Dan56

No, evil is the result of sin.. God is good and what He created was good.. But that all changed after the Garden of Eden, paradise was closed for business when sin introduced evil into a world that fell and was separated from good (God). "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) The nature of the insect world and everything else in nature was not part of the original creation. The fall of man affected everything, animals suffer the same fate as mankind, everything dies and suffers because of our disobedience to God. So my reply did not omit the second half of your comment, it including it in a general sense. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7). So the cruelty of nature persist at every level, the weather and everything else changed when mankind was separated from the Tree of Life (Christ).

These views have been my point, you can't believe something you hate... Evil is the result of sin, this isn't God's good creation, its the fallen world. First creation, then corruption, then the curse, which includes thorns, bristles, parasites, mutations, telemarketers, etc. We chose the knowledge of good & evil, suffering and death are the evil side of that equation.

Your godfather would be the walking definition of a hypocrite. As I wrote "its up to every individual to align themselves with his teachings and example". "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation" (Hebrews 10:26) For Christians, His Truth is the truth... And there is personal responsibility, we just aren't condemned for falling short.

Christ got it right, its up to every individual to align themselves with his teachings and example. Not understanding something does not condemn a person, nor does making mistakes. Denying Christ is what sinks your boat. Getting saved is not an intellectual test, its accepting his truth.

Christ said that he was the Truth, and there's only one version of that... What if I'm wrong? I'm no worse off... What if your wrong? Inquisitions were religious movements which may have invoked the name of Christ, but their actions demonstrated they weren't followers of Christ. So I agree, the justification of forcibly or violently cleansing or converting a society in the name of Christ is a complete distortion of his example and everything he taught. I also agree that Satan has and does attempt to contaminate the simple truth by defiling religion, its been his modus operandi from the beginning. As I've repeated, while faith cannot be confirmed via objectionable evidence, it's not completely blind either. The bible says the truth is spiritually discerned and offers prophetic evidence to substantiate divine inspiration. But it does boil down to a choice where belief is required. For myself, religious factions or denominations aren't all synonymous or representative of Christ, that realization was even observed by Christ with his assessment of the 7 churches in Revelation, where he was only satisfied with 2.

I'm aware its an interfaith board, but note that I'm only responding to a Christian topic.. I see no insults in my comment? The only thing denigrated here is my faith. Christianity is all about looking past the physical world, it offers hope of a spiritual afterlife. So it doesn't bother me that you don't believe it, but it is as you say, 100% my reality. I have considered everything else and rejected it. There just can't be 500 different truths, so I profess the one I've accepted and you can certainly defend whatever you believe.

Your reality is limited to this physical world, I simply believe there's more, and the spiritual reality is not something I hate, its something I cherish. If you love the only reality you can see, and your content with a few years of life followed by death, then I suppose you'll be happy, but that doesn't work for me.

The truth has no shades of gray, its not a baseless ideology, and faith can be rooted in facts.. But a closed-minded person won't see what's obvious to a believer, they are content to skim over the Word of God and reject it without any understanding or study of its depth. That's fine, but my faith is not baseless or blind, nor can it be disproven by science. What I encounter here is biblical illiteracy, those who have no answers of their own, but are content to condemn others who accept a truth that transcends what they've been taught. That's fine, but it almost seems as though your all more frustrated by you inability to disprove the bible, you simply have no facts, no evidence, and no proof. I can only encourage others to open their minds, put what you've been taught on a shelf, and consider the possibility that a truth beyond what you know exist. Chuck Missler has a 24 part series of Genesis, its a good place to try and re-adjust your thinking of what you think you know. Here are the first two; Chuck Missler Genesis Session 01 - YouTube Chuck Missler Genesis Session 02 - YouTube

Now you've got my number... If its not 100%, is not worth the paper its written on. Crazy is crazy, I'm sure they recognized it 2000 years ago.. Dr Spock didn't believe in corporal punishment and most liberals don't either.. I don't categorize all liberals to be of an identical mindset, but most share similar philosophical attitudes, e.g; anti-God, pro-abortion, big government, anti-death penalty, etc.. Look at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, not a ton of difference. That's not a criticism since most conservatives also share similar agenda's. If you disciplined your own children, your probably not as liberal as you think you are? It ranges from blue dog democrats, liberals, progressives, and socialist. I simply believe that punishment should fit the crime, but certainly don't advocate beating kids. I trust that God reacted to the young men who knowing mocked Elisha accordingly. It may have seemed too strict to you, but I'm guessing none of them ever mocked another prophet

Not everyone, but discipline does seem to evade most liberals, they tend not to see any necessity for it.. That's just another reason why they reject the biblical God.

I simply used a modern term to summarize the description of the son; "crazed = insane or wildly out of control". . Its not my scenario, its the bibles, so make of it as you will, I'm just saying what I think. I understand that most liberals don't believe in discipline, but God obviously doesn't agree with Dr Spock. "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them" (Proverbs 13:24).

Well, turning a crazed son out into the world is what we might do today, we read a lot about them shooting up schools, Walmart, etc.. But God didn't want an out-of-control young man disrupting His people. I suspect the problem would have been more than just disobedience. It describes an unbelieving kid who curses his parents, is stubborn, rebellious, and a drunk.. In the OT, breaking commandments was punished severely. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death" (Numbers 15:32-35). But in the New Testament we have Jesus recommending doing as you suggested, as told in The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15 11-24) .

I did not quote any of the verses you listed? What I did quote was correct; "Take ye him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." (John 19:6)

No contradictions, not confusing, and no inaccuracies proves the devil had nothing to do with it. The devil would work in those who can't believe the truth, by convincing them there are inaccuracies and contradictions where none exist. Its been his m.o. ever since deceiving Eve. Biblical truths can't really be disputed. Worldly wisdom is whats flawed, remember the words of Pilate; "Take him, and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." I'd agree that religion doesn't make people good, nor does it save anyone...People aren't good with or without religion.

It didn't require you to kill your own kid; "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And it requires more of an offense than just mocking your parents, it seems to refer to a rebellious drunken kid who is out of control and won't change even after being disciplined.

The whole point of a Hebrew to English concordance is to learn the definition of the Greek or Hebrew. You don't need to jump to inaccurate conclusions if you look-up a word.. I don't look at it the same way you do, if God inspired the writers, then what they wrote could not have been flawed. There are simply English words that don't always capture the meaning of what the Hebrew expresses. For instance, in many places where it says to "fear the Lord" it would be more accurately expressed as "revere the Lord".

God inspired the bible, He did not translate it into hundreds of different languages. There are not matching words for every Hebrew word, so the translators sought to find the best corresponding words. "Jealous" just means that God is passionate about faithfulness and exclusive worship. The Hebrew word in Exodus 34:14 is קַנָּא, "jealous" "qanna" Strong's Concordance. The Word "jealous" would mean passionately providing, passionately protecting. passionately polishing and promoting on to God's perfect desire and design. Its not a negative word, but corresponds more with the zeal or enthusiasm of a zealous God. Today, we define jealous as a negative emotion, but zealous to me reflects a God who is engaged in the ardent pursuit towards the salvation of souls.... So while we have the inerrant Word, its just takes a little effort to understand the meaning by double checking what the English is defining. There are simply some Hebrew words that don’t have any direct translation in English. God cared enough to give us the intellect to study His word instead of just skimming over it and jumping to inaccurate conclusions.. jmo

Jesus said that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, all other sins are forgivable. A nonbeliever is not a child of God, whereby they are not culpable of blasphemy, only a believer can be guilty of that. Mocking ones parents is not blasphemy, its simply breaking a law. But when a believer mocks God directly or indirectly, its blasphemy. The young people in the story knew Elisha was a prophet, so they were guilty. If they had been little kids or nonbelievers, the prophets response would have probably of been; "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". And by the way, your correct in that God didn't appreciate those who didn't honor their parents either; "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him" (Leviticus 20:9). As I've pointed out before, this passage presupposes that the children carry on with the iniquities of their fathers.. In such cases, the offenses would apply to the children to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th generations until it stopped. And as the following verse points out, it does not apply to those who don't follow the iniquities of their fathers, but keep God's commandments instead. "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20). And remember many moons aloft when RabbiO mentioned that "jealous" is better defined as "impassioned"

I agree that a child mocking or teasing their parents shouldn't have a dog tear into them as punishment.. But young Hebrew adults mocking their own prophet is tantamount to blasphemy against God. Its not a childish game or something done in ignorance, but a condemnation and a direct attempt to humiliate one of God's own anointed prophets. The punishment for that was death, but God probably let them off easy since they were young and foolish. Your all conflating little kids making fun of their parents with young adults blaspheming a servant of God, but they are completely different things. David had an opportunity to kill King Saul a couple of times, but he was forbidden because Saul was anointed by God. While kids poking fun at an adult isn't a big offense, denigrating a prophet is something that would provoke God's vengeance.

Its just the 'feeling' I get from these guys, it stems from the constant objections about a God who punishes disobedience. I don't believe they believe in discipline, or at least any form of corporal punishment. You answered your own question above, as you would consider interfering with a parent who 'taps' (not beats) a spoiled and out of control kid in a store in order to straighten them out because you thought they were being too strict.

You don't need to stay biblically illiterate, consider doing some research and looking it up yourself.. Perhaps you don't have a good Hebrew to English concordance? Learning sometimes requires a little effort; https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/802-2-kings-2-23-25-elisha-and-the-lads-of-bethel

Everyone judges the moral standards of others, I just don't believe I have a right to judge God's standards.. As I explained, The KJ and other bible versions have some translation errors where its necessary to transliterate what was being expressed in the original language. In this passage its logical to presume that "naar" is referencing young adults. Its not changing the words of the bible as much as getting an accurate definition of a word that has also been used in reference to young men. Blasphemy is; "The act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk". Sacred things would be specific to what God anointed for His purpose (prophets, kings, etc), this would exclude your average guy walking down the street. Consider for a moment that God does know more than you, whereby God does know better than us. The older boys or young men mocking the prophet were obviously Hebrew and had previous knowledge of Elijah's ascent into heaven, which is why they were teasing Elisha to do likewise.

In your extremely liberal mind-set, do you believe anyone should ever be accountable for anything? I get the feeling that if any of you guys ever saw a parent tap an unruly child on the rear-end for acting up in a store, you'd be on your cell phone in a second with 911 to report what you consider extreme abuse? "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." (Leviticus 24:16) .. So considering the law, those young men who were mauled got off easy.

True, if its a god/gods outside of my own realm of belief, then I'll be flat out of luck just like the rest of you

Few non-Christians ever believe the punishment fits the offense, but I just trust God's judgement.. I assume God is Just and knows all, so His judgement is also perfectly righteous. And blasphemy coming from those who know better is far greater than one child calling another names. Jesus said the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.. The story doesn't specify how many were ridiculing Elisha, only that 42 were mauled. I suspect the whole group was taking part, so I highly doubt there was anything indiscriminate about the punishment dished out.