Civilization V, Afterlife, Reincarnation, Time Travel, Akashic Records, God etc.

[Hawk]

I quoted a couple of scriptures earlier of the length of days in the Bible. Psalms 90:4 says "For a thousand years in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night." Basically a thousand years to God is like a 24 hour day to us.
2 Peter 3:8 says "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
This is pretty clear that when a day is mentioned regarding God it a different amount of time to us as humans.

The Hebrew word used here for "day" ("yohm") also has a variety of meanings, including "a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.", so it could have been any length of time.

[stethnorun]

I quoted a couple of scriptures earlier of the length of days in the Bible. Psalms 90:4 says "For a thousand years in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night." Basically a thousand years to God is like a 24 hour day to us.
2 Peter 3:8 says "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
This is pretty clear that when a day is mentioned regarding God it a different amount of time to us as humans.

The Hebrew word used here for "day" ("yohm") also has a variety of meanings, including "a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.", so it could have been any length of time.

So then each day was 1,000 years. So the creation of the planet and life took 6,000 years? That contention has JUST as many logical flaws as 6 days does.

[stethnorun]

Oh and Hawk, you wanted something that showed all the contradictions in the Bible? BEHOLD:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

[Hawk]

Wrong again. Referring to the Catholic Church once more, never in their history have they advocated a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Not once. Even back in the early days of Christianity, most early Doctors of the Church understood that Genesis was a massive allegory, and thus should not be taken literally from a historical standpoint. The whole "Young Earth creationism" business got started with Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation, due in part to the fact that they rejected all tradition and magisterial teaching in favor of studying the Bible exclusively. That said, that still leaves about 1500 years of Christian history where this was NOT the case. There's also a such thing as context. Early biblical scholars knew that Genesis was an attempt to understand the creation of the world and bring meaning to their faith, with little bearing on actual happenings. Biblical scholars study the context of each book of the Bible so they know what should be taken at face value (i.e. the Gospels, Acts, etc) and what should be viewed as an allegory (Genesis, Revelations). This isn't to say books like Genesis and Revelation are completely worthless; they hold a great deal of theological value in terms of shaping the beliefs and values of Christianity. They are not, however, ever intended to be historical documents or scientific fact. Its also worth pointing out that another 40% of Americans believe that the Earth was created over billions of years and humanity evolved over that time but believe that God had a part in it. Religion is not irreconcilable with science.

Regarding Genesis, if its stories are largely just fictional, where does Adam and Eve sit with this - are they fictional too? And if they were not real people, or even if they were real but their story was fabricated, then why did Jesus have to die for us? And why does it refer to his death as a "ransom"? (Matthew 20:28)
You see in Romans 5:12 it states that through one man sin entered into the world - this is referring to Adam - and it goes onto say that the "wages sin pays is death" in Romans 6:23. So from these two scriptures we can see that our imperfection and tendency to sin was past down to us from Adam, and that life wasn't meant to be like this.
Now John 3:16 explains that God sent his son as a ransom to save everyone exercising faith, so that they may have "everlasting life". We will be back to our original state of perfection, and we will be able to live forever.

What I'm getting at here is that the whole Bible is connected, and if you believe in most of the Bible, but not all of it, then how does it make sense? You know that every book is important, and that God always has a logical reason for his actions, and if he inspired the Bible then wouldn't he base it all on truth?

[Hawk]

So then each day was 1,000 years. So the creation of the planet and life took 6,000 years? That contention has JUST as many logical flaws as 6 days does.

No, the word "yohm" can mean "as long as an event took". So it could even be millions of years, which wouldn't be that long from God's point of view.

[stethnorun]

What I'm getting at here is that the whole Bible is connected, and if you believe in most of the Bible, but not all of it, then how does it make sense?

