quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

But do you not see the vast gulf between "being rude" and "cursing your parents" ?

Let's see, that would depend on your definitions.
To many 'cursing' just means swearing.

It is however utterly irrelevant. How can it be right to execute your children for something (anything) they said.

Seriously, freethinker, there are plenty of other threads where you can discuss religion, or you can start one yourself. Youve gone so off topic its ridiculous.

Read the original post. The clues are all there.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

But do you not see the vast gulf between "being rude" and "cursing your parents" ?

Let's see, that would depend on your definitions.
To many 'cursing' just means swearing.

It is however utterly irrelevant. How can it be right to execute your children for something (anything) they said.

If you read the bible it seems that the people described in the stories had a very screwed up set of values. Some of them don't seem just primitive, but surreal.

Consider for example Noah (who, with his family were the only to be spared by Yahweh from the massacre of the flood, so you are supposed to take them as an example of virtue). Genesis 9:20 tells us that Noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk, and lies around naked in his tent. His son, Ham, happens to see his father naked. Big deal, you'd think. But wait. When Noah sobers up and hears that Ham saw him naked, he curses not Ham, but Ham's son, Canaan. You figure it out. And this book is supposed to be our moral guide. Yes, you figure it out.

But do you not see the vast gulf between "being rude" and "cursing your parents" ?[/QUOTE]

------------------------------------------------

OK, so you spend your childhood being abused by your father, you curse him for being mentally and physically cruel and as a result you have to be murdered.

To echo Leafar's sentiments, you guys continually purposefully misinterpret the Bible, and put a negative slant on all of the stories, rather than seeing the bottom line message, which is that God loves His children.

You really are missing out.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
To echo Leafar's sentiments, you guys continually purposefully misinterpret the Bible, and put a negative slant on all of the stories, rather than seeing the bottom line message, which is that God loves His children.

You really are missing out.

-----------------------------------------------

I'm certainly missing out a proper answer from you. Does the abused child have to die for curing his father?

quote:

Originally posted by CDarwin:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
To echo Leafar's sentiments, you guys continually purposefully misinterpret the Bible, and put a negative slant on all of the stories, rather than seeing the bottom line message, which is that God loves His children.

You really are missing out.

-----------------------------------------------

I'm certainly missing out a proper answer from you. Does the abused child have to die for curing his father?

Depends upon what disease he had before he cured him, I suppose?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar?:
Seriously, freethinker, there are plenty of other threads where you can discuss religion, or you can start one yourself. Youve gone so off topic its ridiculous.

Read the original post. The clues are all there.

Would that include the comparison of a XIAN couple who wishes to adopt, versus a couple with a criminal record.
Thus the OP introduces religion. Didn't you read it?
Woolfy then introduces the idea of it being good and xian to beat children and this is excused because it says so in some old book.
That book also says it is OK to kill children who 'curse' their parents, so by extension that must also be OK. I simply challenge that.

At what point have I introduced anything off-topic? Even if I did, so what.
What's it to you?

quote:

Ive been missed. I can feel it.

Wrong.
Just shows you how you can't rely on subjective 'evidence'.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
But do you not see the vast gulf between "being rude" and "cursing your parents" ?

i'm not very clear on what constitutes 'cursing'. is it sort of like 'may your innards shrivel up if you do not lend me the car tonight'?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
Wrong.

i am having deja vu or is raf stalking you? maybe woolfie could let us know the biblical punishment for such actions. hope its painful. and gory. and slow.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
Wrong.

i am having deja vu or is raf stalking you?

It certainly feels like that.
Can't think what I must have done to be unjustly accused of the heinous crime of going off topic.
Is it any worse than rarely answering a question?

No Mr Woolf, its not that i have a problem with people misinterpreting the bible. Heres your original post, which i read and understood :

The council which recently banned a Christian couple from fostering because of their views on smacking will happily consider couples with a criminal record.

Discuss.


You clearly were not inviting people to debate all of the ins and outs of christianity. The intention as well as the title of your thread is very clear. The fact that the couple are christian is just one aspect, for it is perfectly possible to believe in smacking kids and not be religious at all.

Unfortunately some feel the need to turn any discussion which includes the mere mention of religion into a full debate about religion. Perhaps theyre not capable of doing otherwise. Or perhaps they just like negative conflict, however off topic they have to go to get it.

Freethinker, i think the main point of this thread is to discuss whether people who believe in smacking kids are less or more deserving of fostering kids than people with criminal records. As i say, the clues are all in the original post, as well as the actual title. I suggest you read them again.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
But do you not see the vast gulf between "being rude" and "cursing your parents" ?

i'm not very clear on what constitutes 'cursing'. is it sort of like 'may your innards shrivel up if you do not lend me the car tonight'?

Don't most 'traditional' middle-eastern curses involve relatives like: "may the head of your first born swell to the size of a melon".

Wolfy: if the first born child cursed his father in such a way, should executed before or after his head swelled to the size of a melon?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar?:
No Mr Woolf, its not that i have a problem with people misinterpreting the bible. Heres your original post, which i read and understood :

The council which recently banned a Christian couple from fostering because of their views on smacking will happily consider couples with a criminal record.

And you clearly missed the hidden agenda of the OP.
I put it in bold to help you see it.
Wolfy then defended smacking on the grounds of a biblical warrant.

Neither subject was introduced by me.

Now, if you would like to discuss smacking in general, you could start a thread on that.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar?:
The intention as well as the title of your thread is very clear. The fact that the couple are christian is just one aspect, for it is perfectly possible to believe in smacking kids and not be religious at all.

If that were the intention then why mention that they were xian. It was clearly intended to convey something. If the question were about smacking then it is irrelevant that they are xian.

quote:

Freethinker, i think the main point of this thread is to discuss whether people who believe in smacking kids are less or more deserving of fostering kids than people with criminal records. As i say, the clues are all in the original post, as well as the actual title. I suggest you read them again.

You don't think that the fact the OP was posted by wolfy should be considered when responding.
It is obvious what point he was trying to make. Are you so insensitive to other people's agenda that you didn't spot it?

Thats all very fascinating, freethinker, but youre still off topic, my confused friend.


Unfortunately some FEEL THE NEED to turn ANY discussion which includes the MERE MENTION of religion into a FULL DEBATE about religion. Perhaps theyre not capable of doing otherwise. Or perhaps they just like negative conflict, HOWEVER OFF TOPIC THEY HAVE TO GO TO GET IT.

(The bits in capitals are for your clarification). Remember, the clues are in the title and the original post. Its quite easy really.

oh my.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar?:

You clearly were not inviting people to debate all of the ins and outs of christianity.

has anyone ever seen woolfy debate anything OTHER than the (er...) 'ins and outs' of christianity?

i actually feel sorry for woolfy. with raf on your side, who needs enemies?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar?:
Unfortunately some FEEL THE NEED to turn ANY discussion which includes the MERE MENTION of religion into a FULL DEBATE about religion. Perhaps theyre not capable of doing otherwise. Or perhaps they just like negative conflict, HOWEVER OFF TOPIC THEY HAVE TO GO TO GET IT.

What the hell is your problem.

The OP compared a xian couple with a criminal one.

My response has been limited to xian attitude to punishment of children.
Hardly a 'full debate' on xianity.

Just how do you see this as being off-topic, and anyway most thread go off topic before the end of the first page.

I do recall are rather extended discussion about smoking which at no point did I mention religion so clearly you are not talking about me in your 'some people'.

btw I was able to read without the need for you to SHOUT.

You are apparently not able to read into a question the key point a poster is making.
The issue of the couple being xian was clearly, obviously, not incidental; it was the crux of the matter.
It justified their actions and made them, per see, more worthy of being parents than criminals in the eyes of wolfy.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
What the hell is your problem.

<cue lengthy passages from DSM IV....>

That's just unkind, deserved but unkind.

Sorry freethinker, i didnt mean to shout. As i said to you before i was merely clarifying some basics for you. My bad. Maybe ill use italics next time. Or perhaps that means whispering, which is hardly appropriate considering how hard a time youre having with the title and the original post.

You really should read it again.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
in the past i have been anti smacking, however after due consideration of the thread, i feel there may be occasions when smacking is probably justified.