Psalm 137:9 - What the Hell!?

MattHunX · #1 by **MattHunX** » Jul 08, 2010 6:25 pm

King James Bible
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. :what:

American King James Version
Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.

Just what the hell is this!? Would a theist care to explain to me the meaning and the morality of this passage? Allegorical? Definitely not. :nono:

Animavore · #2 by **Animavore** » Jul 08, 2010 6:30 pm

This'll probably make you mad, from Fundies Say The Darnedest Things.

When should a parent start using the rod of correction on a child that the Lord has brought into the family? There is no clear and specific answer to this very good question. However, it is my opinion that the correction of children should start as soon as the need for that correction is made manifest. Every discerning parent who has been blessed with a little child in his home realizes that his initial impression of the sweetness and the innocence of the child is in reality an illusion. A child very quickly demonstrates his fallen, depraved nature and reveals himself to be a selfish little beast in manifold ways. As soon as the child begins to express his own self-will (and this occurs early in life) that child needs to receive correction. My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will broken by the time he reaches the age of one year. To do this, a child must receive correction when he is a small infant. Every parent recognizes that this self-will begins early as he has witnessed his child stiffen his back and boldly demonstrate his rebellion and self-will even though he has been fed, diapered, and cared for in every other physical way.

This even more so.
http://cdugan0.tripod.com/RoyLessinOpenLetter.html

MattHunX · #3 by **MattHunX** » Jul 08, 2010 6:36 pm

Animavore wrote:This'll probably make you mad, from Fundies Say The Darnedest Things.

When should a parent start using the rod of correction on a child that the Lord has brought into the family? There is no clear and specific answer to this very good question. However, it is my opinion that the correction of children should start as soon as the need for that correction is made manifest. Every discerning parent who has been blessed with a little child in his home realizes that his initial impression of the sweetness and the innocence of the child is in reality an illusion. A child very quickly demonstrates his fallen, depraved nature and reveals himself to be a selfish little beast in manifold ways. As soon as the child begins to express his own self-will (and this occurs early in life) that child needs to receive correction. My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will broken by the time he reaches the age of one year. To do this, a child must receive correction when he is a small infant. Every parent recognizes that this self-will begins early as he has witnessed his child stiffen his back and boldly demonstrate his rebellion and self-will even though he has been fed, diapered, and cared for in every other physical way.

This even more so.
http://cdugan0.tripod.com/RoyLessinOpenLetter.html

That's sick! :nono:

Tbickle · #4 by **Tbickle** » Jul 08, 2010 6:39 pm

Oh, you guys take everything so literally. It's allegorical! It had to be written in such a manner that it would make sense to all generations, not just those at the time it was written. Let's break it down:

King James Bible
Happy

See, that's a lovely start. God wants us to be happy! YAY GOD!

shall he be,

He of course meaning, both male and female. As we all know, Christianity has always treated and viewed men and women as being equals.

that taketh and dasheth

Taketh? Dasheth? More like borrow and hug!

thy little ones

Little ones, like children, aren't we all God's children?

against the stones.

Stones are hard, like hearts can be at times. So, when we break it down and observe the real meaning of this passage, it should imply that we should hug all of God's children with our hearts.

Wow, I'm pretty good at this stuff...

Nocterro · #5 by **Nocterro** » Jul 08, 2010 6:51 pm

Why does no one ever care to look into this verse?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137 :

"The psalm is a hymn expressing the yearnings of the Jewish people in exile following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BC"

It's a SONG. It's not a direct command by God, or anything like that.

"n its whole form, the psalm reflects the yearning for Jerusalem as well as hatred for the Holy City's enemies with sometimes violent imagery."

It expresses the attitudes and desires of the Jewish people at the time.

"Rabbinical sources attributed the poem to the prophet Jeremiah, and the Septuagint version of the psalm bears the superscription: "For David. By Jeremias, in the Captivity."

It's written by Jeremiah. It's not God speaking.

"The poem then turns into self-exhortation to remember Jerusalem. It ends with violent fantasies of revenge, telling a "Daughter of Babylon" of the delight of "he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.""

Yes, the Jewish people were pissed off and vengeful. So?

...

