Jump to content

Death penalty for rebellious kids. Sounds like a plan.


Aletheia

Recommended Posts

http://www.ibtimes.com/death-penalty-rebellious-children-arkansas-republican-charlie-fuqua-endorses-it-843523

 

"The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21."

 

Thank goodness there are guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Although I'm not verbally lashing out at strangers online' date=' so I haven't quite hit the rock bottom as far as miserable, pathetic lives go. :rolleyes:[/quote']

 

You are the one who made the thread. I just called you out on your obvious ********.

 

Obvious bigot is obvious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is all of Deuteronomy that nasty?

 

I wouldn't say all of it is, but there is a fair bit of "kill em" passages. If anyone, family included, suggests worshipping a different god- if you find a city worshipping a false god, etc. I'd have to read over it to find other specifics, but it's an interesting read..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ibtimes.com/death-penalty-rebellious-children-arkansas-republican-charlie-fuqua-endorses-it-843523

 

"The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore' date=' a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21."

 

Thank goodness there are guidelines.[/quote']

 

 

I think either you or whoever wrote this piece or condones such a thing has grossly misinterpreted the passage in Deuteronomy. And knowing what little I know about how the bible hating crowd rolls on this forum, this is pretty typical.

 

The passage DOES NOT refer to children, but a "rebellious son". And if you read the passage and understand it's context, it refers to a son who is consistently rebellious to his mother and father by being a drunkard, as in, not a child, but a son who is of age enough to buy his own wine and strong drink, as in, a man who is ballsy enough and has enough audacity to defame his own mother and father, to the point that if..... IF... that mother and father feel the need, after taking him to the elders of the synagogue and trying to reprove him, and yet he still rebels, then he is to be put to death. And keep in mind, this is a Jewish ordinance, not something the whole world in that day was to practice, but exclusively God's chosen nation Isreal.

 

Are you aware of many of the contemporary Pagan practices of that day? i.e. - infant sacrifice by fire, boiling of live humans, pagan prostitution practicing priests? I'd say, though strict and harsh, ridding a nation practicing holiness toward a holy God of a contagious rebellion of publicly disrespecting your mother and father by being a longstanding drunk slothard is far less evil than boiling babies for kicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think either you or whoever wrote this piece or condones such a thing has grossly misinterpreted the passage in Deuteronomy. And knowing what little I know about how the bible hating crowd rolls on this forum' date=' this is pretty typical.

 

The passage DOES NOT refer to children, but a "rebellious son". And if you read the passage and understand it's context, it refers to a son who is consistently rebellious to his mother and father by being a drunkard, as in, not a child, but a son who is of age enough to buy his own wine and strong drink, as in, a man who is ballsy enough and has enough audacity to defame his own mother and father, to the point that if..... IF... that mother and father feel the need, after taking him to the elders of the synagogue and trying to reprove him, and yet he still rebels, then he is to be put to death. And keep in mind, this is a Jewish ordinance, not something the whole world in that day was to practice, but exclusively God's chosen nation Isreal.

 

Are you aware of many of the contemporary Pagan practices of that day? i.e. - infant sacrifice by fire, boiling of live humans, pagan prostitution practicing priests? I'd say, though strict and harsh, ridding a nation practicing holiness toward a holy God of a contagious rebellion of publicly disrespecting your mother and father by being a longstanding drunk slothard is far less evil than boiling babies for kicks.[/quote']

 

Umm putting someone to death for simply being a drunkard is still wrong.

 

Just because the Jewish practice was slightly better than the pagan one does not excuse the fact that putting someone to death for simply being a drunkard is unjust.

 

In any case, however, you are right about the passage not being used in the correct context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm putting someone to death for simply being a drunkard is still wrong.

 

Just because the Jewish practice was slightly better than the pagan one does not excuse the fact that putting someone to death for simply being a drunkard is unjust.

 

In any case' date=' however, you are right about the passage not being used in the correct context.[/quote']

 

You are missing the mark. It wasn't because of simply getting drunk frequently. It was because of the culture that existed in the Jewish law of honoring your father and mother. This was serious business, and as we see today the stark difference and antithesis of this taking place in our world/country/culture. Kids today basically do WTF they want to, and they dishonor their parents on a clandestine level world wide. In this vernacular however, Israel, God, Law, Commandments, et al, this was not acceptable. As well, the context of the book of Deuteronomy, namely and exclusively this passage, it pertained not to simply someone getting or staying drunk, but an ongoing defaming of father and mother publicly, by being in continual rebellion of the known law of honoring your father and mother. It was a matter of the heart, which in this case was in direct WILLFUL rebellion of the law of the land/culture/city/nation/God/et al, and which publicly disrespected the name of a family. Names were everything in that day, and it's something our generation hasn't a clue about. You have to put yourself in the context of that age, and that culture to understand it. To say that it's just plain wrong to put to death someone for being drunk, yeah, I would agree, especially in our vernacular. But it was different there and then. And who is to say that your logic or theirs was right or wrong. Is your logic right? Where do you derive your moral objective reality from?

