Christians Time Travelling to the OT

Standman

It seems apparent that a lot of the nasty primitive stuff in the OT (stoning, animal sacrafice, etc..) is now irrelevant to Christians due to the teachings of the New Testament and Jesus Christ, well, except for slavery that is.

Does this mean that if a modern day Christian were to travel back in time to the Old testament era in Israel, he/she would have to accept that these barbaric laws are morally right?

I would like to know what ye guys would make of such a situation because I find it very hard to believe that you would be able to just change your morals because god says so.

Fanny Cradock

Unfortunately my time machine is on the fritz at the mo. Damn flux-capacitor.

IrishKnight

Standman wrote: »

It seems apparent that a lot of the nasty primitive stuff in the OT (stoning, animal sacrafice, etc..) is now irrelevant to Christians due to the teachings of the New Testament and Jesus Christ

I won't be too sure about that, Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

philologos

Standman, Torah law is only a part of Christian revelation which came in stages. The Torah was recieved by Moses to act as a cultural, religious, and judicial system for the Jewish people, through the prophets and through New Testament teaching, the Torah was developed and the Gospel became the message that would be recieved by all mankind not just the Jews. As Jesus said the Torah law would not be abolished but fulfilled, the Torah remains with us today, however in a different form through the teachings of Jesus and Paul. If you look in a cross reference Bible you will find when you look through the Gospels and the letters of Paul that there is a strong relation between the New Testament and the old in the religious laws, and in the prophesies made by Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.

The issues such as animal sacrifices were dealt with in the writings of the prophets:

Hosea 6:6 wrote:

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.

God has always preferred faithfulness in Him to burnt offerings. As the Jewish people seemed to be ardent in following the Law to the letter, but continued to fall away from Him. God would bring His Son to preach the Gospel and reconcile the people of the world to Him through the crucifixion.

IrishKnight

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

What was that about burnt offerings?

Black Swan

I'd toss the Old Testament in favour of the New. The OT is so violent and primitive in relating to modern day, and un-Christian in its orientation (which is an elaboration of the obvious).

IrishKnight

So you would "toss" the law of God because it is violent, dispite what Jesus said (see quote above) about the old law being upheld?

philologos

They are all stages of development in one revelation from God. The Torah was the first stage, then the prophets developed upon this, and then the New Testament (the covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34) was revealed through Jesus (the one prophesied in Deuteronomy 18), to all people not just the Jews. At the final stages of this we have a fuller image of God than at the first. Burnt offerings (as prophesied in Hosea 6:6) were no longer necessary, as God the Father realised that the people were so far removed from Him through sin, that He gave His Son Jesus to reconcile us to God, and to spread faith in Him to all corners of the world. When looking to the Torah, we take into account the New Testament.

Black Swan

IrishKnight wrote: »

So you would "toss" the law of God because it is violent, dispite what Jesus said (see quote above) about the old law being upheld?

Indeed! It's the extraordinarily violent Old Testament where a city was destroyed, claiming that not a single infant or child could be found innocent, much less any adult. The treatment of that city sounds more anthropomorphic than by an all-knowing and benevolent God; whereas, I do not find justification in the New Testament for such humanly vindictive, arbitrary and capricious behaviour. Wholesale killing is not Christian, nor is it the behaviour one would expect of a Christian God.

In comparison, the elimination of entire cities (like the 2 nuked in Japan by USA), where no one was considered innocent enough to spare them, sounds like a human justification rather than that of a Christian God. My God is loving and Christ-like, not an angry, violent, mean being that is into mass punishing rather than understanding or forgiving.

Standman

Nobody has answered the my question yet..

Black Swan

Standman wrote: »

Nobody has answered the my question yet..

Barring the ability to transcend time and space and to fully experience those pre-Christian times to their ethnographic fullest (see Fanny's humourous comment), in comparison to what morality you or I may expect or accept in today's world (and there will be differences between us), no, I would not buy it then or now. This was implied, if not made explicit, in several of the above answers, if you read between the lines.

Red Hand

Jakkass wrote: »

They are all stages of development in one revelation from God. The Torah was the first stage, then the prophets developed upon this, and then the New Testament (the covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34)

I was having an "off" day that day! (Joke!)

was revealed through Jesus (the one prophesied in Deuteronomy 18), to all people not just the Jews. At the final stages of this we have a fuller image of God than at the first. Burnt offerings (as prophesied in Hosea 6:6) were no longer necessary, as God the Father realised that the people were so far removed from Him through sin, that He gave His Son Jesus to reconcile us to God, and to spread faith in Him to all corners of the world. When looking to the Torah, we take into account the New Testament.

I don't buy that. God, according to most Christians, is omnescient. Therefore, at one point, as Blue Lagoon says, he effectively nuked Sodom and Gomorah, and yet, because he is omnescient and all knowing, he has always known that he was going to do this (along with knowing that he would be implementing his "solution" of using Christ a saviour) right from the moment of the creation of the Universe onwards. So, whatever million people that God has smited (2,400,000 or so if I remember from some post in a thread where a guy totted up the numbers of unrightuous slain by God, or approved for slaying by the Israelites?) has been for nothing if Christ was on the cards since creation?

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Indeed! It's the extraordinarily violent Old Testament where a city was destroyed, claiming that not a single infant or child could be found innocent, much less any adult. The treatment of that city sounds more anthropomorphic than by an all-knowing and benevolent God; whereas, I do not find justification in the New Testament for such humanly vindictive, arbitrary and capricious behaviour. Wholesale killing is not Christian, nor is it the behaviour one would expect of a Christian God.

Ah, but they had to die, otherwise the Israelites wouldn't have a home. It's much easier to blame genocide due to the wishes of a harsh unforgiving desert God like Yahweh, rather than simply making "Lebensraum" (I see the irony:)) for one's people.

In comparison, the elimination of entire cities (like the 2 nuked in Japan by USA), where no one was considered innocent enough to spare them, sounds like a human justification rather than that of a Christian God. My God is loving and Christ-like, not an angry, violent, mean being that is into mass punishing rather than understanding or forgiving.

But those that fail at being "just" will ultimately be cast down to eternal hell as prophesised in Revelations? The Great Red Dragon will consume all?

Substituting Hell on Earth (smiting cities with sulphur) with merely Hell in the afterlife is hardly progress?

Standman

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Barring the ability to transcend time and space and to fully experience those pre-Christian times to their ethnographic fullest (see Fanny's humourous comment), in comparison to what morality you or I may expect or accept in today's world (and there will be differences between us), no, I would not buy it then or now. This was implied, if not made explicit, in several of the above answers, if you read between the lines.

I agree it was definitely implied in one of your posts, but the rest are irrelevant to the original question. If the the Christian god and the god of the Old Testament are one and the same then a modern day Christian must accept that genocide, stoning, slavery , etc.. can be and were previously morally right.

brianthebard

Standman wrote: »

I agree it was definitely implied in one of your posts, but the rest are irrelevant to the original question. If the the Christian god and the god of the Old Testament are one and the same then a modern day Christian must accept that genocide, stoning, slavery , etc.. can be and were previously morally right.

morals are not absolute.

Standman

brianthebard wrote: »

morals are not absolute.

If morals come from god, then they are objective.

Red Hand

Standman wrote: »

If morals come from god, then they are objective.

Its my opinion that the idea of the Golden Rule is present in most humans and is seen in most societies, even those without God. It is the moral that most people live with and, as a species, it makes sense for us to have evolved to have that moral hardwired in.

brianthebard

Standman wrote: »

If morals come from god, then they are objective.

if???The term morals comes from mores,which means customs.For example,to live by the ten commandments is a custom of judaism and christianity.It does not apply in a hindu nation,because they have different customs.

wordcount

Cultures should be judged from thier own time frame not from ours. sO NO BY OUR MORAL STANDARDS OF TODAY THAT BABbarisim may be wrong, but in the context of the time that is a different question.

Standman

brianthebard wrote: »

if???The term morals comes from mores,which means customs.For example,to live by the ten commandments is a custom of judaism and christianity.It does not apply in a hindu nation,because they have different customs.

Yes, if! What's with all the question marks?

You seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that the ten commandments were not the word of god, just a law like any other we have nowadays. If you are a Christian it doesn't matter if it's not your "custom" to live by the ten commandments, you will still be denied entrance to eternal bliss after you die.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior")

Don't really want to debate semantics anyhow.

JimiTime

Standman wrote: »

It seems apparent that a lot of the nasty primitive stuff in the OT (stoning, animal sacrafice, etc..)

I think the premise of calling it all nasty primitive stuff, is objectionable. I don't see animal sacrifice as nasty. Nor do I see stoning as nasty, in the cultural context.

its now irrelevant to Christians due to the teachings of the New Testament and Jesus Christ, well, except for slavery that is.

Its not irrelevant. We just aren't under the Law of ancient Israel.

Does this mean that if a modern day Christian were to travel back in time to the Old testament era in Israel, he/she would have to accept that these barbaric laws are morally right?

Now such a question is irrelevant. But again, barbaric/morally wrong are what you think. I don't think they were. But i see morality as objective to God, if you don't, well we're obviously going to differ.

I would like to know what ye guys would make of such a situation because I find it very hard to believe that you would be able to just change your morals because god says so.

I wouldn't be changing my Morals. Sacrificing animals? No problem there in the cultural context. Executing the guilty? No problem there in the cultural context.


BTW, there was a post a few days ago on something similar here.

PDN

Standman wrote: »

It seems apparent that a lot of the nasty primitive stuff in the OT (stoning, animal sacrafice, etc..) is now irrelevant to Christians due to the teachings of the New Testament and Jesus Christ, well, except for slavery that is.

Does this mean that if a modern day Christian were to travel back in time to the Old testament era in Israel, he/she would have to accept that these barbaric laws are morally right?

I would like to know what ye guys would make of such a situation because I find it very hard to believe that you would be able to just change your morals because god says so.

As Jimi has already said, it's all about context.

Today I would find it totally wrong if the government tried to prevent me from catching a flight to Germany, sent a policeman to tell me off for leaving my curtains open when the living room light was on, or attempted to force me to join the military.

However, if I traveled in a time machine to London in 1940 then the government would do all of those things and I would have to submit to it. Would that mean my morality had changed? No, but it would mean that different standards of behaviour are acceptable at different points and times in history.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

sent a policeman to tell me off for leaving my curtains open when the living room light was on.

Sorry to go off topic, but is that for real? was that to do with the war, or was it just one of those laws that came about with the advent of electricity in homes?

brianthebard

It was to stop bombers being able to see towns and cities.Wiki blackout for more info i'd say.

philologos

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I don't buy that. God, according to most Christians, is omnescient. Therefore, at one point, as Blue Lagoon says, he effectively nuked Sodom and Gomorah, and yet, because he is omnescient and all knowing, he has always known that he was going to do this (along with knowing that he would be implementing his "solution" of using Christ a saviour) right from the moment of the creation of the Universe onwards. So, whatever million people that God has smited (2,400,000 or so if I remember from some post in a thread where a guy totted up the numbers of unrightuous slain by God, or approved for slaying by the Israelites?) has been for nothing if Christ was on the cards since creation?

I disagree that it was for nothing, it was for setting a precadent of what would and what wouldn't be acceptable. Secondly, it was to protect His people Israel as they were going to set up there and to develop divine revelation until the point where His Son Jesus would spread it to all corners of the world. As Torah was being revealed, divine revelation was by no means complete.

Standman

PDN wrote: »

As Jimi has already said, it's all about context.

Today I would find it totally wrong if the government tried to prevent me from catching a flight to Germany, sent a policeman to tell me off for leaving my curtains open when the living room light was on, or attempted to force me to join the military.

However, if I traveled in a time machine to London in 1940 then the government would do all of those things and I would have to submit to it. Would that mean my morality had changed? No, but it would mean that different standards of behaviour are acceptable at different points and times in history.

So the stoning of disobedient children, for example, would be fine by you because it was somehow neccesary?

Standman

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the premise of calling it all nasty primitive stuff, is objectionable. I don't see animal sacrifice as nasty. Nor do I see stoning as nasty, in the cultural context.


Its not irrelevant. We just aren't under the Law of ancient Israel.