Is this supposed to have anything at all to do with the truth of Christianity?

Tbickle · #6 by **Tbickle** » Jul 08, 2010 6:56 pm

Nocterro wrote:Why does no one ever care to look into this verse?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137 :

"The psalm is a hymn expressing the yearnings of the Jewish people in exile following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BC"

It's a SONG. It's not a direct command by God, or anything like that.

"n its whole form, the psalm reflects the yearning for Jerusalem as well as hatred for the Holy City's enemies with sometimes violent imagery."

It expresses the attitudes and desires of the Jewish people at the time.

"Rabbinical sources attributed the poem to the prophet Jeremiah, and the Septuagint version of the psalm bears the superscription: "For David. By Jeremias, in the Captivity."

It's written by Jeremiah. It's not God speaking.

"The poem then turns into self-exhortation to remember Jerusalem. It ends with violent fantasies of revenge, telling a "Daughter of Babylon" of the delight of "he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.""

Yes, the Jewish people were pissed off and vengeful. So?

So...what's your point?

...

Is this supposed to have anything at all to do with the truth of Christianity?

Truth of Christianity? That's interesting. I think that the reason for pointing it out is that many people seem to think of the bible only as a book where Jesus walked around healing lepers and teaching everyone to be nice to one another. Many people who call themselves Christians or believe in the bible have never read it and they are often surprised by some of what was written or the stories themselves.

What exactly is your point?

Animavore · #7 by **Animavore** » Jul 08, 2010 7:00 pm

Nocterro wrote:Is this supposed to have anything at all to do with the truth of Christianity?

"Truth" of Christianity. Surely that's an oxymoron?

Midnightblues · #8 by **Midnightblues** » Jul 08, 2010 7:09 pm

Tbickle : His post was demonstrating how the idea that this passage demonstrates how the Bible is "evil" in some cases is mistaken. This entire thread seemed to be about that.

Tbickle · #9 by **Tbickle** » Jul 08, 2010 7:14 pm

Midnightblues wrote:Tbickle : His post was demonstrating how the idea that this passage demonstrates how the Bible is "evil" in some cases is mistaken.

First of all, nobody suggested the the bible is "evil", let alone based upon one selected line. I find it odd that you are so quick to jump to the defense of the bible as not being evil when nobody said that it was.

This entire thread seemed to be about that.

No, it's based upon what I already said. Most people are not aware that lines or ideas like that particular one exist within the bible whether they be literal, allegorical, or a thought by someone with a grudge.

Midnightblues · **#10** by **Midnightblues** » Jul 08, 2010 7:16 pm

Tbickle : I'm sorry, that's just the impression I got from the OP.

"Just what the hell is this!? Would a theist care to explain to me the meaning and the morality of this passage? Allegorical? Definitely not. "

My mistake.

DaveScriv · **#11** by **DaveScriv** » Jul 08, 2010 7:24 pm

MattHunX wrote:

King James Bible
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

American King James Version
Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.

Just what the hell is this!? Would a theist care to explain to me the meaning and the morality of this passage? Allegorical? Definitely not.

'Step #1' in a 'baby stew' recipe perhaps? :mrgreen:

Biblical proof that they were eating babies before we were! :lol:

Tbickle · **#12** by **Tbickle** » Jul 08, 2010 7:26 pm

Midnightblues wrote:Tbickle : I'm sorry, that's just the impression I got from the OP.

"Just what the hell is this!? Would a theist care to explain to me the meaning and the morality of this passage? Allegorical? Definitely not. "

My mistake.

No problems. Ultimately it's just a book and can't really be evil or good so I think it's a little foolish for anyone to say what it is one way or the other. There are some passages and ideas that I think that we can find to be repulsive and what I have often found is that there are many people who don't know anything about them because they were never read at mass nor did they ever bother to fully read the bible.

In this case, someone could easily look at that (like Matt did) and wonder what ultimately is the moral value of that passage and what can be taken away from it. There are many people who think that the bible is the inspired word of God, and it wouldn't be wrong to ask them why this passage was included and what it is supposed to mean to us.

Animavore · **#13** by **Animavore** » Jul 08, 2010 7:30 pm

I think your sarcasm detector is faulty TB.

Tbickle · **#14** by **Tbickle** » Jul 08, 2010 7:32 pm

Animavore wrote:I think your sarcasm detector is faulty TB.

This thing is always breaking at the wrong time. *taps glass* Still no reading. Great, now I'm going to have to call someone out to fix this thing.

bdcarlitosway · **#15** by **bdcarlitosway** » Jul 08, 2010 8:14 pm

Nocterro wrote:Why does no one ever care to look into this verse?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_137 :

"The psalm is a hymn expressing the yearnings of the Jewish people in exile following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BC"

It's a SONG. It's not a direct command by God, or anything like that.

"n its whole form, the psalm reflects the yearning for Jerusalem as well as hatred for the Holy City's enemies with sometimes violent imagery."

It expresses the attitudes and desires of the Jewish people at the time.

"Rabbinical sources attributed the poem to the prophet Jeremiah, and the Septuagint version of the psalm bears the superscription: "For David. By Jeremias, in the Captivity."

It's written by Jeremiah. It's not God speaking.

"The poem then turns into self-exhortation to remember Jerusalem. It ends with violent fantasies of revenge, telling a "Daughter of Babylon" of the delight of "he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.""

Yes, the Jewish people were pissed off and vengeful. So?

...

Is this supposed to have anything at all to do with the truth of Christianity?

Are you saying that the bible is a reflection of beliefs and desires by ancient, superstitious, animal sacrificing primitives? So that settles it, its not the word of god. :cheers:

Nocterro · **#16** by **Nocterro** » Jul 08, 2010 10:20 pm

Are you saying that the bible is a reflection of beliefs and desires by ancient, superstitious, animal sacrificing primitives?

I'm not saying "the Bible" is anything. I'm talking about this particular verse.

Sophie T · **#17** by **Sophie T** » Jul 09, 2010 1:51 am

Many Christian pastors do believe that these "imprecatory psalms" were inspired by God. Here is what pastor John Piper writes about it:

Conclusion: We will grant to the psalmist (usually David), who speaks, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the foreshadowed Messiah and Judge, the right to call down judgment on the enemies of God. This is not personal vindictiveness. It is a prophetic execution of what will happen at the last day when God casts all his enemies into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). We would do well to leave such final assessments to God, and realize our own corrupt inability to hate as we ought. While there is unforgivable sin for which we are not to pray (see #4 above), we are told to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us, and return good for evil (as David did, see #2 above). This is our vocation by faith. Let us tremble and trust God, lest we fail, and find ourselves on the other side of the curse.

For Christians who do not think that these psalms have anything to do with Christianity, there are plenty of pastors who point out that Jesus himself quoted these Psalms and that Paul read the imprecatory psalms as the words of Christ.

As a believer in the existence of a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, wholly good God, I reject the Bible as a source of knowledge about God precisely because of Psalms like this, which portray God as a being that is not at all good.

Shuggy · **#18** by **Shuggy** » Jul 09, 2010 7:23 am

I always thought that in context "O Daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy is he that taketh thy children and dasheth them against the stones!" was suggesting that doing so would save them from worse. (It hadn't occcured to me that God would be doing the destroying - and hence the "worse" - but I guess he would.)

(I learnt the verse in 1964 in the context of singing Walton's "Belshazzar's Feast" where it has a really happy, jumpy, if polytonal, tune that rather distracts you from the content.)

babel · **#19** by **babel** » Jul 09, 2010 9:06 am

I don't care about the psalm, but the text animavore posted is horrible. How do they discipline a baby to the point where its will is broken? Talk in a stern voice? Starve it? Whack it gently?

trubble76 · **#20** by **trubble76** » Jul 09, 2010 9:23 am

babel wrote:I don't care about the psalm, but the text animavore posted is horrible. How do they discipline a baby to the point where its will is broken? Talk in a stern voice? Starve it? Whack it gently?

What I don't get is you hear all about this free will that gawd apparently gave us all, but these and other god-botherers seem to think it's their divine duty to break that free will as early as possible.
"God gave you free will, now do what I tell you, or else"

Religion can be a very good excuse to be an arsehole to people, especially kids.