Negative side to scriptures

I RESPOND to Terry Banfield’s comments in the Argus (9.1.2013) referring to child punishment and the Bible.

Why does Mr Banfield compose the negative side of what the Bible says about child punishment? Yes, Proverbs 13 verse 24 says ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’, as do other scriptures in the Old Testament, but that does not mean you harm them to the point of ‘abuse’. As far as a child talking back to their parent should be killed, and He quotes Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Mark and Matthew, I cannot find any proof that that actually happened!

What about the positive side of the scriptures found in the Bible? I cannot find putting a child to death in either Matthew or Mark, Mr Banfield. The Old Testament and its laws were thankfully changed in the New Testament, which is built upon a better covenant with better promises. Under the old covenant there were too many different sacrifices to be made for our sin/s.

Malcolm Stafford Gwaun Coed Bridgend

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:13am Fri 18 Jan 13

P C Neilson says...

The hypocrisy of the religious is the very reason why people like myself distrust any proclamation of divine wisdom, and call phoney on belivers when they use biblical morality as a good way to work out how we should go about living a decent life.

It seems that it is ok to revise or ignore the nasty bits, 'those' bits are for interpretation. The very same bits that were followed intently (and still are in some versions of the faiths) by people closer to the original teachings for centuries. Could it be that words supposedly inspired by the big man himself are unacceptable and immorral to an enlightened and technologically advanced civilisation?

Either God is immoral to our sensibilties, God is a nasty character and everything he does is moral regardless, or the writers of the book implimented the best idea of what a God's behaviour and desires might be, available to them at the time.

If you admit the old testament is flawed as a literal way to moral knowledge, then a lot of pious arguments for things such as sexuality and moral law can be flawed too. Jesus did not denounce the old book I might add.

So on to the new testament where Jesus meek and mild brings with him not only heaven, but also the new threat of eternal torture. He also tells us to be free of property and thrift, and he tends to embrace the dregs of and deviants society such as the prostitute. Again modern religion cherry picks which of those 'divine' behaviours are deemed valid as moral in line with their personal comfort and modern desires.

There is nothing in the old books that has 'ever' superceeded secular morality and the reason is obvious. Oh, religion often fights morality using scriptures to justify causes such as slavery, but eventually it conceeds its overwhelming 'lack' of morality and continues to shrink as a guide or rational explanation for anything at all. How often must it be demonstrated to incorrect by magnitudes, unable to withstand the slightest criticism?

So I ask, is your statement of belief to be respected or taken as a guarantee of character? Even if I accept hypocrisy as an ongoing struggle of the Christian trying to follow the good word in an ever changing world, I cannot accept that they 'really' believe in the God of the bible.

As a modern human and Christian you are constantly doing sinful things prohibited and guaranteed to pee God and Jesus off, even the personal things that you wouldn't do in front of another human or a loved one. Yet you continue to live like it and behave this way in front of an all knowing and ever watching, judgemental God. I'm sorry I don't believe them, and if that isn't 'their' God, not the one in the bible? then anything they quote as an authority from the same book warrants distrust.
The hypocrisy of the religious is the very reason why people like myself distrust any proclamation of divine wisdom, and call phoney on belivers when they use biblical morality as a good way to work out how we should go about living a decent life. It seems that it is ok to revise or ignore the nasty bits, 'those' bits are for interpretation. The very same bits that were followed intently (and still are in some versions of the faiths) by people closer to the original teachings for centuries. Could it be that words supposedly inspired by the big man himself are unacceptable and immorral to an enlightened and technologically advanced civilisation? Either God is immoral to our sensibilties, God is a nasty character and everything he does is moral regardless, or the writers of the book implimented the best idea of what a God's behaviour and desires might be, available to them at the time. If you admit the old testament is flawed as a literal way to moral knowledge, then a lot of pious arguments for things such as sexuality and moral law can be flawed too. Jesus did not denounce the old book I might add. So on to the new testament where Jesus meek and mild brings with him not only heaven, but also the new threat of eternal torture. He also tells us to be free of property and thrift, and he tends to embrace the dregs of and deviants society such as the prostitute. Again modern religion cherry picks which of those 'divine' behaviours are deemed valid as moral in line with their personal comfort and modern desires. There is nothing in the old books that has 'ever' superceeded secular morality and the reason is obvious. Oh, religion often fights morality using scriptures to justify causes such as slavery, but eventually it conceeds its overwhelming 'lack' of morality and continues to shrink as a guide or rational explanation for anything at all. How often must it be demonstrated to incorrect by magnitudes, unable to withstand the slightest criticism? So I ask, is your statement of belief to be respected or taken as a guarantee of character? Even if I accept hypocrisy as an ongoing struggle of the Christian trying to follow the good word in an ever changing world, I cannot accept that they 'really' believe in the God of the bible. As a modern human and Christian you are constantly doing sinful things prohibited and guaranteed to pee God and Jesus off, even the personal things that you wouldn't do in front of another human or a loved one. Yet you continue to live like it and behave this way in front of an all knowing and ever watching, judgemental God. I'm sorry I don't believe them, and if that isn't 'their' God, not the one in the bible? then anything they quote as an authority from the same book warrants distrust. P C Neilson

12:20pm Fri 18 Jan 13

coalpicker says...

Yaweh the god of the three so called
great religions ,Well researched by academics, not well distributed to the general population, Was a volcano in Sinai worshiped by Nomads. Jewish
politicians and priesthood knew it was an unsustainable creed and changed
old fame spitting sulphur guts to a
invisible all knowing all dancing diety
which from the days of Aaron through
thousands of years has been a tool used by vested interest and politicians to control populations and commit uncounted atrocities,Islamic
paradise seekers being the current manifestation of the manipulation .
Yaweh the god of the three so called great religions ,Well researched by academics, not well distributed to the general population, Was a volcano in Sinai worshiped by Nomads. Jewish politicians and priesthood knew it was an unsustainable creed and changed old fame spitting sulphur guts to a invisible all knowing all dancing diety which from the days of Aaron through thousands of years has been a tool used by vested interest and politicians to control populations and commit uncounted atrocities,Islamic paradise seekers being the current manifestation of the manipulation . coalpicker

12:28pm Fri 18 Jan 13

coalpicker says...

SORRY should have read flame spitting
not fame spitting, getting excited about all the impending responses of the brain
washed.
SORRY should have read flame spitting not fame spitting, getting excited about all the impending responses of the brain washed. coalpicker

12:58pm Fri 18 Jan 13

P C Neilson says...

That's awesome, I didn't know that Yahweh was a volcano! The history and evolution of man is so interesting and enjoyable to me.

I don't know why people wouldn't be interested in why we are what we are, and how civilisations are built. The more I find out, the more I want to know.
That's awesome, I didn't know that Yahweh was a volcano! The history and evolution of man is so interesting and enjoyable to me. I don't know why people wouldn't be interested in why we are what we are, and how civilisations are built. The more I find out, the more I want to know. P C Neilson

10:36pm Sat 19 Jan 13

smokintheweed says...

If your magical sky wizard actually presents himself then there will be a way to prove that a god exists. In the meantime read your very old instruction manual for human behaviour but keep it to yourself
If your magical sky wizard actually presents himself then there will be a way to prove that a god exists. In the meantime read your very old instruction manual for human behaviour but keep it to yourself smokintheweed

9:31am Mon 21 Jan 13

Mervyn James says...

Even if there isn't a diety we would still try to suggest one. If it is a straight choice between X factor winners or religion, it's a no brainer. At least there is some history to it and one is more tempted to believe is real (No not x factor that has to be a complete myth!), If we didn't believe there is something bigger, we wouldn't be trying to find out. Belief is as old as man, we need it. We all hedge our bets as we get nearer the grim reaper...
Even if there isn't a diety we would still try to suggest one. If it is a straight choice between X factor winners or religion, it's a no brainer. At least there is some history to it and one is more tempted to believe is real (No not x factor that has to be a complete myth!), If we didn't believe there is something bigger, we wouldn't be trying to find out. Belief is as old as man, we need it. We all hedge our bets as we get nearer the grim reaper... Mervyn James

9:41am Mon 21 Jan 13

Owain Vaughan says...

I despise the X Factor and all associated manufactured "fame", but given a choice between that and religion you are right, it is a no brainer:

X Factor.
I despise the X Factor and all associated manufactured "fame", but given a choice between that and religion you are right, it is a no brainer: X Factor. Owain Vaughan

10:45am Mon 21 Jan 13

coalpicker says...

Instead of x factor watch AL Jazeera ,you will then see what is coming our way .The future for our grand children is looking very grim, the
neolithic mindset of a religeon spawned in a desert cave will drench our nation in blood .
Instead of x factor watch AL Jazeera ,you will then see what is coming our way .The future for our grand children is looking very grim, the neolithic mindset of a religeon spawned in a desert cave will drench our nation in blood . coalpicker

1:51pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Mervyn James says...

Owain Vaughan wrote:
I despise the X Factor and all associated manufactured "fame", but given a choice between that and religion you are right, it is a no brainer:

X Factor.
Then again you you don't know where Gwent is do you ? Perhaps get away from he TV and find out...;)
[quote][p][bold]Owain Vaughan[/bold] wrote: I despise the X Factor and all associated manufactured "fame", but given a choice between that and religion you are right, it is a no brainer: X Factor.[/p][/quote]Then again you you don't know where Gwent is do you ? Perhaps get away from he TV and find out...;) Mervyn James

5:43pm Mon 21 Jan 13

P C Neilson says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Even if there isn't a diety we would still try to suggest one. If it is a straight choice between X factor winners or religion, it's a no brainer. At least there is some history to it and one is more tempted to believe is real (No not x factor that has to be a complete myth!), If we didn't believe there is something bigger, we wouldn't be trying to find out. Belief is as old as man, we need it. We all hedge our bets as we get nearer the grim reaper...
The X Factor isn't 'quite' as harmful as religion, and it isn't ripping the world to shreds either. If I wanted to make a case for the X Factor being based in 'reality' or a worthy cause, I could make one. Far more easily than I might be able to for any of the three great world religions.

As almost all of the big questions in life are explained comprehensively by science, there really is no excuse to choose or invent a deity as an explanation, other than indoctrination, lack of education or laziness. When what was previously an unknown mystery gets explained it becomes the natural. Humans are inquisitive by nature. To see the big picture, we look at things on an ever shrinking scale. In these times belief in the 'blind' sense is not helpful to any of this style of thinking.

'Hedging our bets' as in Pascal's wager might be a cultural meme for the time being, but it is hopelessly flawed to anybody that has considered what it really means.

What would an eternity of 'anything' really be like? Let alone eternal subservience and worship.

What if I have 'hedged my bets' with the wrong deity?

And most of all, how likely is it that the deity I have chosen/inherited to hedge my bets with is the creator of the whole universe?

What are my reasons for saying it is a 'he' an 'it' or otherwise?

Has anybody ever been able to even describe what 'existing outside time and known physical laws' mean? If they can't describe it, then I don't know what they are talking about, and I'm pretty sure that they don't either.

If something can't come from nothing, just pop into existence, then why is my chosen/inherited deity excluded from this rule. Pascal's wager is not hard to beat.

Unfortunately, the popularity of both the X Factor and religion speaks volumes about those who buy it, and the gains that can be had by those who sell it. Though I do think that there might be some biological reason for accepting things on faith. It may have been essential in our earlier evolution, and is definitely a factor in growing up as a child safely. I bet you knew I'd say that didn't you? Hehe!
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Even if there isn't a diety we would still try to suggest one. If it is a straight choice between X factor winners or religion, it's a no brainer. At least there is some history to it and one is more tempted to believe is real (No not x factor that has to be a complete myth!), If we didn't believe there is something bigger, we wouldn't be trying to find out. Belief is as old as man, we need it. We all hedge our bets as we get nearer the grim reaper...[/p][/quote]The X Factor isn't 'quite' as harmful as religion, and it isn't ripping the world to shreds either. If I wanted to make a case for the X Factor being based in 'reality' or a worthy cause, I could make one. Far more easily than I might be able to for any of the three great world religions. As almost all of the big questions in life are explained comprehensively by science, there really is no excuse to choose or invent a deity as an explanation, other than indoctrination, lack of education or laziness. When what was previously an unknown mystery gets explained it becomes the natural. Humans are inquisitive by nature. To see the big picture, we look at things on an ever shrinking scale. In these times belief in the 'blind' sense is not helpful to any of this style of thinking. 'Hedging our bets' as in Pascal's wager might be a cultural meme for the time being, but it is hopelessly flawed to anybody that has considered what it really means. What would an eternity of 'anything' really be like? Let alone eternal subservience and worship. What if I have 'hedged my bets' with the wrong deity? And most of all, how likely is it that the deity I have chosen/inherited to hedge my bets with is the creator of the whole universe? What are my reasons for saying it is a 'he' an 'it' or otherwise? Has anybody ever been able to even describe what 'existing outside time and known physical laws' mean? If they can't describe it, then I don't know what they are talking about, and I'm pretty sure that they don't either. If something can't come from nothing, just pop into existence, then why is my chosen/inherited deity excluded from this rule. Pascal's wager is not hard to beat. Unfortunately, the popularity of both the X Factor and religion speaks volumes about those who buy it, and the gains that can be had by those who sell it. Though I do think that there might be some biological reason for accepting things on faith. It may have been essential in our earlier evolution, and is definitely a factor in growing up as a child safely. I bet you knew I'd say that didn't you? Hehe! P C Neilson

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree