God sends bears to KILL little kids. WTF ? ! ?

[QuettaKid]

42 little kids ripped apart by bears for mocking a bald guy. Wow. I can't believe this is the first time I have heard of this......and the christians call this the "good book" why exactly!?!?

2:23 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.



2:24 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

[JVS]

1. Sweet! What book is that from

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I think that is from 2 Kings.

If I'm not mistaken.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. That story has been in the hebrew scriptures for close to 2500 years,

it's not like it was hidden.

And just because it's the "Good Book" doesn't mean that every story in it is a story of exemplary goodness, or human perfection, or a moral clarity that is 100% in-line with today's American Democrat liberal philosophy. Mostly it is the story of human sin and redemption, and God's constant forgiveness.

[REP]

5. And a Reminder That God Can Have Bears Eat You

And that rabbits chew the cud and wearing mixed fibers is sinful.

[DanCa]

7. And a lot of it's metaphor for instance...

I always thought that Jonah and the whale was a story of a man overcoming severe depression.

[jonnyblitz]

12. how convenient. nt

[Dervill Crow]

59. Here's another one for you . . .

a fellow witch told me that the line in Doreen Valiente's Charge of the Goddess that reads, "and as a sign that you be free you shall be naked in your rites," just means that you should be honest.

Nuh uh, it means BARE NAKED, or skyclad, as pagans call it!! What is that expression, "Sometimes a (whatever it is; I don't remember) is just a (whatever it is; I don't remember)"?

I was surprised, because she is one of those people who reject Christianity because of all the different interpretations of the Bible, and she was playing the same word games.

[jonnyblitz]

136. no belief system is free of it, I am sure.

:hi:

[ET Awful]

15. It wasn't a whale, it was a big fish

:P

[jobycom]

41. So you're saying it's not LBN?

:rofl:

[REP]

4. God Don't Play, Homey

[DanCa]

6. Some days you get the bear and other on other days the bear gets you

Unless your Davey Crocket. He killed himself a bahr before he was three.

[JVS]

17. I always thought the lyric was "killed in a bar when he was only 3"

What a badass!

[DanCa]

19. Your probably right. I was posting way too early this morning.

[petronius]

39. No, you were correct

He "killed him a bear when he was only three." He also "knowed every tree," seeing as how he was raised in the woods in "the greenest state in the land of the free".

The trivia about that show that always made me laugh is that Disney didn't realize how popular it would be, and episode 3 (or 5?) was 'Davey Crockett goes to the Alamo' - not a lot of options for Season 2 after that... :)

[Redstone]

8. I remember the first time someone pointed this out to me, a long time ago.

(I think it may have been Mark Twain.)

I reacted in a similar fashion. Kinda soured me on church.

Redstone

[caty]

9. I sometimes think

the bible was written as "fairy tales" for men. Keep the women down and get rid of those pesky children.

[DS1]

10. The trend I notice is that these things are all written by men with

low self-esteem.

[Goblinmonger]

75. and tiny little penises n/t

[philosophie_en_rose]

11. Maybe that's why Stephen Colbert hates bears.

:shrug:

[crispini]

33. ROFL! nt

[LynneSin]

13. Hey, you want to read some stuff better than Penthouse Forum...

..try the book Song of Solomon in the Bible. It's damn dirty!

[Deep13]

14. Per evil Uncle Chuckles (Pat Robertson):

Ha, ha, ha, ha, children who mock old men will feel God's wrath, ha, ha, for he will send holy bears to maul you, ha, ha. Grizzlies of the Lord will rip your living bowels from your abdomen and suck the marrow from your juvenile femurs, ha, ha, ha. Ursine angels of death will cast you little sinners into the lake of fire until your bones are boiled clean so, ha, ha, God will string them together as wind chimes, ha, ha, in Jesus' name I pray, ha, ha.

[Jim__]

16. Makes god sound just a wee bit petulant - n/t

[miss_american_pie]

18. Many Christians

don't believe in literal interpretation.

[Deep13]

23. That's good. I didn't when I was one.

How about when Lot is appauled by the prospect of the mob raping his guests so he offers the mob his two jail-bait daughters instead. Oh, that's okay.

[CarbonDate]

65. Hey, they got him back....

...by raping him in his sleep to impregnate themselves.

Remember, these were the virtuous people whose lives YHWH spared.

[Goblinmonger]

76. So, just for shits and giggles

give me the "non-literal" interpretation of that bear gem. What great message are we learning from a bear eating little kids because they mocked a bald guy?

[anarch]

20. Man, that YHWH. No sense of humor.

Well, either that or just a very crude an violent one.


What about that whole thing with Job? Between God and the Devil, who needs enemies? Criminy.

[Sequoia]

21. I remember that story

as a kid. I thought about it when I grew up but couldn't remember what book it was in. It sure chilled me and made me wonder why God would kill children.

[Shell Beau]

22. Well you can pick several verses from the Bible and

say they are mean or bad or cruel, but they all need to be put in the context of the story. You can't just pick a verse and apply it to everything.

[QuettaKid]

24. wait a sec.

do they even HAVE bears in that part of the world? and as far as the "not taking it literal" defense, I mean come on, that sounds a wee bit too much like the BFEE cherry picking what they did and did not want to believe about WMD's, or the lack thereof.

[Shell Beau]

25. I don't know if they have bears over there or not. Maybe they did

maybe they didn't. But your opinion is just that. You also can't cherry pick verses to help your point of view. They all need to be taken in whatever context they were put in and it is all open to interpretation.

What is the book, chapter, and verse of the quotes you are talking about?

[ContraBass Black]

26. My favorite verse is Luke 4:10

When the Devil quotes scripture (out of context).

[Shell Beau]

27. Do you know the verse by memory. I can't recall that one.

:) I guess I could stop being lazy and look it up!

[ContraBass Black]

29. Here it is, with links to the quoted sections.

http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B42C004.htm

[Shell Beau]

30. Thanks!!

[trotsky]

124. So we're the devil now?

Neat. Thanks.

[jonnyblitz]

38. I am scratching my head trying to figure out how

a bear eating kids "in context" would change the horrible-ness of the story. :crazy:

[Radical Activist]

42. Just what I was thinking. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

55. I was hoping you could tell me.

But they were really mean kids, see...

[Zenlitened]

57. A typo? Should have been "in a contest" ?

I think the previous record was 38.

