Victim blaming to save God's character

[Justin108]

Jehovah always disciplines to the proper degree. (Jer. 30:11)

You mean like stoning someone to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

This man was obviously a rebel. Only Jehovah knows what was in that man's heart or what other sins he had committed. Again, you are judging only by what you hear but you do not know what kind of person that man was. The surrounding nations burned their children to death. Could that man have been a foreigner that joined the Hebrews that decided that he was going to gather wood to sacrifice one of his children? Perhaps he was a Hebrew who had turned his attention to Molech worship which is who children were sacrificed to. Who knows! Do not jump to the conclusion that God was in the wrong when the Bible says of Jehovah, 'He is perfect in His activity'. (Deuteronomy 32:4)

Are these kinds of assumptions at all justified? If a character in the Bible is judged in seemingly unfair ways, is it fair to just assume that the victim probably did other unmentioned evil actions? Or is this just an example of cognitive dissonance to absolve an apologist's internal conflict of having to worship a seemingly immoral God?

[JehovahsWitness]

The only thing we do know is he broke the law, we can reasonably suppose he was fully aware of the law, the Sabbath law was first orally pronounced and agreed upon by the nation as a whole

It was agreed upon at one point by the nation as a whole, but that does not mean that later generations would agree.

I have already addressed this point but I will write a post to add some detail.

QUESTION: Is it conceivable that the Sabbath Breaker was ignorant of the law?

We do not know exactly when this incident happened but there are enough details provided in scripture to come to some reasonable conclusions as to time frame.

According to bible chronology, the nation left Egypt in the Jewish month of Nisan (Late March/April) 1513 BCE. The law was given a little time after that and the tablenacle (the Jewish center for worship) completed in the same month one year later (Nisan 1-7, 1512 B.C.E). Several events ensued, with the nation breaking camp from Mount Sinai, delaying because of Miriams leprosy, and culminating in the report of the ten spies and the Korathite rebellion which ultimately marked the beginning of the 40 year sejourn in the desert (Numbers chapters 14 - 19). It is in the middle of this final pre-40 year sejourn that the specific case is mentioned (Numbers 15).

What can we resonably conclude? That we obviously were not dealing with a different generation. The older generation was to die off during that 40 years of wandering in the desert, and that generation, including Moses himself were still active in the events directly mentioned along with the incident. Even if the events are not recorded in a strictly chronological order the indications are that we are looking at a period of less than 2 or 3 years after the law was given when Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Korah, Dathan etc were contenders for tribal authority and certainly NOT a generation after the giving of the national law.

Laws given at Mount Sinai For anyone that reads the giving of the Ten Commandements in Exodus Chapter 19 (Deut chap 4,5) it is evident that it is highly improbable any adult didn't know about the 4th Commandement. The entire nation was instructed to congregate at the base of the mountain which smokes and rocks [Ex 19:16-19 ; Ps 68:8]; God's voice is heard pronouncing the Ten Commandements from the midst of the fire and the cloud within the hearing of the people. [Ex 20:22; ; De 4:12, 36, Deut 5]. The words are recorded (written down) and early the next morning validate in a public ceremony. Later God himself writes them on tablets of stone and the nation keeps them as a memorial. To suggest after all that there were people that lived through all this but not know the sabbath Law stretches credulity to a ridiulous degree.

The Nation of Israel hearing the Ten Commandements


"Speak to the Sons of Israel": Unlike most countries today, the Mosaic Law was also part of the nation's system of worship. In other words, law and worship were tied together. This is in fact most evident in the self same Sabbath Law (the 4th of the "Ten commandements"). It was for this reason that firstly elders (older respected men in the community) and then Priests where appointed to instruct the people about the law. Of all the laws given, that sanctity of the Sabbath was one that directly affected the population on a weekly basis. So not working on the Sabbath would have not only been enshrined in law but was part of the nations culture. In short, it would have been virtually impossible to live in the community and not be aware that work (including the daily task of collecting wood to make fire to cook food) was not done on the Sabbath.

Can it be argued that if the lawbreaker was not personally present when the law was adopted or did not personally say he agreed with it, he should therefore be free to violate it with impunity?

Does being born in a nation mean you automatically agree with its laws? One can disagree with any law one wishes but one usually has to abide by them regardless. Those that do not automatically become criminals regardless of their motivation.

It is an unspoken given that if someone wishes to live and benefit from the security of a nation, he or she agrees to submit to the laws of that nation. Part of the Mosaic law specifically stated there would be no exceptions for foreigners, all that lived within Israel's terrortories were expected to respect the law. Whether they were personally present when it was put in place or not. How many people were personally present when the American constitution was signed? Can an American citizen reason that, since he was not personally present in 1787 did not agree to it, he has the automatic right to violate the constitution with impunity? Anyone born to a free nation (as was the case for the Israelites) is upon reaching adulthood free to signal their disaccord with the National law by leaving, but those that choose to benefit from the security and provisions of a nations are by doing so automatically agreeing to respect its law. That was the case for the Israelites and is the case for most nations today.

CONCLUSION: While ignorance is a legitimate defence when breaking any given law, the context of this incident indicates it is most unlikely if not probably impossible that the individual was ignorant of the law. Given the legal, chronological and cultural context, it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual was fully aware of the 4th commandement and by his presence within the nation had automatically submitted to the obligation to respect (obey) the national law code or face the consequences.

RELATED LINKS

Severity of the punishment
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 700#837700

Act of Rebellion
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 591#861591

[Justin108]

Can it be argued that if the lawbreaker was not personally present when the law was adopted or did not personally say he agreed with it, he should therefore be free to violate it with impunity?

If the law is utterly unjust, then yes. If you disagree with me on this, then you are essentially supporting the hanging of homosexuals and blasphemers in the Middle East. In Sudan, a 26-year-old woman named Meriam Ibrahim was sentenced to death for marrying a non-Muslim. According to your reasoning, all of these people deserve death.

[ttruscott]

ted says

Being born human is the declaration to the universe that GOD thinks we are evil.

I wonder what it is that makes you think being human is evil...
I could NEVER look at a newborn and say "Right! Evil! Evil incarnate!"

No indeed. I never could either. and Christ warned that this was a terrible decison to make: Matt 10:32 Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
36 mans enemies will be the members of his own household.

But the GOD who presented HIMself to me claimed the book as HIS and taught me that people are sinners before they came to earth so what can I do??

Satan and his demons fell before the creation of the earth and then some live here as ordinary people called goats. These goats go to the place that has been prepared for Satan and his angels, the people he sowed into the earth, his goats.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 32 by Justin108]

Law and Conscience

If an individual fjnds himself in violation of his conscience he retains the right to defy that law but, and this is the point, regardless of the motivation (or possible justification), he or she is still defying of a rule of law in an act of rebellion. Raising an objection, even if one is right does not negate the effects of raising an objectioin. Thus throughout the ages, individuals that have stood and honoured their consciences have often had to pay the ultimate price. If the Sabbath breaker was taking a moral stand (for sticks) he had the right to stand up and be willing to die rather than refrain fom his sticks (for a day). The State retains their right to disagree.

In short, if the Sabbath Breaker was a "conscientious objector" and was refusing to take a day of work once a week because it was personally objectionable to him, given that working on the Sabbath was a capital offense, he would have to be ready to die for his "cause". He died for his cause. End of story.

If the Sabbath Breaker's stand was an act intended to change not just the application of that one law but the undermine the entire regime which he may have thought of as oppressive, that is called subversion also considered a criminal act. Whether either is viewed as admirable or subversive and reckless, will depend on one's world view. In both cases, however, the act was still one of outright rebellion, the only difference being motivation, intent and perceived justification. He that goes head-to-head with a ruling authority must be willing to pay the price, Jehovah's Witnesses* know of what they speak.








* If there is a group of people qualified by virtue of the sheer volume of experience they have in the realm of conscientious objection, it is Jehovahs Witnesses. Arguably more than any other group past or present and certainly any other religion, they have taken their cause to the highest of this world's courts and authorities to fight to be free to exercise their right to refuse to obey a law they deem as objectionable to their consciences. This is for them a fundamental, God given right therefore not one requested but asserted.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 32 by Justin108]

Law and Conscience


If that individual found himself in violation of his conscience he retained the right to defy that law but, and this is the point, regardless of the motivation (or possible justification), he or she is still defying of a rule of law in an act of rebellion. Raising an objection, even if one is right does not negate the effects of raising an objectioin. Thus throughout the ages, individuals that have stood and honoured their consciences have often had to pay the ultimate price. If the Sabbath breaker was taking a moral stand (for sticks) he had the right to stand up and be willing to die rather than refrain fom his sticks (for a day). The State retains their right to disagree.

