What do you make of this Birdy?

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#2
I thought I made it clear before when I said they are filthy perverts. The ones who try to protect them are the same. Theres a lot of school teachers and child care workers who have been caught too, it's not a problem unique to the church they are everywhere.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#3
Birdy said:
I thought I made it clear before when I said they are filthy perverts. The ones who try to protect them are the same. Theres a lot of school teachers and child care workers who have been caught too, it's not a problem unique to the church they are everywhere.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
well there goes pell, the GG, and most of the vatican, they have a long history of protecting paedophiles.

as have certain other orgs.

lets see the law hunt them down and send them to gaol.
 

PA HOG

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Posts
1,075
Likes
0
Location
frankston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
hawthorn
#4
Birdy said:
.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

What does this strange statement mean?
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#6
Freo Big Fella said:
Priests should only be punished for Raping Christian kids was the message I drew from it.
Well not surprisingly you drew incorrectly. It's saying anyone who causes a child to stumble is in deep ********. It's obvious from the Bible children have a special place in God's heart and anyone who harms them will be not be looked favourably on.
 

Freo Big Fella

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
10,731
Likes
5,401
Location
The great wide north
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
WA, Australia
#7
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


Must say I certainly agree with the sentiment, but isn't "Who beleive in me" an exclusive term?
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#8
Freo Big Fella said:
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Must say I certainly agree with the sentiment, but isn't "Who beleive in me" an exclusive term?
It is referring to those who cause the little ones to lose faith, but it can be applied to a situation such as this. Abuse by priests would be a stumbling block to ones faith.
 

PA HOG

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Posts
1,075
Likes
0
Location
frankston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
hawthorn
#9
Birdy said:
Well not surprisingly you drew incorrectly. It's saying anyone who causes a child to stumble is in deep ********. It's obvious from the Bible children have a special place in God's heart and anyone who harms them will be not be looked favourably on.




Your post creates more questions than it answers!

1) The text clearly refers only to "little ones which believe in me"
2) Do you agree that people who offend Christian children should be drowned?
3) Would you be pleased to read that a state government will legislate to punish SOME child offenders with drowning, in line with the teachings of Christ.
4) What does "********" mean?
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#11

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#12
PA HOG said:
Your post creates more questions than it answers!

1) The text clearly refers only to "little ones which believe in me"
2) Do you agree that people who offend Christian children should be drowned?
3) Would you be pleased to read that a state government will legislate to punish SOME child offenders with drowning, in line with the teachings of Christ.
4) What does "********" mean?
Jesus is not excluding children who don't believe in Him, He was holding a child who did believe in Him when saying this and included it as though to point out how shameful it would be for someone to entice one of His children into sin. Jesus didn't say they should be drowned but that it would be better for them if they were drowned, in other words a clear warning of a terrible punishment that awaits them.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#13
Birdy said:
Jesus is not excluding children who don't believe in Him, He was holding a child who did believe in Him when saying this and included it as though to point out how shameful it would be for someone to entice one of His children into sin. Jesus didn't say they should be drowned but that it would be better for them if they were drowned, in other words a clear warning of a terrible punishment that awaits them.
So you don't believe in literal interpretation of the Bible then? I thought you did (unless it was "clearly a parable") - that's what you said in the past.

If you take the fundamentalist literal interpretation of that verse, it specifies children that believe in Jesus. Other children are not included. Still the consistancy of the fundamentalist in any religion is usually quite poor.
 

Rookie

Club Legend
Joined
May 12, 2004
Posts
2,830
Likes
1,288
Location
Globetrotting
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#14
Mr Q said:
So you don't believe in literal interpretation of the Bible then? I thought you did (unless it was "clearly a parable") - that's what you said in the past.

If you take the fundamentalist literal interpretation of that verse, it specifies children that believe in Jesus. Other children are not included. Still the consistancy of the fundamentalist in any religion is usually quite poor.
What the verse is saying is: "Any of you, who make an innocent child fall - you'd be better off dying in an extremely painful way than committing that sin"
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#15
Rookie said:
What the verse is saying is: "Any of you, who make an innocent child fall - you'd be better off dying in an extremely painful way than committing that sin"
No it doesn't:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me..."

Literal translation: "Whoever offends against a child that believes in me." Says nothing about other children whatsoever. I always wonder about fundamentalist Christianity - how it goes on and on about how the Bible is true word for word, yet try and pass off the sort of stuff Birdy/Rookie are doing here with a straight face.
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#16
Mr Q said:
No it doesn't:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me..."

Literal translation: "Whoever offends against a child that believes in me." Says nothing about other children whatsoever. I always wonder about fundamentalist Christianity - how it goes on and on about how the Bible is true word for word, yet try and pass off the sort of stuff Birdy/Rookie are doing here with a straight face.
The same verse in Luke does not include the believe in me part, so it's even more obvious that it's not important to the message.

Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#19
This is what everyone says about inconsistancies in the Bible. One Gospel is more specific than the other - surely that would mean that the more specific one is the more accurate as it gives the more detailed instruction?

"not important to the message"

Really. I thought that from what you've been saying the entire Bible is the Word of God - untainted. Surely that would mean that even the most throwaway line has meaning, particularly if they are defined as the actual words of Christ.

From these two examples you've brought forward we can see that two of the Gospels say something different and slightly different in meaning. Surely this is an indicator that the Bible would have to be man's recollection of the words of God - and thus, like all human endeavour subject to error and mistake, and indeed subject to the whims of the authors. Surely if the Bible was indeed the actual Word of God there would be no inconsistancies within the different books, no points at which people could point and say "This is the opposite of that".

(Oh, and for your information, I was brought up as one of those "idalotrous" Catholics)
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#20
Mr Q said:
This is what everyone says about inconsistancies in the Bible. One Gospel is more specific than the other - surely that would mean that the more specific one is the more accurate as it gives the more detailed instruction?

"not important to the message"

Really. I thought that from what you've been saying the entire Bible is the Word of God - untainted. Surely that would mean that even the most throwaway line has meaning, particularly if they are defined as the actual words of Christ.

From these two examples you've brought forward we can see that two of the Gospels say something different and slightly different in meaning. Surely this is an indicator that the Bible would have to be man's recollection of the words of God - and thus, like all human endeavour subject to error and mistake, and indeed subject to the whims of the authors. Surely if the Bible was indeed the actual Word of God there would be no inconsistancies within the different books, no points at which people could point and say "This is the opposite of that".
Mr.Q you obviously don't understand scripture, most likely because you need to be spoon fed. Most people can think for themselves and apply a bit of commonsense. Why would the author omit the crucial part of the verse? Perhaps because it wasn't important to the message Jesus was making? You claim God's word should have no inconsistencies, well there aren't any inconsistencies in doctrine. God did not write the Bible Himself, it was inspired by God but written by fallible humans.

(Oh, and for your information, I was brought up as one of those "idalotrous" Catholics)
Well I hope you have since repented from this idolatry. Mind you I was only referring to some Catholics who cross this line, probably a minority.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#21
Birdy said:
Mr.Q you obviously don't understand scripture, most likely because you need to be spoon fed. Most people can think for themselves and apply a bit of commonsense. Why would the author omit the crucial part of the verse?
Surely if its the Word of God, it is not the place of the writer to censor it in any way? In fact, surely censoring the text would in fact be sinful....

Birdy said:
Perhaps because it wasn't important to the message Jesus was making? You claim God's word should have no inconsistencies, well there aren't any inconsistencies in doctrine. God did not write the Bible Himself, it was inspired by God but written by fallible humans.
So basically, any part of the Bible could be where one of the fallible humans was fallible - therefore when it comes to the Bible one should look at the basic meaning behind things and not the minutiae?

Ha. That's pretty much what I've been arguing the whole time. The Bible has some key tenets, and they are important; to care about the little things is opening yourself up to the Word of Man rather than the Word of God.

Basically, I believe that the main tenets of the Christian religion - as it was meant to be - are those of the Sermon on the Mount (I don't recall anything in there going "Blessed is the bigot..."), and the "new commandment" to "love one another as I have loved you". Neither of those lead to some of the hatred and bigotry of the assorted Churches through the ages, nor the rising bigotry of the religious right.

Birdy said:
Well I hope you have since repented from this idolatry. Mind you I was only referring to some Catholics who cross this line, probably a minority.
I also find this funny - how some evangelical/fundamentalist Christians seem to have more of a problem with Catholics - another Christian sect - than with non-believers. Interesting.
 

PA HOG

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Posts
1,075
Likes
0
Location
frankston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
hawthorn
#22
Birdy said:
Jesus is not excluding children who don't believe in Him, He was holding a child who did believe in Him when saying this and included it as though to point out how shameful it would be for someone to entice one of His children into sin.




What does "a child who did believe in Him" actually mean?

How old was the child?


It seems to me the child would have been fairly old, considering he/she was old enough to make a decision concerning the complex subject of believing in Jesus (whatever that means)
 

Birdy

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Posts
318
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#23
PA HOG said:
What does "a child who did believe in Him" actually mean?
To have faith in and entrust ones spiritual well being.

It seems to me the child would have been fairly old, considering he/she was old enough to make a decision concerning the complex subject of believing in Jesus (whatever that means)
It's a very simple decision to make. You could even believe right now if you wanted.

This will be my last post in SCP for a while, I have uni work to get back to so I won't be replying to any more posts.
 
Top Bottom