April 9, 200719 yr Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. So you know more about the development of a kid's brain than the God who created him?
April 9, 200719 yr Anyone who allows or promotes capital punishment of children who are "stubburn" obviously is malicious, unloving, uncaring and unknowing. Doesn't sound like the definition of the Christian God to me. Things like this show us that either the definition of the Christian God is wrong, or the Bible is wrong. The two can not both be correct. If anyone wishes to show me how stoning to death stubburn children is all loving, I would be very grateful. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 9, 200719 yr Author Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. So you know more about the development of a kid's brain than the God who created him? Why did God create that kid in the first place, if he knew that the kid will be stoned and would go to hell? How would he know? Because his omnipotent. A friend to all is a friend to none.
April 9, 200719 yr If anyone wishes to show me how stoning to death stubburn children is all loving, I would be very grateful. Right after you respond to the challenge that was posted several days ago in which you promised a response and have since ignored.
April 9, 200719 yr People have already given Bible quotes that would apply in a more cultural context. And I already gave you a Bible quote that makes no sense on a universal level but only to the culture and society it was aimed at. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 9, 200719 yr People have already given Bible quotes that would apply in a more cultural context. And I already gave you a Bible quote that makes no sense on a universal level but only to the culture and society it was aimed at. 1. The one that you gave that "makes no sense on a universal level" was not a good example because it's up for debate about it being universal anyway. 2. You did not even properly make the case because you did not take into account several things: - You only gave ONE verse and rule is stated MULTIPLE times in SEVERAL cultures. - You did not accurately represent the Hebrew language behind the verse, and when this was pointed out, you failed to respond. Ok, it may take awhile to find a sutible one. So I will leave that for tommorow and start it up again then. I'm waiting.
April 9, 200719 yr People have already given Bible quotes that would apply in a more cultural context. And I already gave you a Bible quote that makes no sense on a universal level but only to the culture and society it was aimed at. 1. The one that you gave that "makes no sense on a universal level" was not a good example because it's up for debate about it being universal anyway. Lets assume it is universal for the sake of argument then, it doesn't make sense. And it doesn't matter if it's up for debate or not. Why should that matter? - You only gave ONE verse and rule is stated MULTIPLE times in SEVERAL cultures. - You did not accurately represent the Hebrew language behind the verse, and when this was pointed out, you failed to respond. How did I not accuratley represent the Hebrew language? Where did I fail to respond? I'm waiting. What are you waiting for? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 9, 200719 yr Lets assume it is universal for the sake of argument then, it doesn't make sense. And it doesn't matter if it's up for debate or not. Why should that matter? Let's not. The point of the challenge is that you labeled me as someone who would "pick and choose" what is universal and what isn't. Therefore, I want you to find an example of a clearly universal, and clearly cultural rule (clear as in everyone agrees) and show me how they would make more sense reversed. That way, you could prove that I am just "picking and choosing." The reason it matters if it's up for debate is because I want a clearly universal, and clearly cultural example. If it's up for debate, that means it is not clear. How did I not accuratley represent the Hebrew language? Where did I fail to respond? The word abomination, in Hebrew, translates to an act that is perverse. Sexual perversity is something labeled all through out the Bible as sinful. The word abomination in the passage about eating pork translates to mean "disgusting" - not a reference to a sin. When I brought that point up, you didn't respond. That would be "failing to respond." And to answer your last question: I am waiting for you to give me a clearly universal, and clearly cultural rule and show me how it logically makes more sense for it to be the opposite. That way you can justify claiming that I "pick and choose." Quit avoiding the challenge by talking around the point. It is clear that you had little/no foundation for your first example (AND it doesn't qualify) if you read the previous page, which is why you told me you would post back later with a "suitable" example. So I'm waiting for that "suitable" example that you promised me. Quit avoiding it - and give it to me. Remember to take into account the actual language, the context of the command, and whom it was given to.
