No such thing as an Atheist?

[OzmO]

OzmO,
Discussing this with you any further is pointless because you are now putting words in my mouth: I never said that human sacrifice is the one reason these men were put to death, and I never said that human sacrifice was irrelevant.  It is relevant.

You keep ignoring my posts where I show that human sacrifice either happened or was about to happen because we know that it was part if their worship.  Why do you think they chose a calf and not a cat or a dog?

You backed yourself into a corner when you said that you don't "punish" people for what they "might do"(ever heard of "intent to kill"?) and that you would never kill a child if you were in the Army and were told to do it, but then you refused to answer all my questions about different situations in war and law enforcement.  They were Yes/No answers, but you didn't answer a single one.

Now you are adding to the word of God.  When and where did God or moses tell Israel to go kill other nations for not worshiping the way Israel does?  Where does God tell Christians to kill others for not worshiping the way Christians do?  God said that He did not want Israel to worship like their pagan neighbors, but God never told Israel to kill people of other nations for not worshiping the God of Israel.

So what's the point of discussing this with you any further?

I answered those questions loco when i asked if there was a child on the alter when God ordered 3000 people to be killed.

Are you saying human sacrifice is the reason god is justified in doing what he did?  Becuase if so, he is then ignoring centuries of sacrifice before and after moses.  So the whole children sacrifice thing is moot in this instant.  It does not make God (moses)  just in doing what he did.  It makes him a murderer in the category of religious persecution.

What is relevant is God (moses) killed 3000 men because they didn't worship  the way he wanted.  That it either a VAIN paranoid control freak, raging angry ill tempered God or the same as Moses.

I did not back my self into any corner because the examples you gave

ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS........ do you get that?  I can't make it anymore simple.

I answered those questions loco when i asked if there was a child on the alter when God ordered 3000 people to be killed.

It was a very weak analogy that didn't match. The criminal has a gun pointed at someone's head....those 3000 didn't.  and if they did, the 12 or so involved in sacrificing the baby should be punished not 3000 of them.   OM(Gosh) loco!    Stop trying to out maneuver me with crappy comparisons!

BTW.....Israel did a fine job killing and waring with other nations for centuries after Moses.

The point of my question about whether Christians should go kill others because they worship differently is to "highlight" just how barbaric and stupid it was to kill those 3000 for making a calf.  Hopefully you see that now.

[loco]

OzmO,
You brought this up, not me.  You said:
 

we don't punish people for what they might do, we punish them for what they did.

I asked:

As a police officer:

you are in a hostage situation where a man is holding a weapon to a kids head and threatening to kill him.  You have a head shot and your commanding officer tells you to take it.  Do you take the shot to save the child?

Or, you walk into a cult worship ceremony and find a priest holding a knife right in front of a stone table with a bound child on it.  You point your gun at him and tell him to freeze, but he raises his knife over the child instead.  You have a shot, do you shoot to kill to save the child?

You run into an alley and find you fellow police officer wounded on the ground with a criminal standing in front of him ready to shoot him dead, do you shoot to kill to save your partner?

Even if that child was holding an automatic rifle and was about to shoot dead your wounded, fellow soldiers?  You would not shoot and kill the child before he/she killed your wounded fellow soldiers?  To make things worse, your fellow soldiers could be your best friend, your brother or sister, or your father.  Would you not shoot and kill the child in this case?  

You did not answer, but now you are saying

The criminal has a gun pointed at someone's head

So you do kill people for what they might do.

[loco]

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html

OzmO, a person may be sentenced to death for treason, not having killed anyone.  Why is the US and the courts not considered murderous in this case?  Because they are a higher authority.  Why should it be any different with God, when God is the highest authority?

Hence and act of treason that "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"

All of which directly produces harm.

Toward the end of WWII, had an American tipped the Japanese that the US was about to nuke them and kill 214,000 civilians, that American would have been put to death for treason. 

How exactly is it that this one traitor "directly" harmed or killed people?  His/Her intentions are to save people.  What gives the US the right and the authority to decide that this person should be put to death? 

The fact that the judge and the state are a higher authority.  God is the highest authority.

[OzmO]

OzmO,
You brought this up, not me.  You said:
 
I asked:
You did not answer, but now you are saying
So you do kill people for what they might do.

