Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stone Your Unruly Child

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:11:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The Bible is so ridden with the endorsement of atrocities, so ridden with absurdities, impossibilities and outright lies that to call it the Good Book is tantamount to slandering the adjective.

Just the other day we had a good old Christian commending the cosmologic and geologic accuracy of Genesis. I wish he could now comment on this cuddly verse:

Joshua 10:13
"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."

Just laughable.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:16:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

Because there is no contradiction or overwrite.

And the ten seem ligit.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:18:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:11:28 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The Bible is so ridden with the endorsement of atrocities, so ridden with absurdities, impossibilities and outright lies that to call it the Good Book is tantamount to slandering the adjective.

Just the other day we had a good old Christian commending the cosmologic and geologic accuracy of Genesis. I wish he could now comment on this cuddly verse:

Joshua 10:13
"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."


Just laughable.

If he exists and can do anything,
then it is possible.

And the only thing i know for certain is i exist.

You could be some robot or evil demon.

But life seems ligit.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:20:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:16:55 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

Because there is no contradiction or overwrite.

And the ten seem ligit.

I didn't catch your answer to my question.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:23:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:20:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:16:55 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

Because there is no contradiction or overwrite.

And the ten seem ligit.

I didn't catch your answer to my question.

Beeeeecazeyy deyyy seeamzz leegitzzz.

Sorry, i am tired.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:31:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?
We accept the Ten Commandments because God's code of morality is still the same; however, his prescribed punishment for sin has changed, and Old Testament law is not in force today (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

You need to remember that what is being described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a prescription for punishment, not a moral law. It is not a moral law for someone to stone a child for cursing his/her parents; however, it is a moral law to honor your parents . . .

Do you see what I mean? I hope this helps.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:56:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

But why was such a harsh punishment issued? Why not simply chastise the child of the parents or give guidance/counseling?

Of course, I'm guessing that these were all alternatives that probably happened before the death penalty was issued, but why go to such lengths? This does seem a very harsh punishment and I'm interested in seeing what justification or context this is placed in.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 11:36:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:56:45 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

But why was such a harsh punishment issued? Why not simply chastise the child of the parents or give guidance/counseling?

Why is the Death penalty used at all? Who judges whether a criminal offense is worthy of capital punishment or not?

Maybe we state that if a crime causes severe enough damage to people or property they deserve death. So in the Jewish culture where their obedience to God was intimately connected with the inheritance and ownership of their land, a rebellious, drunk, drain on society reveler might be deemed a big enough threat?

Do I consider the punishment harsh? I do.

Do I consider it immoral? I do not.


Of course, I'm guessing that these were all alternatives that probably happened before the death penalty was issued, but why go to such lengths? This does seem a very harsh punishment and I'm interested in seeing what justification or context this is placed in.

It was also a commandment in Deuteronomy 11:18-19

"Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

It was the responsibility of the parents to educate and instruct their children. This is not a blank check for parents to get rid of unruly children. (an unruly child who grows up to lead the household name and property could be ruin for that family).. no they had to take the child to the elders of the city for judgement.

And even then we can't get enough of a picture of the situation with out knowing how often this was done, what other processes were included?

There were Jewish judges and keepers of law who considered only God's judgement infallible. And if an innocent man was put to death the blood would be on the judges head. So obviously if someone was going to be put to death, it better be a concrete case lest you be a murderer yourself!

This also seems to be the understanding Jesus reiterated when he said "Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone."

So no I we don't know how often or in what manner these types of cases played out.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:23:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:31:16 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?
We accept the Ten Commandments because God's code of morality is still the same; however, his prescribed punishment for sin has changed, and Old Testament law is not in force today (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

You need to remember that what is being described in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a prescription for punishment, not a moral law. It is not a moral law for someone to stone a child for cursing his/her parents; however, it is a moral law to honor your parents . . .

Do you see what I mean? I hope this helps.

I suppose, but aren't punishments also subject to moral judgement in accordance with moral law? And if so, how does that change when God and subsequently morality is unchanging?

