It’s absolutely not justifiable to murder your child if it misbehaves. There is no excuse to take your child out into the community to be stoned to death just cause they disobey their parents. You’re the first fake religious person I have seen who has defended murdering kids.
Of course you are going to try to deny abortions in the bible. Fake religious ppl always pick & choose what to follow from their dogmatic cult.
Your religion is responsible for millions of deaths, terrorism worse than I.S.S, raping & murdering kids so you should just sit down & shut up about your cult morals
Leviticus 20:9 “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.”
Deuteronomy 21:18–21 18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to 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.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Here are my thoughts:
This passage is usually used to paint a picture of a child begging his parents that he will never do something bad again. The evil God hates children and has him put them to death. Reality is often different than initial impressions. This isn’t about a rebellious child but a violent adult that lives carelessly with no regard for authority.
Now let us consider children’s rebellion against parental authority. Mosaic law specifies the death penalty for children who curse parents, strike parents, or are incorrigible (Exod. 21:15, 17; Deut. 21:18-21). The statutes speak directly of the male child, but are clearly generalizable to daughters. The statute about incorrigibility speaks of “purging the evil,” which might imply some reference to the special holiness of Israel (Deut. 21:21). Moreover, the family line is the means through which the knowledge of God is passed on (Deut. 6:6-9), the promised land is inherited, and the descent to the Messiah as the offspring of Abraham is traced. We must therefore be cautious about whether the severity of the penalty has been affected by the special holiness of Israel.
First, consider incorrigibility. A careful reading of the relevant statute, Deut. 21:18-21, shows that we are not dealing with a temporary pique on the part of parents whose anger has broken out of bounds. The son has entrenched himself in a permanent pattern of rebellion that the parents are powerless to alter (21:18b). The matter is brought before the elders. As in all judicial cases they would be bound to check the veracity of the claim.4 Moreover, in a typical case parents out of sentimentality are the last people in the community to admit the truth to themselves about the hopelessness of their son. Here we have reassuring protection against arbitrariness.
Once we takes these facts into account, we can see that the conduct of an incorrigible son constitutes general rebellion against parental authority. The just penalty is death. As he has attempted to destroy legitimate authority, so he is himself destroyed by legitimate authority.
For similar reasons, general rebellion against state authority, in the form of incorrigible repeated refusal to obey positive commands of the state, merits death. Blatant refusal to carry out a penalty assigned by the state also merits death (in analogy with Deut. 17:12), because the penalty structure is the state’s last appeal in its own use of authority. To refuse this appeal is to move outside the bounds of all authority.
Cursing father and mother is a more difficult case. Like the issue of blasphemy and cursing God, this sin may have a penalty intensified by the special holiness of Israel and the holiness thereby pertaining to the Israelite family. First of all, we must realize that within Israelite society cursing was closer to black magic than a modern utterance of “go to hell” would be. The utterer intended damage to the other person. Hence it would be tantamount to blasphemy. Like all blasphemy within Israel it warranted the death penalty.
But what happens in a nonholy society where blasphemy has a different status? We must then deal with this crime as an injury to the parents, not as an injury to the holiness of Israel. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the curse, it might be a comparatively light matter or it might be tantamount to the general repudiation of parental authority. The parents would be the injured party. They would also be the first to judge the seriousness of this attack on their authority. If it was a limited attack, they would administer a spanking or beating. If it was a wholesale attack, they would proceed to take the child to civil authorities and the death penalty would still be appropriate.
Striking father or mother would appear to me to present us with the same complexities as does cursing father or mother. The same penalties would be involved.
The death penalty for wholesale violation of parental authority may seem harsh to modern sentiments. But I would argue that it is not only just but realistic. Parental authority, even if very imperfectly exercised, takes place in the context of personal relationships and natural pressures in the direction of love. Parents have many advantages over the state. If a person does not receive instruction from parents, the chances of receiving instruction from the state’s more impersonal discipline are nil. The person who rebels in wholesale fashion against parents will also rebel against the state and create general destruction and disorder until eliminated. It is mere sentimentality to refuse to come to grips with this reality.
The state and parents together have been given a monopoly on bodily punishments. 5 Any person who takes punishment into his own hands usurps this special authority and insults legitimate authority. On these grounds, it seems proper for the state to administer punishment in the case of crimes of bodily injury and murder. Murder in Israel was avenged by the nearest of kin, as we have seen. But this requirement was far more practical in a society in which close relatives regularly lived close together. Moreover, the practice of relatives living together and of relatives avenging death was tied in with the fact that relatives inherited neighboring plots of land through the Israelite system of inheritance of the promised land. Murder threatened the blood lines and the inheritance system, and constituted a threat to the holiness of Israel not equivalent to its damage nowadays.
https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-christ-in-the-law-of-moses-part-2/
Ironically, I agree with moral skeptics that moral intuition is unreliable, given the fact that different cultures have different taboos. What’s admirable in one culture is abominable in another, and vice versa. So we need something over and above moral intuition to correct or corroborate our moral intuitions.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/09/moral-skepticism-and-scripture.html
Therefore, the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not about stoning disobedient children. The Bible does not instruct parents to use stoning in dealing with the rebellious nature and disobedience of their children, but to use the rod and reproof (Pr. 29:15). Children are to be trained from a young age by consistent and loving discipline so that the foolishness that is bound up in them can be driven out (Pr. 22:15), and they will learn to honor and obey their parents and all those whom God has placed in authority over them. The case law in discussion does not apply to young children during the formative years, but applies, instead, to a grown son (and by extension to a daughter as well) who, for whatever reason, has rebelled against the authority of his parents and will not profit from any of their discipline nor obey their voice in any thing. It is a case of habitual contempt of parental authority characterized by a young adult living a life without moral restraint who lashes out verbally and/or physically against his mother and father. It is a case where the evil character of the son is apparently set,and there is no reasonable hope of his ever changing.
These are different looks at the law from different perspectives but the main point is that we should always understand that God did what was right. I wish just to show further context and interpretive complexities that the SJWs don’t have because they are empty of any wisdom.
Dan Horn’s sermon “Put Away the Evil From Among You” (HT Chris Matthew) points out that the law is supposed to make us think of our Holy and great father that has taught us perfectly and yet we go astray. God sets up hierarchies for society and these things are meant to be obeyed because they are authorities from God. That includes parents, civil magistrates, and divine law.
“Of course you are going to try to deny abortions in the bible.”
I think it is ironic to think that this objection comes from someone that arbitrarily chooses who should die based on a woman’s convenience. If a child can inhibit a woman’s freedom, then given the SJW line of thought children should be executed. So, they agree with the caricature of the law that they force on us.
“Your religion is responsible for millions of deaths, terrorism worse than I.S.S, raping & murdering kids so you should just sit down & shut up about your cult morals”
The issue is that none of that is true. Basically, conservative Christianity leads to more rape and murder than Isis. That is just dumb.
The Council 