More Fun with Squirrel's Bible Quiz!

[brainpan]

1.What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child??

a. There is none, god loves us all, and would not think of harming a child!
b. Sit the child in the corner.
c. Take the child out and stone it to death.
c. Take away the child's toys.

2.After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, how many of their own people did they kill, at God's behest, for declining to give God His due?

a. None. God would not order His people to kill each other.
b. 10. The number of people who chose to follow that evil Satan.
c. 3,000 spouses and siblings in a single day
d. Just two dozen total over two weeks.

3. Who is holiest to God?

a. God loves all of us, and if we accept Jesus, we are equal in the Lord's eyes no matter we do.
b. A man who marries once and is always faithful to his wife, and is good to his kids.
c. A man who avoids sex through sheer willpower.
d. A man who avoids sex through castration.

4. What type of blasphemy yields eternal damnation?

a. None. All sins are forgiven when the sinner accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior.
b. Blasphemy of God, the Father, for He is ruler over all.
c. Blasphemy of Jesus, the Son, because He died for our sins.
d. You can be forgiven for blaspheming Jesus, but blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable and begins your descent into the fiery abyss.

5. What words can earn you a one-way ticket straight to Satan's lair?

a. None. God would never condemn someone merely for an angry utterance
b. Threatening the meek so they and their children are in fear of their lives when they have done nothing wrong.
c. Calling someone a fool.
d. Falsely accusing someone of following other gods than Him, resulting in that person being wrongly executed.

6. Why are there clouds in the sky?

a. Heat causes water on the Earth to condense and rise into the atmosphere where it forms clouds.
b. Clouds are God's footprints in Heaven and are made up of the dust from his feet.

7. What causes tornadoes to form?

a. High and low pressure weather fronts collide, causing a whilrwind to form in the upper atmosphere which sometimes extends to the ground.
b. God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick result, as opposed to the somewhat slower means of plagues and pestilence.

8. Does God hate anyone?

a. NO! God is a God of love and tenderness, He loves us all equally.
b. Yes, He hates sinners, and the sin they commit.
c. He really hated Esau, I mean really hated.
d. God hates the Devil.

9. When was Jesus born?

a. Before 4 B.C.
b. 6 A.D. or 7 A.D.
c. All of the above.

10.Once He had gotten everyone's attention with a wildly dramatic gesture, what were Jesus' very last words on the cross before He "gave up the ghost"?

a. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
b. "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"
c. "It is finished"
d. All the above.

Check your answers to see if you made it to heaven!

1. c-stone the child to death.
2. c-3000 women and children killed in a day.
3. d-catrated men are holiest to God.
4. d-blasheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable.
5. c-whoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
6. b-clouds are God's footprints.
7. b-God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when he desires quick result.
8. c-God really, really hated Esau.
9. c-Jesus was born on 4 B.C., 6 A.D., and 7 A.D.
10. d- Jesus' very last words include three completely different statements.

squirrelsisland.com (http://squirrelsisland.com/articles%20by%20me/bible/answers1.htm)

[faithfulservant]

1.What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child??

a. There is none, god loves us all, and would not think of harming a child!
b. Sit the child in the corner.
c. Take the child out and stone it to death.
c. Take away the child's toys.

e. spank the child Proverbs 22:15

2.After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, how many of their own people did they kill, at God's behest, for declining to give God His due?

a. None. God would not order His people to kill each other.
b. 10. The number of people who chose to follow that evil Satan.
c. 3,000 spouses and siblings in a single day
d. Just two dozen total over two weeks.

They were killed because they were worshipping "gods' who commanded human sacrifice. IOW, they were bad seed.

3. Who is holiest to God?

a. God loves all of us, and if we accept Jesus, we are equal in the Lord's eyes no matter we do.
b. A man who marries once and is always faithful to his wife, and is good to his kids.
c. A man who avoids sex through sheer willpower.
d. A man who avoids sex through castration.

We are not made holy by our actions, but His sacrifice Colossians 1:22

4. What type of blasphemy yields eternal damnation?

a. None. All sins are forgiven when the sinner accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior.
b. Blasphemy of God, the Father, for He is ruler over all.
c. Blasphemy of Jesus, the Son, because He died for our sins.
d. You can be forgiven for blaspheming Jesus, but blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable and begins your descent into the fiery abyss.
To 'blaspheme" the Holy Spirit, means to ignore His prompting to repent and turn back to God through Jesus Christ. This is what leads to eternal damnation.

5. What words can earn you a one-way ticket straight to Satan's lair?

a. None. God would never condemn someone merely for an angry utterance
b. Threatening the meek so they and their children are in fear of their lives when they have done nothing wrong.
c. Calling someone a fool.
d. Falsely accusing someone of following other gods than Him, resulting in that person being wrongly executed.

Being in danger of damnation is not damnation. The verse referred to clearly refers to being angry without cause and is a reference to the unrighteous anger that the legalistic leaders would reserve for those who didn't meet thier standards, with no regard to God's standards.

6. Why are there clouds in the sky?

a. Heat causes water on the Earth to condense and rise into the atmosphere where it forms clouds.
b. Clouds are God's footprints in Heaven and are made up of the dust from his feet.

Nahum 1:3 - A poetic description of God's wrath against Israel.

7. What causes tornadoes to form?

a. High and low pressure weather fronts collide, causing a whilrwind to form in the upper atmosphere which sometimes extends to the ground.
b. God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick result, as opposed to the somewhat slower means of plagues and pestilence.

The "whirlwind" refers to God's immeadiate judgement, both good and bad. It was used as a symbol, because of the way that whirlwinds often appear in the ME. They will drop down out of a clear sky with no warning.

8. Does God hate anyone?

a. NO! God is a God of love and tenderness, He loves us all equally.
b. Yes, He hates sinners, and the sin they commit.
c. He really hated Esau, I mean really hated.
d. God hates the Devil.

A reference not to Esau directly, but to his descendents who continually attcked and tried to destroy Israel. How would you feel if someone who's very existence was dependent on you commmitted their life to destroying your children?

9. When was Jesus born?

a. Before 4 B.C.
b. 6 A.D. or 7 A.D.
c. All of the above.

No one really knows. We have assigned a specific time frame, but the absolute truth is lost in history.

10.Once He had gotten everyone's attention with a wildly dramatic gesture, what were Jesus' very last words on the cross before He "gave up the ghost"?

a. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
b. "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"
c. "It is finished"
d. All the above.
[/quote]
His "last words" were recorded by three different people and none of them say that they were the last words He spoke, they simply were last ones recorded.

Check your answers to see if you made it to heaven!

1. c-stone the child to death.
2. c-3000 women and children killed in a day.
3. d-catrated men are holiest to God.
4. d-blasheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable.
5. c-whoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
6. b-clouds are God's footprints.
7. b-God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when he desires quick result.
8. c-God really, really hated Esau.
9. c-Jesus was born on 4 B.C., 6 A.D., and 7 A.D.
10. d- Jesus' very last words include three completely different statements.

squirrelsisland.com (http://squirrelsisland.com/articles%20by%20me/bible/answers1.htm)
My salvation is not dependent on your flawed quiz, but rather on my relationship with Jesus Christ. Please try harder next time, this one was FAR too easy.

[brainpan]

Please try harder next time, this one was FAR too easy.Not so fast! :)

1.What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child??
c. Take the child out and stone it to death. Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17.

2. After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, how many of their own people did they kill, at God's behest, for declining to give God His due?
c. 3000 spouses and siblings in a single day. Exodus 32:26-28--Fortunately, faithfulservent has informed us the victims were all bad seed, so we don't need to concern ourselves with this brutal act of mass murder. Praise!

3. Who is holiest to God?
d. A man who avoids sex through castration. Isaiah 56:3-5, Matthew 19:12.

4. What type of blasphemy yields eternal damnation?
d. Blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. "...but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10.

5. What words can earn you a one-way ticket straight to Satan's lair?
c. Calling someone a fool. "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

6. Why are there clouds in the sky?
b. Clouds are God's footprints. "...the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." Nahum 1:3.

7. What causes tornadoes to form?
b. God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick result. "Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked" (Jeremiah 30:23). "Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble" (Isaiah 40:24).

8. Does God hate anyone?
c. He really hated Esau, I mean really hated. "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Mal. 1:3), " As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:13)

9. When was Jesus born?
c. Before 4 B.C., in 6 A.D. and also in 7 A.D. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). Herod died in March of 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born BEFORE that time. But . . . According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This census took place in 6 AD and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

10.Once He had gotten everyone's attention with a wildly dramatic gesture, what were Jesus' very last words on the cross before He "gave up the ghost?"
d. All the above. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1) ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matt. 27:46-50) "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46) "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)

[neo of the mind]

Seems like a troll quiz. :rolleyes:

The questions and multiple answers are inaccurate and loaed and the conclusions are all wrong. If that is proven, how would that affect you? Will you just find another troll quiz to bolster up?

[brainpan]

If you really think that's the case, then step right up and prove it. Every one of my points is backed by multiple scripture references.

Start with question #1, and don't forget to address the following verses: Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17. :)

[sub_zer0]

1.What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child??
c. Take the child out and stone it to death. Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17.

Exodus 21:15: About a child striking their mother and/or father, it was considered a capital offense in Israelite society. They placed high-regard for respecting of elders and parents.

Exodus 21:17: Again it was considered a capital offense in ancient Israeli society to curse your mother or father.

Deuteronomy 21:20-21: If you examined the text and its context you would realize the kid has a serious problem. The child is considered "is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard."

The boy was to be made an example of because of his rebellious, ultimately sinful/evil acts and disgrace brought to the family. You are forgetting that this was brought to the elders (verse 20) for decision. I am sorry you don't like the harshness of ancient Israeli society.

I see no problem with this. As civilization grew and matured (Israel wasn't the only society with harsh rules during the time) so did God with us through Christ and now we are in an age of Grace, not Law.

[faithfulservant]

Your problem, bp, is that you have never actually studied the Bible. All you're doing is regurgitating other people's flawed reasoning. The Bible is something that requires studying, not just casual reading and then selectively applying an interpretation that fits your anti-Christian ideology. In order to understand the Bible, you must understand the culture and keep in mind the FULL context of the passages. You must also understand the Bible as a whole and know what the difference between the Old Covenants and the New Covenant is. You won't make this effort, because it's easier to cut and paste someone else's work than to actually make the effort to learn the facts about what it is you are criticizing.

[neo of the mind]

I would also add to what sub said by saying there is good reason, in view of the context, in all those scripture references, that the "child" in question is not a child at all but a grown man. A man that is abusive to his parents to the point where the parents are calling out for help after trying to stop his abuse towards them and his ever increasing immorality.

faithfulservant - :clap:

[sub_zer0]

Your problem, bp, is that you have never actually studied the Bible. All you're doing is regurgitating other people's flawed reasoning. The Bible is something that requires studying, not just casual reading and then selectively applying an interpretation that fits your anti-Christian ideology. In order to understand the Bible, you must understand the culture and keep in mind the FULL context of the passages. You must also understand the Bible as a whole and know what the difference between the Old Covenants and the New Covenant is. You won't make this effort, because it's easier to cut and paste someone else's work than to actually make the effort to learn the facts about what it is you are criticizing.

Great points. The main one I think is the difference between the Old and New covenants.

[I would also add to what sub said by saying there is good reason, in view of the context, in all those scripture references, that the "child" in question is not a child at all but a grown man. A man that is abusive to his parents to the point where the parents are calling out for help after trying to stop his abuse towards them and his ever increasing immorality.

Indeed.

[faithfulservant]

Great points. The main one I think is the difference between the Old and New covenants.

[

Indeed.Thanks -0. Most people who start these kind of stupid threads ahve never even opened a Bible. They find some porly researched Christian hate site and start Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. If they took the time to actually read and study the Bible objectively, they would probably end up like Josh McDowell.

[sub_zer0]

Thanks -0. Most people who start these kind of stupid threads ahve never even opened a Bible. They find some porly researched Christian hate site and start Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. If they took the time to actually read and study the Bible objectively, they would probably end up like Josh McDowell.

Oh man, that is a man of God. I just picked up:

"The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict--Evidences I & II Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century"

Its Josh McDowells works updated, a very valuable resource!

[brainpan]

Your problem, bp, is that you have never actually studied the Bible.I met every challenge you offered, some of them mere opinion, with multiple verifiable Bible quotes.
All you're doing is regurgitating other people's flawed reasoning.If the reasoning is flawed, you should be able to point it out.
In order to understand the Bible, you must understand the culture...That's a valid point. I agree.
...and keep in mind the FULL context of the passages.Alright. I promise to make the effort to understand ancient cultures and to consider the full context of passages. Now that we have that out of the way, you can return to the debate. Start with question #1 and the four biblical passages that support my point of view.
...it's easier to cut and paste someone else's work...Squirrel was a friend, and I used to enjoy debates with him when I was a Christian. I could have created my own quiz, but it would not have been nearly as funny or well researched as his. If that's a problem for you, too bad.
...than to actually make the effort to learn the facts about what it is you are criticizing.Let me invite you, yet again, to share these facts. The floor is yours.

[julierep]

Its a waste of time and effort to argue points with you that you dont even understand. Does us all a favor and pick up a bible and STUDY it, not just READ IT. When you are able, or willing for that matter, to do so, then we all can have an educated & mature (hopefully) discussion. Until then, I suggest you stick with something you know about. Your arguments are regurgitating when it comes to matters of the bible.

[brainpan]

I would also add to what sub said by saying there is good reason, in view of the context, in all those scripture references, that the "child" in question is not a child at all but a grown man.Your opinion, then, is that children are not to be stoned to death, but only abusive adults? Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is true. We still have a prescription for torture and death.

[sub_zer0]

Your opinion, then, is that children are not to be stoned to death, but only abusive adults? Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is true. We still have a prescription for torture and death.

Other ancient, primitive cultures did the same things during those times, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, what is your point?

Why don't you go and gripe about how, since before America invaded Iraq in 2003, Sadaam had rape rooms?

[brainpan]

I'm refrencing a biblical prescription for torture and death, that is my point. You seem to have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children, and that is your right. Perhaps you should move on to questions 3-10, but should probably avoid #2 since it deals with mass murder, which your responses suggest you support as well.

So, moving right along to #3. How do you feel about castration?

[sub_zer0]

I'm refrencing a biblical prescription for torture and death, that is my point. You seem to have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children, and that is your right.

You aren't describing the Biblical God.

God first created us in perfectly good enviroment, everything was heave on earth. Then we, humans, first Adam and Eve sinned, choosing their will over Gods.

From that comes judgment (righteus punishment) from God because of our blatent disregard to our heavenly Fathers will.

I see no problem with God who silences evil acts in all ways as He only knows the extent they will become and what it really does to the individual, family, community, etc.

But again, this is during the age of Law, we now live in the age of Grace, the New Covenant of Christ, so these things only apply to back then, when ancient civilizations practiced similar if not more horrid acts.

Moving right along to number 2 now that your attempt to determine God as a dictator have failed to convince me, we will move to number 2.

[sub_zer0]

2. After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, how many of their own people did they kill, at God's behest, for declining to give God His due?
c. 3000 spouses and siblings in a single day. Exodus 32:26-28--Fortunately, faithfulservent has informed us the victims were all bad seed, so we don't need to concern ourselves with this brutal act of mass murder. Praise!

I guess you missed the part where faithful servant said that the people they killed worshiped a god that commanded human sacrifice!

If anything this proves God's fairness in judgment, He judges Israel in this context. You have to realize God is purging evil from His people, the Israelites. Certainly God, with His creation can do anything He sees fit for the better.

3. Who is holiest to God?
d. A man who avoids sex through castration. Isaiah 56:3-5, Matthew 19:12.


Isaiah is stating if somebody is a eunuch, it is not however saying that the only way to be holiest to God is to be a eunuch.

Matthew 19 hardly states that eunuchs are holiest to God.

[neo of the mind]

Your opinion, then, is that children are not to be stoned to death, but only abusive adults? Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is true. We still have a prescription for torture and death.


I wasn't giving an opinion on it, I was correcting the interpretation that it was a "child"...it says "son" and the context of those cited scriptures is that it is an adult.

Stoning was a method that was used due to the lack of electric chairs, guns and such. ;)

You also have to read and understand the reasons and methods of capital punishment, which is very interesting and more "fair" than it's use today in modern times.

Let's look at all the ways they could enact capital punishment on people:

One person chokes the offender to death with their hands. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person beats the offender to death with their hands. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person drowns the offender. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person stabs an offender to death with a sharp object. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person stones the offender to death. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.



I think I have run out of ways for a singular method......



More than one person chokes the offender to death with their hands. - Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker.

More than one person beats the offender to death with their hands. - Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker, just look at Kung Fu movies for proof. LOL

More than one person drowns the offender. -Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker.

More than one person stabs an offender to death with a sharp object. - Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker, again just look at Kung Fu movies.

More than one person stones the offender to death. -Quicker and the burden is not on one person's head.

Hanging -was reserved in certain cases. Another topic.


The other thing about capital punishment was that the witnesses that testified would be in danger of the same fate of the offender, if they were found to be lying. They also had to be the first ones to throw the stones, which would cut out a lot of liars if THEY had to be a part of it. It's a lot easier for people to lie then it is to take a person's life, especially unjustly.

I say all that to show that stoning would be a prefered method of death to most of the people, including the one that is stoned. The other part of the stoning factor is that the people had to do it. It wasn't something taken lightly and was a deterrent, unlike today.


An objective of capital punishment being:
Deut 21:21
so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
KJV

[sub_zer0]

I wasn't giving an opinion on it, I was correcting the interpretation that it was a "child"...it says "son" and the context of those cited scriptures is that it is an adult.

Stoning was a method that was used due to the lack of electric chairs, guns and such. ;)

You also have to read and understand the reasons and methods of capital punishment, which is very interesting and more "fair" than it's use today in modern times.

Let's look at all the ways they could enact capital punishment on people:

One person chokes the offender to death with their hands. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person beats the offender to death with their hands. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person drowns the offender. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person stabs an offender to death with a sharp object. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

One person stones the offender to death. -Takes awhile to do and puts too much of the burden on one person's head.

I think I have run out of ways for a singular method......

More than one person chokes the offender to death with their hands. - Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker.

More than one person beats the offender to death with their hands. - Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker, just look at Kung Fu movies for proof. LOL

More than one person drowns the offender. -Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker.

More than one person stabs an offender to death with a sharp object. - Not ergonomically friendly, nor any quicker, again just look at Kung Fu movies.

More than one person stones the offender to death. -Quicker and the burden is not on one person's head.

