What does the Bible teach about physical abuse?

[Halbhh]

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.....

Mocking is just only a wrong, since it goes against the definition of what is good:

"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law..."

It's wrong, as you can sense if someone does it to you.

In a way, life is about choosing the good, and leaving evil (wrongdoing). Christ is the way for doing that fully and well.

But even before someone has Christ, life is still really best about choosing the good for oneself and others, and leaving what harms the good.

Since mocking harms many in many situations, it's never for the good, never a path to the good.

----------
Would God inspire general concepts which appear to completely defy all of physical human discovery?

Answer: No.
Best to discuss that unconnected topic in a science thread or another thread elsewhere. Probably best if you want good answers to discuss it with a believer that is knowledgeable in some sciences. I would be willing as duties permit. You can message me in case I don't see it.

Would God endorse a claim, based upon scanty evidence at best?

Answer: If you mean something like --
Why wouldn't God give us easy evidence to know He is real?
We hear throughout scripture that God wants the strong form of trust, called 'faith', from us. Easy evidence would preempt, preclude, obviate faith.

I cannot have 'faith' that I have a car, when I can just look and confirm it easily.

Easy evidence would harm the purpose of life here then.

Faith is to believe, trust, before easy evidence comes, which can only then come to someone after that sufficient level of faith, but not before that faith. If it came before it would extensively contradict the Bible (hundreds of instances).

I'll stop here, since it's not helpful to write more than a couple of points normally.

 

[cvanwey]

Mocking is just only a wrong, since it goes against the definition of what is good:

"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law..."

It's wrong, as you can sense if someone does it to you.

In a way, life is about choosing the good, and leaving evil (wrongdoing). Christ is the way for doing that fully and well.

But even before someone has Christ, life is still really best about choosing the good for oneself and others, and leaving what harms the good.

Since mocking harms many in many situations, it's never for the good, never a path to the good.

Well, like I stated, in certain applications, the mocking may be the only way to grab their attention. Sometimes, the opponent will then remember what was said, later reflect upon it, and attempt to reconcile what the person said. Otherwise, nice and civil exchange may instead get lost in the ether.

Again, it sometimes can be a useful 'tool' to get the opponent to really think about the subject matter. And then attempt to defend against it...

And as you know, sometimes, the only way to get through to someone, is by not being so 'nice' about it

 

[Halbhh]

Well, like I stated, in certain applications, the mocking may be the only way to grab their attention. Sometimes, the opponent will then remember what was said, later reflect upon it, and attempt to reconcile what the person said. Otherwise, nice and civil exchange may instead get lost in the ether.

Again, it sometimes can be a useful 'tool' to get the opponent to really think about the subject matter. And then attempt to defend against it...

And as you know, sometimes, the only way to get through to someone, is by not being so 'nice' about it

That could mean so many different things -- 'being nice'.

I think you'll notice that you don't like it if someone mocks you in a cutting or hurtful way. It's not good when someone does it to you. Ergo, therefore it's not any better if you do it to someone. Since we can't know just what is cutting or hurtful to a stranger, we shouldn't even take the risk.

Fortunately for us, someone wiser than us told us how to know or any situation when something is good or bad to do:

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree.

Then the rest of your post is bunk. It just makes people defensive. It doesn't make them think about their position in a critical way. It's actually a distraction from thinking about their belief and their hurt feelings will be the only thing they dwell on.

If you want to change someone's beliefs, you need to make them feel comfortable while they consider the alternative. Causing discomfort at the thought of changing their beliefs only reinforces the beliefs further. If you mock my beliefs, and I get all butt-hurt about it, when I think about those beliefs critically in the future, I'm going to remember being all butt-hurt and stop thinking about it to stop feeling butt-hurt. It's negative reinforcement.

As a note, I was referring to the "Jesus Interpreter" video that BigV posted, and that you were defending to Sanoy.

 

[cvanwey]

Then the rest of your post is bunk. It just makes people defensive. It doesn't make them think about their position in a critical way. It's actually a distraction from thinking about their belief and their hurt feelings will be the only thing they dwell on.

If you want to change someone's beliefs, you need to make them feel comfortable while they consider the alternative. Causing discomfort at the thought of changing their beliefs only reinforces the beliefs further. If you mock my beliefs, and I get all butt-hurt about it, when I think about those beliefs critically in the future, I'm going to remember being all butt-hurt and stop thinking about it to stop feeling butt-hurt. It's negative reinforcement.

As a note, I was referring to the "Jesus Interpreter" video that BigV posted, and that you were defending to Sanoy.

I agree, again. (Please don't chop the rest this time...)

