What does the Bible teach about physical abuse?

[Sanoy]

The good news is there is plenty of mockery in the Bible. You know, the approved mockery that you could enjoy because it mocks other religious views.
For examples of mockery, check out what Elijah said about Baal in 1 Kings 18, or what Paul said about those who want to circumcise and follow the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:12).

Mockery is good, as long as Christians are doing the mocking. Can I get an Amen to that?

I don't get my theology from mockery videos, and neither should you.

 

[Halbhh]

The good news is there is plenty of mockery in the Bible. You know, the approved mockery that you could enjoy because it mocks other religious views.
For examples of mockery, check out what Elijah said about Baal in 1 Kings 18, or what Paul said about those who want to circumcise and follow the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:12).

Mockery is good, as long as Christians are doing the mocking. Can I get an Amen to that?

Mockery -- "teasing and contemptuous language or behavior directed at a particular person or thing."

Where is that in this chapter --
1 Kings 18 NIV ?

And, it's not in verse 12 here once you get the overall situation:
Galatians 5 NIV

Paul, recognizing the great harm in trying to justify oneself by works of the law instead of recognizing we are only justified by Grace through faith, is saying in verse 12 it would be better if those preaching that deadly idea were transformed radically.

Why? Because they are doing something even worse than killing others.

The tone is serious, not mocking. That they should be radically changed, instead of destroying others with a deadly wrong idea.

It reminds of another instance of similar serious tone, where Paul's instruction to put someone openly flaunting their sexual wrongdoing out of a church so that by suffering they might be possibly turned around --

1 Corinthians 5:5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.

In both cases, the tone is very serious.

An angry and serious tone:
Galatians 5:12 As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves!

Reminds us also of the hyperbolic but serious:
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
(which means take actions to avoid temptations that are deadly, doing whatever needed, such as changing your route, or selling your TV, or even getting rid of your computer if needed: do what it takes to remove the temptation)

 

[RDKirk]

Well, as it was he healed (relatively speaking) very few people.

That wasn't His primary mission.

Also, I would have created a moral system, where a woman could have divorced for abuse, and not have to wait until her abuser commits adultery.

The Matthew 18 method of dealing with offenses between Christians is intended to be operational for a married couple as it would be for offenses between any two Christians.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't get my theology from mockery videos, and neither should you.

Information is information... If the provided information is sound, it can come from an 8th grader, or a double major graduate professor.

In regards to mockery, it sometimes can serve some purpose... Sometimes a little healthy mockery can serve to get the opponent to really think about certain aspects of their beliefs. The mockery should only hurt the opponent, if what the mocker is mocking insults the actual person themselves, and not what the offended person believes (i.e) Bible verses, or any other written claims of divinity - not written by the believer.

Case and point, I doubt a biology professor gets offended when an Evangelical mocks written aspects of 'macroevolution'.

The question is, does the mocking of such verses provide sound reasoning? If so, refute the argument; don't cry, "I'm offended." If the writer exists (i.e.) God/other, they will take care of the mocker themselves

Remember, the Bible is there for anyone to read.

 

[Sanoy]

Information is information... If the provided information is sound, it can come from an 8th grader, or a double major graduate professor.

In regards to mockery, it sometimes can serve some purpose... Sometimes a little healthy mockery can serve to get the opponent to really think about certain aspects of their beliefs. The mockery should only hurt the opponent, if what the mocker is mocking insults the actual person themselves, and not what the offended person believes (i.e) Bible verses, or any other written claims of divinity - not written by the believer.

Case and point, I doubt a biology professor gets offended when an Evangelical mocks written aspects of 'macroevolution'.

The question is, does the mocking of such verses provide sound reasoning? If so, refute the argument; don't cry, "I'm offended." If the writer exists (i.e.) God/other, they will take care of the mocker themselves

Remember, the Bible is there for anyone to read.

I challenge that information is being provided.

FYI. Mockery isn't allowed here, however useful or important to your repertoire you may think it is.

 

[BigV]

The Matthew 18 method of dealing with offenses between Christians is intended to be operational for a married couple as it would be for offenses between any two Christians.

I disagree. How do you treat a husband or a wife as a tax collector without divorcing them? Jesus explicitly said to not divorce (except for adultery), but the church was given an option to excommunicate people for various reasons.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, it's not just women who are abused by men. IIRC, something like from 1 in 7, to 1 in 10 men are physically abused by their wives or women partners. (Not to mention abuse within same sex relationships. Though traditionally religious believers wouldn't consider those as valid marriages.) So a maybe all of us could be federal employees. Which might actually happen. I can imagine that in another century or two, everyone will be working for the government.

Edited to add: Not to go off-topic. But as I think about it, a time when everyone is a government employee may be what eschatologically minded Christians think of as the Tribulation.

Yes, as a Social Science major, I'm already aware that some men are and have been abused. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[BigV]

Mockery -- "teasing and contemptuous language or behavior directed at a particular person or thing."

1 Kings 18:27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

What did Elijah mean by 'busy'?

1 Kings

....However, Elijah refused to acknowledge that Baal was a god at all. He suggested that Baal might be "occupied" (v. 27; lit. relieving himself)...

And in Galatians, Paul suggests that whoever wants to be circumcised should castrate themselves. Is that not a mockery?

 

[Halbhh]

I challenge that information is being provided.

FYI. Mockery isn't allowed here, however useful or important to your repertoire you may think it is.

That's a good point. How could we help someone that doesn't even realize they are mocking others unless they get reported, and learn from the experience? Out of many thousands of posts I've read here, I've only reported I think less than 10. But my reluctance to report clear violations may not have been the best practice. Perhaps we should begin to report more.

 

[Sanoy]

That's a good point. How could we help someone that doesn't even realize they are mocking others unless they get reported, and learn from the experience? Out of many thousands of posts I've read here, I've only reported I think less than 10. But my reluctance to report clear violations may not have been the best practice. Perhaps we should begin to report more.

Yep, and I think the limited SOP has unfortunately become an umbrella under which poor intentions have come to roost, and fighting for fighting sake. It is turning into a shield for rhetoric, incorrigibility, and extreme insincerity when debate is supposed to be about coming together for the truth.

"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs"

 

[Halbhh]

1 Kings 18:27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

What did Elijah mean by 'busy'?

1 Kings

....However, Elijah refused to acknowledge that Baal was a god at all. He suggested that Baal might be "occupied" (v. 27; lit. relieving himself)...

And in Galatians, Paul suggests that whoever wants to be circumcised should castrate themselves. Is that not a mockery?

Ah, let's look and see enough to have a sense of what is happening and what the words refer to --

22Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”

Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”

25Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

27At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

28So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention. ..."
---------

What is Elijah highlighting here? He is showing the emptiness in the expectation that an idol can answer.

He is not mocking an individual we can see, but mocking a belief in an idol.

We can indeed criticize and show the wrongness in ideas, things, actions, doctrines, notions, theories, etc., etc., etc.

None of those is mocking a person.

A person isn't their idea. The idea a person has isn't the person themselves.

You and I could indeed criticize an idea, or show an idea to be empty, wrong, etc...

If you mock a person themselves that's a very different thing.

 

[Halbhh]

And in Galatians, Paul suggests that whoever wants to be circumcised should castrate themselves. Is that not a mockery?

Paul, recognizing the great harm in trying to justify oneself by works of the law instead of recognizing we are only justified by Grace through faith, is saying in verse 12 it would be better if those preaching that deadly idea were transformed radically.

Why? Because they are doing something even worse than killing others.

The tone is serious, not mocking. That they should be radically changed, instead of destroying others with a deadly wrong idea.

It reminds of another instance of similar serious tone, where Paul's instruction to put someone openly flaunting their sexual wrongdoing out of a church so that by suffering they might be possibly turned around --

1 Corinthians 5:5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.

In both cases, the tone is very serious.

An angry and serious tone:
Galatians 5:12 As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves!

Reminds us also of the hyperbolic but serious:
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
(which means take actions to avoid temptations that are deadly, doing whatever needed, such as changing your route, or selling your TV, or even getting rid of your computer if needed: do what it takes to remove the temptation)

 

[cvanwey]

FYI. Mockery isn't allowed here, however useful or important to your repertoire you may think it is.

FYI, I'm aware of the guidelines. My (point) is mockery can be used as an effective tool, as long as you refrain from ad hominems. The fact that it is discouraged from being used here, is the decision of the forum providers, and their rules. If I should choose to speak about certain topics, not allowed here, I go elsewhere.

 

[Moral Orel]

FYI, I'm aware of the guidelines. My (point) is mockery can be used as an effective tool, as long as you refrain from ad hominems. The fact that it is discouraged from being used here, is the decision of the forum providers, and their rules. If I should choose to speak about certain topics, not allowed here, I go elsewhere.

No, mockery just makes people defensive. Mocking a belief just implies that the person is stupid for believing it. So yeah, it's always directed at the person even if you don't come right out and say it.

Don't get me wrong, I mock people all the time. It's a lot of fun. I just refrain when I'm actually trying to be persuasive. I watched your little video, I found it funny, and I generally agree with a lot of it. But the idea that such a thing is going to change anyone's mind is retarded.

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree. How do you treat a husband or a wife as a tax collector without divorcing them? Jesus explicitly said to not divorce (except for adultery), but the church was given an option to excommunicate people for various reasons.

Actually, there are various ways, separation being one of them.

But you stepped right over the first point Jesus made, which is that reconciliation is the primary intent.

And indeed, in most cases, the preference of wives is to end the abuse, not to end the marriage.

Ending fellowship with the offender is the last step when repentance is rejected (which, btw, is adultery--the term is not confined solely to illegitimate sexual activity) and reconciliation are impossible. In that case, not only is the offender separated from the spouse--but from fellowship with all other Christians.

 

[cvanwey]

No, mockery just makes people defensive.

I agree. But regardless of being defensive, sometimes, the person whom takes it too personal, might feel compelled, or 'forced' even, to justify their position, in defense of the mockery. If they can, great. If they are too frustrated, they may stew about it for a while, and when they calm down, think about it later. If they still cannot defend their position there-after, they may subconsciously reconcile a contradiction against their current position. They may never admit it externally, but they will then know there is/are positions out there, in which they choose to steer clear of, to self-protect their most cherished beliefs. In such cases, may then demonstrate intellectual dishonesty?.?.?

Mocking a belief just implies that the person is stupid for believing it. So yeah, it's always directed at the person even if you don't come right out and say it.

I would have to mostly agree here as well... However, as I stated to @Sanoy , it doesn't mean the tactic is not useful for some very specific purposes. Again, if the purpose for the mocking is to get the opponent to really think about it, then the mocking may be an effective 'tool' to really get the opponent thinking. And yes, often times, the defense knee-jerk response is to shut down. But in other cases, as stated above, can sometimes get the opponent to later think about the opposing statements.... Maybe while they are in bed trying to sleep..?

Don't get me wrong, I mock people all the time. It's a lot of fun. I just refrain when I'm actually trying to be persuasive. I watched your little video, I found it funny, and I generally agree with a lot of it. But the idea that such a thing is going to change anyone's mind is retarded.

I would assume you are speaking about the "Christian Justice" video? In such a case, I already know I'm not going to persuade the direct person, in which I'm engaging. However, I am aware that many people read these forums, of all differing walks of life. Those people have no personal vested interest in 'winning' the one-on-one debate. In such a case (here), I trust many may understand that we are not going to change the mind of the person, in which we directly engage upon.?.? Maybe?

 

[Halbhh]

... They may never admit it externally, but they will then know there is/are positions out there, in which they choose to steer clear of, to self-protect their most cherished beliefs. In such cases, may then demonstrate intellectual dishonesty?.?.?

The whole problem with trying to guess at what is in other people's minds/motives/etc. is one ends up only 'projecting' -- you project onto them, see them doing (in your guess at what they are doing) what is actually your own action you don't admit to yourself.

It's when one doesn't admit to a wrong that they see it so much in others.

The mind senses that thing is happening -- e.g. 'intellectual dishonesty' for instance -- but since the mind denies one's own self is the one doing it, it gets projected onto others. That way the feeling it is happening is respected, while maintaining the self-illusion.

A good hint about this error is that one would have to be omniscient to know so well the exact situation in the minds of others -- and none of us can be. We are not telepathic, not that omniscient. We can't know others that perfectly.

As Someone wiser than all of us said:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

 

[cvanwey]

The whole problem with trying to guess at what is in other people's minds/motives/etc. is one ends up only 'projecting' -- you project onto them, see them doing (in your guess at what they are doing) what is actually your own action you don't admit to yourself.

It's when one doesn't admit to a wrong that they see it so much in others.

The mind senses that thing is happening -- e.g. 'intellectual dishonesty' for instance -- but since the mind denies one's own self is the one doing it, it gets projected onto others. That way the feeling it is happening is respected, while maintaining the self-illusion.

A good hint about this error is that one would have to be omniscient to know so well the exact situation in the minds of others -- and none of us can be. We are not telepathic, not that omniscient. We can't know others that perfectly.

As Someone wiser than all of us said:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

I find it interesting that you chose to quote a very specific portion of my response, but do not appear to address what it says?

In my personal case here, I found contradictions in Christianity, and therefore, logically, and being intellectually honest with myself, was forced to abandon my prior faith/belief. Sure, it may claim some agreeable, or 'good' stuff, but I would need to also ignore the things in which I do not agree with. And to do that, I would be placed into a precarious position... How do I square these 'discrepancies'?

Does this mean I'm correct? Not necessarily. However, to my best abilities currently, Christianity make claims in which I can no longer reconcile intellectually. That's all... And personal belief is individual.

 

[Halbhh]

I find it interesting that you chose to quote a very specific portion of my response, but do not appear to address what it says?

In my personal case here, I found contradictions in Christianity, and therefore, logically, and being intellectually honest with myself, was forced to abandon my prior faith/belief. Sure, it may claim some agreeable, or 'good' stuff, but I would need to also ignore the things in which I do not agree with. And to do that, I would be placed into a precarious position... How do I square these 'discrepancies'?

Does this mean I'm correct? Not necessarily. However, to my best abilities currently, Christianity make claims in which I can no longer reconcile intellectually. That's all... And personal belief is individual.

Though your post was to someone else, I thought that one topic might be helpful to address. It's not good to address too many points at once. (often not even more than 2 at most)

What would you like me to address specifically?

 

[cvanwey]

Though your post was to someone else, I thought that one topic might be helpful to address. It's not good to address too many points at once. (often not even more than 2 at most)

What would you like me to address specifically?

Address this...

What is your final point supposed to be?

My final point was to suggest that, in some very specific cases, mocking something that someone else wrote, in which others decide to believe, can be an effective way to get the believer thinking about it. Do many shut down, remain butt-hurt, ect.? yes.

But in some cases, the opponent might later really think about the statements, and attempt to size them up after they calm down. Again, my point is that the act of such specific types of mocking can have their place. And in this case, I mean to get the opponent to try their earnest and best to refute the 'mocking.' And if they find they cannot, ever, they will then be, for the rest of their lives, knowing of a position(s) which do not jive with their beliefs in that category or subject matter.

Fin

************************

Pardon the 'gish-gallop' below'... It is just meant to demonstrate my earnest current position...

On a side note, it's not like something in other categories, such as history or science. The Bible is a 66 Chapter, 40 'person' authored, all-in-one encompassing Book.

In regards to the Bible, it is said to be God inspired. Would God inspire general concepts which appear to completely defy all of physical human discovery? Would God endorse a claim, based upon scanty evidence at best? Would God endorse temporary or permanent concepts which look to promote inequality of humans? Would God convey a message in a way in which most humans may misinterpret earnestly? Would God expect you to believe it, when you cannot get yourself to believe in it; and then punish you for not?

Just concepts to think about.... I know I did/do.....