[SERIOUS] Is Kidicious getting dumber?

[giblets]

I am afraid this is quite puzzling. Whose friend ?

And why would they be a dog ?

Is this a reference to a Lasse Hallstrom film ?

I don't understand why your friend can't handle caffeine or chocolate.

[Aeson]

Can we just say that both of you have some good points and end this pedantic silly-fest (I mean you basically both agree, you are just arguing over how clear a response was). Seriously.

What would the point of Apolyton be then, really?

(And no, he has no point other than that he can't read. )

If it helps any, you can both join together and mock me because I believe Elijah was indeed taken up into heaven. Not sure what to make of the bears though.

Thank you, though I don't want to take you up on that offer right now. As for the bears, maybe they were Elisha's very manly gay lovers who were outraged that the children were mocking Elijah's circumcised and impotent penis. Although that context for "bears" probably doesn't date back that far... and I don't even know if that context for "bald" has ever been used before. (I am wont to google it for fear of what I might see.)

[Kidlicious]

The meaning of the bear mauling is obvious. I can't believe people would say they don't know what to make of it.

[Boris Godunov]

Can we just say that both of you have some good points and end this pedantic silly-fest (I mean you basically both agree, you are just arguing over how clear a response was). Seriously.

If it helps any, you can both join together and mock me because I believe Elijah was indeed taken up into heaven. Not sure what to make of the bears though.

So long as Aeson is going to engage in BK-esque dissembling to try and weasel out of what he plainly wrote, I agree it's a wasted effort. I can see why Elok chose to stop engaging him.

Imran, why would you believe the Elijah whirlwind part, but doubt the bears? Is that part more or less ridiculous than the other? As I said before, we at least know that bears exist and can and do maul people, so it's reasonable to believe that happened, even if not as divine retribution for some punks mocking a bald guy. Even if we do grant divine intervention, if you're going to believe the Elijah transcendence, I see no logical reason to doubt the bear part of the story except that it makes you feel personally uncomfortable that the god you worship would do such a monstrous thing. Considering the OT is chock full of that same god doing monstrous things even to innocent people, I can't see a logical reason to doubt he'd sic bears on a gang of young hooligans who were mocking his chosen prophet.

[Kidlicious]

Elok knew when to quit.

[KrazyHorse]

aeson and kiddy are two of the worst active posters now that dfg has been banned.

[Aeson]

aeson and kiddy are two of the worst active posters now that dfg has been banned.

[Aeson]

So long as Aeson is going to engage in BK-esque dissembling to try and weasel out of what he plainly wrote, I agree it's a wasted effort.

You simply don't have the reading comprehension skills necessary to keep up. Even still, it would only be a wasted effort if you were unwilling to learn from your lesson.

[Boris Godunov]

Aeson, you're just being a dishonest hack and you know it. Nobody with even halfway decent English skills would take a sentence that said "As for X, the guy who wrote about it was writing about something that didn't happen" and interpret the "didn't happen" part as referring to anything other than X. I haven't bothered to read much of anything you've ever written on the site, but based on this bit of dishonesty, I can't disagree with KH's assessment.

[Berzerker]

dfg and bk are banned?

jesus, they're the life of the party

[Aeson]

Aeson, you're just being a dishonest hack and you know it. Nobody with even halfway decent English skills would take a sentence that said "As for X, the guy who wrote about it was writing about something that didn't happen" and interpret the "didn't happen" part as referring to anything other than X.

No, you just can't read for **** Boris. X was "the story". X was identified as something that probably never happened, and certainly not the way it was described. I identified the translation in the same paragraph as part of that story that probably never happened, and certainly not the way it was described.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, why would you believe the Elijah whirlwind part, but doubt the bears? Is that part more or less ridiculous than the other? As I said before, we at least know that bears exist and can and do maul people, so it's reasonable to believe that happened, even if not as divine retribution for some punks mocking a bald guy. Even if we do grant divine intervention, if you're going to believe the Elijah transcendence, I see no logical reason to doubt the bear part of the story except that it makes you feel personally uncomfortable that the god you worship would do such a monstrous thing. Considering the OT is chock full of that same god doing monstrous things even to innocent people, I can't see a logical reason to doubt he'd sic bears on a gang of young hooligans who were mocking his chosen prophet.

It's the reasoning for the bears that I struggle with. Could be an after the fact addition? Ie, these 20 somethings mocked the great prophet Elisha and basically called him a leper (see my prior post on this) and thus unclean and therefore since they got eaten by bears, God MUST have done it!

I don't see the God I worship doing monstrous things rather than people ascribing monstrous things that benefit them to Him. As the progression of the understanding of God happens in the Old Testament all the up until the perfect revelation of God in Jesus Christ, it seems apparent that the idea that God does horrible things simply because he likes one group and hates another gets more and more seen as not consistent with the God of Israel. Look at the view of God in Genesis (and the ideas that he kills x group or y group for some small thing) and then God in the Book of Job telling Job's friends off for daring to suggest that the bad things Job does are because he's sinned (before you start, it is obvious that the Book of Job is a fictional story to demonstrate a truth about God - I mean, heck, its mostly written in poetic form). Or for that matter, Jesus Christ himself, who refuses to even fight back against the Roman troops that are there to arrest him. After all, since the perfect revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the writings before did not have the complete knowledge of who God really was and attempted to understand Him, but likely feel short.

This reading of the sacred Scriptures of course makes fundamentalists a bit queasy, but I've never claimed myself to be anywhere close to a fundamentalist and acknowledge the centuries old tradition of reading the Bible in context and for allegorical meaning (ever since Origin).

Too many folk read the Bible as a Constitution rather than a divinely inspired grand narrative about God. But that's a subject that is too lengthy to get into here.

[Kidlicious]

Not everyone who reads the Bible differently than you is a fundamentalist or is legalistic or any other boogyman word that you use. Most people simply do a better job than you in interpreting it.

[molly bloom]

I don't understand why your friend can't handle caffeine or chocolate.

He has a physical allergy to them- it's not psychosomatic.

[molly bloom]

Not sure what to make of the bears though.

They poop in the woods when the Pope's a Catholic.