They are in the act of doing it while the 3000 might have done it (or likely) further down the road.  That's the difference.  If i have a gun to your head, i am on the brink of committing murder.     As i said, they are 2 different things.  Lousy comparison.

[loco]

If i have a gun to your head, i am on the brink of committing murder.

But you have not committed murder yet, and nobody knows for sure that you will.  So you do admit that you do kill people for what they might do, not for what they did.

[OzmO]

But you have not committed murder yet, and nobody knows for sure that you will.  So you do admit that you do kill people for what they might do, not for what they did.

It's different loco because the danger is imminent in the moment.  The issue with the 3000 wasn't. 

There wasn't 3000 men holding 3000 children under  a knife

[loco]

It's different loco because the danger is imminent in the moment.  The issue with the 3000 wasn't. 

There wasn't 3000 men holding 3000 children under  a knife

I understand that OzmO, but are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do?

[OzmO]

I understand that OzmO, but are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do?

If you want to debate my intended meaning instead of how moses murdered 3000 who did nothing but start worshiping a calf as a way to worship God then we can do that i suppose. 

But the "real" point remains here:   There is a BIG difference between a person holding a gun to someone's head and you shooting that person to prevent a murder versus killing 3000 people because they started worshiping God in a different way and eventually might have (not for certain was their intentions, all but assumed in other texts) included child sacrifice.

Again:  not consistent with a divine being, rather more like a man.

[loco]

If you want to debate my intended meaning instead of how moses murdered 3000 who did nothing but start worshiping a calf as a way to worship God then we can do that i suppose. 

But the "real" point remains here:   There is a BIG difference between a person holding a gun to someone's head and you shooting that person to prevent a murder versus killing 3000 people because they started worshiping God in a different way and eventually might have (not for certain was their intentions, all but assumed in other texts) included child sacrifice.

Again:  not consistent with a divine being, rather more like a man.

OzmO,

are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do?  Yes or No?

[OzmO]

OzmO,

are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do?  Yes or No?

Sure  yes.  Sometimes you kill people for what they might do depending up on the level of danger at the time.

[loco]

OzmO,

United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html

OzmO, a person may be sentenced to death for treason, not having killed anyone.  Why is the US and the courts not considered murderous in this case?  Because they are a higher authority.  Why should it be any different with God, when God is the highest authority?

Hence and act of treason that "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"

All of which directly produces harm.

Toward the end of WWII, had an American tipped the Japanese that the US was about to nuke them and kill 214,000 civilians, that American would have been put to death for treason. 

How exactly is it that this one traitor "directly" harmed or killed people?  His/Her intentions are to save people.  What gives the US the right and the authority to decide that this person should be put to death? 

The fact that the judge and the state are a higher authority.  God is the highest authority.

[OzmO]

OzmO,

Toward the end of WWII, had an American tipped the Japanese that the US was about to nuke them and kill 214,000 civilians, that American would have been put to death for treason. 

How exactly is it that this one traitor "directly" harmed or killed people?  His/Her intentions are to save people.  What gives the US the right and the authority to decide that this person should be put to death? 

The fact that the judge and the state are a higher authority.  God is the highest authority.

I'm not sure i remember it right, but I think we told the Japanese what we were going to do anyway. 

If it were something like warning a country of an attack and the success or failure of the attack hangs in the balance along with the lives of those carrying out the attack being that the enemy knows it's coming and can prepare for it would in fact endanger the lives and success of the operation:   means treason.

[loco]

I'm not sure i remember it right, but I think we told the Japanese what we were going to do anyway. 

If it were something like warning a country of an attack and the success or failure of the attack hangs in the balance along with the lives of those carrying out the attack being that the enemy knows it's coming and can prepare for it would in fact endanger the lives and success of the operation:   means treason.

OzmO, acts of treason do not always, as you said "all", "directly" produce harm, yet the punishment is death.  As an American, you summit to this law, and you accept the penalty for breaking this law.  And if you commit treason, whether your act "directly" produces harm or not,  you accept the death penalty for yourself.

[OzmO]

OzmO, acts of treason do not always, as you said "all", "directly" produce harm, yet the punishment is death.  As an American, you summit to this law, and you accept the penalty for breaking this law.  And if you commit treason, whether your act "directly" produces harm or not,  you accept the death penalty for yourself.

Giving the enemy information of an attack directly puts people's lives at risk.

[loco]

Giving the enemy information of an attack directly puts people's lives at risk.

