Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Apologies x 2. I then sent my apology to myself.
Sorry about the last response, your clarification was not posted when I answered.
Because "that" is not the Biblical position.
That's OK the fault was my carelessness.
What view do you take for example of the Exodus 20 20:21 that say that if the death of a beaten slave is delayed by a day from the beating then no offence has occurred.
And what is your view on the stoning of "stubborn and rebellious" children?
There are, of course, our friends in the Middle East still operating by these rules.
They would argue that denying the absolute truth of any part of the scripture would make it all fall down like a house of cards.
Interestingly that is not amongst your fellow Christian Ahban's responses. He appears to see those things as the Biblical position AFAICS in this thread. At the very least he has never unequivocally denied it (as you have).
You twist the words of the Bible.
Deu 21:18 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:
Deu 21:19 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;
Deu 21:20 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.
You imply little kids, but what little kids are drunkards? And son is not children.
To avoid recapitulating everything and to understand where I am coming from you could read the posts between ahban and myself starting at #315.
OK, so this is alright if the children are adults then? A parent should stone their rebellious and stubborn adult children?
I'll let him speak for himself, but I put "that" in quotes for a reason.
I don't do dances. Read. "son" <> "children". Timothy McVeigh was rebellious.
What has Timothy McVeigh got to do with it? We are talking "stubborn and rebellious", not "mass murderer". To attempt to change the subject into the rights and wrongs of capital punishment for murder is dishonest and irrelevant.
What are you saying here? You must not stone girls for this offence of being "stubborn and rebellious"?
Stop answering it. It's a stupid question that has been answered way too many times. It's a canard and a sham and the creationists know it. Don't give them the pleasure.
I'm not saying anything here. The Bible says "ben" or "son" as translated.
I'm amazed that intelligent people spend so much time responding to the ineducable.
Why did you post then? What was the purpose of that sentence?
Because rebellious is not a minor offense. And if you like to build strawmen, go ahead, but I will not participate. The illustration was to show that "rebellion" was not a minor offense.
Did you see the word "girls" in my answer?
So you do accept that parents can execute their children by stoning for being "stubborn and rebellious", as long as the children are not small kids (and possibly not if they are female?). Naively I thought your unequivocal "no" was to this question. You see I mistakenly saw rebelliousness as a minor offence, not realising that you would equate it with mass murder as practiced by McVeigh. My error. Frankly, I'm astonished.
No but you appeared to be stressing the word "son" rather than "children" so I thought that perhaps you were excluding daughters from the punishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.