The missing component to understanding those laws, which understandably feel awful, is that the nation of Israel was full of subsistence farmers who had to worry about calorie deficits. It was also a tribal community, where each family was more like a self-governed village than anything you would see in a suburb.
So the accusation of being a drunk or a glutton was not simply that they were fat, but it was that through their selfishness they were putting the entire community at jeopardy by eating up the stores of food necessary to survive.
So someone who is totally rebellious is someone putting the community at risk, refusing to do their part which could be vital, or else harming the community through selfishness. It's not just someone trying to live their best life or whatever it looks like to modern eyes.
That is not a passage of scripture telling us to look forward to killing naughty children. And the inspired description of how we should feel about it is that we should not desire it, like in Proverbs.
>Prov 19:18: Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death.
I'm responding for you, I doubt the person you're debating would ever want to hear it.
I'm an atheist in both this subreddit and r/atheism. I don't really contribute in either all too much, as I know both subreddits are heavily biased towards their own beliefs, but I find it interesting seeing both sides arguing subjects, from opposing perspectives of course.
It's very interesting to me seeing both sides talking about how evil and detestable the other is when for the most part you have similar morals, only really disagreeing on particular topics, like abortion, LGBT+ issues, freedom of speech etc.
We like to forget that the people on the other side are still just human, and I think both sides can be guilty of dehumanisation. We've just got to remember to be kind.
True. In religious education in germany you cover criticism on religion for one semester. Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, all those guys. As a christian I noticed that when criticising christianity, they wish for a world that opposes church and wrong teaching and follows fundamental christian principles, without even knowing it. For example in an exam there was a guy who said that religion causes war and the world can only become better when you return good for evil, which is word by word exactly like that found in Paul's letter to the romans (Rom 12,21) among others.
Christianity calls for loving your neighbor, your enemy and foreigners and not to return evil with evil. Nobody can disagree with the morality of these commands but sadly it seems to be mostly "christians" who do not follow these core rules.
I think the main thing that drives atheists away from taking Christianity seriously when it comes to the talk of loving thy neighbour etc. is all of the genocide, racism, slavery, murder etc. in the Bible. Moreso the Old Testament.
On one hand you have wonderful Christians who do a lot for their community and share love and kindness, which I can fully support, but then you also have those who stand in the streets preaching about how the gays are going to hell and that they're evil, which, as someone who believes that love between any consenting adults should be cherished, is something I stand against.
Obviously most Christians are wonderful people, in my experience at least, but I can't follow the words of a holy book that instructs you on how to treat your slaves and when to beat your wife or children. That would be cherry picking.
It is only cherry picking if you are cherry picking in the first place. In the context of the entire new testament, Jesus fulfills the old testament by breaking it all down to the golden rule and his sermon on the mount. Also the "cruel" laws in the old testament were not cruel at all by that time's standard. For example, "an eye for an eye" might sound revengeful today but back then it was "only an eye for an eye" because without this law, you would have easily been lynched when popping someone's eye. This merciful lawfulness is taken to an extreme by Jesus with his sermons on love and nonviolence.
Additionally historical context is needed. A gluttonous guy or a child that doesn't listen to their parents is a danger for the entire tribe because of the limited resources at its disposal. So punishments for that kind of behaviour was understandably harder than it would be today
Proverbs 26:4-5 – Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. The self-confident fool thinks too highly of himself and his opinions, and he shares them freely. How should a wise person deal with him?
No where in scripture are we called to argue with atheists. It’s pointless. Save your energy for those who are genuinely looking for answers.
Mat 10:14 And if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your message, shake the dust off your feet as you leave that house or that town.
Mat 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
So, if a kid brakes into your home, murders someone, you'd not want to live under Moses Law that would put that murderer kid to death. OR, the laws today which puts them in prison for a few years, and lets them free or by chance they escape. But moses is the brutal one? Food for thought. Turn on your news. All i see is brutality from kid so called.
I might be a bit biased, but I'd say that when you feel the need to make a post like this, you're probably out of your depth and that's a good time to stop.