Or we can put it this way; suppose we have an unruly child who meets the criteria to be stoned to death at that time living today. Would it be morally wrong for us to stone him to death? And if so, why would that be wrong today but not wrong a little over two thousand years ago?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:50:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Do you think taking a life is morally right or wrong?

Maybe you can understand that being perfectly moral means doing the right thing all the time.. but that doesn't mean the right thing is the same thing every time.

Do you understand the difference?

How about this.. instead of reading th eBible and doing these strawman posts.. Debate me on this statement.

God is morally perfect. And Giving Moses regulations to govern The Israelite at that period of time and to distinguish them from others was the moral perfect thing to do. And To instruct the Elders to pass judgement on people accused of breaking the Ten LAWS that God cites as the Law that govern moral behavior.

Do you think it is MORALLY RIGHT for a young adult child say 18-21 to ignore what his parents tell him, to spend the family money on being a drunk, to get into fights, ect.. YOU think it is MORALLY RIGHT to for a young man to do that to his parents?

Do you think it MORALLY RIGHT for a child to dishonor their parents?

Of course you do. You hate instruction like every fool does. heaven forbid there be a punishment for Morally BAD behavior.
random_noob
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:52:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is there a record of parents stoning their childs back then? Sounds brutal. Are you sure OP it is not exaggerated?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:37:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

This is something that seems reasonable to a Christian yet is morally repugnant to non-Christians. This is a great argument against the existence of objective morality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:50:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:37:06 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

This is something that seems reasonable to a Christian yet is morally repugnant to non-Christians. This is a great argument against the existence of objective morality.

Matt that is illogical.

If you, Matt, say P is X.

And I say P is NOT-X.

Well just because we disagree doesn't mean the X property of P is SUBJECTIVE!

One of us is correct. and one of us is incorrect. And it doesn't matter if a bunch of illogical, emotional, bias, liberal, atheist, feminist, identity confused friends of yours agree with you.

So now if you agree with Double R. that such a regulation, or such action, would be IMMORAL.. support why it is immoral.

Before I even share the burden and support why it is moral, you should give some justification as to why it is immoral?

Here's the thing Matt. If you accept that there is no Objective Morality then arguments about the morality of God's actions or sayings are irrelevant.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:04:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:50:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:37:06 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

This is something that seems reasonable to a Christian yet is morally repugnant to non-Christians. This is a great argument against the existence of objective morality.

Matt that is illogical.

If you, Matt, say P is X.

And I say P is NOT-X.

Well just because we disagree doesn't mean the X property of P is SUBJECTIVE!

One of us is correct. and one of us is incorrect.

I didn't say it was proof. I said it was a great argument for subjective reality.

And it doesn't matter if a bunch of illogical, emotional, bias, liberal, atheist, feminist, identity confused friends of yours agree with you.

Ironically, this sentence sounds emotionally charged. Furthermore, you don't know who my friends are but its safe to say I don't much respect many of the opinions of my religious friends.

So now if you agree with Double R. that such a regulation, or such action, would be IMMORAL.. support why it is immoral.

Before I even share the burden and support why it is moral, you should give some justification as to why it is immoral?

Exactly my point regarding subjective morality. We disagree on whether stoning a disobedient child is moral or not. It seems interesting to me that the atheist is the one that would rather invest the time to work with the child rather than kill him yet Christians claim atheists can justify anything morally. If atheists have no morals, why would they make any moral argument against this in the first place?

Here's the thing Matt. If you accept that there is no Objective Morality then arguments about the morality of God's actions or sayings are irrelevant.

I never said objective morality doesn't exist. I just claim that religion confuses it. Religion and objective morality are incompatible and this is an example.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:07:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:50:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Do you think taking a life is morally right or wrong?

Maybe you can understand that being perfectly moral means doing the right thing all the time.. but that doesn't mean the right thing is the same thing every time.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I do. Do you understand that you completely dodged my question?

How about this.. instead of reading th eBible and doing these strawman posts.. Debate me on this statement.

Clarify which statement you are talking about.

God is morally perfect. And Giving Moses regulations to govern The Israelite at that period of time and to distinguish them from others was the moral perfect thing to do. And To instruct the Elders to pass judgement on people accused of breaking the Ten LAWS that God cites as the Law that govern moral behavior.

Do you think it is MORALLY RIGHT for a young adult child say 18-21 to ignore what his parents tell him, to spend the family money on being a drunk, to get into fights, ect.. YOU think it is MORALLY RIGHT to for a young man to do that to his parents?

No. Do you think it is morally right to stone him to death because of it? Funny how this entire thread is about that very question, and yet you go on a nice long rant about everything except that.

Of course you do. You hate instruction like every fool does. heaven forbid there be a punishment for Morally BAD behavior.

Good ole classic Mhykiel, sometimes I wonder why I bother typing anything. Your brain is just going to make up and respond to whatever it wants regardless.

When you get tired of arguing with Imaginary Double_R and want to have a discussion with me instead let me know.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:19:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:50:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:37:06 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

This is something that seems reasonable to a Christian yet is morally repugnant to non-Christians. This is a great argument against the existence of objective morality.

Matt that is illogical.

If you, Matt, say P is X.

And I say P is NOT-X.

Well just because we disagree doesn't mean the X property of P is SUBJECTIVE!

One of us is correct. and one of us is incorrect.

I didn't say it was proof. I said it was a great argument for subjective reality.

And it doesn't matter if a bunch of illogical, emotional, bias, liberal, atheist, feminist, identity confused friends of yours agree with you.

Ironically, this sentence sounds emotionally charged. Furthermore, you don't know who my friends are but its safe to say I don't much respect many of the opinions of my religious friends.

So now if you agree with Double R. that such a regulation, or such action, would be IMMORAL.. support why it is immoral.

Before I even share the burden and support why it is moral, you should give some justification as to why it is immoral?

Exactly my point regarding subjective morality. We disagree on whether stoning a disobedient child is moral or not. It seems interesting to me that the atheist is the one that would rather invest the time to work with the child rather than kill him yet Christians claim atheists can justify anything morally. If atheists have no morals, why would they make any moral argument against this in the first place?

Here's the thing Matt. If you accept that there is no Objective Morality then arguments about the morality of God's actions or sayings are irrelevant.

I never said objective morality doesn't exist. I just claim that religion confuses it. Religion and objective morality are incompatible and this is an example.

Is a young man rebelling against his parents beneficial to an Iron or Bronze Age Israelite family? no.

Is such rebellion against the Ten Commandments? yes

Is is the city ordinance and responsibility of the city elders to administer justice? yes

So how is it immoral to bring your child in front of the court for illegal behavior? It isn't.

And if you had read my earlier reply you would see that parents were under the obligations to educate their children and to not raise drunk lazy millennials, oops I mean Bronze age rebellious kids.

Also replied that Judges were very weary of issuing such sentences.

But question goes to the heart of the post. So what? What is wrong with God issuing (which is debatable if the Law of Moses is from God or formulated by Moses from God's instructions)) such an Commandment?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:20:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

Are you seriously asking me to explain why stoning someone to death for being rebellious, a drunkard, and a glutton is immoral? Really?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:23:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:07:02 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:50:02 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Do you think taking a life is morally right or wrong?

Maybe you can understand that being perfectly moral means doing the right thing all the time.. but that doesn't mean the right thing is the same thing every time.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I do. Do you understand that you completely dodged my question?

How about this.. instead of reading th eBible and doing these strawman posts.. Debate me on this statement.

Clarify which statement you are talking about.

God is morally perfect. And Giving Moses regulations to govern The Israelite at that period of time and to distinguish them from others was the moral perfect thing to do. And To instruct the Elders to pass judgement on people accused of breaking the Ten LAWS that God cites as the Law that govern moral behavior.

Do you think it is MORALLY RIGHT for a young adult child say 18-21 to ignore what his parents tell him, to spend the family money on being a drunk, to get into fights, ect.. YOU think it is MORALLY RIGHT to for a young man to do that to his parents?

No. Do you think it is morally right to stone him to death because of it? Funny how this entire thread is about that very question, and yet you go on a nice long rant about everything except that.

Of course you do. You hate instruction like every fool does. heaven forbid there be a punishment for Morally BAD behavior.

