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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 75 by Filthy Tugboat]

Okay, let's go back through the conversation again. You write out a whole paragraph talking about a passage of scripture that you brought into the conversation that would have nothing to do with our conversation.

When you brought this passage into the conversation, I was reluctant to even deal with it, because I did not want to go off on another topic. However, I felt compelled to give an alternative explanation of the passage, but was not willing to pursue it any further.

You then end the paragraph concerning this passage that you brought into the conversation, and begin the next paragraph by saying, "Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have, but it is not the one I am willing to give," and then go on to what I thought was an attempt to get the conversation back on track, which is what I wanted to do myself.

So, when you say, "Perhaps that is the debate that you would like to have," what am I suppose to assume "THAT" debate would be, other than the one you were just talking about, concerning the passage of scripture in the previous paragraph? In other words, I did not want to continue "THAT" debate, and I assumed this is what you were referring to. If this is not the case, then I certainly apologize, but it is not as though I was attempting to do something that would be dishonest.

Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize. But, when you write a whole paragraph concerning a debate we were having about a certain passage of scripture, and begin the very next paragraph by saying, "Perhaps that is the debate", it would be perfectly logical for me to assume, "that debate" would be the one you were just talking about.

When you say, "but it is not the one I am willing to give", it would be perfectly logical for me to assume you were saying, you were not willing to continue, "THAT" debate. When you go on to say, "I simply do not hold an opposing view to the notion that "Christianity is not to blame for child abuse", it would be perfectly logical for me to assume that you were attempting to get the conversation back on track which is what I wanted to do myself.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 78 by alexxcJRO]

Q: So the "10 commandments" are not commands for Christians to obey?

As I have already said, the 10 commandments were given to Israel as a nation. So then, do you commit murder? If not, is it because the Israelites were commanded to abstain from such behavior? If not, then why would my abstaining from such behavior have to do with the 10 commandments given to the Israelites?

You do not follow the 10 commandments?

I do not. I understand them to be commands to Israel as a nation. As already pointed out, I do not commit murder, and I will assume you do not as well. If you abstain from murder and it has nothing to do with the 10 commandments, then there would be no reason to assume that I am not out murdering folks, because it was a command to Israel.

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

The same way in which, you do not "follow the Deuteronomy commandments/laws" yet you do not ignore the command against murder.

That is illogical.

What is "illogical" is to insist that my behavior is governed by these laws, but you behave in much the same way, and it is not because of these laws.

I mean, how illogical is that sort of thinking? Do you murder? Do you steal? Do you bear false witness? If you abstain from these sort of behaviors, and it has nothing to do with the 10 commands given to Israel, then how in the world would it add up that the reason I abstain from such behavior, is because I must be following the 10 commandments?

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

Does not make sense

I do not follow them, but I do not murder? You do not follow them, and you do not murder.

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

"Do this" is a command not advice.

The point being, discipline, and punishment, would not be the same thing. Are you suggesting that we do away with discipline? Are you suggesting we simply allow our children to do as they please?

You are just babbling nonsense.

No, that would be you. Here is an example.

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

The first thing to point out is the fact that, the comparison would not be, "child, son", to "shepherd sheep." Rather, it would be, "parent, to child son" as opposed to, "shepherd, sheep."

Next, the one passage you refer to, specifically says, "do not withhold discipline from a CHILD." The other passage you refer to, only mentions a "SON." Now, why would this passage only apply to SONS, and not include daughters? Moreover, this passage is clearly speaking of a "son" who would be of age, and would not be a child.

So then, out of the whole of the Bible, you do not have one passage which actually sets out to explain the physical punishment of children. Rather, all you have is one passage which refers to some sort of "rod" , along with the word, "strike."

However, let us look at how an online Hebrew studies site understands this verse,

The word used for rod is one I immediately recognized as the same word that is used in the Aramaic which is the word for a scepter or a magistrate. In fact one use of this word in Hebrew, which in its root form shavat is for a scepter. It is the same word used in Esther 5:2 which she approaches the king and he extended or offered his scepter to her. I searched out the word scepter in the in other Semitic languages, Phoenician, Akkadian, Summarian and found the identical word that we have in the Hebrew and Aramaic, shavat and it is always used as a reference to a scepter. The scepter was universally recognized as a symbol of authority and how the authority moved his scepter displayed his desires or wishes. A king would give a scepter to an individual to provide diplomatic immunity. Scepters were carried by not only kings but priest, judges, military leaders and respected elders. These were not used to administer punishment but to confirm a verdict such as the use of a gavel today to call to order in a court or when a judge strikes his gavel to conclude and confirm a verdict. He does not beat the defendant over the head with the gavel; whatever punishment is to be rendered is done outside the court.

So what about this punishment chastening or beating? The word in every case in the Hebrew is musar which could come from two possible root words, masar which means to change and has nothing to do with physical punishment or yasar which means to correct or instruct and has little to do with any physical action. In fact, in other Semitic languages, yasar is exclusively used for instruction and has reserved other words to express physical punishment.

Using my earlier rendering of the word shavat as scepter or authority, I would not see this as beat him with a rod, but it would be more like examine his behavior with the authority of a wise king.

So, as we can see, you have nothing! You have a handful of verses in the whole of the Bible, and they are called into question as to how they are to be translated, and you want to insist that they must be translated the way in which you insist they must.

This seems sort of comical, in that most folks who are opposed to Christianity will insist, we cannot know what is meant by much of what is said in the Bible, and now we have one who claims to know exactly what is being said, even though we have experts who do not claim to know.

And why is all this being done? Well, it is sad, but it is a desperate attempt in order to somehow find where we can accuse Christianity of being responsible for child abuse. It is sad indeed.

Moreover, on top of the fact you only have a few verses in which the translation would be questionable, this would be in the face of the many clear passages we have which command Christians in how to raise their Children, and never says anything about physical punishment.

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son

I'm wondering here, why would it only mention a, "son?" Are they to allow their daughters to do anything they wish? Or, would this be implying an adult "son", and the daughter more than likely would be married off into another family?

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

Do you notice it says, "though they DISCIPLINE him, will not LISTEN to them?" So then, since it says, after the "discipline", the son will not "listen", this would demonstrate that the "discipline" would have only entailed, instruction.

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;

Notice again here, the one being referred to is always a male subject. Next notice, this son is said, "not to obey our VOICE." It says nothing about this son, "ignoring any sort of punishment."

he is a glutton and a drunkard

So, how many actual children can you imagine throughout all of history, who could be referred to as a "glutton and drunkard?" Two clues here. Since a son is the only one referred to, and there is no mention of daughters, along with the fact that this "son" is referred to as a "glutton and drunkard", we can be sure this would in no way be an instruction to Christians, to physically beat their children.

Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones.

Okay, so it is not the parents who are to administer this punishment, but rather the city. So, no instruction to parents to punish their children.

So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

So all of who, "shall hear, and fear?" That's right, it was Israel. So then, what we have here, is instructions to the people of Israel as a nation, and would have nothing to do with how Christians should correct their children.

The part with glutton and drunkard is just an example.

You are exactly right! It would be an example, of a grown son. Which would eliminate the possibility it would be referring to children. In other words, it is not like being a "glutton and a drunkard" would be just one example, and "oh and by the way, if they do not eat all their food, bring them out, and we will stone them as well.

As I said, "this is sad." It is absolutely clear this passage would have nothing whatsoever to do with children, and it certainly would have nothing whatsoever to do with commands to Christians on how to raise their children. But yet, we have those who make such desperate attempts, simply to be able to accuse Christianity, of being responsible for, child abuse.

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."

Exactly! And we are suppose to assume, that this would involve a child, right? In other words, the reference to a "son", can only mean a child, and cannot possibly be referring to an adult son.

Moreover, why would it not also include daughters? So now, we are suppose to assume, that this passage would be referring to only, sons, who would be children, and the daughters who were children, should be treated differently, if they were "gluttons, drunkards, thiefs, or liars."

