The Black Vault

1. God commands bears to maul 42 young boys
2. orangetom tells us why this is a good thing
3. Atheists attack orangetom for condoning the torture of children
4. qmark voices his disappointment at the atheists

Anyone see anything strange with that sequence of events?

I think the worst thing here is the Christians arguing that it's okay because the kids weren't necessarily killed, just mauled. But when God does kill children by the thousands, that's okay too, of course.

Humphreys,

Anyone see anything strange with that sequence of events?

Yes..there is something strange about it indeed.

That someone would spend pages and pages to belabor a event which happened thousands of years ago and yet the Bible account is false..not credible... and for which they would not do anything about today but to belabor the point again.

Since the point is so important...what would you do with two bears today..right now... mauling someone in similar circumstances..Humphreys?? What would you do??? Blame God...a concept you dont think exists?? Yet spend pages belaboring the point to get at people on this board ..because you do not believe in God.

That is indeed a strange sequence of events Humphreys.

What would you do today in this instance Humphreys?? If you came across two bears mauling someone???

Call someone on your cell phone and then blame God??

But when God does kill children by the thousands, that's okay too, of course.

Children as well as adults have been killed in the last 100/150 years..by the millions and at a faster rate than in centuries past. By men of intellect...education...wise men. In times of "Enlightenment." Many of them by ungodly unbelieving governments...democide.

And the best thing you can do is blame God. Wow!! A concept you hate and in which you dont believe or give credibility.

You spend alot of time belaboring the point for someone who doesnt believe.

There is indeed something very strange going on here.

In a similar manner to the local Union here...and also to the Democratic party apparatus here...looking for a bad guy to blame all the time. Here lately they like to use.."Tax the Rich " as their boogyman to control the faithful.

When you get tired of blaming God..you go for His Faithful...but it is ok. This is what we were told would happen. To be expected. It was happening in the first Century to the Church and it is still going on.

Bon Appetit!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

qmark,

The biggest mistake people make when reading the Bible is reading it through the lens of the twentieth or twenty-first century eyes. One needs to take into account the history, the background, the society and the surrounding societies. What was the message that God was imparting to the Israelites at that time and what can we take from that spiritually today.

Thank you qmark. Well said and also stated with an economy of words of which I lack.

Much appreciated,
Orangetom

humphreys wrote:1. God commands bears to maul 42 young boys
2. orangetom tells us why this is a good thing
3. Atheists attack orangetom for condoning the torture of children
4. qmark voices his disappointment at the atheists

Anyone see anything strange with that sequence of events?

I think the worst thing here is the Christians arguing that it's okay because the kids weren't necessarily killed, just mauled. But when God does kill children by the thousands, that's okay too, of course.

1. As I have already stated, they may have been young men and not boys, it is not exactly clear. It also doesn't say that God commanded it. He certainly allowed it but that doesn't mean He commanded it.

2. OT said he believed in punishment and punishment in and of itself is not a bad thing. But I don't believe OT said that this punishment was a good thing.

3. Atheists attacked OT for condoning torture. I don't necessarily believe that to be true at the most basic level.

4. I was disappointed in you, not EH, for using the Lord's name in vain. I realize He is not your Lord but generally in the past you have shown enough respect as not to do that, so I was disappointed. I'm sure you are more than capable of tearing me and OT a new you know what without going there.

The bottom line is this and I'm not speaking for anyone else but me. From a human standpoint, it is a tragedy when anyone, old or young, gets mauled by a wild animal. However, God's ways are not our ways and God causes ALL things to work together for good to those who love Him. Even in the face of tragedy. Again, I personally believe there is much more to the story where as all we have here is a little snippet of it.

event_horizon wrote:Apparently Christians think it's perfectly okay for their "God" to unleash bears on helpless children.

Anyone subject to punishment from God is completely helpless. I notice you at least didn't make the common mistake of labeling those subject to God's punishment as "innocent." Good for you. You're learning.

So I assume if the children were big, burly men, somehow they could have overcome the curse?

'Helpless children' is nothing more than a emotional plea and it won't fly with the educated Christians on this board. Nice try, though.

