Jump to content

Stone The Whale


Recommended Posts

And in order to justify this obvious conclusion he felt he had to appeal to an ancient people's oxen procedures.
Or he wanted to show that the answer wasn't that hard to figure out, it was even figured out 2,000 years ago so quit the PC stuipidity that allowed this whale to kill 3 people instead of just 1.You say obvious conclusion, while ignoring that this wasn't so obvious to the people who ignored the first killing, and the second, and probly going to ignore this one too.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is correct. I have read the entire Bible many times over. I was simply saying that I don't believe that reading the entire Bible is remotely necessary for salvation. (Considering that there was no "Bible" when Christ was on Earth, should be enough to silence anyone that doesn't agree.)
There wasn't a Christ on Earth before there was Christ on Earth and there doesn't seem to be a problem with requiring him for salvation. So, no, requiring a complete reading of the scripture doesn't seem any more unfair than that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Or he wanted to show that the answer wasn't that hard to figure out, it was even figured out 2,000 years ago so quit the PC stuipidity that allowed this whale to kill 3 people instead of just 1.You say obvious conclusion, while ignoring that this wasn't so obvious to the people who ignored the first killing, and the second, and probly going to ignore this one too.
I agree the people at Sea World who keep a lethal animal for entertainment purposes deserve to get bitten by what they were ignoring, in the same way that Siegfried did. But I have honestly tried to to read this article the way you describe it and I can't see it.
If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone's misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.
He is clearly presenting the scripture not as an historical curiosity regarding people's safety with animals, but rather as counsel.
But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)
The scripture is soberly warning us. The author clearly expects us to take moral counsel from the Old Testament. And if that is the case, he is utilizing common sense to take the general message about dangerous animals and leave out the specifics of stoning.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the people at Sea World who keep a lethal animal for entertainment purposes deserve to get bitten by what they were ignoring, in the same way that Siegfried did. But I have honestly tried to to read this article the way you describe it and I can't see it. He is clearly presenting the scripture not as an historical curiosity regarding people's safety with animals, but rather as counsel. The scripture is soberly warning us. The author clearly expects us to take moral counsel from the Old Testament. And if that is the case, he is utilizing common sense to take the general message about dangerous animals and leave out the specifics of stoning.
So if you ever get a lawer who in the process of advicing you quotes an aesop's fable that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, than you must infer that he also expects you to believe that frogs talk and princess's sleep on 40 mattresses because once he brings up any point, then you must assume he is bringing up all points as being relevant to the point at hand. Because it is impossible to point out anything without all associated points being attached to your point ad infinitum
Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you ever get a lawer who in the process of advicing you quotes an aesop's fable that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, than you must infer that he also expects you to believe that frogs talk and princess's sleep on 40 mattresses because once he brings up any point, then you must assume he is bringing up all points as being relevant to the point at hand. Because it is impossible to point out anything without all associated points being attached to your point ad infinitum
I think you have me confused with you. I am happy to take the stories of the bible as having value and to interpret the stories as stories, to take the messages without believing in talking bushes or men rising from graves. I was under the impression that you don't do that.Aesop's fables are a great analogy for how we should treat the stories of the bible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you have me confused with you. I am happy to take the stories of the bible as having value and to interpret the stories as stories, to take the messages without believing in talking bushes or men rising from graves. I was under the impression that you don't do that.Aesop's fables are a great analogy for how we should treat the stories of the bible.
I get us confused often, except the part of me not being a dirty hippy I mean.I clearly see what the author is talking about probably because it is common in my circles to hear people talk like that, quoting the OT as a guide that shows us directions without it being taken literally because the motive for the council is in regards to how the nation Israel was to conduct itself as a nation. Therefore we can look at the principles of the verse and not have a problem accepting that stoning the ox isn't required anymore.In other words we are more mature than others.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I get us confused often, except the part of me not being a dirty hippy I mean.
I actually took a shower this week.
I clearly see what the author is talking about probably because it is common in my circles to hear people talk like that, quoting the OT as a guide that shows us directions without it being taken literally because the motive for the council is in regards to how the nation Israel was to conduct itself as a nation. Therefore we can look at the principles of the verse and not have a problem accepting that stoning the ox isn't required anymore.In other words we are more mature than others.
I just wish you could take the NT the same way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There wasn't a Christ on Earth before there was Christ on Earth and there doesn't seem to be a problem with requiring him for salvation. So, no, requiring a complete reading of the scripture doesn't seem any more unfair than that.
Interesting. I don't know your level of Biblical knowledge, but I'm guessing: extremely low.That is the whole point of what we're talking about. Before Christ, Christ wasn't required. Following the laws and commandments was the path of salvation. The fact that Jesus came to Earth was meant, in part, to be a huge relief for the Jews because they would no longer be bound by not driving on Saturday or not eating delicious pig products. That, and an extremely easy path to salvation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I clearly see what the author is talking about probably because it is common in my circles to hear people talk like that, quoting the OT as a guide that shows us directions without it being taken literally because the motive for the council is in regards to how the nation Israel was to conduct itself as a nation. Therefore we can look at the principles of the verse and not have a problem accepting that stoning the ox isn't required anymore.In other words we are more mature than others.
So are you saying that none of the old testament needs to be taken literally?If not, what parts do need to be taken literally? Be specific. How do you decide the difference between metaphorical and literal verses?If part of the answer is "common sense" or "Christian consensus", then how do you decide whose common sense is to be used, or which Christian's interpretation is correct? As far as I know there are thousands of different Christian interpretations of the bible if you break it down verse by verse.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. I don't know your level of Biblical knowledge, but I'm guessing: extremely low.That is the whole point of what we're talking about. Before Christ, Christ wasn't required. Following the laws and commandments was the path of salvation.
I think there's a mismatch on our understanding of the meaning of salvation. I think salvation means purification from personal sin that allows a person to go to heaven. If a Christian asks me, "Am I saved?" and I answer, "Yes, my path to salvation is through following the law", I expect the Christian to tell me that's impossible. Would you expect something different? How would you reply to me?
5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going. So how can we know the way?"6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father also. From now on, you do know him. And you have seen him."
This is the point where Christians often argue that the mystical Christ existed prior to the human Jesus and this is an inclusive verse rather than an exclusive one. At any rate, I don't see how you can argue for multiple paths to God with Jesus arguing the opposite.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that none of the old testament needs to be taken literally?If not, what parts do need to be taken literally? Be specific. How do you decide the difference between metaphorical and literal verses?If part of the answer is "common sense" or "Christian consensus", then how do you decide whose common sense is to be used, or which Christian's interpretation is correct? As far as I know there are thousands of different Christian interpretations of the bible if you break it down verse by verse.
None of these questions has any bearing on the current discussion. BG isn't talking about a literal or non-literal interpretation of the OT, and either way is going to be irrelevant to salvation through Jesus Christ. For the record however, BG thinks that every story in the OT is absolutely literal.
I think there's a mismatch on our understanding of the meaning of salvation. I think salvation means purification from personal sin that allows a person to go to heaven. If a Christian asks me, "Am I saved?" and I answer, "Yes, my path to salvation is through following the law", I expect the Christian to tell me that's impossible. Would you expect something different? How would you reply to me?This is the point where Christians often argue that the mystical Christ existed prior to the human Jesus and this is an inclusive verse rather than an exclusive one. At any rate, I don't see how you can argue for multiple paths to God with Jesus arguing the opposite.
A Christian wouldn't tell you that salvation is through the law. We have Christ now, which is shown in the verse you quoted.I have never heard a single Christian argue at all, let alone often, that the mystical Christ had anything to do with salvation prior to him dying on the cross. In fact, while Jesus was still alive, Jews were dying and going to heaven due to their following the law. This doesn't apply anymore, as of 33ish AD.(Weird, our entire calendar system is based on Jesus' life.)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never heard a single Christian argue at all, let alone often, that the mystical Christ had anything to do with salvation prior to him dying on the cross.
John tells us that Christ existed from the beginning of time. I'm not making this up. It's not an atheist plot to misinterpret the gospel.I sense a semantic shell game. Did Jews go to heaven before Christ died? Could one go to heaven without "coming to the father"?
In fact, while Jesus was still alive, Jews were dying and going to heaven due to their following the law. This doesn't apply anymore, as of 33ish AD.
So before Jesus died, people didn't need Jesus to go to heaven. Then he came and died, and now you do. Before there was a "complete" Bible, people didn't need to read the bible to go to heaven. Obviously they could go to heaven without reading it, because there wasn't one and that would be mighty unfair to require it, right ? QED. I think this is your assertion, right? 'Because there didn't used to be one' is a pretty stupid reason to say something is unnecessary for salvation, because that logic negates all of Christianity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
John tells us that Christ existed from the beginning of time. I'm not making this up. It's not an atheist plot to misinterpret the gospel.I sense a semantic shell game. Did Jews go to heaven before Christ died? Could one go to heaven without "coming to the father"? So before Jesus died, people didn't need Jesus to go to heaven. Then he came and died, and now you do. Before there was a "complete" Bible, people didn't need to read the bible to go to heaven. Obviously they could go to heaven without reading it, because there wasn't one and that would be mighty unfair to require it, right ? QED. I think this is your assertion, right? 'Because there didn't used to be one' is a pretty stupid reason to say something is unnecessary for salvation, because that logic negates all of Christianity.
