Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Funny Side of Religion
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I just read an apologetic answer to that particular passage:
What fcuking difference does their age make! They were still mauled to death by bears at Elijah's command. They've basically tried to dissolve the moral difficulty by saying they had it coming.In the book of 2 Kings, there is an intriguing narrative that has generated considerable controversy. Concerning the prophet Elisha, the text reads as follows.
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. 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 (2 Kings 2:23-24).
Atheists have appealed to this incident in an attempt to involve the Bible in moral difficulty. A careful consideration of the facts, however, will dissolve the problem.
First, the translation, “there came forth little children out of the city” (KJV) is an unfortunate rendition (cf. “young lads”—ASV, or “youths”—NIV, NKJV). The Hebrew word rendered “children” derives from na’ar—used 235 times in the Old Testament. Na’ar is a very broad root word, and can have reference to anyone from a newborn child to an adult. Further, the Hebrew word rendered “little” comes from qatan, and generally means young or small. In commenting on this term in 2 Kings 2:23, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament remarked:
Elisha being taunted (cf. qalas, qarah) by young lads (perhaps teen-age ruffians) (II Kgs 2:23) who as members of covenant families ought to have been taught God’s law whereby cursing his servant was tantamount to cursing him and rightly punishable by death (qalal) (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:795).
Obviously, therefore, the immediate context in which na’ar is used will determine the maturity of the subject so designated.
OH NOOOESS! Well they clearly deserved to die thenSecond, the young men of Bethel mocked Elisha. The Hebrew word qalas means to scoff at, ridicule, or scorn. The term does not suggest innocent conduct. Note the Lord’s comment elsewhere: “They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah arose against his people, till there was no remedy” (2 Chronicles 36:16).
Too, the expression, “Go up...Go up,” is held by many scholars to reflect the wish of these young men that the prophet go ahead and ascend (as did Elijah—2 Kings 2:11), i.e., leave the Earth, that they might be rid of him! Also, the taunt, “thou bald head,” was likely a reproach. Old Testament scholar John Whitcomb has suggested that this was an expression “of extreme contempt. They were pronouncing a divine curse upon him, for which baldness was often the outward sign (cf. Isaiah 3:17a,24)” (1971, p. 68).
So it's moral to have 42 people killed for mocking you as long as you do it in the name of a supposedly perfectly moral being. And they call us moral relativistsThird, when it is said that Elisha “cursed them,” there is no implication of profanity (as our modern word suggests), nor was this a venting of passion for personal revenge. Holy men of God sometimes were empowered with divine authority to pronounce an impending judgment upon rebellious persons (cf. Genesis 9:25, 49:7, Deuteronomy 27:15ff., and Joshua 6:26). Christ uttered a curse upon the barren fig tree (Mark 11:21) as an object lesson of the doom that was to be visited upon Jerusalem. Also, it is stated clearly that Elisha’s curse upon them was “in the name of the Lord,” meaning by “divine appointment, inspiration, authority” (see Orr, 1956, 4:2112).
So they came out at god's command and Elijah commanding it was just a coincidenceFourth, the tragedy that befell these young men obviously was of divine design. Elisha, as a mere man, would have no power to call forth wild animals out of the woods merely at his bidding. But the sovereignty of Jehovah over the animal kingdom frequently is affirmed in the Scriptures. God sent fiery serpents to bite the Israelites (Numbers 21:6); the Lord slew a disobedient young prophet by means of a lion (1 Kings 13:24ff.); yet, He shut the lions’ mouths to protect Daniel (Daniel 6:22). He prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17), and guided one to Peter’s hook (Matthew 17:24ff.). Clearly, therefore, it was Jehovah who brought those bears out of the forest.
Oh well if they didn't die from their injuries that makes it all okAdditionally, if, when the divine record says that the bears “tare” the lads, it means they were killed (and not all scholars are sure that death is indicated), then it was a divine punishment. As Alfred Edersheim has written: “t should be noticed that it was not Elisha who slew those forty-two youths, but the Lord in His Providence, just as it had been Jehovah, not the prophet, who had healed the waters of Jericho” (n.d., 6:107).
Are these people insane?0 -
"Apologetics making Christianity stomachable since 120 A.D"I just read an apologetic answer to that particular passage:
.
.
.
.
.
On an unrelated note, understanding the evil of the pocket monsters from the mid-nineties.
0 -
-
"Apologetics making Christianity stomachable since 120 A.D"
On an unrelated note, understanding the evil of the pocket monsters from the mid-nineties.
Wow, just wow!
Seriously this dude needs to be taken away by men in white coats.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I think this counts as humour by now ... the blog Awful Library Books has a couple of posts (1/ 2) about an old book called Don’t Make Me Go Back, Mommy: a child’s book about satanic ritual abuse.
Yes, that's what I thought. It's pretty paranoid about Halloween, for example, and thinks kindergartens are getting kids in to Satanism - which, according to comments, was related to the McMartin Preschool trial, about bogus Satanism accusations, which I'd never heard of before.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.
— Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
0 -
-
-
-
-
From the source of all that's true in Russia, comes the perfect gift for the militant atheist in your life this christmas!
Why not try a bottle of Kabbalah Vodka with added Christian Infant?
(large version here)
(large version here)
(large version here)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
A New Zealand Church tried to "provoke debate". Instead provoked hilarity (on one side) and demands for more "respect" (on the other).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8417963.stm.The BBC wrote:An unholy row has broken out in New Zealand over a church billboard aimed at "challenging stereotypes" about the birth of Jesus Christ. A dejected-looking Joseph lies in bed next to Mary under the caption, "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".
St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, which erected the billboard, said it had intended to provoke debate. But the Catholic Church, among others, has condemned it as "inappropriate" and "disrespectful". Within hours of its unveiling, the billboard had been defaced with brown paint.
The church's vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said the aim of the billboard had been to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story.
Mary and Joseph billboard from St Matthew-in-the-City church in Auckland
The billboard was defaced within hours of its unveiling. "What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he told the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA).
"Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?" He told NZPA that the church had received e-mails and phone calls about the controversial image. "About 50% said they loved it, and about 50% said it was terribly offensive," he said. "But that's out of about 20 responses - this is New Zealand."
But Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, said the poster was offensive to Christians. "Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she told the New Zealand Herald. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."
The family values group Family First said any debate about the Virgin birth should be held inside the church. "To confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary," Family First director Bob McCroskrie told the news website stuff.co.nz.0 -
A New Zealand Church tried to "provoke debate".
It would be true though. God would probably be a pretty tough act to follow in the sack. Must be like what guys feel like when they are with a woman who experimented with other women in their youth. You know, we're just guessing what's going on, but they know what's going on down there.
On a related note, couldn't help seeing the parallels of this comic with the religious mentality:
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8gsIuEvEs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehhlAU00gQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNb3xJFzkc
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement