A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[McCulloch]

God has given us warnings, and rules to live by. He has written these in our hearts, and given us a conscience to judge what is right and what is wrong. If we listen to our conscience then we fall within God's will, but it is when we stray, and impose our will on God's that we fail.

But according to Christianity, many of God's rules are not written on our hearts. Breaking the Sabbath, for instance. I would not know that it is immoral to work on the seventh day of the week simply through my conscience.

No one is innocent of disobeying their conscience, no one is innocent of disobeying God's will for humanity. So when things happen to us as a result of our disobedience, do we blame God or ourselves?

Self is at fault is what only we are discussing sins which violate conscience. But I do not think that you could argue that any form of Christianity (other than those damned liberals), which limits sin to violations of our God given consciences.

[Scrotum]

We tell them, because we know the outcome of these things will cause them harm. God has given us warnings, and rules to live by. He has written these in our hearts, and given us a conscience to judge what is right and what is wrong. If we listen to our conscience then we fall within God's will, but it is when we stray, and impose our will on God's that we fail.

But you are contradicting yourself here, as example;

In our current civilized society, its "bad" to kill anyone (without, erh, cause). And this is to make sure we can have a Society at all. This is not "written" in our hearts, as killing eachother for different reasons is as close to "natural" as anything in the Kingdom of Humanity, just look at the last 10 000 years or so.

But then again, in the Bible you are suppose to Stone your Children to Death if they are disobedient, hold on, Killing is OK? Explain this to me, please. As this goes against our manufactured "moral" of having a stable and healthy society, without killings and such. You want your Bible as guidance instead?
.

[Believer]

But then again, in the Bible you are suppose to Stone your Children to Death if they are disobedient, hold on, Killing is OK? Explain this to me, please. As this goes against our manufactured "moral" of having a stable and healthy society, without killings and such. You want your Bible as guidance instead?
.

I picked this up at the following site, http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/ ... ildren.htm it's much better than something I could have come up with and it explains the law in better context. Everything within the Bible must be read within the context that it was written.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die .... (Dt. 21:18, 21)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 contains what is, perhaps, the most vilified law of the Old Testament. It is widely believed that this law authorizes the stoning of children who disobey their parents. Accordingly, this law is used to prove how harsh, severe, and unworkable Old Testament law is in "the New Testament age of love and grace." When theonomists advocate the use of the case laws as the standard for ethics and civil law today, often one of the first remarks they hear is something like, "So you advocate the stoning of children who disobey their parents." The supposition is that by merely referring to this "harsh" law, they have proven that the theonomic view is absurd and cannot possibly be the standard for Christians today. Detractors of theonomy believe that the mere mention of the law of "stoning children" in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 will silence the theonomist, and prove to all thinking Christians that these "cruel" Old Testament case laws should not govern our lives in this "age of grace."

But as with most attacks on theonomic ethics, this objection to the use of the Old Testament case laws is based on a shallow reading of the law, a misunderstanding of the actual case law requirement,1 and an attachment to sentimental impulses as opposed to a commitment to the high ethical provisions of Biblical law.2 When this case law, which applies the moral law of the Fifth Commandment to a specific circumstance, is understood it will prove to be "holy, just, and good," a delight to the heart of God's true people (Rom. 7:12, 22).

This law is given in the standard case law formulation of "if . . . then." The genius of the case laws is that they establish justice (or duty) in a specific case so as to enable us to know how to proceed (act righteously) in all such related cases. The particular case at hand involves a "stubborn and rebellious" son who will not heed the admonitions of his parents, nor submit to their discipline (v. 18). It is vital to proper interpretation and application that the precise nature of the case be ascertained.

A Grown Son
First, the person in view is a not a small child but a grown "son." The Hebrew term for "son" (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes (Ex. 21:5) but most often of the male offspring of parents, and that is clearly the sense in this text. Of itself, the word "son" does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or a young man (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; 19:1; 1 Kg. 1:33); age must be determined from the context. In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins brought forth in testimony to show his contumacious manner are gluttony and drunkenness (v. 20), hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old! The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. Furthermore, the parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the "son" in question is no mere child, but, rather, a young man at least in his middle teens or older. As Wright observes, "The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults."3

Severe Disobedience
Second, the problems associated with this son are severe. This is not the case of a child who has failed to do his chores, spoke back to his parents, or even committed a serious act of disobedience, but of a son of dissolute character who is in full rebellion to the authority of his parent--she holds them and their word in contempt. Thetext says that the son is "stubborn" and "rebellious" (vv. 18, 20). Both of these descriptive terms are active participles, thus indicating habitual action. The son does not display a stubborn streak now and then, or act rebelliously from time to time, but is continuously stubborn and rebellious. The word "stubborn" refers to one who is obstinate in his resistance to authority. It is used in the Old Testament of a wild, untamed heifer (Hos. 4:16); of a immoral woman who has cast off restraint and indulges in lust (Pr. 7:11); and of Israel as a stubborn people who will not submit to God's authority (Ps. 78:8; Is. 1:23). The word "rebellious" means, literally, to strike or lash, and is used of those who contend against authority and refuse to heed their words. The "rebellious" individual lashes out in contempt against those who have authority over him verbally, and perhaps even physically. In light of this, it is important to note that the law of the covenant prescribes death for anyone who strikes his parents (Ex. 21:15) or curses his parents (Ex. 21:17). There is, therefore, reason to suppose that the son in this case law has broken the law of the covenant in one or both of these ways. The parents also describe the character of their son as being a "glutton" and a "drunkard." These sins are put forth as examples of a life lived without restraint.

