Tuesday, 23 September 2008

A quick test

Imagine your walking along and a couple on young children come up to you. You know these children as the son and daughter of your best friend. With a cheeky smile on their face, the children in a joking manor laugh and call you bauldy. Infact, ever since you hair fell out this has been your nickname and so you laugh back and carry on your way.

Now imagine that you are a sky daddy. What do you do:

a)Laugh and demonstrate a good sense of humour. Afterall, calling some guy bauldy is hardly a crime.
b)Send hundreds of bears to shred the children to pieces and give the slowest and most painful death that you can. Then send them to eternsl punishment in hell afterwards
c)Feel sorry for the guy and make his hair grow back so that he can have the last laugh

Now the answer xians give will test how well they know their bible.........


Mike is Wright said...

The answer is ..... option b. Yes, we expect none less of the cruel old testament sky daddy

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

If this is a reference to 2 Kings 2:23-24, then you've missed the point by more than a hair.

Anonymous said...

Mike, i have a suggestion... why don't you post the passage and you and i can discuss it?

I also think you are, again, being dishonest.

Your post that you "challenge" us Christians was a whole seven minutes before you blurt out the answer. As if you were trying to show that you had stumpt the Christian.

Come on Mike, show some honesty.


Mike is Wright said...

you can look the passage up for yourself

Anonymous said...

Oh... i'm familiar with the passage Mike. Why don't we discuss it?


Mike is Wright said...

i have discussed it, in my blog post

Anonymous said...

Well then Mike, let's start off with the number of bears.... are you being honest when you claim "b)Send hundreds of bears to shred the children" ?

See, i gave you the chance to present the version that you are using, but you responded that i could look it up myself.... you had the chance that there was some version that translated "hundreds".
now you get to eat a little crow, and admit that you weren't honest.

Now, would you like to try this again?
Post the passage and point out what translation you are using, and let's discuss this like rational adults.


Anonymous said...

Ok Mike, let's go farther, shall we?

You said, "a couple of young children".

Can you show, from the text, the age of these young children?

Can you show how many more than the "couple" that you denote, were mauled by the bears?

Why weren't these "couple" of "young children" at home, helping the families eek out a living?

Also, according to Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:

Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head - עלה קרח עלה קרח aleh kereach, aleh kereach. Does not this imply the grossest insult? Ascend, thou empty skull, to heaven, as it is pretended thy master did! This was blasphemy against God; and their punishment (for they were Beth-elite idolaters) was only proportioned to their guilt. Elisha cursed them, i.e., pronounced a curse upon them, in the name of the Lord, בשם יהוה beshem Yehovah, by the name or authority of Jehovah. The spirit of their offense lies in their ridiculing a miracle of the Lord: the offense was against Him, and He punished it. It was no petulant humor of the prophet that caused him to pronounce this curse; it was God alone: had it proceeded from a wrong disposition of the prophet, no miracle would have been wrought in order to gratify it.
“But was it not a cruel thing to destroy forty-two little children, who, in mere childishness, had simply called the prophet bare skull, or bald head?” I answer, Elisha did not destroy them; he had no power by which he could bring two she-bears out of the wood to destroy them. It was evidently either accidental, or a Divine judgment; and if a judgment, God must be the sole author of it.

Now, Mike, if Clarke is correct, Your a) answer would not be a viable choice for God to allow what has happened to his newly appointed prophet, since it would be blaspheme against God (and you only got banned from Tweb).

c) also would be an incorrect action, since "baldy" does not necessarily mean 'bald' but can mean 'empty head'... i.e. stupid