(January 11, 2014 at 11:36 am)truthBtold Wrote: God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life. HMMM.

Where does the bible or God claim Omni benevolence?

(January 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 11, 2014 at 11:36 am)truthBtold Wrote: God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life. HMMM.

Where does the bible or God claim Omni benevolence?

Nowhere. Yet you worship the monster that is described in the Bible.

(January 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 11, 2014 at 11:36 am)truthBtold Wrote: God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life. HMMM.

Where does the bible or God claim Omni benevolence?

If God is omnipotent, then it is never necessary for him not to be omnibenevolent. Cruelties are only ever forgivable if they are strictly necessary. For God, none of his cruelties can be necessary.

If we have the understanding that unnecessary cruelties are indicative of evil, then God is evil.

(January 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 11, 2014 at 11:36 am)truthBtold Wrote: God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting like…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life. HMMM.

Where does the bible or God claim Omni benevolence?

Isn't the opposite of that "capricious"?

(January 12, 2014 at 5:20 am)ronedee Wrote: I don't see any outrage for the tyrant in N. Korea who fed his uncle, and his aides to 125 hungry dogs?

Oh, by the way, that story is as fictional as your bible.

(January 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 11, 2014 at 11:36 am)truthBtold Wrote: God sends forth two bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). Why would the omnibenevolent God feel the necessity to have two bears viciously maul little children for acting li UVke…children? This is supposed to be the same “wonderful” and “loving” God who promises us eternal life. HMMM.

Elisha was going to Samaria as a representative of God to oppose the apostasy of the king. By insulting Elisha, the youths were expressing their disdain and disrespect for God's representative Elisha. The curse which God sent was also a warning of the curse which he would also bring against the entire nation. Actually, God was very patient with the Samarians, giving them countless warnings which they ignored time after time. How many times did they need to be hit on the head before they realized what he was telling them? In new testament times, as well as atoning for our sins, he gives us countless warnings of what the future holds for those who reject him. If we choose not to go to him, then we spend eternity without him. He won't force us to take the gift that he lovingly offers to us. You can say what you want about God, but he is loving, and he is also just.

So god, by his own definitions is guilty of breaking one of the 10 commandments and according to his own rules deserves to be killed. Interesting.

(January 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Lek Wrote: Elisha was going to Samaria as a representative of God to oppose the apostasy of the king. By insulting Elisha, the youths were expressing their disdain and disrespect for God's representative Elisha. The curse which God sent was also a warning of the curse which he would also bring against the entire nation. Actually, God was very patient with the Samarians, giving them countless warnings which they ignored time after time. How many times did they need to be hit on the head before they realized what he was telling them? In new testament times, as well as atoning for our sins, he gives us countless warnings of what the future holds for those who reject him. If we choose not to go to him, then we spend eternity without him. He won't force us to take the gift that he lovingly offers to us. You can say what you want about God, but he is loving, and he is also just.

So god, by his own definitions is guilty of breaking one of the 10 commandments and according to his own rules deserves to be killed. Interesting.

C'mon. You know perfectly well that A: the commandment is more accurately translated as murder, and B: it makes no sense for rules which God gave us to be applicable to him. The story is fucked up, but in this particular its not internally inconsistent.

(January 12, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: C'mon. You know perfectly well that A: the commandment is more accurately translated as murder, and B: it makes no sense for rules which God gave us to be applicable to him. The story is fucked up, but in this particular its not internally inconsistent.

A: If I sicced bears on children for making fun of my (non-existent) baldness, I'd be charged with murder.

B: It makes perfect sense for the rules to apply to him as well as ourselves. If the maker of the rules doesn't himself follow them, it sets a bad example and provides no positive incentive for the rule to be followed.

(January 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm)(╯°◊°）╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 12, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: C'mon. You know perfectly well that A: the commandment is more accurately translated as murder, and B: it makes no sense for rules which God gave us to be applicable to him. The story is fucked up, but in this particular its not internally inconsistent.

A: If I sicced bears on children for making fun of my (non-existent) baldness, I'd be charged with murder.

Quite true. But that is by the moral standards in which you live. God does / would not Live within any moral standards.

Quote:B: It makes perfect sense for the rules to apply to him as well as ourselves. If the maker of the rules doesn't himself follow them, it sets a bad example and provides no positive incentive for the rule to be followed.

Not necessarily. I have a rule that my kids should not use any of my power tools, or cook, or fight. This is for their own protection. However I don't apply those rules to myself.

As I said, I'm not disputing that the bears thing is immoral, inconsistent, capricious and just plain messed up. But not for those two reasons.

Quote:Not necessarily. I have a rule that my kids should not use any of my power tools, or cook, or fight. This is for their own protection. However I don't apply those rules to myself.

You fight?