In the case of such rebellion and riotous living, and after all attempts at discipline and control have failed, the parents are to bring their son before the magistrates for judgment. If the magistrates concur in the parents' estimate of the situation, they are to order the men of the city to stone the rebel with stones so that he dies (vv. 20-21). The purpose to be served in the execution of the rebellious son is to "put evil away from among you" and that all will "hear and fear" (v. 21).

The Real Meaning
Therefore, the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not about stoning disobedient children. The Bible does not instructs parents to use stoning in dealing with the rebellious nature and disobedience of their children, but to use the rod and reproof (Pr. 29:15). Children are to be trained from a young age by consistent and loving discipline so that the foolishness that is bound up in them can be driven out (Pr. 22:15), and they will learn to honor and obey their parents and all those whom God has placed in authority over them. The case law in discussion does not apply to young children during the formative years, but applies, instead, to a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing. It is a case of habitual contempt of parental authority characterized by a young adult living a life without moral restraint who lashes out verbally and/or physically against his mother and father. It is a case where the evil character of the son is apparently set, and there is no reasonable hope of his ever changing.

The kind of rebellion against parental authority described in this case law is called "evil" (v. 21). It is evil because it holds both God and his law (i.e., the command to honor parents) in derision. It is evil because it threatens the very existence of the family, and therefore, of society itself. It is evil because it signals the rejection of all God-ordained authority and leads to civil and ecclesiastical disorder. God considers it such a dangerous evil that it must be extinguished by death at the hands of the civil magistrate.4

Inescapable Death
Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "death" is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society? Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf.Pr. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him. Finally, God himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, his curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (Dt. 27:16; Pr. 30:17). Therefore, the execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would-be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course.

Theonomists must not be embarrassed by the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21, nor should they be chagrined when others try to use it to discredit the case laws of the Old Testament. Properly understood, it displays the wisdom and mercy of God in restraining wickedness so that the righteous might flourish in peace. It is those who reject this case law that should be embarrassed, for they have cast reproach on God and his law, cast aside the testimony of Christ,5 and have substituted their own imaginations (Jer. 7:24) for the blessed word of God.

[Metatron]

No one is innocent of disobeying their conscience, no one is innocent of disobeying God's will for humanity. So when things happen to us as a result of our disobedience, do we blame God or ourselves?

For instance if I tell my kids to stay away from drugs, because I know it will lead to addiction, and ultimately to sickness or death, who's choice is it to use drugs? Ultimately it's theirs. I can explain, my will to them, I can lay down my rules to them, and I can love them, but I cannot force my will on theirs.

Now God is different, because He can enforce His will on us, but does not, because that would take away our "choice". So while He gives us His rules, and shares His will with us, some will reject His will, and all will disobey His rules.

This does not mean God does not love us, as it does not mean that we do not love our children, but it does mean that we have been given a choice, much like our kids have been given a choice, to obey or disobey.

The main problem with this analogy is the primary thing God's rules seemed to be designed to protect us from is God himself!

Namely, if we do not devote ourself heart and soul to his "Son"/ Avatar, we are doomed to suffer hellfire for all eternity. As for the notion that God loves us, a fail to see the love in a diety who is okay with sending billions of his flawed creations to some sort of cosmic Auschwitz because they believe in some other faith or are incapable of compelling themselves to believe in a diety who refuses to manifest himself or offer definitive proof of his existence. Indeed, I'm hard pressed to come up with a concept that is more evil.

[Easyrider]

No one is innocent of disobeying their conscience, no one is innocent of disobeying God's will for humanity. So when things happen to us as a result of our disobedience, do we blame God or ourselves?

For instance if I tell my kids to stay away from drugs, because I know it will lead to addiction, and ultimately to sickness or death, who's choice is it to use drugs? Ultimately it's theirs. I can explain, my will to them, I can lay down my rules to them, and I can love them, but I cannot force my will on theirs.

Now God is different, because He can enforce His will on us, but does not, because that would take away our "choice". So while He gives us His rules, and shares His will with us, some will reject His will, and all will disobey His rules.

This does not mean God does not love us, as it does not mean that we do not love our children, but it does mean that we have been given a choice, much like our kids have been given a choice, to obey or disobey.

The main problem with this analogy is the primary thing God's rules seemed to be designed to protect us from is God himself!

