GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[brunswick]

No you won't. You will be dead and that will be it. Sadly, as there is no afterlife,

oh how you are in for an almighty shock my friend.....heheh.

 

[Mr Burns]

For you simpleton:

Question: "Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the “youths” for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?"

Answer: There are a few key issues we must understand in regards to this account of the youths cursing Elisha. The text reads, “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Go on up, you baldhead!’ they said. ‘Go on up, you baldhead!’ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.” It seems unbelievable that God would cause two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald.

First, the King James Version has done us a disservice by translated the term as “children.” The Hebrew word can refer to “children,” but rather more specifically means "young men." The NIV, quoted here, uses the word “youths.” Second, the fact that the bears mauled 42 of the youths indicates that there were more than 42 youths involved. This was not a small group of children making fun of a bald man. Rather, it was a large demonstration of young men who assembled for the purpose of mocking a prophet of God. Third, the mocking of “go on up you baldhead,” is more than making fun of baldness. The baldness of Elisha referred to here may be: 1) natural loss of hair; 2) a shaved head denoting his separation to the prophetic office; or more likely, 3) an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elijah not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation.

In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, it is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men. Because these young people of about 20 years of age or older (the same term is used of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:7) so despised the prophet of the Lord, Elisha called upon the Lord to deal with the rebels as He saw fit. The Lord’s punishment was the mauling of 42 of them by two female bears. The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was God’s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.

Why did the Prophet Elisha curse the “youths” for making fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24)?

Of course you could have looked that up yourself rather than try to look smart.

Originally Posted by DerbyGull
After both of us getting banned you still want to keep bringing this up?

Do you know when to let something drop?

Obviously not.

I'm no playing your games Burns.
Originally Posted by DerbyGull
And he did create man so great that they could learn skills that would FIX that baby's problem.
EARLIER IN THE THREAD around page 30

Originally Posted by Mr Burns
So what about the millions of babies that die each year? How does that work with them getting into heaven..... let me guess, they are taken by default. So what about a child that dies before reaching double figures? Default again.... where does it stop? Or do you have to have lived on the earth for X amount of years to quailify for a place in heaven?
[missing a couple of 'filler posts'] Then...,.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
You could say they are the lucky ones, though that sounds cruel as they never had a chance at some of the joys of life, they also never had a chance to do good or bad. When some one dies we're (christians) supposed to believe it's because god 'took them'. And because they never had a chance to commit sin (the thing that keeps us from being in gods presence (being in heaven) when we die) then they will go strainght to heaven possibly to be 'sent back' by god to have another chance.

So any doctor that FIXES a baby is surely doing the devils work, as God has called the baby, the "lucky baby" into his kingdom, so anyone preventing that from happening is working against god, which you have said numerous times, anyone working against god is doing the devils work.

So by that logic, all doctors must be evil?

 

[Mr Burns]

Funny thing about these regilous freaks.

The spu their vile, but when someone asks something they don't like, they tend to ignore it. The disappear for a while, then came back, still ignoring something they dont like.

I'm sure he'll give an answer soon though. Probably couldn't find an answer by googleing it, so Derbygulls probably waiting for some other freak to give him the answer.

Sad, very sad.

May as well ask again as its funny being ignored

Originally Posted by DerbyGull
After both of us getting banned you still want to keep bringing this up?

Do you know when to let something drop?

Obviously not.

I'm no playing your games Burns.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
And he did create man so great that they could learn skills that would FIX that baby's problem.


EARLIER IN THE THREAD around page 30

Originally Posted by Mr Burns
So what about the millions of babies that die each year? How does that work with them getting into heaven..... let me guess, they are taken by default. So what about a child that dies before reaching double figures? Default again.... where does it stop? Or do you have to have lived on the earth for X amount of years to quailify for a place in heaven?
[missing a couple of 'filler posts'] Then...,.


Originally Posted by DerbyGull
You could say they are the lucky ones, though that sounds cruel as they never had a chance at some of the joys of life, they also never had a chance to do good or bad. When some one dies we're (christians) supposed to believe it's because god 'took them'. And because they never had a chance to commit sin (the thing that keeps us from being in gods presence (being in heaven) when we die) then they will go strainght to heaven possibly to be 'sent back' by god to have another chance.

Mr Burns

So any doctor that FIXES a baby is surely doing the devils work, as God has called the baby, the "lucky baby" into his kingdom, so anyone preventing that from happening is working against god, which you have said numerous times, anyone working against god is doing the devils work.

So by that logic, all doctors must be evil?

Derbygull

Trying to google an answer, or waiting for another freak to help him out

 

[seagullmouse]

Merely skimming the surface atm.

So you don't know much about it but you believe it all?

 

[readingstockport]

<snip of a load of bolocks attempting to justify what is supposed to be a loving god sending bears to ruip people to pieces.>

What absolute f***ing crap. Even if they were 20 year olds how the f*** do you claim that a loving anything would rip them to pieces in revenge for laughing at someone? You and your god are sick if you really think enything justifies that act. beorhthelm sums it up well, your imaginary friend if a sick twisted hateful shit and even if he existed I would reject him.

I would never dream of doing what he did to those children, for any reason AT ALL. And that means I am more moral and loving than he will ever be.

Edit to add.

I didn't ask you to google someone elses justification for such a barbaric act, I asked you how you could justify it. The fact you had to google it suggest you haven't read the bible and are una ble yourself to justify it.

 

[readingstockport]

oh how you are in for an almighty shock my friend.....heheh.

More xtian love and compassion on display here I see. If your imaginary friend does exist then you, by your reaction, have just damned yourself to join me haven't you. Shame he doesn't otherwise we could both laugh for ever in a fiery pit of hell for the terrible sins we have committed.

Just the sort of action I would expect from your 'loving' friend.

 

[Triggaaar]

First, the King James Version has done us a disservice by translated the term as “children.” The Hebrew word can refer to “children,” but rather more specifically means "young men." The NIV, quoted here, uses the word “youths.”
...
Because these young people of about 20 years of age or older (the same term is used of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:7)

I don't think so somehow. The average life expectancy back then was only about 35, people would have children of their own by 20.

Second, the fact that the bears mauled 42 of the youths indicates that there were more than 42 youths involved. This was not a small group of children making fun of a bald man. Rather, it was a large demonstration of young men who assembled for the purpose of mocking a prophet of God.

So? The punishment hardly fits the crime. Many of us openly mock god and his followers now, but we go unpunished - maybe he realises we've got a point, and he's made a mess of the human race.

Third, the mocking of “go on up you baldhead,” is more than making fun of baldness. The baldness of Elisha referred to here may be: 1) natural loss of hair; 2) a shaved head denoting his separation to the prophetic office; or more likely, 3) an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elijah not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation.

Straws and clutching.

The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was God’s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.

You are mad and dangerous. I expect you believe that the god fearing Tony Blair and George Bush were right to order the slaughter of muslims too.

 

[brunswick]

More xtian love and compassion on display here I see. If your imaginary friend does exist then you, by your reaction, have just damned yourself to join me haven't you. Shame he doesn't otherwise we could both laugh for ever in a fiery pit of hell for the terrible sins we have committed.

Just the sort of action I would expect from your 'loving' friend.

but i believe not in heaven or hell (misinterpreted archetypes of the astral plane) - nor do i believe in a male bearded deity that is separate.

 

[k2bluesky]

Maybe it's time to think about God in non religious terms, which are man made anyway, think of whatever 'it/he' may be, as like electricity or the wind, you can't see it, only feel it.

 

[bhaexpress]

oh how you are in for an almighty shock my friend.....heheh.

And you have proof of this ?

 

[Mr Burns]

Believe me mate, i'm planning on the God Delusion too, and someone on here mentioned another book on evolution also (I forget the name right now).

 

[HovaGirl]

You may regard it as philosophical. However you can not change the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence for jesus of any kind at all. Philosophise all you want, facts are what I tend to go for.

If a theory is stated as such and seems to provide evidence for its veracity then I tend to accept it until and unless other evidence is produced. Show me evidence for your god or you jesus and I will believe overnight - promise.

A good start would be the famously missing bunnies in the pre-cambrian layer,

I don't believe I've mentioned Jesus in one of my posts. And, I've said all the way through this thread, that if there is a God, then it is a separate issue from religion. Religion, if you like, has hi-jacked God, but, to me, it's possible there COULD be a God without the interfering middle-man (priests, vicars, Rabbis, church, etc) being involved.

 

[HovaGirl]

Hmm. First of all, please calm down.

You do not know me or the experiences I have had yet you immediately dismiss them as dishonest and imaginery.

It seems quite obvious you are deeply entrenched in the physical world and that's fine.

I'm just not sure why a differing opinion to yours causes such an emotional reaction in you. Maybe you should explore that issue.

Because readingstockport can only conceive of God within a religious context and not outside of it or separate from it.

 

[beorhthelm]

to me, it's possible there COULD be a God without the interfering middle-man

and the evidence for this is...?

 

[HovaGirl]

Really? Citations needed for this, I think. Religion played a huge part in the most recent European holocaust.

Don't confuse correlation with causation.

The Communist USSR banned religion and Stalin managed to kill far more people than Hitler did.

 

[bhaexpress]

Derbygull

Trying to google an answer, or waiting for another freak to help him out

And there's me thinking that the answers are in the Bible, clearly we should be worshipping Google.

 

[HovaGirl]

I have just done a quick google search, and found this:
Are Most Wars the Result of Religious Belief?
and
What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion

I would highlight this is a site that appears to be in favour of religion, so obviously is going to put a spin on it that would favour their opinion (I suspect a science site would put their spin on things, naturally)

Looking at them it seems obvious that the atheistic wars total more deaths, but closer inspection raises questions, most importantly how are they defining religious wars (I'm sure it must be answered somewhere, maybe in the sources they site). But, for instance, world war two. I think of ww2 and think there are complex factors that caused that. You can't pin it down to one motivating factor. But, you also can't deny that 6 million people died because of their religion. Not their gender, not their jobs, not their nationality, not their political sway, but because they were jewish. They were killed on the instructions of Hitler. They don't appear to be included. (Those deaths were as a result of their religion. So even if Hitler wasn't a christian (he was) they should still be included, imo).

It's not so much they were killed BECAUSE they were Jewish, as was one of Hitler's grandparents, but because they were NOT German. Long before Hitler, Germany had been plotting the unification of the Germanic peoples. He just continued a long tradition.

 

[Mr Burns]

Derbygull

Trying to google an answer, or waiting for another freak to help him out

And there's me thinking that the answers are in the Bible, clearly we should be worshipping Google.

Or maybe not worshipping anything, and getting on with life, well apart from Gus worship obviosuly.

Funny though aint it, how these types of freaks disappear when they can't answer a question, or find that they have contridicted themselves into a corner

 

[HovaGirl]

i think this thread has a few separate subjects that are getting intermingled due to the thread title.

believing in a higher force / intelligence / energy does not make one religious.

having some sacredness in ones life does not mean one has to follow any dogma.


i know a sufi guy who spends time with some extremely wise people who have links to the school from Gurdjieff - but he slams much of "cultural islam."

i know a mystic from freemasonry who slams all religion.

i know a yogi in india who slams much of hinduism.

i know a rosicrucian who slams much of christianity.

i know a hermetic that knows some amazing things in the old testament but is not a christian.


it is not black and white, but the word 'god' triggers the conditioning from being a child in the western world and what that word relates to in the exoteric dogma.

sacred experiences, mystical experiences, spiritual experiences, leaps of faith, synchronicities - none can be labelled, they are each for the inner self.

Well said.

 

[HovaGirl]

Yes but England has never claimed to have 'God' on it's side. Bad acts by this country have never been made in the belief that we are doing a 'higher authority's' 'good' work.

They did when they trooped off on The Crusades.