So my daughter refuses to tell me I'm the greatest cook of all times

[Seppuku]

Seppuku

I need clarification.  Is it the laws you disagree with or the punishment for breaking them?

There's plenty more to go. To be honest, what we see of extremist Muslims in the world today is pretty much found in the bible, just the parts people choose to ignore. I am happy for people to ignore them, because what I've read in the bible is shocking as far as I am concerned.

Where in the Bible have you been told to observe all those laws?

The worst thing anybody's doing as far as I am concerned is calling a prophet 'baldy'.

Were you there?  How can you make an educated judement?  Do you even know how old the boys were?  Most translations do not say "small boys".  They say "young lads". And in Jewish tradition boys were not considered men until they were 30.  This is the reason Jesus himself was not baptized until he was 30.

Furthermore, it says, "And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two lads of them"

It's doesn't say 42 of them were killed.  Also it doesn't say that every lad present was mauled.  There was more then 42.  That was a considerably large and dangerous group.

And why were all these lads grouped together doing such things considering by law they should be home helping support their families?  The Old Testament deals very harshly with rebellious and lazy children who will not work or listen to their parents.  It’s entirely possible that they were a gang that survived on their own, probably by robbing others of their lives and property.

Furthermore baldness in the Bible is a sign that someone is mourning, usually over the loss of someone close to them.  In fact he was mourning the death of Elijah.  So his actual physical baldness is not what they were making fun of.  They were making fun of the death of Elijah.

And finally, what did they mean by saying "Go on up, baldy. Go on up."  When they said “Go on up”, this was a sarcastic reference to Elisha's ascension, a suggestion that the event is doubted and that it is a charge that Elisha actually murdered his master and that his mourning was a sham.

An evil gang is what they were.

Mostly the punishments, but I'd factor in the laws too. But of course, I don't think adultery is right as it's unfair on the partner and I don't think taking the piss out of people is fair either, particularly in bereavement, but how God handles them is pretty damn extreme. If a wife murders her husband for sleeping around SHE is the one who goes to prison. In the bible on the other hand, well she would only be following the law...then again women are pretty disadvantaged by bible law anyway, but she'd be right to. Yes, Jesus did the whole 'cast the first stone' thing, but that doesn't change what the law was/is. 

With the laws: I'm pretty sure Jesus said he was not coming to abolish the old laws but to enforce them. It's not the only time he's made it apparent that he supports what his father commanded in the days before Jesus. However, I don't have the time to bring up more quotes presently, but I would happily get them for you when I've got more time if you need the clarification. It doesn't matter if the laws aren't relevant to me, to today, or to Christians or even anybody outside of Israel (I am aware some of these laws mention Israel) the fact they exist or have existed and were doctored/supported/commanded by this God in the bible (which is taken to be true) is still bad. Well, I say fact, this is based on the assumption that God is real and that the bible is the written word of God and is factual.

With the people mocking baldy during a time of grief. Yeah, they might have been disrespectful shits, however, what's the worst thing they've done according to the accounts of the bible? (No I wasn't there, but neither were you, but we've got the bible's accounts to go on here) They've mocked somebody and with the context you've put it in, they were mocking somebody who was grieving. There's MUCH, MUCH worse you can do. Yes, it is tasteless to do...but even if you're right, it hardly warrants setting a couple of bears on them to tear them apart. We don't see God doing it to the Westboro Baptist Church who are just as disrespectful and I don't think having them ripped to shreds by a bear is the appropriate answer to WBC, despite how much I disagree with their disrespectful method of protest. Most people instead off their own counter protests and in turn disrespect the WBC, which is fair. I understand with crime and punishment there needs to be deterrents and thus punishment may not be equal to that of the crime...but we know for a fact (thanks to The Bloody Code of Middle Age England) that offering people death as punishment for their crimes no matter how big or small isn't a big deterrent. If the bible had its way, we'd be living by that code. Given there are strong parallels between the Bible and the Koran, what we see in some Islamic states is a pretty good indicator of what happens when such laws are held.

Every time I bring up that example, people try to put the group of people in the most evil light as possible. One I heard was, "they were like hooligans today" and yet I don't see anybody suggesting we set the bears on them. It would be seriously screwed up...except if God does it, then it's right.

 

[Jstwebbrowsing]

With the laws: I'm pretty sure Jesus said he was not coming to abolish the old laws but to enforce them. It's not the only time he's made it apparent that he supports what his father commanded in the days before Jesus.

You do not need to do so.  I agree Jesus did not abolish the law.  He fulfilled it by following every requirement of it perfectly.  But this does not abolish the law.  The law will remain forever.  Some changes were made to the law and it's practice.  For example, Christians don't need to offer blood sacrifices and we don't physically kill people.  Neither did Jesus.  So if Jesus fulfilled the law why didn't he ever kill anyone?

However the moral laws are still in force.  Sin is still sin.  And "the wages of sin is death".  What Jesus did was release us from the penalty of breaking the law.  This does not mean we cannot receive a penalty because we can.  It just means our circumstances are different that the ancient Jews.  The moral law is still the same.

I agree stoning someone is a very extreme punishment.  But all this was done to show us the seriousness of sin.  The wages of sin is death.

With the people mocking baldy during a time of grief. Yeah, they might have been disrespectful shits, however, what's the worst thing they've done according to the accounts of the bible? (No I wasn't there, but neither were you, but we've got the bible's accounts to go on here) They've mocked somebody and with the context you've put it in, they were mocking somebody who was grieving. There's MUCH, MUCH worse you can do.

If neither of us were there then you can't just assume Jehovah did evil.  You also don't know what else they might have done beforehand to already deserve judgment.  It is very unlikely their punishment was the result of one incident.  More likely it was the straw that broke the camels back.  Not only that but by mocking the prophet they were mocking God himself.  Apparantly God gave them a "sign".

but we know for a fact (thanks to The Bloody Code of Middle Age England) that offering people death as punishment for their crimes no matter how big or small isn't a big deterrent.

You, and they, should have learned from ancient Israel and the OT that it's not since that is what almost the entire OT is a lesson for.  How many times must people learn the same lessons?

[Brakeman]

You can't "learn" morals, if you'd read your god manual, you'd see that god used his magic apple spell to give all mankind the power to know right from wrong, and the power he gave us was equal to his own.

So when a mentally disabled child commits a sin, you shouldn't have any mercy for him, because god says that he knows better, so grab a rod and don't spoil the child.

God has had mercy on our mental retardation.  And no magical fruit allowed them to accurately distinguish from good and evil.  They just gained knowledge of good and evil.  Man still can't agree on what's good and evil.  Why?  Because they were not created to do so.

From your king james god manual..
Genesis:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
..
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

As for the mentally deficient /ill, the bible has no such soft heart. Show us the verse that supports the understanding god for the mentally ill.

[Brakeman]

rp.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Yes, to know good and evil.  And we do know good an evil.  But it's doesn't say good from evil.  And we can't agree on what is good from evil.

For your other question.  "For he knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust." (Ps 103:14)

[Seppuku]

You talk about demonstrating the seriousness of sin and also learning, but even if Jesus changed the law, it was God who created the law in the first place and does it not show the qualities of God? That he is capable of going to very high extremes and at one time expected use to do the same. I don't think what happens in the present changes what happened in the past. However, you may choose to respect Jesus for this, at least this version of Jesus, taking into account not all Christians see Jesus as merciful, but instead as every bit wrathful as his father, but I am more inclined to think Jesus was more peaceful than wrathful, at least based on my readings. God on the other hand, I don't.

Unfortunately, I don't think Jesus was there to change the law (of course it would be contradictory to some of his behaviour)....if I remember I will dig out the quote. I am pretty sure it says somewhere that basically the heaven will end before a single letter of the law would change. Though iirc there are slight variations dependent on the translation.