[jonnyblitz]

58. LMFAO

:spank:

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. The contest is in 1 Kings 18 - the 450 Baalites who lost were slaughtered

22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God."
Then all the people said, "What you say is good."
...
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."
...
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"

40 Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.

See, advocating another religion is a death sentence in the Old Testament. Strangely, this was one of the bible passages I was taught by a generally mild-mannered scripture teacher at school, and not, as far as I can remember, as an example of how bloodthirstily wrong the OT is.

[Zenlitened]

82. Man, an Old Testament Vegas would have been a trip, huh?

    :hide:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. Hum. No reply to THIS one from Shell Beau? Odd. -nt

[GirlinContempt]

28. I think you mean 'jews' not 'christians'

[Elidor]

31. From this we can deduce that God is bald

Don't piss him off!

[QuettaKid]

32. I found it here

the Skeptics Annotated Bible. seems to be a pretty well thought out website, AND it includes the Koran and Book of Mormon ( now THAT is a seriously messed up book......)


http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Shell Beau]

34. Well it is all in the eye of the beholder. I certainly

don't agree with Mormonism, but far be it for me to diss someone else's beliefs.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. about dissing beliefs

If someone's fantastical beliefs about the world -- and by fantastical I mean there's no evidence to support them -- are going to lead them to do something dangerous and harmful, I think responsible people need to criticize those beliefs.

Some people believe that martyrs get a free ticket to paradise and dozens of virgins. We've seen the end result of that belief far more times than we should have to.

Other people believe there's a powerful being who pours out punishment on those who disagree with the "holy men" of the world, a belief you might have if you accept the Bible verse in the OP as true. Pat Robertson and Ray Nagin might be inspired by that passage when they say their god sends hurricanes to punish people.

Whether someone believes in one god or in twenty makes no difference to me, but when beliefs for which there is no evidence are used as an excuse to hurt or subjugate people, responsible people need to speak up and be critical.

[Shell Beau]

48. That is true for everything. But I don't see that as what we were talking

about here. Calling other people's faiths stupid, etc. just b/c you don't believe in it or see how they do is what I can't stand. It is very UN-tolerant. Of course if anyone is putting themselves or others in danger, that is a totally different situation.

[Silent3]

71. About tolerance

What is important to me about tolerance is respecting the right to believe as one wishes. It doesn't necessarily follow that I have to respect one's beliefs themselves.

Certainly very few of us restrain ourselves from being strongly critical of political beliefs we oppose. Such criticism is hardly ever constrained by a compulsion to voice all disagreement in the most polite, cautious, and delicate manner. Political debate would be hamstrung by such a tepid approach. Humor, satire, and outright mockery can be completely valid rhetorical methods in a political debate. Such techniques are very useful in pointing out hypocrisy and inconsistency in a strong and emotionally accessible way.

If you accept this much as true in politics, then why the kid glove approach to religion?

I don't believe that religion occupies any special place in the marketplace of ideas. I believe in freedom of religion, but I also believe equally in freedom of political and philosophical beliefs and practices, such that all of these things should be as free as possible, to the greatest degree that all can enjoy an equal degree of freedom.

As long as I respect the civil liberties of all people, regardless of faith, what's the problem with voicing disrespect for the ideas themselves which some of these people profess? In fact, given that many religious practitioners haven't the slightest qualm about criticizing my lack of religious belief, or about criticizing my political beliefs, in the fiercest and most derogatory terms (How much more disrespectful can you be of another person's beliefs than to claim those who disagree with one's own views deserve eternal torment?), why should I be limited in any way in my rhetorical responses?

Walking on eggshells when it comes to criticism of religion gives religion a special privileged and protected place in the marketplace of ideas which I don't think it deserves, and which can only come at the expense of my own philosophical positions in the realm of public debate. I'd venture to guess that one big reason why religion is so strong in the US is that nonbelievers have been far too timid about forcefully promoting their own ideas, over-cautiously respecting the sensibilities of believers at the expense of their own positions.

[Zenlitened]

81. Well said...

... as usual! :yourock:

[Radical Activist]

40. You won't find bears eating kids

so I'm not sure what your criteria for "messed up" is in comparison to holy books of any other religion.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

35. An' the Gobble-uns 'll git you

Ef you
Don't
Watch
Out!

And other stories designed to make children and their parents mind the head of the church.

[Zenlitened]

105. God Is Great. Watch Your Step.

You've Been Warned. :hide:



LOL! :D

[undeterred]

36. Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

Now that's not something you hear very often. :shrug:

[petronius]

37. That's not a 'good book' ...that's a 'great book'!

That story made me laugh... :)

[jobycom]

43. WOnder what He'd do to those screaming kids in Walmart?

Hey, some DUers might convert over this story!

[khashka]

44. Reading the Bible is not always a good idea

How about the destruction of Midian? Did they have to kill the animals too?

Actually my mom has a study Bible that explains that those kids deserved to be ripped apart by bears because they weren't very nice children! LOL


Khash.

[Ladyhawk]

45. YHWH is a prick. (See Old Testament.)

So is Paul's interpretation of Jesus (see New Testament).

This is one of the many, many reasons I am no longer a Christian.

[Shell Beau]

46. Wow! I understand if it doesn't fit you but

that is a harsh way to put it. Calling (some)people's Lord a prick? I find that derogatory. I don't care that you feel that way, but some things are better left unsaid.

[Ladyhawk]

49. Sorry. I think religion has gone without criticism for far too long.

I agree with Richard Dawkins, Douglas Adams, Sam Harris and many others that the old taboo keeping us from speaking our minds about religion has led to all kinds of horrible crimes (See Holy Horrors).

Any god that sends a bear to kill little children is a PRICK. There's simply no other way to interpret it. Even if you twist it into a metaphor, it's still pretty sick. If any of you religious folk would like to explain to me how sending a bear to maul little children is a good thing, I'm willing to listen, but I have an a priori bias: Killing little children is bad. It's pretty hard to get around that little problem, isn't it?

Shell Beau said, "Calling (some) people's Lord a prick? I find that derogatory."

My argument is not an ad hominem attack against anyone on this board. It is just an observation that any god that would kill little children is a prick. I guess you could call it a personal attack against "god," but since I'm an atheist, it's a victimless crime. :) And why is it this child-killing "god" can't come down here and defend himself? He always needs a human apologist. (Psssst...it's because non-existent beings can't talk.)

Something tells me this thread should end up in Religion/Theology or some other place where emotions run high because it's going to end up hotter than hell in the month of July. *Sniff-sniff* Hey...you smell something burnin'? Why, I do believe it's the start of a flame war! :silly:

Sorry, I don't have much respect for a child-killing god or a god that makes women keep quiet in church (see misogynist Saul/Paul of Tarsus) or a god that discriminates against homosexuals (see Leviticus and Saul/Paul of Tarsus) or a god who won't let handicapped folks into church (um...it's somewhere in the OT...can't remember where). So, I'll say it again: YHWH is a prick. Prick, prick, prick. Prickety, prick, prick, prick.

What he supposedly did in the bible is completely indefensible. He drowned the whole planet, had Joshua commit genocide against the people of Palestine, sent bears to maul children, condoned raping of virgins and murdering "all who piss against a wall." Yep. To me, that says prick. George W. Bush may be a prick, but he'd better get started if he wants to murder as many people as YHWH did in the bible and in subsequent holy wars. YHWH is a much, MUCH bigger PRICK than shrub.

[Shell Beau]

50. Okay

I guess that is all I can say to that

[Goblinmonger]

77. That's a splendid response

You must agree with her? Why not defend the position? Give us the context?

[Shell Beau]

79. I just find that disrespectful and won't dignify it with a response.

[Zenlitened]

80. But isn't that the issue? Whether a god who kills children...

... deserves respect? Or whether those who would embrace and make excuses for such a god deserve respect for holding such a point of view?

:shrug:

[Shell Beau]

86. Did you read the whole story that the OP is referring to?

It is easy to pull one thing out of any story and rip it apart.

[Zenlitened]

87. Then help me out here. What is the proper context for this story?

[Shell Beau]

88. It is open to interpretation. I am just asking if you

read it b/c a lot of people won't and will assume it is something that it isn't. A lot of the Biblical stories are figurative and all are open to different interpretations. I am by no means a Biblical scholar, but it is helpful to read the whole story instead of just one snip.

[Goblinmonger]

91. I call bullshit

You cannot keep saying that there is context (or interpretation, or metaphor, or figurative) and then not give one centilla of evidence/explanation to shed a different light upon it. That smacks of Bushco and their tactics regarding WMD.

Put up or shut up. I've read the story. Kids make fun of bald guy. Bald guy pleads to god. God sends two mother bears to kill the kids. End of story.

Balls in your court. I am not expecting much.

[Shell Beau]

93. Don't expect anything! Goodbye!

And this is goodbye b/c you are rude, not b/c I am scared, or don't know what I am talking about. Some people aren't worth my time. Too bad for you.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silent3]

95. How can it be "figurative"?

You're the one who's espousing that the Bible is LITERAL truth, so unless the "context" of this story includes some sort of introduction like, "Zeke and Jeb were sitting around the campfire one night, and decided to scare the kiddies with the fable of The Bald Guy and the Bears, which goes like this...", then there ain't no "figurative" about it. By your LITERAL truth standard, the Bible is talking about a real incident with a real bald guy and real children and a real God really sending real bears to really, really eat the children as punishment for taunting the bald guy.

So does God sacrifice real children to real bears so that the story of their ugly fate can be used figuratively later?

[Shell Beau]

96. Please show me where I did anything of the sort...

"You're the one who's espousing that the Bible is LITERAL truth,"

[Silent3]

98. If I mistook you for another poster...

...then I apologize. My points still stand for the many people out there who do claim allegiance to the literal word of the Bible. But, watered down a bit if you're not a Biblical literalist, I'd still say the the "figurative" meaning here is still pretty offensive, and I have yet to see any evidence of context to justify it.

[Shell Beau]

103. Most posters I have come in contact with also believe in a

figurative meaning of the Bible. But I certainly can't speak for all.

[Zenlitened]

104. Hmmm....

Is this some sort of trick? Steer the heathens into reading the bible? "Ha ha! Got another one to open The Book!"

Why not just explain what context you see here that would shed further light on the subject?

:shrug:

It's been a long time since I last read the christian bible. Reading it cover-to-cover was a big step in my breaking free of religion; part of a process that helped me acknowledge that there really is nothing "holy" or special or magical about any of this.

There's no "there" there, beyond what we trowel onto into it ourselves, one brittle layer on top of another.

The gods are merely poetic inventions, sure; instructive to some in the manner of Aesop's fables, perhaps. But most of the poetry has been wrung out of the franchise by now, and much of what's left is nothing more than drivel at best, brutish ugly ravings from our barbaric past at worst.

And pretending otherwise requires a level of artifice, invention and wishful thinking that is, in the end, degrading. Yes, degrading. If it requires so much semantics and circular reasoning to pretend that there is meaning in some of this stuff... well, let's stop pretending.

Context? Yeah, there's a context. It's time to emerge from our adolescence as a species. Time to put away the fables and folktales of our long childhood and accept the responsibilities of adulthood, where clear speech and sound reasoning are the tools we choose, and we do right by each other because that's what decent adults do, and not because some sky-god said so.

[Shell Beau]

106. Yes, and that is what you believe

I believe otherwise. The way I interpret the story will likely not be the way you interpret it. But to me, I wasn't trying to persuade anyone to interpret it in my way. I know that no matter how much I try you will go on believing what you do. The same goes for me. My whole point and my only point was to know the whole story. No picking and choosing, b/c to counter that, I could have picked "love thy enemy", "love thy neighbor" and so on. I am not here to convert anyone.

[Zenlitened]

107. Please tell me how you interpret the story. I'm very curious to know.

[Zenlitened]

109. P.S. I realize you may feel you're being ganged-up on at this point...

... so I'm willing to drop back out of the conversation.

I guess I'm just a bit mystified as to why you'd make the statement that there is a larger context to the story, but then refuse to elaborate.

[Shell Beau]

110. I am not refusing to elaborate. But

say I give my interpretations to a bunch of people who think it is BS, I will be ganged up on again. I believe in looking at the whole picture that is all.

[Zenlitened]

111. Cool. I'm out.

:hi:

[Shell Beau]

112. I am not too far behind you!

:hi:

[Zenlitened]

113. Sorry.I shouldn't have jumped in when things were already fast-and-furious

Didn't mean to drive you out of discussing the issue with others. :(

[Shell Beau]

114. No that isn't really the case. I usually

stay away from this forum, but the OP was posted in the lounge and I chimed in. After I looked at "my posts" to see any of my responses, I saw some things and decided to respond. I didn't know some people would be so rude. Not you, others. :)

[Goblinmonger]

125. OK, here is a rare mea culpa

I apologize for hopping on your back so quickly. I really didn't feel too badly about it until I read this post. I saw the 1000+ posts and assumed you were one of the regulars here that I just didn't recognize the name. That is not the case. My posts were a result of many months of dealing with people in this forum.

