The Bible

[Loismustdie 0]

I must have missed the bit in the bible that outlines the "They asked for it" defence.

What does the bible have to do with it? All I said was that there are more facts then just "The white man killed indians." Which you have no answer for,so you bring up the bible? Either you are a moron, or you are impersonating one.

[Loismustdie 0]

all of us continually make choices that are the end result of environmental influence - not just as children.the iraqi people are the new american indians apparently.

Yes, but unlike children, we are acutely aware of the possible consequences. That is the difference- accountability. Yes, the Bush administration is looking to eradicate the Iraqi people. You have figured them out.

[jmkiser 0]

And don't think JM is really on your side, he is my personal stalker.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwdon't flatter yourself

[jmkiser 0]

Yes, but unlike children, we are acutely aware of the possible consequences. That is the difference- accountability.

Adults are only advanced children. As CrowT pointed out, we make decisions nearly the same way. The big difference, obviously, being the naivity to the real world.So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Kids to plenty of "sinful" things with full knowledge of what they're doing. Using the same example of the child that does something "sinful" and having knowledge of it, they also are able to do sinful things with full naivity of their own actions.To get really into detail, you've got to take this on a complete scale. 100% being the completely naive kid who doesn't really know anything and, on the other end, a fully aware/grown/wise adult. Everybody is some of both in the categories of naivity and knowledge.To make the blanket statement that "kids get a freepass" can't work.Be more specific.

[Loismustdie 0]

Adults are only advanced children. As CrowT pointed out, we make decisions nearly the same way. The big difference, obviously, being the naivity to the real world.So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Kids to plenty of "sinful" things with full knowledge of what they're doing. Using the same example of the child that does something "sinful" and having knowledge of it, they also are able to do sinful things with full naivity of their own actions.To get really into detail, you've got to take this on a complete scale. 100% being the completely naive kid who doesn't really know anything and, on the other end, a fully aware/grown/wise adult. Everybody is some of both in the categories of naivity and knowledge.To make the blanket statement that "kids get a freepass" can't work.Be more specific.

I refuse to discuss anything biblical with you on the grounds that you are a heathen with little more on the brain than to be either pointlessly argumentative or just insulting. You have nothing invested in this subject besides the need to be an *** 24/7.

[chrisuk_sw 0]

What does the bible have to do with it? All I said was that there are more facts then just "The white man killed indians." Which you have no answer for,so you bring up the bible? Either you are a moron, or you are impersonating one.

I brought up the bible because that's what we were discussing - whether Christian belief makes a people act more morally than a lack of Christian belief. The white man had Christianity. The white man successfully ethnically cleansed America. I am arguing that this was an immoral act, in support of my view that religion makes no difference one way or the other to the morality of the actions of a people.Also - at no point in this discussion did I insult anyone. What's with the personal insults?

[jmkiser 0]

I refuse to discuss anything biblical with you on the grounds that you are a heathen with little more on the brain than to be either pointlessly argumentative or just insulting. You have nothing invested in this subject besides the need to be an *** 24/7.

ok, so you have no freaking cluegot itsorry you think i'm an *** 24/7I guess when you consistently and insultingly disagree with someone's points of view......

[renaedawn 1]

I refuse to discuss anything biblical with you on the grounds that you are a heathen with little more on the brain than to be either pointlessly argumentative or just insulting. You have nothing invested in this subject besides the need to be an *** 24/7.

You know, my grandfather used to get this frustrated with my questions that he had no good answers for. He would just yell "BECAUSE IT JUST IS".Kind of the same thing.

