Jump to content


Photo

Question About The Morals Of The Bible


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 TheGene

TheGene

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Székesfehérvár, Hungary

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:32 AM

I have a question about the Bible. According to the Old Testament it is okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bold hair

" 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 2:24

- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21

-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27

At this forum I was told that: " In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth." in the Bible."

It is obvious, I just only want to ask, how you can support that statement above? Where can I find it in the Bible?

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:58 AM

I have a question about the Bible. According to the Old Testament it is okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bold hair

" 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 2:24

View Post


What is the context of the passage and its surrounding paragraph, chapter, book? We wouldn’t want to cherry-pick a meaning to drive an argument would we?


- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21

View Post


What is the context of the passage and its surrounding paragraph, chapter, book? We wouldn’t want to cherry-pick a meaning to drive an argument would we?


-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27

View Post


What is the context of the passage and its surrounding paragraph, chapter, book? We wouldn’t want to cherry-pick a meaning to drive an argument would we?

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2011 - 05:45 AM

I have a question about the Bible. According to the Old Testament it is okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bald hair

" 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 2:24


The Bible is very capable of using the word kill. Yet that word is not used for a reason. They were not killed by the bears. Nice try.

- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21


Slavery was often times how a person paid his debt for committing a crime. If that person could not pay who he wronged back for what he did. So a lot of slaves were criminals.

-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27


What people owned (material things or livestock) that served pagan gods, were often possessed by evil spirits. The children were held to their fathers sins which were past down for several generations. So their fathers were responsible for what happened to their children.

At this forum I was told that: " In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth." in the Bible."

It is obvious, I just only want to ask, how you can support that statement above? Where can I find it in the Bible?

View Post


In the OT when you died you did what was called: "Slept with his fathers". And there are many verses to support this:

1kings 2:10 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

1kings 11:21 And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country.

1kings 11:43 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 14:20 And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 14:31 And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Abijam his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 15:8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 15:24 And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 16:6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 16:28 So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 22:40 So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

1kings 22:50 And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 10:35 And Jehu slept with his fathers: and they buried him in Samaria. And Jehoahaz his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 13:9 And Jehoahaz slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria: and Joash his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 13:13 And Joash slept with his fathers; and Jeroboam sat upon his throne: and Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel.

2kings 14:16 And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 14:22 He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.

2kings 14:29 And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 15:7 So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 15:22 And Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 15:38 And Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 16:20 And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 20:21 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers: and Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 21:18 And Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza: and Amon his son reigned in his stead.

2kings 24:6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 9:31 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 12:16 And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David: and Abijah his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 14:1 So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. In his days the land was quiet ten years.

2chron 16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

2chron 21:1 Now Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And Jehoram his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 26:2 He built Eloth, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.

2chron 26:23 So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 27:9 And Jotham slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 28:27 And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 32:33 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death. And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.

2chron 33:20 So Manasseh slept with his fathers, and they buried him in his own house: and Amon his son reigned in his stead.


This is also why there was people left to rise from their graves when Christ rose from His:

mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Now notice the word many. Many does not equal all. So what this was, was an OT judgment resurrection. Only those worthy rose, the rest stayed. That is why there are others to rise from the grave:

1thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Now who would be dead in Christ? Someone who died in the Old covenant and the new covenant could not help them. You see the covenant a person dies in is the covenant they are locked in. So the blood (sin atonement) of Christ cannot help them so they are dead in Christ.

This also fulfills prophecy where it says: The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Those from the old covenant that are still in their graves, will be the last to rise from that covenant, but will be the first to rise in the new covenant. So they are last in one thing, but first in another.

#4 TheGene

TheGene

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Székesfehérvár, Hungary

Posted 30 April 2011 - 01:28 PM

So if I understand it correctly, those that died before Christ, in the old covenant were dead in Christ. And they were those that first emerged from the graves in Matthew 27:52. Or more accurately only those rose who were worthy of it.
But that does not seem supported by Matthew to me:

mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.

Does saint really mean "those that are worthy of saving"? And even if so, those men, women and children still had to die before they could be resurrected, while God could just save them right away.

and BTW according to Oxford dictionary 'tear'means
to pull (something) apart or to pieces with force
That can hardly be survived by a child without ( or even with) appropriate medical care.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2011 - 09:23 PM

So if I understand it correctly, those that died before Christ, in the old covenant were dead in Christ. And they were those that first emerged from the graves in Matthew 27:52. Or more accurately only those rose who were worthy of it.


Yes, correct. Now that does not mean that the ones still in the grave all go to Hell, being dead in Christ means that the new covenant cannot help them because they are bound to the covenant they "died" in.

The reason that has to be made clear is because 2 sets of people are being taken up during the new covenant time-line. So a voiced separation of who belongs to what covenant is made. I have not found a verse yet that says exactly what happens to the dead in Christ. But the dead in Christ are not judged at Christ's throne. They are judged at God's throne. And at that throne only the "Book of Life" decides who goes where.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The reason the sea gives up it's dead, and there is a separation between dead from the grave. Is that those who were judged by the flood also have to be judged at God's throne.

Now why have people judged twice? Because there is a chance that some might be able to go to Heaven from this judgement. Plus fair judgement requires for everyone to know why they are judged the way they were.

Now if you went to church, like me you were probably told that anyone that appears before the Great White Throne were "all" cast into the Lake of Fire. Doing intense research I found this is not true.

Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Whosoever means there is a chance that some will be worthy here. Because if "everyone" was going to the Lake of Fire here, then whosoever would not apply.

But that does not seem supported by Matthew to me:

mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.

Does saint really mean "those that are worthy of saving"? And even if so, those men, women and children still had to die before they could be resurrected, while God could just save them right away.


Not all saints did what they were supposed to. So not all saints were worthy. Salvation in the old or new covenant, is not a ticket to sin, or a thing to use to exalt one's self above others. Those that do this and think they cannot lose their salvation will be in for a rude awakening.

The 2 examples of this are:

1) Many of the saints arose from their graves. means being a saint is not a ticket to Heaven (old covenant).
2) An the sheep were separated from the goats:
mt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

At Christ's throne there will be saved people that were not worthy (goats). They will be divided from the sheep (the worthy) and cast into Hell. Now what is taught is that the goats are unsaved sinners. No where in the Bible does it ever refer to goats as unsaved sinners. So this was made up to make the doctrine of eternal security work (never lose salvation doctrine). But as shown it's not true.

This is why some Christians act the fool and live their lives full of sin. They have bought into a false doctrine, and sad to say will find out the truth when it's to late. They also believe that they are not required to do kingdom works, when the Bible makes it clear this is what is required.

First understand that to even appear before Christ's throne means you are saved. No unsaved sinner appears here. So how these people are judged, and what happens to them are happening to the saved.

Matthew 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Now you might think these are little things to be cast into hell about. But there is a dual meaning here. We see the physical side, now here is the spiritual side.

1) I was hungred and ye gave me no meat. The learned in Christ need the meat of the word.
2) I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink. The new in Christ require the milk of the word to lay a solid foundation of faith.
3) I was a stranger and ye took me not in. A stranger is someone who is not of the Body of Christ. Not taking them in is not telling them the good news of the gospel so they can make a freewill choice.
4) Naked and ye clothe me not. A person that is naked is someone without the word of God. So to clothe them not is to not give them a Bible.
5) Sick and in prison and ye visit me not. We are supposed to take the good news of the gospel even unto the ones rejected by society. The ones no one wants to know, and the ones sick and no one cares for. And the ones that are all alone.

You see these are kingdom works (what Christ would do). A unsaved sinner cannot be judged on kingdom works for 2 reasons.
1) You cannot work your way to heaven. Kingdom works only apply "after salvation", not before salvation.
2) The unsaved sinner is "not in the covenant" so therefore the kingdom works do not apply.

and BTW according to Oxford dictionary 'tear'means
to pull (something) apart or to pieces with force
That can hardly be survived by a child without ( or even with) appropriate medical care.

View Post


Except the word tare, not tear, is used. Does the Bible actually use the word "tear"?

deut 33:20 And of Gad he said, Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad: he dwelleth as a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head.

judg 8:7 And Gideon said, Therefore when the LORD hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers.

And your verse:

2kings 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.

So what does Tare mean in God's word?

To rip somthing:
2sam 13:31 Then the king arose, and tare his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes rent.

Tares of the feild:
mt 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
mt 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
mt 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
mt 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
mt 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
mt 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Then tares are also those who worship Satan:
mt 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

And what an evil spirit can do to a person:
mk 9:20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
lk 9:42 And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.

So since there is only one verse that mentions tares and children besides the one you used.

mt 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

It means that the people (not actual children) who made fun of the man had given their souls to Satan (children of Satan). They were Satan worshipers so they were considered "children" of Satan's kingdom.

Now why word it this way where one has to search it out to gain truth? To do what the Bible calls: Separating the wheat from the tares. To see who will use things like that to justify their unbelief in God.

#6 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 May 2011 - 03:02 PM

I have a question about the Bible. According to the Old Testament it is okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bold hair

" 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 2:24

- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21

-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27

At this forum I was told that: " In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth." in the Bible."

It is obvious, I just only want to ask, how you can support that statement above? Where can I find it in the Bible?

View Post

Thegene,
I do not claim to be a sholar, or have all the answers, but my degree is theological, so I would like to comment. Please understand that God dealt with man in different ways in the past. He revealed His ways to man progressively through time. But know that it was to show us our need, and his ultimate plan of saving man through His Son, who gave his life's blood for all of us.

There were several stages of covenant, or as some would call them 'dispensations.' I do not take sides on terminology, but try to glean principle. There was the the Noahtic covenant, Abrahamic covenant, the Covenant of the Law (Moses), and the finally under Christ, the New Covenant of grace. We are now under grace, which is a covenant of great mercy, because of what Christ did in sacrifice for all those who will put their faith in him. Wrath and judgement are stored up until the end, although God does still judge through nature, events, etc. because of man's sin.

However, under the law, there was less mercy. Yes, there was mercy, but judgement was more swift and usually more severe. God also had a plan to multiply the descendents of Abraham--Israel--and give them the land of Palestine. Hence, he commanded Joshua to destroy all things of the enemy, women, children, religious relics, cattle, etc.

Now before you become disillusioned with God, know that these people of Palestine--the Cannanites--were very evil--they followed Baal, Molech, Ashteroth, and practiced child sacrifice. God used Israel to judge these people groups, and also give the land for a people unto himself.

So God does judge sin. It's just that we are no longer under law, we are under grace. The final judgement will come, but now we are warned to "flee from the wrath to come" by John the Baptist in the gospel of St. John the Apostle.

This has no means been all inclusive in these matters, but I tried to give you a quick overview of how God dealt with man differently in different times, and by different means.

#7 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:45 AM

[quote] name='TheGene' timestamp='1304163158' post='71519']
I have a question about the Bible. According to the Old Testament it is okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bold hair

" 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 2:24

- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21

-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27

At this forum I was told that: " In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth." in the Bible."

It is obvious, I just only want to ask, how you can support that statement above? Where can I find it in the Bible?
[/quote]

TheGene,

I must point out your behavioral inconsistency within your worldview (atheism). An atheist has no logical reason to believe in any sort of moral imperative within his worldview. In an atheist worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain--the result of time and chance. For the concepts of right and wrong to be meaningful, atheism can't be true.

Right and wrong are Christian concepts that go back to Genesis. By attempting to be moral, therefore, the atheist is being irrational for he must borrow biblical concepts (that are contrary to his worldview) to argue against the Bible and God. This would be like arguing against the existence of gravity while using gravity to stand on the ground to make the argument that gravity does not exist.

Now understand that this isn't to say that atheists are somehow less moral than theists. Most atheist adhere to a code of behavior and become righteously indignant when they see evil or what they perceive to be injustice in the world. But to do so, they must borrow from the Christian worldview, and in doing so they affirm the theist worldview as true and the atheist worldview false.

Now as a Christian, I must point out that my Creator God has authority to take one of His children from this life into the next life. We live life in two stages: Stage l is here. Stage 2 is with Him in Heaven or apart from Him in Hell. He does not send us to Hell. Rather He lets us live where we want to live.

God sent His prophet Elisha to warn the whole nation of Israel to repent and warn them of their coming destruction. Millions of lives were at stake. Sending the bears was a great way for God to vet Elsha as His messenger and show Israel that His messenger was not to be mocked. Any "little ones" that may have been killed by the bear were taken out of the hands of wicked parents into the loving arms of God--taken from the front porch into the parlor of the mansion (Deut. 1:39).

But aside from the last paragraph, atheists have no foundation within their worldview to rail against anything they perceive to be unjust or evil.

TeeJay

#8 roohif

roohif

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 24 September 2011 - 04:48 AM

The Bible is very capable of using the word kill. Yet that word is not used for a reason. They were not killed by the bears. Nice try.


The word usually used is "tare": in Hebrew it is "baqa" (Strongs H1234), and means to split, divide or cleave. In the Old Testament, the word is used to describe various things including:

  • Splitting firewood
  • Moses parting the Red Sea
  • Earthquakes where the ground splits open and swallows people
  • Ripping open pregnant women

I think it's reasonable to say that some (if not all) of them died.

#9 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 September 2011 - 06:37 AM

[quote] name='roohif' timestamp='1316864924' post='75126']
The word usually used is "tare": in Hebrew it is "baqa" (Strongs H1234), and means to split, divide or cleave. In the Old Testament, the word is used to describe various things including:

  • Splitting firewood
  • Moses parting the Red Sea
  • Earthquakes where the ground splits open and swallows people
  • Ripping open pregnant women

I think it's reasonable to say that some (if not all) of them died.
[/quote]

roohif,

In your worldview, where nothing exists but chemicals and molecules, why would "killing" anyone be wrong?

TeeJay

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 October 2011 - 06:22 PM

roohif,

In your worldview, where nothing exists but chemicals and molecules, why would "killing" anyone be wrong?

TeeJay


They have to use something to justify their disbelief.

#11 roohif

roohif

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 07:58 PM

Sorry, wasn't watching this thread.

In your worldview, where nothing exists but chemicals and molecules, why would "killing" anyone be wrong?


I'm quite capable of justifying my morality, but I don't see how any answer I give changes whether it was moral for God to "kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bald hair". This thread is operating under the assumption that God exists and atheism is false; my world view is irrelevant (for now).

So ... was it moral for God to kill these children?

#12 roohif

roohif

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:31 PM

Any "little ones" that may have been killed by the bear were taken out of the hands of wicked parents into the loving arms of God--taken from the front porch into the parlor of the mansion (Deut. 1:39).


Deuteronomy 1:39 - "And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad — they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it."

I don't see the relevance of this verse to the topic under discussion? The Israelites didn't trust God that he would deliver them the Promised Land, so he made them wander around the desert until that generation passed away. Trying to twist this into some metaphor for heaven is a bit of a stretch don't you think? I have a feeling this verse might come back and bite you on the bum a bit later ...

And what makes you think these children went to heaven anyway? The explanation you've gone with seems fraught with danger - the usual apologists line is that these "little children" were a band of hardened street thugs :P

So .. did these children go to heaven?

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:45 PM

Sorry, wasn't watching this thread.



I'm quite capable of justifying my morality, but I don't see how any answer I give changes whether it was moral for God to "kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bald hair". This thread is operating under the assumption that God exists and atheism is false; my world view is irrelevant (for now).

So ... was it moral for God to kill these children?


Judgment is different from killing. When a baby is aborted, is it being judged or murdered? And remember, it's 3 million a year verses ....? And at least the children got to see life, aborted babies see nothing. What are they killed for? So people who want to live a jump in bed with whomever lifestyle can do so? What did those aborted babies do to deserve abortion? Nothing right?

And about what the bears did.... Do you know what happens to the baby during abortion? Warning, what you read below will be quite graphic.

1) Injecting a salt solution burns the skin off the baby, The baby will fight and kick until it dies.
2) Abortion by vacuum tube is where the tube is inserted into the woman, and the doctor moves it around until it attaches to a part of the baby (a arm, a leg etc...). Once done the doctor pulls until the limb is ripped off the babies body. The doctor will continue to do this until all that is left is the head. He will take another instrument and crush the skull of the baby and pull it out.
3) Partial birth abortion is the last trimester abortion. The baby at this point can live outside the body if it were born. The baby is turned around inside the wound to be delivered feet first. This is to abide by a federal law that states the baby cannot have it's mouth or nose exposed to air during partial birth abortion. So about 90% of the baby is delivered. Then the doctor take a pair of scissors and inserts it into the back of the skull to make a hole large enough to fit a vacuum tube in. Once done the brains of the baby are sucked out. Because the skull bone is still soft, the babies head callapses his eyes get sucked out too. Baby now considered dead and is completely delivered and thrown in a trash can as garbage.

Were those babies judged or murdered? 3 million a year burned or vacuum sucked to death. And your worried about what some bears did?

All this thread is about is justification for disbelief. It really has nothing to do with morals. But if you like I can post abortion pics and illustrations of how it's done. Do you think the thread would be so justifying then? It's always the atheist whom holds others to a standard they cannot even live up to themselves.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:09 PM

I once listened to a speaker on abortion. He approached the subject a different way. He said not only is it 3 million babies aborted, but 3 million intelligent people whom cannot apply their intelligence to contribute to society. We often complain that we have diseases we have no cures for. We probably aborted the people who could have given us these cures. 3 million people is like aborting a whole country every year.

#15 roohif

roohif

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:13 PM

All this thread is about is justification for disbelief. It really has nothing to do with morals. But if you like I can post abortion pics and illustrations of how it's done. Do you think the thread would be so justifying then? It's always the atheist whom holds others to a standard they cannot even live up to themselves.


I oppose abortion. Whatever point you were trying to make, please make it again without assuming my views on particular moral questions.

#16 roohif

roohif

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:17 PM

I once listened to a speaker on abortion. He approached the subject a different way. He said not only is it 3 million babies aborted, but 3 million intelligent people whom cannot apply their intelligence to contribute to society. We often complain that we have diseases we have no cures for. We probably aborted the people who could have given us these cures. 3 million people is like aborting a whole country every year.


Putting 3 million more people on the planet is a problem in itself, but I would say s@x education and contraception is the solution to that - kinda makes abortion a non-issue.

Should I hastily assume that because you're a Christian you oppose contraception?

EDIT: On second thoughts, I don't even want to know. Let's stick to the topic. 2 Kings 2:23-24.

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:38 PM

I oppose abortion. Whatever point you were trying to make, please make it again without assuming my views on particular moral questions.


Does not make a difference if you oppose it, your side condones it and you are a part of that.

Just like you trying to make God look like a murderer, do I cop out from my side and say: I oppose what God did?

But let's take it a step further. You said:

Putting 3 million more people on the planet is a problem in itself, but I would say s@x education and contraception is the solution to that - kinda makes abortion a non-issue.


What about abstinence? That one did not cross your mind did it? I guess that would require morals? Contraceptives are not always effective. It is unexpected pregnancies that get aborted. You don't plan to abort a child unless you are mentally ill. Abstinence solves the problem.

So unless you are willing to concur what would solve the problem, s@x education just means you are not willing to go as far as needed.

Question: How do you know that a girl you dated did not become with child and go get an abortion? She does not have to consult you, or tell you. It's a woman's choice which means the man has zero say so. and most abortions done early enough does not effect the woman physically, so you could not tell either.

I know of a woman who uses abortion as birth control. And I'm sure she's not the only one. She has had 5 abortions, there are no laws against a number of abortions. Do you think she's s@x educated, or frankly does not care?

#18 roohif

roohif

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:56 PM

Does not make a difference if you oppose it, your side condones it and you are a part of that.


"My side"?

How about "your side" gets your story straight: you've got TeeJay claiming that these babies went to heaven, but five minutes ago you called it a "judgement". The only thing that I necessarily share with other atheists is that I don't believe in God.

Just like you trying to make God look like a murderer, do I cop out from my side and say: I oppose what God did?


Well, do you oppose what God did or not ... ? Was it a morally justifiable act?

What about abstinence? That one did not cross your mind did it?


It did, but I didn't bother mentioning it because from all accounts it has turned out to be an abject failure. Young people will have s@x whether you like it or not - the best solution is to minimise or prevent the moral consequences.

Contraceptives are not always effective.


LOL! They're more effective than abstinence only education :P

Question: How do you know that a girl you dated did not become with child and go get an abortion?


Because I'm the To vulgar to allow! Just ask anyone ...

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 October 2011 - 10:03 PM

"My side"?

How about "your side" gets your story straight: you've got TeeJay claiming that these babies went to heaven, but five minutes ago you called it a "judgement". The only thing that I necessarily share with other atheists is that I don't believe in God.

Well, do you oppose what God did or not ... ? Was it a morally justifiable act?

It did, but I didn't bother mentioning it because from all accounts it has turned out to be an abject failure. Young people will have s@x whether you like it or not - the best solution is to minimise or prevent the moral consequences.

LOL! They're more effective than abstinence only education :P

Because I'm the To vulgar to allow! Just ask anyone ...


I see, you think abortion is funny so now you make jokes? This shows you been lying the whole time, and was just putting on a show for your lurker friends. So now you are banned for wasting everyone's time.

#20 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 08 October 2011 - 10:44 PM

I'm not sure whether killing these children was moral or immoral in the entire scheme of things since we don't have perfect knowledge, but there is actually nothing in this verse that says that God killed any children.

God did not curse the children, and he didn't maul (or "tare") them either.

What I think it boils down to is that whenever God lets a man of faith use his Name, he gives that person of His own authority, to bless or curse according to his own discretion.

We all know that authority can be a dangerous thing in the hands of the "wrong person". The trouble was that at that time no "right person" since no one had been regenerated. God had to put his treasures in jars of clay.

Jesus said a curious thing when his disciples wanted to use God's authority in an inappropriate way:

And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.

The manifestation of God's power can neither be molded into a moral statement nor does it necessarily condone the actions and attitudes of the one using it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users