Enough with the baiting already why not

clearly not! haha.
however, perhaps if you asked my children, or my children's children? what's worse? repeated questioning or no questioning at all?
i do understand what you're saying, jumbo. however, i also believe that human society has undergone such changes, importantly in our conception of self and our importance in the world, that considering our progress in one light, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a hold on a fading old-time god figure.
my original disagreement to your claim was that the statment "if it could have been done, it would already have been done" is poor logic. i certainly agree that humans still nurture a strong and unchanging faith in a godhead but that fact is no reason to give up questioning that faith, particularly when other equally suitable natural philosophies abound as in this day and age.

i believe the point you were trying to convey in this thread was that bashing beliefs is ignorant; questioning, discussing, and investigating is, however, essential. when i pose a question on the christian-topics board, i am not attempting to 'convert' any would-be christian readers to nonbelief. i'm just posing a question. if the question has no religious response then the would-be christian reader will either ignore the question and go on believing in spite of inconsistency, or will consider the question and take another path. gradually, over time, religious belief could fade. (hey, just like evolution!) if strong enough to resist modern science and society, it could also stay the same.

on another note, i sincerely hope that you don't consider your relationship to god to be comparable to a human's relationship with a bad-tempered dog. (not to mention that god's influence in your life could resemble dog shit. )

haha

peace
sophia

 

Do you really want answers or have you already closed yourself off and decided what is and is not a "legit" answer to your questions?

There are questions which cannot be answered, like, "Is there a God?", "What is Beauty?", "What is love?", "Why are we here?", "What is life?", "What is the purpose of Life?", "What is death?"

Any answer will create thousands of more questions. So why bother asking in the first place? Out of 1000 answers chances are that you will accept whichever one you have already decided is the right one. Are you looking for verification and justification for your beliefs?

 

2:2 Elijah said unto Elisha...the LORD hath sent me to Bethel. So they went down to Bethel.

2:3 the sons of the prophets at Bethel said to Elisha, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy HEAD to day?

2:5 the sons of the prophets at Jericho said to Elisha, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day?

2:15 when the sons of the prophets at Jericho saw him, they bowed themselves to the ground before him.

{Elisha then cleanses Jericho's waters}

2:23 he went up from Jericho to Bethel: and as he was going up, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head.

2:24 he turned back, cursed them, and two she bears came out of the woods, and tare (tore and ate) 42 of them.

Jericho was repentent. Bethel was not. The sons of the sons of the prophets were killed so that their blasphemy was not handed down. The children were mocking his loss, the same loss which God held in so high esteem that he did not see death. The children were therefore mocking God. They therefore had to die.

What's there not to understand?

You can try to rationalise the significance of the number 42 and whether all of the children were eaten or if there were some survivors. think about it: 42 kids were eaten. Why didn't any get away? Why were they eaten by two female bears? Mothers were eating children. This usually only happens when the bear's cubs are thought to be in danger. Were the kids taunting the cubs, too? Making fun of Elisha's loss ultimately showed them the meaning of death. just as Elijah was "dead".

Or the children could symbolise the sons of the prophets themselves. In which case they were not children but grown men. One would think that 42 men could get away much easier than 42 children.

Or the two bears could signify two nations which would eat up Israel.
It all depends on how far down the rabbit hole you wish to go:

Hosea 13:8 I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them.

 

lovesgarvity,
137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

What's there not to understand? Who was the daughter of Babylon? She did things to Israel, Israel would do the same in kind, they would kill their children just as Israel's children were killed.

You may not agree with it, but that will not change the way the world thinks. Have you boycotted Columbian drug lords because they kill whole families? Ever see "The Godfather"? Parents will teach their children to hate, they will grow up and kill their enemies, to get revenge. To stop the cycle you kill the children.

What's there not to understand?

 

lovesgravity,

Did I answer your questions? No? I thought I did. Why not? Probably because these are not the questions you were asking. Your questions may have been disguised to hide your hatred of 'God'. Fine. Hate 'Him' and all 'He' stands for. Just don't spread your hate. If it is an exegesis exercise of the Old Testament, perhaps you should ask in the Judaism thread. If it is a philosophical exercise, then know that philosophy cannot provide any answers, just more questions.

As a logical exercise of asking a "simple" question, like, "Why does God allow children to be killed?," it ultimately is disengenious as it appeals to emotioalism and therefore must call forth irrational answers and ir-rationalisations. It may mirror World events but simple answers will not resolve complex problems.

It is easy to blame Religion for all the world's problems but perhaps Religion has nothing to do with it - it may be political and social manipulation at work.

Seeking simple answers will not suffice if one is not engaged in the problem. And if one is involved in the actual conflict, chances are that no answer will be readily accepted. You therefore have an intractible situation. As armchair quartebacks of the World we therefore feel powerless to affect change. Change how you look at the World and the World will change. If you seek to see only hatred in the World then that is only what you will see and find.

Change inside and the outside will change.

 

Fortunately it's not a choice between questioning and no questioning. It is a choice between no questioning, dumb questioning such as tired one liners about the OT, and new well thought out indepth questioning. It is not questioning that I have a problem with. What I do have a problem with is the endless repetition of the same old dumb one-liner type questioning.

About the dog. I was attempting to come up with a light hearted yet still relevant and clear alagory. I would not use that as a serious analogy. On a side note, it was inspired in part by the Edward Alby play Zoo Story. I performed in it awhile back as the character Jerry.

I essentially agree with the rest of your post and saw no need comment further on it. Though I have no desire to eleiminate religion per se.

p.s. Looks like we've got another Sign related/Fransisco on our hands, and in my thread too.