This blog is inappropriate for this debate. I've posted my response to your last post on this blog:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/jan/12/...

I’ve decided to offer my rebuttal to Gazettefan’s contentions for those verses in Deuteronomy anyway since they cry out for correction.
Deuteronomy 21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: (and also the part Gazettefan left out) so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
.
Gazettefan’s obvious and erroneous contention here is that the word son refers to a child, and for his purposes the younger the better. But the examples of crimes attributed to the rebellious son are that he is a glutton, and a drunkard, not crimes one associates with misbehaving children as Gazettefan claims. Furthermore, as Gazettefan should have noted, since he's claiming to be a biblical authority, that the word son is a translation from the Hebrew word “ben” which is not age specific. The context that Gazettefan claims isn’t there is historical in that in that ancient culture, a man or a woman was under the authority of his father for as long as his father lived in contrast to our culture where an adult offspring achieves total independence at the age of majority, a concept that ancient culture never had. So, for Gazettefan to draw the conclusions he has, he must ignore the historical and cultural context of the time this scripture was written and instead substitute our present day culture as if such substitution were valid which of course it is not.
.
Now I realize that stoning to death an adult offspring my seem too harsh, but I’m sure that many people may think that the principle of punishing such unruly progeny is valid and may find some merit for it even in our culture, short of capital punishment of course, since we can’t seem to bring ourselves to execute mass murderers either. And that is the purpose of this scripture, to establish a standard of behavior towards our parents with the possibility of terrible punishment for the worst offenders, but clearly not children.
.
There it is Gazettefan, you may now commence twisting and stretching my words into an unrecognizable form as if they were taffy. And don’t forget that quote you promised to provide.

Keep scratching Gazettefan, but your credibility, what little there was, is lost. Read in all the disingenuous meanings you like, they mean nothing to me. If you ever get around to posting something substantial, then I'll post my waiting rebuttal, not that I really think that will ever happen. I must say that I am surprised that you admit that your personal morality allows you to misrepresent yourself. That's stunningly unwitting of you.

billnewbie, your last paragraph is accurate:

"[gazettefan] looks at verses such as the ones he posted and says to himself that these laws and the actions they condone are on their face immoral, by his standards. He sees no reason to consider the underlying principles, the prevailing cultural backdrop of the time or the historical context. All Gazettefan sees is that these verses offend his 21st Century morality, which as we have seen does not preclude personal misrepresentations."

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

When did you or anyone else get permission to revise the meaning of god's words. Isn't that blasphemy?! Why doesn't scripture depict the correct way to discipline a child. After all, god is all-knowing and all that stuff.

First, are you claiming there was a time when it was OK to murder a misbehaving child. Wow!

Second, the fact that 21st century morality doesn't apply to this verse is proof that scripture, including god's words, are the workings of humans. Humans thought it was OK to kill children under those circumstances back then and that's why the idea found it's way into scripture. But since then humans have changed their minds.

Humans created scripture and god, and humans are changing the meaning of scripture and the meaning of god's words with theological back-pedaling. But all those theological after-market changes are not good. Much of theology is horrible and was only contrived to benefit church bureaucrats (parasitic clergy).

It's all man-made. You have unwittingly confessed to it.

What I've said here is what an expert in scripture would say.

How disappointing. I expected a person who would write “I am an authority on scripture" to be able to support his opinions about scripture with something substantial, an example of that authoritative knowledge. Instead all Gazettefan can do is copy and paste a couple of verses as if that were all an authority on scripture needs do. However that does verify what I’ve written about Gazettefan in the past, that his questions, and now his specious claims of himself, are disingenuous to the core. He has no interest in any answers he may get to his insincere questions other than whatever value they may have for his ulterior purpose to ridicule. He presents himself as an authority on scripture, claiming in past posts that he has analyzed what is written there yet he seems unable to provide the fruits of that authoritative analysis. I contend that he is no authority on scripture and that he is too proud to admit he overstated himself. Still, he can as yet prove me wrong. All he need do is provide a thoughtful analysis of those verses he cited.
.
Gazettefan’s “argument by outrage” hinges on his own confidence that his moral judgment is correct and therefore superior to God’s and that of anyone who disagrees. He looks at verses such as the ones he posted and says to himself that these laws and the actions they condone are on their face immoral, by his standards. He sees no reason to consider the underlying principles, the prevailing cultural backdrop of the time or the historical context. All Gazettefan sees is that these verses offend his 21st Century morality, which as we have seen does not preclude personal misrepresentations.

