This Bears Repeating…

This bears repeating…

The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

Today, a person saying that is called a “right-wing-nut” / “Teabagger” / etc.

Sixty years ago, it was a Democratic President saying that.

My how the Democratic Party has changed.

One Nation Under God Working Together to drive this country down The Road to Socialism USA.

The Communists and Socialists had a rally on Saturday, and the Democrat Party fully embraced them

Separation of Church and State

About these ads
This entry was posted in Christian Nation. Bookmark the permalink.

156 Responses to This Bears Repeating…

  1. Mike says:

    “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

  2. Trevor Hilton says:

    I really believe Harry Truman was the last good democrat President.

    John F. Kennedy would have been better if he could have kept his pants on. He was very pro-military, and I respect him for that. But his lack of moral character is what I can’t get over.

  3. Trevor,

    In my opinion, it appears that JFK was the last Democratic President who actively opposed the Communists and their agenda. LBJ instituted the Socialist “Great Society”, and set rules of engagement in Vietnam that put our military at a distinct disadvantage, practically ensuring that victory would not be possible.

    I personally think that the Communists assassinated JFK in order to lift LBJ to the Presidency.

    I personally think that Carter and Obama represent the interests of the Russian communists.

    I personally think that the Clintons represent the interests of the Chinese communists.

    And, lest anyone think this is a purely partisan issue, I personally think that Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain were all influenced, to varying degrees, by those who seek a “New World Order”. Reagan was an exception.

  4. Mike,

    You and I both know that you were banned for impersonating other commenters. You should not expect your comments to be approved on a regular basis. I will, at my discretion, allow comments through when I want to respond to them.

    The quote from Harry S. Truman strongly supports the concept of a Christian nation – a nation founded on the principles from the Bible. Contrast that with the concept of a Muslim or Islamic nation- a nation founded on the principles from the Koran. A Christian nation allows all to worship freely. A Muslim nation may not. How many churches and/or synagogues exist in all of Saudi Arabia? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

    Now, Math, you try to quote a speech from Obama as if Obama supports and acknowledges that our country is a Christian nation. Ha! Obama used his Call to Renewal Keynote Address to mock people who believe the Bible. He differentiated between the Christianity practiced by Al Sharpton and the Christianity practiced by James Dobson.

    That is because the Christianity practiced by Al Sharpton and Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright is not really Christianity at all. It is Marxism, wrapped in the disguise of “Liberation Theology”.

    Obama did not acknowledge that we are now, or have ever been, a Christian nation. He said:

    Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

    The USA has always welcomed people of all faiths, but we have also always been a Christian nation – one whose Declaration of Independence and Constitution are founded on Biblical principles.

    Truman acknowledged that. Obama does not.

  5. Compare and contrast:

    The 8/28/2010 “Restoring Honor” rally, which honored God and drew a very sizable crowd,

    vs.

    The 10/2/2010 “One Nation Working Together” rally, which replaced “Under God” with “Working Together”, and drew a much smaller crowd, even with unions pressuring members to go, and arranging bus transportation for them.

    The Communists and Socialists had a rally on Saturday, and the Democrat Party fully embraced them

  6. It’s interesting how Obama’s own website page for the Call to Renewal Keynote Address says:
    THE VIDEO YOU ARE TRYING TO WATCH IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FROM THIS WEBSITE.

    I wonder why they removed the video?

    However, video of that speech still appears on YouTube, in 5 parts. If you are pressed for time, watch the first 2:30 of part 4. If you want to watch all five parts, begin here with part one:

  7. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

    Our Founders had the proper fundamental moral background, and wrote the following into the Document which founded our country:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    However, those without the proper fundamental moral background end up supporting fascist and totalitarian governments. Their disrespect for the unalienable God-given (Creator-endowed) right to Life is shown in their grotesque, disturbed advertisements like this:

    Submit to the fascist green movement, or die at the hands of button-pushing terrorists!

    Speaking of which…

    What Does the AGW Movement Have in Common with Jihad?

  8. skeeter says:

    “The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong.”

    “train up a child in the way he should go; And when he is old he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22:6. The flip side is Train up a child in the way he should not go and he will go that way too.

    “I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.” What code would that be?

    “The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount.”

    After God revealed His Law(s), the Ten Commandments, at Mt Sinai, the people were terrified and asked Moses to speak in God’s stead:

    “Then they said to Moses, you speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” Exodus 20:19

    Moses from this point in time becomes the mediator, the spokesman, the go between, between God, Angels, and people.

    “And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.” Exodus 20:20.

    The Ten Commandments, the laws of God, are the only description and definition of sin in the entire Holy Bible. The Ten Commandments are the only description and definition of morality in the Holy Bible. The Ten Commandments are the basis for all of America’s civil laws.

    “Whoever commits sin commits lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin.” 1st John 3:4 ” “The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount.”

    But-Oh I forgot -the Seventh Day Sabbath- the Day of Rest, the Jewish 7th day Sabbath.? Where is it in the nation’s law(s)?

    “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30. Jesus spoke those words in response to the Pharisees who were bitching about Jesus’ disciples going through the grain fields plucking corn to eat, plucking was considered work. Jesus gave the people the option to accept or to reject all His teachings.Jesus replaced the seventh day sabbath and the day of Passover with Himself when he became the “Lamb of Sacrifice”. Our constitution allows us to worship as we see fit, not as some religious organization dictates.

    The point is, this nation,USA, could go into captivity, under Sharia, just as Judah, Benjamin, and the Levites, went into captivity in BC 400, not to be a self governing nation again until AD 1948, 2200 years later.

    Nov. 2010 may be one helluva historical date, just like 1948 and the creation of Modern Day Israel.

  9. Saudi Arabia bans the practice of any religion aside from Islam.

    Saudi police raided a secret Catholic mass in Riyadh last week and arrested a dozen Filipinos and a Catholic priest, charging them with prosyletising, a local daily reported on Wednesday.

  10. skeeter says:

    It would be nothing short of a miracle if the Saudi’s didn’t object to the Christians prosylitizing. After all, they (Arabics) are the children of the Hagarene hand maid of Sarah called Hagar. The “bastard” child, Ishmael, son of Hagar (the progenitor of the Arabic Nations) was rejected by God as the “Son of Promise”.

    Sarah did eventually in her old age produce a son for Abram (Abraham) which she named Isaac, this was the son God had promised Abraham and Sarah (she laghed) even though he and she were very old, the “son of promise” from whoes lineage Christ would be born. Sarah saw the son of the bondwoman ridiculing her son Isaac: Genesis 21:9.

    “Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman will not be heir with my son; namely with Isaac.” Genesis 21:10. This was all very displeasing to Abraham, BUT–God agreed with Sarah.

    “But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. WHATEVER SARAH HAS SAID TO YOU, LISTEN TO HER VOICE, FOR IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” Genesis 21:12. so much for women being subserient to men.

    The Apostle Paul wrote in one of his epistles about this.

    “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For ir is written that Abraham had two sons: one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. But he who was born of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh—(In short Abraham screwed up and satisfied his worldy lusts– my comment)— , and he of the free woman (Sarah)through the promise. Which things are symbolic. For these are the two COVENANTS: The one from Mt Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—– for this Hagar is Mt Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, (but was destroyed in AD 70), and is in bondage with her children—-.” Galations 4:21-25. This referrs to the Old and the New Testaments which is another way of saying “Covenants”.

    The Muslim nations are still living in the dark ages. The Muslim religion is a corruption of the religion of Judaism. Mohammed modified the laws of the Hebrew Old Testament to suit his own purposes. Even so the Law(s), Ten Commandments, given by God at Mt Sinai, are the ONLY law(s) ordained by God. The Levitical laws, sacrificial and otherwise, were ordained by angels.

    Deuteronomy 5:4 “and the Lord talked with you (children of Israel) FACE TO FACE on the mountain from the midst of the fire.”
    In the giving of His laws at Mt Sinai–”HE ADDED NO MORE.” Meaning the Ten Commandments were a complete set of Laws apart from all other laws. Note: in those laws there is no stoning of trangressors. There are no rites, rituals or physical works. There is no baptism, no observance of particular days, no sacrifices of animals or otherwise. These were the laws of God.

    The Islamic religion would have all the nations of the world in bondage under the Hagarene covenant requiring all people to be obedient to the Islamic laws which are akin to the Talmudic Laws of the Scribes and Pharisees.

    Ishmael, the son of Hagar the Egyptian woman, was indeed the first-born of Abraham the father of all the faithful. That is the reason there is so much conflict in the world today. The Muslims say the Israelites are trespassers because the birthright promises (including the “PROMISED LAND”) belonged to Ishmael and by extension all the Muslim nations. But that is not what the Bible says to Christians and all is chaos.

  11. Math says:

    Saudi Arabia bans the practice of any religion aside from Islam.

    Saudi police raided a secret Catholic mass in Riyadh last week and arrested a dozen Filipinos and a Catholic priest, charging them with prosyletising, a local daily reported on Wednesday.

    Wow, a totalitarian regime acting totalitarian. I’m blown away. What’s your point though?

  12. The Problem with Elitism
    (When a few elites make themselves god…)

  13. Bill channels Hayek’s Road to Serfdom in detailing the failings of master planning, but may not go far enough in detailing its dangers…

    As we saw with the controlled economies of the 20th century, failure is inevitable, and unfortunately we’re also seeing that now. When those failures occur and the elites remain in power, they tend to use the failure to arrogate even more power to coerce the mass population to bend to their commands, believing that the plan was good but the execution failed from lack of cooperation. As coercion grows and freedom fades, the economies fail even more, which leads to even more coercion. As long as elites remain in control of government and remain convinced of their plan, top-down coercion is the only outcome.

    Over 100 Million people worldwide have died as a direct result of this “coercion”. Socialism leads to Communism, which leeds to mass murder of dissidents. Every time.

  14. …the feedback I got, and the things I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, it was a terrible letdown. This is not 2008 anymore, not by a long shot. For most of the last year, you want to know what question keeps playing in my head?

    Q: What question was that?

    WHAT THE HELL HAVE WE DONE? Now that may come off terribly disrespectful to the president, but so be it. What have we done? We were led to believe this man was one thing, but everything I have seen, heard, and understand, points to the indisputable fact he is not what we hoped for. Not what we were promised. Maybe he might have been. Maybe a full term or two in the Senate and he would have had the experience and maturity to handle the job of President of the United States. But right now – the man is simply not up to the task, and yet it is loyal Democrats who are paying the price for his incompetence and incoherence. The health care bill? Do you know I was told he has never read the bill? Not one part of it? NOT ONE. Sounds like something you would hear on one of the talk radio shows, right? And I wouldn’t normally consider such a possibility, but this came directly from one of those good Democrats who might now see their political careers ended because they supported that bill and now its being used against them like some political sledgehammer. How is that supposed to make someone who put their career on the line feel? Betrayed. A whole lot of us are feeling betrayed these days…

    1) Wake up and smell the coffee. Some of us saw Obama for what he is well over two and half years ago, but you wouldn’t listen to us then.

    2) Perhaps instead of crying about “feeling betrayed”, those Congresspeople should have read the bill themselves before they voted on it. Stop blaming Obama for not having read the bill, if you haven’t read it yourself. You betrayed those whom you represent when you ignored their objections and voted for this monstrosity of a bill that you had not even read. And you did that because you were too weak to stand up to Obama. Well, Boo Freakin’ Hoo. You deserve to lose your job.

  15. Jeffrey says:

    >The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount.

    That’s obviously false, regardless of who said it. Let’s consider the Ten Commandments in particular:

    Commandment 1, 2, & 3: No other gods before me/no idols/no taking the Lord’s name in vain.

    By contrast, the First Amendment says we are free to worship whoever or whatever we please. And it’s worth putting the first commandment in context: this was not a polite suggestion. This was a law enforced by a theocratic government. Death by stoning was the penalty for breaking this law, according to Deuteronomy 17:2-5. America is better than Saudi Arabia, but only because our laws directly contradict the First Commandment.

    Commandment 4: Do not work on the Sabbath

    We don’t follow this at all. Sure we have some archaic laws about liquor sales, but what’s actually in the Law is don’t work. And let’s not forget that the biblical penalty for picking up sticks on the wrong day is usually being banished, or death by stoning in one particular instance in Numbers 15.

    Commandment 5 & 7: Honor your father and mother/don’t commit adultery.

    Our society continues to think these are good ideas, at least most of the time. And it’s worth remembering that not only does the law of Moses say adultery is illegal, but the penalty is stoning. America is better than Saudi Arabia, but only because our penalties directly contradict the penalties given in the Law of Moses.

    Commandment 6, 8, & 9: Don’t lie in court, and don’t murder, or steal.

    These are the only three that are actual laws. I’d also bet these are also the only three that you think should be laws, despite your lip service to the Law of Moses. Feel free to throw out the numbers of additional commandments if you are in favor of more than three.

    Commandment 10: Don’t covet.

    At face value, capitalism is essentially premised on coveting. People are motivated to work by money, so they can eventually buy nice things that their neighbors have. One could search for a distinction between a “healthy desire” and an “unhealthy desire”, but the fact remains that law of Moses does not help us discover when wanting/coveting something is helpful and when it is not. And regardless of how often coveting is helpful, our laws do not prevent people from coveting.

    You have two choices: either you think that it’s a terrible idea to base laws on the Old Testament, or you think that a theocracy that stones infidels is a quite reasonable option. If you don’t actually support stoning the infidels, please do the world a favor and admit that some of the Bible’s ideas should not only be ignored but abhorred.

  16. Aaron says:

    “>The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount.

    That’s obviously false, regardless of who said it. Let’s consider the Ten Commandments in particular:

    Commandment 1, 2, & 3: No other gods before me/no idols/no taking the Lord’s name in vain.

    By contrast, the First Amendment says we are free to worship whoever or whatever we please. And it’s worth putting the first commandment in context: this was not a polite suggestion. This was a law enforced by a theocratic government.”

    No. Our First Amendment clearly mandates that the government leave our right to worship alone. Our rights under the First Amendment clearly leave us free to worship the Lord, allow us to worship free of false idols, and allow us to do so without taking the Lord’s name in vain.

    “Death by stoning was the penalty for breaking this law, according to Deuteronomy 17:2-5. America is better than Saudi Arabia, but only because our laws directly contradict the First Commandment.”

