Do They Really Believe That?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Do They Really Believe That?

 

 

[mark 45]

the obvious answer is yes. 

[Dan56]

They don't believe his interpretation.. He doesn't even understand that 'Thou shalt not kill' is accurately translated "Thou shalt not murder". So he thinks its a contradiction to kill a witch. He doesn't understand that some of Genesis is allegorical, i.e; the serpent was symbolic of Satan, who could talk. That's the problem with skimming over the bible instead of studying it, you end up trying to believe in talking snakes. I didn't need to listen any further after hearing how blind this guy is, no depth to him at all.   

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mark 45 said:

the obvious answer is yes. 

 

 

Just so.        

 

 

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

They don't believe his interpretation.. He doesn't even understand that 'Thou shalt not kill' is accurately translated "Thou shalt not murder". So he thinks its a contradiction to kill a witch. He doesn't understand that some of Genesis is allegorical, i.e; the serpent was symbolic of Satan, who could talk. That's the problem with skimming over the bible instead of studying it, you end up trying to believe in talking snakes. I didn't need to listen any further after hearing how blind this guy is, no depth to him at all.   

I remember you justifying  wives who were not virgins on their wedding night being stoned. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I remember you justifying  wives who were not virgins on their wedding night being stoned. 

 

 

There is nothing to be gained in arguing Scripture with Dan.  No matter what we say, Dan will tell us that we don't understand.  That we have the wrong understanding.  The wrong context.  The wrong translation.  The wrong meaning.  The wrong word.  The wrong what ever.  

 

Remember.  Dan cares only about his faith.  Facts and reality are nothing to him, because his beliefs trump all.  Reason will not penetrate.  At best, Dan will change the subject and drag you off into a different -- meaningless -- direction.  He will back it all up with endless Bible quotes.  When Dan's Scriptural quoting fails to impress you -- Dan will then insist, that it is because you hate God.  Or the Bible.  Or religion.  Or Christ.

 

The cycle is endless.  I can't do it any more.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, Pete said:

I remember you justifying  wives who were not virgins on their wedding night being stoned. 

 

That was a Levitical law (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). A woman who was a virgin and betrothed to a husband, was considered to have committed adultery if she had premarital sex, and the penalty was death by stoning, including the guy who nailed her. Its not a matter of me justifying it, that's just the way it was under the old covenant. 

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Facts and reality are nothing to him, because his beliefs trump all.  Reason will not penetrate.

 

You think that snakes and donkeys talk, and then suggest my reasoning is off base for suggesting they don't? Okey-dokey... But I'm really just providing you with a more realistic interpretation. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

47 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

That was a Levitical law (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). A woman who was a virgin and betrothed to a husband, was considered to have committed adultery if she had premarital sex, and the penalty was death by stoning, including the guy who nailed her. Its not a matter of me justifying it, that's just the way it was under the old covenant. 

 

 

You think that snakes and donkeys talk, and then suggest my reasoning is off base for suggesting they don't? Okey-dokey... But I'm really just providing you with a more realistic interpretation. 

 

I think it's all mythology.  In mythology, snakes and donkeys talk.  

 

It's all literal, unless it's not.        

 

[Pete]

God's law was to stone women who we're not virgins on their wedding night. I don't care if she had even committed adultery, stoning is a sick rule by a sick god.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

God's law was to stone women who we're not virgins on their wedding night. I don't care if she had even committed adultery, stoning is a sick rule by a sick god.

 

 

Your observation is valid.  The Bible's God is sick and twisted.  Do you think you can explain that to Dan?  

 

 

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Do you think you can explain that to Dan?  

 

 

I think Pete has adequately explained that.. He has been redundant in his critique of the biblical God, and I'm beginning to think he's not too fond of Him. 

Its not unusual for extreme pacifist to object to any and all physical correction (enforcement) of laws.

The new covenant does permit divorce in the case of marital fornication, so cheaters aren't killed anymore (Matthew 19:9).

Edited January 20, 2020 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I think Pete has adequately explained that.. He has been redundant in his critique of the biblical God, and I'm beginning to think he's not too fond of Him. 

Its not unusual for extreme pacifist to object to any and all physical correction (enforcement) of laws.

The new covenant does permit divorce in the case of marital fornication, so cheaters aren't killed anymore (Matthew 19:9).

 

Being against cruelty, brutality and sadism; is not the same as being a pacifist.  Neither is opposition to an unjust law.  Neither is opposition to the death penalty.  Justice is an important concept.  Throwing around words like pacifist is not helpful.   

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

It matters little whether divorse is allowed or not now. These are the laws instructed by your god and are used to judge sin. The idea of refusing to believe crushing a woman's skull with rocks is ever justified as righteous has nothing to do with pacifism. Not everyone who is against such vicious punishments is a pacifist. This is just Dan justifying the unjustifiable again. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

It matters little whether divorse is allowed or not now. These are the laws instructed by your god and are used to judge sin. The idea of refusing to believe crushing a woman's skull with rocks is ever justified as righteous has nothing to do with pacifism. Not everyone who is against such vicious punishments is a pacifist. This is just Dan justifying the unjustifiable again. 

 

 

Yes.     

 

 

[RevBogovac]

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I think Pete has adequately explained that.. He has been redundant in his critique of the biblical God, and I'm beginning to think he's not too fond of Him. 

