alt.education

"Jeff Strickland"
>
>
> "Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
> news:fruuag$2iv$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > In article Josh Rosenbluth
> > writes:
> >> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nobody, well not anybody I know, "chooses" to ignore Biblical law wrt
> >> > dealing with insolent children.
> >>
> >> It ain't the courts. Your beef is with your elected officials.
> >
> >
> > I sure as hell HOPE that the Biblical mandate for dealing
> > with insolent children is universally ignored -- because
> > the section Bob mentions requires that the neighborhood
> > get together and throw stones at the kid until he
> > stops moving. Permanently.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be
> > put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
> >
> >
> > This strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction.
> >
>
>
> Why do you cite Old Testament law in support of an anti-Christian stance?


>
> Christ freed us of Old Testament law. We do go back and look at the Old
> Testament, but generally where the Old Testament makes prophesies that
> affect the New Testament in some way. Christian children are not allowed --
> by ignoring Deuteronomy -- to run wild and without restraint. For
> Christians, the Old Testament becomes foundational, not religious mandate.
> For mandates, we look to the New Testament.

Two points regarding that:

1) I don't think that the average Christian regards, say,
the Ten Commandments as just an interesting piece of
history (in spite of what Jesus had to say on the topic).
Watching televangelists I hear frequent references to
the Old Testament to shore up some moral argument of
other. Reading newsgroups, I see the same thing
from various posters.


2) I'm a bit puzzled why an unchanging immutable eternal
God, the very ground of all morality, the same today and
tomorrow and forever, would establish a set of absolute
moral guidelines -- "This is right, that is wrong" --
and then one day declare the entire structure
obsolete, or (to crib from Ron Ziegler) "inoperative".
If it was right -- or wrong -- in 100 B.C, it seems
odd that the same might not be true in 100 A.D.
I would think that absolute morality would not
have a best-by date on it.

In fact, how do you know that God is not going to issue
Version III some day, and declare New Testament morality
to be merely of historical interest? After all,
nowhere in the Pentateuch does God advise the
Heberews that "this thou shalt, and that thou
shalt not...for now".



>
> I'm sure you know that, and I can't help but wonder why you continually
> reference the Old Testament when you cite stuff Christians do not do, or do
> wrong.
>

I'm curious what poster you have in mind.


-- cary