Ironically, the lesson of the instance you cited has you specifically in mind--as a warning. But keep on jeering. It's not bothering the rest of us, other than to stir up a little bit of pity.

orangetom1999 wrote:That someone would spend pages and pages to belabor a event which happened thousands of years ago and yet the Bible account is false..not credible... and for which they would not do anything about today but to belabor the point again.

I'm not sure why the date matters, and you seem to not understand the concept of Arguendo (look it up).

That's public education for you, I suppose.

orangetom1999 wrote:Since the point is so important...what would you do with two bears today..right now... mauling someone in similar circumstances..Humphreys??

Call someone on your cell phone and then blame God??

I would not blame God, I have the luxury of not having to rationalize the behavior of a supreme being who decides that some children, or young men, deserve a good mauling.

You do not have that luxury.

orangetom1999 wrote:Children as well as adults have been killed in the last 100/150 years..by the millions and at a faster rate than in centuries past. By men of intellect...education...wise men. In times of "Enlightenment." Many of them by ungodly unbelieving governments...democide.

Since when do two wrongs make a right? It's okay for God to do something horrific because someone else did at some point in an unrelated incident?

Only religion could create such a warped sense of reality. Take a step back some time, see what you have become.

qmark wrote:1. As I have already stated, they may have been young men and not boys, it is not exactly clear. It also doesn't say that God commanded it. He certainly allowed it but that doesn't mean He commanded it.

It is pretty obvious God commanded it if you read the passage.

Young men, boys, maul, tear apart, kill, is it any more defensible either way?

qmark wrote:I was disappointed in you, not EH, for using the Lord's name in vain. I realize He is not your Lord but generally in the past you have shown enough respect as not to do that, so I was disappointed. I'm sure you are more than capable of tearing me and OT a new you know what without going there.

Again, only religion can create a warped sense of reality where the use of a word can be deemed deeply offensive, but the condoning of the murder or grievous harm of 42 children is fine and expected.

This is exactly why some people see religion as a kind of sickness, because it forces one to reason in this kind of fashion. You have to denounce me for the use of God's name in vain, and you also have to accept that the torture of kids is good in this instance, simply because the Bible tells you so, but deep down, you must feel that this is extremely messed up thinking.

It is this kind of reasoning that creates suicide bombers. Luckily, Christians are unlikely to take that path today because the Bible does not tell them to, but if it did, they would do so unquestioningly because anything can become acceptable with this kind of thinking.

If it helps qmark, I apologize for saying "Jesus Christ" in that context. The words mean nothing to me, but obviously they do to you, and you are right, I can debate my point without it.

My outburst was genuinely a reaction to the path some were taking in this thread, however. Quibbling over "maul", or "kill", or "young men" or "boys" to me, is a really silly thing to do. I mean, it's either a completely wrong, horrendous thing to do, or it's okay for God to do whatever he likes just because he's God, and the context of "kill" or "maul" or the age of those involved really makes absolutely no difference in this instance.

To me, it just sounds like you're apologizing for God, as in "it's okay, he only got the kids mauled, and they weren't even that young...". It sounds like an attempt to play down what is obviously an horrific event regardless of who was involved. It has a bit of the holocaust denial about it, where they spend most of their days trying to play down the atrocities by quibbling over whether less millions of Jews died than is reported, somehow arguing for the side of the Nazis.

You'll hate the Nazi connection, of course, but there are similarities in so much as we are talking about the supposed superiority of one side meaning they can justify the harm of the other side - the superior side in this instance being God himself.

Thinking about this more, it seems we've not discussed possibly the most important aspect of the story...it doesn't even make sense.

I struggle to picture 42 boys being guilty of taunting the man - that's a lot of boys. I can't believe they were all calling him "baldy". Did one or two name-call and get everyone else in the group mauled? Seems more of a silly childish prank than an act of evil, anyway. But that's not really my point.

The first part certainly stretches the imagination a little, but it's the next part that really gets me. How do 2 bears maul 42 boys? The initial reaction to a bear attack is to run and scatter. A bear can only really attack one person at a time realistically, so how do 42 get mauled? None managed to escape? They would all scatter in different directions, so are these magic bears who can multiply like something from The Matrix?

