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

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

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.

57 bumps

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

54 bumps

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

52 bumps

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

50 bumps

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

48 bumps

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

45 bumps

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

43 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.

40 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.

38 bumps

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

31 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.

28 bumps

saarnok · 6/4/2026, 1:11:31 AM · permalink

Again. Dishonest and frankly, deliberately misleading.  
  
I used the example YOU gave to point out that the tribe of the offender or victim, their status within the nation is typically presented. The random guy found, not even by a member of any tribe, but by the Israelites in explicitly NOT their territory, "the wilderness" is not one of them and the only reason you even want him to be one of them is to force the absurd idea of consent into the Israelite civilization.  
  
Not only does the story not at any level have any element of consent in it, but the person in this example wasn't even one of them.  
  
According to your reasoning, the Israelites were too stupid to understand what they'd agreed to, which voids the concept of consent, and that's according to your own reasoning.  
  
Not only did they not freely consent to being under this brutal regime, they didn't consent to enforcing it against people who weren't in the club in the first place.  
  
Your attempt to make this an example of the verse which came before it is entirely artificial in the first place, as if the preceding text were about an earthquake and therefor what follows it must therefor be an example of consequences from an earthquake even though the following verse is about magpies squawking in the trees.  
  
You have yet to give me even just one reason to consider that what the text say is wrong. You've yet to supply anything to suggest that your presentation of this as consensual is even slightly reasonable.  
  
In fact, everything you do demonstrates that you're well aware, now that it's been brought to your attention, that you're just plain wrong. The bible doesn't conform to your sensibilities. It was written by people who couldn't even comprehend your sensibilities.  
  
You don't verify anything for yourself. You borrow the tired apologetics that have been used for decades or even centuries and can't provide any explanation for your reasoning.  
  
And now you want to derail to the way I'm too "pushy", claim that I'm making "personal attacks". This is pathetic.  
  
Ever been in a midrash? I have. Surrounded by half a dozen Jews who were very upset to learn that Moses wasn't circumcised. You have no idea what "pushy" is like. And while the bulk of them finally accepted that within the biblical text, Moses is uncircumcised. But, one called the bible "racist" and left in disgust.  
  
I'm not browbeating here. I want you to back up the idea that the bible supports the concept of consent of the governed.  
  
And, it's extremely easy for me to make the case that it doesn't.  
  
It helps that I've read it backwards and forwards, that I'm more familiar with it than the people who wrote the apologetics you've borrowed, but honestly, I'd have a hell of a time taking your position.  
  
I like to boast that I can make it say anything I want. But, I'd have a really hard time making it say that.  
  
The sabbath is imposed on the people of Israel while they are literally surviving at the pleasure of an obviously vengeful and utterly tyrannical god, literally wandering, lost in the desert. They didn't have any real choice. My way or the non-existent highway. And, by your reckoning, as much as two years later not so much as a single one of them understood what it was they'd agreed to. Not so much as a single one. According to you. Who's using this as an example of consent.  
  
Your correct path of preserving the bible as moral authority is to abandon the concept of consent as heresy, and embrace the concept of authority as moral.  
  
The bible supports that. It supports it in spades, in heaps and piles.  
  
It supports explicitly that people can be condemned just because god made them to be condemned. That they don't consent to anything and that even just noticing that god is capricious is a flaw in you.  
  
And I don't have to do anything special. I don't have to presume anything. I just have to present what the text actually says.  
  
What this speaks to is a moral quandary for you. You clearly don't want to abandon your modern sensibilities, and you clearly want to pretend that the bible supports them.  
  
And, you can do that; just as long as you don't study the bible and accept that what it says is what it actually says.  
  
I think we're pretty well done with this discussion. I think it's obvious to both of us that I'm correct and you're floundering in unfamiliar teritory, but I'd like to ask a question:  
  
Is it a surprise to you that we say "grace" before every meal in my house? Does it perhaps bother you that I give thanks for every single day I experience in this gift of life? Does it bother you that I know your bible far better than you ever will? Better than anyone you've ever met? And that I haven't studied it in perhaps ten years?  
  
I'm just curious what you make of that.

25 bumps

sonatime · 6/4/2026, 9:28:33 PM · permalink

Nothing bothers me in our conversations, I actually get to read, learn and think more about the Biblical text because of this.  What I don’t understand is the amount of intelligence and energy you pour into your examples, the overreactions, and the bad-faith framing of my positions. Only you and God know what’s behind your motives/reasons.   
  
I’ll try to simplify as best as I understand.  
  
You’re taking that one sentence about the wood-gatherer and pulling it completely out of context — ignoring the verse right before it, the earlier cases, and the whole process God used to establish the covenant with Israel.  
  
Your reading only works if you strip away all of that surrounding context and impose your own conclusion.   
  
The blasphemer case (Leviticus 24) was different — it was new to the Israelites because of his mixed heritage and had no clear precedent. That’s why the facts were carefully documented. But again, the offender’s name was irrelevant to the point of the story and is not mentioned.   
  
The daughters of Zelophehad, in Numbers 27, are explicitly named along with their entire genealogy. They are named because their case directly concerns the permanent legal transfer of tribal land inheritance. Because the wood-gatherer's case does not involve property rights or tribal lineage, recording his genealogy serves no legal purpose.  
  
 In Biblical narrative, omitting a name frequently elevates the individual to an archetype, making the lesson universal rather than personal.  
  
The wood-gatherer story immediately follows the introduction of the laws regarding intentional ("high-handed") sins versus unintentional sins (Numbers 15:22–31). The man serves as the concrete, legal test case for what constitutes a defiant, high-handed violation of God's covenant.  
  
Leaving him anonymous signals to the reader that his identity does not matter; any Israelite—regardless of status, tribe, or family prominence—who defiantly breaks the Sabbath faces the same consequence.  
  
Naming his tribe or family would shift the reader's focus to tribal politics, hereditary guilt, or familial shame, distracting from the core theological message of community holiness.  
  
The biblical narrative explicitly frames the relationship between God and Israel as a contract based on voluntary, informed consent. Rather than forcing a sudden dictatorship, the text depicts a multi-stage process where the laws were fully explained, debated by action, and formally ratified by the people multiple times.   
  
1\. The Pre-Consent Briefing (Exodus 19)  
Before a single specific law or commandment is spoken from Mount Sinai, God explicitly asks for the people's permission to rule over them.  
  
The Proposal: In Exodus 19:3–6  
God tells Moses to pitch the covenant terms to the people: "If you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.  
  
The First Vote:  
Moses presents this to the elders. Exodus 19:8 notes the democratic response: "The people all responded together, 'We will do everything the Lord has said.'"  
  
2\. The Detailed Reading and Ratification (Exodus 24)  
After God delivers the Ten Commandments and the foundational civil laws (the Book of the Covenant), Moses holds a formal ratification ceremony. This ensures the consent is informed by the actual fine print of the law.  
  
The Explanation: Moses recites all the words and laws to the people (Exodus 24:3).  
  
The Written Document: Moses writes everything down, builds an altar, and reads the "Book of the Covenant" aloud to the entire assembly so there is no misunderstanding (Exodus 24:4–7).  
  
The Final Agreement: The people respond a second time: "We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey" (Exodus 24:7). Only after this second informed consent is the covenant sealed with sacrificial blood.   
  
 3. The Renewal for the New Generation (Deuteronomy 29-30)  
Forty years later, the original generation has died in the wilderness. Because consent cannot simply be inherited, Moses forces the new generation to choose for themselves before entering the Promised Land.  
  
The Ultimatum: Moses lays out the exact consequences of obedience (blessings) and disobedience (curses) in Deuteronomy 27–28.  
  
The Power of Choice: In Deuteronomy 30:19, Moses uses explicit language of free will: "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life..." This framework assumes the people have the agency to say no.  
  
 4. Joshua’s Final Ultimatum (Joshua 24)  
Once the conquest of Canaan is underway, Joshua brings all the tribes to Shechem for a massive national referendum. He explicitly offers them alternative options if they do not want God's covenant.  
  
The Alternative Options: Joshua tells them they can choose to worship the ancient Mesopotamian gods of their ancestors, or the local gods of the Amorites (Joshua 24:14-15).  
  
The Famous Line: He declares, "But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).  
  
The Warning Against Quick Agreement: When the people quickly shout that they will serve God, Joshua pushes back to ensure they are serious: "You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God..." (Joshua 24:19). He forces them to confirm their informed consent three distinct times during this meeting before writing it into the Book of the Law.  
  
Summary of the Process  
Preamble: This is what God did for you (e.g., "I brought you out of Egypt").  
Terms: These are the rules you must follow.  
Consequences: This is what happens if you succeed or fail.  
Public Acceptance: The community must verbally and publicly accept the terms.  
  
  
Considering everything that comes before the wood-gatherer incident — the immediate context about defiant sin, the fact he was brought before Moses, Aaron, and the whole assembly, and that God Himself was asked to rule on the punishment — your reading makes no sense.  
  
You’re ignoring the entire covenant process, the repeated public consent given by the people, and the clear pattern in how God dealt with Israel… just so you can claim the Israelites randomly grabbed some outsider to judge him under a legal process he never consented to. That’s not a logical or textually honest reading. It’s simply pursuing your own predetermined conclusion.

23 bumps

saarnok · 6/14/2026, 5:26:40 PM · permalink

You're mixing together an awful lot of extraneous facts and suppositions to support your position, and it's not making you look good.  
  
So, right before this "example" of the stick picker upper is the bit about "high handed sin"?   
  
Really?  
  
Let's explore this just a bit.  
  
I would suppose if I thought you were being honest that the preceding verses are intended in your mind to inform the verses which follow.  
  
Verse 18: "When you arrive in the land where I am taking you..."  
  
Huh. Looks like what follows is pertinent to the time AFTER they're wandering in the wilderness. Not that you care.  
  
Then verses 19-30, including your abjectly falsely portrayed injunction against "high handed sin" are explained as what is to happen AFTER entering the promised land.  
  
Here's the crazy part. That would actually explain why they didn't know what to do with the guy, literally just some random guy they discovered "violating the sabbath" by being so sinful as to pick up sticks.  
  
Do you get it? This is before the time specified as to when the "law" would take effect. That actually gives you an "out" of a sort.  
  
The reason they didn't know what to do with some random guy that they just happened to run across who obviously wasn't one of them, not affiliated with any tribe, let alone household, the reason that not only the most simple minded idiot, but even the most connected elite of them didn't have a clue, is because it was never addressed.  
  
Unlike you, I'll admit that for all my studying I'd never even considered this. But, it doesn't do the slightest damage to my thesis.  
  
And it's worth restating exactly what that thesis is: You can have governance based on "The Big Boss" or you can have governance based on consent. Using the Bible as a foundation is conducive only to "The Big Boss" version of governance.  
  
And, it's also worth noting that this exact example is instructive in demonstrating precisely what that means.  
  
  
"The People" had no idea what to make of this. They passed the buck up the line. And Moses told them, that he'd talked to God and God said to kill him. According to Moses.  
  
No one witnesses Moses talking to God. No one witnesses God responding.  
  
It's not even really a case of "God says so", it's actually a case of "Moses claims God says so".  
  
This whiplash back and forth of Moses made sure they understood, but they really didn't understand is abjectly absurd.  
  
No. According to the text, Moses himself didn't understand. He wasn't qualified to measure the understanding of something he didn't himself understand.  
  
You're simultaneously trying to shoehorn this example into something everyone understood while also presenting it as something that no one understood.  
  
And, I get the impulse to do so. I really do. I was there once upon a time. I too used to believe without being able to articulate what I believed, that the Bible needed to be a burden I was tasked with carrying and explaining.  
  
And it wasn't until I realized that believing the Bible was actually the opposite of believing in God that I began to see the light.  
  
My God shines through in every plant, every animal, every sunset, every everything. The bible is just words on papers.  
  
That doesn't invalidate the claim of a war on Christians. It's absolutely real. And it's evil.  
  
I'm going to tell you again:  
  
I can break you. I know precisely how to do it. And I'm choosing not to.  
  