It doesn't matter.  If you give the enemy information of an attack and you get caught, then your country would put you to death.  As an American, this is something that you accept, the law and the capital punisment for breaking that law.

In this case, the United States would not be putting you to death because they are angry at you or because they are jealous that your loyalties are with another country.  The United States of America would be putting you to death because you broke a law that you had submitted to fully understanding the consequences of breaking it, the consequences being death in this case.

[OzmO]

It doesn't matter.  If you give the enemy information of an attack and you get caught, then your country would put you to death.  As an American, this is something that you accept, the law and the capital punisment for breaking that law.

In this case, the United States would not be putting you to death because they are angry at you or because they are jealous that your loyalties are with another country.  The United States of America would be putting you to death because you broke a law that you had submitted to fully understanding the consequences of breaking it, death in this case.

I agree and fully accept that.   So?

[loco]

I agree and fully accept that.   So?

Exactly.  So?  Why is that not murder?

Why is God exercising capital punishment on those 3000 men murder?  Anger or no anger, jealousy or no jealousy, whether it was God or moses, those men were given the law, were told the consequences of breaking that law.  They accepted that law and submitted to it.  They accepted the consequences.  Yet, they broke it.

How is this any different?

[OzmO]

Exactly.  So?  Why is that not murder?

Why is God exercising capital punishment on those 3000 men murder?  Anger or no anger, jealousy or no jealousy, whether it was God or moses, those men were given the law, were told the consequences of breaking that law.  They accepted that law and submitted to it.  They accepted the consequences.  Yet, they broke it.

How is this any different?

You have to quantify and or put a value on the transgression.  Which oddly is a new topic i was going to post to get your input and opinion on and review scripture with.  Are sins the same? Is killing some one the same as taking a pencil from work?

In the case of the 3000 men who were murdered by moses, they were not directly harming everyone but only deciding to worship God in a  way they chose.  Committing treason by giving the enemy information of an attack is directly harming and or endangering someone. 

What if the law in the US was not to burn flags under punishment of death? Is that right?  No, because the transgression doesn't warrant the punishment.   

[loco]

You have to quantify and or put a value on the transgression.  Which oddly is a new topic i was going to post to get your input and opinion on and review scripture with.  Are sins the same? Is killing some one the same as taking a pencil from work?

In the case of the 3000 men who were murdered by moses, they were not directly harming everyone but only deciding to worship God in a  way they chose.  Committing treason by giving the enemy information of an attack is directly harming and or endangering someone. 

What if the law in the US was not to burn flags under punishment of death? Is that right?  No, because the transgression doesn't warrant the punishment.   

OzmO, I understand everything that you are saying above, everything.

However, those are good topics for another discussion.

For the sake of our discussion, what you say above does not matter.

God putting these 3000 men to death is not murder just like putting a traitor to death in the US is not murder.  Why?  Because these 3000 men submitted to this law fully knowing and fully understanding the consequences.  This is not murder, even if God had told them that eating rocks was a sin and punishable by death.  If they submit to this law and to the consequences for breaking it, putting them to death for eating rocks would not be murder. 

If they had protested the law forbidding them to make an idol, to sacrifice to it and to worship it, and if they had walked away and rejected that law, then that would be a different story.  If they had accepted that law, but protested the punishment for breaking it, and if they had walked away and rejected the law because of the punishment for breaking it, then that would be a different story.  But the truth is that they were given the law, they were told that they would be destroyed if they broke it, and they accepted it and submitted to it, only to break it 40 days later.  So they were destroyed as they were told they would be if they broke the law.  This is not murder.

[OzmO]

OzmO, I understand everything that you are saying above, everything.

However, those are good topics for another discussion.

For the sake of our discussion, what you say above does not matter.

God putting these 3000 men to death is not murder just like putting a traitor to death in the US is not murder.  Why?  Because these 3000 men submitted to this law fully knowing and fully understanding the consequences.  This is not murder, even if God had told them that eating rocks was a sin and punishable by death, if they submit to this law and to the consequences for breaking it, putting them to death for eating rocks would not be murder. 

If they had protested the law forbidding them to make an idol, to sacrifice to it and to worship it, and if they had walked away and rejected that law, then that would be a different story.  If they had accepted that law, but protested the punishment for breaking it, and if they had walked away and rejected the law because of the punishment for breaking it, then that would be a different story.  But the truth is that they were given the law, they were told that they would be destroyed if they broke it, and they accepted it and submitted to it, only to break it 40 days later.  So they were destroyed as they were told.  This is not murder.