But, I'm not sure why God would need to learn that death as a deterrent doesn't work through the Old Testament (at least this is what you seem to be implying) because are we not led to believe that he is perfect and all knowing? He created us, surely he would know how our minds work. We've taken years of studying psychology to understand how human minds work and there's many things we understand about how humans react to negative reinforcement, but according to belief He created those minds, even if he did give them free will.

As for assuming God did evil, I am only relying on the information provided, that is correct. Given previous teachings and things I've read from within the bible, I would not say it's unlike God to show his wrathful side and not necessarily as a last resort. The person who wrote the bible didn't decide to leave any extra details in, they made it about God punishing people for insulting a prophet and not about hooligans getting their just desserts for a crime spree of actions to warrant death (maybe mass murderers). This is not unlike people getting wrathful over insulting the prophet Mohammad. It could well be like that, given how the writer has chosen to tell this story, I'd say it's more likely than these people being particularly 'evil'. Of course, you can just add extra 'possibilities' to just about any scenario because not every single piece of detail is left in, however, I would say it's safe to assume the bits left in are of significance and are there to best represent the situations. That is, if the bible is the inspired word of a perfect God. If it's the word of men, it'll be about how they want to present the story or how they remember the story.

But I am glad you agree the punishments are extreme and I am glad that many Christians believe in the peaceful teachings of Jesus and not the wrathful teachings of their God, unfortunately the same cannot be said about all and it certainly hasn't been in the past.

[Tonus]

Murdering children for insulting a prophet

From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!"  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.

I always wondered why the verse specifies she-bears.  Is it a quirk of translation?  Or were the local he-bears just too apathetic?

[Nick]

Sarah Palin always says not to piss off the momma bear.  Must be something there.

[Brakeman]

Yes, to know good and evil.  And we do know good an evil.  But it's doesn't say good from evil.  And we can't agree on what is good from evil.

For your other question.  "For he knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust." (Ps 103:14)

If you know good AND evil so completely as to be even with a god, you also know good from evil. Anything else doesn't make sense.

As for the Psalm, that has got to be an all time record for stretching to find something no mater how remote. And that was moonshot remote..

Absolutely nothing about the mentally incapacitated and completely asinine to boot.

We are not dust, we are mostly water.

Besides, whether he acknowledges that from which he made us means nothing, It means no more than a Judge acknowledging a crook's parentage, it doesn't mean that it will sway his judgment or his laws. 

[The Gawd]

adultery was being touched on earlier and it was said that is was wrong. I am sorry, atheist, as I strive to be more like Jehovah I have discovered that adultery is actually next to godly as cleanliness is. Allow me to expand. You see, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Any true Christian knows that the Word is Jesus, God's son. We also know that having a son implies and requires a mother, in the same way that creation implies and requires a creator, duh.

So we have a few options here. Jehovah married some goddess being and they had Jesus, or Jehovah fornicated prior to and without marriage and had Jesus. Perhaps it was Asherah as some early copies of God's autobiography suggest, or maybe it was some unnamed goddess. But even if it was Jehovah's wife, meaning no adultery was involved, Jehovah still fornicated with Joseph's under aged teenage fiance (which is another story because Joe has been estimated at in his 30's to 90's) in order to put his son Jesus in her womb.

So, thus if it is a characteristic of Jehovah then it is perfection. Adultery is perfection. Anyone who disagrees is no follower of the example of Jehovah.

Using that same reasoning do you allow chidren to do everything adults do?  Why should you be able to do everything God can do?

I am an adult, I was made in Jehovah's image, I can and should do everything he does. Its the perfect example to follow.

[Anfauglir]

Using that same reasoning do you allow chidren to do everything adults do?  Why should you be able to do everything God can do?

I am an adult, I was made in Jehovah's image, I can and should do everything he does. Its the perfect example to follow.

Gawd, you don't get it.  What Jst is saying is that there is not a single morality, not a single "right and wrong" that applies in all circumstances.  He is saying that there are - at least - two different sets of laws.  That being A can do a thing, and that is good and moral, but that if being B does the same thing, then that is NOT good and moral.