Let me try a differing approach...

I live among many Evangelicals. We've had many very civil discussions. However, in some very specific instances, it was not until I started mocking specific passages from the Bible, was when they later came back to me, to try and defend their case. Which means what I stated had greater impact, which led them to reflect and attempt a come-back at a later time. Had I merely exchanged the idea, with pure modesty, they most surely would have never brought up the content again.

So, like I stated, though I do agree with much of what you are stating, as it is a general foundation to get across, as you 'catch more flies with honey'.... In some specific cases, mockery can serve as an effective 'tool' to get across your point(s).

 

[BigV]

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.

The text is the text, and the interpretation is yours and mine. I don't see Jesus saying that reconciliation is the main goal. He says if someone doesn't listen to the church, then should be treated as a tax collector or a Gentile (btw, a strange thing to say when Jesus himself was friends of these groups).

So, what is a woman to do if her husbands abuses her repeatedly without regard for the church? You are making the rules for the church applicable to a marriage and I'm the one not taking "context" into account? (this question is more for @Sanoy and the superman crash dummy)

 

[SPF]

So, what is a woman to do if her husbands abuses her repeatedly without regard for the church?

She should get out of the situation. She should leave. You won't find a single credible Biblical commentary that suggests that a correct interpretation is that a woman should stay in an abusive relationship. Not a single one. Take a hint and realize your Biblical trolling is failing. I recommend finding something in Scripture you don't like that Christians actually agree with.

 

[cvanwey]

That could mean so many different things -- 'being nice'.

I think you'll notice that you don't like it if someone mocks you in a cutting or hurtful way. It's not good when someone does it to you. Ergo, therefore it's not any better if you do it to someone. Since we can't know just what is cutting or hurtful to a stranger, we shouldn't even take the risk.

Fortunately for us, someone wiser than us told us how to know or any situation when something is good or bad to do:

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

Who says anyone likes being mocked? However, in some cases, the mocked person may then wish to 'prove' the mocker wrong. If they can, great. If they can't, then, well, maybe only then will the person whom is being mocked, may have no choice but to reconcile that the mocker has a point.

 

[Sanoy]

So, what is a woman to do if her husbands abuses her repeatedly without regard for the church?

Up to her, not me.

 

[SPF]

Who says anyone likes being mocked? However, in some cases, the mocked person may then wish to 'prove' the mocker wrong. If they can, great. If they can't, then, well, maybe only then will the person whom is being mocked, may have no choice but to reconcile that the mocker has a point.

Speaking of mocking, your Avatar, while somewhat humorous, is indeed mocking Christianity in itself, which is ironic given what you're talking about.

 

[cvanwey]

Speaking of mocking, your Avatar, while somewhat humorous, is indeed mocking Christianity in itself, which is ironic given what you're talking about.

Well, I've been a contributing member for about two years now. If the moderators had a problem with it, they certainly would have brought it up by now. Hence, it must conform to their guidelines. Which means, maybe they do not deem as such mockery.

And to key off of what you stated, that it is 'somewhat humorous' - some 'true' observations are humorous

 

[SPF]

Well, I've been a contributing member for about two years now. If the moderators had a problem with it, they certainly would have brought it up by now. Hence, it must conform to their guidelines. Which means, maybe they do not deem as such mockery.

And to key off of what you stated, that it is 'somewhat humorous' - some 'true' observations are humorous

Oh, it's definitely mocking Christianity. If you can't even be honest about that, then I really don't know what to say...

 

[Halbhh]

Who says anyone likes being mocked? However, in some cases, the mocked person may then wish to 'prove' the mocker wrong. If they can, great. If they can't, then, well, maybe only then will the person whom is being mocked, may have no choice but to reconcile that the mocker has a point.

No. This looks to be just a rationalization, even though you could point to Rocky or some movie possibly, or a desire to win in a competition. But in matters of life, deeper things, there is no such thing as win/lose between 2 people I think. Ergo, if one thinks they are 'winning' against another person, then they are already losing, because it was never a situation with a victor and a defeated, not in the deeper ways that matter. I don't know if I could prove that to you (you'd have to be sympathetically wanting to see if it's true on your own).

 

[cvanwey]

Oh, it's definitely mocking Christianity. If you can't even be honest about that, then I really don't know what to say...

mocking - "making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive"

When did I state whether or not I think it's mocking? I stated the moderators must not deem the avatar as such...

Is it mocking? Well, depends on whom you ask, I guess... According the moderators, it's not. Thus, why would it matter whether or not I consider it mocking?

 

[cvanwey]

No. This looks to be just a rationalization, even though you could point to Rocky or some movie possibly, or a desire to win in a competition. But in matters of life, deeper things, there is no such thing as win/lose between 2 people I think.

I disagree here. In regards to belief in 'Christ, as the living God', much of what you just stated sometimes lives or dies by this demonstrated method...

At the end of the day, God cares that you believe He is the living God. Often times, it is because of the opposing words of one's opponent, which compels one to then believe.

Heck, I see this in church all the time. The doubter hears the message from the pastor/minister/priest, and then decides to be saved there-after. All-the-while, such a pastor/priest/minister could have delivered, in their sermon, forms of 'mockery.' (i.e.) They could have told all non-Christians that what they currently believe, (i.e) opposing God(s) or other, are incorrect and/or 'just want to live in sin'. Many of whom would consider as mockery, to their own current beliefs and/or ideals/positions.

And if/when this person then believes, (i.e.) Christianity, they may then begin to justify their new beliefs, using all sorts of methods.

 

[Halbhh]

I disagree here. In regards to belief in 'Christ, as the living God', much of what you just stated sometimes lives or dies by this demonstrated method...

At the end of the day, God cares that you believe He is the living God. Often times, it is because of the opposing words of one's opponent, which compels one to then believe.

Heck, I see this in church all the time. The doubter hears the message from the pastor/minister/priest, and then decides to be saved there-after. All-the-while, such a pastor/priest/minister could have delivered, in their sermon, forms of 'mockery.' (i.e.) They could have told all non-Christians that what they currently believe, (i.e) opposing God(s) or other, are incorrect and/or 'just want to live in sin'. Many of whom would consider as mockery, to their own current beliefs and/or ideals/positions.

And if/when this person then believes, (i.e.) Christianity, they may then begin to justify their new beliefs, using all sorts of methods.

Skepticism could be useful if one uses it to question all assumptions, not only those on one seeming side, but one's own. Few can do that perhaps. It's radical to question one's preferred ideas, really. I did though, since I wanted better, better even than what I already had. One way to test one's own view is to try out, actually try out in real life, another way, a new one. It's possible to try out what Jesus said to do in a real way (which isn't at all like being in a church or listening to a sermon, or growing up 'Christian', etc.).

 

[cvanwey]

Skepticism could be useful if one uses it to question all assumptions, not only those on one seeming side, but one's own. Few can do that perhaps. It's radical to question one's preferred ideas, really. I did though, since I wanted better, better even than what I already had. One way to test one's own view is to try out, actually try out in real life, another way, a new one. It's possible to try out what Jesus said to do in a real way (which isn't at all like being in a church or listening to a sermon, or growing up 'Christian', etc.).

Though I appreciate your responses, your continuous 'plugs' for Christianity do little, to nothing, for someone whom gave it a very earnest, and very fair shake, for ~3 decades.

And again, as I feel I've told you in the past, even if someone preaching sometimes turns out 'correct', does nothing to validate that they rose from the dead to save humanity.

So you can tell me to follow one of Jesus' teachings. However, to believe He is anything other than a person in history, is another can of worms entirely

 

[Sanoy]

Well, I've been a contributing member for about two years now. If the moderators had a problem with it, they certainly would have brought it up by now. Hence, it must conform to their guidelines. Which means, maybe they do not deem as such mockery.

I would not conclude that because they haven't said something that they are okay with it or that whether or not something is actual mockery depends on a forums moderators.

 

[cvanwey]

I would not conclude that because they haven't said something that they are okay with it or that whether or not something is actual mockery depends on a forums moderators.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[cloudyday2]

If that were true, He would have healed or fed nobody.

Rather, He intended that the Body of Christ cooperate internally to meet the human needs of those within the Body of Christ (see Mark 10).

I know some Christians make a big deal of suffering because both Peter and Paul mentioned that suffering the hostility of men for the gospel was in imitation of Christ's suffering.

But Jesus did not endorse suffering for the sake of suffering, and the members of His Body should be acting compassionately within the Body to ease each other's physical suffering.

Starvation was rampant in first century Galilee. Archaeologists have seen the evidence for almost universal famine in the skeletons. People nearly starved to death many times throughout their lives. Most people were sick more days than they were well.

If relief of physical suffering was a purpose of the ministry of Jesus, then he failed. According the gospels, Jesus healed people and Jesus fed some people, but this was not his purpose. "Man does not live by bread alone".

 

[SPF]

Starvation was rampant in first century Galilee. Archaeologists have seen the evidence for almost universal famine in the skeletons. People nearly starved to death many times throughout their lives. Most people were sick more days than they were well.

Citation?