Finding Beauty in People

[Ninja Turtles]

Discrimination is terrible, but how are we to stop it? The government has already done too much (in my opinion). All groups will be discriminated against from time to time, but from my experiences, discrimination in the workplace is a nonissue.

Yeah it's a nonissue if you don't happen to fall in the targeted group.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I did. And my extensive knowledge of the Bible tells me that the Old Testaments commands parents to stone disobedient children, and the New Testament does not contradict this rule. Are you implying that I'm mistaken? I sure hope you've got verses to back yourself up (but I know you don't because they don't exist).

Asked and answered. A retort was attempted, but it too was flawed.
I'll pass on the challenge to satisfy pride; your beef isn't with me, it's with Him.

 

[blackwasp]

Yeah it's a nonissue if you don't happen to fall in the targeted group.

I'm sure I'll face discrimination at some point in my life for being a white male.

Think of it this way: If you lose your job because your employer isn't mature enough to respect people's differences, you'll be better off somewhere else.

 

[chalice_thunder]

CC, do you really want to try to challenge my theological education? Believe me, it's more than you can handle

Fabulous!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ledifni again.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I'm sure I'll face discrimination at some point in my life for being a white male.

You're kidding right? I'll treat it as if you are.

 

[CSMR]

I did. And my extensive knowledge of the Bible tells me that the Old Testaments commands parents to stone disobedient children, and the New Testament does not contradict this rule. Are you implying that I'm mistaken? I sure hope you've got verses to back yourself up (but I know you don't because they don't exist).

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The prodigal son, while he forsake the way of righteousness, did not disobey his father. He asked for his inheritance, received it, and went off to do what he liked with it, as his father allowed him. Thus, his crime does not match the crime described in Deuteronomy, that according to the Bible must be punished by stoning.

CC, do you really want to try to challenge my theological education? Believe me, it's more than you can handle

Where do you get a command from this passage to stone children? I believe you are misinterpreting the word "shall". This is instuting a practice but to me it does not say that parents have to have their objectively disobedient children stoned but that if they are to carry this out they are to act in this way. It is a law that is being put into place, not directly a command to parents. However since it is given by God, we may conclude firstly that such disobedience merits death and secondly that such action on the part of the parents is not contrary to the covenant. I don't see parents being obliged to stone their children in any way.

 

[Ledifni]

Asked and answered. A retort was attempted, but it too was flawed.
I'll pass on the challenge to satisfy pride; your beef isn't with me, it's with Him.

No, CC, it isn't flawed. You think it's flawed because you know so little about the Bible. But why won't you tell me what the flaw is? If you're so wise, you should be able to roundly demolish my pathetic arguments, shouldn't you?

And yeah, my beef is with you -- not with God

 

[Ledifni]

Fabulous!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ledifni again.

And I love his clever response...

 

[Ledifni]

Where do you get a command from this passage to stone children? I believe you are misinterpreting the word "shall". This is instuting a practice but to me it does not say that parents have to have their objectively disobedient children stoned but that if they are to carry this out they are to act in this way. It is a law that is being put into place, not directly a command to parents. However since it is given by God, we may conclude firstly that such disobedience merits death and secondly that such action on the part of the parents is not contrary to the covenant. I don't see parents being obliged to stone their children in any way.

Deuteronomy 4:40

40Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Here we have the same root word "shall," and it is clearly not optional. In fact, this same word is used in all of the commandments of the Bible -- so if you're going to argue that the "shall" in the passage about stoning children is optional, then you're saying that all the commandments are optional, including the one against homosexuality.


EDIT: If you're going to argue that such disobedience merits death, by the way, then why are you not pushing this country to institute laws that allow parents to stone their children? Hmm?

 

[CSMR]

"Shall" is a word with more than one meaning, in the 17th century just as today. I am no hebrew scholar, but I will flip through the KJV this evening to show this about its use of "shall".

 

[Ledifni]

"Shall" is a word with more than one meaning, in the 17th century just as today. I am no hebrew scholar, but I will flip through the KJV this evening to show this about its use of "shall".

Heh... I don't have my reference books here so I can't show you what I mean until probably tomorrow, but you should realize that the word "shall" is an English word that may or may not be translated from a specific Hebrew word, depending on its location and context. However, there is a specific phrasing for commandments, an imperative decree, that in the KJV and many other translations is translated as "thou shalt," "he shall," "she shall," "they shall," and so on. In the passage I referenced, this is the context and Hebrew meaning of the relevant phrases -- they are a command, not a statement of "if you must kill your child, this is how to do it."

So while you're flipping through your KJV this evening, I'll be collecting the necessary information from my reference books to prove to you that the passage I quoted commands parents to stone disobedient children.

EDIT: Although, feel free to present your counterexamples, if you can find any. IIRC, the KJV never uses the word "shall" except as a statement of what must happen, not what could happen. When the context is conditional, it is phrased as "if... then shall." The condition is always stated, and when no condition is stated it is phrased without an "if" as a "[pronoun] shall" commandment.

I really wish I was fluent in Hebrew, so I could make my point about this passage right now. Unfortunately I'm not, so I'm forced to use my Hebrew dictionary to fully translate the relevant phrases.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Heh... I don't have my reference books here so I can't show you what I mean until probably tomorrow, but you should realize that the word "shall" is an English word that may or may not be translated from a specific Hebrew word, depending on its location and context. However, there is a specific phrasing for commandments, an imperative decree, that in the KJV and many other translations is translated as "thou shalt," "he shall," "she shall," "they shall," and so on. In the passage I referenced, this is the context and Hebrew meaning of the relevant phrases -- they are a command, not a statement of "if you must kill your child, this is how to do it."

So while you're flipping through your KJV this evening, I'll be collecting the necessary information from my reference books to prove to you that the passage I quoted commands parents to stone disobedient children.

EDIT: Although, feel free to present your counterexamples, if you can find any. IIRC, the KJV never uses the word "shall" except as a statement of what must happen, not what could happen. When the context is conditional, it is phrased as "if... then shall." The condition is always stated, and when no condition is stated it is phrased without an "if" as a "[pronoun] shall" commandment.

I really wish I was fluent in Hebrew, so I could make my point about this passage right now. Unfortunately I'm not, so I'm forced to use my Hebrew dictionary to fully translate the relevant phrases.

Still trying to ride that false premise wave?
Perhaps you can explain to him why there were rules of sacrifice regarding sin too while you are at it then. I mean, if you're going to make grandiose claims, you might as well actually prove a statement that balances with the rest of the scriptures. Otherwise it's just talk... unsupported, flawed, and out of context, talk.

 

[Ledifni]

Still trying to ride that false premise wave?
Perhaps you can explain to him why there were rules of sacrifice regarding sin too while you are at it then. I mean, if you're going to make grandiose claims, you might as well actually prove a statement that balances with the rest of the scriptures. Otherwise it's just talk... unsupported, flawed, and out of context, talk.

Not at all. Every statement I've made about the Bible in this thread was fully supported by evidence from the text. You refused to address what I said, instead making an unsupported assertion that my argument was "flawed" without pointing out any flaw. Now you're trying to deflect attention from yourself by accusing me of making unsupported statements. What a liar you are. Doesn't it shame you to behave this way with everyone watching?

Perhaps you can explain to him why there were rules of sacrifice regarding sin too while you are at it then.

The rules of sacrifice regarding sin are exactly what the OT says they are -- appeasement by blood. If you're talking about the parallels between sacrifice and Christ, then that's a completely different subject. The reasons for sacrifice are different from the type of sacrifice, as you would know if you had a theological education.

"The wages of sin is death," and in the OT the Jews were allowed to avoid the penalty of death for their sins by offering a sacrifice to die in their stead. This is the reason for sacrifice -- its purpose.

There is also a type of sacrifice (in this context, "type" means "a prophetic model"). Christ's sacrifice parallels the OT sacrifice, and performs the same function, but according to the Bible, Christ's sacrifice is perfect and all-encompassing since he is both God and man -- and thus animal sacrifice is no longer necessary because Christ has performed the ultimate sacrifice -- and this is the type of sacrifice.