Exactly. Those that try to square science with the Bible by calling some of it "fiction" are just fooling themselves so that they can maintain the contradiction in their heads and not have to make difficult philosophical decisions about what they REALLY believe. It's trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Hawk]

Oh and Hawk, you wanted something that showed all the contradictions in the Bible? BEHOLD:

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

That's quite a lot of reading - I can see why you might think there are contractions from looking at this link, but I wanted to know if there was a specific contradiction that you knew of, which I would try my best to answer. It would take me ages to go through that list, and I prefer to answer just one question at a time (pick one from that list if you wish), but it's unfair to dump a pile like that on me and expect a good answer. You will find that after careful analysis and scriptural cross-referencing of the Bible these "contradictions" make sense.

[stethnorun]

That's quite a lot of reading - I can see why you might think there are contractions from looking at this link, but I wanted to know if there was a specific contradiction that you knew of, which I would try my best to answer. It would take me ages to go through that list, and I prefer to answer just one question at a time (pick one from that list if you wish), but it's unfair to dump a pile like that on me and expect a good answer. You will find that after careful analysis and scriptural cross-referencing of the Bible these "contradictions" make sense.

Well...try reading it. It's interesting.

[Hawk]

Well...try reading it. It's interesting.

Ok, let's take one step at a time and look at no. 1 on the list then...

1. How many men did the chief of David’s captains kill? 2sam 23:8 ≠ 1chron 11:11

2 Samuel 23:8 says "These are the names of the mighty men that belonged to David: Jo'sheb-basshe'beth a Tahche'monite, the head of the three. He was brandishing his spear over eight hundred slain at one time."

1 Chronicles 11:11 says "And this is the list of the mighty men that belonged to David: Jasho'beam the son of a Hach'monite, the head of the three. He was brandishing his spear over three hundred slain at one time."

I'll have to re-read through this part of the Bible to remember the account it's referring to, but at first glance it certainly doesn't seem to be a contradiction. The obvious difference is the name of the "head of the three" is different, and even their ethnic backgrounds are different, so these to "heads" are different people, so I'm not surprised to see that one slayed 800 and the other 300. Could you point out to me how it is supposed to be a contradiction so I can look into this better?

[Hawk]

2. Was Abraham justified by faith or by works? rom 4:2 ≠ jam 2:21

Romans 4:2 says "If, for instance, Abraham were declared righteous as a result of works, he would have ground for boasting; but not with God." (and continues to say in verse 3) "For what does the scripture say? "Abraham exercised faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
- Note that this scripture doesn't say that Abraham wasn't declared righteous by works, but it says that he would have grounds for boasting, although not with God. It does say that his faith in God was counted as righteousness.

James 2:21 says "Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the alter?" (and goes on to say in verses 22 and 23) "You behold that his faith worked along with his works and by his works his faith was perfected, and the scripture was fulfilled which says: "Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness," and he came to be called "Jehovah's friend."
- This combines his faith (which is counted as righteousness) with his works when it says "his faith worked along with his works and by his works his faith was perfected.

Let's cross-reference these with James 2:26 (later part) "faith without works is dead."
So righteousness without works would also be dead, thus he would have been declared righteous by both faith and works.

[stethnorun]

So you honestly think every contradiction in that chart is not accurate? Really? Come now.

[Hawk]

So you honestly think every contradiction in that chart is not accurate? Really? Come now.

Some people are just looking for error, and if your're desperate enough to see error you will see error, in whatever subject. This is why it's good to try to keep open minded. With a proper understanding of the Bible however, you can find answers, either by scriptural cross-reference, understanding the proper meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words used, and by understanding the symbolism.
For example, it has one on that list about calling someone your "Father". There are scriptures that clearly state not to call anyone your "Father" except God, but this is, of course, not referring to a child calling his or her dad their "father", but it's referring to those who call themselves "Father" as a title.

[stethnorun]

Some people are just looking for error, and if your're desperate enough to see error you will see error, in whatever subject. This is why it's good to try to keep open minded. With a proper understanding of the Bible however, you can find answers, either by scriptural cross-reference, understanding the proper meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words used, and by understanding the symbolism.
For example, it has one on that list about calling someone your "Father". There are scriptures that clearly state not to call anyone your "Father" except God, but this is, of course, not referring to a child calling his or her dad their "father", but it's referring to those who call themselves "Father" as a title.

And you don't see the ridiculous logical hoops you have to jump through just to get the book to make sense with itself? Defining words differently, translating back and forth to get the meaning you want out of them...can you really not take a step back and view that objectively?

[Hawk]

And you don't see the ridiculous logical hoops you have to jump through just to get the book to make sense with itself? Defining words differently, translating back and forth to get the meaning you want out of them...can you really not take a step back and view that objectively?

There's a difference between twisting words to make them what you want them to be, and translating words exactly how they are meant to be. Sure enough, some people have changed Bibles - such as taking God's name out (YHWH or "Jehovah" in modern English) and replacing it with "Lord" - but there are plenty who re-translated the original scriptures, so we can get it exactly how it's meant to be.

[stethnorun]

There's a difference between twisting words to make them what you want them to be, and translating words exactly how they are meant to be.

Like how in the Koran it says "72 grapes of white wisdom" rather than "72 virgins"? Yeah...religious people never twist the words

[Hawk]

Like how in the Koran it says "72 grapes of white wisdom" rather than "72 virgins"? Yeah...religious people never twist the words

If you read my above comment you will see that I do know of people changing the Bible to fit in with their own thoughts rather than God's. I have not read the Qur'an, so I can't really comment on it.

[stethnorun]

Yeah but you've heard the 72 virgins thing before, regarding suicide bombings. That's a completely mistranslated verse.

[Hawk]

Yeah but you've heard the 72 virgins thing before, regarding suicide bombings. That's a completely mistranslated verse.

I've always wondered what verse exactly in the Qur'an do the suicide bombers get their extremist ideas from? Christians in history have also done atrocious things in the name of God, such as the Crusades, and there has been plenty of cases where priests of the same religion blessed the troops on both sides of the battlefield before the fighting, but again this is man's doing - God doesn't support this behavior what-so-ever!

[stethnorun]

I've always wondered what verse exactly in the Qur'an do the suicide bombers get their extremist ideas from? Christians in history have also done atrocious things in the name of God, such as the Crusades, and there has been plenty of cases where priests of the same religion blessed the troops on both sides of the battlefield before the fighting, but again this is man's doing - God doesn't support this behavior what-so-ever!

Or maybe he does. He sure supported lots of atrocities in support of the Israelites. Lots of genocide.

[mwallyn]

Where are you getting that?

Finally found it. The passage in question is 2 Peter 3:8. Specifically, it reads "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. The context on this was people were asking when the end of time would be. Peter basically said that even if he was told a date, it would mean nothing since God exists beyond our universe and our frame of reference to time doesn't work with him because of this.

Concerning the radical Muslims, this is a MINUSCULE proportion of the total number of Muslims in the world, just as there are hyper radical Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc sects out there. Take for example WBC. They call themselves Christians, but they do exactly what you say; they pick and choose what they want to see/hear from the Bible and twist it to their own ends. No one would consider them true Christians. Similarly, most members of Islam around the world would not consider groups like the Taliban true Muslims for that very reason. They take what they want to see from the Koran and use it to their ends, in this case make themselves more powerful.

[stethnorun]

Finally found it. The passage in question is 2 Peter 3:8. Specifically, it reads "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. The context on this was people were asking when the end of time would be. Peter basically said that even if he was told a date, it would mean nothing since God exists beyond our universe and our frame of reference to time doesn't work with him because of this.

So within the ENTIRE Bible, you found one quote in the NEW TESTAMENT that is supposed to tie back to Genesis? Who on Earth do you think you are going to convince with that?

[Hawk]

Or maybe he does. He sure supported lots of atrocities in support of the Israelites. Lots of genocide.

Even those things can be explained...

The Israelites were God's people for a time, and so they got his special attention. This meant that they really had to go by his laws - these laws were written down for them so they wouldn't forget, and when they rebelled against God he gave them clear warnings and time to repent, and if they did repent he didn't punish them. This of the people of Nineveh (ancient Assyrian city), who were so vile that God was going to punish them, so he sent Jonah (who at first fled and was swallowed by a large fish) to warn them of this, but they were so repentant that God could no longer punish them, so he let them off.