April 9, 200719 yr Lets assume it is universal for the sake of argument then, it doesn't make sense. And it doesn't matter if it's up for debate or not. Why should that matter? Let's not. The point of the challenge is that you labeled me as someone who would "pick and choose" what is universal and what isn't. Therefore, I want you to find an example of a clearly universal, and clearly cultural rule (clear as in everyone agrees) and show me how they would make more sense reversed. That way, you could prove that I am just "picking and choosing." No I didn't and that was not the purpose of this debate. All i said was that sometimes Gods word is not absolute and does not apply today. So, what God says is not universal truth for man and can be taken to mean in certain situations certain actions are forbid/encouraged? But not always. Give me an example of a universal command in the Bible that would make more sense as a cultural command. And vice versa. Take into consideration these things: 1. Exact wording 2. Time and place 3. Audience That doesn't say "You pick and choose" at all, that says that sometimes Gods word does not always apply to everyone. Which was the point i was trying to make about homosexuality. Since it's up for debate i was correct. How did I not accuratley represent the Hebrew language? Where did I fail to respond? The word abomination, in Hebrew, translates to an act that is perverse. Sexual perversity is something labeled all through out the Bible as sinful. The word abomination in the passage about eating pork translates to mean "disgusting" - not a reference to a sin. When I brought that point up, you didn't respond. That would be "failing to respond." And what you translated as "Homosexual offenders" translates to pervets elsewhere. That passage clearly says "do not eat ____" do you rely on certain words that make Gods point more meaningful such as abomination? And if you still wish for another universal command that would make more sense culturally then I shall find one. I didn't fail to respond i thought you would have seen all the others everyone offered. And when i said "i will find a sutible one" i was referring to a cultural one that would make more sense universally. I was happy with the one I had provided. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 9, 200719 yr Walking around in circles again. This debate is not about homosexuality like you want to pretend it is, this debate is about you saying this: So, what God says is not universal truth for man and can be taken to mean in certain situations certain actions are forbid/encouraged? But not always. If I misinterpreted your point, then clarify it for me. I take it to mean that you think Christians pick and choose what is universal, and what is cultural. Is that incorrect?
April 9, 200719 yr No, i never said you do it deliberatley. I was opening up discussion to whether the quote could be taken as a cultural "command" like God saying to Adam and Eve "Go forth and multiply" doesn't mean every human should do that. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 9, 200719 yr No, i never said you do it deliberatley. I was opening up discussion to whether the quote could be taken as a cultural "command" like God saying to Adam and Eve "Go forth and multiply" doesn't mean every human should do that. Which is why I would then present to you the question about why the command would appear 6 different times over a span of thousands of years if it was only meant for one specific person/culture.
April 9, 200719 yr Can you show me these six verses where Homosexuality is strictly forbidden? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 9, 200719 yr First, to discuss the gay marriage thing. Ok, I agree that it was radical because it DOES state that god hates no one, but he hates sin itself. HOWEVER, in the bible god COMPETELY destoried cities over gay marriage and turned a women to a pillar of salt for looking back at one of those cities.
April 9, 200719 yr Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. So you know more about the development of a kid's brain than the God who created him? Seriously, what does that have to do with my question? The age of our brains complete maturation is known, if I'm not mistaken, and the figure I gave was a rough recall. And the answer to your question is redundant. Anyone would know if there was a god he'd know more about the maturation of our brains than me, mate.
April 10, 200719 yr Seriously, what does that have to do with my question? The age of our brains complete maturation is known, if I'm not mistaken, and the figure I gave was a rough recall. Except I think God knows a little more about the development of a brain than we ever will. And the answer to your question is redundant. Anyone would know if there was a god he'd know more about the maturation of our brains than me, mate. Thanks for proving my point for me. Can you show me these six verses where Homosexuality is strictly forbidden? I Corinthians 6:9; 10 - Yes there are people that disagree with the translation but the majority of scholars, those understanding the context and language that was written, agree that the verse references homosexuals through timed vernacular. Leviticus 18:22 - References the act as being a perversity - which is how all sexual immoralities are labeled through out the Bible. Leviticus 20:13 - Same as above. Deuteronomy 23:17 - In Biblical times, "sodomy" and "homosexual" were synonyms. So referencing a "sodomite" is the same as saying a "homosexual." Genesis 19:4-8 - The word "know" in verse 5 is a Hebrew sexual term. After the men ask to "know" the man who came to visit, Lot offers them his two daughters instead of the man. This verse is under much debate. Many scholars are now tending to believe that this verse is not specifically talking about homosexuality but instead just sexual immorality in general - but most will agree that there is an obvious hint of anti-homosexuality in it. Romans 1:26-27 - Another passage in dispute. When writing this, did Paul mean "unnatural" as in all homosexual relations are unnatural, or is it only wrong if you are heterosexual and pursue homosexual relations that are not natural to you? The verses span a length of 3-4000 years depending on who is doing your genealogy.
