Babysitting question

[atheist buddy]

Imagine you HAD TO leave your child with a babysitter. You HAD TO.

You only had two options.

Either you leave your child with Person A or with Person B

Person A is a member of the American Skeptic's Society and only carries out actions that he believes are rational and just on the basis of rational thought. That's all you know about the person.

Person B is a fundamentalist Christian who follows the edicts of the Bible to the letter and believes that God's law trumps man's law. That's all you know about the person.


Question for debate: Who do you leave your child with?


My answer: With the skeptic. This way there at least is a chance that he will not kill my child for misbehaving.

[Zzyzx]

.

Exodus 21 begins with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (verse 1) Who is "thou" and "them" in this context?

I, for one, do not pretend to know the intent of unidentifiable people writing two thousand years ago. Do you?

[atheist buddy]

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Let me help you here with a proper citation. In a list of offences and judgments one finds; 15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death" and 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Since you say, "they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience", I presume that you believe that this chapter is calling for vigilante justice, even though due process is repeatedly commanded in HaTorah, ie, Deut. 21:19 ". . . his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town." Also, why do you believe that the call for due process in Deut. 17 does not apply?

You're totally right!

So I guess that your literalist neighbors wouldn't just take the law into their hands and kill your child there and then.

No. They would take your child to the elders of their church, they would bear witness that they saw the child hit or curse his parents, and the elders would order that your child be stoned to death.

If that happened, would you thank your neighbors for doing the lord's work, or would you call the police?

[atheist buddy]

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Exodus 21 begins with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." (verse 1) Who is "thou" and "them" in this context?

I would imagine that it's the same "thou" and "them" as Exodus 20. So whomever Exodus 20 is relevant to, I'd imagine Exodus 21 is as well.

By the way, I love it when theists make arguments for moral relativism!

Are you saying that in some contexts it's morally right to murder children who misbehave, and in other contexts it's not? That whether the commandment to murder children is morally valid depends on who the "thou" that it's being given to is?

I thought absolute morality came from an omnipotent and unchanging God. If so, God is one very very confused fellow.


Your argument, as well as implicitly undermining the universality of the ten commandments on the page right befor ethe one in question, and as well as completely shattering the notion of God's absolute morality and putting the last nail in the coffin of Christianity, also connects to a question I asked on a different thread (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=27859). What percentage of the Bible do you follow?

Are you saying that the Lord's Commandment to murder children doesn't apply to you? That you don't follow it? What about the commandment to beat your slaves at will, but not so severely that they die right away? Do you not follow that? What about St Paul's inspired words that women should not be allowed to speak in church, or that people who gossip deserve to die? Do you live your life according to those words by St. Paul, the Disciple of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Or do you realize that you are morally superior to Paul and that if you and Paul were stuck in an elevator together for a few hours, you could teach him more about morality than he could teach you?

What percentage of the Bible's commandments, edicts and suggestions do you utterly and completely reject as immoral, irrelevant or absurd?

The answer to this question is an integer between O and 100, followed by the "percentage" symbol (%). I look forward to your answer.

[Genevieve]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

It's a very good thing that your proposed HAD TO doesn't exist in real life because of course I wouldn't leave my child with anyone I didn't know. I would absolutely find another option.

But, to play along with your HAD TO scenario - - I'd go with Person B.

Yeah, yeah, Person A follows rational thought and all that, but for all I know he has the rational capabilities of a tree stump. And who knows what his idea of just is, what is it based on, I have no idea. It's whatever his opinion of rational and just is.

At least with Person B I have some idea of what I'm getting. I have some basis to predict what he might be thinking and what actions he may take, so I could better prepare my child for the situation.

[dianaiad]

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Let me help you here with a proper citation. In a list of offences and judgments one finds; 15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death" and 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Since you say, "they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience", I presume that you believe that this chapter is calling for vigilante justice, even though due process is repeatedly commanded in HaTorah, ie, Deut. 21:19 ". . . his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town." Also, why do you believe that the call for due process in Deut. 17 does not apply?

...er...if the kid is at a day care center because his parents HAD TO leave him there, how could he be punished for attacking/cursing his mother or father?

They aren't there.

[Blastcat]

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Let me help you here with a proper citation. In a list of offences and judgments one finds; 15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death" and 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Since you say, "they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience", I presume that you believe that this chapter is calling for vigilante justice, even though due process is repeatedly commanded in HaTorah, ie, Deut. 21:19 ". . . his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town." Also, why do you believe that the call for due process in Deut. 17 does not apply?

The "put to death" part of dealing with children is pretty clear. The "attacks" part isn't very clear.

What constitutes an "attack".. a verbal slight? The first sign of disobedience? I know many people who have thought my questions were "attacks" on their beliefs. So, it could be construed to a parent that questions are attacks.

The child could be put to death for asking for a cookie, if that is taken as an attack.

Some children might conceivably be put to death for asking the time of day. It's not at all clear what an "attack" is. Let's be perfectly clear. If something is vague, it can be interpreted. That is how laws work, that's why we have lawyers. That's why we have courts. That's why some people get off Scott free for huge infractions, and others get severely punished for nothing much at all.

What constitutes a "curse"?... why are children to be punished for uttering words in anger? Put to DEATH for saying nasty things. What if a child comes home and repeats a curse heard in the alley.. put to death?

Depends ENTIRELY on the discretion of the parent, who has the right to KILL the unruly child. This is the kind of thinking that I hear when Christians tell me that their Creator can kill his creations.

Apparently, parents have the perfect right to kill their children, under certain circumstances in the morality of Bible. Good thing the enlightenment came around to change that kind of barbarism.

We know better now. However, there are people who are so behind the times, so superstitious or so EVIL as to want to re-live the terrible kind of morality the Bible depicts.

Progress is bad, according to some.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

It's a very good thing that your proposed HAD TO doesn't exist in real life because of course I wouldn't leave my child with anyone I didn't know. I would absolutely find another option.

But, to play along with your HAD TO scenario - - I'd go with Person B.

Yeah, yeah, Person A follows rational thought and all that, but for all I know he has the rational capabilities of a tree stump. And who knows what his idea of just is, what is it based on, I have no idea. It's whatever his opinion of rational and just is.

At least with Person B I have some idea of what I'm getting. I have some basis to predict what he might be thinking and what actions he may take, so I could better prepare my child for the situation.

"Remember Son, whatever you do, don't disobey Mr Smith, because otherwise he will kill you".

That's nice.

"Also, do NOT say anything nice about gay people, do NOT say you're against slavery, do not say you like Harry Potter (witchcraft), do not say that you know any member of any religion other than his, do not do any of these things because your life will be in danger."

You are absolutely wrong in assuming that you have no way of predicting the actions of a skeptic. It's reasonable to assume that a skeptic would be able to figue out that if he mistreats your child he will end up in jail, and on that basis alone, he would behave in an acceptable way irrespective of his opinion of rationality and justice.

But let's assume that you are right and that there is no reasonable expectation that can be made about the behavior of a human being on the basis of the knowledge that he is a skeptic. It's an absurd proposition, but let's allow it for the sake of argument:

You're saying that if you had to choose between leaving your child with a skeptic who's actions you cannot predict and with a zealot that will most likely murder your child on the basis of his Biblical beliefs, you would rather leave the child with the murderer, because you know on the basis of what perverted reasoning he will murder your child and you can hopefully try to prepare your child for that.

That is crazy to me. But here is the question. What if the murderer who you prefer to a skeptic wouldn't murder your child on the basis of his Biblical beliefs which you can prepare your child against, but on the basis of his Koranic beliefs that you can prepare your child against? What if he would murder your child on the basis of his Satanic beliefs? What if he would murder your child on the basis of his following of Charles Manson's teachings? Hey, you don't know what the skeptic will do, but you know what the Manson Family cult member will probably do, so you can prepare your child for it, so that's better, right?

[dianaiad]

The "put to death" part of dealing with children is pretty clear. The "attacks" part isn't very clear.

Yeah, actually, it is. "attacks" means physical attack. The word used, by the way, is 'smite,' not 'attack,' which one does not do verbally, 'smiting' being a very physical thing.

"curse" has a very specific meaning, along with 'take the Lord's name in vain."

Do not make the historian's error here; the meaning of 'curse' today, which applies to any and all socially unacceptable, or 'improper' words (like 'F..") isn't the same as the meaning of the word as used in scripture. When you read the bible, figure that 'curse' means to intentionally call down the wrath of a deity upon another, with the full expectation that something horrific will happen. In other words, in that meaning of 'curse,' "Damn it..." isn't an instant and mild reaction to stubbing a toe. It means that you honestly wish whatever it is damned, in the full intent and meaning of the word.

In the same manner, 'taking the Lord's name in vain,' meant...promising something and then reneging; lying. Breaking an oath. It's a biggie.

Most of that chapter is cultural...and it lists some justice that you might be uncomfortable with. However, if you look at it and compare it to other cultures of the same era, it reflects an incredibly enlightened point of view. For instance, take the American slave owning antebellum south; how likely is it that any of those folks would let a slave go free if the owner knocked out a tooth?

Remember as well...and I know that many of you call Christians 'cherry pickers' because we keep TELLING you that the Law of Moses doesn't apply (which of course makes this whole conversation rather silly) and that, frankly, the Sermon on the Mount is a better standard by which to hold people, but whether that takes much of your ammunition away or not, it's true. The Law of Moses doesn't apply...and hasn't applied for 2000 years, give or take.

[Psalm139]

Imagine you HAD TO leave your child with a babysitter. You HAD TO.

You only had two options.

Either you leave your child with Person A or with Person B

Person A is a member of the American Skeptic's Society and only carries out actions that he believes are rational and just on the basis of rational thought. That's all you know about the person.

Person B is a fundamentalist Christian who follows the edicts of the Bible to the letter and believes that God's law trumps man's law. That's all you know about the person.


Question for debate: Who do you leave your child with?


My answer: With the skeptic. This way there at least is a chance that he will not kill my child for misbehaving.

I would leave my child with Person A. That's because I know that fundamentalist Christians have been trained by those who would kill doctors who perform abortions.

[atheist buddy]

If they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter, they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience.

Citation please.

exodus 21

Let me help you here with a proper citation. In a list of offences and judgments one finds; 15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death" and 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." Since you say, "they will kill the child at the first sign of disobedience", I presume that you believe that this chapter is calling for vigilante justice, even though due process is repeatedly commanded in HaTorah, ie, Deut. 21:19 ". . . his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town." Also, why do you believe that the call for due process in Deut. 17 does not apply?

...er...if the kid is at a day care center because his parents HAD TO leave him there, how could he be punished for attacking/cursing his mother or father?

They aren't there.

Dianaiad, brace yourself, because this is going to blow your mind. Ready?

The most powerful of wizards, and most children for that matter, are able to curse people remotely. OMG!!!!!! That's incredible, right?

I am myself a level 7 wizard, so I can attempt to carry out this feat myself. Hold on, I need a moment of concentration...


I HEREBY CURSE KIM JON UN!!!!

I did it!!!! I did it!!!! I was able to curse someone who is thousands of miles away. It took a lot of effeort, traning, and innate wizardly powers, but I was able to do it.



What am I trying to say? A child could curse his parents when his parents are not there, and be murdered as a result. And he could accidentally confess to having attacked/struck his parents previously and also be in mortal danger.

Please think things through before writing stuff down.