Hanging -was reserved in certain cases. Another topic.

Good read, also it was brought before elders of Israelite society, so that is another outside source to make a decision on this. It isn't blatent stoning but a process and practice of law in ancient society.

The other thing about capital punishment was that the witnesses that testified would be in danger of the same fate of the offender, if they were found to be lying. They also had to be the first ones to throw the stones, which would cut out a lot of liars if THEY had to be a part of it. It's a lot easier for people to lie then it is to take a person's life, especially unjustly.

I say all that to show that stoning would be a prefered method of death to most of the people, including the one that is stoned. The other part of the stoning factor is that the people had to do it. It wasn't something taken lightly and was a deterrent, unlike today.

An objective of capital punishment being:
Deut 21:21
so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
KJV

Indeed.

[faithfulservant]

Oh man, that is a man of God. I just picked up:

"The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict--Evidences I & II Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century"

Its Josh McDowells works updated, a very valuable resource!
I always keep a couple of extra copies of "More Than a Carpenter" on hand. I found a source to buy them in packs of six for cheap, so that I can afford to give them away.

[brainpan]

I wasn't giving an opinion on it, I was correcting the interpretation that it was a "child"...it says "son" and the context of those cited scriptures is that it is an adult.I understand your feelings on this. However, I'm setting that aspect of the question aside. I am allowing your interpretation to stand unchallenged for the sake of argument.
Stoning was a method that was used due to the lack of electric chairs, guns and such. ;)Understood. But even ancient methods allowed for a more merciful death than that.
The other thing about capital punishment was that the witnesses that testified would be in danger of the same fate of the offender, if they were found to be lying.Interesting.

So, you have no have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children (or adults). Well, you have a right to your opinion. However, it seems like the major focus of #1 remains intact, we still have an all-loving god ordering torture and murder. All you have done is given your opinion of why that is OK, and I can respect that (though I couldn't possibly disagree more), but it doesn't serve to demonstrate that my interpretation of the scripture is fundamentally flawed.

[neo of the mind]

I understand your feelings on this. However, I'm setting that aspect of the question aside. I am allowing your interpretation to stand unchallenged for the sake of argument.
Understood. But even ancient methods allowed for a more merciful death than that.
Interesting.

So, you have no have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children (or adults). Well, you have a right to your opinion. However, it seems like the major focus of #1 remains intact, we still have an all-loving god ordering torture and murder. All you have done is given your opinion of why that is OK, and I can respect that (though I couldn't possibly disagree more), but it doesn't serve to demonstrate that my interpretation of the scripture is fundamentally flawed.


Well, I don't think we can come to an agreement when you use the words torture and murder. I don't consider the stoning as torture, it may not be the quickest way to kill somebody in a "mericful" manner now a days, but it is probably quicker than other methods at their disposal of options. The other thing is that "torturing" somebody has a particular motive attached to it, ie. prolongation of pain on purpose, where the stoning's intention is to kill the person and that's it.

The other word, using murder. There are a set number of specific reasons that God allows people to kill other people. When that is the case, it's not murder. Self defense is not murder. Killing an enemy on the battlefield is not murder. Capital punishement for certain crimes is not murder.

[brainpan]

From that comes judgment (righteus punishment) from God because of our blatent disregard to our heavenly Fathers will.

I see no problem with God who silences evil acts in all ways as He only knows the extent they will become and what it really does to the individual, family, community, etc.Got it. I think you explained this earlier. An all-loving god that tortures and kills is OK with you. You just want me to know he had a "good reason" for doing it.
I guess you missed the part where faithful servant said that the people they killed worshiped a god that commanded human sacrifice!Interesting reply in light of the fact you actually quoted my response to faithful servant's comment. Anyway, once again, it looks as though the quiz is right again. You don't question the facts, but want to justify them instead.
Isaiah is stating if somebody is a eunuch, it is not however saying that the only way to be holiest to God is to be a eunuch.So you have no problem with castration for holiness just so long as we understand it's not the only way? Yes or no?
Matthew 19 hardly states that eunuchs are holiest to God.To be fair, it is Isaiah 56: 3-5 that focuses upon special treatment for eunochs. Mattew 19:12 suggests we should castrate ourselves , if we can, for the kingdom of heaven's sake. You think that's pretty sage advice? Have you castrated yourself?

[brainpan]

Well, I don't think we can come to an agreement when you use the words torture and murder.You're right. I accidentally offered you a loaded question.
I don't consider the stoning as torture, it may not be the quickest way to kill somebody in a "mericful" manner now a days, but it is probably quicker than other methods at their disposal of options.Quicker than some, certainly, but definitely not the quickest. You don't need high tech. to induce instantaneous death.
Capital punishement for certain crimes is not murder.OK. I'm not in complete agreement with your definitions, but there is no need for me to burden you with semantics. My use of the words torture and murder are out. I don't need them.

So to rephrase, you're OK with an all-loving God who prescribes a painful death to punish someone who commits the sin of cursing or smiting either of his parents?

[sub_zer0]

Got it. I think you explained this earlier. An all-loving god that tortures and kills is OK with you. You just want me to know he had a "good reason" for doing it.

No, an all loving God would discipline those He loves through ritheous judgment as they created the situation by their free will in the first place.

Did you know God's own Son was tortured and killed?

Interesting reply in light of the fact you actually quoted my response to faithful servant's comment. Anyway, once again, it looks as though the quiz is right again. You don't question the facts, but want to justify them instead.

Indeed, because where it comes from, is not the facts but the justification you are using.

So you have no problem with castration for holiness just so long as we understand it's not the only way? Yes or no?

To be fair, it is Isaiah 56: 3-5 that focuses upon special treatment for eunochs. Mattew 19:12 suggests we should castrate ourselves , if we can, for the kingdom of heaven's sake. You think that's pretty sage advice? Have you castrated yourself?

Actually I suppose it is the facts and the justification. The justification I have explained but the facts as in the definition of the word, "eunuch" which you equate to as "castration" and I was foolish enough to take your opinion on, actually means, in both Isaiah and Matthew one who chooses to remain unmarried.

Strong's Greek Definition for # 2135 - AV - eunuch 8; 8
1) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain
1a) in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives
the superintendent of the women's apartment or harem, an office
held by eunuchs
1b) an emasculated man, a eunuch
1b1) eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater,
held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac 8:27-39 .
1c) one naturally incapacitated
1c1) for marriage
1c2) begetting children
1d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage

In the case and context of Matthew 19 and Isaiah 56 it would mean for marriage that one voluntarily abstains from to live a life totally dedicated to God.

[brainpan]

No, an all loving God would discipline those He loves through ritheous judgment as they created the situation by their free will in the first place.No? You have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god who would discipline (have killed in a gruesome and painful manner) those he loves through righteous judgement (capital punishment for cursing or smiting either parent). Looks like a definite yes to me.
The justification I have explained but the facts as in the definition of the word, "eunuch" which you equate to as "castration" and I was foolish enough to take your opinion on, actually means, in both Isaiah and Matthew one who chooses to remain unmarried.Before we go further, it shall be noted that you had no negative comment about "castrations for Jesus" before initiating a debate on semantics.
Strong's Greek Definition for # 2135 - AV - eunuch 8; 8
1) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlainLet's get the rest of definition (1) in there, shall we? "...literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in
Oriental courts was common (2 Kings 9:32; Esther 2:3)."
in both Isaiah and Matthew (eunuch translates as a person) who chooses to remain unmarried.You pretty sure about that? Let's have another look at Mattew 19:12. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Hmmm. Matthew mentions three classes of eunuchs, only one of which voluntarily adopted his condition. So your explanation is definitely out.

[sub_zer0]

No? You have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god who would discipline (have killed in a gruesome and painful manner) those he loves through righteous judgement (capital punishment for cursing or smiting either parent). Looks like a definite yes to me.

Indeed, a creator of something has all power over it.

Before we go further, it shall be noted that you had no negative comment about "castrations for Jesus" before initiating a debate on semantics.

Indeed, but in Matthew 19 and Isaiah 56 if it is indeed speaking of castration, what is made is a statement of fact and observation. Isaiah 56 is simply stating that all are welcome, even "eunuchs".

For Matthew 19, some are born this way; some have made themselves this way for men; some have made themselves that way for spiritual purposes, and those who can accept this, let them do so. While Isaiah 56 likewise is in no way encouraging or saying that you get holy by castrating, it is saying that those who are castrated, or eunuch's that keep His sabaaths.

You pretty sure about that? Let's have another look at Mattew 19:12. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Hmmm. Matthew mentions three classes of eunuchs, only one of which voluntarily adopted his condition. So your explanation is definitely out.

Three classes indeed, some born that way, some done for men and others for spiritual purposes, or for the "kingdom of heaven's sake", there are two voluntarily ways of doing this if it is indeed voluntarily abstaining from marriage, one that means you are just born that way, no choice involved, you are automatically aimed at God and nothing else.

Perhaps these links will help you:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/eunicize.html
http://www.tektonics.org/af/cleanman.html

[brainpan]

IndeedGreat! Then that's settled.
IndeedAnd that too!
Three classes indeed...I'm not interested in arguing the point further. Your newest explanation still eliminates the possibility of your preferred exclusive definition of eunuch.

[sub_zer0]

So, now number five, since there are no problems with 1-4 so far.

5. What words can earn you a one-way ticket straight to Satan's lair?
c. Calling someone a fool. "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

Actually it has nothing to do with sending somebody to hell because they say that you are a "fool". The context makes it obvious here that Jesus is talking in 5:22 about relations with one's brother (not physical brothers, but fellow believers) and about words said in anger to that brother.

22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

What it is saying however is that if you are using it with a malicious intent, as in an actuall damning statement, Matthew gives a reminder and a stern warning that you yourself are in "danger of hell fire", by calling your brother in Christ a "fool". That being the case through sin that caused that outburst of slander, as all have fallen short of God because of sin.

Now, number 6?

[brainpan]

So, now number five, since there are no problems with 1-4 so far.Fair enough. Just so long as it's remembered that "no problem" is your personal take.

In #1 and #2, we still have God prescribing death for a lot of people, and in #3, some doubt was raised concerning the correct interpretation of eunuch, but there remains plenty of reason to assume it included, or was even exclusive of, castrated men. Perhaps I missed it, where did you deal with #4?
Actually it has nothing to do with sending somebody to hell...It has nothing to do with sending someone to Hell, just letting them know they've purchased the ticket. Seems like two ways of saying the same thing to me.

[sub_zer0]

It has nothing to do with sending someone to Hell, just letting them know they've purchased the ticket. Seems like two ways of saying the same thing to me.

You aren't following my point. It has nothing to do with sending someone to Hell because they say fool, rather it is a warning that their actions make them in danger of it.

It doesn't say, "if you say fool you are going to hell", it is giving a warning and using such language against brothers makes you more in danger of hell than you are in acceptance of heaven.

[brainpan]

I think I understand you point well enough, I just don't agree. It still seems like the price for the ticket to Hell is an utterance of "you fool." Mark flat out states that he who says "you fool," is guilty enough for Hell.

[sub_zer0]

I think I understand you point well enough, I just don't agree. It still seems like the price for the ticket to Hell is an utterance of "you fool." Mark flat out states that he who says "you fool," is guilty enough for Hell.

No you don't understand it. All that is being stated in Matthew is a stern warning, it is not stating that if you say "fool" you are going to hell.

In other words, Matthew is saying that if you are using the word "fool" in slander or a specifically damning way to a brother in Christ or to anybody for that matter you are more in danger of hell or ultimately a sinful life through using such words in such ways, than you are in acceptance of heaven, or doing Gods will.

Where in Mark exactly does it state this flat out as Matthew obviously does not?

[brainpan]

No you don't understand it. All that is being stated in Matthew is a stern warning...And the warning is saying "you fool" is enough to make you worthy of Hell. There's plenty of room in that interpretation to indicate "you fool" could land you in Hell.
Where in Mark exactly does it state this flat out as Matthew obviously does not?Meant to type "Matthew." And Matthew did flat out state that he who says, "you fool," is guilty enough for Hell.

[sub_zer0]

And the warning is saying "you fool" is enough to make you worthy of Hell. There's plenty of room in that interpretation to indicate "you fool" could land you in Hell.

Matthew is not warning against saying, "you fool" because it makes you worthy of hell. In the context, the word or phrase used in a damning or slanderous way to a brother in Christ or to anybody for that matter, you become more in danger of hell or sin, than you are in acceptance of heaven, or doing Gods will which isn't sinning or using phrases in that manner.

So, number 6?

[brainpan]

Sure, let's summarize and proceed to the next question. (did you get #4?)

In #1 and #2, we still have God prescribing painful death for a lot of people,

In #3, some doubt was raised concerning the correct interpretation of eunuch, but there remains plenty of reason to assume it included, or was even exclusive of, castrated men.

In #5, it was decided that saying "you fool" makes you worthy of Hell, but that the trip isn't automatic. I saved the following comment for the conclusion of #5: Even rape and murder don't automatically land you in Hell, so this scripture is useless anyway. A man could rape helpless zoo animals every morning, sustain himself on baby heads his entire life, and still be welcomed into Heaven.

[brainpan]

Wait, I changed my mind. Go on to #6 if you want, but I think I'm done with this. I apologize for leaving the discussion, but I've really had enough of this stuff for a while.

[sub_zer0]

In #1 and #2, we still have God prescribing painful death for a lot of people,

Yep, what He created and doing ultimately this for the greater good as He destroys evil, or not His will which is good.

In #3, some doubt was raised concerning the correct interpretation of eunuch, but there remains plenty of reason to assume it included, or was even exclusive of, castrated men.

Indeed, and God is not however endorsing castration as a means to be holy next to Him.

In #5, it was decided that saying "you fool" makes you worthy of Hell, but that the trip isn't automatic. I saved the following comment for the conclusion of #5: Even rape and murder don't automatically land you in Hell, so this scripture is useless anyway. A man could rape helpless zoo animals every morning, sustain himself on baby heads his entire life, and still be welcomed into Heaven.

How would He be welcomed to heaven when His life and actions, or character do not display that of Christ in His heart?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Wait, I changed my mind. Go on to #6 if you want, but I think I'm done with this. I apologize for leaving the discussion, but I've really had enough of this stuff for a while.
Oh man, I was waiting for some trailer trash jokes for #7. And for how #9 to prove that Jesus was "born again". :D

[brainpan]

Oh man, I was waiting for some trailer trash jokes for #7. And for how #9 to prove that Jesus was "born again". :D...... :lol: :sorry:

[neo of the mind]

Sure, let's summarize and proceed to the next question. (did you get #4?)

In #1 and #2, we still have God prescribing painful death for a lot of people,


In #5, it was decided that saying "you fool" makes you worthy of Hell, but that the trip isn't automatic.


As far as #1, you said there would be a better way available to them at that time, then stoning was that was:

1. Quicker
2. Less Painful
3. Practical
4. The administration of the capital punishment would not be on one person to bear the burden of doing it. I say that to say, killing people is not easy and is traumatic for 99% of people. That's why cops are taken off duty for awhile after shootings and subsequently a big reason why they break down or commit suicide.
5. The administration of the capital punishment is on the burden of the local people. When everyone has to have a hand in it, they are more inclined to ensure that it is just and everyone is aware of why it's being done, hence the detterent factor.

what was it?

as far as number #5. I will have to look in it more, but I think offhand, it's not because somebody just calls another person "fool". It's more in lines of the hypocrite issue in that the person is calling another a fool and that they will be damned for their foolishness...all the while, they themselves are blind to the fact that they are on the SAME edge of the cliff. I look into this more, but I know it's not as simple as name calling.

[Mickey Shane]

God is going to kill me. It's in His design.

I hope I get stoned right before hand.

[sub_zer0]

as far as number #5. I will have to look in it more, but I think offhand, it's not because somebody just calls another person "fool". It's more in lines of the hypocrite issue in that the person is calling another a fool and that they will be damned for their foolishness...all the while, they themselves are blind to the fact that they are on the SAME edge of the cliff. I look into this more, but I know it's not as simple as name calling.

It is indeed not as simple as name calling or being damned for name calling as brainpan believes.

Wait, I changed my mind. Go on to #6 if you want, but I think I'm done with this. I apologize for leaving the discussion, but I've really had enough of this stuff for a while.

Fair enough, hope to see you soon. As far as number six goes, you stated:

6. Why are there clouds in the sky?
b. Clouds are God's footprints. "...the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." Nahum 1:3.

I would like to agree with faithfulservant on this one, in the broader sense, as he stated: "Nahum 1:3 - A poetic description of God's wrath against Israel."

I would also like to add some more to it.

Clouds are Gods creation not simply His footprints that the prophet, Nahum is trying to express here! The fact that he mentions the clouds, a part of creation that is so far out of the expierence of the people and himself at the time, as just "dust of His feet" is a truely humbling poetic picture of how God ought to be thought of.

As a side note, it is interesting that this quiz so far has focused on things that modern society doesn't view as acceptable. It is interesting that when question 6 refers to Nahum 1:3 it doesn't even speak of God stating in verse 3:

"The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished"

That states the true qualities and characteristics of Gods punishment, first He is slow to anger to begin with, and second only the ones GUILTY are punished.

God is going to kill me. It's in His design.

I hope I get stoned right before hand.

So wrong Mickey. Sin is what brought death into this world, which was chosen by mankind instead of Gods will.

This is what is in His design for you and I to solve the problem we have created which introduced death:

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "

[sub_zer0]

One more thing on #3 and Matthew.

Does the verse indeed encourage castration? Hardly, even on the surface -- what is made is a statement of fact and observation: some are born this way; some have made themselves this way for men; some have made themselves that way for spiritual purposes, and those who can accept this, let them do so -- it is not saying, "Go out and castrate yourself" or giving directions to the nearest medical facility. There is no opinion rendered either way. However, looking more deeply into the context, we see that this refers not exclusively to castration, but to celibacy as well. We know that the Jews were horrified by castration (cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.270-1; though eunuchs were well-respected, and trusted, in some Ancient Near Eastern societies). Indeed, how could someone have been "castrated" from their mother's womb? And how would a response dealing with castration relate to a question as to whether or not it is better to marry (19:10), said in relation to putting away one's wife in v. 9 -- which is the "it" to receive that Jesus refers back to?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mattstudy.html

[brainpan]

As far as #1, you said there would be a better way available to them at that time, then stoning was that was:

1. Quicker
2. Less Painful
3. PracticalTo be specific, I wrote: "(stoning would be) quicker than some (methods), certainly, but definitely not the quickest. You don't need high tech. to induce instantaneous death."

That's easy enough to explain:

-A heavy rock could be used to crush the head of the condemned.

-The condemned could be thrown from a high place.

-The condemned could be beheaded.

All three of those methods are quick, virtually painless and practical.
4. The administration of the capital punishment would not be on one person to bear the burden of doing it.I don't know whether it's fair for you to keep qualifying the hell out of this, but I can meet the challenges easily enough.

The condemned would drink himself to unconsciousness, and then he would be dragged, by the community, into the water to drown. Either that, or a device could be built that would allow more than one person to be responible for putting one of the first three options into effect.

A heavy stone could be tied above the head of the condemned, and the executers would simultaneously light it afire. Or, they could all pull a string that would release a catch and cause the rock to fall.

The condemned could be tied to a rope and pushed over the edge of a high place. On the count of three, all the people holding the rope would let go of it.

A special sword could be fashioned that would look something like this:>--< the sharp blade would be in the middle and multiple people could hold onto one of the four handles. When the signal was given, they would all bring the blade down on the neck of the condemned like a hand-held guillotine.

Try to remember that I came up with all of this stuff off the top of my head, there are probably better solutions to the problem, but I think most of mine would work. In any case, I think an all-knowing god has a better imagination than I do, surely he could have thought of a solution and shared it with his children.

[sub_zer0]

Try to remember that I came up with all of this stuff off the top of my head, there are probably better solutions to the problem, but I think most of mine would work. In any case, I think an all-knowing god has a better imagination than I do, surely he could have thought of a solution and shared it with his children.

Indeed, He has, Jesus Christ!

[Dangerrmouse]

Indeed, He has, Jesus Christ!


He gave advice on humane execution methods? Where, exactly???? .....

[heel31ok]

1.What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child??

a. There is none, god loves us all, and would not think of harming a child!
b. Sit the child in the corner.
c. Take the child out and stone it to death.
c. Take away the child's toys.

2.After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, how many of their own people did they kill, at God's behest, for declining to give God His due?

a. None. God would not order His people to kill each other.
b. 10. The number of people who chose to follow that evil Satan.
c. 3,000 spouses and siblings in a single day
d. Just two dozen total over two weeks.

3. Who is holiest to God?

a. God loves all of us, and if we accept Jesus, we are equal in the Lord's eyes no matter we do.
b. A man who marries once and is always faithful to his wife, and is good to his kids.
c. A man who avoids sex through sheer willpower.
d. A man who avoids sex through castration.

4. What type of blasphemy yields eternal damnation?

a. None. All sins are forgiven when the sinner accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior.
b. Blasphemy of God, the Father, for He is ruler over all.
c. Blasphemy of Jesus, the Son, because He died for our sins.
d. You can be forgiven for blaspheming Jesus, but blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable and begins your descent into the fiery abyss.

5. What words can earn you a one-way ticket straight to Satan's lair?

a. None. God would never condemn someone merely for an angry utterance
b. Threatening the meek so they and their children are in fear of their lives when they have done nothing wrong.
c. Calling someone a fool.
d. Falsely accusing someone of following other gods than Him, resulting in that person being wrongly executed.

6. Why are there clouds in the sky?

a. Heat causes water on the Earth to condense and rise into the atmosphere where it forms clouds.
b. Clouds are God's footprints in Heaven and are made up of the dust from his feet.

7. What causes tornadoes to form?

a. High and low pressure weather fronts collide, causing a whilrwind to form in the upper atmosphere which sometimes extends to the ground.
b. God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick result, as opposed to the somewhat slower means of plagues and pestilence.

8. Does God hate anyone?

a. NO! God is a God of love and tenderness, He loves us all equally.
b. Yes, He hates sinners, and the sin they commit.
c. He really hated Esau, I mean really hated.
d. God hates the Devil.

9. When was Jesus born?

a. Before 4 B.C.
b. 6 A.D. or 7 A.D.
c. All of the above.

10.Once He had gotten everyone's attention with a wildly dramatic gesture, what were Jesus' very last words on the cross before He "gave up the ghost"?

a. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
b. "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"
c. "It is finished"
d. All the above.

Check your answers to see if you made it to heaven!

1. c-stone the child to death.
2. c-3000 women and children killed in a day.
3. d-catrated men are holiest to God.
4. d-blasheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable.
5. c-whoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
6. b-clouds are God's footprints.
7. b-God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when he desires quick result.
8. c-God really, really hated Esau.
9. c-Jesus was born on 4 B.C., 6 A.D., and 7 A.D.
10. d- Jesus' very last words include three completely different statements.

squirrelsisland.com (http://squirrelsisland.com/articles%20by%20me/bible/answers1.htm)
1) So , reponsibility for you actions must be taken.

[JoeR]

He gave advice on humane execution methods? Where, exactly???? .....

You misunderstand. You see thousands of years later God realized all the violence wasn't a good idea and decided to do a 180.

[neo of the mind]

He gave advice on humane execution methods? Where, exactly???? .....

sub was commenting on this quote:

"....surely he could have thought of a solution and shared it with his children."


in other words, sub was saying that Jesus Christ is the solution to the problems of the world, including the need for capital punishement. People that have the Holy Ghost in them, baring extreme reason, don't do the crimes that require capital punishement to rectify.

[sub_zer0]

sub was commenting on this quote:

"....surely he could have thought of a solution and shared it with his children."


in other words, sub was saying that Jesus Christ is the solution to the problems of the world, including the need for capital punishement. People that have the Holy Ghost in them, baring extreme reason, don't do the crimes that require capital punishement to rectify.

Exactly!

[Dangerrmouse]

sub was commenting on this quote:

"....surely he could have thought of a solution and shared it with his children."


in other words, sub was saying that Jesus Christ is the solution to the problems of the world, .... People that have the Holy Ghost in them, baring extreme reason ...

As you and zero well know, the quote related to the problem of slow, painful execution methods, as opposed to relatively faster painless ones, not the world's ills in general, but then obfuscation to score a point is only to be expected from those who have no honest answers.


Are you claiming that those possessed by a ghost expose themselves extremely unreasoningly?

[heel31ok]

# 2 yeah, and?

[sub_zer0]

As you and zero well know, the quote related to the problem of slow, painful execution methods, as opposed to relatively faster painless ones, not the world's ills in general, but then obfuscation to score a point is only to be expected from those who have no honest answers.

The worlds ill's are death which is the result of sin which causes the need for execution methods. Jesus Christ is here to give you eternal life, not death which is sin. So my point still stands.

[heel31ok]

#3 the ability to read and reason would suggest otherwise.That is certainly not what is written. Wrong and a poor attemptto put a bad spin on the Word of God. Only an idiot would draw such conclusions.Did you actually read the passages? I did not think so.

[heel31ok]

#4 yes, that is correct,but most christians already know this.Is their a pointtothis passage or any other that you are trying to make?

[Dangerrmouse]

The worlds ill's are death which is the result of sin which causes the need for execution methods. Jesus Christ is here to give you eternal life, not death which is sin. So my point still stands.

The world's ills were not under discussion, God-driven barbaric killing was. Your "point" is an irrelevant diversion. Again.

[brainpan]

The world's ills were not under discussion, God-driven barbaric killing was. Your "point" is an irrelevant diversion. Again.Sounds like a fair assessment, gentlemen. Do any of you want to take another wack at answering the question, or have we received your final relevant response on the matter?

[brainpan]

#3 the ability to read and reason would suggest otherwise.That is certainly not what is written.I don't agree. There is plenty of room for interpretation with #3, and castrated males are definitely identified in it. The ambiguity of the passage makes it possible that celibate males were also included, but that is not certain.

[sub_zer0]

Sounds like a fair assessment, gentlemen. Do any of you want to take another wack at answering the question, or have we received your final relevant response on the matter?

Why do you not criticize our death penalty then? Why do you not protest Sadaam Hueseins rape rooms and thank Bush for wiping him out?

Why do you single out a Bible when speaking about God being immoral when this was to the Israelite society and turn a blinde eye to the other societies that practice the same thing?

I see no problem in what is said in the Bible, improve your case some and perhaps you will change my mind, who knows.

[heel31ok]

I don't agree. There is plenty of room for interpretation with #3, and castrated males are definitely identified in it. The ambiguity of the passage makes it possible that celibate males were also included, but that is not certain.
No where does it say God considers them the holiest or most holy. The question is , who is holiest to God and the passages do not say that.The intention of this deceptive question which is way off base , is to make it seem God esteems eunuchs above all others and it does not say that at all.
The promise is a place in Gods house and they will never be cut off like they were in life.that their rewards will exceed that of having children.Having children was the ultimate sign of God's blessing in that culture.

[heel31ok]

I'm refrencing a biblical prescription for torture and death, that is my point. You seem to have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children, and that is your right. Perhaps you should move on to questions 3-10, but should probably avoid #2 since it deals with mass murder, which your responses suggest you support as well.

So, moving right along to #3. How do you feel about castration?
I think you have misread these passages also.You are asssuming alot here.The word children here has more to do with relationship than with age.This indicated by the description of the offender which says son which eliminates daughters.The other passages have to do with smiting parents and cursing parent which is more than what we call cursing.
Once again the deceptiveness of the crafting of this question takesaway the real issue and makes it look like death is the prescription for a child who pitches a fit is not well mannered.It is certainly more than that.

[heel31ok]

I'm refrencing a biblical prescription for torture and death, that is my point. You seem to have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children, and that is your right. Perhaps you should move on to questions 3-10, but should probably avoid #2 since it deals with mass murder, which your responses suggest you support as well.