I don't apologize for being upset that you claimed context and didn't give the context. That should have still been done, but I could have handled a newcomer to the forum in a different manner than the regulars I have arguments with.

[Shell Beau]

126. Well, I appreciate the apology

[Goblinmonger]

83. Oh cry me a river

Grow up. You were the one to bring up the context thing. I asked you for the context that you think existed that would make god not a prick for killing those kids by having a bear eat them. You have said jack shit in response to providing some context. I can only take that to mean that there isn't one. What exactly did I say that was disrespectful? I asked for the the context that you said existed. OMG, I asked you to prove your point and back up your statements with some kind of example. How rude of me.

Until I hear the enlighted context of which you speak, I will continue to believe that your god is a prick for killing those kids (realize I did not say YOU are a prick, just your god). You have done a shitty job of defending your god. If I were you, I would watch my back when I went near a forest.

[Shell Beau]

85. Jump to conclusions why don't you.

Yes, I do think it is disrespectful to call my God a prick. No one asked you to respect what I believe. You can think it is stupid or whatever you feel. I don't care if you believe the Bible or not, but to go out and call God a prick is uncalled for. There are respectful ways to say something. That isn't it. Not believing or not respecting what I believe is fine, but there is no need to put it down. And calling God a prick or an ass is putting it down. Whether you feel that way or not. I am not here to defend my God either. And by your post, I find you disrespectful all together. And on edit, maybe you should take your own advice about growing up. The way you try to talk down to me shows that.

[Goblinmonger]

90. To misquote Jerry McQuire

SHOW ME THE CONTEXT. That is all I (we) have been asking for all along. I think that god sending the bear to kill the 42 kids for calling a guy balding is a little harsh. You said I can't take things out of context. I have asked for you context. You have whined. Please explain the context and we can talk about that.

So we should stop calling Bush a prick (or other derogatory terms) on DU because that is putting down something/someone that others respect?

And I do live by my words. Notice I am not whining about you telling me to grow up. Notice I am ont whining about you calling me disrespectful. I am fine with an exchange where I am asked to defend my position. You on the other had seem to be running as fast as you can from showing the context that explains the child-killing god that you believe in (a context that YOU brought up, by the way, not I).

[Shell Beau]

92. Whining? Okay, whatever!

I see this is going nowhere. I said before I am not here to explain any context of anything. I am not here to defend my belief. I have said it is easy to take one part of a story and misconstrue it. Period. And if you think I am running away from anything, it would only be you b/c you are rude. You can't have a civil conversation without telling someone they are whining, scared, to grow up, "cry me a river". Why would anyone want to dicuss anything with you if that is how you talk to them? Goodbye!

[Goblinmonger]

94. "I am not here to explain any context of anything"

They why do you keep throwing that phrase around? You said the bear scenario was being taking about of context. Please, explain that context or quit making that claim.

That was pretty respectful, I think.

[Silent3]

97. You don't have the right cart-before-the-horse approach here

You see, you're supposed to assume that there just has to be a context that makes it all nicey-nice. Even if the believers themselves haven't a clue what that context is. Foolish mortal! God's contexts work in mysterious ways, and you better get used to accepting that the failure of your feeble human attempts to find those contexts doesn't mean they aren't there, or else it's the Eternal Lake of Fire for you!

[Goblinmonger]

99. Silly me

You're right. That was my mistake. I should have realized that "in context" was enough. I guess it is I that better watch for bears after daring to question the "good" book.

And welcome to DU, by the way. :hi: Not all discussion are this heated (though a lot of the religion ones are).

[Silent3]

100. If you can't take the heat...

...get out of the "internets"! ;)

[Shell Beau]

108. I am glad you know me so well and can read minds!

I guess you knew I would post this too! :eyes:

[trotsky]

115. Without you elaborating exactly what you consider the context to be,

we are left to speculate. Wildly.

I promise I won't jump on you - can't you just give a hint as to what you think the context is, that can justify god sending a bear to kill a bunch of kids?

[Shell Beau]

116. To me, there is a moral to the story.

Not really bears eating kids. The moral is ganging up on innocent people is wrong and leads to bad things. Not necessarily getting eating by a bear, it's just a way to remember that God takes up for (for lack of better words) innocent people. And in the story, Elisha (or Elijah) was an innocent man minding his own business and these kids (some interpret them as teens and a bunch of them) started taunting and threatening him. I haven't elaborated on this b/c then I will be ridiculed for interpreting it that way. I am by no means asking anyone else to see it the way I do either.

[trotsky]

117. I'm not going to ridicule you.

But I will point out that you're no longer talking about context - you're talking about interpretation, as you even note in your explanation.

[Shell Beau]

118. Well that is what I have been talking about.

When I said context to begin with, I was talking about picking one verse out of a whole story without knowing the rest of the story. Fundies do this too. Picking "eye for an eye" for the death penalty, but forget the rest of that story not to mention the 10 Commandments.

[trotsky]

119. But that's it - there is no "rest of the story."

Kids (or people, or whatever) tease the dude, and God sends bears to kill them.

You interpret this to mean that God doesn't like people to be mean. But there is no "rest of the story" explaining this - you are choosing to read into what's there and find a meaning.

[Shell Beau]

120. Yes, I do choose to interpret the Bible as everyone has to do.

That is why there are so many religions. But by researching some of the words in the revised versions as to see what the Hebrew or Aramaic meanings would have been, you can make of it different things. The story does go on. It may not mention the children again, but that is one verse in a whole chapter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. It's Elisha, not Elijah

because the context, such as it is, is that Elijah was swept up to heaven in a whirlwind earlier in the chapter, Elisha being his successor. There's not much more context than that. He was walking to a town, some inhabitants insulted him, he curses them, 2 bears kill 42 of them, he goes somewhere else. End of chapter - the next one starts with different people.

As for extracting a moral from this, it seems to be that "an eye for an eye" doesn't apply when it's a special prophet of God.

