Have you read the whole Bible?

[savagewind]

I don't "trust" that one or two bears mauled more than a few people. Are you joking? Is that what this is about? You think I "trust" The Bible? I merely quoted WHAT THE TEXT SAYS. It is up to those who hold the text as sacred or "infallible" to explain why it says it. I'm with you... the whole thing is unacceptable - which is what makes it all the more ridiculous that there are those who attempt to accept it.

I can see plainly that you do not trust it. The you means the people who do mental gymnastics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I doubt it meant to "give them milk and cookies." Plus, with God involved, anything is "possible", right?

"Tare" is apparently an archaic form of "tear." From dictionary.com:

verb, Archaic.
1. simple past tense and past participle of tear

Which, of course, has this meaning (among other similar ones):

2. to pull apart or in pieces by force, especially so as to leave ragged or irregular edges.

Or, in other words, exactly what one would expect two bears to do to a group of children. Who'da thunk'it that even just one bear would maul and rip a child asunder, and the Bible just so happens to use an old spelling of tear.

Who would you complain to if it was Karma?

Actually, I do complain and try to explain how Karma is supposed to actually work (in other words, actual Eastern Karma and not the lazy-and-distorted Western view of it) and why such think is potentially very dangerous, because **** happens and it's way too easy to wrongly interpret things when you assume there is a very specific reason for everything that happens to someone, good or bad, happening as it does. Such as old Nazis who got to live out their days in peace and comfort, mob bosses who never face justice, or a thief stealing from his wife winning the lottery. There is absolutely no way to explain these things if "Karma" is real.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thank you for staying with me, but I think that the text doesn't say the bears tore each individual boy. It is assumed. Tell me why it CAN'T mean that the bears broke through the group of 42 bears.

Short Definition: split
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to cleave, break open or through

2 Samuel 23:16
HEB: וַיִּבְקְעוּ֩ שְׁלֹ֨שֶׁת הַגִּבֹּרִ֜ים
NAS: mighty men broke through the camp
KJV: mighty men brake through the host
INT: broke the three mighty

Strong's Hebrew: 1234. בָּקַע (baqa) -- to cleave, break open or through

It's the idea that this "man of God" had such Trumply thin skin that he petitioned god to intervene over some kids calling him baldy, and that in response god sent bears to "take care of the problem." If a "man of God" is that damned insecure, and his god so viscious and brutal (as bears even without killing any of the children is absolute overkill and without effort the bears could very easily leave them severely and permanently injured).
It's also the idea that as a secular society we are working towards firmly establishing the idea that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the crime. Throughout the Bible, it is clear this is not something Jehovah supports, and even opposes it in some cases (such as killing your rebellious children).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can see plainly that you do not trust it. The you means the people who do mental gymnastics.

Hey... I just read what was there and figured that's what it meant. If that's a crime... sue me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thank you for staying with me, but I think that the text doesn't say the bears tore each individual boy. It is assumed. Tell me why it CAN'T mean that the bears broke through the group of 42 bears.

Short Definition: split
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to cleave, break open or through

2 Samuel 23:16
HEB: וַיִּבְקְעוּ֩ שְׁלֹ֨שֶׁת הַגִּבֹּרִ֜ים
NAS: mighty men broke through the camp
KJV: mighty men brake through the host
INT: broke the three mighty

Strong's Hebrew: 1234. בָּקַע (baqa) -- to cleave, break open or through

Is that even a punishment (in other words, something you would call upon as a CURSE)? Sounds more like an excuse to me.

So, the following is your interpretation of the events described, I gather?

And then Elisha said: "For the crime of making fun of me, I curse you to stand in more than one group, so that there is not just one group within which you are standing. Now you will feel the full wrath of God." The bears then came out of the woods and walked through the group of boys, separating them into smaller groups that made them all have some indiscernible form of trouble with... well... something or other, and Elisha was well-pleased with the results of the curse he had called down.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I haven't read the entire thing, but, when I was younger, I did read a considerable portion. I didn't find it inspiring or useful in any way. But, if someone does, more power to them.

 

[Rival]

It's the idea that this "man of God" had such Trumply thin skin that he petitioned god to intervene over some kids calling him baldy, and that in response god sent bears to "take care of the problem." If a "man of God" is that damned insecure, and his god so viscious and brutal (as bears even without killing any of the children is absolute overkill and without effort the bears could very easily leave them severely and permanently injured).
It's also the idea that as a secular society we are working towards firmly establishing the idea that the punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the crime. Throughout the Bible, it is clear this is not something Jehovah supports, and even opposes it in some cases (such as killing your rebellious children).

