Imagine you are walking down the street, minding your own business, and a group of young children come up to you and start yelling loudly at you, calling you "Big Nose, Big Nose!" This angers you, of course. How dare these children mock you! What disrespect! They must have been poorly brought up, you think to yourself. You just happen to be packing an AK-47 fully-automatic assault rifle with you that day. In your mad rage, you open fire into the group of children, killing them all. The air is split by the loud clatter of gunfire, blood flies, the empty cartridge cases rain down upon the ground, and small bodies are shredded in gory chunks. Screams of small boys and girls fill the air-- they are filled with terror as they run left and right, trying to escape your bullets-- but to no avail-- they can't run fast enough. You're able to hit them all. You stand there looking with satisfaction upon the result of your act: piled heaps of small bodies, blood soaked and shredded; the bodies of children who were but moments before happy and carefree, playing in the sunlight.
How outrageous, how horrendous, this example is. It resembles the worst of the tragic modern news stories of multiple homicides in the halls of our public schools. It's a terrible thing to contemplate, and I hope that we never have to hear such a thing on the news again. I even apologize to you for using such violent imagery. But I really wanted to get your attention.

Let's think about this a little further. Is there any way that we can justify this bloodshed? The children in the above example were terribly disrespectful to an adult. They mocked you. They called you "Big Nose". They were defying your authority. Certainly, they would have grown up to be terrible people. The world is better off without them. They were wicked. Isn't there some way we can look at this situation to justify their deaths? Is there any circumstance that can make this mass murder morally acceptable?

But, you say, children are just like that. They tease, they make fun of people. It's just natural for kids to mock, especially when they get into groups. Kids tend to follow the pack, and want to go along with what their friends do. Surely, this is only common sense! Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me, right? You would think this is common sense, right?

Then, gentle reader, please be so kind as to explain to me why God himself, the Loving Father, did just such a deed as this.

Please open your bible to 2 Kings, 2:23-24.

23: And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24: 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."
Understandably, our nation went into a shock and a long period of mourning after the Columbine shootings, where around dozen high school students were killed. But here, forty-two little children were just dismembered! Picture the red blood on the sharp white teeth of bears; the long claws slashing open their tender young bodies. Picture the pain on their faces. Think of the faces of your own children. What of the feelings of the 42 mothers, and the 42 fathers? Imagine what went through their minds when they first looked upon the torn bodies of their little children. Now imagine the outrage, the horror, if something like this happened today. It is practically unthinkable. One wonders why God would even create these children if he were going to destroy them in so violent a way.

But the Christian spin-doctors tell us that it's okay, and that I'm just taking this story "out of context". How dare I question these verses? How dare I even bring it up? But that is, after all, the job of the Christian apologist: to tell people like me that they've taken the horrible parts of the bible "out of context", and to contrive elaborate excuses explaining why the bible doesn't really mean what it says.

I must be taking it out of context, right? That's the only explanation, isn't it? God would never do something so heartless, so malevolent, would he?. Please, then, tell me what is the context? Read the verses before and after the ones above: read verses 23 and 25. How does the context lessen the horror that these verses convey? These lines shed no light on the atrocity-- they change nothing at all.

I would ask the Christian this: In what context does the slaughtering of children become acceptable? Is there any circumstance in which you can justify this act? If so, what is your definition of morality? How then is morality absolute? Does the bible continue to deserve the label of "The Good Book"? If you still think so, then read the passages to your 6 year old child as a bedtime story. Make no mistake-- 2nd Kings 2:23-24 describes an act of mass murder, perpetrated by God himself, and all the worse for being carried out on children.



The Living Bible translates the event using the words "a gang of young men". The Living Bible is a "feel good" bible which tries to soften up the scriptures. This instance is a good case in point. The Hebrew words "na'ar qatan" are used for "little children". The word used for "children" is na'ar, [5288], which the Strong's Concordance defines as: "(concretely) a boy from the age of infancy to adolescence...also, (by interchangeable of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age)". The word for "little" is qatan, [6996], which Strong's defines as "diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number), or figuratively (in age or importance)." What this means is that the Hebrew words used in the original bible verses, "na'ar qatan" absolutely, positively mean "little children". The writers of the Living Bible, in translating "na'ar qatan" as "young men" (and then further coloring the text using the derisive word "gang") are being dishonest. They're trying to take the edge off the story.

The truth is that this is a horrible story found in a horrible book-- one that you would never read to your children. It is a story that is never read aloud in church... a story that priests and ministers would just as well sweep under the carpet. They would get out their scissors and snip it out of every single bible, if they could.

But they can't. They're stuck with it. And to them, it doesn't matter. But this story serves to illustrate that the made-up God of the bible is a heartless monster, full of pride, and devoid of conscience and mercy. So strong is the power of belief, the desire for eternal reward, that Christians are willing to overlook this and the other atrocities in the bible. There is nothing too awful that they would doubt their religious beliefs. They try to twist logic and twist the text to turn this immoral act into a moral one, and to exonerate their God of the blame. Most people ignore this passage, or are unaware of it. It is my task to make sure they become aware of it.

We are told that God is a god of mercy, of compassion. Jesus said that we should strive to be perfect just as our Father in Heaven. But there certainly is no hint of compassion or mercy in this biblical story. It is a story more worthy of a demon, than of God. But they claim that our "human" concept of mercy and justice can't be compared with God's. Then what do those words mean? How can they continue to even say that God is merciful and just? Christians who use this excuse must cease calling God just and merciful, because they are using our "limited human vocabulary".

But before you claim the all-time cop-out phrase: "But that's the Old Testament", and thereby disown 90% of your "perfect Word", please read "But Thats The Old Testament".

According to the bible, isn't Jesus the one and only God? Did Jesus condemn any of his father's massacres? No, of course not. In Matt 5:48 he says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) I guess sending bears to tear apart 42 little children is "perfect" in Jesus' eyes. I think it's as far from perfect as Hitler.

In John 1:1, we read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In verse 14, we read: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." We are told explicitly that Jesus Christ IS THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT! But if you're a Christian, you probably already accept this. Therefore, by logical extension, you must also accept that it was Jesus Christ who sent two bears to chase down forty-two little kids and tear them limb from limb for just acting like kids. "What Would Jesus Do?"

So what does it all mean? It means that the loving God that Christians pretend to believe in is not the one portrayed in their own bible. Modern Christians have re-created the biblical God in their own, humanistic image. But of course they don't want to admit this. Killing children is wrong now, and it was wrong 2000 years ago. It is wrong if some deranged serial killer does it, and it is wrong in the pages of the bible. This kind of thinking is called moral consistency. They should try it sometime.

One more question for you to ponder, if you've gotten this far. As grisly as it is, I would like you to consider the situation one more time. Here it is: A representative of God is walking up a hill into a city, and he is mocked by little children-- and God slaughters 42 of them.

Under the same circumstances, what would a devil have done? Would he have done anything differently?

Think about that.

your hypothetical doesnt match the 2kings...do you see why

I think you should re-skim the post and then you will realize there is nothing that can justify having several LITTLE CHILDREN eaten alive by bears. This passage surely shows that the God of the bible is a just God .

wasnt little children..but eh...go ask a hebrew scholar...dont take my word for it...
The truth is there..if it doesnt fit your reality im not sure what to tell yah

It was little children. Try reading my post before commenting.

hahaha b/c the kjv says something it is correct? I am sorry but the kjv is wrong on this and on many other things..but like i tried to say many many times...The only "correct" version is the hebrew...and the hebrew says young men...but hey... believe a translation over the real thing...doesnt bother me

If you don't see anything wrong with this bible passage there is something seriously wrong with you.

oh, cool.. the bible says it's okay to commit mass murder for mocking baldness if they are young men. That's much, much better then.

Note to self, go bald, go to a college, wait for someone to make fun of my head, then shoot them.

and did elijah do anything in the verses?

If you read it then obviously the answer is he cursed them in God's name. God sent
out bears to committ the murders.

Hmm so these young men taunted Elijah...questioned God, there was a group of at least 42 of them...in a culture that advocated violence and you wonder what was to happen to them? Again words dont take into account the seriousness of the situation. Imagine 42 people surrounding you, taunting you, probably threatening you and taunting your God...Do you think Elijah just stood there? Do you think he didnt warn them? They mocked God and threatened His prophet...what is He supposed to do?

you guys all need therapy

He is supposed to have all 42 of the people killed so that one person can live.
Unless of course he was being taunted by LITTLE CHILDREN.

again u can believe it is little children if you want..doesnt particularly matter to me. I know what the hebrew says, I know what anybody who studies hebrew is going to tell u so you can believe it is little children but u will be wrong...good luck

Here's the lesson I get - I guess we ought to be careful when we taunt God and His prophets - young or old.

YEs and when u are surrounded by at least 42 people with a likelihood that you are gonna die...having God bail u out isnt such a bad deal

this is incorrect. They were mocking God and his prophet and got friggin SMITED!!! Here endth the lesson.

What a loving God!

Yes he saved his prophet. And im sorry God is loving but He is also a just God. You cannot screw up and then just hope He loves you enough. He destroyed whole cities. He showed many times that He would not let people do what they did...

But I guess he made an exception with Hitler. What a just God!

which prophet was Hitler threatening to kill again?

According to the bible God killed everyone execpt noah and a couple of his family members. Loving? Just? Of course not. Think about it.

Guys, he has pocket K's. No arguing with that unless you have pocket A's.

it hasn't been stated, but the obvious point of this thread is that the contradictory brutal nature of the christian god in the OT indicates that he is a man-made fabrication, and these OT stories are fables.






f uck jesus (eric cartman)

Hmm...sin isnt allowed on earth...those people were sinners...Noah tried to save them...warned them..begged them...THey decided what was best for them and they paid the price...not God's fault..He gave them warning

suggesting the genesis flood account is literal just undermines whatever credibility you have.

do you have more of that empirical proof to share with us? Frankly we dont know exactly what happened that far back..so it is quite wrong of you to suppose what did happen...good try though

I've never seen Matt so stumped before. These half-hearted rebuttles are very uncharacteristic.

Just admit that you're not sure. It's ok...that doesn't make you less of a good person.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/evolution/C...nism/flood.html
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/northrup.htm

As i skimmed through the websites i noticed 2 things. Mainly that they posed a lot of questions but no actual proof. The short answer is that there is a lot we still dont know happened with it. They posed good questions, but thats all they are, questions that we dont have all the answers to yet. As you know..it takes time to find the answers and we will find the answers

disproof posed in the form of questions is still disproof.



we know what didn't happen.

first statement doesnt make any sense. All that is posed are questions...we dont have all the answers yet...that answer works good when talkin about evolution but not with biblical situations?

we? Actually you dont know. You HOPE that the bible isnt true..but that doesnt mean it isnt

i'm out for the weekend. i'm sure everyone will appreciate the break from this intellectually kindergarten-level discussion.

haha...

I didnt read it

you didnt miss much

I believe he is suppose to take it sort of like Jesus and Steven took the taunting and threatening (and in the end killing).

Finally a sane response.

I don't know if thats suppose to be scarcastic or not.

I know this, most of us given the same situation of being surrounded and taunted probably would do the same thing as Elijah (even if we didn't say it, we would probably be thinking it).

But what we are suppose to do is turn the other cheek and its something most of us fail on every day.

I am not sure what I am to admit? That I dont understand all that God has done? Absolutely...Do I understand why things that have occurred had to be that way? Of course not. Another problem that I have had with answering these questions is that they come from people who dont want to actually listen to reason. zzz has it stuck in his head what he wants to believe is right and since he found verses that fit his own belief. He has just said to forget about the rest of the bible. I am more than open to having real discussions. But people like zzz dotn want to admit they are ever wrong and it is really not something i want to spend my time on. I have been tryin to keep the facts of the verses straight and to present the argument but I have attempted to avoid the issues that are just personal attacks or answers that are based off of bad info that wont listen to reason.