Those who were wiped out were actually very bad, and archaeology has proven this. They were Ba'al (pronounced "Bay-all") worshipers, and a big part of their worship was to sacrifice their own children by throwing them into a furnace! They were also very immoral, and practiced revelry and drunkenness to an extreme...But not only this, they also tried to get the Israelites involved, and some did get involved. In the end these people were unrepentant and in direct contact with his people, constantly risking corrupting them, and so God took action.

[Hawk]

So within the ENTIRE Bible, you found one quote in the NEW TESTAMENT that is supposed to tie back to Genesis? Who on Earth do you think you are going to convince with that?

The Bible is one book. Half was written in Hebrew and the other half in Greek, but it's still the same book...Thus it doesn't matter whether you get the scripture from the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. But just for you, here's one in the Hebrew scriptures: Psalms 90:4.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Those who were wiped out were actually very bad, and archaeology has proven this.

What does archaeology have to do with morality? Science and morality are separate things (the former, constant, the latter, subjective).

They were Ba'al (pronounced "Bay-all") worshipers, and a big part of their worship was to sacrifice their own children by throwing them into a furnace! They were also very immoral, and practiced revelry and drunkenness to an extreme...But not only this, they also tried to get the Israelites involved, and some did get involved. In the end these people were unrepentant and in direct contact with his people, constantly risking corrupting them, and so God took action.

YOU claim they are immoral. You are judging them by your own morals which will obviously be different to theirs. As I said above, morals are subjective, and will differ from person to person. Or are you one of those people who claim morality is objective?

[Hawk]

What does archaeology have to do with morality? Science and morality are separate things (the former, constant, the latter, subjective).

YOU claim they are immoral. You are judging them by your own morals which will obviously be different to theirs. As I said above, morals are subjective, and will differ from person to person. Or are you one of those people who claim morality is objective?

I was merely mentioning that archaeologists found that Ba'al worshipers actually did practice child sacrifice, along with other vile practices. I think we can all agree that child sacrifice is morally wrong!

I'm not the one setting the standard of what is moral for other people, nor am I the one who judged these ancient people who were wiped out...I am only attempting to explain God's reasoning from the Bible. Sure enough, since I follow the Bible I try to keep my own morals by its standards, but I don't go around telling others what to do, or judging others for their behavior. We are all free to live our lives they way we want to!

This is how one Internet definition of "Immoral" explains the meaning:
immoral [ɪˈmɒrəl]
adj
1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
3. unscrupulous or unethical
(immoral trading)
4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an (immoral film immoral earnings
immorally) adv

According to God's rules that were accepted amongst the Israelites, and from an Israelite's point of view at that time (since they were following these commandments), their behavior was classed as "Immoral". They had festivals involving orgies, for example. Also their unethical practices towards children can be termed "Immoral". Their behavior and practices would definitely be considered "Immoral" by modern standards in general.

I never said that morality is objective either, yet you presumptuously assumed my character as someone who is self-righteous. I never expected this from you, Black Gate.

[kaybeebiscuits]

Thank you all for eating my finely baked Kaybee biscuits!

While the delicious meat-infused Kaybee biscuits managed to satiate the hunger of most hungry orcs and Uruks, it sadly could not prevent the demise of 2 hobbits as there was not enough to feed everyone:



Well-fed Orc: "Yeah! Why can't we have some more kaybee biscuits?"



Well, there is always the Shire to fill your bellies next time! What a chime!



Well-fed Uruk: "I happily concur, and in addition, I endorse kaybee biscuits, for life."



Kaybee Biscuits - the permanent solution to temporary hunger; the temporary palliative to hobbit-slaying for permanently evil orcs and Uruks.

[Hawk]

Next "contradiction"...

3. How many sons did Abraham have? heb 11:17, gen 22:2 ≠ gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22

There are a few more scriptures to this one, so I'll try to sum them up, but feel free to look them up yourself...

Hebrews 11:17 calls Abraham's son, Isaac, his "only-begotten son". Genesis 22:2 calls him his "only son".

Genesis 16:15 says that Ha'gar bore a son to Abraham called "Ish'mael". Now Ha'gar had not been married to Abraham, and so Ish'mael was not the legal air, and thus was not counted in the Bible, even though Abraham was his biological father. You see God invented marriage, and according to the Bible having sex with someone you're not married to is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9). God did not condone Abraham's actions, but it was the result of the lack of faith of Sarah, when she asked him to have intercourse with one of the servants in order to produce a son (Sarah was old, and she did not believe she could have children anymore).

Genesis 21:2, 3 says that Sarah (Abraham's wife) born a son in her old age and named him "Isaac".

Genesis 25:1, 2 lists six more children to Abraham, with at least one being a son, since it states that he "became father to...". This is actually irrelevant - although I understand why it was listed - because these children came after the time when Abraham was about to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (which God stopped him from doing, and was just a test of faith, as well as symbolism of Jesus' sacrifice, and how Jesus is God's only-begotten son). Basically at the time these children were out of the equation since they were yet to be in existence.

Genesis 4:22 is yet more irrelevant to this subject, since it's about a man named La'mech, who took a woman named Zil'lah as a wife, and had Tu'bal-cain as a son.

[stethnorun]

Next "contradiction"...

3. How many sons did Abraham have? heb 11:17, gen 22:2 ≠ gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22

There are a few more scriptures to this one, so I'll try to sum them up, but feel free to look them up yourself...

Hebrews 11:17 calls Abraham's son, Isaac, his "only-begotten son". Genesis 22:2 calls him his "only son".

Genesis 16:15 says that Ha'gar bore a son to Abraham called "Ish'mael". Now Ha'gar had not been married to Abraham, and so Ish'mael was not the legal air, and thus was not counted in the Bible, even though Abraham was his biological father. You see God invented marriage, and according to the Bible having sex with someone you're not married to is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9). God did not condone Abraham's actions, but it was the result of the lack of faith of Sarah, when she asked him to have intercourse with one of the servants in order to produce a son (Sarah was old, and she did not believe she could have children anymore).

Genesis 21:2, 3 says that Sarah (Abraham's wife) born a son in her old age and named him "Isaac".

Genesis 25:1, 2 lists six more children to Abraham, with at least one being a son, since it states that he "became father to...". This is actually irrelevant - although I understand why it was listed - because these children came after the time when Abraham was about to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (which God stopped him from doing, and was just a test of faith, as well as symbolism of Jesus' sacrifice, and how Jesus is God's only-begotten son). Basically at the time these children were out of the equation since they were yet to be in existence.

Genesis 4:22 is yet more irrelevant to this subject, since it's about a man named La'mech, who took a woman named Zil'lah as a wife, and had Tu'bal-cain as a son.

I just gotta say...the Bible is damn boring. Just you listing this stuff off...it makes my eyes glaze over. Sorry, that's not really relevant to anything, but DAMN.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

According to God's rules that were accepted amongst the Israelites, and from an Israelite's point of view at that time (since they were following these commandments), their behavior was classed as "Immoral". They had festivals involving orgies, for example. Also their unethical practices towards children can be termed "Immoral". Their behavior and practices would definitely be considered "Immoral" by modern standards in general.

I'm just saying, but the Ba'al sound very much like the antagonists of the Israelites.

Anyway, depending upon which denomination of Christianity you belong to, many say that all morality in the Bible is truth, and therefore they are saying it is all objective. The problem with the Bible is that whilst it may teach morals that are still relevant, at least half of the Old Testament is useless and outdated, using morals that would be accepted two thousand years ago, but now are just as immoral in our society as child sacrifice was then.

I never said that morality is objective either, yet you presumptuously assumed my character as someone who is self-righteous. I never expected this from you, Black Gate.

I apologise. I discussions about religion, I can get very presumptuous and hasty. 'Tis a flaw of my character.

[kaybeebiscuits]

The kaybeebiscuits has once again decided to channel the following messages!

