiastic about enforcing them.
One philosopher who does not understand the basis is now trying to determine whether those people would enforce punishment for those crimes against the crown if they were not part of the city's laws. Another philosopher who understands the people who have chosen to follow those laws, answers that those who do follow those laws enforce any crime within the law, and any crime not mentioned in the law is simply not a crime, regardless how one many feel about the seriousness of any of the crimes involved.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
If you want to get a full idea how slaves were treated though, read Maimonides's Laws of Slaves, it covers A to Z every single detail as to how slaves were treated in ancient Israel. It explains how various biblical verses were interpreted and used as a practical matter of law.
You may not like "reading between the lines" as you called it, but that is precisely what the people who actually practiced the text did. You can read lists of rules how to understand the bible. They broke it down to an exact science.