[brvheart 1,759]

Then, respectfully, I challenge your definition of sin. Sin- willfull breaking of Gods law. Kids do it all of the time. Except they don't, because they have no concept of right and wrong, not to the point to where they should be be bound by it with Hell being the end result. If a kid lies, what happens? Nothing. He gets reprimanded by his parents, whatever, but that kid is developing. To hold that child to the same boundaries as you and I is ridiculous, and not God at all. That would be like arriving to your first day at work as a doctor, with no training whatsoever, just random guy off of the street, and being required to do an appendectomy, a triple bypass and a hip replacement on the first day, perfectly, because people could die, and it is on you, because we hired you to be a doctor. That makes no sense, no more then the idea that children are fully developed and capable of making solid choices. Thay are not. I will tell you this: if that were the case, I would have nothing to do with God. The only reason to look at a child as a sinner would be to just arbitrarily make **** up. and that is not what God is about. all of his laws make sense, there is a reason behind it. To make a child accountable for choices right out of the gate would be nothing less than pure evil.

Adults are only advanced children. As CrowT pointed out, we make decisions nearly the same way. The big difference, obviously, being the naivity to the real world.So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Kids to plenty of "sinful" things with full knowledge of what they're doing. Using the same example of the child that does something "sinful" and having knowledge of it, they also are able to do sinful things with full naivity of their own actions.To get really into detail, you've got to take this on a complete scale. 100% being the completely naive kid who doesn't really know anything and, on the other end, a fully aware/grown/wise adult. Everybody is some of both in the categories of naivity and knowledge.To make the blanket statement that "kids get a freepass" can't work.Be more specific.

I refuse to discuss anything biblical with you on the grounds that you are a heathen with little more on the brain than to be either pointlessly argumentative or just insulting. You have nothing invested in this subject besides the need to be an *** 24/7.

I agree with this. I hope you respond to 'my' comment right above this though. Because my 8, 6, and 4 year old know who God is and what pleases and doesn't please him... because they tell me... daily. My 3 year old absolutely knows that she is doing something wrong... but probably not against God... just against mom and dad. My baby doesn't know how to do anything but crap his pants and eat.

You know, my grandfather used to get this frustrated with my questions that he had no good answers for. He would just yell "BECAUSE IT JUST IS".Kind of the same thing.

It's totally different. If I was Lois I wouldn't discuss it with JM either, he hasn't earned the right for a real discussion. Lois has answered many of JM's spiteful attack questions. I seriously doubt you were throwing personal insults at your Grandpa when asking him your questions.

[Loismustdie 0]

Adults are only advanced children. As CrowT pointed out, we make decisions nearly the same way. The big difference, obviously, being the naivity to the real world.So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Kids to plenty of "sinful" things with full knowledge of what they're doing. Using the same example of the child that does something "sinful" and having knowledge of it, they also are able to do sinful things with full naivity of their own actions.To get really into detail, you've got to take this on a complete scale. 100% being the completely naive kid who doesn't really know anything and, on the other end, a fully aware/grown/wise adult. Everybody is some of both in the categories of naivity and knowledge.To make the blanket statement that "kids get a freepass" can't work.Be more specific.I agree with this. I hope you respond to 'my' comment right above this though. Because my 8, 6, and 4 year old know who God is and what pleases and doesn't please him... because they tell me... daily. My 3 year old absolutely knows that she is doing something wrong... but probably not against God... just against mom and dad. My baby doesn't know how to do anything but crap his pants and eat.It's totally different. If I was Lois I wouldn't discuss it with JM either, he hasn't earned the right for a real discussion. Lois has answered many of JM's spiteful attack questions. I seriously doubt you were throwing personal insults at your Grandpa when asking him your questions.

I get where you are coming from, but a child is not prepared to do- a young child, a tween, is not prepared to do the things that it takes to serve God. Like, go door to door and convince people to follow christ. Or, lead a congregation. They can know right and wrong but to actually make choices based on- well, God doesn't want me to be this way, if I am this way my soul is in jeoprady- why am I this way? I really need to sit down and delve deep within to figure out what it is within me that makes me go this way. Kids don't think like that, tweens are starting to- really,if I heard a kid thinking like that I would wonder what was wrong. Childhood is meant to be free from that kind of worry. Obviously each case is different, and it is in between the young adult and God whether or not he or she is ready for that commitment. Overall, though, I can safely say I don't know a 15 year old alive that is ready to serve God the way he commands. Mentally, they are just not there, much less a 5 or 6 year old.

[Loismustdie 0]

You know, my grandfather used to get this frustrated with my questions that he had no good answers for. He would just yell "BECAUSE IT JUST IS".Kind of the same thing.

Did you use much of your free time to just needle your grandfather and be a **** as much as possible? I doubt it. If you did, he probably would have put the smack down grandfather style. Also, I did answer the question, just for someone who actually cares about the issue. That is the difference. The scripture where he says "Cast not your pearls before the swine," applies here.

[jmkiser 0]

It's totally different. If I was Lois I wouldn't discuss it with JM either, he hasn't earned the right for a real discussion. Lois has answered many of JM's spiteful attack questions. I seriously doubt you were throwing personal insults at your Grandpa when asking him your questions.

Brvheart, you are obviously newer to these discussions then I thought if you are to assume that Lois is an innocent in our little tiffs. My right for a real discussion is put down by the points that deserve to be addressed. If you don't like me, I don't give a ****. Say something about the valid points I brought up. Regarding the Grandpa analogy, I seriously doubt your grandfather shared his views with immature insults at the opposition either.Quit being a one-sided Christian

[jmkiser 0]

I get where you are coming from, but a child is not prepared to do- a young child, a tween, is not prepared to do the things that it takes to serve God. Like, go door to door and convince people to follow christ. Or, lead a congregation. They can know right and wrong but to actually make choices based on- well, God doesn't want me to be this way, if I am this way my soul is in jeoprady- why am I this way? I really need to sit down and delve deep within to figure out what it is within me that makes me go this way. Kids don't think like that, tweens are starting to- really,if I heard a kid thinking like that I would wonder what was wrong. Childhood is meant to be free from that kind of worry. Obviously each case is different, and it is in between the young adult and God whether or not he or she is ready for that commitment. Overall, though, I can safely say I don't know a 15 year old alive that is ready to serve God the way he commands. Mentally, they are just not there, much less a 5 or 6 year old.

So the answer is that you have no idea what age other then "when they are able to serve god"... gotcha, that's all I was looking for.

[renaedawn 1]

Did you use much of your free time to just needle your grandfather and be a **** as much as possible? I doubt it. If you did, he probably would have put the smack down grandfather style. Also, I did answer the question, just for someone who actually cares about the issue. That is the difference. The scripture where he says "Cast not your pearls before the swine," applies here.

I disagree. I think there were a handful of direct questions in there that you simply refused to answer out of frustration.For example:So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Be more specific.Okay, well, that last one is a request more than a question.

[Loismustdie 0]

I disagree. I think there were a handful of direct questions in there that you simply refused to answer out of frustration.For example:So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Be more specific.Okay, well, that last one is a request more than a question.

You couldn't be more wrong. JM has one goal- to be a prick. That is it- he doesn't care one iota about the issue or the answers, he is just looking for his next opportunity to be a prick. It is pointless to deal with a person who has no interest in the conversation past how much of an *** he can make of himself. That really is the only reason why at this time I refuse to deal with him. Seriously, how many times have you seen me not answer a question? You couldn't possinly frustrate me enough to not be able to anwer, but you could put yourself in a spot where I just don't think you are worth the time. Big difference. You know what is really stupid? If I said,"A child shouldn't be handling loaded guns" everybody would say,"Right on, no kidding, I agree." You would have to be an idiot to say,"Well, what's a child?" Common sense tells you what a child is. There is no reason to be arguing semantics. Now, where Braveheart is coming from is this- he has kids that recognize right from wrong, and his question is,why doesn't that make them accountable for sin before God? The answer is simple- because they would still not be in a position to worship God, not really, they could now serve him the way he commands. It would take a special child to pull that off. Now, I will gladly discuss that, and many other issues with him, and it is refreshing and informative and full of life, whereas as JM has just made it nauseating.

[jmkiser 0]

You couldn't be more wrong. JM has one goal- to be a prick. That is it- he doesn't care one iota about the issue or the answers, he is just looking for his next opportunity to be a prick. It is pointless to deal with a person who has no interest in the conversation past how much of an *** he can make of himself. That really is the only reason why at this time I refuse to deal with him.How am I trying to be a prick when asking you a relevant question to a topic? I'm seriously asking you YOUR opinion on the matter. If you act like this, I react like a prick. If you gave your heartfelt general answer, the worst I might do is disagree with you. I freaking studied bible in youth group and college so I asked a genuine question. Seriously, how many times have you seen me not answer a question? You couldn't possinly frustrate me enough to not be able to anwer, but you could put yourself in a spot where I just don't think you are worth the time. Big difference.That's fine. Take the fact that it was me bringing up the relevant questions out of the equation. Imagine it was Brvheart or someone else asking. Just respond in kind. Again, I can give two shits if you like me or not, but I'm going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about until a relevant answer is presented. You know what is really stupid? If I said,"A child shouldn't be handling loaded guns" everybody would say,"Right on, no kidding, I agree." You would have to be an idiot to say,"Well, what's a child?" Common sense tells you what a child is. There is no reason to be arguing semantics. Now, where Braveheart is coming from is this- he has kids that recognize right from wrong, and his question is,why doesn't that make them accountable for sin before God? The answer is simple- because they would still not be in a position to worship God, not really, they could now serve him the way he commands. It would take a special child to pull that off. Now, I will gladly discuss that, and many other issues with him, and it is refreshing and informative and full of life, whereas as JM has just made it nauseating.I would not come at you and ask "what's a child?" because it is not relevant to the topic. Guns require maturity... obviously. This is a theological debate about the youth in the eyes of god. A child can fall under the ages of 5-21 in the societal and worldly eyes of human... what is it to god? How long do they get a free pass? Your sad bias of me IS nauseating and you're acting like a child when it comes to the processes of discussion. I play nice if you play nice. Try it once in awhile. You even admitted that you started this ignorant personal attack crap. I know nothing about you! Nothing. Other then the views you've presented to us on the board. Just admit that you don't know anything about me either (because you obviously don't if you ever think I would fall in line with Dems or liberals).

[renaedawn 1]

You couldn't be more wrong. JM has one goal- to be a prick. That is it- he doesn't care one iota about the issue or the answers, he is just looking for his next opportunity to be a prick. It is pointless to deal with a person who has no interest in the conversation past how much of an *** he can make of himself. That really is the only reason why at this time I refuse to deal with him. Seriously, how many times have you seen me not answer a question? You couldn't possinly frustrate me enough to not be able to anwer, but you could put yourself in a spot where I just don't think you are worth the time. Big difference. You know what is really stupid? If I said,"A child shouldn't be handling loaded guns" everybody would say,"Right on, no kidding, I agree." You would have to be an idiot to say,"Well, what's a child?" Common sense tells you what a child is. There is no reason to be arguing semantics. Now, where Braveheart is coming from is this- he has kids that recognize right from wrong, and his question is,why doesn't that make them accountable for sin before God? The answer is simple- because they would still not be in a position to worship God, not really, they could now serve him the way he commands. It would take a special child to pull that off. Now, I will gladly discuss that, and many other issues with him, and it is refreshing and informative and full of life, whereas as JM has just made it nauseating.

Read it again, please:

I disagree. I think there were a handful of direct questions in there that you simply refused to answer out of frustration.For example:So how much naivity is enough to be considered sinless in the eyes of god? Is it 5? 10? 15? Is it 18-21 when they're not children anymore?At what time is a child not a child in the eyes of god?Basically, how much knowledge and growth is enough to get you out of that "sinless" area and into the sinful one?For a Christian, it seems illogical to just use the word "child" because of it's extremely broad definition. Be more specific.Okay, well, that last one is a request more than a question.

Nowhere did I address the animosity between you and jm at all. I couldn't care less. However, there are others here who read even if they don't respond to every single one of your posts. Would it be better had I quoted jm's post and given it a Showstopper-esque reply like, "yeah, I was gonna ask that too"? You didn't answer the questions because you don't want to deal with him. Ummm, okay. Noted for next time.Will you answer them if I ask?And regarding the bolded in your post: The reason to argue semantics is because you cannot make rules that determine the fate of an eternal soul on ambiguity. If you can't make someone understand the logic of your religion how can you ever bring that person to Christ?

[Loismustdie 0]

Read it again, please:Nowhere did I address the animosity between you and jm at all. I couldn't care less. However, there are others here who read even if they don't respond to every single one of your posts. Would it be better had I quoted jm's post and given it a Showstopper-esque reply like, "yeah, I was gonna ask that too"? You didn't answer the questions because you don't want to deal with him. Ummm, okay. Noted for next time.Will you answer them if I ask?And regarding the bolded in your post: The reason to argue semantics is because you cannot make rules that determine the fate of an eternal soul on ambiguity. If you can't make someone understand the logic of your religion how can you ever bring that person to Christ?

I answered the question in another post, in response to Braveheart. That was already covered. I get the semantics, if it comes from someone who cares on a level past just being argumentative. JM hasn't shown anything but a willingness to belittle christianity and God at every opportunity, just because that is his thing. I always appreciate your input, and if I came across as unwilling to anwer the question I apologize. I will post my answer again here:" I get where you are coming from, but a child is not prepared to do- a young child, a tween, is not prepared to do the things that it takes to serve God. Like, go door to door and convince people to follow christ. Or, lead a congregation. They can know right and wrong but to actually make choices based on- well, God doesn't want me to be this way, if I am this way my soul is in jeoprady- why am I this way? I really need to sit down and delve deep within to figure out what it is within me that makes me go this way. Kids don't think like that, tweens are starting to- really,if I heard a kid thinking like that I would wonder what was wrong. Childhood is meant to be free from that kind of worry. Obviously each case is different, and it is in between the young adult and God whether or not he or she is ready for that commitment. Overall, though, I can safely say I don't know a 15 year old alive that is ready to serve God the way he commands. Mentally, they are just not there, much less a 5 or 6 year old." The answer ends up being that each case would be different, but you can pretty much rule out most kids as being accountable for sins,no more then they are accountable for things in the eyes of the law. You could have a 15 year old who is developed enough in his or her life to make that kind of commitment, and you could have an 18 year old that wasn't ready in God's eyes. By the same token you could have a 12 year old that was just pure evil, that happens,however, I would still say that would be up to God how he would handle that, because how many 12 year olds aren't a direct result of what parents have taught them? An evil 12 year old generally is directly the parents fault, therfore if the child died I don't know how God could deny them heaven- it's not the childs fault.(Generally)

[Balloon guy 158]

In regards to a child,The Jewish faith holds a child becomes an adult at 13, hence the bar and bat mizvah.So there is a track record of God having a point in a childs life when they are accountable, and a point when they are not.Only God knows when a person is of that exact moment in life to make that distinction, so He gets to judge.For us there is a rough idea, so we apply numbers, like 13, or 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink etc.And if the Iraqis are the new indians, does that mean they are getting casinos soon?

[Loismustdie 0]

I brought up the bible because that's what we were discussing - whether Christian belief makes a people act more morally than a lack of Christian belief. The white man had Christianity. The white man successfully ethnically cleansed America. I am arguing that this was an immoral act, in support of my view that religion makes no difference one way or the other to the morality of the actions of a people.Also - at no point in this discussion did I insult anyone. What's with the personal insults?

Cannot even imagine the plight that "Christians" found themselves in when they came over here looking for freedom, found a place and started to build. The natives were cool at first, but then the natives decided that it would be best to just start killing them. Women, children, didn't matter. These were brutal warriors. What is a good christian to do? Protect your family, and eliminate the threat. Be peaceful, yes, but don't be stupid. I don't see how there was any other choice, and frankly history agrees with me. Ethnic cleansing wasn't the goal- survival was the goal. The ethnic cleansing was the unfortunate side effect, but who's fault is that? Initially, the settlers were very peaceful, it wasn't till the realization that there would be no peace that it escalated to the point that it did. Again, not a chritianity thing, a survival thing. I said what I said- and I apologize, by the way, it was uncalled for- because it just gets silly sometimes what people will lay at the feet of christianity when christianity was not the driving force behind the issue. 60% of the army reserves are office workers- if they all get called up, is the war in Iraq now office workers fault? No.

[brvheart 1,759]

Brvheart, you are obviously newer to these discussions then I thought if you are to assume that Lois is an innocent in our little tiffs. My right for a real discussion is put down by the points that deserve to be addressed. If you don't like me, I don't give a ****. Say something about the valid points I brought up. Regarding the Grandpa analogy, I seriously doubt your grandfather shared his views with immature insults at the opposition either.Quit being a one-sided Christian

I agree Lois isn't innocent, but it's 99 vs. 1, and so I'm going to defend him against non-discussion oriented personal attacks.

[jmkiser 0]

I agree Lois isn't innocent, but it's 99 vs. 1, and so I'm going to defend him against non-discussion oriented personal attacks.

and why not defend everyone against non-discussion oriented personal attacks? because you feel he's 99-1? Aren't you part of that 99 which just so happens to be a Christian so you aren't getting the brunt of his "non-discussion oriented personal attacks"? The better question is, who HASN'T he personally attacked?

[Loismustdie 0]

and why not defend everyone against non-discussion oriented personal attacks? because you feel he's 99-1? Aren't you part of that 99 which just so happens to be a Christian so you aren't getting the brunt of his "non-discussion oriented personal attacks"? The better question is, who HASN'T he personally attacked?

There are literally thousands of people on this forum that I haven't attacked. Here is the list of those I have: Canada. No explanation needed. Crowtrobot, to a certain extent,but even that I wouldn't call personal. I respect him alot, and find him to be in a tie with Yorke and Tim for the most intelligent. Beatrix. That escalated pretty quick, this person has not been here that long, she is alot like you. There was that guy who never comes in here anymore after I put him on ignore, the one that would ask questions that always went in circles and never got anywhere. I can't think of his name, put him on ignore for awhile and then ended up taking him off and having some decent discussions. I was wrong about him in the end, I think. Various trolls, maybe 3 or 4, that appeared and then vanished. No real explanation neeeded there, some were so bad they were banned. So, a pretty short list. I can live with that. What is your next excuse for being you?

[renaedawn 1]

The answer ends up being that each case would be different, but you can pretty much rule out most kids as being accountable for sins,no more then they are accountable for things in the eyes of the law. You could have a 15 year old who is developed enough in his or her life to make that kind of commitment, and you could have an 18 year old that wasn't ready in God's eyes. By the same token you could have a 12 year old that was just pure evil, that happens,however, I would still say that would be up to God how he would handle that, because how many 12 year olds aren't a direct result of what parents have taught them? An evil 12 year old generally is directly the parents fault, therfore if the child died I don't know how God could deny them heaven- it's not the childs fault.(Generally)

Do you think that this thought process should have any bearing on legal matters? I mean, should we be making these kind of decisions about children accused of crimes? And if we do, how can we possibly understand the heart of another person fully? I get that God can see your heart, but how can a human?

[renaedawn 1]

In regards to a child,The Jewish faith holds a child becomes an adult at 13, hence the bar and bat mizvah.So there is a track record of God having a point in a childs life when they are accountable, and a point when they are not.Only God knows when a person is of that exact moment in life to make that distinction, so He gets to judge.For us there is a rough idea, so we apply numbers, like 13, or 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink etc.And if the Iraqis are the new indians, does that mean they are getting casinos soon?

Right. And right. So this is where I get confused about the ambiguity.What does the Bible say? Is it a set age regardless of mental capacity and understanding or is it determined by something else? And what indicators should we humans use to know when a child is over that age of responsibility?