Did you know that...

Post Reply New Topic

Well, there was a link between I.Q tests and social darwinism in one of my anthropology classes. Maybe i should ask my teachers about this again. =.=

Ah! found him. That'd be Francis Galton, who was the father of eugenics. <.< He did measure human intelligence, but i didn't quite see if I.Q fit there. Regardless, it's still somewhat relevant.

Also, to answer your edited post, no.

there's an old saying, 'you can't choose your relatives.'

Chill out dude, you're going to have a heart attack. There is much anger in this one. Much like his father, he is.

OK... "Every time one...tries pointing out something OBVIOUS..." Obvious to whom? You? OK, well if it so obvious, why not show us where it says that? I'm sorry if I'm just demonstrating your point, but there's nothing wrong with being specific. I don't recall anything about beating children, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. For me to comment on it, I'm going to need more information. Sure, I've read through the Bible and am starting over from Genesis tonight. But that doesn't mean I'm going to remember every single word or know every single place in the Bible something is mentioned. If there is something in particular you're contending with, you need to be able to point it out yourself.

All I remember about the Bible in regards to how to treat children seems to actually discourage physical punishment, the reason being that much of what the Bible says about children emphasizes that kindness should be shown children just as the Father shows His children kindness. I personally don't have a problem with physically punishing a child (spanking only, no belt, no paddle, etc.), the reason being that small children understand physical contact as a form of communication better than any other means. I don't have to hit my child hard at all--there's hardly any difference between playful touches and discipline. It has to do with the context and whether the child understands that there has been wrongdoing and feels guilt for it.

Torah prescribes death for children who strike their parents or disobey, actually. But that can't be read as a declaration of open season on your own children. It just sends the message to parents how important it is to raise kind and obedient children because the consequences mean losing your children. What good parent who loves his children wants to see them put to death? It just puts more responsibility on the parent to be a good parent.

Further, the New Testament places children in high regard. Parents (the Bible says "fathers") are to take care not to frustrate or anger their children ("sons"). While this does not preclude discipline and the need for it, understanding discipline can anger children and frustrate them as a matter of consequence. Thus parents are to do their best to keep their children happy as much as they reasonably can--understanding that spoiling children and failing to properly discipline is NOT the way to keep them happy. Being an unreasonable parent and constantly beating a child is not the way to accomplish this, and modern psychology tends to even frown on beating children. While corporal punishment HAS always been demonstrated to be effective, that does not mean that it is appropriate for every single infraction. The Torah says "eye for an eye," which is interpreted as "punishment must fit the crime" unless you're a Sadducee. So if the Bible approves physical punishment, the actual application is contingent on whether it is appropriate. The Bible does not say that you MUST beat a child, especially not in all situations. I think parents are at liberty to make those decisions as long as they don't cross any lines between "discipline" and "abuse." My son might have a gentle red glow on his leg for 3-5 minutes, but if I ever left a bruise on my son, his daycare would report me to DHS and I'd probably never see him again. Assuming that the Bible says it's ok to use physical punishment, you have to take a lot of things into consideration, be careful, and use common sense. If you are the kind of person who might hurt a child while discipline him, like if you have anger issues, do NOT lay a hand on a child. I have NEVER struck a child in anger. And there have been things my child has done that were so destructive that if I punished my child right then, I'd probably do something I'd regret. In cases like that, the best thing to do is just get away. The Bible does not make any laws or give any commands that REQUIRE Christians to abuse children.



Christians DO need to know the Bible through-and-through, but even the best of us fail to memorize the entire thing. Like I said earlier, if there is something we claim not to know that you do know, then you need to point it out. I've read the entire Bible from cover to cover, even the more obscure book that follows Revelation--the book of Maps. I've even read all the commentary and articles in my study Bible. So I have a good handle on the basics, but if there is an issue on a specific point, you need to point it out. If you can't, then we can't just assume it's there just because you said so. I've become quite fond of something the more vocal atheists like to say: "Evidence, please?" It certainly applies here.



See above post on specific references. Subjugating women? Now where is THAT??? Keep in mind that Torah was written at a time that men tended to objectify women. If you read Torah carefully, you'll notice that most laws regarding women were written to PROTECT them from men who culturally regarded them as property. One law even says that women from a conquered nation or tribe who were married to their captors had to be set free if their captor-husbands weren't "pleased" with them (in other words, if she wasn't "cooperative"). She was to be returned to her people and given the same privileges as a free woman. The reason for this is it would be in the best interest of any captive woman to marry one of her captors because it would give her better status than other captive women, basically making her equal with other free, married women. If her husband divorced her, then she'd be "damaged goods," unable to marry, and even worse off rejoining the slave class. The Biblical law governing her was designed to prevent this from happening. It was written to provide relief from subjugation on the part of men. The Bible subjugates no one. Subjugation is a cultural or societal issue and thus the product of the actions of evil people.



