Did you know that...

Post Reply New Topic

And before you would, how many classes regarding the biology of sexuality did you succeed?

It's more subjective than anything else. I'd say it's murder since people are so thoughtless about the fact that not using protection is a big decision. I just hate the idea of people being careless, self-indulgent, and taking on a huge burden of responsibility they didn't prepare for.

Before anyone wants to smear me, I'm a right libertarian and an atheist and I oppose abortion on principle rather than for any political or religious reasons (unless it's rape or if the mother risks dying). Also, I don't want social engineering to determine the worth of the baby's life.

I pose this question to you, at what point is it a person? I err on the side of life, you seem to err on the side of conveinence.

infanticide = killing of an infant.
zef =/= infant
therefore killing zef =/= infanticide.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infant

It was a different world back then, so to speak. Same planet, sure, but different technology, different cultural norms/values across the board... The Israelites were interdependent with the Egyptians before the slavery period and had previously depended on Egypt to supply their needs during a period of severe famine. Moses codified the laws God wished His people to follow, but by all indications many of these laws existed at least in principle earlier, as far back as Noah. The priest Melchizedek was not of Abraham's bloodline, which makes it plain that Abraham's faith was not exclusive to him. The NT explains in reference to Gentiles that law "was written on their hearts" even thought the Law (of Moses) wasn't given to them.

Current disciplinary laws don't work for the ancient world for a number of reasons. A nomadic tribe cannot establish "detention centers" for children/teenagers or build prisons/jails for adult incarceration. Current laws don't account for the deep sense of corporate solidarity that were a part of life for the Israelites. The laws were also given in the formative years of an established Israelite nation, which left little or room for error or tolerance. I suppose it's not much different than the settlement of the American West. Lawlessness was rampant, hence the severity of judicial application. Martial law can still be imposed during special circumstances such as rioting or war. Laws where I live allow citizens to "take matter in their own hands" if they have reason to feel threatened, such as trespassing. If I discover someone has wandered on my property, I don't necessarily have time to ask them to come inside for a cup of coffee or a beer to find out what their intentions are. It may appear that I've deprived a teenager or two of their due process, but the laws take into account my rights to protect myself, my family, and my property as well as the urgency of the situation. The establishment of the nation of Israel was an urgent matter. They didn't have time to discuss what was given to Moses directly from God in front of a committee.

Current disciplinary laws were written with completely different intentions than Torah, another reason why they wouldn't work in the ancient world. Current laws, depending on what country, of course, are based on the culture that the nation governs. UK laws, for example, do not apply in the United States. Someone from the USA is subject to the laws of the UK while IN the UK, and someone in the UK living in the USA is subject to USA laws. But you can't be tried in the USA for something that is illegal in the UK and not the USA. USA laws are written (supposedly) with the interests of Americans in mind, which means they have to follow the US Constitution to be valid. That Constitution guarantees freedom of religion among other freedoms, and since Congress cannot make any laws establishing any given religion, Americans are free to choose for themselves what, if any, religion they'll follow and how they choose to observe that religion. Since USA cannot make laws interfering with religious practice, the USA by default is a secular society. Now, it can be a "Christian nation" if that is how the majority of Americans want it to be, but it cannot disregard the rights of others, i.e. make it a theocracy. Israel was never intended to be this kind of society. Yahweh was supposed to be sovereign over Israel and all human activity was to work towards glorifying the sovereign God. Current disciplinary laws respecting no establishment of religion have no place in a nation in which all are expected to worship Yahweh.

Finally, current disciplinary laws are devised by human beings in order to govern nations they created. God's disciplinary laws were devised by God in order to govern a nation He created and, hence, are superior to human laws.

Some of the criticism I've noticed suggests that ancient laws are not observed in modern times. You can't apply contemporary law to the ancient world, but you CAN do the opposite. Torah establishes that parents are allowed to seek death for their children should it become necessary. It does NOT say that anything is wrong with forgiveness and mercy. It does not say that laws in other nations that do NOT allow beating or death are invalidated. It merely says this is what you CAN do. It does not say this is what you MUST do or that this is universally what you OUGHT to do. Hence ancient laws provide acceptable guidelines for the contemporary world and remain relevant. Ancient disciplinary don't overtly express an awareness of any potential for abuse, but they do have the effect of saying "by any/all means necessary." We don't HAVE to resort to killing teenagers for being rowdy, but we can recognize whether such rowdiness is due to a psychiatric condition and prescribe medication or even committal as alternatives. The ancient world wasn't quite so sophisticated, so some methods which seem to us as unjust (because mental illness in some cases might be too difficult to recognize) were not out of place given the circumstances.

As to children who curse their parents: It's just a reminder of what COULD happen and the importance of being careful to observe certain things. Going back to Proverbs and the admonition to use the "rod of discipline" so the child might live, the idea is to not ever let things even get to that point. Personally, I think the best discipline is when situations that would lead to severe discipline are avoided entirely. If I give one of my children a cookie, the other will expect a cookie. If I don't share cookies equally with my children, they get angry with me. I can avoid the situation by either not giving cookies at all or giving everyone cookies. Parents aren't by any means obligated to appease every childish whim, but there are ways of handling situations in such a way as to avoid angering the children. Avoid angering them, problem solved. If a child "slips" and curses a parent, that suggests that cursing parents is an already established pattern of behavior. So, the parents aren't really doing their jobs to instill the importance of avoiding that behavior in their children and have themselves to blame if something happens to their children. If a parent loves and cares for the child, everything in the parent's best effort will be done to avoid getting to that point. If you can't care for your child or don't want your children, there are better ways of getting rid of the child than baiting him into committing an offense with a mandatory death sentence.

I can't recall what, if any, rules exist regarding child abuse in Torah. I'll read over that again soon enough. I do know slaves had the ability to run away to other masters if they were being abused. New masters were prohibited from returning them to their old masters. I suspect there MIGHT have been something similar in principle for children, but what, if anything, the Bible says on that is not something I know with any certainty at the moment. I would think that laws concerning rape, incest, homosexuality, virginity, and betrothal would be applicable concerning child abuse. Abused/neglected children and slaves ran away all the time in the Bible. Think Hagar/Ishmael.



"Empathy" requires understanding. Part of being human is human failing. If it appears that God isn't concerned with empathizing with humans, one should perhaps wonder if we humans are concerned about empathizing with God. I could easily make the argument that your responses show little or no empathy with God in His concern for His people.



If you don't want to believe in God, there's nothing I nor anyone else can do to change that.

But God doesn't really adapt His laws. His Law is His Law. He wouldn't be a perfect God if He made allowances or compromised His positions. Much of the lesson taught by the Bible is in the human failure to hold to God's standards. I never said God held to my standards or anyone else's standards. Now, God DOES provide for needs, including laws that exist for specific purposes which apply to specific peoples at specific times, and even laws that clearly aren't intended to apply to ALL people at ALL times. The universal application of God's law is such that it is never ad hoc. In order to maintain that universality, a certain degree of flexibility should be understood. It should come as no surprise that laws pertaining to Hebrew national identity have no purpose for, say, an American of Anglo-Saxon descent. It does, however, establish the context of a chosen people to whom Messiah is given. It forms the basis for why atonement for sin is even necessary, and the OT as a whole offers prophecies concerning Messiah. If it is possible to earn atonement through the Law, there is no purpose for the Gospels. God holds us to an impossible standard of perfection, but God also offers mercy and forgiveness in order to provide a means of reconciliation.



Or why couldn't God just give us a world what is perfect to begin with so that the discussion of what to do with brats or how to avoid hell is irrelevant? Sorry, God already did that. We messed it up. It is part of a child's nature to rebel against parents, and part of a parent's duty to instruct a child as to how he should behave. Besides, who said God DIDN'T teach the Jews effective discipline methods? From the beginning, death was never God's first option in dealing with sin. Oh, sure, you have the experience of Eden. But even then death was not an instantaneous event. Spiritually, yes, but not physically. God's act of showing mercy by remaining with the faithful shows His own faithful and patient qualities. So, if nothing else, God provides an example as to how we should act as parents ourselves, patiently instructing children as to how they should act and how to understand or relate to God. Something I noticed with my first child when he was really young (just over a year) is that he would do things he shouldn't do and then act as though he had no concept that what he did was even wrong. Trying to verbally explain these things to him was completely ineffective. Physical punishment gave him some sort of negative feeling of the consequences of those actions, something that over time has manifested itself as guilt or regret. I barely need lay a finger on the child now because the sense that something is wrong is automatic. Our daughter is different somehow, more apt to obey commands whereas our oldest is more "difficult" or "willful." Effective parenting methods are dependent on the child's personality and individual behavioral patterns. God would have to teach each and every parent individually how to raise each and every child. On the one hand, God is powerful enough to do this if He so chooses. But on the other hand, why should God HAVE to? Why can't God, rather, instill in parents the spirit of what they are to do and let the parents grow WITH the children? Each individual parent can monitor and adjust each individual child, learning a bit more about themselves as they learn about their children and learning a bit more about God along the way. The children shouldn't turn out to be brats in the first place if the parents listen to God's instruction and raise their children accordingly. But if a teenager chronically behaves in such a way that shows little chance of being reformed, if a teenager is belligerent to the point he is threatening to harm parents/grandparents/siblings, if a teenager shows himself a danger to a society dedicated to service to God, what's going to happen is either the parents are put in the position of doing something extreme (death) OR the nation of Israel must act to respond to the threat. Either the parents beat the kids or kill the kids. If they fail, then they face having their children being put to death by the greater community. The USA legal system is not completely unlike this, the possible exception being that an age limit is imposed for which children can be held responsible for their actions. A child can commit a capital offense prior to age of majority (18.) and not face the death penalty. Now, in some instances a child might be tried as an adult, but in concept you can pretty much get away with murder up to that point. I think the spirit of the law in relation to punishment (by death) is more a warning to parents than to kids. Figure your kids out and parent them appropriately or risk losing them.



How do you know God DIDN'T make a "more relaxing reality"? The lesson the Bible teaches is God gave a perfect order in which man was able to live a sinless existence. I think that in that existence man already knew right from wrong, and I think it's a mistake to think that the forbidden tree somehow imparted some hidden knowledge that God never intended man to be privy to. Genesis indicates otherwise, but what I mean is that if man existed prior to fallen nature, then he was incapable of doing wrong because of that sinless nature. There was no need to consciously act towards good or evil because the human nature was an intrinsically good nature. So man only did what was good and right, he just wasn't aware in any deliberate way that was what was going on. My idea is that the forbidden fruit gave the man the gift (or curse) of the AWARENESS (knowledge) of what was good and what was not and with it the responsibility to act within that knowledge. God had already commanded regarding that fruit, so the man only had awareness of ONE thing that was evil. It was man's decision to act contrary to God's will that changed that perfect, relaxed, state of existence. To suggest that God is responsible for the "twisted reality" is to ignore man's culpability, and even man's reaction to his own sin shows an immediate human tendency to blame God when God is not at fault.

No, you don't need free moral will. I believe that those who put their faith in God surrender their free will, which, ironically, they do freely of their own will. God directs and leads my life and thus I am not free. Yet being subject to divine power results in a different kind of freedom that has a more liberating "feel" than human free will devoid of God's presence. But this is what I WANT for my life and my family's life and my desire that we remain a family throughout eternity. My concern is not for myself, but for others, and honestly I'm just not that persuasive. Believers don't need free moral will, nor do they REALLY possess it if they are really committed to God. Any believer, of course, might argue otherwise, which is fine. I just can't understand why it is someone who insists on making a life for themselves devoid of God would ever really want to be with a God they worked so hard not to believe in. Further, if God really is so evil or is such a big bully, wouldn't you prefer hell (absence of God) to heaven (presence of God)? To me, hell seems much more merciful than the alternative.