Ok, we agree to our disagreement in terms of murder.


 I call it murder.  You don't.  I think the punishment is out of proportion to the offense.  You don't.

Would you feel the same way about the morality of laws Hitler enacted that caused the deaths of Jews?  Were they justified?

Punishment isn't always justified simply because a law is made and then broken.

Now it goes back to "Angry and Jealous"  Both traits and emotions that are far from divine.  Then vindictive when he plaques the survivors.

[loco]

Ok, we agree to our disagreement in terms of murder.

OzmO, at this point in the discussion, you are pretty much saying that it is a murder because you say so.  You are not giving any valid points in light of what we just discussed above.

I call it murder.  You don't.  I think the punishment is out of proportion to the offense.  You don't.

If you want to argue whether or not the punishment is out of proportion to the offense, we can do that.  But that is not what we are discussing here.  We are discussing whether putting to death these 3000 men is murder or not.  It doesn't matter if the punishment is out of proportion.  They accepted the law and the punishment for breaking it 40 days earlier. 

If you want to discuss whether they "should" have submitted to this law and whether they "should" have accepted the punishment for breaking it 40 days earlier, then we can discuss that.  But that is not the point.  You cannot tell them what they should or should not submit to or what they should or should not accept as punishment because they were free to choose and they chose to submit to that law and they chose to accept that punishment for breaking it.

Would you feel the same way about the morality of laws Hitler enacted that caused the deaths of Jews?  Were they justified?

OzmO, I'm sorry, but I am really not understanding this analogy.  Are you asking if the death of Jews during WWII was justified because it was the law of the land where they lived?  The answer is NO.  Which one of Hitler's laws about killing Jews did Jews agree to submit to and obey, only to choose to break later?  How could they have accepted any law that called for their extermination and how could they break it?  What law did they break and what were they being punished for? Please explain.
   

Punishment isn't always justified simply because a law is made and then broken.

No, it isn't.  But that is not what we are talking about here, is it?  It is not like they didn't choose to submit to this law and agree to obey it, only to choose to break it later.  It is not like God gave them the law and didn't tell them what would happen if they broke it.  It was very clear that if they broke it, they would be destroyed.  They understood this and chose to submit to the law and to accept the punishment for breaking it.  They had a choice and they chose to submit to the law, to accept the punishment for breaking it, then they chose to break it.  That is not murder. 

If you continue to say that this is murder, then you'll have to say that capital punishment in the United States is murder too.  What's the difference?

If you continue to say that this is murder based on the proportion of the punishment, then you are starting to sound like a dictator, who says these 3000 men are not allowed to choose to submit to this law and that they are not allowed to choose to accept the punishment for breaking it because you know what is good for them better than they do.  Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?  This is the kind of crap that people are submitted to in Venezuela, Cuba and other countries under a dictatorship.  The dictator tells you what to choose and what not to choose because "he knows what's best for you better than you do."

Now it goes back to "Angry and Jealous"  Both traits and emotions that are far from divine.  Then vindictive when he plaques the survivors.

We can discuss whether or not anger and jealousy should be God's attributes.  But that is not what we are discussing here.  If you commit treason and appear in front of a judge for it, the judge might be very angry at you and he/she might be jealous that your loyalties are with the enemy.  But that does not mean that sentencing you to death is murder, because you know that the punishment for treason is death anyway.  So you can't argue that the judge sentenced you to death because of anger and jealousy.  The judge would sentence you to death because that is the punishment for treason, period.  Emotion is beside the point here.  So putting to death those 3000 men is not murder because they knew fully well what they were doing from the beginning and they made a choice to break the law, a bad choice.  And they were punished according to the law which they had submitted to and accepted.

[tu_holmes]

These days, even I'm not an Athiest... so what does that tell you?

[loco]

These days, even I'm not an Athiest... so what does that tell you?

tu_holmes,
What do you mean?  Are you saying that you were once an Athiest, but now you are not?

[tu_holmes]

tu_holmes,
What do you mean?  Are you saying that you were once an Athiest, but now you are not?

It doesn't mean anything... forget I said it.

[loco]

It doesn't mean anything... forget I said it.

ok