Thoughts on 2 Kings 2 23:24
Poll
 | 1 vote (20%) | ||
| | 2 votes (40%) | ||
| | 1 vote (20%) | ||
| | 1 vote (20%) |
5 members have voted
2) Hearing your genuine comments about what strikes you, frustrates you, confuses you, or makes you happy will be helpful. Also helpful will be the questions the text brings to your mind and your own interpretations on what the text is saying.
May I also suggest a few rules for this to work:
a) I will not try to defend or push any certain interpretation of the text from my own tradition, I think we all want to hear what we are all thinking and not the dogmatic definitions or traditional interpretations, if I can do this maybe we can all do the same and just let people's thoughts stand and not attack them. If questions are posed we can all try to do our best to answer them.
b) Stay very focused on just the text presented. Do not go into comments or posts from all over the Bible unless you think it directly connects to this presented text.
c) Likewise, no matter what your beliefs may be concerning God, let's not attack religion, faith, or the lack of either in our posts. Stay focused again on the passage and try to suspend your disbelief if you need to in order to comment on what you think the words mean to you.
Here we go:
Quote: The word of God, Second Kings Chapter 2 Verses 23:2423 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
Perhaps because I would hate to Elisha was real, and this story was true.
Quote: MoscaI think forty-two boys could take two bears. The Old Testament god is a mean son of a gun, innt he?
...so is the new testament God. If you don't believe his Son is the only way to heaven then you spend eternity in hell.
They were She Bears. Other translations are more specific (and gruesome)Quote: MoscaI think forty-two boys could take two bears.
Quote: s2dbakerThey were She Bears. Other translations are more specific (and gruesome)
Yeah, I went and looked them up. No mention of protecting cubs, interrupted hibernation, nothing. Just some bears coming out of the woods and mauling children, because they taunted a bald guy.
As far as an actual interpretation of the scripture, the point is that the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.
Two campers are being starred down by a bear. One is barefoot and asks to borrow the running shoes of the other. After the second camper obliges he asks, what good will it do, the bear will be able to outrun you either way? The first camper says, "I don't need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun you."
Seriously, there are hundreds of passages like this in the old testament of god killing people for minor things like calling someone bald.
At least I still have a full head of hair. A 46, I am thankful for that. Baldness would seem that is a sensitive point with god. No wonder Jesus had such long hair.
Quote: Moscathe path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men...
I see you have seen Pulp Fiction too.
Quote:Pie! (Explain in Comments)
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821
808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097
566593344612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127372458700660631
5588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...
This passage is interpreted like the cartoon above. A gory ugly travesty of God sending two bears to rip apart helpless children, guilty only of taunting a balding man.
Some people feel that the translation is wrong. Since Elisha was not naturally bald, he probably shaved his head as part of his duties as a prophet. The Hebrew should have been translated as "young men" perhaps in their twenties. The correct scenario is more of a massive mob (well over 42 people), jeering at a prophet and his service to God. Since they were telling him to "go up" which meant to ascend to heaven like his mentor Elijah, they were probably threatening his life.
The "she bears" are God's vengeance against the mob.
If the translation is "wrong" then what other things are "wrong" in the unerring word of God?
Quote: s2dbakerThanks Pacomartin. Best .. Image .. Ever!!
If the translation is "wrong" then what other things are "wrong" in the unerring word of God?
Clearly you chose a verse of the bible that is often cited as an example of how the bible is vicious. It inspires posters such as the vulgar Don't **** with God. (Wizard I didn't post the image, and anyone who follows the link should expect a vulgar joke).
I don't try and defend the absolute truth of the bible myself. Just looking at numerals alone (ages, quantities of peoples, years, days of creation) it would require a complete change in my scientific sense to accept all these numbers at face value. I had a childhood friend become a Greek Orthodox Priest. It seemed to me that he was required to accept a long list of zany ideas at face value, when they made little or no sense.
Would you like me to choose another? For my next post, we'll discuss the Amalekites and what their dirty nasty detestible infants did to deserve execution. However, I think the two she bears murdering forty-two children for making fun of a guy with male pattern baldness could use more discussion.Quote: pacomartinClearly you chose a verse of the bible that is often cited as an example of how the bible is vicious..
Quote: pacomartinSome people feel that the translation is wrong. Since Elisha was not naturally bald, he probably shaved his head as part of his duties as a prophet. The Hebrew should have been translated as "young men" perhaps in their twenties. The correct scenario is more of a massive mob (well over 42 people), jeering at a prophet and his service to God. Since they were telling him to "go up" which meant to ascend to heaven like his mentor Elijah, they were probably threatening his life.
The "she bears" are God's vengeance against the mob.
When I went searching for other translations, I came across quite a few textual analyses that tried to justify this passage; it appears that it is fairly problematic. For example,
Aaron's blog interprets,
Quote:The first thing that must be taken into account is the age of these youths. Most skeptics point to the King James Version’s rendering of this passage to answer this crucial question. According to the KJV, these youths were mere children who should have been given a lot of leeway. However, if one looks closely, this was a poor translation on the KJV’s part. The Hebrew used for the youths, neurim qetannim is best rendered ‘young lads’ or “young men.” This term is used in several Old Testament passages.... It’s clear from these passages that the youths mentioned in 2 Kings 2:23-24 were not small children that were irresponsible and immature and shouldn’t have been harshly punished; this passage describes youths that could have been 30 years old!
The second thing to consider is the amount of youths in this group that was jeering Elisha. It says in the passage that the two bears mauled 42 of them. It does not say that the two bears mauled and killed all of the youths. This must mean that there were more than 42. It’s a safe guess that there were at least 50 youths in this group. Recapping, there was a group of at least fifty 12-30 year old youths mocking a profit[sic] This is the interesting part with these youths.
Why would young men be walking through a town in such large numbers? In the Ancient Near East, every family member was required to make a contribution in order to help the family survive. The unity of the family was absolutely crucial to their survival. This is why the Old Testament deals very harshly with rebellious and lazy children who will not work or listen to their parents.
So now, why where these young men banded together in such large groups, and why weren’t they at home contributing to the wellbeing of their own families? I think the answer is clear, given the historical context.
It’s a good hypothesis that they were a gang of rovers who survived on their own, probably by robbing others of their lives and property. They certainly didn’t own their own farms or hunted for game.
In this time, there was no welfare, no food stamps, and no insurance. If your money was stolen, or your food supply was raided, that could very well lead to the starvation of yourself and your family.
Robbery and thievery were far more serious crimes in the Ancient Near East than today.
It is also to be noted that this incident took place between Jericho and Bethel, a center on anti Yahweh worship.
Recapping again, Elisha was taunted by a group of young men from 12-30 years of age, and were likely members of a gang that robbed people of their lives and property.
Now that we’ve established the age, approximate number, and the activities this group of youths engaged in, let’s look at Elisha’s place in this passage.....
There's a lot of supposition going on here. But the passage looks pretty straightforward by my reading.
Quote: Wizard
I see you have seen Pulp Fiction too.
What, not even a giggle for using it with a straight face?
Quote: ikilledjerrylogan...so is the new testament God. If you don't believe his Son is the only way to heaven then you spend eternity in hell.
Yes, but he loves you!
Quote: s2dbakerWould you like me to choose another? For my next post, we'll discuss the Amalekites and what their dirty nasty detestible infants did to deserve execution. However, I think the two she bears murdering forty-two children for making fun of a guy with male pattern baldness could use more discussion.
most who try to justify what happened to the Amakelites have decided that the text has been corrupted, that the line about slaughtering infants was added later. Problem with that is, then the Bible doesn't come directly from god.
Quote: s2dbakerWould you like me to choose another? For my next post, we'll discuss the Amalekites and what their dirty nasty detestible infants did to deserve execution. However, I think the two she bears murdering forty-two children for making fun of a guy with male pattern baldness could use more discussion.
As I said earlier, they were probably making fun of a shaved head because he was prophet.
But, clearly, there are verses in the Bible that was no longer think, as a society, are valid. We would condemn any country that enforced the following kinds of laws.
- If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
- If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor;both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
- If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
- If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the gir's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house.
Quote: pacomartinBut, clearly, there are verses in the Bible that was no longer think, as a society, are valid. We would condemn any country that enforced the following kinds of laws.
[..]
- If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
- If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the gir's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house.
Such things take place regularly in Iran and other Islamist countries.
I'd be more impressed if the O.P. could have come up with some of the puzzling passages in the New Testament. For example Jesus cursing the fig tree, which is mentioned in two of the Gospels and really, truly, seems to be an instance where he baffled the Disciples [That's not to say Churches now havent tried to crack the meaning of it]; the story comes right out and says what was puzzling: figs were not in season, and so, considering that, they apparently never figure out why Jesus would "lose it". More importantly, it isn't a parable, but something that is reported as having actually happened.
I don't mean to hijack, but just say IMO there is much more interesting to discuss than harsh and archaic actions and laws in the Old Testament. If anyone is interested in discussing this one we can start a different thread.
Quote: s2dbakerThanks Pacomartin. Best .. Image .. Ever!!
If the translation is "wrong" then what other things are "wrong" in the unerring word of God?
It is certainly a possibility that the "unerring" word of God was, well..., "unerred", when originally delivered, and that human intervention over the interceding thousands of years has introduced the inaccuracies (more like lack of clarity) noted.
In any case, the Old Testament is a historic document. It certainly describes many events and practices that were specific to that time. Remember that there were other idol worshipping religions that sacrificed children as a regular practice. Others employed temple prostitutes or self-mutilation as part of their worship. It was a very different world from 21st century North America . If you look at the OT as a whole, you see that God created a paradise that no one could complain about the conditions, but there were a couple of rules. We blew it by not following those rules, and are still dealing with the fallout today. However, God also promises that He will provide a savior for his people (described in detail in the NT, or see Mel Gibson's "Passion" for the cliff notes version).
I am disappointed that those who fervently condem God for the deaths described in the OT, would not also feel as passionate about the deaths of the innocent at the hands of others in their own neighborhood. Abortion clinics take the lives of thousands of helpless innocents, certainly more than two bears. Is this just an intellectual exercise, or will you actually do something to help the helpless?
Because it's the word of God.Quote: odiousgambitThe Old Testament is full of stuff like this. Why focus on that?
Quote: Ayecarumba
I am disappointed that those who fervently condem God for the deaths described in the OT, would not also feel as passionate about the deaths of the innocent at the hands of others in their own neighborhood. Abortion clinics take the lives of thousands of helpless innocents, certainly more than two bears. Is this just an intellectual exercise, or will you actually do something to help the helpless?
Ooooo. Deflection. Let's stay on topic here. Yes, it is just an intellectual exercise.
Quote: WizardSeriously, there are hundreds of passages like this in the old testament of god killing people for minor things like calling someone bald.
The Bible is full of embellished urban legends. Whats
the fun of an urban legend if its not over the top.
Quote: EvenBobThe Bible is full of embellished urban legends. Whats the fun of an urban legend if its not over the top.
I don't think that there was much urban life when the bible was written (at least the Old Testament).
Quote: pacomartinI don't think that there was much urban life when the bible was written (at least the Old Testament).
Urban legend meaning myth, old story, word of mouth
tales handed down for generations. By the time anything
got recorded, the stories had been told so many times
that any truth had long since disappeared.
Quote: odiousgambitThe Old Testament is full of stuff like this. Why focus on that?
Isn't it the same god as the New Testament? As I said in another post, Christians are quick to brush off stories like this, because it was god 1.0, but have no problem quoting the OT when they need to support their positions against homosexuality and for the death penalty.
Quote: WizardIsn't it the same god as the New Testament? As I said in another post, Christians are quick to brush off stories like this, because it was god 1.0, but have no problem quoting the OT when they need to support their positions against homosexuality and for the death penalty.
True, and those particular types bother me in the extreme. However, I still view someone pointing out BS in the OT as railing against something he should have gotten over a long time ago.
Quote: Ayecarumba
I am disappointed that those who fervently condem God for the deaths described in the OT, would not also feel as passionate about the deaths of the innocent at the hands of others in their own neighborhood. Abortion clinics take the lives of thousands of helpless innocents, certainly more than two bears. Is this just an intellectual exercise, or will you actually do something to help the helpless?Quote: MoscaOoooo. Deflection. Let's stay on topic here. Yes, it is just an intellectual exercise.
Not so much deflection as reflection. Thanks (seriously) for the reality check Mosca.Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
Quote: WizardIsn't it the same god as the New Testament? As I said in another post, Christians are quick to brush off stories like this, because it was god 1.0, but have no problem quoting the OT when they need to support their positions against homosexuality and for the death penalty.
I encourage readers to earnestly examine the origin of the scripture and its historic accuracy, before throwing all of it in the wastebasket as "legend". The "fire and brimstone" God of the OT is the same, "peace to you" God in the NT. God's standard of what is right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, has not changed. He remains as holy as ever.
I believe some truths are timeless and absolute. They remain so despite current conditions, prevailing opinion, or local practice. They extend from the OT, through the NT to today. As stated previously, I believe some things mentioned in the OT were local practices, or meant for specific, cultural situations. You might see this as "cherry picking", but I encourage folks to give the issues a fair examination.
Keep in mind that one of the timeless tenants of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the OT law. He paid the penalty for all the laws broken by believers, yesterday, today and tomorrow. So, there is no longer a personal penalty for sin. This could result in lawlessness, but the appropriate response should be gratitude.
A reflective Vegas themed question: We got caught with crooked dice at the old Horseshoe, Benny usually deals with scum like us in the backroom, and we are getting horsecollared by "Fat" Tony and Mel "The Wrench", in that direction. However, Benny's daughter steps in and says she will take the punishment in our stead, and even gives us a comp at the steakhouse. How much would you enjoy that meal?
Quote: WizardIsn't it the same god as the New Testament? As I said in another post, Christians are quick to brush off stories like this, because it was god 1.0, but have no problem quoting the OT when they need to support their positions against homosexuality and for the death penalty.
I think this point is very sound. Christ appears to have been indifferent to homosexuality. It is cherry-picking to point out verses in Leviticus that condemn homosexual behavior and then look at verses like Deuteronomy, chapter 22 and consider them hopelessly archaic.
Quote: Deuteronomy 22If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
KJ version of same verses
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Quote: Mark TwainMost people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.
edit: I beileve its James who writes..."For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (not just homosexuals)
Christ didn't say anything about beastiality but that doesn't mean he was indifferent. I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I'm saying that just because scripture doesn't record that he mentioned it doesn't mean he was indifferent.
Quote: ikilledjerryloganChrist appears to be indifferent but do his apostles? Many of the epistles mention sexual sin and fornication. Its true that homosexuality is no worse in the eyes of God than hetero lust outside of marriage.
edit: I beileve its James who writes..."For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (not just homosexuals)
Christ didn't say anything about beastiality but that doesn't mean he was indifferent. I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I'm saying that just because scripture doesn't record that he mentioned it doesn't mean he was indifferent.
There is a short story by Flannery O'Connor, "The Enduring Chill", that tells of Asbury, a failed artist who has returned from New York to his family home in rural Georgia. He gets sick, and thinks he is dying; and although he isn't Catholic, he requests a visit from a priest, and specifically requests a Jesuit priest, because he thinks a Jesuit would be sufficiently intellectual to discuss the weighty matters that Asbury thinks are appropriate to discuss before dying. He is surprised to see Father Finn, old, half blind, and half deaf; and when he attempts to discuss the nature of God and the life of the spirit, Father Finn eventually loses patience and thunders at him, "WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!"
The point being, Christianity and Catholicism aren't about what you do; they are about preparing yourself for life with God. Christianity at its heart isn't about sin, it is about redemption. We try to avoid sin in order to need less redeeming.
You don't have to believe in Catholicism or Christianity to be deeply moved by O'Connor's work. She makes a very compelling case for god and Jesus.
Quote: MoscaThere is a short story by Flannery O'Connor, "The Enduring Chill", that tells of Asbury, a failed artist who has returned from New York to his family home in rural Georgia. He gets sick, and thinks he is dying; and although he isn't Catholic, he requests a visit from a priest, and specifically requests a Jesuit priest, because he thinks a Jesuit would be sufficiently intellectual to discuss the weighty matters that Asbury thinks are appropriate to discuss before dying. He is surprised to see Father Finn, old, half blind, and half deaf; and when he attempts to discuss the nature of God and the life of the spirit, Father Finn eventually loses patience and thunders at him, "WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!"
The point being, Christianity and Catholicism aren't about what you do; they are about preparing yourself for life with God. Christianity at its heart isn't about sin, it is about redemption. We try to avoid sin in order to need less redeeming.
You don't have to believe in Catholicism or Christianity to be deeply moved by O'Connor's work. She makes a very compelling case for god and Jesus.
+1
Quote: ikilledjerryloganChrist didn't say anything about beastiality but that doesn't mean he was indifferent. I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I'm saying that just because scripture doesn't record that he mentioned it doesn't mean he was indifferent.
OK, I will grant you that anything is possible that was not recorded. The bible, as far as it record the teachings of Christ, does not mention his view on homosexuality. The New Testament does not mention the church expelling homosexuals or attempting to change the behavior of homosexuals. As far as the written record tells us, there was little or no discussion about the issue.
I simply fail to see how Christianity as outlined in the NT could allow someone to the conclude that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of our society. My brother's marriage is interracial. There was a time when many people somehow found scriptures that led them to believe that interracial marriage would result in the downfall of society. We know now that society survives just fine with interracial marriages. I don't see the fundamental difference.
Quote: pacomartinThere was a time when many people somehow found scriptures that led them to believe that interracial marriage would result in the downfall of society. We know now that society survives just fine with interracial marriages. I don't see the fundamental difference.
Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until 2008. Some Christians I have known interpret the story of the Towel of Babel as god not liking different races to mingle.
Quote: ikilledjerryloganChrist didn't say anything about beastiality but that doesn't mean he was indifferent. I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I'm saying that just because scripture doesn't record that he mentioned it doesn't mean he was indifferent.
Yeah, but if the scripture does not say anything about it, we can not possibly guess as to his thoughts on such items. Besides, it's immaterial, 1 - Know you are a sinner, 2 - Ask forgiveness for those sins through Jesus Christ, the Saviour. The detail and judgement belongs to God, not to mere mortals who may be guessing, interpreting or plain out wrong.
At least that's how I understood it in the church I went to. I am aware other creeds are much more proscriptive and descriptive (and there in lies a different debate on the Christian religion).
None of that made it into the bible. You know what made it into the bible? A story about 42 boys being torn apart by two female bears because they made fun of a bald guy.Quote: MoscaThere is a short story by Flannery O'Connor, "The Enduring Chill", that tells of Asbury, ....
Quote: s2dbakerNone of that made it into the bible. You know what made it into the bible? A story about 42 boys being torn apart by two female bears because they made fun of a bald guy.