You see, there are things that adults can do that children are not allowed to do - such as (for example) driving, torturing, telling the truth, and buying alcohol.  All of these things are wrong and immoral when you are a child, but become morally right when you pass a certain point.

The point is, apparently, that morality and what is right is NOT an immutable thing - it varies depending on the being/s involved.

[screwtape]

Yes, to know good and evil.  And we do know good an evil.  But it's doesn't say good from evil.  And we can't agree on what is good from evil.

That's a terrible argument that just plays with prepositions.  It negates the whole point of having knowledge. If you know good you understand what it is and is not.  Likewise with evil.  It is like saying you know bases and acids, but cannot tell them apart.  Well, if you know acids, then you know what effects it has, how it interacts with other materials and you could not confuse it with how bases work.  You would by definition be able to tell them apart.

Likewise with good and evil. If you know what good and evil both are, you could not confuse them.  You would have the knowledge to tell good from evil.  Whomever fed you that other argument must think you're stupid.

Genesis makes it clear that Eve and her slow witted mate could tell the difference.  Observe, before acquiring moral knowledge:

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
gen2:25

After:

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;
gen3:7

Clearly they could tell a difference.[1]  The whole point is to show the transition and probably a little titillation. 

Add to that the serpent's words:

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
gen3:5

See?  Like yhwh.  And then when yhwh finds out, he shits a brick:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
gen3:22

He agrees with the snake.  Our ability to discern morality is equal to yhwh's ability.  Actually, given how yhwh acts, I'd say ours is better.

The fact that people disagree on what is good or evil would be an indication that there is no such thing as Objective Good and Evil.  They are labels for subjective judgments.

1.	And remember, in the OT there is a strong cultural taboo on nudity.  Noah's kids went to lengths to keep from seeing his bare ass after his drunken bender. while you and I might not see a big deal, the old jews did.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

You talk about demonstrating the seriousness of sin and also learning, but even if Jesus changed the law, it was God who created the law in the first place and does it not show the qualities of God? That he is capable of going to very high extremes and at one time expected use to do the same. I don't think what happens in the present changes what happened in the past. However, you may choose to respect Jesus for this, at least this version of Jesus, taking into account not all Christians see Jesus as merciful, but instead as every bit wrathful as his father, but I am more inclined to think Jesus was more peaceful than wrathful, at least based on my readings. God on the other hand, I don't.

You are right.  Even today if we do not repent from our sins we will die by our sins, eternally.

But, I'm not sure why God would need to learn that death as a deterrent doesn't work through the Old Testament (at least this is what you seem to be implying) because are we not led to believe that he is perfect and all knowing?

He didn't do it to teach himself.  He did it to teach us.

If you know good AND evil so completely as to be even with a god, you also know good from evil. Anything else doesn't make sense.

Really?  My children know good and evil as I do, but they don't know as much as I. And besides that doesn't even matter.  He didn't punish them for not knowing good and evil.

As for the Psalm, that has got to be an all time record for stretching to find something no mater how remote. And that was moonshot remote.

It's only remote if you don't know the Bible.

Absolutely nothing about the mentally incapacitated and completely asinine to boot.

Why should it be specifically mentioned?

"So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them." (Mt 4:24)

We are not dust, we are mostly water.

Then you need to tell the scientific community we are most definately not made of space dust because that's what they're saying.

Besides, whether he acknowledges that from which he made us means nothing, It means no more than a Judge acknowledging a crook's parentage, it doesn't mean that it will sway his judgment or his laws.

Because we are but dust is why he sent his Son.  But you are right.  There is going to be a judgement.

"28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb 10 28,29)

[screwtape]

My children know good and evil as I do, but they don't know as much as I.

Then your children do not know good and evil as you do.  See my post above. 

It is possible several of us, including me, have misunderstood your point.  In order to clarify, you would need to use other words, rather than essentially repeating the claim.  You would need to explain how someone could "know" two opposite things but not be able to tell them apart.   

[Jontom10]

To the original post I would say you have two clear paths with regards to errant daughters

1) Sell her into slavery

or

2) Stone her to death.

Based on what Jeepers from the Bibble tells us.