Monday, September 1, 2008

Idolatry and State-Sanctioned Murder (Updated, 9/2)

(For reasons that should become obvious, the essay that follows is not intended to express the smallest particle of disrespect for the two people who figure most prominently therein.)


"While it's true that God commands us `Thou shalt not kill,'" explained the grandmother in a gentle, solicitous tone, "you are permitted to kill in order to protect your family. Or if you're made a soldier, and you're ordered to kill, then you're allowed to kill on behalf of your country."


If you're 'made' a soldier? I mused to myself. That's an interesting choice of verb.


The evening had been an unalloyed pleasure up until this point. We had been invited to spend some time with my parents, who own a small farm in eastern Oregon.

After a typically wonderful dinner of stir-fried vegetables taken just hours earlier from their garden, followed by deep-dish apple pie, Mom and Dad invited us to raid their strawberry and raspberry patches and keep the fruit we plundered for our own use.


Following an hour or so spent gathering berries under a still-potent early evening Sun, we returned to the house and gathered in the living room to listen to my father expound the Ten Commandments. The discussion went well until we broached the subject of the troublesome Sixth Commandment.


My mother and father are the most honorable people I'll ever meet, and are astonishingly unselfish. Being without guile, they are also entirely transparent when trying to make a point through means they consider subtle.


They are quite aware of the fact that Korrin and I are unalterably opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospective war with Iran, and a return to conscription. And they are just as determined to exploit -- or create -- opportunities to counteract our efforts to raise children who properly revile the criminal organism called the State.


I am quite confident that the political fault-line separating Korrin and myself from our parents runs through countless other American families as well.

Real money, real law: The Sixth Commandment of God's law, inscribed on a silver ingot; the State's ethical view is illustrated on the reverse by a depiction of Cain murdering his innocent brother, Abel.


After mother had insisted that there is a secret "you may kill for your government" codicil to the Sixth Commandment, I inserted myself into the conversation as gently as I could.


"What I've taught the kids," I said in a conversational tone, "is that the only time God permits us to kill would be a circumstance in which refusing to kill might result in the death of an innocent person for whom we have legitimate responsibility. In a case of that kind, I'm actually required to kill. For instance, if someone directly threatened my family, I would not only be allowed to kill the assailant, but actually would bear the bloodguilt of my family if I didn't use lethal force to defend them."


Mom and Dad nodded distractedly, but it was obvious that my clarification didn't sit well with them. After all, the principle I adumbrated would mean that Iraqis are morally entitled to kill American soldiers who break into their homes and threaten their families.


We discussed the Decalogue for a few more minutes, and then the younger children peeled off in pursuit of other distractions. Only ten-year-old William and nine-year-old Isaiah were left in the room when I posed the following question: "To whom do the Ten Commandments apply?"


"They apply to everyone," William happily replied, as my Dad nodded in guarded approval, sensing that the lesson was moving in a direction he didn't entirely like. His unease was not relieved by my next question: "Do they apply to the government?"


A puzzled silence thrust itself on the room, occupying it for a moment or two until William and Isaiah both chimed in.


"Yes, but the government doesn't obey them," William said, as Isaiah eagerly over-talked his brother with essentially the same answer. By this time, my father's frown was nearly audible.


"So -- if government orders you to disobey any of the Ten Commandments, do you obey the government?" I continued.


"Yes," Dad quickly interjected, his face radiating weary disapproval.


"No, we don't," replied William and Isaiah, in unison.


"If the government orders you to disobey God's law, do you obey God or the government?" I persisted.


"You obey God," my children answered.


"You obey your government," Dad quietly insisted, out of duty rather than conviction. The conversation then uncomfortably trickled away, replaced by a polite silence that was drawn taut by the effort to avoid an overt argument.


It wasn't my intention to act like a prosecutor or a garden-variety smart-ass. But my father -- the greatest and most decent man I will ever know -- had put me in an untenable position: I could either politely defer to my father as he offered instruction in unalloyed idolatry, or offend my parents by quietly contradicting the obvious point of the exercise -- namely, that in a conflict between God's law and the State's commandments, we're to obey the latter.


The point of a conversation is often the issue that thrusts itself out in sharp relief from the rest of the dialogue.


In reviewing the Ten Commandments, my Mom and Dad -- who are, I hasten to observe, just like countless other decent people in this respect -- saw fit to qualify only one of them, the commandment against murder.


They didn't specifically tell my children that it is acceptable to lie, steal, covet, dishonor one's parents, or commit adultery if the government requires such conduct of them. They did, however, take special care to emphasize that the government can order them to kill other human beings who have done them no harm, in direct contradiction of God's unqualified commandment not to murder. Of course, if government can make a nullity of that commandment, it can revise the others to suit its purposes as well.


Indeed, government -- particularly the despicable state that rules us -- is little more than a perpetual organized assault on the Ten Commandments. The defining act of a government is extracting wealth from people through the threat of lethal violence, and swaddling such acts in invidious rhetoric about "social justice." Thus at its very foundation, the State institutionalizes violations of the commandments against theft, murder, and covetousness.


The State's fundamental function -- killing, or the threat to do so -- is intimately connected to a claim of ownership over its subjects. This is revealed in ways both vulgar and oblique. The best example of the former is the practice of conscription. Any government that can "make" an individual a soldier against his will is one richly deserving to be overthrown. A milder version of the same presumption can be seen every time a politician in a storm-threatened community issues a "mandatory evacuation" order to its residents, as if their lives were his, rather than theirs.


Government deprived of its power of discretionary violence, it is often said, wouldn't be much of a government at all. This, we are told by puzzled and outraged people, would be a problem of some sort. While governments run by hypocritical people who invoke God's law have done a great deal of harm, it wasn't until Machiavelli and others of like mind elevated the State above that law -- beginning with the commandment against murder -- that it became the engine of murder and misery with which we're so familiar.


Of course, owing to human nature we're stuck with government of some variety, even though there's ample reason to believe that our existing regime is quickly headed for abject bankruptcy and a Soviet-style collapse. But that doesn't mean we are required to venerate or even respect the people who operate the organs of official extortion.


Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Regime, Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered this admonition to those who wanted to bring about the end of that totalitarian state, with respect to the proper treatment to be given to agents of that state: "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them."


In other words, treat them with politeness and respect, and ignore entirely the conceit that they are clothed in some peculiar sanctity that permits them to use or require the use of lethal violence to compel submission to their will. To behave otherwise is to act on premises that are essentially idolatrous.


Update: The Universal Soldier

Aimee Allen sang the song “(The )Universal Soldier” for me because I asked her to do that. It talks really about the essence of decision-making. It talks about should you strike and not participate any longer.

It’s the universal soldier that allows the power-mongers around Washington to exist. It’s always done by getting the young people and making them feel that,if they don’t participate, they’re unpatriotic. I think of the story of the early days of WWI, on Christmas Eve, when the Germans and the British took a break and began singing Christmas Carols. And then, on the morrow, the leaders came back and said, “You will go back to killing one another.”

As a young man, as a doctor, I was drafted. There were times that people were starting to resist, but I marched off and I was the Universal soldier. What we need today is the Universal Champion of Liberty.

The irreplaceable Ron Paul, from his speech at the Rally for the Republic.





A reminder --

All this week I'm filling in for Alan Stang on his Republic Broadcasting Network program "The Sting of Stang." It's on from 8:00-9:00 a.m. Eastern Time, and can be heard on-line in real time or via the program archives. If you have a chance, please call in at 1-800-313-9443.



On sale now!











Dum spiro, pugno!

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

will,

your kids rock! you got an NSN so i can get some just like them?

rick

Anonymous said...

I recently had a brief opportunity to engage a bureaucratic tax trough parasite on my doorstep. The man was campaigning in my neighborhood in a small SW Idaho community not far from Will's. The first question they posed pretty much sealed there fate: "Do you identify more as a democrat or a republican?" I was asked. I have never seen more dumbfounded looks on two people's faces as those two when I explained that I consider myself a libertarian-anarchist. They made a few feeble attempts to expound on the virtues of government and had their positions demolished rather quickly only to resort to "Well, that's the system we have".

It would be amusing if the result wasn't so disastrous that these people, in fact the majority, don't see the evil that is gov't.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Unknown said...

Will,

I haven't any children of my own, but as one who hopes someday to raise sons to be better men than I, and daughters to walk beside them, I cannot imagine what a joy your children must be for you, or how proud of them you must be.

I hope that if God does someday give me a wife to help me in this :), that we will be able to raise our children well, in truth and in love.

-dauvit balfour

Anonymous said...

I would like to hear your father's arguments for the existence of those exceptions. Would it be some intense but inexplicable belief that the state has special wisdom and knowledge because its directors have gone through the mystical election ceremony? Or does he have a sound foundation under his position? Only by examining and smashing each of his logical priors, one by one and in turn, and definitely over a long amount of time, could you even begin to get him to see your side.

Anonymous said...

@james redford

"human-sacrifice rituals can actually be found in the Torah and early Nevi'im books, supposedly sanctified by God"

Mr.Redford,
Please supply an example of said
ritual from the Torah.

Anonymous said...

james redford
cuts and pastes
james redford
time he wastes
james redford
i'll cut him some slack
but for the love of God james redford...
what the H_ll was that?

rick

p.s. please be coherent. what was your point? and for crying out loud, stop quoting yourself!!

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Cool post. I have no doubt that your parents mean the best for your children. I have no doubt that your parents will, if they think they can get away with it, try behind your back to undermine your efforts to raise your children to revile the State. Maybe you will not have to chose between protecting your children and allowing them to be with your parents in your absence.

Wow. You have it tough, dude.

troll Doc Ellis 124

Anonymous said...

will blaloc,

i think he's talking about the child sacrifices made to molech. you know, setting your newborn in the fiery hot (heated to a glowing hot) hands of molech. will wrote about it once.

still. that post was out there.

rick

James Redford said...

Will Blalock, I already provided you with the details regarding the human-sacrifice rituals that are found in the Torah and early Nevi'im books, and which are supposedly sanctified by God vis-à-vis the early-Tanakh perspective, but apparently you didn't follow up on my cited writings providing the details on the matter.

The reason I know these things about the Old Testament is because I have two eyeballs and I use them for reading. You should join me on the reading rainbow, as reading is fundamental.

Of course, it also greatly helps that I have a good memory and intelligence, took copious notes while reading the Bible from front to back (and more besides), and that I have a mind which above all else seeks the truth and is unafraid of accepting whatever the truth is found to be (since it is only the truth which can save us, as Jesus Christ taught).

In addition to the Torah animal sacrifices which are a holdover from earlier paganism--of which sacrifices God made clear to the prophets that He at no time called for or wanted (Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21,22; 8:8; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21,22; Hebrews 10:4-7)--and circumcision which was instituted (as the Torah itself makes clear, viz. Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30) as a substitute (as applies to human males) for sacrificing the lives of all firstborn males to God, i.e., of livestock and children (again, another holdover from earlier paganism, yet in the case of human males, a modified, partial advancement), it's clear that humans were at times sacrificed according to the "Law of Moses," as consider the following passage from Leviticus 27:28,29, supposedly spoken by God:

""
"But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." [NIV.]
""

It cannot be claimed that the above passage is talking about the death penalty for criminals, as it already stated that "everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD." Thus it is clear that it is talking about sacrifice offerings to please "God" (though that god is obviously Satan or one of his underling demon-gods).

But moreover, the following Bible story from Judges 11:29-40 of Jephthah's Daughter demonstrate unmistakably that human sacrifice, supposedly sanctified by God, was a practice of the early Israelites:

""
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering." So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith--twenty cities--and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it." So she said to him, "My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon." Then she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I." So he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. [NKJV.]
""

Again, it's not called the New Testament for nothing.

For much, much more on the above matters, see my below post:

"Existential Truth," TetrahedronOmega, March 14, 2007 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&mforum=libertyandtruth

Anonymous at 12:33 PM, i.e., Rick, I am always coherent when writing and I made my point quite clear. And Anonymous at 3:14 PM, i.e, Rick, I was not referring to the fires of Molech, of which are not sanctified from a Tanakh perspective. Please see above.

Anonymous said...

The Tn Commandments don't seem to permit killing to preserve freedom of speech or religion, either. Sooooo...what do we do if a totalitarian gov't (foreign or domestic) tries to take that away? The early colonists demanded the 2nd Amendment in order to deal with tyrants, but apparently the really religious types will just sit back and let their less holy countrymen do their dirty work for them.

And they'll just accept the whims of the tyrant should those efforts not be successful?

Anonymous said...

Great quote by Solehenitzyn. It will be posted above my desk - shortly.

William N. Grigg said...

Pete --

The non-aggression principle is entirely compatible with the Ten Commandments.

We may not initiate violence, or threaten violence, against others in order to transgress against their rights. Nor does any government enjoy that privilege.

When a government threatens or employs illicit lethal force against those who exercise their innate rights, it is entirely proper to use lethal force to repel that aggression, or to overthrow that government. (I made both of those points pretty clearly in my essay.)

A practical application of this principle was offered by those who mustered on April 19, 1775 to prevent the forcible disarmament of the colonial patriots by British occupation troops. The militiamen interposed themselves against British aggression, and thus had an unqualified moral right to kill the British troops who attacked them.

Anonymous said...

Excellent piece, Mr. Grigg.

James Redford,

"The Pentateuch itself is quite evil in many places?" Precisely what do you mean? That the five scrolls were written on evil parchment, or that they were written with evil ink, or that upon them was recorded that some evil men did some evil things, NONE of which God commanded or condoned?

First, God uses the existing culture (which is based on truths as understood by a people) to bring about his will. As you have duly noticed, there was quite a bit of darkness and evil before Christ came into the world. But that does not mean that everything that was pagan was wholly contrary to God. Every culture possesses some aspect of truth about God. Some cultures have more than others. God chose a people, Israel, to be the vessel to ultimately help build and carry his message of love into the world. Did they screw up? Oh, yes. Scripture is full of God excoriating his people. But even the Passover (which Christ celebrated) was originally a pagan ritual. The Passover lamb was originally sacrificed to guarantee safe passage as the shepherds moved their flocks to better pastures, as you likely know, because you sound like you've read much and are very knowledgeable.

I, too, am somewhat familiar with the Old Testament. One thing that is important to remember: if a person's action is recorded in the Bible, it doesn't mean the action was necessarily morally good! The oath Jephthah took was horribly egregious, and certainly not morally binding. Furthermore, his daughter was absolutely misguided and wrong in telling him to adhere to it! Nowhere does God approve of his actions.

Does anyone here believe that Balaam was intended to be some sort of a positive role model? His actions were recorded in the Bible. That does not mean his actions were virtuous.

What on earth is wrong with circumcision? A removal of unnecessary (and potentially dangerous) extra "flesh" as a sign of one's dedication to God, and a replacement for animal and human sacrifice? It has a huge spiritual parallel, which is mentioned both in the Old and the New Testament. ment: the term "uncircumcised of heart!"

God reached out to his people where they were. He forbade them to do that which was evil, and commanded them to do that which was good. There was a reason Jesus didn't suddenly come into the world 6,000 years ago. It is, in part, because he was destined to come "in the fulness of time," when everything on the stage of the world, all the cultures and all the traditions, were as ready as they were going to be for his arrival and teachings.

And that's why Jesus actually spoke to the Centurion. He didn't say, "Militaristic centurion, initiator of violence, get away from me. Stop leeching off the public by force and threat of force, which is taxation. Cease imagining that you have more authority than any other man, and cease invading and occupying other countries." No one would have accepted the truths underlying such statements at the time. Nor did he even go so far as to say, "All slaveowners must give up their slaves or justly die." Christianity likely never would have survived. But God reaches out to his people where they are, and his followers try to live and implement his teachings as much as is humanly possible and beyond.

-Sans Authoritas

Anonymous said...

A better translation of the commandment (so I've read) might be, "Thou shall not murder."

No one would call shooting an enemy invader murder -- it's obviously self-defense.

On the other hand, if you ARE the enemy invader, charging into another country which has committed no hostility against you and bombing its cities -- then that is the essence of premeditated murder. As in the USGOV/Depublicrat invasion of Iraq.

The deeply ambiguous and puzzling aspect of applying the commandment is what one can legitimately do when one's country is governed by murderers, who have expresssed the intention to keep on murdering.

iloilo jones said...

Thank you once again for clearing away the cobwebs of traditional statist thinking from the truth of life.
Blessings and much love to you and your family.
Iloilo

James Redford said...

Anonymous at 7:32 PM, i.e., Sans Authoritas, I told you exactly what I mean. This feinting of ignorance is getting tiresome, as if I am to believe that people who are capable of finding, and posting on, this blog are incapable of following the links to my writings which I specifically cited in my original post on this page for the full details on the matter I raised.

Since it is a common human failing (called the Semmelweis reflex, named after a doctor who was brutally murdered by the establishment for his life-preserving message) that when presented information which challenges the hearers' inculcation that such hearers often go out of their way to pretend to not understand what was said and to purposely misunderstand, I will here simply provide my full postings on the matter.

I here also point out that you are being dishonest in your claims regarding the story of Jephthah's Daughter. Dishonest with yourself, foremost.

As a red herring which you raised, of course there are many stories in the Bible of evil acts which the Bible presents as history and as a moral, but the Bible itself provides the context as to whether or not those acts were what a particular book in the Bible considers to be Godly. The story of Jephthah's Daughter is clearly presented as a Godly act by Jephthah as told in Judges, i.e., as an unwavering commitment by Jephthah to keep his oath to God. Although one can certainly take from it the moral that one should be careful in one's oaths to God, as one may have to end up sacrificing one's daughter to God as a burnt offering. Moreover, as it is related in the story, this sacrifice by Jephthah was clearly in conformance with the Torah practice in Israel at the time, since Jephthah did not carry out this act in secret and indeed it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah. The writer(s) of Judges clearly is not presenting this human sacrifice as being against God's will, but rather as a necessary act if Jephthah were to remain Godly by keeping his promise to God.

Futhermore, I had already demonstrated that humans were at times sacrificed according to the "Law of Moses," in conformance with Leviticus 27:28,29, supposedly spoken by God:

""
"But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." [NIV.]
""

It cannot be claimed that the above passage is talking about the death penalty for criminals, as it already stated that "everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD" (nor, in case one attempts to tergiversate their way out of the clear meaning of this passage, is love for one's enemies a concept found in the Torah--quite the contrary; we would have to wait until the coming of Jesus Christ before love for one's enemies in the here and now was clearly and vociferously expounded in the Bible). Thus it is clear that it is talking about sacrifice offerings to please "God" (though that god is obviously Satan or one of his underling demon-gods).

So indeed Jephthah was acting perfectly in accordance with the Torah.

Regarding your question as to what is wrong with circumcision, I never said that anything is wrong with circumcision. What I did was explain the Judaic origins of circumcision as told in the Torah. This is a case of you protesting too much (cf. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene II, line 240).

But now that you raise the issue, circumcision has never been a Christian practice. Until the latter half of the 19th centrury it was exceedingly rare in Christian countries. As Paul writes in Galatians 5:1-6:

""
Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. [NKJV.]
""

Indeed, the Catholic Church even prohibited circumcision. From the "Bull of Union with the Copts," Pope Eugenius IV, Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442; Norman P. Tanner, translator ( http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/ ):

""
Therefore [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
""

In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held sway, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought up in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual. Another classic example of the Semmelweis reflex.

For more on this, see the below articles:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48 http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

Circumcision was instituted within Judaism (as the Torah itself makes clear, viz. Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30) as a substitute (as applies to human males) for sacrificing the lives of all firstborn males to God, i.e., of livestock and children (again, another holdover from earlier paganism, yet in the case of human males, a modified, partial advancement).

I notice also that you continue with your red herrings by giving me a nihil ad rem lecture on Christian love with the pretense that you're rebuking some uncompassionate position I've advanced. You could have saved yourself the trouble of inventing such worrisome phantoms had you bothered to read my cited writings on these subjects and which I had already directed you to.

As promised, here below now are the full posts on the above matters which I had directed people to, but for which is apparently too difficult for some people to trouble themselves by clicking on a link.

Excerpted from "Existential Truth," TetrahedronOmega, March 14, 2007 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&mforum=libertyandtruth

##########

The below sections are taken from previous forum posts of mine, so they aren't formatted as nicely as they could be.

The first section below deals with the meaning of Jesus Christ, and what God requires of people; it also deals with Jesus Christ's relation to the Old Testament. The second section deals with the Old Testament.

####################

I've researched the Bible backwards and forwards, inside and outside. As I've explained before in previous writings of mine, I don't regard the Torah to be the uncorrupted word of God--as I previously explained, I have strong reason to believe that many parts of it were corrupted by Satan's governmental minions here on earth; and I'm forced to that conclusion based upon what the Old Testement itself has to say on this matter (if you need me to repost my reasons for coming to this conclusion I can do so). [Note: see the next section below for said post.]

