Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For Christians,non-Christians & Atheists

First, in the day violating the sabbath was no minor offense, basically giving God the finger. Nobody got away with doing that to an earthly, less worthy king. And it says He doesn't conform to what YOU want HIM to be, you need to conform to what HE wants YOU to be. A valuable lesson.

my personal opinion, and only my opinion is that we've got something going on here that is more complex than our legitimate but weak efforts to explain it.

ghengkis khan was quite the leader,

and on and on, ad infinitum.

here we are. i like the idea of a higher power.

but, to the contrary, i'm not much into higher value kings & queens.

and now the arguments are beginning to unfold as to the electoral college.

things are on the move, for sure. i'm glad we have this forum available for discussion.

having an opportunity to discuss various ideologies and not being shot is a good thing, yes?

My sense of justice is not necessary. The bible itself speaks of justice, itself describing God as compassionate, merciful, etc....so as a comparison, human parents who do not have their child killed for a minor act of disobedience, wagging school/ gathering sticks on a day of rest, are infinitely more compassionate than the Creator of the universe, a God of infinite love and compassion?

Yep.

Everyone who speeds 5mph over the limit should be executed......at least according to Thunderstick.....because that would be love in the face of disobedience.....

So your god is not better than the petty jealous kings of that day!

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.



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.

Well if the whole country agreed to abide by a capital punishment for crime that represented being a traitor would it be wrong for the country to carry out what they said they would do?

See you cannot stick to the text and context to prove the alleged contradiction--you have to restructure the case and insert your own morals into it and make a judgment. We are seeing a pattern with skeptics and their ability to be logically consistent and objective.

This is just too good ... You say there are differences between the OT and NT and we agree. But in a previous post you introduce two NT passage to try to prove a contradiction with the OT passage of punishing a man for gathering sticks. You are trying to correct someone else for doing what you have done yourself.

Again you are moralizing by making what is described as a serious offense a trivial matter. The original contradiction said it was merely a contradiction between texts in the OT. When you can't sustain the allegation you recast the context and insert your moral values.

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.

First off, IT IS A TRIVIAL OFFENSE. You're the one willing to execute people for trivial offenses and call it love because your god is in capable of providing direction better than the common moral of a given time.

i do believe that the Mighty YHWH did change his stance and position, and offered his son for the next iteration of humans on urth.

when one is a god, what does it mean to offer something or someone for the cause?

i suspect the original design of humans was a failure, and so a new approach was needed.

so, YHWH in his position of authority and as the chief planner for human life on earth did make a change.

if there can be one iteration of change, there can be more, maybe several as needed to achieve the objective.

what is the objective? to successfully occupy a breeding colony of humans on the moon, and later Mars?

we've all been involved in this for ages, yet the discussions go on and on. what can we conclude?

Another example of introducing a NT text into a case where there was an alleged contradiction between two OT texts. You can't stay within the confines of your own contradiction. I think we all understand that Jesus abrogated the civil laws of the OT.

Yup He's a mean sum bitch, and you'd better listen. Paul was lucky he didn't end up a crispy critter.

Is this not another example of a moral statement when you said personal morals have nothing to do with the noted contradiction? I drew you guys out deliberately to hear you declare that your morals had nothing to do with the contradiction and that it was only an objective discrepancy with the texts. I was quite sure you would not stick to your own promises.

I am only focussing on the contradiction between the OT and the NT to avoid getting bogged down in the much broader issue of contradictions in the NT, contradictions in the OT and contradictions between the two.

lol. too funny and too true!

we must remember the order of the mechelchidek.

lot's were going on back in the day in the oral tradition.

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.

i use to work w/a lady that said her god would reach down and pinch your head off even with your shoulders if you disabeyed. was she not a christian?

What is very clearly happening is that we are seeing a group of skeptics with a different set of moral values from the Bible trying to interpret the Bible. They are claiming to be objective and logical but they cannot refrain from interpretation and analysis based on their moral values which are distinctly different from Biblical morality. Their morality will not allow them to be logically consistent with the text and context or to even abide by their own rules of discussion. Skepticism has a way of prejudicing the mind against objective reasoning or admitting any evidence does not serve their purposes.

We see a similar thing happening in our country today with this breed of skepticism. Judges with a different moral value system from our founding fathers are trying to interpret our constitution and founding documents in ways that they were never intended. They claim to be objective, but in reality they are prejudiced against the morality of our founders and will stop at nothing till they have re-interpreted and applied case law in such a way as to destroy the moral foundation of our laws and make our documents say something completely different than what they do.