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.

[ttruscott]

...

Has God changed his mind along the way " regarding such things as wholesale killing of societies that worship competing gods, stoning of disobedient children and adulteresses, demeaning of women, etc?

...

GOD may change HIS mind. HIS unchangingness refers to HIS holiness, HIS commitment to being loving and righteous. HE offered to change HIS mind and spare Sodom and Gomorrah if even just 10 righteous were found in them.

Killing societies that tried to keep the Hebrews out of the promise land is a prophecy spelled out in historical lessons rather than words and it will come to pass that all of the eternally evil who now interfere with HIS sinful elect becoming heaven ready will be killed / damned so the heavenly union may commence, so in this instance there has been no change....and when the lesson was given, there was no more need for it and He moved on to the next lesson, the consequences if Israel lost fidelity to YHWH.

I have still had been provided no proof that the death of a child who attacked a parent ever referred to a child who is younger than the age of legal consequence. Child refers to the offspring of a parent no matter what age they are. It is your interpretation that it must refer to a two year old having a tantrum or someone under the age of legal responsibility which cannot be defended. You are invited to study the Hebrew and find an error in my contention.

I claim GOD is a righteous judge. You claim HE demeans women. I claim anything that can be interpreted to mean HE demeans them is a righteous judgment upon them, not demeaning at all but earned. What do you base your interpretation of the Scriptures upon when the bulk of the history of scriptural interpretation is against it?

Peace,Ted

[ttruscott]

...

The rule is that we should murder children who physically attack their parents.

...

You haven't proven the age of this child at all yet. Your interpretation misses the mark. I suggest you to the Hebrew and try to support your contentions.

The rule is that a person of legal responsibility has a higher legal responsibility for their parent than for others... an attack is as bad as a murder. Pretty awful, eh?

[ttruscott]

...

Are you saying that the Lord's Commandment to murder children doesn't apply to you?

...

Please quote chapter and verse in which anyone is commanded to murder children.

Deut. 21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

...

If a MAN h376 'iysh, NO reference to a child at all, only to an adult child of a parent.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

The "put to death" part of dealing with children is pretty clear.

...

Prove that it is not adult children that are being talked about where ever you think children are being commanded to be murdered. A parent can have their child attack them when their child is 55 years old!

Prove that it is not extremely young children that are being talked about where ever you think children are being commanded to be murdered. A parent can have their child attack them when their child is 1 years old!

You guys started this contention that infants (not legally responsible) are referred to so the onus is yours.

[Zzyzx]

.

Has God changed his mind along the way " regarding such things as wholesale killing of societies that worship competing gods, stoning of disobedient children and adulteresses, demeaning of women, etc?

GOD may change HIS mind. HIS unchangingness refers to HIS holiness, HIS commitment to being loving and righteous..

If God is presented as "perfect" how can he have made decisions that later he decides need to be changed?

Since now God is being presented as indecisive, changing his mind is not ruled out. Thus, promises and intentions supposedly made, such as "salvation", can be withdrawn by a change of mind, right?

Or, can God now change his mind about some things but not others?

Tangled web?

HE offered to change HIS mind and spare Sodom and Gomorrah if even just 10 righteous were found in them

So goes the tale. Is there a way to determine if the tale is true and not just legend, myth, folklore?

Killing societies that tried to keep the Hebrews out of the promise land is a prophecy spelled out in historical lessons rather than words

Many of the competing societies seem to have done far better than the Hebrews.

and it will come to pass that all of the eternally evil who now interfere with HIS sinful elect becoming heaven ready will be killed / damned so the heavenly union may commence,

That sounds like a whole pile of wishful thinking or pie in the sky " and a claim of knowledge that cannot be shown to be anything more than fantasy, imagination and religious dogma.

How do you know that God hasn't changed his mind and decided that sheep shall become mutton meals for "lions" who do not meekly follow what self-identified "priests" and "prophets" say?

so in this instance there has been no change....and when the lesson was given, there was no more need for it and He moved on to the next lesson, the consequences if Israel lost fidelity to YHWH.

Folklore says all of that, doesn't it?

I have still had been provided no proof that the death of a child who attacked a parent ever referred to a child who is younger than the age of legal consequence. Child refers to the offspring of a parent no matter what age they are. It is your interpretation that it must refer to a two year old having a tantrum or someone under the age of legal responsibility which cannot be defended. You are invited to study the Hebrew and find an error in my contention.

Correction: I make no assumptions about the age of "children" to be stoned.

However, does age of the offspring decide whether stoning is commanded or condoned? Is it reasonable or acceptable to kill young adult or adult offspring who curse their parents or disobey them (after trial before church elders with two witnesses, of course)?

I claim GOD is a righteous judge. You claim HE demeans women. I claim anything that can be interpreted to mean HE demeans them is a righteous judgment upon them, not demeaning at all but earned.

Let's see . . . women earned birth pains, earned subservient position, earned the order to be silent in church, earned the prohibition against leading or teaching men. How, exactly, did women earn such things?

What do you base your interpretation of the Scriptures upon when the bulk of the history of scriptural interpretation is against it?

I base my rejection of scripture upon ability to read and understand the English language, upon the failure to say what it means and mean what it says (without fancy dance steps by wannabe "interpreters" who seem to think that their opinion is paramount), upon irrational / incredible stories, upon disastrous "advice" or orders. Need more?

[dianaiad]

.

Has God changed his mind along the way " regarding such things as wholesale killing of societies that worship competing gods, stoning of disobedient children and adulteresses, demeaning of women, etc?

GOD may change HIS mind. HIS unchangingness refers to HIS holiness, HIS commitment to being loving and righteous..

If God is presented as "perfect" how can he have made decisions that later he decides need to be changed?

If a teacher is declared to be 'teacher of the year,' and is considered to be the best teacher ever, how can he possibly deliver a lesson (and a set of classroom management rules) one way to one group, and another to a different group?

In order for perfection to hold, everybody involved has to be perfect, I think; if one party is 'perfect,' but fails to deal effectively with one group because he refuses to change his methods to the ones that best reach another, he's not exactly 'perfect,' is he?

Or...if it were true that God holds the reigns on our thoughts and actions; if everything we do is predetermined, then you might have a point; God would not have to change His approach at all.

However, if we ARE thinking for ourselves a bit and making our own choices, then 'perfection' in such a case would include the ability to change to the methods best suited to the groups in question, seems to me.

[squint]

...

Are you saying that the Lord's Commandment to murder children doesn't apply to you?

...

Please quote chapter and verse in which anyone is commanded to murder children.

Deut. 21
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

...

If a MAN h376 'iysh, NO reference to a child at all, only to an adult child of a parent.

Peace, Ted

Oh, come on now. "ben" is much more interesting word than that:

Definition:

son, grandson, child, member of a group
son, male child
grandson
children (pl. - male and female)
youth, young men (pl.)
young (of animals)
sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
people (of a nation) (pl.)
of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
a member of a guild, order, class

As well as the base or primitive root word, "banah", having even more interesting footnotes.

These constructs and concepts aren't born in a subjectively defined vacuum called "age of accountability." That's just your notion to justify the stoning young drunk gluttonous men. It really doesn't have anything to do with any of that at all once you get past the literalist barriers.

Don't you know for example in the "spiritual sense" of the word, children of the devil are to be brought out and stoned with Gods Words and have their wicked little heads bashed in?

Nice picture, ain't it? Fortunately it's an allegorical picture. Pity them poor literalist Israelites.

Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

That's probably the first appeal to common sense I'd have made if I was a drunk young glutton in ancient Israel.

[Zzyzx]

.

If a teacher is declared to be 'teacher of the year,' and is considered to be the best teacher ever, how can he possibly deliver a lesson (and a set of classroom management rules) one way to one group, and another to a different group?

