How often are children executed, eaten by their parents, killed by God, or have their eyes plucked out?

Question

If not often then why not? The Bible says you should.

"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." -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." -- Proverbs 30:17

"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:16; Leviticus 26:29

Sometimes God kills children for misbehaving:
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that word is infallible, then you can't throw out some of the context just because you don't like them.

Answer 1

Wow!

Now I know why Saint Xavier got Sainthood that easily by Church.

The Inquisition made its way to India under the Portuguese Jesuit, St. Francis Xavier in 1545. The first demand for the establishment of the Inquisition in Goa was made by St. Francis Xavier. In a letter addressed from Amboina (Moluccas) to D. Joao III, King of Portugal, on May 16, 1545, he wrote:

“The second necessity for the Christians is that your majesty establish the Holy Inquisition, because there are many who live according to the Jewish law, and according to the Mohammedan sect, without fear of God or shame of the world. And since there are many who are spread all over the fortresses, there is the need of the Holy Inquisition, and of many preachers. Your majesty should provide such necessary things for your loyal and faithful subjects in India.”

Various measures were taken by the Portuguese rulers in Goa with the object of converting the natives to Christianity.

To the non-Christians, there are many aspects of Christianity that are perplexing and, in some instances, downright bizarre. The Church decided the best way of resolving these problems would be to start a reign of terror to frighten the savages into submission. It set up a kind of tribunal. The palace in which these holy terrorists ensconced themselves was locally known as the Vodlem gor - The Big House. It became the symbol of fear. Ceremonies were conducted behind closed doors. People in the street often heard screams of agony piercing the night.

Here are some gruesome details:

"Children were flogged and slowly dismembered in front of their parents, whose eyelids had been sliced off to make sure they missed nothing. Extremities were amputated carefully, so that a person could remain conscious even when all that remained was torso and head. Male genitals were removed and burned in front of wives, breasts hacked off and vaginas penetrated by swords while husbands were forced to watch."

“As to the torture itself, it combined all that the ferocity of savages and the ingenuity of civilized man had till then invented. Besides the ordinary rack, thumb-screws, and leg crushers or Spanish boots, there were spiked wheels over which the victims were drawn with weights on their feet; boiling oil was poured over their legs, burning sulphur dropped on their bodies, and lighted candles held beneath their armpits.”

No wonder. They had sanction from their scriptures. Xavier wrote back his expolits with pride. Got sainthood.

Answer 2

I do believe that the Word of God is infallible. However, the Bible is broken down into the Old & New to signify the Covenants. The Old Testimony refers to God's original covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham & Moses. Each of these built up to the ultimate, new and everlasting covenant - the New Covenant of Christ Jesus. In it He refined the terms of the covenant and in doing so refined the activities associated with them.

Jesus told us that the barbarians of the previous ages were not refined enough and therefore needed to narrow the scope of our view. The Ten Commandments said that you sin if you have sex with someone else's wife. Jesus said that the sin occurs even if you think about it.

The Law says not to eat certain foods, which all had health reasons behind them in a day when hygiene was unknown. Jesus said it's not what goes into a man that is sinful but what comes out of a man's mouth.

Leviticus said that adulterers should be publicly stoned. Jesus told those who would carry out the law that they must be sinless.

So in taking these terms out of context you have twisted them into something that they are not. The Bible, specifically the Old Testament, cannot be truly understood unless viewed through the filter of Jesus. Jesus explains all of the old ways an how they apply today.

Additionally you made the same mistake may do when criticizing the Old Testament. Just because the Bible is infallible does not mean every word in it is literal. The Proverbs are a strong case for that. Webster's definition says that a proverb is “a brief popular epigram or maxim; adage.” Adage is defined as "a saying often in metaphorical form that embodies a common observation." Note the term “metaphor”. That doesn't mean the entire Bible is a metaphor. It could be thought that those who take the uninformed or contentious line you have chosen try to fit it into your own version of what you think it should be. Whether for convenience, ridicule or out of general ignorance I can't say. But you do yourself a disservice by making these accusations simply because they make you look like an uneducated fool. Were I you I would avoid this type of attack. As Samuel Clemens is attributed to have said, "It is better to be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Answer 3

You are correct of course, and you are only scratching the surface.

Thank you for doing this. I'm always amazed when you quote a plain, clear, easy to understand scripture to the literalists and they respond with "you don't know what it means" or the even more jaw-dropping "you are taking it out of context" -- as if somehow context could matter when the text tells you to stone your children to death for eating and drinking too much. The level of self-deception among the biblio-idolators is just stunning. If I could lie to myself that well, I'd just think I was a king somewhere. It would be fun.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

PS Oh -- there's one now. hey science geek. Context DOES NOT MATTER. Your whole argument has no support. Show me the scripture verses where god says "oh and what I said in Deuteronomy -- that was "about punishing the people to the point where they will be so desperate that human nature will kick in.

Some people lose their minds that they will do anything that is uncommon.

I was for that."

Go ahead, show me where the received text says that. Email me -- tell me the verses to read that say that. You can't, because there aren't any -- and as for context, the context s what the major Jewish and Christian theologians at REAL universities have been saying it was for hundreds of years.

Judaism was a tribal culture with a purity focus. The laws were developed to keep the people pure and to guarantee reproduction, so that they could survive in the middle of many hostile tribes who opposed them. J-H-V-H developed out of the god, most likely, of Mt. Zion -- a minor mountain deity within the Sumerian patheon. hmmm... and WHERE DID ABRAHAM COME FROM????? Sumeria, the city of Ur. So over time Judaism became fully monotheistic. But, regardless, they had to survive, drunken, gluttenous children? Bad. Kill them.

