Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 5876
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by William »

[Replying to post 179 by tam]
Oh, no, William, time travel considerations were not part of my response. My response considered only having been born and raised back then, as an Israelite (or as one of the great mixed crowd that left Egypt with Israel).
Then it is unlikely you would have appealed to Moses to be merciful to the man. The idea of mercy would not have occurred to you, any more than it occurred to Moses or the rest of the tribe.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 219 by Jagella]
As you know I see your theology as unorthodox, and when I critique the Bible and Christianity, I critique orthodox theology. So when I read that the Bible god ordered murder, I read that Christ ordered murder because according to the theology of most Christians (John 1:1), Christ is the Bible god. I must agree with this orthodox theology insofar as it is what the Bible says. Your theology, by contrast, I see as something you have made up on your own.
Even if tam says Christ is not God, her personal theology has the two acting in concert, with Christ being God's number one creation, and Christ telling humans to worship/follow/obey God.
To Godwin for a moment, what tam said there is a petty excuse, like an SS officer saying that he followed the orders of Himmler but not Hitler. Yeah, maybe...but Himmler still answered to Hitler, still publicly obeyed Hitler.
LOL, why can't a crazed mob have dragged their unfortunate victim to Moses? How is that any less crazed?
Crazed doesn't just mean they instantly pick up stones. It very well could be that they brought him to Moses so as to have a veneer of 'legality' to what they're about to do.
Who is adding details to the story now? It's entirely possible that the man was confused in some way, and he may even have had dementia and was then not responsible for his actions. The Jewish sabbath law does not spell out what "work" is, and this unfortunate murder victim might have assumed that gathering up a few sticks he needed would not constitute a violation of the sabbath law.

But regardless of his state of mind, his being told not to work on a day of the week is a really stupid law, and his murder for doing so is barbaric. Any person with a bit of decency would defy such an evil god.
Exactly. Which is why in today's legal systems, we have mens rea. We consider mens rea, which for those who do not speak Latin, is "guilty mind". The story does not tell us anything about the man, just that he physically undertook the action.
Considering how the theists on this page are treating him, they'd have sought the death penalty for Maggie Simpson when she shot Mr. Burns. Maggie had the gun, pulled the trigger. There need be no consideration for if she has the mental capacity to have understood her action.
I would not. It would go against the love and the mercy that He has taught me (and He teaches what He learned from His Father).
tam, where's the "love and mercy from the Father" in the story of Numbers 15? This is what has Jagella and I all in a tizzy.
They were certainly not listening to Christ or to His Father, to be able to abuse you.
Where the crowd not listening to the Father? Was Moses not listening to the Father? The story of Numbers 15 is all ABOUT a crowd of people listening to and obeying God. At no point in the story does it say or even hint that God the Father is not involved.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Mithrae
Site Admin
Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote:
Who is adding details to the story now? It's entirely possible that the man was confused in some way, and he may even have had dementia and was then not responsible for his actions. The Jewish sabbath law does not spell out what "work" is, and this unfortunate murder victim might have assumed that gathering up a few sticks he needed would not constitute a violation of the sabbath law.

But regardless of his state of mind, his being told not to work on a day of the week is a really stupid law, and his murder for doing so is barbaric. Any person with a bit of decency would defy such an evil god.
Exactly. Which is why in today's legal systems, we have mens rea. We consider mens rea, which for those who do not speak Latin, is "guilty mind". The story does not tell us anything about the man, just that he physically undertook the action.
Considering how the theists on this page are treating him, they'd have sought the death penalty for Maggie Simpson when she shot Mr. Burns. Maggie had the gun, pulled the trigger. There need be no consideration for if she has the mental capacity to have understood her action.
Yet again I remind you of how utterly dishonest this appears. In literally the second page of the thread and directly in response to you 1213 pointed out that the verses immediately preceding the story explicitly discuss the distinction between unintentional and wilful crimes (ie, mens rea), and noted that such positioning for the story of the Sabbath-breaker is probably meant to indicate how serious such wilful sin is regardless of the actual actions involved. Those verses have been mentioned at least a couple of other times throughout the thread, including by me in direct response to you again as recently as page 19.
1213 in post #20 wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:But it's a rule from God...isn't it? It's in the Bible, which you have said many times is good.
I think, before making any judgments, there should be enough information for that. That is why I think it would be good to read what was said before the part Jagella took.

[If one person sins unwittingly, then he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement for the soul who errs, when he sins unwittingly before Yahweh, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unwittingly, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger who lives as a foreigner among them.] But the soul who does anything with a high hand, whether he is home-born or a foreigner, the same blasphemes Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of Yahweh, and has broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be on him.
Numbers 15:[27]-32

By what I know, the gathering sticks broke the Shabbat rule and there is not rule that don’t gather sticks and gathering sticks was not probably the reason for the God’s judgment. It was probably that the person had despised the word of Yahweh. And Bible doesn’t say the gathering was the reason for the judgment.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by Jagella »

Mithrae wrote:It was probably that the person had despised the word of Yahweh. And Bible doesn’t say the gathering was the reason for the judgment.
It seems reasonable to me that if the man who was killed risked his life gathering sticks merely because he "despised the word of Yahweh," then he probably wasn't in his right mind. If he wasn't in his right mind, then of course he should not be held responsible for his actions.

And if he did "despise the word of Yahweh," then he was right in doing so. In that regard he was thinking clearly.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 222 by Mithrae]

Okay...thanks for that. So tell me...the man from Numbers...where is he given the opportunity to pay with a goat?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by tam »

Peace to you,


Most of your response to me is not much more than a distortion of anything I wrote. If anyone wants a more complete (and therefore honest) version of my response, they will find it at post 116 and 203. I even answered you directly that I would not 'butcher' you... and you rejected my response and then presumed to instruct me that I would indeed 'butcher' you? Ridiculous.


Jagella wrote:
tam wrote:Where in my post did I glorify murder?
If you defend the murder of the poor man described in Numbers 15, then you glorify murder, unless, of course, you disapprove of stoning a person to death.
I will repeat my question (which you did not answer, and after all the fuss you gave Mithrae):

Where in my post (116) did I glorify - or even defend - murder?




The time and place and circumstances absolutely make a difference as to how a person or a people react, think, feel.
In that case let's say that Hitler's concentration camps were morally justified because they were located in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. The time and place make all the difference, eh Tam? I can use the same reasoning to defend Hitler's actions that you use to defend the Bible god.

A - I did not say that it made ALL the difference. I said it makes A difference - to how a person or people react, think, feel. I made this statement in response to your claim that time and place make no difference.

Are you suggesting that time and place and circumstance make no difference to how people think, react, feel? Do you think that someone living in a war zone is going to think and feel and react to every situation in exactly the same way as someone untouched by war?


B - You will note that I also did not say that this justifies anything.



Since the story does not say, you are guessing. You are guessing at the expense of the previous verse which speaks of a man DEFIANTLY breaking the law, and that man would be the one who is supposed to be cut off from his people.
Who is adding details to the story now? It's entirely possible that the man was confused in some way, and he may even have had dementia and was then not responsible for his actions. The Jewish sabbath law does not spell out what "work" is, and this unfortunate murder victim might have assumed that gathering up a few sticks he needed would not constitute a violation of the sabbath law.
This has been addressed multiple times by multiple people. If YOUR added details here were true, then the man would not have been defiantly breaking the law, and the animal sacrifice would have been enough to atone for the unintentional sin.

I notice that you ignored all of those examples from Christ in your response to me.
If Christ isn't the Bible god, then what he is quoted as saying is irrelevant to Numbers 15.


God is as Christ reveals Him to be. So if there is a story in the OT (or a claim being made by any person or religion) that contradicts the words and deeds of Christ, then some of those variables that I listed must be considered.



Fine. If Christ ordered you to butcher me, would you do it?
I would not. It would go against the love and the mercy that He has taught me (and He teaches what He learned from His Father). It would go against the spirit He has given me. I would in fact be disobeying Him to carry out such a command (though He would never give me such a command to begin with).
If you accept what Christ teaches you, then you would butcher me if he taught you to do so!
You don't tell me what I would do, Jagella. I tell you (if of course you asked - I don't just go around telling random people what I would do in hypothetical situations).


You are contradicting yourself here stating that you would not obey Christ's command because you obey his commands.
No, the contradiction is in your hypothetical situation.

In your hypothetical situation I cannot obey Christ without also disobeying Him.


"Love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you; turn the other cheek; bless those who curse you; do good to those who persecute you; forgive, do not judge, God desires mercy, not sacrifice... etc..."


All of these things are in direct contradiction with 'butcher Jagella'.


To obey that 'never-gonna-happen-command', I would have to disobey all the rest.

I feel very strongly about this issue because I have been a victim of Christian violence and abuse.
You have been the victim of violence and abuse, regardless of what religion those people who abused you claimed to belong to. They were certainly not listening to Christ or to His Father, to be able to abuse you. Those who abused you were wrong of course! But their actions are on them.
My mother abused me as a result of her belief in Christ. She loved the idea of a wrathful and vengeful god who punishes sinners, and that was the basis for her abuse.
Nothing you have said here refutes or changes my previous response.



[strike]In summary, your theology is very contrived and ad hoc. You make things up to try to smooth over[/strike] the horrors that often result from your faith.




No horrors have resulted from my faith, Jagella.


You know you can reject "Christianity" (the religion) - which has indeed resulted in horrors - without rejecting Christ and God.

"Come out of her my people!"

"Stop touching the unclean thing and I will take you in."


