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.

[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.

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.

Why? That's no fun, and would make me unique among the posters to this forum.

Be that as it may, (and speaking of cherry picking), the baby sitter can't do diddly squat, according to that law to which you are, in error, referring. It has already been pointed out to you that it is up to the PARENTS, not some third party, and even they couldn't do anything out of hand. There is the 'bringing before the elders at the gates' thing.

It's a system of laws. Like our own, there was a method of judgment, and before punishment was a trial.

No matter how you want to present it.

[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.

Why? That's no fun, and would make me unique among the posters to this forum.

nice

Be that as it may, (and speaking of cherry picking), the baby sitter can't do diddly squat, according to that law to which you are, in error, referring. It has already been pointed out to you that it is up to the PARENTS, not some third party, and even they couldn't do anything out of hand. There is the 'bringing before the elders at the gates' thing.

Right, so people who became aware of your children having committed a capital offense could bring your child before some elders who would then condemn the child.

It's a system of laws. Like our own, there was a method of judgment, and before punishment was a trial.

WOAH!!!! What do you mean "like our own". Our laws are secular, created by MAN. The laws in the Bible are directly dictated by GOD!

Clearly the laws of the Bible are morally superior to anything we puny mortals could devise. Right?

Or are you saying that Moses was lying when he said that God came to him on Mt. Senai and gave him the big list of commandments?

Are the Ten Commandments just something Moses came up with all by himself? Is the story of God appearing to Moses just a metaphor, like the story of Adam and Eve?

[dianaiad]

It's a system of laws. Like our own, there was a method of judgment, and before punishment was a trial.

WOAH!!!! What do you mean "like our own". Our laws are secular, created by MAN. The laws in the Bible are directly dictated by GOD!

Are you saying that our system of laws does not have a 'method of judgment, and before punishment [is] a trial?"

Because those are the three things I was comparing, not the source.

Clearly the laws of the Bible are morally superior to anything we puny mortals could devise. Right?

They were for the time, yes, actually.

Or are you saying that Moses was lying when he said that God came to him on Mt. Senai and gave him the big list of commandments?

Are the Ten Commandments just something Moses came up with all by himself? Is the story of God appearing to Moses just a metaphor, like the story of Adam and Eve?

Nice of you to remember that I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is mostly metaphorical.

I do think that Moses did receive revelation.

But revelation is, you need to understand, pertinent to the needs of the time. OT revelation to OT cultures, NT revelation to NT cultures, modern revelation to modern cultures.

But then I'm a little bit odd, in that way, I suppose.

[Blastcat]

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.

Yeah, actually it isn't. If some high felutin' preacher man can interpret "smiting" as "attack".. then some lowly person might interpret "attack" as "slight".

TRANSLATORS of your bible don't agree with you. Otherwise, they WOULD have used the more specific word "smite" instead of the more general and vague word "attack".

I'm going to assume that the translators of the Bible are actual Biblical experts in how the Bible should be translated and not some.. interested party on the internet.

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

Specific to whom? TO YOUM?
It's just as "specific" to anyone with a yearning to interpret.

And words have very specific meanings to you, and words have very specific meanings to others. People don't all agree that your meanings are the meanings they specifically take from the "words".. whatever words they happen to BE reading.

There are, after all, THOUSANDS of denominational disagreements about what any of the "words" mean, and WITHIN those denominations, thousands yet again. Interpretations tend to be subjective that way.

Now, ADD to that the thousands and thousands of NON denominational people who can't follow any of THOSE interpretations and you have what we see now.

A CHAOS of subjective meaning.. all CLAIMING to the the one TRUE meaning and damn to hell all the rest.

In my opinion.

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.

Ok, since I don't want to make any historians mistake, I should believe YOUR historical interpretations? What about YOUR historian's mistakes?

Because ... if you aren't a historian and don't MAKE the kind of history mistakes the historians make, I won't take what you say as historical at all.

I'll take what you say as historical opinion.

Why should I take you as a meta-historian who can teach proper Biblical history, and why should I take you on the authority on Biblical interpretations?

Should I?

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.

Oh, I get it, the historian's mistake is not to agree with your interpretations. I don't think that's a mistake at all. Thanks for your suggestion. I'll pass on it.

I don't happen to think that you ARE that uber super knowing historian who never makes a mistake. In fact, I think it's ARROGANT to presume to be the one with the real true interpretation and not any other DEVOUT believer.

There are all KINDS of devout believers who will not agree with you on what the passage means. So, why would you PRESUME to present yourself as THE authority?

Please, if this is MERELY your opinion, then state so clearly.
Otherwise, I'll take you as .. a pretender. I tend to ignore pretend.

In my opinion, you are not the one stop shopping Bible authority.

IN MY OPINION you're just not.
Get in line.. there are LOTS of aspirants to the position. Yes the end of the line is around the block.. twice. Its a VERY long line.

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 YOUR words. Thank you for demonstrating that you believe your words. I'm not impressed, however, that you know all things and can interpret all things correctly.

So.. moving on......

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.

What you think it meant.. thank you for your opinion. Some crazed NUT CASE might not be familiar with your perfect interpretations. ARE they perfect interpretations? Or are these personal interpretations? The religious nut case who wants to murder children for what he believes is a perfect interpretation might not agree with your subjective ones.

If your interpretations are subjective.. why should ANYONE take them more seriously than any other kind of subjective interpretations?

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?

Aren't you the lecturer? You sure are smart. Go lecture to Mr. Bill with the sharp knife and a DIFFERENT take on the words. Convince HIM.. not yourself, not us.

Go convince the religious nut case with the sharp knife. It was really something at the time you say. Well great. This is NOT that time any more. It's not really something any more.

It's really BACKWARDS now and BARBARIC now.. so thank you for demonstrating that things in barbaric times were barbaric. I don't WANT barbarism .. I don't VALUE it, I don't HOLD it as some kind of a good model for child rearing.

Just as the OT might not apply to the times of Jesus.. the NT doesn't apply to NOW.. so.. who cares what barbaric people thought about morality? THEY WERE VERY WRONG.

They thought that people should be slaves and that kids should be seen and not heard. They thought that life wasn't very valuable. They thought the AFTER LIFE was more so.

Who CARES what they thought? They were barbaric.

We happen to know a LOT more than they ever did about morality. We are WAY more moral than any of them. They thought that CHILD LABOR was a good thing.. they thought that SLAVERY was ok.

They were BARBARIC... so take Mr. Bill.. AWAY from the children. He is a menace and so is anyone who promulgates a BARBARIC morality.

Apologists defend the barbaric morality found in the Bible.
I'm not going to trust them with my children, even if they might not ACT on those beliefs, due to our secular LAWS. They think these barbaric thoughts are moral thoughts.. they are.. MORALLY INSANE and Morally INFERIOR to secular people for that reason.. and I don't want them around my kids IN ANY WAY AT ALL.

I had a religious nut case baby sitting my 4 year old child. My daughter came back crying. That didn't last long. I gave that baby sitter a piece of my mind, let me tell you.

So, this isn't just a hypothetical for me. I have watched my CHILD be subjected to this form of emotional child abuse, and I would REPORT her now for it. I was a bit more naive back then. I was angry, and had to help my child understand that this person was only MISTAKEN and that NONE of her threats were real. I then read Harry Potter to my child so that she can learn the difference between SCARY STORIES and reality.

I'm NOT as naive now. I WOULD ask a baby sitter about his or her religious beliefs. It's AMAZING to me that I would have to.. but there we are. Religion is a REAL danger to society.

An apologist defending a barbaric method of treating children wont be babysitting any child of MINE. And I would CAUTION people against it. No matter WHAT the parent believes, leaving a kid to a moral idiot is NOT rational.

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.

The what now?

The old testament doesn't apply.. ok.. thou shalt kill now . That law doesn't apply.
The Genesis story doesn't apply now.
Original sin doesn't apply now.
Redemption doesn't apply any more.
You don't have to believe in god now. It just doesn't apply any more.
None of those old beliefs are applicable.

Go Mr. Bill, go kill the kiddies as the OT doesn't apply! You can forget all about the ten commandments. DOESN'T apply !!! WOO HOO

Go, go like the wind!

[Zzyzx]

.

But revelation is, you need to understand, pertinent to the needs of the time. OT revelation to OT cultures, NT revelation to NT cultures, modern revelation to modern cultures.

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?

Were the NT "revelations" the testimonials of Paul/Saul and the gospel writers (whoever they may have been)?

Are we witnessing modern revelations in the form of testimonials by preachers and "the last saint?"

How can "real" revelations from gods be distinguished from false claims or delusions of grandeur or psychosis?

