Leaving out God
It was certainly reassuring to see the president and first lady coming out of St. John’s Episcopal Church last Sunday. With all the confusion about the president’s religion, we can be sure that the very liberal historic parish will provide a warm welcome to the first family. And they’re unlikely to hear anything as unsettling as “God d____ America” coming from St. John’s elegantly carved pulpit.
Folk wisdom tells us there are no atheists in foxholes. President Obama has surely been feeling like a combat soldier in recent weeks. With all the heavy criticisms raining down on him like incoming mortar shells, and with his own team members seeming to run away from him on the political battlefield, the president needs all the prayers he can get. Cynics might say that this is another battlefield conversion, that Obama never felt the need for such fellowship when he was above 70 percent approval in the polls. In those halcyon days, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas was hailing Obama as “a sort of God.” No more.
But just when you thought it was safe for the president to slip back into the pew, he started a whole new round of speculation about what he really believes. While addressing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus last week, Obama began to recite key passages of the Declaration of Independence and slipped up. Or did he?
He enumerated the “certain inalienable rights” part beautifully. He even listed the right to life. (Hmmm. How does that comport with an Obamacare law that if unrepealed would subsidize abortion and thus deny the right to life to millions yet unborn? Well, Barack Obama is hardly the only liberal who manages to declare such pesky questions “above my pay grade.”) The trouble came when Obama omitted who endowed the people with these inalienable rights, “their Creator.”
The White House is trying to tamp down any controversy: The president was merely paraphrasing. “Don’t try to read anything into this” is the administration line.
But it does matter. The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson certainly thinks so:
“Only two plausible explanations spring to mind. One is that President Obama isn’t very familiar with the most famous passage in the document that founded this nation; that even when plainly reading from a teleprompter, he wasn’t able to quote it correctly. The other is that President Obama doesn’t subscribe to the Declaration’s rather central claim that our rights come from our ‘Creator’ (also referred to in the Declaration as ‘Nature’s God’ and ‘the Supreme Judge of the World’).
“Only the president likely knows for certain which of these two explanations is true, or whether perhaps there is another. His nearly 4-second pause before he omits reference to our Creator, however, is peculiar. He stares at the teleprompter, purses his lips, blinks several times — as if confused, disturbed, and/or in the process of making a decision — and then proceeds to use his alternate wording [see the clip below starting at the 22:30 mark].”
Anderson had earlier reported on the present administration’s apparent discomfort with the Declaration of Independence. In its groveling and apologetic report to the UN Human Rights Council—a body graced by such respecters of the rights of humans as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba—the Obama administration managed to omit any reference to the world’s greatest document on human rights: our own Declaration.
President Obama is not the only liberal to have such problems acknowledging the Creator. Take for example a nice new publication from the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS)—a Federalist Society for liberals that might be viewed as an incubator for the Obama Justice Department or even for Obama nominees to the federal courts.
Princeton Professor Robby George noted in First Things that he recently picked up a handy little pamphlet published by ACS with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and—most welcome—Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. But when he carefully scanned Lincoln’s immortal words as delivered on that hallowed ground, Professor George noted they had left out two: “under God.”
How bold! Surely the liberals at ACS know that Lincoln’s words are carved into stone at the memorial that bears his name. Surely some of them have been to the National Cemetery at Gettysburg and seen the speech text, also engraved in stone.
We are left to conclude that for the liberal left, our rights do not come from God. They come, instead, from government pronouncements, from UN documents, or from the courts. This is a most disturbing conclusion. And it goes to the heart of who we are as a people.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top79 Comments to “Leaving out God”
Ken, I agree with your conclusion and how disturbing it is. But I do not agree that the recent soft-peddled criticism of 0bama approaches in any way a comparison to combat soldiers.
Report comment to moderator
The point of saying that rights come from God or the Creator is not one of recognizing the role of God in developing and conveying these rights (i.e., that is what religion is all about). It is one of recognizing that the rights are not of or associated with the government – and therefore can not legitimately be infringed upon by the government (or anyone else for that matter). You see the reference is about RIGHTS not GOD and therefore the reference to God can be omitted without negating the status of the RIGHTS.
Report comment to moderator
“We are left to conclude that for the liberal left, our rights do not come from God. They come, instead, from government pronouncements, from UN documents, or from the courts. This is a most disturbing conclusion. And it goes to the heart of who we are as a people.”
It’s not just the “liberal left” who’ve questioned the idea that there exist unalienable rights. Consider the curious case of Edmund Burke.
Report comment to moderator
Utter silliness. It reminds me of the Communist regimes which used to punish people for not addressing people as “comrade” so-and-so.
As for DEVO101, where exactly in your bible do you find those supposedly god-given rights?
Report comment to moderator
Considering the utter absence of human rights which prevailed in most or all Christian-dominated societies for 1600 years, I respectfully submit that there are none.
And, incidentally, did your god grant anyone the right not to believe in him? Where does one find that right in the bible and what happens to anyone who exercises that right?
Report comment to moderator
I think the point is not whether those words belong in there in the first place, but rather what is the significance of President Obama leaving them out.
And, Arcadia, yes to your first question and I think you know the answer to your second question.
blessings
Report comment to moderator
For those searching for the portion of the video, it is found at 22:30 above. As the article states, only Pres. Obama knows what was going on in his head, but as you watch the video it is very odd watching his blinking and long pause. It appears to me that Mr. Obama chooses to omit the portion “by our creator”. The significance is important to ALL of us–liberal or conservative. No matter what your belief system, “Endowed by Our Creator” represents the COMMON belief that AMERICANS have shared long-term: Our rights come NOT from a government, nor from a King, nor from any Congress or Kind. They most certainly do NOT come from a President. We believe that it is self-evident that there are certain inalienable rights that liberals can’t take from conservatives nor conservatives from liberas. It is something we have IN COMMON. It is not good for anyone that Mr. Obama is uncomfortable with this concept.
Report comment to moderator
“As for DEVO101, where exactly in your bible do you find those supposedly god-given rights? ”
I think you miss the point of my post Arcadia. I am saying that the point of the Declaration of Independence was not the supposed SOURCE of the rights (i.e. from God or the bible??) but the fact that these rights exist and no government or person has authority to take them away. How they are “granted” or by whom is not important and need not be cited.
Report comment to moderator
Ursie,
He acknownledged that the rights were ours a humans and were inalienable and THIS is what represents our “COMMON belief that AMERICANS have shared long-term: Our rights come NOT from a government, nor from a King, nor from any Congress or Kind. They most certainly do NOT come from a President.”
It has NOTHING to do with the SOURCE of these rights.
Report comment to moderator
The White House should know better than to say “Don’t try to read anything into this.” They should know by now that there are battalions of right-wing pundits, bloggers and footsoldiers who read something into it every time the man draws a breath.
Report comment to moderator
10. As the other side did with his predecessor and are still doing with every little Tea Party attendant on up.
Report comment to moderator
#10
A pregnant pause and a significant omission is not analogous to drawing a breath.
Report comment to moderator
DEVO: I think you miss the point of my post Arcadia. I am saying that the point of the Declaration of Independence was not the supposed SOURCE of the rights (i.e. from God or the bible??) but the fact that these rights exist and no government or person has authority to take them away. How they are “granted” or by whom is not important and need not be cited.
So…um… these rights just sort of emerged from thin air? Who or what defined them? Most importantly, if they are rights, who enforces them? Without some kind of enforcement mechanism, they’re not really rights, are they?
For that matter, what are they and do they apply in all situations? Who decides when they apply? You? Or the neighbor upon whom you have just trespassed?
I think you will find, once you have worked your way through this that these “rights”, whatever they are, are entirely creatures of government, regardless of the surplusage in the Declaration.
And most of them at least in the West, are of very late origin, arising as governmental declarations only after the serfs and peons and even the lesser nobility freed themselves from the Divine Right of Kings.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy: If I tell you that you have “the right” to pick up that $10 bill on the floor, but that if you do, you will be thrown in jail, or will roast in hell forever, do you really believe that that constitutes a “right”?
Isn’t a right something that you are allowed to do without punishment or fear of severe consquences?
Report comment to moderator
These are serious questions I am posing. There is some atrocious constitutional and historical and quasi-philosophical garbage being spewed out by Mr. Beck and friends. It does disappoint me that so many are falling for it.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
If I tell you that you have the right to cross the street, but then a big ugly truck comes by and squashes you dead, what good was your right? That is the context in which God gives us the right to not believe in Him.
And I think that is the same context as the constitutional use of the word. As you know, not everyone in the good old U. S. of A. has happiness, but the government gives everyone permission to pursue it.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
You have every right to reject God. The problem is that God is the only source of all that is good. Rejecting God leaves only evil, hence, rejecting God leads ultimately to hell. As bad as this world is, God is still holding things together for the sake of those who follow him.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, if rights come from the government, then we have no rights. We only have privileges that can be revoked at a whim of the governments wishes.
Report comment to moderator
Honestly and truthfully, I am cynical enough about Obama and the Dems to believe that he did this intentionally as a way to prove to ordinary Americans that he’s one of us. He’s trying to fit in.
Report comment to moderator
“And it goes to the heart of who we are as a people.”
Yes, heaven forbid we lose our national commitment to the false religion of civic Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Rom: I repeat, what are these rights, where did these rights come from, who determines what they are and who determines when they are violated. Unless you can answer these very basic questions you are just hollering in the wind.
I’ve asked this a couple of times recently and have gotten no response. I think, from previous posts of yours that you claim to be a Christian, so can you point me to the parts of the bible which you believe clearly state any human rights whatsoever? Your god at one point was so unimpressed with our rights that he cleared the earth of our kind. Including those unborn fetuses.
And even if you do claim some biblical language as establishing these rights, then who is in charge of determining how far they go and what happens to folks who may have violated them and who determines what to do when two people claim conflicting rights?
My contention is that what we normally call human rights,i.e. to life, liberty, property, speech only arise when two or three or more people gather together and agree that they exist and that they can be enforced. And that, like it or not, is a government.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Arcadia, just read the Declaration of Independence, okay?
Report comment to moderator
Rom116 at post 18 got to the heart of the matter: our rights come from our Creator, and it is one of the government’s purposes to safeguard those rights. If one starts with the position that rights are given by government, then they can be taken away by government. That’s why the title of this post, “Leaving out God,” is so appropriate.
BTW, the Declaration of Independence uses “unalienable,” not “inalienable.”
Report comment to moderator
The final version uses “un.” Earlier drafts use “in” — it means the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, to clarify what you are asking, I think you are asking is where does the Bible give any hint to where it states we have rights before men and rights before God. For the latter, according to Job we have no rights when it comes to God’s actions. But for the former, the Biblical picture concerning rights would have to be drawn from Biblical law. Where in the Bible does this come from? First of all Jewish Law opens with the Ten commandments, which function as a guideline the rest of the law must follow, kind of like a Constitution. Exodus 21 then covers the issue of bondservanthood, something I would love to go in later. In general, bondservants were treated as part of the family, and could be permanently adopted if the bondservant wishes.
To go back to the right to life in the Bible, in general if a man kills another man intentionally, his life is forfeit, even if he is his slave or an unborn child. This is where I draw the right to life in the Bible, as the penalty for not respecting that right is forfeiting your own right to live.
Next is private property in Exodus 22. For theft of animals that are then slaughtered, restitution is made, with the fine (extra heads of cattle) made to the victim of the theft. Also the right to the defense of one’s belongings is also here, and the issue of where a burglar dies in a burglary attempt, consequences are also determined here of whether or not it constitutes murder.
In general, the theft of someone else’s property is paid back plus restitution by the thief. If he does not have the money or cattle, etc, to pay back his debt, he sells himself to pay back the debt and work it off. This chapter goes on to list how restitution is to be made, in many ways it is more humane than the current system of law we have now. Instead of being locked up and being unproductive, they either pay it back or work for the one they stole from. They may even pick up skills which they could then make a living instead of sitting in a jail cell.
The right to life and property can be derived from Mosaic law in the Torah, which in itself is a contract between the Jewish people and God with Moses as the middle man. So if these two rights can be derived Biblically, and it is quite simple to derive our other rights from the right to life, (for more information on that, study common law, John Locke, Jefferson), then yes it is possible that modern rights could and can be derived from a text a few thousand years old.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy: A pregnant pause and a significant omission is not analogous to drawing a breath.
You guys will never give the man a break. You pounce on every questionable thing he says, scrutinize even the non-questionable things, assume the most uncharitable interpretation of anything open to interpretation, and never, never give him benefit of the doubt.
My guess — and I emphasize, it is only a guess — he was trying to emphasize that the rights Americans have apply to all Americans, and not Christian Americans only.
But you all are such crybabies that you pout and stamp your feet if he doesn’t constantly assure you that daddy likes you best.
KBells: As the other side did with his predecessor and are still doing with every little Tea Party attendant on up.
Not really, and certainly not to this degree. But even if you were right, I don’t think “they do it too!” is a justification, do you?
“If the ‘other side’ jumped off a cliff…”
And why do we have to have “sides?” Aren’t we all Americans?
Report comment to moderator
When Americans voted for “change”, I think they SHOULD have known this meant change to our founding pronciples and now even our greatest founding document. I knew what “change” meant then and so did many others. But we were the minority of voters at that time.
I think this omission by Obama was fully intentional. At best, it was seriously sloppy and irresponsible.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Bush still has it worse than Obama, though that might change.
Report comment to moderator
Rom: To go back to the right to life in the Bible, in general if a man kills another man intentionally, his life is forfeit, even if he is his slave or an unborn child. This is where I draw the right to life in the Bible, as the penalty for not respecting that right is forfeiting your own right to live.
Well no, it’s not that clear at all.
In the first place, a person’s life is forfeit, according to the Bible law, for all manner of transgressions, not just murder. God assigned the death penalty for adultery, for cursing parents, for marrying a woman and her daughter, for a priest’s daughter turning to prostitution, being a medium, for rejecting the word of a priest or judge, for worshiping another god, and even for a woman who grabs another man’s testicles in the course of try to aid her husband in fight. (Note that the men fighting is not a sin, but the woman helping is.)
So the “right to life” is rather easily lost for a momentary transgression far short of murder.
Ironically, an unintentional abortion is a sin for which the Bible does NOT require death: Exodus 21:22-24: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
(Pro-life people insist this passage refers to a premature birth … but that is really a stretch because the premature birth of a healthy baby would not be an offense at all.)
And you overstate the law of murder with regard to slaves. Exodus 21:20 says only that the slaveowner who beats a slave to death must be “punished,” but doesn’t specify death. It also allows a slave owner to beat the slave severely and as long as the slave doesn’t die, it’s no sin/crime at all.
On the other hand, if your wife or parent or child came to you and tried to encourage you to worship another god, you were supposed to strike the first blow and then invite the whole community to help you kill the offender. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
Nice god you got there.
Report comment to moderator
“So the “right to life” is rather easily lost for a momentary transgression far short of murder.”
Sheesh…i didnt wanna requote all that mess you wrote. But several obvious points. It wasnt for cursing parents, it was for utter rebellion.
For death penalty, witnesses to the event had to be present and it was still at the judges wisdom and discretion when passing sentence.
“unintentional abortion”
Oxymoron, abortion is the purposeful murder of your own unborn.
“Nice god you got there.”
So a nice god would be allowing you to worship someone else without consequence? You’d rather have a god that doesnt care?
That’s like telling your father you dont love him, dont want him, and would prefer another father, simply because he cared about wanting to be your father.
Report comment to moderator
“Cynics might say that this is another battlefield conversion, that Obama never felt the need for such fellowship when he was above 70 percent approval in the polls.”
And if it is? Shouldn’t believers rejoice in battlefield conversions, serious illness conversions, disaster conversions, deathbed conversions, etc.? It seems that the more you grow in Christ, the less cynical you ought to become.
Report comment to moderator
“You guys will never give the man a break. You pounce on every questionable thing he says, scrutinize even the non-questionable things, assume the most uncharitable interpretation of anything open to interpretation, and never, never give him benefit of the doubt.”
Gee, isnt that how you just treated God in everyway in your last post?
If you expect someone to give the president the benefit of the doubt, how much more so, should one trust God in that respect?
Report comment to moderator
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Genesis 9:6
The foundational principle behind the death penalty in the Bible is that life is of such sacred significance, it is unjust and dead wrong to tolerate murder. Because we are made in the image of God, the murderous act of taking human life must be met with the highest measure of true justice. It honors innocent human life to protect it with the highest standards of justice.
As far as all the specific legal terms for the death penalty applied in ancient Israel, these do not apply to Christians and they never have. But principles of justice had to be laid down first in order for humanity to grasp the reality of God’s grace in His progressive revelation of love and justice through the cross.
Report comment to moderator
Some intellectual honesty please, Conan.
Exodus 21:22-24 is not about an “unintentional abortion.” Conan’s interpretation is apparently clouded by his own moral and political preconceptions and prejudices. Notice how language itself is twisted to make his point. Exodus 21:22-24 is about serious carelessness in the course of willful violence that had severe consequences for a bystander. The punishment is for engaging in violence so carelessly. It’s probably included in that ancient law code because it happened and was a rea-life case in the ancient world.
Report comment to moderator
Quote:
* “A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” ~ Benjamin Franklin (bold font added)
Report comment to moderator
President Calvin Coolidge delivered a fine oration on the Declaration of Independence on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of that Declaration, July 5, 1926, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Here are a few priceless quotes:
* “No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event.” ~ Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), 30th U.S. President, speech, July 5, 1926, Philadelphia, PA.
* “[It] is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence.” ~ Calvin Coolidge, July 5, 1926.
* “[The Declaration of Independence] is the product of the spiritual insight of the people.” ~ Calvin Coolidge, speech, July 5, 1926, Phila., PA.
* “A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.” ~ Calvin Coolidge, speech, July 5, 1926.
* “This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his ‘best ideas of democracy’ had been secured at church meetings.” ~ Calvin Coolidge, July 5, 1926. Coolidge was referring to the preaching common to the American mind that stirred up the principles on which the Declaration were based (he cited the preaching of Rev. Thomas Hooker and Rev. John Wise in particular).
Report comment to moderator
Would that we could hear today such truly great presidential addresses as that one in 1926!!!
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia says,
So then according to your view, there can be no such categories as legitimate and illegitimate in regard to a government defined right or the government’s withholding of a right, correct?
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny how, when confronted with things that are actually in the Bible, the literalists go into full tapdance mode to try to deny or explain away what is clearly there.
Thorn: It wasnt for cursing parents, it was for utter rebellion.
Nope. “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.” Leviticus 20:9
Also: “Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:15).
These are both bad things you don’t want your children doing, but decent people would never think they merited death. And they are both far short of the “utter rebellion” you claim.
Oxymoron, abortion is the purposeful murder of your own unborn.
Yeah, but the passage in question is the only one in the entire Bible that directly addresses death of an unborn child, and it clearly regards it as something less that murder. The death penalty DOES apply for other ways in which you can accidentally kill someone through negligence, so it’s not clear that the accidental nature of the death of the fetus is a factor.
For death penalty, witnesses to the event had to be present and it was still at the judges wisdom and discretion when passing sentence.
That hardly matters for the point, which is that the Bible’s “right to life” is a pretty fragile thing. There are many, many ways in which it can be forfeited.
Joel Mark: As far as all the specific legal terms for the death penalty applied in ancient Israel, these do not apply to Christians and they never have.
Yeah yeah, I know the song. It doesn’t apply to us except when we decide it does, and we’ll tell you entire chapters of Leviticus are no longer operative except for the two verses about men lying with men and those are in full effect, and as for why the one and not the rest, well, stop asking questions.
I’ve heard that a lot. It’s a good way to make sure intelligent and inquisitive children don’t remain Christians as they become adults.
The point is, you believe your God, the same God you worship today, imposed all these death-penalty sins on the people for a time. Whether or not they apply today, they did for centuries, and you can’t escape the need to explain why you love and worship a god who would demand death for a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) by shrugging and saying it doesn’t apply now.
Thorn again: So a nice god would be allowing you to worship someone else without consequence? You’d rather have a god that doesnt care?
That’s like telling your father you dont love him, dont want him, and would prefer another father, simply because he cared about wanting to be your father.
And it’s like your father telling you that if you don’t love him, you have to be killed by stoning.
Please. Some perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
To start, I was focusing on how murdering someone else was forfeiting your own right to live, but I shall go in the rest of this stuff for you since you asked.
I would recommend teh ESV or the NIV, since Exodus 21:22-25 is
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
and
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The injury in both cases could be to either the fetus or the mother or both.
As far as killing one’s servant both state, the NIV uses punished, while the ESV uses avenged. In both cases, the punishment is death according to verse 12. The avenged usage is even closer, as a relative of the victim is tasked with avenging his or her death. Exodus 21:20 simply states that no one is tasked with avenging the slave’s death since the slave did not die. That would fall under assault, which is where the “eye for an eye” verse comes from. You cant just cherry-pick a verse and state it does not say death explicitly here. You have to take the passage as a whole.
Looking at Exodus 21:18-21 in its entirety, the penalty for attacking a man whose is then can’t work is to pay him back the value of his labor. For doing so to your slave, you don’t pay him for his lost labor as you are the one who lost his labor.
I have no idea where you came up with death being merited for women who help their husband in a fight. Also to strike means to attack, and honoring one’s parents was a pretty important tenet in both Hebrew and Arabic society, and it still is so. Cursing your parents is utter rebellion. If cursing and attacking your parents is not rebelling, then I don’t want to know what you think it is.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
The Law is what condemns, grace is what saves. The law is still valid for believers today as it what differs between right and wrong. Do we carry out the Law as a judicial code? No, since we are not under the Old Covenant. However to say none of it applies now and we can do whatever we want and be justified before God is completely false.
Report comment to moderator
“Decent people” wouldn’t, is it? And how do we define “decent people?” People who wouldn’t like these commands? Convenient, isn’t it.
Perhaps the fact that it isn’t too far-fetched to think of a child cursing or striking his parents, and that this could happen short of utter rebellion, says more about the sick state of our society than it does about our general “decency.”
In a rightly ordered culture, such behavior would be unheard of except in the case of the most perverse “child.” And I put child in quotes because this command refers not to small children but to grown ones. It would, indeed, be a manifestation of a most severe rebellion.
No, no, by all means, ask questions. The prohibition against cursing and striking parents definitely still applies to the church age, just as the prohibition against sodomy does. Unlike under the older covenant, though, neither require the death penalty.
Report comment to moderator
“Nope. “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.” Leviticus 20:9″
You do understand that cursing in the olden days was far different than uttering the F word?
Along with striking, it carries far more weight than you give it.
Honoring your parents is listed before the other horizontal applications of the ten commandments. It carries an importance, especially for Israel, that is on par with murder in the least.
They did not see it as trivial, nor should you.
“Yeah, but”
But? If it does not apply to abortion then you are wrong to use it in such context. “Do not murder” is pretty plain and simple. There is no age qualification.
The only negligent case that I believe exists is for when your bull gores someone. You are only subject to the death penalty, if you knew it was dangerous beforehand though, and you left it out anyway. Kinda like if you have a pit bull that has tried attacking others, you left it unrestrained, and someone got hurt because of your negligence.
In essence accidental death is not punished by the death penalty. It however, is still subject to whatever the penalty is that the JUDGE decides.
“That hardly matters for the point, which is that the Bible’s “right to life” is a pretty fragile thing”.
? It matters heavily. If you put no weight on witnesses/evidence/judge’s wisdom, then you could produce any claim just to get someone sentenced to death. It is because of that, that life is protected. You had to have overwhelming evidence including eyewitnesses to subject someone to the death penalty. It wasnt death at a whim, because
It also would be very difficult to prove that you are responsible for a miscarriage, via physical interaction such as knocking over a woman. She may have lost it the day before while collecting manna.
“It’s funny how, when confronted with things that are actually in the Bible, the literalists go into full tapdance mode to try to deny or explain away what is clearly there.”
Well your the one ignoring the context that is a legal system, not just killing people off who sin. The judge has the final say, and as is the case with someone like David, mercy is permittable.
“And it’s like your father telling you that if you don’t love him, you have to be killed by stoning”
It’s not actually, work on your own perspective.
Immediate death from excution (such as stoning) was not the result of just saying, “I dont love you”, it was the result of going beyond that and taking action against another, such as murder.
Report comment to moderator
Rom: To start, I was focusing on how murdering someone else was forfeiting your own right to live
I know, but what I’m saying is the law provides a lot of things that will cause you to forfeit your own right to live. The fact that taking another life is one of many death penalty sins in the OT doesn’t mean that life was necessarily sacred. In fact I’d argue that the requirement of death for so many offenses actually argues against that notion.
Exodus 21:20 simply states that no one is tasked with avenging the slave’s death since the slave did not die. That would fall under assault, which is where the “eye for an eye” verse comes from. You cant just cherry-pick a verse and state it does not say death explicitly here. You have to take the passage as a whole.
Ok, fair enough, but it works both ways. The passage does not say that if the slave doesn’t die the slave owner is to be punished for assult .. no “eye for an eye.” It explicitly says he is not to be punished because the slave is his property. (Exodus 21:21 NIV).
That is a clear statement that the slave is not seen as a person with full legal protections.
I have no idea where you came up with death being merited for women who help their husband in a fight.
I was mistaken about that one. She just loses her hand for it.
“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12.)
Also to strike means to attack, and honoring one’s parents was a pretty important tenet in both Hebrew and Arabic society, and it still is so. Cursing your parents is utter rebellion. If cursing and attacking your parents is not rebelling, then I don’t want to know what you think it is.
I didn’t say it wasn’t rebellion. But it isn’t usually utter rebellion. Children go through phases, and adolescents and adults do as well, where rebellion against the parents is common. It can include cursing and occasionally even striking.
In most cases, the kid gets over it and they reconcile and life goes on. Sometimes they don’t. But here’s the key point: Whether it’s “utter rebellion,” or just rebellion, so what? Why does it merit death?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Who is a “literalist” anyhow? Where did you get that presumption? When you disagree with people, don’t label them falsely. A conservative Christian honors the Bible by taking it seriously, not necessarily always literally.
When Jesus speaks in parables, I take it seriously, not necessarily always literally. We take the Bible as it is intended and that often calls for a literal interpretation but it often also calls for a parabolic or metaphorical interpretation. It depends in the intent and the context.
When Jesus spoke of gouging out the eye or cutting off a hand, he was not at all intending to be taken literally. But he wanted sin to be taken seriously and used strong hyperbole to get the point across.
The book of Revelation is a vision. It should be taken seriusly as a vision with deep inspired meaning, but not as literal history.
If you understood the Bible as a whole, you would not miss the fact that Christians are free from the old system of law and its codes. That does not mean it was not inspired for its time and for our learning. But one must interpret the Bible intelligently and that involves taking it seriously.
Report comment to moderator
Conan wrote; “Yeah yeah, I know the song. It doesn’t apply to us except when we decide it does…”
Conan, that’s an illegitimate distortion of the point you are missing. The principles for deciding what applies are set forth clearly in Scripture. If you cannot get your mind around a legitimate point of substance, it does not speak well of your level of reason to simply dismiss it as a “song”.
I don’t expect Conan to follow my thoughts but I offer them mostly for others who are interested.
The passages about homosexuality in Leviticus are validated and affirmed by New Testament passages (especially Romans one). That places it on a different level that many of the other codes in that book, but it also does not mean that the same codes of justice apply to it in terms of punishment. Jesus took the place of sinners on the cross to absorb that punishment and offer grace to sinners. Keep the whole context of God’s word and plan in mind as you interpret the Bible honestly. We can affirm that homoseuxality is an abomination to God without applying the human punishment codes of the Old Testament. Jesus has a lot to do with that.
I have not criticized the laws that God set in place for their time and context. I don’t want to escape the need to explain why I love and worship God, but I do so with the whole word and counsel of God in view and in context. God is holy and that means sin is a serious break from Him. Ancient codes of justice had a huge place in God’s plan for ultimate justice and grace to come to us ultimately through Christ.
Good historians know how to assess ancient texts in context and the same goes for good theologians. Both good historians and theologians understand that it is silly to use current values and modalities to judge the past. The past served an awesome purpose in God’s plan and that is inspiring to the max.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt Conan takes the Bible verse and reads what the rabbis said on the side to explain it. I doubt Conan has been bar mitzvahed or that he’s attended seminary. There’s more to Judaism than the Torah.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
You needn’t fear my contending with you just now-you’ve got plenty of opposition already-but you ought to know that the medieval period was nowhere near as atrocious as you think. If you were to somehow travel back there, you certainly wouldn’t be surrounded by cackling, malnourished and mutated peasants and burnt by fat bribe-accepting monks.
In fact, medieval Christendom was the most advanced civilization of the time.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Where does it say she loses her hand? I think you are talking Shariah law here, not Jewish law.
Report comment to moderator
Forum: clarifying law:
Parallel to the movie ‘A Few Good Men’: :>)
What is ‘law’ all about?
Col. Jessep: I’ll answer the question! [to Kaffee]
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled to know the significance of the law.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth about the law!
Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!
The Law in a Nutshell:
Man thinks he can be good (righteous) by doing right things.
God says here’s the Law describing righteousness. Do it.
Being the ultimate God-given law, it was law to the fullest. There was enforcement to the fullest in death. There was indebtedness to the law through sin to the fullest so the punishments were earned – the wages of sin are death.
Attempting to obey law could not bring righteousness, otherwise there would have been no need for Christ to come to die, be buried, and rise again to exchange His righteousness/life for our sins/death. Christ is the righteousness of God, the law is not.
The law was a tutor, a teacher, to lead us to Christ. After we have come to Christ, we are no longer under law. Christ is the end of the law to all who believe in Him. We have died to the law in Christ and now our life is ‘Christ in us, the hope of glory’.
Sources: primarily Galatians 3 and first part of Galatians 4. Also, Colossians 1:26-29 ; Romans 7:6.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: It matters heavily. If you put no weight on witnesses/evidence/judge’s wisdom, then you could produce any claim just to get someone sentenced to death. It is because of that, that life is protected. You had to have overwhelming evidence including eyewitnesses to subject someone to the death penalty. It wasnt death at a whim, because
And where did I say it was at a whim?
The fact that their justice system required witnesses and evidence before death could be imposed doesn’t change the fact that death was called for for a long list of transgressions. So you couldn’t just execute a woman for being accused of not being a virgin on her wedding night, you had to prove it. You still had to execute a woman who wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night, if it could be proved.
“And it’s like your father telling you that if you don’t love him, you have to be killed by stoning”
It’s not actually, work on your own perspective.
Immediate death from excution (such as stoning) was not the result of just saying, “I dont love you”, it was the result of going beyond that and taking action against another, such as murder.
This was specifically in the context of the death penalty for worshiping other gods. You said it was like telling your father you don’t love him and want another father. I said it’s like your father then declaring that if you don’t love him, you have to die. It was your analogy, so I’m surprised you forgot what you meant by it already.
Isn’t it interesting that the more theocratic a society is, the more severely it treats things like blasphemy, heresy and apostasy. If one were cynical, one could conclude that the religious rulers are smart enough to understand that allowing people to think for themselves about religious matters and tolerating dissenting views could undermine the political structure.
Joel Mark: When Jesus speaks in parables, I take it seriously, not necessarily always literally. We take the Bible as it is intended and that often calls for a literal interpretation but it often also calls for a parabolic or metaphorical interpretation. It depends in the intent and the context.
Which isn’t germane here because what we’re talking about is the Mosaic law, not parables or prophecies or poetry. It’s pretty hard to find a metaphorical reading for “you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”
If you understood the Bible as a whole, you would not miss the fact that Christians are free from the old system of law and its codes. That does not mean it was not inspired for its time and for our learning. But one must interpret the Bible intelligently and that involves taking it seriously.
I understand that. I already spoke to that point in #39. I think Christians realize the legal code is primitive and are glad to have a way to argue that it doesn’t apply. But what you don’t seem to understand is that if conservative Christianity is correct — that God today is the God of Jesus is the God of Moses with no changing — then you find the deity who would command such things to be worthy of love and worship. So you don’t really absolve yourself of needing to justify them by saying they no longer apply.
I do appreciate the thoughts you lay out in #46, though I don’t agree. But at least you’re taking the objections seriously.
Report comment to moderator
Also, concerning the slave issue, the ESV got it better by stating that the slave is not to be avenged, ie the master is not to be killed by a slave relative since he did not murder him. Like today, death penalties are not handed out to people who beat the crap out of others. That does not mean that they are let loose, they merely fall under assault. The Law does not list every case scenario. All it states is that the master cannot be killed for beating his slave to the point of collapse. Just like modern law, that would be dealt with under assault, which is, in Jewish law, an eye for an eye.
So the case would be deferred from Exodus 21, focusing on when and when not to deal out death penalties, to Leviticus 24:17-22, where non-deadly injuries are taken care of.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I didn’t intend to draw this into a protracted discussion of the Law. My original point was that, counter to Rom’s assertion in #25, the “right to life” as it is meant in the modern context really can’t be derived from the Bible.
If it said that life is so precious that murder is the only thing you can do grievous enough to forfeit your own life for, you’d have a strong case. Unfortunately, the situation is rather quite the opposite.
Report comment to moderator
Right to life in the Bible?
Psa 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. (14) I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. (15) My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. (16) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Isa 49:15-16 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. (16) Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.
1Co 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Report comment to moderator
Conan wrote; “It’s funny how, when confronted with things that are actually in the Bible, the literalists go into full tapdance mode to try to deny or explain away what is clearly there.”
So I explained that the word “literalist” does not necessarily apply to many of us who take the Bible deeply seriously and as God’s inspired word. So Conan was incorrect in his presumption.
Then Conan claims my explanation was not germaine. That’s convenient. He makes a false presumption. I correct it by trying to help him see a larger hermeneutical picture, and he claims it’s not germaine. You missed the point, Conan. Don’t make false presumptions or use incorrect labels for others if you don’t want it answered or corrected, Conan.
Report comment to moderator
Do you take what was mentioned earlier literally?
“If your eye makes you sin, pluck it out….”
“If your right hand makes you sin, cut it off….”
Consider the questions. Did your right eye make you sin. No. Did your right hand cause you to sin. No.
No, the problem is with man’s heart and its darkness. How to have it fixed? It’s was accomplished by our being co-crucified with Christ – united with Him in His death, burial and resurrection. We were born again. Maiming the body was never considered the answer.
Report comment to moderator
Just make your point and stop accusing people.
Report comment to moderator
The hermeneutical puddle got quite deep and it’s late, so with boots on – goodnight.
Report comment to moderator
All people need to remember that no matter what you or I think, it doesn’t change what was God inspired and written, The Holy Bible. Nations of people, individuals of all creeds have tried to destroy the Word but it will not happen. His word will stand. The devil comes in many different disguises.
Revelation 12:9 (KJB) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
God gave us the right to choose, choose wisely and choose leaders after praying earnestly and He will open your eyes to His enemies.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Then Conan claims my explanation was not germaine. That’s convenient. He makes a false presumption. I correct it by trying to help him see a larger hermeneutical picture, and he claims it’s not germaine. You missed the point, Conan. Don’t make false presumptions or use incorrect labels for others if you don’t want it answered or corrected, Conan.
Fair enough, I should explain. When I use the term “literalist,” you should not take it literally.
I realize that the people I consider “literalists” DO understand, as you said, that the parables are Jesus’s made-up illustrations he used to make his points, for example, or that the Song of Songs is poetry. A literalist, however, reads the Bible literally in any case where there isn’t a clearly metaphorical intent. Genesis 1-3, most literalists will say, is a literal account of creation, not poetry or metaphor.
So I get that.
However, I still don’t see how you think it applies here. The Law of Moses was not poetry or parable, it was legislation. So since you’re insistent on the point, explain to me … how does your hermeneutic approach apply to the laws found in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Pentateuch?
Report comment to moderator
StriderT: No, of course Jesus is using hyperbole in your examples. I don’t think many people would take that literally.
Do YOU think the author of Deuteronomy was using hyperbole to make a point when he wrote:
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
(Deut. 22:20-21)
There was a lot of handwringing in some of the recent Muslim threads about “honor killings,” but your spiritual forbears, the Jews, had the exact same thing in their legal code. And to say “it doesn’t apply anymore” doesn’t change the fact that you believe you are worshiping the same God who at one time did require this.
Report comment to moderator
I recommend reading the Declaration of Independence. If you did not do that on the last 4th of July, you still can. Then, look up Calvin Coolidge’s fine speech on the 150th anniverary of the signing of that primary document.
This point of this thread is that President Obama cannot even read the Delcaration of Independence EVEN when it is on his telprompter.
Report comment to moderator
Botton Line:
“They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are destetable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good” (Titus 1:16, NIV).
BHO is in serious trouble – By openly denying God in his misreading, he is sealing his fate – and it’s not in Heaven!
Report comment to moderator
“It was your analogy, so I’m surprised you forgot what you meant by it already.”
What line of reasoning was that babble? I expressed the difference of why you get executed. You presented execution as an immediate response for just saying you dont love, which is not true.
“You still had to execute a woman who wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night, if it could be proved.”
And? God values purity highly, why dont you? Even from a practical standpoint within a society that didnt have condoms you dont want people sleeping around.
Further, it is a max sentence. We see from people like David and Rahab, that mercy is granted to the repentant. They were not executed for their adultry/prostitution. Could they have been? Sure. But that is why it is mercy, it is undeserved, and at the decision of the judge.
“Isn’t it interesting that the more theocratic a society is, the more severely it treats things like blasphemy, heresy and apostasy. If one were cynical, one could conclude that the religious rulers are smart enough to understand that allowing people to think for themselves about religious matters and tolerating dissenting views could undermine the political structure.”
Possibly, but I think you’ve watched The book of Eli one too many times. The reason those things like purity, blasphemy, etc are treasured much higher than you do, is because they all attempt to reflect god. So for a nation like Israel that was directly God’s people, they were to be holy like God is holy. Other laws in Israel such as food, where to go bathroom, etc were all necessary to keep things healthy. Christ was all over the Pharasees for abusing such laws as well.
For a society like the USA where we have religious freedom and are not a direct society of God like Israel was, we arent bound to the societal laws that Israel was in that way.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: And? God values purity highly, why dont you? Even from a practical standpoint within a society that didnt have condoms you dont want people sleeping around.
You present a false choice: Support executing non-virgins or admit you don’t value purity.
And? And having sex before marriage is not a capital offense to any sane person. And no Christian today would think so.
Further, it is a max sentence. We see from people like David and Rahab, that mercy is granted to the repentant. They were not executed for their adultry/prostitution. Could they have been? Sure. But that is why it is mercy, it is undeserved, and at the decision of the judge.
I don’t accept that death should even be a possible sentence for consensual sexual transgressions. And because I do not hold the Bible to be an authority, I recognize that it was ancient Jewish society that imposed those laws, not actually God.
You don’t have that position available to you because you’re bound to accept the Bible as the “word of God” — which is fine much of the time, but occasionally requires you to defend and rationalize things that I suspect you know are indefensible.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: “It was your analogy, so I’m surprised you forgot what you meant by it already.”
What line of reasoning was that babble? I expressed the difference of why you get executed. You presented execution as an immediate response for just saying you dont love, which is not true.
I think you are confused.
You said in #30: So a nice god would be allowing you to worship someone else without consequence? You’d rather have a god that doesnt care?
That’s like telling your father you dont love him, dont want him, and would prefer another father, simply because he cared about wanting to be your father.
Which is another false choice — you’re suggesting that God must impose the death penalty for apostasy or else he “doesn’t care.” No hint that a gentle nudge back to the true path, or a lesser punishment might be preferable.
Anyway, so you made the analogy specifically in reference to the death penalty for following another god. So I said, in #39:
And it’s like your father telling you that if you don’t love him, you have to be killed by stoning.
So where now is it that you think I’m going wrong in referencing the analogy?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Muslim honor killings are legally unjustified. What’s described in Deuteronomy involves due process. You know the difference.
Report comment to moderator
Provost: What’s described in Deuteronomy is savage brutality with the scant saving grace of requiring evidence. It’s not different in any important way.
Muslims who believe in honor killings also believe them to be part of their religious law.
No special pleading allowed.
Report comment to moderator
Justice is called savage brutality in some cases. The wrath of God is real too and it can be brutal as well as just. Man has ultimately always answered to Him, not the other way around.
The old law was a fitting schoolmaster for God’s people. It teaches us our guilt and our need for frogiveness. Grace is ultimately amazing because we are dreadfully guilty. Grace is also amazing because of the freedom it yeilds from enslavement to old law codes.
________
And it was still egregiously irresponsible for Obama to misquote the Declaration and leave God out.
Report comment to moderator
Rom at #49: Where does it say she loses her hand? I think you are talking Shariah law here, not Jewish law.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Playing games? Or did you just not bother to read what I posted?
Once more:
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12.)
Report comment to moderator
“you’re suggesting that God must impose the death penalty for apostasy or else he “doesn’t care.” No hint that a gentle nudge back to the true path, or a lesser punishment might be preferable.”
I was suggesting simply that the purpose of rules/law/discipline does not make God, less nice. The law was given so that the people would know how to live, and why they need a savior.
I gave a humanly father example, as we often think that when our father hands out a rule with a consequence for breaking said rule, we think he is being mean/unnice. However, that is not the case. It was not intended in reference to execution as a punishment from ones own father.
Which is why your statement was false. God being ceator, being holy, does not ignore sin. The death penalty was given when Adam sinned. The execution of it has only been delayed.
For the people of Israel, who were directly God’s nation at the time, he set the bar high and thus immediate penalties for violating the major commandments. It went wrong with your reference because in thsi regard, it is not a simple “I dont love you”.
Report comment to moderator
Deuteronomy was the law. Muslim honor killings are what you might call vigilante activity. There’s a serious difference.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: OK, but a good father’s punishments are aimed at training a child in right behavior. You mess up, you take a punishment, you do better next time.
Death leaves no room for improvement, no chance to demonstrate better behavior in the future. So they’re hardly analogous.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Arcadia “My contention is that what we normally call human rights,i.e. to life, liberty, property, speech only arise when two or three or more people gather together and agree that they exist and that they can be enforced. And that, like it or not, is a government.”
So then if government is the ultimate authority, by what authority do you criticize them? And how do you explain that you only agree with the American government when Democrats are in charge? It was an appeal to basic human rights, natural law if you will, which allowed America to overcome slavery.
If your point is that there are no rights more fundamental than the whims of the power-hungry greedy and corrupt politicians then what is your beef? Oh, right. You simply hate Christians. Why not have the wonderful government bring back the lions then, seeing that people have no rights other than what government deems in their own self interest.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn;
Here is a link that may help you with the arguments Conan is raising by his reading out of context.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/24/feedback-killing-the-rebellious-son
“…The trial was to be held in the city of the accused, where the trustworthiness of the parents and the son’s own character were likely to be well-known. Since capital crimes required the testimony of two or three witnesses for a conviction, the word of the father would be insufficient. (According to Matthew 26:59–61, even the prosecutors at Jesus’ trial tried in vain to find trustworthy witnesses who would tell the same story!1) The parents’ own responsibility in the upbringing of this defendant could be called into question, as the verses specify the son must have proven himself unresponsive to chastening.2
The charges here are not trivial. We tend to use some of these words lightly, thinking of a glutton, for instance, as someone with a weakness for pizza and chocolate, a stubborn son as a child having a tantrum, and a rebellious son as a teenager pouting and spouting off about being grounded. But a close look at the context and the words used imply an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness.
Believe it or not, it’s not as if God’s chosen people were looking for reasons to put people to death….”
Report comment to moderator
RHawk … funny how when someone asks that the believer deal with what the text actually says, the accusation of “out of context” will never be far behind.
My issue is not with the standard of proof for conviction. They could have had a legal system requiring ten eyewitnesses, physical evidence and a unanimous verdict from a jury of 100, it would not bear on the issue I raise. It’s with those things being defined as capital crimes in the first place.
But a close look at the context and the words used imply an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness.
No matter how bad you insist they are, it’s hard to see how they merit execution.
Report comment to moderator
Conan:
You don’t like executions very much. That’s fine. I don’t like the methods of execution, but these were a primitive people who needed to be kept in line. There’s an incident somewhere in Kings where the priests lose the book of the law. When that can happen it’s useful to have a memorable law. (Ye cats, how are you getting me to make a relativist argument?)
Thanks to the bit about the standard of proof. That’s an important objection to your comparison to muslim honor killings.
Report comment to moderator
“Thorn: OK, but a good father’s punishments are aimed at training a child in right behavior. You mess up, you take a punishment, you do better next time.
Death leaves no room for improvement, no chance to demonstrate better behavior in the future. So they’re hardly analogous.”
Aye, so understand the weight of what it means as to rebellion in this case. It isnt some simple offense or a lack of parent/child relationship. Discipline would have been tried countless times. Previous laws protect the child from being disowned, or written out of the family inheritance. A parents general desire is for their child to repent, or as you put it, to do better next time. Because of these laws on rebellion, a father couldnt simply disown or kill his child.
For a son to face the death penalty, the father would have to take him before the elders, cite all the evidence and additional witnesses, and then a judgement passed. His word alone was not enough.
The description presented of the child isnt just some angry teenager. It talks of them being drunkards/gluttons. In other words, the child is entirely opposed to God, family, and Israel in a destructive way.
And even then the law does not prohibit mercy. There are no cases of this penalty ever being carried out fo rthis offense.
But understand the weight of what’s occuring. The child has become destructive unto others, without remorse, without repentance. You are right, that death leaves no room for improvement, and that is when such a penalty is allowed in this case, when there is no hope of improvement.
Report comment to moderator
“No matter how bad you insist they are, it’s hard to see how they merit execution.”
Who has not meritted execution when we reject God in the first place? Adam deserved execution, immediate death. God in his mercy delayed death, so that he would send his own son to take Adam’s execution (or insert self). Death is inevitable.
Please explain, how anyone has meritted anything differently?
You complain about physical death, but the purpose of the law and the reason it was given was two fold. To show how to live, but more importantly to show that no one measures up.
A rebellious son, has every opportunity through that process to ask for mercy and repentance. He has every moment of life to turn to the promises of Christ, so that even if execution (or death comes) is carried out, there is no excuse. And if carried out after repentance comes, then his phyiscal death doesnt really matter.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!