Biblical Thoughts on Disobedient Youth

[fccool]

Quote:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Quote:

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

[BibleOnly]

This is, of course, the Old Testament, which was designed to show the principles God holds up, through a legalistic viewpoint. The SDA makes the mistake of following this line, so perhaps they still stone their youth.

The NT says:

Eph 6:1 ¶ Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The same principles, but with a reminder that the parents are also responsible for how they treat their kids, and the focus on a promise more than a threat.

What is your point ? It's not the same tiresome 'cherry pick verses from the Old Testament to question the Bible' ?

[M. T. Cross]

I was always getting stoned when I was a rebellious youth.

[BibleOnly]

ROTFL - I actually took mushrooms a few times and dope once, but alcohol was the only thing I was ever addicted to.

[fccool]

Quote:

This is, of course, the Old Testament, which was designed to show the principles God holds up, through a legalistic viewpoint.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Do children deserve death for fighting with their parents? What's the principle in there that would land a rebellious teen death for cursing his parents in the heat of the moment?

Quote:

Eph 6:1 ¶ Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)

Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The same principles, but with a reminder that the parents are also responsible for how they treat their kids, and the focus on a promise more than a threat.

Sure, those are the verses that are emphasized, because these are in line with modern and Hellenistic cultures. There's been an obvious progression of morality there from killing teens for disobedience, to reasonable reproof and reciprocity.

Killing them would simply not work really well even in that era. Romans would not like that very much.

Quote:

What is your point ? It's not the same tiresome 'cherry pick verses from the Old Testament to question the Bible' ?

My point is that Biblical version of God is not as nice as you would generally paint him, and hard to reconcile with certain ideas. You can't just take one side and leave the other as "relics of legalism". These things were actually done as per "God's command".

[fccool]

I was always getting stoned when I was a rebellious youth.

Good one

[BibleOnly]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Do children deserve death for fighting with their parents? What's the principle in there that would land a rebellious teen death for cursing his parents in the heat of the moment?

[fccool]

Quote:

It's clear to me that parents had this option, not that they were called to do this the moment a child disobeyed them once.

Sure, you can think of it that way. Was stoning people on Sabbath, or killing them when they tried to convert Israel to other gods optional too?

I really don't see much of the option there, but even if that was optional, what sort of insane parent would actually go through this?

Quote:

They are emphasised because they are in the New Testament, and written to Christians.

Sure, which happened to reside in Post-Hellenistic period of moral understanding, which was quite a bit more superior to that of ancient Israel. Hence you'll find that Christian God was much nicer now. He's much more forgiving. Less commands to stone people, and more commands to love them.

On top of that, Judaism was statist religion. It was to maintain a state and preserve the religion by rather brute force. Christianity had to be different, because you are not going to win converts by telling them to stone their children, or people sleeping around.

Quote:

This is a tired old game. What I don't get is why people like you bother playing it. If you think this, what do you have to prove by discussing it amongst people who disagree ?

Of course! The problem with modern Christianity is this dissonance of belief. On one hand, Christians claim to follow the whole Bible and its principles, on the other hand they completely forget that this stuff is in the Bible.

Quote:

People who are determined to argue, will always find things to argue with. Yes, the Old Testament view of God was harsher. It was a view of how God had to be to try to control us via rules.

How is it make it any less wrong? If it's wrong today, what would make it right then? That's the big issue. You have to be able to reconcile the God of Judaism and God of Christianity, and there seems to be this great deal of dissonance.

Quote:

The NT says the people of the OT lived for our instruction. Not a nice thought for those stuck with living under it, but, that's how it was.

That's it? That's how it was? So... Was it morally right to stone your disobedient children. Was it wrong for other nations to stone their children to death? I hope you see where I'm going with this.

Quote:

I'm not going to argue with God and tell Him I think He should have done it differently. That seems to be your point, that God is not nice enough for you. Are you claiming that we're free to invent or choose who God is ? We are not.

My point is exactly the opposite. You can't have a God of contradicting ideals. You can't have a God that's so ruthless that he would command for parents to kills their own kids, and then have the God who would be the object of the Prodigal Son's parable. These two ideas are diametrically opposite.

These don't seem to be the same Gods. What changed so much that God stopped telling people to cut down entire towns of people, and treat their own with such insane disproportionate idea of justice? What are we to learn from these things? Aren't we suppose to learn quite the opposite ideals... like love, compassion, patience and etc?

How can your reconcile these two?

[BibleOnly]

Sure, you can think of it that way. Was stoning people on Sabbath, or killing them when they tried to convert Israel to other gods optional too?

[fccool]

Quote:

One at the end of their leash, I expect. Actually there's a lot of laws in the Bible that there's no record of Israel ever keeping. You can rationalise it any way you want, but God planned it that way from the start.

Actually, you are doing the rationalization here . You have to rationalize and tweak the idea of absolute and all-capable God resorting to situational morality to teach us some sort of a higher lesson.

If God can't set a universal standards of right and wrong, then how are we to interpret anything?

The idea of obeying one's parents is inseparable from punishment in that context. If punishment was not a wrong thing to do then, why would we jail people who would try to do this today?

Hence you have to rationalize your way out of this dilemma.

Quote:

Funny thing is, the Old Testament anticipates and predicts the new. So, God knew what was going to happen, all along.

...

No, that is not true. I know it's in there. I just know who it was written to, and in what context. Searching for 'stoning' with an online tool does not make you a Bible scholar, or even someone who understands how it all sits together and what it all means.

I think you presume that I have little understanding, or did not have or don't have a desire to understand . I went to one of the more prestigious Christian Universities where I've had an exhaustive study program for over 32 academic credits on various topics of Biblical studies. I hardly think that you could classify me as guy who merely types things in the search engine to pick a fight... but you are welcome to if you want to keep thinking so

Quote:

I've already answered this. Perhaps the idea of a wishy washy God is not right, but, His plan all along was the situation we have today and the people in the Old Testament were part of the path to this time.

My question is not about His plan, but about moral consistency of his actions. What makes the right things "right"... is it because God says it's ok? Nowhere God says that it's NOT ok to stone children for their disobedience. Nowhere did God say that it's NOT ok to stone people for breaking the Sabbath. It was merely a traditional interpolation that's inferred from certain doctrines of the NT that focus more on emotional appeal.

I totally understand the concept of divine plan-making. But, what I don't get is.....

Quote:

One thing everyone forgets is that God is not just acting at random based on His whims, He's constrained by what's right, not in terms of human thought, but in terms of what He can give us without it being unequal. The path to Jesus had to be laid so He could die, to make God ABLE to save us.

Here's a disturbing inference from your reasoning. Based on such reasoning God either killed Jesus through his divine planning, or Jesus committed a divine suicide.

On top of it, your idea of "right" is rather situational in nature. For example, if we need to exterminate 25% of Chinese in order to save the world, it seems ok by such divine reasoning, because these people will merely be a part of divine plan to save humanity.

It's not that I question the actions of God. I question whether such inconsistent God can exist and still posses all of the attributes ascribed to him. He's omnipotent, yet that's the way he decided to save the humanity?... through endless trail of blood and killing?

Quote:

Well, I'm sure in this day and age it's generally accepted that kids can do what they want, the point was to create an impetus for there to be consequences for those kids ( who I am sure were not kids in the sense of being really young ) so that they would grow up doing what they should. It's not like the first they heard of it is when people started to measure up throwing stones

And you think that I'm drawing up rationalizations?

The idea is not that proper upbringing with respect is not important, but that killing someone for disrespect is plainly wrong... no matter who does or order the killing. I don't understand what's so unclear about that?

We are talking about omnipotent being here ordering people to kill their children for disobeying. Are you so numbed by the concept of "I don't question God" that it does not process?

Quote:

The concept in the old testament was to illustrate the need to cut out ideas that oppose God from our lives.

By means of brutally killing people? Really? I really don't need to see bunch of people stoning a drunken young adult to death to understand that respecting my parents is a good thing to do based on mere biological relation and the fact that they've cared for me all their lives.

Do our kids really need to read "obey your parents or be stoned to death" to understand this concept? Do you?

Quote:

Yes, a harsh lesson for those who lived there, I already said this. His ideals are the same, but they are expressed differently now. The judgement that was immediate, is now after we die, because living forever, and not just living well, are the promise.

What conclusions would they make? Human life is essentially nothing. Harsh examples are a necessity. I mean, if we can rationalize these ideas, then no matter what God does ... no matter how horrible it is, there's a ready to go rationalization that sits there that explains the necessity of the harshness of such actions. If God is beyond his own moral judgement, then how do we even know that it is a true God? It could be a devil masquerading as God and writing the Bible... and all you know, you are supporting it.

What standards do you go by if you are able to make fine the brutal and unnecessary punishments as "necessary lessons"?

Quote:

By reading the Bible as someone who tries to understand, not as someone looking to attack. Why are you asking me this at all ? What do you hope to gain from this conversation ?

Here's the problem. Any moral problem like these should be attacked if these are not logical, or properly defended. Trust me I've tried to understand, and at some point claimed to, but I was merely dismissing these issues as dispensation ideals set by God. But then I realized, if God really willing to order parents to stone their children, how merciful is He really?

Quote:

At the end of the day, I am here despite not being an SDA, because I wanted to know what they believe and why. They disagree with me on this, but my experience and my reading of the Bible is that God proves He is true with evidence.

You have no evidence. You have claims of belief. Claims of belief can't be used as evidence for that belief. It's like saying that I believe in unicorns, and then providing a written statement of that belief as a proof. It makes little sense as "evidence". Sure, you have a belief. I can respect that.

Quote:

Having experienced that, and verified it from scripture, I'm not subject to the sort of arguments you're trying to pose. I know God is real, I've met Him. So, if you don't like how He does things, you should take it up with Him, instead of me. I'm not making any of this up, I'm just reporting on how it is, so I'm not the one to criticism if you object to any of it.

You've met Him? What does He look like? I'd love to know! Perhaps you don't mean it literally, but I can say that I've experienced every bit of what you experienced, and I'm convinced that it was merely a figment of my imagination... highly irrational one.

Now, I certainly don't mind people believing anything they want to, granted that they don't harm other with their ideas. But we are being ruled by people who believe that God as the omnipotent real-estate agent gave a certain group of people right to massacre quite a bit of people as a promise to obtaining a piece of land, which to this day they are struggling to keep. Whether you like it or not, such beliefs do impact the life of other people in a very real way.

There's the other coin of every such belief that I don't like very much, and that I think should be addressed , discussed and opposed.

Stoning of children by their parents is wrong, no matter which God says it's not.

[BibleOnly]

You're playing word games with me here.

"You have no evidence. You have claims of belief. Claims of belief can't be used as evidence for that belief. It's like saying that I believe in unicorns, and then providing a written statement of that belief as a proof. It makes little sense as "evidence". Sure, you have a belief. I can respect that."

When someone becomes a Christian, they receive a physical experience that includes, but is not limited to, the ability to pray to God in a language He gives you. For me, it also included instantly overcoming an addiction to alcohol, and the emotional scars of a pretty average childhood. The important point is that I tried the 'gospel' my SDA friends would tell you has the power of God, and I could achieve none of those things. So, I didn't just need the idea of God, or a better peer group, I tried all that, sincerely, but until I had a real experience of God, I could do nothing, and once I did, I didn't have to do anything, my life was simply and immediately changed.

I'm sure you'd prefer proof that's more able of being broadcast on 60 minutes, but God gives proof to the individual, He still wants every person to approach Him and ask for it. Again, I'm not in charge of who God is, I just know and am telling you.

[cheddar]

I think what fccool is trying to say in the simplest possible language is that:

The OT picture of God was very violent and

the NT picture of God is very non-violent.

Which one is correct? are they both or just the new...or what?

The Bible says that God never changes and if the book of Revelation is any indication then the violent God who kills people is still around.

Have you ever read Revelation? There's a lot of killing going on and Satan isn't the only one doing it. I guess God finally gets tired of turning the other cheek and goes back to his old ways!

[fccool]

You actually make more sense than most people on this board to be honest.

Quote:

When someone becomes a Christian, they receive a physical experience that includes, but is not limited to, the ability to pray to God in a language He gives you.

So, every single Christian gets this gift? Why is it that such gift only briefly mentioned in the Bible, and then does not show up in annals of Christianity until the last 19th century? You don't find many hardcore Christian fathers that emphasize the experience too much.

Quote:

For me, it also included instantly overcoming an addiction to alcohol, and the emotional scars of a pretty average childhood.

Many people overcome addiction and alcohol, and they believe all sorts of things. That's the nature of belief, because it's disciplinary in nature. Of itself, it's not an evidence for any religious veracity or divine experience.

Quote:

The important point is that I tried the 'gospel' my SDA friends would tell you has the power of God, and I could achieve none of those things. So, I didn't just need the idea of God, or a better peer group, I tried all that, sincerely, but until I had a real experience of God, I could do nothing, and once I did, I didn't have to do anything, my life was simply and immediately changed.

Once again, the religious experience is not a proof of anything. It may sound convincing, but there are plenty of reasonable psychology that explains it in detail.

You would not argue that because you experience feeling of "love" towards a woman, that there's objective person of "love" sitting somewhere in the sky. It's simply a human experience of emotion that we at times personify in metaphors like "love struck", or "love hurts".

Much of Christian experience can actually be explained though idea of "self-hypnosis". If you really want for God to give you the "experience" of him, then you most likely will be looking for any type of feeling you expect. Thus this feeling becomes the idea behind the experience of God. It's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. If one is looking for certain patterns in otherwise incoherent and inconclusive experience... one will eventually chalk up any type of experience to whatever it is that you want to.

I mean, people experience their dead relatives quite a bit, and they believe in them too. My mother-in-law experienced her dead dog Experience is very unreliable as such proof. I may convince you, but it does not rest in realm of reasonable and logical.

Quote:

I'm sure you'd prefer proof that's more able of being broadcast on 60 minutes, but God gives proof to the individual, He still wants every person to approach Him and ask for it. Again, I'm not in charge of who God is, I just know and am telling you.

Hey, I'm not going to deny that you have experienced something, but that something does not mean you've experienced God. I think even you have to admit to the possibility of that. The nature of this subject is such that there's a whole score of people around the world that have conflicting views of their faith in different Gods, and virtually all of them claim personal experience as undeniable proof that their version of God exists.

Seems to me that experience not very reliable as such idea. If God truly wanted to make it an experience, then perhaps he would make it more certain than some unknown tongue that people become having urge to speak in (without actually understanding what the heck they are saying, and without any sing of coherent consistency to that language in a way that a linguists could actually recognize some sort of patterns and study it) ... it all seems so illusive and evasive that it rather seems that God decides to play hide and seek with humanity that's in desperate need of Him. Why? Makes little sense.

[BibleOnly]

I think what fccool is trying to say in the simplest possible language is that:

The OT picture of God was very violent and

the NT picture of God is very non-violent.

Which one is correct? are they both or just the new...or what?

The Bible says that God never changes and if the book of Revelation is any indication then the violent God who kills people is still around.

Have you ever read Revelation? There's a lot of killing going on and Satan isn't the only one doing it!

Yes, God does not change. But, He's got the ability to righteously provide a way out in this age, and so He is. Those who reject it, will find themselves in a bad place in the judgement, which does indeed show that God has not changed, He still expects there to be a price to pay for rejecting His offer of salvation.

[BibleOnly]

Well, my post was deleted, because I responded in kind to someone who called me things like nuts, and a troglodyte. I didn't say anything worse than that, although I admit to getting exasperated with the continued abuse I was getting from one person, and responding in kind. I've been contacted and threatened with removal. So, I guess time will tell. I respect any site owner to moderate to impose a standard, and I have always tried to show the fruits of the Spirit, but, I am only human, and if others can abuse me, and they are not dealt with, then a double standard is not something I can easily play along with.

Quote:

When someone becomes a Christian, they receive a physical experience that includes, but is not limited to, the ability to pray to God in a language He gives you.

So, every single Christian gets this gift? Why is it that such gift only briefly mentioned in the Bible, and then does not show up in annals of Christianity until the last 19th century? You don't find many hardcore Christian fathers that emphasize the experience too much.

[fccool]

Quote:

Yes, God does not change. But, He's got the ability to righteously provide a way out in this age, and so He is. Those who reject it, will find themselves in a bad place in the judgement, which does indeed show that God has not changed, He still expects there to be a price to pay for rejecting His offer of salvation.

Why? He does not personally comes down and offers salvation to people. He offers it through inconclusive, and incoherent compilation of 2000+ year old writings that one has to deduce what it is exactly that God wants people to do, and whether these can be trusted as claims to begin with.

If God would show up at my bed tomorrow and say, hey I'm real, I love you, ask away and I'll answer... and if you still are not satisfied ... then sorry you have no place with me... I'd understand. But there's nothing!

What are not rejecting salvation. What we are rejecting is terrible logic and reason.

If God were to ask as to why I rejected His call to salvation, I'd say that I was not sure it was from Him. The morality of it sounds rather questionable, and there are more questions than answers.

If God really is to answer salvation, how about doing it by reasonable means in a way that innocent beings don't have to die to satisfy His rage?

[Tom Wetmore]

...

[BibleOnly]

Didn't see this, sorry.

Quote:

Yes, God does not change. But, He's got the ability to righteously provide a way out in this age, and so He is. Those who reject it, will find themselves in a bad place in the judgement, which does indeed show that God has not changed, He still expects there to be a price to pay for rejecting His offer of salvation.

Why? He does not personally comes down and offers salvation to people. He offers it through inconclusive, and incoherent compilation of 2000+ year old writings that one has to deduce what it is exactly that God wants people to do, and whether these can be trusted as claims to begin with.

[phkrause]

GP

Luke 23:8 Herod was delighted to see Yeshua, because he had heard about him and for a long time had been wanting to meet him; indeed, he hoped to see him perform some miracle.

Hebrews 11:1 Trusting is being confident of what we hope for, convinced about things we do not see. 2 It was for this that Scripture attested the merit of the people of old. 3 By trusting, we understand that the universe was created through a spoken word of God, so that what is seen did not come into being out of existing phenomena. 4 By trusting, Hevel offered a greater sacrifice than Kayin; because of this, he was attested as righteous, with God giving him this testimony on the ground of his gifts. Through having trusted, he still continues to speak, even though he is dead.

I guess only until, some see a miracle, will they believe.

[Windsor]

The only good out of all that was that the son had to be brought by his mother and father. A loving mother and father would be very unlikely to subject their child to stoning. Your typical rebellious teen therefore was probably not stoned to death.

[ClubV12]

The parents did not make the decision, the Elders of the city, as a group, made the decision. No doubt there were many times when the Elders decided it was not in the best interest of the parents or the child. But you can bet when that family returned home, with their son, the rebellious son was "put on notice" of the consequences of his actions!

What does society do today with a rebellious son? A son who is so out of control he represents a danger to the family or the community. Where the parents actually fear for their own lives? A son who actually kills a sibling or a parent? This is not some rebellious son going through the problems of youth and trying to adapt, this is a very serious son that is dangerous. Perhaps mentally deranged, killing animals. Killing a family's animals or burning their crops in bible times could be a direct threat to the families very survival. It was a life and death issue for the community, the family the son. The son may have befriended a neighboring hostile tribe and gave them information about how to attack the family or the town. This isn't some moment of rebellion of a youth, what DO you do with a dangerous son today?

The authorities, the "Elders" as a group, may confine him in a jail or a hospital. To the age of 21 or beyond. OR they may try him as an adult for certain crimes! They didn't have "jail" or "hospitals" in biblical times. When they faced a very serious issue there were few options.

This isn't some kid who stays in his room all day smoking dope and playing games on the TV. This is a serious kid, a serious theat. What would you do? The laws of the land allow even for captial punishment for youth! In that respect, nothing has changed.

This is the kid with a stock pile of weapons and home made bombs getting ready to take out members of the community!!

What IF the parents REFUSED to bring such a rebellious youth to the gates of the city for "trial"? In some cases I think the community would FORCE them to do so! The parents were obligated to "obey" just as much as the rebellious youth.

[doug yowell]

I think what fccool is trying to say in the simplest possible language is that:

The OT picture of God was very violent and

the NT picture of God is very non-violent.

Actually, what cool is trying to say (intentionally or not)is: 1) that God's law is an unnecessary burden.Imposing standards and then expecting anyone to actually live by them evolves into an exercise in needless cruelty. "Honor your father and your mother that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God GIVES you." Any society that allows it's children to make up their own rules and disrespect the guidance and provisions of their parents soon degrades into a national Peoples Park ( by the way,if you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair).Being that Israel was the caretaker of something that had been handed to them free of charge,by God,and was the only true Theocracy this earth has ever seen,someone is going to have to explain why obedience to it's laws and it's Lawgiver is inconsistent with happiness and social order? 2)that drunkenness and gluttony should not be behaviors that keep anyone out of eternal life, that God as a parent, does not have the right to execute the death penalty on His own children (too much violence).The final Theocracy is one day to be a reality and when, like the incorrigible youth (it's not like the parents didn't exhaust every other option),men stand before the elders in judgment, no one is going to question the justice of the sentence. What more could have been done?

[Gibs]

The training and discipling must start when a child and teachable. As with a sprout of a tree, if it is allowed to grow crooked it will remain crooked.

Pr 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gibs]

The training and discipling must start when a child and teachable. As with a sprout of a tree, if it is allowed to grow crooked it will remain crooked.

Pr 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[M. T. Cross]

The training and discipling must start when a child and teachable. As with a sprout of a tree, if it is allowed to grow crooked it will remain crooked.

Pr 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I bet my parents would beg to differ