All i have tried to do so far is to say that:
1. They werent little children, At the age they were at they would have been old enough to do battle.
2. When surrounded by at least 42 of these people Elijah stood strong
3. God protected His servant. I am not sure what else you could expect from Him
4. A message was sent that Elijah was from God wasnt it?




Stephen didnt go quietly did he? Also we are talkin about 2 different time periods. One before the return of the Messiah and one after. Prophets were absolutely necessary before the coming of Jesus to predict such events. People needed to see the might of God before the coming of Jesus. This event with Elijah is not even what I consider his greatest feat.

Im no bible scholar by any means, but im just curious why the op brings up christianity when there wasnt any christians during the time kings was written?

Well it is the same God so that would be thier reasoning. You are very correct though that Jesus's coming changed things obviously. I mean when God comes to the earth you will see some changes.

More so I would like to point out that the NT is much more blunt with how evil will be dealt with then the OT.

Yes, we are talking about two periods of time, none the less my answer to your question of what Steven is suppose to do is correct. The thing you people must remember is that other than Jesus there were no perfect people, only those God favored. Considering the fact that in all probablity the youths in question did intend more than verbal assail Elijah, then I do consider the response by God justified (at the same time the story is troubling in my mind. There will always be troubling stories in the Bible)

But if asked did Elijah sined, the answer is yes he did (granted as most of us would have sined in the same spot).

He cant do that. He will jump up and down naked on a stack of rubber bibles pretending that he is actually versed in the Hebrew language and somehow actually has an intact usable facsimile of the original Hebrew text, and can sit down and leaf through it like it's as easy as a comic book.

He's either the most eduacated religous fanatic I have ever come across- and loaded too, that Hebrew bible must have cost an absolute fortune. Or, he just listens to what others tell him and repeats it, like the rest of the clones.

Good luck with that.

again with the personal attacks lois....Do I know Hebrew? no...but im not ignorant enough to think that the bible is word for word so I check out sources that do direct translations..I am sorry but ur precious kjv isnt a perfect translation and you are in fact wrong. Plus the much simplier fact that your "views" cause the bible to be a contradiction...but good luck

So you don't know Hebrew? Didn't think so. You don't have a Hebrew bible you can cross reference the KJV against? Didn't think so. So, in fact, you are just a clone, repeating what your teachers tell you.

Sad, man. Good luck with that.

This again makes no sense. I dont speak hebrew. That doesnt mean I dont have resources that translate for me? Do I use the KJV? nope I use a better modern edition. Why would i use a translation that used words relevant 500 years ago? The NASB is the best translation available...You might disagree but you will find that nobody will agree with you on this.

Do I repeat what I learn? of course. dont you? If somebody tells me something do I make them prove it to me? Of course..I would hope you do the same...Do I just blindly trust somebody..absolutely not. If I have made a point I have backed it up with scripture. You are free to disagree with me...but you wont find scripture to contradict me

Only problem is that you can't back it with scripture without twisting it unrecognizable.


You don't know Hebrew, and therefore have to trust a biased organization that has retranslated the bible to help fit there needs.

You are what every unbeliever talks about, and they have every reason to doubt you, because what you preach is grounded in man, noy God.

This comin from the guy who ONLY reads the KJV b/c its infalliable haha. I am sorry but the KJV has many mistakes. You cant even avoid contradicting yourself. No Lois...when i make a statement it is b/c the biblical and secular history both agree on it. Bc i take the time to do the research of what the world was like at that time. Why would somebody lie in a Hebrew translation? Anybody speaking hebrew woudl then contradict them and they woudl lose credibility. So nice try agian.

You make statements that are told you by someone else- your a clone, plain and simple.