So, moving right along to #3. How do you feel about castration?
what is your point about castration? I am not particularly for it personally.

[heel31ok]

I understand your feelings on this. However, I'm setting that aspect of the question aside. I am allowing your interpretation to stand unchallenged for the sake of argument.
Understood. But even ancient methods allowed for a more merciful death than that.
Interesting.

So, you have no have no problem with the concept of an all-loving god ordering the torture and murder of unruly children (or adults). Well, you have a right to your opinion. However, it seems like the major focus of #1 remains intact, we still have an all-loving god ordering torture and murder. All you have done is given your opinion of why that is OK, and I can respect that (though I couldn't possibly disagree more), but it doesn't serve to demonstrate that my interpretation of the scripture is fundamentally flawed.
It is not murder if it is the punishment for a crime. If that is the law it is punishment .torture , whatever, dead is dead.
So your deceptive assertion of murder is a farce. Torture, that is a farce too because the prescribed method of death is for the purpose of killing the criminal.It works well. Just because it does not sit well with you makes it neither here nor there. Neither does it call into question God or his decision to institute this form of punisment.I am not going to go into to the whole matter of what this meant to the ones who received this command and law but if you did you would find the truth and the neccessity for it. Though you may not agree with it. Let me go on recored to make it clear, I have no problem with what God decreed to them in this matter.

[brainpan]

Why do you not criticize our death penalty then?I do. After DNA evidence exonerated a bunch of death row inmates a few years back, I came to the conclusion that our government isn't competent enough to be entrusted with prosecuting capital cases. And I have since decided that I wouldn't trust any government with that kind of power.
Why do you not protest Sadaam Hueseins rape rooms and thank Bush for wiping him out?You have no idea how sick I am of this kind of worn out argument. I'm against rape rooms and I'm glad Saddam is out. My opinion of Saddam and rape rooms, of course, has exactly ZERO relevance to the topic at hand.
Why do you single out a Bible when speaking about God being immoral when this was to the Israelite society and turn a blinde eye to the other societies that practice the same thing?You're joking, right!? :eek:
I see no problem in what is said in the Bible, improve your case some and perhaps you will change my mind, who knows.It's not about changing your mind. I was accussed of misrepresenting God's will, as expressed in the Bible, but I proved otherwise. It's your choice how you would like to deal with that.

[brainpan]

The promise is a place in Gods house and they will never be cut off like they were in life.that their rewards will exceed that of having children.Having children was the ultimate sign of God's blessing in that culture.There's room enough in the verse in Matthew to interpret it to mean that it's a good idea to castrate yourself for Heaven's sake.

[brainpan]

Once again the deceptiveness of the crafting of this question takesaway the real issue and makes it look like death is the prescription for a child who pitches a fit is not well mannered.It is certainly more than that.And once again there is plenty of room for the interpretation that children should be stoned to death, but even if we are to assume that is not the case, we still have God prescribing an exceptionally painful death for relatively minor crimes.

[brainpan]

It is not murder if it is the punishment for a crime. If that is the law it is punishment .torture , whatever, dead is dead.This argument over semantics has already been addressed. For the sake of argument, I discontinued the use of the word, murder and torture. I'm not too interested in discussing the issue further, but if you really want to go there again, I'm confident I can make my case that the use of both terms is valid.
Torture, that is a farce too because the prescribed method of death is for the purpose of killing the criminal.It works well.Got it. As long as you ultimately kill someone, the pain they suffer before death could not be considered torture.
Let me go on recored to make it clear, I have no problem with what God decreed to them in this matter.Sure thing. You're on record.

[heel31ok]

There's room enough in the verse in Matthew to interpret it to mean that it's a good idea to castrate yourself for Heaven's sake.
It is to make oneself a eunuch by abstaining from marriage. This is not a form of self mutilation.So it is a castration through abstinence. In which I see nothing wrong with if the person has that in him to do.

[heel31ok]

And once again there is plenty of room for the interpretation that children should be stoned to death, but even if we are to assume that is not the case, we still have God prescribing an exceptionally painful death for relatively minor crimes.
That is with your assumption that these are minor crimes. Apparently they are not. I do not think you really understand what is menat. This is not a child talking back. A curse is not a bad word said to a parent,it is the wishing and expressing of harm and damnation on a parent.The blessing and curses are not just ritualistic. Words mean things and out of the abundance of the heart does one speak.Yes I believe this as described and what it is should have been punishable by death.
Painful yes I agree, minor crimes I do not agree.

[heel31ok]

This argument over semantics has already been addressed. For the sake of argument, I discontinued the use of the word, murder and torture. I'm not too interested in discussing the issue further, but if you really want to go there again, I'm confident I can make my case that the use of both terms is valid.
Got it. As long as you ultimately kill someone, the pain they suffer before death could not be considered torture.
Sure thing. You're on record.
If you want me on record as not having a problem with the prescribed method that is fine.I am not saying "any way" I am saying in the context of the stoning if you want to say torture or whatever I am fine with the stoning to take the life of the transgressor.I am not really concerned with the one being stoned at that point, they are condemned so if the prescribed method is used then justice is carried out.The fact that such a horrific punishment is prescribed says that the offense is just as horrific.If one of the 10 commandements is to honor your father and mother then I would say this just confirms how important that is even to the point of death.

[heel31ok]

This argument over semantics has already been addressed. For the sake of argument, I discontinued the use of the word, murder and torture. I'm not too interested in discussing the issue further, but if you really want to go there again, I'm confident I can make my case that the use of both terms is valid.
Got it. As long as you ultimately kill someone, the pain they suffer before death could not be considered torture.
Sure thing. You're on record.
No, there is no argument needed over semantics I know how you see it I see it differently so there is really no need to go round and round.

[Dangerrmouse]

No, there is no argument needed over semantics I know how you see it I see it differently so there is really no need to go round and round.

From the mouths of babes...
This from the individual who has just asserted that "eunuch" means "celibate", and "castration" means "abstinence"! I deduce that up is down and black is white in heelworld.

[sub_zer0]

From the mouths of babes...
This from the individual who has just asserted that "eunuch" means "celibate", and "castration" means "abstinence"! I deduce that up is down and black is white in heelworld.

Check the context of the verses and original meaning of the words in Hebrew and Greek and you will see what is meant.

I do. After DNA evidence exonerated a bunch of death row inmates a few years back, I came to the conclusion that our government isn't competent enough to be entrusted with prosecuting capital cases. And I have since decided that I wouldn't trust any government with that kind of power.

Well, likewise the things in question in the verses of the Bible had, not DNA evidence but elders and judges to take the guilty and exonerate the innocent.

You have no idea how sick I am of this kind of worn out argument. I'm against rape rooms and I'm glad Saddam is out. My opinion of Saddam and rape rooms, of course, has exactly ZERO relevance to the topic at hand.

I am saying, you pick on Biblical verses, why not go all out on practices we see today that are far worse?

[heel31ok]

From the mouths of babes...
This from the individual who has just asserted that "eunuch" means "celibate", and "castration" means "abstinence"! I deduce that up is down and black is white in heelworld.
It has nothing, and I mean nothing :D to do with heelworld. It has to do with greek world, koine I do believe.

[brainpan]

That is with your assumption that these are minor crimes.I wrote they are relatively minor crimes. I was hoping to express the idea that the punishment is many times more severe than the crime.
A curse is not a bad word said to a parent,it is the wishing and expressing of harm and damnation on a parent.I can think of no curse, or even an oath, that would warrant a death sentence.
If one of the 10 commandements is to honor your father and mother then I would say this just confirms how important that is even to the point of death.This just gets worse. Now you're a-OK with death sentences being handed out for breaking any of the Ten Commandments. Yahweh!

[brainpan]

It has nothing, and I mean nothing :D to do with heelworld. It has to do with greek world, koine I do believe.More fun with Greek! I went over this topic once, but I guess it wont kill me to repeat myself.

Eunoukhos literally translates as bed-keeper. While not necessarily one who was mutilated, the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (2 Kings 9:32; Esther 2:3).

Let's look again at Matthew 19:12. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Jesus mentions three classes of eunuchs, only one of which is always attained voluntarily. Therefore, it is impossible that Jesus was referring only to men who have chosen celibacy. The very best you could hope to argue is that Jesus wanted to add celibate men to his list of different classes of castrated men.

Historically, there is a tradition of ritual self castration within the Christian faith. Many early Christians castrated themselves as an act of devotion.

Tertullian, a 2nd century church father who was the first great writer of Latin Christianity, and who also introduced the terms; Trinity, New Testament, and Old Testament to the Christian vocabulary, argued that Paul of Tarsus, and even Jesus himself, had castrated themselves. Tertullian was joined by early church theologian Origen, who believed that castration was a biblically supported practice.

So again, it is beyond question that Matthew 19:12 is referring to castrated men, but there is no reason whatever to think it's only talking about celibate men.

[heel31ok]

More fun with Greek! I went over this topic once, but I guess it wont kill me to repeat myself.

Eunoukhos literally translates as bed-keeper. While not necessarily one who was mutilated, the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (2 Kings 9:32; Esther 2:3).

Let's look again at Matthew 19:12. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Jesus mentions three classes of eunuchs, only one of which is always attained voluntarily. Therefore, it is impossible that Jesus was referring only to men who have chosen celibacy. The very best you could hope to argue is that Jesus wanted to add celibate men to his list of different classes of castrated men.