Again, who says a person HAS to beat children just because it appears in the Bible (I have my doubts that it does until you make it clear where in the Bible you're getting your information)? Abortion attitudes are shaped by Biblical mandates regarding the sanctity of life. If you believe that an implanted embryo or fetus is a human being deserving of protection, then MOST abortions are murder and is thus evil. If you can somehow strip an embryo or fetus of personhood, then you can rationalize that there is nothing wrong with abortion. I view abortion as a means of self-defense when a mother's life is threatened. It's not the baby's fault, obviously. But someone will die either way. And sometimes if the mother's life is in danger, the baby's life might also be in danger. So why sacrifice two lives? I know what *I* would do, but I can't make that decision for anyone else. But if there is no demonstrable danger to the mother, then there is no valid reason to take a baby's life--only poor excuses.

I'm not the one to say that homosexuality is a sin. It's in the Bible, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what I say on the matter. All I can say is that sin is sin, whether it's homosexuality, other sexual immorality, telling a lie, or murder. I don't get to change that. It distresses me that some so-called Christian denominations teach to the contrary. But if you do that, you aren't teaching the Bible. You're teaching something else, probably because it's inconvenient for you say that certain behaviors are wrong or it's not cool to get wrapped up in a controversial topic. If you don't believe the Bible, don't bother teaching it.



The Bible was intended to be a "timeless" document that can both be understood by those who lived at the time(s) of its writings and remain relevant in the present day. The greatest commandment is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind, and your strength." The second is "Love your neighbor as yourself." That basically sums up the entire Old Testament. Four of the 10 commandments instruct us in our relationship with God. The remaining six instruct us in relations with each other.

Now, you can say that Torah only applies to ancient Jews, not to Gentiles and especially not to the present-day world. But what does the New Testament have to say about how Gentiles are to understand proper conduct within their faith? Abstain from blood (from the dietary laws); you may otherwise eat what you like. Abstain from food offered to idols. Abstain from idolatry (homosexuality is listed among idolatrous practices as is temple prostitution and bestiality, not just plain sexual immorality. In other places, homosexuality is mentioned specifically in the NT as forbidden). Abstain from sexual immorality (again, homosexuality, temple prostitution, non-religious premarital sexual relations, and extra-marital affairs). There are other things to do/not to do, but these specific ones are related to what the "Judaizers" were teaching about ceremonial qualifications for Christians--simply put, that they had to become Jews first because Jesus was a Jew. The conclusion was basically that non-Jews could still eat pork and didn't have to be circumcised.

So in that sense, the Bible is still relevant because these are commands that we CAN obey. Another example: In order for a sacrifice to be acceptable to God, it has to be offered at the Temple. Well, there's a tiny little problem with that--the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. Oops. And someone built a mosque over it. So, what, we've been condemned for the last nearly 2000 years? Not if a final once-for-all sacrifice has already been made to cancel out our sins if we just believe it. Once again, the Bible remains relevant because there's no need for ad hoc ceremony or ritual to substitute for Temple sacrifices. I mean, the ancient religion that pre-dated Christianity died with the Temple, leaving what we know as Christianity which spread through the Roman world and Rabbinical Judaism, which owes its heritage to Pharisaic Judaism practiced at the end of the Second Temple period. Judaism is NOT an easy religion. Not only do you have to obey the Torah, but you have to have a thorough knowledge of the Talmud as well. Either way, the principles contained in the OT wisdom writings are still applicable today. As an ethical code, it's difficult to find a religious text that defines it better. The Psalms are beautiful poetic texts. The teachings of Christ remind us to show compassion and mercy--a Father's love is a recurring theme throughout the gospels. I mean, these are powerful lessons that transcend culture and society.

