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]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

We do not know the surrounding circumstances and we cannot judge the man's heart. 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 and then enshrined in their written code. Common sense dictates he observed that those around him collected twice the needed amount the day before and would have at the very least explained (in case of ignorance) why. It's most unlikely that he would have been found guilty and executed if he could have proven his total ignorance of the law.

It seems fair to say it was therefore a deliberate act of rebellion. You don't just accidently start collecting sticks... like you're just walking along, minding your own businesses and oops you trip and suddenly, through no fault of your own and against your will, start collecting sticks... that's ludicrous. If he was caught breaking the Sabbath, he did so willfully. His motivation was his own but it seems reasonable to believe it was a manifestation of at the very least a meprise for the law and perhaps the nation.

In any case, he that breaks the law must pay the price. We don't usually call such people "victims" the word is "criminal"


I did write about this topic in more detail a little while ago, I'll post the link below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 00#p837700



JW

[ttruscott]

Most of Christendom accepts that all people are born guilty of sin and worthy of death. Any particular sin might mark the time to die, "now, this disobedience is when you die" but the sin that kills has nothing to do with sticks but a heart of disobedience to GOD.

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) but they do accept the sinfulness of everyone at birth under the sentence of death. In doctrine at least if not on the pew.

Only the guilty are born here.
Only the guilty suffer or die.
No innocent suffers or dies here.
Being born human is the declaration to the universe that GOD thinks we are evil. Rom 5:19 'made' is better "shown/proven to be"

imCo

[OnceConvinced]

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?

I'm going to focus on the story mentioned about the man being stoned.

The story of the man being stone on the Sabbath tells us that the reason he was ordered to be stoned was for the picking up of the sticks. For the working on the Sabbath. There is nothing there to indicate at all that this man was a rebel or that this was the one straw that broke the camel's back. So 2timothy has no leg to stand on at all with his argument. He is making presumptions due to the fact that he doesn't want God to look like a villain. I certainly seems like Cognitive dissonance to me.

There's two ways of looking at this story:

Firstly, the one that I take when I look at this story now as an ex-Christian. I see that as angry men being offended that another guy dared defy their sacredly held rules. Maybe he'd done it before. These men decided that enough was enough and he deserved to be stoned to death. To avoid looking like vindictive scum they were, they decided to tell everyone that God was the one who demanded the stoning.

Secondly, from the perspective that God is real = God was being the vindictive scum bag.

Even if this man was a rebel who deliberately rebelled against God, what does it show about a god that would order a man stoned to death? It shows a sadistic and very cruel god. Not a loving or just god who one should worship. This God could have simply done his own dirty work and struck the guy down dead, like he did with the guy who DARED touch the ark of the covenant. But no, he chose to pass the buck onto humans to perform one of the most brutal, agonising, slow, blood thirsty methods he could to have this guy executed.

God chose this abominable method and got humans to do it for him. What does this show us about the bible God?

I, like many get tired of hearing Christians blaming everybody but God for God's outrageous behaviour. There is always some excuse for his wrath or his cruelty and it always has to be humans that are to blame. It can NEVER be God.

I just don't buy it most of the time. To me now all I see it is justifications and the attempt to pass the buck from God onto humans.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

So you are ok with the fact that Jehovah chose one of the most brutal, sadistic, slow, agonising, bloodthirsty ways to kill a man? And not only that, he ordered humans to do it for him?

That is all justified as far as you are concerned?

What does that tell us about a god who would choose such a method and would have humans do that awful act on his behalf?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

You also seem to be justifying the sadistic act that God ordered humans to do to another. Even if this guy was guilty of other sins and even if he was deliberately trying to defy God, is that any reason to choose such a barbaric method to have the guy executed? Why did God have humans carry out this barbaric method? Why couldn't he have done his own dirty work?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

I don't answer loaded questions, so I will ignore what you asked.

I have already explained my view here (the link provided analyses the law itself and the post itself what we can reasonably deduce from the account).


I have written a post earlier on execution methods, here is the link in case you missed it
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#836113

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't answer loaded questions, so I will ignore what you asked.

Many religionists label nearly all difficult-to-answer questions as 'loaded'. That is one way to avoid questions that expose flaws in one's position.

I often ask questions that 'lead' people to defend killing for minor offenses, slavery, genocide, wars of conquest, misogyny, silly 'rules', etc. Perhaps they consider such questions to be 'loaded' -- but they relate to Bible stories.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

I don't answer loaded questions, so I will ignore what you asked.

I have already explained my view here (the link provided analyses the law itself and the post itself what we can reasonably deduce from the account).


I have written a post earlier on execution methods, here is the link in case you missed it
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#836113

Very well, I will just post what you said there, here, so that we can more easily discuss it.

Under the Mosaic law the death penalty was demanded for certain crimes. Stoning was the stipulated method of execution.

I'm no doctor, but doubt if there is any truly pain free method to kill someone, especially thousands of years ago when people didn't have access to the electricity (electrocution) and drug related methods (lethal injection) we have today. While decapitation might be relatively quick, prior to the invention of the gulliotine, only a skilled executioner would have a chance of taking someone's head of with a single blow and the time between the first and the second (or third) if one does not have access to the sharpest and most sturdy of swords presents a most gruesome delay. Hanging I read can go wrong and lead to an agonizingly long death. There were no firearms at the time.

In any case, as most people know, a sharp blow to the head usually renders someone unconscious and a huge rock dropped on one's head would mean that there would be a good chance without much skill the individual would not feel anything after that initial impact. In any case, for an ancient people, given their options stoning probably represented the most humaine of executional methods available at the time.

Here is where I borrow a move from a theist and SMH.
According to you and your fellow JWs, God is the supreme being, in terms of both power and knowledge.
And yet...he can't come up with a pain free way to execute people in ancient Israel? Pretty sure a God like that could have conjured up a plant that when ingested, sends you to an irreversible coma and then stops your heart while you sleep (does a plant like that actually exist in the real world guys?)
Do you not see what you're doing here JW? We have this God bloke in the Bible ordering executions in extremely violent ways, but if you were to question this practice, this would mean questioning God's authority. Rather than do that, you instead side with the practice.
Try looking up stoning on Youtube. There are plenty of videos of people in the Middle East being stoned to death, and by and large, the people doing the stoning say that this is what God wants.

You say that

a sharp blow to the head usually renders someone unconscious and a huge rock dropped on one's head would mean that there would be a good chance without much skill the individual would not feel anything after that initial impact.

The videos on stoning (and yes, I mean actual executions, not just people talking about it) that I've watched suggest otherwise. They suggest it is a very violent and painful method to kill someone, which beggers belief as to why you defend it.

In any case, for an ancient people, given their options stoning probably represented the most humaine of executional methods available at the time.

This line would make sense if you and I were NOT discussing the presence of a supreme being, who apparently can create entire universes.
Where is the logic in suggesting that this being can snap his fingers and create universes, can command Abraham to not sacrifice his son...but he apparently can't have a method of execution that is painless, that he apparently has to go with stoning?

Should I list some Youtube videos, or can I suggest you go search for them yourself?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

It seems fair to say it was therefore a deliberate act of rebellion. You don't just accidently start collecting sticks... like you're just walking along, minding your own businesses and oops you trip and suddenly, through no fault of your own and against your will, start collecting sticks... that's ludicrous. If he was caught breaking the Sabbath, he did so willfully. His motivation was his own but it seems reasonable to believe it was a manifestation of at the very least a meprise for the law and perhaps the nation.

In any case, he that breaks the law must pay the price. We don't usually call such people "victims" the word is "criminal"

Again, like I said up above, we have you calling someone who picks up sticks on the wrong day of the week a 'criminal'. It seems that no thought is spared on your part for 'is this command just, what does it accomplish'. No, what I presume is happening in your mind is that you believe this command comes from God and therefore, to break it is just wrong, flat out, no ifs ands or buts, and that it doesn't matter how violent the punishment is.

It's not just a question of 'was he ignorant of the law?' It's a question of 'is this law crazy?' I contend that it is, for the presumed crime is harmless (I dare you or anyone else to explain how picking up sticks harms anyone) and the punishment is most extreme and over the top.

-----
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!"