I think He over reacted

Originally posted by adam warlock

And where does he say that is "bad"?

In the following:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But [b]in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[quote]Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a m 's your choice, but it doesn't change the facts.

Is that good enough of context to you?[/b]

Yes, it is clear. Let them alone.

Got it?

He's not endorsing the behaviour nor endorsing stoning children for it. Pretty clear.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, it is clear. Let them alone.

Got it?

He's not endorsing the behaviour nor endorsing stoning children for it. Pretty clear.

The smart one change their mind very slowly, but they will never say thanks to the ones that made them change their mind.

Until then you can keep on burying your head under the sand. 😛

Originally posted by adam warlock
The smart one change their mind very slowly, but they will never say thanks to the ones that made them change their mind.

Until then you can keep on burying your head under the sand. 😛

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. 😛

I guess this disagreement (irrespective of who is "correct" ) is another example that interpreting such texts depends more on what one wants to read than on the original intention of the writer...

Mark Twain:

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.

Originally posted by Palynka
Imitation is the highest form of flattery. 😛

I guess this disagreement (irrespective of who is "correct" ) is another example that interpreting such texts depends more on what one wants to read than on the original intention of the writer...

Believe me that I had no problems with Jesus and Christianity in general until I read the Bible.
Far from being a moral super champion Jesus appeared to me as a spoiled brat, a bully, and a sociopath. And I'm not using hyperbole.

The tone of that passage is quite clear and recurrent of Jesus: one should always first look into the law of God and only then worry about the law of men.

Just to be sure about thing: you think that religion in general is neutral, or you think that it is inherently good?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Just to be sure about thing: you think that religion in general is neutral, or you think that it is inherently good?

I don't think it is inherently anything. I would prefer to live in an atheist world, if that's what you're asking.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't think it is inherently anything. I would prefer to live in an atheist world, if that's what you're asking.

In terms of ethics -- is there any practical difference between the worlds of Christian and atheist Europeans?

After some research this what I found about the 42 children and two she-bears incident:

Qatan or qaton {kaw-tone'}; from 'quwt' (6962); abbreviated, i.e. diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance):--least, less(-er), little (one), small(-est, one, quantity, thing), young(-er, -est).

from na`ar (5287); (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age):--babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).

The two words together strongly defines them as small children.

“Tare” is from ‘baqa` a primitive root; to cleave; generally, to rend, break, rip or open:--make a breach, break forth (into, out, in pieces, through, up), be ready to burst, cleave (asunder), cut out, divide, hatch, rend (asunder), rip up, tear, win.

So the two words put together only appear in the Bible when it is pretty clear that little children are in the picture. And these are the two words that appear sequentially in Elisha incident.

I think He over reacted.Even if they were older he would have over reacted!

Originally posted by adam warlock

Far from being a moral super champion Jesus appeared to me as a spoiled brat, a bully, and a sociopath. And I'm not using hyperbole.

The tone of that passage is quite clear and recurrent of Jesus: one should always first look into the law of God and only then worry about the law of men.

Just to be sure about thing: you think that religion in general is neutral, or you think that it is inherently good?

A reading I haven't come across before! Please elaborate, it's always good to add to one's Jesus collection.

The ethics of Geulincx & Spinoza showed that love of Reason and God were one and the same, therefore the law of men is obedient to the law of God, which is Reason. Of course I see no reason this shouldn't hold true from an atheist perspective.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't think it is inherently anything. I would prefer to live in an atheist world, if that's what you're asking.

I think it is inherently human and so, like any other human creation, it has its failings. Good stuff and bad stuff. The question is if the good stuff compensates the bad stuff or not.

But getting back to the Bible, which is the focus of this thread, saying that the Bible is any kind of monument to morality, or that Jesus was a total break from the OT is just plain madness.

Just a fun aside: the two people I most respect were devout Christians.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In terms of ethics -- is there any practical difference between the worlds of Christian and atheist Europeans?

Yes, I guess. Christians are more likely to be pro-life relative to atheists, for example, yet there is a wide range of opinions in both groups so there's definitely overlapping. It's hard to answer without going on a case-by-case.

Originally posted by adam warlock
After some research this what I found about the 42 children and two she-bears incident:
!

The Rabbis take pains to account for his calling the bears to devour the children, by ascribing the coming of the bears and the appearance of the woods which had not been seen before to his miracle-working power (Soṭah 46b, 47a, Yalḳ. to II Kings ii. 21). The offenders were not children, but were called so ("ne'arim" ) because they lacked ("meno'arin" ) all religion (Soṭah 46b). The number (42) rent by the bears corresponds to the number of the sacrifices (42) offered by Balak. Had the Bethlehemites shown him due courtesy by sending him on his way attended in a manner befitting his dignity, this incident would not have occurred (Soṭah 46a). Yet Elisha was punished for this act as well as for his rude treatment of Gehazi (Sanh. 107b).

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=293&letter=E#ixzz0n9Z8j8pQ

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A reading I haven't come across before! Please elaborate, it's always good to add to one's Jesus collection.

The ethics of Geulincx & Spinoza showed that love of Reason and God were one and the same, therefore the law of men is obedient to the law of God, which is Reason. Of course I see no reason this shouldn't hold true from an atheist perspective.

I didn't understand on what you want me to elaborate.

If the question is about the law of men and the law of God on many passages Jesus makes a very clear juxtaposition between the two. And he always recommends following the law (commandment, judgment, outcome) of God. For instance when he says:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Saying that law of God is Reason seems to be very strange to me. Going from the Bible let's take a look at this passage:

...I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Where's the logic or Reason in that. Why punish or reward children for the actions of their parents?
And let us imagine this scenario: a man that is the son of sinner parents hooks up with the daughter of "good parents". What's God's treatment to their offspring?

The ethics of Geulincx & Spinoza showed that love of Reason and God were one and the same

Clearly you're using the word showed in a very lax way, aren't you? And isn't th Spinoza God different from the Biblical God?

Originally posted by adam warlock
I think it is inherently human and so, like any other human creation, it has its failings. Good stuff and bad stuff. The question is if the good stuff compensates the bad stuff or not.

But getting back to the Bible, which is the focus of this thread, saying that the Bible is any kind of monument to morality, or that Jesus was a total break from the O ...[text shortened]... s just plain madness.

Just a fun aside: the two people I most respect were devout Christians.

There you go again. That it is not a "monument to morality" (if I'm interpreting you correctly) it is still a hugely important break from the OT. The OT is virtually ridden with violence effected by direct punishments by God himself. The NT is incomparably less, even if not an expression of some form of supernatural "moral perfection" if that's what you mean. You go from "moral perfection" to "as moral as the OT" as if there wasn't anything in between.

Whether the good stuff compensates the bad stuff depends on the individual. Certainly I can see religion being a good influence on some individuals and a bad one in others.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The Rabbis take pains to account for his calling the bears to devour the children, by ascribing the coming of the bears and the appearance of the woods which had not been seen before to his miracle-working power (Soṭah 46b, 47a, Yalḳ. to II Kings ii. 21). The offenders were not children, but were called so ("ne'arim" ) because they lacked ( ...[text shortened]...

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=293&letter=E#ixzz0n9Z8j8pQ

Read it. Now what?