Historically, there is a tradition of ritual self castration within the Christian faith. Many early Christians castrated themselves as an act of devotion.

Tertullian, a 2nd century church father who was the first great writer of Latin Christianity, and who also introduced the terms; Trinity, New Testament, and Old Testament to the Christian vocabulary, argued that Paul of Tarsus, and even Jesus himself, had castrated themselves. Tertullian was joined by early church theologian Origen, who believed that castration was a biblically supported practice.

So again, it is beyond question that Matthew 19:12 is referring to castrated men, but there is no reason whatever to think it's only talking about celibate men.

1) Your examples of 2kings and Esther would not be in the greek so that is out already.

2)Yes there are 3 classes and the voluntary is a different word.1134 as the reference number instead of 1135 for the others, indicating different meaning.
Which speaks to the practice of self mutilation in other religions and is for the purpose of showing it is not needed to get close to God.God looks at the heart and the word indicates a heart attitude of abstinence and total devotion to God.
so again the other examples in the passage do speak to castration but the third is speaking to heart attitude.this is a common way of making a point which was very effective to the audience at that time who understood the language and its nuances.
absolute rubbish on the part of tertullian and if anything his error caused this practice.The Bible clearly says this is not the intent. Religion ,not the scriptures, is the cause of many errors in christianity . traditions and historical practices do not equate to scriptural action and do not equate to scriptural inaccuracy.

[heel31ok]

I wrote they are relatively minor crimes. I was hoping to express the idea that the punishment is many times more severe than the crime.
I can think of no curse, or even an oath, that would warrant a death sentence.
This just gets worse. Now you're a-OK with death sentences being handed out for breaking any of the Ten Commandments. Yahweh!
Apparently, like I said before the punishment shows the seriousnes of the offense.Not a hard concept to grasp if looked at realistically. I know the goal is to condemn God and show how unfair He is or how unfair the Bible is, so I take that into consideration when I read you posts.I consider you a hostile witness in these cases.
So since you can think of no curses or oaths then that is the end all on the subject. I would imagine with all the inside info and dirt you spread you could find all the info you needed on the subject. You try to come off as an intellectual yetplay dumb on info that can be easily obtained.But since that is not the goal it certainly will not be the result.
Again the tie in with the 10 commandments shows the basis for the laws . The punishment is determined by the seriousness of the offense.But you already know that, which is the point of this whole charade you put up.

[sub_zer0]

Apparently, like I said before the punishment shows the seriousnes of the offense.Not a hard concept to grasp if looked at realistically. I know the goal is to condemn God and show how unfair He is or how unfair the Bible is, so I take that into consideration when I read you posts.I consider you a hostile witness in these cases.

Indeed, but what I cannot believe is that brainpan doesn't even mention the woman in jail who will be stoned for adultry, HERE (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?malek). But oh no, the Bible says stuff about "eunuchs"!

It is important to realize that now we do not follow the Old Covenant or Testament, rather it is through Christ or the New Covenant or Testament that should be followed. So for your arguments to get into the door, at least, you would have to assume that Christians or those that follow the Bible should be practicing these things in the OT when we don't, it is the NT we follow.

Perhaps you could start a topic on things we actually apply in our life that we develop in Christ, mainly a topic about the NT and its teachings on a life for Christ.

[brainpan]

1) Your examples of 2kings and Esther would not be in the greek so that is out already.They're not "my examples," but examples used by Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary. They were included as a reference, and to give context. "the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common." (this is supported by 2Kings and Esther)
Yes there are 3 classes and the voluntary is a different word.You can choose to be celibate or castrated. It is even possible to castrate yourself, as many early Christians did.
so again the other examples in the passage do speak to castration but the third is speaking to heart attitude.There is plenty of room in the interpretation of all three examples to indicate castration.
this is a common way of making a point which was very effective to the audience at that time who understood the language and its nuances. (But is was) absolute rubbish on the part of tertullian.Wait a minute! Tertullian was from the very time period to which you just referred! So was Origen!
traditions and historical practices do not equate to scriptural action and do not equate to scriptural inaccuracy.True. But the actions of people who understood the language of the time can't be dismissed out of hand either. I only introduced them to hammer down a point that is irrefutable in the first place. You have no legitimate cause to discount the catrated male from any part of Matthew 19:12.

[brainpan]

Indeed, but what I cannot believe is that brainpan doesn't even mention the woman in jail who will be stoned for adultryWhy not? This is the first time you mentioned it.
It is important to realize that now we do not follow the Old Covenant or Testament...Whoa! I hope you realize you're using the langage of that fool Tertullian now! You know, that guy who thought castraded male really means castrated male. :eek:
...rather it is through Christ or the New Covenant or Testament that should be followed.Again with the Tertullian stuff! Sweet Yahweh! :eek:
So for your arguments to get into the door, at least, you would have to assume that Christians or those that follow the Bible should be practicing these things in the OT when we don't, it is the NT we follow.Not a single one of my (let me be humble enough to remind you they're Squirrel's) arguments relies on that.
Perhaps you could start...mainly a topic about the NT and its teachings on a life for Christ.That might be fun. Perhaps you could start a topic about why the Bible is a load of bull. I'm sure the result of our combined effort would be peculiar indeed. :)

[heel31ok]

They're not "my examples," but examples used by Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary. They were included as a reference, and to give context. "the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common." (this is supported by 2Kings and Esther)
You can choose to be celibate or castrated. It is even possible to castrate yourself, as many early Christians did.
There is plenty of room in the interpretation of all three examples to indicate castration.
Wait a minute! Tertullian was from the very time period to which you just referred! So was Origen!
True. But the actions of people who understood the language of the time can't be dismissed out of hand either. I only introduced them to hammer down a point that is irrefutable in the first place. You have no legitimate cause to discount the catrated male from any part of Matthew 19:12.
wrong, you said we will go the greek route again the greek route has nothing to do with the first examples. The history of the eunuch in the OT has nothing to do with this word used in the NT passages. Diversion #1.

The word used was that of a heart attitude the room for intrpretation was taken out when a different word was used to make this point.So , diversion #2.
Now for the other things you wrote they make no sense at all so I will save a step of refutation for there is no need.diversion #3.

[brainpan]

wrong, you said we will go the greek route again the greek route has nothing to do with the first examples. The history of the eunuch in the OT has nothing to do with this word used in the NT passages.According to your co-religionists, Jesus was speaking about the same eunuchs that were addressed in the OT, which Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary indicates were employed in Oriental courts and were often of the mutilated form.
The word used was that of a heart attitude the room for intrpretation was taken out when a different word was used to make this point.You simply made an assertion with no supporting evidence. Even worse, your explanation doesn't disqualify the castrated male from the definition. Again, you can voluntarily choose to be castrated, it is even possible to castrate yourself. Many early Christians castrated themselves.
Now for the other things you wrote they make no sense at all so I will save a step of refutation for there is no need.Total nonsense. You appealed to a contemporary understanding of 2nd century Greek. It was a perfectly valid response, on my part, to demonstrate that many contemporaries understood Eunoukhos to include castrated males.

[heel31ok]

[QUOTE=brainpan]According to your co-religionists, Jesus was speaking about the same eunuchs that were addressed in the OT, which Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary indicates were employed in Oriental courts and were often of the mutilated form.
You simply made an assertion with no supporting evidence. Even worse, your explanation doesn't disqualify the castrated male from the definition. Again, you can voluntarily choose to be castrated, it is even possible to castrate yourself. Many early Christians castrated themselves.
co- religionists?i stand on my comments they stand on theirs if you want to discuss their views then do so.The comments were on the greek words not the OT eunuchs.
My "assertion" as you say was not that at all I gave the # for the different word used. I guess you missed that. The change in words used clearly disqualifies the previous words and leaves no room to confuse the two.once again it is a simple technique used when making a point.If the meaning were the same and meant to be the same then the same word would have been used.

[brainpan]

I gave the # for the different word used.Which is absolutely meaningless without the source. I have no way of knowing what the #'s refer to. And again, simply insisting that one definition deals with something that is voluntary doesn't help you. For the umpteenth time, you can volunteer to be castrated. For the umpteenth time again, many early Christians actually castrated themselves.
The change in words used clearly disqualifies the previous words and leaves no room to confuse the two.You haven't given any evidence that there is a change of words. Simply throwing out disembodied reference #'s doesn't qualify as evidence.

[heel31ok]

Which is absolutely meaningless without the source. I have no way of knowing what the #'s refer to. And again, simply insisting that one definition deals with something that is voluntary doesn't help you. For the umpteenth time, you can volunteer to be castrated. For the umpteenth time again, many early Christians actually castrated themselves.
You haven't given any evidence that there is a change of words. Simply throwing out disembodied reference #'s doesn't qualify as evidence.
you argued against my posts from the star but do not know the source which was my post from the start. you are so quick to argue that you do not actually read the posts you want to argue with. The souce has been posted if you missed it, oh well justanother miss in a long line.
for the umpteent time your diversion will not change the fact that the word used is different than that of actual eunuchs.Christians may have castrated themselves but that does not change the words used and the meanings of the words used.

[steveksux]

It is important to realize that now we do not follow the Old Covenant or Testament, rather it is through Christ or the New Covenant or Testament that should be followed. So for your arguments to get into the door, at least, you would have to assume that Christians or those that follow the Bible should be practicing these things in the OT when we don't, it is the NT we follow..So the Old Testament is wrong then?

