Pastor Punches Kid in the Chest

a reply to: TheArrow

The bible says to beat kids.

You believe that if you will, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is talking about corporal punishment, not aggravated battery.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

The bible says to beat kids.

You believe that if you will, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is talking about corporal punishment, not aggravated battery.

Yeah, and you're the only one making that distinction, for whatever reason.

The bible says to beat kids.
If you love your kid, you will beat them.
You will spoil your kid if you don't beat them.

The guy spouting all of this great wisdom raised a kid who grew up to be one of the worst kings in the Old Testament.

But, you know what? It's probably fine to beat your kid with a rod.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

The bible says to beat kids.

You believe that if you will, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is talking about corporal punishment, not aggravated battery.

Then rub some brain cells together and show us the biblical quotes to support your position.

It seems to me that if a God would command someone to stone their children to death for disobedience...beating them with a stick is a mild form of punishment.

originally posted by: eisegesis

A pastor at the Bible Baptist Church in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey is coming under fire after his church posted a video of him claiming to have converted a “smart aleck” youth by “punching him in the chest as hard as I could.”

This video just made me burst out laughing. It's big on YouTube right now and I happened to catch it while playing some tunes. How can anyone take this guy seriously? It's hilariously absurd!

According to the church’s official history, Bible Baptist is a “family-focused body of multi-cultural believers…founded by a group of five ladies during the early part of the 1920′s.”

Next time you see a nonbeliever, give them the ol' left hook across the jaw. Maybe that's what this knockout game has been about all along. They're just good little Christians doing God's work, lol.

And this is why I am not Baptist.

Nope, not good little Christians doing God's work, please get that misinformation out of your mind. I would never hit anyone and neither would I ever condone it. This is not what Christianity is about.

I am a Christian, so according to you, this is what I should be doing as a good little Christian?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

The bible says to beat kids.

You believe that if you will, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is talking about corporal punishment, not aggravated battery.

Then rub some brain cells together and show us the biblical quotes to support your position.

It seems to me that if a God would command someone to stone their children to death for disobedience...beating them with a stick is a mild form of punishment.

And what do you do about atheists who beat their children?

Seems to me there are way more non-believers doing that, but hey, let's not talk about them and their non-belief. That's a non-sequitor in your book anyway.

Where's the moral framework for atheists who beat their kids?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And what do you do about atheists who beat their children?

Same thing you do with Christians, throw them in jail.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And what do you do about atheists who beat their children?

Same thing you do with Christians, throw them in jail.

Yes, but where is the moral framework for atheists who beat their children? Simple question.

It is the atheists who talk about not needing God in their moral framework, so it lies somewhere and if they don't know where it is, then surely there can't be any moral retribution against moral relevance.

Atheists tout that all the time, so I was just wondering why you are saying they should be put in jail because that's your standard of morality and you are placing your standard onto someone else. Is your moral standard any better than anyone elses?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And what do you do about atheists who beat their children?

Same thing you do with Christians, throw them in jail.

Yes, but where is the moral framework for atheists who beat their children? Simple question.

It is the atheists who talk about not needing God in their moral framework, so it lies somewhere and if they don't know where it is, then surely there can't be any moral retribution against moral relevance.

Atheists tout that all the time, so I was just wondering why you are saying they should be put in jail because that's your standard of morality and you are placing your standard onto someone else. Is your moral standard any better than anyone elses?

I can't speak for all atheists, because I claim no brotherhood with them.

Personally, I just go with my gut.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And what do you do about atheists who beat their children?

Same thing you do with Christians, throw them in jail.

Yes, but where is the moral framework for atheists who beat their children? Simple question.

It is the atheists who talk about not needing God in their moral framework, so it lies somewhere and if they don't know where it is, then surely there can't be any moral retribution against moral relevance.

Atheists tout that all the time, so I was just wondering why you are saying they should be put in jail because that's your standard of morality and you are placing your standard onto someone else. Is your moral standard any better than anyone elses?

I can't speak for all atheists, because I claim no brotherhood with them.

Personally, I just go with my gut.

Yes, but can you say that within the spectrum of moral relevance that your moral standard is better than someone else? If you say that child beaters should go to jail because it it your own personal moral standard, then you can't say someone else should be punished for exercising their own moral ideas. That's the problem with no moral standard except a personal one.

You just placed your own moral standard onto the Bible, God and this pastor and then couldn't even judge atheists for beating their children. That is a conundrum.

Either one has a moral standard from a higher source that allows for punishment, or you have your own moral standard that is personal to you and everyone else has theirs, therefore, what works for you can't be placed onto someone else, because it is no longer moral relevance.

Condundrum. How do you solve it?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Moral standards are subjective. They always have been and always will be. Society generally determines them.

Many societies = many standards.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, but can you say that within the spectrum of moral relevance that your moral standard is better than someone else? If you say that child beaters should go to jail because it it your own personal moral standard, then you can't say someone else should be punished for exercising their own moral ideas. That's the problem with no moral standard except a personal one.

You are arguing morality when this is a question of legality I need not put my morality over anothers when we both live in a society that values the Rule of Law.

You just placed your own moral standard onto the Bible, God and this pastor and then couldn't even judge atheists for beating their children. That is a conundrum.

Not my standard, legal standards.

Either one has a moral standard from a higher source that allows for punishment, or you have your own moral standard that is personal to you and everyone else has theirs, therefore, what works for you can't be placed onto someone else, because it is no longer moral relevance.

Condundrum. How do you solve it?

No conundrum.

As I said, Rule of Law trumps personal morality.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: WarminIndy

Moral standards are subjective. They always have been and always will be. Society generally determines them.

Many societies = many standards.

Then moral relevance no longer is true or applicable and there is no such thing as moral relevance. And as you say, society determines them, then we can not place any judgment upon Stalin and Hitler because they followed their own moral relevance and their societies agreed with them.

Is there right or wrong in moral relevance? If there is wrong, then did society determine the wrong if the society has determined that wrong is right?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, but can you say that within the spectrum of moral relevance that your moral standard is better than someone else? If you say that child beaters should go to jail because it it your own personal moral standard, then you can't say someone else should be punished for exercising their own moral ideas. That's the problem with no moral standard except a personal one.

You are arguing morality when this is a question of legality I need not put my morality over anothers when we both live in a society that values the Rule of Law.

You just placed your own moral standard onto the Bible, God and this pastor and then couldn't even judge atheists for beating their children. That is a conundrum.

Not my standard, legal standards.

Either one has a moral standard from a higher source that allows for punishment, or you have your own moral standard that is personal to you and everyone else has theirs, therefore, what works for you can't be placed onto someone else, because it is no longer moral relevance.

Condundrum. How do you solve it?

No conundrum.

As I said, Rule of Law trumps personal morality.

The law is a function of morality, is it not?

Laws are framed around the morality of the people, in that case, there is nothing wrong with killing Syrian children if the society and its morality has created laws designed to allow it.

Again, conundrum.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Then moral relevance no longer is true or applicable and there is no such thing as moral relevance. And as you say, society determines them, then we can not place any judgment upon Stalin and Hitler because they followed their own moral relevance and their societies agreed with them.

Interesting thoughts on your behalf but you are wrong. We most certainly can place judgement upon previous acts from other societies and their figures. Of course we judge from our perspective and our society. Perhaps one day a distant society will place judgement on our society from their perspective.

Like I said moral standards are subjective.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
The law is a function of morality, is it not?

Laws are framed around the morality of the people, in that case, there is nothing wrong with killing Syrian children if the society and its morality has created laws designed to allow it.

Again, conundrum.

The Law is a function of arbitration. You can argue morality all you want, but I'm not going to bite.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I am a Christian

I am a homosapien.

Nope, not good little Christians doing God's work, please get that misinformation out of your mind.

Okay, I formatted my hard drive and am ready to take on any information willing to be stored in my memory banks. Outcomes will vary.

This is not what Christianity is about.

I know.

I am a Christian, so according to you, this is what I should be doing as a good little Christian?

This is where my tolerance wears thin with Christians. I posted a video of one pastor at one church and made fun of him. I NEVER spoke of Christianity as the source of his buffoonery. He does not represent Christianity in any way in my mind.

Sometimes apples fall too far from the tree.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: WarminIndy

I am a Christian

I am a homosapien.

Nope, not good little Christians doing God's work, please get that misinformation out of your mind.

Okay, I formatted my hard drive and am ready to take on any information willing to be stored in my memory banks. Outcomes will vary.

This is not what Christianity is about.

I know.

I am a Christian, so according to you, this is what I should be doing as a good little Christian?

This is where my tolerance wears thin with Christians. I posted a video of one pastor at one church and made fun of him. I NEVER spoke of Christianity as the source of his buffoonery. He does not represent Christianity in any way in my mind.

Sometimes apples fall too far from the tree.

Is this not your words?

Next time you see a nonbeliever, give them the ol' left hook across the jaw. Maybe that's what this knockout game has been about all along. They're just good little Christians doing God's work, lol.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

The bible says to beat kids.

You believe that if you will, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is talking about corporal punishment, not aggravated battery.

And corporal punishment is fine isn't it?
Well it was in the middle ages....

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: WarminIndy

Moral standards are subjective. They always have been and always will be. Society generally determines them.

Many societies = many standards.

Then moral relevance no longer is true or applicable and there is no such thing as moral relevance. And as you say, society determines them, then we can not place any judgment upon Stalin and Hitler because they followed their own moral relevance and their societies agreed with them.

Is there right or wrong in moral relevance? If there is wrong, then did society determine the wrong if the society has determined that wrong is right?

You used the Godwin.
That's morally bad.
knowyourmeme.com...

And you're wrong about Stalin & Hitler anyway.
They used fear and subjugation to propagate their ideologies.
That had nothing whatsoever to do with any moral relevance at all.

Saying that, fear and subjugation is what the pastor was using on the child so if the cap fits....

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TheArrow

The bible says to beat kids.

You believe that if you will, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it is talking about corporal punishment, not aggravated battery.

Err....yea, it's talking about corporal punishment...which means punishing children through physically harming them...and you're supporting this...as does the bible, explicitly...