April 10, 200719 yr Seriously, what does that have to do with my question? The age of our brains complete maturation is known, if I'm not mistaken, and the figure I gave was a rough recall. Except I think God knows a little more about the development of a brain than we ever will. And the answer to your question is redundant. Anyone would know if there was a god he'd know more about the maturation of our brains than me, mate. Thanks for proving my point for me. What does any of this have to do with my original line of questioning, seriously? The answer to your question was simple and there was no point to prove.
April 10, 200719 yr What does any of this have to do with my original line of questioning, seriously? The answer to your question was simple and there was no point to prove. Your original point: Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. Your implying that God doesn't know how their brains will mature. If you agree that the God who created them would know how their brains would mature, then the maturity of their brains is irrelevant to the decision to kill them. So if you agree that God knows how their brains will mature, your "original" point is irrelevant.
April 10, 200719 yr What does any of this have to do with my original line of questioning, seriously? The answer to your question was simple and there was no point to prove. Your original point: Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. Your implying that God doesn't know how their brains will mature. If you agree that the God who created them would know how their brains would mature, then the maturity of their brains is irrelevant to the decision to kill them. So if you agree that God knows how their brains will mature, your "original" point is irrelevant. I didn't imply anything about what god knows or dosen't know. It's a no brainer that an all knowing god knows everything. If that's what you thought I was implying, I wasn't, sorry. My original line of questioning was: Let me get this straight... It promotes stoning kids to death in the bible? You see, I'm not sure which claims are right and which aren't. I found the claim that the bible promotes the stoning of children to be odd, so among giving my 2 cents, I basically asked for clarification. People here generally know more about the bible than me.
April 10, 200719 yr I didn't imply anything about what god knows or dosen't know. It's a no brainer that an all knowing god knows everything. If that's what you thought I was implying, I wasn't, sorry. My original line of questioning was: Yes you did imply that. Let me break this down to you logically: 1. The kids were told to be stoned. 2. Kids brains do not mature until later. 3. You should not stone people who have not had time to mature. 4. Therefore, you should not stone kids. That is the argument you gave when you said: Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. However, you have since acknowledged that God knows everything (if He exists, including how a kids brain will eventually mature). If God knows everything, then he knows how a kid's brain will mature, therefore making your statement irrelevant. It no longer matters if a kid is or is not mature because God knows what the final result will be anyway. Note: This is a logical point, not a theological point. Therefore, your point about the maturity of kids is irrelevant because it implies that God does not know how their brains will mature. IF God does know how their brains will mature (which you acknowledge he would) then the point about their brains not being mature, the point you made, is irrelevant. Let me get this straight... It promotes stoning kids to death in the bible? You see, I'm not sure which claims are right and which aren't. I found the claim that the bible promotes the stoning of children to be odd, so among giving my 2 cents, I basically asked for clarification. People here generally know more about the bible than me. I didn't respond to that question. If you look at my post, I only responded to your line about the maturity of the brain to point out the logical flaw of your thinking. I hope this clears up the point that I am merely pointing out the logical flaw in your thinking, because I believe it is important that those do not exist.