"Christianity" the religion is not from Christ (or from His Father). Christ is the Truth. No lies come from Him. On the other hand, Christianity (the religion) teaches many lies. How then it be said to have come from Him?


We are to worship in spirit and in TRUTH.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Last edited by tam on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mithrae
Site Admin
Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 222 by Mithrae]

Okay...thanks for that. So tell me...the man from Numbers...where is he given the opportunity to pay with a goat?
Yes, if he had dishonoured the Sabbath unintentionally as Jagella and you have speculated, he would have made atonement and been forgiven. The fact that instead he faced a much harsher punishment shows that such speculation is demonstrably erroneous: It was a wilful violation. Perhaps, as Jagella suggests, he told Moses that he shouldn't have to obey some dumb rule of social cohesion and personal holiness - probably their single most unifying law/custom, I remind everyone, and perhaps second in terms of reinforcing devotion to their God/source of moral inspiration and guidance.

Strangely Jagella seems to believe that such a person would be both laudable and out of his mind at the same time. But for your part you earlier agreed (post #64) that you "can certainly understand the harshness of life 'back then', and how social cohesion was such a paramount concern that any threat to it would be met with harsh reprisals." After such a promising beginning to our discussion, perhaps you can understand why I've found your repeatedly-disproven but continual, unrepentent false claims that 'mens rea' is not a consideration of Numbers 15 particularly disappointing :(

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Mithrae wrote:Yet again I remind you of how utterly dishonest this appears.
Moderator Comment
This is too close to directly calling someone dishonest. Please be careful not to accuse other members.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 226 by Mithrae]
Yes, if he had dishonoured the Sabbath unintentionally as Jagella and you have speculated, he would have made atonement and been forgiven. The fact that instead he faced a much harsher punishment shows that such speculation is demonstrably erroneous: It was a wilful violation.
Except we don't know that. You're working backwards. Someone is given a harsh punishment, THE harshest punishment, and you're working backwards from there to presume that he MUST have done something horrible to merit it. If I tell you John Smith is on death row, and tomorrow will be executed via electric chair, are you going to insist that he MUST have done something horrible?
But for your part you earlier agreed (post #64) that you "can certainly understand the harshness of life 'back then', and how social cohesion was such a paramount concern that any threat to it would be met with harsh reprisals."
That was me thinking from the perspective (adopting the point of view) of a person in such a time and place. Doesn't mean that the me who is really me, here in 2019, agrees with it.
Strangely Jagella seems to believe that such a person would be both laudable and out of his mind at the same time.
Hey, Churchill is said to have spent more time during World War II drunk than he was sober, and he's highly lauded as the man who led Britain to victory.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by Jagella »

Mithrae wrote:Yes, if he had dishonoured the Sabbath unintentionally as Jagella and you have speculated, he would have made atonement and been forgiven. The fact that instead he faced a much harsher punishment shows that such speculation is demonstrably erroneous: It was a wilful violation.
I don't know how the mob that attacked this poor man could have known what he was thinking or what he intended to do. So to conclude that they murdered him based on what their victim willed to do is without foundation. I don't think his assailants were mind readers.
Perhaps, as Jagella suggests, he told Moses that he shouldn't have to obey some dumb rule of social cohesion and personal holiness - probably their single most unifying law/custom, I remind everyone, and perhaps second in terms of reinforcing devotion to their God/source of moral inspiration and guidance.
I don't agree with your logic here. If the sabbath law was meant to unify the Jews and inspire them to be moral, then the last thing it should have done is to have caused them to butcher a man for doing the work he needed to do! What could be more divisive and immoral than that?

A much more likely reason for the sabbath law was to maintain complete control over the Jewish people. If you can tell people to abstain from work on an arbitrary day of the week, then you can tell them to do anything. The sabbath law is apparently completely unreasonable, and that was the point. No matter what the Jews thought of any law that their leaders laid down for them, they were to obey those laws without question. Such blind obedience would benefit the Jewish leaders rather than those they ruled over.
Strangely Jagella seems to believe that such a person would be both laudable and out of his mind at the same time.
My actual words were that he may not have been in his right mind. I did not mean that comment as an insult to the man. Many people may have mental disabilities and yet be very good, worthwhile people. So there is no contradiction between speculating that the victim was not "in his right mind" yet laudable. I'm sorry if my choice of words were interpreted as denigrating anybody who has a mental disability. Regardless of this man's state of mind, he did nothing wrong and certainly did nothing worthy of such a horrible death. He was a hero of sorts martyred for the cause of opposition to religious barbarism.

In conclusion, I must conclude that the support for the man's killing in Numbers 15 may go well beyond irrational allegiance to religious dogma. It appears that many people believe that the state is more important than human life. So whatever the state may set as law, no matter how unjust or illogical that law may be, those violating that law may need to pay the ultimate penalty.

Post Reply