Its not unusual for extreme pacifist to object to any and all physical correction (enforcement) of laws.

The new covenant does permit divorce in the case of marital fornication, so cheaters aren't killed anymore (Matthew 19:9).

 

So, your "god" evolves from being a hard-core bastard who believes people should be stoned (for any reason) to a loving and understanding "god"... sounds more like people and sociaeties evovling than like an "all knowing" god to me, but hey...

 

I'm not here to argue about that. Your position is crystal clear:

 

14 hours ago, Pete said:

[...] This is just Dan justifying the unjustifiable again. 

 

Exactly. I am just here to ask you, Dan, politely to stop pulling both the "argumentum da hominem" as well as the "argumentum ad absurdum about "pacifists". When you have been in ("religious") war twice (in my particular case in Yugoslavia), then you might get to understand what that word actually means. For now, please stop using it in-vain. It's (especially) insulting (to someone who has seen first hand the results of "religious" actions).

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

So, your "god" evolves from being a hard-core bastard who believes people should be stoned (for any reason) to a loving and understanding "god"... sounds more like people and sociaeties evovling than like an "all knowing" god to me, but hey...

 

I'm not here to argue about that. Your position is crystal clear:

 

 

Exactly. I am just here to ask you, Dan, politely to stop pulling both the "argumentum da hominem" as well as the "argumentum ad absurdum about "pacifists". When you have been in ("religious") war twice (in my particular case in Yugoslavia), then you might get to understand what that word actually means. For now, please stop using it in-vain. It's (especially) insulting (to someone who has seen first hand the results of "religious" actions).

 

 

For me, the core issue here, is opposition to brutality -- death by stoning -- being conflated with pacifism.  I understand that Dan doesn't understand distinction and nuance.  Even for him, this is extreme.  

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

In a religion that teaches peace and love, should not the pacifist be ideal?  Instead of criticised?

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

So, your "god" evolves from being a hard-core bastard who believes people should be stoned (for any reason) to a loving and understanding "god"... sounds more like people and sociaeties evovling than like an "all knowing" god to me, but hey...

 

I'm not here to argue about that. Your position is crystal clear:

 

 

Exactly. I am just here to ask you, Dan, politely to stop pulling both the "argumentum da hominem" as well as the "argumentum ad absurdum about "pacifists". When you have been in ("religious") war twice (in my particular case in Yugoslavia), then you might get to understand what that word actually means. For now, please stop using it in-vain. It's (especially) insulting (to someone who has seen first hand the results of "religious" actions).

 

The penalty for sin has always been death. God has not evolved in that sense, the NT reiterates that the "Wages of sin is death". What changed was "Christ", who paid the penalty for sin. The remission of sin equates to the cancellation of debts, whereas all penalties are suspended.

 

I doubt my remark about pacifism is fallacious, most here oppose the death penalty for any crime. So its not an argument as much as it is an observation. Past conversations have revealed an anti-punishment position by most of the liberal minded participants here. I'm relatively certain that they would all oppose 'stoning' for any crime, although they would probably make an exception if I broke a law 

 

 

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

For me, the core issue here, is opposition to brutality -- death by stoning -- being conflated with pacifism.  I understand that Dan doesn't understand distinction and nuance.  Even for him, this is extreme. 

 

 

I have an opposition to brutality too, mine is just geared toward the victim rather than sympathy towards the assailant. How's that for nuance?

 

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

In a religion that teaches peace and love, should not the pacifist be ideal?  Instead of criticised?

 

It is a forgiving religion, but it doesn't exempt law breakers from punishment automatically. Conditions must be met, reject the one who paid the price for sin and your liable for your sins.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).. I know how you like bible quotes, so I just had to throw in a verse..

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

The penalty for sin has always been death. God has not evolved in that sense, the NT reiterates that the "Wages of sin is death". What changed was "Christ", who paid the penalty for sin. The remission of sin equates to the cancellation of debts, whereas all penalties are suspended.

 

I doubt my remark about pacifism is fallacious, most here oppose the death penalty for any crime. So its not an argument as much as it is an observation. Past conversations have revealed an anti-punishment position by most of the liberal minded participants here. I'm relatively certain that they would all oppose 'stoning' for any crime, although they would probably make an exception if I broke a law 

 

 

I have an opposition to brutality too, mine is just geared toward the victim rather than sympathy towards the assailant. How's that for nuance?

 

 

It is a forgiving religion, but it doesn't exempt law breakers from punishment automatically. Conditions must be met, reject the one who paid the price for sin and your liable for your sins.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).. I know how you like bible quotes, so I just had to throw in a verse..

 

 

 

although they would probably make an exception if I broke a law 

No.  I don't have any desire to see you suffer.    

 

I have an opposition to brutality too, mine is just geared toward the victim rather than sympathy towards the assailant. How's that for nuance?

Sad.  You have missed the point.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

although they would probably make an exception if I broke a law 

No.  I don't have any desire to see you suffer.    

 

I have an opposition to brutality too, mine is just geared toward the victim rather than sympathy towards the assailant. How's that for nuance?

Sad.  You have missed the point.   

 

 

Yes, the distinction between punishment and suffering eludes Dan completely...

 

Why am I not surprised (any more, by Dan)...?

 

But yes, it does seem some Christians (including Dan) really believe that stoning is an appropriate "punishment"...