Protestantism

» EvilChihuahua - Discussion Forum Issues

In response to Discussion Forum Issues posted by Migisi:

Thanks. ;)

-- posted by EvilChihuahua

» Migisi - Isn't It Wonderful!

In response to Isn't It Wonderful! posted by pink101:

.
Crackle and wood aroma from a fireplace, and the smell of northern pines, would cheer me up too. Alas, it's yet another grey cold wet day here, last year's leaf/wood pile won't burn, and all I smell is dead worms. (wink)

But, I'm thankful I'm alive today to complain.

-- posted by Migisi

» vlad01 - Winter

In response to Winter posted by BrianTubbs:

Yes, spring is nice.

As per your request to correct you (from Did Israel Stone Rebellious Sons?):
Second, there is no record in the Old Testament of this penalty actually being carried out. If someone IS aware of a passage, please let us know in the discussion boards - and I will stand corrected. However, I don't believe there is such a case. It's therefore possible (if not likely) that this penalty was never carried out.

The penalty was stoning and there is a lovely passage in Numbers quoted below.

Numbers:
32: And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33: And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34: And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35: And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36: And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Cheers,
Vlad

-- posted by vlad01

» pink101 - Rebellious Sons

In response to Winter posted by vlad01:

.
Greetings to you, Vlad.
.

.
I must have missed an article or some post Brian made.
.
Has there been a question about stoning as a punishment required by God?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Hello Vlad

In response to Winter posted by vlad01:

Greetings, Vlad. Thanks for swinging by. My blog post wasn't about stoning in general - I know there are examples of that - but stoning for "rebellious sons" (meaning sons that were rebellious toward their parents). To my knowledge, there's no case recorded in Scripture of that actually being done. I may be wrong about that, but I haven't come across any such passage in my reading.

» pink101 - What Discussion Does

.
It's too bad that these discussions have tapered off so much.
.
What discussion does for me in my life's experience is to point out the holes in my own knowledge and understanding about the subject involved.
.
I learn that I have holes of ignorance that need to be filled.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» vlad01 - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by BrianTubbs:
What I was responding to was your statement that the penalty of stoning is not recorded as having been carried out in the Bible. That is clearly not so.
.
I understand now that you meant to say it only with respect to rebellious children. I think that you may be right about this; perhaps there is no passage that describes the implementation of the stoning penalty specifically for not being respectful to one's parents. Similarly, I suspect that there is no passage describing somebody being caught while eating shellfish and stoned to death (also, as I recall, a capital offense).
.
To me all of this is beyond the point. The point is that the Bible, Tanakh and Qur'an all condone, proscribe and describe particular instances of behavior which to any civilized person today would appear barbaric and offensive. This should be sufficient reason for one to pause and rethink the treatment of holy books as such. Perhaps, one way to progress is to edit these texts (... probably not a popular idea) when used for religious purposes.
.
The penalty of stoning your children for misbehaving (ok, rebellion, whatever is the difference!) is just one such example.
.
To put it in a way similar to yours:
Bottom line....there are many things in this passage (as well as many others peppered throughout the Bible) that should cause any Jew or Christian to lose his or her confidence or faith in God (if he is the author and Authority behind the Bible).

-- posted by vlad01

» pink101 - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by vlad01:

.
The law that allowed the stoning to death of a rebellious child was part of what we, today, would call family law.
.
It wouldn't have required any official authorization. I'm sure that the primitives carried such penalties out.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by vlad01:

Hey Vlad,

Well, first, remember that we're talking about the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. We are not under the Mosaic Law today. What's more, the Law even then was only applied to the Jews.

Second, there were atrocities and/or unusual and/or unnerving practices in just about every ancient civilization. This is hardly limited to the Hebrews.

Third, even if one rejects parts of the Old Testament, this hardly requires one to reject the entire Bible - which consists of SIXTY-SIX books authored by approximately 40 people over 1,500 years. I grant that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have an 'all-or-nothing' approach to the Bible, and I myself believe that it's all inspired of God. But - logically - a person needn't reject the whole thing if he or she rejects part of it. For example, a Christian who occasionally comes through these discussion threads named "Paper Turtle" argues that the OT books (esp the portions you are referencing) should be seen as history and not as divine inspiration.

Fourth, even if the Old Testament is objectionable, this in and of itself doesn't disprove God. Consider your logic. Your argument seems to run like this: "Most people today would consider parts of the Bible barbaric, therefore the Bible cannot be true. It cannot be inspired by God." That sounds like what you're saying, but this hardly follows logically. If God is real, then God sets His own rules and His own agenda - some of which you may find objectionable.

» vlad01 - Hello Vlad

In response to Hello Vlad posted by BrianTubbs:
Ok,

I think this conversation is drifting into completely different waters. To recap, your original article (the one to which I replied) suggested that stoning one's children should not be that offensive (as an idea; I assume that you were nowhere near advocating this in practice), provided that the child is a) male, b) really obnoxious, and c) you ask your village to pitch in with the actual stoning. Furthermore, you noted, this is not as bad as it looks because bribery may be an option to escape actual stoning and there are no actual stonings recorded in the Bible. (This is a sketch of your argument, but I believe it preserves the spirit of it. Those interested should read your original post. pink101, that means you.)

To this I simply replied that there are stoning recorded in the Bible. (It turned out you meant specifically for this "crime"). That is where we were before.

Now, to address your first point, I regard stoning of children an atrocity. I don't care whether it is done under Mosaic Law, the law of U.S. constitution or the Hammurabi's Code. An atrocity is still an atrocity even if it only applies to the Jews (of which I am one, btw). I don't believe you would want to argue this point, therefore it is irrelevant.

Your second point is likewise irrelevant because an atrocity does not stop being an atrocity even if other people are doing it. I doubt that you would want to argue this, either.

Your third point is relevant but is completely off mark. I never suggested complete rejection of the bible based on discrete passages. What I said was that if these texts are to be used for religious purposes, then perhaps it would be good to edit them so they do not promote violence and reprehensible attitude toward others. I guess, I may see this issue in a similar way as "Paper Turtle," except I don't find the texts themselves all that representative of history. Archeology seems to argue against many biblical "historic" events. Maybe the Bible should be treated as literature instead. Like the Odyssey, the Aeneid, or the story of Gilgamesh.

On your fourth point, you touch a subject which falls squarely outside of the main point and reason for this conversation (see above). But here is my take on it:

You present my argument more or less accurately but with some parts missing, so I will reiterate it borrowing heavily from your words:
"God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who cares for us.
Most people today would consider many parts of the Bible barbaric, therefore the Bible in its entirety cannot be the true word of God. Likewise, because of the offending parts it cannot be inspired in its entirety by God."

This follows logically. If you think that God could have commanded or even inspired atrocious acts then you may as well be thinking of Satan.
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.

-- posted by vlad01