Killing Children is Justified

drich0150 · Nov 23, 2011

jay1 said:
Do you believe that morals are derived from God and the Bible? i ask because you said God a lot when talking about morals.

Righteousness is God standard. (No sin)

"Morals" are man's version of God's righteousness that allows for sin.

"Morality" does not have to be based on God at all. As i pointed out Morals are created from man's own version of righteousness apart from God.

For example Oscar Shiendler was considered a Moral Man, but in the end He was a war profiteer and Nazi. As such falls far short from God's righteousness, but when compared to his peers he was considered to be "moral." Morality is an illusion that bases man's righteousness on his deeds.

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

jay1 said:
That may be true but what i am asking is: Do Christians agree that, for instance, it is right to "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Prostitution is punished by burning the woman alive according to Leviticus 21:9 is this right? But the one that interests me the most is:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Sketcher seems to think this is entirely justified, do you?

Sketcher said it must be read both in historical context, and with respect to what covenant it pertains to. What do you know about either?

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

Ishraqiyun said:
If you showed them that the OT says to do it there is a possibility they would come up with an excuse saying that it was ok then but not now. Fundamentalist Christians would adamantly support it just because a book said so.

No, you're missing the significance of the time involved; different Covenant. Fundamentalists are aware of this.

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

razeontherock said:
No, you're missing the significance of the time involved; different Covenant. Fundamentalists are aware of this.

What do you mean different covenant? What about literalists?

As to the historical context, I would argue that killing children has never been acceptable in any society as it does not help the society in any way. Not to say that it hasn't happened but it is not acceptable.

It has been said that the part about the bald man is for Jews only but what are they to take from it? Why is it in the bible at all?

The more I learn the more I realise that only a tenuous grasp is held by the religious in regards to the bible: historical context for this part, that part is allegory, that part is a different covenant, this part is for Jews only. It seems that the bible is losing it's relevance very quickly and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. What do you think?

Publius · Nov 24, 2011

jay1 said:
That may be true but what i am asking is: Do Christians agree that, for instance, it is right to "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

That's what God commanded, isn't it?

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Sketcher seems to think this is entirely justified, do you?

I do, too. God has every right to protect His prophet and to uphold the authority of His Word.

How can Christians say that morality comes from the Bible when it seems to be the most immoral book ever written?

Do you have any examples of the Bible being an "immoral book"? Also, what authority do you have to declare something "immoral"?

What do you mean different covenant? What about literalists?

What about literalists? Wouldn't a literalist, by definition, would take the Bible's description of the Old and New Covenants and the differences between them and the differences in requirements for their adherents literally?

Why would a literalist who, by definition, reads the Bible's teaching that he is under the New Covenant literally, strive to live under the Old Covenant, which the Bible says is no longer in effect and was only for a specific group of people? Why would a literalist not take that literally?

It has been said that the part about the bald man is for Jews only but what are they to take from it? Why is it in the bible at all?

It's not "for" anybody. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. That means that it isn't a command, but is there to illustrate God's character.

The more I learn the more I realise that only a tenuous grasp is held by the religious in regards to the bible: historical context for this part, that part is allegory, that part is a different covenant, this part is for Jews only. It seems that the bible is losing it's relevance very quickly and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. What do you think?

And what's wrong with those things? There is no allegory in the Bible and no part is "just for Jews", but the rest of the things you list are all part of the Bible and all part of a sound hermeneutic.

What's wrong with reading the Bible with historical context in mind? What's wrong with reading the Bible with the differences between the covenants in mind?

hedrick · Nov 24, 2011

First, we don't know the circumstances. You're imagining 9 year olds making fun of something that is strange to them. It could just as well be a mob of 20 year olds who had been terrorizing the community.

But this passage does not establish a precedent for people. I agree that the OT code of justice looks brutal. It's not something most Christians would want to see implemented today. Later Jews took the same view. The death penalty become largely symbolic. It was surrounded by so many restrictions that it became (intentionally) impossible to actually do it. And of course today's Christians aren't under that code anyway.

I find two plausible approaches to the OT attitudes:

1) God revealed himself progressively.

2) The OT reports things that people attributed to God that didn't actually come from him.

The Christian view does not make sense at all unless you think God is operating under restrictions as to how forcefully he reveals himself. Otherwise he'd deal with evil using lightning bolts instead of by joining us in human life and taking on the consequences himself. In such a situation he may have chosen to start with simple justice and not push further until people started understanding his character.

The second approach is primarily available to people who aren't literalists. But note that in Judges some pretty horrific things are reported, which the narrator says specifically happened because there was no king in the land. Yet the narrative is nonjudgmental. That is, it described things that the narrator himself thought were wrong without saying so except in fairly rare comments.

Ishraqiyun · Nov 24, 2011

No, you're missing the significance of the time involved; different Covenant. Fundamentalists are aware of this.

The first part wasn't about Fundamentalists but rather the "average" Christian who isn't that educated on the Bible. They probably wouldn't even be aware that there are instances in the OT in which people were ordered to do so. A Fundamentalist would be more likely to know that from the get go.

I know Fundamentalists would probably say it isn't right now (because of the New Covenant) but they wouldn't be able to say that it was also wrong back then. I believe that certain things are not right regardless of the period of history. I don't believe God would actually give orders like that.

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

Publius said:
That's what God commanded, isn't it?

I do, too. God has every right to protect His prophet and to uphold the authority of His Word.

So you do agree that it was right for 42 "little children" to be killed to protect the prophet. If God is truly omnipotent then surely the prophet should not have feared anything, he would have had the protection of God. What kind of loving religion is it when people like yourself, adherents, agree with killing children? Do you have children? Would you like it if this had happened to your children for calling someone bald? (assuming you have them)

Do you have any examples of the Bible being an "immoral book"? Also, what authority do you have to declare something "immoral"?

Being Human and thinking allows me to say that it is immoral, killing children is wrong. The commandment says "thou shalt not kill" yet killing 42 little children is
okay, killing prostitutes is okay etc. Quite a large contradiction given that the commandments are the top rules in Christianity. Giving examples of immorality from the Bible is easy, it's full of them. If you really want examples then i could give them to you.

What about literalists? Wouldn't a literalist, by definition, would take the Bible's description of the Old and New Covenants and the differences between them and the differences in requirements for their adherents literally?

Why would a literalist who, by definition, reads the Bible's teaching that he is under the New Covenant literally, strive to live under the Old Covenant, which the Bible says is no longer in effect and was only for a specific group of people? Why would a literalist not take that literally?

Given the old and new covenant and that the old no longer applies. Why is the OT still packaged with the NT?

It's not "for" anybody. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. That means that it isn't a command, but is there to illustrate God's character.

Quite poor character if you ask me. He could have used the bears to scare away the children but no he killed them. You're God (when reading the OT) is a bully, a murderer and a mysoginist. Consider his character illustrated, and you,, agreeing with killing children should consider your character illustrated

And what's wrong with those things? There is no allegory in the Bible and no part is "just for Jews", but the rest of the things you list are all part of the Bible and all part of a sound hermeneutic.

What's wrong with reading the Bible with historical context in mind? What's wrong with reading the Bible with the differences between the covenants in mind?

What's wrong with it? See above were you agree that killing children is right. That's what wrong!! Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but for a good person to do a bad thing requires religion

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

hedrick said:
First, we don't know the circumstances. You're imagining 9 year olds making fun of something that is strange to them. It could just as well be a mob of 20 year olds who had been terrorizing the community.

"little children" Quote, what part of little children says a mob of 20 year olds? Jews are considered adults way before that, why would 20 year olds be described as little children?

But this passage does not establish a precedent for people. I agree that the OT code of justice looks brutal. It's not something most Christians would want to see implemented today. Later Jews took the same view. The death penalty become largely symbolic. It was surrounded by so many restrictions that it became (intentionally) impossible to actually do it. And of course today's Christians aren't under that code anyway.

As a christian would you find disagreeing with the death penalty as disagreeing with God? from the Bible it is pretty clear that God is for the death penalty?

I find two plausible approaches to the OT attitudes:

1) God revealed himself progressively.

Murder, genocide etc. If you're revealing yourself progressively why start there?

2) The OT reports things that people attributed to God that didn't actually come from him.

I thought the bible was a faithful translation of the word of God free from the errors of man? Are you saying that it is not?

The Christian view does not make sense at all unless you think God is operating under restrictions as to how forcefully he reveals himself. Otherwise he'd deal with evil using lightning bolts instead of by joining us in human life and taking on the consequences himself. In such a situation he may have chosen to start with simple justice and not push further until people started understanding his character.

I don't really know what you are trying to say here. Could you, please, clarify?

The second approach is primarily available to people who aren't literalists. But note that in Judges some pretty horrific things are reported, which the narrator says specifically happened because there was no king in the land. Yet the narrative is nonjudgmental. That is, it described things that the narrator himself thought were wrong without saying so except in fairly rare comments.

Surely, if the bible does not judge the actions. It cannot be considered to endorse morality? and of course the name of the book would be erroneous, no
judging in Judges?

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

Ishraqiyun said:
The first part wasn't about Fundamentalists but rather the "average" Christian who isn't that educated on the Bible. They probably wouldn't even be aware that there are instances in the OT in which people were ordered to do so. A Fundamentalist would be more likely to know that from the get go.

I know Fundamentalists would probably say it isn't right now (because of the New Covenant) but they wouldn't be able to say that it was also wrong back then. I believe that certain things are not right regardless of the period of history. I don't believe God would actually give orders like that.

Disagreeing with killing children, this guy seems more "Christian" than the others who agree. Instead of reading the Bible in an Historical context try reading it in a moral context. I imagine that would make for some uncomfortable reading.

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

jay1 said:
What do you mean different covenant? What about literalists?

Literalists are aware of a different Covenant, which is the agreement between men and G-d, and the basis for it.

jay1 said:
As to the historical context, I would argue that

IOW, you have no idea what the history was, you just feel compelled to comment anyway.

jay1 said:
It has been said that the part about the bald man is for Jews only but what are they to take from it? Why is it in the bible at all?

What bald man are you referring to? What does it mean "for the Jews only?" That's a nonsensical phrase. Perhaps you mean what Sketcher already said, which is it occurred under one Covenant and therefore does not pertain outside of that, and also that it had a specifc historical context?

Following that, you'd get somewhere

jay1 said:
The more I learn the more I realise that only a tenuous grasp is held by the religious in regards to the bible: historical context for this part, that part is allegory, that part is a different covenant

You just described (in part) "rightly dividing the Word of God," and you think that = a tenuous grasp? No.

jay1 said:
It seems that the bible is losing it's relevance very quickly and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. What do you think?

Not on your life. Today is the 24th. Read the 24th chapter of Proverbs, and something from that will be relevant to you, today. Either that or you're living under a rock.

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

jay1 said:
Surely, if the bible does not judge the actions. It cannot be considered to endorse morality?

This makes no sense. You're trying to turn the Bible into something it's not. Try putting in it's proper place, instead. Which was a centerpeice of society, where everyone heard the entire tale every year, and it was considered you didn't know squat until you'd heard it 40 times.

So if this is your first hearing, and you've never heard it in context, how much can you expect to understand?

We need to start slow. Who were these 42 people that were killed? What were they doing? What recent events took place that were relevant to the story? Why did these 42 people use the words "go up?"

You cannot possibly get any inkling of understanding w/o answering these questions. And there's good content in this thread, which you've callously tossed aside.

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

razeontherock said:
Literalists are aware of a different Covenant, which is the agreement between men and G-d, and the basis for it.

IOW, you have no idea what the history was, you just feel compelled to comment anyway.

The Bible is not history.

Please see you comment below, you don't know what we are talking about but felt the need to comment anyway

What bald man are you referring to? What does it mean "for the Jews only?" That's a nonsensical phrase.

Please read the thread before commenting

Perhaps you mean what Sketcher already said, which is it occurred under one Covenant and therefore does not pertain outside of that, and also that it had a specifc historical context?

So it is outdated?

Following that, you'd get somewhere

You just described (in part) "rightly dividing the Word of God," and you think that = a tenuous grasp? No.

Dividing the word of God into what?

Not on your life. Today is the 24th. Read the 24th chapter of Proverbs, and something from that will be relevant to you, today. Either that or you're living under a rock.

Read the newspaper, watch a movie, read a book and something will be relevant to you, what's your point?

hedrick · Nov 24, 2011

jay1 said:
Surely, if the bible does not judge the actions. It cannot be considered to endorse morality? and of course the name of the book would be erroneous, no
judging in Judges?

There are enough comments by the narrator to make his view clear. The point is that he doesn't stick them into every paragraph in the narration, so there are passages that when taken alone can be misleading.

As I understand it, "judges" is a misleading English title. The people referred to are inspired war leaders, rather than what we think of as judges today. But the narrator's point is that the actions in that period were only partly in accordance with God's will. Yes, the "judges" defended Israel in war, but the whole period was anarchic because there wasn't a king yet. (This view is not universal. There was also a tradition that God didn't want a king, and that God gave them a king as a concession to the people's demands to be like other nations.)

However I would go further than that. I accept that there is more variation in viewpoint in the Bible than typical Christians. I think God only slowly revealed himself, and not everyone got the point equally. Thus I think there are whole books of the Bible that reflect earlier views of God, and are not in accordance with God's full will. And of course even taken at face value it's clear that much of the time Israel wasn't carrying out his will even as it was understood at the time.

Jesus is heir to the prophets, not the war leaders or even the priests. Much of the OT reflects a view of God as kind of the chief war lord, whose main job is to make sure that his people wipe out their enemies. That's not the final view of the prophets, or of Jesus.

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

razeontherock said:
This makes no sense. You're trying to turn the Bible into something it's not. Try putting in it's proper place, instead. Which was a centerpeice of society, where everyone heard the entire tale every year, and it was considered you didn't know squat until you'd heard it 40 times.

"come gather round and hear that it is alright to kill children from the centrepiece of our society"

So if this is your first hearing, and you've never heard it in context, how much can you expect to understand?

I did read the entire passage in the context of the book it was written in. You also seem to think that i have never been to church, I have read and had this rubbish taught to me many times.

Tell me though, what context makes it alright to kill children? Do you have children? under what context would it be alright to kill them?

We need to start slow. Who were these 42 people that were killed?

Read the thread they were "little Children"
What were they doing?
Read the thread
What recent events took place that were relevant to the story?
What recent events woud mean you can kill children?
Why did these 42 people use the words "go up?"
Read the bible passage 2 kings 2

You cannot possibly get any inkling of understanding w/o answering these questions. And there's good content in this thread, which you've callously tossed aside.

Please show me the content that means it's acceptable to kill children

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

You're not exploring, you're preaching. Which is expressly forbidden, considering your stance. You would do well to admit you're really not interested in learning anything. You only pretend to know anything about this. If you really wish to be bitter about this until the day you die, you can. And you'll have your opportunity to get all in God's face, and tell Him how wrong he was. Just be aware that at that time, the sun itself will flee. And you really think you will be able to stand?

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

razeontherock said:
You're not exploring, you're preaching. Which is expressly forbidden, considering your stance. You would do well to admit you're really not interested in learning anything. You only pretend to know anything about this. If you really wish to be bitter about this until the day you die, you can. And you'll have your opportunity to get all in God's face, and tell Him how wrong he was. Just be aware that at that time, the sun itself will flee. And you really think you will be able to stand?

You're not explaining anything so how am i to learn, all you are doing is supporting the bible position on killing children.

I have no fear of God, i don't fear what doesn't exist.

Can you explain how the sun fleeing means i won't be able to stand?

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

jay1 said:
how am i to learn

There are many very good responses in this thread, that you completely toss aside. How are you to learn like that?

jay1 said:
all you are doing is supporting the bible position on killing children.

1) There is no "Bible position on killing children."

2) I have supported nothing. Why create strawmen?

jay1 said:
Can you explain how the sun fleeing means i won't be able to stand?

Well ok, perhaps you are greater than our Sun. We'll see ...

jay1 · Nov 24, 2011

razeontherock said:
There are many very good responses in this thread, that you completely toss aside. How are you to learn like that?

Please, show me the responses that will convince me that killing children is acceptable

1) There is no "Bible position on killing children."

deuteronomy 3
Joshuah 6
Judges 21
Hosea 13:16
Psalmns 137:9

I disagree

2) I have supported nothing. Why create strawmen?

Do you believe that the Bible and God are wrong when children are ordered to be killed? Do you support God and the Bible in this? Which is it?

I have asked you many questions and you have answered none and you wonder why i am not learning.

Well ok, perhaps you are greater than our Sun. We'll see ...

Whether or not i am "greater" than the sun does not affect my ability to stand.

razeontherock · Nov 24, 2011

Basics: "killing," is present tense. One would be lead to believe your concern is that G-d has an interest in presently killing children. This is a reasonable concern for someone who is a TOTAL NOVICE. You, professing yourself to know a thing or two about this, have no excuse.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You know very well G-d is not about to go killing people, outside of His Judgment.

If you seek to learn anything on this topic, you need to apply yourself to seeing why God's Judgments are right. This can be quite challenging, and it is not the place for a novice to start.

Killing Children is Justified

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Publius

Guest

Senior Veteran

Fanning the Divine Spark

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency