Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 9

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

 When bad things are attributed to God in the Bible, I think that is because of the way people viewed God at the time. The author of 2 Kings knew about a couple of bears that had mauled some children, and those children had earlier been mocking Elijah, so he attributed the maulings to God taking action against the children.

I don't have my Bible handy and I'm not familiar with that passage, but that's how I understand it. Did Elijah ask God to do something to the children? If so, then I don't know the answer to the question. The first sentence of my answer is still relevant to other situations though.

 Oh....yes, so in that everything that happened good or bad in the Bible could be just Man attributing events to God?

This is what I think really happened,...man trying to explain things, beyond his knowledge....there must be an invisible God....like the wind, like gravity

J

 This is what I believe is the case in instances where it says "God hardened so-and-so's heart" or "God struck down so-and-so because of this." When God specifically says something in Scripture, either announcing something, telling something to do something, or giving a warning, then I don't think it's just divine attribution being applied to something as a literary device or because the author believed it was an act of God.

What I'm saying applies in specific circumstances/phrases in the Bible.

I've never seen it, so I can't really say. From what I've read, it sounds like it contains ideas I agree with, but it also sounds like it contains material that is either objectionable in itself or is presented objectionably. I could probably find a Catholic review on it, but if you want my personal views, then I'm afraid I have none to give.

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

 When bad things are attributed to God in the Bible, I think that is because of the way people viewed God at the time. The author of 2 Kings knew about a couple of bears that had mauled some children, and those children had earlier been mocking Elijah, so he attributed the maulings to God taking action against the children.

I don't have my Bible handy and I'm not familiar with that passage, but that's how I understand it. Did Elijah ask God to do something to the children? If so, then I don't know the answer to the question. The first sentence of my answer is still relevant to other situations though.

 Oh....yes, so in that everything that happened good or bad in the Bible could be just Man attributing events to God?

This is what I think really happened,...man trying to explain things, beyond his knowledge....there must be an invisible God....like the wind, like gravity

J

 This is what I believe is the case in instances where it says "God hardened so-and-so's heart" or "God struck down so-and-so because of this." When God specifically says something in Scripture, either announcing something, telling something to do something, or giving a warning, then I don't think it's just divine attribution being applied to something as a literary device or because the author believed it was an act of God.

What I'm saying applies in specific circumstances/phrases in the Bible.

 I suppose thats a good way to deal with it, pick and choose parts that you think God really said and that man made up, which still made it into the Bible.

I think man made up more than you'd like to believe

J

Jaitea, you're usually not so aggressively condescending.  Obviously you don't believe what's attributed to God in the Bible.  But there are people who do.  Congratulations.  We have two different opinions.  You can neither prove nor disprove either one.

Someone once called me a weak atheist.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

If God had already rewarded Abraham's faith with the gift of a son, why might He have chosen to administer this further test?

How might one's image of one's father change should he make such an equal example of his faith?

I think God administered a further test so Abraham would continue to trust God and not be satisfied with his earthly blessings.

I highly doubt God would have done this if it would have ruined the father-son relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Isaac went along with it, demonstrating that he also had great faith in God, so it was a test for him as well which God knew they would both pass.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

The reason God instructed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan was because the Israelites had proven they weren't capable of living alongside other nations without falling into idolatry. God allowed it for Israel's benefit, not because those nations were evil (that was not the main reason, anyway).

 Is it possible that life might hold so little value to a loving god? If one's fate might fall to the disposition of one's neighbors is this likely to be a sign that justice is held in particularly high regard?

Further, if the Canaanite people might have proven to be the more faithful (as in, their religion appears to have been more persuasive to the Israelites than vice-versa), why might a loving god have chosen to reward them with destruction? In essence, why offer a promised land to a people of lesser devotion at the expense of a people of greater devotion?

I can't claim to know what God's logic was, but if those people ended up in heaven, then their lifespan on earth doesn't matter. If they ended up in hell, it's a different story, but they doubtlessly were headed that way anyway if that was the case.

Canaanite worship involved ritual prostitution and child sacrifice in many cases. God didn't want his people going down that path. The Canaanite religions were religions of pleasure for the most part (especially the sex worship part) and therefore it seemed very attractive compared to the strict Mosaic law.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I think everything should be done for the glory of God (unless it has no moral consequence), so that doesn't leave much room for too much worship.

 Might the slaying of one's own son have a moral consequence?

 Since God told Abraham to do it, it would not, theoretically, have had moral consequence. It was, however, God's intention to stop Abraham from the beginning, and he knew the result beforehand. God would not have allowed Abraham to carry through with the sacrifice because of its immorality (just because he tested Abraham in that way doesn't mean that he was contradicting his own laws because of the fact that there was no intention to allow Abraham to follow through).

As to why God bothered if he knew the result beforehand: the test was for our benefit, to show that if we trust God then things will work out in the end.

TV's Frink said:

Someone once called me a weak atheist.

 Ah, good memories...

darth_ender said:

Jaitea, you're usually not so aggressively condescending.  Obviously you don't believe what's attributed to God in the Bible.  But there are people who do.  Congratulations.  We have two different opinions.  You can neither prove nor disprove either one.

 Na, but if you were to look at it from my POV you'd see that there's always an excuse or an exception allowed, when I make an example of it happening, I'm condescending.

J

TV's Frink said:

Someone once called me a weak atheist.

 Maybe introduce a bit of sport? Cycling or swimming?

j

Jaitea said:

darth_ender said:

Jaitea, you're usually not so aggressively condescending.  Obviously you don't believe what's attributed to God in the Bible.  But there are people who do.  Congratulations.  We have two different opinions.  You can neither prove nor disprove either one.

 Na, but if you were to look at it from my POV you'd see that there's always an excuse or an exception allowed, when I make an example of it happening, I'm condescending.

J

 It's not just this most recent point, it's been several.  And it's not just your point, it's your manner.  This most recent point was put more delicately than others, but after never seeing you here in Off Topic, suddenly we're flooded with Jaitea's great wisdom as he sits upon his high horse, imparting that wisdom and laughing at the foolish believers lying prostrate before their god of choice.  Frankly, if that is your style, there is no way anyone could have a reasonable discussion with you on the topic.

darth_ender said:

Jaitea said:

darth_ender said:

Jaitea, you're usually not so aggressively condescending.  Obviously you don't believe what's attributed to God in the Bible.  But there are people who do.  Congratulations.  We have two different opinions.  You can neither prove nor disprove either one.

 Na, but if you were to look at it from my POV you'd see that there's always an excuse or an exception allowed, when I make an example of it happening, I'm condescending.

J

 It's not just this most recent point, it's been several.  And it's not just your point, it's your manner.  This most recent point was put more delicately than others, but after never seeing you here in Off Topic, suddenly we're flooded with Jaitea's great wisdom as he sits upon his high horse, imparting that wisdom and laughing at the foolish believers lying prostrate before their god of choice.  Frankly, if that is your style, there is no way anyone could have a reasonable discussion with you on the topic.

 Sorry you feel that way, your knowledge in your subject seems far superior than mine.

Your mental image of me laughing is far from the truth.

....and as far as my contribution to these threads I also feel there is little hope of having a reasonable discussion.

J

I believe many phenomena attributed to God are a form of science outside of our understanding, but that we may crack the code someday.

Given that definition of God, and my allowance for miracles, I don't know what my official designation would be.

I guess I'm an atheist who believes in the spiritual to some degree while using God as a metaphor. That may sound strange when I type it out like that, but Buddhism actually has a similar framework.

HotRod said:

What about the Geeza and the boat? Do you really believe the old boy made a big boat, put all the animals in two by two, then set sail when God flooded the Earth? Wasn't that mass murder?

I'll watch the film when it comes out to form my unbiased opinion

 Yeh, thats a confusing one, there were 8 people on the Ark, Noah & his wife, his 3 sons & their wives, how does the world get populated by so many race varieties in such a short period of time, also there are roughly 8 million species of animal in the world (granted there are sea & air animals in that figure) so theres that to consider

J