Apart from the obvious atrocity of it all, it's such a strange story, the kind you wouldn't even be able to take seriously in a fictional movie.

humphreys wrote:Thinking about this more, it seems we've not discussed possibly the most important aspect of the story...it doesn't even make sense.

I struggle to picture 42 boys being guilty of taunting the man - that's a lot of boys. I can't believe they were all calling him "baldy". Did one or two name-call and get everyone else in the group mauled? Seems more of a silly childish prank than an act of evil, anyway. But that's not really my point.

The first part certainly stretches the imagination a little, but it's the next part that really gets me. How do 2 bears maul 42 boys? The initial reaction to a bear attack is to run and scatter. A bear can only really attack one person at a time realistically, so how do 42 get mauled? None managed to escape? They would all scatter in different directions, so are these magic bears who can multiply like something from The Matrix?

Apart from the obvious atrocity of it all, it's such a strange story, the kind you wouldn't even be able to take seriously in a fictional movie.

Sorry Humphreys,

It is difficult to take you seriously when you get so emotional and worked up..then conclude with the last sentence about a movie.

That to me is a public education based on a movie and television thinking and values.

It is not even a good Arguendo. But it is very feminine...emotional/drama.

Your going to learn one day..that some of us are not so easily emoted. Not that we do not have emotions but we just don't have your emotions nor do we want to be this way.

You are getting emotional about something which does not even make sense. You need to check your reasoning.

As I said...you don't even give the Bible credibility and here you are on an emotional string...like a puppet.

Sorry Humphreys..but to the knowledgeable ..it doesn't make good nonsense. Intellectual, Educated, sophisticated, wise men are above this kind of thing.

I told you guys many posts back...that you need more practice.

I would not blame God, I have the luxury of not having to rationalize the behavior of a supreme being who decides that some children, or young men, deserve a good mauling.

You do not have that luxury.

I'll leave this statement alone in view of what I posted above. It should be clear.


You don't believe in the Bible...yet you uses a movie and television/public education reference in the Matrix.

You tell me what you are not going to do in not blaming God..but what would you do..in the case of two bears mauling someone..since you don't believe in God or His Word????

I ask this question in lieu of you trying, in the poor way you do, holding the Believers to account for what you don't believe in regarding the Bible.

What would you do...yourself Humphreys...about two bears mauling someone??

Since when do two wrongs make a right? It's okay for God to do something horrific because someone else did at some point in an unrelated incident?

Only religion could create such a warped sense of reality. Take a step back some time, see what you have become.

Unrelated??? Wow!!!

I suggest you check your sense of reality Humphreys. Your public education thinking.

Remember what I stated...more people have been killed and slaughtered across this globe in the last 100/150 years...since the time of the Enlightenment..the time of men of reason and logic. Killed and slaughtered at a faster rate than in the thousands of years prior.

What religion is so devoutly taking place in the last 100/150 years to cause such an slaughter and so devoutly?? Children as well as adults.

I ask this as I know it is a finished work.

What is the name of this religion...Humphreys..of such man made slaughter??
Much more...what is the name of the god of such man made slaughter that it continues so devoutly/zealously??


qmark,

1. As I have already stated, they may have been young men and not boys, it is not exactly clear. It also doesn't say that God commanded it. He certainly allowed it but that doesn't mean He commanded it.

I've noticed that as well. It did not say that God commanded it. Yet some get so worked in Tabloid likeness.
Thanks for bringing up this point. An assumption on the part of many here.

I am indeed not condoning torture..and punishment can be a good thing if one learns from it.

I concluded that so many not wanting punishment ...particularly parental punishment...have not learned a simple lesson out here.
That the world outside the home doors can be way more harsh, cruel, and uncaring than any punishment Mom and Pop may dole out. This world is not a nice place. No matter how much public education one gets.

I have learned that my parents punished and corrected me in Love...that I be able to stand in the day they were no longer able to pick me up and dust me off/tend to my wounds. I also learned that this is Love which surpasses any goodies or physical things this world advertises or has to offer.


Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom