Why did God murder children for making fun of a bald guy?

[fr0d0]

I think you must've missed the point BWS.

[Bad Writer]

That you feel you don't have to address my point now? That's fine. It's not like I could've expected honesty from you anyway.

[ShaMan]

Bald people are folic-based challenged, and thus should be confronted! FUCK bald people! Bears unite!

[Urizen]

Typical. Any passage where God is bloodthirsty or unjust, it's "symbolic"

Only in the sense that everything in existence is symbol. It is not an effete literary symbolism. Symbolism is the literal spilling of blood and laughter of children, a mother's tears and the clashing of swords, virgin nature and majestic heaven. Anything less than pure, unmanifested Reality is symbol.

God's anthropomorphism means none other than this: the intelligence that flows through the universe also flows through man. Man is made in the divine image: if God appears anthropomorphic, it is because man is theomorphic. This world is like two mirrors facing each other, casting their reflected images to infinity. God is the original image, while man is a distant reflection of the Original. We are an eternal archetype "incarnated" in matter. It's not that God resembles us; it is we who resemble God. This is the key to understanding Christianity. It is the meaning of the life of Jesus Christ: "God became man, that man could become God."

You also didn't mention how the bear managed to maul ALL42 children? NONE of them running away? Or was the mauling symbolic as well?

Since the illusions of this world are nothing, and the Real is everything, historical fact is subordinated to symbolic truth. If the symbol be oriented to the Real, which transcends this world, then the symbol is Truth; it makes no difference if the truth should be conveyed to us by symbolism of a mythical story or an historical fact. Symbol is symbol. Now in Christianity, history begins with the New Testament, while the Old Testament is essentially mythological. The NT conveys the truth largely by means of the symbolism underlying literal historical facts; whilst the OT conveys the truth largely through the symbolism of mythology (which does not exclude the possibility that the mythical stories of the OT may also be historical events, but their historicity is eclipsed by the mythological, while in the NT symbolism coincides with historical fact: in both cases, symbolism takes precedence over all else).

If a Muslim was explaining a questionable verse in the Koran, would you accept the explanation of "symbolism" ?

As explained in the sense above, yes, the Koran is rich with true symbolism, as are all heaven-sent religions

[fr0d0]

That you feel you don't have to address my point now? That's fine. It's not like I could've expected honesty from you anyway.

lol hey I know you're butt hurt but you're digging a hole taking it out on me.

So now you're saying Chad was right but you were talking about something else? If that's true then what you've just said is redundant.

Chill bro. It's only the internet. I like you.

[Ksa]

I hate to admit this but I often tell off God with pornographic insults when I wake up in the morning. I can't enter into details here due to the respect I have for these fine ladies&gentlemen but it can get very graphic also! With gestures! Twisting hand motion and you know...fun stuff. What I can say for sure is that the persons who wrote that passage in the Bible did not have any hair, and no hair replacing technology was there to help them!

When I think about how much fun Satan has with those prostitutes of Ezikiel chapter 23, I say to myself, what a loser that God must be. If I was God, those women would have the first ticket into my kingdom. The men I punish and send to Hell should never have those! What punishment would that be for them? What punishment would that be for Satan!? For betraying me. I send him...fuck gear? How illogical.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Typical. Any passage where God is bloodthirsty or unjust, it's "symbolic"

---

Only in the sense that everything in existence is symbol. It is not an effete literary symbolism. Symbolism is the literal spilling of blood and laughter of children, a mother's tears and the clashing of swords, virgin nature and majestic heaven. Anything less than pure, unmanifested Reality is symbol.

God's anthropomorphism means none other than this: the intelligence that flows through the universe also flows through man. Man is made in the divine image: if God appears anthropomorphic, it is because man is theomorphic. This world is like two mirrors facing each other, casting their reflected images to infinity. God is the original image, while man is a distant reflection of the Original. We are an eternal archetype "incarnated" in matter. It's not that God resembles us; it is we who resemble God. This is the key to understanding Christianity. It is the meaning of the life of Jesus Christ: "God became man, that man could become God."

You also didn't mention how the bear managed to maul ALL42 children? NONE of them running away? Or was the mauling symbolic as well?

Since the illusions of this world are nothing, and the Real is everything, historical fact is subordinated to symbolic truth. If the symbol be oriented to the Real, which transcends this world, then the symbol is Truth; it makes no difference if the truth should be conveyed to us by symbolism of a mythical story or an historical fact. Symbol is symbol. Now in Christianity, history begins with the New Testament, while the Old Testament is essentially mythological. The NT conveys the truth largely by means of the symbolism underlying literal historical facts; whilst the OT conveys the truth largely through the symbolism of mythology (which does not exclude the possibility that the mythical stories of the OT may also be historical events, but their historicity is eclipsed by the mythological, while in the NT symbolism coincides with historical fact: in both cases, symbolism takes precedence over all else).

If a Muslim was explaining a questionable verse in the Koran, would you accept the explanation of "symbolism" ?

As explained in the sense above, yes, the Koran is rich with true symbolism, as are all heaven-sent religions

---

Sounds legit.

[orangebox21]

God sends those bears to kill the kids.

I reject the unargued philosophical bias that God does wrong. The Bible says that God is good and there is no evil in Him.

24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.”

From a theological perspective, where in the text does it say that "God sent the bears?"

I object to your use of the phrase, 'just animals,' as if applying it to humans belittled them.

I'm sorry, you're right, I did use prejudicial language. I retract my initial proposition and change it to: "if humans are animals..."

Why is an animal killing another animal wrong? Absolutely, it is not. Absolutely, killing humans is not wrong.

I'm a little unclear, are you arguing that the prohet in question did or did not do something morally wrong?

It is only humans and their imaginary friends who consider killing humans wrong and then only most of the time. If it were absolutely wrong to kill humans, then bears would know this and refuse to kill children. Christians have to deny moral agency to non-humans in the face of observed fact. They do this to maintain a fantasy of human superiority.
Mothering of young, objection to unfairness, risk taking to benefit others are observed moral behaviors in non-humans. You claim such is instinct for others but not humans? You ask for special pleading. Christians conflate 'absolute' morality with 'objective' morality. They fail to consider that an absolute morality would apply equally to humans, animals and inanimate objects.

In the Biblical view "absolute morality" is that morality revealed by God through the scriptures. It differentiates between humans and animals because God created us differently. Only humans are created in His image and likeness. The evolutionary view equates humans with animals. So yes, in the evolutionary view it would be special pleading to have different rules for humans than for the rest of the animal kingdom. This is however a different view than the Biblical view.

... Because the survival instinct of organisms is one of the fundamental drives of natural selection, and those that don't have those survival instincts and think being killed is good don't... survive, and get selected?

Natural selection is a non-human manifestation and thus amoral.

From an evolutionary perspective, those animals that don't think being killed is wrong tend to be the failed species.

I don't mean wrong in the sense of being harmful to survival, I mean wrong in the sense of morality. Why is one animal killing another animal wrong?

That's funny, because this only seems to be a problem for atheists in theists' heads.

Making an argument that God is immoral without a standard of morality is an irrational argument. What is your standard of morality apart from the Christian God?

[Chad32]

If you believe that Yahweh is moral just because he says he is, that's just argument from authority. It doesn't prove anything. His actions don't speak of him being a good person. Why would anyone want to take the word of someone like him anyway? Either morality is separate from Yahweh, or you're just taking the word of someone more powerful than you that they're a good person, despite actions that say otherwise.

The bible can't be used as evidence of anything anyway. The bible doesn't even prove that Egypt existed, much less Yahweh.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

It's moral equivalent of a bullying parent saying, "Because I fucking said so!" after a child asked them why they were just smacked.