This is great

[vargo]

I sent this guy on my football forum that has been posting "GOD loves you bla bla bullshit"

 

This is what I sent him.

 

"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child. But the rod of discipline drives it far from him."

 

Proverbs 22:15

 

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol."

 

Proverbs 23:13

 

Why does your god's perfect word advocate child abuse? Could it be because the Bible was written by fallible men?

 

After about a week he comes back with this post.

 

scriptures about children, you interpret them with the same flawed logic as even many believers do, by taking it TOO literally. the Bible is neither 100% literal or figurative but a graceful combination of both as only God can do, but i understand why some struggle with that in a society that demands everything is either or but no way can their be a middle ground of both. there always has to be either/or, a winner or a loser right?

 

what God was basically saying in those scriptures you quoted is to not be afraid to discipline your children for disciplining them(not abusing them)will make them better people and they will eventually thank you and love you for it as any good parent can tell you. again, the Bible is not that hard to understand if people would actually devote as much time to really understand it as they do in spreading hatred all over the place, but as God said, wide is the path to destruction and many will take it for it is easier. for is Satan made sin obvious and hard, no one would sin now would they? take care and God bless.

 

I love how they swear by the bible but when you confront them with the bad parts, they just toss it out the window as "Don't take it Literally"

I'm wondering what I should write him, or maybe I shouldn't waste my time.

[Kryten]

If you want to engage him, you might want to address his original assertion that "God loves you". You could ask him what God will do to those born in Iran who are taught to be good Muslims, and never hear the gospel before they die. If he comes back and says that God will present Himself to the person when they die, ask why we don't get the same benefit. If they are just going to fry in hell, then ask where the love is?

 

It is easier to debate God's love than it is the issue of child discipline.

[Vixentrox]

I like to give the story of a mother just before the flood. Her husband was out on a hunting trip and she was left to with her baby girl as the rains start. Explain in detail the fear of the young mother as the waters begin to rise. Explain how she climbed the highest mountain, the waters nipping at her feet. Then talk how she tries to hold her little baby over her head till finally her strength gives out. She drops the baby which of course drowns, shortly followed by the young mother. Then ask how just and loving it is that this little baby girl and thousands of other babies died while only Noah's family and some animals were saved. Animals....worth more than a precious baby girl. That's God's version of love.

[Mythra]

I don't know. I kind of believe that some of the bible is literal and some is figurative.

 

I think the "beat you child with a rod" is literal.

 

And Jesus is figurative.

[Ouroboros]

I like to give the story of a mother just before the flood.  Her husband was out on a hunting trip and she was left to with her baby girl as the rains start.  Explain in detail the fear of the young mother as the waters begin to rise.  Explain how she climbed the highest mountain, the waters nipping at her feet.  Then talk how she tries to hold her little baby over her head till finally her strength gives out.  She drops the baby which of course drowns, shortly followed by the young mother.  Then ask how just and loving it is that this little baby girl and thousands of other babies died while only Noah's family and some animals were saved.  Animals....worth more than a precious baby girl.  That's God's version of love.

That's because Noah was righteous, or in my opinion, self-righteous. And God loves that. Because that is his nature.

[Ouroboros]

After about a week he comes back with this post.

I love how they swear by the bible but when you confront them with the bad parts, they just toss it out the window as "Don't take it Literally"

I'm wondering what I should write him, or maybe I shouldn't waste my time.

Yeah. They take "beat the child" figuratively, but "God created Adam from dirt" as literal.

 

And Jesus saying "heal the sick" as figuratively, or not current for our time, while "give 10%" that is a must do.

[MrSpooky]

I wish my parents loved me enough to beat the shit out of me.

[chohan]

the Bible is neither 100% literal or figurative but a graceful combination of both as only God can do, but i understand why some struggle with that in a society that demands everything is either or but no way can their be a middle ground of both. there always has to be either/or, a winner or a loser right?