 

[beechy]

Still trying to ride that false premise wave?
Perhaps you can explain to him why there were rules of sacrifice regarding sin too while you are at it then. I mean, if you're going to make grandiose claims, you might as well actually prove a statement that balances with the rest of the scriptures. Otherwise it's just talk... unsupported, flawed, and out of context, talk.

Goodness gracious. This thread has gone off on quite a tangent, eh?

I think this discussion can be summed up so far as: there are some people who believe same-sex relationships, intercourse, physicality, or whatever is a sin based on certain passages in the Bible. There is another camp that does not believe those passages were meant to condemn same-sex relationships, etc., or only condemned them in certain historical, now irrelevant contexts, etc.

I'd be interested in the homosexuality=sin group's take on a celibate same-sex relationship with all the other flourishes of a dating couple. Candle lit dinners, flowers, chocolates, calling each other sweetheart. Sin?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Not at all. Every statement I've made about the Bible in this thread was fully supported by evidence from the text. You refused to address what I said, instead making an unsupported assertion that my argument was "flawed" without pointing out any flaw. Now you're trying to deflect attention from yourself by accusing me of making unsupported statements. What a liar you are. Doesn't it shame you to behave this way with everyone watching?


The rules of sacrifice regarding sin are exactly what the OT says they are -- appeasement by blood. If you're talking about the parallels between sacrifice and Christ, then that's a completely different subject. The reasons for sacrifice are different from the type of sacrifice, as you would know if you had a theological education.

"The wages of sin is death," and in the OT the Jews were allowed to avoid the penalty of death for their sins by offering a sacrifice to die in their stead. This is the reason for sacrifice -- its purpose.

There is also a type of sacrifice (in this context, "type" means "a prophetic model"). Christ's sacrifice parallels the OT sacrifice, and performs the same function, but according to the Bible, Christ's sacrifice is perfect and all-encompassing since he is both God and man -- and thus animal sacrifice is no longer necessary because Christ has performed the ultimate sacrifice -- and this is the type of sacrifice.

A dry regurgitation of information about sacrifice, but you conveniently avoided how that information voided your assertion that the rebellious child (or any sin for that matter) MUST be stoned (paid as is) - without exception... a command, I believe you said:

Here we have the same root word "shall," and it is clearly not optional. In fact, this same word is used in all of the commandments of the Bible -- so if you're going to argue that the "shall" in the passage about stoning children is optional, then you're saying that all the commandments are optional, including the one against homosexuality.

There is no point at having redemption from sin, atonement, payment, etc. if it is as you try to pretend... that payment is to be made as by stoning on the spot.

As far as your other statement about claiming that you 'talked your way' through proving something regarding the prodigal son, your error was that the son did sin. It would have been one of the big ten in not honoring thy mother and father when he basically said, "I can't wait for you to die, I want my inheritance now" and went down hill from there. Just because you 'say' he didn't sin, doesn't make it so. And just because you like to make wild claims, claim some more that they are factual while boasting and making slander doesn't mean that I must run behind you and correct every one - If I choose to ignore your claims, that is my prerogative and your freedom to "behave this way with everyone watching".

 

[Ledifni]

A dry regurgitation of information about sacrifice, but you conveniently avoided how that information voided your assertion that the rebellious child (or any sin for that matter) MUST be stoned (paid as is) - without exception... a command, I believe you said:



There is no point at having redemption from sin, atonement, payment, etc. if it is as you try to pretend... that payment is to be made as by stoning on the spot.

Ah, and here we find the crux of the matter

You see, CC, if Christ's death absolves a rebellious child of guilt, then it also absolves a homosexual of guilt. If it does not absolve a homosexual, then neither can it absolve a rebellious child.

Ah, but you'll point out that the wages of sin are no longer death. But here you are confusing temporal punishment for sin with payment to God for sin. You should really study these concepts.

In the OT, animal sacrifice was the payment offered to God for the offense committed by man. It is distinctly separated in the commandments from the punishment for sin. While Christ's death removed the need to pay God for the offense, it did not make sin guiltless, nor did it remove punishment. For a quick and easy refutation of your claim that Christ's sacrifice means the OT punishments no longer apply, read the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

As far as your other statement about claiming that you 'talked your way' through proving something regarding the prodigal son, your error was that the son did sin. It would have been one of the big ten in not honoring thy mother and father when he basically said, "I can't wait for you to die, I want my inheritance now" and went down hill from there. Just because you 'say' he didn't sin, doesn't make it so. And just because you like to make wild claims, claim some more that they are factual while boasting and making slander doesn't mean that I must run behind you and correct every one - If I choose to ignore your claims, that is my prerogative and your freedom to "behave this way with everyone watching".

You should really try to read what people say, CC. I did not say that the Prodigal Son did not sin. Go and re-read my post and try to understand.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Ah, and here we find the crux of the matter

You see, CC, if Christ's death absolves a rebellious child of guilt, then it also absolves a homosexual of guilt. If it does not absolve a homosexual, then neither can it absolve a rebellious child.

Perhaps you should try finding where I stated a homosexual or any other sexually immoral person wouldn't receive salvation if they repent. Your further attempt at inserting false premise (in this case under the guise that someone else said something) is impotent. If you actually did know the foundation of sacrifice, you would know that the act of sacrifice (in the OT) is an act of repentence. Likewise, you will find that my position on sexual immorality under the New Covenent also requiring an act of repentance - the Sacrifice portion has already been made by Jesus Christ.

Ah, but you'll point out that the wages of sin are no longer death. But here you are confusing temporal punishment for sin with payment to God for sin. You should really study these concepts.

Attempt to build a strawman noted. Another insertion that someone said something they didn't.

In the OT, animal sacrifice was the payment offered to God for the offense committed by man. It is distinctly separated in the commandments from the punishment for sin. While Christ's death removed the need to pay God for the offense, it did not make sin guiltless, nor did it remove punishment. For a quick and easy refutation of your claim that Christ's sacrifice means the OT punishments no longer apply, read the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

Another strawman seen and noted. Perhaps you should concentrate more on what people actually say and try refuting that instead of making strawman attempts.

You should really try to read what people say, CC. I did not say that the Prodigal Son did not sin. Go and re-read my post and try to understand.

Despite more of the same attempts to claim that someone said something else (out of context), here is what your assertion was:

The prodigal son, while he forsake the way of righteousness, did not disobey his father. He asked for his inheritance, received it, and went off to do what he liked with it, as his father allowed him. Thus, his crime does not match the crime described in Deuteronomy, that according to the Bible must be punished by stoning.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14547032&postcount=58

You have yet to prove that the sin was not rebellious. I am quite aware that you didn't say the son didn't sin, but you went further to say that it wasn't the crime described in Deuteronomy.

I'm done. I see no need to further point out the obvious flaws in your boasted 'understanding'.

 

[CSMR]

So while you're flipping through your KJV this evening, I'll be collecting the necessary information from my reference books to prove to you that the passage I quoted commands parents to stone disobedient children.

I shouldn't make promises. Will get back to you tomorrow evening!

 

[Johnnz]

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


People are incredibly important and precious. Many years ago I read thsi extract from a C S Lewis sermon, "The Weight of glory".It has stayed with m eover many years, and has formed a deep part of my appreciation of the people I meet.

"It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible, for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour . The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.


There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations-these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit-immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously-no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner- no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses."

I find these concepts quite awesome.

John
NZ

 

[CSMR]

So while you're flipping through your KJV this evening, I'll be collecting the necessary information from my reference books to prove to you that the passage I quoted commands parents to stone disobedient children.
IIRC, the KJV never uses the word "shall" except as a statement of what must happen, not what could happen.

Although I have not been able to conduct a survey of the use of the word shall in the KJV, my impression is that as you say it talks about what must happen in some way. That seems to be what connects the uses of shall, as second and third person obligations and institutions and as referring to prophecy and judgement. The question is whether the "must happen" implies moral obligation here in the way you say it does.
My main consideration here is that disobedience is inherently vague (presuming that it is not to apply to all people which would mean if you are right that all boys are to be stoned). As an institution of a practice the parents appear to be given authority to decide on when the son is to be deemed rebellious.
"Shall" is the right word because the way of parents taking a rebellious to be stoned is prescribed; while it does not oblige parents unless because parents have some authority over the word "rebellious".