 

Yes, this law was harsh. But it was rarely practiced. It was there to keep "rebellion to law" in check. I can't recall but maybe one time in the whole bible this law was carried out. You do realize the parents of the ongoing consistently rebellious drunkard son would have to first take the adult son to the courts ("city gates") to have him tried first. Just because parents had this authority didn't mean they did it. You'd have to be sure that your sure that your sure you want to take your own son before the public courts to subsequently have him stoned to death. This would be a VERY extreme measure, if ever carried out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think either you or whoever wrote this piece or condones such a thing has grossly misinterpreted the passage in Deuteronomy. And knowing what little I know about how the bible hating crowd rolls on this forum' date=' this is pretty typical.

 

The passage DOES NOT refer to children, but a "rebellious son". And if you read the passage and understand it's context, it refers to a son who is consistently rebellious to his mother and father by being a drunkard, as in, not a child, but a son who is of age enough to buy his own wine and strong drink, as in, a man who is ballsy enough and has enough audacity to defame his own mother and father, to the point that if..... IF... that mother and father feel the need, after taking him to the elders of the synagogue and trying to reprove him, and yet he still rebels, then he is to be put to death. And keep in mind, this is a Jewish ordinance, not something the whole world in that day was to practice, but exclusively God's chosen nation Isreal.

 

Are you aware of many of the contemporary Pagan practices of that day? i.e. - infant sacrifice by fire, boiling of live humans, pagan prostitution practicing priests? I'd say, though strict and harsh, ridding a nation practicing holiness toward a holy God of a contagious rebellion of publicly disrespecting your mother and father by being a longstanding drunk slothard is far less evil than boiling babies for kicks.[/quote']

 

 

 

I know weve had our differences, and I'm in no way presuming were buddies now, but I must say, your patience in this matter is admirable. I too grow weary of explaining matters of context to those who sincerely have no interest in it, but knowingly rip apart portions of scripture and use them in isolation for their own purposes.It would be akin to me, someone with no understanding of Islamic teachings, to simply flip through a few pages of the Qur'an, and find something "interesting" to quote out of context, and then presume to sigh in utter dismay at how horrible Muslims are.

 

I dont have to be a follower of Allah to know such an act would not only be grossly insincere, but actually indicative of my own hateful and deceptive nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep' date=' we don't need to be compassionate to undeveloped minds. Just kill em.[/quote']

 

they are not necessarily undeveloped minds. there are thousands of different reasons why a child may not respect their parents like bad parenting, influence from friends, or basically any other aspect coming from social influence.

 

if anything, complete uneducated retards like this guy from arkansas should be put down for the benefit of mankind. if he was uneducated and worked at a mcdonalds and didnt try to **** up peoples lives with his stupidity then fine. if he is advocating death due to his stupid ****ing beliefs then he himself should be killed (and yes i know im making my own beliefs but its better if one idiot dies than countless of kids who listen to punk music). of course killing the guy is a little harsh, all u really need to do is keep uneducated idiots out of office.

 

sure he has a university degree but in what, political science and law im guessing? ive taken several political science courses and they do not prepare people to be politicians, they just show them how to become politicians which is completely different. if anything people who want a career representing society should actually take Sociology (poli sci is technically a social science but its content drifts greatly from the point of sociology). at least with that they will learn how not everyone thinks as they do and the meaning of life isnt to rule the world or become filthy rich. political science is something that should be studied like law in law school... in its own department, and after learning something about society itself. its basically like throwing a historical arts student into political office...

 

if it turns out that this guy did study sociology it makes it even worse because it solidifies his stupidity in the fact that he did not understand or learn anything from the content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are missing the mark. It wasn't because of simply getting drunk frequently. It was because of the culture that existed in the Jewish law of honoring your father and mother. This was serious business' date=' and as we see today the stark difference and antithesis of this taking place in our world/country/culture. Kids today basically do WTF they want to, and they dishonor their parents on a clandestine level world wide. In this vernacular however, Israel, God, Law, Commandments, et al, this was not acceptable. As well, the context of the book of Deuteronomy, namely and exclusively this passage, it pertained not to simply someone getting or staying drunk, but an ongoing defaming of father and mother publicly, by being in continual rebellion of the known law of honoring your father and mother. It was a matter of the heart, which in this case was in direct WILLFUL rebellion of the law of the land/culture/city/nation/God/et al, and which publicly disrespected the name of a family. Names were everything in that day, and it's something our generation hasn't a clue about. You have to put yourself in the context of that age, and that culture to understand it. To say that it's just plain wrong to put to death someone for being drunk, yeah, I would agree, especially in our vernacular.[b'] But it was different there and then. And who is to say that your logic or theirs was right or wrong. Is your logic right? Where do you derive your moral objective reality from? [/b]

 

Yes, this law was harsh. But it was rarely practiced. It was there to keep "rebellion to law" in check. I can't recall but maybe one time in the whole bible this law was carried out. You do realize the parents of the ongoing consistently rebellious drunkard son would have to first take the adult son to the courts ("city gates") to have him tried first. Just because parents had this authority didn't mean they did it. You'd have to be sure that your sure that your sure you want to take your own son before the public courts to subsequently have him stoned to death. This would be a VERY extreme measure, if ever carried out.

