Comment on Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my! by saarnok

Parent Post: Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my! · In Reply To

saarnok · 5/24/2026, 8:17:28 PM · permalink

52 bumps

sonatime · 5/27/2026, 3:49:01 AM · permalink

49 bumps

saarnok · 5/27/2026, 11:14:08 PM · permalink

46 bumps

sonatime · 5/29/2026, 1:34:51 AM · permalink

43 bumps

saarnok · 5/29/2026, 2:21:28 AM · permalink

40 bumps

sonatime · 5/29/2026, 2:52:48 AM · permalink

37 bumps

saarnok · 5/29/2026, 4:52:22 AM · permalink

I feel you there. But, let's be honest. Where has it ever been articulated as a foundational principle?  
  
The American founding is about as close as we get and I defy you to find it explicitly mentioned in our founding documents.  
  
Articulating something that primal is really difficult. We don't really comprehend intellectually why something is unfair or unjust. We just "get it". It's baked into us. It's the water we swim in that we don't know is wet.  
  
And, the alternative is "The Big Boss" theory of morality. Someone with brute force power tells you what morality is, and you conform or die.  
  
It's exactly that simple.  
  
In one world the oppressor must justify his exercise of cruel and arbitrary power by claiming God said to kill people who pick up sticks on Saturday. In the other, he's at a loss to explain why you should care if people pick up sticks on Saturday. (Numbers 15:32–36)  
  
In one world you're bound to obey the tyrant because he's ordained by God to command you. In the other he has to justify why it's to your advantage to consent to his leadership. (Romans 13:1–7)  
  
The Big Boss has been the principle of operation for most of human history and was in full display for every mass killing of the modern era which is believed to be on the order of 250-300 million people slaughtered by their own governments.  
  
And, according to "Paul" these rulers are "tetagmenai". Instituted, appointed, installed by God to do what they do. And combining this with Romans 9:13 and we see that "God" doesn't really care what you might have done or not done, particularly when we combine that with Romans 9:21 and we get to see that "God" is going to make people just purely to destroy them. And "people" may actually include you.  
  
In this system Pol Pott is a perfectly acceptable ruler, and lest you think I'm being hyperbolic, Martin Luther critiqued the slaughter of some hundred thousand peasants during the "Peasants War" of 1524-1525 in that it wasn't harsh enough.  
  
After all: He does not bear the sword in vain: Romans 13:4.  
  
But, of course, you're perfect aware of all this and you utterly approve because you read the bible and believe it's "god breathed".  
  
I'm busting your chops here. But, it's not a matter of spite.  
  
Wake the hell up.  
  
The bible isn't compatible with consent based on free will.

34 bumps

sonatime · 5/31/2026, 7:09:43 PM · permalink

Consent is only as good as the truth it’s based on.  
If people, or systems, can easily deceive others, and history shows they do it constantly through propaganda, manipulation, social pressure, and lies, then pure consent-based morality collapses in practice. People rarely have perfect information. Once you can make someone believe a lie, their “free consent” becomes defective or meaningless.  
  
Purely secular consent systems don’t have a great track record. The French Terror, communist genocides under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (who together killed far more than 100 million people) all operated on “might makes right” or utopian ideology after rejecting biblical morality. Consent alone doesn’t stop evil when the majority — or the powerful — consent to terrible things.  
  
On the Bible passages you mentioned, I think you’re presenting a false dichotomy: either pure human consent/intuition morality, or brutal arbitrary “Big Boss” commands.  Mainstream Christianity has always rejected that binary. We believe morality is rooted in God’s good character, not arbitrary whims. Humans have a conscience because we’re made in God’s image.  
  
Romans 13:1–7  
Paul wrote Romans 13 while living under Nero, one of the most brutal emperors. He was not saying every tyrant is personally hand-picked by God and must be obeyed in everything. The word “tetagmenai” (instituted/established) means God ultimately sets the boundaries and existence of governing authorities, not that He approves of every evil action they take. Paul’s point was practical advice to Christians: don’t rebel violently against the government; live peacefully and pay taxes. It is not a blank check for tyranny or a command to never resist evil.  
  
Romans 9:13 + 9:21  
Romans 9 is not about God randomly creating individuals for hell. It’s about God’s sovereign right to choose how He builds His people and carries out His plan of salvation.  
  
Romans 9:13 (“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”) It’s about God choosing the line of Jacob (Israel) over Esau (Edom) for His redemptive purposes — not about their eternal destinies as individuals.  
Romans 9:21 (the potter and the clay) is about God’s right to use different people for different roles in history. The chapter ends with an emphasis on God’s mercy (Romans 9:22-24, 11:32).  
  
Paul is arguing against the idea that God owes salvation to anyone based on ethnicity or works. He is stressing grace and sovereignty, not that God delights in destroying people.  
  