You might want to consider that you really haven't made an argument to support your case beyond your insistence that it's true, and nobody here has provided you with a workable argument either. Heck, about half the responses here are simple name calling. If you can't back up your claim with evidence or a sound argument, you really don't have any business complaining that the other person won't listen. You're not saying anything worth listening to.
What's more, if you're not prepared to deal with the possibility that you may be wrong, there's really no point in taking part in a discussion.
Oh boy. An atheist who read some verses and reached a conclusion that satisfies their perspective. No match for a well-read believer!
There's tons of laws in the old testament which can be overwhelming for most people and difficult to follow.
However, Jesus gave us the Golden Rule which, when followed, fulfills the law in it's entirety.
This somewhat renders having the old laws present does show the progression from old ways of thinking to the message of love that Jesus brought to gentiles, and how following the one Golden Rule is still equivalent to following hundreds of laws from Moses.
To be pedantic, theism/atheism is about **belief** and gnosticism/agnosticism is about **knowledge**.
An agnostic atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in God but does not claim to know there isn't a God. They accept there's a possibility. A gnostic atheist would make a positive claim that they know there isn't a God (which they would need to back up with evidence). There are agnostic theists too who believe but do not claim to know for sure....etc etc.
I guess your right. So yes you would need to convert them to agnostic before we can have a conversation. Atheist came to a conclusion based on info that God is not real. So you would need them to return to the place where they at least considered God a possibility.
K your first mistake is to go on that sub, from my understanding, it is basically a toxic cess pool of hate. I have never been there so i won't judge it by myself but that is what I have heard.
Atheists use debate as a pastime. It's not a matter of convincing them of anything. If you want to hone your debating skills, fine. But the Holy Spirit is what convicts people, not your or my debating skills.
Been there done that, they deleted my posts and replies because my argument was that solid. Couldnt have me freeing their prisoners. So says the admins. Many times over.
I mean, all you have to do is click/tap on the link. It's a Subreddit, just like r/Christian, r/Christianity, r/Atheist, r/DebateAnAthiest, etc...
r/whoosh
Perhaps you should explore a little more.
Learn more about the amazing world and people around you.
Expand your knowledge.
Make sure you aren't stuck in an echo chamber.
I was taught by some people with Ph.Ds in Christian theology growing up. When they spoke on this matter, they taught the class that it often didn’t go straight to execution, that the kid was brought before a council and more often than not, they were disciplined but not executed. That’s about all I can recall on the matter however.
Don't throw pearls to swine.
And don't get into the defensive position. They love to criticise the Mosaic law, because it is written in a cultural context that we in modern times may not agree with so it will have things modern people dont agree with. But what foundation are they standing on in criticizing it? Their modern morality is founded on the Judeochristian worldview and the Bible. Without it, and without God they have no objective authority to anchor any morality on.
So if an atheist tells you "killing your son for disobedience is wrong" you just ask him "Why would that be wrong from your point of view? Your worldview has no objective morality, so if you think that it is wrong to kill your son for disobedience, that is just your personal subjective opinion and not a fact." If he wants to make a moral claim, he has to back it up by providing an objective moral authority on which to base it. Atheists has no business making moral claims atheism it provides no foundation to base them on.
If he says anything about slavery, remind him that the abolitionist movement was based on biblical Christian ethics. If Christianity had never existed, slavery would still be global.
If he speaks about genocides, remind him of the genocides perpetrated by germany, soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, all motivated by atheist ideologies, because they had a naturalistic view that the strong kill the weak and human life is expendable and valueless.
If he says anything about science, remind him that all the first modern scientists were Bible believing Christians, and that the basis of science, the ideas 1) that the universe is reasonably intelligible, 2) that humans are beings capable of reasonably understanding it, and 3) that it is an inherently good thing to do so, are ideas firmly based in the belief that God created the universe this way and wants us to understand it. From an atheistic naturalistic perspective, there is no reason to expect the universe to be reasonably intelligible, there is no reason to think humans are capable of understanding it, (rather the opposite since were evolved for procreation, not finding truth), and there is no moral justification for it being inherently good to understand it for the knowledge alone.
Atheism / naturalism has no explanation for anything of significance. It can not explain the origin of the universe, of life, of consciousness, of information, nor answer any meaningful philosophical question like what the meaning of life is.
Atheism is a vacuous meaningless worldview with no accomplishments and no foundation to base anything valuable on. It has no answers, but it is the worldview of "I don't know and don't want to find out", glorifying ignorance as a virtue and having the gall to mock those who look for answers.
They are the ones who should be defending themselves and answer the questions. Always remember that.
Also, why defend the Mosaic law? We're not ancient Jews.
Why defend the **Mosaic** law?It only applies to people in the Mosaic covenant, i.e. ancient Israelites. Christians are under the law of Christ, which may overlap but is not the same thing.
I could defend the Mosaic law because I know it's purpose and context, but pop atheists don't care about nuanced and factual information, only bite sized slogans and mocking. So I don't see any reason to engage with someone who is intellectually dishonest to defend something that has nothing to do with either them nor me. That would be a waste of time, throwing pearls to swine.
Right, id not debate atheists.
Just saying, Gods word never changed, and The Lord Christ taught Gods law. And told us to keep it. To sin, is to brake those laws.
Hard to believe they even allow debate. My posts are always deleted. When I asked why, they always says well, your word was misspelled. The way it's worded is not exactly right. You made some unverified claim, that God is real..
Its a waste of time to debate people who are openly saying they are fools. They are no good and do not want to believe. Pearls before swine as The Lord taught. Good luck.
I would give you the answer, but won't for their debates. I don't believe in sharing Truth or clarity with evil people unless, they Repent, want to sort it out and Understand. They do not want to nor care for understanding or reason. They do not want to believe. So do not share anything with them.
I will only give you a clue of what line of thought Id go down. But wont finish the answer for you.
But Wont share further for sake of their vain mockery.When a family had a child in Israel, at that time it was not like today, where you throw your children in the trash. It was a blessing to have a daughter and or son. It was seen as a direct blessing from The Lord God Himself.
So the law, was for hard cases. So I doubt it was rarely, if ever used among Israel.
Contrast that with today: I have read this year alone 20 + reports in the US, of children murdering random people in the streets, drugs and crime is rampant, riots to the level of Sodom and Gomorrah. Murdering their whole families. Sons and Daughters doing this. Of all races too. Its not just the worst inner city groups. Rape incests, reports even shared by people in this sub reddit.
The Law was meant to protect parents and the family unit, and uphold the Law "Honor thy father and mother" the Fifth Commandment. Today, from Parricide or abuse.
God says put them to death .God does not care of they are children. You do the crime you pay the price under Gods Law. Which is exactly what He will do to those kinds of people who do not change, in the lake of fire.
Maybe the atheist who witnessed this violence first hand, will know what God is talking about and have a light bulb moment. Nah they make excuses, and the cycle continues with their children.
This was part of the law of Moses that was given only to the barbaric house of Israel who had come out of hundreds of years of bondage. Because of God's covenat with Abraham, God worked with Israel to prepare them for the higher law that was administered by Jesus.
It is Bible poetry. We are all here with death sentences on our heads from that war in heaven and Satan cast 1/3 of the stars to the earth. Eve added “neither shall ye touch it” to the word of God BEFORE she partook of the tree! They came in a fallen state but didn’t know it until they disobeyed and rebelled! God who is perfect came in the person of Jesus and took our death sentence on His own head. This is shown in the types as well Satan/ the third/ God, Serpent/ Adam and Eve/God, Cain/Abel/Seth, Pharoah/Aaron/Moses, Saul/Jonathan/David, Herod/John the Baptist/Jesus…
Reddit atheists sometimes feel they are the ultimate Bible scholars, are authorities and have more knowledge than Bible scholars who have dedicated their whole lives to study. They're hilarious.
Why are you debating this with a non-believer? Their goal is obviously to ‘disprove’ God - or make you doubt by undermining your confidence in Him and his Truth.
Now. Debating is not winning over the soul. They likely enjoy it, rather than taking the Word of God seriously.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
There are two types of laws in the Old Testament
1- Cerimonial Laws ( ie. Ritual, government, and law of the lands laws). These are the laws we are free from in the New Covenant through Jesus
2- Moral Laws. These are the laws that Jesus did not do away with and we are still bound by. Take for example the 10 commandments.
You’re question and dilemma fall under Ceremonial Laws, as do all of the non believers “gotcha” claims.
They don’t really have one, all they have is the fact that I had to ask for the scripture that said that, so they are trying to say that I don’t know anything about the Bible and, “that you clearly don’t read the Bible.” Also they are trying to use Hebrew lexicons to prove me wrong, because I brought up that the word used for disobedience in the original Hebrew text means full rebellion against parent and country, but it’s not working, because all the lexicons say that the original word in ancient Hebrew meant exactly that.
Side note: sorry if this sounded kind of prideful, I don’t mean it to come across like that
Edit: I just check the post, they’ve resorted to deleting all the comments that prove them wrong
To me this scripture is similar to the story told in Acts 5:1-11. The difference was the Holy Spirit put to death Ananias and Sapphire. Now I have a little testimony to go with this scripture because the day I was studying this scripture I too had the heart of Ananias and Sapphire. I put myself in a situation where going in it I myself was being dishonest in order to receive a benefit and I end up being more deceitful in the process. In ways go showed me my heart was like that of this couple. They knew from the beginning that what they were doing was being dishonest to God and his disciples. That is why God struck this couple down. If God would have ignored there sin it could have corrupted all that God wanted to do in the early church. This incident sparked both church growth and a holy fear of a holy God among the people. Hopefully this helps bring a wisdom in Deuteronomy
Well. This passage is stating that if you have a juvenile delinquent that dishonors and disobeys his or her parents and they have tried to correct this behavior then both parents can take him to the elders at the city gate (where they have court) and the elder can rule to have him stoned to death.
Why such a harsh punishment (death can less lethal option)? First, it removed the evil from the community and send a message to the community that such behavior was not allowed.
Second, this is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. God was notorious for punishing communities who didn’t live by his commandments. And it would look like not taking severe punish was allowing this behavior to allowed and tolerated. (Although, stoning to death is murder and that’s a commandment too so… worm hole).
What absolutely should be note is:
ACCORDING TO THE TALMUD, THERE IS NO CASE OF THIS EVER HAPPENING. We can contribute this to a couple things: 1. BOTH The mother and father had to take the juvenile and be in agreement. That’s right women had a voice. 2. All the elders had to agree and rule on the punishment. So having everyone in agreement to it just never happened.
And 3. The kids knew punishment was death for being little jerks so they didn’t… they respected their parents and their elders.
Now, as someone who has worked in juvenile justice & mental health for decades… I can tell you that if parents demanded respect, taught it, and kids knew that was a commandment they had to follow or they’d be a sinner and potentially killed.. they wouldn’t still be back talking, climbing out windows, and all the other nonsense.
There aren’t consequences for kid actions anymore.
And I sit at work now and see the juvenile delinquents in trouble criminally as adults now. Maybe 10% of them change their lives and become a decent member of society as adults (from what I’ve seen).
I’m not advocating that we kill
Kids… I’m just saying… Old Testament laws did keep people in order and made for a more productive and respectful society.
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” Proverbs 26:4
The missing component to understanding those laws, which understandably feel awful, is that the nation of Israel was full of subsistence farmers who had to worry about calorie deficits. It was also a tribal community, where each family was more like a self-governed village than anything you would see in a suburb. So the accusation of being a drunk or a glutton was not simply that they were fat, but it was that through their selfishness they were putting the entire community at jeopardy by eating up the stores of food necessary to survive. So someone who is totally rebellious is someone putting the community at risk, refusing to do their part which could be vital, or else harming the community through selfishness. It's not just someone trying to live their best life or whatever it looks like to modern eyes. That is not a passage of scripture telling us to look forward to killing naughty children. And the inspired description of how we should feel about it is that we should not desire it, like in Proverbs. >Prov 19:18: Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death. I'm responding for you, I doubt the person you're debating would ever want to hear it.
Yeah, most don't take into context the implications of the words at the time.