Of course he existed. That's not what I said.Jews didn't go to heaven, because no one has gone to heaven yet. Jews went the the 'bosom of Abraham' called paradise.The 'Bible' being complete has little to do with anything. You're just trying to push buttons.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course he existed. That's not what I said.Jews didn't go to heaven, because no one has gone to heaven yet. Jews went the the 'bosom of Abraham' called paradise.The 'Bible' being complete has little to do with anything. You're just trying to push buttons.
The button I would like to push is the one that makes you answer the questions using the terms in the Gospel of John so that we could understand your interpretation of it. Paradise and heaven are two separate places? The Jews and Christians are separated in the afterlife, right? Are both or either of these "coming to the Father"?I shouldn't have tried to anticipate your position, so I'm sorry about that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The button I would like to push is the one that makes you answer the questions using the terms in the Gospel of John so that we could understand your interpretation of it. Paradise and heaven are two separate places? The Jews and Christians are separated in the afterlife, right? Are both or either of these "coming to the Father"?I shouldn't have tried to anticipate your position, so I'm sorry about that.
No.No one is in heaven, but to my understanding, the Jews that were purified through sacrifice and following the rules prior to Christ, are with the believers in Christ after His death in a place called paradise, which is not "heaven". As described by John, in Revelation. I don't know the phrase "coming to the Father", and I avoid the KJV completely, so that may be the issue. That phrase might not exist in my preferred version, The New American Standard Version. Maybe you could list some references that you want my opinion on.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A Biblical principle is just that, a kind of clear direction for our actions.
I know, I'm just saying that if this guy was using the bible to call for euthanization of the animal, he can't also say that he doesn't think the owners of the animals should be euthanized as well.
Just don't ask us for prayer when the doorbell rings and Tilly wants to play with you, bring your swim trunks.
Fine, I WON'T!
He is saying that the...animal should be euthanized. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that assessment.
A ton of people disagree with that assessment. Andre did a good job of explaining why.
I just wish you could take the NT the same way.
Yep.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I orginally posted it because I thought it was amazingly stupid that the guy suggested he knew better than people that have spent their lives studing these animals and are experts in their field. He also did't have the good sense to use a bible quote that didn't call for the murder of a human. Furthermore, what is his expertise in deciding that the animal should be killed? He's probably lucky that people with common sense didn't call for his stoning on the grounds of utter stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do see why the guy would call for the euthanasia of the animal, assuming he's not an idiot that just wants to punish an animal for doing what comes naturally to it. If the zookeepers didn't react to his earlier killing by making the situation safe enough to ensure that it didn't happen again, who's to say that they'll be able to do it now? In which case, it might be the best idea to just kill the thing or, even better, set it free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In which case, it might be the best idea to just kill the thing or, even better, set it free.
I have no idea about this particular animal, but isn't taking an animal that has been living in captivity and putting it in the wild essentially the same as killing it? Because it doesn't have the tools to survive. I think I heard that somewhere.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, I'm just saying that if this guy was using the bible to call for euthanization of the animal, he can't also say that he doesn't think the owners of the animals should be euthanized as well.
Yes he can, because he wasn't saying what you are saying that he said.
A ton of people disagree with that assessment. Andre did a good job of explaining why.
I don't understand, because this:
Well, I do see why the guy would call for the euthanasia of the animal, assuming he's not an idiot that just wants to punish an animal for doing what comes naturally to it. If the zookeepers didn't react to his earlier killing by making the situation safe enough to ensure that it didn't happen again, who's to say that they'll be able to do it now? In which case, it might be the best idea to just kill the thing or, even better, set it free.
is exactly what I was saying. If that whale were a pitbull is would have been put down in 1992 and then again in 1999, and then again last month.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea about this particular animal, but isn't taking an animal that has been living in captivity and putting it in the wild essentially the same as killing it? Because it doesn't have the tools to survive. I think I heard that somewhere.
Yeah, that's a legitimate concern.
Yes he can, because he wasn't saying what you are saying that he said.
Look, he used the bible to show that even in biblical times they would have known to euthanize the animal. I'm saying that he shouldn't use this example because in biblical times they also would have killed the animal's owner. You can't point to one aspect and ignore the other without it being blatantly hypocritical...can you?
I don't understand, because this:is exactly what I was saying. If that whale were a pitbull is would have been put down in 1992 and then again in 1999, and then again last month.
I was just saying that I understand your position, not that I agree with it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...