God's attitude towards science and progress

[iouae]

From the link I posted above:

First of all, the word used in the original language is the word for "young men," not "children."

Second, 42 out of a larger group of these young men were killed.

Third, well, you'll need to read the link above for the rest.

Sorry, there is no link except the scripture.

The KJV translates Strong's H3206 in the following manner: child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
child, son, boy, offspring, youth
child, son, boy
child, children
descendants
youth
apostate Israelites (fig.)

These were young children.

How does it make a difference if they were under 10 or above 10?

How is this act of Elisha/God, "conducive to life"?

 

[iouae]

Let's take another example - Samson's strength. It was clearly from the Lord, since God could just take it away.

Samson abused that superpower to commit adultery. But God still enabled Samson till God's patience with Samson ran out.

I would say Samson's strength was used "conducive to the life" of Israel since Samson judged Israel and delivered them from the Philistines. Thus, overall, Samson used his strength for "good" even though God enabled Samson when Samson was going against God's will.

I think this has relevance to Elisha.

 

[iouae]

Every man of God is an imperfect instrument.

David was not conducive to Uriah's life, but David was conducive to Israel's life, by killing Philistines.

God supports imperfect, human instruments even at times when they are acting not conducive to life, because God is a loyal, faithful Friend. God works with us to bring us back to being conducive to life.

 

[iouae]

You should read this:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html

It explains, quite well, actually, what happened and why, and is a response to your subtle accusation of God.

OK I found your link, and it was pretty good.

I fail to see my "subtle accusation of God" in "I would like to get some ideas as to why God chose to have this story in the Bible."

So why did God choose to have this story in the Bible?

Should we do as Elisha did and curse folks, for instance?

Is what is good for an OT man of God, good for a NT man of God?

Is it the will of God and conducive to life for us Christians to curse others?

 

[glorydaz]

I gave you support, but you never quoted it in your reply.

They both end up as holy, spirit beings.

What is the difference between you when you are glorified, and Gabriel say?

I am a human being made in the image of God.

When I am resurrected, I won't be a spirit being, I will be a human being with a resurrected body.

 

[iouae]

I would like to get some ideas as to why God chose to have this story in the Bible.

2Ki 2:23
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.
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.
And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria

1. There are many things which Elisha or Christ did which are not recorded in the Bible.
2. If a story is in the Bible, it is for us to learn something from it
3. It tells us something about God.
4. I personally have no problem with anything God does, since what God wills is good.
5. God's servants are imperfect, and this may not be the perfect way to deal with little children.
6. They were little children.
7. In my city, there are street kids who smoke glue and a few of them can be life threatening.
8. Thus I don't care if they were under 10 or not.
9. Christ is the gold standard and He never cursed anyone.
10. Christ rebuked his disciples when they wanted to call fire down on Samaritans, telling them that they did not know what spirit that idea came from, meaning Satan.
11. God backs up His servants when they are going about His business, even when His servants act imperfectly.
12. Elisha looked back on the kids and cursed them. Elisha had already escaped them.
13. Elisha may have been traumatised by the kids mobbing him, but it seems all they did was disrespect him.
14. It is possible they recognised Elisha as a servant of YHWH and were persecuting him for that, and taunting him to "go up" like they knew Elijah had done.
15. I have no problem with God killing evil little children. I would have a problem with man doing it.
16. After all, there are more children where they come from.
17. Many miracles in the Bible are done when servants of God are about God's business. Preachers mistakenly think these miracles are promised to Christians living their everyday lives.
18. God sometimes acts in the heat of the moment, and sometimes does less than perfect things. For instance, after going to a lot of trouble taking Israel out of Egypt, God wanted to wipe them out and make a nation from Moses. Moses talked God out of it.
19. We know that Christ loves little children and tells us to be like innocent, little children. Some children, though little, are not innocent, and may actually be ruined for life. Maybe the ones mobbing Elisha were such.
20. The value which humans have is the value which God assigns them. God assigned a lot of value to Elisha, and little value to the children in this case.
21. Even if the little children were mauled to death, God has power over life, and has the power to bless these children in the future. God said it would be more tolerable for Sodom than Capernahum in the judgement, showing that God has a time to bless Sodom. Likewise God could raise and bless these children at a time in the future, when He raises and blesses Sodom.
22. I could be wrong about some points above, but I personally prefer it when folks have an opinion that is wrong, than no opinion except that everyone else's opinions are wrong - what I call the journalist approach.

 

[iouae]

I am a human being made in the image of God.

When I am resurrected, I won't be a spirit being, I will be a human being with a resurrected body.

Then you clearly need to read this...

1Co 15:42
¶
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

 

[6days]

I would like to get some ideas as to why God chose to have this story in the Bible.

2Ki 2:23
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.
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.

Are you questioning if God is justified in judging "LITTLE" children? (That is the word you highlighted).


A good place to start in studying that verse is compare various translations and read a few online commentaries. You could also use Strings Concordance and do a bit of exegetical study on how the words are used elsewhere in scripture.

Other translations use phrases like...

* some youths

* young men

* young boys

* young lads.... and other terms.


How old were these 'kid's? 17? We don't know, but they were old enough to leave the city. The "little" children were apparently old enough to seek out a man of God, with the purpose of taunting him. Would these kids have been old enough to be accountable for their actions? Of course. Is God justified in taking a life? We don't even need ask that question. God is 'just'... God is righteous...His ways are perfect.

 

[Clete]

Are you maybe suggesting that God is love/good, and that love/good is to voluntarily do that which is conducive to life, such as your wife voluntarily making you toast?

Yes, vowels. When my wife does little things for me, it blesses me, it makes my life better, it improves it, enriches it. It causes me to want to get up in the morning and live my life in a productive manner so as to be able to bless her in return as well as the thousands of other benefits a productive life has on not just my family but on everyone within the sphere of my influence and indeed the whole society in which I live.

JR did a fine job of responding to your other stupidity. And I call it stupidity for a reason. You seem unable to think past the tip of your nose. You cannot understand how even the smallest of things in a close personal relationship might have large effects on a person's life. You think that God using nature to defeat His enemies somehow doesn't further His cause. You seem to have no ability at all to understand small things within the context of the bigger picture. That's as good a definition of stupidity that I can think of. Not to mention the fact that I had to tell you at least four or five times what the bible defines as what is good and evil before you even believed that I had offered a definition at all. And now we are back full circle to you tacitly accusing God of murder in order to argue against the very definition that God Himself gives for right and wrong. Unbelievable.


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


Looking back through this thread, I'd say there has to be six to eight times the material that Vowels here didn't respond to than what he did. And that's assuming that he even bothered to read it in the first place, which I have reason to doubt after these last few posts. Why do I waste so much of my time on this website? It helps to keep this material fresh in my mind and I know that some here read and appreciate my posts but it's really a lot of time I spend for what seems like next to no return on that time investment. These idiots like Vowels just are not worth the time and effort. Has there ever been one of them that was moved an inch off their mindlessly ridiculous positions? I mean, read some of the complete lunatic nonsense this weirdo believes! What in the world am I doing even wasting one second on such mindless heretics?

Clete

 

[iouae]

Yes, vowels. When my wife does little things for me, it blesses me, it makes my life better, it improves it, enriches it. It causes me to want to get up in the morning and live my life in a productive manner so as to be able to bless her in return as well as the thousands of other benefits a productive life has on not just my family but on everyone within the sphere of my influence and indeed the whole society in which I live.

JR did a fine job of responding to your other stupidity. And I call it stupidity for a reason. You seem unable to think past the tip of your nose. You cannot understand how even the smallest of things in a close personal relationship might have large effects on a person's life. You think that God using nature to defeat His enemies somehow doesn't further His cause. You seem to have no ability at all to understand small things within the context of the bigger picture. That's as good a definition of stupidity that I can think of. Not to mention the fact that I had to tell you at least four or five times what the bible defines as what is good and evil before you even believed that I had offered a definition at all. And now we are back full circle to you tacitly accusing God of murder in order to argue against the very definition that God Himself gives for right and wrong. Unbelievable.