April 10, 200719 yr I didn't imply anything about what god knows or dosen't know. It's a no brainer that an all knowing god knows everything. If that's what you thought I was implying, I wasn't, sorry. My original line of questioning was: Yes you did imply that. Let me break this down to you logically: 1. The kids were told to be stoned. 2. Kids brains do not mature until later. 3. You should not stone people who have not had time to mature. 4. Therefore, you should not stone kids. That is the argument you gave when you said: Killing them on the other hand I think is wrong because most peoples brains don't mature till thier mid 20's or something like that. However, you have since acknowledged that God knows everything (if He exists, including how a kids brain will eventually mature). If God knows everything, then he knows how a kid's brain will mature, therefore making your statement irrelevant. It no longer matters if a kid is or is not mature because God knows what the final result will be anyway. Note: This is a logical point, not a theological point. Therefore, your point about the maturity of kids is irrelevant because it implies that God does not know how their brains will mature. IF God does know how their brains will mature (which you acknowledge he would) then the point about their brains not being mature, the point you made, is irrelevant. Let me get this straight... It promotes stoning kids to death in the bible? You see, I'm not sure which claims are right and which aren't. I found the claim that the bible promotes the stoning of children to be odd, so among giving my 2 cents, I basically asked for clarification. People here generally know more about the bible than me. I didn't respond to that question. If you look at my post, I only responded to your line about the maturity of the brain to point out the logical flaw of your thinking. I hope this clears up the point that I am merely pointing out the logical flaw in your thinking, because I believe it is important that those do not exist. I can see very clearly the logical dilemma I'm in, but you backed me into that corner when you brought up the all knowing nature of god, which, wether you wan't to believe me or not, had nothing to do with my original post. I was arguing using what people know. Not what god knows. You see, that's what I do, I'm an atheist. I acknowleged your comment on the all knowing nature of god because, if there is a god and he were all knowing, it's a total no brainer that he knows why the practice of stoning kids occurs. See what I'm saying? The fact that god is all knowing and knows why kids get stoned, therefore it happened, had nothingto do with my initial argument. What we know thrills me much more than what faith tells us. I hope that clears some things up.
April 10, 200719 yr I can see very clearly the logical dilemma I'm in, but you backed me into that corner when you brought up the all knowing nature of god, which, wether you wan't to believe me or not, had nothing to do with my original post. Your argument and lack of logic did that. I only pointed it out. I was arguing using what people know. Not what god knows. You see, that's what I do, I'm an atheist. I acknowleged your comment on the all knowing nature of god because, if there is a god and he were all knowing, it's a total no brainer that he knows why the practice of stoning kids occurs.Seewhat I'm saying? The fact that god is all knowing and knows why kids get stoned, therefore it happened, had nothingto do with my initial argument. What we know thrills me much more than what faith tells us. Who do you think gave the instruction to stone the kids? God. That's why your point is irrelevant. God has everything to do with your initial question - you just didn't make the connection.
April 10, 200719 yr I can see very clearly the logical dilemma I'm in, but you backed me into that corner when you brought up the all knowing nature of god, which, wether you wan't to believe me or not, had nothing to do with my original post. Your argument and lack of logic did that. I only pointed it out. I was arguing using what people know. Not what god knows. You see, that's what I do, I'm an atheist. I acknowleged your comment on the all knowing nature of god because, if there is a god and he were all knowing, it's a total no brainer that he knows why the practice of stoning kids occurs.Seewhat I'm saying? The fact that god is all knowing and knows why kids get stoned, therefore it happened, had nothingto do with my initial argument. What we know thrills me much more than what faith tells us. Who do you think gave the instruction to stone the kids? God. That's why your point is irrelevant. God has everything to do with your initial question - you just didn't make the connection. Now we're getting somewhere! You see I didn't know that, hence why I was asking about the verse. I can see why what I was saying seems so silly now. :oops:
April 10, 200719 yr Now we're getting somewhere! You see I didn't know that, hence why I was asking about the verse. I can see why what I was saying seems so silly now. :oops: Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God?
April 10, 200719 yr Now we're getting somewhere! You see I didn't know that, hence why I was asking about the verse. I can see why what I was saying seems so silly now. :oops: Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God? Of course I knew that. I just wasn't aware that the verse about stoning kids was from the tounge of god, if you like. If I'm not mistaken some of it is an account from the human perspective, which iswhat I mistakenly assumed for the stoning kids verse. I know it's not so I learnt something. :P
Create an account or sign in to comment