[Shell Beau]

122. That isn't the end. It goes on about Elisha.

And you are free to interpret any way you choose to and feel however you want about it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. There's one more verse in the chapter

25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

Next chapter:

2 Kings 3

1Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.

2And he wrought evil in the sight of the LORD; but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made.

So, no, no more context. As I said, he goes somewhere else. End of story.

[jonnyblitz]

52. great post. I completely agree.

Since I am an atheist I don't even believe in his existance to begin with but if he DID exist I don't see why he should be above criticism. :shrug:

[ozone_man]

53. The Christian churches were offered two things:

"The Christian churches were offered two things: the spirit of Jesus and the idiotic morality of Paul, and they rejected the higher inspiration... Following Paul, we have turned the goodness of love into a fiend and degraded the crowning impulse of our being into a capital sin."
- Frank Harris

This kind of sums it up for me.

[beam me up scottie]

56. You go girl!

:rofl:

As for attacking people on this board, I don't think god is a member of DU or a Democratic nominee in the next election, is he?

[Bill McBlueState]

60. beautiful.

I've just started reading Sam Harris myself. I totally agree; we need to get past this idea that people's unsubstantiable beliefs about reality need special respect. Especially when those beliefs are used to subjugate pretty much everyone.

[funflower]

54. ANYBODY who kills 42 children over name-calling deserves prison, not just

criticism. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who does it. Omnipotence does not make right.

[Goblinmonger]

61. I'm with LadyHawk

I'm an atheist now for a variety of reasons, but I will honestly tell you that it was crap like this in the Bible that helped start me on my path. Please, give me a context in which this bear-eating-youth is a good thing. And then we can move on to the other heinous shit in the "Good Book." The Jewish/Christian god is an ass. Do you really think you would like to hang around with the "being" that commands/does a lot of the crap that is in the bible? Not I.

And please don't confuse my respect for you to believe any crazy shit you want (as long as it doesn't hurt others--which I believe xianity does in a lot of instances) with a requirement that I respect your beliefs or your god. When the book of your god says stupid shit like the bear thing, why is it wrong for me to say that's crap?

[jonnyblitz]

64. isn't it funny how some "gasp" in shock that you would find this

story and others from the bible totally REPUGNANT? "WOW", the say. what in hell is it about religion that makes people make NO fucking sense at all? :shrug:

[Silent3]

89. But some things are better said

The God of the Bible is a miserable, sadistic, spiteful, and vain creep. A monumental prick by any reasonable standards.

If I'd say all of these things about any person who acted like the Bible's God does, but refrain just because it is someone's God we're talking about, I become an enabler for excusing these things, I become part of the support system that the believer relies upon to exempt his God from critical scrutiny. If even the non-believers in this God back down and behave as if a special reverence is due, what message does that send? It's certainly not the message I care to send.

[zonmoy]

155. but why not call a spade a spade

or an evil monster an evil monster.

[China_cat]

51. I guess you've never read the Gospel of the Infancy?

Jesus as a kid definitely didn't play nice with the other kids. Killing a couple, in fact.

And then there's the fig tree he cursed because it didn't have fruit out of season.

[onager]

62. And long before Sam Harris & Dawkins...

If this sounds like an attack on anyone's particular brand of Magical Thinking, remember...you'd have to read it IN CONTEXT...

:rofl:

--One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected... convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency.

That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.

--The time must come inevitably when mankind shall surmount the imbecility of religion, as it has surmounted the imbecility of religion's ally, magic.

It is impossible to imagine this world being really civilized so long as so much nonsense survives. In even its highest forms, religion embraces concepts that run counter to all common sense. It can be defended only by making assumptions and adopting rules of logic that are never heard of in any other field of human thinking.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mencken.htm

[beam me up scottie]

63. Ah, one of my favorites.

And the author is an equal opportunity critic:

One of the strangest delusions of the Western mind is to the effect
that a philosophy of profound wisdom is on tap in the East. I have read
a great many expositions of it, some by native sages and the rest by
Western enthusiasts, but I have found nothing in it save nonsense. It
is, fundamentally, a moony transcendentalism almost as absurd as that
of Emerson, Alcott and company. It bears no sort of relation to the
known facts, and is full of assumptions and hypotheses that every
intelligent man must laugh at. In its practical effects it seems to be
as lacking in sense and as inimical to human dignity as Methodism, or
even Mormonism...

The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked...

[NMMNG]

66. Uh huh

God sends a bear to kill 42 children for mocking a bald man, yet does absolutely nothing to the people who mock, torture and even kill gays/lesbians around the world every day.

Sounds fair and balanced. :eyes:

[trotsky]

67. You don't understand!

You're taking that story completely out of context! I'm not going to tell you what the context is, but I just know that if something in the bible doesn't make sense, it's simply out of context!

[jonnyblitz]

69. or it is a "metaphor'. nt

[NMMNG]

78. Oh, silly me.

I forgot all about the context thing. Smack me please.

[jonnyblitz]

102. self delete

dupe

[Phx_Dem]

70. Actual meaning in jewish texts

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=15908&showrashi=true

23. And he went up from there to Bethel, and he was going up on the road and some little boys came out of the city and jeered him, and said to him, "Go away, baldy; go away, baldy!"

and some little boys Heb. וּנְעָרִים, people empty .

Go away, baldy Go away from here, for you have made the place bald for us, for until now we would hire ourselves out to bring sweet water from a distance, and we would earn our livelihood thereby. And when the water became sweet, they lost their livelihood.

Thus it is explained in Sotah (46b).

24. And he turned around and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of God. And two she-bears came out of the forest and tore apart forty-two boys of them.

and saw them He saw that neither in them nor in their descendants would there be any ‘sap’ of good deeds.

25. And he went from there to Mt. Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

This quote was a mistranslation by the early xtians. The hebrew for "little boys" actually means non-religious persons, not kids.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

72. Ah. I see. Killing children for taunting is a no-no but

Killing non-believer union members for complaining about lost jobs is a-OK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Don't say that. You'll give Bush ideas. (n/t)

[More Than A Feeling]

84. That isn't even the best one

Ezekiel 23:20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Yeah, the Bible has a lot of weird, silly, insane episodes in it. Like the one where God inexplicably tries to kill Moses (who was ONLY the deliverer of the children of Israel, LOL)

*shrug*

[Meldread]

127. In God's defense...

...those little brats had it comin'. :silly:

[Zebedeo]

128. You don't pull on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind,

you don't pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with God.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Mocking the Holy Spirit is not a great idea. So says the Bible.

