Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Original blog

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.