As for the OT rules not applying--I did explain why Christians are "free from the law" because we aren't Jews, which was the group of people the ancient laws were written for. Because God entered into a new covenant with us as Christians through Jesus Christ, those laws serve as a reminder of where we came from and the futility of trying to live completely righteous lives under the law. A new understanding just means that we live under the Spirit of the law and not the letter. Love God. Love people. Do those things and all else follows. But even aligning yourself with 613 laws PLUS the NT commandments is a tremendously difficult burden to bear. Love God, love people. It makes a lot more sense, don't you think? We are unable to keep the Law perfectly, and that makes us sinners without hope for redemption. But if God saves us from our sins, all that matters is we do our best, showing love and mercy because of what God has shown us.

I don't think the ancient writings were written by "misogynists and bigots." I think they were written BECAUSE there were (and are) misogynists and bigots in the world, that the world is deeply entrenched in evil activities, and thus laws are necessary to protect us from the wrongdoings of evil people. Child abusers? Well, considering that people of other religions in the ancient world practiced child sacrifice, I'd say anything, IF anything the Bible has to say regarding physically disciplining children is mild in comparison to what other people were doing at the time. Given Jesus' instruction on how parents should relate to their children, I'd say the Bible condemns child abuse rather than encouraging it. Homophobes? No, that doesn't really work, either, because homosexuality was at least as rampant in parts of the ancient world as it is today, i.e. Sodom. The only reason it should be mentioned in the Bible as unacceptable is because God finds it unacceptable. It doesn't seem that people of the ancient world really had a problem with it. As to how I see homosexuality--first, I have to point to Biblical prohibitions against it. Second, I personally find the thought of homosexual behavior to be repulsive. But that doesn't mean that I have hateful feelings towards homosexuals as people. I think too often Christians fail to approach homosexuals with a Christ-like attitude. Because of how homosexuals are perceived by many and because of the unkindness they've too often been shown, I think it is a Christian's duty to approach homosexuals in a Christ-like manner of love and kindness. That does NOT mean we have to approve of the lifestyle, nor does it make us "tolerant." It just means we afford them the same thing Jesus calls us to afford all human beings in the spirit of love and decency.

Look, the OT does not instruct the Israelites to go out and eliminate homosexuality everywhere in the world it is found. It simply says that it is improper for the ISRAELITES and not to be tolerated among God's chosen people on pain of death. It sends the message that God does not approve of homosexuality among His people and, therefore, if you wish to obey the one true God, learn by example and avoid that kind of behavior. The Christian attitude against homosexuality as it is spelled out in the Bible has nothing to do with killing homosexuals where ever they are. It means that, for the time being, God is being merciful towards sinners and that we are to reach all people for Christ before it is too late. If a Christian pleads with an unrepentant sinner for the sake of the sinner's soul, what sense would it make for the Christian to kill the sinner before the sinner makes a decision? God gives us plenty of time. We should give others likewise.

No one is stuck in the dark ages. Look, the Catholic church was THE church of the dark ages. The Protestant reformation, the counter-reformation, and the Enlightenment all happened in part because people started figuring out that the Catholic church couldn't MAKE you believe a certain way if you didn't want to. Dark Age doctrine essentially made you a criminal if you were excommunicated. The Church no longer has the temporal power to coerce you into believing anything. Many of us aren't just open to reason and rationality, but are even PRODUCTS of reason and rationality. It's that reason and rationality that allows us to believe differently than YOU do, and you differently from us. We have to power to draw our own conclusions. Possessing "blind" faith is powerful and admirable for Christians. The greatest commandment says "Love the Lord...with all your MIND." So while MANY are content with a blind faith and do not feel the need to examine evidence, there are also many who reject the idea that our faith MUST be blind and so go the route of a reasoned faith. I've always believed in that child-like kind of way, but I've also hungered for more than that simple faith. I mean, is there really a difference between believing in Santa and believing in Jesus? Well, Santa makes sense as a cute little childhood game or tradition, but not as something real or as something that can unite your soul with God after death. After reading the Bible and understanding the need for atonement for sin and the universal provision of God for that atonement once for all, I've concluded that, even if I hadn't grown up as I did, Yahweh-worship through faith in His Son is still the only religion that actually makes any kind of sense. Sure, I'm fascinated by Buddhism, Hinduism, even Sikhism. Sure, I've given serious thought to reading the Talmud for myself. But Yahweh is the God of my grandparents, my parents, my wife's family, and He is my God because compared to everything else I've ever learned, He just makes the most sense. That's not Dark Age thinking. I'm pretty sure that kind of thinking could get you burned at the stake for some reason.

