Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Quote
A fine testament to the art of denial.


There is nothing, for example, to suggest what the circumstances by which the man gathering sticks happened to be. You are making an assumption of 'deliberate disobedience' when the narrative does not say that.


Not that it makes any difference, gathering sticks on a day of rest is hardly a capital offense in any sense of justice, and to have a the man executed, stoned to death in public, is neither just or merciful.

On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.

Which clearly and unequivocally contradicts the descriptions of God as Love and tender mercy;

"God is love." - 1 John 4:8


1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''



Tell that to the man who was killed for the simple act of gathering sticks on the 'day of rest' - point out that God is Love and love protects and is forgiving.

And so your apologetic fails.


My friend if you read all the verses with a little less emotion maybe you will see that the information describing the act of disobedience is exactly what was forbidden in the law.

Then you moralize and say that gathering sticks is not a capital offense. You earlier said repeatedly that morals have nothing to do with this evaluation it was only a comparative contradiction of the text. But you cannot keep yourself from moralizing by a standard of judgment which did not even exist in that time. Furthermore you overlook the fact that this guy knew about the law and agreed to obey the covenant law of the Sabbath as part of the promise of the covenant group to God.Where is your modern consensus morality now? You are not being consistent with any moral code but your own that you are making up as we discuss the subject.

The issue is not about gathering sticks per se but a deliberate attempt to despise God and His people and to break the covenant promise.

Think about this logically for a minute in another context ...if a traitor goes out to gather sticks and arranges them in a way to signal information to an enemy in a time of war and was caught and hung as a traitor was he really punished for playing with sticks or for betraying his country? Could he really say all I was doing was gathering sticks? Would the country become unmerciful if they hung a traitor? Would this make them an evil country? Or would the purging of the traitor be an act of mercy to the country? This is what is going on here.

Quote
On the contrary, it is a brutal and unjust sentence and act.


Lol you really can't stop moralizing from your own arbitrary judgment and focus on the alleged contradiction between the two texts you originally quoted. You have broken your own rules. How many times have you said your morals have nothing to do with this and yet when you cannot logically prove the contradiction you go back to your arbitrary moralizing.

Originally you stated there was a contradiction between two OT passages now you introduce two new NT passages to try to prove the contradiction. The NT was not in the original alleged contradiction. We all know there are differences in conduct between the testaments. Going to the NT to prove you point is a clear indication that you lost your original case of an OT discrepancy.

The simple logic of a Psalmist looking back on history (which includes this event) and saying that God's mercy is over all His works is not introducing a discrepancy. This chronology proves that there never was a contradiction because the statement was made that included the event which were part of all of God's works. You are using someone's words and intentions to mean the exact opposite of their meaning and intention. Your methodology of debate invalidates the credibility of your arguments--in addition to the fact that they are baseless.



It has nothing to do with 'reading with emotion' - your remark being a shallow dismissal of the problem being pointed out.

The problem being, once again, that the bible itself gives descriptions of its god as loving, kind and compassionate, yet describes god as cruel and vindictive.

If one is true, by the rules of logic, the other must be false.

Both cannot be true unless God is Bipolar, unpredictably flipping between opposites.




Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.

Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/12/19.