https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/smyl-college-rockingham-students-attack-tradies-in-wild-rampage/news-story/5ba7c0ee73bd892b940bc6e00856f09b

so what is to be done with youth who simply don't play by the rules. All too often such events are staged so it can be filmed, uploaded and go viral, but what is viral is the attitude behind it. How have we failed these youth the left will say, when what is needed is some old fashioned discipline

what I say is let the whallopers at them, some police station discipline instead of been sent home to contemplate their next act of rebellion. This happen in an institution for youth who don't fit in but putting them all together isn't a good idea. Next stop reform school and life of crime

what I say is let the whallopers at them, some police station discipline instead of been sent home to contemplate their next act of rebellion. Yup The police used to be good at therapeutic massages for attitude adjustments

Yup The police used to be good at therapeutic massages for attitude adjustments

No doubt you approve of today's attitude adjustment being a bullet in the back.

That is a sad reflection on what society has become in some places

No doubt you approved of the Capitol police officer shooting an unarmed military vet women point blank for attempting to climb through a window into the Capitol.

No doubt you approved of the Capitol police officer shooting an unarmed military vet women point blank in the head for attempting to climb through a window into the Capitol.

Absolutely. She was in the vanguard of a crazed group trying to enter a space to kill as many as they could and crashing through windows and doors with murder on their minds. Like any criminal killed by police exercising their lawful duty, she was entirely at fault.

same was true of the incident you describe as "a bullet in the back" . Content is helpful .

same was true of the incident you describe as "a bullet in the back" . Content is helpful .

I didn't describe any "incident". Of course, it's easy to see I was referring to cops murdering blacks by illegally shooting them down. More than once, it was a bullet in the back as the man was fleeing.

You were referring to Jacob Blake . Shot in back "fleeing " aka brandishing a knife and attempting to kidnap children that were in the car he was entering .

You were referring to Jacob Blake . Shot in back "fleeing " aka brandishing a knife and attempting to kidnap children that were in the car he was entering .

I was NOT referring to Jacob Blake! How could you possibly know who I was referring to? I was referring in a generic sense to the bad conduct of so many police in the last few years - encouraged by Trump, I might add.

I see you have hijacked the theme which was youth in crisis the so called "broken babies" as a parent who went through ten years of hell with such a child I welcome discussion of the issue which has nothing to do with race

I welcome discussion of the issue which has nothing to do with race
There can be so very many explanations -- e.g., a physical or mental problem, peer influences, being bullied, an autism spectrum disorder that affects a child's ability to understand spoken instructions, to socialize, and to express themselves and their feelings.

wasn't hijacked . Your second paragraph was what I went with

what I say is let the whallopers at them, some police station discipline instead of been sent home to contemplate their next act of rebellion.

still a lead in to what to do with troubled youth, one solution is harsh discipline, rarely does that seem to work and often makes the problem worse, another solution is to take them out of the home environment, I'm never sure that works either because loss of identity is a negative, even a third is what was tried here; a special school, obviously they learned little in a loose discipline environment. I think you have to abandon the idea of educating them in the traditional way and make them task oriented so success improves self worth

How could you possibly know who I was referring to?Perhaps he used the same wondrous power you used when you were able, merely by watching a video, to discern that a crowd of thousands was composed largely of evangelical Christians.

How soon you forget.

deflecting again

still a lead in to what to do with troubled youth, one solution is harsh discipline, rarely does that seem to work and often makes the problem worse, another solution is to take them out of the home environment, I'm never sure that works either because loss of identity is a negative, even a third is what was tried here; a special school, obviously they learned little in a loose discipline environment. I think you have to abandon the idea of educating them in the traditional way and make them task oriented so success improves self worthIt has to start with healthy families. In my years of schooling, that was the key. It wasn't a guarantee, but it does give the best chance. I have long loved the text that reads, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” The nurture is the affectionate side while the admonition is the discipline side. The hard part is knowing which part to employ. It is difficult.

We have erred in our country in believing that the state can replace the family. It absolutely cannot.

Yes we know this but this isn't a perfect society and parents are far from perfect. When you discipline and they are unresponsive where do you go from there

When you discipline and they are unresponsive where do you go from thereMy experience was that if, if, if I had the parent's cooperation with me as a school principal, then only rarely did that happen. Saying we are all not "perfect" isn't much of a response. We need, as parents, churches, and schools, to become less imperfect and more serious about what we are doing. It's why I frequently mention the out of wedlock birth rate here, a subject about which you seem to have but little interest. It's a devastating statistic that we should all be shocked about. It's part of the reason I mention abortion. We can't advance any real morality with our young people when we are killing them in the womb. Young people have enough sense to see the utter hypocrisy in that.

The biggest mistake I saw parents make is to be too permissive when the children were young, even down to two or three years old. It's those early years when the parents establish their authority. I saw parents allow just about anything on the theory that they are being "cute". Well, give it five or ten more years and it won't be cute anymore, but it can be too late at that point.

But as to your question, once a teen reaches that point, then it's up to the cops and courts. If it was up to me, they would be sent to old fashioned work farms. Put a hoe in his hand for ten hours a day, six days a week, and see if that gets through to him. No brutality, but a good whipping can perform wonders as well. Stick them in the army for three years.

I do hope your child managed to get back on course in life. I know that can be a very tough situation to deal with.

a good whipping can perform wonders
Yes, the wonders of the child's/teen's attitude becoming more cunning and secretive, greatly resentful, and full of hate.

still a lead in to what to do with troubled youth, one solution is harsh discipline, rarely does that seem to work and often makes the problem worse, another solution is to take them out of the home environment, I'm never sure that works either because loss of identity is a negative, even a third is what was tried here; a special school, obviously they learned little in a loose discipline environment. I think you have to abandon the idea of educating them in the traditional way and make them task oriented so success improves self worth

Isolate/segregate and plenty of one on one evaluative investigation. For some the very act of grouping with like mindsets is an invitation to bad behavior. A nation founded by emptying the jails should know that.

ah Tal we are as far from our roots as you are, the academics and limp wristed dilettantes have taken over and want to coddle youth

the academics and limp wristed dilettantes have taken over and want to coddle youthPretty much right on.

Yes, the wonders of the child's/teen's attitude becoming more cunning and secretive, greatly resentful, and full of hate.Except. of course, that it doesn't turn out that way. It's the permissive, anything is acceptable approach that produces irresponsible, hateful kids.

.
Except. of course, that it doesn't turn out that way. It's the permissive, anything is acceptable approach that produces irresponsible, hateful kids.

Is that what produces hateful kids, I never knew, because in my case it was over discipline

Is that what produces hateful kids, I never knew, because in my case it was over discipline

It's not easy to find the perfect balance, nor realize the best efforts and intentions may indeed be ineffectual and fail.


ah Tal we are as far from our roots as you are, the academics and limp wristed dilettantes have taken over and want to coddle youth

Well we must face the fact at least in America the hard core send 'em to jail only leads to more in jail and more jails, so as a deterrent that ain't the best answer either.

Is that what produces hateful kids, I never knew, because in my case it was over disciplineThat's a fair point. Both extremes are harmful. I was trying to make the point (clumsily) that a properly administered whipping is not a negative but a positive.

Ok you first

.....properly administered whipping.....

Perfect example of an oxymoron.

agreed

Perfect example of an oxymoron.Perfect example of lack of knowledge.

Perfect example of lack of knowledge.

Please enlighten me.

Is the whip tipped with metal balls? Or do you just use leather points? When the blood appears in little droplets, do you continue until it is more of a stream? Do you stop when the bruises appear so the doctor doesn't report you to the police? Or do you just forego any reporting or doctoring at all?

I assume your guide in this matter is the Bible, to go along with the slaughtering and massacres of children.

Is the whip tipped with metal balls? Or do you just use leather points? When the blood appears in little droplets, do you continue until it is more of a stream? Do you stop when the bruises appear so the doctor doesn't report you to the police? Or do you just forego any reporting or doctoring at all?Another drama queen on this site.


I assume your guide in this matter is the Bible,Actually, it is.


to go along with the slaughtering and massacres of children.Hard to imagine how a supporter of abortion like you could make such a statement. How could anyone possibly be more guilty than you?

Probably more productive to hone in on the individuals that behave badly than pass out sticks to beat all the kids with. As I understand the OP then these were not kids but young adults so correct me if I'm wrong, but is it coddling to give them extra professional attention?

Be interesting to see what the background of care was for those youths before they got to the point of what the OP is about.

posted by Athos
I assume your guide in this matter is the Bible


Actually, it is.

Well, here's some Bible for you to chew on. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is already well-known. These are sources that the white evangelicals rely on to support their "properly administered whipping". God is the model for punishment.


"You shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite." (Deuteronomy)

God wanted to make sure everybody in the neighborhood was covered.


"The city shall be doomed by the Lord to destruction, it and all who are in it. Only Rahab the harlot shall live." (Joshua)

Nice touch. God has a soft spot for hookers.


"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (Saul)

God was extra angry that day. “Utterly destroy them”, “do not spare them”, kill, kill, kill.


"The Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." (Genesis)


Finally, God destroys all that he has created because he repents for making a mistake. Can this God be an All-Knowing God? Couldn't he foresee what would happen?



Hard to imagine how a supporter of abortion like you could make such a statement.

The statement refers to God going along with slaughtering and massacring children. As to my support, I support a woman's right to choose - a distinction beyond your ken.



How could anyone possibly be more guilty than you?

Maybe your OT God? If he had no problem killing the firstborn, why would he have a problem killing the unborn?

“For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.” (Exodus).

Well, here's some Bible for you to chew on. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is already well-known. These are sources that the white evangelicals rely on to support their "properly administered whipping". Other than your plainly racist reference to white people, as though non-whites cannot be evangelical or spank their children, you are on the right path.


Finally, God destroys all that he has created because he repents for making a mistake. Can this God be an All-Knowing God? Couldn't he foresee what would happen?You have made it very clear you don't like the God of the Bible. Why not just move on? At any rate, I have no idea what any of that has to do with corporal punishment.


Hard to imagine how a supporter of abortion like you could make such a statement.


The statement refers to God going along with slaughtering and massacring children. As to my support, I support a woman's right to chooseNice try, but that weak answer won't do. There is no greater slaughter and massacre of children taking place than abortion. As to "choice", why wouldn't God simply say He is exercising His choice? If a woman can choose to kill her innocent, unborn child, and you say you support that option, then why can't God choose to kill? Does anyone have any greater authority to do so than God? Why do you exercise such a double standard???

as though non-whites cannot be evangelical or spank their children, you are on the right path.
NO ONE should spank a child!

Well, here's some Bible for you to chew on. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is already well-known. These are sources that the white evangelicals rely on to support their "properly administered whipping". God is the model for punishment.

once again your intrepretation is wrong the rod spoken of is the sharp rebuke .



"You shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite." (Deuteronomy)


God wanted to make sure everybody in the neighborhood was covered.


"The city shall be doomed by the Lord to destruction, it and all who are in it. Only Rahab the harlot shall live." (Joshua)

Nice touch. God has a soft spot for hookers.


"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (Saul)

God was extra angry that day. “Utterly destroy them”, “do not spare them”, kill, kill, kill.


"The Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." (Genesis)


Finally, God destroys all that he has created because he repents for making a mistake. Can this God be an All-Knowing God? Couldn't he foresee what would happen?




The statement refers to God going along with slaughtering and massacring children. As to my support, I support a woman's right to choose - a distinction beyond your ken.




Maybe your OT God? If he had no problem killing the firstborn, why would he have a problem killing the unborn?

“For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.” (Exodus). and again I say your intrepretation is wrong these peoples were destroyed because they were Baal worshipers and made human sacrifice so God's judgement rested upon them it speaks nothing of the discipline of youth and that last passage speaks of the judgement of Egypt as they would not let the Israelites go

once again your intrepretation is wrong the rod spoken of is the sharp rebuke .There is no reason to believe that it means anything other than corporal punishment. There is also no reason to believe that it means beating a child excessively.

you have your reasons, I have mine

and again I say your intrepretation is wrong these peoples were destroyed because they were Baal worshipers and made human sacrifice so God's judgement rested upon them it speaks nothing of the discipline of youth and that last passage speaks of the judgement of Egypt as they would not let the Israelites go

The quoted passages follow EXACTLY the words of the Bible. You can't dispute that.

My interpretation has everything to do with the discipline of youth by showing the OT God as a role model for how to punish transgressors including intransigent youth. This is how the white evangelicals (among others) use the Bible as justification for their "properly administered whipping". Those are not my words in bold - they are the words of a white evangelical here on this website.

Your interpretation of the words is the traditional one. I hope you see how far removed from the Gospel of Jesus Christ your interpretation is. Do you honestly believe the murderous God of the OT is the same God as Jesus Christ?

Other than your plainly racist reference to white people,

Nothing racist about it. White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words. Do you deny you're a white evangelical?


as though non-whites cannot be evangelical or spank their children,

Who's the racist now?


You have made it very clear you don't like the God of the Bible.

No, but you continue to put words in my mouth. You can't seem to break the habit.

For your information, some passages showing the OT God - like the ones I have posted - are clearly the work of the Hebrew religious establishment of the day. It's very simple to verify this - just compare that OT God in those passages to the NT God Jesus Christ. The two cannot possibly be the same.


Why not just move on?

Easier for you to move on. In fact, it's a mystery why you came here in the first place. You spread nastiness in almost every post you make. Why is that?


At any rate, I have no idea what any of that has to do with corporal punishment.

It has everything to do with corporal punishment. Read my response to paraclete above on the subject.


There is no greater slaughter and massacre of children taking place than abortion.

At least you admit that great slaughter and massacre took place. That's a start. The greater mistake you make is to quantify murder. One murder is as a thousand murders.


As to "choice", why wouldn't God simply say He is exercising His choice? If a woman can choose to kill her innocent, unborn child, and you say you support that option, then why can't God choose to kill? Does anyone have any greater authority to do so than God? Why do you exercise such a double standard???

This is one of your most revealing paragraphs so I left it just as you wrote it to include everything.

Boiled down, your position is that God is justified in murdering his creation because a woman has an abortion. Interesting backward thinking.

It begs the question of why God is going around murdering his people in the first place. You claim God has a choice to murder since he's God. Thankfully, this notion of God as an All-Powerful bully in the sky is receding except for certain groups like the white evangelicals. It is not hard to see how Trump reflects this notion, even to a Golden Idol in his image.

Whether or not God told ancient man it was okay to engage in genocide is dubious at best but it sure benefited the ancient politicians to have God on their side and sanction such actions in his name. History shows that happens a lot depending on whose talking to God.

Human self interest cannot be discounted.

White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words. Do you deny you're a white evangelical?I've never said white evangelicals support whipping children, so that's another, shall we say, "misstatement" of yours?


just compare that OT God in those passages to the NT God Jesus Christ. The two cannot possibly be the same.And again, read Mt. 25. Your eisegesis is all too apparent.


You spread nastiness in almost every post you make. Why is that?Correcting your errors is not "nastiness".


For your information, some passages showing the OT God - like the ones I have posted - are clearly the work of the Hebrew religious establishment of the day.There is not a shred of evidence to support that idea. It's simply the work of your own prejudiced imagination. The Bible does not agree with you, so the Bible must be wrong?


Boiled down, your position is that God is justified in murdering his creation because a woman has an abortion. Interesting backward thinking.

It begs the question of why God is going around murdering his people in the first place. You claim God has a choice to murder since he's God. Thankfully, this notion of God as an All-Powerful bully in the sky is receding except for certain groups like the white evangelicals. It is not hard to see how Trump reflects this notion, even to a Golden Idol in his image.My position is two fold. 1. To claim that God is guilty of massacring children while at the same time being a firm supporter of the greatest massacre and slaughter of children in our present time (abortion) is just foolish. And your attempt to justify your position as being one of supporting the right of women to choose to have their unborn baby killed while denying that God has a right to choose is plainly absurd. 2. If God does it, then it is right simply because He does it. Being God, He is always right since His nature is ultimate perfection. So if God takes your life today, He will owe you no explanations and you will have no opportunity to question Him. He could not possibly care less if you don't like it or do like it. It makes no difference. Nor does it matter if you consider His actions to be moral or immoral. At the end of time, you will not be judging Him; He will be judging you. And the same, of course, is true for me and for all of us.

Right or wrong whupping kids is up to the parents under limits of the law, regardless of whatever religious affiliations.

Whether or not God told ancient man it was okay to engage in genocide is dubious at best but it sure benefited the ancient politicians to have God on their side and sanction such actions in his name. History shows that happens a lot depending on whose talking to God.

That is EXACTLY the point !!

I've never said white evangelicals support whipping children, so that's another, shall we say, "misstatement" of yours?

So you're NOT a white evangelical? Cudda fooled me. You definitely support whipping children - that's not in dispute.


And again, read Mt. 25. Your eisegesis is all too apparent.

Been there. Done that. Your Mt. 25 is your premise for claiming Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide. Think about it.


Correcting your errors is not "nastiness".

Nastiness is nastiness. We can all recognize it, no matter how much you deny it. Your definition won't fly.


There is not a shred of evidence to support that idea.

The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see. The evidence is overwhelming even if you refuse to see it. Your white evangelical position is an old one and is being revisited by exegetes. Time for you to get on board.


The Bible does not agree with you, so the Bible must be wrong?

Wrong - again !! The INTERPRETATION of the Bible as you interpret is wrong - the Bible is what is it is.


My position is two fold. 1. To claim that God is guilty of massacring children while at the same time being a firm supporter of the greatest massacre and slaughter of children in our present time (abortion) is just foolish. And your attempt to justify your position as being one of supporting the right of women to choose to have their unborn baby killed while denying that God has a right to choose is plainly absurd. 2. If God does it, then it is right simply because He does it. Being God, He is always right since His nature is ultimate perfection. So if God takes your life today, He will owe you no explanations and you will have no opportunity to question Him. He could not possibly care less if you don't like it or do like it. It makes no difference. Nor does it matter if you consider His actions to be moral or immoral. At the end of time, you will not be judging Him; He will be judging you. And the same, of course, is true for me and for all of us.

I will leave this as is for all to read.

It is a perfect statement of a primitive belief that sees God as a mixture of Santa Claus and the nastiest, toughest kid on the block that nobody messes with. Jesus Christ dispelled this notion but, then as now, many didn't get it. Here's what you need to do: drop the OT and Paul for a while, THROW AWAY REVELATION (it has done harm to you white evangelicals), and read the Gospels with a view to understanding. You'll be amazed at what it will do for you.

So you're NOT a white evangelical? Cudda fooled me. You definitely support whipping children - that's not in dispute.This was your original lie. "White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words." I never said anything about white evangelicals at all, and certainly not in connection with corporal punishment. Now you are compounding your lying. It just never ends.


Your Mt. 25 is your premise for claiming Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide.So now it's MY Mt. 25? Well, it's just another lie. I've never claimed that, "Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide." Have you no honesty at all? I realize your reasoning is embarrassingly bad, and your evidence is completely missing, but that doesn't justify this level of lying.


The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see. The evidence is overwhelming even if you refuse to see it. Your white evangelical position is an old one and is being revisited by exegetes. Time for you to get on board.Yes. The evidence is so abundant that you can't point to a single shred of that evidence. Asking me to believe you just because you say it evaporated with the Aquinas incident.


I will leave this as is for all to read.What??? You're not going to lie about it? Well then, at least that is some progress.


read the GospelsI've tried to get you to read Mt. 25 with no luck at all. You can also try Mt. 3:7; 10:28; 12:36&42; 5:30; 11:24, John 5:22; 3:18,19. What you clearly are not doing is reading the Gospels. If you were, you would see your preconceived, unbiblical positions are incorrect.

But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion.

I've never said white evangelicals support whipping children, so that's another, shall we say, "misstatement" of yours?

I grew up in a very conservative (now with the stolen adjective, "evangelical") white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists. The best way to raise kids, it was believed, was to whoop them after each offense.

I grew up in a very conservative (now with the stolen adjective, "evangelical") white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists. The best way to raise kids, it was believed, was to whoop them after each offense.I've never been exposed to that so I can't comment on it. I do think this constant reference to whites is unproductive. I can assure you that non-whites paddle their kids. Why so racially divisive? Is that the liberal dem strategy at work in you?


white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists.I know you don't seem to realize it, but there is so much ugly prejudice in that statement that it's startling. Racial, religious, and regional prejudices seems to really attract you. It certainly cannot be said that prejudice is reserved for conservatives, can it?

I've never been exposed to that so I can't comment on it. I do think this constant reference to whites is unproductive. I can assure you that non-whites paddle their kids. Why so racially divisive? Is that the liberal dem strategy at work in you?

I know you don't seem to realize it, but there is so much ugly prejudice in that statement that it's startling. Racial, religious, and regional prejudices seems to really attract you. It certainly cannot be said that prejudice is reserved for conservatives, can it?
Apparently, you weren't alive in the South in the 1940s and 1950s. Everything was white, almost total segregation. The only time Black people were seen was as childcare workers ("mammies") for a white family, as groundskeepers and garbage collectors, as gas station attendants, or as railroad employees. On Sunday evenings, the Blacks set up tents in empty fields and had their church services. We could always hear the joyous Gospel singing coming from the field behind our house.

I'm prejudiced? No. That was the world I grew up in. There was no reason to be prejudiced; the world I lived in world was white. Beginning in the 1960s, God blessed me with eyes that are color blind.

This was your original lie. "White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words." I never said anything about white evangelicals at all, and certainly not in connection with corporal punishment. Now you are compounding your lying. It just never ends.

I note you didn't deny that you're a white evangelist. I told you where to find the corporal punishment connection. You refused to look at it. Your replies pretty much consist of calling me a liar. Not much of anything else re the issues.


So now it's MY Mt. 25? Well, it's just another lie. I've never claimed that, "Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide."

You admitted that Jesus approved of the OT God committing genocide. Let me ask again - Did Jesus approve of God slaughtering children and wiping out all humanity except for Noah? Remember there is a record of your statements.


Have you no honesty at all? I realize your reasoning is embarrassingly bad, and your evidence is completely missing, but that doesn't justify this level of lying.

Your "argument" again - consisting of nothing but calling me a liar.


Yes. The evidence is so abundant that you can't point to a single shred of that evidence.

The evidence, shown several times now, is written in the Books of Genesis, Numbers, Exodus, etc. The words describing God are there for all to see. What is it that you cannot see?


Asking me to believe you just because you said it evaporated with the Aquinas incident.

You frequently bring this up. Please provide details for all to see.


I've tried to get you to read Mt. 25 with no luck at all.

Of course I've read it. What makes you think I haven't. I've even quoted it.


What you clearly are not doing is reading the Gospels.

Why would I be recommending you read them if I am clearly not reading them?


If you were, you would see your preconceived, unbiblical positions are incorrect.

Here's your basic problem. To put it succinctly, you and the white evangelicals believe the Bible was written by God. Either by 1) with pen and paper that he sent to earth, OR, 2) dictated to 70+ authors over the centuries, OR, 3) guided those authors as they wrote down what they wrote, OR, 4) sent an angel to earth to look over the shoulder of the writers. (#4 is just a joke - hey, but maybe not).

The real joke is that the Bible was set up and organized by the Catholic Church. The Church that fundies refer to as the "Whore of Babylon" among other epithets.


let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming.

LOL !! This is too much. How many times have you issued a "challenge"? How many times have I answered your challenge? EVERY SINGLE TIME ! How many times have you replied to my answer with your own position? NOT ONCE ! You say that my answer wasn't suitable, wasn't an answer, wasn't an answer you liked, etc etc. - all the time refusing to provide your own answer after issuing the challenge. You could look it up. Of course you will say I'm lying. We're accustomed to that answer by now. Once bitten, etc.

You have two positions. 1) I'm lying. 2) Your interpretation of the Bible is infallible.

I note you didn't deny that you're a white evangelist. I told you where to find the corporal punishment connection. You refused to look at it. Your replies pretty much consist of calling me a liar.Haven't denied or confirmed as it makes no difference. If you don't want your lying to be noted, then try stopping it. If the shoe fits...


You admitted that Jesus approved of the OT God committing genocide.It seems absurd to me that you really seem to think that Jesus and the God of the OT are separate from each other. Strange belief.


LOL !! This is too much. How many times have you issued a "challenge"? How many times have I answered your challenge? EVERY SINGLE TIME ! How many times have you replied to my answer with your own position? NOT ONCE !Do you never stop lying? I posted my two point position just a few posts above. If you can find a "challenge" to me that has gone unanswered, then post it here. In the meantime, my challenge to you remains. Everyone here already knows you won't answer it for the simple reason that you can't.


You frequently bring this up. Please provide details for all to see.
Do you really want me to? It was so egregious that I saved it in a word doc. Want me to post it????

Since you asked, here it is.

Athos. I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

My reply. Hmmm. Is that the same Aquinas who said this? "Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."


This is the relevant Aquinas passage.

Quaestiones Disputatae, "De Veritate," Q. 14, art. 11: Objection: "It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

Response: "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)." It is very clear here that St. Thomas is saying that explicit faith is necessary for salvation, and he asserts in the body of this article that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. But note: necessary for "salvation," which is not the same as necessary for the state of grace. According to St. Thomas, someone raised in the woods might attain the state of grace first, by the baptism of desire, and then later God would teach him the truths of the Trinity and Incarnation. Thus St. Thomas says above that if someone were to follow natural reason, then God would respond by teaching him the faith. But this implies that there is some act by which the man follows natural reason first, and then afterwards, even if very shortly afterwards, God teaches him the faith, just as Cornelius worshipped God first, and then afterwards God sent Peter.

Clearly, you edited the quote to suit your purposes. You even cut your quote off midsentence since the remainder of the sentence would have damaged your position. "...or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)." It seems to me that you were clearly thinking that I would not bother to check your source.

Athos:
The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see.
Plus, all the translators with their own agendas....

Plus, all the translators with their own agendas....Two replies to that. First, if we accept that as true, then it basically renders the Bible inaccurate and thus unreliable.

But it's hard to make that charge stick. The time span between the Masoretic text (900 A.D.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century B.C.) is about a thousand years. The text has shown no evidence of meaningful changes. The book of Isaiah is a good point of comparison since there are two complete copies of it from Qumran. The text is about 95% identical with most differences due to changes in spelling or copyist mistakes in forming letters. The 53rd chapter especially is remarkably similar with there being, I believe, only one word that is different. So you have to ask that if those translators had so many personal agendas, then why does it not show up in that case?

"Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) states: “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD [sic] 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” For more information and bibliography, see 'Great Isaiah Scroll' in Wikipedia"


The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see.They are the work of highly dedicated copyists who did that for a living. They were not amateurs. What difference would it make if they were from the "priestly class"? I don't know that's the case, but if so, what changes? Would it be better if the town butcher was doing it?

Haven't denied or confirmed as it makes no difference.

Are you ashamed of being a white evangelist?


It seems absurd to me that you really seem to think that Jesus and the God of the OT are separate from each other. Strange belief.

Hardly strange. What IS strange that you believe that the OT God and Jesus equally thrive on wiping out humans including all of them during a flood. Doesn't that strike you as strange?


If you can find a "challenge" to me that has gone unanswered, then post it here.

You have it backwards. The challenge came from you which I answered, and you did not even tho you promised to. That's why I pay no attention to your so-called "challenges".


In the meantime, my challenge to you remains.

See above.


Everyone here already knows you won't answer it for the simple reason that you can't.

That's not much of an argument, is it?

Since you asked, here it is.

Athos. I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

For those who wish to delve into the dense post, here is the critical part that was left out.

Aquinas was chastised by the Church to retract what he wrote. He did do by leaving in what he wrote and added the required addendum. No one was fooled, but the Church was satisfied since it had the documentation it required.

To support that position and show it wasn't unheard of, I cited two other instances of the Church doing something similar. One was Erasmus and the other was the well-known instance of Galileo.

Horses (Jl) won't drink if they're not thirsty (for knowledge).

You have it backwards. The challenge came from you which I answered, and you did not even tho you promised to. That's why I pay no attention to your so-called "challenges".You can't show any "challenge" I have failed to answer, and you can't answer the one I have posed to you. Case closed.


For those who wish to delve into the dense post, here is the critical part that was left out.

Aquinas was chastised by the Church to retract what he wrote. He did do by leaving in what he wrote and added the required addendum. No one was fooled, but the Church was satisfied since it had the documentation it required.

To support that position and show it wasn't unheard of, I cited two other instances of the Church doing something similar. One was Erasmus and the other was the well-known instance of Galileo.Huh. Strangely missing is any documentation for any of that. Oh well.


Horses (Jl) won't drink if they're not thirsty (for knowledge).No knowledge from you to drink from. Business as usual. As I have said, I believe nothing you say without documentation. Aquinas kind of did it for me.

From WG:
I grew up in a very conservative (now with the stolen adjective, "evangelical") white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists. The best way to raise kids, it was believed, was to whoop them after each offense.


I've never been exposed to that so I can't comment on it.

You already did comment on it. "A properly administered whipping is a positive not a negative". Remember now?

Two replies to that. First, if we accept that as true, then it basically renders the Bible inaccurate and thus unreliable.

Far from correct. Not basically, but partially. Certainly when people believe what even then were intended to be moral tales showing a lesson and people today take the stories literally, then today's people are rendering the Bible inaccurately and unreliable.


But it's hard to make that charge stick.

No it isn't. Your cherry-picking below can be matched cherry-by-cherry with far more examples than what is shown here. Also, your comment about copyists is simply wrong. For the most part, they were amateurs. The professional copyists came later.

The most studied evolution of the Bible is the New Testamant from the days of Christ until the first copies (not fragments) are available which was at least THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the events being reported. And at least one translation from the original written language and a complete rendering from the original spoken language.


They are the work of highly dedicated copyists who did that for a living. They were not amateurs.

See above.


What difference would it make if they were from the "priestly class"?

They would be motivated to present their religion according to their own lights and what they thought was best. Thousands of years ago, slaughtering the enemy was an accepted part of tribal/nomadic life. There were also many gods in those days. (See the First Commandment). They incorporated other creation myths into their own. They created tales of their tribe being chosen by a God who led them out of captivity. Even the flood is attested earlier in a foreign myth.

Far from correct. Not basically, but partially. Certainly when people believe what even then were intended to be moral tales showing a lesson and people today take the stories literally, then today's people are rendering the Bible inaccurately and unreliable.
Exactly! Some of the OT stories are allegories, e.g., the story of Noah and the Flood. (An allegory is a narrative that acts as a metaphor. The characters, setting and other elements of the story work as symbols, typically intended to teach a lesson or make a statement about human behavior, history or society.)

Exactly! Some of the OT stories are allegories, e.g., the story of Noah and the Flood. (An allegory is a narrative that acts as a metaphor. The characters, setting and other elements of the story work as symbols, typically intended to teach a lesson or make a statement about human behavior, history or society.)First you say the Bible was inaccurately copied due to personal biases, and then you agree that it was "intended to be moral tales". How can you possibly know what it was originally intended to be if what you have is a thoroughly corrupted copy? Why do you try and have it both ways?

How can you possibly know what it was originally intended to be if what you have is a thoroughly corrupted copy? Why do you try and have it both ways?
Did you notice who posted?

You already did comment on it. "A properly administered whipping is a positive not a negative". Remember now?Read her comment more carefully. You missed it.


No it isn't. Your cherry-picking below can be matched cherry-by-cherry with far more examples than what is shown here. Also, your comment about copyists is simply wrong. For the most part, they were amateurs. The professional copyists came later.How do you know that? You are saying they were from the "priestly class", but now they are amateurs? You are confused. And remember. No documentation means you are spinning your wheels.

Any answer yet to my challenge???


Did you notice who posted?Athos posted and your comment was, "Exactly", so you own it now.

I refute that Noah is an allegory, the story of the flood exists in many civilisations, WG stop watering down the message of the Bible, it is not allegory but truth. Okay the detail may be a little sketchy but the essentials are there. and the message is evil won't be tolerated for long and the way out is Jesus

Athos posted and your comment was, "Exactly", so you own it now.
My "Exactly!" referred to what Athos had said about the "moral tales showing a lesson". That doesn't mean I agree with him on EVERYthing!


I refute that Noah is an allegory, the story of the flood exists in many civilisations, WG stop watering down the message of the Bible, it is not allegory but truth. Okay the detail may be a little sketchy but the essentials are there. and the message is evil won't be tolerated for long and the way out is Jesus
Those flood stories in many civilizations were written because those civilizations, near areas that flooded, suffered from their own floods. Their stories weren't copies of the OT flood.

My "Exactly!" referred to what Athos had said about the "moral tales showing a lesson". That doesn't mean I agree with him on EVERYthing!OK. What did you disagree about?


Those flood stories in many civilizations were written because those civilizations, near areas that flooded, suffered from their own floods. Their stories weren't copies of the OT flood.Nice conjecture. Alas, no support.

OK. What did you disagree about?
You tossed me into your larger discussion with Athos. Not nice!

Nice conjecture. Alas, no support.
Oh, yeah, you're right. The scribes from many far-flung countries rode their camels or horses or went by caravan or even just walked to Israel in order to assiduously copy Israel's authentic Flood story that they'd read about on Facebook.

I knew you wouldn’t disagree with your hero.

Support your conjecture with foolishness? Hmm.

you americans know so little of ancient history, you think the world started in 1492

you americans know so little of ancient history, you think the world started in 1492

Paraclete, you got me laughing. Never hurts to inject a little humor into these discussions where some are so mean-spirited.

You did get one thing wrong however - we Americans don't think the world started in 1492, we KNOW for a fact it started in 1776 !!

You are saying they were from the "priestly class", but now they are amateurs? You are confused. And remember. No documentation means you are spinning your wheels.

You are the one confused, as usual. The copyists were not from the priestly class - they are two separate groups. The earliest copyists copied anything asked for for a price. Only later could the monk copyists be described as more than amateur since they generally had a command of Latin and Greek (depending on where the monastery was located), and sometimes other languages such as Hebrew.

No documentation does NOT indicate wheels spinning. There are many ways to prove a point including using the grey matter God gave to you. Logic, reading between the lines, rationality, understanding history, understanding human psychology, among others.

Bible bingo, btw, is NOT a way to prove things unless you want to show what a specific translation was. Rather than just give a link to a Biblical passage, you should show the entire quotation in question and then put your interpretation onto it.

