soj.ooO
BETA
The social discussion platform
Home
Pochas
Channels
Videos
Log in
Sign up
Sign up
Home
Pochas
Channels
Videos
Log in
Sign up
Parent Post: Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my!
·
In Reply To
S
saarnok
·
6/3/2026, 12:52:13 AM
·
permalink
Let's take the example of the blasphemer in Leviticus 24. As you are well aware the text identifies the offender exactly as I said should be expected, son of an Israelite and an Egyptian, his mother is Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, tribe of Dan. So, why are you using this example? It demonstrates that when an offender is of Israel they are identified according to household and tribe. Also note, because the father is not of Israel the only note made is that he's Egyptian. He doesn't qualify as a relevant legal entity in the records of Israel, which is precisely the situation of the random guy they found in the wilderness. He not only is not of Jewish parentage, he's not associated with any tribe. The abject absurdity that the Jews were too stupid to grok the explicit law they'd been given for upwards of two years again speaks to your lack of regard for the people of the time and explains why you don't need to see any soul searching from exactly the people who were entrusted with knowing what to do. Oh sure, perhaps some random sheep herder isn't clear about the law, but not only does the council of elders have no idea, Moses himself has no idea. This sleazy underhanded tactic of assigning the lowest common denominator understanding to the very pinnacle of Jewish jurisprudence is just disingenuous and dishonest, and frankly of no actual value beyond exposing yourself as someone who's never honest thought about the issue and is relying on dishonest apologetic arguments that even an AI assistant can't improve on or defend.
Save
Cancel
5
bumps
Share
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.
Save
Cancel
2
bumps
Share
Signature
Loading…
Verify locally
Close