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


Looking back through this thread, I'd say there has to be six to eight times the material that Vowels here didn't respond to than what he did. And that's assuming that he even bothered to read it in the first place, which I have reason to doubt after these last few posts. Why do I waste so much of my time on this website? It helps to keep this material fresh in my mind and I know that some here read and appreciate my posts but it's really a lot of time I spend for what seems like next to no return on that time investment. These idiots like Vowels just are not worth the time and effort. Has there ever been one of them that was moved an inch off their mindlessly ridiculous positions? I mean, read some of the complete lunatic nonsense this weirdo believes! What in the world am I doing even wasting one second on such mindless heretics?

Clete

I think I broke Clete.

And all I did was ask him for a definition of how God is "good".

First Clete said God was "logical".

Then Clete said God was conducive to life. I did not like this because "survival of the fittest" is also conducive to life.

I was trying to suggest a better definition to Clete that "good" = "love". So God = good = love.

My preferred definition of God being "good" is that "whatever God does, is, (by definition) "good"". But surely we could both agree God=good=love.

Clete assumed that by my saying "whatever God wills is good by definition" that I was suggesting God could do evil and get away with it.

Clete further assumed that I somehow believe God does evil and gets away with it, because I post cases where God sends she-bears to tear up little children.

But I don't think that she-bears mauling little children is bad in the context, and who am I to judge God? I just want to learn from that story whatever it is to learn.

6days comes back from a long vacation and basically agrees with me saying "Is God justified in taking a life? We don't even need ask that question. God is 'just'... God is righteous...His ways are perfect." Which is another way of saying "whatever God does, is, (by definition) "good"".

I say that not only is "good" whatever God wills, but whatever God wills always turns out to be "good" because God is inherently good.

But, it took so much investment of Clete's time to get to understand that last sentence, that now he sounds broken.

I blame JR since he was the one who called you to this thread. Send him your psychiatric bills.

But seriously, thanks for the discussion Clete. I enjoyed it, and I am sure your fan club enjoyed you humiliating me too

 

[iouae]

Are you questioning if God is justified in judging "LITTLE" children? (That is the word you highlighted).


A good place to start in studying that verse is compare various translations and read a few online commentaries. You could also use Strings Concordance and do a bit of exegetical study on how the words are used elsewhere in scripture.

Other translations use phrases like...

* some youths

* young men

* young boys

* young lads.... and other terms.


How old were these 'kid's? 17? We don't know, but they were old enough to leave the city. The "little" children were apparently old enough to seek out a man of God, with the purpose of taunting him. Would these kids have been old enough to be accountable for their actions? Of course. Is God justified in taking a life? We don't even need ask that question. God is 'just'... God is righteous...His ways are perfect.

6days, I have been saying repeatedly that I have no problem with what God does, because what God wills, IS, by definition "good". There is no other possible definition of "good".

From what you wrote you seem to be agreeing with me.
In #286 I gave a somewhat longer explanation of why God may have sent the she-bears to tear the little children, which I take it you read.

 

[Wick Stick]

Then you clearly need to read this...

1Co 15:42
¶
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

A spiritual body, is still a body.

Deep, huh?

 

[Stripe]

I think I broke Clete.

:darwinsm:

 

[Stripe]

What God wills, IS, by definition "good". There is no other possible definition of "good".

That's not a definition, that's a description.

And it fails.

For example, a man can choose to do good.

A workable definition of good is: That which does not conflict with God's standards.

But we don't expect you to be able to work effectively with that, as you are yet to retract OP.

 

[iouae]

A spiritual body, is still a body.

Deep, huh?

Since Glorydaz could not answer it, you give it a go.

What is the difference between us and the angels in the future? How will our glorified spirit bodies differ from that of the angels?

And if God had so chosen, we could have been made, as the angels were, without Christ having to die.

Obviously, because God is "good" there is a "good" way of doing things, and then there is a "better" way of doing things, and God chose the harder but better route of sending His beloved Son to die, to save us.

