Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[Tigrul]

I have started this topic because this is the passage I like to use most against the claim of christian moral superiority, or against the claim that the christian god is a moral god, or a loving god.

This passage goes like this: (KJ)
18: If 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:
19: Then 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;
20: And 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.
21: And 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.


Aion has told me, in a profile conversation, that there is a good argument against this, a good argument for why such passages exist in the bible, and they have directed me at reading some books, as if they couldn't present the arguments themselves. (Yay! Let's all direct eachother at books, without ever actually presenting any arguments!)



So I've suggested that Aion present their arguments here. I would also like to ask anyone willing to do so to present their arguments here.


My point is that the god of the bible has ordered his people to stone disobedient children to death, which, in my eyes, make him an evil god offering immoral advice. Of course, this is only one of many passages, but it's the one I use most frequently, so I'm curious about the counter-arguments.

[Ummon]

Amen. I happen to find that passage fundamental.

[Claudius Gothicus]

First there's no such a thing as a Christian moral superiority.

Second, if you're an intelligent Christian you'll disregard the majority if not all of the OT.

The Old Testament should not be considered canon or a must follow by Christians considering that Jesus(the most important figure in Christianity) said it wasn't necessary.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

First there's no such a thing as a Christian moral superiority.

Second, if you're an intelligent Christian you'll disregard the majority if not all of the OT.

The Old Testament should not be considered canon or a must follow by Christians considering that Jesus(the most important figure in Christianity) said it wasn't necessary.

I couldn't disagree more. If you are an intelligent Christian, you know how to read the Bible. Jesus said: "Think not that I came to destroy the law" that is very clear. Circumcision, keeping kosher, considering "laying with another man as you would a woman" to be an abomination, defining adultery as "Woman who breaketh wedlock", etc. etc., those all still count.

The thing is that Jesus did alter certain laws without destroying them. He, for instance, said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"; He did not say "Every sin worthy of stoning under the Old Testament is now a sin no longer". The sole extent of his alteration was to get people to stop stoning everyone to death, because God willed him to do so; He was sent here to bring mercy, to relieve us from being God's executioner, amongst other things.

Now getting back both to my point and the OP, reading the Bible means keeping in mind the fact that by the time it comes to you it has been translated by fallible men hundreds, if not thousands of times, and the chances of innocent or malicious errors are significant. For instance, the Hebrew word translated into English as "adultery", Naw'af, is actually translated (as I mention above) "Woman who Breaketh Wedlock" - If the Bible was translated properly, Governor Mark Sanford wouldn't be in hot water right now. Another example, the word translated as "Kill" in "Thou shalt not kill" would be better translated as "Murder" - "Thou shalt not murder" - This is the difference between "Just War" and misguided Christian pacifism.

So, in the originally quoted section of the OT, first it says "If 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:
Then 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;"

Then it says:

"And 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."

Wait a minute, how is a stubborn and rebellious son a glutton and a drunkard? What is missing from this passage? Are we supposed to assume that you are supposed to say "My son is a drunkard and a glutton, let's stone him to death" if he, for instance, won't shut up when you tell him to? Or is there perhaps a large chunk of missing or mistranslated text that might put this into a different context? Whatever the case, obeying your mother and father is one of the ten commandments, so it makes sense that this would take the offense in question seriously, but the curious nature of the short paragraph leaves me wondering how different the quoted text may be from the original.

Whatever the case, it is a completely moot point now, as Jesus relieved us of the duty of stoning to death those who break even the least commandment.

And as for the person who said a God who would command the above is evil, that is a ludicrous statement; Anything God does is right, so it is a philosophical impossibility for Him to be evil, unless you are holding him to some arbitrary standard of universalistic moralism, so anachronistic to the nature of the discussion that it holds no pertinence whatsoever.

It is ironic that so many Atheists fall back on anti-Relativistic and Universalist moralism when criticizing religion, because their number one reason for disliking religion is usually it's anti-Relativistic and Universalist moralism.

[Ummon]

There are to my knowledge four levels of being Christian:

1) indoctrinated and blissfully unaware of anything but a meager, traditional more than scriptural image of Jesus.
2) aware of and puzzled by the OT.
3) aware of the OT and apocrypha, tempted by the devil in a major way.
4) realizing that there is no difference between divine Justice and divine Love: in the hands of the Most High.

[Playfishpaste]

To avoid solving the problem of evil for the thousandth time in the eight bajillionth way, I'll simply concur with what Claud said.

[Tigrul]

I also agree with what he said, I apologize if I offered a different impression. But regardless of how christians themselves act, and regardless of what yehoshua said, according to the bible, yahweh, the christian god, STILL gave that commandment to his people, to stone disobedient children to death. I think that that makes the god of the bible evil, and definitely not all loving.

Aion suggested that there is a counter-argument against this point. I still wish to know what the counter-argument is, or if any of you have such a counter-argument.

[Playfishpaste]

I also agree with what he said, I apologize if I offered a different impression. But regardless of how christians themselves act, and regardless of what yehoshua said, according to the bible, yahweh, the christian god, STILL gave that commandment to his people, to stone disobedient children to death. I think that that makes the god of the bible evil, and definitely not all loving.

He assigned it at the time because it was necessary to route out evil in the tribes of Isreal. I take it Basics won't even respond to this part because it's basic problem of evil stuff.

This discussion usually would end up going like this:

Theist: Basically, when faced with two evils, pick the lesser one.

Atheist: But god is omnipotent, he could have just made it so the isrealites were happy.

Theist: This would be unjust.

Atheist: Why?

Theist: Because it would not be fair to the egyptians

Atheist: But then he could just make it so the egyptians were christian from birth and so were the jews?

Theist: Then what would the point of living be?

At this point the atheist has several options, but usually they will insist that living in a world that's exclusively good and perfect is better then living in one with evil. This brings the argument to absolute subjectivity, and no further discussion can take place.

Aion suggested that there is a counter-argument against this point. I still wish to know what the counter-argument is, or if any of you have such a counter-argument.

There are many counter arguments, that's why the problem of evil isn't really considered a logically valid position by many modern philosophers. For the most elegant (and original) counter-arguments, see Aquinas and Augustine.

[Playfishpaste]

Another, easier argument (which I actually side with) is that the stories of the OT are usually metaphorical.

[Tigrul]

Gee... thanks for not presenting the arguments yourself. But then again, you say you're tired of the problem of evil, so... let's say you've got an excuse...

Well... if the stories are metaphorical, what is to say that the ten commandments aren't? Because that's the point which annoys me most: the christians will ever so often brag about the ten commandments, but will turn a blind eye to passages such as the one around which this topic is centred.

[Imperator Romani]

Gee... thanks for not presenting the arguments yourself. But then again, you say you're tired of the problem of evil, so... let's say you've got an excuse...

Well... if the stories are metaphorical, what is to say that the ten commandments aren't? Because that's the point which annoys me most: the christians will ever so often brag about the ten commandments, but will turn a blind eye to passages such as the one around which this topic is centred.

It's clear they aren't. Bad argument.

[Playfishpaste]

Gee... thanks for not presenting the arguments yourself. But then again, you say you're tired of the problem of evil, so... let's say you've got an excuse...

I just posted what the conversation would go like if I stated the argument I use most frequently. It leads to subjectivity. In your opinion you prefer the world without evil, that's your view. Doesn't make god a meanie.

Well... if the stories are metaphorical, what is to say that the ten commandments aren't? Because that's the point which annoys me most: the christians will ever so often brag about the ten commandments, but will turn a blind eye to passages such as the one around which this topic is centred.

The stupid ones will, usually. Theologians, at least the reknowned ones, fortunately like to study the bible logically. There are passages that are clearly literary, and some that aren't. Genesis, for instance, is widely agreed upon to represent various social ideals and psychological questions, as well as foreshadow the metaphorically heavy Revelations. We can conclude this from the language used at the time and the evidence in the book for comparison (twelve tribes of isreal, cherubim, thousand-eyed monsters, four beasts representing the gospel writers etc.)

Sure, other people could still say "Well I think the whole thing's a metaphor" and be done with it, but this would just be unscholarly.

[Imperator Romani]

Clearly the son is a good for nothing man. A drunkard, that's not a 6 year old kid. We don't know what he did, he might have killed someone. We don't know.

[Phier]

Clearly the son is a good for nothing man. A drunkard, that's not a 6 year old kid. We don't know what he did, he might have killed someone. We don't know.

You would think his parents would have mentioned a murder, or did that get omitted from the perfect bible?

Wait... why is it clear that the ten commandments aren't metaphorical, but the passage in this topic is?!

I find Christians use the metaphor excuse for uncomfortable bits, much like the Muslims use supposed historical context for all the places they are told to cut people in half.

[Playfishpaste]

You would think his parents would have mentioned a murder, or did that get omitted from the perfect bible?



I find Christians use the metaphor excuse for uncomfortable bits, much like the Muslims use supposed historical context for all the places they are told to cut people in half.

They do do that often. Again, usually only the stupid ones though.

As to the perfection of the bible. No christian believes the bible was written by god. If they do, they certainly are not a member of any christian sect I know of, and should be kicked out immediately for their unfathomable stupidity.

[Phier]

They do do that often. Again, usually only the stupid ones though.

As to the perfection of the bible. No christian believes the bible was written by god. If they do, they certainly are not a member of any christian sect I know of, and should be kicked out immediately for their unfathomable stupidity.

Very long, basically the Bible is just so special it has to be god
http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-written-word-god

This one is that the bible was WRITTEN by humans but perfect because god willed it so
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html


A canadian site which claims it came directly from god.
http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm

[Playfishpaste]

Very long, basically the Bible is just so special it has to be god
http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-written-word-god

This one is that the bible was WRITTEN by humans but perfect because god willed it so
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html


A canadian site which claims it came directly from god.
http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm

The first one specifically mentions passages which declare that the bible is the word of god as interpreted by humans to the best of their ability, as does the second. The third claims only inspiration, not even direct dictation from god.

Again, no religion teaches that the christian bible was written by god, maybe some weird christian cult, but that's about it. It's written by man in the christian religion to the best of their ability in using god's inspiration and hearing his words. As with any human text, there will be errors.

[Tigrul]

Wait... why is it clear that the ten commandments aren't metaphorical, but the passage in this topic is?! And do you realize that that post with "bad argument" in it, is a failure to state on your behalf?
Also... there are a lot of possible punishments for disobedient children. Why would god ask exactly for the stoning to death?

[Desperado †]

Why would god ask exactly for the stoning to death?

Because he's all merciful.

Wait...

[Imperator Romani]

Wait... why is it clear that the ten commandments aren't metaphorical, but the passage in this topic is?! And do you realize that that post with "bad argument" in it, is a failure to state on your behalf?
Also... there are a lot of possible punishments for disobedient children. Why would god ask exactly for the stoning to death?

It's just clear. Read them and try to make them metaphorical.

It's not a child.