27 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAll part of the Pauline revisionist doctrine. That claiming God sanctioned mass murders wouldn't seem at all wrong to Paul with his Pharisee mindset.
Your hateful God is only a reflection of your loathing for your fellow human beings. I'll take a Supreme Being like Barney (even if he is really annoying) over a mass child murderer and young girl raper any day. May Thor have mercy on you.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiCan you imagine any circumstance where a prophet's being insulted ('go up, baldhead'😉
It's an interesting reference, especially that Elisha "cursed them in the name of the Lord." I wonder if the number itself is significant.
At first reading, I can't say what the implications are. There may be several ways of looking at it - and I don't know which is best. It's not clear from the verses. Why female bears? Why so many kids? ...[text shortened]... gure out what the verses are telling us. I think this one is more then a record of the events.
would warrant such a massive death penalty?
If you think that stoning a child for cursing their parents is the product of a just God, or
that mauling children for calling a prophet 'bald head' is the product of a just God, then
we have two very different notions of 'justice.' I'd be curious how you define 'justice.'
Furthermore, I'd have to ask you why we don't stone our children for cursing their parents
anymore? Why was this a 'just' action 2700 years ago, but no longer? Did God change His
notion of 'just?'
I have more questions than answers. I don't see a clear answer, but I am sure there is some "meaning behind the madness."
My explanation is perfectly logical: did you find it or do you want me to reiterate it?
Nemesio
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioYou could paste the link if you want. I haven't found it.
Can you imagine any circumstance where a prophet's being insulted ('go up, baldhead'😉
would warrant such a massive death penalty?
If you think that stoning a child for cursing their parents is the product of a just God, or
that mauling children for calling a prophet 'bald head' is the product of a just God, then
we have two very different notions ...[text shortened]... explanation is perfectly logical: did you find it or do you want me to reiterate it?
Nemesio
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioI don't think it as simple as it appears. Do you?
Can you imagine any circumstance where a prophet's being insulted ('go up, baldhead'😉
would warrant such a massive death penalty?
If you think that stoning a child for cursing their parents is the product of a just God, or
that mauling children for calling a prophet 'bald head' is the product of a just God, then
we have two very different notions ...[text shortened]... explanation is perfectly logical: did you find it or do you want me to reiterate it?
Nemesio
All I can tell from those two verses is that the event happened. But in context of the book it's in, the previous verses, later verses, etc. I don't think it was written simply as a morality tale to warn children not to tease their elders.
I don't much care to take in verses out of context and pass judgment on them. I don't think you do either.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiCould a biblical scholar tell us what the context is? I'd be keen to know it myself. It's such a disturbing vision that it begs clarification.
I don't much care to take in verses out of context and pass judgment on them. I don't think you do either.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by RingtailhunterIf you find that "funny" then you have no idea how to meet another side's argument logically. Since they insist on the OT being literally true, we are calling them on it and asking them to explain which is most likely: that their God commanded the Israelites to commit mass murder and rape or that the Israelites constructed a God that justifies such atrocities. They can logically take either point of view but not neither as Coletti is attempting to do.
It is funny that the people who thrash and bash users because they take the bible too literally are literally taking the bible literally to fight this argument.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere are times when an ad hominem (to the man) argument is called for. Christ often assumed the position of his opponent, to reveal internal contradictions or absurdities that his opponents position implied.
No, it's not. It's fighting fire with fire.
So I don't mind someone attempting to show problems with my system. But it's a shame when they either become abusive, or misrepresent my beliefs. Then they are merely wasting my time.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou failed to show a single instance where anybody has misrepresented your beliefs in these debates. The problem isn't that we've misrepresented them; the problem is that we've accurately characterized them and they are abhorrent. As for the "abuse" you take, you deserve it; after all what can you expect from us, lowly other human beings who are "vile" and "depraved" - we're not card carrying members of the predestined "elect" after all!
There are times when an ad hominem (to the man) argument is called for. Christ often assumed the position of his opponent, to reveal internal contradictions or absurdities that his opponents position implied.
So I don't mind someone attempting to show problems with my system. But it's a shame when they either become abusive, or misrepresent my beliefs. Then they are merely wasting my time.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by Ringtailhunter
It is funny that the people who thrash and bash users because they take the bible too literally are literally taking the bible literally to fight this argument.
You noticed too, huh ? No1 is very anxious to take the Medianite massacre literally if it suits his purposes ....... 😀
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " As for the "abuse" you take, you deserve it; ..... "
You failed to show a single instance where anybody has misrepresented your beliefs in these debates. The problem isn't that we've misrepresented them; the problem is that we've accurately characterized them and they are abhorrent. As for the "abuse" you take, you deserve it; after all what can you expect from us, lowly other human beings who ...[text shortened]... le" and "depraved" - we're not card carrying members of the predestined "elect" after all!
Isn't that what they all say, those bigots, either religious or secular ....
A racist will say such a thing about black people.
A sexist will say such a thing about women.
An anti-Jewish person will say such a thing about Jewish people.
An anti-Semite will say this about Jewish people.
An anti-born again will say this about Born-agains.
27 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderwheeew! I thought you Clowns had totally lost your marbles.
If you find that "funny" then you have no idea how to meet another side's argument logically. Since they insist on the OT being literally true, we are calling them on it and asking them to explain which is most likely: that ...[text shortened]... her point of view but not neither as Coletti is attempting to do.
Funny stuff.
RTh