Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
are you saying there could be no reason to stone a child 6000 years ago? That a kid may be more important than the entire tribe? Because although I aint no Christian I see people trying to help the idiots to Quarantine (sacrifice) a child for the good of the tribe. I see Some short sighted people needing "myths" to get motivated to save others.
Your correct. I can not see any reason to stone a child for being insolent to their parent.
Anyone who thinks that is moral is not human to me. Anyone who endorses that because some flippin' sky fairy talked them should check into the closest psychiatric ward.
I can't believe the machinations apologists and others will go through to justify some of the terrorism called for in the bible.
Now this would be the Jesus that loves children, right? Yeah, right.
No, this is the Jesus that has no problem with what is written in the Old Testament, and as an observant Jew, in fact, endorses it.
So the discussion comes to disobedient children. As we know in the Old Testament, the right and proper thing to do is to kill them, including stoning them to death. You know, like some fundy Muslims decree today. Oh, hold it, even the fundy Muslims won't stone disobedient children. No, only Jesus subscribes to that. But I digress.
Mark 7:10 says: (and yes, it IS in context, the apologists favorite deflection)
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
So, seeing Jesus is god or something like that, it seems that Jesus the god did not contradict god the god in the OT. Kill disobedient kids!!! Me, Jesus, says it must be done and it is moral to do so!! Kill your son! Kill your daughter! Kill them if they don't listen. Me, Jesus, the one who tells you how to beat your slaves, now tells you to when to kill your children.
Context is everything in the Bible. Fundamentalist types make this same mistake. Read the entire passage.
Quote:
1Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly,a holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.b And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.c) 5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me; 7in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)d— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
What Defiles a Person 14And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”e17And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”f (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
This does not mean "kill children." This, like all Jewish laws, was super-important.
The context is that the Pharisees were actually being worse than the laws themselves. As in, they were worse than the Old Testament. This does not mean he necessarily agreed with the death penalty. But these were the laws of the times. Jesus certainly didn't agree with the taxation, but he didn't tell the Jews not to pay taxes. It wasn't his place to do away with the these laws, but make a new one.
Your correct. I can not see any reason to stone a child for being insolent to their parent.
Anyone who thinks that is moral is not human to me. Anyone who endorses that because some flippin' sky fairy talked them should check into the closest psychiatric ward.
I can't believe the machinations apologists and others will go through to justify some of the terrorism called for in the bible.
Why not? The Bible allegedly advocates killing people for all sorts of things ... But I guess the only one that matters is the one they say is talking about Homosexuals ... I wonder how many of them had their wife tested for virginity before they got married and planned to have her killed if she wasn't .. How about not being around a woman when she is having her cycle?
It makes one wonder why they are so obsessed with Homosexuality.
It seems to me that the entire story concerns whether Torah should be kept, and if so whether it is lawful to keep some parts of Torah and not others, in regards to Gentile converts especially. That should be fairly obvious from the opening of the chapter:
Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing if cups, pots, and bronze kettles.)
(Mark 7:1-4, NRSV)
The author points out that the observant Jews notice the apostles not keeping Torah, and then as an aside to his audience - clearly showing that the Gospel was not intended for a Jewish audience, so a bias should be expected - he explains briefly the concept of the "tradition of the elders", Torah. This entire question played an important one for the early Church, as witnessed in Acts 15:19-20. It was one of the most difficult topics the early Church leaders had to wrestle with - whether Torah observance of kosher and ritual purity rules and circumcision were incumbent upon Gentile converts to the Christian Faith.
As an aside, the Pharisees were quite liberal in interpreting the Torah (this was a good thing for the people) and Jesus himself was closest to a Pharisee in outlook and practice. Pharisees, despite the bias of the New Testament, were not analogous with "hypocrites". But the early Christians were desperately trying to establish an identity, and the Johannine community especially found themselves ostracized from their Jewish peers and retaliated by including some very anti-Semitic teachings in the Gospel of John.
These liberal interpretations of the Pharisees could be termed the "traditions of the elders", and a good analogue is in how Jesus interpreted Torah in the Gospel of Matthew. Some laws mitzvoth he lessened the severity of, while others he harshened. The Sadducees were opposed to any interpretations of Torah that they perceived as differing from the standard interpretation - no matter how onerous or out-of-date this made may mitzvoth.
Putting aside the Fundamentalist interpretation that misses the forest for the trees, the meaning of the story can be found after Jesus talks to the disciples in private. He punctuates his point with a crude joke about human crap:
He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
And he said: "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, [chewing popcorn too loudly in a theater], avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
(Mark 7:18-23)
Everyone loves scatological humor, of which the Bible has many examples!
Jesus drives the point home that in his personal interpretation of Torah, all food may be eaten. This is his interpretation. He also adds his typical insistence on the importance of the heart and its contents as the ultimate reason for Torah, in his opinion.
Now this would be the Jesus that loves children, right? Yeah, right.
No, this is the Jesus that has no problem with what is written in the Old Testament, and as an observant Jew, in fact, endorses it.