    Yet another attempt to quote-mine the Bible. Pathetic. Show me in the New Testament where Christ mandated the punishment for violating the First Commandment. Tell me what punishment that JESUS spelled out for us to exact for violating that Commandment. Old Testament punishment mandates are not admissible as the laws and mandates of the Old Testament were superseded by the birth of Christ.

    “Commandment 4: Do not work on the Sabbath”

    No, the Fourth Commandment states nothing of avoiding work on the Sabbath. It states, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” Which Bible are you using for your quotes?

    “We don’t follow this at all. Sure we have some archaic laws about liquor sales, but what’s actually in the Law is don’t work. And let’s not forget that the biblical penalty for picking up sticks on the wrong day is usually being banished, or death by stoning in one particular instance in Numbers 15.”

    If we don’t follow that commandment at all, then why do financial institutions remain closed on Sat and Sun? Also, just as above, you’ll need to find in the New Testament where “the biblical penalty for picking up sticks on the wrong day” is mandated. Old Testament punishment mandates do not apply as of the year ~33 A.D. You’d know that if you really knew the Bible instead of just knowing websites that have conveniently quote-mined verses for you to use in your anti-Christian crusade.

    “Commandment 5 & 7: Honor your father and mother/don’t commit adultery.

    Our society continues to think these are good ideas, at least most of the time. And it’s worth remembering that not only does the law of Moses say adultery is illegal, but the penalty is stoning. America is better than Saudi Arabia, but only because our penalties directly contradict the penalties given in the Law of Moses.”

    The Ten Commandments never had any penalty mandates spelled out. Those that you keep using from Numbers and Deuteronomy are not mandated by the Law of Moses, those were mandated by any of the various “Angelic Laws,” which were NOT laws passed to Moses from the Lord.

    As for the piece about adultery, it is obvious that you have not seen how courts rule when one partner violates the sanctity of a marriage. Find me a family court hearing that involved adultery and DIDN’T give the victim a hugely favorable award; even pre-nups get routinely thrown out when adultery becomes a factor. If an adulterer doesn’t lose everything, it is only by the grace of the spouse being saintly enough to not take him/her for everything possible.

    “Commandment 10: Don’t covet.”

    No. the Tenth Commandment states, “Thou shall not covet THY NEIGHBOR’S POSSESSIONS.” Coveting is fine, so long as you’re not becoming envious of what your neighbor has.

    “At face value, capitalism is essentially premised on coveting. People are motivated to work by money, so they can eventually buy nice things that their neighbors have. One could search for a distinction between a “healthy desire” and an “unhealthy desire”, but the fact remains that law of Moses does not help us discover when wanting/coveting something is helpful and when it is not. And regardless of how often coveting is helpful, our laws do not prevent people from coveting.”

    Wrong. Socialism is directly based on coveting thy neighbor’s possessions. Your neighbor can afford to buy a nicer [X] than you, so you demand the government tax him more IOT buy you the same [X]“. That is Socialism. Capitalism is based on personal responsibility, hard work, risk, and ingenuity. Also, “covet” as used in the Ten Commandments consistently means “unhealthy desire.”

    “…but the fact remains that law of Moses does not help us discover when wanting/coveting something is helpful and when it is not.”

    Translation, “I could not find any OT verses to quote-mine re measuring ‘healthy desire’ that would suit my narrative so instead I’ll fill in with this.” It is disappointing given that you were ready and able to quote-mine other Biblical verses and falsely attribute those as mandated punishments for the Church Age and even as punishments as mandated by the Lord, himself.

    “You have two choices:”

    Really? Only two choices? Didn’t see this one coming…

    “either you think that it’s a terrible idea to base laws on the Old Testament, or you think that a theocracy that stones infidels is a quite reasonable option.”

    Wow, so not only have you decided to straw-man all Christians as a body of people who, “think that a theocracy that stones infidels is a quite reasonable option,” but you have also arbitrarily claimed that there are only two ridiculously extreme possibilities, with absolutely zero middle ground or even other colaborative options which are neither one, the other, or a compromise.

    “If you don’t actually support stoning the infidels, please do the world a favor and admit that some of the Bible’s ideas should not only be ignored but abhorred.”

    First, you need to do the world a favor and take a GENUINE effort to learn and become well versed in the Bible. I see you’re good at quote-mining, but that is not much of a skill.

  17. Aaron,

    Thank you for taking your time to respond to Jeffrey. I didn’t really feel like doing so, although I will say that if he researches the laws of Colonial America, he might be surprised to see how capital offense laws directly referenced Bible verses. For example, see The 1672 General Laws and Liberties of the Massachusets Colony.

    Also, I hope you don’t mind that I added quote tags around Jeffrey’s text, to set it apart from your text. You correctly had his text in quotes, it just is easier to differentiate when the quotes are indented.

  18. Jeffrey says:

    Aaron,

    I notice that you seem unwilling to defend Numbers’ law calling for the stoning of infidels. It’s almost like you abhor this particular biblical law. (Unless you don’t think Numbers is part of the Bible. If so, please say so.) Either you think stoning the infidels is a reasonable option, or you do not – this is a true dichotomy. If you do not, then you disagree with at least one of the Bible’s laws. The only third option is sticking your head in the sand and pretending those verses don’t exist. If I have “quote mined” please explain the subtle nuances of Deuteronomy 17:2-5:

    “If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.”

    Something Christians tend to ignore is that for centuries, infidels and many others were stoned because the Israelites read the Bible and believed what it says. These are real laws, on a real scroll, that real people enforced, causing them to kill real people. And not because someone distorted the text – the source of violence was the text itself. If Jesus’ clarifications were really so vital to its message, it wouldn’t have taken centuries for them to be given. (Although, I wouldn’t consider Jesus’ “no comment” to count as reversing this law. He didn’t comment on rape either, and I’m guessing you’re still against that.)

    Imagine someone writes a sequel to Karl Marx’ work in the year 2500. Suppose the sequel drastically reverses all sorts of clear statements that Marx made, so that Marx plus the sequels is essentially democratic free-market capitalism. If this happens, the Communist Manifesto will still teach communism and will still have inspired multiple communistic regimes. To interpreted Marx’ books in the light of their “sequel” in 2500 would be as ridiculous as reading the Law of Moses based on what Jesus and Paul said.

    Aaron: “No, the Fourth Commandment states nothing of avoiding work on the Sabbath. It states, ‘Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.’ Which Bible are you using for your quotes?”

    Exodus 20:9-10, NASB: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.”

    Aaron: “The Ten Commandments never had any penalty mandates spelled out. Those that you keep using from Numbers and Deuteronomy are not mandated by the Law of Moses, those were mandated by any of the various “Angelic Laws,” which were NOT laws passed to Moses from the Lord.”

    Really. I wish Moses had specified when he was speaking the word of God, and when he was just doing his own thing. Unfortunately, it all got written down in the inerrant word of God. Also, it makes no difference what book of the Bible a law comes from when deciding if you abhor some laws in the Bible. But I’ll humor you and stick with Exodus:

    Exodus 22:18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”

    Exodus 22:20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.”

    Exodus 22:20 is in the Bible, and you seem to think highly of the Bible’s laws. Is killing infidels who sacrifice to the wrong god a bad idea, a great idea, or somewhere in between? Sure, maybe you ignore this part because of Jesus. But if you don’t think this law is good and wise, stop telling people the Bible is good and wise.

    itooktheredpill,

    I read the link. Our nation has been around since 1776, so a 1672 document is not directly relevant to the question of the basis of the USA’s laws. Although, I do agree that the Bible certainly influenced early American laws too. What’s more controversial is the implication that this is a good thing.

    The Massachusetts Laws are in favor of the death penalty for adulterers, gays, and 16 year olds who curse their parents, all based on what the good book doth say. Rather than assuming, I’ll simply ask directly: do you think these are good laws or terrible laws (or somewhere in between)? You’re either condoning the murder of gays, or you agree that basing laws on the Bible is sometimes a terrible idea. If this dichotomy is false, feel free to suggest an alternative – just make sure your third way answers the question of if the biblical laws are good, terrible, or mediocre laws.

  19. Jeffrey,

    Our nation has been around since 1776, so a 1672 document is not directly relevant to the question of the basis of the USA’s laws.

    Yes, the Declaration of Independence founded our country on July 4, 1776. That foundational document itself rests on the foundation that our unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator. And, lest there be any doubt about who the Founders considered to be our Creator, look to another document consented to by John Hancock and other Founders less than four months earlier on March 16, 1776. The Founders were predominantly “Christians of all denominations”, not predominantly Deists or agnostics, or atheists, or anything else. They were Christians.

    And while none of them were alive back in 1672, all of them were raised in schools that taught them from the Bible and books like The New England Primer (follow that link to see a few sample pages, and also see the online version which contains the full text without the pictures).

    You may also want to review An Outline History of Religion in American Schools.

    You can claim that the MA laws from 1672 are not directly relevant to the question of the basis of the USA’s laws, but both those MA laws from 1672 and the founding of our country in 1776 and subsequent Constitution in 1787 are based on the Bible and Biblical principles.

    For example, the concept for our three branches of government did not come from any governmental precedent from any other country… it came from the Bible:

    (For the LORD is our Judge,
    The LORD is our Lawgiver,
    The LORD is our King;
    He will save us);

    Isaiah 33:22

    Judicial, Legislative, Executive. God is all three. God is perfect, man is imperfect. And, since the Founders understood that man is flawed and tends to abuse power when given too much of it without checks, they separated these three activities into three branches of government, each branch with checks and balances put upon it by the other two branches.

    Although, I do agree that the Bible certainly influenced early American laws too. What’s more controversial is the implication that this is a good thing.

    First you said, “a 1672 document is not directly relevant to the question of the basis of the USA’s laws”, but then you admit that the Bible certainly influenced those early American laws, and you provide no evidence of a shift by the Founders away from the Bible and Christianity.

    To the contrary, I have shown clear evidence of the importance of Christianity to our Founders, including the Founder whose signature is the most recognized and well-known on the document that founded our country.

    Our country was absolutely based on Bibilical principles. And that is a good thing.

    I recommend that you review both the post and the comments I wrote 18 months ago here:
    Biblically Correct, Not Politically Correct

    There was quite a bit of discussion there about the very question you are asking now.

  20. Jeffrey says:

    On the other thread, on April 25, 2009, you wrote:

    “It is not politically correct today to support capital punishment for adultery and homosexuality. But it is Biblically correct, and was politically correct when our laws were based on God’s Word, the Bible.”

    WTF? Do you really mean this? Btw, does Deuteronomy 17 convince you that we should pass laws killing the infidels too? Unfortunately for your murderous wishes, we have this unbiblical document called The Constitution, which prohibits the government from killing people for the free exercise of their religion.

    And that totally destroys my argument. I was pointing out that to honestly believe the Bible is true, you’d have to be so insane that you literally should be locked in an asylum or prison. And clearly you are not insane or murderous, therefore you don’t really believe the Bible. But no. The argument fails because I was assuming your sanity.

    Aaron, I hope you’re reading this… I’ll assume your sanity too unless you insist otherwise. itooktheredpill is showing us what it truly means to think biblically. This thread should explain to you the motivation for my “crusade” against the idea the Bible is good: I don’t want people like itooktheredpill to kill me.

  21. Math says:

    But no. The argument fails because I was assuming your sanity.

    Ironically, it is you who has just taken the red pill. Welcome to the club. Hopefully you’ll stick around for the entertainment now that you’ve realized you can’t reason with them, I quite enjoyed your posts.

    I’ll assume your sanity too unless you insist otherwise.

    You know what they say about assumptions… Trust me, he’s very insistent.

  22. This thread should explain to you the motivation for my “crusade” against the idea the Bible is good: I don’t want people like itooktheredpill to kill me.

    I wrongly assumed your sanity. I’m not coming to kill you. You chose to ignore some of my other comments in that other thread that make that clear.

    But your “’crusade’ against the idea the Bible is good” indicates that you believe the Bible is “hate speech”. And it’s not a stretch to realize that “hate speech” laws have already been used in an attempt to jail pastors in other countries.

  23. Jeffrey says:

    I realize that you do not intend to do the job yourself.

    Are you, or are you not in favor of passing laws calling for my execution?

  24. Jeffrey, I seek your salvation, not your execution. And yes, I understand that you are quite proud of your “deconversion”.

  25. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
    Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
    So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
    She said, “No one, Lord.”
    And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
    Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

    John 8:1-12

  26. Jeffrey says:

    Jesus was being unbiblical and allowing his sense of compassion to trump what the Law says. You should follow his example.

    “Jeffrey, I seek your salvation, not your execution.”

    You seek both, at least to the extent that you are being biblical. If you aren’t always biblical, then that’s awesome! But please acknowledge that this is what you are doing.

  27. Jesus was being unbiblical and allowing his sense of compassion to trump what the Law says.

    No, he wasn’t trumping what the Law says; he was the ultimate fulfillment of the Law.

    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

    Matthew 5:17

    Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

    Matthew 22:37-40

    You should follow his example.

    I endeavor every day to do so. I fall short. We all do.

  28. Jeffrey says:

    “he was the ultimate fulfillment of the Law.”

    It’s funny how that means so many different things to so many different people. Or in your case, it means so many different things to you alone. After all, you were actually in favor of stoning adulterers before you were against it.

    Ambiguity is the last refuge of ideas that will be clearly false as soon its proponents find a way to state them clearly.

  29. Jeffrey, the bottom line is that you’re promoting a cure to people who do not have the cancer of a sin nature. Sin is a concept that originates from various religions. If you come here to Japan where the concept of sin does not exist, you find far fewer “sinners” as evidenced by a cross-culture comparison on nearly every index of “sin” as defined by theists. Tell people they’re sinners and can’t help but sin, and you end up with sinners. Don’t tell people they’re “sinners”, and they act more “saintly”.

    So you are like a snake-oil salesman standing on the front porch of the gullible selling your redemptive oil based on a false unsubstantiated claim that the resident has “sin” cancer. You really ought to be ashamed. I am for having propagated this same lie for 25+ years.

  30. Aaron says:

    Jeffrey,

    “I notice that you seem unwilling to defend Numbers’ law calling for the stoning of infidels. It’s almost like you abhor this particular biblical law.”

    Perhaps you were not paying attention the first time I typed it. Old Testament laws and mandates became obsolete when Christ arrived on Earth. All OT scripture was superceded (meaning replaced) by Christ’s teachings. The OT now primarily serves as historical reference. It sharply contrasts the difference between the Lord who wanted His children to fear Him (as he did in the OT) and Lord who wants His children to love Him.

    “Either you think stoning the infidels is a reasonable option, or you do not – this is a true dichotomy.” If you do not, then you disagree with at least one of the Bible’s laws. The only third option is sticking your head in the sand and pretending those verses don’t exist.

    Wrong, see above.

    “If I have “quote mined” please explain the subtle nuances of Deuteronomy 17:2-5: “If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.”

    How about the not so subtle nuance of the fact that it doesn’t apply to those who follow the teachings of Christ because His teachings supercede the OT?

    “Something Christians tend to ignore is that for centuries, infidels and many others were stoned because the Israelites read the Bible and believed what it says.”

    And you can take that up with those who follow the teachings of the Old Testament. (hint: not Christians) The first five books (a.k.a. the books of Moses) make up the bulk of the Torah. Find the religion that follows the Torah and ask one of its clerics.

    “These are real laws, on a real scroll, that real people enforced, causing them to kill real people.”

    Correction: those WERE real laws; they expired when Christ arrived.

    “And not because someone distorted the text – the source of violence was the text itself. If Jesus’ clarifications were really so vital to its message, it wouldn’t have taken centuries for them to be given. (Although, I wouldn’t consider Jesus’ “no comment” to count as reversing this law. He didn’t comment on rape either, and I’m guessing you’re still against that.)”

    Jesus didn’t clarify, he superceded. Again, you’d know that if you actually knew Christian Theology beyond the mined quotes you conveniently pulled from your favorite atheist websites.

    “Imagine someone writes a sequel to Karl Marx’ work in the year 2500. Suppose the sequel drastically reverses all sorts of clear statements that Marx made, so that Marx plus the sequels is essentially democratic free-market capitalism. If this happens, the Communist Manifesto will still teach communism and will still have inspired multiple communistic regimes. To interpreted Marx’ books in the light of their “sequel” in 2500 would be as ridiculous as reading the Law of Moses based on what Jesus and Paul said.”

    Nice try, but no. Those who follow primarily elements of the OT are a different religion. Those who follow Christ’s teachings are Christians. That you would try to cite events occurring before the founding of Christianity and blame Christians for them is nonsense.

    Those who follow Marx’s writing are Marxist (or Communist), if someone (we’ll call him Jim) comes along in 2500 and rewrites, reversing Marx’s teachings. The new followers would not be Marxist, they would be Jimist; because they’re following Jim’s teachings. Marxists would still exist, but they and the Jimists would be distinct from each other. You could blame the Marxists for things that resulted from Marx’s teachings, but you can’t also blame the Jimists.

    “I wish Moses had specified when he was speaking the word of God, and when he was just doing his own thing. Unfortunately, it all got written down in the inerrant word of God. Also, it makes no difference what book of the Bible a law comes from when deciding if you abhor some laws in the Bible.”

    You wouldn’t have to wish if you studied theology with a genuine interest as motivation rather than the hatred for Christians that you harbor.

    “Exodus 22:18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”

    Do you even know what a sorceress actually was in ancient history? Hint: she was not a woman who cast magic spells or churned boiling cauldrons while reciting Shakespeare lines. Considering the abhorrent acts committed by witches, (I’m not referencing magic) I wouldn’t want them to live, either. I would not want a baby-killer to live no matter the name attributed to it.

    “Exodus 22:20 is in the Bible, and you seem to think highly of the Bible’s laws. Is killing infidels who sacrifice to the wrong god a bad idea, a great idea, or somewhere in between? Sure, maybe you ignore this part because of Jesus. But if you don’t think this law is good and wise, stop telling people the Bible is good and wise.”

    Knowing ‘what’ the words and teachings of Christ are, is training.
    Learning ‘how’ to interpret them and let them guide us, is education.
    Understanding ‘why’ He came to our world and bestowed his teachings upon us; understanding ‘why’ we should accept and try to uphold the example that He set for us. That is is wisdom.

    All the way up to the point of Christ’s coming, the Lord ruled with incredible power, maintaining devotion through fear. Every time you committed a sin, you had to sacrifice something of value in His name or face retribution. That naturally breeds resentment. People rejected God, resigning to a life of doing whatever they wanted and just weathering the wrath as best they could. The Lord sent Jesus Christ to forge a new relationship, not based on sacrifice and fear, but based on mutual love of God and each other. He sent Christ to be the only sacrifice for all our sin; teaching us the most important lesson in his last moments of life, by asking the Lord to forgive those who wrongly condemned Him, the way we should forgive each other when we are wronged. Understanding that and the sheer volume of what all it truly entails

    As an independent Christian who determines for himself what the words and teachings contained within the Bible mean, I do not align with any defined denomination of Christianity. I also do NOT accept responsibility and will NOT allow some atheist loser like you to villify me or my faith based on the actions of liars who took His name in vain, and to separate Christianity from those so-called “Christians” who committed atrocities in the past, I only need reference the single fact that He openly rejected all who commit violence in His name. He and God are capable of fighting their own battles; they don’t need me or any other human to fight for them.

  31. Jeffrey says:

    >You could blame the Marxists for things that resulted from Marx’s teachings, but you can’t also blame the Jimists.

    That would be true, *unless* one of Jimists’ most foundational beliefs is that both Jim and Marx’s teachings are inspired by God and inerrant. If so, “Marx was wrong” is a pretty compelling argument that at least one of Jimists’ foundational beliefs is wrong too. Pull your head out of the sand and say these words: “The books of the Law were not inspired by God.”

    Suppose someone thinks that Nero’s order to have Christians thrown to lions was a good idea, perhaps even inspired by God. “No, no, but I’m in favor of religious freedom today! This command only applied to the Roman Empire” would be a thoroughly pathetic justification for defending Nero.

    Here’s one thing we agree on: from the time of Moses until Jesus, infidels and rebellious children were to be killed. (What the law means after Jesus is more complicated.) Was killing the infidels for centuries a good idea or a bad idea? Pull you head out of the sand and say these words: “The books of the Law were not inspired by God.”

    I already clearly made the distinction between under the law and after Jesus. You aren’t in favor of killing infidels today. I get that. What about from Moses until Jesus? Do you think it was right to kill them then? Ignoring the core issue isn’t a rebuttal. It’s sticking your head in the sand.

    >Do you even know what a sorceress actually was in ancient history?

    First, I’m not willing to take you word for it about sorceresses. Especially since you I quoted the Ten Commandments, and then you incredulously asked where I get such ideas about the Bible.

    Second, I have the ability to look up things like this myself. I Samuel 28 tells a story about Saul consulting a medium. The medium here is pretty much exactly what people in modern times think the word “witch” means. Furthermore, note that the “Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land” of I Samuel 28:3 uses the same Hebrew words as Leviticus 20:27: “Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” So the Bible calls for the killing of witches, and this means pretty much exactly what it sounds like.

    Btw, the key words in Strong’s Concordance referring to mediums and spiritists are H178 and H3049. Next time, try googling “blue letter bible” and actually look stuff up before you try to talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.

    >I would not want a baby-killer to live no matter the name attributed to it.

    Awesome! So based on Numbers 31:1-18, we’re agreed that Moses was a war criminal, and if he was alive today, he should be tried, convicted, and shot. Perhaps you even agree that Jesus showed very poor taste in companions at the Mount of Transfiguration when he had Elijah and an unrepentant war criminal appear next to him. I’m very curious to see just how far you’re willing to take your pro-Jesus/anti-Moses views.

