First read these:
On the first blog entry, some asshole had the incredible arrogance to challenge me on what should have been painfully obvious, even to him.
Wouldn’t that be obvious? I would certainly not worship a hypocrite, because then I’d be one too.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that this was a covenant, or a contract, and exaggerating the universality of God’s commandments to Israel as a result. Most contracts don’t require the parties to do the same things. The things the Lord commanded were things He said Israel needed to do to be His people. That’s it. The things He would do in return were different things.
Did the Lord say somewhere that it’s always wrong for a man to die in his friends’ stead? Because that’s not what the verse you quoted says. He’s telling them, “This is the principle you will follow to manage things.”
Mental gymnastics like yours enable all sorts of corruption and abuse.
Let me make it clear……in a just society, NO ONE is above the law. Even God should be subject to his own laws, or those laws are pointless, period. Hypocrisy is just that, period, and it doesn’t matter who is the hypocrite.
Mental gymnastics? Abuse? Why don’t you back off the name-calling and address my point about the covenant angle.
FYI there are plenty of instances in which individuals forbid others from doing something they do themselves that are not hypocritical. The guy who tells another guy, “Don’t you dare touch my wife”: Not a Hypocrite. The father that tells his seven-year-old, “Don’t you dare touch these matches”: Not a Hypocrite. Our criminal justice system, which imprisons people daily, but says to the general public, “Don’t you dare capture someone you think is guilty of a crime and hold them captive to punish them”: Not Hypocritical.
This ‘God is a hypocrite’ schtick isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.
And, I have to point out the irony that we’re discussing a directive in which God told the children of Israel that they were not allowed to punish family members for their relatives’ crimes, but your knee-jerk response when you’re challenged its to cry “Abuse, abuse!”
(Dale Husband: Covenants or contracts which bind one party and not the other are SCAMS and I will not accept any scams. Including those in religion.
We are not talking about property rights [“don’t take my car without my permission”] or marriage vows [“don’t cheat on me with any other woman”]. We are talking about BASIC STANDARDS OF JUSTICE which the God of the Bible did not follow, making those standards useless for anyone. A father who beats his children out of anger but then punishes his child for beating another child is indeed a hypocrite, period. Deal with it!
Until you grow up and deal with the reality that your own religion is full of contradictions and totally lacking in empirical evidence, you deserve no respect when you defend that nonsense before someone like me who knows better than to be fooled by your lies.
And that is the last thing I will say to you, con artist. Goodbye.)
Except… the OT covenant didn’t just bind one of the parties, it bound both. My examples were intended to demonstrate that you’re over-simplifying the nature of agreements to justify your claim that God of the Bible is a hypocrite. I notice you didn’t address the example I gave of our criminal justice system, which, unlike the first two, is analogous. If you would stop the tantrum-throwing for 5 minutes and think about this, you may come up with a more meaningful response.
You have been strangely nasty and ad hominem from the start. A person who acts like this is really in no position to give speeches about abusive fathers (which looks like another attempt to distract from the subject). Or call others ‘con artists.’
(Dale Husband: Needless to say, all those statements made by the commenter here are nonsense. ALL OF THEM! It just blows my mind how shameless he is in defending what any rational person would know to be indefensible. But this is what religious brainwashing does to people, completely perverting even the most basic concepts of TRUTH and LOGIC! And I have no problem calling a spade a spade when it looks like a spade…..or a hypocrite in this obvious case. I don’t have to refute all his rhetorical trickery for one simple reason: aside from the CLAIMS published in the Bible, there is absolutely NO evidence that God made any sort of covenant with anyone. Until such evidence is discovered, what’s the point of a debate on the matter?)
Going back to my opponent’s original question:
(((Are you saying if the Lord sets up a society of people and gives them a system of jurisprudence to follow He is required to follow that same system?)))
God is often compared to a king. Well, kings in real life used to have so much power over their subjects that they could even have them killed for any reasons they felt like. A notorious example was King Henry VIII, who had six wives and actually put two of them to death for adultery. Even while betraying his first wife by falling in love with the woman who would become his second. He was sexist as hell!
Roman Emperors like Caligula and Nero also killed people they didn’t like. So did Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
I do NOT want to live in a society where anyone is above the law. Not God, not kings, emperors or dictators……NOBODY should be powerful enough to destroy lives while forbidding murder by their own subjects….because obviously they themselves do not want to assassinated, even if they deserve it for being murderers themselves.
Ethical principles are absolute, or they are pointless. No God or human ruler should ever make laws he himself does not obey, period. It just amazes me that anyone would think otherwise.
First, neither my opponent nor anyone else is entitled to tell me how to argue with others on my own blog. That sense of entitlement never ceases to enrage me because it is a form of verbal abuse known as “tone-policing”. That alone is just insulting. Seriously, don’t do that to anyone!
Second, NotALibertarian’s arguments and views are indeed contrary to the most basic principles of freedom and democracy spelled out in the American and French Revolutions of the 18th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
The doctrine asserts that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority (such as a parliament or the Pope) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority. Thus, the monarch is not subject to the will of the people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It follows that only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God’s will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It does not imply that their power is absolute.
It was only natural that human rulers would want some of the absolute power of God for themselves. I already mentioned how King Henry VII of England put to death two of his six wives. He should have been overthrown and executed for those things. But instead that happened to one of his successors, Charles I. After that, kings in England no longer had absolute power. Better late than never.
Let us remember what was written in the Declaration of Independence.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We need only extend this principle to its logical conclusion: That even God himself need not be worshipped by men if he is a tyrant who abuses his people without any accountability. And that is exactly how the Bible depicts him. Indeed, there is absolutely NO reference to democracy or human rights in the modern sense in the Bible. You’d think God would have inspired Moses, Jesus, or the prophets that lived between their times to preach about such ideas, but they never did. The only types of government they favored were either absolute monarchies or theocracies.
This is proof that the “Creator” referred to in the Declaration of Independence was NOT the God of the Bible at all.
Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants 
I’m lost. What’s your beef here. Are you saying if the Lord sets up a society of people and gives them a system of jurisprudence to follow He is required to follow that same system?