Namely, if we do not devote ourself heart and soul to his "Son"/ Avatar, we are doomed to suffer hellfire for all eternity. As for the notion that God loves us, a fail to see the love in a diety who is okay with sending billions of his flawed creations to some sort of cosmic Auschwitz because they believe in some other faith or are incapable of compelling themselves to believe in a diety who refuses to manifest himself or offer definitive proof of his existence. Indeed, I'm hard pressed to come up with a concept that is more evil.

God doesn't send anyone to hell. They do it to themselves.

[McCulloch]

But then again, in the Bible you are suppose to Stone your Children to Death if they are disobedient, hold on, Killing is OK? Explain this to me, please. As this goes against our manufactured "moral" of having a stable and healthy society, without killings and such. You want your Bible as guidance instead?

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die .... (Dt. 21:18, 21)
[...]
Inescapable Death
Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "death" is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society? Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf.Pr. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him. Finally, God himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, his curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (Dt. 27:16; Pr. 30:17). Therefore, the execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would-be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course.

Yes, that is perfectly reasonable. Only kill your rebellious children once they have grown up. And only if you deem their rebellion to be a severe threat to your parental authority over them.
It is a good thing that there are laws against such merciful theonomists.

[Metatron]

[The main problem with this analogy is the primary thing God's rules seemed to be designed to protect us from is God himself!

Namely, if we do not devote ourself heart and soul to his "Son"/ Avatar, we are doomed to suffer hellfire for all eternity. As for the notion that God loves us, a fail to see the love in a diety who is okay with sending billions of his flawed creations to some sort of cosmic Auschwitz because they believe in some other faith or are incapable of compelling themselves to believe in a diety who refuses to manifest himself or offer definitive proof of his existence. Indeed, I'm hard pressed to come up with a concept that is more evil.

God doesn't send anyone to hell. They do it to themselves.

What are you talking about?

Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. WILLINGLY march themselves into the pits of Hell? They say: "what the heck, I've nothing better to do now that I'm dead so I'll wander down to Hell and experience a little of that fire and brimstone action"? No doubt when they get tired of being cooked like a marshmallow at a scout campout, God will let them leave, right?

When I kick the bucket, I think I'll pass on the whole eternal damnation thing since apparently its my choice.

[Easyrider]

What are you talking about?

Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. WILLINGLY march themselves into the pits of Hell? They say: "what the heck, I've nothing better to do now that I'm dead so I'll wander down to Hell and experience a little of that fire and brimstone action"?

Recommended reading to clarify this confusion: Romans chapters 1 & 2.

When I kick the bucket, I think I'll pass on the whole eternal damnation thing since apparently its my choice.

You'll need a "Jesus get out of jail free" care to make that one work.

[Metatron]

What are you talking about?

Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. WILLINGLY march themselves into the pits of Hell? They say: "what the heck, I've nothing better to do now that I'm dead so I'll wander down to Hell and experience a little of that fire and brimstone action"?

Recommended reading to clarify this confusion: Romans chapters 1 & 2.

When I kick the bucket, I think I'll pass on the whole eternal damnation thing since apparently its my choice.

You'll need a "Jesus get out of jail free" care to make that one work.

I will have to admit to not being enough of a biblical scholar to parse the point your probably trying to make out of Romans 1&2. I see a lot of descriptions of pagan depravity of those pesky Romans. There is also a somewhat confusing description of Gentiles who do not know the law apparently being judged positively if their conscience instinctively follows the law. To my totally untrained eye that almost sounds like non-Christians being judged positively if they instinctively act morally by the standards of the law but I know that can't be right since that would blow the whole salvation only through Christ thing away.

You haven't really addressed your earlier statement that God does not send anyone to Hell and that we send ourselves. I realize that the "sending ourselves" bit is another way of saying not taking Christ up on his offer of salvation, but really if an atheist dies and presumably does not want to go to Hell something is putting him there against his will, whether that something is God directly or his agent Satan. If God wasn't putting him there then he wouldn't be there.

[Easyrider]

I will have to admit to not being enough of a biblical scholar to parse the point your probably trying to make out of Romans 1&2. I see a lot of descriptions of pagan depravity of those pesky Romans. There is also a somewhat confusing description of Gentiles who do not know the law apparently being judged positively if their conscience instinctively follows the law. To my totally untrained eye that almost sounds like non-Christians being judged positively if they instinctively act morally by the standards of the law but I know that can't be right since that would blow the whole salvation only through Christ thing away.

You see, God will judge fairly, i.e.

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

You haven't really addressed your earlier statement that God does not send anyone to Hell and that we send ourselves. I realize that the "sending ourselves" bit is another way of saying not taking Christ up on his offer of salvation, but really if an atheist dies and presumably does not want to go to Hell something is putting him there against his will, whether that something is God directly or his agent Satan. If God wasn't putting him there then he wouldn't be there.

See above. Also, most athiests around have at one time or another been presented with the truth of Christ's salvation. If they reject that, it's on their own heads, and they are doing it to themselves.