 

Well I can change my disagreement to being putting someone to death for simply disrespecting their parental figures is still poor judgement.

 

As to the bolded, if you are claiming that morals are subject to time and culture then you are taking a stance of moral relativism. That is a position I fervently disagree with. I believe what is wrong or right for us in the here and now was wrong or right for ancient cultures, but I suspect I won't be able to prove objective morals anytime soon. I can merely argue that building a society around objective morals is the best practice.

 

To the second bolded I am unconcerned with whether or not it was a rare occurrence. The fact that they had such a law in the first place is what I disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bunch of nutbags these guys are. i guess thats what the church will do to you

 

clean your room or you get the electric chair!

do my dirty dishes or its lethal injection for you

go to the store and buy daddy some condoms or you get the noose

mop this floor with a toothbrush or you get the firing squad!

take out the garbage son or ill burn you at the stake

remove daddies butt hairs or youll meet the iron maiden

go get daddy some beer or its the brazen bull for you!

 

ahh i can see it now. thatll keep my kids in check if they dont want to listen. to hell with spanking them when i can just remind them of what happened to their brother when he didnt want to clean the toilet.when i told him to . but by the time they grow up im gonna have to worry about my kid rebelling and killing me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think either you or whoever wrote this piece or condones such a thing has grossly misinterpreted the passage in Deuteronomy. And knowing what little I know about how the bible hating crowd rolls on this forum' date=' this is pretty typical.

 

The passage DOES NOT refer to children, but a "rebellious son". And if you read the passage and understand it's context, it refers to a son who is consistently rebellious to his mother and father by being a drunkard, as in, not a child, but a son who is of age enough to buy his own wine and strong drink, as in, a man who is ballsy enough and has enough audacity to defame his own mother and father, to the point that if..... IF... that mother and father feel the need, after taking him to the elders of the synagogue and trying to reprove him, and yet he still rebels, then he is to be put to death. And keep in mind, this is a Jewish ordinance, not something the whole world in that day was to practice, but exclusively God's chosen nation Isreal.

 

Are you aware of many of the contemporary Pagan practices of that day? i.e. - infant sacrifice by fire, boiling of live humans, pagan prostitution practicing priests? I'd say, though strict and harsh, ridding a nation practicing holiness toward a holy God of a contagious rebellion of publicly disrespecting your mother and father by being a longstanding drunk slothard is far less evil than boiling babies for kicks.[/quote']

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are missing the mark. It wasn't because of simply getting drunk frequently. It was because of the culture that existed in the Jewish law of honoring your father and mother. This was serious business' date=' and as we see today the stark difference and antithesis of this taking place in our world/country/culture. Kids today basically do WTF they want to, and they dishonor their parents on a clandestine level world wide. In this vernacular however, Israel, God, Law, Commandments, et al, this was not acceptable. As well, the context of the book of Deuteronomy, namely and exclusively this passage, it pertained not to simply someone getting or staying drunk, but an ongoing defaming of father and mother publicly, by being in continual rebellion of the known law of honoring your father and mother. It was a matter of the heart, which in this case was in direct WILLFUL rebellion of the law of the land/culture/city/nation/God/et al, and which publicly disrespected the name of a family. Names were everything in that day, and it's something our generation hasn't a clue about. You have to put yourself in the context of that age, and that culture to understand it. To say that it's just plain wrong to put to death someone for being drunk, yeah, I would agree, especially in our vernacular. But it was different there and then. And who is to say that your logic or theirs was right or wrong. Is your logic right? Where do you derive your moral objective reality from?

 

Yes, this law was harsh. But it was rarely practiced. It was there to keep "rebellion to law" in check. I can't recall but maybe one time in the whole bible this law was carried out. You do realize the parents of the ongoing consistently rebellious drunkard son would have to first take the adult son to the courts ("city gates") to have him tried first. Just because parents had this authority didn't mean they did it. You'd have to be sure that your sure that your sure you want to take your own son before the public courts to subsequently have him stoned to death. This would be a VERY extreme measure, if ever carried out.[/quote']

 

+1

 

 

your explinations are well thought out and nicely put....gj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ibtimes.com/death-penalty-rebellious-children-arkansas-republican-charlie-fuqua-endorses-it-843523

 

"The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore' date=' a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21."

 

Thank goodness there are guidelines.[/quote']

 

But we can't spank kids in Delaware.

 

LOL This is madness..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...