I regard all of the Kosher laws, and etc., to be later inserts by Satan's governmental minions here on earth in order to distance people from true knowledge of God, as they are completely irrational and arbitrary (such as requiring any Israelite picking up twigs on a Sabbath to be stoned to death--see Numb. 15:32-36; Exo. 31:12-17; 35:1-3). Whereas the commandments of Jesus Christ are completely logical and rational: quite simply put, do on to others as you would have others do on to you, for that is the *totality* of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus never heaped so much scorn as He did upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which we have no true knowledge of as it has been corrupted). All of Jesus's rebukes of "lawyers" were rebukes upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which in Israel at the time was part of the actual positive law, in addition to the Roman law). Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, but as I've explained before, the so-called "Law of Moses" has been corrupted (based upon what the Old Testament itself has to say on this matter), and so we have no direct knowledge of what that law actually is--the only genuine knowledge that we have of that *real* Law is in what Jesus Christ had to say regarding it. And Jesus stated in no uncertain terms that what we nowadays call the Golden Rule is the fulfillment of the totality of the Law (i.e., the real Law of Moses). Jesus had nothing but scorn for those trying to enforce the so-called "Law of Moses" as it has come to be passed down to us.

But even on its own terms, all of the so-called "Law of Moses" as found in the Torah of the Old Testament explicitly and specifically *only* applies to the *Israelites* and those Gentiles living among them *in Israel*. Over and over again in the Torah the laws given out are specifically given out to *only* the Israelites and those Gentiles living among them in Israel to follow, in order to seperate and differentiate them from the Gentiles living in Gentile lands. None of these laws were given to or intended for Genitles not living in Israel to follow in the first place! For example:

Exodus 34:27,28: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Leviticus 18:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them ..."

Leviticus 20:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: 'Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel ...'"

Deuteronomy 4:1: "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. ..."

Deuteronomy 4:44,45: Now this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which Moses spoke to the children of Israel after they came out of Egypt, ...

Malachi 4:4:
"Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments. ..."

So even on its own terms, the Torah laws in the Old Testament were never intended to be applied to Gentiles living in Gentile lands!

The Torah (i.e., the first five books of the Old Testament, or the so-called "Law of Moses") as it has come to be passed down to us does require death by stoning (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13) for Israelite men laying with other men as with a woman (although not for women with other women), and calls it "an abomination"--but otherwise has nothing more to say regarding this matter. This is particulary significant, as the Torah actually has worse things to say about those who break the Kosher laws, e.g., for those eating squid, or octopus, etc. Leviticus 11:10-12 (see also Deut. 14:9) tells us that all the things is the sea without fins or scales shall be "an abomination to you." In other words, eating squid, or octopus, etc., is an abomination. But the Torah actually goes much further than what it says about male Israelite (but not female) homosexuality regarding this matter. Leviticus 20:25 says that Israelites shall not make their *souls* abominable by breaking any of the Kosher laws--which is a warning far more damning than the one on male Israelite homosexuality, since presumably making one's *soul* abominable would have reprocutions in the after-life (although the concept of an after-life is only found in subsequent Old Testament books after the Torah)--whereas one pays by a stoning death for the "sin" of Israelite male (but not female) homosexuality in the present life. The Torah also has the same thing to say about those Israelites who crossdress as it does about male homosexuality (see Deut. 22:5), although this stricture doesn't seem to call for the death penalty; but again, that brings us right back to my previous analysis of the Kosher laws.

But I wouldn't even go so far as to call these Torah stictures attempts at morality, as Exodus 22:16 tells us that an Israelite man who beds an unmarried virgin must pay the bride-price to her father. But it has absolutely nothing to say about male virgins who lose their virginity by fornication. In other words, as far as the Torah is concerned, it's alright for an unmarried male to "sleep" around, so long as he's not doing it with virgins (in which case he's required to pay the bride-price to her father). So a lot of these supposed "morality" laws actually have more to do with simple economics--since a married man wants to insure that the child that he's raising is actually his, etc.; hence the double-standard between men and women "sleeping" around--and also the reason why a male who beds a virgin in fornication must pay her father the bride-price, since a virgin daughter is worth money to her father, whereas a tramp is not (due to the reason that marrying men want to insure that the child that thay are to raise is actually their own, and not some other man's). That's not morality, that's just plain economics and self-interest. The Bible actually has a lot of good things to say about some prostitutes--see the story about Rahab the prostitute, starting at Joshua chapter 2 (see also Matt. 1:5; James 2:25; Heb. 11:31). Jesus is a decendant of Rehab the prostitute (see Matt 1:5), as is David, the second king of Israel (who Jesus is decended from).

Paul had a few apparently negative things to say about homosexuality in the New Testament. See Romans 1:26,27--but in the context that Paul is writing about it is apparent that he is talking about pagan ritualistic sex-magick (see Romans 1:18-25). Nor does he say that homosexuality in of itself is something which jeopardizes one's soul. He says that's it's "against nature" and "the natural use" and "shameful"--but he's writing this in the context of pagan ritualistic sex-magick. But if one wants to contend that he meant homosexuality in of itself, then one would also have to contend that a man having long hair, or a woman having short har, is likewise also "shameful" and against "nature" (see 1 Cor. 11:6; 11:14). Which would mean that he must consider Samson to be "shameful" and against "nature" (see Judges chapters 13-16, particularly 16:16-19; and see also Num. 6:5). But even on the issue of long hair on men and short hair on women, Paul ended the matter by saying "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God" (see 1 Cor. 11:16)--thus making it clear that Paul sometimes simply let his own personal prejudices dictate what he regarded as "shameful" in his writings. Paul had more servere things to say about *catamites* (sometimes translated as homosexuals, etc.) in 1 Corinthians 6:9, saying that they won't inherit the Kingdom of God; but a catamite is a boy kept by a pedarast--often by no choice of the boy, especially at that time--and so I hardly see how the catamite could have any choice in the matter.

But it must be remembered that Paul is merely human, and so suffered from the prejudices of his time. He was often inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he was by no means infalible like Jesus Christ. Proof that the apostles were not infalible (even after they had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit) comes from the New Testament itself. See Galatians 2:11-21, where Paul strongly rebukes Peter for Peter's error in teaching that people still had to obey the so-called "Law of Moses"--and this is after the apostles had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:1-4)! So obviously the apostles were not incapable of error, even after having been given the Holy Spirit. But Paul also said that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (see Rom. 13:8-10), and "all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' " (that "one word" being: "love")--see Galations 5:14.

Jesus Himself never had anything to say about homosexuality (or crossdressing), which I'm sure He would have if it had been at all important. Beyond this, the Bible has nothing more to say regarding the matter.

When Jesus said of Himself "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6), He was there being as literal as it is possible to be. In other words, "Jesus" is a synonym for *the Truth*--although also a real person that walked this earth. Jesus is the ultimate personification on this earth of the truth. I believe that there have existed many true Christians who haven't even heard of the name "Jesus."

What is the Way? Jesus told us what the Way is: in all things do on to others as you would have others do on to you (Matt. 5:17,18; 7:12; Luke 6:31). An equivalent formulation of this is love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus's Commandment that we love one another as He has loved us (John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle--even with adultry starting in the heart: for example, just as you would not like it if (outside of an open relationship) every time a good-looking woman passsed by your man he was thinking about how it would be to get with her, so also you should give him the same respect as regards other men (or whatever gender).

Jesus said that there are only two requirements for a person to receive eternal life (Luke 10:25-28):

""
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"

So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."'

And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
""

But the above two requirements actually logically reduces to only one requirement: to love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to any of the least of His brothren we do on to Him (Matt. 25:31-46). So if we truly love each other then we automatically love God as well.

What is the Truth? Jesus is the Truth: wherever you find truth there also you will find Jesus.

But, people may ask: what about the holocausts, genocides, and wars, etc., that have continuously plagued mankind--that's truth, i.e., they really happen, they exist, and they're real; is Jesus these things? And I would answer that those things certainly exist and that we need to come to terms with them if we are to ever overcome them--but: what is it that allowed these grim truths to be brought into existence in the first place? In short: lies, deceit, fraud, and willful ignorance--and all on a massive scale. It was only people's lack of belief in Jesus (Truth) in the first place which would inevitably lead to the above--without this departure from the truth happining first, the others could not have happened.

And so what's the most important truth which one could possibly grasp? The answer is: the Way. 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him." All other truth pales in comparision to this one principle. Love is fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13,14). This is the Perfect Law of Liberty and the Royal Law (James 1:25; 2:8-12). If one grasps nothing else other than this then one will have grasped enough. All the injustices and societal problems which so plagues mankind stem from people's failure to abide by this one principle.

And so Jesus is the Way and the Truth: if you abide in these things then you will have the Life (Luke 10:25-28).

But what if we don't; what if we may fail at some point, because we are human? Is all lost? As it is written:

Romans 3:23: [F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I don't think it's too controversial to say that any typical human who is at the comprehension level to understand the above verse has already violated the Golden Rule (of which *is* sin), even if in just his own heart.

But to answer my above question: no, naught is lost, because if we confess the truth and ask God for forgiveness and believe that we have forgiveness then we will have forgiveness (Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Rom. 10:9). This is why belief in Jesus as an actual person sent by God can be so vital.

But what about John writing:

2 John 1:7: [M]any deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

But what else did John himself write about this matttar?: 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him."

Jesus did come in the flesh, but what did Jesus have to say about Himself?: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6.)

In other words, Truth did come to the earth in the existential sense, and does exist on this earth, and can be known--as opposed to the moral relativism of Pontius Pilate (John 18:38).

Based upon my research into people's so-called "near-death experiences" (I don't really like this term, because most of the times when these experiences happen it is after a person undergoes clinical death and shows no vital signs, and so a more accurate term for these people would be "after-death experience"), this is a spiritual truism for the afterlife: birds of a feather flock together. That is, depending on where one's mind-set is at upon death, in the afterlife one will be associated with people of like mind-set. "Hell" in the sense of being away from the light of God is very real (although the word Hell itself, and most of the ideas associated with it, is a pagan concept and isn't found in the Bible's original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts; for more on that, see the note below). But rather than a sharp either/or Heaven/Hell, it is probably more appropriate to think of the afterlife as many levels between the deepest, darkest regions of Hell and the most glorious basking in the presence of the love and light of God--i.e., as a continuum between these extremes (although the extremes themselves certainly exist, and one can be caught up in either depending on one's spiritual development). Suicides typically report a Purgatory-like existence upon death, because they cannot see the light of God. For more on that, see:

http://www.near-death.com

Note:

"Jesus' Teaching on Hell," Samuel G. Dawson, Gospel Themes Press, Expanded September 2007 http://www.gospelthemes.com/hell.htm

The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment by Thomas B. Thayer (Boston: Universalist Publishing House, New and Enlarged Edition, 1855) http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html

The Greek Word Aión--Aiónios, Translated Everlasting--Eternal in the Holy Bible, Shown to Denote Limited Duration by Rev. John Wesley Hanson, A.M. (Chicago: Northwestern Universalist Publishing House, 1875) http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

####################

Chris:

""
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
""

Much of it, Yes. Some of it, No. Chris, this is a complex issue which will require me to elaborate at length to do the subject justice, but bear with me as I think you might find the answer fascinating.

