If you were in God's shoes.......

[The Sum of Awe]

How do YOU know?

Please, present a third option.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The second story regarding prophet Elisha can be seen as a moral story not to ridicule the Prophets.

Why the extreme, unrealistic example of bears eating children as a result of ridicule? If a moral story is more extreme than it actually is, it wont work in the way it's supposed to.

"The boy cried wolf again for a third time, and then the town shouted to God and God filled his intestines with live leeches."

"Don't sneak into the cookie jar, or else a gangster will blow out your brains"

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think the reality is that you, nor any other finite human being, is in God's shoes and does not possess the infinite knowledge and wisdom that the eternal Creator does. With that being the case it strikes me as ignorant and senseless to presume that any human, including yourself, could do something in a better way than God has done something or to think you have any ability at all to correctly judge the Creator of the universe,

But all of that is dependent on faith and faith alone. You are having faith for the sake of having faith, you are trusting God no matter the circumstance, and those are both very dangerous. You trust this being while you admit nobody can understand him, you would never be convinced that God is bad, and will stay by his side only trusting that he isn't... but where does that get you if he is?

It is not impossible to morally judge God either. Just because we don't know why he chooses those options over other options doesn't mean we can't put them to the test with moral standards.

For example, I'm not sure how you could look at a person who committed these wicked acts that even you have to admit would send anyone else who did them to the insane asylum for a life sentence, and while you're not sure exactly why they were preferred over other available options, you do not get a negative image of this person.

We both should admit that if any world leader did those things, they'd be defined as a tyrant. We both know those actions are hostile beyond necessity. Especially from a being who has no limits, what exactly was he thinking when he chose to do those gruesome things instead of doing something else that would cause less pain and work just as well?

In reference to the account of Elisha, I think an informed reading of the passage will quite clearly show that those killed by the bears were not...innocent little children having fun. The Hebrew word Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best translated 'young lads' or 'young men.' These were young men anywhere from age twleve to thirty years old. From the account it can be seen that they were not little boys, but a large gang of young men roaming the countryside and directly confronting Elisha, God's representative and prophet, with scorn.

How can it be seen that they were not little boys?

Also qetannim appears to be a diminutive adjective, so it's more likely they were younger.

 

[Mycroft]

When the world was full of wicked sin, would you have flooded the earth like Yahweh had? If so, why not another route? If not, what would you have done instead?

No. Being an all-intelligent and all-powerful superbeing, I would have been able to develop more intelligent ways of solving the problem.

When 42 children poked fun at prophet Elisha (only in words, no sticks or stones), would you have made a couple bears maul them? If so, that is very twisted. If not, what would you have done instead?

I would have forgiven them.

 

[Sleeppy]

Let me ask this question:

If God had not sent the bears to maul the children/young men, but they were mauled anyway-- what would be the difference?

 

[ametist]

Let me ask this question:

If God had not sent the bears to maul the children/young men, but they were mauled anyway-- what would be the difference?

Yes. God is always taking the blame on itself. Any slightly intelligent can blame god reading almost all of them. How weird, isnt it?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Let me ask this question:

If God had not sent the bears to maul the children/young men, but they were mauled anyway-- what would be the difference?

I really do agree. But as it appears, God's not in the closet about murdering children.

 

[ametist]

Please, present a third option.

We dont have a third option at the moment. I told you what i know
But how i know is exactly like how you know. 'Personal experience' in short. Is there any other form of experience and thus knowing? If so we have a third option and you tell me about it.

 

[Sleeppy]

I really do agree. But as it appears, God's not in the closet about murdering children.

Most Jews will say that this didn't occur as written; I don't know how many Oral Torah Rabbis or sages decided to comment on it. But, assuming they want credit for the reputation they attach to God: the world is largely misled. I'd say that in contrast with Jews, most Christians and Muslims would take this account literally, and so mismanagement has already occurred on a large scale. People naturally want to emulate, or worship their idols. So when God does evil, the people will too.

We still expose our children to everything from bears- to drugs, poverty/slavery, and war.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

We still expose our children to everything from bears- to drugs, poverty/slavery, and war.

May I get some clarification on the "bears" part here?
If taken literally, god either created, or found nearby bears, and sent them specifically at the youths...
Aim and fire.

What comparable things do parents do with their children concerning bears?

 

[Sleeppy]

May I get some clarification on the "bears" part here?
If taken literally, god either created, or found nearby bears, and sent them specifically at the youths...
Aim and fire.

What comparable things do parents do with their children concerning bears?

It's natural to assume innocence where ignorance is concerned.. However, no one is innocent. The comparable things are listed after 'bears'.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

It's natural to assume innocence where ignorance is concerned.. However, no one is innocent. The comparable things are listed after 'bears'.

Fair enough!
I agree to the list following bars, but not including bears..

Although, I would point out that the percent of parents that intentionally subject their children to those, when another alternative is available is low, though unfortunately not zero.

