I posed a Question on Quora : If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

My Q

If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?
https://www.quora.com/If-God-had-been-a-policeman-and-Abraham-a-criminal-would-God-have-been-guilty-of-conspiracy-to-crime-or-provocation-to-crime-even-if-intending-fully-to-stop-Abraham-from-killing-Isaac-under-current-US-law

Context link

Continuing with Dave Robson
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/continuing-with-dave-robson.html

A I

James Fame

former Consultant

Answered Jan 24

Absolutely not. The Constitution states, “No ex post facto laws shall be passed”. Since the alleged crime happened about 3600 years before the United States was born, I don’t think our laws would apply.

Besides, it is likely that the statute of limitations would also exempt God from prosecution.

Then there is the matter of jurisdiction. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”. I think he can charge you, but you can’t charge him.

Of course it is possible that it would be an interesting case. I hear the other side has most of the lawyers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

“I hear the other side has most of the lawyers.”

Brilliant! Wonder how Anthony Zarrella sees that one!

A II

Roger Van Allen Shelton Jr.

Answered Wed

I don’t know how legal stuff works. But I’d assume the answer is yes. But only if a crime had been carried out. Usually if a conspiracy charge is served, a crime has been committed. It doesn’t always have to be the crime “planned”.

EXAMPLE:

A guy goes into a tough bar with the intent to hire someone to kill his wife. He finds a shady individual, offers him $1.000 to kill her, but says $500.00 now, and the other $500.00 when she’s dead. No crime has been committed. However, once he hands the first $500.00 is transferred from one person to another, a crime has been committed. A contract had been agreed upon and the wheels are set into motion for a murder. The dollar amount isn’t even important. He could give the would be assassin $1.00 and the crime has taken place.

People talk all the time about committing crimes. They even detail out how they’d do it if they were going to do it. But no crime has been committed until action has been taken in the direction of committing the crime.

A person can talk all day long about how they’re going to rob a bank, even detailing which bank and how they’re going to rob it. But until they enter that bank and notify the teller that a robbery is taken place, no crime has been committed. And also, if a bank robber tries to rob a bank, but changes his mind after telling the teller he/she is being robbed, even if he doesn’t take a single penny, he’s committed a crime.

As far as God and Abraham is concerned… Abraham believed fully and without doubt that God wanted him to murder his child. Because Abraham’s beliefs, God would have been charged with a crime, I’m just not sure what crime specifically.

There have been way too many cases where women got involved with men, but had children from previous relationships. The new man in the woman’s life indicated to her how much better their lives would be without that extra “baggage”. Some of these men have even suggested the woman make these children disappear or he would leave her and find another woman without children. So, those women murdered their children just to keep this man they desperately love. IDK if the boyfriend is charged with the murder of the children, but in my honest opinion he should be, as if he himself had killed them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

“ But only if a crime had been carried out.”

So, since Abraham did NOT kill his son, God should not be charged?

A III

David Aldred

Catholic, family man, web guy.

Answered Jan 24

Logically, but meaninglessly, yes.

Since your question is predicated on premises of which one is false and one highly questionable, the conclusion is meaningless. That’s basic logic.

A similar question: if water was dry, woudl all dinosaurs be yellow? Again, the answer is ‘yes’, since a false premise can logically imply anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

Thank you!

A IV

Bruce R. Bain

former Retired Wire Rope Rigger at Union Supply Company

Answered Jan 24

The question indicates a lack of knowledge of theology.

Religious doctrines when studied, reveal that God is subject to no law.

Oddly, people frequently assume that their conceptions of laws or commandments can be used to judge God, which is of course, unfounded by any fact in theology.

Furthermore, such propositions engage in complications. In this inquiry for example, what is obvious to the rational person is that there is a presumption that “God exists”. The difficulty with that is that no argument for the existence of God accompanies the inquiry in the context of law.

Such a consideration is illustrative of fundamenatal errors, because when the violation of a law is considered, it must be also considered that “the accused” is factual or fictitious, and to accomplish this, there must be objectively identifiable premises.

In order to consider “God” in the context of “current US law” it must be shown that God exists as a citizen of the United States of America. That has not been accomplished. Because if God is not a citizen of the United States, God is not subject to US Law.

Were the actions of God considered in the case of an International Court, there would have to be an argument (or evidence) of the existence of God in order to prosecute the case.

Any such court would need to show that God’s existence, as well as identifiable commandments by God, are subject to International Law.

It is an enterprise rife with complications and difficulties in any prosecutorial domain.

A court presuming to question God as a matter of jurisdiction would be regarded as the Folly—of—-the—-Ages.

Of course, all of the issue beginning with the designation if shows that the entire affair is merely speculation rather than fact.

Speculation hardly constitutes an evidence.

Neither will U. S. Law as a system of jurisprudence ever show itself authoritative in jurisdiction over God.

(Of course, I am not an attorney, but from what I have read and studied, it would be unlikely that any court in the U.S. would regard Isaac as a U. S. Citizen whose right to life had been violated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

Thank you!

A V

Therion Tiberius Ware

VOD engineer in broadcast TV. (2003-present)

Answered Sat

Q: If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

Ha! Presumably God is a corrupt cop then, seeing he demands the sacrifice. The best interpretation of the Abraham/Issac story is that God wished to graphically illustrate to Abraham how far he would be willing to go in the service of his God.

Which is to say, all the way!

These days one imagines Abraham would be sectioned fairly quickly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7m ago

God may have had a reason to make the demand than rather than now.

As to then, God stopped him from actually killing.

Ten Issues with the Bible (quora)

Q

What are your ten (10) biggest issues (e.g., inconsistencies, factually/historically inaccurate, etc.) with the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-ten-10-biggest-issues-e-g-inconsistencies-factually-historically-inaccurate-etc-with-the-Bible

Answers

four here given, I-IV, none of which mine, and two ignored.

I

Paul Farr

Rule #1: The Ancient Near East was different

Answered 18h ago

OK, let’s just tackle this head on….

Inconsistencies across texts, errors of fact, historical inaccuracies, etc. are not “issues with the Bible”.

The Bible is what it is. It is an ancient collection of ancient documents produced by ancient cultures. It makes no sense to have “issues with” an ancient text. That makes as much sense as having “issues with” ancient pottery or sculpture or architecture.

Those cultures are gone, all those people are dead, and the artifacts are what they are.

So that said….

We can indeed reasonably have “issues with” modern translations of Biblical texts (there is no one single Bible, by the way — there are some 13 different canons used today). We can discuss the best way to render the words and ideas in the ancient manuscripts in modern languages, or which of the ancient manuscripts are most likely to accurately reflect the originals (all of which are now lost). That we can do.

If you see an internal contradiction or an error of fact or an anachronism in an ancient text, I guarantee you with 100% confidence that this “problem” with the text is actually an opportunity to learn more about the culture(s) which produced the text. In other words, if all you do is note the “problem”, then you’ve intentionally chosen ignorance over education. That’s nothing to be especially proud of.

And chances are, if that’s all you care about, you’re then going to use your knowledge of this “problem” to try to attack other people’s beliefs, without yourself doing any work to try to understand the background and comprehend the significance of the contradiction or error or inaccuracy. This is also nothing to be especially proud of.

And if you then go around thinking that you now know something about Biblical literature merely on the basis that you have found a contradiction or error or inaccuracy in the text, this is something very much not to be proud of.

Having “issues” with the Bible is like having “issues” with the code of Hammurabi or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs or the Tao Te Ching or prehistoric cave paintings. The issues are entirely with you, not with the source material.

So I think what you’re really trying to ask about here are issues with how other people interpret Biblical texts. Which is perfectly fine, because the Bible is certainly among the most widely and profoundly misread and misinterpreted works of literature in the history of the world.

But please be aware, if all you care to do is get up a catalog of inconsistencies, errors, and inaccuracies in the Biblical literature in order to attack Bible literalists, then I’m going to have some issues with how you are using the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18h ago

“If you see an internal contradiction or an error of fact or an anachronism in an ancient text, I guarantee you with 100% confidence that this “problem” with the text is actually an opportunity to learn more about the culture(s) which produced the text.”

And I can guarantee you, the exercise of admitting no error in the Bible will give you some more of this exercise, both regards non-Biblical ancient texts and regards modern thought.

Thanks for a reminder that not all non-literalists are inimical to Bible, I see a lot of these latter over on internet!

II

Joey Warren

Senior Software Developer

Answered 16h ago

My #1 would be Greek Transliterals being used instead the direct back translation :

1a The word Jesus. It should have been translated as Joshua.

1b The word Angel. It should have been translated as Messenger.

1c The word Scripture. It should have been translated as Document. Scripture is actually a borrowance from the latin "Scriptura" which Protestants abhor to a degree.

1d The word Faith. It should have been translated as Conviction. Faith is also a borrowance from the latin "Fide"

1e The word Peter. It should have been translated as Rock. Or at least be consistent like the French translation. The word Pierre is used in both places in Matthew 16:18

It in the English should be

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
or
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Imagine the Peter succession argument that would never be?

Answered

in four comments, i - iu

i

Allen Crandall

15h ago

It never has been to those who are not swayed by doctrine or history.

Interestingly, for many centuries RC bishops were all co-equal - the “Presiding of Rome” was only symbolic. Many Bishops still think that way, but they allow Rome to play its “public” role. There are 2 Bishops in France that have been Ordaining women & married men for decades.

The only real power Rome has is censure. If you don’t mind being excommunicated….

( Rome hasn’t been foolish enough to make this public by ex-communicating them )

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You mean that the two bishops in France are “in good standing” with Rome?

ij

Rob Bishop

17h ago

I would add that the word “servant” throughout the Gospels should have been translated “slave”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Unhistoric. Slave like wealah is ethnonym in clearly post-NT situations.

iij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

You know, in Northern countries you could have Sten / Steinn as baptismal name, they obviously have St Peter as patron saint.

And in Aramaic the words are clear “thou art Kipha and on this Kipha I will build my” (whatever Church is in Aramaic).

iu

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

As for Joshua, for Greek grammar Jesus is more handy. For one, it contains a “sh”, a sound which Greek did not have separate from s, nor did Latin have it.

III

Rob Bishop

has studied Gospels, Jesus, & early Christianity extensively

Answered 17h ago

Asked: What are your ten (10) biggest issues (e.g., inconsistencies, factually/historically inaccurate, etc.) with the Bible?

• Jesus: he’s racist, cruel, and narcissistic — Matthew 15:21–28
• Jesus: he’s unable to reflect on his own errors and shortcomings — Matthew 8:26, 14:31, 15:16, 16:8
• Jesus: he’s disrespectful of other people’s property, and cruel to animals — Mark 5:13
• Jesus: he’s aware of the poor only as an abstract concept, and encourages us to fatalistically accept poverty as a given — Matthew 6:1–4, John 12:8
• Jesus: he’s perfectly ok with brutal slavery — Matthew 24:45–51
• Jesus: he defends the rich mistreating the poor — Matthew 20:1–16
• Jesus: he’s ok with torture; arbitrary, cruel-and-unusual punishment for imagined crimes; and lack of due process — Matthew 18:21–35
• Jesus: he says it’s ok not to wash your hands before you eat — Matthew 15:20
• Jesus: his head is full of nightmares and gruesome imagery — Matthew 5:27–30, numerous “weeping and gnashing of teeth” stories throughout Matthew and one in Luke
• Jesus: his priorities are all wrong; he totally loses sight of compassion in everything he says, and he vigorously promotes a crass, bankrupt, punishment-reward morality (everywhere you look in the Gospels)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

• Jesus: he’s racist, cruel, and narcissistic — Matthew 15:21–28
  
  Narcissistic first : He knows He is able to heal, knowing one's worth is not narcissism.
  
  Cruel, no, not really, since after very little delay He did heal.
  
  Racist, that "racism" was a compulsory one in OT. He removed it Himself in Matthew 28, after Resurrection (OT was in force up to Crucifixion).
  
  If you wonder why racism of a sort was necessary in the OT, it was better for Israelites to be racist and remain pure than to be too tolerant and be corrupted (even if that too happened).
  
  
• Jesus: he’s unable to reflect on his own errors and shortcomings — Matthew 8:26, 14:31, 15:16, 16:8
  
  As God in the Flesh, He had no errors or shortcomings to reflect on.
  
  Now, to the passages.
  
  In 8:26, I wondered what you were talking about. Then it struck me that you were thinking of insufficient security measures. Now, that is missing what kind of training they were under. They were being trained so that later on they could be martyrs without apostasy, and before that many times face martyrdom without flinching. Being afraid of a storm was hardly the best start of such a carreer.
  
  14:31, similar situation.
  
  15:16, it happens that a professor overrates his students and is then impatient over a poor result.
  
  16:8, similar situation, and continuation of passage shows there were two different multiplications of bread and fish.
  
  
• Jesus: he’s disrespectful of other people’s property, and cruel to animals — Mark 5:13
  
  Cruel to animals is a rich one : the animals sold in there were going to sacrifice, arguably a bit less gentle than being shoved out of the area of immediate danger, even with a whip.
  
  Property rights over animals and money does not trump God's property rights over the then temple, which He was defending.
  
  [after looking up what the reference actually was:]
  
  Oh, you mean the pigs on Gadara?
  
  Well, in the Holy Land people were not supposed to have pigs under OT rules. Owning them while OT was also externally being fully enforced would have got the proprietor arguably stoned or something.
  
  
• Jesus: he’s aware of the poor only as an abstract concept, and encourages us to fatalistically accept poverty as a given — Matthew 6:1–4, John 12:8
  
  Matthew 6:1-4 is an excellent measure so that public almsgiving to known and registered poor doesn't become a slave hunt in the name of "taking responsibility" for concrete poor persons.
  