About Numbers 15:32–36 (the stick-gatherer):  
This wasn’t presented as a random harsh punishment for “picking up sticks.” Right before this story, God distinguishes between unintentional sin (which is forgiven through sacrifice) and high-handed, defiant sin - done openly and knowingly - the Hebrew phrase is “with a high hand” (bəyād rāmāh). This is an idiom for arrogant, open defiance—like raising one’s hand or fist in rebellion against God (Numbers 15:30-31).  
  
The man’s act was public, deliberate defiance. The Sabbath command had already been made very clear (Exodus 16 with the manna, Exodus 20, etc.). In the middle of the wilderness, after God had miraculously provided for them, this was a visible statement in front of the whole community.  
  
It wasn’t really about the sticks. It was about open rejection of God’s authority right after extreme grace. That’s why it was treated so seriously — as a warning to the whole nation.  
  
I’m not saying every Old Testament punishment is easy to understand today. But the context matters.  
  
I just don’t think the Bible vs. secular consent framing is as clean as you’re presenting it.

32 bumps

saarnok · 5/31/2026, 8:21:09 PM · permalink

29 bumps

sonatime · 5/31/2026, 8:47:36 PM · permalink

27 bumps

saarnok · 6/1/2026, 12:09:02 AM · permalink

25 bumps

sonatime · 6/1/2026, 12:55:33 AM · permalink

23 bumps

saarnok · 6/1/2026, 4:05:07 AM · permalink

20 bumps

sonatime · 6/2/2026, 1:01:55 AM · permalink

18 bumps

saarnok · 6/2/2026, 4:42:02 AM · permalink

Well, your ai assistant has done about as well by you as it could. I used one to steel man your position and it didn't do any better.  
  
You didn't respond to the question: What in the text indicates this man is Israeli, a member of the covenant? Explicitly, nothing.  
  
You're deliberately mixing terms and ignoring their meanings. In every case the injunction against unjustly treating "strangers" is presuming the "stranger" is somehow part of their contingent, not someone outside their nominal territory. And, as any stranger in a land not their own, as is common to this day, strangers were and are expected to not violate the taboos and customs of their hosts.  
  
Every apologetic for this story tries to read into it things that aren't there and ignores what is there.  
  
They already established the law, who it applied to and where. It clearly injuncted households against causing or allowing work to be performed by anyone within their nominal control. The head of a household would be expected to prevent the stranger from working or to deliver him for judgement if he defies the warning not to.  
  
This is explicit in Exodus 20:10 "...On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you." (NLT)  
  
This makes impossible the confusion expressed in Numbers if the man is one of the Israelites or even a stranger among them. "While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him."  
  
It would have been perfectly clear what should be done if he were one of their number whether foreigner or not.  
  
In fact all the injunctions against oppressing foreigners works against your interpretation. They would be part of what generated the confusion.  
  
Also working against your interpretation is that even the members who had the explicit job of governing the tribes were at a loss and it ultimately fell to Moses and Aaron who actually handed it off to God who declared that the whole people needed to stone him outside the camp.  
  
The man is never accused of anything, never adjudicated and the judgement is against the entire nation of Israel, no member of any tribe is found guilty, no one is responsible for "the man" who was found explicitly "in the wilderness", not within the identified unit of control as being the responsibility of a household.  
  
Your problem is that you're projecting your sense of justice and reason onto an ancient people who clearly don't share your sensibilities.  
  
Plain and simple they found a man who wasn't one of them and killed him for not adhering to their rules. That's all.  
  
And, by the way, you're not even considering that a primary reason they would have been reluctant to kill him is because by enforcing their special sabbath rules on this guy it infringes on their specialness as the chosen ones who adhere to these rules because they are special, chosen, not like some loner just living his life in the wilderness.  
  
Your take on this demonstrates your failure to understand why a non-believer finds the bible interesting. Obviously, you don't care what it reveals about the people who preserved the stories, how they saw themselves, what motivated them, and how they lived their lives.  
  
I don't need to believe it reveals any particular thing, certainly not that it justifies my performance of faith in any particular thing. I just want to discover what it reveals about the people who created it.

15 bumps

sonatime · 6/2/2026, 8:53:52 AM · permalink

I’m not deliberately ignoring your questions. Since we disagree on so many core issues, answering every single detail isn’t practical. I focus on the bigger picture while still addressing your main objections.  
  
At this stage in Numbers 15, the Israelites are only 18–24 months out of Egypt. They’ve already been sentenced to 40 years of wandering after the rebellion at Kadesh. There are still roughly 2 million people in a remote wilderness — a massive mobile camp, not a settled town.  
  
The text never calls the man a foreigner or outsider, nor does it discuss his status. The entire focus is on the nature of the sin — whether it was ignorant or defiant/high-handed. This story immediately follows God’s warning about defiant sin (Numbers 15:30-31).  
  
To your direct question: What indicates the man was part of the covenant community?  
  
The Torah consistently applies its laws to people inside the covenant community or to resident strangers (ger) living among them. Enforcing full covenant law on completely unrelated outsiders was not the normal pattern.  
  
