Funny email my buddy received

[Minimalist]

STONE THE LITTLE BASTARDS!

Many little bastards are already stoned.

[leo-rcc]

[youtube]5-zhNiGlogQ[/youtube]

[Jaysyn]

Rev. Rye this was covered in another post a few months back...

---

and I do not remember which one it was so lets do this again. In ancient times the integrity of the family name was extremely important, it was more valuable than most everything else mainly because it's all most people had. Now this was no reason to stone kids to death and that is not what the passage intends. This passage and others I quoted in the previous post are referring to adults (the children of such and such) not small children. Little kids were not drunkards as you would have the Bible read nor were they profligates again trying to make the Bible state something it doesn't. Maybe it would help if you studied the two underlined words. This law was given to protect the family name against uncaring adult childern that had no respect for their parents or the good name they were born to. People today have a hard time understanding this and I believe it's because of the attitude of selfishness (get out of life what you want and forsake all others).

---

[theophilus]

5) Is the fact that a rule is in the Bible enough of a reason to keep it alive?

I'm not sure what you mean by keeping it alive. We must obey those rules that are given to us. If they were directed to someone else we don't need to follow them but we can learn from studying them.

Here is an entry in my blog which relates to this subject:

http://www.christiandoctrinediscussion.c...e-law.html

Don't forget that Israel was a nation and so had to have the authority to execute those who violated its laws. None of the nations existing today have been chosen by God as Israel was so they aren't required to enforce his laws in the same way.

[Minimalist]

This law was given to protect the family name

Ah....just like those muslim "honor killings" huh?

[Godscreated]

Rev. Rye this was covered in another post a few months back...

---

and I do not remember which one it was so lets do this again. In ancient times the integrity of the family name was extremely important, it was more valuable than most everything else mainly because it's all most people had. Now this was no reason to stone kids to death and that is not what the passage intends. This passage and others I quoted in the previous post are referring to adults (the children of such and such) not small children. Little kids were not drunkards as you would have the Bible read nor were they profligates again trying to make the Bible state something it doesn't. Maybe it would help if you studied the two underlined words. This law was given to protect the family name against uncaring adult childern that had no respect for their parents or the good name they were born to. People today have a hard time understanding this and I believe it's because of the attitude of selfishness (get out of life what you want and forsake all others).

---

[Rev. Rye]

What are you reading I said nothing about teenagers. Do you hide post so you do not have to try and understand them.

You seem to be losing the forest in the trees here: the big issue I'm driving at is this: what is the basic difference between enforcing the rule I described solely because it's written in the Bible (and it's probably worth noting that nowhere in my post did I specify the ages of the students in my example; I could very well have been talking about college students [admittedly, the in loco parentis thing does not apply to college students], and, when I first wrote the example, I had my high school Latin class in mind), and discriminating against an entire class of people because of Biblical injunctions? And no, I don't think they hide posts to obscure the contexts, but just because the post itself is too long.

[Minimalist]

G-C you do understand, (I hope) that in Jewish tradition a "child" (male) becomes a man at the age of 13?

This is actually a fairly practical concept seeing as how average life expectancy was around 27-28. "Teenagers" in Jewish culture is a misnomer. They were adults. You are letting your ethnocentrism show.

Of even more significance is the idea that parents were no longer for their children after the age of 13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_and_Bat_Mitzvah

According to Jewish law, when Jewish children reach 13 years old for boys and 12 years old for girls they become responsible for their actions, and "become a Bar or Bat Mitzvah" (English: Daughter (Bat) or Son (Bar) of the commandments). In many Conservative and Reform synagogues, girls celebrate becoming a Bat Mitzvah at age 13, along with boys. This also coincides with physical puberty. Prior to this, the child's parents hold the responsibility for the child's adherence to Jewish law and tradition and, after this age, children bear their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics and are privileged to participate in all areas of Jewish community life.

So, in spite of your desperate attempts to try to save your bullshit, the fact remains that at the age of 13 Jewish males in that society were no longer the responsibility of the parents. They were on their own.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Can I have a canadian?

We've had one for over 60 years. She's called 'mum'. I think dad won her in a poker game in Vancouver in 1943.

Not recommended as a slave; far too bossy.

[DiRNiS]

It would have been interesting to see what Dr. Bullshitssinger had to say in response to this letter. She would have probably twisted the writings in her holy book by saying those laws only applied to Israel of the time, just like theophilus is implying among other contradictory bullshit.

When it comes to asking questions about scripture to theists, consistency and common sense goes right out the window.