As to I.Q. tests and any correlation between those and religion, especially with regard to Christianity: All that means is that Christianity is so easy any dummy can do it. God doesn't care about your I.Q. "Intellectuals" are more concerned with worldly wisdom than Christians typically will be. It makes me sad that, for all the time NOT spent learning about the world and scoring higher on I.Q. tests, Christians aren't spending all their time learning the Bible. Be that as it may, God accepts all of high, average, or low intelligence and does not hold our stupidity (low scorers) or our arrogance (high-scoring atheists) against us. All that matter in the end is whether we accept God. In fact, the smartest people of Jesus' time were the religious leaders and the lawyers. But the crowds weren't flocking to the "smart" people. They went with what made the most sense to most people. Low intelligence in terms of standardized testing really matters very little here. It just means that God opens doors that intellectuals do not.

I'm not particularly happy that atheists are considered arrogant for trying to puzzle things out for themselves. That's a two edged sword and Biblical adherents may be characterized equally in that manner. It's very important to understand that kindness and understanding and empathy were not invented by the Christians any more than the celebrations of the solstices, whatever the names are given to those times. That Christians join in with other people in behaving well is, of course delightful, but evidently and obviously not universal.

Two edged sword? I agree. I only say arrogance in reference to atheists because if, and I stress IF atheists are really more "intelligent" according to IQ test scores than Christians, which is the point MasterJedi is trying to make, then perhaps it is a disproportionate amount of importance placed on that intellect which allows for that intellect's further development. It's that attribution which makes some arrogant. I think that the subtlety of arrogance in most cases is the reason why so many arrogant people fail to recognize it in themselves. Just because you're kind doesn't mean you don't bear a sense of self-importance. I think those who are blatantly arrogant are not necessarily the ones who really have the biggest brains or minds, but rather the ones who just don't care.

Christians joining in is evidently and obviously not universal? I can buy that. But the best we can hope for is more Christians embracing the spirit of the Bible and not what some consider to be the letter of it. Further, each human being is a work in progress. Christians can't help a lot of things, but that is only a symptom of their humanity. I'm not perfect either. I'm a lot more rigid in how I read the Bible and apply it that I used to be when I was younger and had more "tolerant" attitudes. I see that as an improvement over where I USED to be. But I've also learned to balance that rigidity with the intent of the Bible. If the subject of, say, abortion or sexual immorality come up, I'll speak out against it because the Bible states outright that sexual immorality is wrong, and it upholds the sanctity of life--ergo I see casual abortion as murder and emergency abortion (to save a life) as self-defense. However, I also think that because of my faith and the conclusions I've drawn about these moral issues that it's more important to counsel girls and young women who feel desperately alone when faced with unwanted pregnancy. Maybe they got into it through a regrettable decision, but with love and support they may come to decide that ending the life of a baby that didn't ask to be conceived and given the choice might rather live than suffer the cruelty of termination is not really what is best or what is right. Despite our shortcomings in the past, I think more often Christians are starting to come around to this kind of understanding of God and the Bible. Given the choice, they'll stand up for what they feel is right without ignoring the needs and feelings of others.

I don't, for example, feel that expressing my feelings based on my faith against what the Bible deems as sin is inappropriate on PPR because those sentiments are relevant to philosophy and religion. If my approach happens to be hard-hitting at times, even though I try to avoid that, I don't feel quite so guilty because opponents aren't going to back down either or take my feelings into consideration. If, on the other hand, someone in "The Haven" was whining about struggling with their sexuality and I chose to respond, my response would be a lot different than it is here.

Something I see happen in churches all the time now is the loss of youth activity, which I think happens because church leaders fail to reach them on the issue of relevance. The more churches engage youth and instill in them a sense of moral duty based on Biblical teaching, the more you'll begin to see Christians with the right attitude. You might find it hard to believe, Sand, but it's a whole new world out there. Despite what it might seem from where you live, we aren't all Lutherans and Catholics!

I have strong doubts that Lutherans and Catholics in general are any worse than the average Christian of any denomination or, for that matter any average Muslim or Buddhist. That religion provides creative community is without doubt and atheists per se have no formal community. It's not a new world, it's the same world that sent a bunch of greedy idiots to Congress who are about to destroy the country.

There are many factors in religion that I find both distasteful and abhorrent and one is the downgrading of intelligence and the persistence of the denial of factual analysis. Intellect is the prime characteristic that gave humanity its edge and to throw that away is a monstrous disaster.

Hypocrisy.

Random fact: In Latin American countries, the Catholic mass is somehow far less fundamentalist than the protestant minorities. The Catholics are actually the ones 'engaging youth' in there.