Deuteronomy 21:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them, then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard;

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

I can respond and will as soon as you provide an authoritative justification of your contentions of the meaning of those scriptures that an authority of scripture should be easily able to provide. Your argument of outrage falls short for one who claims such status.

What was the quote you're talking about? You'll get that one when you respond to the 'daughters' 'children verses.'

Why can't you respond to them. Do you reject that part of the bible. Are you allowed?

I'm all set to respond, as soon as you provide something to respond to.
Now, where was that quotation from Christ?

Exegesis on Jesus, I like that.

Let's have the response to the 'daughters' and 'children' verses.

By the way, you might remember from last week's sermon that Jesus and god are the same guy.

Well, I'm all set. I have the rough draft of my rebuttal ready to go. All I need is Gazettefan's authoritative justification for why he defines those scriptures as he does so that I can put on the final touches. One thing though Gazettefan, I have searched all over for that Christ Quotation you paraphrased with no results. Please provide same so that I can take a stab at rebutting your exegesis of that too.

You've offered nothing to counter. You claim to be a biblical authority. Is your ability to copy and paste from an online bible source your only claim to that authority or do you have anything else to add? So far, all you've offered are absurd contentions, a ploy that is called an "argument by outrage". Are you a Dan Barker fan?

You are empty. Like a child you pretend it's not there.

You sunk yourself. Counter what I've posted here!

Answer the challenge then and provide your insight. I'm working on mine. But of course, you first.

Context?!!! What possible context could change the meaning of these versus?!!! If that's possible, then you provide the context.

You've sunk yourself with this challenge.

Read your bible?

I don't see your analysis. Where are you reasons for drawing the conclusions you have? What is the context of these verses? And where is the quote from Christ you cited? Simply posting cherry picked verses is hardly authentication of your contention that you are a biblical authority, nor are they verification of your definitions.

------REFUTE THIS-------

Exodus 21:

21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Exodus 21:7

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Deuteronomy 21:

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:

Memorization is unnessassary. Take all the time you need to put together your thesis. Can't find your biblical verse? Is your concordance lost? Would you like me to provide you with some Internet resources so that you can find what you need since I'm sure that the pages of your bible are so faded from use as to be unreadable?
.
At the risk of repeating myself, I refute everything you say about the bible as self serving bilge. I can't think of a way to state that more clearly.

billnewbie, the flaw in your rant is your implication that in order to truly comprehend the bible you have to memorize it. To memorize it is to pound it into your brain at the expense of analytical comprehension.

Are you refuting that the bible says that misbehaving daughters can be sold by their fathers to other men? And are refuting that the bible says that misbehaving children can be stoned to death?

Or is it your only point of contention: I haven't memorized by rote the entire bible?

Ok Gazettefan, I refute anything you’ve ever said about the bible as self serving bilge. You claim to be a biblical authority? I think you got your”Biblical Authority Certificate” in a box of crackerjack. But you can prove me wrong. Simply state the biblical verses you refer to and include your expert analysis with details about why you define them the way you do. You made the claim to know this material well. Let’s see you back it up with something other than “Gazettefan says so”. Then we’ll be able to assess your authority by its substance.

billnewbie, you did not deny what I said below: about the daughters and other children being brutalized according to god and scripture. I am an authority on scripture, especially compared to you.

Refute what I claim is in the bible.

