Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Still waiting for your capital punishment points so I can respond to everything at once.
The Law was given as the ideal. In a just society, that is what the law would look like. I wish that we were good enough that we could handle law that just. We are not there yet, and may never be.
Who is in a better position to know the wickedness of a young man, his parents, or 12 strangers. Who would be most likely to condemn him to death, his parents or 12 strangers? It is clear that parents would be 1) better informed than strangers on whether their child was worthy of death and 2) less likely to call for death than strangers even in those situations where the strangers have equal knowledge.
The intent of the law was therefor not to kill more young people, but rather to strengthen the lawful authority of the parent. That would be a good thing. Right now, children can defy their parents openly, knowing that the state will intervene on the side of their foolishness if the parents even spank them in public. We now have children that grow up wild and rebellious, worthless to themselves and others. These are the kind that agents of the state will later have to kill or imprision- we have over 2 million like that right now. Isn't that enough?
When respect for parents is greater, respect for all authority and the law also becomes greater. The point of the law is to save life, even when it calls for ending it.
If we implemented all of the Old Testament Law in our current state we would be required by the Law to kill large numbers of people that God would rather spare alive that they may have more time to repent.
I support that Law as the Ideal. I believe in working for a society that is virteous enough to support such a virteous law. The closer we can get to that, the more our laws can be modeled on the ideal.
I believe the law in this case is based on the idea that the parents are upstanding citizens, and not crack-heads or something. No one would follow the lead of such a person. Still, if good people have an out of control sociopath on their hands it would be good if we could kill them before they killed a number of innocent people. I have seen some kids that you just know are going to wind up killers if they don't get killed first. Both outcomes happened in the cases I am thinking of.
THe biggest lesson of the Bible is that though the Law is stern and just, Mercy and Grace can trump it. Remember that every Christian is a person who has confessed that they are worthy of death- that they have broken the Divine Law. It is only by His substitution, bearing in His Own Body the penalty meant for me (and you, if you care to believe it) that the eternal penalty for our sins has been paid. You should not be surprised when people such as us say that the law should be hard and just, nor should you be surprised when we plead for mercy toward the lawbreakers. It is not a contradiction, rather we realize the purpose of the Law is not to perfect us, or to give us grounds to demand that God accept us as equals in righteousness. Instead its purpose is to make us aware of our failings and need for Him.
Do you agree or not that stubborn and rebellious children must be stoned to death as the bible instructs? The bible does not limit the requirement for such punishment to parents so your argument about parents being the best judges is based on a false premise. If you see your neighbours children being stubborn and rebellious you should organise a stoning party. If your neighbour sees your children being stubborn and rebellious he should do likewise, and you should support him. Why aren't you obeying a clear Biblical instruction (I assume you aren't)? Don't you believe in doing what the Bible says?
If we implemented all of the Old Testament Law in our current state we would be required by the Law to kill large numbers of people that God would rather spare alive that they may have more time to repent.
Who are you to judge who God wants to spare? God has spoken clearly on this matter through the Bible and I believe that you are not obeying its instructions. You give no good reason why not (unless perhaps you don't believe that the Bible is inerrant?)
Alternatively perhaps you might agree with me that we should not use the Bible as a Law Text.
Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery. Jesus himself endorsed the beating of slaves, even when they make an honest mistake so that they won't make it again. It may interest you to know that Darwin's most heated arguments with Captain Fitzroy (the fundamentalist Christian captain of the Beagle) were about slavery not biology. Darwin thought it to be a disgusting practice that demeaned the humanity of both slave and slaver, whilst Fitzroy supported it, claiming Biblical support.
I note that you fail to address the Biblical instruction to hold bond-servant's family hostage against the decision of a bond-servant to become a permanent slave. I also note that you fail to address biblical endorsement for sex-slavery.
The slaves that you say Americans bought fair and square were mostly kidnapped, and as such do not compare with a 'bond servant" agreement.
I have checked this with an academic historian who specialises in this subject and your statement is simply untrue. The overwhelming majority of slaves shipped from Africa to the New World were bought in African markets from African slave-holding chiefs. Sometimes these would be surplus population from the chief's tribe. Kidnapping in such huge numbers would have been dangerous, expensive, and difficult, compared with simply buying the slaves in African markets.
I do however find your "fair and square" phrase bewildering. Slavery disgusts me even when it is practiced in forms that are permitted by the bible, such as the legitimate purchase of non-Hebrews in slave markets. It is only you that should see the buying and selling of human beings as something that could be "fair and square".
I don't disagree in principal with corporal punishment as I have already stated. But I find the idea that a bond-master or slaver can be the sole arbiter of such punishment for bond-servants or slaves completely unnacceptable. Evidently you don't, so we are worlds apart on that one.
The Bible states that if such beatings result in death delayed by more than 24 hours from the punishment then no offence has occurred. This sounds like an invitation to make extremely violent bloody beatings to me, as long as the poor wretch clings to life for 24 hours. A sadist's charter. F Douglass may have said that the Bible doesn't require masters to be bad masters, but it doesn't seem to require them to be good either if the life of a slave is to be viewed so cheaply.
Still at least you seem to be true to your faith and your Holy Book on this one. Evidently you view slavery as an entirely acceptable human state.
Bible Law says that if a master beats a slave and the slave dies within a day then the master is guilty. You use that to accuse God of being unjust. Those of us who are able to examine things in perspective understand that this rule was given in times where slaves could be beaten to death with no consequences whatsoever. This law was meant to limit punishment of slaves, not promote it. You instead take this to mean that God should be condemned for advocating that masters be allowed to use any force at all. There were thousands of captive aliens in Israel. There were bond servants who stole from their masters and beat their fellow servants. Perhaps you think the U.S. military should not have been allowed to use force to manage the tens of thousands of prisioners in our various wars.
Warfare slaves aside, how does one control an anti-social individual who does not have the skill set to successfully navigate civilized society? The Bible says he can become a bond servant to a master (of his choosing if he is an Israelite) who has authority to punish him. Other than that it is about like a seven year contract in the armed forces. At the end of the seven years perhaps he has learned enough to go out on his own, or maybe he realizes that he needs the structure and likes things with his master.
Secular humanists (such as yourself apparently) say that is too inhuman. Instead we must lock this same individual in a cage for seven years, taking more of his freedom than slavery ever could, with other more hardened criminals. After seven years of learning/getting beatings from them rather than a responisble member of the law abiding community, we release the now hardened criminal on an unsuspecting public until he murders someone and the police have to shoot him.
God is just, and his ways are above our ways, praise His Holy Name. Will you continue to mis-use the scriptures in a vain effort to condemn God, or will you use them to find forgiveness and healing from the condemnation that a just God must put on you?
I note that you ignore nearly all of the points that I have made, preferring to concentrate on the least odious practice of bondservice. Elsewhere you argue against numerous positions that I have not taken up. You then terminate your screed with a thinly veiled reference to the threat of eternal damnation hanging over me if I don't see things your way.
But there is yet hope. You concede that Biblical Law was framed to be appropriate for the Bronze Age goatherds of the time, and you urge me to "examine things in perspective". I agree, this is exactly the way that Biblical Law should be viewed. It probably was a step forward on the morals of the time. Moral Relativism in fact. Can I urge you in turn to "examine things in perspective" and to ponder whether creation tales and histories that were also appropriate for Bronze Age goatherds should trump the evidence available to modern science.
Ok, then let me re-phrase it, you are trying to condemn the scriptures, which have led countless souls to God across the ages, including mine, in a vain effort to excuse yourself from having to heed their witness. And yes, I believe that if you continue to harden your heart then you will get your heart's desire- eternal seperation from God who created and loves you.
BTW, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of ingnoring my more salient points as well.
I do agree that the natural universe is also a witness to God, and that the creation account must be interpreted in the light of what the natural world tells us. I am an Old Earth Creationist for example.
If the laws of the Old Testament were a "step forward" then they cannot be "Moral Relativism" in the classical definition of that term. A "step forward" implies that there is an objective moral order. Relativism implies that there is not, that it is all a matter of personal preference.
Hold it right there, no I'm not. I'm condemning explicit slavish adherence to the most simple-minded literal interpretation of the scriptures, ie making an idol of the Bible.
In the scriptures it says "all scripture is inspired by God". Even if men wrote it down, the scripture testifies of itself that it is "God-breathed". Do you believe that all scripture is God-breathed?
No I don't. I'm an atheist. I'm not sure this conversation is going to go too much further. Our worldviews are so far apart that I feel that we are barely communicating.
Then you should not have the temerity to lecture on the Bible and idols.
Fair enough. Do you share the Biblical view that slavery, beating slaves to death, and the execution of children for minor offences are OK?
So which has changed over time -- God or morality? Are there things acceptable at some periods of history but not at others?
I do not answer loaded questions especially when they are unreferenced. In any case, Lot fathered children by his daughters, David had a man killed to get his wife, the Bible does not say that those things are OK. If you wish to further discuss this start up a thread with your questions on the religion forum and I'm sure you'll be answered quite adequately.
There is plenty of reference to the Biblical background to those questions in this thread. Clearly you have the right to choose to decline to answer if you wish.
Well, if you didn't understand my answer, here it is for the plain child... No. Now if you want to know why ask it on the religion forum in a non loaded fashion, such as "What is the biblical view on slavery?"
Failure to answer the question noted.
Apologies. I missed the word "No" in your response. Why don't you endorse the Biblical position then?
So it has to be fusion not fission. It has to be humans evolved from apes not apes from genetically flawed humans.
Evolution I see is their god and interspecies chromosome comparisons are their icons.
I think today I will go shopping for tarot cards to help me understand today's so-called science.
You must be blind. The "No" is fairly clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.