Any answer yet to my challenge???
Been there, done that. Since you document everything I post, you must have it in your secret cache.

1. You have not shown any question you have asked that I have not answered.
2. You are clearly unable to answer my question. Just to jog your memory, here it is again. I'll keep reposting it until, perhaps, you make some effort to respond to it.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion."

That's how it works when you claim someone has not responded to a question. You simply repost it. Fairly easy, actually. Try it! You'll like it!

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming.

I'm sorry you do not understand what "proving a negative" means. I'm sorry for all the errors in logic and understanding you frequently commit. Others have pointed out these shortcomings of yours, but apparently you don't get it. I firmly believe that if you make a genuine effort, you can overcome these difficulties. Good luck !

To jog your memory:
Since you document everything I post, you must have it in your secret cache.

Blah, blah, blah. It's so funny that you want me to do your remembering for you.

And again. You're going to get to see this a lot until you file away your silly excuses and step up.

1. You have not shown any question you have asked that I have not answered.
2. You are clearly unable to answer my question. Just to jog your memory, here it is again. I'll keep reposting it until, perhaps, you make some effort to respond to it.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion."

That's how it works when you claim someone has not responded to a question. You simply repost it. Fairly easy, actually. Try it! You'll like it!

Time to move on

I'd like an answer first, but if one is not forthcoming, and it almost certainly is not, then yes, let's move on.

But beware. My question is not going away.

Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming.

You still don't get it. Try asking around for the meaning of "proving a negative", instead of threatening.

You still haven't explained why you inject threats and nastiness into your posts. Nor answered if you are a white evangelical. I'll have more to say re white evangelicals when the time is right.

And again. You're going to get to see this a lot until you file away your silly excuses and step up.

1. You have not shown any question you have asked that I have not answered.
2. You are clearly unable to answer my question. Just to jog your memory, here it is again. I'll keep reposting it until, perhaps, you make some effort to respond to it.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion."

A good answer would be, "I don't know of any." Especially when we already know that is the case.

Proving a negative in the Bible is a breeze. For instance, if you ask me, "Show me the places where Jesus endorsed using the internet for research," I would reply by saying that there are no such scriptures. It is simply saying that no such scriptures exist. So you are grasping at any convenient excuse. Proving a negative amongst a finite, known set of possibilities is not difficult.

Proving a negative in the Bible is a breeze. For instance, if you ask me, "Show me the places where Jesus endorsed using the internet for research," I would reply by saying that there are no such scriptures.

It is you who are grasping at straws and incidently proving a negative attitude

It is you who are grasping at strawsHow's that?

Proving a negative in the Bible is a breeze. For instance, if you ask me, "Show me the places where Jesus endorsed using the internet for research," I would reply by saying that there are no such scriptures. It is simply saying that no such scriptures exist. So you are grasping at any convenient excuse. Proving a negative amongst a finite, known set of possibilities is not difficult.

Thank you so much for posting that. If there had been any doubt about your not understanding what proving a negative means, you have removed all doubt by your post.

I suggest again, ask around what it means so you can regain at least a semblance of knowing what you're talking about.

Goodness. The lengths you will go to in order to avoid answering a simple question is astonishing.

1. If my statement about proving a negative was incorrect, then show how it was. Due to Aquinas, I have no confidence in your assertions at all. I'm confident I know what I'm talking about in that regard.

2. If you stop and think a few minutes, you will realize that I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am not asking if something does NOT exist. I am asking if something DOES exist. To be exact, I am asking if a passage DOES EXIST in which Jesus says there will be no judgment. It's a simple, straight-forward question. If you know of one, then post it. I'll post the question below so you can see that you are not being asked to demonstrate the NON existence of something, but rather that something (a passage) DOES exist.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming." So showing us where Jesus DID say something is clearly not asking you to prove a negative.

But we both know you will not. You won't because to admit that you cannot positively affirm the existence of such a scripture would damage your already frail position that there is no day of judgment coming. Everyone here knows that is the case. And if you don't want to answer, then fine. We can just drop it. It's not worth this much drama over a simple question.

You asked about me. For whatever importance you think it is, I am white. I don't claim any religious affiliations other than being a Jesus-following Christian. That one I cling to with great passion.

cut out the argy bargy, it gets old

I don’t know what “arghy Bargy” is. I am not here to please you. You don’t have to read any of this if you don’t want to.

cut out the argy bargy, it gets old

I agree it gets old, but he can't help it. He keeps repeating himself. His "prove a negative" posts get worse and worse as he digs that ditch deeper with each post. I've tried to help him understand but he's not a good listener.

You’re just afraid to answer. Too bad. You can’t even figure out that you are not faced with proving a negative. I can’t make it any more simple. I’ll just answer it fir you. I know of no such passage. Finished.

I know of no such passage. Finished.
So my Uncle Elmer, plus most of China and India and many lefties in the US, will not make the Judgment Day cut and will roast in hellfire forever because Jesus sent them there?

Jesus doesn’t like lefties?

You’re just afraid to answer. Too bad. You can’t even figure out that you are not faced with proving a negative. I can’t make it any more simple. I’ll just answer it fir you. I know of no such passage. Finished.

Now, now, JL, you know what they say about answering your own question. What they say is the answer was pre-determined and asking for an answer was a false move since you wouldn't accept any answer given that did not agree with you. That's not nice, Jl.

I think you're suffering from ADS (Athos Derangement Syndrome). This explains the hate you are exhibiting here. You should try to control your anger/hate because it leads to an ulcer or, worse, a stroke.

For someone who is a self-proclaimed educator, not knowing what proving a negative means casts doubt on your claim. It also reflects badly on your other stated claims of your volunteer work and your Christianity, not to speak of your tendency to self-congratulate. Was any of that true? Do you know what a troll is?

A glass of warm milk at bedtime might help you calm yourself. Even better, add a thimble of Irish whiskey.

Many meaningless words and yet no answer. So terribly fearful.

Here it is again if it helps. Do you know of any passage where Jesus said there will be no judgment?

Do you know of any passage where Jesus said there will be no judgment?

Asked and answered - by yourself.

You didn't answer any of my questions: Was any of that true? Do you know what a troll is?

Or WG's point?

Did you drink your milk?

Was any of that true?No. It was just your desperate attempt to divert attention away from your incredible reluctance to answer a simple question. Here it is again if it helps. Do you know of any passage where Jesus said there will be no judgment?

"Do you know what a troll is?" Yes.

"Or WG's point?" She had no point.

Not difficult, is it?


Asked and answered - by yourself.A little refreshing moment of honesty. I congratulate you. A little more honesty would have helped you to admit that I had to answer it since you would not. And even a little more would have let you admit that everyone, including you, already knew the answer anyway.

"Or WG's point?" She had no point.

Oh, yes, she did! Should I clarify it -- simplify it -- for you?

As clarification, you had a question. You made no point.

I replied and you have not answered.

Stop feeding the booty sensitive troll unless running around in a big circle turns your crank. I thought the subject was how to raise kids and address their individual needs. Can we start with the premise it's a community shared issue where everybody plays a crucial role, not just parents? Kids need more than JUST school education for a healthy balanced development, as schools are also the social hub of the neighborhood for interactions and activities for kids as well as parents and teachers, and even the community leaders which does include the religious foundations.

I can't address Clete's seemingly isolated incident, but I hope it's not a red flag that we have ignored here in this country which has all but ravaged our already struggling community systems.

Can we start with the premise it's a community shared issue where everybody plays a crucial role, not just parents? Kids need more than JUST school education for a healthy balanced development
Yes, it takes a village to raise a child.

Here's a good article about that:
https://smartparentadvice.com/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-child/#:~:text=“It%20takes%20a%20village%20to%20raise%20 a%20child”,around%20different%20people%20and%20lea rning%20from%20other%20adults.

I can agree with that so long as a strong healthy family environment is considered to be the foundation.

I can agree with that so long as a strong healthy family environment is considered to be the foundation.
If that exists, there's no need for the village.

And that healthy family environment won't be the case, as you often point out. We don't live in a perfect world, thus the need for the village to surround and support each family.

If that exists, there's no need for the village.So healthy families don't need police services, med services, schools, nursing homes, etc.???


And that healthy family environment won't be the case, as you often point out. We don't live in a perfect world, thus the need for the village to surround and support each family.Why won't it be the case most of the time?

So healthy families don't need police services, med services, schools, nursing homes, etc.???
You didn't read the link, did you and have no idea what that village consists of.

Why won't it be the case most of the time?
Read Genesis 3.

You didn't read the link, did you and have no idea what that village consists of.I read your post and responded to it. You know, the one that said that healthy families don't need the village?

And this is from your link. Are you really saying that healthy families don't need these things? Did YOU read your own link?

"Here are some of the ways you can build your own village to raise a child.


Teach kids to respect other adults.
Build friendships.
Encourage hobbies.
Volunteer to carpool.
Help out others.
Organize a text chain.
Deal with problems in person.
Get to know your neighbors.
Remember that everybody struggles."



Read Genesis 3.Why do you limit the effects of sin just to the family structure? Why not murder as well? "After all, we just have to get used to people getting murdered because, you know, there is that Genesis 3 thing." How about home invasions? Should we just get used to it? Rape? Lying? Child abuse? Wife beatings? Racism? Is "Genesis 3" your reply to all of the social pathologies of our time? Do you resist nothing? And for that matter, why doesn't Genesis 3 mean we should give up on hoping to strengthen the "village"?

YES, JL, we live in a fallen world and you just have to resign yourself to that fact, every sin imaginable will be committed , is being committed. You recall this is why Jesus came, to save us from ourselves because the law couldn't save us

YES, JL, we live in a fallen world and you just have to resign yourself to that fact, every sin imaginable will be committed , is being committed. You recall this is why Jesus came, to save us from ourselves because the law couldn't save usYou raise your voice against social ills every week on this site. So does everyone else. Why haven't you decided to "resign yourself to that fact"?

It is one thing to know we live in a fallen world. It is entirely different to use that to accept and, even worse, justify the many evils that exist in the world. You guys can abandon the family if you want to. I had to deal with too many sad cases caused by, for the most part, absent or irresponsible dads, and sometimes moms as well. I am not about to abandon the field because of some feeble appeal to Genesis 3.

Obviously many stray from the good orderly path and fallen between the cracks and have to be dealt with in humane reasonable fashion. Sometimes it's through no fault of their own, but there are those that have no intention of following a good orderly path. maybe we deal with them more sternly but the challenge is knowing the difference.

You raise your voice against social ills every week on this site. So does everyone else. Why haven't you decided to "resign yourself to that fact"?

It is one thing to know we live in a fallen world. It is entirely different to use that to accept and, even worse, justify the many evils that exist in the world. You guys can abandon the family if you want to. I had to deal with too many sad cases caused by, for the most part, absent or irresponsible dads, and sometimes moms as well. I am not about to abandon the field because of some feeble appeal to Genesis 3.

I am resigned to the fact they exist, doesn't stop me seeking solutions, we don't deal with any absolute but one. I have never been guilty of abandoning my family despite many trials

I am resigned to the fact they exist, doesn't stop me seeking solutions,That I can agree with. WG treats Gen. 3 as a justification for any social oddity that she agrees with.


we don't deal with any absolute but one.There are a lot of absolutes.


I have never been guilty of abandoning my family despite many trialsThank God for that.

That I can agree with. WG treats Gen. 3 as a justification for any social oddity that she agrees with.
Apparently, you've never read and fully understood Genesis 3. It's an allegory, btw.

Apparently, you've never read and fully understood Genesis 3. It's an allegory, btw.Jesus understood it to be literal. Perhaps you can correct Him about that.

Jesus understood it to be literal. Perhaps you can correct Him about that.
No, but he understood the truth and the lesson in it.

Oh, and Cain and Abel were most likely twins.

No, but he understood the truth and the lesson in it.He spoke of Abel, Adam and Eve as literal people. You will need to correct Him on that.


Oh, and Cain and Abel were most likely twins.Cain and Abel were actually Remus and Romulus adapted to the OT. And they were some of the first liberal democrats.

He spoke of Abel, Adam and Eve as literal people. You will need to correct Him on that.
He knew He had to; that was required when talking about "original sin". Same with Noah -- keep the allegory alive.

He knew He had to; that was required when talking about "original sin". Same with Noah -- keep the allegory alive.And you know this how? There certainly is no Bible reason to believe that, so how would you know such a thing?

Cain and Abel were actually Remus and Romulus adapted to the OT. And they were some of the first liberal democrats.
No, no, no! Cain was the guy with the horned Viking helmet, storming the Capitol on January 6th. Abel was the one who helped AOC feed the beaten-down Texans after that devastating winter storm.

And you know this how? There certainly is no Bible reason to believe that, so how would you know such a thing?
If Jesus, each time He told that story, had changed their names, e.g., to Fred and Ethel or Abelard and Heloise, His listeners wouldn't have understood what He was talking about, would have shaken their heads and walked away.

That just a rational excuse you use. It is nothing that even approaches evidence that you know what Jesus was talking about. If effect, you are saying he willingly lied.

you are saying he willingly lied.
Lied about what? -- the lesson in Genesis 3?

No, but that those people actually existed. And that Abraham, Noah, and the many others in Genesis existed. And Paul and the other writers of the NT engaged in the same campaign of lying if what you say is true. It is simply an outrageous claim.

It would be so nice if you would learn the difference between mere conjecture versus actual supporting evidence. There is not so much as a whisper in the NT that Jesus was following the path you suggested. It is just guesswork on your part, and poor guesswork at that, which you engage in to try and validate you liberal orthodoxy.

No, but that those people actually existed. And that Abraham, Noah, and the many others in Genesis existed. And Paul and the other writers of the NT engaged in the same campaign of lying if what you say is true. It is simply an outrageous claim.
Now you've added Abraham to your accusations. Why not go the whole nine yards and add Jesus too?

Did you ever tell traditional moralistic stories to your own kids or to your students? Did you change the names of the characters? If not, why not?

to try and validate you liberal orthodoxy.
At least I'm not a literalist.


Cain and Abel were actually Remus and Romulus adapted to the OT. And they were some of the first liberal democrats.
How about this explanation:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkikBKW8vmQ

At least I'm not a literalist.You certainly are not. You really believe that your conjecture trumps the Bible. Jesus lied. Paul lied. The author of Hebrews lied. And how do we know that? Because WG said so!!

You certainly are not. You really believe that your conjecture trumps the Bible. Jesus lied. Paul lied. The author of Hebrews lied. And how do we know that? Because WG said so!!
I didn't say they lied. I said Jesus followed the norm of what was the traditional and accepted belief about Genesis 3. Had He launched into the historical-critical explanation, He would have confused His uneducated listeners.

I said Jesus followed the norm of what was the traditional and accepted belief about Genesis 3. Had He launched into the historical-critical explanation, He would have confused His uneducated listeners.Except that you have not one shred of evidence for that. It's your conjecture. It seems to be what you are good at, so OK with me.

so OK with me.
Yaaaaaay!!!

Jesus knew they weren't ready for "Adam and Steve" to replace "Adam and Eve" or finding out the relationship between David and Jonathan was the longest and best-described human love story in the OT.

And again. Pure conjecture prompted by nothing other than your preconceived ideas. It's you informing the Bible rather than the other way around. And as usual, there is nothing at all to support your views, but there is an ocean of material that shows your views to be flat wrong.

And again. Pure conjecture prompted by nothing other than your preconceived ideas. It's you informing the Bible rather than the other way around. And as usual, there is nothing at all to support your views, but there is an ocean of material that shows your views to be flat wrong.
Stop being a close-minded literalist. Instead, read the Bible with open eyes and an open heart!

what is wrong with believing Genesis three is a literal account, ok, there were no eye witnesses but it is an oral tradition. It certainly illustrates what you are doing, being contrary. If you cannot believe the most basic of Bible texts where are you?

what is wrong with believing Genesis three is a literal account, ok, there were no eye witnesses but it is an oral tradition.
Whether one believes it's literal or an allegory, what's the lesson in it for us?

Stop being a close-minded literalist. Instead, read the Bible with open eyes and an open heart!Here is what is wrong with your approach. First, it opens the door to anything and everything. A man could tell his wife that Jesus took that hard stand against adultery because He didn't want to shock them. Murder? Surprisingly, it's not as bad as you might think. Kindness and forgiveness? Not really all that important. Forgiveness of sins? Actually...no. It can go anyplace your fertile imagination can take you. In your case, it takes you right to where your heart really seems to be, and that is liberal orthodoxy.

But even worse, to suggest that Jesus shied away from telling people the truth because He didn't want to be disturbing is sheer madness. You seem not to be in the habit of reading the Gospels. He shocked them all the time! Divorce? Not as easy as they thought. Being angry at your brother? Can actually amount to murder. Want to be right with God, young man? Sell all you own, give it to the poor, and follow Christ. Disciples? Well a tax collector will fit right in! In fact, if you've ever read the end of one of the Gospels, it was that "I am the Son of God and thus God" teaching that got Him crucified.

And even you are a literalist when it suits your convenience. You believe there was literally a man named Jesus who literally had disciples and literally taught many things, even though you can't actually believe any of them. As long as it doesn't conflict with your already settled beliefs, you are fine with a literal understanding.

I feel very sorry for you. I fear you will find out the hard way that you are far from following God. Your belief that the Bible can mean whatever WG wants it to mean is beyond dangerous.

I fear you will find out the hard way that you are far from following God.
You are saying I will spend eternity in a fiery hell? What is your definition of "following God"?

Your belief that the Bible can mean whatever WG wants it to mean is beyond dangerous.
You certainly have missed the meaning of what I've been posting!

You are saying I will spend eternity in a fiery hell?Actually, Jesus said that. Sadly true.


You certainly have missed the meaning of what I've been posting!
Nope. I understand what you are saying exactly. You are very clearly saying that your understanding of the world supersedes anything the Bible says.

Actually, Jesus said that. Sadly true.
No, He didn't.

I understand what you are saying exactly. You are very clearly saying that your understanding of the world supersedes anything the Bible says.
Yep, you have totally misunderstood!

He didn't?


31 “But when (Y (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24037Y))the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then (Z (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24037Z))He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be (AA (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24038AA))gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, (AB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24038AB))just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep (AC (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24039AC))on His right, but the goats (AD (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24039AD))on the left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, (AE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24040AE))inherit the kingdom prepared for you (AF (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24040AF))from the foundation of the world. 35 For (AG (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24041AG))I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; (AH (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24041AH))I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 (AI (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24042AI))naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you (AJ (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24042AJ))visited Me; (AK (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24042AK))I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You as a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And (AL (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24046AL))the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, (AM (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24046AM))to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘(AN (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24047AN))Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the (AO (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24047AO))eternal fire which has been prepared for (AP (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24047AP))the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [i (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#fen-NASB-24050i)]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into (AQ (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24052AQ))eternal punishment, but the righteous into (AR (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NASB#cen-NASB-24052AR))eternal life.”

And lest you foolishly suggest that His statement is merely allegorical, you might want to notice that the Apostle Paul did not believe that to be the case. This is his take on it from 2 Thes.


"For after all (N (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29643N))it is only right [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#fen-NASB-29643e)]for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted, along with us, [f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#fen-NASB-29644f)](O (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29644O))when the Lord Jesus will be revealed (P (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29644P))from heaven (Q (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29644Q))with [g (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#fen-NASB-29644g)]His mighty angels 8 (R (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29645R))in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who (S (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29645S))do not know God, and to those who (T (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29645T))do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These people will pay the penalty of (U (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29646U))eternal destruction, (V (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29646V))away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be (W (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29647W))glorified among His [h (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#fen-NASB-29647h)]saints on that (X (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29647X))day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—because our (Y (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1&version=NASB#cen-NASB-29647Y))testimony to you was believed."

Honestly, I have discharged my duty to you. You must make your own choices, but that is on you now. The truth is plainly before you.

The truth is plainly before you.
And I do my best, with God's help, to live that Truth.

great and since you believe the truth no need to argue about it

Can't help but wonder if this is a preview of national events yet to come.


Downtown Portland (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/portland), Oregon, erupted in violence yet again Thursday night, drawing tear gas and smoke bombs from federal officers who were deployed to quell the unrest, according to a report.
Rioters (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-protests) set fires (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/disasters/fires) and smashed windows (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/terror/vandalism) in the area of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse until being driven away by federal officers, OregonLive.com reported.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-rioters-draw-law-enforcement-response-near-federal-courthouse-report

Not exactly youth on the rampage but de javeu, these are rehashing former issues and riots, must be a very lawless place, Oregon, or maybe the populous have learned they can riot with impunity

I think the average person in Oregon is a law-abiding individual. Their liberal dem pols just don't have the courage to put a stop to this.

so not in favour of a massacre eh?

Wouldn’t need a massacre. Just a jail.