Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 12:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 12:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The person willingly accepted the punishment to free everyone else from their punishment.

That is totally irrelevant. It is not just to punish an innocent person for the transgressions of another.

Let's try an example closer to home...
One of the men you command does something wrong and he's been in trouble before so he knows you'll come down hard on him for it. A buddy of his takes the rap to help his friend and you punish the innocent man. Later on you discover what really happened. Would you leave it at that or would you call the guilty man out for his actions (the original offense and/or letting a buddy take the rap to save himself)? Was justice served because somebody was punished even though it was not the guilty party?

Bumping this because I'd really like to know what you would do.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 04:00 PM)Imathinker Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 03:44 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Example please.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnE7R234t717A8v10cAeF...s0YpmDQJ4g]

Really? Maybe start with the bears that mauled a group of boys for making fun of a bald guy. I recommend you read a little around this forum though because there is much discussion of this.

edit to add,
or Exodus 12:12,
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn - both men and animals - and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."
Lemme guess, we just have to take that in context?
First, the King James Version has done us a disservice by translated the term as “children.” The Hebrew word can refer to children, but rather more specifically means "young men." The NIV, quoted here, uses the word “youths.” Second, the fact that the bears mauled 42 of the youths indicates that there were more than 42 youths involved. This was not a small group of children making fun of a bald man. Rather, it was a large demonstration of young men who assembled for the purpose of mocking a prophet of God. Third, the mocking of “go on up, you baldhead,” is more than making fun of baldness. The baldness of Elisha referred to here may be: 1) natural loss of hair; 2) a shaved head denoting his separation to the prophetic office; or more likely, 3) an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elisha not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation.

In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, it is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men. Because these young people of about 20 years of age or older (the same term is used of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:7) so despised the prophet of the Lord, Elisha called upon the Lord to deal with the rebels as He saw fit. The Lord’s punishment was the mauling of 42 of them by two female bears. The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was God’s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:27 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
In regards to exodus 12: 12:

First, the Egyptians were far from innocent. Pharaoh had murdered all of the infant Hebrew boys by drowning them in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22). Egypt had grown rich by enslaving the Jewish people for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). While Pharaoh carried out this plot, the Egyptian people benefited from his decision to enslave the Jews. Now, the Egyptian people were being held culpable for standing idly by, while this was happening. God had promised to curse those who cursed Israel (Gen. 12:3). If God did not act, he would have been reneging on his promise to Abraham.

Second, while Pharaoh killed every Hebrew infant boy, God only judged the firstborn of Egypt. God’s judgment was mild in comparison to Pharaoh’s judgment. Moreover, the text never states that Pharaoh’s edict (to kill the Hebrew infants) was ever rescinded. It’s possible that the Pharaoh was currently killing the Hebrew boys at the time of the plagues.

Third, some Egyptians escaped from judgment with the Hebrews. Exodus 9:20-21 demonstrates that some of Pharaoh’s own advisors were spared from judgment, during the plague of hail. Exodus 12:38 states that a “mixed multitude” of people escaped Pharaoh along with the Israelites. If these escaping Egyptian households were struck, it isn’t likely that they would flee along with the Israelites. Moreover, even the instructions for the Passover meal mentions the “alien,” who decides to participate in the Passover supper (Ex. 12:19). Therefore, when the text says that “all” of the Egyptian households were struck with a plague (Ex. 12:29), this no doubt refers to those unbelieving households.[1]

Fourth, the tenth plague was last on the list, because it was a last resort. Pharaoh had been warned by God for nine straight plagues. God had given Pharaoh multiple opportunities to change his mind and avoid judgment. Pharaoh, on the other hand, did not give the Jews any “ways out,” when he killed the Hebrew boys. While God waited patiently and gave many chances for repentance, Pharaoh gave none.

Fifth, the firstborn sons of Israel were below the age of accountability. Isaiah writes that there is an age before a child is able to “know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is. 7:16 NASB). The children of Israel were not held responsible for the sins of their parents during the Wandering, because they had “no knowledge of good or evil” (Deut. 1:39 NASB). David said he would go to be with his infant baby, who had died (2 Sam. 12:23). David believed in an afterlife, and he thought that he was going to be with God after death (Ps. 16:10-11), and the New Testament authors claim that he is in heaven, too (Rom. 4:6-8). This demonstrates that his infant must be in heaven. In addition, Jesus implies that little children will be in heaven (Mk. 10:14; Mt. 18:3; 19:14). Because God judged the children of Egypt, he would have brought them immediately into his presence in heaven, because they are below the age of accountability.

Sixth, God has certain moral rights over human life that we don’t. As the author and creator of life, God has a unique right over all human life. Philosopher Richard Swinburne writes, “God as the author of our being would have rights over us that we do not have over our fellow humans.”[2] To illustrate this, a parent has certain rights over their own children, which they do not have over other children (e.g. discipline). Since God is the creator and sustainer of all people, he decides how long we get to live (Ps. 139:16). God takes everyone’s life at some point. It’s called death. We acknowledge this, when a surgeon is bringing someone back to life. We say that he is “Playing God.” God allows everyone to die; the question is –when? We live everyday –not as a right –but by the mercy of God. When God took the lives of the firstborn in Egypt, he was acting on prerogatives that rightly belong to him. In fact, these Egyptian boys probably died in their sleep (“Now it came about at midnight…” Ex. 12:29). Of course, the Hebrew infants were given no such mercy, drowning in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22).

Seventh, the God who took the firstborn son gave up his own firstborn son. We would be remiss if we didn’t point this out. While we might feel horror at the fact that God would judge the firstborn of Egypt, he need to remember that we’re dealing with the same God who paid this great and terrible price himself by giving up his “only begotten son” (Jn. 3:16). While God is willing and able to judge, he was also willing to take our place in judgment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 12:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 12:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I would consider that system to be unjust and immoral on pretty much every level.
A single punishment for every transgression is not just.
Punishing an innocent person for somebody else's transgression is not just.
Using a scapegoat to avoid punishment is not just.
The person willingly accepted the punishment to free everyone else from their punishment.

And that is completely illogical and immoral. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 05:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 12:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The person willingly accepted the punishment to free everyone else from their punishment.

And that is completely illogical and immoral. Drinking Beverage
Immoral by who's standards?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:41 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 05:18 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 04:00 PM)Imathinker Wrote:  [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnE7R234t717A8v10cAeF...s0YpmDQJ4g]

Really? Maybe start with the bears that mauled a group of boys for making fun of a bald guy. I recommend you read a little around this forum though because there is much discussion of this.

edit to add,
or Exodus 12:12,
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn - both men and animals - and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."
Lemme guess, we just have to take that in context?
First, the King James Version has done us a disservice by translated the term as “children.” The Hebrew word can refer to children, but rather more specifically means "young men." The NIV, quoted here, uses the word “youths.” Second, the fact that the bears mauled 42 of the youths indicates that there were more than 42 youths involved. This was not a small group of children making fun of a bald man. Rather, it was a large demonstration of young men who assembled for the purpose of mocking a prophet of God. Third, the mocking of “go on up, you baldhead,” is more than making fun of baldness. The baldness of Elisha referred to here may be: 1) natural loss of hair; 2) a shaved head denoting his separation to the prophetic office; or more likely, 3) an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elisha not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation.

In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, it is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men. Because these young people of about 20 years of age or older (the same term is used of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:7) so despised the prophet of the Lord, Elisha called upon the Lord to deal with the rebels as He saw fit. The Lord’s punishment was the mauling of 42 of them by two female bears. The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was God’s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.

The punishment was in no way justified. You are being absurd. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:42 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
What a great example to set. If someone doesn't agree with your religion or ridicules it, they deserve to die.

So basically the Egyptians had it coming to 'em is what you're saying. I don't see how taking it out on their firstborns is a good solution either.Consider

A man should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. -Ferris Bueller

That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom. -Jack Sparrow
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 05:39 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 05:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  And that is completely illogical and immoral. Drinking Beverage
Immoral by who's standards?

Any sane person concerning anything other than Jesus.


(07-12-2015 04:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 12:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  That is totally irrelevant. It is not just to punish an innocent person for the transgressions of another.

Let's try an example closer to home...
One of the men you command does something wrong and he's been in trouble before so he knows you'll come down hard on him for it. A buddy of his takes the rap to help his friend and you punish the innocent man. Later on you discover what really happened. Would you leave it at that or would you call the guilty man out for his actions (the original offense and/or letting a buddy take the rap to save himself)? Was justice served because somebody was punished even though it was not the guilty party?

Bumping this because I'd really like to know what you would do.

I would also like to know if you think that would be fair.

A man should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. -Ferris Bueller

That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom. -Jack Sparrow
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 06:06 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 05:44 PM)Imathinker Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 05:39 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Immoral by who's standards?

Any sane person concerning anything other than Jesus.


(07-12-2015 04:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Bumping this because I'd really like to know what you would do.

I would also like to know if you think that would be fair.
To make that example work you would have to say that the individual who committed the act confessed to me and another individual volunteered to take responsibility for it. That happens more often than you think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Dutch Pranksters Swap Bible Cover with Koran Cover.
(07-12-2015 05:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 12:17 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The person willingly accepted the punishment to free everyone else from their punishment.

And that is completely illogical and immoral. Drinking Beverage
Off topic: Wow! Almost 31,500 posts! Impressive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: