Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not listen to them;

then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place;

and they shall tell 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."

All the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

***
In other words, a son who doesnt listen to his parents, likes to eat and drink to an excess, shall be brought by his own parents to be stoned to death.

Thoughts?

This is from the Old Testament, written by Moses. God gives Moses the ten commandments, while other laws are set place between the Israelites.

That's fine, but what does "Faith and Works" have to do with stoning a child to death?

Actually, that was just added, and didn't have much to do with what you were saying. I do that sometimes. I'll change it.

Ok, so what's the excuse for the stoning then? Isn't the 6th Commandment: DO NOT KILL?

Like I said, those were laws of the Israelites, not laws of God. God gave his ten commandments. Even today, churches have their own laws that God never gave.

If those were not the laws of God, what are they doing in the Bible?

Documentation by Moses. There's a lot of words written by others, but there is a clear line to which God has given and which man has given.

I thought the Bible was written through the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit allow such controversial laws be permitted into something referred to as the "word of God?" without showing their fallacy? Is the Bible only a partly sacred book, the other being a purely historical?

The word of God is written in the Bible, but some of it is documentation (like Genesis, how God created the universe, etc), not all of it is about laws. Even Jesus's disciples wrote their own opinions on how we should live life (though they explained it was theirs and not God's commandment, for those that were their own opinions). God tell us how to live through his word, but he also says we all have our own understanding of his word. Whether some of our understandings are way off and wrong, or not, is only really known to him, and all we can do is believe. The Word of God is God's word, not exactly the entire Bible. The Bible is a collectiveness of God's words and writings of the faith by people who believe in him. There is documentation, God's word, personal opinions, and stories. And from what the Bible says, the Israelites were his people, but were not perfect in any way.

God's true Words are listened by our spirit and not physically.

Wow Mrscienceguy, don't you love to see "the faithful" waffle and tap dance trying to explain why their God is not a blood-thirsty Demon! If it is in the Bible, it is supposed to be "God's word", the Jews had secular documents for secular laws so you little tap dance about it being documentation or Israelite law and not God's law, doesn't hold water, skypryer. I guess it was Israelite law when the she bear killed and ate the 40 young boys for laughing at the bald-headed man? Seems like I read that your God sent that bear - hardly a just and loving God, don't you think!

Just to remind you people, the Bible is a collections of books of different ages.
Those words are applicable during that time but not our present time.

You thought the bible was written thru the holy spirit. see then that is why you don't know. the bible dear has chapters named after his disciples and such for a reason. bible was written by people like John the Baptist, Matthew, Job and such. God's chosen ones wrote the bible. not a holy spirit.

No not so dear. have you ever picked up a bible and seen words in red. well those words in red were words spoken of God. So no, not all words were of God.

but supposedly, they were inspired by the holy spirit to write those books. So if they wer inspired. why would the spirit or god allow them creative licence???

The commandment actually says "Do not MURDER", not Do not Kill. Murder refers to the pre-meditated taking of a person's life without reason. Kill is less defined.

Anyway, what we need to realise is that we are living in a different society to the one that was around 4000 years ago. If you look at the verse immediately before this passage: Deuteronomy 21:17 - "...that son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him", clearly, the behaviour of children was reflective of what kind of parents they were - the "strength" of the father. If they were rebellious drunkards so as to not bring shame and disgrace upon the family name, the parents would bring them before the Elders, essentially disown them and say, more or less, "This child is dead to me".

Similiarly, this wouldn't be done without attempting to reconcile the child to them. It would be a last resort when all other avenues fail.

This law is a culture/ period specific law that cannot be translated into modern day thought. It's not the only law like it, for example - King Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. While frowned upon by God for reasons I won't get into here, it was none-the-less legal in this system for him to have these wives and concubines.

LOL

No, sorry dear, your the one who is wrong...

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - 2 timothy 3:16

LBD

As I mention in my previous post, it is a culture specific law. We can't, today, take it literally.

No dear, you are once again wrong. It says was inspired by God, not written of Gods words or written by God. If I tell you that God inspired me to write a book on my relgion, that doesn't mean it's his own words now does it? no dear so no you are wrong again. the bible was writtten by his chosen. and what was written from Gods words can be seen in the bible of what is god's words and then from what is the words of his chosen...

Unless I believe its written under the influence of God, why would I believe it? I don't have faith in men. I put my faith in God.
I believe God knew how to inspire those men, to get just what he wanted...

LBD

No, sorry dear, your the one who is wrong...

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - 2 timothy 3:16

LBD
[right][snapback]582481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hey sorry dear. didn't mean to sound hasty over that. but anyways ya God inspired these men to write a book of God and his teachings and everything that has happened starting with Genisis.And yes a holy spirit or angel or God or someone was speaking with these men and giving them visions. for wasn't it a angel that gave john the inspiration and vision neccesarily to write revelations?? god works miraculously and has many ways of doing it. I've even read parts in the bible where angels spoke to the ones that were writitng and told them what to write. I mean ya God or angel or whatever can sit there and show you what has happened and what is going to happen and the god's chosen sat and put in they're own words what they were told or what they saw. that is why in the bible you hear the chosen and disciples say like well I saw a feiry ball of fire. i mean that says right there that they were showed visions but it waws writitten in they're words. and when god spoke what he wanted in his words, then the bible shows that hun.

So which is it? Either the words in the book are divinely inspired and/or directed, indicating that it is ALL valid; OR, the idea for the book was divinely inspired, but the words and thoughts are mans.

As to local laws and culture, either all parts of the book are valid and apply to ALL people, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways when it suits you.

well like i said dear. god gave the inspiration thru angels, spirits, visions and god himself to write the bible. and grant ya if these men were god's chosen to write it then i doubt any of them would write something that god himself would dissaprove of. and what god said out of his own words then it shows that.

so then, god at least approves of everything that is in the bible? Since they were chosen, and wouldn't want to anger their god, so it all must be valid?


So tell me folks, when was the last time that any of you sacraficed a ram to god? Y' know, a 'sweet burnt offering that is pleasing to the Lord"?

Indeed, I love it. It seems like only things that are applicable today are God's words. But it does make me wonder too, why did God kill every newborn in Egypt when the Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go free? I mean killing the babies... what did they do??? Funny to see Christians so fiercely protesting abortion rights in the name of their religion.

The Bible claims it is divinely inspired. Startlitkate mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16. The Greek word used for "inspired by God" translates as literally breathed out... the breath of God.

The Holy Spirit (Jesus refer's to it as a "councilor") works in people to write the words of God. Not all writers had "visions". The term used is "The word of the Lord came to..." The word. Not - the VISION.

The Bible is divinely inspired. The words are God's. The context is specific to the people that the letter was being written to - which is where most of the confusion comes in.

AHHH and here is the meat of the subject. Bolding for emphasis.

Perhaps, and this is just an idea, the book was written, both OT and NT, for the people of the time and place. In the OT, perhaps the people it was written for NEEDED a fierce, vengeful, downright nasty god.

And for the people of the NT, seeing that the God of their forefathers wasn't going to smite their enemies again, needed to be taught a different lesson?

The God of the OT and the NT are the same God. One is not vengeful and one loving. The difference is that the NT introduces us to hope for redemption through Jesus Christ.

The words are divinely inspired by God. Jesus is a saviour not just for the people 2000 years ago, but for all eras - Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)

Good, I'm glad there is a difference in this case. I mean they are not killing him for no reason. The boy sure likes to eat a lot.



I see, if the son is an embarrassment to the family, he must be stoned. Makes sense, especially seing how the Bible is all about humility, meekness, and not being judgmental. But I guess a father's own pride is just too important to be overlooked. I mean, The Holy Spirit certainly didn't seem to mind for this valuable lesson to be in included in the Holy Bible.


Great! There would be even attempts to reconcile them. I like this whole stoning thing better already.


Yup, stoning children to death or having many wives... it's all the same really.

sacrafising was in the old testament. if you haven't noticed, you don't see too many chritians or religions of god doing it now.

The Holy Spirit (Jesus refer's to it as a "councilor") works in people to write the words of God. Not all writers had "visions". The term used is "The word of the Lord came to..." The word. Not - the VISION.

The Bible is divinely inspired. The words are God's. The context is specific to the people that the letter was being written to - which is where most of the confusion comes in.
[right][snapback]582572[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes but dear the bible does speak of how the chosen were saying they were showed a vision. bible does use the word visions.

The Bible was written by the hand of man..... does anyone need to say more? Of course it's said to be inspired by God, but do you think every man was telling the truth? What about the guys who God spoke to but didn't get their writings put into the Bible? And if Moses wrote every word in the Torah, then it's pretty amazing he wrote about his own death and then some.

And also, what book of the Bible did John the Baptist write?


Peace

I don't rememeber if it was john the baptist or another john. only john i know of is john the baptist. and the one that wrote the revelations is a guy named john.

MrScienceGuy, I'm only pointing out that cultures are different.

To use an example, dinner in ancient Roman culture often involved a visit to the "vomitorium". As a sign of a good meal, people would literally eat so much that they'd have to go to this room and... well you get the idea. And no, this is not a joke.

In Middle Eastern society, if a woman walks outside on her own and (shock/horror) doesn't wear a veil, she is shunned.

It is not our place to put value judgements on other societies simply because they differ from our own.

Originally, he wrote the header for the title page. But then he lost it.




Sorry. I just couldn't resist the temptation......

The disciple John, the brother of James. John the Baptist was beheaded before Jesus was even crucified.

That still doesnt answer my question why those verses are in the Bible, promoting child stoning. Did God accept of it? I hear Christians complain that other Christians pick and choose only those things they want to believe in. Well then, shouldn't we follow every single word in the Bible, or else who is to say which laws to follow, and which not to?

Mrscienceguy, you ought to know that Christians don't really understand what they believe, they just parrot what they were told or read. If you ask them too much, their brains overheat and they get obnoxious! LOL


Probably not one person whose name is on a book of the bible, actually wrote that book! Most of the books (with very few exceptions) were either stolen from other Semitic religions (yes, the words of Baal echo through the OT, but attributed to Jehovah) or made up whole cloth (think Daniel, Job, etc). Of the NT only Paul’s letters (and only those that he actually wrote) are anywhere near the supposed time of Jesus. All the Gospels and other books were written anywhere from 50 to 150 years afterward by non-witness who had no access to the witnesses. Not surprisingly, none of the people named as the authors of the gospels actually wrote them, having long been dust by the time of the writings!



Yes dear, it is so. I have picked up the bible (probably more times than you), and would like to tell you that the words in red are not the words of God. These gospels were written so long after the fact that no one really knows what was said and by whom. The Bible is naught more than Judeo Christian mythology, with no evidence to back up its validity.

HMMM,

I seem to remember reading about God killing the first born sons of all egyptians when the pharaoh would not free the Jewish slaves.

Seems to me, they did nothing wrong to God-at least not stated directly.

It seems to me most egyptians were not asked their opinion on wether to keep the slaves or nor-it was a DICKtatorship.

How could this kind loving God kill all these innocents?

Yes dear, it is so. I have picked up the bible (probably more times than you), and would like to tell you that the words in red are not the words of God. These gospels were written so long after the fact that no one really knows what was said and by whom. The Bible is naught more than Judeo Christian mythology, with no evidence to back up its validity.
[right][snapback]582696[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i doubt you have dear. you can't speak on something you don't follow or don't beleive in. that would be like me saying aliens are red when everyone else says they are green. well if I don't beleive in ET then i can't judge them. and yes it says in front of bible that the red lettering were the words spoken of the Lord. but if you have picked up the bible so many times when you don't follow or understand it then you would had seen that one-

sooo, starlitkate, you are saying that unless you follow the bible, and believe in it completely, you cannot have a discussion about it?

I was born and raised RC. I have read the bible, in a couple of different versions. I no longer follow the faith. Does that invalidate my arguments on the book and what it represents?

Starlit, I don't know how much backing you're going to get from someone educated on the good book. You are insulting someone who doesn't believe in it, not on the fact of their ill knowledge of it. Plus, these "non christians" seem to know as much if not more than yourself on this topic. It isn't uncommon knowledge to know that John the Baptist in the Bible is NOT John the apostle. If you read only the new testament like most contemporary christians do, you would've still known that fact.

Are you all forgetting that the stated verse is not the only one that condones violence? Ask and ye shall receive.

Please

Here it is!God's Killing Fields

Thanks for that link zandore.

I'm going to re-read the book. This could be turned into a great serial killer/horror franchise.

I personally think this is all falls under "moot points." I understand why both sides are debating over God's actions, I just think it's unnecesary and irrelevant. First off, if you follow the Book, then the life you have here on this current earth supposedly isn't even comparable to your life in eternity. Hence, death shouldn't be a problem to anyone who truly believes in the teachings. Remember, your savior told you to "take up your cross." (I doubt he was talking about a little pendant (idol) around your neck)
For those that don't believe the Book, you don't even really believe he killed those people in the first place, hence no reason to elaborate. You can point out hypocrisies all day and they still won't care (trust me on this one )

I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind about unprovable topics.



Peace

I could say similar things to you...

But I won't.

And as for parroting what we've been told or read - I'm sure there are a lot of Christians out there who do. But it is an insult to us and our faith to claim that we do not look at facts and the like.

In fact it seems that you are the one overheating. You haven't heard me making detrimental comments about non-Christians.

Just a thought,

That's why I said that 'I think' I wasn't for sure. I aint read the bible in a while but I do like to when I get the chance. So NO I wasn't stating for sure that the john the baptists was the revelations writer, now was I?

There's no answer that I can give to satisfy you. I can keep sending reasons why this is in the Bible and why it shouldn't be adhered to, and you'll keep sending reasons to the contrary. Let's just agree to disagree.

Likewise the whole firstborn in Egypt. I can keep sending reasons, you can keep sending reasons. We won't actually get anywhere....