Couple found guilty of murder after using Christian parenting book "To Train Up a Child" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42921009]Genesis 22: After these things God decided to test Abraham’s faith. God said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Yes!” 2 Then God said, “Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains there. I will tell you which mountain.”[/QUOTE] This again... the thread is only 3 pages long. Read before posting please.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42919716]Actually, the Bible pretty much loves telling parents to be violent against their children. Proverbs 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.[/QUOTE] I remember my mum used this verse a couple of years ago to justify her trying to hit me in the face.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42921009]Genesis 22: After these things God decided to test Abraham’s faith. God said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Yes!” 2 Then God said, “Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains there. I will tell you which mountain.”[/QUOTE] this one's about a test of faith - god already promised abraham a son, and this story (no he doesn't kill his son in the end) reinforces that: a) abraham would have put god above everyone, even his only son b) god would never go back on his word

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42920530]Bad mental health and the Bible go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] Not always, I've met christians that are pretty cool and seem mentally fine to me.

As much as children are shitheads, that's not how you do things. You don't fucking train a person like they're a dog.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42920185]I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic, who bashes on ALL religions, INCLUDING atheism, because it's ALL stupid to me. These made up gods/lack thereof provide way too much potential for people to abuse them for their own sick ways.[/QUOTE] Name one fateful incident anyone did in the name of scepticism And atheism isn't a religion or in no way reminiscent of one no matter how you twist it You get overzealous atheists yes but to be fair when somebody announces they're a Christian or Muslim or whatever who's holy book contains prejudice their views should always come into question Also when people call themselves atheist more often than not they're atheist in relation to the Christian or post-Christian society they live in

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42920992]By that you mean, i'm a coward, and I don't wanna be wrong in my choices, so i'm just NOT going to chose, yea, that's a good idea. You've made no convincing arguments, you've just literally come in and said "EVERYONE IS STUPID, PAY ATTENTION TO ME, I'M EDGY"[/QUOTE] Thanks for the laugh, it's been a while since I've read something so utterly ridiculous and funny.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42920923]There's a difference between "conviction and courage" and "blind ignorance." I'm not religious because I'm not stupid enough to say something is real when there's no proof it is. Blind faith isn't something to be proud of. It's a sign of unwillingness to progress.[/QUOTE] Being agnostic is 100% A-OK Being atheist is 100% A-OK Being religious is 100% A-OK being an intolerant cunt isn't.

I love you guys, seriously. Every single one of you. Even you, Shark Bones.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42921135]You should really check out these quotes from this guy "shark bones" he's good for a laugh, as most of it is uninformed dribble, laced with teenage angst. Here, let me give you some of his material.[/QUOTE] that reminds me - I went to a humanist society meeting for one of their sermons, and the topic was about the influence of societal norms on religion in the Q&A session there was a man in a fedora who kept asserting (through questions, of course) that [I]'since religion, through change, must contradict itself eventually, doesn't it disprove their infallibility and therefore their validity??'[/I] I thought it was a nice question... but the man never waited for an answer before mouthing off again, and kept asserting the same points over and over and over again even though literally everyone was rolling eyes at him. I don't think he noticed the disapproving atmosphere, though - he seemed much too intoxicated by his self-asserted wisdom.

I was orignally going to defend Shark Bones (Back on page 1) with [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM[/url] But then the rest of everything happened. [QUOTE=Shark Bones;42920325]"Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown."[/QUOTE] No. Agnosticism is in the realm of knowledge "Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge")". You can be agnostic about something and still be a theist, you can 'be' γνῶσις (Knowing) and be an Atheist (convinced that god does NOT exist as much as someone does). As Dawkins put it: [quote]-Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." -De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." -Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." -Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." -Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." -De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." -[b]Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."[/b][/quote] (It should be noted that Dawkins uses Agnostic here, he is referring to the current cultural de facto that Agnostic means. An agnostic by this definition should be considered an Atheist.) You, are an Atheist who wants to feel better than everyone else, including others that you more or less agree with; how about not being an asshole and accepting an opinion.

Lets just all agree that these people are horrible human beings and they should be locked away for a long time.

[QUOTE=Shark Bones;42920185]These made up gods/lack thereof provide way too much potential for people to abuse them for their own sick ways.[/QUOTE] So essentially, you're a sociopath.

[QUOTE=ionuttzu;42919650]How the fuck can you call yourself christian while you do such shit? It's completely against anything the Bible says[/QUOTE] "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (Proverbs, 13:24)

[QUOTE=Explosions;42921402]"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (Proverbs, 13:24)[/QUOTE] Bit late to the party here, everyone's already explained how pulling bible quotes out of context is not a good argument, etc.

[QUOTE=isnipeu;42921034]I remember my mum used this verse a couple of years ago to justify her trying to hit me in the face.[/QUOTE] Assuming you're male, doesn't the old testament put you a bit higher pyramid of status meaning that she as no right to hit you?

God I remember back when people on facepunch hated religion. What the fuck happened [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;42921410]Assuming you're male, doesn't the old testament put you a bit higher pyramid of status meaning that she as no right to hit you?[/QUOTE] Man>Woman but Parent>Child so yes she does have the right to hit him as far as the bible is concerned.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42921498]God I remember back when people on facepunch hated religion. What the fuck happened [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] Man>Woman but Parent>Child so yes she does have the right to hit him as far as the bible is concerned.[/QUOTE] Stuff like neckbeards and /r/atheism happened and suddenly people stopped trying to be associated with these guys. Also no sensible Christian still listens to the old testament, it's outdated as fuck. New testament is also on its way to be outdated.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42921513]Stuff like neckbeards and /r/atheism happened and suddenly people stopped trying to be associated with these guys. Also no sensible Christian still listens to the old testament, it's outdated as fuck. New testament is also on its way to be outdated.[/QUOTE] And all we'll have left is the "I'm just sort of a spiritual person, you know?" testament.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42921513]Stuff like neckbeards and /r/atheism happened and suddenly people stopped trying to be associated with these guys. Also no sensible Christian still listens to the old testament, it's outdated as fuck. New testament is also on its way to be outdated.[/QUOTE] While the laws themselves aren't in force for christians as far as christians are concerned, the principles of much of it, particularly in regards to proverbs, are still adhered to by many fundamentalist groups.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;42921536]And all we'll have left is the "I'm just sort of a spiritual person, you know?" testament.[/QUOTE] The current pope doesn't seem to need any of the testament stuff to do well, in my opinion. Most of the things he said should happen are probably in direct contradiction with some parts of the old testament. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;42921545]While the laws themselves aren't in force for christians as far as christians are concerned, the principles of much of it, particularly in regards to proverbs, are still adhered to by many fundamentalist groups.[/QUOTE] I did say SENSIBLE christians though, so that kinda excludes fundamentalist groups.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42921554] I did say SENSIBLE christians though, so that kinda excludes fundamentalist groups.[/QUOTE] By sensible christians you mean people who just call themselves christians but don't actually do anything the bible says. I mean as far as I'm concerned I'm an atheist but I find pick n mix Christianity ridiculous.

Fundamentalist groups are hardly good christians if they go around blindly following a book, their actions causing more harm than good while their religion is all about doing good without harm.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;42921656]Fundamentalist groups are hardly good christians if they go around blindly following a book, their actions causing more harm than good while their religion is all about doing good without harm.[/QUOTE] Fundamentalists are about following the bible to the word, so generally what they're doing is what the bible tells them to.

Spare the rod, raise a well-adjusted kid that isn't dead and also avoid jailtime

Just to be clear: the vast majority of the Old Testament law was very clearly given specifically to the Jews, for the Jews. It was never supposed to be followed by anyone else.

[QUOTE=F T;42920411]So, you're telling me that everyone who believes/does not believe in God are stupid? Well shit that's a lot of dumb people.[/QUOTE] Yes tons of people make the juvenile and ridiculous choice to believe that there is an invisible magic man in the sky.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42921402]"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (Proverbs, 13:24)[/QUOTE] People from just one or two generations ago used 'rods' to spank their children for the purpose of discipline. This isn't some odd and horrible punishment. Also, don't use the King James, it's one of the worst and least accurate translations. Use the New American Standard or the English Standard Version for the most accurate translations.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42920437]You're like a highschooler who read a couple paragraphs of Socrates and thinks he's the arbiter of philosophy. It's obvious in the story of the sacrificing of Isaac that Abraham never actually believed that he would have to sacrifice Isaac. He knew that God had already promised that Isaac was the promised son who would continue his line and therefore would either be raised from the dead or not be killed at all. One simple example is that he tells the people waiting at the base of the mountain that they will both come back down again. Actual verses that I'm talking about: "[B]5 [/B]Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you.” - Genesis 22:5 "[B]7 [/B]Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the [B]([URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NASB#cen-NASB-555G"]G[/URL])[/B]lamb for the burnt offering?” [B]8 [/B]Abraham said, “God will [B][[URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NASB#fen-NASB-556a"]a[/URL]][/B]provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together.” - Genesis 22:7-8 Both of these clearly show that Abraham's intention was never to actually kill his son and return alone.[/QUOTE] Lol no that's not at all what those lines show. The entire story is about how far a faithful person will go for god. Those lines exemplify how far Abraham was willing to go: he lied to others and to his son about the human sacrifice he was about to commit.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42921792]Lol no that's not at all what those lines show. The entire story is about how far a faithful person will go for god. Those lines exemplify how far Abraham was willing to go: he lied to others and to his son about the human sacrifice he was about to commit.[/QUOTE] Believe whatever you want, but every action on the part of Abraham shows that he believed he would be coming down with his son. The test was much deeper than a simple test of who Abraham thought was more important, God or his son. The test was whether Abraham truly trusted in the promise of God, which was that Isaac would continue the line. If Abraham believed that promise, then he knew this test couldn't end with the death of Isaac. This interpretation isn't new either. Any Jewish commentary will say the same. Also, your interpretation would mean that Abraham wanted to follow God so much that he did something that God expressly forbids, namely, lying for personal gain. That simply doesn't make sense.