First of all, I consider that some parts of the Old Testament have been corrupted by governmental agents here on Earth--and the New Testament says that Satan controls all the kingdoms of this Earth. Specifically the first five books of the Bible in particular--known as the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch, or also the Torah. I base this on what the Bible itself has to say.

For one thing, I do not actually believe for one moment that God changes His mind as to what's right and wrong. I consider all the Old Testament laws on animal sacrifices, the Kosher laws, etc., etc., to be later inserts by governmental minions in order to distance people from true knowledge of God--as well as to cause strife among people by getting them to worry about things which don't matter and causing them to be busybodies in other people's business. Jesus Himself absolutely railed against the Old Testament "Law"--at least as it had been passed down. Thus, consider this:

Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Matthew 7:12: [...] "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

When Jesus refers to the "Law" above He's referring to the Law of Moses--at least as it had come to be passed down. Yet by saying this Jesus was actually rebuking the Law of Moses!-- again, at least as it had come to be passed down--as any cursory reading of the Levitical, etc., laws on animal sacrifice and the Kosher laws, etc., etc., will show that they don't have the slightest thing to do with the Golden Rule--and most of them are totally antithetical to it.

And consider the following teaching by Jesus:

"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." (See also Matt. 15:11, 17-20.)

Thus it is clear that Jesus considered most of the Laws of Moses to be complete and utter nonsense! (At least as they have come to be passed down.) But in actuality, we have no actual knowledge of the original Law of Moses! (Which is why I kept saying "as they have come to be passed down.") The Bible itself teaches this! What we now know as the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible, i.e., the Law of Moses, was completely and utterly lost to the ancient Israelites--as well as any memory of what it might have once contained--and was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah.

Now as libertarians, given what we know about the operations of government, it seems more than a bit naive to think that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity to rewrite these five books to suite themselves. As well, the New Testament teaches that it is Satan which has power over all the governments of the world (see Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13; John 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor. 4:3,4; Eph. 6:11,12). Thus, Satan's minions on Earth had all the opportunity in the world to corrupt the Law of Moses.

For Biblical proof that the Law of Moses was completely and utterly lost to the ancient Israelites--as well as any memory of what it might have once contained (including the ritual of Passover!--see below)--and was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah, consider the following Bible passages:

*******

Hilkiah Finds the Book of the Law:

2 Kings 22:3-23:3; 23:21-23:

2 Kings 22:3-20: Now it came to pass, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the scribe, the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the house of the LORD, saying: "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may count the money which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the doorkeepers have gathered from the people. And let them deliver it into the hand of those doing the work, who are the overseers in the house of the LORD; let them give it to those who are in the house of the LORD doing the work, to repair the damages of the house--to carpenters and builders and masons--and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house. However there need be no accounting made with them of the money delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully."

Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. So Shaphan the scribe went to the king, bringing the king word, saying, "Your servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of those who do the work, who oversee the house of the LORD." Then Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king.

Now it happened, when the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, that he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Michaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king, saying, "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. (She dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter.) And they spoke with her. Then she said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, "Tell the man who sent you to Me, "Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants--all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read--because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands. Therefore My wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched."" But as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, in this manner you shall speak to him, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "Concerning the words which you have heard--because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they would become a desolation and a curse, and you tore your clothes and wept before Me, I also have heard you," says the LORD. Surely, therefore, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; and your eyes shall not see all the calamity which I will bring on this place.""' So they brought back word to the king.

2 Kings 23:1-3: Now the king sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant.

2 Kings 23:21-23:Then the king commanded all the people, saying, "Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant." Such a Passover surely had never been held since the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this Passover was held before the LORD in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 34:14,15,30; 35:18:

2 Chronicles 34:14-30: Now when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by Moses. Then Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan.

2 Chronicles 34:30: The king went up to the house of the LORD, with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the Levites, and all the people, great and small. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 35:18: There had been no Passover kept in Israel like that since the days of Samuel the prophet; and none of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as Josiah kept, with the priests and the Levites, all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

*******

Thus, I certainly cannot consider the whole Law of Moses to be trustworthy--especially in light of Jesus's own teachings on this matter! Although I do think that parts of the Torah were inspired by God, it's just that a lot of it appears to contain nonsense tacked-on to it by governmental minions. Specifically, I think the law of _lex talionis_ and proportional punishment (Exo. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-22) and repaying double-restitution (Exo. 22:2-4,7,9) in the Books of Moses were divinely inspired, as they look as if Rothbard himself could have written them (and no, I'm not saying that Rothbard is the Godhead, I'm simply saying that God's true laws are discoverable by reason).

Also, it seems clear that the animal sacrifices in the "Law of Moses" are just derived from earlier pagan human and animal sacrifice rituals, specifically sacrificing the firstborn of everything for fertility rites. Indeed, in some parts of the "Law of Moses" it even condones human sacrifice! Thus, consider the following:

Exodus 13:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine."

Exodus: 13:11-16: "And it shall be, when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and your fathers, and gives it to you, that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD's. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. So it shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, "What is this?' that you shall say to him, "By strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.' It shall be as a sign on your hand and as frontlets between your eyes, for by strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt."

*******

Now in the above it talks about "redeeming" the firstborn of the human males by sacrificing animals in their place, but in the below passage it doesn't mention anything about "redeeming" the firstborn sons with animals!:

Exodus 22:29,30: "You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.

*******

And it's clear that humans were at times sacrificed according to the "Law of Moses," as consider the following passage:

Leviticus 27:28,29: "But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." (NIV.)

*******

It cannot be claimed that the above passage is talking about the death penalty for criminals, as it already stated that "everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD." Thus it is clear that it is talking about sacrifice offerings to please "God" (although I would say that that god is probably Satan).

But moreover, consider the following Bible story of Jephthah's Daughter which demonstrate unmistakably that human sacrifice was a custom of the early Israelites!:

Judges 11:29-40: Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering." So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith--twenty cities--and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it." So she said to him, "My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon." Then she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I." So he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

*******

As well, the Bible itself teaches that parts of it were corrupted!! Thus, consider the following Bible passages:

Psalm 40:6-8:
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
Then I said, "Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart."

Lamentations 4:13:
Because of the sins of her [Israel's] prophets
And the iniquities of her priests,
Who shed in her midst
The blood of the just.

Jeremiah 8:8 [quoting God]: "How can you say, ?We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."

Hosea 6:6 [quoting God]: "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Colossians 2:14-23: [Christ] having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Hebrews 10:4-8: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
Then I said, "Behold, I have come--
In the volume of the book it is written of Me--
To do Your will, O God."'[1]

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),

NKJV Note 1: 10:7 Psalm 40:6-8

*******

And consider the following contradictions found within the Old Testament:

*******

God's/Satan's Census: Which One?:

2 Samuel 24:1-4: Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab the commander of the army who was with him, "Now go throughout all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and count the people, that I may know the number of the people." And Joab said to the king, "Now may the LORD your God add to the people a hundred times more than there are, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king desire this thing?" Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab and against the captains of the army. Therefore Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king to count the people of Israel.

1 Chronicles 21:1-4: Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it." And Joab answered, "May the LORD make His people a hundred times more than they are. But, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then does my lord require this thing? Why should he be a cause of guilt in Israel?" Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Therefore Joab departed and went throughout all Israel and came to Jerusalem.

*******

Did King Saul Know David Before or After David Killed Goliath?:

--King Saul Sends for David's Father Jesse and David Plays the Harp for King Saul:

1 Samuel 16:14-23: But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said to him, "Surely, a distressing spirit from God is troubling you. Let our master now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall be that he will play it with his hand when the distressing spirit from God is upon you, and you shall be well." So Saul said to his servants, "Provide me now a man who can play well, and bring him to me." Then one of the servants answered and said, "Look, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a handsome person; and the LORD is with him."

Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, "Send me your son David, who is with the sheep." And Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and a young goat, and sent them by his son David to Saul. So David came to Saul and stood before him. And he loved him greatly, and he became his armorbearer. Then Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Please let David stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight." And so it was, whenever the spirit from God was upon Saul, that David would take a harp and play it with his hand. Then Saul would become refreshed and well, and the distressing spirit would depart from him.

--King Saul and David Discuss Going up Against Goliath the Philistine:

1 Samuel 17:31-37: Now when the words which David spoke were heard, they reported them to Saul; and he sent for him. Then David said to Saul, "Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are a youth, and he a man of war from his youth." But David said to Saul, "Your servant used to keep his father's sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock, I went out after it and struck it, and delivered the lamb from its mouth; and when it arose against me, I caught it by its beard, and struck and killed it. Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God." Moreover David said, "The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be with you!"

--King Saul Inquires of his Servant who the Young Slayer of Goliath is:

1 Samuel 17:55-58: When Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, "Abner, whose son is this youth?" And Abner said, "As your soul lives, O king, I do not know." So the king said, "Inquire whose son this young man is." Then, as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" So David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

*******

Was God's Name--i.e., YHWH--Known Before God Gave it to Moses?:

Consider closely the following Bible passage:

Exodus 3:13-15: Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, "What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."' Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: "The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'

Exodus 6:2,3: And God spoke to Moses and said to him: "I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD[1] I was not known to them.

NKJV Note 1: 6:3 Hebrew YHWH, traditionally Jehovah

*******

Whenever you see LORD or GOD in the Bible with all capital letters it stands for what's called the "Tetragrammaton," i.e., the four Hebrew consonants Yod-He-Vav-He, or YHWH, sometimes transliterated as "Yahweh." So in Exodus 6:2,3 God is here telling Moses that He was never known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Yahweh, but merely as God Almighty. But this contradicts what Genesis has to say about this matter!

Thus, consider the following passages in Genesis:

Genesis 4:26: And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

*******

So in the above we learn that men began to call on the name of Yahweh after Enosh was born!

But Exodus 6:3 specifically says of God "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Yahweh I was not known to them." So lets see what the Bible has to say about this specific matter:

Genesis 13:4: [...] to the place of the altar which he had made there at first. And there Abram called on the name of the LORD.

Genesis 21:33: Then Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.

Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide;[1] as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

NKJV Note 1: 22:14 Hebrew _YHWH Yireh_

*******

Remember that Abram was Abraham's earlier name. But here Genesis contradicts what Exodus 6:3 says, as it's quite clear from the accounts in Genesis that Abraham did indeed know God by the name of Yahweh! Abraham even named a place using Yahweh's name!

Thus, I consider parts of the earlier books in the Old Testament suspect. Although I consider the books of the Prophets in the latter part of the Old Testament to be for the most part trustworthy-- many being exceedingly trustworthy: Daniel in his 70 Weeks prophecy accurately predicted the Triumphal Entry of Jesus to the very day! And Ezekiel accurately prophesied the 1967 recapture of Jerusalem to the very day!

To learn more on that, see:

"The Unexpected King (A Precise Mathematical Prediction)":
http://www.yfiles.com/king.html

"Ezekiel Prophesied the 1967 Recapture of Jerusalem":
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/jerusalem.html

See also:

http://www.yfiles.com/y3nf.html

I also consider the New Testament to be for the most part exceedingly trustworthy, as the only "contradictions" found in it are precisely the kind one would expect to find in different eyewitness accounts, i.e., such as the difference between Peter denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed either twice or thrice, etc. And I also consider it trustworthy because Jesus's commands are completely logical and rational--like the Golden Rule which He gave as the _ultimate_ social ethic--unlike the apparent nonsense which is often found in the "Law of Moses."

Indeed, this is what Jesus had to say about the teachers and practitioners of the "Law of Moses":

Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)

Luke 11:46,52: And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. [...] [verse 52:] "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

*******

When Jesus says "lawyers" in the above he's principally speaking about those who teach and enforce the "Law of Moses." Although this happened to be the actual literal positive law for the Jews at the time (in addition to the Roman law), as it was enforced with actual use of force.

*******

I hope this answers your question, Chris, as to whether I consider the Bible to be the word of God. It's probably a much more complex answer than you were expecting, but it had to be this long in order for me to honestly answer it.

Anonymous said...

@james redford

Thanks for the civil response...brother.

Your example:

But moreover, the following Bible story from Judges 11:29-40 of Jephthah's Daughter demonstrate unmistakably that human sacrifice, supposedly sanctified by God, was a practice of the early Israelites:

First of all, your example is not
part of
the Pentateuch which you have ascribed
as "quite evil."
Second of all, the vow of Jephthah
was a sin plain and simple and is
an illustration of why we
Christians are forbidden, by Jesus,
from making vows; all of which are
vain and evil.

Still, you are dangerously close to
acribing a horrible evil to God by
claiming he sanctioned human
sacrifice in any way.

Shame on you.

Malachi 2:17
17 You have wearied the LORD with
your words;
Yet you say,
“ In what way have we wearied Him?”
In that you say,
“ Everyone who does evil
Is good in the sight of the LORD,
And He delights in them,”
Or, “Where is the God of justice?”


@anonymous

Sacrificing children to Molech was
an abominable sin condemned by God,
not sanctioned.

Anonymous said...

@james redford

By the way...

Your comment:

"since it is only the truth which can save us, as Jesus Christ taught"

Can you show me where Jesus taught
that "truth" saves us?

He taught that it is "knowledge"
of the truth that frees us and
that same "knowledge" opportunes the
"faith" required for salvation.

The "truth" is that you are a
miserable sinner dead in your sins.
How does that "truth" save you?

Anonymous said...

james,

just because Jephthah made an oath to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house upon a victorious return does not mean the practice was common or condoned. human sacrifice was murder and God forbade it.

Jephthah's oath was stupid on his part. he did not expect his daughter to come out of the house (he should have never made such an oath). remember that he wept when she did so. he was going to dishonor his oath but his daughter talked him out of it.

however, i will agree with you on this point--he burnt his daughter. i've read many Christian texts trying their hardest to explain this away, but they all fail because J-man said "burnt sacrifice".

rick

Anonymous said...

In the book of Samuel God states the only reason men requested God appoint a king was because they rejected His rule. The Lord also laid out the consequences--which answers the question "Why didn't God destroy (Hiter, Mao, Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln--pick a tyrant)?" The only legitimate authority any man has is that which conforms to God's law. The very Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus required His foregiveness because "following orders, or the law" is no excuse with God. Middle America's insistence that government sanctioned killing is always justified is a sad sad commentary on their scriptural understanding and their perception of the character of God. He has not changed--we have. I tremble when I remember that God is just.

Anonymous said...

Randy,
Amen! -RW

Anonymous said...

Final comment...

As for all the rationalizations
concerning this very simple commandment,
Jesus stated plainly that to hate
your brother is to be a murderer.

You see, you don't even have to
shed blood to be guilty.

Forget the moral gymnastics.
It means what it says in deed or
in thought.
If you kill, you are a killer and
this means you.

James Redford said...

Anonymous at 7:32 PM, i.e., Sans Authoritas, I told you exactly what I mean. This feinting of ignorance is getting tiresome, as if I am to believe that people who are capable of finding, and posting on, this blog are incapable of following the links to my writings which I specifically cited in my original post on this page for the full details on the matter I raised.

Since it is a common human failing (called the Semmelweis reflex, named after a doctor who was brutally murdered by the establishment for his life-preserving message) that when presented information which challenges the hearers' inculcation that such hearers often go out of their way to pretend to not understand what was said and to purposely misunderstand, I will here simply provide my full postings on the matter.

I here also point out that you are being dishonest in your claims regarding the story of Jephthah's Daughter. Dishonest with yourself, foremost.

As a red herring which you raised, of course there are many stories in the Bible of evil acts which the Bible presents as history and as a moral, but the Bible itself provides the context as to whether or not those acts were what a particular book in the Bible considers to be Godly. The story of Jephthah's Daughter is clearly presented as a Godly act by Jephthah as told in Judges, i.e., as an unwavering commitment by Jephthah to keep his oath to God. Although one can certainly take from it the moral that one should be careful in one's oaths to God, as one may have to end up sacrificing one's daughter to God as a burnt offering. Moreover, as it is related in the story, this sacrifice by Jephthah was clearly in conformance with the Torah practice in Israel at the time, since Jephthah did not carry out this act in secret and indeed it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah. The writer(s) of Judges clearly is not presenting this human sacrifice as being against God's will, but rather as a necessary act if Jephthah were to remain Godly by keeping his promise to God.

Futhermore, I had already demonstrated that humans were at times sacrificed according to the "Law of Moses," in conformance with Leviticus 27:28,29, supposedly spoken by God:

""
"But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." [NIV.]
""

It cannot be claimed that the above passage is talking about the death penalty for criminals, as it already stated that "everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD" (nor, in case one attempts to tergiversate their way out of the clear meaning of this passage, is love for one's enemies a concept found in the Torah--quite the contrary; we would have to wait until the coming of Jesus Christ before love for one's enemies in the here and now was clearly and vociferously expounded in the Bible). Thus it is clear that it is talking about sacrifice offerings to please "God" (though that god is obviously Satan or one of his underling demon-gods).

So indeed Jephthah was acting perfectly in accordance with the Torah.

Regarding your question as to what is wrong with circumcision, I never said that anything is wrong with circumcision. What I did was explain the Judaic origins of circumcision as told in the Torah. This is a case of you protesting too much (cf. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene II, line 240).

But now that you raise the issue, circumcision has never been a Christian practice. Until the latter half of the 19th centrury it was exceedingly rare in Christian countries. As Paul writes in Galatians 5:1-6:

""
Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. [NKJV.]
""

Indeed, the Catholic Church even prohibited circumcision. From the "Bull of Union with the Copts," Pope Eugenius IV, Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442; Norman P. Tanner, translator ( http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/ ):

""
Therefore [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
""

In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held sway, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought up in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual. Another classic example of the Semmelweis reflex.

For more on this, see the below articles:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48 http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

Circumcision was instituted within Judaism (as the Torah itself makes clear, viz. Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30) as a substitute (as applies to human males) for sacrificing the lives of all firstborn males to God, i.e., of livestock and children (again, another holdover from earlier paganism, yet in the case of human males, a modified, partial advancement).

I notice also that you continue with your red herrings by giving me a nihil ad rem lecture on Christian love with the pretense that you're rebuking some uncompassionate position I've advanced. You could have saved yourself the trouble of inventing such worrisome phantoms had you bothered to read my cited writings on these subjects and which I had already directed you to.

As promised, here below now are the full posts on the above matters which I had directed people to, but for which is apparently too difficult for some people to trouble themselves by clicking on a link.

Excerpted from "Existential Truth," TetrahedronOmega, March 14, 2007 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118&mforum=libertyandtruth

##########

The below sections are taken from previous forum posts of mine, so they aren't formatted as nicely as they could be.

The first section below deals with the meaning of Jesus Christ, and what God requires of people; it also deals with Jesus Christ's relation to the Old Testament. The second section deals with the Old Testament.

####################

I've researched the Bible backwards and forwards, inside and outside. As I've explained before in previous writings of mine, I don't regard the Torah to be the uncorrupted word of God--as I previously explained, I have strong reason to believe that many parts of it were corrupted by Satan's governmental minions here on earth; and I'm forced to that conclusion based upon what the Old Testement itself has to say on this matter (if you need me to repost my reasons for coming to this conclusion I can do so). [Note: see the next section below for said post.]

I regard all of the Kosher laws, and etc., to be later inserts by Satan's governmental minions here on earth in order to distance people from true knowledge of God, as they are completely irrational and arbitrary (such as requiring any Israelite picking up twigs on a Sabbath to be stoned to death--see Numb. 15:32-36; Exo. 31:12-17; 35:1-3). Whereas the commandments of Jesus Christ are completely logical and rational: quite simply put, do on to others as you would have others do on to you, for that is the *totality* of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus never heaped so much scorn as He did upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which we have no true knowledge of as it has been corrupted). All of Jesus's rebukes of "lawyers" were rebukes upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which in Israel at the time was part of the actual positive law, in addition to the Roman law). Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, but as I've explained before, the so-called "Law of Moses" has been corrupted (based upon what the Old Testament itself has to say on this matter), and so we have no direct knowledge of what that law actually is--the only genuine knowledge that we have of that *real* Law is in what Jesus Christ had to say regarding it. And Jesus stated in no uncertain terms that what we nowadays call the Golden Rule is the fulfillment of the totality of the Law (i.e., the real Law of Moses). Jesus had nothing but scorn for those trying to enforce the so-called "Law of Moses" as it has come to be passed down to us.

But even on its own terms, all of the so-called "Law of Moses" as found in the Torah of the Old Testament explicitly and specifically *only* applies to the *Israelites* and those Gentiles living among them *in Israel*. Over and over again in the Torah the laws given out are specifically given out to *only* the Israelites and those Gentiles living among them in Israel to follow, in order to seperate and differentiate them from the Gentiles living in Gentile lands. None of these laws were given to or intended for Genitles not living in Israel to follow in the first place! For example:

Exodus 34:27,28: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Leviticus 18:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them ..."

Leviticus 20:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: 'Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel ...'"

Deuteronomy 4:1: "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. ..."

Deuteronomy 4:44,45: Now this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which Moses spoke to the children of Israel after they came out of Egypt, ...

Malachi 4:4:
"Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments. ..."

So even on its own terms, the Torah laws in the Old Testament were never intended to be applied to Gentiles living in Gentile lands!