There are matters pertaining to the intellect that are ripe for development; but there are also many other matters that the intelligent might miss in his or her quest for development: wisdom (applied knowledge), ethical living (wisdom applied to living), dialectical reasoning, matters of will-power (determinism) and volition. While isolating a fragment of a piece of knowledge to debate about is good, we, the kaybeebiscuits, must make known the fundamental inseparability of the cycle of knowledge. Intellect can be compared to the engine that empowers the generation of knowledge; will-power is the fuel that powers this engine of the intellect; volition is the purposive use of this knowledge and intelligence, and can be compared to the direction in which a car powered by an engine is moving towards; wisdom is knowledge that is refined and purified over-time through, it is the by-product of the engine of intellect, however, it is intellect given a material form, in which the knowledge funneled into this engine is evanesced in the form of a gaseous by-product. This step is necessary because wisdom is applied knowledge. Lastly, ethical living can be compared to the intent in which this gaseous by-product is used, which requires the matter of will-power and volition. Only via a well-balanced development of all of these factors can one truly be the master of the inside, and the outside. Remember that intelligence is only a small portion of human potential, and much is appreciated when participants here show development in other areas such as will through belief, and belief through volition.

Ah forget it, why is the kaybeebiscuits writing this anyway? I mean ... who the fish would listen to the ramblings of an old man like me, who is sometime serious, but mostly not! It's just rationally unjustifiable to do so!

[stethnorun]

I'm just saying, but the Ba'al sound very much like the antagonists of the Israelites.

Anyway, depending upon which denomination of Christianity you belong to, many say that all morality in the Bible is truth, and therefore they are saying it is all objective. The problem with the Bible is that whilst it may teach morals that are still relevant, at least half of the Old Testament is useless and outdated, using morals that would be accepted two thousand years ago, but now are just as immoral in our society as child sacrifice was then.

Indeed, I don't see many people (outside of maybe some Middle Eastern regions) stoning their children to death for being rebellious.

[Hawk]

I just gotta say...the Bible is damn boring. Just you listing this stuff off...it makes my eyes glaze over. Sorry, that's not really relevant to anything, but DAMN.

You wanted me to show answers for the contradictions...I was just going through them in order.

[Hawk]

I'm just saying, but the Ba'al sound very much like the antagonists of the Israelites.

Anyway, depending upon which denomination of Christianity you belong to, many say that all morality in the Bible is truth, and therefore they are saying it is all objective. The problem with the Bible is that whilst it may teach morals that are still relevant, at least half of the Old Testament is useless and outdated, using morals that would be accepted two thousand years ago, but now are just as immoral in our society as child sacrifice was then.

I apologise. I discussions about religion, I can get very presumptuous and hasty. 'Tis a flaw of my character.

The Ba'als were false gods, so yes, definitely against what the Israelites believed!

Being a Christian should be about following the Bible.

As for whether the Bible is useless and outdated, this is also inaccurate. There is a lot to this, so I'll have to continue this tomorrow, but there are so many proverbs and teachings that are still very helpful in modern times, such as being peaceable with people. Most people are interested in self-development, and the Bible really does help with this, both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

Don't worry, I've jumped to conclusions hastily before too, so I won't hold it against you! While we are imperfect this is a constant struggle for all of us...I've found myself wondering at times, people say "Nobody's perfect" or "I'm not perfect", which is currently true...but why shouldn't we be someday? To me being imperfect is not all that natural.

[kaybeebiscuits]

One may wonder why the Kaybeebiscuits is so free and tempted to write some posts on this forum: because the Kaybeebiscuit had a nasty sprain and is now mainly confined to the bed T_T ... The Kaybeebiscuits cannot leave his designated zone until he has fully healed.

But again, to the topic: the Kaybeebiscuits feels like Quasimodo from the Hunchback of Notre Name, or Pozzo from Waiting for Godot, or some say, Samwise Genghis Khan from the Lord of the Rings, or even the fool from King Lear ... his role is mainly relegated to that of an insignificant prop throttling in the background T_T In short, the Kaybeebiscuits is largely forgotten.

And as the Kaybeebiscuits does a somersault in mid-air, the rest of the forumites take an oblivious glance, then resume what they are doing.

Edit:

No no! No one suits the role of the Kaybeebiscuits better other than Pozzo from Waiting for Godot!

[Hawk]

Indeed, I don't see many people (outside of maybe some Middle Eastern regions) stoning their children to death for being rebellious.

As I said earlier, the Israelites were for a time God's people, and so God set high standards for them (they were representing his name), and he did intervene with them too. In this case it was regarding children who were completely disobedient and continually disrespectful to their parents, and could not be reasoned with at all, even after initial punishment dealt by the parents, and bringing the child to the elders of the city - which again they would test the child and try to reason with him/her - and the child would have no repentance what-so-ever for his/her actions. Also this child would have to be old enough to understand what they are doing is wrong.
Now, I work with children, and I have a young nephew who is particularly active. Some of the kids I work with can be very difficult to deal with, and can be disrespectful and disobedient, but even the most difficult children I've found I can reason with (I am yet to see a case this severe), so what this scripture is referring to would have to be an extreme case over a long period of time. In fact I imagine it almost never would have happened, even with the Israelite's booming population!

[kaybeebiscuits]

One may wonder why the Kaybeebiscuits is so free and tempted to write some posts on this forum: because the Kaybeebiscuit had a nasty sprain and is now mainly confined to the bed T_T ... The Kaybeebiscuits cannot leave his designated zone until he has fully healed.

But again, to the topic: the Kaybeebiscuits feels like Quasimodo from the Hunchback of Notre Name, or Pozzo from Waiting for Godot, or some say, Samwise Genghis Khan from the Lord of the Rings, or even the fool from King Lear ... his role is mainly relegated to that of an insignificant prop throttling in the background T_T In short, the Kaybeebiscuits is largely forgotten.

And as the Kaybeebiscuits does a somersault in mid-air, the rest of the forumites take an oblivious glance, then resume what they are doing.

Edit:

No no! No one suits the role of the Kaybeebiscuits better other than Pozzo from Waiting for Godot!

You are getting very obnoxious talking to yourself. Do not see? The other forumites here are malcontent ... with your soliloquy and trolling. You are warmongering ...





Now what's up with that? Sprained a leg and can't go out? And decided to embark on a monologue on a forum instead? What about the stack of books beside you right now huh? Why don't you just go back to read those books on cultural anthropology and cultural psychology instead of <beep>-ing around here?

[kaybeebiscuits]

You are getting very obnoxious talking to yourself. Do not see? The other forumites here are malcontent ... with your soliloquy and trolling. You are warmongering ...





Now what's up with that? Sprained a leg and can't go out? And decided to embark on a monologue on a forum instead? What about the stack of books beside you right now huh? Why don't you just go back to read those books on cultural anthropology and cultural psychology instead of <beep>-ing around here?

Warmongering?



How long was it since 2K Games bought you? And what was the promised price? That you would get half the price when all of this is over?



Uh oh ...

[Hawk]

Warmongering?



How long was it since 2K Games bought you? And what was the promised price? That you would get half the price when all of this is over?



Uh oh ...

Why is Kaybeebiscuits talking to himself?

[Hawk]

Let's go through some topics, and list scriptures that apply...

Self-improvement:
"listen to discipline." - Proverbs 8:33. Just like a singer listens to the advice of the judges, it helps to listen when others are pointing out how we need to improve. You see "A wise person will listen and take in more instruction," - Proverbs 1:5.
"Has presumptuousness come? Then dishonor will come; but wisdom is with the modest ones." - Proverbs 11:2. "Stop judging that you may not be judged;" - Matthew 7:1. We all get a little judgmental at times, and it's not helping us, but we can work on overcoming it, and others will appreciate this!
"He that is walking with wise persons will become wise, but he that is having dealings with the stupid ones will fare badly." - Proverbs 13:20. Most of us know this to be true, as some do have dealings with those who are into drugs, or do other stupid things, and it effects us...You see "Bad associations spoil useful habits." - 1 Corinthians 15:33. Don't let that make you avoid people all together though, since "One isolating himself will seek his own selfish longing;against all practical wisdom he will break forth." - Proverbs 18:1. So it's better for us to be around good and wise people.
Also, don't forget what Jesus said once..."Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need," - Matthew 5:4. So part of our self-development is to realize we have a spiritual need. He went onto say "Happy are those mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth." And we know that being mild-tempered is good for our health anyway, so this is definitely good advice!

Helping others:
Sometimes we know someone who is depressed, so what should we do? The Bible says to "Speak consolingly to the depressed souls," - 1 Thessalonians 5:14. Speaking up-building to those who are depressed helps them a real lot, since they know that there is someone else who cares about them and who is there for them. "As apples of gold in silver carvings is a word spoken at the right time for it."
Not all of our friends and neighbours are depressed, but we should still be there for them. "You must love your neighbour as yourself." - Matthew 22:39.
We should be peaceful with others. "make peace with your brother," - Matthew 5:24. "If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men." Romans 12:18, and continues to say in verse 19..."Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah." We know that when someone get revenge for something it only starts a vicious circle of hate, or ends lives, so this should be left to Jehovah to deal with.
But what about our enemies? Romans 12:20 says "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink;". What a loving attitude to have, that even if your enemies are in need you help them! This would certainly make them feel less hatred towards you, and may even lead to peace between you.

Happy family life/successful marriage:
"Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has cause for complaint against another." - Colossians 3:13. Even our closest family members will annoy us at times, so this teaches us to put up with it and forgive each other freely.
"Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." - 1 Peter 4:8. Notice that love covers mistakes, but does not eliminate them, which is important since no imperfect human can be completely free of error.
"Love is a perfect bond of union." - Colossians 3:14.
"You husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with your wives according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one." - 1 Peter 3:7 (If you want to honor someone, you need to be kind towards them, as well as respectful towards their dignity and expressed views, and actually listen to what they have to say)
The wife is counselled as well, to "have deep respect for her husband." - Ephesians 5:33.
Together marriage mates should show they care for each other by "keeping an eye, not in personal interests upon just their own matters, but also in personal interests upon those of their mates." - Philippians 2:4.
When communicated to one's marriage mate "let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt," - Colossians 4:6. In other words instead of saying "Shut the door!" we should make it "seasoned with salt" by saying "Would you mind closing the door, please?". And always remember that "and answer, when mild, turns away rage." - Proverbs 15:1. So instead of answering back in anger when your mate upsets you (or children, or siblings, or parents, etc.), wait until you have calmed down, then answer in mildness, and you will find it calms the whole situation down!

Training your children is also important. "Train up a boy according to the way for him." - Proverbs 22:6. This is more referring to training children up with Bible principles, but if these Bible principles are really beneficial then this would only help them to develop into better people. So when do you start? "from infancy." 2 Timothy 3:15 states. Babies are already learning about the world around them, and so we should already be teaching them - even if it's just be good example - to be good people!


Now this was just a taste of all the advice the Bible has to offer, and as we can see that it is "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely quipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.


(Sorry for the long post, but there is just so much!)

[stethnorun]

As I said earlier, the Israelites were for a time God's people, and so God set high standards for them (they were representing his name), and he did intervene with them too. In this case it was regarding children who were completely disobedient and continually disrespectful to their parents, and could not be reasoned with at all, even after initial punishment dealt by the parents, and bringing the child to the elders of the city - which again they would test the child and try to reason with him/her - and the child would have no repentance what-so-ever for his/her actions. Also this child would have to be old enough to understand what they are doing is wrong.
Now, I work with children, and I have a young nephew who is particularly active. Some of the kids I work with can be very difficult to deal with, and can be disrespectful and disobedient, but even the most difficult children I've found I can reason with (I am yet to see a case this severe), so what this scripture is referring to would have to be an extreme case over a long period of time. In fact I imagine it almost never would have happened, even with the Israelite's booming population!

Again the justifications and rationalizations. If you don't see by now the mental hoops you continually jump through in order to justify this ridiculous book, then you never will. You've simply automated the justification process so much that you can't even see yourself doing it.