Protestantism

» pink101 - For What It Is Worth

In response to Hello Vlad posted by vlad01:

.
I realize this "argument" is between the two of you.
.
I have an observation to make in regards to the idea that the Bible may not be in it's totality, the completely inspired the Word of God.
.
For What It Is Worth.
.
The mere fact that the "serpent" was able to inject itself into the Garden of Eden which is considered to be such a holy place that God walked in it on a daily basis, points up the prevalence of satanic influence in every aspect of reality.
.
If evil can enter paradise, enter the human mind, enter every aspect of our existence, there can be no doubt that it is in the Bible.
.
Nothing can end up being totally free of corruption no matter how holy it is believed to be.
.
Just an observation.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Original blog

In response to Hello Vlad posted by vlad01:

For those curious, here is the original blog that has inspired this discussion between Vlad and myself...

http://protestantism.suite101.com/blogs....

Not to repeat the blog, but I do not believe we are talking about hurling rocks at little boys and girls here. If you read the blog entry (see link above) and the applicable biblical passage (referenced in the blog entry above), then you will see...

...it appears that the criteria for this penalty is: a) male, b) probably an older youth - a teenager, c) absolute refusal to obey his parents, d) consistent defiance and disrespect, e) "glutton and drunkard" - meaning he lives only for himself as evidenced by his eating and drinking.

This teenager would have to be guilty of ALL these things - AND be characterized as "rebellious" (which involves more than passive, stubborn disobedience - but rather an overt, defiant rebellion in the family).

We are NOT talking about simple teenage unruliness here. This is a case of hardcore, angry juvenile delinquency - a situation that the parents can neither control nor contain.

This is not a situation where the "child" is "really obnoxiou" and you "ask your village to pitch in for the stoning." This is a situation where a rebellious teenager has become a threat to the parents and the community. And lest you think this may exaggerate the point, I know of situations - and I'm assuming many readers do as well - where teenagers have threatened, injured, or even killed their parents. I honestly believe this passage applied to dangerous, rebellious, out-of-control male teens.

To say otherwise would be inconsistent with other passages of the Bible, including in (I believe) Deuteronomy where God allowed those kids under 12 to pass into the Promised Land, because they had not reached the age of accountability.

If you want to argue that stoning out-of-control, dangerous, and rebellious male teens was "reprehensible," then we can debate that. If you're going to argue that the passage applies to little kids, then I think we're engaged in a red herring debate (if that's the right term) - an effort to attack the Bible that frankly isn't based on anything of substance.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Original blog

In response to Original blog posted by BrianTubbs:

.
If you want to argue that stoning out-of-control, dangerous, and rebellious male teens was "reprehensible," then we can debate that. If you're going to argue that the passage applies to little kids, then I think we're engaged in a red herring debate (if that's the right term) - an effort to attack the Bible that frankly isn't based on anything of substance.
.
Your statement brings up the Windshuttle quotation I gave in this http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus... thread.
.
The biblical injunctions that allowed the stoning of youngsters might be seen as reprehensible today; but, I'm sure that it was seen as justified during the time it was legislated. So, we are able to see that truth is relative.
.
We are able to see it, that is, as long as we accept the fact that times have changed. Otherwise, we're stuck in a past that is described to us in literature that was written thousands of years ago.
.
No wonder the grand narratives fail us.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Values change

In response to Original blog posted by pink101:

Pink, I grant that values change. But not truth. Either the stoning of young men was permitted in the Mosaic Law or it wasn't. That is a question of truth...of fact. Whether it SHOULD have been in the Mosaic Law is a question of morality.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Values change

In response to Values change posted by BrianTubbs:

.
At one time the truth would have claimed that stoning a rebellious child was justified as morally consistent with a just and merciful god.
.
Today that portrayal of God's justice would be considered an outright and mean spirited lie.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by vlad01:

.
In other words, you cannot have an all-good, all-powerful being coming up with the genocidal, homicidal, misogynistic, homophobic and racist laws, commandments and mitzvot. Those instances in the bible must be the handiwork of imperfect humans.
.
Couldn't agree more, Vlad. We've had spirited (heated) discussions in a number of threads on Biblical atrocities and Mosaic Laws. Here's an archived thread in 2007:
.
God and Children
http://protestantism.suite101.com/discus...
.
And some fun stuff here:
SANHEDRIN
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/i...
"CHAPTER VIII treats of the stubborn and rebellious son, and lays down the age limits within which the term 'son' is applicable and the conditions that must be fulfilled before he incurs the supreme penalty."
.
Just popping in to say "Hi", Bri and Pink. Busy busy here.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by Migisi:

.
We thought you was swallered up by that earthquake.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by pink101:
.
Nah... didn't feel a thing this time. Southern Illinois has a LOT of earthquakes (especially where the Wabash and Mississippi Rivers converge.)
Check it out: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/stat...
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/stat...

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - CHANGES

The Suite101 powers-that-be are making changes to the discussion boards. Most of these general discussion threads are going to be archived as 'read-only.' That's in all the topics, not just this one. They're moving toward COMMENT-based discussions centered around the site content (articles, blog entries, etc.). Just a heads up.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - For those inquiring...

For those curious about the changes, here's the official Suite101 announcement...

Following each article or blog post, your readers will now be able to post a comment. When they click "add your comment" button, a comment thread is started for this article or blog post below the article/post in chronological order, ie most recent to first.

Comment threads will be crawled by search engine spiders regularly and, if they are on topic, will contribute to the keyword density of your articles and improve your rank with search engines. This should also improve the ad match for the article/post and potentially make them better revenue earners. Most importantly, however, they will provide you an invaluable interaction with your readers for praise, debate, and suggestion.

Comments will replace current discussions, which will become read-only...

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds