Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Fervent]

So your indirect answer to the question would Jesus approve of stoning children is “yes, in the right circumstances.”

I don’t think there’s ever a “properly applied” circumstance in which you could throw a rock into a small child’s face though. It’s contextual of course, but my efforts of contextualising are considered bad faith by yourself.

It's quite simple. Jesus gave the law, the law not only approves but commands that a child be stoned if they curse their parents. Jesus not only approves but commands that children be stoned under the right circumstances.

When atheists challenged me on those verses I pointed out that the “child” in question is drunken and blasphemous and clearly out of control, more akin to unrestrained adult behaviour. Not to mention dipping into a lot of Jewish tradition that seems to push the age forward considerably beyond modern ideas.

So to appease men you compromise the word of God? What right do atheists have to say that God is in the wrong? Where is their absolute standard of right by which they can judge the Almighty? And where do you get the idea that these were drunken? It is as simple as them cursing their parents, nothing more needs to be added to make the law just.

Meaning the area moves towards respect towards familial authority, not child murder or child abuse amidst the Jews.

It's not about familial authority. The law, in its entirety, is about fidelity to God. To the child, their parents are in the place of God and so they must be absolutely devoted. The law is holy and those who break it are put to death without mercy.

You however believe there are “contextual issues,” not in children having stones thrown into their face, but rather about Jesus challenging sin. Your contextualising is of course a more noble enterprise than what others are doing, since you’ve already castigated that word on their end. Christ preserved the adulterous woman’s life not “directly for the woman’s sake. . .”

It's not in Jesus challenging the sin of the men, it's in how that challenge is understood. Many sermons have given the wrong context by making it all about Jesus having compassion on the woman but that is not the thrust of the narrative. The issue is the administration of the law, because the men were trying to set Jesus up. Whether the woman truly is an adulteress isn't entirely established until the end, as there is the possibility the men are lying. The first one to throw the stone is the legal accuser, and they were asking Jesus to stand as the accuser of the woman for a crime they had no reason to believe he had knowledge of. His response was to challenge them to be her accuser, because their proceedings were incorrect even if they were telling the truth. After all, she was supposedly caught in the act. But where was the man? No, the text tells us they meant to trap Him and He evaded the trap. His compassion is secondary to the narrative, not the primary issue. Yet you seem to be trying to take this one incident and build a whole theology around it.

I’m pretty sure Jesus was a lot more direct than you’d prefer.

Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil
​

See to my simple question “would Jesus approve of stoning children?” You have not replied simply yes or no, you’ve replied.

I have given more than enough to make clear that my answer is yes. Jesus gave the law, Jesus approves of the law, Jesus approves of the law being carried out. The law commands children be stoned, Jesus approves children being stoned.

You must be a five pointer with answers like this. Right?

Nope, I am completely opposed to Calvinism.

 

[Hmm]

Jesus not only approves but commands that children be stoned under the right circumstances.

Wow. At least you're honest.

 

[Fervent]

Wow. At least you're honest.

I don't mince Biblical texts to appease human sensibilities. If there is a disconnect between God's actions and the moral sensibilities of men, it is men who have the issue not God. Trying to soft-peddle the harsher aspects of the law and make it palatable to those opposed to God simply diminishes the individual. God is God and has the absolute right over life and death, at all ages.

 

[Cormack]

Jesus gave the law,

The same laws that say to stone the adulterous. Insisting that people didn’t have the right state of mind or that their ways were an attempt at entrapment clearly doesn’t speak to the intentions of the whole crowd. Many of the young men left Christ last, showing their sincere zeal for the idea of stoning this woman.

Insisting that nobody in the group was doing it right is like saying that once upon a time people were stoning ‘em right. That’s clearly not the case though, at least in so far that people have always been sinners. Sinful men stoned women in the past according to the law and they were prepared to stone again according to the law.

So to appease men you compromise the word of God?

No. My reasoning wasn’t to appease men. In fact if after a thorough reading of the material it seemed as though God promoted the stoning of children I’d have to say that’s what the material says. When the material doesn’t clearly teach that however, I’m not going to err on the side of attributing what could be morally grotesque things to God.

When archeologists fail to find loads of Jewish men with one hand, one foot, I can only come to the conclusion that “eye for an eye, hand for a hand” wasn’t meant to be taken literally. In the same way, Jews aren’t known for their infanticide like the surrounding nations.

So far from appeasing men, I’m simply appealing to the truth of things and what brings glory to God.

No man, woman, child or beast is given glories in harming children, they receive infamy and shame. Your God glories in those things however. Still, your views about God leave him incapable of showing a recognisably moral set of behaviours before an audience of creatures.

He has power, that’s all. He lacks recognisable love. To question that or to resist the charge that God encourages the stoning of children by solid context and even archeology leaves one open to the charge of being man centric.

The very same thing Calvinists do. . .

It's not about familial authority.

The fact that the elder was charged with stoning rebellious “children” means it’s certainly about familial circumstances. The rebellious “child” doesn’t listen to their parents, not simply Gods commands. Children aren’t commanded to stone parents, which goes to show the way these cultures considered parents a cut above their children (whatever their age.)

Nope, I am completely opposed to Calvinism.

Calvinists also have an incredible habit of insisting they’re not Calvinists. Time will tell I’m sure.

What right do atheists have to say that God is in the wrong?

God has endowed everyone (even atheists) with good sense and moral values. Every culture discovers and forms these rules as a matter of habit, a hint to our shared origins in God the Father. So atheists aren’t wrong for believing that Gods ways aren’t so unlike our own as to be unrecognisable.

Sane people find the notion of launching a stone into a child face as disgusting.

And where do you get the idea that these were drunken?

That would be from Deuteronomy 21.

 

[Cormack]

I don't mince Biblical texts to appease human sensibilities. If there is a disconnect between God's actions and the moral sensibilities of men, it is men who have the issue not God. Trying to soft-peddle the harsher aspects of the law and make it palatable to those opposed to God simply diminishes the individual. God is God and has the absolute right over life and death, at all ages.

Oh the Calvinism. I bet you define “sovereignty” as exhaustive deterministic control too.

 

[Hmm]

I don't mince Biblical texts to appease human sensibilities. If there is a disconnect between God's actions and the moral sensibilities of men, it is men who have the issue not God. Trying to soft-peddle the harsher aspects of the law and make it palatable to those opposed to God simply diminishes the individual. God is God and has the absolute right over life and death, at all ages.

Good luck with that

 

[Fervent]

The same laws that say to stone the adulterous. Insisting that people didn’t have the right state of mind or that their ways were an attempt at entrapment clearly doesn’t speak to the intentions of the whole crowd. Many of the young men left Christ last, showing their sincere zeal for the idea of stoning this woman.

Insisting that nobody in the group was doing it right is like saying that once upon a time people were stoning ‘em right. That’s clearly not the case though, at least in so far that people have always been sinners. Sinful men stoned women in the past according to the law and they were prepared to stone again according to the law.

No, it wasn't according to the law. The law requires an accuser, and it is the accuser that throws the first stone. They brought her to Jesus so that He may accuse her, and the text tells us their true motive. I am not simply "insisting" this, it is written in John 8:6. The woman is more of an object than central to the narrative because the focus of the narrative is on the opposition of the religious community to Jesus and their brazen attempt to entrap him.

No. My reasoning wasn’t to appease men. In fact if after a thorough reading of the material it seemed as though God promoted the stoning of children I’d have to say that’s what the material says. When the material doesn’t clearly teach that however, I’m not going to err on the side of attributing what could be morally grotesque things to God.

I'd say it's pretty open and shut when the material says the child who curses his parents must be put to death, it means the child who curses his parents must be put to death.

When archeologists fail to find loads of Jewish men with one hand, one foot, I can only come to the conclusion that “eye for an eye, hand for a hand” wasn’t meant to be taken literally. In the same way, Jews aren’t known for their infanticide like the surrounding nations.

The lex talionis doesn't really play a role here. This isn't about retribution.

So far from appeasing men, I’m simply appealing to the truth of things and what brings glory to God.

It seems there is at least one man's sense of morality you are seeking to appease.

No man, woman, child or beast is given glories in harming children, they receive infamy and shame. Your God glories in those things however. Still, your views about God leave him incapable of showing a recognisably moral set of behaviours before an audience of creatures.

Whose morality? The same people who think it's a-ok to slaughter babies in the womb because they are inconvenient? Or that flagrantly putting aberant sexuality on display is a positive? Human morality is depraved, and if there is a conflict between what humans believe is right and what God says is right it is not God who is mistaken.

He has power, that’s all. He lacks recognisable love. To question that or to resist the charge that God encourages the stoning of children by solid context and even archeology leaves one open to the charge of being man centric.

The very same thing Calvinists do. . .

Sentimental views of love are not accurate depictions of love. God's severity is not in contrast with His love, it is in fact a product of it. We simply fail to recognize the severity of sin which causes us to recoil when it is treated as it deserves.

The fact that the elder was charged with stoning rebellious “children” means it’s certainly about familial circumstances. The rebellious “child” doesn’t listen to their parents, not simply Gods commands. Children aren’t commanded to stone parents, which goes to show the way these cultures considered parents a cut above their children (whatever their age.)

No, it's not about family as it is about God's authority. The strucures of authority in Israel were God-given and so to rebel against your direct authority is ultimately a rebellion against God's authority. Children aren't commanded to stone parents because they weren't authorities over parents, and the duty of the parent to stone the child was about maintaining loyalty to God above all else.

Calvinists also have an incredible habit of insisting they’re not Calvinists. Time will tell I’m sure.

Yes, I'm sure Calvinists are hiding in every closet. If I held to Calvinist soterology, I'd have no issues embracing it. I don't hold to a single shred of it, though. Men are not totally incapable of responding to God's grace, which causes the rest of the 5 points to be unnecessary.

God has endowed everyone (even atheists) with good sense and moral values. Every culture discovers and forms these rules as a matter of habit, a hint to our shared origins in God the Father. So atheists aren’t wrong for believing that Gods ways aren’t so unlike our own as to be unrecognisable.

Sane people find the notion of launching a stone into a child face as disgusting.

This is an absolute strawman and nothing more. No where did I say God's ways are unrecognisable, nor that some accidental overlap with true morality is found among men who do not know God. Ultimately, the failure is in seeing the severity of the crime as the idea of cursing your parents is minimized by the atheists and those who do not see the need for stoning the child. There is a false implication that the child is somehow innocent and undeserving of their fate by virtue of being children. When there is a disconnect between what men think about justice and what God shows it is human morality that lies in error, God's ways do not need to be mitigated and explained away to make them palatable.

That would be from Deuteronomy 21.

That's a different law, though similar circumstance. Leviticus 20 has no indication of drunkenness, and conflating the two as if they are a single law isn't warranted.

 

[zoidar]

It's quite simple. Jesus gave the law, the law not only approves but commands that a child be stoned if they curse their parents. Jesus not only approves but commands that children be stoned under the right circumstances.

... eh... have you thought that through?

 

[Fervent]

... eh... have you thought that through?

What do you believe I am missing?

 

[zoidar]

What do you believe I am missing?

Have you read the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery? That's what I believe you are missing.

 

[zoidar]

Which is fine but lacks force when people don’t see the scriptures your way. If a Christian said those things about universal salvation while violating neither his own conscience or his understanding of scripture, would that too be either the sin of attempting to feel good or counted as sin against the man?

“If we condemn ourselves, how much more does God condemn.” But we know universalists are very comfortable in their views, the only people who condemn them are other believers.

So far as I’m aware where there’s no knowledge of sin sin doesn’t spring to life and bring about death. Universalists sincerely believe that God will be “all in all” and that God the Father was in Jesus “reconciling the world to Himself.”

It's not that I meant it's a sin to believe or do what feels right or good if it is according to Scripture. If I feel the country treats me wrong and therefore I feel I can justly cheat on taxes, it may feel right and good, yet be a sin.

 

[Cormack]

Have you read the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery? That's what I believe you are missing.

My man

 

[Fervent]

Have you read the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery? That's what I believe you are missing.

A story about religious authorities trying to entrap Jesus is cogent, how?

 

[Hmm]

A story about religious authorities trying to entrap Jesus is cogent, how?

The story's isn't about the religious authorities, it's to show us something about Jesus. And before you ask me exactly what that is, it's a story and stories demand that we use our own discernment to understand something about what they are saying. There is no one definitive and exhaustive answer but it is very helpful to look at the general consensus of the meaning. And that's a long way from your interpretation that it tells us that Jesus condones the stoning of children. I can't be bothered to argue the point with you though.

 

[Fervent]

The story's isn't about the religious authorities, it's to show us something about Jesus. And before you ask me exactly what that is, it's a story and stories demand that we use our own discernment to understand something about what they are saying. There is no one definitive and exhaustive answer but it is very helpful to look at the general consensus of the meaning. And that's a long way from your interpretation that it tells us that Jesus condones the stoning of children. I can't be bothered to argue the point with you though.

