The Black Vault

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.

Yeah...these thoughts did cross my mind. But it's pointless to argue semantics with these looney tunes. These are the same people that believe in the story of "Noah."

I'll try to make you all understand a little bit about the Christian mindset. This is not intended to be a cure-all for all your questions and concerns, and probably will fall flat here, but I'm going to try. This is not a very good forum for debate unless someone has an open mind and is able to take in the opposing arguments and look at them objectively. There is no way--with everyone having a keyboard, an attitude, and instant google access to arguments supporting their opinion--to convince anyone of anything if they are here just to argue. If you are here to learn and understand a little better, then maybe this will make some sense to you and it is you I have in mind. The scoffers and mockers who will argue with everything no matter what are never my intended audience.

Please think of someone you love. And I mean love dearly and ceaselessly. Humphreys, this is easy for you. Think of your lovely wife, or your son. Others, I don't know who they hold dear.

Ok picture that person. Now imagine that this person comes running through your front door and jumps into your arms. He/she explains that they just killed someone. Shocking, yes, but just imagine. And he/she tells you that no matter what anyone tells you, there was good reason for it.

Ok, you get no further information. Don't ask anymore questions, no if's, and's, or but's. Now I'm betting that in this case, given this information, you would not only defend your loved one, you would fight to the death for her/him. You trust that person and if he/she says there was reason for it, that's good enough. Forget how all the evidence plays out. You would trust that person, right? And if you say you would trust them only if the evidence played out in their favor, then I'm sorry, I would question your love and devotion to that person.

So anyway........... to us Christians........ God is real. God is as real as the computer and monitor in front of you; as real as the car you drive; as real as your loved one; as real as the air we breathe. And so, when the bible gives us a story where human beings were hurt, punished, mauled by bears, or even killed; we believe in our hearts that there was good reason for it. To us, God is just in HIs every action; God defines justice. So if kids were mauled by bears, then--because we know about the character of our beloved God--we trust there was good reason for it. The bible doesn't go on to explain that the kids were 5 years old, completely innocent, and undeserving of such treatment. Therefore it is up to the reader to decide after reading the story. Do we trust that our beloved God had good reason to allow such a thing to happen? Or. do we automatically assume God was wrong, the children were innocent, and God is evil?

Just as you would--at least initially--trust your loved one when they say they had reason to do what they did--we Christians likewise trust our loved One--our LORD--that there is good reason for all the things He allowed and allows to happen.

humphreys wrote: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.

Thanks. I accept, and I know you can.

humphreys wrote: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.

Is it silly to quibble over age? Not necessarilly since it changes the subtext of the story ever so slightly. Young or old, it is a human tragedy. However, let's assume for a moment that you are god. You created everything and everybody and you have your ultimate plan for everything, a plan that only you can see from beginning to end. Would it be okay for you to do whatever you like to see it through to its completion?

humphreys wrote: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.

I am not apologizing for God. I am admitting I do not know everything which I believe becomes apparent when digging into it a little deeper.

As for the implausibility of 42 yong men being mauled, why? Could it not be possible that there were many more than 42 and they decided to stay and fight and help their brethren. It does not say that the bears were not eventually defeated.

frrostedman wrote:I'll try to make you all understand a little bit about the Christian mindset. This is not intended to be a cure-all for all your questions and concerns, and probably will fall flat here, but I'm going to try. This is not a very good forum for debate unless someone has an open mind and is able to take in the opposing arguments and look at them objectively. There is no way--with everyone having a keyboard, an attitude, and instant google access to arguments supporting their opinion--to convince anyone of anything if they are here just to argue. If you are here to learn and understand a little better, then maybe this will make some sense to you and it is you I have in mind. The scoffers and mockers who will argue with everything no matter what are never my intended audience.

Please think of someone you love. And I mean love dearly and ceaselessly. Humphreys, this is easy for you. Think of your lovely wife, or your son. Others, I don't know who they hold dear.

Ok picture that person. Now imagine that this person comes running through your front door and jumps into your arms. He/she explains that they just killed someone. Shocking, yes, but just imagine. And he/she tells you that no matter what anyone tells you, there was good reason for it.

Ok, you get no further information. Don't ask anymore questions, no if's, and's, or but's. Now I'm betting that in this case, given this information, you would not only defend your loved one, you would fight to the death for her/him. You trust that person and if he/she says there was reason for it, that's good enough. Forget how all the evidence plays out. You would trust that person, right? And if you say you would trust them only if the evidence played out in their favor, then I'm sorry, I would question your love and devotion to that person.

So anyway........... to us Christians........ God is real. God is as real as the computer and monitor in front of you; as real as the car you drive; as real as your loved one; as real as the air we breathe. And so, when the bible gives us a story where human beings were hurt, punished, mauled by bears, or even killed; we believe in our hearts that there was good reason for it. To us, God is just in HIs every action; God defines justice. So if kids were mauled by bears, then--because we know about the character of our beloved God--we trust there was good reason for it. The bible doesn't go on to explain that the kids were 5 years old, completely innocent, and undeserving of such treatment. Therefore it is up to the reader to decide after reading the story. Do we trust that our beloved God had good reason to allow such a thing to happen? Or. do we automatically assume God was wrong, the children were innocent, and God is evil?

Just as you would--at least initially--trust your loved one when they say they had reason to do what they did--we Christians likewise trust our loved One--our LORD--that there is good reason for all the things He allowed and allows to happen.

Well said, bro. I fear, however, that won't open a closed mind.

frrostedman wrote:There is no way--with everyone having a keyboard, an attitude, and instant google access to arguments supporting their opinion--to convince anyone of anything if they are here just to argue.

That pretty much is the case. What ever you say will just get ridiculed.

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. 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.

There are a lot of parallels with the Biblical God, to that true story. And no this is not acceptable behaviour for a moral being by any stretch of the imagination. 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.

As for 2 bears mauling 42 kids, it would be extremely brave of all 42 of them to stay back and fight it out, also extremely unlikely, in my opinion. 5 I could perhaps accept, but as I say, 42 mauled by two bears seems like a bad fictional account to me.

Frrosted, yes I love my wife and child, but I can assure you if they come home multiple times and tell me they have killed someone while refusing to diverge any information to me, no I would not be able to trust them at all. Sorry, I would probably have to ring the police if only for the safety of others. The Bible God's killing examples are not isolated events, plus we do know the context, it says so right in the passage - these kids were killed for taunting a bald man, so I don't even see this as particularly analogous to the examples you cite, I'm afraid.

As for the ridicule, you are right, that is occurring here, but definitely from both sides, as we see from orangetom's "WOW PUBLIC EDUCATION LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!1111111" response to everything a non-Christian says.

Humphreys, nobody is more argumentative, and oppositional to anything said than you. As I said, what ever Frosty said is was going to be ridiculed, which you did. His point when right over your head, as well as your own reply. Hopefully your reply about your wife and child will go right over their head too with your hypothetical. Unconditional Love except for--------- One would have to question, how a person with no beliefs, and demands total proof of everything, can have faith, trust, or Love at all. I think you know what my answer is.

I have no idea what the story in 2Kings is about, I doubt if you ever read it Humphreys or Event Horizon from beginning to end. Like I said before, many bible stories are symbolic in nature, not literal, to many religions. Your premise is to assume they are literal for the purpose of ridicule. Pick apart the details to discredit belief in God, than you write the story is just not feasable, exept for the fact God made 2 bears kill 42 kids, that part you believe. Maybe this story is no more than symbolic, and the 50 boys represented disrespect for elders, and that the female bears(nobody questions why they were females) represented Mothers teaching this kind of behavior is wrong to children, not literally killing 42 boys. Maybe the killing part of it was to show the boys the level of shame they should feel for disrespect of the elder, that they should feel ashamed, and know they have let God down with their behavior.

The key message is feeling or not feeling ashamed, and knowing what you did was wrong, against Gods commandments, that honoring thy Mother and Father, extents to honoring and respecting elders. Something you as a late 20's something, are no different from the boys in the story. The lack of shame, and level of disrespect, no boundries, no clue to doing something offensive. I really wonder why you are so intent with arguing with a few old men, who have made it to points in their lives, where wisdom has more meaning than your 28 year old logic? Or is is 29 by now.

What Humphreys???,

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.

Your not God so why would you assume from a position that you are??? And make such judgements?? Or even that you are the apex of creation.

This is the apex of Evolution...the upward reach of man. Demigods. To justify passing judgement on God.

The only way to make that stick it to promote men to the highest morals. But the track record of man and man's history reads quite the opposite from morals. Which is why the whole of history is seldom referenced..only selected parts...much like politics.
The other way to try to make it stick is to make others of the Word..seem insane..to ridicule and downplay them. This is textbook of politics today.
In other words..public education...funded and promoted by the body politic.

There are a lot of parallels with the Biblical God, to that true story. And no this is not acceptable behaviour for a moral being by any stretch of the imagination. 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.

What ??? Are you for real??? What happened in Genesis 3 when Adam sinned..and broke the arrangement made between him and his Creator???

By the sweat of your brow shalt thou eat bread?? The travail of birth...what does that mean Humprheys? Does it mean that men, by Adam, are now entitled....holy....put on Gods Welfare roles...deserving?? Or does it mean that now they are responsible for themselves??

The best some of you can seem to do is ...me ..thinks and I deserve. Your own version of it..but that is what and how it sums up.

You are not getting what you deserve or that to which you think you are entitled so someone stole your candy bowl.

I think you don't even realize what you are saying...and hence you try to downplay and ridicule what the Word states. It is the very best you can do...over and over and over in these posts/boards.

Do you have any concept of what is means to be Fallen Man?? Of course not. Only someone who thinks they are not fallen can promote entitlement beliefs at someone else's expense.

You use the words..." In my book" Thus indicating you are sovereign and God is subject.

This is also known by the phrase.."I will be like the most high " I will sit in the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north."

You post this stuff Humphreys and you don't even think people can see it out here for what it is. But some of us can.
You cannot help yourself. It is the best you can do...

I told you several times ..that you testify to the validity of the Word ...and you seem not to know it. You cannot help yourself.

You testify to it with your own words and there are those out here in addition to me who can see it for what it is...and by this... whom you serve. The fallen one.

If you put great stock in this world and the things of this world...you will never understand it.

But worry not....eat, drink, marry, and give in marriage....for there are others out here who, with Surety, know of what I speak.

Well said Greeny2...well said.


Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

greeney2 wrote:Humphreys, nobody is more argumentative, and oppositional to anything said than you. As I said, what ever Frosty said is was going to be ridiculed, which you did. His point when right over your head, as well as your own reply. Hopefully your reply about your wife and child will go right over their head too with your hypothetical. Unconditional Love except for--------- One would have to question, how a person with no beliefs, and demands total proof of everything, can have faith, trust, or Love at all. I think you know what my answer is.

I never said anything about loving anyone less, but when someone is killing and killing they need locking up for theirs as wells as others protection. It sure is comforting to know that you'd try your best to keep your son out of jail if there were clear signs he was a serial killer, though. Very responsible parenting, greeney, I expect nothing less from you.

Nothing I replied to frrosted was in the least bit ridiculing. I tactfully disagreed and gave examples as to why I disagreed. Frrosted has my respect in a way you do not, so stay out of it and stop stirring up crap.

I have no idea what the story in 2Kings is about,

No sh*t greeney, add that to the massive list of stuff you don't have the foggiest idea about yet can't help giving your uninformed opinion on anyway

greeney2 wrote:The lack of shame, and level of disrespect, no boundries, no clue to doing something offensive. I really wonder why you are so intent with arguing with a few old men, who have made it to points in their lives, where wisdom has more meaning than your 28 year old logic? Or is is 29 by now.

Greeney you have never shown the slightest respect for anyone on this forum. As far as I am concerned, you are the number one offender preventing any sort of peace here. You are a piss poor moderator whose every post is an attempt to start trouble because you're too thick to debate any other way.

And if you want to see ridicule, start reading orangetom's posts. He tries to ridicule constantly, while you hammer out insults. The two of you are a disgrace.

See my post below for an example of what I have to constantly deal with with the two of you - complete lack of reading comprehension, for a start.

orangetom1999 wrote:What Humphreys???,

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.

Your not God so why would you assume from a position that you are??? And make such judgements?? Or even that you are the apex of creation.

This is the apex of Evolution...the upward reach of man. Demigods. To justify passing judgement on God.

The only way to make that stick it to promote men to the highest morals. But the track record of man and man's history reads quite the opposite from morals. Which is why the whole of history is seldom referenced..only selected parts...much like politics.
The other way to try to make it stick is to make others of the Word..seem insane..to ridicule and downplay them. This is textbook of politics today.
In other words..public education...funded and promoted by the body politic.

There are a lot of parallels with the Biblical God, to that true story. And no this is not acceptable behaviour for a moral being by any stretch of the imagination. 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.

What ??? Are you for real??? What happened in Genesis 3 when Adam sinned..and broke the arrangement made between him and his Creator???

By the sweat of your brow shalt thou eat bread?? The travail of birth...what does that mean Humprheys? Does it mean that men, by Adam, are now entitled....holy....put on Gods Welfare roles...deserving?? Or does it mean that now they are responsible for themselves??

The best some of you can seem to do is ...me ..thinks and I deserve. Your own version of it..but that is what and how it sums up.

You are not getting what you deserve or that to which you think you are entitled so someone stole your candy bowl.

I think you don't even realize what you are saying...and hence you try to downplay and ridicule what the Word states. It is the very best you can do...over and over and over in these posts/boards.

Do you have any concept of what is means to be Fallen Man?? Of course not. Only someone who thinks they are not fallen can promote entitlement beliefs at someone else's expense.

You use the words..." In my book" Thus indicating you are sovereign and God is subject.

This is also known by the phrase.."I will be like the most high " I will sit in the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north."

You post this stuff Humphreys and you don't even think people can see it out here for what it is. But some of us can.
You cannot help yourself. It is the best you can do...

I told you several times ..that you testify to the validity of the Word ...and you seem not to know it. You cannot help yourself.

You testify to it with your own words and there are those out here in addition to me who can see it for what it is...and by this... whom you serve. The fallen one.

If you put great stock in this world and the things of this world...you will never understand it.

But worry not....eat, drink, marry, and give in marriage....for there are others out here who, with Surety, know of what I speak.

Well said Greeny2...well said.


Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

More unreadable, irrelevant gibberish.

You don't even read posts before jumping in and shoving your own foot in your mouth. For instance, qmark said to me:

"However, let's assume for a moment that you are god."

So, I assume for a moment that I am God, and then you reply with the following, like an idiot:

"Your not God so why would you assume from a position that you are??"

See what I am dealing with here? What a moron - didn't even read the discussion before showing yourself up.

The other way to try to make it stick is to make others of the Word..seem insane..to ridicule and downplay them. This is textbook of politics today.
In other words..public education...funded and promoted by the body politic.

Ahh, you mean like the respect you show when you go off with your "LOLOLOLO WOW PUBLIC EDUCATION!!!11111"? Give me strength