[Zenlitened]

130. Well of course the bible says mocking bible-stuff is bad.

It's a very clever piece of work in that regard: all sorts of self-reinforcing safeguards built right into the text.

[Zebedeo]

139. Amazingly clever!

Or could it be ....... true?

[Zenlitened]

141. No, all skilled propagandists make a point of...

... trying to pre-empt criticisms.

"If you repeat our message, people will say you're crazy because god has hardened their hearts."

No... it's because the message IS crazy.

"If you try to advance our agenda, people will persecute you."

No... if the agenda is in many ways hurtful, resisting it is self-defense, not persecution.

And on and on.

[Inland]

153. They also label something as propaganda. Just saying.

For labelling something propaganda allows you to avoid the question to you, namely, is the bible true?

Labelling something propaganda is a way to pre empt the examination of whether it's true or not, and in what sense it's true. All skilled propagandists look for reasons to avoid an examination into what's true.

It's a way to make the criticism unassailable, for the criticism isn't something that can be judged as valied or not but is merely self defense of .... well, I guess the clear and present danger of stories about bears. Hans Christian Anderson, you're on the fucking list!

[Zenlitened]

156. Reason, examination of the texts, an understanding of human nature...

... and a knowledge of the political processes that have been part and parcel of of creating the document... all lead us to the conclusion that the bible is not "true" in any unblemished sense.

The conclusion that it is or contains propaganda comes AFTER this analysis, not before.

So the charge of labeling the document -- with the implication that the label is applied beforehand, out of a preexisting prejudice, or without examination of the facts -- is simply inaccurate.

'Though perhaps it's comforting to those who -- out of some sort of weakness or intellectual failing, it seems -- just can't admit to themselves that a fair amount of what's in their bible is simply nonsense.

[Inland]

158. The conclusions been reached? So no need to discuss it, huh?

Another reason why you needn't address the issue--its moot, and you have the knowledge. How convenient. And how similar to the fundies, to have access to wisdom that others are just too blind to see, due to weakness and failings. So there's not debate needed. Huh.

So tell me again how the OTHER POSTER's tactics were to pre-empt debate? I guess you didn't mean pre-empt debate, you meant to obfuscate the result of the debate you had and won already.

Really, it's too much bullshit to employ to circumvent an argument on a story about BEARS, and certainly too much for a person pretending to accuracy and debate and intellectual rigor. What next, bad argument about Goldilocks and whether bears like porridge at all? At least if the bible is nonsense, they aren't making any more books. But I expect you'll have a number of pretensions to add.

[Zenlitened]

159. *sigh* Another exercise in reading incomprehension.

I said my conclusion was based on a process.

Not a snap judgement or exercise in labelling.

That's all.

But if you want to launch into your usual game, of putting words into the mouths of other people, then knock yourself out.

:eyes:

[Inland]

160. Oh, a *process*. Thanks for clearing THAT up.

So there was a *process* that reached a conclusion that means that the debate is over. I mean, you wouldn't be in favor of an exercise in labelling, would you?

It adds so much to know that there was a *process* that you got the memo on and nobody else did. Well, it's a wrap, boys. Eveyone who isn't, and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, feeble minded knows the truth. About bears. And they pre-empt criticism, deserved criticism. The feebs, not the bears.

Hey, while you are at it, could you see if there's a process that decided something else that's really, really convenient, like who is really president and whether to withdraw troops from Iraq? I mean, let us feebs know that the debate---I'm sorry, PROCESS-- is long over and been resolved, and in whose favor. It would mean so much more than some fundie preacher accessing a made up god if you would access a made up process. Really, it would.

[Zenlitened]

161. Serious question:

Are you back off your meds?

:shrug:

[Inland]

162. As serious as the rest of it.

Normally, I wouldn't mock someone for constantly committing the same sins he accuses someone else of, but you follow that poor guy around this thread. It was hypocritical, I would say, but the troubling possibility remains that you might have no idea what you do. Really, you ought to read what you post without the self satisifed access to "process" you bring to the table. It's bad. Really bad. Not worse than what the fundies do, but the same with the added irritation of a pretense to rationality and intellectual rigor. You, sir, are a best a poseur. At best.

I trust I've made my point.

[Zenlitened]

163. Well, I'm concerned.

I see the irrationality, the confusion, the hostility and aggression, the lack of self-control creeping back in... and it worries me.

:(

[Inland]

164. Golly, Spock, maybe its mating season. nt

[Zenlitened]

165. The equally magical crane passionately renovates...

...the immortal, orange tongue.

http://techhouse.brown.edu/cgi-bin/cchin/sentence.cgi

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

166. Yonder

suggestively internal unit which sadistically shot her unit kidnaps each diapason.

:rofl:

[Zenlitened]

167. I can't help but wonder, by the way, at your insistence on...

... referring to me as a male...

...You, sir, are a best a poseur. At best.

It's not the first time. In fact, in the past, you've gone so far as to describe me as "having a hard-on" for the topic of religion and politics.

(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=38835&mesg_id=39233)

Assuming that instance was not merely a fantasy-projection of some sort, I'm curious as to what the basis of this little fixation might be all about.

In the mind-set of a rabid fundie, women are supposed to be subservient, perhaps even a bit circumspect and apologetic, if we speak up at all.

And very often, when confronted with a woman who defies that sort of shallow, bible-based convention, the fundie's first reaction is to question her womanhood. To attempt to demean her by suggesting that since she refuses to conform to his underdeveloped view of femininity, she is not fit to be regarded as female at all.

Is that what's going on here? It would certainly fit a well-established pattern among religionists, with their fear-based contempt for anything that defies their limited gender norms, whether it be outspoken women, gay men, etc.

Is that the issue? Or is it the result of some other failure that I've overlooked?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

172. Struck a nerve, I guess.

Does it occur to you that you've just described yourself to a "T"?

Yes, I imagine it does occur to you, more often and more accurately than you'd like.


P.S. I loved the little dig about "an assumption of gender which may still have been correct."

Just can't get over that fear of women thing, can you?

:eyes:

[Inland]

173. Yep, the poseurs are irritating. Congrats, you've accomplished nothing.

You put all that pseudo intellectual bullshit for the purpose of trying to put someone down, and looking like a poseur in the process. Yeah, it's offensive, just not for the reason you hoped for. You meant to just be condescending, but instead you exhibit an offensive idiocy and hypocrisy.