Again, you are in a desperate situation here. You only have a handful of passages which refer to some sort of "rod", and as we have seen, your interpretation would be questionable at best. Then we have this passage which could not possibly be talking about young children, on top of the fact that this passage could not possibly be a command to Christians, seeing as how it would have been a command to the nation of Israel.

The delusion is beyond measure.

It certainly is, and I am glad you are beginning to see it. In other words, it is unreal to see the measures one will go to, simply out of hate.

You have not demonstrated anything.

Nor have you, my friend!

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

I have proved this with definitions.

Can you spell, DELUSION? They are not the same. They may be similar, but punishment would necessarily involve some sort of suffering, while discipline would not involve any sort of suffering.

With your logic, we should never discipline children in any way, since discipline, would be the same thing as, punishment, which would involve, suffering.

So then, the question to you would be, when our children do things which may harm them, then what should we do, if we should not use discipline, which according to you would involve physical punishment?

[alexxcJRO]

The same way in which, you do not "follow the Deuteronomy commandments/laws" yet you do not ignore the command against murder.
As already pointed out, I do not commit murder, and I will assume you do not as well. If you abstain from murder and it has nothing to do with the 10 commandments, then there would be no reason to assume that I am not out murdering folks, because it was a command to Israel.
I do not follow them, but I do not murder? You do not follow them, and you do not murder.
I mean, how illogical is that sort of thinking? Do you murder? Do you steal? Do you bear false witness? If you abstain from these sort of behaviors, and it has nothing to do with the 10 commands given to Israel, then how in the world would it add up that the reason I abstain from such behavior, is because I must be following the 10 commandments?

What I do or do not it’s irrelevant to the argument. )
I did not say you abstain because of certain reasons. Don’t straw-man. It’s kind of weak and boring.
I said one cannot both follow and ignore the Deuteronomy commandments/laws.
Jesus said not to ignore none of these laws.

Q: Do you not ignore (do not follow) most of the Deuteronomy commandments/laws?(Yes/No question)

Are you suggesting that we do away with discipline? Are you suggesting we simply allow our children to do as they please?
They are not the same. They may be similar, but punishment would necessarily involve some sort of suffering, while discipline would not involve any sort of suffering.

With your logic, we should never discipline children in any way, since discipline, would be the same thing as, punishment, which would involve, suffering.

So then, the question to you would be, when our children do things which may harm them, then what should we do, if we should not use discipline, which according to you would involve physical punishment?

Sir discipline does not equals in meaning with physical punishment, only with punishment.
The discipline, punishment inflicted on a child for a misdeed does not necessarily need to be physical. You can for example forbid him to use the phone or the internet. Still punishment, still discipline.
You cannot have discipline with zero amounts of suffering.
Discipline entails some amount of suffering.

The point being, discipline, and punishment, would not be the same thing.

You keep saying that but saying does not make it so.
According to the definitions of discipline, punishment, synonyms you are wrong.
Discipline equals in meaning with punishment.
Ignoring the evidence does not make you look good I am afraid.

Also you ignored my question.
Please respond:

Q: Is "Do not withhold discipline from a child;" a command?(Yes/No question)

You are exactly right! It would be an example, of a grown son. Which would eliminate the possibility it would be referring to children. In other words, it is not like being a "glutton and a drunkard" would be just one example, and "oh and by the way, if they do not eat all their food, bring them out, and we will stone them as well.

As I said, "this is sad." It is absolutely clear this passage would have nothing whatsoever to do with children, and it certainly would have nothing whatsoever to do with commands to Christians on how to raise their children. But yet, we have those who make such desperate attempts, simply to be able to accuse Christianity, of being responsible for, child abuse.
Exactly! And we are suppose to assume, that this would involve a child, right? In other words, the reference to a "son", can only mean a child, and cannot possibly be referring to an adult son.

Son can mean both child and adult.
You can be a drunkard and glutton and not be an adult.
A child could steal, lie, drink alcohol, not listen to his/her parents.

Okay, so it is not the parents who are to administer this punishment, but rather the city. So, no instruction to parents to punish their children.

Sir the 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,"�
There is not mention of parents.

Can you spell, DELUSION?

The delusion is still great I am afraid.

However, let us look at how an online Hebrew studies site understands this verse,

Quote:
The word used for rod is one I immediately recognized as the same word that is used in the Aramaic which is the word for a scepter or a magistrate. In fact one use of this word in Hebrew, which in its root form shavat is for a scepter. It is the same word used in Esther 5:2 which she approaches the king and he extended or offered his scepter to her. I searched out the word scepter in the in other Semitic languages, Phoenician, Akkadian, Summarian and found the identical word that we have in the Hebrew and Aramaic, shavat and it is always used as a reference to a scepter. The scepter was universally recognized as a symbol of authority and how the authority moved his scepter displayed his desires or wishes. A king would give a scepter to an individual to provide diplomatic immunity. Scepters were carried by not only kings but priest, judges, military leaders and respected elders. These were not used to administer punishment but to confirm a verdict such as the use of a gavel today to call to order in a court or when a judge strikes his gavel to conclude and confirm a verdict. He does not beat the defendant over the head with the gavel; whatever punishment is to be rendered is done outside the court.

So what about this punishment chastening or beating? The word in every case in the Hebrew is musar which could come from two possible root words, masar which means to change and has nothing to do with physical punishment or yasar which means to correct or instruct and has little to do with any physical action. In fact, in other Semitic languages, yasar is exclusively used for instruction and has reserved other words to express physical punishment.

Using my earlier rendering of the word shavat as scepter or authority, I would not see this as beat him with a rod, but it would be more like examine his behavior with the authority of a wise king.

So, as we can see, you have nothing! You have a handful of verses in the whole of the Bible, and they are called into question as to how they are to be translated, and you want to insist that they must be translated the way in which you insist they must.
This seems sort of comical, in that most folks who are opposed to Christianity will insist, we cannot know what is meant by much of what is said in the Bible, and now we have one who claims to know exactly what is being said, even though we have experts who do not claim to know.

You the opposer of evolution making an argument from authority. How funny?:))

We have :
mū·sar = “discipline, chasten, correction, instruction, even punishment“
šê·ḇeṭ = “rod, scepter, tribe, club�
ḇaš·šê·ḇeṭ = “with a rod�
ṯak·ken·nū = “you beat/strike him�
y�·mūṯ = “he will die�


"Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you strike them with the rod, they will not die. “(Proverbs 23:13)

So using all possible meanings we have:

“Do not withhold discipline/punishment/correction/instruction/chasten from a child; if you strike them with the rod/scepter/club/tribe, they will not die.�

It’s illogical to use “tribe� for “šê·ḇeṭ“, for it does not go with the rest of the phrase.

It’s illogical to use “instruction� for “mū·sar�, for it does not go with the rest of the phrase, mostly “they will not die�. (It’s impossible to kill someone with instructions)

It’s still, I am afraid, a command to not withheld discipline/punishment via physical beating from a child.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 79 by Realworldjack]

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.

Inferences are rife throughout the Bible, making it very open to misinterpretation. The intent of the Bible was to guide people in living, but over the years (in Jesus' inexplicable extended absence) languages are corrupted and more nations enjoined, helping to distort the original message.

Couple that with the fact that the Bible is mysterious -- mystery and faith go hand-in-hand, the obverse of factual truth. Thus the nuances of the "Holy Books" are what Anatole France was talking about when he defined theology as being "that science of the study of the unknowable, with infinitessimal exactitude."

So in your studies you find no direct command in the Bible to physically discipline children or to disdain getting medical attention. Unfortunately others have interpreted the scripture differently than you, as I've shown in my last post highlighting the vast array of misinterpretations that have spawned tens of thousands of Christian sects. You may be correct in your interpretation but too many others don't see it the way you do.