...at least not ones that god likes, I guess.
Bear attack!
23 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!" 24 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. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
Oh how loving the Xian god is. Because some children were impertinent, they deserved death. Forty two of them (yes, 42 - you know what I'm talking about). And, the worst part is that the children had no ability to repent of their sins before being mauled by the bears. They should all be smoldering in hell right now.
And, this underscores another difficulty in the Xian theology - that of the untimely death. For those sects that believe that one must repent of all of one's sins, what happens to the person who meets an untimely death? The person in question may be a completely upstanding citizen, wholly moral, but because their death comes suddenly, they wind up in hell. What nonsense is that? Of course, we shouldn't be surprised coming from a religion where it is somehow just that we are cast into hell by default (unless god decides to "grace" us) simply for being born human, and god makes determinations on who gets saved based on thought crime and one's ability to discern whether god's existence is indeed in evidence or not - i.e. it has nothing to do with morality. This puts the lie to those who would argue that Xianity is all about morality, that we gain our morality from it, and other such lies.
32 comments:
GCT, you'll like the KJV wording much better.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria. 2 Kings 2:23-25 (KJV)
"Youths" might sound like unruly teens, but "little children" really makes God sound like a monster. More modern translations always try to soften that verse.
If they were youths, likely they had never heard the gospel, and therefore would be considered innocents, and therefore not accountable for their sins.
Thanks Robert, that is good, although coming from the KJV, it might be sketchy. Young's literal gives "Little youths" so in this case the KJV is probably closer to correct however.
Anon,
So, the bears tearing them up was a good thing, because they get to go to heaven? Cool. I guess the moral of the story is that one should make fun of bald people.
Although, for some reason, it says that the kids were "cursed" by Elisha, and if they went to heaven that doesn't sound like a curse to me. Also, this opens up the way to celebrating abortion, doesn't it?
Elisha didn't curse them in that he destined them somehow for Hell. No it is not good that they went home early and couldn't serve God after that. They still have to answer for that.
Aborted babies do indeed go to Heaven. We do not celebrate because the parent and doctor committed murder. Again, who knows what the child may have done for the Lord in their lifetime.
"Elisha didn't curse them in that he destined them somehow for Hell."
He did curse them, however, but you're claiming that the "curse" was them getting to go to heaven. This does not compute. You might want to get your story straight.
"No it is not good that they went home early and couldn't serve God after that."
So, now you are saying that it's not good to go to heaven?
"They still have to answer for that."
Answer for what? You're claiming that they are in heaven. What could they possibly have to answer for in heaven? Again, get your story straight.
"Aborted babies do indeed go to Heaven."
Then, we should abort as many as possible.
"We do not celebrate because the parent and doctor committed murder."
No, they saved the "child" from going to hell.
"Again, who knows what the child may have done for the Lord in their lifetime."
Or against the lord? Perhaps that child would have become an atheist that argued so persuasively that many Xians deconverted. Ever thought of that?
And, how is it possible for the lord to have a plan for a "child" that he knows ahead of time (at the time of universe creation) is going to be aborted? Get your story straight. Since your arguments don't hold, you should actually encourage abortions, because more souls will get to go to heaven that way.
"Or against the lord? Perhaps that child would have become an atheist that argued so persuasively that many Xians deconverted. Ever thought of that?"
Hasn't happened yet, so I wouldn't be too worried.
""No it is not good that they went home early and couldn't serve God after that."
So, now you are saying that it's not good to go to heaven?"
No, I'm saying it's not as good to go before you've fulfilled your purpose on this earth as it would be to go when God intended. Same reason we don't abort all babies.
You are grasping at straws and trying to put words in my mouth.
"Perhaps that child would have become an atheist that argued so persuasively that many Xians deconverted"
That's a bad thing?
Well, deconverting is not my goal that's for sure. Also, I've never actually seen someone deconvert (or convert) because someone else had a persuasive argument.
Converting is usually done by scaring the crepe out of people. Atheists don't have anything to threaten theists with, so we can't use the fear of everlasting torment to deconvert with. Pity.
Actually too many conversions come from "warm fluffy preaching" like Joel Osteen, and that's the folks who usually leave their faith at the first trouble they experience. Probably my favorite sermon in recent history ended with a strong warning that getting saved was not signing up for the easy road.
"Hasn't happened yet, so I wouldn't be too worried."
You are aware that disbelief is growing while Xianity is shrinking in the developed world, are you not?
"No, I'm saying it's not as good to go before you've fulfilled your purpose on this earth as it would be to go when God intended."
How can anything happen that god didn't intend? Doesn't that prove that god is not omni-max? (Yes, it does.) Why should one have to "fulfill [their] purpose" if one gets to go to heaven? How do you know that the one performing the abortions isn't fulfilling their purpose in sending many souls to heaven?
"Same reason we don't abort all babies."
I'm still not seeing why not? You keep saying it's not god's purpose, but you don't know that. It's inconsistent to say that it's good for people to go to heaven, but not good for us to try to get people to go to heaven.
"You are grasping at straws and trying to put words in my mouth."
No, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your beliefs. Quite honestly, it's a glaring inconsistency.
GCT said, "How can anything happen that god didn't intend? Doesn't that prove that god is not omni-max? (Yes, it does.) Why should one have to "fulfill [their] purpose" if one gets to go to heaven? How do you know that the one performing the abortions isn't fulfilling their purpose in sending many souls to heaven?"
We know God's will by reading His word. His word is very clear how we are to treat children, and murdering them is not part of that. God's will can not be achieved by doing something contrary to His word. Simple concept really. This is why we study the Bible.
"We know God's will by reading His word. His word is very clear how we are to treat children, and murdering them is not part of that."
Really Anonymous?
Read Deuteronomy 21:18-21 please. I know it is old testament, but the verse is written as a direct commandment from God. The verse is also ambiguous as to the age of the son. Read it with an open mind and literally and see where that verse gets you.
"We know God's will by reading His word."
I'm also told that god's word indicates that he wants as many souls in heaven as possible since he "loves" us soooooo much. Abortion accomplishes that goal.
"God's will can not be achieved by doing something contrary to His word. Simple concept really."
Actually, what is much simpler a concept is that god's will can not fail to be done. This is the point that I brought up that you completely ignored. An omni-max god can't help but have his will be done. So, if someone aborts a crap-ton of "babies" then that must be part of god's will.
"This is why we study the Bible."
So that you can cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the glaring inconsistencies?
Robert - I've read this passage before. I actually read it on your own blog in an old post I was browsing. Seemed to me that the pastor actually explained it fairly, but you refuse to accept it.
Rebelling one time no more makes you a "rebellious" person than drinking one time makes you a "drunkard." This scripture is describing a pattern of behavior.
On top of this, Israel was to be a chosen people, set apart by their righteousness. That's why many of the laws God gave to them (levitical laws) are different than what the Gentiles are told to do.
Your omni-max argument is ridiculous GCT. I do not address it because it's such a contorted mess of false assumptions it is not worth discussing. The assumption is that if it is God's will it has to be done. That is not true. Many people live outside of God's will. Ultimately, He will bring things back into line, but the way they get there can be much different than what he desires. He is not after robots programmed to love Him. He wants us to choose to love Him of our own free will.
"I'm also told that god's word indicates that he wants as many souls in heaven as possible since he 'loves' us soooooo much. Abortion accomplishes that goal."
Untrue. God does want as many souls in Heaven as possible. However, those babies were meant to spread the gospel just as we are.
Rebelling one time no more makes you a "rebellious" person than drinking one time makes you a "drunkard."
Not according to your champion Ray Comfort. "Have you ever lied before? Then you're a liar."
However, those babies were meant to spread the gospel just as we are.
Not true. They would have been raised by godless liberals and would have descended into a lifetime of sin. They're better off being aborted, really.
"Your omni-max argument is ridiculous GCT. I do not address it because it's such a contorted mess of false assumptions it is not worth discussing. The assumption is that if it is God's will it has to be done. That is not true."
Then, perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction between an omni-max deity and that deity not getting what he wants, even though he created the universe knowing exactly how it would all pan out. It would be like you intentionally putting an object in a place that you didn't want it to be, and then turning around and punishing the object for being there and complaining that it isn't fulfilling your will. In short, what's ridiculous is that you can't follow through on the logical conclusions of the assertions you make about god's attributes.
"He wants us to choose to love Him of our own free will."
Once again, free will can not exist with an omni-max god, as I've pointed out numerous times. Simply re-asserting without dealing with the arguments that have been presented isn't going to get you anywhere.
"Untrue. God does want as many souls in Heaven as possible."
Abortion accomplishes that without the risk of having them go to hell, as the majority of people will end up doing.
"However, those babies were meant to spread the gospel just as we are."
According to your own argument, meant to is different from would have. You can't very well say that all aborted "babies" would have spread the gospel or gone to heaven had they not been aborted. Some of them very well may have been serial killers or rapists or *gasp* atheists. Aborting them cuts out the potential for them to be unrighteous and allows them to go to heaven without the risk of living a life that would damn them to hell. If you would stop and think for once, you might realize the inconsistency in your theology.
Okay, fine. Let's get rid of this omni-max garbage.
Your analogy fails, because the object is not a living, breathing, thinking, human being.
God has determined the end of the story. You can "choose your own adventure" so to speak, but even if you try your best to do something outside of His will, you only change your own part of the story. He will just use someone else to accomplish the same goal.
Vox Day already defeated the omnimax trilemma with his programmer explanation.
"Seemed to me that the pastor actually explained it fairly, but you refuse to accept it."
The pastor's explaination: " agree with you that the OT laws seemed harsh and to us "immoral", however, you must understand that the command to stone was not for an outburst of anger, not cleaning their room, or saying a swear word. It was reserved only for the young person who had become slave to their sensual appetites, with a hardened heart, calloused conscience and wreaking havoc with their rebellion."
Of course, I refused his explaination. He inserted conditions in that verse that don't exist. The verse says what it does, it doesn't explain how severe the rebelliousness must be. That's left wide open for interpretation. That's my big problem with the verse. The verse creates a loophole for a parent to get rid of a problem child. All the parent has to do is say that he is a drunkard, then go get the rocks.