The Torah (i.e., the first five books of the Old Testament, or the so-called "Law of Moses") as it has come to be passed down to us does require death by stoning (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13) for Israelite men laying with other men as with a woman (although not for women with other women), and calls it "an abomination"--but otherwise has nothing more to say regarding this matter. This is particulary significant, as the Torah actually has worse things to say about those who break the Kosher laws, e.g., for those eating squid, or octopus, etc. Leviticus 11:10-12 (see also Deut. 14:9) tells us that all the things is the sea without fins or scales shall be "an abomination to you." In other words, eating squid, or octopus, etc., is an abomination. But the Torah actually goes much further than what it says about male Israelite (but not female) homosexuality regarding this matter. Leviticus 20:25 says that Israelites shall not make their *souls* abominable by breaking any of the Kosher laws--which is a warning far more damning than the one on male Israelite homosexuality, since presumably making one's *soul* abominable would have reprocutions in the after-life (although the concept of an after-life is only found in subsequent Old Testament books after the Torah)--whereas one pays by a stoning death for the "sin" of Israelite male (but not female) homosexuality in the present life. The Torah also has the same thing to say about those Israelites who crossdress as it does about male homosexuality (see Deut. 22:5), although this stricture doesn't seem to call for the death penalty; but again, that brings us right back to my previous analysis of the Kosher laws.

But I wouldn't even go so far as to call these Torah stictures attempts at morality, as Exodus 22:16 tells us that an Israelite man who beds an unmarried virgin must pay the bride-price to her father. But it has absolutely nothing to say about male virgins who lose their virginity by fornication. In other words, as far as the Torah is concerned, it's alright for an unmarried male to "sleep" around, so long as he's not doing it with virgins (in which case he's required to pay the bride-price to her father). So a lot of these supposed "morality" laws actually have more to do with simple economics--since a married man wants to insure that the child that he's raising is actually his, etc.; hence the double-standard between men and women "sleeping" around--and also the reason why a male who beds a virgin in fornication must pay her father the bride-price, since a virgin daughter is worth money to her father, whereas a tramp is not (due to the reason that marrying men want to insure that the child that thay are to raise is actually their own, and not some other man's). That's not morality, that's just plain economics and self-interest. The Bible actually has a lot of good things to say about some prostitutes--see the story about Rahab the prostitute, starting at Joshua chapter 2 (see also Matt. 1:5; James 2:25; Heb. 11:31). Jesus is a decendant of Rehab the prostitute (see Matt 1:5), as is David, the second king of Israel (who Jesus is decended from).

Paul had a few apparently negative things to say about homosexuality in the New Testament. See Romans 1:26,27--but in the context that Paul is writing about it is apparent that he is talking about pagan ritualistic sex-magick (see Romans 1:18-25). Nor does he say that homosexuality in of itself is something which jeopardizes one's soul. He says that's it's "against nature" and "the natural use" and "shameful"--but he's writing this in the context of pagan ritualistic sex-magick. But if one wants to contend that he meant homosexuality in of itself, then one would also have to contend that a man having long hair, or a woman having short har, is likewise also "shameful" and against "nature" (see 1 Cor. 11:6; 11:14). Which would mean that he must consider Samson to be "shameful" and against "nature" (see Judges chapters 13-16, particularly 16:16-19; and see also Num. 6:5). But even on the issue of long hair on men and short hair on women, Paul ended the matter by saying "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God" (see 1 Cor. 11:16)--thus making it clear that Paul sometimes simply let his own personal prejudices dictate what he regarded as "shameful" in his writings. Paul had more servere things to say about *catamites* (sometimes translated as homosexuals, etc.) in 1 Corinthians 6:9, saying that they won't inherit the Kingdom of God; but a catamite is a boy kept by a pedarast--often by no choice of the boy, especially at that time--and so I hardly see how the catamite could have any choice in the matter.

But it must be remembered that Paul is merely human, and so suffered from the prejudices of his time. He was often inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he was by no means infalible like Jesus Christ. Proof that the apostles were not infalible (even after they had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit) comes from the New Testament itself. See Galatians 2:11-21, where Paul strongly rebukes Peter for Peter's error in teaching that people still had to obey the so-called "Law of Moses"--and this is after the apostles had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:1-4)! So obviously the apostles were not incapable of error, even after having been given the Holy Spirit. But Paul also said that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (see Rom. 13:8-10), and "all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' " (that "one word" being: "love")--see Galations 5:14.

Jesus Himself never had anything to say about homosexuality (or crossdressing), which I'm sure He would have if it had been at all important. Beyond this, the Bible has nothing more to say regarding the matter.

When Jesus said of Himself "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6), He was there being as literal as it is possible to be. In other words, "Jesus" is a synonym for *the Truth*--although also a real person that walked this earth. Jesus is the ultimate personification on this earth of the truth. I believe that there have existed many true Christians who haven't even heard of the name "Jesus."

What is the Way? Jesus told us what the Way is: in all things do on to others as you would have others do on to you (Matt. 5:17,18; 7:12; Luke 6:31). An equivalent formulation of this is love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus's Commandment that we love one another as He has loved us (John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle--even with adultry starting in the heart: for example, just as you would not like it if (outside of an open relationship) every time a good-looking woman passsed by your man he was thinking about how it would be to get with her, so also you should give him the same respect as regards other men (or whatever gender).

Jesus said that there are only two requirements for a person to receive eternal life (Luke 10:25-28):

""
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"

So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."'

And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
""

But the above two requirements actually logically reduces to only one requirement: to love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to any of the least of His brothren we do on to Him (Matt. 25:31-46). So if we truly love each other then we automatically love God as well.

What is the Truth? Jesus is the Truth: wherever you find truth there also you will find Jesus.

But, people may ask: what about the holocausts, genocides, and wars, etc., that have continuously plagued mankind--that's truth, i.e., they really happen, they exist, and they're real; is Jesus these things? And I would answer that those things certainly exist and that we need to come to terms with them if we are to ever overcome them--but: what is it that allowed these grim truths to be brought into existence in the first place? In short: lies, deceit, fraud, and willful ignorance--and all on a massive scale. It was only people's lack of belief in Jesus (Truth) in the first place which would inevitably lead to the above--without this departure from the truth happining first, the others could not have happened.

And so what's the most important truth which one could possibly grasp? The answer is: the Way. 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him." All other truth pales in comparision to this one principle. Love is fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13,14). This is the Perfect Law of Liberty and the Royal Law (James 1:25; 2:8-12). If one grasps nothing else other than this then one will have grasped enough. All the injustices and societal problems which so plagues mankind stem from people's failure to abide by this one principle.

And so Jesus is the Way and the Truth: if you abide in these things then you will have the Life (Luke 10:25-28).

But what if we don't; what if we may fail at some point, because we are human? Is all lost? As it is written:

Romans 3:23: [F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I don't think it's too controversial to say that any typical human who is at the comprehension level to understand the above verse has already violated the Golden Rule (of which *is* sin), even if in just his own heart.

But to answer my above question: no, naught is lost, because if we confess the truth and ask God for forgiveness and believe that we have forgiveness then we will have forgiveness (Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Rom. 10:9). This is why belief in Jesus as an actual person sent by God can be so vital.

But what about John writing:

2 John 1:7: [M]any deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

But what else did John himself write about this matttar?: 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him."

Jesus did come in the flesh, but what did Jesus have to say about Himself?: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6.)

In other words, Truth did come to the earth in the existential sense, and does exist on this earth, and can be known--as opposed to the moral relativism of Pontius Pilate (John 18:38).

Based upon my research into people's so-called "near-death experiences" (I don't really like this term, because most of the times when these experiences happen it is after a person undergoes clinical death and shows no vital signs, and so a more accurate term for these people would be "after-death experience"), this is a spiritual truism for the afterlife: birds of a feather flock together. That is, depending on where one's mind-set is at upon death, in the afterlife one will be associated with people of like mind-set. "Hell" in the sense of being away from the light of God is very real (although the word Hell itself, and most of the ideas associated with it, is a pagan concept and isn't found in the Bible's original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts; for more on that, see the note below). But rather than a sharp either/or Heaven/Hell, it is probably more appropriate to think of the afterlife as many levels between the deepest, darkest regions of Hell and the most glorious basking in the presence of the love and light of God--i.e., as a continuum between these extremes (although the extremes themselves certainly exist, and one can be caught up in either depending on one's spiritual development). Suicides typically report a Purgatory-like existence upon death, because they cannot see the light of God. For more on that, see:

http://www.near-death.com

Note:

"Jesus' Teaching on Hell," Samuel G. Dawson, Gospel Themes Press, Expanded September 2007 http://www.gospelthemes.com/hell.htm

The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment by Thomas B. Thayer (Boston: Universalist Publishing House, New and Enlarged Edition, 1855) http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html

The Greek Word Aión--Aiónios, Translated Everlasting--Eternal in the Holy Bible, Shown to Denote Limited Duration by Rev. John Wesley Hanson, A.M. (Chicago: Northwestern Universalist Publishing House, 1875) http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

####################

Chris:

""
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
""

Much of it, Yes. Some of it, No. Chris, this is a complex issue which will require me to elaborate at length to do the subject justice, but bear with me as I think you might find the answer fascinating.

First of all, I consider that some parts of the Old Testament have been corrupted by governmental agents here on Earth--and the New Testament says that Satan controls all the kingdoms of this Earth. Specifically the first five books of the Bible in particular--known as the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch, or also the Torah. I base this on what the Bible itself has to say.

For one thing, I do not actually believe for one moment that God changes His mind as to what's right and wrong. I consider all the Old Testament laws on animal sacrifices, the Kosher laws, etc., etc., to be later inserts by governmental minions in order to distance people from true knowledge of God--as well as to cause strife among people by getting them to worry about things which don't matter and causing them to be busybodies in other people's business. Jesus Himself absolutely railed against the Old Testament "Law"--at least as it had been passed down. Thus, consider this:

Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Matthew 7:12: [...] "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

When Jesus refers to the "Law" above He's referring to the Law of Moses--at least as it had come to be passed down. Yet by saying this Jesus was actually rebuking the Law of Moses!-- again, at least as it had come to be passed down--as any cursory reading of the Levitical, etc., laws on animal sacrifice and the Kosher laws, etc., etc., will show that they don't have the slightest thing to do with the Golden Rule--and most of them are totally antithetical to it.

And consider the following teaching by Jesus:

"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." (See also Matt. 15:11, 17-20.)

Thus it is clear that Jesus considered most of the Laws of Moses to be complete and utter nonsense! (At least as they have come to be passed down.) But in actuality, we have no actual knowledge of the original Law of Moses! (Which is why I kept saying "as they have come to be passed down.") The Bible itself teaches this! What we now know as the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible, i.e., the Law of Moses, was completely and utterly lost to the ancient Israelites--as well as any memory of what it might have once contained--and was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah.

Now as libertarians, given what we know about the operations of government, it seems more than a bit naive to think that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity to rewrite these five books to suite themselves. As well, the New Testament teaches that it is Satan which has power over all the governments of the world (see Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13; John 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor. 4:3,4; Eph. 6:11,12). Thus, Satan's minions on Earth had all the opportunity in the world to corrupt the Law of Moses.

For Biblical proof that the Law of Moses was completely and utterly lost to the ancient Israelites--as well as any memory of what it might have once contained (including the ritual of Passover!--see below)--and was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah, consider the following Bible passages:

*******

Hilkiah Finds the Book of the Law:

2 Kings 22:3-23:3; 23:21-23:

2 Kings 22:3-20: Now it came to pass, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the scribe, the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the house of the LORD, saying: "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may count the money which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the doorkeepers have gathered from the people. And let them deliver it into the hand of those doing the work, who are the overseers in the house of the LORD; let them give it to those who are in the house of the LORD doing the work, to repair the damages of the house--to carpenters and builders and masons--and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house. However there need be no accounting made with them of the money delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully."

Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. So Shaphan the scribe went to the king, bringing the king word, saying, "Your servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of those who do the work, who oversee the house of the LORD." Then Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king.

Now it happened, when the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, that he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Michaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king, saying, "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. (She dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter.) And they spoke with her. Then she said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, "Tell the man who sent you to Me, "Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants--all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read--because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands. Therefore My wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched."" But as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, in this manner you shall speak to him, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "Concerning the words which you have heard--because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they would become a desolation and a curse, and you tore your clothes and wept before Me, I also have heard you," says the LORD. Surely, therefore, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; and your eyes shall not see all the calamity which I will bring on this place.""' So they brought back word to the king.

2 Kings 23:1-3: Now the king sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant.

2 Kings 23:21-23:Then the king commanded all the people, saying, "Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant." Such a Passover surely had never been held since the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this Passover was held before the LORD in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 34:14,15,30; 35:18:

2 Chronicles 34:14-30: Now when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by Moses. Then Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan.

2 Chronicles 34:30: The king went up to the house of the LORD, with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the Levites, and all the people, great and small. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 35:18: There had been no Passover kept in Israel like that since the days of Samuel the prophet; and none of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as Josiah kept, with the priests and the Levites, all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

*******

Thus, I certainly cannot consider the whole Law of Moses to be trustworthy--especially in light of Jesus's own teachings on this matter! Although I do think that parts of the Torah were inspired by God, it's just that a lot of it appears to contain nonsense tacked-on to it by governmental minions. Specifically, I think the law of _lex talionis_ and proportional punishment (Exo. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-22) and repaying double-restitution (Exo. 22:2-4,7,9) in the Books of Moses were divinely inspired, as they look as if Rothbard himself could have written them (and no, I'm not saying that Rothbard is the Godhead, I'm simply saying that God's true laws are discoverable by reason).

Also, it seems clear that the animal sacrifices in the "Law of Moses" are just derived from earlier pagan human and animal sacrifice rituals, specifically sacrificing the firstborn of everything for fertility rites. Indeed, in some parts of the "Law of Moses" it even condones human sacrifice! Thus, consider the following:

Exodus 13:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine."

Exodus: 13:11-16: "And it shall be, when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and your fathers, and gives it to you, that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD's. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. So it shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, "What is this?' that you shall say to him, "By strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.' It shall be as a sign on your hand and as frontlets between your eyes, for by strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt."

*******

Now in the above it talks about "redeeming" the firstborn of the human males by sacrificing animals in their place, but in the below passage it doesn't mention anything about "redeeming" the firstborn sons with animals!:

Exodus 22:29,30: "You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.

*******

And it's clear that humans were at times sacrificed according to the "Law of Moses," as consider the following passage:

Leviticus 27:28,29: "But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." (NIV.)

*******

It cannot be claimed that the above passage is talking about the death penalty for criminals, as it already stated that "everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD." Thus it is clear that it is talking about sacrifice offerings to please "God" (although I would say that that god is probably Satan).

But moreover, consider the following Bible story of Jephthah's Daughter which demonstrate unmistakably that human sacrifice was a custom of the early Israelites!:

Judges 11:29-40: Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering." So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith--twenty cities--and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it." So she said to him, "My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon." Then she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I." So he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

*******

As well, the Bible itself teaches that parts of it were corrupted!! Thus, consider the following Bible passages:

Psalm 40:6-8:
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
Then I said, "Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart."

Lamentations 4:13:
Because of the sins of her [Israel's] prophets
And the iniquities of her priests,
Who shed in her midst
The blood of the just.

Jeremiah 8:8 [quoting God]: "How can you say, ?We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."

Hosea 6:6 [quoting God]: "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Colossians 2:14-23: [Christ] having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Hebrews 10:4-8: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
Then I said, "Behold, I have come--
In the volume of the book it is written of Me--
To do Your will, O God."'[1]

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),

NKJV Note 1: 10:7 Psalm 40:6-8

*******

And consider the following contradictions found within the Old Testament:

*******

God's/Satan's Census: Which One?:

2 Samuel 24:1-4: Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab the commander of the army who was with him, "Now go throughout all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and count the people, that I may know the number of the people." And Joab said to the king, "Now may the LORD your God add to the people a hundred times more than there are, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king desire this thing?" Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab and against the captains of the army. Therefore Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king to count the people of Israel.

1 Chronicles 21:1-4: Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it." And Joab answered, "May the LORD make His people a hundred times more than they are. But, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then does my lord require this thing? Why should he be a cause of guilt in Israel?" Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Therefore Joab departed and went throughout all Israel and came to Jerusalem.

*******

Did King Saul Know David Before or After David Killed Goliath?:

--King Saul Sends for David's Father Jesse and David Plays the Harp for King Saul:

1 Samuel 16:14-23: But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said to him, "Surely, a distressing spirit from God is troubling you. Let our master now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall be that he will play it with his hand when the distressing spirit from God is upon you, and you shall be well." So Saul said to his servants, "Provide me now a man who can play well, and bring him to me." Then one of the servants answered and said, "Look, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a handsome person; and the LORD is with him."

Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, "Send me your son David, who is with the sheep." And Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and a young goat, and sent them by his son David to Saul. So David came to Saul and stood before him. And he loved him greatly, and he became his armorbearer. Then Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Please let David stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight." And so it was, whenever the spirit from God was upon Saul, that David would take a harp and play it with his hand. Then Saul would become refreshed and well, and the distressing spirit would depart from him.

--King Saul and David Discuss Going up Against Goliath the Philistine:

1 Samuel 17:31-37: Now when the words which David spoke were heard, they reported them to Saul; and he sent for him. Then David said to Saul, "Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are a youth, and he a man of war from his youth." But David said to Saul, "Your servant used to keep his father's sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock, I went out after it and struck it, and delivered the lamb from its mouth; and when it arose against me, I caught it by its beard, and struck and killed it. Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God." Moreover David said, "The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be with you!"

--King Saul Inquires of his Servant who the Young Slayer of Goliath is:

1 Samuel 17:55-58: When Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, "Abner, whose son is this youth?" And Abner said, "As your soul lives, O king, I do not know." So the king said, "Inquire whose son this young man is." Then, as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" So David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

*******

Was God's Name--i.e., YHWH--Known Before God Gave it to Moses?:

Consider closely the following Bible passage:

Exodus 3:13-15: Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, "What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."' Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: "The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'

Exodus 6:2,3: And God spoke to Moses and said to him: "I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD[1] I was not known to them.

NKJV Note 1: 6:3 Hebrew YHWH, traditionally Jehovah

*******

Whenever you see LORD or GOD in the Bible with all capital letters it stands for what's called the "Tetragrammaton," i.e., the four Hebrew consonants Yod-He-Vav-He, or YHWH, sometimes transliterated as "Yahweh." So in Exodus 6:2,3 God is here telling Moses that He was never known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Yahweh, but merely as God Almighty. But this contradicts what Genesis has to say about this matter!

Thus, consider the following passages in Genesis:

Genesis 4:26: And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

*******

So in the above we learn that men began to call on the name of Yahweh after Enosh was born!

But Exodus 6:3 specifically says of God "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Yahweh I was not known to them." So lets see what the Bible has to say about this specific matter:

Genesis 13:4: [...] to the place of the altar which he had made there at first. And there Abram called on the name of the LORD.

Genesis 21:33: Then Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.

Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide;[1] as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

NKJV Note 1: 22:14 Hebrew _YHWH Yireh_

*******

Remember that Abram was Abraham's earlier name. But here Genesis contradicts what Exodus 6:3 says, as it's quite clear from the accounts in Genesis that Abraham did indeed know God by the name of Yahweh! Abraham even named a place using Yahweh's name!

Thus, I consider parts of the earlier books in the Old Testament suspect. Although I consider the books of the Prophets in the latter part of the Old Testament to be for the most part trustworthy-- many being exceedingly trustworthy: Daniel in his 70 Weeks prophecy accurately predicted the Triumphal Entry of Jesus to the very day! And Ezekiel accurately prophesied the 1967 recapture of Jerusalem to the very day!

To learn more on that, see:

"The Unexpected King (A Precise Mathematical Prediction)":
http://www.yfiles.com/king.html

"Ezekiel Prophesied the 1967 Recapture of Jerusalem":
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/jerusalem.html

See also:

http://www.yfiles.com/y3nf.html

I also consider the New Testament to be for the most part exceedingly trustworthy, as the only "contradictions" found in it are precisely the kind one would expect to find in different eyewitness accounts, i.e., such as the difference between Peter denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed either twice or thrice, etc. And I also consider it trustworthy because Jesus's commands are completely logical and rational--like the Golden Rule which He gave as the _ultimate_ social ethic--unlike the apparent nonsense which is often found in the "Law of Moses."

Indeed, this is what Jesus had to say about the teachers and practitioners of the "Law of Moses":

Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)

Luke 11:46,52: And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. [...] [verse 52:] "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

*******

When Jesus says "lawyers" in the above he's principally speaking about those who teach and enforce the "Law of Moses." Although this happened to be the actual literal positive law for the Jews at the time (in addition to the Roman law), as it was enforced with actual use of force.

*******

I hope this answers your question, Chris, as to whether I consider the Bible to be the word of God. It's probably a much more complex answer than you were expecting, but it had to be this long in order for me to honestly answer it.

Dr. Joanne Cacciatore said...

Beautiful, meaningful, thought-provoking! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

The Patriot's Dream
Gordon Lightfoot

The songs of the wars are as old as the hills
They cling like the rust on the cold steel that kills
They tell of the boys who went down to the tracks
In a patriotic manner with the cold steel on their backs

The patriot's dream is as old as the sky
It lives in the lust of a cold callous lie
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills

The train pulled away on that glorious night
The drummer got drunk and the bugler got tight
While the boys in the back sang a song of good cheer
While riding off to glory in the spring of their years

The patriot's dream still lives on today
It makes mothers weep and it makes lovers pray
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills

Well there was a sad, sad lady
Weeping all night long
She received a sad, sad message
From a voice on the telephone
Her children were all sleeping
As she waited out the dawn
How could she tell those children
That their father was shot down
So she took them to her side that day
And she told them one by one
Your father was a good man ten thousand miles from home
He tried to do his duty and it took him straight to hell
He might be in some prison, I hope he's treated well

Well there was a young girl watching in the early afternoon
When she heard the name of someone who said he'd be home soon
And she wondered how they got him, but the papers did not tell
There would be no sweet reunion, there would be no wedding bells
So she took herself into her room and she turned the bed sheets down
And she cried into the silken folds of her new wedding gown
He tried to do his duty and it took him straight to hell
He might be in some prison, I hope he's treated well

Well there was an old man sitting in his mansion on the hill
And he thought of his good fortune and the time he'd yet o kill
Well he called to his wife one day, "Come sit with me awhile"
Then turning toward the sunset, he smiled a wicked smile
"Well I'd like to say I'm sorry for the sinful deeds I've done
But let me first remind you, I'm a patriotic son"
They tried to do their duty and it took 'em straight to hell
They might be in some prison, I hope they're treated well

The songs of the wars are as old as the hills
They cling like the rust on the cold steel that kills
They tell of the boys who went down to the tracks
In a patriotic manner with the cold steel on their backs

The train pulled away on that glorious night
The drummer got drunk and the bugler got tight
While the boys in the back sang a song of good cheer
While riding off to glory in the spring of their years

The patriot's dream still lives on today
It makes mothers weep and it makes lovers pray
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills

Anonymous said...

Dear Will,

This fine posting of yours has provoked probably your longest responses to date. I saw "25 Comments," and I thought, "Only?" Boy, was I in for a surprise. I couldn't finish all of them, which is unusual. Your commentators are so good I enjoy reading them almost as much as your blogs, but this time I had to cry uncle.

The answer to everything is extraordinarily simple, but extraordinarily difficult to understand, in the sense of experiencing and knowing it instead of just mouthing the words. Here it is in mouthed words:

"From the One, arose Two. From the Two, arose Three. From the Three, arose Ten Thousand Things."

In other mouthed words:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God....The Light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness cannot comprehend it."

James Redford's Professors (I actually followed his links and plowed through some of their complex thinking) are starting from the Ten Thousand Things and trying to distill The One. They are starting from total complexity and trying to arrive at simplicity. They will never succeed. The toothpaste will not go back in the tube. You cannot measure water with a yardstick.

Mr. Redford and I could have an extraordinary dialogue. I agree with him, especially about the Church - Catholic OR Protestant - which is just a latter-day human perversion of an earlier human perversion of Christ's teachings - but I do not have the time. Jesus was an extraordinary person, and the Son of God, but there were others. How could a loving God leave his Children without a Shepherd, to be ministered to only by frail men in dusty gowns mouthing Latin oracles, or dunking them in bathtubs and telling them they are "saved"?

There have been hundreds. One of them was an Indian called Bhika, who was mostly silent - he said very little. Those who gathered around him to absorb his presence therefore listened very carefully whenever he spoke. One day, he said, musing to himself, (This is about 400 years ago, so you know this must be significant, to be remembered today) - "Oh, Bhika! Every man has rubies in his bundle, but how to untie the knots he does not know, so he wanders the world as a beggar."

An extraordinarily powerful image. One could give a whole sermon on it. In India, street beggars have a large piece of cloth in which all their worldly goods are carried on the end of a stick over their shoulder. For security, they knot this corner to that corner, then that corner to this corner, then another corner to another corner, over and over again, until there are so many knots it takes half an hour to undo them all. It is such a chore, most of them never bother to undo their bundle, but they have the comfort of knowing their paltry possessions are safe within their innumerable knots. Bhika said, we are all wandering the world as sad and crying beggars, with our minds tied up in an infinity of knots, but our precious bundle of miserable selfhood which we guard so jealously actually has rubies hidden within it. But we have made so many knots in the corners of our bundle we can no longer untie them. Could we but untie the knots we would be as rich as kings.

That is why, dear Will, we beggars fight wars over scraps of garbage.

I hope you understand.

If you could know the meaning of the words above, you would experience what the Lord was saying: "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." He was not speaking metaphor and parable, as He so often did, but literally. In the One is infinite joy and musical light and consummate beauty and unshakeable peace and supreme understanding. By the time of the genesis of Ten Thousand Things all is dark confusion and chaos.

Everything we see about us is meaningless. Except for the love of our children and families and friends. There is a most beautiful song whose refrain ends, "The only Measure of our Words and our Deeds, will be the Love we leave behind when we're Gone."

Recall this: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and all the kingdoms thereof, and lose his own soul?" Gaining the whole world does not necessarily only mean possessing the world, but also being possessed by it.

"Let the dead bury their dead."

You are a good man, Will. Winston Churchill, who had serious moral flaws, nevertheless coined a very nice quip: "Success is the ability to proceed from failure to failure, with no loss of enthusiasm." Some of the most courageous people in this world achieve no more than just getting up each morning.

And, BTW, the Israelis WERE going to attack Iran from Georgia. Those three "Arabs" were Yemeni Jews. One died under "questioning" and the others told all. More dead people burying their dead. You think I'm a wild-eyed nut, but I'm not. Now, someone told me, the simian jackass in the White House has ordered FOUR aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf. Over 130 naval ships - great big fish swimming in a tiny little barrel. I am told from my source that Mr. Putin, far from being angry or alarmed, is amused. Thank God there is at least one sane and adult man in charge somewhere.

Like the Rodgers and Hammerstein song from "Oklahoma," Putin must be singing to himself: "Oh what a beautiful morning, Oh what a beautiful day, I've got a beautiful feeling, everything's going my way." I wish I could sing it for him myself - he would bust up laughing, I am certain.

Well, the world is overpopulated anyway. And you don't have to worry - you live in Idaho. I live a thousand yards from the Pentagon. All I can say is, if it comes, it will be quick. And I have no children to miss me.

You can stand on the sidewalk and watch the carnival pass in the street without having to join their parade. I highly recommend it to you. There is far more peace and joy, alone at the altar, than amongst ten thousand people dancing a frenzied Tarantella in a street carnival.

Dear Will, may you find the altar.

Kindest regards to your family and yourself.
Lemuel Gulliver.

Mark said...

the truth that we are all miserable sinners saves us because it allows us to let go of the satanic need to be anything at all: another form of idol worship in my opinion.

thanks for another great post mr griggs but also, again on another level, please pray tell:

where does the pursuit of honest, narrowly defined capitalist self-interest including private property ownership to the exclusion of others (ie without reference to the needs of the whole flock) end, and said idolatry begin?

Anonymous said...

Lemuel,

good post, but i disagree with you on a few points. that aside, true happiness can only be found in two things:

1) Jesus Christ

and

2) banana and strawberry flavored BB Bats. too bad they got rid of vanilla.

anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

rick

Anonymous said...

What about love of a good woman?

David J said...

Bill, not to nit-pick, but that picture of Moses with the 10 commandments is humorously anachronistic. If indeed there was a historical Moses ca. 1200 BC, there is no way he (or Yahweh) would have written the law using the Aramaic block script. It would have been written in a form of paleo-Hebrew script or other Northwest Semitic script (akin to the Phoenician alphabet).

William N. Grigg said...

On behalf of Rembrandt, I plead artistic license. :)

Anonymous said...

Dear Rick @ 9:36 am,

Ah...banana and strawberry flavored BB Bats. Don't tell me there is no God.

And then, Jesus Christ. You are right. It is a shame what people have done to His teachings.

There was a witty Frenchman - Voltaire or some such - who once observed: "Dans toute l'histoire, il y avait seulement un vrai Chretien - et il etait un Juif."

- "In all of history, there has only ever been one true Christian - and he was a Jew."

Who says God and Frenchmen have no sense of humor?

Kindly,
Lemuel Gulliver.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for your reluctance to talk with Davy on air. You might try reading Vigilantes of Christendom by Richard Kelly Hoskins, Or view the Rense.com website for "non-neocon" info...see the Banner ad for Scriptures for America, and who Israel is, Not Edomites, ...try reading E. Raymond Capt, Eustace Mullins "The Curse of Canaan....Oh Yeah what did the Israelites do with the "Mixed Multitude"....Under God's law ? See The old testament...where Israelites are not "jewish"...How did "jews" become Israelites...according to your rendition...of scripture ? And when you read Revelation 3:9...who is God's chosen ?

William N. Grigg said...

anonymous, it wasn't "reluctance" so much as a desire to let other callers have a little more time to talk with me. Davy and I had a lengthy conversation earlier this week -- albeit one at a tangent from the topic -- and I appreciated his contribution.

Anonymous said...

Can I ask a perfectly serious question?

I understand (or at least I think I do) the concept of bloodguilt (i.e. an obligation to protect the innocent).

What I'm wondering is: do I necessarily have an obligation to protect *myself* in the eyes of God if protecting my life would mean taking the life of another (assuming, of course, that I am not going out of my way to put myself in danger to create the circumstance)?

I really do want to know.

Anonymous said...

buffalo_girl says:

Another dimension to the Sixth Commandment revealed to me by the certified academic test administrator of our home taught son involves the use or misuse of another person's time.

She was of the opinion that wasting someone's time in whatever manner unsolicited by that person - is in actuality 'taking that person's life'.

Should that aspect of the rule be applied - 'life' would indeed be more abundant.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Grigg,

I've been an avid reader for some time now; I wish more Americans would become readers of your blog! Proverbs 27:5-6 says:

"Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

I hope you will consider this a mild rebuke from a friend.

Your use of certain vulgarities often completely nullifies your otherwise brilliant commentary! This particular piece was absolutely Biblical, until you used the slang term "smart ass" during a discourse on God's Law. Please consider your Christian testimony and the way such language reflects on your writing at times. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Ephesians 4:29

D.L. said...

Will, another home run...and I will pray for your parents (and you all, of course). I have the same problem--my husband and I are "unequally yoked" so to speak on the Iraq war, today's Israel is God's Israel (which it isn't--we true believers in Christ are), the rapture, etc....but I still love him of course. The thing is that whenever I argue against the govt.s right to order one to kill, I get Romans 13 thrown at me (which I am sure is behind your dad's unwillingness to concede your point). But since Romans 13 obliges the govt. to obey God's laws over and above the fact that we too are required to obey God, and since the govt. itself refuses to obey God, then we are NOT required to obey the govt.! We are required to obey God, period. If the govt. refuses to obey God, we are required NOT to obey the government!
http://christnotreligion.blogspot.com

Unknown said...

Happy to listen to Will's podcast on Militarized Cops at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-09-21_030_militarized_cops.mp3

I've long suspected that police are recruited for their psychological disabilities as anything else.