Regarding 2 Kings 2:24, we need to recognize that God judges the wicked. The critic might say, “But that judgment is too severe.” My reply is, “By what standard?” The critic has no basis for making any moral judgments at all. In his view, the two young men who were killed in 2 Kings 2:24 were simply chemical accidents. Besides, bears have to eat. Why does the critic complain that the Lord provided the bears with a full meal that day, rather than letting them starve? The fact that the critic values the lives of the people more than the bears shows that he really knows the biblical worldview is true. His criticism against Scripture is self-delusion.
33 comments
Then Gobs coulda given the bears food that isn't sentient. Like berries or fish.
Besides, not everything is stolen from your worldview. Give credit where credit is due.
Bears have to eat, sure, but they don't have to eat teens whose only crime was mocking a bald dude . That's pretty much just blatant wish-fulfillment on the part of the author. Which should at least make you appreciate how much some things don't change. Ah well.
Vifibi exits stage left, pursued by a bear .
The fact that the critic values the lives of the people more than the bears shows that he really knows the biblical worldview is true.
Do you even listen to yourself? The biblical worldview is that the lives of those children weren't worth anything the moment they mocked one of God's special people and God needed them to die.
You condemn muslims for being violent, then post bullshit in support of the vicious mauling of teenagers via YHWH's 'justice' for a little name-calling.
Makes total sense. WTF was I thinking?
This whole "chemical accident" argument that Lisle used is bull crap. It's a way for him to simply ignore the opinion of everyone who disagrees with him. We are not "just" a chemical accident even if that is what we started out as billions of years ago. We are more then that because of how we developed, how our minds and bodies evolved.
The critic might say, “But that judgment is too severe.” My reply is, “By what standard?
By any sane standard. Nobody but fundies sees eternal torture as an acceptable punishment for finite crimes. Especially when that crime is simply not being a yes man.
The critic has no basis for making any moral judgments at all.
Bullshit. Humans make moral judgments all the time. If we didn't we'd be peeing all over buildings and other people's houses. It doesn't say in the Bible that you can't do that, yet, we have decided that's not an appropriate thing to do.
In his view, the two young men who were killed in 2 Kings 2:24 were simply chemical accidents.
Fuck you. Don't tell ME what I believe. Stick to explaining your own shitty beliefs and I'll explain my own, thank you.
Besides, bears have to eat.
So God couldn't have rained salmon down from the sky? He had to feed them children? Your god is as much of a psycho as you are.
@KittyKaboom
Excellent point, Kitty. Wish I had thought of it myself. They go all up-in-arms about extremists attacking Charlie Hebdo because their most sacred prophet was ridiculed but they're fine with Yahweh killing children just because they do what children do sometimes: make fun of people. At least I'm consistent (as I imagine you and every other reasonable person is) in condemning both as barbaric and way over the line. Thankfully, the story in the Bible is at least fiction, unlike the attacks on Charlie.
KJV; (and the others, they all like the massive killing)
"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
40 fucking two.
Y'know. let's totalling ignore or purposely hide the death of forty people then accuse the Atheists of having no concern for people.
Bible rewrite bitch, off to Hell you go.
So I should be stoned for wearing a poly-cotton t-shirt while eating my bacon sandwich I made on a Saturday? If your god was just, he'd just ground the kids for a week, not kill them off for being kids.
No, it's because we're speciesist, largely because we're social animals. We value our own species over others and our own tribe over other tribes. That way 'our own' survive better with more offspring.
I'll state the obvious that has probably been stated before.
This argument works for any religion.
Lisle needs to get busy debunking all those other religious worldviews I know are true.
Show me on the strawdoll where the mean atheist touched you, Lisle.
"In his view, the two young men"
Haven't read your own book? It was FORTY-two kids that were slaughtered by bears for making fun of an old guy's bald head.
"The fact that the critic values the lives of the people more than the bears shows that he really knows the biblical worldview is true."
Even given we value the lives of people more than animals, how does that make YOUR religious view the correct one? There are tens of thousands of versions of christianity alone, not to mention the other religions. How do you know YOUR religion is the correct one? Just saying we're wrong doesn't make your view the only other one, or somehow make your view automatically correct. You need evidence. Evidence your view is the correct one. And no, the bible isn't evidence your view is true, any more than the quran is evidence islam is true, or that someone's photoshopped pictures are evidence that bigfoot is true.
"The critic has no basis for making any moral judgments at all."
And this is why we live in fear of you insane Fundies. We don't fear your alleged God, we fear his self-serving, mutually-appointed advocates.
"Why does the critic complain that the Lord provided the bears with a full meal that day, rather than letting them starve?"
Your seeing children merely as food for animals and seeing this as something your "kind, just, loving god that cares about all children, even in the womb" would do and your being ok with it shows just how morally fucked-up your religion has made you.
Why couldn't your sky-pixie poof some deer into existence the same way he poofed everything into existence? Why couldnt he just wave his magic wand over the bears and get them to no longer be hungry? Would that have been too difficult for him? Was your omnipotent sky-pixie tired again? Too much helping people find lost trinkets to give a shit about 42 children? If we can think of alternatives that wouldn't involve slaughtering children, how come your omnipotent and omniscient god couldn't?
Given that you think eternal hellfire is a suitable punishment for everyone that disobeys your deity, irregardless of the severity of the "sin," I'm not surprised that you see nothing wrong with God sending a bear to maul two mischievous youths to death.
we need to recognize that God judges the wicked.
But the God of the Old Testament doesn't "judge" the wicked; He just stomps on anyone who annoys Him in the slightest, as a human might step on a cockroach. Sure the critic has a basis for making moral judgments. God's judgment makes no sense if we have no basis for understanding what we're being judged on.
In his view, the two young men who were killed in 2 Kings 2:24 were simply chemical accidents.
However, the FORTY two children in 2 Kings 2:24...
Why does the critic complain that the Lord provided the bears with a full meal that day, rather than letting them starve?
Ok, I'm going to follow your gods example and feed you to a bear... why do you object? What do you mean I could feed the bear something else?
Pity your God couldn't figure that out...
Nemo & dionysus: For some insane reason I still visit Yahoo News almost every day, and read the comments. The same idiots who are so vocally against anything related to islam go out of their way to insert christian apologetics into every thread they can manage.
People ask how they can justify the horrible things god tells his people to do in the bible. Watching them desperately try to portray their god as anything other than a monster is almost like watching an olympic event. Plenty of sweating, reaching and sprinting going on.
Yet it's islam that is evil, according to them. Forest for the trees.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
