(November 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm)John V Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Yes, because the threat of horrible everlasting punishments didn't sway their decision at all.

I'm not sure what passage you're referring to. Can you give the citation?

I'm referring to your post (evidently), not a particular passage in the bible (as though one requires a memory jog on all the instances where death is rained upon those who aren't in god's 'vogue' category at the time)

(November 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm)John V Wrote: Also note that God did not impose the law on them. He offered it, with reward if obeyed and punishment if not, and they voluntarily accepted it.

(November 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm)John V Wrote: I'm not sure what passage you're referring to. Can you give the citation?

I'm referring to your post (evidently), not a particular passage in the bible (as though one requires a memory jog on all the instances where death is rained upon those who aren't in god's 'vogue' category at the time)

(November 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm)John V Wrote: Also note that God did not impose the law on them. He offered it, with reward if obeyed and punishment if not, and they voluntarily accepted it.

In that case, you're either not reading well or being disingenuous, as I didn't say "horrible" or "everlasting."

(November 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm)John V Wrote: In that case, you're either not reading well or being disingenuous, as I didn't say "horrible" or "everlasting."

Irrelevant (I'm amazed anyone can read into this and make a distinction on the level of punishment against the use of punishment per se).

My point: People have a habit of 'voluntarily' doing something when you have a gun held at their head. Whether you shoot it (cast them into hell) is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

And you have the tenacity to call me disingenuous?

Bad form sir, bad form.

(November 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Irrelevant (I'm amazed anyone can read into this and make a distinction on the level of punishment against the use of punishment per se).

My point: People have a habit of 'voluntarily' doing something when you have a gun held at their head. Whether you shoot it (cast them into hell) is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

And you have the tenacity to call me disingenuous?

Bad form sir, bad form.

Ah, I see the problem. I wrote "reward if obeyed and punishment if not." You're incorrectly reading it as reward if accepted and punishment if not. God doesn;t say they'd be punished if they rejected it. He said they'd be punished if they accepted it and didn't obey it.

(November 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm)John V Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Irrelevant (I'm amazed anyone can read into this and make a distinction on the level of punishment against the use of punishment per se).

My point: People have a habit of 'voluntarily' doing something when you have a gun held at their head. Whether you shoot it (cast them into hell) is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

And you have the tenacity to call me disingenuous?

Bad form sir, bad form.

Ah, I see the problem. I wrote "reward if obeyed and punishment if not." You're incorrectly reading it as reward if accepted and punishment if not.

Again, utterly irrelevant.

why would replacing "accepted" with "obey" change the above scenario?

An argument from semantics is a poor one indeed. "Obeyed" &/or "accepted" makes not a jot of difference to the issue at hand: The choice of doing something (either x or y in this case) with a threat of "punishment" (your words) for choosing x over y (obeying or accepting y is the same) is an illusion of choice.

(November 20, 2012 at 9:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote: (3) Why would he kill his worshipers for using the "wrong" fire, yet let Joe Smith of the mormons peer through rocks to divine his message?

Because those two in lev 10 established the high standards God demands for worship without the attoning Grace offered by the blood of Christ. Smitty took avantage of the same grace offered by Christ to those who try and worship Him with all of their being. Christ told us that He would allow the wheat (believers) and Weeds (people who may look like wheat but are not) to grow along side each other, until the final judgement.

It is after this judgement that men like that will experience the 'holy fire' these two men did in lev 10.

From the story, one can find no motive for Nadad and Abihu to have intentionally broken god's commandment. They did not have anything to gain from one worship ritual to the next. Their own "god equal" sense of right and wrong was not triggered by the mistake.
Joe Smith on the other hand knew he was a lying con artist and knew what he had to personally gain from his actions. The two stories are not morally equivalent and do not merit the same punishment.

God's punishment in the old testament was also capricious. God did not smite everyone in the old testament that was not perfectly righteous, let alone those of his own flock that went against him. Moses was not smitten, he just couldn't live in his promised land. Couldn't god have been satisfied with just a smaller punishment for the two priests?

If your child made a mistake, you might punish them, in order to direct them on the right path, but you wouldn't kill them I hope.
Why would god think that Nada and Abihu were completely irredeemable even with the magic rehabilitative power of god?

Sure, jesus came along later and changed the rules, but that was much too late for Nadad and Abihu. It doesn't apply to them.

YOU are limiting yourself

THINK

CAN A BABY do anything for which he could deserve to be Killed? How about a five year old?
Is there justice in killing others for a something they had no control over?

THE story of the Passover is a MURDER of a great number of innocent people - who could not have controlled the Pharaoh (Yes - we know it is NOT TRUE as well)

THE story of the Great Flood - is a story of a mass murder of children and infants on a grand scale - who could not have sinned. As many as 20% of the population would have been under 5 - at the time - if it did happen. (OF course - it did not happen - again.)

ANd of course - in the Passover - 20% of those killed would have been under five years old as well.

(November 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm)John V Wrote: Ah, I see the problem. I wrote "reward if obeyed and punishment if not." You're incorrectly reading it as reward if accepted and punishment if not. God doesn;t say they'd be punished if they rejected it. He said they'd be punished if they accepted it and didn't obey it.

Oh, so you can just reject the laws and remain outside of god's jurisdiction? All is well and good...until he sends the Israelite army to rip open your pregnant women and smash your babies' heads on rocks.

Quote:Because God said do A and they did B. Doing B when God said do A is a death sentence no matter how trivial to someone else.

The Biblical god is indeed the "supreme fascist".

Quote:So, when you argue that the law seems severe, well...yes, it is.

Killing people simply because they disobeyed your orders isn't just "severe". It's sociopathic. God fits all the requirements for being an Evil Overlord.

By the way, Darth Vader does the same thing, but at least he's stylish about it:

(December 4, 2012 at 10:44 am)Kirbmarc Wrote:

Quote:Because God said do A and they did B. Doing B when God said do A is a death sentence no matter how trivial to someone else.

The Biblical god is indeed the "supreme fascist".