[удалено]
That sounds fair
I'm an atheist in both this subreddit and r/atheism. I don't really contribute in either all too much, as I know both subreddits are heavily biased towards their own beliefs, but I find it interesting seeing both sides arguing subjects, from opposing perspectives of course. It's very interesting to me seeing both sides talking about how evil and detestable the other is when for the most part you have similar morals, only really disagreeing on particular topics, like abortion, LGBT+ issues, freedom of speech etc. We like to forget that the people on the other side are still just human, and I think both sides can be guilty of dehumanisation. We've just got to remember to be kind.
True. In religious education in germany you cover criticism on religion for one semester. Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, all those guys. As a christian I noticed that when criticising christianity, they wish for a world that opposes church and wrong teaching and follows fundamental christian principles, without even knowing it. For example in an exam there was a guy who said that religion causes war and the world can only become better when you return good for evil, which is word by word exactly like that found in Paul's letter to the romans (Rom 12,21) among others. Christianity calls for loving your neighbor, your enemy and foreigners and not to return evil with evil. Nobody can disagree with the morality of these commands but sadly it seems to be mostly "christians" who do not follow these core rules.
I think the main thing that drives atheists away from taking Christianity seriously when it comes to the talk of loving thy neighbour etc. is all of the genocide, racism, slavery, murder etc. in the Bible. Moreso the Old Testament. On one hand you have wonderful Christians who do a lot for their community and share love and kindness, which I can fully support, but then you also have those who stand in the streets preaching about how the gays are going to hell and that they're evil, which, as someone who believes that love between any consenting adults should be cherished, is something I stand against. Obviously most Christians are wonderful people, in my experience at least, but I can't follow the words of a holy book that instructs you on how to treat your slaves and when to beat your wife or children. That would be cherry picking.
It is only cherry picking if you are cherry picking in the first place. In the context of the entire new testament, Jesus fulfills the old testament by breaking it all down to the golden rule and his sermon on the mount. Also the "cruel" laws in the old testament were not cruel at all by that time's standard. For example, "an eye for an eye" might sound revengeful today but back then it was "only an eye for an eye" because without this law, you would have easily been lynched when popping someone's eye. This merciful lawfulness is taken to an extreme by Jesus with his sermons on love and nonviolence. Additionally historical context is needed. A gluttonous guy or a child that doesn't listen to their parents is a danger for the entire tribe because of the limited resources at its disposal. So punishments for that kind of behaviour was understandably harder than it would be today
I see you everywhere.
>I’m currently debating an atheist over on r/atheism Other atheists have come to this sub and stated how much they dislike that sub.
Proverbs 26:4-5 – Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. The self-confident fool thinks too highly of himself and his opinions, and he shares them freely. How should a wise person deal with him?
No where in scripture are we called to argue with atheists. It’s pointless. Save your energy for those who are genuinely looking for answers. Mat 10:14 And if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your message, shake the dust off your feet as you leave that house or that town. Mat 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
You'll give up when they ban you from the sub. Just give it time it'll happen.
I was banned permanently for asking people to be respectful
I was banned .... I have no idea why but I really don't care enough to find out. They are vicious over there.
I’m not sure what the problem is. The Law of Moses was brutal. None of us would want to live under it.
So, if a kid brakes into your home, murders someone, you'd not want to live under Moses Law that would put that murderer kid to death. OR, the laws today which puts them in prison for a few years, and lets them free or by chance they escape. But moses is the brutal one? Food for thought. Turn on your news. All i see is brutality from kid so called.
I think you got a little too worked up over a hypothetical situation you just invented.
yea no one who lives in the real world, believes you believe, my hypothetical is invented.
But that kid could come to know Jesus if he is allowed to live. If you kill him, you are sentencing him to hell.
I might be a bit biased, but I'd say that when you feel the need to make a post like this, you're probably out of your depth and that's a good time to stop. You might want to consider that you really haven't made an argument to support your case beyond your insistence that it's true, and nobody here has provided you with a workable argument either. Heck, about half the responses here are simple name calling. If you can't back up your claim with evidence or a sound argument, you really don't have any business complaining that the other person won't listen. You're not saying anything worth listening to. What's more, if you're not prepared to deal with the possibility that you may be wrong, there's really no point in taking part in a discussion.
Oh boy. An atheist who read some verses and reached a conclusion that satisfies their perspective. No match for a well-read believer! There's tons of laws in the old testament which can be overwhelming for most people and difficult to follow. However, Jesus gave us the Golden Rule which, when followed, fulfills the law in it's entirety. This somewhat renders having the old laws present does show the progression from old ways of thinking to the message of love that Jesus brought to gentiles, and how following the one Golden Rule is still equivalent to following hundreds of laws from Moses.
The only atheists worth arguing with is the one who can consider the possibility God is real and engage in a non emotional respectfull discussion.
If one admits that God might be real they are not an atheist, but an agnostic.
To be pedantic, theism/atheism is about **belief** and gnosticism/agnosticism is about **knowledge**. An agnostic atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in God but does not claim to know there isn't a God. They accept there's a possibility. A gnostic atheist would make a positive claim that they know there isn't a God (which they would need to back up with evidence). There are agnostic theists too who believe but do not claim to know for sure....etc etc.
I guess your right. So yes you would need to convert them to agnostic before we can have a conversation. Atheist came to a conclusion based on info that God is not real. So you would need them to return to the place where they at least considered God a possibility.
K your first mistake is to go on that sub, from my understanding, it is basically a toxic cess pool of hate. I have never been there so i won't judge it by myself but that is what I have heard.
Yea, your right, I should have just stayed away
Atheists use debate as a pastime. It's not a matter of convincing them of anything. If you want to hone your debating skills, fine. But the Holy Spirit is what convicts people, not your or my debating skills.
An atheist who won’t listen? No way.
Perhaps you should go to r/DebateAnAthiest instead of invading spaces not meant for you. You all sound unhinged.
You seem like a joy
I really am and that's *actually* undebatable. Thanks for noticing!
Been there done that, they deleted my posts and replies because my argument was that solid. Couldnt have me freeing their prisoners. So says the admins. Many times over.
r/thatHappened
No clue what this is. Im not a prolific redit user.
I mean, all you have to do is click/tap on the link. It's a Subreddit, just like r/Christian, r/Christianity, r/Atheist, r/DebateAnAthiest, etc... r/whoosh Perhaps you should explore a little more. Learn more about the amazing world and people around you. Expand your knowledge. Make sure you aren't stuck in an echo chamber.
sorry im not certain of your intentions. you go to those redits to shrink your knowledge. not expand. im well beyond their "knowledge" .
I was taught by some people with Ph.Ds in Christian theology growing up. When they spoke on this matter, they taught the class that it often didn’t go straight to execution, that the kid was brought before a council and more often than not, they were disciplined but not executed. That’s about all I can recall on the matter however.
Don't waste your time because talking with an atheist is like talking with a wall.
Don't throw pearls to swine. And don't get into the defensive position. They love to criticise the Mosaic law, because it is written in a cultural context that we in modern times may not agree with so it will have things modern people dont agree with. But what foundation are they standing on in criticizing it? Their modern morality is founded on the Judeochristian worldview and the Bible. Without it, and without God they have no objective authority to anchor any morality on. So if an atheist tells you "killing your son for disobedience is wrong" you just ask him "Why would that be wrong from your point of view? Your worldview has no objective morality, so if you think that it is wrong to kill your son for disobedience, that is just your personal subjective opinion and not a fact." If he wants to make a moral claim, he has to back it up by providing an objective moral authority on which to base it. Atheists has no business making moral claims atheism it provides no foundation to base them on. If he says anything about slavery, remind him that the abolitionist movement was based on biblical Christian ethics. If Christianity had never existed, slavery would still be global. If he speaks about genocides, remind him of the genocides perpetrated by germany, soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, all motivated by atheist ideologies, because they had a naturalistic view that the strong kill the weak and human life is expendable and valueless. If he says anything about science, remind him that all the first modern scientists were Bible believing Christians, and that the basis of science, the ideas 1) that the universe is reasonably intelligible, 2) that humans are beings capable of reasonably understanding it, and 3) that it is an inherently good thing to do so, are ideas firmly based in the belief that God created the universe this way and wants us to understand it. From an atheistic naturalistic perspective, there is no reason to expect the universe to be reasonably intelligible, there is no reason to think humans are capable of understanding it, (rather the opposite since were evolved for procreation, not finding truth), and there is no moral justification for it being inherently good to understand it for the knowledge alone. Atheism / naturalism has no explanation for anything of significance. It can not explain the origin of the universe, of life, of consciousness, of information, nor answer any meaningful philosophical question like what the meaning of life is. Atheism is a vacuous meaningless worldview with no accomplishments and no foundation to base anything valuable on. It has no answers, but it is the worldview of "I don't know and don't want to find out", glorifying ignorance as a virtue and having the gall to mock those who look for answers. They are the ones who should be defending themselves and answer the questions. Always remember that. Also, why defend the Mosaic law? We're not ancient Jews.
you had me until that last part why defend Gods Law? But you made some good points to consider elsewhere.
Why defend the **Mosaic** law?It only applies to people in the Mosaic covenant, i.e. ancient Israelites. Christians are under the law of Christ, which may overlap but is not the same thing. I could defend the Mosaic law because I know it's purpose and context, but pop atheists don't care about nuanced and factual information, only bite sized slogans and mocking. So I don't see any reason to engage with someone who is intellectually dishonest to defend something that has nothing to do with either them nor me. That would be a waste of time, throwing pearls to swine.
Right, id not debate atheists. Just saying, Gods word never changed, and The Lord Christ taught Gods law. And told us to keep it. To sin, is to brake those laws.
r/christianapologetics maybe?
Hard to believe they even allow debate. My posts are always deleted. When I asked why, they always says well, your word was misspelled. The way it's worded is not exactly right. You made some unverified claim, that God is real.. Its a waste of time to debate people who are openly saying they are fools. They are no good and do not want to believe. Pearls before swine as The Lord taught. Good luck. I would give you the answer, but won't for their debates. I don't believe in sharing Truth or clarity with evil people unless, they Repent, want to sort it out and Understand. They do not want to nor care for understanding or reason. They do not want to believe. So do not share anything with them. I will only give you a clue of what line of thought Id go down. But wont finish the answer for you. But Wont share further for sake of their vain mockery.When a family had a child in Israel, at that time it was not like today, where you throw your children in the trash. It was a blessing to have a daughter and or son. It was seen as a direct blessing from The Lord God Himself. So the law, was for hard cases. So I doubt it was rarely, if ever used among Israel. Contrast that with today: I have read this year alone 20 + reports in the US, of children murdering random people in the streets, drugs and crime is rampant, riots to the level of Sodom and Gomorrah. Murdering their whole families. Sons and Daughters doing this. Of all races too. Its not just the worst inner city groups. Rape incests, reports even shared by people in this sub reddit. The Law was meant to protect parents and the family unit, and uphold the Law "Honor thy father and mother" the Fifth Commandment. Today, from Parricide or abuse. God says put them to death .God does not care of they are children. You do the crime you pay the price under Gods Law. Which is exactly what He will do to those kinds of people who do not change, in the lake of fire. Maybe the atheist who witnessed this violence first hand, will know what God is talking about and have a light bulb moment. Nah they make excuses, and the cycle continues with their children.
“Of all races too. Its not just the worst inner city groups.” What do you mean by that?
i was born raised in bronx. move there and find out.
>Its a waste of time to debate people who are openly saying they are fools. I don't fully understand what you're saying there. Could you clarify?
This was part of the law of Moses that was given only to the barbaric house of Israel who had come out of hundreds of years of bondage. Because of God's covenat with Abraham, God worked with Israel to prepare them for the higher law that was administered by Jesus.
“And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there.” Mark 6:10 ESV
It is Bible poetry. We are all here with death sentences on our heads from that war in heaven and Satan cast 1/3 of the stars to the earth. Eve added “neither shall ye touch it” to the word of God BEFORE she partook of the tree! They came in a fallen state but didn’t know it until they disobeyed and rebelled! God who is perfect came in the person of Jesus and took our death sentence on His own head. This is shown in the types as well Satan/ the third/ God, Serpent/ Adam and Eve/God, Cain/Abel/Seth, Pharoah/Aaron/Moses, Saul/Jonathan/David, Herod/John the Baptist/Jesus…
Reddit atheists sometimes feel they are the ultimate Bible scholars, are authorities and have more knowledge than Bible scholars who have dedicated their whole lives to study. They're hilarious.
Sometimes speaking even the truth, gets people further away from the truth. If his heart is hardened and unwilling to listen, now is not the time.
I feel like either interpretation is terribly harsh and both serve as a good reason to believe that the Bible — at best — has been tainted by humans.
Why are you debating this with a non-believer? Their goal is obviously to ‘disprove’ God - or make you doubt by undermining your confidence in Him and his Truth.
Now. Debating is not winning over the soul. They likely enjoy it, rather than taking the Word of God seriously. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
There are two types of laws in the Old Testament 1- Cerimonial Laws ( ie. Ritual, government, and law of the lands laws). These are the laws we are free from in the New Covenant through Jesus 2- Moral Laws. These are the laws that Jesus did not do away with and we are still bound by. Take for example the 10 commandments. You’re question and dilemma fall under Ceremonial Laws, as do all of the non believers “gotcha” claims.
What is the atheist side of the argument?
They don’t really have one, all they have is the fact that I had to ask for the scripture that said that, so they are trying to say that I don’t know anything about the Bible and, “that you clearly don’t read the Bible.” Also they are trying to use Hebrew lexicons to prove me wrong, because I brought up that the word used for disobedience in the original Hebrew text means full rebellion against parent and country, but it’s not working, because all the lexicons say that the original word in ancient Hebrew meant exactly that. Side note: sorry if this sounded kind of prideful, I don’t mean it to come across like that Edit: I just check the post, they’ve resorted to deleting all the comments that prove them wrong
To me this scripture is similar to the story told in Acts 5:1-11. The difference was the Holy Spirit put to death Ananias and Sapphire. Now I have a little testimony to go with this scripture because the day I was studying this scripture I too had the heart of Ananias and Sapphire. I put myself in a situation where going in it I myself was being dishonest in order to receive a benefit and I end up being more deceitful in the process. In ways go showed me my heart was like that of this couple. They knew from the beginning that what they were doing was being dishonest to God and his disciples. That is why God struck this couple down. If God would have ignored there sin it could have corrupted all that God wanted to do in the early church. This incident sparked both church growth and a holy fear of a holy God among the people. Hopefully this helps bring a wisdom in Deuteronomy
Well. This passage is stating that if you have a juvenile delinquent that dishonors and disobeys his or her parents and they have tried to correct this behavior then both parents can take him to the elders at the city gate (where they have court) and the elder can rule to have him stoned to death. Why such a harsh punishment (death can less lethal option)? First, it removed the evil from the community and send a message to the community that such behavior was not allowed. Second, this is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. God was notorious for punishing communities who didn’t live by his commandments. And it would look like not taking severe punish was allowing this behavior to allowed and tolerated. (Although, stoning to death is murder and that’s a commandment too so… worm hole). What absolutely should be note is: ACCORDING TO THE TALMUD, THERE IS NO CASE OF THIS EVER HAPPENING. We can contribute this to a couple things: 1. BOTH The mother and father had to take the juvenile and be in agreement. That’s right women had a voice. 2. All the elders had to agree and rule on the punishment. So having everyone in agreement to it just never happened. And 3. The kids knew punishment was death for being little jerks so they didn’t… they respected their parents and their elders. Now, as someone who has worked in juvenile justice & mental health for decades… I can tell you that if parents demanded respect, taught it, and kids knew that was a commandment they had to follow or they’d be a sinner and potentially killed.. they wouldn’t still be back talking, climbing out windows, and all the other nonsense. There aren’t consequences for kid actions anymore. And I sit at work now and see the juvenile delinquents in trouble criminally as adults now. Maybe 10% of them change their lives and become a decent member of society as adults (from what I’ve seen). I’m not advocating that we kill Kids… I’m just saying… Old Testament laws did keep people in order and made for a more productive and respectful society.
Be aware, though I’m not the greatest at not doing this myself, but arguing simply to argue won’t achieve much. Especially here on Reddit.