[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.

Yeah, actually it isn't. If some high felutin' preacher man can interpret "smiting" as "attack".. then some lowly person might interpret "attack" as "slight".

TRANSLATORS of your bible don't agree with you. Otherwise, they WOULD have used the more specific word "smite" instead of the more general and vague word "attack".

Actually, they did. Of the 48 modern English translations I found on Bible Gateway,
only five use the word 'attack' or 'attacks.' the rest use the terms 'smite,' "hit,' (or 'hit violently') 'strike,' and in one instance, it's "smite,' followed by a definition in parentheses..."strike."

I'm going to assume that the translators of the Bible are actual Biblical experts in how the Bible should be translated and not some.. interested party on the internet.

Y'know, that would be an excellent idea! You should try that.

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

Specific to whom? TO YOUM?
It's just as "specific" to anyone with a yearning to interpret.

Well, you are quite free to interpret things in any way you wish. However, you don't get to decide that everybody else has to agree with you.

And words have very specific meanings to you, and words have very specific meanings to others. People don't all agree that your meanings are the meanings they specifically take from the "words".. whatever words they happen to BE reading.

There are, after all, THOUSANDS of denominational disagreements about what any of the "words" mean, and WITHIN those denominations, thousands yet again. Interpretations tend to be subjective that way.

Indeed. Which is why it would have been a good idea for you to look at more than one translation of the bible before you started going on about how much you trust the translators.

Just sayin'

Now, ADD to that the thousands and thousands of NON denominational people who can't follow any of THOSE interpretations and you have what we see now.

A CHAOS of subjective meaning.. all CLAIMING to the the one TRUE meaning and damn to hell all the rest.

In my opinion.

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.

Ok, since I don't want to make any historians mistake, I should believe YOUR historical interpretations? What about YOUR historian's mistakes?

Have I made one? Actually, in this case we are talking about word meanings; you seem to be using a modern definition for a word/concept that had a very different meaning when it was first used. That's etymology/linguistics.

........and that is my field.

Because ... if you aren't a historian and don't MAKE the kind of history mistakes the historians make, I won't take what you say as historical at all.

I'll take what you say as historical opinion.

Why should I take you as a meta-historian who can teach proper Biblical history, and why should I take you on the authority on Biblical interpretations?

Should I?

I didn't present myself as such, y'know. I simply went and looked things up...something you should have done, and did not.

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.

Oh, I get it, the historian's mistake is not to agree with your interpretations. I don't think that's a mistake at all. Thanks for your suggestion. I'll pass on it.

No, the historian's mistake is to look at history through today's moral lens. That is what you are doing.

I don't happen to think that you ARE that uber super knowing historian who never makes a mistake. In fact, I think it's ARROGANT to presume to be the one with the real true interpretation and not any other DEVOUT believer.

As opposed to the super knowing non-believer who has decided that his interpretation of scripture trumps all, and whose declarations of meaning..even though they are proven inaccurate..are all that counts, even for those who actually study the scriptures and understand that there is more than one version/translation of the bible?

As I said; up to you. However, I think I'll stick with my own expertise in word meaning, and an understanding that one really should not judge yesterday's cultures by today's standards.

There are all KINDS of devout believers who will not agree with you on what the passage means. So, why would you PRESUME to present yourself as THE authority?

Why not? You are. At least I went for a consensus of opinion; 48 translations...all of which use 'smite,' or 'hit,' or 'strike,' and only five use 'attack,'...and in those cases, 'attack' is defined as physical.

Up to you, of course, but you might want to try that. Personally, I appreciate the many different translations/versions of the bible. Though I prefer the KJV (I love the poetry), when I get down to actual study, I use as many different ones as I need to in order to get a solid understanding of what the original was probably saying.

BTW, the KJV says 'smiteth.'

Just so you know.

Please, if this is MERELY your opinion, then state so clearly.
Otherwise, I'll take you as .. a pretender. I tend to ignore pretend.

Interesting. I'm the one who gave the citations. What version of the bible did you use? I don't think you told us.

<snip to end>

When you start supporting your contentions without using ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, perhaps I'll join back in.

[atheist buddy]

It's a system of laws. Like our own, there was a method of judgment, and before punishment was a trial.

WOAH!!!! What do you mean "like our own". Our laws are secular, created by MAN. The laws in the Bible are directly dictated by GOD!