 

and then this:

 

but as God said, wide is the path to destruction and many will take it for it is easier.

 

Encouraging to see that the writer isn't caught up in the either/or, winner/loser mindset.

[SkepticOfBible]

I like to give the story of a mother just before the flood.  Her husband was out on a hunting trip and she was left to with her baby girl as the rains start.  Explain in detail the fear of the young mother as the waters begin to rise.  Explain how she climbed the highest mountain, the waters nipping at her feet.  Then talk how she tries to hold her little baby over her head till finally her strength gives out.  She drops the baby which of course drowns, shortly followed by the young mother.  Then ask how just and loving it is that this little baby girl and thousands of other babies died while only Noah's family and some animals were saved.  Animals....worth more than a precious baby girl.  That's God's version of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't forget he saved the animals so that they could be sacrificed because he so loved the aroma of burning flesh.

[narcissist]

I love how they swear by the bible but when you confront them with the bad parts, they just toss it out the window as "Don't take it Literally"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you could respond with something like this?

 

Then once you've had enough of his excuses you can finish the job with:

 

"So how can you console me with your nonsense? Nothing is left of your answers but falsehood!" (Job 21:34)

[spamandham]

I don't know.  I kind of believe that some of the bible is literal and some is figurative.

 

I think the "beat you child with a rod" is literal.

 

And Jesus is figurative.

 

I agree. I think "jesus" was not originally believed to be an actual man (see the writings of Paul, but squelch you gospel prejudices and see if you still think he was talking about a human), but that came later by others who had heard about it but were not privy to the "mystery". They came to think he was actual and formed a new religion we call Christianity, even going as far as to invent a history for Jesus...

 

...so, while "Galilee" is literal, "Nazareth" is not. It was a misunderstanding/transliteration error by those who were not versed in the mysteries.

[chohan]

I agree.  I think "jesus" was not originally believed to be an actual man (see the writings of Paul, but squelch you gospel prejudices and see if you still think he was talking about a human), but that came later by others who had heard about it but were not privy to the "mystery".  They came to think he was actual and formed a new religion we call Christianity, even going as far as to invent a history for Jesus...

 

It was amazing to me when I saw it. Then I wondered, "How the hell did I study the NT for 25 years without seeing it?"

[Vixentrox]

Don't forget he saved the animals so that they could be sacrificed because he so loved the aroma of burning flesh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, instead of saving a couple more babies, had to have those animals for sacrifice on the boat.

[Mythra]

Me too. I scratched my head when I first read a book that talked about Paul's utter lack of knowledge of Jesus' miracles - including the raising of the dead, his teachings, his parables, his memorable sayings, such as "I and the Father are one", or "I am the resurrection and the life". No mention of the virgin birth.

 

Paul never refers to Jesus as the Son of Man - a phrase that is prominent in the gospels. Paul is silent about Jesus' baptism, Golgotha, John the Baptist. Jesus' coming back is never referred to as his "return", or "second coming". Paul never mentions anything that would remotely suggest that he knew that Jesus had been a human being - God in human flesh - just twenty or so years prior.

 

When I read about this, I thought, nah. That can't be right. This is kooky stuff. Then I went through all of the Pauline epistles, and, sure enough, there is nothing there. All Paul mentions is a Christ who is sacrificed at the hands of the "rulers of this age" and resurrected.

 

Stunning to read the bible for so many years and never see it.

[Thurisaz]

Kind of like the ten commandments, eh?

 

The real ones I mean. Exodus 34. The truth about the jebus cult, well-known to the fundies (judging by their disgusting habits).

[Ouroboros]

I agree.  I think "jesus" was not originally believed to be an actual man (see the writings of Paul, but squelch you gospel prejudices and see if you still think he was talking about a human), but that came later by others who had heard about it but were not privy to the "mystery".  They came to think he was actual and formed a new religion we call Christianity, even going as far as to invent a history for Jesus...