In a sense, yes it is to show us about Jesus. But it is not an individual unit meant to show such a thing, its place in the narrative of John is to show the brazenness of the opposition to Jesus and the lengths that they were willing to go to in order to trap Him. The woman is a plot device, and Jesus' disposition towards her is secondary to the conflict which takes place between the antagonistic religious folk and Jesus. Jesus doesn't disregard the law but upholds it in not condemning her, and his charge of the one who is without sin is a limited indictment that essentially presents the challenge that the one who can stand as her accuser without violating the law in the process should do so. Certainly Jesus is compassionate towards the woman, but His compassion is not the central focus.

 

[Cormack]

The lex talionis doesn't really play a role here. This isn't about retribution.

At this point you’re not understanding the argument. So I’m going to share the point once again and hope you take in what’s being said, rather than dismissing the point out of hand.

“When archeologists fail to find loads of Jewish men with one hand, one foot, I can only come to the conclusion that “eye for an eye, hand for a hand” wasn’t meant to be taken literally. In the same way, Jews aren’t known for their infanticide like the surrounding nations.”
​

Meaning anyone who believes that “eye for an eye, hand for a hand” was meant to be understood literally is mistaken. There are no graves with the one handed, one footed Jew. They don’t exist because that verse wasn’t understood in the literalistic way, if it were understood in the literalistic way we could find the remains of the practise.

If an atheist wanted to argue that hand for hand is barbaric, and Christians move to counter that point by explaining the history of the Jewish people or by using Jesus’ words (where he ties the “hand for hand” saying to proper reparations) to help explain the old texts, that’s not appeasing man.

It’s not “appeasing man” to explain the proper historical, archeological and textual context so that the ugly false charge of literalistic hand chopping is removed in favour of the actual history. A history that just so happens to show a more humane portrait of God, that’s glorifying.

Wanting to be a special counter culture boy and then believing in ugly false things about Gods laws isn’t glorifying God, it’s gassing your own ego.

In the same way (here comes the argument now,) cultures that practised infanticide leave traces of their infanticide. Often massive traces. There are no mass graves or enemy texts that highlight the Jewish people stoning their little children for being naughty.

Writing about how this or that isn’t “retributive,” therefore it’s not relevant, that shows me you have missed the boat entirely.

Many Christians reading will know about the great archeological discoveries people have been making that help verify the Exodus account, that’s the kind of confirmation you don’t have around Jewish infanticide.

I'd say it's pretty open and shut when the material says the child who curses his parents must be put to death, it means the child who curses his parents must be put to death.

That's a different law, though similar circumstance. Leviticus 20 has no indication of drunkenness, and conflating the two as if they are a single law isn't warranted.

Neither you or I specified chapter and verse which portion of the Bible we had in mind. Though the obvious take home to anyone interested in understanding the biblical material is that the Bible sometimes uses “children” when it’s not actually in reference to children.

So even without you reading through my reference or me reading through yours, it’s not so cut and dry as to say something like “children means children, end of discussion.” That’s not true.

In the same way, when an author of the Bible wrote about two she bears coming from out of nowhere to rip apart thirty or forty something “children,” they weren’t children and an investigation into the material helps show that to the reader.

I’m not a father and it’s not that I have some above average dislike for these supposed child abuse or child murder passages, rather it’s simply a long history of people approaching me with biblical issues and heartbreaks that need answering, for better or worse.

That’s not appeasement but rather love of others and the biblical material. That drives a lot of scholarship that isn’t necessarily landing on your side of the fence.

Whose morality? The same people who think it's a-ok to slaughter babies in the womb because they are inconvenient?

O sweet irony, thy name is Fervent. Perhaps if unbelievers stoned their babies in the womb you would treat them with more charity.

Human morality is depraved, and if there is a conflict between what humans believe is right and what God says is right it is not God who is mistaken.

Notice how first you point out “. . .if there is a conflict between what humans believe is right and what God says is right. . .”

On this flavour of thought I’ve responded. . .

“God has endowed everyone (even atheists) with good sense and moral values. Every culture discovers and forms these rules as a matter of habit, a hint to our shared origins in God the Father. So atheists aren’t wrong for believing that Gods ways aren’t so unlike our own as to be unrecognisable.​

Sane people find the notion of launching a stone into a child’s face as disgusting.”
​

So everyone has a God given sense of moral things, on account of that not only do we have firm evidence for things like objective moral values and duties, but we also have insight into our shared origins.

We have grounds for being held accountable to our own voice of conscience, even if having never heard of the God of Israel or Jesus Christ.

My point is that human morality makes an excellent detective when it comes to the chore of weeding out radically foolish ideologies or viewpoints that people like to hold up as though their own views are Gods views.

I’ve pointed out human moralities isn’t all that different across the board, which shouldn’t surprise people, every nation is the product of one Creator. To all these points however you replied. . .

minimized by the atheists and those who do not see the need for stoning the child.

There is a false implication that the child is somehow innocent and undeserving of their fate by virtue of being children.

Most Christians on the board would argue that children are morally blameless and have no thorough grasp of their crimes “by virtue of being children.” As the Bible also teaches, think about where God says about child sacrifice “you have shed the blood of the innocent,” or where prophetically God inspires the words “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest. . .”

So although you might find handicapped (or indoctrinated people) who believe in or act out absurd ideas like to stone children is good and that Jesus approves, most of the Christian world would disagree.

Infanticide even in the old cultures wasn’t a product of desire or “justice,” but rather necessity masked in religion and the like. These people lacked food, water and resources, choosing to killed their children was often sad, unwelcome behaviours.

This is an absolute strawman and nothing more.

No where did I say God's ways are unrecognisable,

I think those two earlier quotes about children not being innocent or that they need to be stoned speaks more volumes and does more damage to your cause then my “strawmen” could ever hope to achieve.

The woman is more of an object than central to the narrative because the focus of the narrative is on the opposition of the religious community to Jesus and their brazen attempt to entrap him.

It’s more apt to write the women is an object to your narrative, rather than being the meat or rice of the biblical narrative. I’ve explained to you already that there were clearly sincere people in the crowd wanting to carry out the law as any good Jew would, there were even men during Christ’s own ministry who claim to have kept the whole of the law.

You are at liberty to ignore that context and insist upon your own narrow focal point to the text, but from my point of view that’s robbing the story of its lifeblood. It’s no longer a real time and place filled with so many disparate viewpoints as we have now, instead it’s just a tool, “an object.”

The woman is an object, the Pharisees are objects, and sadly even Jesus is an object. They’re props to help make some Christians feel special and counter cultural over against “modern sensibilities,” sensibility that you are cautious of “appeasing.”

 

[Cormack]

Yes, I'm sure Calvinists are hiding in every closet.

Could be, especially when you ignore these illuminating messages. . .

Oh the Calvinism. I bet you define “sovereignty” as exhaustive deterministic control too.

You wouldn’t believe that about “Sovereignty,” would you?

 

[Cormack]

It's not that I meant it's a sin to believe or do what feels right or good if it is according to Scripture. If I feel the country treats me wrong and therefore I feel I can justly cheat on taxes, it may feel right and good, yet be a sin.

Maybe there’s another way I can ask this or explain it so that it makes more sense. You’ve read about people who won’t eat food sacrificed to idols I’m sure, and Paul knows that the idol and the food has no power over him.

He knows that but he doesn’t try to bind up his brothers conscience on this matter when they are disturbed or won’t eat from a table where there’s idol food.

Paul says don’t even ask about it, an idol is nothing. Still if someone who does fear the idol eats, then that’s sin, because he’s not eating by faith.

That gets a little convoluted so I’m just going to try and walk it back to the meats idea.

Paul doesn’t try to condemn people who won’t eat, he just hopes that the people who abstain from eating won’t try and enforce themselves on the people who do eat.

The people who eat are eating with a clean conscience. They eat with liberty and joy, they aren’t sinning when they eat and for someone to bind up their spirits and cause them to fear the food, that person would be in the wrong.

So I’m trying to ask the same thing in a new way, maybe it’s helpful.

Do you feel the need to bind up and alter the views of a Christian who sincerely believes in universalism?

I don’t see any need to destroy that persons high view of Gods love and care for mankind in order to now burden them with such a difficult (albeit very popular) doctrine as eternal conscious torment.

I only write difficult because that’s what it would be for them, as difficult as trying to force the “pagan Christmas” camp to celebrate Christmas, or to pressure the no Halal food guy to eat a Halal chicken burger.

I eat those foods, I celebrate those holidays and I’m hopeful in the idea of a universal restoration. But that doesn’t mean I intend to wreck everyone and turn their heads into my way of thinking.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Jesus not only approves but commands that children be stoned under the right circumstances.

Suffer the little children, eh?

 

[Fervent]

At this point you’re not understanding the argument. So I’m going to share the point once again and hope you take in what’s being said, rather than dismissing the point out of hand.

“When archeologists fail to find loads of Jewish men with one hand, one foot, I can only come to the conclusion that “eye for an eye, hand for a hand” wasn’t meant to be taken literally. In the same way, Jews aren’t known for their infanticide like the surrounding nations.”
​

Meaning anyone who believes that “eye for an eye, hand for a hand” was meant to be understood literally is mistaken. There are no graves with the one handed, one footed Jew. They don’t exist because that verse wasn’t understood in the literalistic way, if it were understood in the literalistic way we could find the remains of the practise.

If an atheist wanted to argue that hand for hand is barbaric, and Christians move to counter that point by explaining the history of the Jewish people or by using Jesus’ words (where he ties the “hand for hand” saying to proper reparations) to help explain the old texts, that’s not appeasing man.

It’s not “appeasing man” to explain the proper historical, archeological and textual context so that the ugly false charge of literalistic hand chopping is removed in favour of the actual history. A history that just so happens to show a more humane portrait of God, that’s glorifying.

Wanting to be a special counter culture boy and then believing in ugly false things about Gods laws isn’t glorifying God, it’s gassing your own ego.

In the same way (here comes the argument now,) cultures that practised infanticide leave traces of their infanticide. Often massive traces. There are no mass graves or enemy texts that highlight the Jewish people stoning their little children for being naughty.

Writing about how this or that isn’t “retributive,” therefore it’s not relevant, that shows me you have missed the boat entirely.

Many Christians reading will know about the great archeological discoveries people have been making that help verify the Exodus account, that’s the kind of confirmation you don’t have around Jewish infanticide.

Again, your reference to the lex talionis is irrelevant. Your explanation for why you referenced it doesn't really transfer because the lex talionis was not a given command from God but a common guideline present in all of the ANE cultures. The command to stone rebelious children, which Jesus quoted, was a God given law. As given, the most natural understanding(whether taken by the Israelites en masse or not) is that God's law requires rebelious children to be stoned. Now, you may argue obedience to the law did not please God or that God did not intend for the most natural meaning but if such is the case then the giving of that law would cause God to be an author of confusion and give an individual who stoned a rebelious child because they believed that God was pleased with the administration of the law and the law required such cause against God. So your argument that it wasn't understood literally has little impact on the question.

Neither you or I specified chapter and verse which portion of the Bible we had in mind. Though the obvious take home to anyone interested in understanding the biblical material is that the Bible sometimes uses “children” when it’s not actually in reference to children.

I identified Matthew, which has Jesus quoting. Jesus' quote indicated which Old Testament text was in mind, because it is a direct quote of Leviticus. And while there are times that the Bible isn't referring exclusively to children with the word "child" the context in which this law is found is inclusive so that "children" means the fruit of their parents loins. It's not age-specific, instead covering the ranges from young children all the way into young adulthood(until they start a home of their own).

So even without you reading through my reference or me reading through yours, it’s not so cut and dry as to say something like “children means children, end of discussion.” That’s not true.

Yes, the context tells us how to understand children.

In the same way, when an author of the Bible wrote about two she bears coming from out of nowhere to rip apart thirty or forty something “children,” they weren’t children and an investigation into the material helps show that to the reader.

The word in that passage was more akin to "youths" and generally refers to teenagers and young men. That's simply a case of poor translation.

I’m not a father and it’s not that I have some above average dislike for these supposed child abuse or child murder passages, rather it’s simply a long history of people approaching me with biblical issues and heartbreaks that need answering, for better or worse.

That’s not appeasement but rather love of others and the biblical material. That drives a lot of scholarship that isn’t necessarily landing on your side of the fence.

The fact that you refer to these as "child murder" passages demonstrates a disconnect and a desire to alter what is written. It is not child murder, as if the child is simply an innocent victim or some kind of sacrifice. It is a legal administration to preserve the holiness of the camp, because the child has committed egregious sins.

O sweet irony, thy name is Fervent. Perhaps if unbelievers stoned their babies in the womb you would treat them with more charity.

Notice how first you point out “. . .if there is a conflict between what humans believe is right and what God says is right. . .”

On this flavour of thought I’ve responded. . .

“God has endowed everyone (even atheists) with good sense and moral values. Every culture discovers and forms these rules as a matter of habit, a hint to our shared origins in God the Father. So atheists aren’t wrong for believing that Gods ways aren’t so unlike our own as to be unrecognisable.​

Sane people find the notion of launching a stone into a child’s face as disgusting.”
​

So everyone has a God given sense of moral things, on account of that not only do we have firm evidence for things like objective moral values and duties, but we also have insight into our shared origins.

We have grounds for being held accountable to our own voice of conscience, even if having never heard of the God of Israel or Jesus Christ.

My point is that human morality makes an excellent detective when it comes to the chore of weeding out radically foolish ideologies or viewpoints that people like to hold up as though their own views are Gods views.

I’ve pointed out human moralities isn’t all that different across the board, which shouldn’t surprise people, every nation is the product of one Creator. To all these points however you replied. . .

Human morality is deficient, though. Certainly, there are points of accidental agreement but there's a reason Jesus said "You who are evil..." not "You who are basically good but occasionally miss the mark..." or some such. Now, does that mean if we come to something in the Bible that causes us moral discomfort we immediately default to a first-blush reading? No, we may not understand what the Bible is saying. But we must ensure that we are employing a hermeneutic which places the text at the center, rather than using our moral sensibilities to cause us to rationalize explanations to sanitize and make Biblical material palatable to our sensibilities. If there is a conflict between what is revealed in the Bible about morality and what we take to be moral, it is our morality that has the deficiency.

Most Christians on the board would argue that children are morally blameless and have no thorough grasp of their crimes “by virtue of being children.” As the Bible also teaches, think about where God says about child sacrifice “you have shed the blood of the innocent,” or where prophetically God inspires the words “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest. . .”

So although you might find handicapped (or indoctrinated people) who believe in or act out absurd ideas like to stone children is good and that Jesus approves, most of the Christian world would disagree.

Infanticide even in the old cultures wasn’t a product of desire or “justice,” but rather necessity masked in religion and the like. These people lacked food, water and resources, choosing to killed their children was often sad, unwelcome behaviours.

The question of culpability is secondary to the requirements of the law. And simply because "most Christians" may disagree that does not alter the question except to place human opinions above the word of God. What you seem to be arguing here is that this law was somehow a product of culture, except that goes against what Jesus says in Matthew where He identifies it as coming from God. Questions of infanticide and child sacrifice are not relevant to the discussion, nor are issues of culture, because it is as simple as the law being given by God and the most natural understanding being a command to stone children for the crime of cursing their parents. Rationalizations and arguments ad populem do not escape that simple fact.

I think those two earlier quotes about children not being innocent or that they need to be stoned speaks more volumes and does more damage to your cause then my “strawmen” could ever hope to achieve.

By definition, a child who commits a crime is not innocent. They are guilty of the crime they have committed, and the law gives the penalty for that crime. The only possible explanations to maintain that Jesus would not be pleased would be to argue the law was not intended to be obeyed, or the natural understanding of explicit link between objective crime and penalty was somehow intended to mean something else. If Jesus 1)gave the law, 2)was pleased with obedience to the law and 3)was clear in His instructions then the only conclusion is that there are some circumstances in which Jesus intended for children to be stoned, and was pleased by those doing the stoning.

It’s more apt to write the women is an object to your narrative, rather than being the meat or rice of the biblical narrative. I’ve explained to you already that there were clearly sincere people in the crowd wanting to carry out the law as any good Jew would, there were even men during Christ’s own ministry who claim to have kept the whole of the law.

You are at liberty to ignore that context and insist upon your own narrow focal point to the text, but from my point of view that’s robbing the story of its lifeblood. It’s no longer a real time and place filled with so many disparate viewpoints as we have now, instead it’s just a tool, “an object.”

The woman is an object, the Pharisees are objects, and sadly even Jesus is an object. They’re props to help make some Christians feel special and counter cultural over against “modern sensibilities,” sensibility that you are cautious of “appeasing.”

You've explained something that is contrary to what is written in the text. The text doesn't say that they are sincerly attempting to follow the law, the only motive it gives is that they said it to test him to bring a charge against him. So where do you get your idea from? It is you who is ignoring the context and the pericope's place in the larger narrative within John, as my explanation revolves around the context clues both historically and within the text itself.