So why doesnt God appear every now and again?

[10pints]

An eternity in hell is about not doing enough works, it's about rejecting Jesus Christ and opting for an eternity without him.

Absolutely, 100% certifiable. This world is one big fucking mad house!

[Man of Steel]

Absolutely, 100% certifiable. This world is one big fucking mad house!

Really don't want any of you separated from God in hell, but I'm basically helpless.   

You can call me crazy all day long if you want (and most do), but as far as I'm concerned it means nothing to me.

So hopefully this discussion helps someone else who hasn't made a choice for Christ to do so.

[Man of Steel]

Absolutely, 100% certifiable. This world is one big fucking mad house!

10pints, forgive me, I typed something incorrectly in my last post.  I initially typed "is about not" when I meant to type "is not about"....big difference.

Sorry for my error!  I have corrected.

[bigmc]

10pints, forgive me, I typed something incorrectly in my last post.  I initially typed "is about not" when I meant to type "is not about"....big difference.

Sorry for my error!  I have corrected.

mos i would appreciate your thoughts on the bear mauling of children

i think being mauled by a bear for calling someone baldy is harsh

do you think god would take that one back if he could

[Man of Steel]

mos i would appreciate your thoughts on the bear mauling of children

i think being mauled by a bear for calling someone baldy is harsh

do you think god would take that one back if he could

Yes.

Levitical Laws for Israelites:

You're referencing old covenant, levitical laws for the Israelites...fabric mixing, eating of clean animals, hygiene practices, animal sacrifice for sin atonement, tithing practices, etc....not applicable today.

The early Israelites were called by God to be holy or “set apart” from the pagan nations around them and they adhered to law and practices that made that distinction more evident.   Their existence was such that everything done was in order to be holy and pure representatives of God.   

 Folks often say, “why is it a sin to eat lobster?”   It’s not that the lobster is bad or unclean in and of itself, but the Israelites were set apart and did not blur the lines in all aspects of their lives.   They ate fish because fish were animals meant only for water and  did not have mixed physical characteristics like shellfish/lobsters do.  Lobsters can survive in and out of water and have a mix of features designed for land and water so they were temporarily deemed “unclean” for purposes of maintaining the idea of distinction while the nation of Israel developed.  Man then began to include other cultural concepts that indicated distinctiveness such as cultural practices for hair and head coverings, but as Paul mentions in these passages of scripture we are to “judge for ourselves” the appropriateness of these customs.   

Hand cut off:

In the ancient near east or ancient Israelite culture the notion of lineage was vitally important.  Especially given their covenantal status with the Almighty and his promise to increase their numbers and prosper them it was important that sex organs not be injured otherwise a line of lineage could forever be broken.  Indicates the severity of committing such an act by God.  You potentially end a familial line and your hand was forfeit because of it.  Also grabbing a man’s genitals in public (especially one that wasn’t your husband) was considered to be a very lewd act.

Elisha:

Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha.   The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.

This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha.   Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”).   This gang was organized with bad intentions  and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then...it was a sign of hatred.

The KJV translation states “little children” or "boys" to which readers today immediately associate with a “happy daycare class of 42 5-year olds playfully teasing Elisha calling him ‘baldy’ .  Then wicked ole Elisha cursed the blessed little ones and they were destroyed by bears.”   The bears were sent to protect God’s messenger from impending harm by a organized gang of youths set on bad intentions.

Midianites:

These pagan groups such as the Amalakites, Midianites, Moabites and Caananites had hundreds of years to repent and turn to God, but they persisted in their evil ways and ignored God.  Sure today we have small sects of folks that may inflict harm upon a mass population (the Nazis for example), but we're talking about a massive population dedicated to evil and perverse, pagan rituals....different circumstances.  We can look at the Chinese today and say the majority of this nation can't stand Christianity, but the Chinese are nothing like the Amalakites or the Midianites.  They aren't engaging in the deviant perversions and human sacrifice like the pagan populations of the OT.   

In fact, the Midianites not only turned from God, but during their time of denial they chose to repeatedly attack, brutalize and kill Israelite people….men, women, children and babies.  The Midianites were also aligned with the Moabites and these pagan nations all typically worshipped pagan gods such as Baal and Molech.  Pagan worship was anything but smiles, puppies and candy bars.  It was live infant sacrifice via burning to death on white hot altars to Molech.  It was self-mutilation within ceremonies of sexual perversion and the whoring of young women in demonic rituals to Baal.  It was demonic rituals of witchcraft/sorcery and further ritualistic sexual perversion and whoring of women to the pagan goddess Asherah.  It was carnal, it was dark, it was twisted, it was evil, it was demonic and it destroyed countless innocents.  This was allowed to transpire for a time and then God pronounced judgment upon the Midianities.

God stepped in and allowed these pagan peoples to be destroyed and in turn brought the population of male children into eternity with him.  Generation after generation after generation weren’t allowed to continue to pervert the younger generation before them and turn them from God which condemned them to an eternity without God when they died.    God did show grace to the young, virginal women of Midian and allowed the Israelite men to take them as wives and bring them into the Israelite culture and covenant.  The implication though is the Midianite women were raped and abused and tortured….absolutely false.

Slavery:

The rules for slavery regarding Israel in the OT had nothing to do with the antebellum South or the slavery they were delivered from in Egypt.  Two entirely different things....one was forced (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and the other was voluntary/customary for debt payment (ex: Israelites post-Egypt freedom).  One was about inhumanity (ex: antebellum South and Israelites in Egypt) and one was about the preservation of humanity and rights of the servant/slave while working off individual or family debt (ex: Israel post-Egypt freedom).  The word "slave" is always incorrecty associated with the antebellum South...just not the case for OT Israel. 

Many slaves/bond servants ended up staying with the very owner/family they worked for after their debts were satisfied because they chose to.  Many became full-time hands on the owners land receiving a normal wage.  These folks weren't "picking the cotton on Massah's plantation" and then being beaten and/or raped in the evenings.....no, no, no.

I know many have serious issues with slavery in the bible, but the "issue of slavery" doesn't carry the negative connotation often force fit onto it because of the words “slave” or ”slavery”.  It’s the culture and history of the Israelites who were delivered from the forced, "work til you die" slavery in Egypt that needs to be understood.   If the Israelite that held the debt did something to mistreat the bondservant working off the debt the holder of debt was punished.  God that freed the Israelites didn't turn around and say, "Ok, now y'all go ahead and enslave and mistreat others in the same manner you were just freed from". 
 
Yes, I find it morally correct that the rights of a bondservant working off an individual or family debt were upheld.   That’s the progressive nature of the law that protected the bondservant (“ebed” in Hebrew) within Israel that was found nowhere else in the pagan nations of the ancient near east.   

I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder.   Just not the case (this was not ancient Egypt or the antebellum south in US).   Simple comparisons with other ancient near east cultures will show you that the slave (not the bondservant) was treated like human garbage in those cases.   The practices utilized with bond servants in ancient Israel were leaps and bounds above the slavery of surrounding pagan nations (these were the “work you to death, starve, maim, rape and beat you” cultures).  The reality is that there was virtually no comparison between the treatment of bondservants in ancient Israel versus the treatment of slaves in the surrounding pagan cultures.
 
The Israelites that had acquired debt (ex: through failed business, theft, failed crops, etc…) and were unable to repay entered into a contract with the debt holder to work off the debt.  As was customary in ancient Israel, sometimes individuals, individual and a family member or entire families worked off the debt.  If the debt was satisfied prior to 6 years of service then that was it….the bondservant was released.  If 6 years of service came and went and the debt was not repaid in full the debt holder simply lost out and the bond servant was to be released regardless.  Often times the released bondservant(s) was to be given compensation, life stock, grains, wine, etc…..upon their release.  Sometimes the bondservants became full employees after the debt was settled and began earning a wage (if they chose to stay on board).  Sometimes bondservants chose to stay with the family they worked off debt for and continue the bond servitude after the debt was satisfied because they developed such a strong relationship with the family they owed a debt to.  Sometimes females bondservants became spouses of the owners or the owner's children (marriages were arranged) and as was customary the owner would pay out a bride price to the bondservants family.   Within the year of jubilee many, many bondservants were released from their service regardless of time served or amount of debt repaid.