Are you saying that our system of laws does not have a 'method of judgment, and before punishment [is] a trial?"

Because those are the three things I was comparing, not the source.

Clearly the laws of the Bible are morally superior to anything we puny mortals could devise. Right?

They were for the time, yes, actually.

Wow. So it would have been impossible for anybody to devise any kind of moral edict at the time that might be an improvement on the law that, for example, gay people should be killed?

Any person living at the time who thought that maybe gay people shouldn't be killed, would have been wrong, because the rule that gay people should be killed wasn't merely right. It was more than that. It was perfect. It was intrinsically unimprovable.

Is that what you're saying?

Not only was killing gay people, "witches" unruly children, owning slaves, treating women as chattel, etc morally correct at the time. It was the absolute best thing that could have been done.

For example, Lev 20:27 says that fortune-tellers must be killed by stoning. If anybody thought to themselves "Well, sure, we should kill fortune tellers as God commands, but maybe we should do it in a more humane way than stoning", then that person would be morally indifensible. He would be wrong. Because, as you clearly agree, the Laws of the Bible were morally superior to anything any puny mortal could devise. Any change to the law, be it only the method of execution of fortune-tellers, would NOT be an improvement.

Right?


BUT, these perfect moral laws that it's impossible for anybody to improve in any way, created by the unchanging creator of everything including absolute morality, have an expiration date. Right? After a few centuries, that which was morally perfect and impossible to improve upon, becomes fundamentally immoral and abhorrent.

While I do enjoy seeing a theist advocate for moral relativism in an effort to justify their belief in the existence of a morally absolute creator, I've never seen the absurdity of such an oxymoronic argument displayed in such a ridiculous way.

"The laws to kill misbehaving children are so perfect that it's impossible to improve them in any way, except that after a few millennia of being perfect and unimprovable, they become abhorrent and fundamentally immoral, and this is all part of the plan of the creator of absolute morality".

But then I'm a little bit odd, in that way, I suppose.

Yup

[atheist buddy]

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.

Yeah, actually it isn't. If some high felutin' preacher man can interpret "smiting" as "attack".. then some lowly person might interpret "attack" as "slight".

TRANSLATORS of your bible don't agree with you. Otherwise, they WOULD have used the more specific word "smite" instead of the more general and vague word "attack".

Actually, they did. Of the 48 modern English translations I found on Bible Gateway,
only five use the word 'attack' or 'attacks.' the rest use the terms 'smite,' "hit,' (or 'hit violently') 'strike,' and in one instance, it's "smite,' followed by a definition in parentheses..."strike."

Oh boy, I'm really glad that we cleared this up.

The rule is that we should murder children who physically attack their parents. It's important that we clarify that. Because if it wasn't clear that it was about physical attacks as opposed to non-physical attacks, then the edict to murder those children might be immoral. But it's not immoral, because thankfully Dianaiad clarified that this is about physical attacks. OF COURSE it's moral to murder children who physically attacked their parents! They attacked them PHYSICALLY! Clearly they therefore deserve to be murdered.

And before anybody tries to reject the notion that they deserve to be murdered, remember that the rule that they should be murdered is impossible to improve because it's perfect. For about 4000 years. And then it suddenly becomes one of the most immoral things anybody could ever do.

All courtesy of the immutable and eternal creator of absolute morality.


Lol. Why pay to go to the movies, when you can get all the entertainment you'll ever need, watching a theist twist like a pretzel to justify unjustifiable and self-refuting beliefs!

[dianaiad]

It's a system of laws. Like our own, there was a method of judgment, and before punishment was a trial.

WOAH!!!! What do you mean "like our own". Our laws are secular, created by MAN. The laws in the Bible are directly dictated by GOD!

Are you saying that our system of laws does not have a 'method of judgment, and before punishment [is] a trial?"

Because those are the three things I was comparing, not the source.

Clearly the laws of the Bible are morally superior to anything we puny mortals could devise. Right?

They were for the time, yes, actually.

Wow. So it would have been impossible for anybody to devise any kind of moral edict at the time that might be an improvement on the law that, for example, gay people should be killed?

Any person living at the time who thought that maybe gay people shouldn't be killed, would have been wrong, because the rule that gay people should be killed wasn't merely right. It was more than that. It was perfect. It was intrinsically unimprovable.

Is that what you're saying?

Why, no.
I'm saying that for that time and place, the laws of that culture were more 'just' or 'fair' than those of many other cultures of the time.

I'm saying that three things that their laws and ours have in common are these:

There is a law, the accused gets a trial, and only after the trial is punishment delivered.

You are taking the cotton wad out of an aspirin bottle and trying to weave a blanket out of it. Stop that.


<snip to>

BUT, these perfect moral laws that it's impossible for anybody to improve in any way, created by the unchanging creator of everything including absolute morality, have an expiration date. Right? After a few centuries, that which was morally perfect and impossible to improve upon, becomes fundamentally immoral and abhorrent.

Where did I claim any such thing?

While I do enjoy seeing a theist advocate for moral relativism in an effort to justify their belief in the existence of a morally absolute creator, I've never seen the absurdity of such an oxymoronic argument displayed in such a ridiculous way.

I enjoy the workings of another's imagination. I really do.

You realize that one of the most basic beliefs of Christianity is that with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Law of Moses was 'fulfilled,' and no longer in effect, right? There are quite a few mentions of exactly that in the NT. WE are supposed to be living according to a different...and far harder...set of standards and laws, examples of which might be found in Matthew, chapter 5. I'm sending you to the bible gateway site because there you can examine many different translations/versions, English and non-English language versions, and examine the language minutely, as seen by many different translators.

you might enjoy watching people defend 'relativism,' but you are here attacking a strawman. Attacking Christians..and Jews, for that matter...because we no longer live according to the strict Mosaic Law in such matters as these is, frankly, ill-advised; like criticizing an Olympic swimmer because he no longer wears water wings on his arms; after all, wasn't that the rule when he was three?

It would be different, y'know, if the vast majority of Christians didn't accept that Christ did indeed 'fulfill' the Law of Moses and that the instruction to abandon it came from God through revelation. You can't have this both ways in your criticism, after all: if we believe that God gives us revelation through prophets, and we act on that belief, how are WE being illogical?

However, for you to insist that only the OT prophets should guide our lives, and that we should therefore ignore the NT ones because it makes your strawman target look better....that, m'friend, is illogical.

If you are going to criticize us, then criticize us for what we actually believe, not for what you wish we did because it's easier to attack us that way.

[dianaiad]

TRANSLATORS of your bible don't agree with you. Otherwise, they WOULD have used the more specific word "smite" instead of the more general and vague word "attack".

Actually, they did. Of the 48 modern English translations I found on Bible Gateway,
only five use the word 'attack' or 'attacks.' the rest use the terms 'smite,' "hit,' (or 'hit violently') 'strike,' and in one instance, it's "smite,' followed by a definition in parentheses..."strike."

Oh boy, I'm really glad that we cleared this up.

You're welcome.

The rule is that we should murder children who physically attack their parents. It's important that we clarify that. Because if it wasn't clear that it was about physical attacks as opposed to non-physical attacks, then the edict to murder those children might be immoral. But it's not immoral, because thankfully Dianaiad clarified that this is about physical attacks. OF COURSE it's moral to murder children who physically attacked their parents! They attacked them PHYSICALLY! Clearly they therefore deserve to be murdered.

Wasn't murder if it was legal. Isn't that what y'all claim about modern day abortion?

It's legal, so it's not murder? Capital punishment today, in those areas where it exists, is not murder. Certainly capital punishment after a trial and a bunch of appeals is not considered murder. You don't get to apply 'murder' to this.

What's different here between giving the parents power to hold their sons and daughters (and nobody put small children to death for throwing tantrums, bud) responsible for 'elder abuse' by hauling them to court, and allowing the women of today the absolute power of life and death over their unborn children?

Except that under the law of Moses the kid actually has to do something nasty and gets a trial first, that is?

The Law of Moses doesn't apply to us. It hasn't for quite awhile. It worked for THEM, and we believe that it was satisfied/fulfilled/ended by Jesus Christ, and it is ludicrous for you to keep harping on it. If WE believe that God Himself told us that we no longer need to live according to its precepts, why are you insisting that we must?

And before anybody tries to reject the notion that they deserve to be murdered, remember that the rule that they should be murdered is impossible to improve because it's perfect. For about 4000 years. And then it suddenly becomes one of the most immoral things anybody could ever do.

All courtesy of the immutable and eternal creator of absolute morality.

OK, He gave a group of people a bunch of laws. Then He told us that because of His Son those laws no longer applied.

What part of that seems to have escaped you, in our structure of beliefs?