Is pre-occupation of religion a neurotic behavior?

[2Dbunk]

Not being a trained psychologist ( I did have 3 or 4 credits of psychology in college which makes me a pseudo-expert), I have only myself as an observed case.


I was obsessive compulsive until I was 25. I suffered "bi-polar" disorder thru my early twenties. I considered suicide on numerous occasions, attempting it twice (my mother -- also bi-polar -- succeeded in doing it at the age of 67). Happiness was a rare blip on an otherwise low flat line ordinate. But I made it into college, "you think too much," as my fellow Marine reservists diagnosed.


There's no mystery why I took that course in psychology -- I wanted to figure myself out. And it helped to get me headed in a more positive direction, taking advantage of the thinking of the mentalist sages. It took another half-dozen years to shake off my mind's cobwebs, but when I did, voila I began to see clearly for the first time.


Before that time, I was as religious as they came. But no matter how hard I prayed, nothing came of it. I began to see the folly of it all in my reading of world history and biographies of famous people. Eventually, 51 years ago, I took my examination for professional certification and as a test I vowed not to pray for it but to study my arse off. I passed the examination on the first try -- and I've never looked back. Today, unhappiness to me is a rare low blip on a flat-line of high-ordinate value.


So in my early years, neuroticism kept me from seeing through the fog produced by religion. Or was it that religion kept me from seeing through the fog of my neuroticism? Which is it?

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 67 by Realworldjack]

How on Earth does the passage I quoted imply that the passage you quoted was what was meant? Who was "repayed according to their deeds"? Why on Earth would he mention "some of you not tasting death" when none of them tasted death before the six days elapsed? Or did most of them die in those six days and it just was kept out of the Bible? Elijah and Moses have never been said to be Angels. I'm sorry but no, your suggestion does not make sense and most Christians do not hold the meaning to be what you suggest.

Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have, but it is not the one I am willing to give

That's sort of funny, isn't it? In other words, "that is the debate I would like to have" when I am not the one who brought it up in the first place.

But you are correct, (accurate) in suggesting we move on, seeing as how the real debate would be Christianity being the blame for child abuse. However, I would love to discuss this in more detail to demonstrate how there are those who simply want to interpret things in such a way as to support what they would rather believe, instead of reading things naturally.

I simply do not hold an opposing view to the notion that "Christianity is not to blame for child abuse.

Then we seem to agree. Could you answer the question as to whether there would be any passage in the whole of the Bible which would command the abuse of children?

The real quote is:

How on Earth does the passage I quoted imply that the passage you quoted was what was meant? Who was "repayed according to their deeds"? Why on Earth would he mention "some of you not tasting death" when none of them tasted death before the six days elapsed? Or did most of them die in those six days and it just was kept out of the Bible? Elijah and Moses have never been said to be Angels. I'm sorry but no, your suggestion does not make sense and most Christians do not hold the meaning to be what you suggest.

Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have, but it is not the one I am willing to give, I simply do not hold an opposing view to the notion that "Christianity is not to blame for child abuse." This doesn't mean I don't think Christians should be challenged over the way they see the world and how they view their holy book. If it means saving kids from abuse, I will challenge just about any concept, no matter how close it is kept to the hearts of it's adherents.

You both cut a sentence in half and included the first half with the previous paragraph to make a comment. Basic reading comprehension will tell you that this is not how you accurately interpret things.

[alexxcJRO]

I am afraid not. Rather, what you provided us with is a handful of passages which refer to a "rod" and never once use the words, "physical" or "punishment", all of which is from Proverbs, which is not in any way whatsoever, commands. Proverbs, is simply, "wise sayings" that would be seen as advice, and not commands.

Q: Wait what? )))

I bet that your the kind of guy that argues the sun is not yellow.

Firstly,

Calling it “wise advice� makes it even more fucked up because then the beating of children becomes a “wise thing� to do, leads to salvation.
This is the problem with religion. Transforms reprehensible actions in “wise things�.

Also the part with the command is supported by this verse:
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Secondly,

Sir you said :"there is not one passage in the whole of the Bible that can be said to command the physical punishment of children,".

You did not said “there is not one passage in the whole of the Bible that can be said to command the physical punishment of children, while using the words “command�, “punishment� and “physical�".

You are just moving the goal posts.

“Logical fallacy[edit]
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Changing your claim after I debunked it, is both dishonest and illogical.

It does not need to use those exact words for your claim did not include this.

Also words have meanings, synonyms that can imply the same thing.

So while not using those exact words it implies exactly that: the physical punishment of children while using phrasing and other words that mean exactly that.

But I shall indulge you.

Let’s look at definitions and verses:

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

"15 A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left undisciplined disgraces its mother."(Proverbs 29:15)

"15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,but the rod of discipline will drive it far away."(Proverbs 22:15)

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him."(Proverbs 13:24)


punishment
/ˈpʌnɪʃm(ə)nt/
noun
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.
"crime demands just punishment"
synonyms: penalizing, punishing, disciplining; More
a penalty inflicted as retribution for an offence.
plural noun: punishments
"she assisted her husband to escape punishment for the crime"
synonyms: penalty, discipline, correction, retribution, penance, sentence, reward, one's just deserts, medicine, the price, the rap, requital, vengeance, justice, judgement, sanction; More
INFORMAL
rough treatment or handling.
"your machine can take a fair amount of punishment before falling to bits"
synonyms: battering, thrashing, beating, thumping, pounding, pummelling, hammering, buffeting, drubbing; informalwalloping, bashing, roughing up, hiding, belting
"both boxers gave and took punishment"
maltreatment, mistreatment, ill treatment, abuse, ill use, rough handling, mishandling, manhandling;
injury, damage, harm
"domestic ovens are not constructed to take continual punishment"
https://www.google.ro/search?client=ope ... 8&oe=UTF-8

punishment
noun
pun·ish·ment | \ ˈpə-nish-mənt \
Definition of punishment
1: the act of punishing
2a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
SynonymsExample SentencesLearn More about punishment
Synonyms for punishment
Synonyms
castigation, chastisement, comeuppance, correction, desert(s), discipline, nemesis,penalty, wrath
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... t#examples

punishment
NOUN
mass noun
1The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.

‘crime demands just punishment’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 A penalty inflicted as retribution for an offence.
‘she assisted her husband to escape punishment for the crime’
count noun ‘he approved of stiff punishments for criminals’
More example sentencesSynonyms
penalty, discipline, correction, retribution, penance, sentence, reward, one's just deserts, medicine, the price, the rap, requital, vengeance, justice, judgement, sanction
View synonyms
1.2informal Rough treatment or handling.
‘your machine can take a fair amount of punishment before falling to bits’
More example sentencesSynonyms
battering, thrashing, beating, thumping, pounding, pummelling, hammering, buffeting, drubbing
maltreatment, mistreatment, ill treatment, abuse, ill use, rough handling, mishandling, manhandling
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/punishment


The “if you strike him with a rod, he will not die� is physical sir.

Punishment is synonymous with discipline. The word discipline is used.

A = punishment
B = discipline
A = B

So your basically saying but it does not uses A only B, while B = A.

Q: How dumb is that, huh? 😊)))

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 71 by alexxcJRO]

I bet that your the kind of guy that argues the sun is not yellow.

And we thought you had said "my work is done", and here you are back for more.

Firstly,

Calling it “wise advice� makes it even more fucked up because then the beating of children becomes a “wise thing� to do, leads to salvation.
This is the problem with religion. Transforms reprehensible actions in “wise things�.

And the thing is, you can in no way demonstrate this would be calling for physical punishment, much less what you are referring to as, "the beating of children." Little over the top, don't you think?

The point is, even if we could in fact demonstrate this would be referring to some sort of physical punishment, we certainly could not argue that it would be to "beat your child into submission."

Next, Proverbs is simply a man's thoughts who penned them down, in the form of verse, and in no way is commands from God. In other words, just like any advice, you can take, or leave it. In fact, it was disputed as to whether Proverbs should even be admitted into the Bible.

Also the part with the command is supported by this verse:
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

And this is a command to the Israelites as a nation, and is certainly not a command to Christians today. In other words, the Israelites lived under a theocracy. Christians today do not live under a theocracy, but rather are commanded to live under the earthly governments in which they live, and to obey the laws of such governments.

Sir you said :"there is not one passage in the whole of the Bible that can be said to command the physical punishment of children,".

You did not said “there is not one passage in the whole of the Bible that can be said to command the physical punishment of children, while using the words “command�, “punishment� and “physical�".

What we are talking about is the fact that we have a member here who is claiming that he was abused by his mom as a child, and referred to the Bible in order to defend such abuse. You, and others have provided other situations in which others have also abused their children, and attempted to defend their actions by the use of the same passages.

So then, we are talking about the method one uses to correct their children, and if the Bible ever commands the physical punishment of children. The passage you are referring to above, would be a command to the nation of Israel, and would have nothing whatsoever to so with commanding Christians on how to discipline children.

Moreover, this passage is not in any way referring to a child. Rather, it is clearly referring to, a grown son. Let's continue on with the passage.

They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

It is certainly sad that one would attempt to use such a passage, which is clearly directed to Israel as a nation, and also is clearly referring to an adult, as opposed to a child, in order to attempt to make the point that Christians today can somehow refer to this passage, in attempt to defend themselves when, and if they abuse their children. I mean really, this is sad.

Changing your claim after I debunked it, is both dishonest and illogical.

Well what do you call, using a passage that would clearly only be intended for the Nation of Israel, and is not in any way referring to a child, to defend the idea that Christians can use these things to defend themselves when they abuse their children?

It does not need to use those exact words for your claim did not include this.

My claim included instructions of how we are to correct children. The passage you are referring to was a command to Israel as a nation, and did not involve a child.

Now as to the difference between discipline and punishment. From the web,

Discipline and punishment are not the same thing. Discipline is the practice of training someone to behave in accordance with rules or a code of behavior. ... To punish is to inflict suffering for the past behavior. But the difference between discipline and punishment goes deeper than just the meaning of the words.

So then, while these words may be synonymous, they certainly do not have the same meaning.

[alexxcJRO]

Next, Proverbs is simply a man's thoughts who penned them down, in the form of verse, and in no way is commands from God. In other words, just like any advice, you can take, or leave it. In fact, it was disputed as to whether Proverbs should even be admitted into the Bible.

Moving the goal posts again. Please stop.

Your initial claim to which I responded was: “there is not one passage in the whole of the Bible that can be said to command the physical punishment of children,"

It is not important if it’s commanded by God or just humans.

If it’s in the Bible it’s enough.

It’s irrelevant if it should be in the Bible or not. The fact is: it is in the Bible.

And this is a command to the Israelites as a nation, and is certainly not a command to Christians today. In other words, the Israelites lived under a theocracy. Christians today do not live under a theocracy, but rather are commanded to live under the earthly governments in which they live, and to obey the laws of such governments.
What we are talking about is the fact that we have a member here who is claiming that he was abused by his mom as a child, and referred to the Bible in order to defend such abuse. You, and others have provided other situations in which others have also abused their children, and attempted to defend their actions by the use of the same passages.

So then, we are talking about the method one uses to correct their children, and if the Bible ever commands the physical punishment of children. The passage you are referring to above, would be a command to the nation of Israel, and would have nothing whatsoever to so with commanding Christians on how to discipline children.

Q: So if it’s a command only to Israelites or only to Israelites from the past does that make it ok?(Yes/No)

Q: So the ten commandments are only to Israelites?(Yes/No)

Q: Where is in the Bible says the old laws only apply on the Israelites? Did Jesus not said that the old law still applies, sir?


"Teaching about the Law
17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

Moreover, this passage is not in any way referring to a child. Rather, it is clearly referring to, a grown son. Let's continue on with the passage.
It is certainly sad that one would attempt to use such a passage, which is clearly directed to Israel as a nation, and also is clearly referring to an adult, as opposed to a child, in order to attempt to make the point that Christians today can somehow refer to this passage, in attempt to defend themselves when, and if they abuse their children. I mean really, this is sad.