So the discussion comes to disobedient children. As we know in the Old Testament, the right and proper thing to do is to kill them, including stoning them to death. You know, like some fundy Muslims decree today. Oh, hold it, even the fundy Muslims won't stone disobedient children. No, only Jesus subscribes to that. But I digress.
Mark 7:10 says: (and yes, it IS in context, the apologists favorite deflection)
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
So, seeing Jesus is god or something like that, it seems that Jesus the god did not contradict god the god in the OT. Kill disobedient kids!!! Me, Jesus, says it must be done and it is moral to do so!! Kill your son! Kill your daughter! Kill them if they don't listen. Me, Jesus, the one who tells you how to beat your slaves, now tells you to when to kill your children.
God says thou shalt not kill.
However we have other scripture that tells us God commanded people to kill other people, what is going on?
Could be the people of the OT took these thing literally (like most fundy's do) and went about actually killing other people. However what if God when He was telling the Israelites to kill these other people actually meant for them (the Israelites) to make friends of these other people, thereby in effect killing their enemy.
However we have other scripture that tells us God commanded people to kill other people, what is going on?
Could be the people of the OT took these thing literally (like most fundy's do) and went about actually killing other people. However what if God when He was telling the Israelites to kill these other people actually meant for them (the Israelites) to make friends of these other people, thereby in effect killing their enemy.
God said, technically, with a more accurate translation:
You are not to murder.
You are not to adulter.
You are not to steal.
You are not to testify
against your fellow as a false witness.
(Exodus 20:13, SB Fox)
I'm not sure if you've ever read the "Old" Testament, or Hebrew Bible, but the Decalogue was not meant to be taken in a metaphorical, hippy, hands around the world way. The law in particular had the Biblical Hebrew word רצח, and it is used differently from the more general "kill". It is specialized into intentional killing best translated as "murder".
As for the conquest of Canaan, it's pretty clear from the text that when they engaged in "Holy War" - a special term common to the Ancient Near East that involved killing an entire population - they were not making friends. Quite the opposite! It can be translated as "the Ban", where literally everything is religiously sacrificed to the warring deity.
So yes, these laws prohibiting murder were taken literally, as they were meant to govern a real literal people with real literal problems and issues. And likewise, the stories of the conquest - even if it never happened historically - were meant to convey the actual killing, not murder, of the indigenous peoples of Canaan.
God said, technically, with a more accurate translation:
You are not to murder.
You are not to adulter.
You are not to steal.
You are not to testify
against your fellow as a false witness.
(Exodus 20:13, SB Fox)
I'm not sure if you've ever read the "Old" Testament, or Hebrew Bible, but the Decalogue was not meant to be taken in a metaphorical, hippy, hands around the world way. The law in particular had the Biblical Hebrew word רצח, and it is used differently from the more general "kill". It is specialized into intentional killing best translated as "murder".
As for the conquest of Canaan, it's pretty clear from the text that when they engaged in "Holy War" - a special term common to the Ancient Near East that involved killing an entire population - they were not making friends. Quite the opposite! It can be translated as "the Ban", where literally everything is religiously sacrificed to the warring deity.
So yes, these laws prohibiting murder were taken literally, as they were meant to govern a real literal people with real literal problems and issues. And likewise, the stories of the conquest - even if it never happened historically - were meant to convey the actual killing, not murder, of the indigenous peoples of Canaan.
I know it is more accurately translated murder.
The law is spiritual, not literal.
Thus my point, they were suppose to make their enemies their friends thereby killing their enemy. They simply took what God meant literally instead of spiritually and killed in the name of God thinking to do Him a service.
Yes they were taken literally and that was their error, for the law is spiritual and must be spiritually applied.
Your correct. I can not see any reason to stone a child for being insolent to their parent.
Anyone who thinks that is moral is not human to me. Anyone who endorses that because some flippin' sky fairy talked them should check into the closest psychiatric ward.
I can't believe the machinations apologists and others will go through to justify some of the terrorism called for in the bible.
how about 6000 years ago a child brining a known sickness that can wipe out 1/2 of the village? How about a psychotic child that endangers the lively hood of everybody in the village? How can we make the people that have to do it function? To get close enough to put their hands on them could put them in serious danger. Like I said short sighted people focusing on "insolent" as the reason to kill a kid is kind of sad to me. But literal bible is weird to me whether you are for it or against it anyway.
It seems the bible is/can be useful yet again in helping us through a terrible event that has no easy answers to me. But it can be overbearing, even oppressive in the wrong hands. The bible almost reminds me of being human.
Thus my point, they were suppose to make their enemies their friends thereby killing their enemy. They simply took what God meant literally instead of spiritually and killed in the name of God thinking to do Him a service.
Yes they were taken literally and that was their error, for the law is spiritual and must be spiritually applied.
I have nothing more to add besides the observation that your interpretation of the Torah as spiritual is decidedly lacking evidence or support. I understand where it's coming from, as it was a popular anti-Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible for a long time, but that theory has long been out of support. In fact, it's kind of ridiculous when one even considers how silly that would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