The Bible, the one with the pi of 3, the cud chewing rabbits and the four legged beetles -- regardless of context no beetle has 4 legs, and the argument that rabbits rechew their **** and god meant that when he used the jewish word for cud is about as unconvincing as I can imagine -- is a late bronze age and early iron age myth. Furthermore, the Christian Church developed quite nicely without it. By the time canon was established finally after the Council of Carthage -- the Church was long established itself. The Bible is an afterthought of which we have no original copies -- it should be treated as what it is -- myth.

Answer 4

you have no idea what any of this means.

Stoning of children--- Prior to this law there was NO law against killing your children. Look at what is required for a child to be killed by this law. First the father and mother must do a bad job of raising the child. then the child must behave so badly that he brings his parents to so much anger that they choose that he must die. But the parents cannot kill him. They must take him to the elders and present the charges. The eldres must decide that the charges are true. Only then could he be executed. Also did you ever wonder why this son would not have left before things got so bad? The law did not forbid him from leaving. It does protect elderly parents from a son who tries to take over and abuse them. It probably served it purpose better than out current laws if taken with the other laws of its time.

Eating the flesh of your sons and daughters--- This is not a law. It is a warning of what will happen if they do not obey God. If they are obedient they will prosper. If they are not then God will do all sorts of things to teach them to be obedient. This is the same as a parent disciplining a child. Eventually if they repeatedly refuse to obey, Then God will no longer provide for them, even to the point that they would have to resort to eating their own kids. It is not advocating this. It is reminding them that even the most basic neccessity comes from God.

Boys killed for mocking Elisha-- Bethel was the religious center for the royalty of the north. These boys would have known this. Also Elisha was known to be God's representative. When they mocked him with "go on up you baldhead" they were mocking God. Essentially they were calling him powerless. If they believed that God had no power after all that he had done for them, they deserved no better.

See, there is no need for us to run away from the truth, only to know it. I am not embarrassed because these things are in the bible. The problem comes from a lack of knowledge by people such as yourself. And a lack of humility. As a Christian, I have not lived one day under Mosaic Law. Yet I (and you) enjoy the blessing of their wisdom and justice.

Answer 5

Buddy if you read all of that you will realize that God was talking about punishing the people to the point where they will be so desperate that human nature will kick in.

Some people lose their minds that they will do anything that is uncommon.

God was saying that he was for that.

If you read 2 Kings 6:29 that prophecy came to pass.

Read the entire chapter of Leviticus 26 andout it all in context guy.

Answer 6

Sorry can not answer that one I live and abide under the New Covenant (New Testament)


Jesus and the Mosaic Law


Many Christians are perplexed when they confront the issue of the Mosaic Law. How binding is the Law on the Christian? Some have said that Jesus abolished the Law of Moses. I would have to disagree, based on the following passage spoken by Jesus Himself:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Some have suggested that by "fulfil," Jesus meant "abolish." Indeed, "abolish" is one meaning of "fulfil," but it is also the only meaning of "destroy." So if He had meant "abolish," He might as well have said, "I am not come to abolish, but to abolish." We can assume, therefore, that Jesus meant, "to develop the full potentialities of" when He said "fulfil."

So why then do Christians not observe the Mosaic Law? The answer is that they do observe parts, but not all of it. Some parts of the Law were meant to be temporary, while others were intended to be permanent. This is seen in the fact that before Moses, the ancient Jews were not bound to the ritual commands (except circumcision). If the Mosaic Law was not meant to be temporary, then either God changes or the God of the righteous men and women before Moses was a different god. But this is absurd. We know that the God of Abraham was the God of Moses, and that He is our God today. The coming of Christ made parts of the Mosaic law unnecessary.


In order to understand this, we must realize that the Law is made up of three parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral.


The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel's worship. Since its primary purpose was to point to the coming Savior, Jesus made it unnecessary. He did not abolish it, in the sense of destroying it; He fulfilled it. Nowhere do we read that Jesus thought that the ceremonial law was wrong. The principles behind the ceremonial law are still applicable to us today, that is, the principles of worshipping and serving a holy God.


The civil law prescribed rules for the Israelites' daily living. These laws separated the Jews from the Gentiles, and gave the Gentiles the example of how a holy people should live. Since much was given to the Jews, much was expected. But God gave a new covenant in Christ, and there is now no distinction to be made between Jew and Gentile. We are still to follow the requirements of this law as God's people, but the punishments are not for any nation to impose on its people, because we are no longer separated by nations but by God's grace (Christians and non-Christians).


The moral law is basically the Ten Commandments. We are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.


So we see that the parts of the Law that have been rendered obsolete are those that contain ordinances. An ordinance is either a memorial of something that has already passed or a type of something in the future. The Old Testament laws containing ordinances were not meant to be permanent. There are no ordinances in the Ten Commandment Law.


Now, we must remember that following rules and regulations will not get us into heaven. It is only through the blood of Jesus that we can see heaven. But if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

Answer 7

If they stone you for being a drunkard, then I'm in alot of trouble

Signed, Mad Mel

Answer 8

Get over yourself

Answer 9

A lot more often than you use your brain. Get a clue.

Answer 10

For crying out loud - - that is terrible!