I think "moral duty based on Biblical teaching" is an oxymoron. The bible is probably the least moral book I have read. It is full of promotion of things I would consider downright immoral like slavery, stoning or child beating.

"Gee, he's quite an igorant bigot. These people are ignorant bigots to, giggeling down at other people of other religions like that. I think I will be Christian, and agree with every word."
...........................
"Gee, he looks like such a jerk, wearing that white shirt and rocking back and forth saying "I'm a christian. I think I need meds." in his insulting anti-christian perody. By Golly, I think I'll be Aithiest today!"

hmmm yes.

Next step:

Can we think of ANY approach that might make Sand think?

His reaction time is fantastic, but there is no sign of higher cerebral function.

Belittling, despite his suggestion, has failed abysmally.

I was referring to the European and Scandinavian tendency towards (or away from) "state" churches. The problem you encounter any time you have a church that has been the dominant force in a country is that attendance tends to be driven more by tradition or social obligation rather than genuine belief. It's not really much different in concept than the RC church of the Middle Ages. The key difference is the ability of people to choose not to go or believe, and with limited options it's just easier not to care about church at all. When you lose relevancy, you lose membership. I say beware the popular church. You'll only go because that's the way it's been done for hundreds of years or because you're comfortable with the doctrine. There's nothing wrong with agreeing with doctrine necessarily, but I think it's too easy to become attracted to a watered-down message. Just last year, the Lutheran church in Finland upheld the consistent Biblical view that homosexuality is a sin, and it has cost them severely in membership. It's a situation in which the Finnish who are not Lutheran are either Orthodox or other Protestant/RC, and the Finnish who are not religious overwhelmingly outnumber those groups. Churches are generally not engaging if they don't have to be. It's almost like its expected, at least just judging on sheer numbers. I mean, if you're Finnish, you're Lutheran. But that doesn't mean you really believe anything. A lot of our ideas are shaped by what we experience the most in our immediate environment. If all we know are Lutherans and Catholics, we'll tend to think the rest of the world is the same way. I might be SBC, but that doesn't mean I abstain from alcohol. Younger Baptists are starting to pick up on the fact that teetotaling is legalism and has no bearing on the condition of a person's soul or eternal destiny. It's a silly theological point, if you can even call it that, and has only vague basis in the Bible IF it has any valid basis at all. You don't want to drink? Fine, don't. But don't twist scripture to support a doctrine that doesn't make any sense.

I'M not like that. A lot of believers my age aren't like that. So generalizing the whole of Christianity as murderous, vengeful bullies is unnecessary and unfair.

I don't know very much about Catholicism in Latin American countries. What I do know about Catholicism in general is a general tendency towards liturgical worship. While I find nothing grossly wrong with that, the only criticism I really have is that it might be irrelevant in a postmodern world and might have tendencies towards legalism. And that is something that permeates the RC Church throughout history, but I have no doubt the RC Church is much better now than it was a few hundred years ago. Traditionally being Latin American and Catholic is one of those assumed things, just like assuming a religious Finnish person is Lutheran. Frankly, people grow weary of it, and that has certainly contributed to a rise of non-religious people in Finland. Depending on how much a Latin American person really cares about it, he may identify as being Catholic even if he never goes to Mass but once or twice a year. I suspect many don't really think about God NOT existing--everyone else believes it, so why not? If Catholics in Latin America are getting youth involved and reaching them doctrinally, then it's because they are aware of the consequences of NOT reaching them. Being "fundamentalist" or not depends on what you mean by that term. Catholics are very much fundamentalist when it comes to their own doctrine. It's just that their fundamentals appear less strict than fundamentalist Protestants. I sat through a Catholic funeral mass once, which I thought was interesting because it was so much different from what I was used to. My Catholic friends describe Mass as introspective and peaceful. Liturgical texts, which I do know well having studied liturgy in music history class and in counterpoint, is very beautiful and affirming.

From what I know about SBC-planted churches in Latin America, the worship style is affected differently culturally than what I'm used to, resembling more the worship style of Pentecostals and charismatics. I don't know what the tie is to Latin American culture, but it does have a distinctive flavor. I know they actually seem to be happy to be at church. When I look at some peoples' faces at my own church, I wonder why they even bothered showing up, but by and large our congregation is accustomed to being more reserved.



