An unanswerable question

[Lek]

So if you wouldn't "normally" act in such a way because the book tells you not to, yet your - and my - independent sense of morality would prevent us from acting in that way, that would mean that the pronouncements in the book are redundant; because you and I, believer and non, already come with these moral sensibilities inbuilt as standard. And since you take the bible as "his word", that leaves your god out in the cold.

The bible tells the way to salvation. It not just a book of morals. Also, we don't always follow our moral compass or we don't always have correct ideas of what is /is not moral.

[Rahul]

The bible tells the way to salvation. It not just a book of morals. Also, we don't always follow our moral compass or we don't always have correct ideas of what is /is not moral.

So killing a disobedient child is something that us humans have an incorrect moral sense about. Because our innate moral sense says we shouldn't do it. But the bible clearly states that we should kill them. So it's all corrected like.

[Cyberman]

The bible tells the way to salvation. It not just a book of morals. Also, we don't always follow our moral compass or we don't always have correct ideas of what is /is not moral.

Yet I, a person who wouldn't even dream of using the book as a moral guide - not if I wanted to stay outside of prison, anyway - I would never kill a child either. Nor indeed kill anyone, especially if a voice in my head told me to. In other words, I don't need to get my morality from the bible or any god's pronouncements. So why would I need salvation? And from what, exactly?

I'll put it another way. As far as I am concerned, anyone who needs to get their morality from a book deserves the title 'sociopath'. I don't need to be told not to murder, or steal, or rape, or whatever. I don't do those things and many, many more because somebody, even a god, tells me I mustn't, not even because they're immoral - but because they are shitty things to do.

[Lek]

The bible tells the way to salvation. It not just a book of morals. Also, we don't always follow our moral compass or we don't always have correct ideas of what is /is not moral.

So killing a disobedient child is something that us humans have an incorrect moral sense about. Because our innate moral sense says we shouldn't do it. But the bible clearly states that we should kill them. So it's all corrected like.

Evidently you read something in the bible that seems to say we should kill a disobedient child. I'd need a specific reference to respond to that one. I'll guarantee you it doesn't say that.

[Rahul]

Evidently you read something in the bible that seems to say we should kill a disobedient child. I'd need a specific reference to respond to that one. I'll guarantee you it doesn't say that.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

King James Version (KJV)


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.

Exodus 21

21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

[Lek]

Evidently you read something in the bible that seems to say we should kill a disobedient child. I'd need a specific reference to respond to that one. I'll guarantee you it doesn't say that.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

King James Version (KJV)


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.

Exodus 21

21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

I guess my warranty was worthless. Actually, you're right on this one except that these verses refer to extreme cases of disobedience and obviously apply to grown children i.e. "a glutton and a drunkard". In Ex 21:15 the NIV uses the work attack instead of smiteth. God commanded this not only to punish the individual, but to keep the evil from spreading. Evidently, it was paramont to keep order among the Israelite nation. It's true that God did give the Israelites harsh laws to follow. There were other things that required death that would not under the new covenant. I'll give it to you, this is a hard one for me also, but it doesn't mean the punishment wasn't just under the circumstances at the time. God did warn them clearly about the penalties.

[Rahul]

It's true that God did give the Israelites harsh laws to follow. There were other things that required death that would not under the new covenant.

Matthew 5:17
King James Bible
Jesus: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

Jesus didn't replace the old laws. They still apply.

[Lek]

It's true that God did give the Israelites harsh laws to follow. There were other things that required death that would not under the new covenant.

Matthew 5:17
King James Bible
Jesus: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

Jesus didn't replace the old laws. They still apply.

The whole reason the law was instituted was to bring people to Christ. Nobody could live according the whole law until Christ came and fufilled all the requirements of it. The law wasn't destroyed, but by faith in Christ we are no longer the law His rightousness is imparted to us. Paul refers to this as living under grace. Read Romans 6:14 and Galatians 3:10-14. As verse 11 states "Clearly, no one is justified before God by the law..." (NIV). The book of Galatians was written specifically because Jewish christians were trying to convince new Gentile converts that they must follow the law and Paul is chastizing them for returning to the law after having been freed from it by faith in Christ.

[Angrboda]

Jesus didn't replace the old laws. They still apply.

The whole reason the law was instituted was to bring people to Christ. Nobody could live according the whole law until Christ came and fufilled all the requirements of it. The law wasn't destroyed, but by faith in Christ we are no longer the law His rightousness is imparted to us. Paul refers to this as living under grace. Read Romans 6:14 and Galatians 3:10-14. As verse 11 states "Clearly, no one is justified before God by the law..." (NIV). The book of Galatians was written specifically because Jewish christians were trying to convince new Gentile converts that they must follow the law and Paul is chastizing them for returning to the law after having been freed from it by faith in Christ.

I would think most Jews would consider this sentiment rather offensive. It reminds me of tenth century Buddhist monks' comments about Taoists being "incomplete" Buddhists.

It's insulting and smacks of bigotry.

[fr0d0]

I would think most Jews would consider this sentiment rather offensive. It reminds me of tenth century Buddhist monks' comments about Taoists being "incomplete" Buddhists.

It's insulting and smacks of bigotry.

Of course they do. They hate it.