Parents beat son to death at church counseling session.

[bhavv]

Who here has made the claim that Christianity is inherently peaceful?

It was assumed that the children had sinned. Their sins may have been rebellion or drinking alcohol. As such the bible commands their death, however preferably by stoning and not beating.

And I like how you completely ignored the Abraham and Issac part. All that's required for a parent to kill their child under Christianity is that they believe that god has commanded them to do so.

 

[bhavv]

More:

He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15

He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. -- Genesis 22:2,10

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

 

[innonimatu]

I'm fairly surprised. I know there are crazy people about, but beating your own son to death because you think he's "sinned" is insane, and unusual, imo.

Secretive sects really should be investigated. And considered criminal associations and forcefully terminated when found to be enslaving people. That's what is happening in some of those sects.
Religious freedom ends up serving to shield their ongoing crimes (with authorities too afraid to intervene lest they be accused of discrimination) until they do something too notorious to ignore.

 

[abradley]

Who here has made the claim that Christianity is inherently peaceful?

It was assumed that the children had sinned. Their sins may have been rebellion or drinking alcohol. As such the bible commands their death, however preferably by stoning and not beating.

And I like how you completely ignored the Abraham and Issac part. All that's required for a parent to kill their child under Christianity is that they believe that god has commanded them to do so.

I have, Christianity is based on the teachings and life of Jesus, that's why it's call Christianity. Jesus/Christ is the New Covenant:

Christian view[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant#Christian_view

The Christian view of the New Covenant is a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus which necessarily includes all people,[10] both Jews and Gentiles, upon sincere declaration that one believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. The New Covenant also breaks the generational curse of the original sin on all children of Adam if they believe in Jesus Christ, after people are judged for their own sins, which is expected to happen with the second arrival of Jesus Christ.

29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. 30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

— Jeremiah 31:29–31
Thus as the Apostle Paul advises that the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai does not in itself prevent Jews from sinning and dying,[11] and is not given to Gentiles at all (only the Noahic covenant is unique in applying to all humanity), Christians believe the New Covenant ends the original sin and death for everyone who becomes a Christian and cannot simply be a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant since it seemingly accomplishes new things.[12] See types of Supersessionism for details.

Also based much on what Paul wrote, a dispensationalist Christian view of the nature of Israel is that it is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israelites. This spiritual Israel is based on the faith of the patriarch Abraham (before he was circumcised[13]) who was ministered by the Melchizedek priesthood, which is understood to be a type for the Christian faith of believing Jesus to be Christ and Lord in the order of Melchizedek. The Apostle Paul says that it is not "the children of the flesh" who are the children of God, but "the children of the promise".

"6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

— Romans 9:6–8

What is the effect of the New Covenant? It abrogated much of the old Mosaic law:

Hebrew 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

like:

John 8:1-11 New Living Translation (NLT)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8:1-11&version=NLT

A Woman Caught in Adultery
8 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

You'll notice the book this tale is taken from is called 'The New Testament' and the pre Jesus/Christ book is called the 'Old Testament.'

Did the people who committed the beatings do it thinking it was the Christian thing to do, may be?

But it wasn't.

What about all the violence in the Old Testament. For us Christians it's not meant to be taken literally, rather tales that teach a moral lesson, Bishop Barron explains it nicely in this short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0

And what about 'Abraham, Issac, and God', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53nJjwaZMeM

It's a lesson in trust.

And finally, how many violent acts are committed by Christians in Christ's name?

 

[abradley]

Secretive sects really should be investigated. And considered criminal associations and forcefully terminated when found to be enslaving people. That's what is happening in some of those sects.
Religious freedom ends up serving to shield their ongoing crimes (with authorities too afraid to intervene lest they be accused of discrimination) until they do something too notorious to ignore.

Don't forget the Constitution, you need evidence of wrong doing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Who here has made the claim that Christianity is inherently peaceful?

Is that a serious question? Haven't you been paying any attention at all to what has been posted in this forum in regard to all these "Islam is inherently evil" threads when I point out how hypocritical it is to not compare all Abrahamic religions the very same way?

It was assumed that the children had sinned. Their sins may have been rebellion or drinking alcohol. As such the bible commands their death, however preferably by stoning and not beating.

So your interpretation of the Bible calls of all children who have "sinned" to be stoned to death?

Doesn't it strike you as odd that hardly anybody actually did this? That virtually every single child hasn't been killed by their own parents, even though nearly everybody obviously "sins" in some way? That these religions are built on the concept of using guilt to turn people into believers?

This is just yet another example that you apparently don't know anything about Abrahamic religions.

And I like how you completely ignored the Abraham and Issac part. All that's required for a parent to kill their child under Christianity is that they believe that god has commanded them to do so.

The "part" where you completely failed to provide anything at all in regard to why you even mentioned it?

Did you actually read that section of the Bible? Did Abraham kill Issac? Why not?

 

[aelf]

I have, Christianity is based on the teachings and life of Jesus, that's why it's call Christianity. Jesus/Christ is the New Covenant:What is the effect of the New Covenant? It abrogated much of the old Mosaic law: [/B]like: You'll notice the book this tale is taken from is called 'The New Testament' and the pre Jesus/Christ book is called the 'Old Testament.'

Did the people who committed the beatings do it thinking it was the Christian thing to do, may be?

But it wasn't.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Matthew 5:17

What about all the violence in the Old Testament. For us Christians it's not meant to be taken literally, rather tales that teach a moral lesson, Bishop Barron explains it nicely in this short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0

Oh, same as in Islam, I guess.

 

[EnglishEdward]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Matthew 5:17

This should not be wilfully misinterpreted into meaning that each
and every law in the Old Testament was endorsed by Jesus Christ.

In many instances Jesus more or less repudiated them.
For instance he worked on the Sabbath and preached forgiveness.

The only people Jesus beat were the moneychangers in the temple,
and when I think of the damage resulting from fraudsters and their
gambling involved in derivatives etc for sub-prime property, I agree.

 

[abradley]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Matthew 5:17



Oh, same as in Islam, I guess.

EnglishEdward answered the Mathew 5:17 ques.

As for the same as Islam, no.

PS
Assume you watched the videos, thank you.

 

[JollyRoger]

No true Christian accepts half the Bible as applicable. No true Muslim ignores a single verse.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh boy. Sorry I wasn't here sooner, but if one happens to be of the mindset that I should immediately be present in a thread I haven't been online to read, then ok, you have my wholehearted condemnation of this murder(should it be determined to be so, or manslaughter, or whatever) too.

I mean, it's a pretty dog-eared page to take from the big bigot's playbook for the religiously intolerant, but seeing as even Sommer thinks that every member of a religion owes an apology for what crazy people do in their name, you can have an apology from me that Christians would do this too.

This an adequate condemnation and apology or does one seek more?

 

[aelf]

This should not be wilfully misinterpreted into meaning that each
and every law in the Old Testament was endorsed by Jesus Christ.

In many instances Jesus more or less repudiated them.
For instance he worked on the Sabbath and preached forgiveness.

The only people Jesus beat were the moneychangers in the temple,
and when I think of the damage resulting from fraudsters and their
gambling involved in derivatives etc for sub-prime property, I agree.

EnglishEdward answered the Mathew 5:17 ques.

As for the same as Islam, no.

Oh, so you're saying that I can't cherry pick verses from one holy book but I can from another?

Oh boy. Sorry I wasn't here sooner, but if one happens to be of the mindset that I should immediately be present in a thread I haven't been online to read, then ok, you have my wholehearted condemnation of this murder(should it be determined to be so, or manslaughter, or whatever) too.

I mean, it's a pretty dog-eared page to take from the big bigot's playbook for the religiously intolerant, but seeing as even Sommer thinks that every member of a religion owes an apology for what crazy people do in their name, you can have an apology from me that Christians would do this too.

This an adequate condemnation and apology or does one seek more?

I was actually more interested in your opinion of other people in the thread. I have seldom seen you opine about the OP in threads like this. Typically, you reserve your efforts for going against the grain and ranting about everyone's reactions instead. Naturally, I expected the same here.

I'm also not privy to your online activity, so I wouldn't know if you've not had the chance to see a thread or have simply skipped it.

 

[Borachio]

Oh boy. Sorry I wasn't here sooner, but if one happens to be of the mindset that I should immediately be present in a thread I haven't been online to read, then ok, you have my wholehearted condemnation of this murder(should it be determined to be so, or manslaughter, or whatever) too.

I mean, it's a pretty dog-eared page to take from the big bigot's playbook for the religiously intolerant, but seeing as even Sommer thinks that every member of a religion owes an apology for what crazy people do in their name, you can have an apology from me that Christians would do this too.

This an adequate condemnation and apology or does one seek more?

I demand some immediate sign of penitence.

An internet version of this should do nicely.


Link to video.

Thank you, in advance.

C'mon, it's the least you can do.

 

[abradley]

Oh, so you're saying that I can't cherry pick verses from one holy book but I can from another?
{Snip}

You can, but for it to be pertinent it depends on the Religion, the Holy Book, and the Passages.

 

[JollyRoger]

I just think a God that pierces the tympanic membrane and penetrates the tympanic cavity of a virgin is kind of creepy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It sounds more like Rosemary's Baby than a fictional account about non-violence.