Your point of view is entirely your own, and I respect that. But I just don't see it. Acknowledging that slavery exists or existed is not promotion of it. Going by that kind of logic, you need to redact half of every US History book in current use in high schools and universities because they mention slavery. Well, whether you LIKE it or not, slavery was a part of American life for a long time. There's no going back and undoing the past, but we CAN work to guarantee the basic civil liberties of US citizens, making sure slavery never happens again.

Similarly, you can't use the Bible to justify slavery based solely on the fact that slavery is merely mentioned. Slavery existed well before the Bible did. And there are good as well as bad reasons that it existed. If people are sinful by nature, it comes as no surprise that they'd devise ways of rationalizing chattel property. Getting rid of slavery at various points in history would have been devastating. So if God means for us to be free, then a balance has to be found between scaling back the practice of slavery and regulating what IS in current practice. If a slave is being treated poorly by one master, the Bible provides a means for which he will be cared for if he can run away to a new master. The Bible doesn't condone slavery, but rather PROTECTS human beings who have become victim to an evil institution created by man.

Further, slavery is acceptable as an alternative to incarceration. Nomadic tribes don't have jails. So repaying your debt to society by working it off allows a criminal to pay for his crime and still remain a productive member of society. The US justice system isn't really that much different for petty crimes. Can't pay a traffic ticket? You might be able to convince a judge to let you do volunteer work for a day in place of a fine. Criminals who do face incarceration but are clearly not dangerous or an escape risk can be allowed to do public labor like garbage pickup. It's basically free labor, but it allows the criminal a certain amount of freedom and exposure that hopefully avoids becoming institutionalized (unable to get free of the system after an incarceration period is over). It's a much better alternative to complete lockup for the duration. During the period of time these laws were written, the involuntary servitude of your own people was NEVER to be a permanent condition. The longest you could hold a slave was 6 years, I think. There were also conditions in which slavery was preferable to freedom, and Torah provides a way in which a slave could be bonded to his master for life if he, the slave, willingly chose to do so. Laws regarding slaves and women really did grant them a wide berth of freedom.

Finally, the New Testament writers encouraged slaves or servants to gain temporal freedom as quickly as possible IF it were possible to do so. Slavery in Greece and Rome was so integral to their societies that universally ending it would have crushed those societies, which at the time was not in the best interests of anyone whether slave or free. Rome was already highly suspicious of Christians, imagining that Christianity sought to tear the fabric of civilization. Openly and aggressively campaigning against slavery during this period of time would only have confirmed what the Romans already thought, and it was never the Christians' intention to be destructive and disruptive to society. Thus the NT writer advocated for earning freedom if one could; but if it was impossible, then be the best possible servant one could be. This is not condoning slavery or promoting it. It is simply acknowledgement that this institution was in place and there was nothing to be done AT THAT TIME. If you'll notice throughout history Christian groups have proven instrumental in ending slavery throughout most of the world. Much of the slavery that still goes on, at least the slavery we still hear about, seems to have been largely driven underground.

Stoning is a form of capital punishment and something readily available to people in the ancient world. I would say that as a method of execution, the stoning mandate doesn't really apply in the present day because culturally we aren't ancient Israelites or Jews, and because less brutal and more effective means of execution have been devised. So using the Bible to promote stoning doesn't really work. I don't recall anywhere in the NT where Jesus or any of the apostles including Paul advocated for the use of stoning as an approved method of execution. As a matter of fact, I don't recall anywhere in the NT that Jesus or the apostles promoted killing anyone for ANY reason. If I'm wrong, please cite at least the book and chapter where you're getting your information.

I also don't recall seeing anything overtly promoting child beating. I'm not saying it ISN'T there, but again I need you to point out exactly where that is so I can refute it. I would say, on my experience, that more is said about the institution of slavery and when stoning is an appropriate form of execution than there is for child beating. Could it be there is only a single verse about it? Assuming there is ONLY one verse, little enough that I completely missed it, what do you think that says about the importance of beating a child? The conclusion *I* would draw is that it's important enough that it barely even needs mentioning, i.e. not really important at all. But again, I need to know what you're talking about before I draw any further conclusions. If I don't have any evidence, I'm going to start doubting that it's even in there at all. I mean, this is one of those situations in which you CAN determine whether something is or isn't, as opposed to an earlier discussion we've had on isits.

Angel Rho, I have extensively (if not comprehensively) cited biblical passages from both the old and new testaments in the 'strident atheists' thread that contradict pretty much everything you've claimed.

From someone who consistently posts incoherent material that puzzles even sympathetic readers that is ludicrous.

I vaguely remember that, but I didn't pay much attention since I didn't want to interrupt everyone who was busy being strident (for whatever reason). I'm guessing that your citations were the same tired out-of-context quotes that have long been used as excuses not to believe the Bible.

Alright, fine--you're too lazy to support your points in this thread. I'll just ask Google instead.

This is what I've come up with:

There are six passages from Proverbs dealing with the proper discipline of children, specifically Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13, 23:14, and 29:15. "The rod" is mentioned in 5 of those verses. Only 5 mentions of "the rod" in only one book of the Bible, and probably the worst example of a Biblical command to resort to physical punishment. Proverbs is a book of broad, general advice. It gives a lot of good wisdom, but you also have to understand that a proverb has to be read with the understanding that there are exceptions to every rule.

The one that really stands out to me is 23:14--Don't withhold correction from a youth; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.

The thing that's really important about this verse is the last part: "...he will not die." You have to remember that contentious children COULD under certain circumstances be brought by their parents before judges and put to death. What this verse is really saying is to train children the right way and use the best effective (and appropriate) method of discipline. It is better to beat the child (if you have to) than for the child to face death for more serious infractions against adults or his own parents.

Further, using this to say the Bible as a whole promotes child abuse is taking Proverbs out of context. Proverbs are never to be understood as COMMANDS. Proverbs are general, broad statements of wisdom.

Look at the advice of Proverbs in terms of the alternative: Death. The idea is to do whatever it takes as a parent to keep bad things from happening to your children. 13:24 says "The one who will not use the rod hates his son, but the one who loves him disciplines him diligently." A good parent does not want his children to be put to death. If behavior is severe enough that the child MIGHT be put to death, then corporal punishment is an appropriate deterrent if it prevents a child from crossing that line. If you want your kids to live, do everything in your power to make sure they don't do something punishable by death.

19:18--"Discipline your son while there is hope; don't be intent on killing him." This is a great verse about discipline that demonstrates the balance between discipline and abuse. Note that no method or "rod" is mentioned here. It really makes a good point about the possible consequences of letting things go too far with misbehavior as well as urging restraint on the part of the parent.

22:15--"Foolishness is tangled up in the heart of a youth; the rod of discipline will drive it away from him." Here "the rod of discipline" is mentioned, and it is unclear whether this verse demands a literal "rod" or if the "rod" is figurative in the sense that it refers to "all means necessary." Any psychologist or school teacher can tell you that corporal punishment CAN be overused to the point that students become immune to it and might even prefer corporal punishment to other consequences they find less appealing--such as loss of privileges, not being allowed to participate in school activities, not allowed to go to a school dance, etc. Physical punishment is not necessarily the only or even the best means of discipline.

23:14--"Strike him with a rod, and you will rescue his life from Sheol." This is basically a paraphrase of 23:13. But again, a proverb is not a command, but rather a general piece of advice. It just means that young people are to be taught good behavior and discipline, no matter what it takes, and that corporal punishment is preferred over death. This does not say that beating a child is a primary course of action. It just means that physical discipline is not out of the question. Remember from 19:18 "...don't be intent on killing him." Corporal punishment need not be abusive.

29:15--"A rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a youth left to himself is a disgrace to his mother." Here's the "rod of correction," which does not strictly mean physical discipline. Physical punishment is not off limits, but once again, this is not evidence that it is a first line of discipline either. This can mean anything. The passage "youth left to himself" literally translates "youth sent away." This is also evidence of "point of no return" discipline in which the child is banished from his own family and his own people, possibly sold into slavery or even put to death. "..disgrace to his mother" probably refers to the heartbreak of losing a child. It can also be a reference to "honor your father and mother." Or it can also refer to the embarrassment of a parent from failure at good and effective parenting.

What troubles me is that these particular verses are from Proverbs, and using Proverbs as an excuse to abuse children or even as a MANDATE to abuse children is the result from taking Proverbs out of context, that being what the book is and how Proverbs is to be read. If you take everything STRICTLY literally, not accounting for that, then everyone who read Proverbs and adheres to its teachings will all be wealthy kings. While Proverbs offers GREAT advice, following health-and-wealth advice from Proverbs doesn't seem to offer any real promise of such in the real world. You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt.