And yes sometimes the bondservants' performance or behavior was inappropriate and they were punished for it.   Although, the laws for bondservants didn't condone the capricious beating of the bondservant, the laws were meant to discourage that behavior on behalf of the owner.  If owner did something as vile as murder a bondservant then that owner lost their life.   Everyone quotes the scripture “if the owner beats the slave and slave recovers after 3 days……then all is good”.   This circumstance was simply an exception, not the norm, but the laws were meant to govern all circumstances both the good and the bad.  If the bondservant was beaten to a point in which they could not work they were supposed to be freed.  The debt holder/owner was engaged in a contract with the bondservant and that bondservant was deemed property, but human property for the purposes of sweat equity for debt repayment that retained rights and privileges and just treatment.  The owner was outlawed from ruling over the bondservant like a tyrant….that was not permitted.  Did they work some of these folks hard?  Sure.   Was that hard work intended to be cruel and brutal and relentless and unreasonable?  LOL no….that’s a fiction inferred by ignorant readers.

God’s ultimate goal was to lead Israel away from the practice of using bondservants altogether.  The Lord works within the confines of our lives drawing us closer to him and away from the adopted practices of our hardened hearts that we freely choose to engage in.  Regardless, the Lord is patient and will allow our free choices and some our less than desirable customs to be honored with the intention of leading us away from those practices.   The use of bondservants is not the preference of the Lord though.  Bondservants were also meant to respect their owners.  Remember, some of the bondservants were working off a debt based a crime they committed against the family that held their contract for debt repayment.  As I’ve said time and again on this topic it is completely illogical that God would free the Israelites from the brutal, forced slavery in Egypt and then allow them to engage in that same behavior among the people of their own nation.    Folks will simply say “well, that’s a biblical contradiction” LOL……sorry, no.  That’s ignorance on part of the critic that has done little more than a surface reading of the scripture.  When I first read the these scriptures I was SHOCKED, but then I dug in deeper and understood the culture of the Israelites, the culture of the pagan nations, learned some of the Hebrew terms and the definitely gained insight on the context…..makes all the difference.

[bigmc]

id like to hear your take on it

you know actually answer the question in a couple of sentences

making the children older adding in some bad intentions moving the goal posts etc

so lets spin this

so if you called me baldy in real life and i perceived you had bad intentions

then i should be allowed to maul you with my bear which god is controlling at the time

is this your serious position

[Man of Steel]

id like to hear your take on it

you know actually answer the question in a couple of sentences

making the children older adding in some bad intentions moving the goal posts etc

so lets spin this

so if you called me baldy in real life and i perceived you had bad intentions

then i should be allowed to maul you with my bear which god is controlling at the time

is this your serious position

Those are my written words above.  The part on Elisha is a few sentences.

Referring to someone as "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hatred related to those with leprosy in that day.  Much like women with short hair or no hair was not a good thing as that was a typical styling of prostitutes.  Different times, different customs then.

Having multiple translations for a single word is extremely common with Hebrew.  It isn't moving the goalposts it's making sense of the context.   The hebrew language is quite small and the entire language can be memorized by one person (unlike english with thousands and thousands of words and variants).  I leave these things to linguists and defer to their expertise on translations.

  

[bigmc]

Those are my written words above.  The part on Elisha is a few sentences.

Referring to someone as "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hated related to those with leprosy in that day.  Much like women with short hair or no hair was not a good thing as that was a typical styling of prostitutes.  Different times, different customs then.

Having multiple translations for a single word is extremely common with Hebrew.  It isn't moving the goalposts it's making sense of the context.   The hebrew language is quite small and the entire thing can be memorized by one person (unlike english with thousands and thousands of words and variants).  I leave these things to linguists and defer to their expertise. 

do you accept they could have been young children?

you are speculating that they are older

[Man of Steel]

do you accept they could have been young children?

you are speculating that they are older

Yes, I accept they could be young children because the language has multiple, literal definitions.  Like the hebrew word "yom" ("day" in english) has 5-6 correct definitions, but context is key.  