Good ole classic Mhykiel, sometimes I wonder why I bother typing anything. Your brain is just going to make up and respond to whatever it wants regardless.

When you get tired of arguing with Imaginary Double_R and want to have a discussion with me instead let me know.

Classic DoubleR, actually Classic Atheist tactic..

Boo hoo God did P. I as an Atheist don't like P. So God is not morally perfect. haha God is not omni-good.

DoubleR. You wrote the post first implying that the bible regulation is Immoral. Why is stoning a rebellious drunk and lazy child immoral?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:30:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:20:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

Are you seriously asking me to explain why stoning someone to death for being rebellious, a drunkard, and a glutton is immoral? Really?

It goes to the very question of whether God is Morally perfect or not.

You say because God does P, that makes God immoral.

Shocker, I'm asking you to support your statements and explain to me Why doing "P" is an Immoral act, and doing so demonstrates God is morally imperfect.

But see actually what happened was God wrote and told Moses the Ten commandments. Then after talking to God, Moses in addition to the Ten Commandments placed the Newly formed Country of the Israelite under the Law of Moses. And one of these stipulations is that if parents have an unruly child, they can take the child to court where the judges can pass down a capital punishment.

Yeah what makes stoning the unruly child immoral.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:59:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament.

Moral atrocities? How? Or is this yet another post of yours where you condemn Christianity and demand answers from Christians while refusing to answer any questions yourself?

I am particularly interested in how you explain this.

Yes. You atheists always have questions after your unwarranted assumptions, all I have to do is ask you a few questions and your curiosity will dry up like the "love" of a golddigger after she finds out the old geezer is broke.

My specific question is: Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

Because the Ten Commandments are universal, given to all who wish to seek God. The instructions in Deut 21 were to a specific people at a specific time, not meant for everyone.

It's that simple, but since we know you aren't really interested in the answer, we will wait to see what your "point" now morphs into.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:02:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

The ten commandments were the Laws no one should break.

The Law of Moses (where you citation comes from) is the Legal process to enforce among the Israeli people the Ten commandments.

Modern day Christians are gentiles, and are no the Israeli people, country, that Moses led. So the Law of Moses shouldn't and by Covenant does not apply to us.

2ndly. This makes it clear that the unruly child is to be taken to the elders of the city. The child (which notice how they say rebellious and drunkard.. this is not a toddler in their terrible twos.) And then the Elders, or Judges would issue the punishment.

In The Jewish culture the Death penalty was taken very seriously and it took non-conflicting evidence and testimonies for a person to get the death penalty. Once the death penalty was issued it was carried out brutally and immediately (no living 20 years on death row.)

Taking a relative to court for illegal behavior is acceptable in today's society.

Now your argument is: Well our modern day society is morally superior to the Jews, and to anything God says. And in our modern day society it is not illegal for a child to rebel against their parents. (on the contrary it is illegal for parents to punish an unruly child, parents are punished if their raising interferes with how the State wants to raise a child.) If God were so morally superior, then God would have told the Jews to do what our laws say. But because God didn't command the Israelites to cater to ((insert what ever "social justice warrior" victim, minority, or perversion)) ect.. Well then God isn't morally good, and does not exist.

yeah we have heard this argument before. It is a non-sequitur. What we do today is not morally superior, What Legal system the isrealites fell under to enforce the Ten commandments doesn't apply to us, And what God does or doesn't allow that YOU disagree with doesn't make God "evil". In the same token you disagreeing with God could make you "Evil". And moral disagreement does not negate existence.

+1

My God, I love this guys responses!
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:18:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:19:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:49 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:50:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I never said objective morality doesn't exist. I just claim that religion confuses it. Religion and objective morality are incompatible and this is an example.

Is a young man rebelling against his parents beneficial to an Iron or Bronze Age Israelite family? no.

Is such rebellion against the Ten Commandments? yes

Is is the city ordinance and responsibility of the city elders to administer justice? yes

So how is it immoral to bring your child in front of the court for illegal behavior? It isn't.

And if you had read my earlier reply you would see that parents were under the obligations to educate their children and to not raise drunk lazy millennials, oops I mean Bronze age rebellious kids.