    >Every time you committed a sin, you had to sacrifice something of value in His name or face retribution. That naturally breeds resentment. People rejected God, resigning to a life of doing whatever they wanted and just weathering the wrath as best they could.

    Did God not see this outcome in advance, was he unable to choose another route, or is he the sort of God that just doesn’t really care about the suffering of people? Sure, sure, Jesus comes later, but that’s too late for the millions of people who had already died. Did God just not care about them?

    >I also do NOT accept responsibility and will NOT allow some atheist loser like you to villify me or my faith

    Actually, I came to this thread with the assumptions that virtually all Christians think adulterers should not be stoned to death. I called myself a Christian for around 20 years, and I’ve spanned the full spectrum from near-Calvinist to liberal Christian, six-day creationist to theistic evolutionist to deist, so I have a pretty good idea of what Christians are actually like.

    I still consider itooktheredpill to be an extreme exception, because one person doesn’t make much of a difference in a lifetime of experiences to the contrary.

    >I only need reference the single fact that He openly rejected all who commit violence in His name.

    You need to do one more thing: you need to openly reject the parts of the Bible where God supposedly commanded people to commit violence in his name. To do anything less is to be an enabler of people like itooktheredpill.

  32. Aaron says:

    What Moses in Numbers 31:17 was pretty much run of the mill for ancient warfare, that kind of brutality is heinous now, but wasn’t then. That goes for ancient warfare in the age when cities were known for perfidy (faking surrender to set an ambush, a war crime more serious than even mass slaughter of innocents). Ancient armies whether in the Bible or not, were not known for their mercy or discipline in warfare.

    Also, I guess I need to spell it out, a Sorceress in the ancient age was a woman who specialized in mixing medicines that forced miscarriages. Spices such as nutmeg, vervain and common rue are herbal abortifacients when consumed in proper amounts/mixtures and that is what a Sorceress (a.k.a. “witch”) was. It was in the dark ages of the medieval era, when far less was written that stories of witches performing magic spells and making wierd potions grew into popular cultures. Of course, to someone who did not know any better, tales of a person capable of forcing miscarriages through a simple drink can easily be exaggerated into broomstick-riding, potion-brewing, evil magic users.
    What’s more is that for a woman who didn’t want a baby but could not openly tell anyone that she forced her miscarriage, the witch made an great scape-goat. “She concocted a potion that killed my baby!”

    Also, I don’t readily accept that God actually knew that such a rift would occur between Him and His children, at least not before it was too late to prevent it. Reason: There is no evidence in the OT to indicate that He did know it was coming and the fact that He bestowed upon us the greatest gift possible: Free will. Free will makes us somewhat unpredictable.

    Further on that note, extensive studies into the psychology of fundamental shifts in human behavior have been conducted and one of the most common factors that repeatedly pops up, especially in the cases of severe addictions or other destructive behaviors is that the sufferer did not reach the turning point until their pain and suffering had become so great that they were forced to change. They had to hit rock bottom before the fundamental change necessary to break free and regain control of their life. Any attempts to alter or correct their behavior before hitting that point usually resulted in recidivism. Historically, this has also been true on the large scale of societies; a prime example is Romania. I believe this was the case in the time leading up to Christ’s coming.

    Also, who are you to assume there are only two possibilities re God’s decision to send Christ to Earth? You don’t think that the rift between His children and Him wasn’t painful for Him to bear as well? Your claim that He didn’t care falls flat on the fact that He sent His son to Earth to be the final sacrifice to Him, to forgive all sin and forge a new relationship with His children based on the love that He has for us and wants us to have for Him and for each other. Ask any parent to picture a situation where their child would be villified and wrongfully executed in in public, before their eyes.

  33. Jeffrey says:

    >What Moses in Numbers 31:17 was pretty much run of the mill for ancient warfare, that kind of brutality is heinous now, but wasn’t then.

    Gotcha. What you are saying is that sometimes you are in favor of killing babies. This really takes away from your claim that your believes are non-violent. What’s especially incredible is that in the *exact same post*, you defend Moses’ baby killing and then condemn Sorceresses/baby-killer because baby killing is obvious wrong.

    The lengths to which minds will go to believe something as ridiculous as the Bible never ceases to amaze me.

    >Also, I guess I need to spell it out, a Sorceress in the ancient age was a woman who specialized in mixing medicines that forced miscarriages.

    I already spelled this out: I’m not willing to take your word for it. No matter how often and how clearly you repeat your position, this will continue to be an issue until you give a reason for me to think your position is correct.

    I don’t expect you to take my word for it either, which is why I gave a very specific argument defending my claim that witch means exactly what it sounds like. The Law calls for the death of people like modern palm-readers and modern people who attempt to contact the dead.

    >the witch made an great scape-goat.

    You know what makes witches work even better as scape-goats? Laws that say you can kill them.

    >Free will. Free will makes us somewhat unpredictable.

    Okay, so God’s not all-knowing. I wish Christians would be more open about this and stop confusing the matter by talking about his omniscience.

    >Any attempts to alter or correct their behavior before hitting that point usually resulted in recidivism. Historically, this has also been true on the large scale of societies; a prime example is Romania. I believe this was the case in the time leading up to Christ’s coming.

    First, God had no qualms about hardening Pharaohs’ heart to speed up the leaving Egypt process. That wasn’t particularly nice to the Egyptians either, but it beats leaving centuries of people to die like he did waiting to send Jesus. His lack of effort to make these processes more efficient suggests that he either lacks power or doesn’t care about millions of people.

    Second, suppose for the moment, that what you say is true: human nature prevented God from doing anything between Moses and Jesus. But if God exists, he didn’t stumble upon humans and discover this unfortunate fact about our nature. Human nature is that way it is because God created it that way. So here’s pretty much the exact same question again: why did God create human nature in a way that would force him to do nothing to help the millions of people between Moses and Jesus? You haven’t even come close to resolving the issue.

    >Also, who are you to assume there are only two possibilities re God’s decision to send Christ to Earth?

    I don’t have the slightest idea how you could think I assume that. God had hundreds of other options besides sacrificing Himself to Himself to allow Himself to grant an exception to a rule that He made.

    >Ask any parent to picture a situation where their child would be villified and wrongfully executed in in public, before their eyes.

    I feel for God in the same way that I feel for someone who randomly pulls out a knife, slashes themselves, and then tearfully pleads with me “I did this for you!” Wtf, you didn’t have to do that, and doing that didn’t accomplish very much.

    The only reason Jesus “had” to die to bring about any of the New Testament changes is because God made up some very bizarre rules. If he disliked killing himself so much, he should have set up the rules differently. No one forced God to kill Himself in order to save us from His wrath, unless you count God’s masochistic nature.

  34. Aaron says:

    “Gotcha. What you are saying is that sometimes you are in favor of killing babies. This really takes away from your claim that your believes are non-violent. ”

    Right because that is exactly what I said…*sigh…let me know when you’re ready to drop the straw-stuffing and come back the discussion. This guy is almost as bad as Ryan was.

    “What’s especially incredible is that in the *exact same post*, you defend Moses’ baby killing”

    How was pointing out the fact that Moses’ orders were common for the time period supposed to be a defense? Oh wait, because it wasn’t a complete roll-over to accept your narrative. That’s it works in your view, right?

    “then condemn Sorceresses/baby-killer because baby killing is obvious wrong.”

    The fact that I even had to come back and openly explain what an ancient sorceress actually was, and how they were different from a so-called medium is clearly indicative of your actual knowledge of Biblical history and theology. Catch yourself up by reading this book, “Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West” by Dr John Riddle sheds some light on the matter.

    “I already spelled this out: I’m not willing to take your word for it. No matter how often and how clearly you repeat your position, this will continue to be an issue until you give a reason for me to think your position is correct.”

    See above. Your continued denial of this historic bit is disingenous, at best.

    “I don’t expect you to take my word for it either, which is why I gave a very specific argument defending my claim that witch means exactly what it sounds like. The Law calls for the death of people like modern palm-readers and modern people who attempt to contact the dead.”

    Really? And when did palm-readers and mediums come get conflated into sorcery? Oh right, it was about the time that you needed to conflate them IOT suit your narrative.

    “You know what makes witches work even better as scape-goats? Laws that say you can kill them.”

    So do you have as much hatred for the French, the British, the Germans, the Italians, the Greeks, the Norwegians and the Spanish as you do for Christians? All those countries had laws mandating the death penalty for witches

    “Okay, so God’s not all-knowing. I wish Christians would be more open about this and stop confusing the matter by talking about his omniscience.”

    All knowing (aware of everything that happens) and ability to see into the future are two different things. Again, only conflated by those who need to do so to suit their anti-Christian narrative.

    >Any attempts to alter or correct their behavior before hitting that point usually resulted in recidivism. Historically, this has also been true on the large scale of societies; a prime example is Romania. I believe this was the case in the time leading up to Christ’s coming.

    “First, God had no qualms about hardening Pharaohs’ heart to speed up the leaving Egypt process.”

    As so claimed by the scribe who first recorded the event. How do you know that Rameses II’s (or Seti I, it’s not 100% settled) heart didn’t harden on its own? It is, after all, natural to dig in and hold to a decision after one has taken it, especially in the face of a subordinate asking for reconsideration.

    “That wasn’t particularly nice to the Egyptians either, but it beats leaving centuries of people to die like he did waiting to send Jesus. His lack of effort to make these processes more efficient suggests that he either lacks power or doesn’t care about millions of people.”

    By your logic, the President of the US (considered to be the most powerful man in the free world) must not care about the millions who will be murdered in common street crime within the US during his presidency.

    “Second, suppose for the moment, that what you say is true: human nature prevented God from doing anything between Moses and Jesus.”

    I never said that, I put forth the possibility that He actually didn’t know that such a rift would occur between Him and His children, at least not before it was too late to prevent it.

    “But if God exists, he didn’t stumble upon humans and discover this unfortunate fact about our nature. Human nature is that way it is because God created it that way.”

    No, God gave us free will, which inherently takes away any direct control He had over what our nature would develop into. If He had control over how we would develop, then we wouldn’t have free will. If we didn’t have free will, we would not be discussing what was written in the Bible, or any other writing for that matter.

    “So here’s pretty much the exact same question again: why did God create human nature in a way that would force him to do nothing to help the millions of people between Moses and Jesus? You haven’t even come close to resolving the issue.”

    No, that is not the same question. Now you have falsely presumed that He knew exactly what human nature would develop into before creating us. The very concept of free will directly contradicts that. You’re muddling the concept of unpredictability with inaction.

    “I don’t have the slightest idea how you could think I assume that.”

    Then I’ll recap for you. “Did God not see this outcome in advance, was he unable to choose another route, or is he the sort of God that just doesn’t really care about the suffering of people?”

    You made the only two possibilities to be either, a.) God not seeing what would occur in advance and “unable to choose another route,” and b.) being, “the sort of God that just doesn’t really care about the suffering of people?”

    “God had hundreds of other options besides sacrificing Himself to Himself to allow Himself to grant an exception to a rule that He made.”

    You never broached the subject of other options, the false choice you presented had only to do with the point in time that Christ arrived. Further, no aspect of Christ’s life or death had anything to do with “granting and exception to a rule He made.” It did have to do with discarding the old Law and forming a whole new covenant with us.

    I feel for God in the same way that I feel for someone who randomly pulls out a knife, slashes themselves, and then tearfully pleads with me “I did this for you!” Wtf, you didn’t have to do that, and doing that didn’t accomplish very much.

    If the above reflects your view of Christ’s Gospel and His death on the cross, then you really do understand very little about Christian Theology beyond what you can regurgitate from Christian-bashing websites.

    “The only reason Jesus “had” to die to bring about any of the New Testament changes…”

    Jesus’ teachings, not His death are what brought about the New Testament changes. His death was simply the final sacrifice to forgive all sins past, present, and future.

    “…is because God made up some very bizarre rules.” If he disliked killing himself so much, he should have set up the rules differently.”

    So now you’re a Monday Morning Quarterback? I don’t happen to find the ten rules He laid out to be all that bizarre, they’re actually good rules to live by if you seek a happy life.

    >|”No one forced God to kill Himself in order to save us from His wrath, unless you count God’s masochistic nature.”

    Considering He didn’t bring down the mass destruction He could have; considering the brand new covenant He formed with us through Christ; considering how much easier it is to follow the right path and be forgiven when you deviate now than it was brfore Christ, I’d call that more of a merciful nature than masochistic. However, unlike you, I have no axe to grind against Him or His followers.

  35. Jeffrey says:

    I see no value in jumping on the side points if you can’t address the key point:

    The Law calls for the execution of mediums, spiritists, whoever sacrifices to any other god, and many, many others. You claim to be against laws like this. And yet somehow you can’t bring yourself to admitting that basing laws on the Law is a terrible idea.

    >So do you have as much hatred for the French, the British, the Germans, the Italians, the Greeks, the Norwegians and the Spanish as you do for Christians? All those countries had laws mandating the death penalty for witches

    The following two groups are different: “The French” and “someone who believes medieval French laws are valuable for moral guidance.” I’m struggling to decide what sort of mental disability one must have to not realize this.

    Of course, you’ll be sparred this criticism if you say these words: “looking to biblical laws for moral guidance is sometimes a mistake, because some of the Bible’s ideas are terrible ideas.”

  36. Aaron says:

    >”The Law calls for the execution of mediums, spiritists, whoever sacrifices to any other god, and many, many others.”

    No it doesn’t. The Lord, laid out exactly 10 laws. Nowhere within those 10 Commandments, did He call for the execution of anyone. He reserved the punishment part to His own decision.

    After delivering those 10 commandments, He departed Moses and left a series of angels (or various descriptions in charge). Those angels supposedly were messengers of God, but without written proof, their followers could only assume the angels’ were leading them according to the word and intentions of the Lord.

    >”You claim to be against laws like this. And yet somehow you can’t bring yourself to admitting that basing laws on the Law is a terrible idea.”

    Because God never directly commanded the punishment that you claim He did; they were supposedly commanded by Him through His angels. Those carried out without His direct instruction and The fact that more than one of those angels had fallen away from Him should be proof enough to a reader that not every angel’s leadership was to be taken at face value. It also ends up demonstrating the effects of complete blind obedience. (Which if God wanted, He would not have given us free will to begin with)

    >”The following two groups are different: “The French” and “someone who believes medieval French laws are valuable for moral guidance.” I’m struggling to decide what sort of mental disability one must have to not realize this.”

    The following two groups are different: “The Jewish” and “someone who follows a separare religion whose moral guidance is based on Christ’s teachings and not on the Old Testament.” I’m struggling to decide what sort of mental disability Jeffrey must have to not realize this.

    >”Of course, you’ll be sparred this criticism if you say these words: “looking to biblical laws for moral guidance is sometimes a mistake, because some of the Bible’s ideas are terrible ideas.”

    Look what we have here, typical left-wing tactics which display extreme hubris. He demands that I accept his exact narrative or he’ll label me an extremist for not doing so. For his next trick, he’ll demand that I accept the government healthcare take-over as a moral and just action…or be labeled an extremist for not doing so.

  37. Jeffrey says:

    Answer the question: is Leviticus 20:27 inspired by God, or is it not.

  38. Aaron says:

    Oooh…now he’s becoming demanding. Notice how lefties always want to frame the discussion and tightly control it in their favor. They place demands and expect others to either fall exactly in their step or…well they often don’t quite get to the alternative, probably due to not being challenged, but when they do, it usually involves labeling those in disagreement with their narrative as “extremist or fringe.”

    This is on top of another quote-mine job he just pulled. He is ignoring the fact that Leviticus 17-21 details the laws He wanted the Israelites to live by. You find the punishments for some violations to be ridiculous and cruel, but self-proclaimed wizards and those who follow other spirits are blasphemy, which is a grevious sin. Probably not to you because you reject the concept of sin (inherent in accepting atheism as your religion), but it is not your position to valuate one sin compared to another. The Lord has already determined that. Same goes for incest, philandering and beastiality, which He also called for death. Again, you may not think of those as grevious sins deserving the death penalty, but you are in no position to judge those. calls. So yes, Leviticus 17-26 (to include 20:27)is inspired by God, but so is this:.

    Christ Himself weigned in on the matter of sin and delivering punishments that God called for when, after seeing an adultress brought before him, he said in John 8:5-7, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned; but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

    You who would quote-mine the OT of Bible because it gives you the easiest bits to suit your narrative, but you CANNOT ignore the quote above from the NT, which brings the full context to the Law of Moses, thus negating the idea of actually casting stones at people that you are so eager to claim our host or I to believe in.

    In addition, you also cannot ignore Leviticus 19:22, where the Lord laid out a procedure for the Israelites to ask for and receive forgiveness for their sins against the Law of Moses. Nor can you ignore Numbers 15:25, which the Lord allowed that a priest may make an offering for an entire congregation to forgive all their sins against the Law of Moses which He laid down. Now where is that thing about stoning that you so desperately want to stick on Christians again? Oh wait, it was negated by the REST of the writing that DIDN’T suit your narrative.

    So in the end, did God call for the stoning of spirit worshippers and self-proclaimed wizards? Yes He sure did, but did He also offer forgiveness for such a sin if said violator asked and offered a sacrifice to Him? Yes He sure did. This is the part that atheists and other anti-Christians conveniently overlook because it doesn’t suit their narrative.

    Now, what other parts would you like to quote-mine, Jeffrey? Come on, I know those atheist websites you get your ammo from have plenty more mined quotes for you to try. Or are you done with your quote-mining crusade?

  39. Jeffrey says:

    You throw hissy fits whenever your position is “misrepresented”, and so I asked you what your position is. Simple yes/no questions do not assume there are only two possible positions. For instance, here are three different answers that are all at least close to your position:

    “No. Only the Ten Commandments and other direct words of the Lord are inspired. Leviticus is not a direct word of the Lord.”

    “Yes. However, God only inspired an accurate historical description of the laws. The laws themselves were not inspired by God.”

    “Yes. The laws were inspired by God, although they are no longer in effect.”

    Your inability to state your position clearly reveals that you lack the clarity of thought to even have a position. Or maybe you’re just embarrassed by your idiotic beliefs and don’t want to say what they are.

  40. Aaron, do you have the source of your standard of hermeneutics available somewhere? If you could post your standard of biblical interpretation, then we can assess whether you apply it consistently. That would help out a lot. Thanks.

  41. Aaron says:

    If you really demand to know, my position in this thread is quite simple.

    1. Jeffrey has already declared he thinks Christians believe in stoning people to death for various sins and such because it was written in the OT.

    2. He is quote-mining cherry-picked text to support his claim while conveniently ignoring all text re forgiveness for sins despite it being in the same Testament and even in the same book.

    3. His position is wrong and he refuses to accept that he has been called out for deliberate quote-mining because, like most atheists, he is arrogant, pompous and refuses to accept that his position has been disproven by someone who he considers to be a lesser human for no reason beyond not agreeing with him on the topic of religion.

    4. In his refusal to accept, he continues to use additional dirty tactics and become more disingenuous with each post. Case in point:

    “You throw hissy fits whenever your position is “misrepresented”,”

    An ad hominem attack combined with yet another straw-man. Notice how he used quote marks as though he WASN’T actually misrepresenting my position. The reality is that he has repeatedly stuffed straw-men and he is simply angered by my calling him out on it. See below along with my response:

    “Gotcha. What you are saying is that sometimes you are in favor of killing babies. This really takes away from your claim that your believes are non-violent. ”

    Right because that is exactly what I said…*sigh…let me know when you’re ready to drop the straw-stuffing and come back the discussion.”

    I guess that calling him out on his dirty tactics is some sort of hissy fit in his view. I’m tired of the underhandedness that has been exibited by just about every atheist that has posted on this site. It makes me wonder if there is an atheist in this world who ISN’T arrogant, pompous and condescending towards Christians (almost exclusively) while Jeffrey doesn’t appreciate being called out on his cheap moves.

    Jeffrey has multiple times threatened to label me as some sort of extremist for nothing more than not accepting his narrative, in its entirety.

    He has also exibited disingenuousness such as here:

    “Answer the question: is Leviticus 20:27 inspired by God, or is it not.”

    “Simple yes/no questions do not assume there are only two possible positions.”

    Notice how he put forth a yes/no question with ZERO indication of accepting anything but either response. Based solely on this thread, any other response aside from the above would have been labeled by him as either a “dodge” of a “sticking your head in the sand” again. While at the same time, either response would have fed right into either his, “you’re an extremist” narrative or his, “the Bible is a terrible source of law (because I quote-mined it)” narrative.

    The second quote was him trying to back-petal post-hoc in a, “well…uhhh…I didn’t REALLY mean it that way” response, which is both disingenuous and an insult to intelligence.

    “Your inability to state your position clearly reveals that you lack the clarity of thought to even have a position. Or maybe you’re just embarrassed by your idiotic beliefs and don’t want to say what they are.”

    Lacking any real argument to stand on after being disproven, he resorts to another ad hominem, calling me an idiot for being Christian.

    Meanwhile, my position on the Bible and the text therein is my own and no one else’s. I don’t need a pastor/reverend/priest to tell me what, where, why or how to believe and I certainly won’t tolerate some atheist trying to assume he knows it (because according to him, all Christians are stupid anyway) while simultaneously attempting to straw-stuff me IOT inflate his own condescension, like Jeffrey has been attempting during this entire thread.

  42. …my position on the Bible and the text therein is my own and no one else’s

    What a beautiful commentary on the arrogant subjectivity driving the hermeneutic free-for-all on a book presumably of objective origins.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s