Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Context

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 9:00:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Psalm 137:9 "Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock."

Preemptive response: rock is a metaphor for "pillow" and smashes means "lay gently" in old Greek. Gosh, you atheists and your flippant criticisms!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, people claim that context is king: if a person wants to understand the content of a passage, they have to understand the context first.

My problem with that overly-touted notion is that it doesn't work out in parallel. For example, people can understand a painting without having to first understand the framing. And since context is what frames the content, I'm fairly certain content can be appreciated for what it is without always having to take in a wider, contextual understanding.

My other problem with the "context" argument is that it is an ever-widening circle. So you read Psalm 137 in its entirety. Now you have the context for that small verse quoted above. But Psalm 137 comes within a wider context of other psalms, who come in a wider context of other books (e.g., Jeremiah, Lamentations, Isaiah, etc.). Eventually you end up just holding the entire canon up and saying "here's your f*cking context," and nothing is gained but a massive sense of confusion.

Sure, context is important. But it's hardly the king of interpretive efforts. It might warrant princely status at best.

In any case, content often speaks for itself, and any passage in scripture that considers it a blessed activity to commit such atrocities doesn't really need any further framing: it is simply monstrous, cruel, evil, and disgusting.

Anway, the video shows a brilliant rebuff to the Christian troglodytes who spit-out accusations of "context abuse."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 9:53:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 9:00:15 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Psalm 137:9 "Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock."

Preemptive response: rock is a metaphor for "pillow" and smashes means "lay gently" in old Greek. Gosh, you atheists and your flippant criticisms!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, people claim that context is king: if a person wants to understand the content of a passage, they have to understand the context first.

My problem with that overly-touted notion is that it doesn't work out in parallel. For example, people can understand a painting without having to first understand the framing. And since context is what frames the content, I'm fairly certain content can be appreciated for what it is without always having to take in a wider, contextual understanding.

My other problem with the "context" argument is that it is an ever-widening circle. So you read Psalm 137 in its entirety. Now you have the context for that small verse quoted above. But Psalm 137 comes within a wider context of other psalms, who come in a wider context of other books (e.g., Jeremiah, Lamentations, Isaiah, etc.). Eventually you end up just holding the entire canon up and saying "here's your f*cking context," and nothing is gained but a massive sense of confusion.

Sure, context is important. But it's hardly the king of interpretive efforts. It might warrant princely status at best.

In any case, content often speaks for itself, and any passage in scripture that considers it a blessed activity to commit such atrocities doesn't really need any further framing: it is simply monstrous, cruel, evil, and disgusting.

Anway, the video shows a brilliant rebuff to the Christian troglodytes who spit-out accusations of "context abuse."


according to the original Hebrew text it reads "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. "

Talk about not taking things out of context. For the record, the text in context reads;
"5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; {N}
if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy. Remember, O LORD, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem; {N}
who said: 'Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.' 8 O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; {N}
happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. {P}"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:04:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 9:00:15 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Psalm 137:9 "Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock."

Preemptive response: rock is a metaphor for "pillow" and smashes means "lay gently" in old Greek. Gosh, you atheists and your flippant criticisms!

As I'm sure you know, Psalms was not written in Greek.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:14:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:04:51 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/11/2013 9:00:15 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Psalm 137:9 "Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock."

Preemptive response: rock is a metaphor for "pillow" and smashes means "lay gently" in old Greek. Gosh, you atheists and your flippant criticisms!

As I'm sure you know, Psalms was not written in Greek.

I was making a joke. A typical response to anything in the Bible is "CONTEXT!!" and "Well, the original text, the Greek, the Aramaic says X."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 9:53:41 PM, DanT wrote:

according to the original Hebrew text it reads "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. "

That's the same idea.

Talk about not taking things out of context. For the record, the text in context reads;
"5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 6 Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; {N}
if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy. Remember, O LORD, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem; {N}
who said: 'Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.' 8 O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; {N}
happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock. {P}"

Complete the sentence: smashing children against rocks is okay in that context, because _________.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:18:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist,

Are you saying that the context of a sentence or statement does not have any bearing on the meaning of that sentence or statement?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Typhlochactas
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:54:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My understanding of that verse is that they're just cursing their enemies. It's like saying 'I want to kill you' or 'I hope you to go hell'. You don't actually mean those things, it's just a really severe and emotional response to another person's actions.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:13:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:18:56 PM, philochristos wrote:
Wallstreetatheist,

Are you saying that the context of a sentence or statement does not have any bearing on the meaning of that sentence or statement?

Read what I wrote about it!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:21:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:13:59 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/12/2013 2:18:56 PM, philochristos wrote:
Wallstreetatheist,

Are you saying that the context of a sentence or statement does not have any bearing on the meaning of that sentence or statement?

Read what I wrote about it!

I did, and that's what I got out of it. I'm asking you for a confirmation or a denial to make sure I understood you right.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I once got into a debate with some Catholics on the verse about God sending 2 bears to kill 40 children. Their defense was as follows: 1. The word they used in the bible could also be translated to mean people in their late teens... therefore they were clearly young adults, not children (which somehow makes it okay). 2. God made us, so he can do whatever he wants with us.

These were grown men in their 30's-50's.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:41:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I once got into a debate with some Catholics on the verse about God sending 2 bears to kill 40 children. Their defense was as follows: 1. The word they used in the bible could also be translated to mean people in their late teens... therefore they were clearly young adults, not children (which somehow makes it okay). 2. God made us, so he can do whatever he wants with us.

These were grown men in their 30's-50's.


It doesn't say 40 children, though even it did it wouldn't change anything. It also doesn't say the bear killed anyone, it says mauled, as in, they got their @sses kicked.

It also says 40 'of them'. which should imply to you that there were probably over a hundred youths. I've never seen that many 'children' come together simply to mock and chastise 1 man.

It seems more like a group of college kids protesting against a prohpet of God.. when they said "go on up baldy" it was in reference to his mentor Elijah, who went up on the chariot. They were mocking not just elisha, but God.

So God used a bear to set them straight. He could have killed them, and it would have been just, but instead he just scared the sh*t out of them.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How does a competent translator translate "lay gently" into smashes?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:27:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:52:16 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:41:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I once got into a debate with some Catholics on the verse about God sending 2 bears to kill 40 children. Their defense was as follows: 1. The word they used in the bible could also be translated to mean people in their late teens... therefore they were clearly young adults, not children (which somehow makes it okay). 2. God made us, so he can do whatever he wants with us.

These were grown men in their 30's-50's.


It doesn't say 40 children, though even it did it wouldn't change anything. It also doesn't say the bear killed anyone, it says mauled, as in, they got their @sses kicked.

It also says 40 'of them'. which should imply to you that there were probably over a hundred youths. I've never seen that many 'children' come together simply to mock and chastise 1 man.

It seems more like a group of college kids protesting against a prohpet of God.. when they said "go on up baldy" it was in reference to his mentor Elijah, who went up on the chariot. They were mocking not just elisha, but God.

So God used a bear to set them straight. He could have killed them, and it would have been just, but instead he just scared the sh*t out of them.

Wanna debate about it?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:27:53 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:52:16 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:41:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I once got into a debate with some Catholics on the verse about God sending 2 bears to kill 40 children. Their defense was as follows: 1. The word they used in the bible could also be translated to mean people in their late teens... therefore they were clearly young adults, not children (which somehow makes it okay). 2. God made us, so he can do whatever he wants with us.

These were grown men in their 30's-50's.


It doesn't say 40 children, though even it did it wouldn't change anything. It also doesn't say the bear killed anyone, it says mauled, as in, they got their @sses kicked.

It also says 40 'of them'. which should imply to you that there were probably over a hundred youths. I've never seen that many 'children' come together simply to mock and chastise 1 man.

It seems more like a group of college kids protesting against a prohpet of God.. when they said "go on up baldy" it was in reference to his mentor Elijah, who went up on the chariot. They were mocking not just elisha, but God.

So God used a bear to set them straight. He could have killed them, and it would have been just, but instead he just scared the sh*t out of them.

Wanna debate about it?

Debate what?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is it that atheists are so obsessed with religion, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 8:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Why is it that theists are so obsessed with science, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 10:19:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Why is it that atheists are so obsessed with religion, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?

I don't think that's fair. Nobody here looks like a fanatic to me -- unless you're talking about me, but I'm not exactly an atheist.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 10:23:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 6:35:58 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 4:27:53 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:52:16 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:41:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I once got into a debate with some Catholics on the verse about God sending 2 bears to kill 40 children. Their defense was as follows: 1. The word they used in the bible could also be translated to mean people in their late teens... therefore they were clearly young adults, not children (which somehow makes it okay). 2. God made us, so he can do whatever he wants with us.

These were grown men in their 30's-50's.


It doesn't say 40 children, though even it did it wouldn't change anything. It also doesn't say the bear killed anyone, it says mauled, as in, they got their @sses kicked.

It also says 40 'of them'. which should imply to you that there were probably over a hundred youths. I've never seen that many 'children' come together simply to mock and chastise 1 man.

It seems more like a group of college kids protesting against a prohpet of God.. when they said "go on up baldy" it was in reference to his mentor Elijah, who went up on the chariot. They were mocking not just elisha, but God.

So God used a bear to set them straight. He could have killed them, and it would have been just, but instead he just scared the sh*t out of them.

Wanna debate about it?

Debate what?

On the implications of this verse and whether it was the moral thing to do or not. However, having thought over it (and I don't mean this in a mocking or belittling way whatsoever), I'd rather not debate someone with your ELO.

I'll just post my response in this thread probably some time tomorrow.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 10:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Why is it that atheists are so obsessed with religion, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?

Wallstreetatheist is not an atheist...
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 10:39:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 9:00:15 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

My problem with that overly-touted notion is that it doesn't work out in parallel. For example, people can understand a painting without having to first understand the framing. And since context is what frames the content, I'm fairly certain content can be appreciated for what it is without always having to take in a wider, contextual understanding.

What do you mean by that? If you mean literally "frame" as in the noun, that has nothing to do with the "context" of the painting.

The context of the painting is the artists circumstance, what's going on in their world socially, politically, personally. You clearly don't know art if you think that doesn't matter.
yang.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 5:41:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'I Hve Prepared my anus' - Wallstreetatheist

He was obviously preparing to have gay sex. There's no way that theory can be disproved.

And don't give me any nonsense about 'not being serious' or 'context' to try to explain this away. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who's not a story book wallstreetatheist dupe.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 5:46:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Why is it that atheists are so obsessed with religion, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?

I think this is why...

Huston Smith, one of our foremost scholars and interpreters of the world"s religions, says that "There are really two dogmatic fundamentalisms in America today. Dogmatic secular modernity came first and produced conservative religious fundamentalism as a reaction to it."

I find that more than just interesting as I do in fact see two groups of extremist posters here that taken by themselves, are inexplicable within the context of their respective positions and which do in fact represent these two "polar opposite" categories of one and the same extremism that Huston Smith is describing here. On one side of this polarity is an excessively dogmatic secular modernism that doesn"t appear to be true to science, and on the other side of the coin, it is opposed by a dogmatic religious fundamentalism that doesn"t appear to be true to Jesus.

Maybe Huston Smith is providing the key to understanding here, to say that "opposites" are "polar" is to say much more than they are opposed or separated; it is to say that they constitute a whole. There is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described. Polar opposites don"t even exist without each other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can"t have the one without the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same thing. Such extremists are closer together than either of them is with the reasonable, middle view.

This would certainly explain why there are more similarities than differences between the posts of Wallstreetatheist and a Dogknox for instance, they only appear to be opposites but are in fact inseparable opposites; they constitute a whole. Seen as mirror images of one and the same extremist, they are not mutually exclusive at all; in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature.

I think of them like the dog barking at his inverted mirror image.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 4:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:52:16 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:41:35 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
I once got into a debate with some Catholics on the verse about God sending 2 bears to kill 40 children. Their defense was as follows: 1. The word they used in the bible could also be translated to mean people in their late teens... therefore they were clearly young adults, not children (which somehow makes it okay). 2. God made us, so he can do whatever he wants with us.

These were grown men in their 30's-50's.


It doesn't say 40 children, though even it did it wouldn't change anything. It also doesn't say the bear killed anyone, it says mauled, as in, they got their @sses kicked.

It also says 40 'of them'. which should imply to you that there were probably over a hundred youths. I've never seen that many 'children' come together simply to mock and chastise 1 man.

It seems more like a group of college kids protesting against a prohpet of God.. when they said "go on up baldy" it was in reference to his mentor Elijah, who went up on the chariot. They were mocking not just elisha, but God.

So God used a bear to set them straight. He could have killed them, and it would have been just, but instead he just scared the sh*t out of them.

First off, the original hebrew word being used is used in the context of splitting open, breaking through, tearing apart, cleave asunder, divide etc. Its safe to say that the ones that did survive, didnt survive for long.

But even if we ignore that, even if ignore the proper hebrew use of that word and go with your absurd notion, i dont think you understand what the word "Mauled" means, if you seriously think that all the "college kids" got were the sh*t scared out of them.

Secondly, who cares if its a group of children or college kids or even grown adults. Its never okay to kill or hurt someone just because they used words to hurt you, and only one time for that matter.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 5:03:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Why is it that atheists are so obsessed with religion, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?

Care to expand on that point? or are you just making baseless accusations.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2013 10:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 4:59:01 PM, tkubok wrote:
First off, the original hebrew word being used is used in the context of splitting open, breaking through, tearing apart, cleave asunder, divide etc. Its safe to say that the ones that did survive, didnt survive for long.

Lol, there is no lexicon that translates mauled to mean what you just posted, and there just as many versions that translate the word to 'mauled' vs 'tare' (which is what you were posting the definition of).

If the author wanted to say that the bear killed these people, then there are a number of other words he could have used.. besides, can you imagine 2 bears killing 42 people? After the first person was killed I imagine the rest would have scattered rather quickly.

But even if we ignore that, even if ignore the proper hebrew use of that word and go with your absurd notion, i dont think you understand what the word "Mauled" means, if you seriously think that all the "college kids" got were the sh*t scared out of them.

You mean even if we ignore the obvious inclination of injury VS death. But, I will make a correction, this large group of people would more similar to a mob or gang then college students. After-all, who gathers at least 50 people just to torment one man?

Besides the point i guess (lol). They probably sustained some flesh wounds, along with the having to throw out a pair of under ware.

Secondly, who cares if its a group of children or college kids or even grown adults. Its never okay to kill or hurt someone just because they used words to hurt you, and only one time for that matter.

As humans, it's never okay to murder because of chastisement; no matter how severe. To hurt is another story. While there are times to avoid physical conflict, if you are gonna tell me you'd simply 'tell off' a mob of people tormenting an old man you're just a coward.

There is no use in explaining the severity of what they did, because you don't respect God anyways; but i assure you, the punishment fit the crime in my opinion-- it's odd God wasn't harsher.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 3:09:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 8:29:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/12/2013 7:54:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Why is it that theists are so obsessed with science, yet know so little about it they come out looking like fanatics themselves?

Science isn't the opposite of religion, rationalism is. Rationalism does subsume science though.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 7:32:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/15/2013 10:19:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/15/2013 4:59:01 PM, tkubok wrote:
First off, the original hebrew word being used is used in the context of splitting open, breaking through, tearing apart, cleave asunder, divide etc. Its safe to say that the ones that did survive, didnt survive for long.

Lol, there is no lexicon that translates mauled to mean what you just posted, and there just as many versions that translate the word to 'mauled' vs 'tare' (which is what you were posting the definition of).
Actually, yes there is, especially when you take a look at where the same hebrew word is used at in other verses.

Gen 22:3
"And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his @ss, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him."

Num 16:31
"And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them:"

2 Sam 23:16
"And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that [was] by the gate, and took [it], and brought [it] to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD."

If the author wanted to say that the bear killed these people, then there are a number of other words he could have used.. besides, can you imagine 2 bears killing 42 people? After the first person was killed I imagine the rest would have scattered rather quickly.

Yes, the author couldve used any word, such as the word MAULED.

http://www.geekosystem.com...
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca...

Were these people simply scared by a bear?

You mean even if we ignore the obvious inclination of injury VS death. But, I will make a correction, this large group of people would more similar to a mob or gang then college students. After-all, who gathers at least 50 people just to torment one man?

Well, it wasnt 50, it was 42. And yes, it was a mob or gang of young children. And we are talking about the 5th century bc, meaning that even a decent injury could result in death, especially if the injured were poor.

Besides the point i guess (lol). They probably sustained some flesh wounds, along with the having to throw out a pair of under ware.

Sure. But are you telling me it is impossible for even one of them to die from that flesh wound?

Secondly, who cares if its a group of children or college kids or even grown adults. Its never okay to kill or hurt someone just because they used words to hurt you, and only one time for that matter.

As humans, it's never okay to murder because of chastisement; no matter how severe. To hurt is another story. While there are times to avoid physical conflict, if you are gonna tell me you'd simply 'tell off' a mob of people tormenting an old man you're just a coward.

So youre saying that most of our laws regarding physical assault, is wrong?

Also, yeah, name calling, what a torment. I remember how i punched a kid for calling me names too. Oh wait, that never happened, because id be arrested for assault. I sure wish i lived near you, so i can smack your head with a baseball bat from behind. And, by your logic, you would have to be okay with it.

There is no use in explaining the severity of what they did, because you don't respect God anyways; but i assure you, the punishment fit the crime in my opinion-- it's odd God wasn't harsher.

Yeah, i dont respect God, because i dont believe he exists. And theres no use in explaining the severity of the punishment, because you believe that whatever God does, no matter how evil it may seem to us, is okay. Your morals are twisted beyond repair, and its useless to tell someone who believes that its okay to commit atrocities as long as God tells you to do it.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2013 6:21:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 7:32:02 AM, tkubok wrote:
Actually, yes there is, especially when you take a look at where the same hebrew word is used at in other verses.

Like I said, there is nothing that translates 'mauled' to mean what you are defining. The word used in those passages is 'tare/tore'. We're talking about 'mauled'.

Yes, the author couldve used any word, such as the word MAULED.

http://www.geekosystem.com...
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca...

Were these people simply scared by a bear?

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the hebrew meaning of 'mauled', not an internet bloggers use of the word.

Either way, mauled is still defined:

to injure by a rough beating, shoving, or the like; bruise: to be mauled by an angry crowd.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

-or-

1. to handle clumsily; paw
2. to batter or lacerate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

While these can result in death, the word being used was to merely express a beating, or attack by an animal-- not to specify that they were ripped to shreds.

Well, it wasnt 50, it was 42. And yes, it was a mob or gang of young children. And we are talking about the 5th century bc, meaning that even a decent injury could result in death, especially if the injured were poor.

It wasn't 50 who were mauled, but it was 42 of them; as in 42 was a portion of the people there. Here you go again with the 'young children'... The word used in those passages is used in quite a few other scriptures to describe men as old as 30; soldiers actually.

neurim qetannim

This means young men, which did include people up to the age of 30. Like I said before, even if it were children, they got what they deserved. The reason I even bother disputing them being children, isn't because that would result in the act being immoral, but simply because thats not what it says.

If you use a little bit of logic, you would see, it doesn't make any sense for a group of children that size to form, solely to chastise and ridicule a figure whom these children would have little knowledge of, and little purpose in tormenting.