Also replied that Judges were very weary of issuing such sentences.

But question goes to the heart of the post. So what? What is wrong with God issuing (which is debatable if the Law of Moses is from God or formulated by Moses from God's instructions)) such an Commandment?

Because he disagrees with it. First, his issue was, Why do Christians accept the 10 Commands and not this law in Deut. That was answered. Now his issue is that he disagrees with the verdict. He thinks the punishment is too harsh.

So basically, he is saying what all atheists say. "My moral judgement is superior to God's."

When asked where his moral code comes from, he cannot say.
When asked why it should have authority over God, he cannot say.
When asked why it should be considered authoritative at all, he cannot say.

Some will mumble that all their liberal friends agree, as if morality has ever been about popularity.
Some will mumble some arbitrary thing about "suffering" as if his ad-hoc choice of suffering as the gold standard is logical or authoritative.

Just as the Bible says, the atheists only issue with God is that he rejects God's authority. He wants to be his own God, so if he disagrees with God on a moral issue, he thinks God is then immoral.

But he cannot say why.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:36:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:20:48 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:58:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:58 AM, Double_R wrote:
Well gee, thanks once again for refuting an argument I've never made, ever.

A moral disagreement does not negate Gods existence. What it negates, if you agree that the actions itself are anything but moral, is the existence of a God that is perfectly moral. Which means you either agree with everything he has said and done, or you give up "perfectly moral" as a characteristic you attribute to him.

If you agree with everything he has said and done, then you can no longer hide behind "the law no longer applies to us" as a way to shrug off what was being commanded. And if you do that then how do you justify sanctioning punishment by being stoned to death for the crimes of being a drunkard and a glutton back in the days of the OT but not today?

Oh okay so let me get this straight.. You think bringing a rebellious child in front of the elders of the city for a judgement that might end in stoning during the bronze age is an immoral city ordinance and indicative of an immoral God?

Support your bare assertions, what about that makes it Immoral??

Are you seriously asking me to explain why stoning someone to death for being rebellious, a drunkard, and a glutton is immoral? Really?

And there you have it. No argument. No logic. Like debating, in an audience full of Nazis, why Jews should be killed. No need for logic. Its clear.

But here is what he is deliberately ignoring. The details. See, atheists will remove all detail so as to condemn (or vindicate) everything.

Consider this. America dropped fire bombs on German cities in WII. America burned thousands of people, women and children, alive. Ever hear an atheist complain about that? Immoral deeds do not all get the same punishment. The details matter.

If I yell out at you as you walk down the street in New York, "Theif theif!" Nothing happens. You walk away. If I yell out at you as you walk down the street in Accra, "Theif theif!", the crowd grabs you and sets you alight.

Should the penalty for yelling, "Theif theif!" at a stranger be the same in Accra and in New York? Though the behavior is the same, is the moral offense the same?

Does the atheist ever ask, "Why was the penalty so harsh?" No. That would require details, which the atheist doesn't want. He wants you to be a little "freethinker" and convict God just on emotion empty of the details of any fact.

He hopes it will seem reasonable to you because, why, all your friends agree. I can see the terrorist asking, just like RR,

Are you seriously asking me to explain why bombing a kafir to death for being rebellious, a drunkard, and a glutton is immoral? Really?

Why, in the refugee camp, everyone agrees its moral.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:11:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

If the man is a glutton and a drunkard, he's not a child.

To the Jews everyone younger was your "son". Jesus told his apostle to behold his mother and for her to behold her son. But they were not literally mother and son.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 12:39:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:31:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

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.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Christians always have a way of rationalizing the moral atrocities of the Old Testament. I am particularly interested in how you explain this. My specific question is:

Why do you accept the Ten Commandments (also in the OT) as rules you must follow, but disregard this commandment?

That was part of the Old Covenant, which was replaced by the promised New Covenant formed between Christ and the 11 at the time of the "Last Supper".

None the less, the unruly child was protected by the future resurrection.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:19:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The OT doesn't count anymore but here are three pages of apologetics to support the barbarity.
Woo Hoo hypocrites.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin