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