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?

[ttruscott]

So basically any child who has suffered and died from cancer or any other slow and painful death is more evil than Hitler who died from a quick shot to the head. I'll repeat that. A child dying a slow and painful death from cancer is automatically more evil than Hitler. Let that sink in

All sin is equal but people are not equal.
All sin has an equal and ULTIMATE DISVALUE to GOD.
The least sin (there is none but for conversation I put it this way) puts a non-elect into hell and puts Christ on the cross for a sinful elect to avoid the hell they deserve.
Earthly sufferings are not hell...

I do not know why some people go thru what they go thru here but I believe that if they were not sinners they would not be here going thru anything. And I'm pretty sure that I became a sinner by rebelling against GOD's judgement as too harsh and just too much suffering but yes, I've changed my mind, the judgement is a necessity. Neither do I think a conversation about such things can be had without raising your anger, so I stop here.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 38 by rikuoamero]


I have addressed the issues you raised. As a recap on this topic (not saying you personally have raised all these points). I have answered the following:


Do I personally believe such stonings were justified?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p861919

What possible justification could there be for making sabbat breaking a capital offense?
viewtopic.php?p=752432#p752432

Was STONJNG an unreasonbably barbaric method of execution?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p836113

Why did God not execute lawbreakers Himself?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 19#p861919

Did the punishiment fit the crime?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 00#p837700

Could the act be considered an act of Rebellion
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91#p861591

Are all laws just? What is a justifiable reaction to unjust law?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p861972

Pleas of ignorance
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 46#p861946

Do CHRISTIANS have to observe a weekly sabbath?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7#p1001997

Loaded questions, hysterical ranting and unrelated hyperbole aside, short of drawing a picture and presenting a themed dance set to the music of Tchaikovsky I'm not sure how more extensively I could have presented my opinion on this topic.


JW

[ttruscott]

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)?

All executions do violence to the person. wiki offers:
In theory, the Talmudic method of how stoning is to be carried out differs from mob stoning. According to the Jewish oral law, after the Jewish criminal has been determined as guilty before the Great Sanhedrin, the two valid witnesses and the sentenced criminal go to the edge of a two story building. From there the two witnesses are to push the criminal off the roof of a two story building. The two-story height is chosen as this height is estimated by the Talmud to effect a quick and painless demise but is not so high that the body will become dismembered. After the criminal has fallen, the two witnesses are to drop a large boulder onto the criminal " requiring both of the witnesses to lift the boulder together. If the criminal did not die from the fall or from the crushing of the large boulder, then any people in the surrounding area are to quickly cause him to die by stoning with whatever rocks they can find.

I did not delve deeper at this time but remember from years gone by that while on the roof, one person would club the criminal on the head with a stone so he was hopefully dead before he hit the ground. Bad enough but without the 'horror' of a mob stoning.

[William]

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.

You call people 'evil incarnate'. There is therefore no difference.

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

People die from the effects of the universe. From your belief system, they are sinful before they (not of their own free will apparently) incarnate here and thus if 'sin' is the cause of death, then this experience is really just a part of the death process anyway as they must have been dying already.

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

It was not a rant. It was a rebuke against a moronic, hostile belief system designed for predatory use and upheld and administered by narcissistic tendencies. It is me saying "I don't believe that BS (Belief System)."

As with all rebuke, there is an element of hostility - naturally enough, and indeed in this case, well enough deserved. The hostility is against the BS itself, so please don't take that personally.

In actuality your and my positions are similar to a certain degree, but veer off from each other in relation to how we each define our understanding of GOD.

For example, I think the universe is a prison/holding cell for the wayward aspects of GOD-Consciousness to experience, which affords the opportunity for the individuate particles of said consciousness to rehabilitate, and that this is a step - one of many, toward that ultimate reality.

Our differences are in how we understand the GOD aspect. Yours hides away, ducks and dives when cross- examined, separates itself from its creation, won't accept responsibility for evil, doesn't consider its own actions to being evil simply because it is 'GOD' even that its actions have been the same as those of evil humans...the list goes on.

Mine allows for all the time in the universe for the wayward aspects of Itself to, one by one, reintegrate back into the wholeness through processes designed ultimately for the rehabilitation of those particles of consciousness, does not give up on those parts of Itself which through their ignorance and gullibility have one way or another stumbled upon dark areas to investigate and experience which will ultimately allow for them to understand themselves in relation to wholeness as particles of GOD Consciousness (for no other consciousness exists separate from this - which is another difference of understanding which you and I have) and eventually ignorance and gullibility will cease to be the barrier and oppressive/suppressing instrument that it presently is and historically has been.

Consciousness is eternally GOD and cannot be destroyed thus transformation is the only alternative in relation to the wayward, however long that might take to accomplish.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm summing up what you've got there in post 41 as Divine Command Theory. Everything you had there (and I read every link) is pretty much DCT in a nutshell, and nothing you say strays from it.
You try to cloak it as being some sort of worker's rights protection, but what worker's rights legislation mandates the death penalty for disobeying them?
In my own working life, I've argued with my boss a few times that I shouldn't have to book a paid day off work for Good Friday (it's a thing where I live that we have to have one), on the grounds that I'm not Christian. Do you know what my boss didn't do?
Threaten me with death, that's what. Because that would be insane and idiotic.

[William]

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.

What I am hearing in that statement is that you have found a way in which you can justify the attributed acts of this particular idea of GOD in relation to your own attitudes.
While this may obviously be the case, the problem with that is in your inability to translate that into a coherent expression devoid of hypocrisy and narcissistic tendency.

So what is forthcoming from such expression is a vileness rather than a moral vitality, in relation to those witnessing it. Obviously you yourself do not see the vileness of the BS [belief system] you are endorsing, but this is often the case with narcissism, and a particularly hard barrier for coherency/decency to break through.

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?

This is particularly why I have no problem identifying your expression as being narcissistic as it comes from a fundamental belief that all humans are evil and thus everyone you are interacting with are seen by you to being many reprehensible things, all equally evil and not worth listening to.

As I said in an earlier post;
"All your particular belief system does is state that we are all 'Satan' as we all exist on this planet Earth. Thus we are the ones cast down from heaven by these angels and if that be the case, we should at least learn from that, that something is very amiss in this particular idea of GOD...perhaps it is fair to say that this particular idea of GOD is Satan playing at being GOD, and therefore is NOT GOD at all, as some beliefs certainly state.

One particular comprehensive data about that theory is that this universe is a creation of an evil inter dimensional species which has preyed upon a less knowledgeable species (humans) in order to enslave them within a hologram which they cannot tell for certain is real or not, but assume that it is.

The species is called the Annunaki and the king of the species is called Anu.

Now you might scoff at such data, but what makes it any more or less true than the bible accounts?"

Did you bother to look at that data I linked you to?

Here is an excerpt from that information, related to the topic of a being of malevolent intent pretending to be benevolent:

Dr. Neruda: This was when Anu decided that he should be God. Humans needed to have a lord or ruler over them so it was clear that they were inferior to an external ruler. This was a key part of their program of indoctrination. Working with Marduk and the Sirians, they created the environment of Eden and created the paradigm of Eve as the instigator of the fall of humanity. This was, you might say, Act 1 of Anu as God. It was staged to provide the Human 2.0s with a clear sense of an external authority, and that they were expelled from Paradise because they tried to be self-realized.
It was like rebuking humanity with the fist of an angry creator who wanted his creation to remain identified with their human uniform. Kind of like saying: Do not think for a moment that you can be like me.

Sarah: And the WingMakers wrote that this actually happened kind of like the Bible said?

Dr. Neruda: Yes.

Sarah: So the God of the Bible is this Anunnaki Lord, called Anu?

Dr. Neruda: Yes. ~ credit to WingMakers.com

[ttruscott]

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

This misses the mark of what I contend because I find there are two types of people here and only one group is Satanic. I won't bother with details...

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

You call people 'evil incarnate'. There is therefore no difference.

I don't think I have ever said that. You can point out to me (it is not my usual phrasing) or retract as you will.

The sinful elect are not Satanic they are sinful legitimate Children of GOD and can be made holy. The Satanic are outside of HIS loving grace by their own free will and so cannot ever be made holy. Quite a difference I would say...

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

People die from the effects of the universe.

Sure. We see different realities.

From your belief system, they are sinful before they (not of their own free will apparently) incarnate here

Writing this, that our sin is not of our free will, dismays me because it means you have not heard my most repeated and base argument about our sin...so I wonder why should I try again??

I am regularly called a heretic for believing our sinfulness is by our own free will decision to reject or rebel against GOD before our conception as humans. We were NOT created evil by any means. We did NOT inherit Adam's sin in the least.

I'll stop here while you process this new info...

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by ttruscott]

This misses the mark of what I contend because I find there are two types of people here and only one group is Satanic. I won't bother with details...

Ironically the saying goes that 'the devil is in the details' but apart from the irony, you really do need to provide details if you truly want to be accurately understood.

If it is a 'bother' for you to do so, that is something which can be rectified through your members notes, where you can bother to explain your position in relative detail and then link others who have questions pertaining to your position, to said data.

I don't think I have ever said that. You can point out to me (it is not my usual phrasing) or retract as you will.

Well whatever your 'usual phrasing' is, it clearly has other members, like myself, thinking that this is what you are saying about us as human beings.
So are we misunderstanding your position regarding human beings are all incarnate from another existence and all being 'fallen from GODs grace' and punished by being sent to earth?

The sinful elect are not Satanic they are sinful legitimate Children of GOD and can be made holy. The Satanic are outside of HIS loving grace by their own free will and so cannot ever be made holy. Quite a difference I would say...

Apart from the seeming oxymoron phrase 'sinful elect' (where did you get that from?) your assumption that there are conscious entities which can never become holy (or as I refer to it as 'rehabilitate back into wholeness integral') this presumption has to assume that not all consciousness derives from GOD.

I can understand how aspects of GOD-Consciousness can go astray depending upon circumstance, but to state that it is impossible for said astray to be unable to ever, EVER reintegrate seems rather profanely defeatist to me, and in relation to any idea of GOD, completely profane in its defeatism.

Sure. We see different realities.

No. We interpret the same reality, differently.

Writing this, that our sin is not of our free will, dismays me because it means you have not heard my most repeated and base argument about our sin...so I wonder why should I try again??

Please take the time to read what I say, properly. I said:

From your belief system, they are sinful before they (not of their own free will apparently) incarnate here.

I did not say that their sinfulness was not a matter of willful intent. I said that apparently according to your BS, they (we humans) had no choice in having to incarnate here on earth as we were forced to be here by the 'angels'.

[Justin108]

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

Name one claim I have ever made that needs supporting?

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.

I want you to support your claim that we have "chosen to be evil in GOD's sight by (our) own free will decisions pre-earth (pre-their birth)"

[ttruscott]

I want you to support your claim that we have "chosen to be evil in GOD's sight by (our) own free will decisions pre-earth (pre-their birth)"

It is a logical necessity given Christian premises:

1. GOD doesn't create evil. Dark does not come from a source of light. Evil does not emanate from good.

2. There is evil. Somehow it was created.

3. Therefore someone else, not GOD, created evil. The only likely candidates are HIS creation, those created in HIS image. To be guilty of a crime, one must have mens rea, the intent to do the crime knowing it was a crime to someone. A person cannot mistakenly become sinful or evil, nor can they be forced to be guilty by the actions of another.

4. Therefore this creation of evil had to be by the free will choice of the person for them to be considered guilty for choosing to be sinful in GOD's eyes.

5. Christ told us that all sinners are enslaved to sin, that is, our free will is impaired by sin and we learn elsewhere that

6. we all are born sinners which leads to the inevitable conclusion that if the Christian premises are accepted, we must have used our unsullied free will to become sinners before our birth on earth.

As for Bible supports for this conclusion, it is throughout the bible if one is not blinded by bias, esp in Matt 13: 36-39 paying particular attention to meaning of the word sown.