The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:EH making an accessment I am an ignorant fool, ridiculing an opinion, or suggestion or a possible meaning to the verse

It's quite an accurate assessment. Ignorant means lacking knowledge about a given thing. You haven't read 2 Kings, so you are indeed ignorant of it. And you're a fool for having the audacity to criticize someone for not reading something that you yourself haven't read. So yes, ignorant fool suits you perfectly.

Asshat suits you as well. The basic meaning of it is having your head up your ass, which is true, because all you ever do give uninformed opinions about things.

I can attest that "asshat" is an accurate assessment of greeney

humphreys wrote:Yes, and I have read the whole Bible, no I will not do a write up for someone like yourself who is too damn lazy to read the book of his own religion.

I have very little faith or trust that your claim you read the entire Bible is true, while you refuse to write a summary logically shows you probably have not read even 2 kings. Please provide convincing proof you have read the entire Bible. If I believed in fairy tales, you reading the entire Bible would be top of the list.

Don't really care if you believe me, and I could write a summary whether I had read it or not, so it would prove nothing.

The fact you find it a "fairy tale" that someone could have read the entire Bible shows how much you love to wallow in ignorance. Just because you get off on being totally uninformed about everything, does not mean others share your philosophy of spouting BS about things they have no clue about.

What I cannot believe is that someone who calls themselves a Christian has never even read the Bible fully! You would think that would be borderline important, you know.

humphreys wrote:qmark, if I were a God, of course it would not be okay for me to do whatever I liked with my creation, not while assuming a position of morality, anyway.

That sounds nice and noble Humphreys, and I don’t believe you, but I do understand the need to be consistent with the rest of your posts. Actually, if your creation is acting in an immoral fashion, it would be morally incumbent of you to act upon it, and your action would be whatever you like with your creation. When speaking of morals we are speaking of morals from our human perspective and our human perspective is warped by sin. How can sinful man with limited knowledge even comprehend all that is God, let alone judge Him?

humphreys wrote: It kinda reminds me of the story of a top greyhound breeder I read about, he was breeding dogs by the thousands searching for a champion, and felt justified in shooting and dumping any dogs who did not show promise.

Not even in the same ballpark as far as I'm concerned.

humphreys wrote:And no this is not acceptable behaviour for a moral being by any stretch of the imagination.

Is judgment immoral?

humphreys wrote:Once pain, suffering, intelligence and emotions are invented, a good, ethical creator assumes a sense of responsibility for the well-being of his creations, in my book.

I agree, and this includes Elisha, which was being verbally attacked and we’ll never know if it was going to escalate into something far worse. Of course, God does know.

qmark wrote:That sounds nice and noble Humphreys, and I don’t believe you, but I do understand the need to be consistent with the rest of your posts.

You don't believe what? I didn't say I personally would be completely moral, I am, like you, a flawed, imperfect being, and apt to lapses of judgment, and occasional morally questionable behaviour. But a perfect being without human flaws, cannot simply do what he wants to his creation, otherwise Christian morality is nothing more than a misnomer.

'Might makes right' is not a framework for morality, otherwise Saddam's Iraq would have been the epitome of a moral nation.

qmark wrote:Actually, if your creation is acting in an immoral fashion, it would be morally incumbent of you to act upon it, and your action would be whatever you like with your creation. When speaking of morals we are speaking of morals from our human perspective and our human perspective is warped by sin. How can sinful man with limited knowledge even comprehend all that is God, let alone judge Him?

First off, you yourself are making moral judgements. Your first sentence is clearly making a moral judgement upon God, stating that he is morally incumbent to act upon the immoral behaviour of his creations.

It appears to me you're contradicting yourself, but admitting we can indeed talk about the kind of behaviour we should expect from a perfectly moral being is at least a good start. Once we are agreed at least to some extent we can judge God's actions, we can move on from there and recognize that some things are just plain wrong, whoever you are, and no matter how powerful you are.

A core tenet of morality is that any punishment must fit the crime - that's not only morality, it's justice, too. What you are saying is that an acceptable punishment for taunting is death, or grievous harm, but I don't think you really believe that, or you'd be supporting the severe beating of children for even the slightest misdemeanors.

I certainly would hope that is not a stance you take in your every day life.

Are you constantly in the habit of cursing people to God for the slightest attack on your person, like Elijah? Would you feel that justice had been done if your adversary was torn apart by wild animals?

qmark wrote:Not even in the same ballpark as far as I'm concerned.

What is the big difference?

qmark wrote:Is judgment immoral?

Of course not. I judge, you judge, God judges.

However, the result of that judgement can be immoral, of course, like an eternity of torture in hell for lack of belief in a deity, or holding a child's hand over a cooker flame for stealing, and other examples.

qmark wrote:I agree, and this includes Elisha, which was being verbally attacked and we’ll never know if it was going to escalate into something far worse. Of course, God does know.

It certainly seemed like the end of it, as Elijah cursed and then left, but again, you're apologizing for God by suggesting that the taunting alone does not warrant a mauling by bears, and maybe these kids would have done something worse.

Sure, maybe all 42 of these poor kids were going to grow up to do horrendous things, the difference is, had Elijah not cursed them, they'd have had a life of free-will decisions to make, which could have made ammends for their behaviour, and changed their path.

I thought you believed in man's free-will to change, and to choose God, you are basically condemning these kids and denying them their free-will to do good things in the future, by condemning them for things they may do, or may have done - that's a violation of freedom of action.

You state that it is important to state these kids may not have been killed, but tell me, to you, what difference does it make? If God had torn the heads off these kids personally and fed them to their parents, your response would have been exactly the same - a shrug of the shoulders, and a "God can do whatever he wants". By asking for clarification on the details, you are clearly admitting that we can make judgements on God's behaviour, otherwise, the details are irrelevant.

I gave an opinion about if this was sybolic story and not literal, that it had a clear lesson symbolically. Here is something similar that just happened in the lifetime, we live in. The shame, or lack of shame, the idea of bullying, no boundries, disrespect of elders, and not honoring thy Father and Mother, accountablitly for actions sounds a lot like the verse in question. Read the shame this modern day Father felt for the actions of his son.

If you want to just agrue about the literal idea this was an actual event, thats great, but if you do not beleive in God to begin with, the story is irrelevant if God doesn't exist in your mind, the story could never of happened. Religions are divided as to what may be a literal, and what may be symbolic.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bul ... 35242.html

What happened to that lady is awful, and the aftermath is a great example of the good people are capable of, but there are no real similarities to a story that has boys being mauled by bears after someone cursing them to God.

The story with the lady is deep down a heartwarming one, but for anyone with a conscience, the Bible story is nothing but an horrific display of brutality. The two stories parallel the good man is capable of with the vengeful viciousness of the Bible God.

It does if you regard the bible story as a symbolic one, there are definate similar parts of the story to the bus bulllying.

humphreys wrote:But a perfect being without human flaws, cannot simply do what he wants to his creation

“Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?”

humphreys wrote:First off, you yourself are making moral judgements. Your first sentence is clearly making a moral judgement upon God, stating that he is morally incumbent to act upon the immoral behaviour of his creations.
It appears to me you're contradicting yourself, but admitting we can indeed talk about the kind of behaviour we should expect from a perfectly moral being is at least a good start. Once we are agreed at least to some extent we can judge God's actions, we can move on from there and recognize that some things are just plain wrong, whoever you are, and no matter how powerful you are.

No, I don’t believe so.
“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?”

humphreys wrote:A core tenet of morality is that any punishment must fit the crime - that's not only morality, it's justice, too. What you are saying is that an acceptable punishment for taunting is death, or grievous harm, but I don't think you really believe that, or you'd be supporting the severe beating of children for even the slightest misdemeanors.

I agree, If the crime was sin then the penalty was appropriate.
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”and “For the wages of sin is death,”

humphreys wrote:Are you constantly in the habit of cursing people to God for the slightest attack on your person, like Elijah? Would you feel that justice had been done if your adversary was torn apart by wild animals?

No, I am not in that habit but then again I’m not a prophet of old. Good question. I think the truth would probably be yes but I would be sad about the whole thing at the same time.

humphreys wrote:I judge, you judge, God judges.
However, the result of that judgement can be immoral, of course, like an eternity of torture in hell for lack of belief in a deity, or holding a child's hand over a cooker flame for stealing, and other examples.

I make judgments but I try not to judge. There is a difference. I can judge a person’s actions but I’m not going to judge the person. That is not my job.

humphreys wrote:It certainly seemed like the end of it, as Elijah cursed and then left, but again, you're apologizing for God by suggesting that the taunting alone does not warrant a mauling by bears, and maybe these kids would have done something worse. Sure, maybe all 42 of these poor kids were going to grow up to do horrendous things, the difference is, had Elijah not cursed them, they'd have had a life of free-will decisions to make, which could have made ammends for their behaviour, and changed their path.

I’m not apologizing; I’m saying I don’t know. Again, I’m saying if you really break the story down, there is a lot we don’t know. There could have been a lot more than 42 young men but only 42 were hurt. Perhaps the taunting alone did warrant it, “For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.”

humphreys wrote:I thought you believed in man's free-will to change, and to choose God, you are basically condemning these kids and denying them their free-will to do good things in the future, by condemning them for things they may do, or may have done - that's a violation of freedom of action.

I do believe in free-will, at least partially. I’m not condemning anybody. God knows the beginning from the end.

humphreys wrote:You state that it is important to state these kids may not have been killed, but tell me, to you, what difference does it make? If God had torn the heads off these kids personally and fed them to their parents, your response would have been exactly the same - a shrug of the shoulders, and a "God can do whatever he wants". By asking for clarification on the details, you are clearly admitting that we can make judgements on God's behaviour, otherwise, the details are irrelevant.

God can do whatever He wants and He has told us what He wants:
“I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”