It looks like Gazettefan has been inhaling a little toxic gas of some kind or another to have the chutzpah to write “You don't tell me what's in the bible, I tell you” after all of his disingenuous agenda driven distortions of what the bible says.
.
Really Gazettefan, you, an authority on the bible? In the words of the younger generation, AS IF!

lovestoscrap, in the Old Testament, it's god who said that daughters can be sold to men and that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, it wasn't the jews, unless you want to say god doesn't exist and everything attributed to god in the bible was only stated by men.

And in the New Testament Jesus says anyone who doesn't believe in him will spend eternity burning in hell, including children and babies.

God shouldn't be wasting his love on me. There are thousands of innocent people dying every hour from disease and unsanitary water alone. Where's god's love for them?

You don't tell me what's in the bible, I tell you.

And where did you get your conversational skills? from your fellow christian Adolf Hitler?

Like I said GF, you are of course just wanting to argue. I knew that before I answered and yes, I do get my information from the Bible. If you read the Bible, or listened to wise counsel, you would know that Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish but fill it. You would also know that the Jews wrote laws and even though it was happening in Bible history, doesn't mean it was always God's law. Just like God didn't want Sampson to cut his hair or David to have an affair. It happened, that doens't mean it was God's will. Just like God allowed Obama to become president. It doesn't mean He approves of what he is doing. I realize this will only fuel you longer so don't expect a reply from me regarding this subject in the future. You have issues and I am sure God will, in His time, reveal the truth to you. He does love you, you know.

lovestocrap, your idea of heaven sounds like a drinking party or a reefer party. Did you get that idea from the bible?

As for your biblical source for that idea of heaven, the bible also says that it's okay for fathers to sell their daughters to other men. The bible also says that parents should have misbehaving children stoned to death. Do you agree with that?!

Gfan, I'll take a little stab at your question to Christforlife. Once in heaven, our way of thinking changes. What was important here is no longer important. Heaven is a living environment in which we will have no pain, no heartaches, no hurts. There is joy. The messages that would be sent to family and friends that have passed on, would probably be forgotten in the transfering as everything old passes away and there is only new. I realize this is probably just a question from you to instigate an argument, but for the sake of those who might actually be reading and wondering what the answer might be, this is for them. We don't know exactly what heaven will be like but the Bible gives us clues. For one thing, it's going to be awesome and we won't be hanging on to petty questions anymore. They just won't seem that important in the scheme of things.

gazellefan, it doesn't and He still is :)

christforlife, why don't the family and friends of a dying christian give him or her messages to carry to family and friends who died before him or her?

lovetocrap, if your definition of god includes the quality of non-existence, you are correct.

At the end of the day...regardless of your opinions and arguments God is still God.

How come when a christian is dying his friends and family don't give him or her messages for friends and family who have died before him or her?

Fillups 422 : Hebrews 11:1 Faith is all the evidence a christian needs. If it is a mystery please keep seeking.

"Seeing the light" is equal to "blinded by ignorance" in my opinion.
Here is my thoughts EXACTLY summed up by a very thoughtful person..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj...

Christforlife-
Show me the Science that proves Jesus Christ was the son of God. Please, please!

fillups422,
First of all a real christian does not fear when they die, they actually are looking forward to it. Christ died for our sins so there is nothing to fear. He took all of the punishment for us. Also TRUE christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with christ. Secondly if you say you do not believe in God that would be an athiest not and agnostic. Either way I will be praying for you to see the light. Lastly there are way to many things that scientificly prove that Jesus was on this earth.

You can have all the scripture you want, but at the end of the day you are still praying to an invisible man that uses fear tactics to scare you into being good...or you'll get a big f'n spanking when you die.

Now don't get me wrong, Christianity has its purpose. As does Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism. These religions provide society with basic guidelines for life. Don't kill, don't steal, don't be an a-hole in general. Without organized religion the world would be pretty chaotic.

I myself am agnostic. I would rather believe in myself to do the right thing rather than live in fear that I might just be doing the wrong thing. The only difference between me and a practicing Christian would be, I get to keep 10% of my income, I don't believe in god, and I don't have to rush home on Sunday to watch football. Other than that I live a pretty peaceful life.

If I did have to choose a religion though, it would probably be Buddhism. More specifically Zen Buddhism. (there are different types, research it and you might be surprised on how you can incorporate it into your current lifestyle...Christian or otherwise)

Good thing I'm all-seeing and all-knowing. It keeps me safely out of church.

rockstars,
I have some scripture to back up what I am saying. These are not my own words but straight from the bible. John 16:33 I have told you these things so that you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.
gazettefan,
What doctrine are you rejecting?
That verse that you quoted doesn't say anything about what you are talking about.

my friend had this happen in their house and they got super sick, and the thought of it is scary because it is such a posionous thing and most of the time have no idea it is around until it is too late i hope everyone is okay especially the baby

My thoughts and prayers go out to the church mice.

monoxided oops sorry about the spelling error

yikes, they better get carbon monoxided detectors now. i think every home and business should have them

rockstars
I do not believe in organized religon. I believe in having a relationship with Christ. You do not need religon for that. ( I am not judging or downing people that do believe that way either.) You make God sound like a kid with a magnifying glass torturing ants. He did not cause the gas leak just to fix it. Finally I am not interpreting the bible and leaving parts out at all. I do not have it in front of me right now at work but I will try to look it up and get back to you soon.

SuperDave: ha!
Fillups422: agreed!
lauriejnsvll: I think you meant "sentiments"
christforlife: do you go anywhere besides church? Truly you must believe that if it was God's will to "save" the people that it was also God's will to "cause" the carbon monoxide. After all, they couldn't be saved if there was no reason, right? Your comments are what makes skeptical people like myself find it hard to believe in your religion or God. You are interpreting the bible and God how you WANT to and leaving important parts out.

The thing that most people do not understand is that God does not cause bad things to happen. I do see the miracle here in that nobody died and it was caught before that happened. It gets tiring to see people point out all of the bad things and say "where was God" and not see the positive things. No one ever said that if you are a christian that life is perfect. There are things that everyone has to go through in life. The trick is to seek God to have him help you through it. As far as being bored in church, you must have gone to the wrong church because I am never bored in church I actually want to go more. God bless all who read this.

callie: Don't be talkin' no dirt now.

Your "sediments"????

sandman.....my sediments also..well put

First off me or my kids and most of my family wouldn't have that problem because we see organized religion exactly for what it is, crowd control. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't wish harm on anyone. I do have to call a spade a spade when I see stuff like this happens and "god" doesn't get any credit. But when something positive happens..."THANK GOD! Without him none of its possible!"

More complete story:
http://www.channel3000.com/news/18936671...
.
They still don't know what caused it, but will hire a contractor to find and fix it. Until then the building is closed.

This is the defining excerpt from billnewbie's post on another blog. It explains (according to billnewbie and church doctrine) Fillups422's post.
---------
"But no one who acknowledges the existence of God could say that God should not act as He sees fit. Yes, that means allowing people to suffer and die. If one views our existence as limited to this physical life only, then killing a person is the worst imaginable immorality there can be. But even if that were true, since God is our Creator, it is within His sovereignty to do with us as He will since we are here because of His will. So indicting God as immoral is a nonsensical argument. Being sovereign and therefore free to act as He sees fit is one of the things that define what God is. And so I will support my contention that God is sovereign with the following quote from Job chapter 38 verse 4."
----------------
I reject this doctrine.

I always felt groggy and lethargic when I attended church and a young person -- looking back now, perhaps it was actually just the CO and not the inane, dull and repetitive services that caused me to feel that way for all those years! And to think I blamed it all on Catholicism!

Fillups422 how would you feel if that was your baby and friends.

I am glad that they caught it before more people were sick or worse

Brilliant observation Fillups...

Gods will...obviously