I was addressing the drift point being made by ikilledjerrylogan. I'm not Christian myself, but I thought they needed a little help here. Honestly, it's easier to use The Bible to attack Christianity than it is to use The Bible to defend Christianity. Christians should concentrate on the more compelling story of love, forgiveness, and redemption. People prefer hope to hate.
I'm all in on it except for the god and son 'o god part, actually.
Quote: thecesspitYeah, but if the scripture does not say anything about it, we can not possibly guess as to his thoughts on such items. Besides, it's immaterial, 1 - Know you are a sinner, 2 - Ask forgiveness for those sins through Jesus Christ, the Saviour. The detail and judgement belongs to God, not to mere mortals who may be guessing, interpreting or plain out wrong.
At least that's how I understood it in the church I went to. I am aware other creeds are much more proscriptive and descriptive (and there in lies a different debate on the Christian religion).
I totally agree with you. I was just explaining that I don't see how someone could assume that Jesus was indifferent on a subject just because it isn't mentioned. My point was sin is sin. People love to condemn homosexuals while they have sin in their own lives. I never took a stance on homosexual marriage or interracial marriage. Someone said something about some university banning interracial marriage as if they represent the church. Thats ridiculous. I guess Mao represents the atheist community then.
Quote: thecesspitYeah, but if the scripture does not say anything about it, we can not possibly guess as to his thoughts on such items.
I have noticed more than one person in these religious threads talk about the Bible's stance on homosexuality as if its something only found in the old testament. Here is a verse from the new testament. I know this might deserve its own thread with a poll asking if the Bible should be considered hate speech since it says these things about homosexuals.
Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Quote: ikilledjerryloganI have noticed more than one person in these religious threads talk about the Bible's stance on homosexuality as if its something only found in the old testament. Here is a verse from the new testament. I know this might deserve its own thread with a poll asking if the Bible should be considered hate speech since it says these things about homosexuals.
Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Now see, I have a problem with Paul. I'm not really prepared to start a discussion right now, and I may never be, because it isn't that important to me (seeing as how my global disbelief renders all subsets immaterial). But even within Christianity, when I was a devout Catholic, I had a problem with Paul.
Quote: MoscaNow see, I have a problem with Paul.
What did he ever do to you? You do know hes the most prolific writer in the new testament right? ;)
Quote: Mosca... I had a problem with Paul.
A lot of people do. It's easy to believe there would be no Christianity today without Paul. I love the guy.
Quote: ikilledjerryloganI have noticed more than one person in these religious threads talk about the Bible's stance on homosexuality as if its something only found in the old testament. Here is a verse from the new testament. I know this might deserve its own thread with a poll asking if the Bible should be considered hate speech since it says these things about homosexuals.
Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Interesting, I may be reading this wrong, but due to worshipping false idols... God made them gay, malicious and gossips....
My problem with Paul isn't that he spread Christianity, it's that when I read what he wrote, I don't really agree with him much of the time. Some of it is beautiful, but some of it leaves me scratching my head. Again, I'm not sure I want to fully engage. I've had this discussion often, not here but elsewhere.
Quote: s2dbakerHere we go:
Quote: The word of God, Second Kings Chapter 2 Verses 23:2423 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
Sorry, where's the link between the curse and the bears' appearance? Could be a very convenient coincidence.
And, it's a pretty big leap of faith(!) to assume that what someone wrote as "the word of God" is in fact the word of God.
Quote: MoscaMy problem with Paul isn't that he spread Christianity, it's that when I read what he wrote, I don't really agree with him much of the time.
There's a good chance Paul was Gay. He never married,
hated women, if you read his writing, and is reported
to have had a male 'companion' that was much younger than
him and went with him everywhere, till the end of his life.
Connect the dots...
Quote: EvenBobThere's a good chance Paul was Gay.
If so, pretty odd that the Gays today don't like him a bit for what he had to say.