..I think it was the bears addition that threw me.

 

[Sleeppy]

Fair enough!
I agree to the list following bars, but not including bears..

Although, I would point out that the percent of parents that intentionally subject their children to those, when another alternative is available is low, though unfortunately not zero.

..I think it was the bears addition that threw me.

I wouldn't doubt there are people who would sacrifice their children to bears-- it likely doesn't happen often, but all manner of methods are currently being used to kill and enslave children, as we speak. All of it is due to ignorance. If anyone is able to intend these things, we must assume they are ignorant of certain empathetic values, for whatever reasons DNA causes brain activity to allow.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Most Jews will say that this didn't occur as written; I don't know how many Oral Torah Rabbis or sages decided to comment on it. But, assuming they want credit for the reputation they attach to God: the world is largely misled. I'd say that in contrast with Jews, most Christians and Muslims would take this account literally, and so mismanagement has already occurred on a large scale. People naturally want to emulate, or worship their idols. So when God does evil, the people will too.

We still expose our children to everything from bears- to drugs, poverty/slavery, and war.

Yes, but there's a difference. Wars, drugs, slavery, etc. are actual happenings, they are a realistic consequence to certain actions. Unlike bears. that was really random. Never had I once saw a bear eat somebody just because they make fun on someone.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, but there's a difference. Wars, drugs, slavery, etc. are actual happenings, they are a realistic consequence to certain actions. Unlike bears. that was really random. Never had I once saw a bear eat somebody just because they make fun on someone.

Because it is at least somewhat fabricated. The Israelites previously sacrificed their own children as burnt offerings. They wrote what they were able to understand.. They gave God an Israelite reputation. Naturally, Jews will tell you to this day, that they are better equipped to understand their God-given ancestral writings-- but because Judaism is monotheistic, it enables the idea that God shows favoritism of Jews over that of anyone else. Elisha is shown to be highly favored above the 42 youths- and even above everyone who doesn't accept Elisha's decision to curse them.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because it is at least somewhat fabricated. The Israelites previously sacrificed their own children as burnt offerings. They wrote what they were able to understand.. They gave God an Israelite reputation. Naturally, Jews will tell you to this day, that they are better equipped to understand their God-given ancestral writings-- but because Judaism is monotheistic, it enables the idea that God shows favoritism of Jews over that of anyone else. Elisha is shown to be highly favored above the 42 youths- and even above everyone who doesn't accept Elisha's decision to curse them.

How is it not wrong to have favorites?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Yes, but there's a difference. Wars, drugs, slavery, etc. are actual happenings, they are a realistic consequence to certain actions. Unlike bears. that was really random. Never had I once saw a bear eat somebody just because they make fun on someone.

What if the most insulting thing you could do to a person in your culture was to cover yourself in honey, and stand in the forest while yelling their name.

Then it would be a more realistic outcome of insulting someone, I suppose.

I'm pretty sure that's an Iowan thing, I mean, I know I've done it before...

 

[Sleeppy]

How is it not wrong to have favorites?

It's nonsensical.. Are the animals I decide to eat less favorable to God, than me? What if I'm eaten by a shark?

 

[dawny0826]

This is specifically about this tyrant of a God, or so I see him as, Yahweh, and even more specifically about his doings in the old testament. Let's focus on these examples:

If you were in God's shoes, would you have done the same for either of these?

When the world was full of wicked sin, would you have flooded the earth like Yahweh had? If so, why not another route? If not, what would you have done instead?

Personally, if I were almighty, I would have obliterated the wicked. Not destroy the world with heavy waters and rain, and destroy all (but two of each species) of every animal. It would be unjust to do such a thing if I could just un-create the evil being. If I wanted to flood the earth to eliminate all the evil, I'd have to make sure the water would reach me as well.

When 42 children poked fun at prophet Elisha (only in words, no sticks or stones), would you have made a couple bears maul them? If so, that is very twisted. If not, what would you have done instead?

My mentality may be pretty dark, sometimes burying a dying runt in corpses of its dead brothers and sisters, but that is nowhere near as bad as feeding 42 children to bears. Perhaps I'm overlooking this whole scenario, because by the looks of it, according to many followers of Yahweh, if Yahweh were to replicate what Jigsaw did in the Saw movies, he would've been morally just to do so.


If you answered that you would have done these things differently, and you still aren't convinced that Yahweh is morally corrupt, then why is it alright for Yahweh to do these things when you wouldn't even dare?

Sum, I'll have to read up on the prophet Elisha before commenting, but, I will comment on the flood story.

Per the Book of Genesis, all became wicked during the time of Noah, save Noah and his family. And so, God did just as you've stated you would...obliterated the wicked only.

 

[Sleeppy]

When I was maybe 13, I was told by my father that I was his favorite son; I thought he was retarded when he said it, and I still do. I don't doubt he believed what he was saying-- he certainly didn't understand the outcome.