  John 12:8 says that the cult we owe Christ as God is a higher priority than alms to the poor. He is arguing against Judas "the first Commie" who wants to take glory away from God, pretending this would allow more alms to the poor, and really not caring for the poor himself, but in reality acting as a thief.
  
  
• Jesus: he’s perfectly ok with brutal slavery — Matthew 24:45–51
  
  Jesus is taking a cue from a servant master situation to examplify THE great servant master situation, the one in which He is the master.
  
  
• Jesus: he defends the rich mistreating the poor — Matthew 20:1–16
  
  The wage earners certainly are entitled to their wages, and get them. They are not entitled to criticise their paymaster because he gives more than expected to some people they considered as slackers.
  
  
• Jesus: he’s ok with torture; arbitrary, cruel-and-unusual punishment for imagined crimes; and lack of due process — Matthew 18:21–35
  
  Have you heard about "Hausrecht"? Both in Ancient Rome and in very much more recent Germany, up to Prussian Enlightenment, a master was judge, he was himself the due process, for crimes and offenses by his underlings.
  
  Christ is not saying this must go on among men doing the biddings of other men, He is telling us what He, as Our Divine Master, intends to do with us, if we don't serve Him by forgiving offenses.
  
  He is promising either an Indulgence from Purgatory for the act of forgiving an offense received.
  
  
• Jesus: he says it’s ok not to wash your hands before you eat — Matthew 15:20
  
  Oh definitely! If you want to wash your hands even at picknick, go ahead, but you are not expecting everyone else to be doing so even if they have had a long walk. Carrying water is heavy and water on the resting place is not always available.
  
  If you find a problem with that, how do you not have a problem yourself?
  
  
• Jesus: his head is full of nightmares and gruesome imagery — Matthew 5:27–30, numerous “weeping and gnashing of teeth” stories throughout Matthew and one in Luke
  
  Hell is gruesome, and Our Lord is telling us what it is like. No unnecessary embroidery, not 33 cantos with 33 rima terza dedicated to Inferno, to describe that gnashing of teeth in detail, but no cuddling about what awaits unrepentant sinners either.
  
  
• Jesus: his priorities are all wrong; he totally loses sight of compassion in everything he says, and he vigorously promotes a crass, bankrupt, punishment-reward morality (everywhere you look in the Gospels)
  
  It's the one morality which is not bankrupt. It's the one morality which will give even bad men a motive to become better ones.

IV

Therion Tiberius Ware,

VOD engineer in broadcast TV. (2003-present)

Answered 18h ago

Q:What are you ten (10) biggest issues (i.e. inconsistencies, factually/historically inaccurate, etc.) with the Bible?

There is zero evidence for the exodus, which if as told should have left plenty, not least in the form of coprolites. One might also observe the order of creation, which is just flat wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18h ago

“which if as told should have left plenty, not least in the form of coprolites”

Preserved to our time?

“One might also observe the order of creation, which is just flat wrong.”

According to another creation story?

“There is zero evidence for the exodus,”

Except in Exodus and Chronicles, by different authors, and in these being taken by Israelites as history, you mean?

Therion Tiberius Ware

18h ago

So show the physical evidence. Which should be trivial to evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18h ago

No, the physical evidence for most things of the past is gone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18h ago

The parallel I’ll give is perhaps not totally comparable, but where is the physical evidence for the battle of Trafalgar?

Does it prove Nelson won? Or do we have that from narrative?

Therion Tiberius Ware

18h ago

At least a load of shit. Which is apparent;y the current metier!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

A load of shit in Trafalgar is clearly not proving which side won.

Before you ask a load of shit from walk through desert, reflect on how much of it could have been recycled as fertiliser. And also reflect on caves (including in Britain) where people are supposed to have been living for 10 000s of years and ridiculously little shit to prove that kind of extended occupation.

Charles Jack

16h ago

Stories are not evidence, they are claims. The Bible claimed the Exodus occurred. This would be the largest camping trip in history. 2 million people, 10s of millions of livestock. Consuming 100 million pounds of food and 100 million gallons of water a day, for forty years (to travel less then 400 miles…). And not a trace of evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Stories taken as factual about one community by that community itself are evidence, not just claims.

Claims are evidence, in situations where making a ridiculous claim going against what is already known is not likely to be believed.

Sure, there are claims which are wrong which a community can believe about itself. But they do not involve shifting known memories to a totally different story.

As to traces, well, most events in history do not lave such. And most traces left are not specific enough without the story. We know history through stories, not through physical evidence, mainly.