Leaving aside the possibility that you are just mindlessly repeating phrases you heard somewhere and have no idea that you exhibit all the flaws you accuse others of. It's tough to imagine that your needs are so dramatic that you would keep on it while realizing it. I mean, really, when you cited to the "process" as having decided all, you knew it was stupid and hypocritical the second you typed it, right? I hope so.

I still don't know if you are a man and a woman. What, another subject that you are afraid to discuss while you criticize others for being unwilling to debate?

You're a self-parody. A poseur who can't help it. Any more and Dickens is going to leap from the grave and base a comical character on you. Zenlightened, the pretender to letters whose gender he or she won't reveal and lectures to anyone who presumes it has one.

[Zenlitened]

174. Yep, I've gone to great lengths to conceal my gender...

... from all but the most diligent and resourceful investigators:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=160059

:eyes:

But please, keep on flinging the white-knuckled, wild-eyed, spittle-flying diatribes my way.

You're really covering yourself in glory now.

[Inland]

175. What a fake.

Yeah, I'm supposed to do research on your gender. Why, to prevent you from using your frosh psych class and citing Freud? Like it would prevent you from going off on tangents.

What a joke. You can't win on any issues, you can't defend your own arguments, so it's "guess what I am". From an origin of telling someone else they were avoiding debate and criticism, all you really feel comfortable with is something so trivial and an accusation that nobody wants to really debate the issues. Saving that big brain for another day, right?

Yep, you're a real intellectual, so full of big ideas that you are only prevented from revealing because someone else won't let you, either by preventing debate or because they are prejudiced. Your hands are tied, but really, you're the smart one. It's perfect, the stuff of hilarity if it were only in a book whose covers we could close instead of an irritating real life human who won't get a clue. Mrs. Malaprop, move over. There's a new clueless character in town, the Professor of the Keeping of Right Honourable Debate Society, with his Doctorate in Process.

[Zenlitened]

176. You keep using "intellectual" as an insult.

Are you afraid on the intellect as well?

:shrug:

Or is this just the latest twist on the near-legendary "cosmic beef" routine, employed to shut down all discussion?

Why not just type "shut up shut up shut up i hate you i hate all of you" -- because that's exactly what it sounds like very time to parachute into a thread and try to close it down.

Every time.

[Inland]

177. No, I use "pseudo intellectual" as an insult.

Twit.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

179. You've never run into a troll. You spend your time baiting people

with your pseudo intellectual hypocrisy for reasons that have nothing to do with their actual positions. You intend to be irritating. It's your badge of honor. Unable to actually convince anyone that you are as smart as you pretend to be, you settle for being a person disliked for pretending.

How sad is that? All that energy merely to serve your own vanity in pretending to be an intellectual, repeating phrases that some smart person might have been able to use effectively in the appropriate situation and thinking it prevents you from being a hypocrite doing all that you acccuse others are doing. You do realize it, right? That's why you don't defend it. I hope.

No wonder people in the country distrust intelligence and intellect, when the fakers and the pretentious walk around with cheap nonworking copies of the real thing for the purpose of being irritating and condescending for their own petty purposes.

You're the worst. And not because you're a troll.

[Zenlitened]

180. Baiting people? YOU are lecturing on baiting people?

Dude, that's damaged. Truly damaged. :rofl:

And now, because you can't keep up intellectually, it's all about the "pseudo intellectuals" -- a phrase you've repeated half a dozen times already.

Seriously, you need to spend some time contemplating the word "projection." Or just look in a mirror.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

182. Yeah, that process thing was too deep for me.

There's no connection between your conclusions and the facts. Simply put, and incorporate everything I previously said.

[Zenlitened]

183. Second time's the charm, huh?

Temper, temper. :D

[Inland]

184. Yep, when I try again, I can be in compliance with the rules.

Yet you will never be the intellectual you pretend to be, no matter how many posts you make. It isn't within your power to do more than pretend. All you can do is stop pretending to anything, for example, never defending that appeal to the top secret process and getting it down to a snappy, contentless two words and an emoticon.

Well, nobody expected better, not with your record, than you posting nothing.

Seeyas. Hey, send me a "process" emoticon for the final post that is your pretend victory lap.

[Zenlitened]

185. The final post? Why, thank you. A rare honor.

Although I was hoping to hear more of your lecture on repetetive phrasing. :rofl:

But hey, I guess the cycle is now complete:

1. Parachute into a thread

2. Fling poison

3. Work yourself into a sputtering rage

4. Project your own failings onto others

5. Meekly slink away.


At least you're consistent.

[beam me up scottie]

186. You forgot # 6. Put the people who hand you your ass on ignore.

Congratulations Zen, and welcome to the club!

:rofl:

[MikeH]

132. So your God is a vindictive tyrant?

So the God you believe in and worship has a character like that of a petty, vindictive tyrant???:eyes:

[Zebedeo]

137. No, but He is sovereign

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Proverbs 1:7

[Zenlitened]

142. P.S. There's an example of pre-empting critics.

:hi:

"Some people will reject this stuff, but that just means they're anti-wisdom."

Compare to:

"Some people will criticize the president's policy, but that just means they don't care about protecting America."

[MikeH]

187. Using one's God-given reason

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.

Perhaps using one's God-given reason and common sense is.

Anybody using his/her God-given reason and common sense would reject the absurd and ridiculous notion that a barbaric, capricious, vengeful tribal deity whose accounts are described in ancient writings by people with primitive understandings, and the Creator of the Universe, are one and the same.

Not to mention that such identification seems more than a trifle disrespectful and dishonoring of the real Creator.

My apologies to any atheist who is offended by calling reason and common sense God-given. My post is for people who profess to believe in God. Personal disclosure: I would consider myself closest to being a Deist. Deists believe in God, but do not accept any alleged divine revelation. Deists believe in using reason and common sense.

[trotsky]

134. Interesting you should choose that song.

I do see how the god you believe in is readily compared to a mean old nasty bully that picks on everyone.

The holy spirit is a hokey ghost! Mock mock mock!

So where are the bears?

[Zebedeo]

138. No, God is not the bully in this story

The bullies are the cruel gang of youths that picked on a holy man and mocked the Holy Spirit.

Mocking the Holy Spirit is the one sin that is unpardonable.

Jesus Himself said: "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matthew 12:31.

I know you despise Christians and Christianity, but I challenge you to read the following speech, with an open mind, putting aside any pricklieness that you have about the subject, and see if you get something out of it.

Billy Graham address

[trotsky]

140. I don't despise most Christians or most forms of Christianity.

Just your version of it, and other fundamentalist sects.

Look, I have read the bible. Literally cover-to-cover. I used to be a believer. I used to think very much like you. Not quite as rigid and fundamentalist in my views, but fairly close. I have rejected it all.

I've also actually read that sermon before, and guess what? I'm not scared by it. I refuse to be bullied into believing something. And at its heart, that's what your version of Christianity says. God is a big bad bully and if you don't "choose" to worship and adore him, he'll burn you in hell forever. The Jack T. Chick theology.

Ain't buying it.

Holy Spirit, you're not even as scary as Casper the Friendly Ghost! Mock mock mock!

Still waiting for those bears...

[Zebedeo]

145. Sorry to hear that

I used to be a believer. . . . I have rejected it all.

Now THAT is a tragedy. :( And I mean that without any sarcasm whatsoever. I am truly sorry to hear about your loss of faith.

Just remember the parable of the prodigal son. God loves his wayward sheep.

[trotsky]

147. Aw, don't worry.

I'm sure you and your god will be quite pleased looking down on me in eternal torment.

[Zebedeo]

148. I won't

*

[MikeH]

129. This is the problem with the Bible as God's "Absolute Truth"

I respect that people get spiritual nourishment and guidance from the Bible.

However I do not respect somebody justifying, minimizing, or explaining away the barbarity of some action just because it is attributed to God in what is supposedly his infallible Word, or because it was supposedly ordered by God.

I think the Bible is subject to human fallibility just like anything else that has ever been written. And this fallibility includes the moral judgments of the writers of the Bible.

OK, these kids were definitely brats, but there is such a thing as punishment fitting the offense.

And if kids are brats, I think there is a pretty good chance they might have been mistreated or abused by one or both of their parents or by some adult or adults in their lives. I find it questionable that parents or adults should always be exonerated at the expense of children.

[renter]

131. Perhaps I can help with this...

In 2 Kings, chapter two the "bear man" refereed to later on is Elisha, an student if you will of the major prophet Elijah. Elijah and Elisha were traveling to Bethel, a center of idol worship and false prophets at this time. Elijah knew that God was going to take him away to heaven very shortly, and before he left Elisha wished to be filled with the spirit of God as much as Elijah was. This was granted by God. On the way to Bethel, Elisha was set upon and verbally insulted by a gang of young men connected with the false prophets. In the old Hebrew, some scholars believe these were men in their mid-late 20's who were acting like children. Some other scholars believe it was teenagers. This gang was taunting Elisha by saying he should go up(read out of the way of the false prophets) like Elijah and leave the false prophets to do their evil works. Elisha ushered a curse(in today's words, a strong rebuke with swearing). The Bible mentions two female bears. Many bear attacks are caused by female bears believing harm will come to their cubs. The bears mauled 42 of the gang members. The gang members sinned against God.
Later on in 2Kings, Elisha-blessed and granted the ability by God-does some amazingly good works by getting a widow and her two sons out of debt, and enabling a childless couple to have son. He also brought a dying child back to life, and resolved a food poisoning mistake. By all means, please read the rest of 2Kings. Elisha preaches against things we have today in corruption, greed, and the evil in peoples heart. Elisha wished to people to return to God.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. This doesn't help me much

because it's still "insult a prophet, and you get killed". The punishment is completely out of proportion to the offence. It makes Elisha look like an insecure member of the Mafia. If we all behaved like that, the human race would be extinct. As moral lessons go, it's a piece of crap. As warnings of totalitarian punishment by a psychopathic god goes, however, it's quite instructive.

[Goblinmonger]

135. Plus the other half of it is

that god really hates false prophets. Enough to kill them. In a really painful or shitty way. Sure Elisha goes on to do some cool stuff. How does that undo the "god is a prick for sending the bears" thing? You god is really that insecure? Somebody who doesn't believe in him (and my understanding of "false prophets" doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in god, just not the exact way that "god" wants) picks on his little pet and he is going to maul them? Nice, loving, and just god you have there.

[Zenlitened]

143. They're "gang members" now? LOL!

Yeah, those gang-bangers were pretty bad-ass back then: "Go up, thou bald head."

:rofl:

[Zebedeo]

144. Yes, that is true

But unfortunately, you will find that few on this forum want to hear the truth. Mocking is so much more fun than understanding!

[Zenlitened]

146. There's an example of pre-emption, too, of a different sort.

It says that anyone who rejects these strained rationales does so because they don't understand.

But might it not be that they reject it all because they DO understand? Because they can see right through it, for the empty nonsense that it is?

[trotsky]

150. Not to mention the absolutely sadistic logic...

of punishing someone for eternity simply because they CAN'T understand.

[MikeH]

169. It gives you some satisfaction

But unfortunately, you will find that few on this forum want to hear the truth. Mocking is so much more fun than understanding!

It obviously gives you some satisfaction to think that.:rofl:

[MikeH]

170. Seriously

But unfortunately, you will find that few on this forum want to hear the truth. Mocking is so much more fun than understanding!

But seriously, if you really have that attitude toward those of us who do not share your particular beliefs, and who actually have some serious problems with your beliefs, then maybe you should not be on this board.:think:

[MikeH]

168. Perhaps

Many bear attacks are caused by female bears believing harm will come to their cubs. The bears mauled 42 of the gang members.

That is what might have happened. If it did then I don't think God had anything to do with it; if he did then it would put God on the level with a petty vindictive tyrant.

In any case it is a story.

[CarbonDate]

149. Well! I might become a Christian again, yet!

I'm sick of these damn kids making fun of my receding hairline. We need to get some bears on their asses.

[Inland]

151. It proveth God's endearing love of shiny pates.

Or that he loves bears enough to feed them children, which are said to be delicious.

Is it bears or bare heads he loves?

Fact is, it's just a fricken story. The writer may have seen the punishment of god and the OP sees the indictment of belief in the writer's seeing the punishment of god, and both are making mountains out of molehills. Sometimes a bear eating kids is just a bear. Sometimes a cautionary tale is just that.

[MikeH]

152. Well said

Fact is, it's just a fricken story.

Right, and to the point.

[Inland]

154. Support the right to arm bears! nt

[PaganPreacher]

157. There is a lesson in there:

Don't taunt a bald man.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.