Babysitting question

atheist buddy · Post by **atheist buddy** » Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:53 am

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 · Post by **ttruscott** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:58 pm

atheist buddy wrote:
...

Well, if they follow the Bible's edicts to the letter they CANNOT be rational and caring.

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

I must ask that you substantiate this blanket claim. I also do not agree with what you infer about disobedience but cannot really judge because of the lack of detail in your assertion,

peace, Ted

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:14 pm

atheist buddy wrote:
...

Are you saying that in some contexts it's morally right to murder children who misbehave, and in other contexts it's not?

...

Please supply any version of the appropriate verse which supports your contention this judgement applies to children of less than an age of legal accountability.

Please also provide the argument that the findings of a duly elected judge with a legitimate authority to make judgements, including the death penalty, are guilty of murder when they do so judge.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:16 pm

atheist buddy wrote: ...

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.

ttruscott · Post by **ttruscott** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:20 pm

Blastcat wrote:
...

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!

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:44 pm

Zzyzx wrote: .
dianaiad wrote: 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?

I don't think so.

but people have...or rather, cultures have. I believe that God needs to work with what is available, if any semblance of free will is to be present.

Zzyzx wrote: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?

By getting one's own personal revelation, through prayer. I don't really know of any other way, m'self.

Of course, those who don't try this, or who do and don't get an affirmative answer (or whatever answer they are looking for) aren't going to accept that someone else's experience doesn't match...or rather, not match...their own.

I can't help that one.

squint · Post by **squint** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:59 pm

ttruscott wrote:
atheist buddy wrote: ...

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.

Apparently daughters were exempt from this particular rule. The lesson? Maybe as a son don't get drunk, eat too much, and lip off to your parents in ancient Israel or it could cost you your life?

Here's another interesting tidbit along a similar stream:

Psalm 137:
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Blastcat · Post by **Blastcat** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:00 pm

ttruscott wrote:
Blastcat wrote:
...

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!

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:06 pm

atheist buddy wrote:
bluethread wrote:
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?

Sorry for not responding sooner, but this tread has taken of and I was preoccupied with life. Dianaid has addressed some of my points and I will refer to those where applicable. Where I disagree, or the point has not been addressed, I will address it.

I did not say that they would take MY child to THEIR CHURCH. The passage says, as dianaid has noted, my neighbors would have to come to ME and I would have to take them to the CITY GATES, ie the courthouse. If I am able to take my child to the courthouse, there is no need to call the police.

Dianaid:

...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.

Good point, thank you.

Blastcat:

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.

This is the fallacy of legalism. Few laws cover all conceivable parameters. That is why there are such things as administrative orders and judicial precedents. You are also applying the fallacy of the negative. Just because a law is general does not mean that it approves of the worst case scenario. Thirdly, you ignore my statement about due process, that is part of HaTorah. Rabbinic interpretation(administrative orders) and "diligent inquisition" of witnesses (judicial precedent) actually resulted in a system where two or more executions for any cause in the life of a Kohen HaGadol (High Priest) cause that time to be considered a bloody reign. So, as you say with so called "secular law" human administration of justice is not perfect, but if you wish to do a side by side comparison of judicial systems, we can do that. However, faulting one system for not being perfect, while ignoring the flaws of the other is hardly reasonable. I think Dianaid has done a good job making that point.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:21 pm

squint wrote:
Psalm 137:
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Squint....there's a concept that might interest you. It's called 'context.'

That psalm is about, first, the yearning of the people of Israel who had been 'taken in captivity' (made slaves) to Babylon, who refused to sing for their captors, who yearned for their homeland, and yes, wanted revenge. This is where v. 8 comes in.

"Happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth they little ones against the stones."

A. it is a song. You know, a poem and a song, not permission to go around throwing babies around.

B. it is a statement that the Babylons had done this to THEIR 'little ones," not that they had gone and done the same to anybody else's...this is a wish for revenge.

Now I don't know about you, but this particular psalm is a pretty good indication that the cultures involved (both the Israelite and their enemies) weren't inclined to gentler forms of justice.

So the Law of Moses was probably appropriate for them.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:23 pm

squint wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
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.

Apparently daughters were exempt from this particular rule. The lesson? Maybe as a son don't get drunk, eat too much, and lip off to your parents in ancient Israel or it could cost you your life?
First, execution subject to a judicial ruling after due process is, by definition, not murder.

Second, the son is used as an example, because it is more common. Are you arguing that this is sexist? I ask this because harsher treatment of males is routinely called for by the PC crowd these days. Are you saying that is sexist?

Here's another interesting tidbit along a similar stream:

Psalm 137:
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
This is not talking about the treatment of children subject to a criminal or civil proceeding. This is a poetic response to the actions of the Babylonian Empire in a time of war. Please, try to stay focused.