And I get also that seems to be simple braggadocios blather.  
  
But I've broken people, entire families. I not only can do it, I could list names you could look up.  
  
I've done it before and despite how this must surely come off, I'm not proud of it.  
  
Oh, sure, it felt awesome at first. But I didn't supply the alternative. The result wasn't anything anyone should be proud of.

12 bumps

sonatime · 6/15/2026, 9:30:50 AM · permalink

Our differences in understanding of Biblical text are at impasse on these topics. Want to continue with other Biblical contentions or your general take on the bible?  
  
I will address all the points that I see in your response.  
*"When you arrive in the land"*  
  
The Sabbath law was not introduced in Numbers 15. It was explicitly commanded at Mount Sinai in Exodus 20:8-11 and reinforced in Exodus 31:14-15, which explicitly stated that anyone profiling or working on the Sabbath "must be put to death."  
The Sabbath law was fully active during the wilderness wandering. The preamble in Numbers 15:18 specifically applies to the sacrificial offerings tied to agricultural life in Canaan, not to the foundational Commandments given a year prior.  
  
*"While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day"*  
  
In Hebrew law, specific terms are used for foreign travelers or resident aliens (like ger or nokri). No such term is used here. He is treated as part of the community under their legal jurisdiction.  
  
*The law "was never addressed" and didn't take effect yet*  
  
The penalty (death) was already known from Exodus 31. Numbers 15:34 states they guarded him "because it had not been made clear what should be done to him." They knew the verdict was death, but they did not know the method of execution or the immediate judicial protocol for this specific action. God's response was not to issue a brand new law, but to clarify the method: stoning outside the camp.  
  
 *"high-handed sin"*  
  
In biblical narrative, laws and stories are frequently paired to illustrate a point. Numbers 15:22-29 details sacrifices for unintentional sins. Numbers 15:30-31 details the lack of sacrifice for defiant/high-handed sins (sins done "with a high hand" in Hebrew, meaning deliberately rebelling against God). The Case Study: The story of the stick-gatherer immediately follows. It serves as a narrative case study of a high-handed sin. The man was not accidentally picking up sticks; he was openly flouting a known, foundational covenant law.  
  
 *"governance by consent"*  
   
The Israelite system was entirely built on a social contract. In Exodus 24:7, Moses read the covenant laws to the entire population. The people didn't have a king forced upon them; instead, the text states that all the people responded with one voice: "We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey." This is, by definition, governance by consent.  
   
*"Passed the Buck"*  
  
The community didn't take the law into their own hands because they respected due process. Instead of becoming a vigilante mob and lynching the man, they placed him in custody and sought a formal judicial ruling.  
   
*"My God shines through in every plant, every animal, every sunset, every everything. The bible is just words on papers"*   
Romans 1:18-20 (NIV):  
   
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

10 bumps

saarnok · 6/15/2026, 2:45:27 PM · permalink

8 bumps

sonatime · 6/15/2026, 11:46:37 PM · permalink

*"You are prevaricating because you have no choice."*  
  
I don't prevaricate, I repeat the contextual and logical reasoning ad nauseam. My worldview doesn't depend on ignoring context, language comprehension, or translation to advance an idea that doesn't make sense. Forcing a bizarre interpretation just to hook a grand argument about "the consent of the governed" speaks more to your personal needs than to the text itself.  
  
Within mainstream, established theological commentary, virtually no serious scholar or theologian argues that the stick-gatherer was an outside stranger, or that the Sabbath law only started after entering the land. You are fighting for an interpretation that doesn't exist.  
  
The Sabbath was already active. It was instituted in the wilderness in Exodus 16 (with the manna) and legally codified in Exodus 20. The event in Numbers 15 happens well after those events.  
  
Look at the transition in Numbers 15. While verses 1–21 look ahead to future agricultural offerings ("When you come into the land..."), verse 22 deliberately shifts the timeframe back to the present wilderness context: "But if you unintentionally fail to observe all these commandments that the Lord has spoken to Moses..." The Sabbath was indisputably part of "these" already-spoken commandments.  
   
