Pastor Punches Kid in the Chest

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Constantine did the same with pagans.

Constantine only legalized Christianity. It wasn't until Theodosius II that Christianity was made the religion of the Empire.

Come on man.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

I could use the same failed logic right back at you.

In no reality does that verse mention beating a child with a rod on his legs/back/head/face et cetra.

The difference is, I never claimed it said anything other than what it says. You are the one giving it added meaning. You are the one saying it says a child's ass. It clearly doesn't.

a reply to: TheArrow

The difference is, I never claimed it said anything other than what it says. You are the one giving it added meaning. You are the one saying it says a child's ass. It clearly doesn't.

That's not truthful, you brought this up in the first place as trying to pass off the idea that the Bible condones beating kids with sticks.

Spanking is the logical conclusion, Solomon speaks in several places about spanking one's child. There is no logical conclusion one can come up with that Solomon was beating kids with sticks. The "rod" he speaks of at the beginning of the book of Proverbs is the "rod of correction".

Nobody other than a sick sadist would read that verse and come to the absurd conclusion that he was condoning battery on a child.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Okay, excuse me for my ignorance. Another Christian emperor forced pagans to convert or die. All good now I guess? Lol.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Okay, excuse me for my ignorance. Another Christian emperor forced pagans to convert or die. All good now I guess? Lol.

I wouldn't say good, I would say accurate.

Not that it matters, or that two wrongs make a right, but Nero also tried to force Christians to recant the resurrection or die.

The Roman Emperors were not good men. lol

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

The difference is, I never claimed it said anything other than what it says. You are the one giving it added meaning. You are the one saying it says a child's ass. It clearly doesn't.

That's the logical conclusion, Solomon speaks in several places about spanking one's child. There is no logical conclusion one can come up with that Solomon was beating kids with sticks. The "rod" he speaks of at the beginning of the book of Proverbs is the "rod of correction".

Nobody other than a sick sadist would read that verse and come to the absurd conclusion that he was condoning battery on a child.

Lots of talk, but you aren't providing any scripture to support your claims. The truth is that Solomon wasn't a stranger to beating Rehoboam or his slaves. We all remember how he turned out...

1 Kings 12:13-14: "And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given him, and spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."

The king of course, Rehobam, and the father Solomon. Look how Rehobam ups the ante by moving from the whips of Solomon to scorpions.

Moral of the story, don't listen to Solomon.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Which begs the question, why would bad trees bear good fruit? If the emperors were bad trees and the gospel is good fruit, the emperors could not have bore it or legalized it. But they did?

This is off-topic though.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Which begs the question, why would bad trees bear good fruit? If the emperors were bad trees and the gospel is good fruit, the emperors could not have bore it or legalized it. But they did?

This is off-topic though.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. There were a lot of Emperors between the death of the apostles and Constantine or his 2nd successor Theodosius II. There was intense persecution beginning in about 50ish AD. Constantine was a 4th century Emperor.

I don't remember the precise details, but if my memory serves me correctly it was the "Edict of Toleration", he just ended the persecution of Christians. Much like Abraham Lincoln ended slavery. Maybe he had a bout of morality and thought it was immoral to execute people for religious reasons.

a reply to: TheArrow

We aren't talking about slaves, but children. I don't have my Bible with me, but I know it's in one of the very first chapters of Proverbs. The "rod of correction", talking about punishing a child. It's like a paddling.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

My point is that bad trees (emperors) bore good fruit (gospel) by legalizing it and making it the official state religion, insuring that it spread far and wide.

Even Theodosius II helped the spread of Christianity by killing pagans who refused to convert. If his actions of killing pagans because of religious beliefs are good fruit as well then they couldn't have been bad trees for doing those things. You say they were bad things to do, so you are saying bad trees who killed over religious affiliation were worthy of spreading (bearing) good fruit through the bible and Christianity.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

We aren't talking about slaves, but children. I don't have my Bible with me, but I know it's in one of the very first chapters of Proverbs. The "rod of correction", talking about punishing a child. It's like a paddling.

I am not arguing that with you. You are claiming it meaning to "spanking a child's ass". It doesn't say that in Proverbs.

Anywhere.

You're wrong.

a reply to: TheArrow

That was the NOTurTypical Unauthorized Version...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

My point is that bad trees (emperors) bore good fruit (gospel) by legalizing it and making it the official state religion, insuring that it spread far and wide.

They had nothing to do with the gospel, or the New Testament. Constantine just gave an executive order saying:

"No more murdering Christians, stop it. That's bad mmmkay?"

And I don't know if Theodosius II was a legit convert or not, he could have been. I personally think it was a DISASTER for the religion to be the sate religion of the empire. And killing pagans is most definitely evil fruit, nowhere did Jesus command death to people who refused to believe the gospel.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

So you disagree that Roman emperors helped in the spread of the bible and its teachings?

What do you call them making it their official state religion? What do you call them killing those who refused to convert to their newly established religion? What do you call them preserving the bible for the generations that came after? What do you call the Councils Rome held pertaining to the bible and NT?

If you don't think Rome and it's leaders had a huge part in the spread of Christianity and the bible, you're delusional.

ETA: I'm going to stop thread drift now. Sorry OP.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

That was the NOTurTypical Unauthorized Version...

You mean the NoturTypical is talking out of his ASS and got it handed to him Version.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

That was the NOTurTypical Unauthorized Version...

You mean the NoturTypical is talking out of his ASS and got it handed to him Version.

Nothing was handed to me, you tried to pass off verses telling parents not to spare spanking and tried to make it look like the Bible condones child abuse with sticks!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you disagree that Roman emperors helped in the spread of the bible and its teachings?

No, I disagreed that the Roman Emperors had anything to do with the writing of the New Testament. I already said it was a MASSIVE fail by making it the official religion of the Roman Empire, that's how Catholicism came to be. When that happened converted Christians were not made pastors, the pagan priests removed their amulets and started wearing crucifixes and just went right along teaching the same spiritism as before but dressed it up in Christian themes.

Tat's how we now have the doctrine of original sin, the Babylonian practices of the Eucharist and infant baptism, and pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter. It was a disaster. Sure, it helped spread the religion, but at a massive detrimental cost to truth.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Nothing was handed to me, you tried to pass off verses telling parents not to spare spanking and tried to make it look like the Bible condones child abuse with sticks!

No.

You tried to tell me that the bible says to spank children's asses.

I merely quoted the verses. Like I said, YOU gave them added meaning. Meaning, as it turns out, is fabricated in your brain. The bible doesn't instruct on where to beat your child, it just tells you to use a stick when you do it.

Use whatever euphemisms you want though, because the words are there for everyone to see.

a reply to: TheArrow

I merely quoted the verses.

... with a failed context.

For example, I could quote two verses right now out of context and condone alcoholism.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

I merely quoted the verses.

... with a failed context.

Ha ha ha. Bull#.

Nice try though, buddy. You still tried to say that it meant spanking asses, cited no scripture, and dodge and deflect because you know you've got nothing.

The bible says to beat kids.

The end.