Now such a question is irrelevant. But again, barbaric/morally wrong are what you think. I don't think they were. But i see morality as objective to God, if you don't, well we're obviously going to differ.


I wouldn't be changing my Morals. Sacrificing animals? No problem there in the cultural context. Executing the guilty? No problem there in the cultural context.


BTW, there was a post a few days ago on something similar here.

Hold on, where does it say in the bible that the sacrificing of animals was a cultural thing? It was directly ordered by god!

I understand the idea of cultural context, but I don't see what that has to do with laws that were handed down by god. Are you saying that he modified his laws to fit the culture in question?

philologos

Standman wrote: »

Hold on, where does it say in the bible that the sacrificing of animals was a cultural thing? It was directly ordered by god!

I understand the idea of cultural context, but I don't see what that has to do with laws that were handed down by god. Are you saying that he modified his laws to fit the culture in question?

Where in the Bible does it show development in animal sacrificing? In the verse I have shown, and just about the entire book of Hebrews deals with the role of sacrifice since the crucifixion. This has to be taken into account in the Christian understanding of sacrifice.

Red Hand

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree that it was for nothing, it was for setting a precadent of what would and what wouldn't be acceptable. Secondly, it was to protect His people Israel as they were going to set up there and to develop divine revelation until the point where His Son Jesus would spread it to all corners of the world. As Torah was being revealed, divine revelation was by no means complete.

Yes, but as the OP has said, what is acceptable and unacceptable changes. Most Christians eat pork, don't keep slaves etc. I know that this is not what you mean, but it is an example of what was unacceptable and what is now acceptable. Rules that God made.

Do you think that divine revelation is complete, now? Or could he choose another chosen people, a small select group and shelter them?

PDN

Standman wrote: »

So the stoning of disobedient children, for example, would be fine by you because it was somehow neccesary?

No, I would not be happy if children were stoned. I don't actually know of any passage in the Bible that encourages such behaviour. If you know of any maybe you could link to them? Thanks.

It is hard to imagine ourselves in a different time and place in history, and I think that I would find certain things in the Old Testament very difficult to stomach (in more ways than one). For example, most of us have been raised in such a way that we feel very unhappy with the idea of capital punishment. Therefore a passage such as the following troubles most of us:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

This refers to the period when the Israelites would enter the Promised Land and be surrounded by other tribes that wanted to exterminate them. In order to survive they had to be a disciplined people with no loose cannons among them. Therefore a young man (obviously an adult, since he was a profligate and a drunkard) who persistently flouted the law could bring destruction upon the entire community. In that case the responsibility lay with the parents to bring the young man to the elders, and if the elders deemed it necessary he was to be killed in order to protect the whole tribe. Not pretty, I agree, to those of us who live in secure Western prosperity, but I can see how such things could regrettably be necessary.

I am reminded of the movie Saving Private Ryan when Tom Hanks' platoon captured a German soldier. The best way to preserve their mission would be to kill him, but that would be against the Geneva Convention. Being nice democratic Americans they are the goodies of the movie and so do not kill prisoners. They cannot keep a prisoner and complete their mission - so they let him go. As a result the same released prisoner encounters the platoon again and kills one of their number. What was the right thing to do with that prisoner? Would killing him, although contrary to the Geneva Convention, be justified if it saved the lives of your platoon? Who knows.

Anyway, that link to the stoning of disobedient children would be much appreciated. As a keen student of the Bible I'm always eager to learn something new and I've obviously missed that bit.

JimiTime

Standman wrote: »

Hold on, where does it say in the bible that the sacrificing of animals was a cultural thing? It was directly ordered by god!

Yes it was. I never said it wasn't. In the context of the law that governed them, the sacrificing of Animals was necessary because God had commanded it. Its no longer required, because the ultimate sacrifice was presented by Christ. When I say culture of the Israelites, God was very much in the culture, as it was God through his servant Moses that gave them their Laws.

I understand the idea of cultural context, but I don't see what that has to do with laws that were handed down by god. Are you saying that he modified his laws to fit the culture in question?

Ehhh, no. He took a people under his protection. His chosen people. A nation fathered by Jacob (Israel). Led them out of captivity in Egypt to a land he promised. He gave them laws, and delivered them from their enemies. So God was inherant in their culture.

Standman

PDN wrote: »

No, I would not be happy if children were stoned. I don't actually know of any passage in the Bible that encourages such behaviour. If you know of any maybe you could link to them? Thanks.

It is hard to imagine ourselves in a different time and place in history, and I think that I would find certain things in the Old Testament very difficult to stomach (in more ways than one). For example, most of us have been raised in such a way that we feel very unhappy with the idea of capital punishment. Therefore a passage such as the following troubles most of us:


This refers to the period when the Israelites would enter the Promised Land and be surrounded by other tribes that wanted to exterminate them. In order to survive they had to be a disciplined people with no loose cannons among them. Therefore a young man (obviously an adult, since he was a profligate and a drunkard) who persistently flouted the law could bring destruction upon the entire community. In that case the responsibility lay with the parents to bring the young man to the elders, and if the elders deemed it necessary he was to be killed in order to protect the whole tribe. Not pretty, I agree, to those of us who live in secure Western prosperity, but I can see how such things could regrettably be necessary.

I am reminded of the movie Saving Private Ryan when Tom Hanks' platoon captured a German soldier. The best way to preserve their mission would be to kill him, but that would be against the Geneva Convention. Being nice democratic Americans they are the goodies of the movie and so do not kill prisoners. They cannot keep a prisoner and complete their mission - so they let him go. As a result the same released prisoner encounters the platoon again and kills one of their number. What was the right thing to do with that prisoner? Would killing him, although contrary to the Geneva Convention, be justified if it saved the lives of your platoon? Who knows.

Anyway, that link to the stoning of disobedient children would be much appreciated. As a keen student of the Bible I'm always eager to learn something new and I've obviously missed that bit.

Oh, ok, so it's only meant for teenagers and up then? Does anyone know was the average drinking age in those times?

So these laws handed down by god were really a neccessity, were needed to guarantee survival?

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to go off topic, but is that for real? was that to do with the war, or was it just one of those laws that came about with the advent of electricity in homes?

You will also notice that the headlights on cars of the day usually had all but a thin strip blacked out.

PDN

So we can't stone kids after all then?

That's a shame. The little brat next door keeps kicking his football over the fence - I thought I might have been able to collect a few rocks and sort him out.

philologos

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Yes, but as the OP has said, what is acceptable and unacceptable changes. Most Christians eat pork, don't keep slaves etc. I know that this is not what you mean, but it is an example of what was unacceptable and what is now acceptable. Rules that God made.

The Torah did not say that one has to keep slaves at all firstly. Secondly, I'm not too sure that the view on pork is correct, I personally would view that as Jesus contesting the Pharisees on Rabbinical Judaism which went further than the Torah has commanded them to, but I'm sure plenty would disagree with this view.

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Do you think that divine revelation is complete, now? Or could he choose another chosen people, a small select group and shelter them?

There is no other Gospel (Galatians 1:8), but people do have skills of prophesy, it's a fruit of the Spirit.

Standman

PDN wrote: »

So we can't stone kids after all then?

That's a shame. The little brat next door keeps kicking his football over the fence - I thought I might have been able to collect a few rocks and sort him out.

Ah I'm sure god wouldn't mind! The kid wouldn't happen to be egyptian by any chance?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

So we can't stone kids after all then?

That's a shame. The little brat next door keeps kicking his football over the fence - I thought I might have been able to collect a few rocks and sort him out.

The Bible doesn't condemn throwing pebbles, PDN. Using Standman's logic, I believe there is hope yet!

JimiTime

Ahh, a good old fashioned stoning, I'll hold the coats.

Tar.Aldarion

Standman wrote: »

It seems apparent that a lot of the nasty primitive stuff in the OT (stoning, animal sacrafice, etc..) is now irrelevant to Christians due to the teachings of the New Testament and Jesus Christ, well, except for slavery that is.

Does this mean that if a modern day Christian were to travel back in time to the Old testament era in Israel, he/she would have to accept that these barbaric laws are morally right?

I would like to know what ye guys would make of such a situation because I find it very hard to believe that you would be able to just change your morals because god says so.

I am unfamiliar with the OT vs the NT. I take it that people that believe in the christian god think the OT was right and that the NT is an updated version or something, brought to them by Jesus?
So tehn the OT was not right after all since they both contain different moral values and so on?

Red Hand

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

I am unfamiliar with the OT vs the NT. I take it that people that believe in the christian god think the OT was right and that the NT is an updated version or something, brought to them by Jesus?
So tehn the OT was not right after all since they both contain different moral values and so on?

Old testment was Windows XP vs the New Testament which is Vista?:) (Joke!)

Tar.Aldarion

The NT seems more like an expansion pack, now with added morals?

Red Hand

Mmmmm...but much more compatible with other systems than the old version. Malware appendices in Revelations.

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

No, I would not be happy if children were stoned...

Therefore a young man (obviously an adult, since he was a profligate and a drunkard) who persistently flouted the law could bring destruction upon the entire community. In that case the responsibility lay with the parents to bring the young man to the elders, and if the elders deemed it necessary he was to be killed in order to protect the whole tribe.

"Obviously and adult" and not a child being stoned may be problematic?

Why the responsibility of the "parents" if the child was an adult? Why not the community leaders, or those charged for enforcement of the laws of the tribe? For example, if the "child" were 35 years old, would the "parents" still be responsible (or even alive)? Given high maternal mortality, and deaths due to disease, accidents, and war, there's a very good chance that neither parents would be alive if their child was 35. So why "parents," which suggests to me that the child was not an adult, but rather a teenager (I can certainly find quite a few young teens that are drunk and challenge the laws in this day and age!). So stoning your 14 year old would be OK back then, and would be consistent with God's Old Testament laws?

Why does this remind me of another religion that recently was in the news for condemning a woman (who had been raped) to be stoned to death? Although the international media outrage spared this woman, the ancient laws of that religion still prevail to this day for those raped women who do not get the attention of the media.

Once again, I cannot agree with the extraordinary violence and barbarity of the Old Testament, or the morality contained therein, in terms of its literal application to today. It does not evidence the Christian spirit or ethic contained in the New Testament, and should be set aside as a document for its historical context only. Or should parents go back to the public stoning of their disobedient children? "Spare the (stone), spoil the child?"

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Obviously and adult" and not a child being stoned may be problematic?

Why the responsibility of the "parents" if the child was an adult? Why not the community leaders, or those charged for enforcement of the laws of the tribe?

In many cultures the relationship between parents and offspring, with their attendant responsibilities and obedience, do not stop after childhood.

For example, if the "child" were 35 years old, would the "parents" still be responsible (or even alive)? Given high maternal mortality, and deaths due to disease, accidents, and war, there's a very good chance that neither parents would be alive if their child was 35.

Plenty of people in the Old Testament lived to be a good age. Moses lived to 120, Joshua & Caleb both lived to be over 80. And if the young man's parents weren't alive then these particular verses wouldn't apply, would they?

So why "parents," which suggests to me that the child was not an adult, but rather a teenager (I can certainly find quite a few young teens that are drunk and challenge the laws in this day and age!). So stoning your 14 year old would be OK back then, and would be consistent with God's Old Testament laws?

The point when a child becomes a man varies from culture to culture. In modern Judaism I think the Bar Mitzvah is around the age of 13. It is possible (but we can't know for sure) that in the days of Deuteronomy 14-year-olds might have been considered adults and as such fought in wars, got married, fathered kids and were subject to adult punishments if convicted of criminal offences.

Why does this remind me of another religion that recently was in the news for condemning a woman (who had been raped) to be stoned to death? Although the international media outrage spared this woman, the ancient laws of that religion still prevail to this day for those raped women who do not get the attention of the media.

Why? Possibly because you have a weakness for equating totally different and unconnected scenarios even when they are separated by thousands of years.

Or should parents go back to the public stoning of their disobedient children?

To 'go back' to stoning children you would have to offer some evidence that children were ever stoned in the first place - something you haven't done so far.

philologos

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Old testment was Windows XP vs the New Testament which is Vista?:) (Joke!)

Yes, but it is based on the same Windows backend as the Old Testament . Believe it or not that is a good analogy of sorts. Throughout time the Old Testament was developed and expanded upon by the prophets and the Gospel.

Standman

I think it is apparent that god doesn't mind condemning children to death if he wishes, as seen in Egypt when every firstborn was murdered by him.

Also Jesus wasn't above this sort of thing, as he would have us believe that you must execute your children if they curse or hit you.

Exodus 21:15 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

I suppose if you don't like the sound of that you could wiggle around it by saying that only an adult would curse or hit their parents?

Black Swan

PDN wrote: »

Plenty of people in the Old Testament lived to be a good age. Moses lived to 120, Joshua & Caleb both lived to be over 80.

How do you know for certain that was their age, in terms of how we measure age today?

PDN wrote:

The point when a child becomes a man varies from culture to culture. In modern Judaism I think the Bar Mitzvah is around the age of 13. It is possible (but we can't know for sure) that in the days of Deuteronomy 14-year-olds might have been considered adults and as such fought in wars, got married, fathered kids and were subject to adult punishments if convicted of criminal offences.

My point exactly. At that time it would be OK for parents to recommend the stoning of their 13 or 14 year old children (per the scripture you quoted earlier), but not today? Why not? The OP implied or made explicit this question as it pertains to past and present issues of morality and how the Old Testament may be used to inform us respectively?

PDN wrote:

Why? Possibly because you have a weakness for equating totally different and unconnected scenarios even when they are separated by thousands of years.

This comment is inappropriate, and you know it. In the past I have both agreed and disagreed with comments you have offered, but never intentionally criticized you personally as having "a weakness" or whatever.

PDN

Standman wrote: »

I think it is apparent that god doesn't mind condemning children to death if he wishes, as seen in Egypt when every firstborn was murdered by him.

Now you're totally changing the subject. There's a world of difference in believing that God gives and takes away life, and living under the morality of the Old Testament Law. Many people, for example, believe that when a baby dies that God "took the child home to heaven" - but that does not lead them to think it's OK for us to kill babies.

Also Jesus wasn't above this sort of thing, as he would have us believe that you must execute your children if they curse or hit you.

Exodus 21:15 "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."

Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

Er, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Jesus didn't write Exodus.

I suppose if you don't like the sound of that you could wiggle around it by saying that only an adult would curse or hit their parents?

No wiggling necessary - just the reading of Scripture in context. In fact, why don't you try it? Go and read Exodus Chapter 21 - the whole chapter. It talks about the owning of slaves etc. and is quite obviously referring throughout to adults.

Tar.Aldarion

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but it is based on the same Windows backend as the Old Testament . Believe it or not that is a good analogy of sorts. Throughout time the Old Testament was developed and expanded upon by the prophets and the Gospel.

And are there any contradictions between the two, moral guides, laws, information?

PDN

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How do you know for certain that was their age, in terms of how we measure age today?

Because then, as now, they measured one's age in years. And then, as now, there were 365 days in a year.

My point exactly. At that time it would be OK for parents to recommend the stoning of their 13 or 14 year old children (per the scripture you quoted earlier), but not today? Why not?

I don't think it's OK to stone anyone today.

As societies become more refined, or 'civilised', childhood gets longer. So Masai teenagers could be hunting lions at an age when my daughter still had to have her homework done and to be in bed by 10pm.

This comment is inappropriate, and you know it. In the past I have both agreed and disagreed with comments you have offered, but never intentionally criticized you personally as having "a weakness" or whatever.

I'm genuinely sorry when I cause anyone offence, but your question was couched in personal terms. You asked "Why does this remind me?" There was nothing in the actual subject matter to cause such a remembrance, so I presumed the answer must lie in your own psyche. Apologies if it was inappropriate. Next time you ask a personal question about your feelings or mental processes I will avoid suggesting any answers.

robindch

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

The NT seems more like an expansion pack, now with added morals?

Nope, with most "morals" removed, so it runs on the widest range of wetware, and lets just about anybody get exactly what they want from it.

Differing interpretations aren't a problem with the bible. Rather, they're an integral part of its enduring popularity.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Plenty of people in the Old Testament lived to be a good age. Moses lived to 120, Joshua & Caleb both lived to be over 80.

And Genesis 5:27 has Methuselah popping his sandals at 969 years.

Do you believe that this actually happened?