They weren't kids. The Bible uses the word' youth' very liberally. Jeremiah calls himself a 'youth' in the book of prophecy named for him - he was well past boyhood and was a man. It was a crowd of people (there were more than 42!) who had gathered in a city well known for allowing idol worship, even though they, as Jews, were bound by Torah not to worship idols. G-d made good on his promise that he would punish this. It wasn't the fact that they were calling him a baldy, it was the fact that they had rejected the message, the prophet, and in so doing had rejected G-d even though they were bound to His Torah.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They weren't kids. The Bible uses the word' youth' very liberally. Jeremiah calls himself a 'youth' in the book of prophecy named for him - he was well past boyhood and was a man.

I've been told this, many times, but haven't been provided with sources. As far as I know, today's standards are the most "liberal" for calling someone a child, as we do acknowledge teenager years, and don't consider children women and men when they reach puberty, which has traditionally been very, very common throughout our species' history.
But, assuming they were men fully grown, a man fully grown is still no match for a bear, not even a group of them. And it still has the issue of Jeremiah having such paper-thin skin, despite having been a chosen prophet of God, that he couldn't brush off being called baldy. Should God's prophets not have more resilience and stronger characters than that?

 

[Rival]

I've been told this, many times, but haven't been provided with sources. As far as I know, today's standards are the most "liberal" for calling someone a child, as we do acknowledge teenager years, and don't consider children women and men when they reach puberty, which has traditionally been very, very common throughout our species' history.
But, assuming they were men fully grown, a man fully grown is still no match for a bear, not even a group of them. And it still has the issue of Jeremiah having such paper-thin skin, despite having been a chosen prophet of God, that he couldn't brush off being called baldy. Should God's prophets not have more resilience and stronger characters than that?

This didn't happen to Jeremiah.

Here is the verse in Jeremiah:
"And I said, "Alas, O Lord God! Behold, I know not to speak for I am a youth." - Jer 1:6. But Jeremiah was not a boy, or a teen, at this point. He would have been a young man (i.e 20s). People in their 20s are not kids.

The people tell Elisha (baldy) to 'Go up', which is what his predecessor Elijah did (he was taken up to heaven bodily). This is taken to mean that the people didn't want him there anymore; they were rejecting him. Basically, instead of saying 'Go to hell!' they were saying 'Go to heaven!' but the intent is the same. This whole event takes place outside of Beth-el, which was famous for its idolatry (Jeroboam, a King, even set up another golden calf there).

So basically, Elisha was giving a message no-one wanted to hear - it was a state full of idolatry after all. They were rejecting him and thus rejecting G-d. This was more of an organised rebellion against Elisha and they were telling him to get lost.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This didn't happen to Jeremiah.

Here is the verse in Jeremiah:
"And I said, "Alas, O Lord God! Behold, I know not to speak for I am a youth." - Jer 1:6. But Jeremiah was not a boy, or a teen, at this point. He would have been a young man (i.e 20s). People in their 20s are not kids.

The people tell Elisha (baldy) to 'Go up', which is what his predecessor Elijah did (he was taken up to heaven bodily). This is taken to mean that the people didn't want him there anymore; they were rejecting him. Basically, instead of saying 'Go to hell!' they were saying 'Go to heaven!' but the intent is the same. This whole event takes place outside of Beth-el, which was famous for its idolatry (Jeroboam, a King, even set up another golden calf there).

So basically, Elisha was giving a message no-one wanted to hear - it was a state full of idolatry after all. They were rejecting him and thus rejecting G-d. This was more of an organised rebellion against Elisha and they were telling him to get lost.

Now that I know they were probably fully grown men, I guess that makes it okay that they were all mauled by bears at the behest of a God-fearing man... er, wait... does it? Being a grown man myself (though I claim no idols, I could definitely be grouped in with the "rejecting God" lot) I suppose I should also be okay with bears being called in against myself as a curse called down in the name of God... er, wait... am I? I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened already... considering how very likely it is that it happened in the first place... er, wait... did it?

 

[Rival]

Now that I know they were probably fully grown men, I guess that makes it okay that they were all mauled by bears at the behest of a God-fearing man... er, wait... does it? Being a grown man myself (though I claim no idols, I could definitely be grouped in with the "rejecting God" lot) I suppose I should also be okay with bears being called in against myself as a curse called down in the name of God... er, wait... am I? I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened already... considering how very likely it is that it happened in the first place... er, wait... did it?

It was the fact that they were Jews bound by Torah and Torah lists both blessings and curses. There are consequences for not following the Torah. Idolatry, rejecting G-d, rejecting His prophets, has consequences. There are punishments where there are laws. They had been warned time and time again. Warning them was exactly the type of thing Elisha did. Whether you think it's moral or not is not really the point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This didn't happen to Jeremiah.