*"You don't get to have these people aware of the law and yet find that one of them breaking it is a complete mystery."*  
  
It was never a mystery, it was a matter of due process.  
  
I have answered this more than once. The overarching law that Sabbath-breaking carried a death penalty was already well established \[Exodus 31:14-15\]. The community held the man in custody because they lacked two specific pieces of legal clarity \[Numbers 15:34\]:  
  
The Intent (Due Process): They needed to determine if this was a "high-handed," defiant sin or an accidental lapse in cognition, as the law treats these completely differently \[Numbers 15:27-30\].  
  
The Method: The text explicitly states "it had not been explained what should be done to him." God had not yet revealed the specific method of execution.  
  
The Israelites referred the case to Moses and Aaron because they respected the due process. Moses sought a direct ruling from God, who then adjudicated the intent and decreed the specific type of capital punishment (stoning). Following a legal procedure is not a narrative contradiction, it is how a society under the rule of law should operate.

7 bumps

saarnok · 6/17/2026, 4:16:02 AM · permalink

You're simply being dishonest. Prevaricating to support an idea which is not in the text, but which you wish was there.  
  
And, you're in good company. Christians have been prevaricating about this for quite some time, needing to interpret the Old Testament in light of the prevailing interpretation of the New Testament, or before that existed, making justifications for then current theology that could be strangled from the extant text or something similar enough that it passed muster.  
  
It's curious you'd make the argument that the context changed when it quite simply did not. The entire text of Numbers: 15 reads as a list of instructions, down to the last sentence, with this story jammed into the text out of context. If it were missing entirely there would be nothing strange about it. The continuity would flow from beginning to end. The only place in the chapter which isn't instructive, in any fashion, is this insertion.  
  
And that's not hyperbolic in the slightest. It simply does not belong there. It was clearly added in after the fact.  
  
And the entire nature of the story is one of ignorance, clearly. Unarguably. None of that instruction throughout Numbers 15 tells them they are to bring possible law breakers to face the judgement of God himself. Not any of it.  
  
And it is ALL quite clearly to do with the way things should be done AFTER they entered the promised land. With the exception of the random strange man that they simply FOUND gathering sticks in the wilderness, according to the text and which according to the text, they had no idea what to do with, and so they brought him to the elders and Moses and Aaron, who had no idea what to do.  
  
And, while the idea that they brought him to the elders and Moses and Aaron is consistent with your abjectly absurd claim, the fact that his fate couldn't have been adjudicated at that level makes an absolute mockery of the idea that it was just "due process".  
  
And, that when God himself supposedly tells Moses the fate of the man it is not delivered as a judgement. There is no claim that he's subject to the law, that he violated it, no consideration whatsoever that he did anything wrong. Moses doesn't even ask God anything. Not according to the text. And God never claims he did anything wrong either: "Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must be put to death! The whole community must stone him outside the camp.”"  
  
That's it. That's the totality of "law". Nothing. Not any single thing other than: Big Guy Says So. That's it. Nothing else.  
  
And, it's absolutely explicit. There is no "due process". God says stone him. That's it. That's the whole thing. According to Moses. Supposedly.  
  
Contrast that with the punishment of the blasphemer in Leviticus 24. God also declares a verdict, which again, would be completely unnecessary for a people who'd been instructed in the law and it's application. But, God says, according to Moses, supposedly exactly why the blasphemer must be put to death with special instruction to everyone who personally witnessed his blasphemy.  
  
In the case of the oddball they chanced upon gathering sticks, there's nothing. Just, "Go kill him." . Also, in this case, which is likewise simply crammed into the otherwise instructive chapter it's made plain how he falls under their jurisdiction, and also demonstrates the generic contempt they had for anyone not of their particular heritage.  
  
This generic contempt is reflected in Israeli writing to this very day and exemplified by Moses Maimonides declaration that it is unlawful to save the life of a gentile. Every vague injunction against treating others the same as themselves is revealed to be an abject lie by the examples they provide, obviously jammed in however hamfisted they could manage to display that everyone else was lesser than and condemned by God himself.  
  
And, again, as is blatantly obvious, you can't have consent to whatever the hell is made up after "consent" is given.  
  
And, let's just examine what they "consented" to in that abjectly stupid lie you made about them agreeing to the law. Again. not the fantasy you present, but the actual text you prevaricate about because... well, because you just can't believe your sensibilities are different than theirs:  
  
"“Give these instructions to the family of Jacob; announce it to the descendants of Israel: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians. You know how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the peoples on earth; for all the earth belongs to me. And you will be my kingdom of priests, my holy nation.’ This is the message you must give to the people of Israel.”  
  
That's what they supposedly agreed to. Not "the law" as you so deceptively presented. First the obvious threat. "You see what I did to the Egyptians." Could happen to you. Then the soft-soap: "I delivered you". Now you be my cult.  
  
And that is precisely what they agreed to. According to the text. Which you want to turn into unicorns and rainbows.  
  
This isn't exactly complex stuff. You just need to read the text instead of constantly inserting your modern sensibilities into it.  
  
At every turn you've prevaricated. Not just now and then.  
  
You've accused me of a "narrow reading" with no justification for that claim or why it should be disqualifying. You want context, but context is always worse for you.  
  
In Malachi it specifies that Jacob was loved and Esaus despised. Much, much later, someone writing as Paul adds to your problem with more context in Romans chapter 9 when he makes it plain that God just does what God does. and to hell with your consent or individuation.  
  
Context is never your friend. It's mine.

5 bumps

sonatime · 6/19/2026, 9:06:01 AM · permalink

*"You're simply being dishonest. Prevaricating to support an idea which is not in the text, but which you wish was there"*  
  
I’m not being dishonest. My biblical worldview doesn’t fall apart when I read these verses or the entire Old Testament in context.  
  
Your view, on the other hand, depends on ripping one verse out of context and forcing it to undermine human consent and due process. It looks like you’ve built (or were sold) a very fragile foundation.  
  
Again, see Numbers 15.  
  
Verses 1–21: These are new supplementary instructions about offerings that the Israelites are to observe once they enter the Promised Land.   
It covers grain/drink offerings that accompany animal sacrifices.  
Then the “firstfruits” offering from the dough/bread of the land.  
These are forward-looking laws tied to settled agricultural life in Canaan.  
  
Verses 22 onward: The chapter shifts to the topic of sin offerings - specifically unintentional sins (sins of ignorance or omission).  
Verse 22 says:  **“If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the LORD has spoken to Moses…”**  
This refers back to the commandments already given through Moses (primarily from Exodus, Leviticus, and earlier parts of Numbers). It’s not introducing brand-new moral laws here, but providing the procedure for atonement when the people (either the whole congregation or an individual) unintentionally fail to keep the existing ones.  
  
Verses 22–29 explicitly lay out the law for unintentional sins and how they can be atoned for. Verses 30–31 immediately shift to define a defiant sin—someone who sins "with a high hand" and "despises the word of the Lord." The text states this person must be cut off.   
  
Verses 32–36 (the stick-gatherer) follow immediately after. This is not a coincidence or a mistake. The narrative is a demonstration of what a "high-handed," defiant violation of an established law looks like. It serves as the legal precedent for the abstract law just given.   
  
Your claim that the laws didn't apply in the wilderness is textually impossible. While verses 1–21 look forward to future agricultural offerings in the land (since you cannot harvest grain in a desert), verse 22 explicitly shifts back to the present, covering "all these commandments which the Lord has spoken." The Sabbath was already active and binding \[Exodus 16, Exodus 20\]. Claiming they didn't have to keep the Sabbath in the desert completely contradicts the entire narrative.  
  
Holding a suspect in custody because the explicit execution method or exact categorization is unclear, and then seeking a formal ruling is the literal definition of due process. It is the exact same judicial procedure found in Leviticus 24 and Numbers 27. It is a structured legal inquiry, not an arbitrary whim. When God renders judgment, it is clear the stick-gatherer committed a defiant act, and the specific type of execution is clarified. That is all God needed to communicate to be understood.   
  
*"And the entire nature of the story is one of ignorance, clearly. Unarguably. None of that instruction throughout Numbers 15 tells them they are to bring possible law breakers to face the judgement of God himself. Not any of it"*  
  
Claiming that appealing to God shows "ignorance" because Numbers 15 didn't explicitly tell them to do so. This completely misses how the biblical legal system was instructed to operate.  
  
The framework for this exact situation was already established in Exodus 18:22, which legally organized the courts: "And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves.  
"When Moses acting as the supreme human judge hit a procedural gap in a "great matter," he took it to the ultimate legal authority.  
  
Far from "ignorance," holding the suspect in custody and appealing to God because they had the unique ability to do so sets a perfect example of due process. It proves they refused to act as a lynch mob. They waited for an official, binding ruling from the highest authority to ensure the law was executed exactly as intended.  
  
*"And, again, as is blatantly obvious, you can't have consent to whatever the hell is made up after "consent" is given."*
  
Your argument about "consent to whatever is made up after" fails textually. The wilderness generation ratified the specific laws in Exodus 24:3–7 ("All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do"), the agricultural laws were simply paused until they had the physical means to fulfill them, and the next generation actively renewed their own consent in Deuteronomy 29–30 before entering the land.  
  
You are forced to claim the text is "jammed in" because the actual, unified structure of the chapter completely contradicts your argument. Your argument doesn't rely on the text; it relies on slicing it into pieces to fit a preconceived narrative of raw tyranny.  
  
*"And, let's just examine what they "consented" to in that abjectly stupid lie you made about them agreeing to the law. Again. not the fantasy you present, but the actual text you prevaricate about because... well, because you just can't believe your sensibilities are different than theirs"*  
  
 I have covered this already earlier. Your take relies on cutting the story off early. In Exodus 24:3–7, Moses writes down all the actual laws, reads them aloud to the entire population, and the people explicitly consent a second time, saying, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do." You are ignoring the actual contract signing.  
  
*"That's what they supposedly agreed to. Not "the law" as you so deceptively presented. First the obvious threat. "You see what I did to the Egyptians." Could happen to you. Then the soft-soap: "I delivered you". Now you be my cult."*
  
You are forcing modern biases onto an ancient text; these are not psychological manipulation tactics. Reminding them of Egypt is not a threat. It is God inspiring confidence in the Israelites by highlighting their liberation and guaranteeing their future protection. You are projecting your own biases onto the text simply to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.  
  
*"In Malachi it specifies that Jacob was loved and Esaus despised. Much, much later, someone writing as Paul adds to your problem with more context in Romans chapter 9 when he makes it plain that God just does what God does. and to hell with your consent or individuation"*

Malachi 1:2-3 (“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”) is not about God arbitrarily loving one individual and damning the other. It’s about two nations centuries later: Israel (descendants of Jacob) and Edom (descendants of Esau). God is saying He chose Jacob’s line for His covenant purposes and brought judgment on Edom for their hostility toward Israel. “Love/hate” here is covenant language meaning “chosen vs. not chosen for this role”, not personal eternal hatred.  
  
Paul in Romans 9 quotes Malachi for the same reason: to show God’s sovereign right to choose the line of promise (through Isaac → Jacob → Israel → Messiah) according to His purpose, not based on human merit. The chapter is about God’s plan for redemptive history and the inclusion of Gentiles, not a declaration that God randomly sends people to hell without regard for their response.  
  
Nowhere does Paul say “to hell with your consent or individuation.” He repeatedly affirms human responsibility, calls people to repent and believe, and says God desires all to be saved (Romans 2, 10, 1 Timothy 2:4).  
   
You are heavily invested in a position that the text simply does not support. Many people here rely on "gotcha" biblical takes and repeat them ignorantly without interest, while many Christians view scripture through a narrow denominational lens. I have no personal motive here other than looking at the text honestly. The message of the Bible is uplifting, but it is also grounded in worldly reality and consequences. It presents a God of justice, but ultimately a God "who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

3 bumps

saarnok · 6/6/2026, 2:21:04 AM · permalink

8 bumps

sonatime · 6/6/2026, 3:24:52 AM · permalink

5 bumps

Signature