Comments on: Religious Moderates Are Those Who Reject God’s Clearly Stated Commands Using Their Own [Human] Morality as Justification

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:38:08 +0000

> If I may quote someone that I assume you trust: "How many Christians actually believe it would be “moral” or “right” to actually kill for these offenses? Very few."

Sounds like some retard with a website.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:33:04 +0000

“God told Moses to literally kill (via stoning) a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. They did. They killed him.”

Then, may I humbly suggest that the appropriate passage from the Bible should have been included as part of your argument. (As I said, I was replying ONLY to the argument you presented here.) In any case, you've already heard from religious people who HAVE thought about this stuff. Once again, I'll suggest that this is not as black and white as you imply. Furthermore, I'll (once again) suggest that your gripe isn't with religion but is with religious extremists whose actions are … well … let's say “problematic.” If I may quote someone that I assume you trust: “How many Christians actually believe it would be “moral” or “right” to actually kill for these offenses? Very few.”

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:31:58 +0000

That's not accurate. God told Moses to literally kill (via stoning) a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. They did. They killed him.

This is not some sort of abstract use of the concept of being "put to death".

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:14:35 +0000

… to keep you from pulling your hair out in frustration that your message just isn't sinking in … here's what I planned to write before I saw your assertion that the word “must” was in the passages you quoted. :)

Without looking at the broader context that surrounds the passages you quoted, it seems to me that a possible interpretation of the words “he shall surely be put to death” is “I [God] will deny him entry into Heaven” for this is what death means to religious people. You are asserting that there is only ONE possible interpretation of the text. I'm simply sharing another possibility. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

By: Jack David Baucum

Jack David Baucum — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:40:49 +0000

It's already been pretty well laid out but others, but I'm going to take my stab at this one too. The laws that you are quoting her where set up by God as a sort of constitution for the Jews who occupied the "holy land."
While for Christian the dilemma you mention is easy, it is not so easy for the Jews. However, I do take the stance that for a modern Jew these laws in the Torah do not apply, except for maybe in the modern state of Israel. Because these laws where a constitution for the Jewish state. Outside of the Jewish state these laws have no relevance. The same way if our government was replaced here in the United States it would not be necessary for American's to follow the present day constitution.

By: CarlM

CarlM — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:09:33 +0000

OK, I'll bite. Where is the word “must” in the verses you quoted? (Perhaps it exists only in your interpretation of the text.)

By: Sam Marsh

Sam Marsh — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:45:45 +0000

“… especially since he already knew he would send his son later to re-write all his stuff.”

You seem to have a grasp of the Bible based on your post so I'm sure you're aware that's not what Jesus said he was doing… (“I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it…”) The fact that Christian's claim that Jesus died to satisfy the law does indeed make the new covenant very relevant – and show that Jesus saw himself and bearing the punishment of the verses you quote, so that we could be free from its punishment. So this doesn't, in my view, mean that “Moderates don’t actually believe what’s in the Bible; if they did they would be following God’s very clear and specific orders…”, but rather, they are asking honest and often difficult questions about what it means to live out the truth of this text in their lives (the answer to which, in my view – which it seems you don't share!, – lies in belief around what Jesus' death on the cross achieved.)

“… especially when the exact restatements of law are open to interpretation and are hotly contested…”

You have to also bear in mind that the OT passages you quote are hotly contested by modern-day Jewish scholars too ;-)

By: Sam Marsh

Sam Marsh — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:17:19 +0000

I think you're being a little unfair here Daniel. Are you really suggesting that to take the Bible seriously makes you a moderate who has sold out to eisegesis?

Taking the Bible seriously does not mean that all old testament texts needto be applied literally under the new covenant. This isn't hypocrasy - it's responsibly exegeting the text.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:35:21 +0000

Yes, I'm aware of the New Covenant, but the notion that God when he wrote the OT was WRONG…especially since he already knew he would send his son later to re-write all his stuff…is simply too strange to even entertain.

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:33:13 +0000

Interpretation? What part of “must” and “death” are you wanting to interpret?

By: cooperati

cooperati — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:17:46 +0000

So, you have your interpretation of the Bible, which you believe in and act upon. That you use passages in the Bible to drawn conclusions for justifying your belief makes me ask one very peculiar question, that you must find absolutely frustrating.

How does that make it unequal to all the other interpretations, especially those held by fundamental Christians?

-=T=-

By: ax0n

ax0n — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:06:41 +0000

I really don't want to be the religion troll here; This is your place and you're entitled to your opinion. Apparently you haven't heard of the New Covenant?

Levitical law? Really?