But that might be a little too deep for some.

 

[iouae]

That's not a definition, that's a description.

And it fails.

For example, a man can choose to do good.

A workable definition of good is: That which does not conflict with God's standards.

But we don't expect you to be able to work effectively with that, as you are yet to retract OP.

For all beings other than the Father, who have to DO God's will, your definition is fine.

But Clete and I were discussing what defines "good" so that we can know what God's standards are.

Which is where my definition comes in, viz. that whatever God's will is, that is good.

There can be no other definition of "good". "Good", in the end, is as arbitrary as what God the Father wants.

And luckily for us, God wants to love us, and wants us to love Him, and wants us to love each other.

So when folks on supposedly Christian forums abuse one another, I know that this is not the Father's will. Especially when one is only discussing what our Father is like, as described in the Bible.

And what folks do, matters far more than what folks say.

Tell me what you don't like about the OP and I might address that.

 

[Wick Stick]

Since Glorydaz could not answer it, you give it a go.

Some subjects are better to leave alone. Angelology is usually one of 'em. Let's see what you're asking, though.

What is the difference between us and the angels in the future?

There are different kinds of angels. One of those kinds is essentially human, though, so it makes a big difference which one you're talking about.

How will our glorified spirit bodies differ from that of the angels?

Not "spirit bodies." Paul uses the phrase spiritual bodies, once: σῶμα πνευματικόν. Those are still bodies. πνευματικόν is an adjective describing the principle by which those bodies are moved.

And if God had so chosen, we could have been made, as the angels were, without Christ having to die.

Where'd you get that from? Doesn't sound like any doctrine I know of from the Bible. More of a hypothetical.

 

[iouae]

Some subjects are better to leave alone. Angelology is usually one of 'em. Let's see what you're asking, though.

I have not encountered a subject best left alone. Why fear angelology?

There are different kinds of angels. One of those kinds is essentially human, though

Scripture?

Not "spirit bodies." Paul uses the phrase spiritual bodies, once: σῶμα πνευματικόν. Those are still bodies. πνευματικόν is an adjective describing the principle by which those bodies are moved.

I doubt that last sentence.

Mat 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Luk 20:36
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Where'd you get that from? Doesn't sound like any doctrine I know of from the Bible. More of a hypothetical.

Yes it is hypothetical. Glorydaz does not think God could have saved us without Christ dying, I think God could have, since God created angels without Christ having to die. So arose the question of how we differ from the angels. I say we have the same immortal, spiritual body since we will be in heaven some of the time, and need to be spirit to be there. Also the earth will be cauterised by fire, and we will need a spirit body to survive the fire which will engulf earth.

 

[Stripe]

For all beings other than the Father, who have to DO God's will, your definition is fine.

Men have their own wills.

But Clete and I were discussing what defines "good" so that we can know what God's standards are.

Sounds unlikely.

Which is where my definition comes in, viz. that whatever God's will is, that is good.

It's not a definition.

It's prescriptive, not descriptive.

There can be no other definition of "good".

Because you say so?

So when folks on supposedly Christian forums abuse one another, I know that this is not the Father's will.

I thought you said they have to do as He wills.

:think:

Tell me what you don't like about the OP and I might address that.

Read my first post again.

 

[iouae]

Men have their own wills.

...which have to be bent to God's will, if they want to be "good".

Sounds unlikely.

As Clete found out.
My definition of what ultimate "good" is, is "Whatever God wills IS good".
So far, nobody, including Clete and JR were able to better this.

It's not a definition.

It's prescriptive, not descriptive.

It describes "good" then it prescribes "good" which is "Do what your Father tells you to do, because He tells you to do it".

There is no better definition, unless you want to suggest one.

Because you say so?

Yes, till proven otherwise, or till you suggest a better one I can adopt.

I thought you said they have to do as He wills.

If their wills were bent to the Father's will, Christian does not abuse Christian, or anyone, for that matter.

Read my first post again.

Find it for me and I will read it, and if it makes sense, maybe answer it.