As I've said before, parents physically stand in the place of God on earth in relation to children. When and how children become independent is a societal issue, but what all societies seem to agree on is that at some point this is a necessary step in the developmental process. In essence, God is the parent of all people, whether they believe in Him or not. Whether my own children believe I exist or not is irrelevant--they are physically unable to provide for themselves and are prevented by law to even do so until a certain age. I think this is a travesty, of course, and I think children are physically and mentally able to survive higher education, the workforce, and independent living much sooner than we give them credit for. We are less prepared for the "real world" than primitive peoples were, and I think that's a shame. But quite simply, those are not the values of the society we're typically born into. Children aren't allowed certain types of decisions until a certain legal age. Beyond that there is little we can do for them and not really that much we SHOULD do for them. What's interesting to me in the current economy is how many retired persons are declaring bankruptcy. Part of the cause of bankruptcy for this group of people is that they are still paying for their (adult) children's cars/insurance/registration, providing them a home or paying their apartment rent, and so on without putting any pressure on them to make their own lives work. It's a disservice for parents to let their college graduates boomerang, something I absolutely refused to do when things didn't work out in my own career. I'm GLAD it didn't work out for me because it has forced me to pursue what I always wanted to do in the first place. But running back home to mommy would not have helped, either. Kids must learn independence and self-sufficiency to survive in the world we live in.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a parent is infinitely wealthy and has the means to provide for a child in such a way that the child does not HAVE to be concerned with career/family, etc. The child is free to do as he pleases as long as he does SOMETHING, but the parent will provide all needs along the way. All a child has to do is live with the parent until reaching the age of majority and THEN decide whether to live completely apart from the parent or permanently stay in that parent's care. Assuming that "infinite wealth" is possible and that a child trusts that he CAN remain in his parent's care, it makes the most sense that the child would choose to stay with the parent.

In reality, there ISN'T any such thing as infinite wealth, of course, and no child can permanently stay in the care of any such parent if one existed because either the child or the parent will die along the way. You also have to consider whether a child would even WANT this, or perhaps that child is so strong-willed or rebellious that he'd never want to be with that parent longer than he had to. If a child opts to forever be cut off from infinite wealth, when it makes no sense to do so, what good parent would force that kind of dependence? That doesn't make sense, either.

I do think God is a God of infinite wealth, though not any kind of wealth understood in temporal terms. I think God gives us a lifetime to make that decision before maturing or "coming of age" in physical death. If you've been so persistent in life in denying that God even exists or living on your own terms apart from God, God is good to not force this condition in death. Loving parents have to let their children go at some point. God isn't really that different, and I would say that the eternal states of affairs, heaven and hell, are evidence of a loving Creator saddened by the loss of any child who would choose to eternally exist apart from Him.

At about 6 weeks after being born. I take it you do not have children. If you did you would realize that most children do not show signs of ego or autonomy the first month or so. Human children are born with about 1/3 of the brain mass they will have when their brains are fullsized.

ruveyn.

You say 'convenience' like it is a small thing for, say, a teenager to 'conveniently' finish high school. It's pretty clear to me that that convenience is more important than the life of a proto-human without a recognizable EEG trace.

But why didn't God, being the omnipotent and omniscient God that He is, give His people back then the required tools and technology to do what the civilized world today does when it comes to matters such as child discipline and so on?

What prevented Him from doing that? Respect for the uncivilized moral standards of the Jews?



So, basically, your implication is that God was unable to provide the Jews with the right tools and technology and instructions that would protect brats and disrespectful teenagers from abuse but that would effectively discipline them at the same time.

Ok, let's say there was no choice but to kill disrespectful children who curse their parents back then. Why didn't God just end their lives peacefully and painlessly? Why make them suffer to death? Are His capabilities as limited as ours?

Why did you even bother to explain how humans today deal with the laws given them? It's like you're comparing us to God as if we're meant to be on the same level or something.

If you feel the only way for you to protect yourself and your loved ones from some intruders is by killing them, that would be a fair thing to do ... but only because you're not omnipotent and omniscient and don't know of any better choices to make.



You just confirmed to us how narcissistic Yahweh is.

I can understand your argument above perfectly, but I can't agree at all with the way Yahweh demands worship "or else suffer and die". Why does the USA have to be more civilized than Yahweh in the days of the uncivilized Jews? Well, I know the answer and so do you, but it's something you don't wish to think about too much.



Therefore, killing children is superior to effectively disciplining them, right?



But that's only what your own standards as a civilized human say. Yahweh in the Torah was very strict and demanded children be killed on several occasions. Remember Achan's children? Remember the Moabite children? Remember what happened when a Jew picked up sticks on the Sabbath? Remember God's responses to such "crimes"? He demanded death. There was no other option for them.

That's the narcissistic God that you claim to worship, Angel.



It's just a reminder??? It's more than that! It's a threat from your God. What the Torah basically says is: If you see any child who curses his parents, have no mercy on him. Put him to death.

Leviticus 20:9
If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.

Ouch!



Once again, Leviticus 20:9.



You're right. I am unable to have empathy for someone who is simply a fictional character made up by narcissistic men in power. I can sort of empathize with those narcissistic men in power, though. But that doesn't mean I have respect for them or agree with them.



Actually, I personally believe that God exists (I guess they would label me as an agnostic theist). I just don't believe that Yahweh is that God.



So you just have no problem with God allowing a reality of pain and suffering to exist and you think that it's ok for God to allow imperfect beings to stuff it up and make things horrible for us all.

Oh, well. You're free to believe what you wish about such a being.

I just wonder if God were to tell you to go sacrifice your own children, would you do it?



As much as Yahweh is a cruel being, I guess being peacefully with Him in heaven would be much better than suffering in hell. But then again, complete annihilation of body and soul would be the best for me. I wouldn't want to suffer pain and scream and cry forever and ever. Nor would I want that for my loved ones.

But, anyway, I don't even believe that any being has free will. I'm more of a determinist. You are what you are because of who you are. That's why you never see a psychopath stop being a psychopath in life.



Just end his life for good. Simple. I still don't get why God has to act like someone with a narcissistic personality disorder instead of a gentleman that we can all look up to and respect.

[quote="MCalavera"

But why didn't God, being the omnipotent and omniscient God that He is, give His people back then the required tools and technology to do what the civilized world today does when it comes to matters such as child discipline and so on?

What prevented Him from doing that? Respect for the uncivilized moral standards of the Jews?

[/quote]

That sounds just like a Cargo Cult belief. Do you expect reasonable people to take such a belief seriously?

Face it. The Sky Daddy is not going to solve our problems for us.


ruveyn

If the world is given to US to "subdue," and if the world is given to us to make of it what we will, why should God have to be responsible for providing the things WE want? In other words, why should God be subject to our whims if we are sinful, imperfect while God is perfect? Sounds to me like you want God to be responsible for what humans are responsible for. When it comes to child discipline, if someone subjects himself to God's will, spends time in prayer over all aspect of life, and is under God's guidance, then issues of child discipline are moot. God leads and directs in all matters, including child discipline, and by trusting God's guidance any number of alternatives are possible without resorting to death.

Also, think of how children grow and develop. Why aren't we just all born adults with all the knowledge of the world instantly available? Human development throughout history has always been progressive. We change what we do as we learn for ourselves what to do. The development of a people in their relationship with God was likewise progressive. Circumstances dictated a greater of degree of seriousness at the time the law was given. Having established the rule of law, the Israelites should have been able to maintain their way of life in peacetime. Their failure to consistently hold to the Law ultimately resulted in their destruction. If you read Kings and Chronicles, you'll notice that destruction was a LONG time in coming. Because of David, Judah had more time, not to mention more righteous kings (though they were few). They could have easily taken the lesson from Israel, but over a long period of time they failed even there. Applying how God responds to His chosen people to a philosophy of discipline, one must exercise a greater degree of patience than vengeance. Be kind. Be patient. Give warnings. Show an example. And, when necessary, take action. What prevented God from instantly doing what you think He ought to have done was the principle of human development over time. They needed to learn the lessons they learned in that way. Even with children, sometimes experience is the best teacher. I can do everything I can to teach my children not to touch a hot stove or poke a mouse trap. If they have no experience with getting burned, all they have is my word. And why should they just take my word for things? But if they get caught in a mousetrap or burned by the stove, they KNOW that I was right to tell them what I told them. I have no further need to punish them since their experience is punishment enough. However, that doesn't mean that I take their hands and hold them to a hot stove element.



Not at all.


We ARE meant to be on the same level in certain ways. Eden represented a companionship with God. The whole of human existence since then has been an attempt at reconciliation with that God, involving cycles of struggle and acceptance. The name "Israel" even means "wrestles with God." The death and resurrection of Jesus, being both God and man, establishes a brotherhood of believers with Jesus (as our brother) and reconciles all believers with God as His children.


Which only emphasizes the urgency of the situation. Urgency requires quick action, and not always the course of action that would be best in different circumstances but perhaps best in the situation in which it applies.



If you don't like it, you don't have to deal with it. Your opinion of narcissistic qualities is subjective to your own preferences and does not denote any real understanding of who Yahweh is or His purpose. That's a human failing, though, and I'm not pretending to have any greater understanding. The difference is that I accept God's will as superior.



Who says that it is? The faithful in the Exodus were completely reliant upon God for their very survival. If we ARE more civilized, at what cost are we more civilized? Our society is founded on principles of human freedom. We are not a theocracy. Jesus worked to persuade people to believe in Him, which He easily did. But for all the ease of convincing people to follow Him, Jesus knew that presented difficulties for certain of His followers and also sought to hit them with cold, hard, reality. The Apostles were NOT Jesus Himself and thus had to be much more persuasive in their communication. But they did NOT coerce or force unbelievers to come to Christ. Part of the RC's downfall was the widespread realization that the Church could not make someone believe with any degree of genuine sincerity. Even if one were to form a Christian theocracy, it would inherently have the problem of establishing religious authority as head of state while still guaranteeing that citizens would not be forced to believe or worship in any certain way. The only way it could really work is if there were a core group committed to Jesus along with their families and they made sure that their families came to faith into perpetuity. I'm afraid the only way you'd get that kind of condition is if believers were immortal and the nation was populated only with believers. The USA is set up in such a way that all citizens COULD possibly be believers and yet allow for all believers to come to faith by their own free will.

If being "civilized" is a value, apparently it is a human value and relative to what a person's opinion of "civilized" is. Ancient Israel was superior in the sense that they were an entire people dedicated to God's service on earth. There's no need for "technology" if God supplies all needs. Now, technology isn't a BAD thing, but use of technology for the most part is indicative of human reliance on self. In the Year of Jubilee, God's people were commanded not to work the fields at all but only survive on what the earth itself provided. Looks to me like as long as they kept the commandments, they had a much greater degree of reliance on God than what we choose to do.

That's not an argument against technology, btw. There's no prohibition on enjoying the fruits of our labor, such as providing electricity to make certain tasks easier or building computers as useful tools. It's a question of whether we recognize who ultimately provides our ability to accumulate possessions and whether our priorities regarding those possessions are proper or misplaced. Ultimately possessions aren't really that important to a believer--it's all just "stuff."


No one said that. If there is no choice in the matter, killing children is STILL superior to other alternatives if no such alternative exists. Now, you said "effectively disciplining." Well, if a parent exercises effective discipline, why would killing children be necessary? If discipline methods are effective, what are these children doing that they'd even be killed for? Effective discipline negates the need for it. Remember, the "rod of discipline" is used so that the child won't die. That's much of the point of the proverb, it seems to me.


So?



Denoting the seriousness of the crimes in question. Achan's children were victims of his sin. If he'd wanted his children to live, he should have acted differently. The Moabites opposed the Israelites and obstructed God's plan for them. They have only themselves to blame for what happened to their children. Creative work on the Sabbath is forbidden. Obey God's commands and you need not fear death.

Now, here's the thing about the Sabbath, which I thought was interesting that you it up: In order to put someone to death as demanded by God for such crimes, there would have to be at least two, preferably more, witnesses to the crime. So who would witness someone picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The Sabbath police? And what would the Sabbath police be doing on the Sabbath? Work? Well, if the Sabbath police are out working to find anyone working, then they themselves are doing that which is forbidden and are guilty of unclean hands (modern legal term, sorry). They would then either in principle be compelled to keep what they saw a secret or they would be likewise condemned to death.

The only proper way someone would be put to death for violating the Sabbath would be if the actions were open enough to be observed by a crowd of witnesses. As I recall, the problem with Achan demonstrated that God would punish all for the sins of a few. So if you observed a violator of the Sabbath in such a way that you couldn't simply ignore it, you HAD to bring that to the attention of the judges and priests. If you alone witnessed it, they couldn't just take your word for it. The best thing to do would be to confront the person with the sin and urge them to repent, noting the consequences for all Israel for failure. If the behavior is chronic, then you COULD employ a fellow observer to corroborate your claim and punish the offender.


Your opinion. Urging your creation to do that which is right is not narcissism.




It's unacceptable behavior! Why allow it to become a pattern? Why bring that kind of negative influence on future generations? The thing is, if a child is openly cursing his parents (we do agree that "cursing" in the Bible is not a reference to expletives and epithets, right? Cursing involves calling some sort of divine or eternal consequences upon the target. While cursing might not have actual results, it was the intent of the heart of the one issuing curses that was the issue, a much more severe and deliberate action than merely shouting "fudge" during a tantrum) such that two or more people are witness to the action, that indicates a pattern of unacceptable behavior not to be tolerated in Israel.



It just means that if the parents have acted consistently to prevent such behavior in the first place, they have no need to feel guilt. Ask any parent who has lost a child to death how it feels. The parent in this case will already feel traumatized. This is simple reassurance that what happened was predicated on a child's poor decision, not parental failing.

Like I said, this is not the simple result of a temper flare. A curse is something carefully thought through and deliberate. The "child" in question is likely a teenager or young adult. Your translation says "If there is anyone," no indication of age. A young child would not really be capable of committing this sin. If such a person (teenager or young adult) does something like this to his parents, what are the possible misdeeds he may commit to others?



That has to do with uttering curses against your parents. I can't recall if anything defining child abuse is in Torah, but I would think certain other prohibitions would apply equally to crimes adults commit against children. A 9-year-old girl is still a virgin, for instance, and thus rape/seduction laws still apply to anyone who violates her. It's pretty sick to think about in this day and time, but the point is that though "child abuse" is not mentioned explicitly (to my knowledge), there are other applicable laws that would provide relief to children.

The oral laws might spell that out differently. However, I don't follow that tradition, nor need I.



You prerogative, of course. I wish you well.



I accept that the world we live in is the end result of a fallen existence. I don't blame God for that. I blame myself, and if God is to work to improve the world we live in, it is my responsibility to act as the means through which God alleviates human suffering. If I am not an active part in making an imperfect world better, I ought not complain about it.





How do we know God tells us anything?

To be clear, what indication is there who God is and what He desires? IF God truly did ask me to sacrifice my own children, I would. By all indications, however, this is not something that God does, Biblically speaking. Think Abraham/Isaac. Also, there have existed religions in which child sacrifice did happen. If I love my children, why worship a god who wants me to kill them? That makes no sense. A God who wishes us to care for our children, their spiritual as well as their physical well-being, would not tell us to do that. If it seems that He does, perhaps it is not Him telling us to do so, but something or someone else. Schizophrenics and otherwise deranged people have to deal with this all the time, in which case it can be determined that they are facing a physical malady and not the word of God.

Since God sacrificed his own son I imagine the concept is not beyond Him.

Wow, tl;dr is an understatement. You could write a book with your posts.

Perhaps not. But that's another theological point that's easy to get tangled up in.

For one, God Himself didn't offer up the sacrifice. Jesus was put to death by human hands.

For another, the Father and the Son are one. Therefore it is not a child sacrifice, but rather a self-sacrifice.

If it is God that gives the sacrifice, then that makes Jesus both the sacrifice AND the High Priest of the sacrifice.

Jesus and God being one and the same, the Son has the power from the Father to resurrect Himself from the dead. So just like God prevented Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and provided an appropriate alternative, so God prevented Jesus from facing death as a permanent condition and promised the same for all believers. In part, it demonstrates that spiritual death is of greater concern than physical death. If Jesus can "survive" death and promise the same for all believers, you ought to at least be able to believe it, even if you choose not to.

The obvious argument, I think, is whether a sacrifice that does not result in permanent death is really a sacrifice, for which I have no answer. If, though, by those reasons Jesus' sacrifice is not a real sacrifice, then that absolves God of any guilt, anyway. If it IS a real sacrifice, it is still distinctively different enough that ultimately God has done no wrongdoing. What's interesting here is that it is something God can require of Himself and not of us. Human ritual sacrifice is strictly forbidden ("passing children through the fire"), Abraham was forbidden to do it, and based on Biblical precedence it is understood that actually asking one to sacrifice or otherwise murder a child cannot be something God would do, indicating that the instruction is either delusion, demonic, or otherwise false (e.g. a cult leader tells you to do it). This is NOT, however, the same thing as the death penalty to pay for a crime in ordinary circumstances.

I think it's somewhere in the book of Judges where a priest or judge swears an oath to the effect that if God brings about certain results that he'd make a burnt offering of the first thing he sees when he returned to camp. Unfortunately, the first thing he saw was his daughter. So, it is a sin to sacrifice a human being and it is a SERIOUS sin to break an oath. The account concludes without explicitly approving his actions, and the specifics on how he might have kept his oath aren't made clear (whether the sacrifice was literal or if the girl was dedicated to temple service, etc.). If it were me, I'd have begged God's mercy and offered my own life if there were no acceptable substitute to be found. It is a lesson in the importance of keeping all oaths and avoiding making rash ones.

And we always seem to come back to the same point where Christ was sacrificed to relieve the sin of Adam, the basis of Christianity. If God did not demand that sacrifice, who did?

Perhaps no one demanded it at all. God only demanded that something/someone had to die to cover the sin. Jesus didn't die to satisfy a demand--the same system in place at the time could have just continued. It's just that if things continued in that direction, Gentiles probably wouldn't have been allowed access to God and the Jews would have been denied worship after the destruction of the second Temple. Salvation is accessible to both Jews and Gentiles, canceling the need for further sacrifices and, hence, any demands God might have otherwise placed on us.

I suppose if anyone demanded anything, it was the Jews who demanded His death, but for other reasons. That need not be read as anti-Semitic, though, but rather a general statement of what happened. Even if the Jews had accepted Jesus, there were aspects of Jesus' ministry that the Romans might have found objectionable given time. There are any number of reasons why SOMEONE would have shamefully put Jesus to death, but the net effect is the same regardless of the means of execution. What happened was according to the conditions of the time in which it happened and according to the fulfillment of prophecy.

The issue of demand really is a matter of perspective and semantics. You could just as easily argue that it WAS demanded. Depending on how you choose to support that determines whether your view is correct or incorrect. What we'd likely agree on is not really the demand for it, but the necessity of it.

If God is aware of all consequences his creation of Jesus was a definite plan to have him sacrificed. God needs no tests and the future is totally known to God. Either that or God is not the God that is claimed.