Diana, if a hypothetical teacher said "Kill your neighbors" one year and the next year said "Love your neighbors" would they likely be "teacher of the year" " or even considered rational? If I was voting in that case my vote would be for psychiatric examination and possibly institutionalization (or at least medication and career change).

In order for perfection to hold, everybody involved has to be perfect, I think; if one party is 'perfect,' but fails to deal effectively with one group because he refuses to change his methods to the ones that best reach another, he's not exactly 'perfect,' is he?

Does this suggest that instructions to kill neighbors (or stone adulteresses and disobedient children or subjugate females) constituted dealing effectively with a group?

Or...if it were true that God holds the reigns on our thoughts and actions; if everything we do is predetermined, then you might have a point; God would not have to change His approach at all.

Was there some profound change in human nature coinciding with the switch in tactics / approach at the time of initiating of Christianity (and/or its NT)?

If so, what exactly was the change and how is it known to have occurred at that time?

It appears to me as though what happened was that Judaism lost big time in their struggle against Roman domination and a competing religion developed that was acceptable to Roman leaders (enough so to become official religion of the empire).

However, if we ARE thinking for ourselves a bit and making our own choices, then 'perfection' in such a case would include the ability to change to the methods best suited to the groups in question, seems to me.

Perhaps. Since God has evidently not updated teaching methods for a couple thousand years those methods may have become a bit stale or obsolete and Christianity is losing ground in many modern nations.

[dianaiad]

.

If a teacher is declared to be 'teacher of the year,' and is considered to be the best teacher ever, how can he possibly deliver a lesson (and a set of classroom management rules) one way to one group, and another to a different group?

Diana, if a hypothetical teacher said "Kill your neighbors" one year and the next year said "Love your neighbors" would they likely be "teacher of the year" " or even considered rational? If I was voting in that case my vote would be for psychiatric examination and possibly institutionalization (or at least medication and career change).

Well, the fact is, God never commanded anybody to 'kill your neighbors.'

He did allow/command (or at least, the winners of the battles claimed this) the Israelites to kill their enemies.

The point all the critics are missing here is that there came a point...for whatever reason...there came a point when Jesus the Christ came and ended the Law of Moses. He gave a different set of laws. He Himself lived according to the Law of Moses, but His followers, after His death, did not, and He is the One who gave them the new laws.

On the other hand, what He actually did was to rip away all the minutia and boil everything down to "Love the Lord thy God" and "love your neighbor as yourself," because those two things are the basis of all the 'law and the prophets.'

It's just that some times, people needed to be micromanaged a bit more, and dealt with where they were, not where we are.

Not that WE are all that moral and selfless ourselves, mind you.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, the fact is, God never commanded anybody to 'kill your neighbors.'

He did allow/command (or at least, the winners of the battles claimed this) the Israelites to kill their enemies.

Okay. The command changes from "kill your enemies" to "love your enemies" " from the same God (or parts thereof according to Christian lore). Right?

The point all the critics are missing here is that there came a point...for whatever reason...there came a point when Jesus the Christ came and ended the Law of Moses.

Is Jesus himself credited with saying that he came to end the law of Moses?

Isn't he quoted as saying "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17 (NAS) (and similar wording in other bible versions)

He gave a different set of laws. He Himself lived according to the Law of Moses, but His followers, after His death, did not, and He is the One who gave them the new laws.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Paul/Saul and the gospel writers formulated new laws / rules?

On the other hand, what He actually did was to rip away all the minutia and boil everything down to "Love the Lord thy God" and "love your neighbor as yourself," because those two things are the basis of all the 'law and the prophets.'

Thus, Jesus replaced 613 OT laws with two of his own. Therefore, the Ten Commandments (Jewish from OT, not listed in the NT) are replaced by the two. Right?

It's just that some times, people needed to be micromanaged a bit more, and dealt with where they were, not where we are.

Is this to say that people at and after the time of Jesus had become less in need of micromanagement? What changed in the people? How can that be known?