Religious Zealotry

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
See above.

Well, the Bible doesn't expressly state that two year olds

Now you're moving the goalposts again. We were discussing "children as young as five," not two year olds.

can't be culpable of murder but why should it?

You made the following assertion that it was clear that the Bible said "five year old kids can't be capable of [murder].":

The Bible is clear on the score where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old kids can't be culpable of it.

Are you unable to provide the book, chapter, and verse where the Bible says, clearly, that "five year old kids can't be capable of murder"?

If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't make the claim that the Bible says, "five year old kids can't be culpable of it (murder)."

If you can, then please provide the book, chapter, and verse from scripture that supports your assertion.

Use some common sense.

How about, instead of telling us to make your argument for you, you actually make the argument yourself.

Again, you made the claim that the Bible was clear that "five year olds can't be culpable of murder." Please support that claim with evidence, from scripture, that says that.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Now you're moving the goalposts again. We were discussing "children as young as five," not two year olds.



You made the following assertion that it was clear that the Bible said "five year old kids can't be capable of [murder].":



Are you unable to provide the book, chapter, and verse where the Bible says, clearly, that "five year old kids can't be capable of murder"?

If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't make the claim that the Bible says, "five year old kids can't be culpable of it (murder)."

If you can, then please provide the book, chapter, and verse from scripture that supports your assertion.



How about, instead of telling us to make your argument for you, you actually make the argument yourself.

Again, you made the claim that the Bible was clear that "five year olds can't be culpable of murder." Please support that claim with evidence, from scripture, that says that.
Of course the Bible doesn't stipulate that five year old children aren't capable of murder just the same way it doesn't point out several other obvious things as why should it need to? Furthermore and in light of that I didn't post that the Bible expressly stated that five year old children are incapable of murder if you scroll back. If you have common sense then you know why they aren't and why the law takes age into account in regards to accountability and culpability where it comes to crime. I wasn't 'moving the goalposts' at all JR. Reducing the age to two only served to underscore the glaringly obvious point. The Bible does encourage people to think, right?
 
Last edited:

annabenedetti

Well-known member
Of course the Bible doesn't stipulate that five year old children aren't capable of murder just the same way it doesn't point out several other obvious things as why should it need to? Furthermore and in light of that I didn't post that the Bible expressly stated that five year old children are incapable of murder if you scroll back. If you have common sense then you know why they aren't and why the law takes age into account in regards to accountability and culpability where it comes to crime. I wasn't 'moving the goalposts' at all JR. Reducing the age to two only served to underscore the glaringly obvious point. The Bible does encourage people to think, right?


IIRC, bar mitzvahs are at age 13. Also, at the census, they didn't give offerings until age 20. This tells us a little about what the OT might have considered an age of reason.

New Testament: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
IIRC, bar mitzvahs are at age 13. Also, at the census, they didn't give offerings until age 20. This tells us a little about what the OT might have considered an age of reason.

New Testament: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
Do you think Jesus meant little children like Robert Thompson and Jon Venables?

 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Of course the Bible doesn't stipulate that five year old children aren't capable of murder

Then why did you make the claim that it does, and does so in a clear manner?

just the same way it doesn't point out several other obvious things as why should it need to?

You shouldn't make claims to what the Bible says if the Bible doesn't say what you're claiming. That's called lying.

Furthermore and in light of that I didn't post that the Bible expressly stated that five year old children are incapable of murder if you scroll back.

You made the following claim:

The Bible is clear on the score where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old kids can't be culpable of it.

Now either support that claim, or retract it.

If you have common sense

Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, Arty.

then you know why they aren't and why the law takes age into account in regards to accountability and culpability where it comes to crime.

The Bible makes no such distinction regarding age.

I wasn't 'moving the goalposts' at all JR. Reducing the age to two only served to underscore the glaringly obvious point.

Thanks for basically admitting to moving the goalposts.

As Doser pointed out, there are 10-year olds capable of murder.


The Bible does encourage people to think, right?

It also encourages people to present evidence for their claims.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Then why did you make the claim that it does, and does so in a clear manner?



You shouldn't make claims to what the Bible says if the Bible doesn't say what you're claiming. That's called lying.



You made the following claim:



Now either support that claim, or retract it.



Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, Arty.



The Bible makes no such distinction regarding age.



Thanks for basically admitting to moving the goalposts.

As Doser pointed out, there are 10-year olds capable of murder.





It also encourages people to present evidence for their claims.
I didn't although I can see your confusion and in fairness I should have worded it better. The Bible is certainly clear where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old children aren't capable of it. The latter wasn't in reference to the Bible but a statement in itself but again, should have clarified it more clearly.

Common sense dictates that young children lack the reasoning of adults. There's no fallacy about that JR. This is why we have laws that take this into account, much the same as mentally impaired adults aren't deemed responsible for their actions as an adult fully compos mentis. It's logical, moral and just to do so.

Unless you consider that the Bible needs to spoon feed on any and every given thing then there's no need for it to stipulate an age as the obvious shouldn't even need to be said. Five year old children are in the early stages of development. No goal post moving going on at all and no admission of such either. It underscored a glaringly obvious point.

I'm well aware of the James Bulger case and remember it at the time. It in no way justifies the notion that five year old children can be tried and convicted as adults as you should well know.

It does indeed.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I didn't although I can see your confusion and in fairness I should have worded it better. The Bible is certainly clear where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old children aren't capable of it. The latter wasn't in reference to the Bible but a statement in itself but again, should have clarified it more clearly.

Does the Bible give any indication of a lower age limit on when a/the law is applicable to someone?

Common sense dictates that young children lack the reasoning of adults.

Again, appeal to common sense is a fallacy. So is an alleged certainty.


I have seen a few examples of children who are, very clearly, more cognizant and aware of their surroundings than many adults, let alone being more capable in their reasoning.

There's no fallacy about that JR.

False.

compos mentis

English please. This is the second time I've asked you.

Unless you consider that the Bible needs to spoon feed on any and every given thing then there's no need for it to stipulate an age as the obvious shouldn't even need to be said.

As RD put it:

Five year old children are in the early stages of development.

Compared to a 30 year old, sure.

Compared to a 10 year old? Not really.

No goal post moving going on at all and no admission of such either.

You're in denial.

It underscored a glaringly obvious point.

It did nothing of the sort.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Does the Bible give any indication of a lower age limit on when a/the law is applicable to someone?



Again, appeal to common sense is a fallacy. So is an alleged certainty.


I have seen a few examples of children who are, very clearly, more cognizant and aware of their surroundings than many adults, let alone being more capable in their reasoning.



False.



English please. This is the second time I've asked you.



As RD put it:



Compared to a 30 year old, sure.

Compared to a 10 year old? Not really.



You're in denial.



It did nothing of the sort.
The Bible doesn't stipulate an exact age as far as I'm aware but again, why should it? It's obvious that young children aren't bound by it or held accountable to it as they're not old enough to understand it. In the UK you have to be 18 to be held accountable as an adult and most schools of thought have it to be around 20 or thereabouts in regards to the Bible. There might be a certain amount of discrepancy but late teens at least. By that stage, development has mostly come to fruition in regards to understanding even though there's still room for lots more.

Common sense should lead you to fact. A five year old is in the early stages of development, physically and mentally and their reasoning centers haven't come close to full fruition.

What kids have you seen exactly, how old and in what way are their reasoning abilities better than many adults? Appeal to anecdote fallacy? In turn I have a couple of friends who work in care. One of them has a client with severe mental impairment with the mind of a young child. In physical appearance he looks like what he is, a man in his fifties. Mentally, he's only concerned with toy trucks and the like that his carer supplies him with.

I explained the phrase 'compos mentis' in my latter to you on the score and linked you to the English translation. So scroll back, it's a commonly used term frankly.

If you're going to play some sort of comparison game then ten year olds are still minors and are rightfully treat as such under law. They're still nowhere near fully developed as an adult and nope, no denial going on here at all. You're the one who posited that age doesn't matter in regards to justice whereas it obviously does so bringing two year olds and babies into the equation does underscore a glaringly obvious point.
 

marke

Well-known member
The Bible doesn't stipulate an exact age as far as I'm aware but again, why should it? It's obvious that young children aren't bound by it or held accountable to it as they're not old enough to understand it. In the UK you have to be 18 to be held accountable as an adult and most schools of thought have it to be around 20 or thereabouts in regards to the Bible. There might be a certain amount of discrepancy but late teens at least. By that stage, development has mostly come to fruition in regards to understanding even though there's still room for lots more.

Common sense should lead you to fact. A five year old is in the early stages of development, physically and mentally and their reasoning centers haven't come close to full fruition.

What kids have you seen exactly, how old and in what way are their reasoning abilities better than many adults? Appeal to anecdote fallacy? In turn I have a couple of friends who work in care. One of them has a client with severe mental impairment with the mind of a young child. In physical appearance he looks like what he is, a man in his fifties. Mentally, he's only concerned with toy trucks and the like that his carer supplies him with.

I explained the phrase 'compos mentis' in my latter to you on the score and linked you to the English translation. So scroll back, it's a commonly used term frankly.

If you're going to play some sort of comparison game then ten year olds are still minors and are rightfully treat as such under law. They're still nowhere near fully developed as an adult and nope, no denial going on here at all. You're the one who posited that age doesn't matter in regards to justice whereas it obviously does so bringing two year olds and babies into the equation does underscore a glaringly obvious point.
Young children need to be taught respect for their parents, for adults, and for those in leadership and authority. Kids who remain undisciplined are in danger of rebelling against God to the doom of their own souls.

2 Kings 2:22-24
King James Version

22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
23 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.
24 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.​

 
Top