Biblical matters

[pwrmoore]

You should see some of the comments Dawkins and Gervais receive online. Dawkins reading mean tweets is particularly funny.

Plenty of Christian groups are emotionally abusing children, telling them they must believe in God or they will go to hell. Not all Christian groups but quite a lot.

Sorry to jump in here Dave (this was an interesting read) but your statement is rubbish. Those that abuse children etc as you said are no more Christian than ISIS are Muslim or even the KKK are Christian. It goes without saying you can’t commit acts like that and then claim you follow the Bible

I'm pretty sure it is in the Bible?

Mark 9:43

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Not following what you're saying I'm afraid, my point is that it's a contradiction to be abuse children and so on and claim you're a christian. And if they do claim they are a Christian, I would really question where they get it from. Explain the reasoning behind the verse you quoted rather than just plucking it from thin air

Genesis 19 v 8

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Sounds like child abuse to me...

[Dave]

What, child abuse in the Bible? What about the time god made two bears maul 42 children for insulting a very sensitive Elisha.

2 Kings 2:23-25New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

[UlsterAreBrill]

You should see some of the comments Dawkins and Gervais receive online. Dawkins reading mean tweets is particularly funny.

Plenty of Christian groups are emotionally abusing children, telling them they must believe in God or they will go to hell. Not all Christian groups but quite a lot.

Sorry to jump in here Dave (this was an interesting read) but your statement is rubbish. Those that abuse children etc as you said are no more Christian than ISIS are Muslim or even the KKK are Christian. It goes without saying you can’t commit acts like that and then claim you follow the Bible

I'm pretty sure it is in the Bible?

Mark 9:43

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Not following what you're saying I'm afraid, my point is that it's a contradiction to be abuse children and so on and claim you're a christian. And if they do claim they are a Christian, I would really question where they get it from. Explain the reasoning behind the verse you quoted rather than just plucking it from thin air

Genesis 19 v 8

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Sounds like child abuse to me...

There is no mention of what age they are so to claim they are children because they are referred to as daughters is immediately a wrong assumption - just because they haven't "known man" means little here as well as the context of where Lot was, in Sodom, was full of homosexuality, hence why the people trying to rape the men refused his daughters and tried to force their way in to the house

[UlsterAreBrill]

What, child abuse in the Bible? What about the time god made two bears maul 42 children for insulting a very sensitive Elisha.

2 Kings 2:23-25New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Not very sensitive, again if you got the context of the passage

1. bethel was completely heathen area that Elisha was in
2. The youths (likely they were older than children again using the context around the passage) where essentially, without going in to it, telling him to die (get out of here), and being called bald was a massive insult to people back then
3. 42+ young people is no longer a group of 2 or 3 young boys having a joke but seems more like a mob

So in summary, a group of probably violent young boys (potentially over 42) insulting one man and telling him to die come out as he is trying to get to their town, and they are not killed but injured, yet it's "child abuse"?

Put the shoe on the other foot: if one non-christian man managed to injure a group of, if possible, violent young Christians boys, who would be in the right here?

No doubt I know what answer you would give, probably something along the lines of scummy christians can't leave a normal person alone, God is stupid etc etc

[big mervyn]

What, child abuse in the Bible? What about the time god made two bears maul 42 children for insulting a very sensitive Elisha.

2 Kings 2:23-25New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Good enough for the cheeky wee hallions.Glad to see God s a friend of the bald community


“My Brother Esau Is An Hairy Man, But I, I am a Smooth Man”.










.

[pwrmoore]

Sorry to jump in here Dave (this was an interesting read) but your statement is rubbish. Those that abuse children etc as you said are no more Christian than ISIS are Muslim or even the KKK are Christian. It goes without saying you can’t commit acts like that and then claim you follow the Bible

I'm pretty sure it is in the Bible?

Mark 9:43

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out

Not following what you're saying I'm afraid, my point is that it's a contradiction to be abuse children and so on and claim you're a christian. And if they do claim they are a Christian, I would really question where they get it from. Explain the reasoning behind the verse you quoted rather than just plucking it from thin air

Genesis 19 v 8

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Sounds like child abuse to me...

There is no mention of what age they are so to claim they are children because they are referred to as daughters is immediately a wrong assumption - just because they haven't "known man" means little here as well as the context of where Lot was, in Sodom, was full of homosexuality, hence why the people trying to rape the men refused his daughters and tried to force their way in to the house

It is possible they were over the age of consent (neither you nor I know the answer to that and it does not mention whether these daughters are 5, 10, 15 or 40) but I don't see any justification for making an assumption that they have reached adulthood) this man has given his daughters without their consent to other men to use as they see fit. That is an abuse of his children. I'm not prepared for you to wriggle out on a technicality that they could be adults they are still being abused.

[UlsterAreBrill]

It is possible they were over the age of consent (neither you nor I know the answer to that and it does not mention whether these daughters are 5, 10, 15 or 40) but I don't see any justification for making an assumption that they have reached adulthood) this man has given his daughters without their consent to other men to use as they see fit. That is an abuse of his children. I'm not prepared for you to wriggle out on a technicality that they could be adults they are still being abused.

So now it's shifted from child abuse to abuse, you are right in both instances it shouldn't happen

However with this you are saying he was wrong to give his daughters regardless of age, which he was - i'm not going to defend his actions at all, but where is the attack on the men wanting to rape others?

[big mervyn]

You have to go round the houses more than a few times to get Brillo's interpretations. I'm happy with the wee feckers paying the price for their hate crime.Mauling's too good for 'em!

[Dave]

What, child abuse in the Bible? What about the time god made two bears maul 42 children for insulting a very sensitive Elisha.

2 Kings 2:23-25New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Not very sensitive, again if you got the context of the passage

1. bethel was completely heathen area that Elisha was in
2. The youths (likely they were older than children again using the context around the passage) where essentially, without going in to it, telling him to die (get out of here), and being called bald was a massive insult to people back then
3. 42+ young people is no longer a group of 2 or 3 young boys having a joke but seems more like a mob

So in summary, a group of probably violent young boys (potentially over 42) insulting one man and telling him to die come out as he is trying to get to their town, and they are not killed but injured, yet it's "child abuse"?

Put the shoe on the other foot: if one non-christian man managed to injure a group of, if possible, violent young Christians boys, who would be in the right here?

No doubt I know what answer you would give, probably something along the lines of scummy christians can't leave a normal person alone, God is stupid etc etc

Your attempts to provide excuses for this amounts to mere speculation. Its written in black and white. They weren't violent they conveyed an insult. They are described as boys, therefore children. For an all powerful God to issue two bears to maul anyone is utterly deplorable and not reflective of a loving God. It's disgusting.

What about that time that God flooded the earth. I suppose no children were harmed. Just a really big mob.

[BaggyTrousers]

What, child abuse in the Bible? What about the time god made two bears maul 42 children for insulting a very sensitive Elisha.

2 Kings 2:23-25New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Good enough for the cheeky wee hallions.Glad to see God s a friend of the bald community


“My Brother Esau Is An Hairy Man, But I, I am a Smooth Man”.

He saw Esau sitting on a seesaw. A refrain from my yute.

Anyway, it's hard to argue with you Merv, I'm all for Baldy blokes showing fraternity, feck the young bear mangled yutes, I hope yer man shouted at them: "How do yousins like them apples you mouthy wee gets"

Brillo ould son, you'd need to catch yersel on pal, no hint of the yutes being violent whatsoever, just mouthy wee gets, still, as Merv says, a good maulin's too good for them.

You also show yourself remarkably unaware of the times you are discussing. Folk (not FOLK) would have had a life expectancy of no more than about 40 years, barring Methusila .... or an odd crucifixion, a plague or seven, being fed to the lions like so many Scott Baldwins or similar simple twists of fate.

Young girls were married off, or probably killed as useless ugly bitches & a drain on the family, by the time they were in their teens. You may take it from me, one both old and eminently wise, that that man's daughters were not of adult age as you and I know it. Stop pontificating on matters you are guessing about, it reduces your credibility to that of an omadon, or to be kindly, a big simple lad.

Anyway, who won between the Glens?

[Dave]

You have to go round the houses more than a few times to get Brillo's interpretations. I'm happy with the wee feckers paying the price for their hate crime.Mauling's too good for 'em!

[Shan]

You clearly won't believe anything i'll say given i'll try to give as biblical a view as possible so I won't even bother writing an answer to that

I'll accept that you have answered to the best of your ability if that helps you to accept this small challenge.

[UlsterAreBrill]

You clearly won't believe anything i'll say given i'll try to give as biblical a view as possible so I won't even bother writing an answer to that

I'll accept that you have answered to the best of your ability if that helps you to accept this small challenge.

Not at all but my point is, no matter what I write, even if you see it logical or not you can purely dismiss it as "biblical", you don't believe the bible so you wouldnt believe what i'm saying so what is the point?

Anyway if you insist on an answer, there is no contradiction there

Two different laws (statements) need applied two different ways. For example take the two statements, "too many cooks spoil the broth" and "many hands make light work". Take a scenario where you are in a kitchen, if every statement is to be applied in all scenarios, where would that leave you?

The same is true for these two laws. Both have to be applied in different scenarios. Take a second scenario - you are bound to love your neighbour i.e. all mankind. Someone comes in and murders your whole family, but is caught and you are free to punish them as you see fit. Would it be a contradiction for you to exact justice on him by taking his life? Or will you "love your neighbour" and let him walk away with no consequence?

The second command is to be applied to specific scenarios and is a response to sin. If you label it a contradiction you are taking away all consequences of sin

[UlsterAreBrill]

Brillo ould son, you'd need to catch yersel on pal, no hint of the yutes being violent whatsoever, just mouthy wee gets, still, as Merv says, a good maulin's too good for them.

You also show yourself remarkably unaware of the times you are discussing. Folk (not FOLK) would have had a life expectancy of no more than about 40 years, barring Methusila .... or an odd crucifixion, a plague or seven, being fed to the lions like so many Scott Baldwins or similar simple twists of fate.

Young girls were married off, or probably killed as useless ugly bitches & a drain on the family, by the time they were in their teens. You may take it from me, one both old and eminently wise, that that man's daughters were not of adult age as you and I know it. Stop pontificating on matters you are guessing about, it reduces your credibility to that of an omadon, or to be kindly, a big simple lad.

Anyway, who won between the Glens?

I'll admit it was wild speculation but not out of the question in regard to the young guys/boys/teens

However i'm not wrong on the life expectancy thing - take a re-read at Genesis 5 and you'll see Methuselah was 969 yes however no where was it recorded anyone lived only until 40

I'll paraphrase

Adam died when he was 930
Seth, 912
Enosh 905
Lamech 777

and so on. You've been helped

[UlsterAreBrill]

What, child abuse in the Bible? What about the time god made two bears maul 42 children for insulting a very sensitive Elisha.

2 Kings 2:23-25New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Not very sensitive, again if you got the context of the passage

1. bethel was completely heathen area that Elisha was in
2. The youths (likely they were older than children again using the context around the passage) where essentially, without going in to it, telling him to die (get out of here), and being called bald was a massive insult to people back then
3. 42+ young people is no longer a group of 2 or 3 young boys having a joke but seems more like a mob

So in summary, a group of probably violent young boys (potentially over 42) insulting one man and telling him to die come out as he is trying to get to their town, and they are not killed but injured, yet it's "child abuse"?

Put the shoe on the other foot: if one non-christian man managed to injure a group of, if possible, violent young Christians boys, who would be in the right here?

No doubt I know what answer you would give, probably something along the lines of scummy christians can't leave a normal person alone, God is stupid etc etc

Your attempts to provide excuses for this amounts to mere speculation. Its written in black and white. They weren't violent they conveyed an insult. They are described as boys, therefore children. For an all powerful God to issue two bears to maul anyone is utterly deplorable and not reflective of a loving God. It's disgusting.

What about that time that God flooded the earth. I suppose no children were harmed. Just a really big mob.

You never answered my question first so i'll ask again

if one non-christian man managed to injure a group of, if possible, violent young Christians boys, who would be in the right here?