Men of the ages of 20-30 however, would know all about Elishas mentor (Elijah), what he did, and whom he served; a God they despise.

Elijah had just died, and this poor man was mourning his death.. so these SoB's decided to drive him out, mocking God, Elijah, and himself; they hated this man. If you know anything about scripture, you'll know that hatred of another person is as bad as murder to God. (1 John 3:15)

Besides the point i guess (lol). They probably sustained some flesh wounds, along with the having to throw out a pair of under ware.

Sure. But are you telling me it is impossible for even one of them to die from that flesh wound?

Not at all, I'm sure a few died.

So youre saying that most of our laws regarding physical assault, is wrong?

The laws are different all over the country my friend, but yes, I think they're wrong.

Also, yeah, name calling, what a torment. I remember how i punched a kid for calling me names too. Oh wait, that never happened, because id be arrested for assault.

How dramatic you are. Like I said, there are circumstances for action, and 'name calling' isn't all a person can do verbally. If anyone called my daughter a 'slut' or 'whore' I would deck them in the mouth.

If someone decides to shout obscenities at me, within a certain range of my face, he will get put on his a**. This I've done on mny occasions throughout my life.. I've never been arrested for assault.

I sure wish i lived near you, so i can smack your head with a baseball bat from behind. And, by your logic, you would have to be okay with it.

lol what??

Yeah, i dont respect God, because i dont believe he exists. And theres no use in explaining the severity of the punishment, because you believe that whatever God does, no matter how evil it may seem to us, is okay. Your morals are twisted beyond repair, and its useless to tell someone who believes that its okay to commit atrocities as long as God tells you to do it.

How can anything seem evil to you if you don't believe in God? Evil is just something that's unappealing to you; it has no objective value.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest hearing you say such things, and it really means nothing. I've never harmed anyone in the name of God, i've never had God tell me to do anything to anyone.

But, I have stood up to people who enjoy tormenring the weak, or elderly. If you have a problem with that, then it's you who's morality is twisted, not mine.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 10:43:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/16/2013 6:21:32 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/16/2013 7:32:02 AM, tkubok wrote:
Actually, yes there is, especially when you take a look at where the same hebrew word is used at in other verses.

Like I said, there is nothing that translates 'mauled' to mean what you are defining. The word used in those passages is 'tare/tore'. We're talking about 'mauled'.

No, the root of the word means "tare/tore". The root being baqa. But ill get to more of this, later.

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the hebrew meaning of 'mauled', not an internet bloggers use of the word.

Either way, mauled is still defined:

to injure by a rough beating, shoving, or the like; bruise: to be mauled by an angry crowd.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

-or-

1. to handle clumsily; paw
2. to batter or lacerate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

While these can result in death, the word being used was to merely express a beating, or attack by an animal-- not to specify that they were ripped to shreds.

Oh God no. You have no idea how deep youve dug your own hole.

First off, let me re-quote what you said:

It also doesn't say the bear killed anyone, it says mauled, as in, they got their @sses kicked.

With that in mind, lets continue.

I never said they were ripped to shreds. But guess what? A lasceration is a serious injury. You dont have to be ripped to shreds by a bear to die. Even a good slash across your chest is enough to kill most people within a good hour or so from bleeding out, not to mention your body going into shock and dying.

Clearly your argument of "It doesnt say the bear killed anyone" is utterly full of anal crock.


Well, it wasnt 50, it was 42. And yes, it was a mob or gang of young children. And we are talking about the 5th century bc, meaning that even a decent injury could result in death, especially if the injured were poor.

It wasn't 50 who were mauled, but it was 42 of them; as in 42 was a portion of the people there. Here you go again with the 'young children'... The word used in those passages is used in quite a few other scriptures to describe men as old as 30; soldiers actually.

neurim qetannim

This means young men, which did include people up to the age of 30. Like I said before, even if it were children, they got what they deserved. The reason I even bother disputing them being children, isn't because that would result in the act being immoral, but simply because thats not what it says.

If you use a little bit of logic, you would see, it doesn't make any sense for a group of children that size to form, solely to chastise and ridicule a figure whom these children would have little knowledge of, and little purpose in tormenting.

Oh god no.

First off, the word you want is ONLY Neurim. Qetannim, or qatan, means "little, small, younger or insignificant, less", and in all other instances of the word Neurim, or Na'ar, being used to describe men, soldiers, etc, is used WITHOUT the word qatan(1 kings 20 for example). However, in 2 kings 2, the word being used is Na'ar Qatan, or Neurim qetannim, therefore what you say is not true.

Secondly, the next verse only disproves your argument. The word used to describe the 42, is yeladim, or yeled, which is used as both to describe youth AND children, young, little children, as shown in verses such as Zechariah 8:5(which clearly can mean nothing other than little children).

Im not saying that you cannot interpret it to say "Young people", but your claim that "Thats not what it says" is blatantly false.

I am so sick and tired of christians using this argument when they havent even researched it out.

If you use a little bit of logic, you would see, it doesn't make any sense for a group of children that size to form, solely to chastise and ridicule a figure whom these children would have little knowledge of, and little purpose in tormenting.

This one deserves its own response.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Children torment and ridicule other people all the time.
Go look at the video I posted. Im sure youre aware of that. Even AFTER the woman started crying, these children didnt care. Children can be especially mean and do things for no reason other than to torment and get a cheap laugh out of it.

Besides the point i guess (lol). They probably sustained some flesh wounds, along with the having to throw out a pair of under ware.

Sure. But are you telling me it is impossible for even one of them to die from that flesh wound?

Not at all, I'm sure a few died.

So youre saying that most of our laws regarding physical assault, is wrong?

The laws are different all over the country my friend, but yes, I think they're wrong.

So youre saying that in some countries, there are no laws regarding physical assault? Really. Are these countries 3rd world countries by any chance?

Also, yeah, name calling, what a torment. I remember how i punched a kid for calling me names too. Oh wait, that never happened, because id be arrested for assault.

How dramatic you are. Like I said, there are circumstances for action, and 'name calling' isn't all a person can do verbally. If anyone called my daughter a 'slut' or 'whore' I would deck them in the mouth.

If someone decides to shout obscenities at me, within a certain range of my face, he will get put on his a**. This I've done on mny occasions throughout my life.. I've never been arrested for assault.

Cool story bro, you do it to me and I gauruntee you will.

But let me ask you this.

If someone died because you beat him up too badly that he died from his injuries, would you agree that you should be punished?


I sure wish i lived near you, so i can smack your head with a baseball bat from behind. And, by your logic, you would have to be okay with it.

lol what??

If someone called you an idiot, would that be justification, in your mind, to punch someone in the face, repeatedly?

Yeah, i dont respect God, because i dont believe he exists. And theres no use in explaining the severity of the punishment, because you believe that whatever God does, no matter how evil it may seem to us, is okay. Your morals are twisted beyond repair, and its useless to tell someone who believes that its okay to commit atrocities as long as God tells you to do it.

How can anything seem evil to you if you don't believe in God? Evil is just something that's unappealing to you; it has no objective value.

Ditto to you. If God asks you to kill your first born child, you would have to do it, and willingly, and would have to think it was just and good, and not evil at all.

The problem here is that both our morals are based on an authority figure, mine being society and yours being God. Nothing prevents God from changing his mind. But there isnt a single person in any country that isnt a third world country, that allows a single person to change laws on a whim.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest hearing you say such things, and it really means nothing. I've never harmed anyone in the name of God, i've never had God tell me to do anything to anyone.

But, I have stood up to people who enjoy tormenring the weak, or elderly. If you have a problem with that, then it's you who's morality is twisted, not mine.

I have no problem with standing up to people who enjoy tormenting the weak or elderly. What I have a problem with, is killing someone who was tormenting someone else. And I will replay one of your responses here:

Not at all, I'm sure a few died.

Thats like me asking you whether some of the people you punched and assaulted after calling you names, died from their injuri