You're dancing around answering my question. A simple yes or no to the following questions will suffice

1. Does a person gathering sticks on the Sabbath deserve to die?
2. Does a woman marrying a non-Muslim deserve to die?
3. Do homosexuals, upon having consensual sex with adults of the same sex deserve to die?

Your response so far is they have the right to protest and they will undoubtedly face the consequences of that protest, but that does not answer my question of whether they deserve to die

* If there is a group of people qualified by virtue of the sheer volume of experience they have in the realm of conscientious objection, it is Jehovahs Witnesses. Arguably more than any other group past or present and certainly any other religion, they have taken their cause to the highest of this world's courts and authorities to fight to be free to exercise their right to refuse to obey a law they deem as objectionable to their consciences

You mean like the right to refuse necessary blood transfusion for your dying children? Wow you guys are such heroes, fighting for the right to endanger the lives of your children

[Zzyzx]

.

1. Does a person gathering sticks on the Sabbath deserve to die?
2. Does a woman marrying a non-Muslim deserve to die?
3. Do homosexuals, upon having consensual sex with adults of the same sex deserve to die?

Don't stand on one foot waiting for Apologists to give a straight answer to those questions -- but expect instead ducking and weaving, obfuscation, evasion, word salads, re-'interpretation', etc.

The religious literature Apologists attempt to defend clearly mandates, condones, encourages such actions. However, even Apologists realize that they are atrocities that cannot be justified -- so they are 'caught between a rock and a hard place' when trying to defend the literature and 'teachings' upon which their religious beliefs are based.

Cognitive dissonance is well illustrated by this example.

I expect that few (or no) Apologists will rise to the occasion with anything more than a flurry of excuses.

[ttruscott]

All your particular belief system does is state that we are all 'Satan' as we all exist on this planet Earth.

I accept that Satan is a real singular person. I call people like him Satanic or demonic.

If it is true that people only die for their sins, how is it victim blaming to say they earned their death?

Good rant by the way, no hostility at all, appreciate that.

[ttruscott]

Something is most definitely amiss, and even a tentatively righteous person would not turn from the opportunity to question the motives of such an idea of a GOD, or the motives of those who follow unquestionably after him.

Bin there - done that with far more invective than I get here from the non-believers. I was never and am still not unquestioning. I just feel that HE has proved HIMself to me and that if an answer can be found that makes HIS decisions fit HIS stated purpose then I think that the fact I can find a logical answer suggests very strongly that GOD was able to find HIS own answer to how HE can operate from righteousness.

A possible answer exists because I found one. Of all the possible answers there are, I like the one which fits the self revelation of GOD and HIS Christ the best. Do I really have to accept that life in a prison of psychopaths is the only life possible and accept their emotions about the Judge who put them here as a true definition of HIS motives?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 33 by JehovahsWitness]

He that goes head-to-head with a ruling authority must be willing to pay the price, Jehovah's Witnesses* know of what they speak.

Here's the thing. What do JWs think of the ruling authorities who demand things of you (plural you) that you (again plural) are not willing to do, such as conscription?
Is that ruling authority still in the right?

Now let's say the man who picked up sticks was aware of the law (my own point of contention on the matter has nothing to do with his awareness or non-awareness of the law) but decided to break it anyway. Is God, the ruling authority, right to demand he be put to death, and not just in any method, but by being bashed in the head by rocks (which, contrary to earlier claims of yours, are not instant-kills, they are quite violent)?

If you say yes, is your reasoning anything at all to do with Divine Command Theory?

[ttruscott]

They wrongly put their sinful nature on Adam as his fault rather than on themselves as having chosen to be evil in GOD's sight by their own free will decisions pre-earth (pre-their birth)

Please support this claim

You never suport any of the claims I have called you on... But I am unclear: if you want me to support that they claim our sinfulness is inherited from Adam, I refer you to Church doctrines. If you want me to support that they are wrong to do so, ummm, that is one of my constant efforts here, over and over and over.