Isn't the Old Testament where you get all the geneologies you use to figure out the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Randy

[heel31ok]

So the Old Testament is wrong then?

Isn't the Old Testament where you get all the geneologies you use to figure out the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Randy
covenant dude, covenant!it is a key to understanding this post.He did not say it was wrong at all.and the topic was not geneologies or the age of the earth.it is the prescribed Laws and punishments presented by God to the people of Israel. Diversion again. A tired trick but it seems to make you happy, so have at it.

[steveksux]

covenant dude, covenant!it is a key to understanding this post.He did not say it was wrong at all.It must be wrong if you stopped following it and started following the New testament instead.
and the topic was not geneologies or the age of the earth.it is the prescribed Laws and punishments presented by God to the people of Israel. Diversion again. A tired trick but it seems to make you happy, so have at it.No diversion, merely pointing out the applicablility of this admission of error in the Old testament regarding another topic, the age of the earth. I'll go slower next time so you can follow.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

No diversion, merely pointing out the applicablility of this admission of error in the Old testament regarding another topic, the age of the earth. I'll go slower next time so you can follow.

Randy

Actually what you were doing, is assuming that I meant the OT was wrong, I didn't.

[heel31ok]

It must be wrong if you stopped following it and started following the New testament instead.
No diversion, merely pointing out the applicablility of this admission of error in the Old testament regarding another topic, the age of the earth. I'll go slower next time so you can follow.

RandyCovenant ! it has nothing to do with your off topic babbling.If you want to discuss the topic feel free ...

"i'm still waiting!"

[heel31ok]

Actually what you were doing, is assuming that I meant the OT was wrong, I didn't.
Actually that is not what he(?) is doing.He is asserting it is wrong and trying to make it look like you are saying it.

[sub_zer0]

Actually that is not what he(?) is doing.He is asserting it is wrong and trying to make it look like you are saying it.

That is what I am saying, hehe.

[brainpan]

you argued against my posts from the star but do not know the source which was my post from the startNot gonna fall for that maneuver. If you have a source, post it.
...your diversion will not change the fact that the word used is different than that of actual eunuchs.I've diverted nothing and you know it. In fact, I have repeatedly asked for verifacation of your assertions only to be greeted with a "I've already answered that" response. It didn't help julierep and it wont help you.
Christians may have castrated themselves but that does not change the words used and the meanings of the words used.Never claimed otherwise. The castrated Christians were added to the interpretation of a church father who added Old Testament, New Testament, and Trinity to the Christian lexicon and also early theologians when you begged for a contemporary understanding of Eunoukhos. In other words, you brought the subject to the table, don't whine to me that it didn't go the way you had hoped.

Now that I have waded through that heaping bucketload of Red Herrings, nobody has argued that you can't voluntarily castrate yourself. Your insistance that eunoukhos should sometimes be understood in the voluntary sense isn't useful to this discussion.

[Dangerrmouse]

Two "covenants" at 180 degrees...and both "The Truth" Fine.

[heel31ok]

Not gonna fall for that maneuver. If you have a source, post it.
I've diverted nothing and you know it. In fact, I have repeatedly asked for verifacation of your assertions only to be greeted with a "I've already answered that" response. It didn't help julierep and it wont help you.
Never claimed otherwise. The castrated Christians were added to the interpretation of a church father who added Old Testament, New Testament, and Trinity to the Christian lexicon and also early theologians when you begged for a contemporary understanding of Eunoukhos. In other words, you brought the subject to the table, don't whine to me that it didn't go the way you had hoped.

Now that I have waded through that heaping bucketload of Red Herrings, nobody has argued that you can't voluntarily castrate yourself. Your insistance that eunoukhos should sometimes be understood in the voluntary sense isn't useful to this discussion.
diversion again. The sources are posted just because you have crowned yourself the determiner of acceptable posts I do not recognize your title nor your incessant whining about having someone else do your research for you.
Try to make some sense when you post. None of your response is close to addressing the real issues . You have waded through your own fish story .
I have not argued about Eunoukhos at all. See this is what i have been saying but you cannot seem to understand it is a different word that I have been talking about .I have said this in every response.You just cannot read or something, I think it is the something and that is a wilfull ignorance.

[brainpan]

diversion again.Nope. The second failure in a row, on your part, to honestly discuss the subject. You had the time to make a desperate, breathless, and pleading excuse for not simply posting any new information I may have missed. Obviously, you had the time to supply a link, or at least a cut-and-paste.
None of your response is close to addressing the real issues . You have waded through your own fish story. I have not argued about Eunoukhos at all.Your fellow religionists did, absolutely. Their arguments forced me to take the time to prove, beyond any doubt, that my interpretation of eunoukhos was valid.
See this is what i have been saying but you cannot seem to understand it is a different word that I have been talking about.Let me request for the third time that you share this "different" word with us.

[heel31ok]

Let me request for the third time that you share this "different" word with us.
as a matter of fact this is the first time you have asked for the word which I will be happy to give. It sure takes you a while to get to the heart of the matter. why waste all that time with your droning on and on when you could have asked this from the beginning? No you had to argue it was not a different word and there I room for this and blah blah blah for that.You won't just say what needs to be said but have to go on all these rabbit chases and take us around the bend and up the mountain and down through the valley of the shadow of death.
I like people just to keep it short and say what they got and move on.Not to rehash the whole history of a conversation everytime they have a response. Just say it, say it, say it! There is nothing worse than someone going on and on about something and they get so into the fluff of the words they forget to say what they started out saying.i guess some just get enamored with there own thoughts instead of just keeping it short and getting to the point.
So I appreciate you finally getting it and admitting you do not know what the word is or what it really means.Thanks.

[brainpan]

Let me request for the fourth time that you share this "different" word with us.

[heel31ok]

Let me request for the fourth time that you share this "different" word with us.
OK,I'll let you. But it is only the second time.

[brainpan]

I accept your total retreat from the argument.

[JD3]

Gentlemen, let's keep it civil please.

[2ruballa]

Not so fast! :)

1.What punishment did God say is mandatory for an unruly child??
c. Take the child out and stone it to death. Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17.

Correct.

2. After God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, how many of their own people did they kill, at God's behest, for declining to give God His due?
c. 3000 spouses and siblings in a single day. Exodus 32:26-28--Fortunately, faithfulservent has informed us the victims were all bad seed, so we don't need to concern ourselves with this brutal act of mass murder. Praise!

So you believe it took place then?

3. Who is holiest to God?
d. A man who avoids sex through castration. Isaiah 56:3-5, Matthew 19:12.

N/A

4. What type of blasphemy yields eternal damnation?
d. Blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. "...but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10.

Correct.

5. What words can earn you a one-way ticket straight to Satan's lair?
c. Calling someone a fool. "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

One way ticket to hell? Not exactly. BUT In danger of hell fire? Yes.

6. Why are there clouds in the sky?
b. Clouds are God's footprints. "...the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet." Nahum 1:3.

The point of Nahum is not to answer the question of why there are clouds in the sky. Rather, it places emphasis on the righteous judgment of God on the wicked people of Ninevah. It's no secret that God is willing to use natural disasters as apart of His divine plan. Clouds are just a small aspect of God's creation. As the wind moves in mysterious ways...so does the Spirit.

7. What causes tornadoes to form?
b. God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick result. "Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked" (Jeremiah 30:23). "Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble" (Isaiah 40:24).

You have misinterpretated the above verses to make it sound as if every tornado is the Lord Himself in the whirlwind. But no doubt, the Spirit moves as mysteriously as the wind.

8. Does God hate anyone?
c. He really hated Esau, I mean really hated. "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Mal. 1:3), " As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:13)

Correct. This leads us to the next question. Why did God hate Esua?

9. When was Jesus born?
c. Before 4 B.C., in 6 A.D. and also in 7 A.D. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). Herod died in March of 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born BEFORE that time. But . . . According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This census took place in 6 AD and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Nobody knows the exact date of Jesus' birth.

10.Once He had gotten everyone's attention with a wildly dramatic gesture, what were Jesus' very last words on the cross before He "gave up the ghost?"
d. All the above. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1) ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matt. 27:46-50) "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46) "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)

All of the above.

[brainpan]

Correct.Thank you for your honesty.
So you believe it took place then?I dont know whether the sons of Levi really committed mass murder because I don't consider most biblical passages to be authorative. I only know the Bible claims God commanded the murder and that it was carried out.
N/ANot applicable? Why not?
One way ticket to hell? Not exactly. BUT In danger of hell fire? Yes.Fair enough, but that's pretty much what Squirrel wrote. Notice he used the word "can" rather than "will."
The point of Nahum is not to answer the question of why there are clouds in the sky.But the answer is given nonetheless.
You have misinterpretated the above verses to make it sound as if every tornado is the Lord Himself in the whirlwind.Not me, Squirrel. Squirrel is very knowledgable and writes this stuff off the cuff. I have seen him do it in live chat. I am no Squirrel, not even close.

Anyway, you seem to have a point here. The scripture doesn't indicate God is in every whirlwind, only in some of them.
Correct. This leads us to the next question. Why did God hate Esua?Thank you for your honesty again. It appears you want to make apologetics for God hate as others earlier apologized for God-sanctioned killings. I look forward to further discussion on the subject.
Nobody knows the exact date of Jesus' birth.Not even the authors of the Bible. Correct.