- This topic has 899 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2008,19:32) A little more than meets the eye in 2 Kings 2:23-24 Kejonn. Try these links. You need to do a little research before you jump to conclusions. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=827
These are two of the most pathetic apologies I have read.It would seem that god shares in common with all the brutal dictators of the 20th century an inability to deal with mockery in a manner worthy of a true leader. If god is omnipotent, he should be able to intellectually outwit his mockers. Instead he sets bears on the mockers and leaves unanswered the issues being raised by a 'large group of young men'.
What an incompetent.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 23 2008,19:10) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2008,19:32) A little more than meets the eye in 2 Kings 2:23-24 Kejonn. Try these links. You need to do a little research before you jump to conclusions. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=827
These are two of the most pathetic apologies I have read.
That's because 20th – 21st century people cannot fathom this.Not that I have any problems with the verses, but how is this counted “holy scripture” inspired by the Almighty and part of of faith and truth?
Song of Solomon 7
How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle.
Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon
by the gate of Bath Rabbim.
Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon
looking toward Damascus.
Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel.
Your hair is like royal tapestry;
the king is held captive by its tresses.
How beautiful you are and how pleasing,
O love, with your delights!
Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,
and your mouth like the best wine.
May the wine go straight to my lover,
flowing gently over lips and teeth.
I belong to my lover,
and his desire is for me.
Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside,
let us spend the night in the villages.
Let us go early to the vineyards
to see if the vines have budded,
if their blossoms have opened,
and if the pomegranates are in bloom—
there I will give you my love.
The mandrakes send out their fragrance,
and at our door is every delicacy,
both new and old,
that I have stored up for you, my lover.Quote (Cato @ April 25 2008,03:31) Not that I have any problems with the verses, but how is this counted “holy scripture” inspired by the Almighty and part of of faith and truth?
Song of Solomon 7
How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince's daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands.
Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.
Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle.
Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon
by the gate of Bath Rabbim.
Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon
looking toward Damascus.
Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel.
Your hair is like royal tapestry;
the king is held captive by its tresses.
How beautiful you are and how pleasing,
O love, with your delights!
Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,
and your mouth like the best wine.
May the wine go straight to my lover,
flowing gently over lips and teeth.
I belong to my lover,
and his desire is for me.
Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside,
let us spend the night in the villages.
Let us go early to the vineyards
to see if the vines have budded,
if their blossoms have opened,
and if the pomegranates are in bloom—
there I will give you my love.
The mandrakes send out their fragrance,
and at our door is every delicacy,
both new and old,
that I have stored up for you, my lover.
Being a little prudish here aren't you Cato? Erotic love between a man and wife was YHWH's idea. I imagine YHWH thought of sex long before A & E ever figured it out. There is nothing intrinsically unholy about it at all. Neither is there anything overtly offensive in the way it is presented in the SOS passage, IMO.I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Quote (kejonn @ April 24 2008,12:02) It started breaking down from this passage on: - While I would agree that I would find it offensive if God made animals (with requisite nervous systems) to simply torture them (cf. Proverbs 12.10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.), I consider that RADICALLY different that God making animals, demonstrating His goodness to them by a natural life-cycle and preservation of the species, and eventually causing cessation of consciousness. I don't see this as evil as all; in fact, I have to consider it evidence for God's goodness–just like the Psalmist did:
However, if Yahwe did indeed flood the whole world, he deprived them of this natural life cycle. The writer made a similar statement about humans, but again, anywhere from 14-27 million people were deprived of the natural cycle. Yes, that is the estimated world population from 3000 to 2000 BCE.
You neglected to include the preamble to the quote that gave it it's context. Here is it:“When God made animals, in what way was He obligated to them? When they die of 'natural causes' (e.g. 'in their sleep') in what sense is God 'less' (or 'not' ) guilty than if He has them drown in a flood or die from a tree-fall or get eaten by a predator? Or is God 'morally required' to have them 'live forever'?!”
So Kejonn…what were YHWH's obligations to the animals He created?
Quote BTW, strange how the supposed flood didn't seem to hinder the population…but its the view of God that counts, not whether it actually happened.
How do you know it didn't hinder the population? Do you know what the population count would be had the flood occurred/not occurred? Lot's of assumptions to deal with here….BTW, using our present knowledge of human popluation dynamics and applying the details given in the Bible it's completely plausible for the world population to have reached 5 billion+ in the (approx) 5100 years since the flood.Quote Again, it gets back to the Mark Twain saying (paraphrased) “God created man in his image and man returned the favor”
Are you exempt from this?Quote (Cato @ April 25 2008,11:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
What's Cato's definition of “Holy Scripture”?Quote (kejonn @ April 23 2008,23:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2008,02:32) A little more than meets the eye in 2 Kings 2:23-24 Kejonn. Try these links. You need to do a little research before you jump to conclusions. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=827
From the first link:- In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men.
So insulting a prophet is worthy of death now Isaiah? And you see why I say this doesn't work in the 21st century?
Unless of course you secret wish death upon people who insult you. At least Jesus had better morals than that.
In essence the “young men” (not boys as you wrongly described them as) were attacking/mocking YHWH's message and therefore YHWH. And yes they had an adverse consequence, and maybe were made an example of (for the benefit of others). YHWH does play hardball. I think we've established this.
Quote (Stu @ April 24 2008,12:10) These are two of the most pathetic apologies I have read.
I don't think they were right out of the top drawer, but made a few good points in addressing some of kejonn's errors. That's why I cited them.Quote It would seem that god shares in common with all the brutal dictators of the 20th century an inability to deal with mockery in a manner worthy of a true leader. If god is omnipotent, he should be able to intellectually outwit his mockers. Instead he sets bears on the mockers and leaves unanswered the issues being raised by a 'large group of young men'. What an incompetent.
No, an incompetent would have let the matter slide and open the door for others to make the same mistake. Making an example of someone(s) is mericiful in the grand scheme of things IMO.Quote (kejonn @ April 23 2008,23:04) Walk outside and look. Study you friends and family. God is reflected in everything He has made.
Yes, but that very ambiguously, at best. What does a study of the guy in the office you don't get along with or a cactus or a rock tell us about God's character?Quote Now you can check out another source for me at The Gathas of Zarathushtra
Before I read this can I ask is this a source of your acquired knowledge of God? And if so, how do you know it is truth?Quote (charity @ April 23 2008,20:04) How are your children?…
My children are very well Charity. Thanks for asking. Two are at school now and our youngest is still a few years away (but starting to run rings around us already). The Lord has blessed us immeasuarably with the kids he has entrusted us with.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,19:24) Quote (Stu @ April 24 2008,12:10) These are two of the most pathetic apologies I have read.
I don't think they were right out of the top drawer, but made a few good points in addressing some of kejonn's errors. That's why I cited them.
That would be Ok if they actually addressed any of my supposed errors, but alas they failed.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,19:36) Quote (kejonn @ April 23 2008,23:04) Walk outside and look. Study you friends and family. God is reflected in everything He has made.
Yes, but that very ambiguously, at best. What does a study of the guy in the office you don't get along with or a cactus or a rock tell us about God's character?
That He loves diversity. That He allows us all to follow our own path and those who choose to look to Him can, but others are free not to. He does not need us because He existed without us before He made us. He made us for us.I'd rather have ambiguity with personal inspiration than blind faith in a brutal deity.
Quote Now you can check out another source for me at The Gathas of Zarathushtra
Before I read this can I ask is this a source of your acquired knowledge of God? And if so, how do you know it is truth?[/quote]
How can we know any revealed religion is the truth? We cannot. We all have to decide for ourself what we are willing to accept. A Muslim accepts the Koran. A Hindu accepts the Vedas. A Jew accepts the Tanach. A Samaritan Jew accepts the Samaritan Pentateuch. A Christian accepts both Testaments but is shy about the Old.Now, can you prove which one of these texts is the truth? I want evidence, not belief. If you only have belief, than mine is every bit as valid as yours.
Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,19:00) Quote (kejonn @ April 24 2008,12:02) It started breaking down from this passage on: - While I would agree that I would find it offensive if God made animals (with requisite nervous systems) to simply torture them (cf. Proverbs 12.10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.), I consider that RADICALLY different that God making animals, demonstrating His goodness to them by a natural life-cycle and preservation of the species, and eventually causing cessation of consciousness. I don't see this as evil as all; in fact, I have to consider it evidence for God's goodness–just like the Psalmist did:
However, if Yahwe did indeed flood the whole world, he deprived them of this natural life cycle. The writer made a similar statement about humans, but again, anywhere from 14-27 million people were deprived of the natural cycle. Yes, that is the estimated world population from 3000 to 2000 BCE.
You neglected to include the preamble to the quote that gave it it's context. Here is it:“When God made animals, in what way was He obligated to them? When they die of 'natural causes' (e.g. 'in their sleep') in what sense is God 'less' (or 'not' ) guilty than if He has them drown in a flood or die from a tree-fall or get eaten by a predator? Or is God 'morally required' to have them 'live forever'?!”
So Kejonn…what were YHWH's obligations to the animals He created?
So if you pick up a dog from the pound (or wherever) are you obligated to feed it? Nah, just let it find its own food.
Seriously, your morals are still stuck in another age. I wonder if you secretly wish you could have your own slaves?
Quote Quote BTW, strange how the supposed flood didn't seem to hinder the population…but its the view of God that counts, not whether it actually happened.
How do you know it didn't hinder the population? Do you know what the population count would be had the flood occurred/not occurred? Lot's of assumptions to deal with here….BTW, using our present knowledge of human popluation dynamics and applying the details given in the Bible it's completely plausible for the world population to have reached 5 billion+ in the (approx) 5100 years since the flood.
Show me the math. Account for life expectancies, infant mortality rates, etc. as well.Quote Quote Again, it gets back to the Mark Twain saying (paraphrased) “God created man in his image and man returned the favor”
Are you exempt from this?
No one is. I simply choose to not believe in a God who is so frivolous with His Creation than He destroys life whenever He gets angry.Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:04) Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?
No, what Soloman did was unequiviocally 'not good'. And you should be able to discern that there is a colossal difference between what the Bible reports and what YHWH condones. Or maybe your understanding of these biblical matters never really developed past a first grader's Kejonn? I'm beginning to wonder. The basic errors in understanding ypu have demonstrated are really starting to pile up!Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,19:09) Quote (kejonn @ April 23 2008,23:19) Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 23 2008,02:32) A little more than meets the eye in 2 Kings 2:23-24 Kejonn. Try these links. You need to do a little research before you jump to conclusions. http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=827
From the first link:- In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men.
So insulting a prophet is worthy of death now Isaiah? And you see why I say this doesn't work in the 21st century?
Unless of course you secret wish death upon people who insult you. At least Jesus had better morals than that.
In essence the “young men” (not boys as you wrongly described them as)
I wrongly described them? Or did the translators?- (Apostles) And he went up there to Bethel. And as he was going up by the road, there came up also little children from the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, baldhead, go up.
(DRB) And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head, go up, thou bald head.
(ESV) He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
(Geneva) And he went vp from thence vnto Beth-el; as he was going vp the way, litle children came out of the citie, and mocked him, and saide vnto him, Come vp, thou balde head, come vp, thou balde head.
(JPS) And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; 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 baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'
(KJV) 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.
(LXX-E) And he went up thence to Baethel: and as he was going up by the way there came up also little children from the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, bald-head, go up.
(RV) And he went up from thence unto Beth–el: 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.
(Judaica Press) 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!”
Seems your apologetics is failing miserably. You need to contact the hundreds of scholars who disagree with your translation.
Quote were attacking/mocking YHWH's message and therefore YHWH. And yes they had an adverse consequence, and maybe were made an example of (for the benefit of others). YHWH does play hardball. I think we've established this.
Yes, Yahweh plays hardball. He seems to be the original Mafia boss.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:16) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:04) Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?
No, what Soloman did was unequiviocally 'not good'. And you should be able to discern that there is a colossal difference between what the Bible reports and what YHWH condones. Or maybe your understanding of these biblical matters never really developed past a first grader's Kejonn? I'm beginning to wonder. The basic errors in understanding ypu have demonstrated are really starting to pile up!
Only in your mind. You don't seem to be able to refute them very well beyond making insults.Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2008,23:16) Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:04) Quote (Cato @ April 24 2008,18:49) I don't have any problem with poetry, just I wonder why this poem ranks as holy scripture? Why was this included in God's word? Gee I hope they are married, we wouldn't want to promote fornication of any kind now would we.
Well, Solomon had many wives, so its all good, eh?
No, what Soloman did was unequiviocally 'not good'. And you should be able to discern that there is a colossal difference between what the Bible reports and what YHWH condones. Or maybe your understanding of these biblical matters never really developed past a first grader's Kejonn? I'm beginning to wonder. The basic errors in understanding ypu have demonstrated are really starting to pile up!
BTW, what Cato quoted from was the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon. That is why I made the comment. It seems you are the one who is in error. Or do you only know the parts of the bible that support the trinity?Quote (kejonn @ April 25 2008,16:02) That He loves diversity. That He allows us all to follow our own path and those who choose to look to Him can, but others are free not to. He does not need us because He existed without us before He made us. He made us for us.
How would a study of a study of the guy in the office you don't get along with or a cactus or a rock lead you to conclude “He allows us all to follow our own path and those who choose to look to Him can, but others are free not to. He does not need us because He existed without us before He made us. He made us for us.”? What is your “evidence” here??Really curious about that one…
Quote I'd rather have ambiguity with personal inspiration than blind faith in a brutal deity.
Then whose faith is truly “blind”? Apparently your knowledge of God is ambiguous conclusions drawn from “personal inspiration”. Or are you ready to admit that you have no real source for your understanding of God, but are just fashioning a God that you're comfortable with, maybe one that doesn't invoke uncomfortable supernatural implications for you.Quote How can we know any revealed religion is the truth? We cannot. We all have to decide for ourself what we are willing to accept. A Muslim accepts the Koran. A Hindu accepts the Vedas. A Jew accepts the Tanach. A Samaritan Jew accepts the Samaritan Pentateuch. A Christian accepts both Testaments but is shy about the Old.
Right. So, since truth is truely indesciperable to you on what basis do you challenge the truthfulness of Christian scripture? You don't know if any of it is true of not, right?Quote Now, can you prove which one of these texts is the truth? I want evidence, not belief. If you only have belief, than mine is every bit as valid as yours.
You say you want evidence….what is the “evidence” that supports your understanding of God Kejonn?? We're still waiting for that….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