Even with the wrong name, it still comes down to extremely thin skin (I think Japanese Shoji may be thicker), and sending bears after people doing nothing more than taunting him.
Too bad I couldn't send tigers or lions after those Christians who said various nasty things to me after I left. Seems proportionate. But, I'm far too resilient to think punishing such things in such ways is suitable, or that it achieves anything more than unfair punishments and a huge waste of time. Someone tells me to go to hell, I tell them I'm already on the way and go on with my day.

So basically, Elisha was giving a message no-one wanted to hear - it was a state full of idolatry after all. They were rejecting him and thus rejecting G-d. This was more of an organised rebellion against Elisha and they were telling him to get lost.

Still doesn't justify sending bears.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It was the fact that they were Jews bound by Torah and Torah lists both blessings and curses. There are consequences for not following the Torah. Idolatry, rejecting G-d, rejecting His prophets, has consequences. There are punishments where there are laws. They had been warned time and time again. Warning them was exactly the type of thing Elisha did. Whether you think it's moral or not is not really the point.

Very true. If a being such as God exists, I am fully aware that He can do no wrong. It would be quite impossible, for He would exist outside the reaches of rebuke - He would always take action with complete impunity and there would be none capable of calling Him to task on any action He chose to take - none even worthy of questioning Him in any way that would necessarily be of note to Him. As described in The Bible, God would literally own every atom of my entire body, and could do with any or all of it whatever He pleased, at any given moment, and need have no regard for my thoughts on the matter whatsoever.

However, understanding this doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Rival]

Very true. If a being such as God exists, I am fully aware that He can do no wrong. It would be quite impossible, for He would exist outside the reaches of rebuke - He would always take action with complete impunity and there would be none capable of calling Him to task on His actions.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Actually, you're wrong there too. Abraham called him to task on His destruction of Sodom. Moses took G-d to task when He was about to smite the Jews. Many Jews have argued with G-d.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Actually, you're wrong there too. Abraham called him to task on His destruction of Sodom. Moses took G-d to task when He was about to smite the Jews. Many Jews have argued with G-d.

But I'm not wrong. He needn't have listened to anything any of them had to say. If He had wanted to foster some relationship with them, then yes, He'd be best not alienating them. However He has already proven that He is willing to take everything back to formula and destroy it all - which is His very right as its creator. And taking that action would make it objectively "right" due to nothing more than the fact that He is God. From the level of abstract action God functions, He doesn't even have the ability to be "wrong", except from His own eyes.

From a human level, however, we are given every opportunity to feel differently abut His actions. Some of us choose to take advantage of those opportunities, and some of us do not.

And, obviously, He has to exist at all for any of this to mean a damn thing.

 

[Rival]

But I'm not wrong. He needn't have listened to anything any of them had to say. If He had wanted to foster some relationship with them, then yes, He'd be best not alienating them. However He has already proven that He is willing to take everything back to formula and destroy it all - which is His very right as its creator. And taking that action would make it objectively "right" due to nothing more than the fact that He is God. From the level of abstract action God functions, He doesn't even have the ability to be "wrong", except from His own eyes.

From a human level, however, we are given every opportunity to feel differently abut His actions. Some of us choose to take advantage of those opportunities, and some of us do not.

And, obviously, He has to exist at all for any of this to mean a damn thing.

Funny how you rail so much against a G-d you have no belief in.

 

[columbus]

Funny how you rail so much against a G-d you have no belief in.

He is not railing against G-d. He's railing against the humans who claim to speak for G-d.
They are legion.
Tom

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Funny how you rail so much against a G-d you have no belief in.

Assuming His existence sometimes has a lot of effect, augmenting the arguments from the position that He doesn't exist.

Believers do the same thing - coming about through their arguments from the "other side" - even as you might think they don't. It's only a little more abstracted an idea because there isn't a subject to target (i.e. no "God"). But consider the watch-maker's analogy. You find a watch on the beach, do you suppose there IS NO CREATOR? This analogy/argument asks us to assume the case where God does not exist, and hopes that we see that position as unlikely/impossible. If you went into that argument assuming God exists, then there would be no need for the argument in the first place.

And I wouldn't be able to "rail so much" against God had those who created Him not made Him such an easy target. I suppose it's a good thing I don't live in an area heavily populated with bears... haha.

 

[omega2xx]

No, it's not enough, but it was a start. And, as I said, it wasn't for just one year. I did that program for like eight years. We learned a lot of new things each time, because there was group discussion on which parts to focus on per chapter.

8 years is more than a start, so I commend you even more. What if anything was the most helpful verse or passage that helped you the most, if anything?

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

Did a program in Bible college where we read six chapters per day. Took about 6 months or so, I recall. That's what led me to question the religion, seeing the mindsets reflected in the Old Testament; God sending bears to eat naughty children and stuff like that.

What's Bible college? Seminary, a church program?