Sir in the conditional part: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him,� which is important there is only mention of son which could imply child.�

And the thing is, you can in no way demonstrate this would be calling for physical punishment, much less what you are referring to as, "the beating of children." Little over the top, don't you think?

The point is, even if we could in fact demonstrate this would be referring to some sort of physical punishment, we certainly could not argue that it would be to "beat your child into submission.
....

Now as to the difference between discipline and punishment. From the web,


Quote:
Discipline and punishment are not the same thing. Discipline is the practice of training someone to behave in accordance with rules or a code of behavior. ... To punish is to inflict suffering for the past behavior. But the difference between discipline and punishment goes deeper than just the meaning of the words.


So then, while these words may be synonymous, they certainly do not have the same meaning.
"

What nonsense are you babbling about?:))

synonymous
[si-non-uh-muh s]
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR synonymous ON THESAURUS.COM
________________________________________
adjective
having the character of synonyms or a synonym; equivalent in meaning; expressing or implying thesame idea.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synonymous

See the key part: “equivalent in meaning�.

So the whole "while these words may be synonymous, they certainly do not have the same meaning." is equivalent to "while these words may be equivalent in meaning, they certainly do not have the same meaning."

Q: How dumb is that, huh? ))

So my point about discipline and punishment still stands.

Also like I said: the “if you strike him with a rod, he will not die� is physical sir.

Striking someone with a rod is physical beating. We have the word child. We have the word "discipline" which is synonymous with punishment. (having equivalent meaning)

Therefore my points remained unchallenged.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 70 by Filthy Tugboat]

Whao!!! Hold on a minute here? You not only accused me of seeming "to enjoy splitting up sentences and even including sentences from separate paragraphs", you also went on to accuse me of doing this in order to, "infer things are being said that are not being said."

So then, you need to explain, how in the world my stopping your sentence would have inferred something different than you originally meant. Did It? I do not think so?

If not, then you need to give us another example of where I have only used part of one of your sentences, and how this would be an example of how what I conveyed, would not have been your intention, since this is what I am being accused of, along with being accused of "being dishonest", and using "petty tactics."

I copied and pasted a whole paragraph from you, and went on to the next paragraph, and stopped at a point, so as to only respond to what had been said up to that point, which was the fact that you were, attempting to refute my interpretation of a certain passage, and then going on to insinuate that, "Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have, but it is not the one I am willing to give."

At this point, I simply pointed out the fact that, I was not the one who brought this into the conversation, and went on to agree with you, that we should not waste time on this, since it is not the topic we are debating.

So then, how would this in any way, infer you were saying something you did not intend? Did you intend to insinuate that, "Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have?" Well yes you did.

Was I the one who brought this passage into the conversation? Well, no I was not. Did I agree with you that we should not waste time on debating this passage, since it would not be what we are debating? Well, yes I did.

Would my stopping your sentence in any way, infer that you were saying was not what you intended? Well, no it would not.

Did I go on to address the rest of what you had to say in that sentence? Well, yes I did.

Basic reading comprehension will tell you that this is not how you accurately interpret things.

In this scenario, would I have accurately interpreted what you had to say? Or, can you point out where what I did, somehow inferred a different meaning than you intended? That is the question?

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 74 by Realworldjack]

And even in this response you incorrectly quote me by inserting a full stop where there was none. You interrupted a sentence at a comma. If it is not dishonest it is something else entirely that I cannot fathom, how can someone not understand what a comma and a full stop mean and what they imply regarding sentence structure? How does someone not know what a paragraph means? Why would anyone ever think an accurate interpretation can be divulged from adding half of a sentence from a new paragraph into the excerpt of the previous paragraph. You do you bud but I have no intention to accept this nonsense.

Your quote:

I copied and pasted a whole paragraph from you, and went on to the next paragraph, and stopped at a point, so as to only respond to what had been said up to that point, which was the fact that you were, attempting to refute my interpretation of a certain passage, and then going on to insinuate that, "Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have, but it is not the one I am willing to give."

Real quote:

Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have, but it is not the one I am willing to give, I simply do not hold an opposing view to the notion that "Christianity is not to blame for child abuse."

Perhaps you still misunderstand. The first paragraph was addressing Biblical interpretation of Jesus' speaking of his return. The second paragraph was my iteration that We do not necessarily disagree regarding what that particular proverb was saying in regards to child abuse or whether Christianity can be blamed. If you had quoted the whole sentence then there wouldn't be confusion.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 61 by Realworldjack]

Sorry, I was away for a few days so my comments are less than timely, but . . .

pennlive.com/news/2017/02/childrens_deaths_linked_to_faith.html

How's the above link for starters: over two dozen cases cited in Pennsylvania alone, of children that have been abused (left to die) through "faith healing." I may add that each case was attributed to interpreting "God's word" (as passive as you infer it is).

So I've opened up a new can of worms, about abuse: premature death through faith healing, that is apart from Catholic clergy abuse, Jonestown, Waco. Branch Davidians, Weaver enclave in Idaho, Heaven's Gate, Phineas Priests, FDLS . . . and the list goes on -- all Christian endeavors trying to do God's or Christ's work, and yes, all of the above amounted to child abuse in one form or another. My what overactive folks! What other religion(s) have a perp sheet like this?

Has something been lost in translating the Bible?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 73 by alexxcJRO]

Moving the goal posts again. Please stop.

You continue to make accusations, but you demonstrate none, as we will see.

Your initial claim to which I responded was: “there is not one passage in the whole of the Bible that can be said to command the physical punishment of children,"

It is not important if it’s commanded by God or just humans.

If it’s in the Bible it’s enough.

It’s irrelevant if it should be in the Bible or not. The fact is: it is in the Bible.

Here, you would be correct to say, "it is in the Bible." Where you would be incorrect is, "this would be a command."

Because you see, as has been demonstrated, Proverbs would simply be the opinion, and or advice, of one who is putting his thoughts down in verse, which could not in any way be seen as any sort of, command on how to raise your children.

Moreover, and more importantly you cannot even demonstrate that this advice, would entail, physical punishment. This would have to be inferred. In other words, simply because it refers to a "rod" would not in any way demonstrate that it is speaking of physical punishment, when we know that a "rod" was used by shepherds in order to guide sheep that would tend to wander, to get them safe, and the shepherd certainly did not use the "rod" to beat the sheep.

So then, we have one passage in the whole of the Bible, that would be unlear in its meaning, in the face of the many other passages, which would be clear commands to Christians to love their children such as, " Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord", along with many others.

And why is this being done? It is in order to defend the idea that Christianity is responsible for the abuse of children, by referring to a handful of passages that are not even commands, along with the interpretation being in question.

Q: So if it’s a command only to Israelites or only to Israelites from the past does that make it ok?(Yes/No)

Since I am not the arbitrator of morality, I could not possibly answer this question. Seeing as how most seem to insist that morality would be subjective to each individual, or group, I do not see how we could insist that it would not be, "ok?" In other words, I may not like the idea, but who am I to be the one who would say it would be, "ok." Maybe you have some sort of moral genius that I do not posses?

Q: So the ten commandments are only to Israelites?(Yes/No)

Yes. The ten commandments were part of a covenant that God, and the Israelites were said to agree upon.

Q: Where is in the Bible says the old laws only apply on the Israelites?

Galatians 2:15
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Or,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law

Did Jesus not said that the old law still applies, sir?

Well lets see?

"Teaching about the Law
17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)

What does Jesus say he came to do? "I came to fulfil the law." So then Christ is said to have fulfilled the law on our behalf, which would mean that we have been redeemed from the law.

Now of course this would not mean that we should ignore the law, but we are not bound to the law as were the Israelites.

Sir in the conditional part: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him,� which is important there is only mention of son which could imply child.�

Well it "could imply a child" which would bring us back to the fact that it would be unclear, which would mean that you could not insist that it was indeed a child.

Next, do we really believe it could imply a child? How many children could be referred to as a "glutton and a drunkard?" I would say it being an actual child is not looking so good.

And moreover, this passage would have nothing whatsoever to do with instructing Christian parents on how to raise a child, and certainly could not be used by a Christian who abuse their children.

And again, as has already been demonstrated, discipline, and punishment, while similar would not be the same things.

As an example, if I were to give a verbal warning to one of my employees, this would be discipline, and the employee does not suffer in any way. However, if I were to give them a day off without pay, this would be punishment in that they would suffer the loss of pay.

[alexxcJRO]

Yes. The ten commandments were part of a covenant that God, and the Israelites were said to agree upon.

Q: So the "10 commandments" are not commands for Christians to obey? Why do Christians do if it’s not for them? You do not follow the 10 commandments?

What does Jesus say he came to do? "I came to fulfil the law." So then Christ is said to have fulfilled the law on our behalf, which would mean that we have been redeemed from the law.

Now of course this would not mean that we should ignore the law, but we are not bound to the law as were the Israelites.

Q: How can one not follow the Deuteronomy commandments/laws yet still not ignoring them?

That is illogical.

Either you follow them, therefore not ignoring them or you are not following them therefore ignoring them.

Does not make sense.

Here, you would be correct to say, "it is in the Bible." Where you would be incorrect is, "this would be a command."

Because you see, as has been demonstrated, Proverbs would simply be the opinion, and or advice, of one who is putting his thoughts down in verse, which could not in any way be seen as any sort of, command on how to raise your children.

Sir the following verse points to a command: "Do not withhold discipline from a child;".

"Do this" is a command not advice.

Q: If i told you : "Do not murder, do not steal" would this not be a command?

Moreover, and more importantly you cannot even demonstrate that this advice, would entail, physical punishment. This would have to be inferred. In other words, simply because it refers to a "rod" would not in any way demonstrate that it is speaking of physical punishment, when we know that a "rod" was used by shepherds in order to guide sheep that would tend to wander, to get them safe, and the shepherd certainly did not use the "rod" to beat the sheep.

You are just babbling nonsense. )

We have explicitly the word "child", "son" not shepherd or sheep.

Q: How can disciplining a child by striking him with a rod not be considered physical punishment?

Striking a child with the rod = physical beating of a child
Disciple a child = punishing a child

Therefore disciplining a child by striking him with a rod is physical/corporal punishment of children.

Well it "could imply a child" which would bring us back to the fact that it would be unclear, which would mean that you could not insist that it was indeed a child.

Next, do we really believe it could imply a child? How many children could be referred to as a "glutton and a drunkard?" I would say it being an actual child is not looking so good.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

The part with glutton and drunkard is just an example.

The parents could have well said: "This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a liar and a thief."

And moreover, this passage would have nothing whatsoever to do with instructing Christian parents on how to raise a child, and certainly could not be used by a Christian who abuse their children.

And again, as has already been demonstrated, discipline, and punishment, while similar would not be the same things.

The delusion is beyond measure.

You have not demonstrated anything.

Disciple is synonymous with punishment which means having the same meaning, equivalent meaning.

I have proved this with definitions.

synonymous
[si-non-uh-muh s]
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR synonymous ON THESAURUS.COM
________________________________________
adjective
having the character of synonyms or a synonym; equivalent in meaning; expressing or implying the same idea.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synonymous

punishment
/ˈpʌnɪʃm(ə)nt/
noun
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.
"crime demands just punishment"
synonyms: penalizing, punishing, disciplining; More
a penalty inflicted as retribution for an offence.
plural noun: punishments
"she assisted her husband to escape punishment for the crime"
synonyms: penalty, discipline, correction, retribution, penance, sentence, reward, one's just deserts, medicine, the price, the rap, requital, vengeance, justice, judgement, sanction; More
INFORMAL
rough treatment or handling.
"your machine can take a fair amount of punishment before falling to bits"
synonyms: battering, thrashing, beating, thumping, pounding, pummelling, hammering, buffeting, drubbing; informalwalloping, bashing, roughing up, hiding, belting
"both boxers gave and took punishment"
maltreatment, mistreatment, ill treatment, abuse, ill use, rough handling, mishandling, manhandling;
injury, damage, harm
"domestic ovens are not constructed to take continual punishment"
https://www.google.ro/search?client=ope ... d=opera&am...

punishment
noun
pun·ish·ment | \ ˈpə-nish-mənt \
Definition of punishment
1: the act of punishing
2a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
SynonymsExample SentencesLearn More about punishment
Synonyms for punishment
Synonyms
castigation, chastisement, comeuppance, correction, desert(s), discipline, nemesis,penalty, wrath
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... t#examples

punishment
NOUN
mass noun
1The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.

‘crime demands just punishment’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 A penalty inflicted as retribution for an offence.
‘she assisted her husband to escape punishment for the crime’
count noun ‘he approved of stiff punishments for criminals’
More example sentencesSynonyms
penalty, discipline, correction, retribution, penance, sentence, reward, one's just deserts, medicine, the price, the rap, requital, vengeance, justice, judgement, sanction
View synonyms
1.2informal Rough treatment or handling.
‘your machine can take a fair amount of punishment before falling to bits’
More example sentencesSynonyms
battering, thrashing, beating, thumping, pounding, pummelling, hammering, buffeting, drubbing
maltreatment, mistreatment, ill treatment, abuse, ill use, rough handling, mishandling, manhandling
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/punishment

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 76 by 2Dbunk]

Sorry, I was away for a few days so my comments are less than timely, but . . .

All good! I understand completely. I am having trouble finding time myself.

Again, I am having trouble with the link you are attempting to supply. However, I am well aware of the fact there would be many folks who refuse medical attention because of their faith, and I would also agree that when, and if it involves children it would be abuse.

The question though would be, can Christianity be the blame for such things? Does Christianity teach it's adherents not to seek medical attention? The point is, unless it can be demonstrated that Christianity forbids it's adherents to seek medical attention, then we cannot blame Christianity for the fact that there are those who refuse such treatment.

Has something been lost in translating the Bible?

The thing is, there needs to be great care when interpreting anything, including the Bible.

Allow me to give you an example, which is dealing with the very thing we are talking about here. In James chapter 5, verses 14-15, we read,

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

The greek word translated as "sick" in this passage, can, and is translated as "weak" in other passages in the Bible. As an example, in Romans chapter 4 and verse 19, we read there, speaking of Abraham,

Without becoming (WEAK) in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb;

The Greek word translated as "weak" in this passage, is the very same word which James uses, which is translated as "sick." So then, as we return to the passage in James, we need to ask ourselves which meaning did James have in mind?

I am not sure we can know exactly, but I do believe we have some clues to go by. In this letter, James has been referring to the many sufferings his audience had endured because of their faith in Christ.

Therefore, when we arrive to the passage towards the end of the letter, James certainly could be saying, "if this suffering you have endured, has caused any of you to become weak in your faith, you should call the elders of the Church, and allow them to pray for you, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord, and God will raise this weak person up, and if they have committed any sins because of this weakness, they will be forgiven." This would, and could be, a legitimate interpretation of what James would be saying.

With this being a fact, it would not be very wise to build a doctrine based upon this passage, that Christians should simply, "call the elders of the Church when they are sick", when James may not have had physical sickness in mind at all. Moreover, the passage does not forbid medical attention in any way.

I have personally witnessed this passage reckously used in a number of cases, expecting one who is sick to be healed, whether medical attention was used or not. My point is, I can only blame those who do not do the hard work of ensuring they have arrived to the correct interpretation. How can Christianity, or the Bible be the blame for such things?

One cannot simply pick up written material, and assume that the first, and easiest interpretation would be the correct interpretation, without acknowledging that there could indeed be other legitimate interpretations.

On thing that seems very sad to me, is that there certainly seems to be those who are very quick to want to blame Christianity, and the Bible, for children who are denied medical attention because of the faith of their parents, while ignoring the fact that there have been many, many hospitals built, and ran by Christian organizations, who are reading the same Bible.

With this being the case, it would seem to me, that we would need to come to the conclusion that those who deny their children medical attention would be correct that the Bible does indeed teach such things, and the Bible can be said to be the blame.

Or, it would be those Christians who built hospitals because of their faith, and understanding of Christianity would be correct, and Christianity should get the credit for the medical attention many have received over the years, because of the Christian faith.