I also want to point out that the Hebrew word for "discipline," which is "musar," is also used for "instruction," "rebuke," AND physical punishment. The point of musar is to change attitudes or behavior, and the actual means for accomplishing this goal might be anything from rewards, providing needs, giving instructions, rebuke, and even corporal punishment. If you look at God's punishment of His own people, it's really clear that discipline should begin with the least painful and severe means and escalate to harsh means ONLY when gentle means do not bring about the right changes. Wisdom also recognizes that children do not, by nature, gravitate toward wisdom and God's way, and that left to themselves children will move toward self-destruction. Discipline is a good and necessary thing in order to move children toward God's truth. Appropriate, NOT abusive, discipline is an act of kindness and love.

I suggest you go read some of the citations - and, rest assured, they are not out of context - on the strident atheist forum. They are within the last day or two, not so long ago that you should 'vaguely' recall them. If you want to discuss the content here instead of there, that's fine.

Oh, ok... I was thinking about another thread that AG brought up supposed Biblical contradictions. I only have so much time in a day to look into things, so for the sake of time let's stick with what we're discussing HERE. I long lost interest in the strident atheist discussion. What's being discussed regarding supposed Biblical difficulties opens up too many issues for me to even know where to begin. It's tempting, yes, but I've learned not to fight on so many different fronts. To be honest, I see it as a trap that too many Christians fall into, and I simply won't allow myself to be distracted by trying to discuss too many issues at once.

I did briefly look over two or three "difficult" passages, and they are very much quoted out of context. For the sake of time, that's all I have to say about it. The best criticism I think I have to offer in that particular thread would be very broad, general, sweeping statements at best, and I prefer not to resort to that if I can help it.

If what I said here contradicts something said in another thread, perhaps it could be that the supposed "truth" in the other thread can be called into question (one of those general criticisms I'm talking about). I don't have a problem contradicting something I don't believe or agree with. I mean, just looking at the evidence from Proverbs alone shows that abusive action towards children is not condoned and that the most severe punishment is reserved as a last resort. Even if you deny the context of Proverbs as support, you're also ignoring the cultural context and the relevance of those passages to present-day culture and society. Spanking at all, for instance, is actually illegal in some countries, but you don't see Christians there asserting their DUTY to spank their children based on religious text, do you? If anti-spanking laws really did compromise religious mandates, there'd be more of an uproar. Even most young parents now, especially Christian parents, if you ask them will say they prefer NOT to use physical punishment at all. I even admit that I've been too quick at time to do this with my own children, and TV shows like "Supernanny" demonstrate a wide range of disciplinary procedures that strictly forbid spanking at all for the sake of helping parents understand that there ARE alternatives. I think "Supernanny" IS biased against spanking, but for many parents in the USA in which spanking is legally an option where it isn't shown to be abusive, i.e. bruises aren't left on the child's body, spanking remains a perfectly acceptable solution. The point is that spanking shouldn't be seen as a default method. Plain and simple, if you object to spanking, don't spank your own children. The Bible leaves the various methods of discipline open to the parents as to what they will/will not do. Proverbs is wisdom, not Law, and a significant element of wisdom is the discernment among alternatives as to what alternatives are appropriate and when. Even James Dobson, a notable Christian psychologist and believer in corporal punishment, will point out that spanking isn't really appropriate past 8 years old, and even THEN it's not appropriate if it's a frequent occurrence. The idea of avoiding physical discipline is not at all contrary to Biblical teaching.

So the fact remains that the Bible leaves corporal punishment as an option but at the same time does not promote abuse of children. I've cited 6 verses, which were about the best examples I could find. Out of those 6, only 5 mention anything about a "rod," and in some cases what is precisely meant by "the rod of discipline" is even in question. Clearly "the rod" is an option, not a mandate. The means through which a parent may exercise musar are not defined in any strict sense and can mean any appropriate and/or necessary way of behavior modification that preserves the life and well-being of the child, using physical means only when all else has failed, bearing in mind that the Law provides a "final solution" in the most extreme of cases. That "final solution" is clearly not what we want nor what any loving parent of the ancient world would want, and a careful reading of the Bible shows it isn't what God wants, either.

AngelRho, is it really that big of a deal whether or not the Bible condones punishing the troublesome child with a rod (even if it's done at a humanly acceptable level)?

Although today's laws in several countries would forbid the hitting of children in any way, what exactly is the problem if the Bible does condone punishing a child with the rod?

And yes, I read your last couple of posts (although not the whole thread), and I can see you made a lot of effort to explain why you believe the Bible agrees with what today's laws state about child discipline, but what for? Why not accept what the verses say the way they were originally meant to be understood by the Jews? It's not like the Book of Proverbs is a book of poetry ...