 

...so, while "Galilee" is literal, "Nazareth" is not.  It was a misunderstanding/transliteration error by those who were not versed in the mysteries.

Agree. IIRC, the Gnostic faith that start 150 years before Jesus, talked about Logos that would take a spiritual form, not physical. This form (being) was the Savior (the translation of the word Joshua=Jesus).

 

I'm convince the whole savior/jesus/logos etc was allegorical, and Paul saw how he could use the idea of Jesus to connect the Jewish faith with hellenistic philosophy. Only that he was a crappy philosopher and got most of the hellenistic philosophy wrong.

[Ouroboros]

Stunning to read the bible for so many years and never see it.

Just because the books a carefully places in fictious "historical" order, and not in the order they were written and invented. The Gospels were only written to confirm the false story. (But you know that already, just stating old facts again)

[SkepticOfBible]

Me too.  I scratched my head when I first read a book that talked about Paul's utter lack of knowledge of Jesus' miracles - including the raising of the dead, his teachings, his parables, his memorable sayings, such as "I and the Father are one", or "I am the resurrection and the life".  No mention of the virgin birth. 

 

Paul never refers to Jesus as the Son of Man - a phrase that is prominent in the gospels.  Paul is silent about Jesus' baptism, Golgotha, John the Baptist.  Jesus' coming back is never referred to as his "return", or "second coming". Paul never mentions anything that would remotely suggest that he knew that Jesus had been a human being - God in human flesh - just twenty or so years prior.

 

When I read about this, I thought, nah.  That can't be right.  This is kooky stuff.  Then I went through all of the Pauline epistles, and, sure enough, there is nothing there.  All Paul mentions is a Christ who is sacrificed at the hands of the "rulers of this age" and resurrected. 

 

Stunning to read the bible for so many years and never see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's because Paul never once met him. He was a self declared apostle. He saw him in a vision of light.

 

Kind of amazing that Adam Smith(Father of Mormomism) claimed the same thing.

 

But here is question which I would like to ask believers

 

If Paul can have vision about christ then why can't Adam Smith?

[Guest Iconoclastic1]

I'll try and respond to the blocked quote as I normally would. I tend to use somewhat colorful language so tone it down at your discretion.

 

 

scriptures about children, you interpret them with the same flawed logic as even many believers do, by taking it TOO literally. the Bible is neither 100% literal or figurative but a graceful combination of both as only God can do,

 

Wow, you not only want to have it both ways but also inbetween. The bible is allegorical when you don't like what it says, literal when you have something to gain from it, and half and half when need to distance yourself from a certain passage. How do you determine which is which? Was Jesus allegorical instead of literal? I suppose he was since his contemporaries never chronicled his existance.

 

 

 

but i understand why some struggle with that in a society that demands everything is either or but no way can their be a middle ground of both. there always has to be either/or, a winner or a loser right?

 

Stop equivocating, asshat. Whether the bible is literal or not has nothing to do with whether society views things as black and white.

 

 

what God was basically saying in those scriptures you quoted is to not be afraid to discipline your children for disciplining them(not abusing them)

 

Hitting children with sticks is abhorrent to our culture, but not the culture which originated the bible. Children and wives were more or less property. Why should you apply your cultural values to change the meaning of something that was written by a culture with a wholly different set of values?

 

 

again, the Bible is not that hard to understand if people would actually devote as much time to really understand it as they do in spreading hatred all over the place,

 

Is that what you think someone is doing when they disagree with christianity? Spreading hatred all over the place? You like to change the subject a lot to try and guilt-trip people into taking your side, huh?

 

 

*snip more rambling and guilt-tripping*

 

God bless.

 

No thanks.

[BlueGiant]

Obvious question, what is the test for parts that are to be literal and which are to be figurative? I guess the man lying with man thing is just an expression . And what about shellfish? And a talking ass (well, that one can be pretty literal, we have a ton of them in D.C.).

 

Perhaps some clarification (and stringing him along) is in order.