"On top of this, Israel was to be a chosen people, set apart by their righteousness. That's why many of the laws God gave to them (levitical laws) are different than what the Gentiles are told to do."
So it's Moral and righteous to kill your son as long as you are a Jew living in the 9th century BC? You know I'm not going to buy that. I don't think you buy that either. However, you're going to defend verses like that one because of the stand you have taken concerning the inerrancy of the scriptures.
"The verse creates a loophole for a parent to get rid of a problem child. All the parent has to do is say that he is a drunkard, then go get the rocks."
If you're looking for one, you can find a loophole in virtually anything.
"If you're looking for one, you can find a loophole in virtually anything."
Precisely! I'd not have a problem (not exactly true, see below) if it weren't for the claims made about the bible. If the bible was inerrant, wouldn't it make sense for it to be clear enough to spell out when and in which circumstances you can use this law?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is obviously non-mandatory. IWO, you are not obligated to stone a disobedient child, it's the parents choice to persue that option. That's a good thing. I assume that most parents being sensible and loving their children (even during periods of rebellion) has prevented this verse from causing wholesale massacre. The verse just goes against humanist sensibility. That being said, the verse makes it appear that humans are better than God morally, because they can recognize when a law is immoral and not follow it.
Even if the law was precise about the do and don'ts of filicide, I actually still have a problem with this verse. I don't think there's any justification is killing your son. No matter the age. Disown him, don't bury him up to the neck and throw rocks at his head.
I agree with some of what you're saying. The Bible gives us direction that can be applied to any situation. Some of it is direct, and some of it is indirect. It would be impossible to address word for word every situation any human would encounter in their lifetime. The Bible would not have been able to be written down at all, nor be portable enough that anyone can have the coomplete bible. It would be a nice concept, but I can certainly see why God didn't do it that way.
The need would be greater for such detail if we didn't have direct access to the author.
"Okay, fine. Let's get rid of this omni-max garbage."
If you are going to posit an omni-max deity, then you have to deal with the logical conclusions of it.
"Your analogy fails, because the object is not a living, breathing, thinking, human being."
Which analogy? You'll have to be specific here.
"God has determined the end of the story. You can "choose your own adventure" so to speak, but even if you try your best to do something outside of His will, you only change your own part of the story. He will just use someone else to accomplish the same goal."
This is a form of weak determinism or "fate" that you are describing. Yet, it doesn't work. If I can foil god's plan for me, then god is not omniscient or perfect.
"If you're looking for one, you can find a loophole in virtually anything."
I love how a perfect and omniscient god can't write a better instruction manual.
"The need would be greater for such detail if we didn't have direct access to the author."
Um, that's not actually helped if you take even a cursory glance at history.
Yago,
"Vox Day already defeated the omnimax trilemma with his programmer explanation."
Linky?
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:w__DD_HC1XoJ:www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727+%2B%22vox+day%22+%2Bomnimax&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
should give you the cached page where this guy is criticizing some of what Vox had to say. Not really a fan of his, but he does explain a way that the omni-max trilemma can be proven false.
Yago "Vox Day already defeated the omnimax trilemma with his programmer explanation."
Excuse me if I misremember it, but Vox's solution was that God programmed the initial state, but didn't know what came after that. See the "didn't know" bit? He "fixed" the problem by making God non-omniscient. On a side note, he fixed the problem of one flat tire on his car by letting the air out of the other three.
Robert Madewell "If the bible was inerrant, wouldn't it make sense for it to be clear enough to spell out when and in which circumstances you can use this law?"
You're forgetting about the also-inerrant guidance of the Holy Spirit. You know that someone else is wrong when theirs give them a different answer than you. Clearly, they are listening to something else…
Anonymous "The need would be greater for such detail if we didn't have direct access to the author."
Ah ha! Robert, see what I mean?
"You're forgetting about the also-inerrant guidance of the Holy Spirit. You know that someone else is wrong when theirs give them a different answer than you. Clearly, they are listening to something else…"
Whoa! So, I know I'm right when someone elses answer is different than mine? Ok, I don't believe that God is real, your answer is that he is. Since, your answer is different than mine, I know I'm right! See why that is silly?
How do you know that you are are not right, but the other guys are? They probably think the same thing.
Just because they believe something different than you, does not make you right. That is the silliest answer I have been given in awhile.
I think he was intending it to be silly.
Hardly. I had on my serious face and everything!
Robert,
Modus has been known to engage in satire from time to time...and that's when he's got his serious face on.
Yago,
What Modus said. This is not a solution to the omnimax trilemma. The AI example given is not a good analogy because the programmer did not have omniscience if he did not realize that there was a back door path for the AI to take. Further, the problems with an omnimax deity run much deeper than that. An omnimax deity creates a determined system from the outset. Even if the deity chooses to forget what it has determined from the beginning, that does not restore our free will to us, as our paths were already determined even if god can choose amnesia.
I have been poed. Curses! I get will get you Modusoperandi ... and your little dog too!
Golly, Robert. If you'd read the paragraphs before and after the one to you, you'd know that I wasn't Poe.
Post a Comment