Ninja Turtles
Secrecy and Accountability Cannot Co-Exist
Yeah it's a nonissue if you don't happen to fall in the targeted group.blackwasp said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah it's a nonissue if you don't happen to fall in the targeted group.blackwasp said: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.
Asked and answered. A retort was attempted, but it too was flawed.Ledifni said: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).
Ninja Turtles said:Yeah it's a nonissue if you don't happen to fall in the targeted group.
Ledifni said:CC, do you really want to try to challenge my theological education? Believe me, it's more than you can handle
You're kidding right? I'll treat it as if you are.blackwasp said:I'm sure I'll face discrimination at some point in my life for being a white male.
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 said: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
ChristianCenturion said: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.
chalice_thunder said:Fabulous!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ledifni again.
CSMR said: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.
CSMR said:"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".
Still trying to ride that false premise wave?Ledifni said: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 said: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.
CC said:Perhaps you can explain to him why there were rules of sacrifice regarding sin too while you are at it then.
ChristianCenturion said: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 said: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.
Ledifni 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.
ChristianCenturion said: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.
ChristianCenturion said: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".
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.Ledifni said: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.
Attempt to build a strawman noted. Another insertion that someone said something they didn't.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.
Another strawman seen and noted. Perhaps you should concentrate more on what people actually say and try refuting that instead of making strawman attempts.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.
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.
Ledifni said: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.
I shouldn't make promises. Will get back to you tomorrow evening!Ledifni said: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.
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.Ledifni said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?