The leaders’ uncertainty (“it was not clear what should be done to him”) makes perfect sense. The Sabbath law had only recently been given. Not only was this likely the first public test case of deliberate Sabbath-breaking, but they also had no established precedent for how the execution should be carried out.  
  
Exodus 31:14 had said the Sabbath-breaker “shall be cut off,” but that term was ambiguous (it could mean divine punishment or human execution). They kept the man in custody specifically because they needed Yahweh to clarify both the nature of the offense and the method of punishment. Yahweh then commanded stoning by the whole congregation outside the camp.  
  
We see this same pattern in other early wilderness test cases (the blasphemer in Leviticus 24 and Zelophehad’s daughters in Numbers 27), where uncertainty came from applying new laws, not from the person being an outsider.  
  
The idea that God Himself would command the whole assembly to stone a complete outsider for gathering sticks is extremely far-fetched in this strong covenant context.

13 bumps

saarnok · 6/3/2026, 12:52:13 AM · permalink

6 bumps

sonatime · 6/3/2026, 6:22:47 PM · permalink

The Blasphemer Example (Leviticus 24)  
You’re using this case backwards. The reason the text mentions his mother’s name and tribe is because his mixed Egyptian/Israelite parentage created a legal gray area. That’s exactly why they put him in custody and asked God for a ruling.  
More importantly, this incident leads directly to God declaring that there is one law for the native and for the stranger (Leviticus 24:22). It actually reinforces the principle that the same rules apply to both Israelites and outsiders living among them — not the opposite.  
  
“The Jews were too stupid to understand the law”  
This is a strange exaggeration. They were only ~18–24 months out of Egypt. These are early test cases for brand-new capital laws. The text shows the community (including Moses and the elders) seeking God’s guidance instead of acting rashly. That’s wisdom, not stupidity.  
  
“Random guy with no tribe”  
The text never calls him a random outsider. He was found by Israelites, brought before the whole assembly, and the incident is placed right after God’s warning about high-handed sin within the community. You’re adding a lot of assumptions the text doesn’t support.  
  
I’m reading the literary context and the clear pattern in the wilderness narratives. You’re the one stripping away context to force the most negative possible reading.  
  
 When I step outside established theology, it's not because I'm being careless or disloyal—it's because I'm trying to read the text with openness, intelligence, and a commitment to what it actually says in context. I still verify everything for myself rather than accepting prepackaged conclusions.  
  
That's why your strong emotional reaction and personal attacks are surprising. You seem deeply invested in one very narrow reading that strips away surrounding context and logic. Only you know why that particular interpretation matters so much to you. My worldview is shaped directly by the Bible; yours appears to rest on a reactionary and, in my view, illogical handling of it.  
  
Your pushy debate style might make real conversation difficult for others. In real life, that kind of approach often leads people to back down just to avoid conflict—even when they don't actually agree. It creates the illusion of success, but it shuts down honest communication and learning. A more open, less aggressive approach would serve the truth better.

3 bumps

saarnok · 6/3/2026, 12:19:32 AM · permalink

5 bumps

sonatime · 6/3/2026, 6:22:09 PM · permalink

*"Where does it say this is an example of a high-handed sin?"*  
  
Right before the story. Numbers 15:30-31 warns about high-handed (defiant) sin. Then immediately in verse 32 we have the stick-gatherer incident. And most importantly, God Himself confirms it by His judgment — He treats it as a deliberate, high-handed violation and specifies the method of execution (stoning by the whole congregation outside the camp).  
  
*"Who’s household is responsible for 'the man'?"*
  
The text doesn’t name one — just like it doesn’t name one for the blasphemer in Leviticus 24 or Zelophehad’s daughters in Numbers 27. These were early test cases where the people didn’t yet have clear procedural answers, so they took the matter to God.  
  
Yes, the blasphemer’s mother and tribe (Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, tribe of Dan) are mentioned — but that was precisely because his mixed parentage created a legal gray area.  
Even then, they still had to ask God for a ruling. You can’t use that detail to prove “they always name the household” while ignoring why the detail was given.  
  
You’re demanding a level of specificity the text simply doesn’t give in these wilderness test cases, while ignoring the strong contextual clues it does give: the man was found by Israelites and brought before Moses, Aaron, and the whole assembly.  
  
*"Rather than simply repeat the lies of other Christian apologists, why don't you apply yourself to the matter?*
*Their lies are transparent and obvious. Why are you repeating them?"*  
  
 I am not. I’ve read the passage, and my understanding comes directly from the text itself. I actually don’t even follow what most Christian apologists say about this story, nor am I particularly interested. My loyalty is to the Biblical text.  
  
The chapter flows logically: God warns about high-handed sin → immediately we see an example of it → the people are unsure how to apply the new law → they take it to God → God clarifies both the nature of the sin and the method of execution. That makes complete sense.

2 bumps

Signature