Never denied, but consensus of scholarship I've read indicates they were more akin to a teenage urban street gang of today.

I also know you want and need the passage to be about little, little boys...harmless and wide eyed playing in the streets AND GOD MURDERS THEM!!!!  Doesn't fit the context or historical customs.  It's why folks put in time to study out these issues.

[bigmc]

Yes, I accept they could be young children because the language has multiple, literal definitions.  Like the hebrew word "yom" ("day" in english) has 5-6 correct definitions, but context is key.  

Never denied, but consensus of scholarship I've read indicates they were more akin to a teenage urban street gang of today.

I also know you want and need the passage to be about little, little boys...harmless and wide eyed playing in the streets AND GOD MURDERS THEM!!!!  Doesn't fit the context or historical customs.  It's why folks put in time to study out these issues.

so worse case scenario some 4 year olds called a man baldy

and god decided to maul them with bears

i can see why you try and shift the sands and change the story

my friend you are so full of delusion i feel sorry for you

i could get on board if you took the good things from the bible and lived by that edict

but you are defending barbaric bull shit written by primitive idiots

because and only because you think a book badly translated in recent history is the absolute word of god

think about it objectively just for a minute 

[SF1900]

MOS is the best!!

When his arguments have failed, he accuses EVERYONE of "moving the goal posts."

Yet, he so often moves the goal posts.

You just have to love it! :-D

[bicepsofsteel]

Slavery:
"I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder.   Just not the case "

And then we have this in Exodus:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)

[Agnostic007]

Elisha:

Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha.   The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.

This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha.   Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”).   This gang was organized with bad intentions  and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then...it was a sign of hatred.

The KJV translation states “little children” or "boys" to which readers today immediately associate with a “happy daycare class of 42 5-year olds playfully teasing Elisha calling him ‘baldy’ .  Then wicked ole Elisha cursed the blessed little ones and they were destroyed by bears.”   The bears were sent to protect God’s messenger from impending harm by a organized gang of youths set on bad intentions.

This is one of the better examples of an apologists attempt to excuse gods atrocities. Just as they do when the bible says God says a raped virgin must marry her rapist. Then they try and say God is just, god is good, god is this and that. The only way they are able to do that is to invent what they want to read. The life span back then was probably 40 years.. so to argue children could mean young men.. hard to believe they are able to function in life with this kind of logic and thinking..

[Agnostic007]

Slavery:
"I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder.   Just not the case "

And then we have this in Exodus:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)

This for me is clear evidence no biblical type god had a hand in writing the bible. This is clearly the opinion of a slave owner who considers his slave nothing more than property, not a god who allegedly created man in his own image, loves them all, etc etc. 

[Man of Steel]

Slavery:
"I absolutely know the perception is that these folks were kept in shackles, practically starved, beaten, maimed, raped and treated like human garbage based on the whims of the debt holder.   Just not the case "

And then we have this in Exodus:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)

If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.

Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that this is inaccurate:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.

Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:

If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.

The laws are put in place to keep folks in check, not give them license to commit evil acts.  This is a huge disconnect for almost every nonbeliever.  As always context and historical customs is key.

BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on.  You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated.  But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God.  I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.

[10pints]

GOD HATERS...

Hard to hate something if you don't believe it exists.

[loco]

BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on.  You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated.  But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God.  I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.

Стойкий мужик...Standing(Steadfast) Man

[Agnostic007]

If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.

Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that this is inaccurate:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.

Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:

If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.

The laws are put in place to keep folks in check, not give them license to commit evil acts.  This is a huge disconnect for almost every nonbeliever.  As always context and historical customs is key.

BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on.  You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated.  But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God.  I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.

You would think a normal human being in 2016 would be uncomfortable trying to rationalize slavery and beating slaves.. but if it's "god" approved... not a problem...

[Necrosis]

Those are my written words above.  The part on Elisha is a few sentences.

Referring to someone as "baldy" or "baldhead" was sign of hatred related to those with leprosy in that day.  Much like women with short hair or no hair was not a good thing as that was a typical styling of prostitutes.  Different times, different customs then.

Having multiple translations for a single word is extremely common with Hebrew.  It isn't moving the goalposts it's making sense of the context.   The hebrew language is quite small and the entire language can be memorized by one person (unlike english with thousands and thousands of words and variants).  I leave these things to linguists and defer to their expertise on translations.

  

How can you use the different customs argument? the customs were retarded, no one deserves to die because the words they used, EVER, only retards could believe such a thing. What happened to sticks and stones? Your argument also shows how the book is exactly what we say, written by those during that time, nothing is divinely inspired, it reads just like it should, pertinent to the times. Why would a timeless being sound as if he was a human during the middle ages? why would he care about their customs? isnt his law timeless and divine? yet you are arguing that these things are fine because of the times, that's absurd, those ideas were wicked then and they are wicked now.

It's so obviously a lie that I feel a slight sadness for those who believe. All holy books are lies, no human knows anything related to the supernatural, ZERO. humans can't fly, I know this because I cannot, I am human, humans cannot talk to god, I know this because I am a human. I can't shit out my dick, I am human, you seeing how we can simply dismiss all this bullshit? it can't happen, like a human can't fly, don't let reality get in your way.


 pretty fucking sensitive to what some random gang of kids think about his appearance, sounds like a broken man that probably should castrate himself for being such a vile pussy. If I saw a bear mauling kids, even adults, regardless of their insults I would be disgusted and certainly not wish that they are mauled to death, what kind of sick fuck is this god? you insult someone you are put to death in a most brutal way, god seems to over sentence quite a bit, like a jumpy retard from the stone ages. Eternal torture for finite insults, death for nearly everything (human life is never seen as special).


God also knows the future, he set those kids up knowing they would insult the man.

how many more basic logical premises are we going to ignore in order to keep your fantasy safe?

[Man of Steel]

GOD HATERS...

Hard to hate something if you don't believe it exists.

True, but you already know God exists.

[10pints]

True, but you already know God exists.

You now know my thoughts. Perhaps you are god?

[Man of Steel]

How can you use the different customs argument? the customs were retarded, no one deserves to die because the words they used, EVER, only retards could believe such a thing. What happened to sticks and stones? Your argument also shows how the book is exactly what we say, written by those during that time, nothing is divinely inspired, it reads just like it should, pertinent to the times. Why would a timeless being sound as if he was a human during the middle ages? why would he care about their customs? isnt his law timeless and divine? yet you are arguing that these things are fine because of the times, that's absurd, those ideas were wicked then and they are wicked now.

It's so obviously a lie that I feel a slight sadness for those who believe. All holy books are lies, no human knows anything related to the supernatural, ZERO. humans can't fly, I know this because I cannot, I am human, humans cannot talk to god, I know this because I am a human. I can't shit out my dick, I am human, you seeing how we can simply dismiss all this bullshit? it can't happen, like a human can't fly, don't let reality get in your way.


 pretty fucking sensitive to what some random gang of kids think about his appearance, sounds like a broken man that probably should castrate himself for being such a vile pussy. If I saw a bear mauling kids, even adults, regardless of their insults I would be disgusted and certainly not wish that they are mauled to death, what kind of sick fuck is this god? you insult someone you are put to death in a most brutal way, god seems to over sentence quite a bit, like a jumpy retard from the stone ages. Eternal torture for finite insults, death for nearly everything (human life is never seen as special).


God also knows the future, he set those kids up knowing they would insult the man.

how many more basic logical premises are we going to ignore in order to keep your fantasy safe?

I speak about historical customs because they are absolutely germaine to the topic.  You can ignore or dismiss them if you want.  

Baldness was received with hate and contempt in ancient Israel.   Baldness was also associated with prostitution.   Baldness was associated with disease such as leprosy.

This gang of 42 young men set on bad intentions began coming at Elisha shouting with hatred.   They made the choice to do this to a servant of God.  God intervened and they were destroyed.

Normal people don’t cheer for the bad guys or excuse evil, but so many trade good for evil and evil for good.

Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience).  God knows all things past, present and future.   His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you.  Knowledge in and of itself is benign.  It doesn't force you to act, but you can make choices based upon the knowledge you have.   If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza.   His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make.   Your argument could applied to any situation whether it's perceived as good or bad.

[Man of Steel]

You now know my thoughts. Perhaps you are god?

Everyone knows God exists...they simply suppress and deny that understanding.  I appeal only to scripture.

[Necrosis]

I speak about historical customs because they are absolutely germaine to the topic.  You can ignore or dismiss them if you want.  

No they are not, if gods is absolute, he wouldn't change his rules and allowances based on the customs, how silly is that? god has his law does he not, why would human customs matter to the eternal

Baldness was received with hate and contempt in ancient Israel.   Baldness was also associated with prostitution.   Baldness was associated with disease such as leprosy.

So what....such petty bullshit, god cares about the feelings of this man as the mean kids where implying he may be a prostitute, put the kids to death!!!!

This gang of 42 young men set on bad intentions began coming at Elisha shouting with hatred.   They made the choice to do this to a servant of God.  God intervened and they were destroyed.

God knew they would do this to his servant before it ever happened. Again, you can use words like hatred etc... I don't care.. name calling should never lead to death, not 42 fucking kids humans. Where is this god now? show me a servant and I will spit in his face, let's see if you god comes to his side, he ignored the crys of the kids being raped but not this balding fat man? some sick shit.

Normal people don’t cheer for the bad guys or excuse evil, but so many trade good for evil and evil for good.

Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience).  God knows all things past, present and future.   His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you.  Knowledge in and of itself is benign.  It doesn't force you to act, but you can make choices based upon the knowledge you have.   If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza.   His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make.   Your argument could applied to any situation whether it's perceived as good or bad.

the foreknowledge argument makes absolutely no sense, how can I make a choice if he knows what I will do? that would be the action is crystallized ie not fluid as you are suggesting. So he knows he will do it, but the person is just deluded into thinking they have choice, really it's all known.

if it's a definite choice, it's not a choice, the definition of definite indicates this.

[Necrosis]

If a master beat a slave and the slave died, he was to be killed. If he caused any sort of permanent damage to the slave, the slave was to be set free immediately. Note that "permanent damage" included such things as knocking out a tooth! This was a stark contrast to other near-eastern cultures, where a master was allowed to put out the eyes of his slaves with no consequences. An Israelite master had incentive to avoid striking a slave in the face, which was considered a civic wrong.

Some try to use Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that this is inaccurate:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

On the surface, this looks as though a master could get away with mistreating a slave. When we look more closely, it's clear that this wasn't considered mistreatment. In fact, this verse shows that slaves were treated in much the same way as free citizens.

Being beaten by a rod was a common punishment. The community elders employed the rod to punish wrongdoers, and fathers applied the rod to rebellious older sons. Using a rod to discipline a slave would be common, if not customary. The punishments for harming slaves and free men were equivalent:

If the slave died, the owner was killed.
If the slave was permanently harmed, they were set free.
If the slave was temporarily harmed, the owner was not punished.
A free citizen who was temporarily harmed would be compensated for lost work time and medical bills, but the slave would not. The difference was simply economic: the owner was financially responsible for the slave, so he absorbed the loss of work time and made sure the slave was healed instead of paying them cash.

The laws are put in place to keep folks in check, not give them license to commit evil acts.  This is a huge disconnect for almost every nonbeliever.  As always context and historical customs is key.

BUT, this crowd in particular is nothing but GOD HATERS and y'all search for things to hate on.  You rip them out of context, refuse to learn more, deny everything with some generic cliche even when educated.  But I'm not here to help the atheist that's made a definite, absolute choice to deny Christ and hate God.  I'm here for the reader that isn't speaking and seeing your comments and then sees them reconciled only moments later so that they can make an informed choice about Jesus Christ.

A fucking eternal all loving god would never allow slavery, the fact that your god changes with the times is again exactly in line with it being a book of fiction written by bloodthirsty idiots.