Page 1 of 5
heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:28 am
by Gob
crusher..
For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
(Matthew 19:12 ASV)
No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord.
(Deuteronomy 23:2 NAB)
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:52 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Not quite a crusher. Maybe you dropped the ball!
Since God and truth are not mutually exclusive, whenever there appears to be a conflict eiher truth is not yet understood or God is not yet understood. Under the sound principle of using the Bible to interpret the Bible, the conclusion is that Jesus did not recommend people cut their nuts off since this would directly conflict with his teachings on marriage and the Bible's teachings on children and castration.
Context. Jesus has just stated that divorce is regarded poorly (to say the least) by God and one who gets divorced and remarried is an adulterer. The disciples object that surely it is best not to marry at all. Jesus says not all can accept this teaching. But there are those born impotent (like eunuchs), there are those made impotent by the actions of men (castrated to be eunuchs) and there are men who are capable of voluntary celibacy (make themselves eunuchs) for the sake of their faith.
Paul says that this is indeed definitely not for all 1Cor 7:8-9 "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion"
The Matthew passage formed a Biblical basis both for the monastic movement which was a form of voluntary eunuchism (sean?) and for twisted development of the idea in Roman ideology that celibacy was not only "better" (ignoring Paul's restriction of it to people like himself) but compulsory for God's priests. Eusebius reported that Origen castrated himself in order to avoid distraction when teaching women but no-one knows if its true - a good presumption of truth IMO
To an objection that a eunuch must by definition be "castrated" we have only to look at the first case in Matt 19:12 in which Jesus uses the word "eunuch" to indicate a person who has not been "castrated" but is by nature unable to procreate. The word "eunuch" is used as a blanket term for three different conditions of man. It was not part of Jewish culture to castrate or to be castrated (see Gob's 2nd quote for emphasis).
According to Byzantine historian Kathryn Ringrose, while the pagans of Classical Antiquity based their notions of gender in general and eunuchs in particular on physiology (the genitalia), the Byzantine Christians based them on behaviour and more specifically procreation. Hence, by Late Antiquity the term "eunuch" had come to be applied not only to castrated men, but also to a wide range of men with comparable behavior, who had "chosen to withdraw from worldly activities and thus refused to procreate".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
So the apparent conflict is resolved in an open-minded and consistent manner
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:59 am
by Gob
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Since God and truth are not mutually exclusive, whenever there appears to be a conflict eiher truth is not yet understood or God is not yet understood.
God "not yet understood"? I thought god was infaliable, why can he not get a simple message across?
Matthew 7:1-2 (King James Version)
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
1 Corinthians 6:2-4 (New International Version, ©2011)
Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:29 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Gob wrote:MajGenl.Meade wrote: Since God and truth are not mutually exclusive, whenever there appears to be a conflict eiher truth is not yet understood or God is not yet understood.
God "not yet understood"? I thought god was infaliable, why can he not get a simple message across?
It's your experience then that humans are never thick as two short planks? C'mon, you must know some! But what simple message are you referring to? The following one?
Matthew 7:1-2 (King James Version)
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
1 Corinthians 6:2-4 (New International Version, ©2011)
Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?
It's amazing how often open-minded people abbreviate Matt 7:1-2 so it reads only as Matt 7:1. Verse 2 cannot be divorced from vs 1: "
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (KJV). Vs. 2 provides the reason for the command in vs. 1. One should not on this earth judge other people because the same standard of judgement will be applied to all of us. Simple
But verse 1 gets short shrift in the 2nd quote. "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?" (1Cor 6:1 KJV). Paul speaks of disagreements within the body of Christ. He says that these disagreements should not go to secular courts but should be determined within the body of believers. And in vss. 7-8 he says "Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers" (NLT). Pretty harsh on those judgemental people.
And he is of course referring to Jesus' teaching:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28 NAB)
So here we have what appears on the surface to be a conflict between God and truth. But not so. You see this same Jesus in the this same chapter of Matthew distinguishes between people on earth judging others and people in the "new age" judging others. In the first place, those who so judge will be judged (by Jesus) with the same measure that they used. In the second place, those whom he will judge as followers will assist in his judging of Israel***. Judgement of the angels is referenced in Isaiah 24:21; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6.
And there we are. Open-minded investigation resolves another apparent conflict and shows that while God and truth are utterly compatible, there is a need to help folks understand. It seems clear to me.
Cheers
Meade
***we also have to beware of words like "judge". In Hebrew terms, Deborah, Samson et al "judged" Israel. That means they had authority (from God) to resolve disputes, settle boundaries, be the social leaders. See the Book of Judges. Once again the Bible helps to interpret the Bible.
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:08 am
by Gob
Why do we have to rely on someone "in the know" to interprate these things?
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:14 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Gob wrote:Why do we have to rely on someone "in the know" to interprate these things?
Lazy bastards always need someone to educate them. It's all there - all they have to do is (a) read and (b) think. It's the latter item that you and I both bemoan whether it be amongst b'lievers or unbies. I was an atheist - now I'm not. The one "in the know" wrote the book (a) and commanded thought (b):
“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. 19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Isaiah 1-18-20 RSV)
"Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame" (1Peter 3:15-16 NAB)
You'll note that I'm pretty good on the first part of Peter's command (15) but no great shakes on the second (16)!
In Acts 26:1-24 Paul defends himself in front of Agrippa and Festus. In vs. 25 Festus interrupts to say "You're bonkers Paul! Too much education has driven you barmy?" to which Paul replies in vs. 26 " “I am not mad, most excellent Festus; I am speaking words of truth and reason" (NAB)
Not everyone has the aptitude to study - not everyone has the opportunity - not everyone needs to. One of the reasons that Christians should go to church is to learn more of their faith and their own relation to it - it's not just worship and prayer. Churches do a variously good or poor job at the teaching part; the best of men are men at best. I think Jesus has a warmer feeling for those who trust in the same way that children trust - before they learn to be smart-arse nay-sayers - than he may have for someone like me who overthinks the entire thing and must doubt this and that and thrash out an answer.
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:30 pm
by Big RR
I think Jesus has a warmer feeling for those who trust in the same way that children trust - before they learn to be smart-arse nay-sayers - than he may have for someone like me who overthinks the entire thing and must doubt this and that and thrash out an answer.
Why? certainly there are references in the gospels to the "faith of a child", but jesus was, throughout his life, a teacher. And I would think he would find it rewarding that his teachings inspired people to question and to attempt to understand, rather thn just accepting the assertions of others.
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:52 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
OK maybe not. It just seems so much like a person to feel a bit more compassion for (say) that guy or gal who never stood a chance and finishes dead last in the 100m at the Paralympics than for Usain Bolt in the regular Olympics who's got all the equipment, trains hard and runs like the wind. The second one agonizes over all the minute details of running while the first just does their best. Didn't you pull just a little for the Jamaican bobsled team? Or Eddie the Eagle? I can't remember who won those events in the Winter games but I sure remember those loser competitors whose cheerful faith in competition kept them smiling.
You're probably right. I just like to imagine him smiling when he thinks of some of my friends
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:16 pm
by Gob
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. 2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:01 am
by loCAtek
Taken out of Context;
Elisha was a prophet of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who was active during the reign of Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash (Joash).[2]
Elisha was the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah; he became the attendant and disciple of Elijah (1 Kings 19:16–19), and after Elijah was taken up into the whirlwind, he was accepted as the leader of the sons of the prophets, and became noted in Israel. He possessed, according to his own request, "a double portion" of Elijah's spirit (2 Kings 2:9); and for sixty years (892–832 BC) held the office of "prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8).
His name first occurs in the command given to Elijah to anoint him as his successor (1 Kings 19:16). After learning, in the cave on Mount Horeb, that Elisha, the son of Shaphat, had been selected by God as his successor in the prophetic office, Elijah set out to make known the Divine will. On his way from Sinai to Damascus, Elijah found Elisha "one of them that were ploughing with twelve yoke of oxen". Elisha delayed only long enough to kill the yoke of oxen, whose flesh he boiled with the very wood of his plough. He went over to him, threw his mantle over Elisha's shoulders, and at once adopted him as a son, investing him with the prophetic office. Elisha accepted this call about four years before the death of Israel's King Ahab. For the next seven or eight years Elisha became Elijah's close attendant until Elijah was taken up into heaven. During all these years we hear nothing of Elisha except in connection with the closing scenes of Elijah's life.
After he had shared this farewell repast with his father, mother, and friends, the newly chosen Prophet "followed Elijah and ministered to him". (1 Kings 19:8–21) He went with his master from Gilgal to Bethel, to Jericho, and thence to the eastern side of the Jordan, the waters of which, touched by the mantle, divided, so as to permit both to pass over on dry ground. Elisha then was separated from Elijah by a fiery chariot. He then beheld Elijah taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. By means of the mantle let fall from Elijah, Elisha miraculously recrossed the Jordan, and so won from the prophets at Jericho the recognition that "the spirit of Elijah hath rested upon Elisha" (2 Kings 2:1–15). He won the gratitude of the people of Jericho for healing its barren ground by adding salt to its waters.
When a group of children from Bethel taunted the prophet for his baldness, Elisha cursed them in the name of God and two female bears came out of the forest and mauled 42 of them (2 Kings 2:23–25).
Before Elijah was taken up into the whirlwind, Elisha asked to "inherit a double-portion" of Elijah's spirit. This is indicative of the property inheritance customs of the time, where the oldest son received twice as much of the father's inheritance as each of the younger sons. For example, if a man had three sons, his property was divided into fourths. Each son received one-fourth, with the oldest receiving two-fourths (twice as much as the others). In this instance with Elijah, Elisha is not asking to become twice as powerful as Elijah, but that he may be seen as the "rightful heir" to the work of the Lord that Elijah had done.
Before he settled in Samaria, the Prophet passed some time on Mount Carmel (2 Kings 2:25). When the armies of Judah, Israel and Edom, then allied against Mesha, the Moabite king, were being tortured by drought in the Idumean desert, Elisha consented to intervene. His double prediction regarding relief from drought and victory over the Moabites was fulfilled on the following morning (2 Kings 3:4–24).
Wiki
Elisha is Mocked
(2:23b)
“Young lads.” The KJV has “little children” which really misses the meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word “lads” is the Hebrew naar and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old. This was a crowd of young men, perhaps students of the false prophets, who were here as antagonists to Elisha’s prophetic ministry and authority. If not students, they were sent by the false prophets or idolatrous priests of Bethel to stop Elisha from entering the city. In Elisha Satan had an enemy and he was acting to protect his territory. Remember, however, Elisha was going to Bethel not to curse, but to bless.
...
The attack of these young men is twofold:
(1) “Go up”… “go up.” That is, ascend up as you claim Elijah did. The translation of Elijah was a miracle of God and portrayed the biblical truth and hope of the translation of the saints. Though Old Testament saints did not understand this, it was still a type of this truth. Elisha was a prophet of God and by doing this these young men were denying the work of God, denying the Word of God and God’s actions in history.
(2) The second aspect of the attack is seen in the words: “you baldhead.” Whether Elisha was actually bald, or whether he had a different hairstyle, i.e., cropped short on top, they were ridiculing the prophet and telling him to get lost like Elijah. Krummacher writes:
Baldness was regarded by the lower orders as a kind of disgrace; for as it was one of the usual consequences of leprosy, so it was accounted a sign of personal and mental degradation. Hence, in using this opprobrious epithet, the young profligates had a most malicious intention. Their expressions are not to be viewed as a mere burst of youthful wantonness; but as poisoned arrows, pointed and directed by refined and satanic malignity. It is as if they had said, “Thou effeminate leper! Thou would-be prophet! We fear thee not! Go up! Go up!” as if they mean, “Imitate thy master!” . . . It seems to have been a scoffing allusion to the ascent of Elijah; partly sceptical, and partly in derision of Elisha . . . 20
...
(2) What Elisha did: Elisha took up his armor, “He cursed them in the name of the Lord.” This is not cursing for cursing or reviling for reviling (1 Pet. 2:23). He was trusting in the Lord and leaving it in God’s hands. The key here is in the word “curse.” It does not mean to swear with vile words. This is the Hebrew word galal meaning “be swift, slight, trifling, or of little account.” The primary meaning is “to be light or slight.” Both verb and noun forms seem to represent a formula which expresses a removal or lowering from the place of blessing.
Cursing stands in contrast to the word blessing or favor (cf. Gen. 27:11, 12). The emphasis is on the absence, reversal, or removal of a blessed state or rightful position which brings God’s protection, provision and blessing. The principle is very simple: without God’s blessed salvation and protection we all stand cursed. The moment God removed His wall of protection from Job, Satan attacked him and wrecked havoc in Job’s life.
So Elisha, as a prophet, saw their hardened and rebellious condition, unresponsive to correction. In the name of the Lord (i.e. by His authority) Elisha simply turned them over to the Lord and to their own devises, which had the effect of removing them from even the common protection of God. He probably said something like, “may God deal with you according to what you deserve,” or “may you be cursed for your sins of rebellion.” This would demonstrate to the city and to people all around a vital truth: without the Lord there is no protection and that blasphemy of God’s servants and His Word in order to hinder God’s message is serious business. Note that Elisha did not call out the bears, God did. Two female bears (not three bears--papa bear, mamma bear, and baby bear) came out and tore up forty-two young men.
Bible.org
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:00 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Lo - I'd not say "taken out of context". The context of the passsage is that the young men mocked God's prophet (stated) and some bears got 'em. I think you simply meant, "here's an explanation of the passage with some background".
Gob: I was not sure how you might view this passage. I believe there are three (?) choices:
1. Elisha asked for a really existent God to strike down the children and God really responded by sending female bears to tear them up (possible variant: the bear attack was coincidental);
2. Since there is no God, Elisha’ words had no real effect and the bear attack was just a coincidence;
3. God may or may not exist, but some or none of this event happened.
In case #1, I would be pleased if you believe God did do this and acknowledge His real existence! If we agree that God exists, your question is, why would He do what appears to be a cruel act?
In case #2, you believe there is no God and therefore you don’t think that any god is to blame for the suffering of children. It’s just a random act of a natural world.
In case #3, we’d have to identify which parts you doubt are properly recorded or is it the entire passage? Upon that depends the issue of whether God (whose existence we agree upon) had something to do with the bears or that God (whose existence we disagree upon) had nothing to do with the bears. If the former then case #1 applies; if the latter then case #2 applies.
There may be a #4 though (much to your relief!). Why should a person have faith, trust and belief in a God of whom the passage appears to ascribe such a cruel action?
In case #4 there are several answers:
a. to be able to explain the passage so there is no conflict between (let’s say) love and cruelty
b. to be able to explain the passage so that what appears to be cruel is in fact only an appearance and not a reality
c. to agree that the story is not complete factual but is metaphor belonging to particular Hebrew stylistic writing that expresses truth
d. to agree that there was no connection at all between Elisha’s prayer/curse/words and the attack of the bears. It was coincidental but seen as significant.
e. to say that it happened just as described and that God sent the bears but since we know all his acts are good it must be so and we simply do not understand how.
f. to say along with science: “We don’t know the explanation – yet. But we feel sure there is one and we’ll keep on looking”.
There are probably others. My question to you is, which one of those explanations seems the most likely and acceptable to you? And I include the first 3 cases in that so if you just say “well it’s all a fairy story” then we’re back at case #2 or #4 and the question stands.
I think I’m exhibiting open-mindedness and an accusation of evading the issue (which you would not make anyway but others might) is not borne out by my willing confrontation of alternatives detailed above. On a personal note, I don't mind how the story is interpreted (other than from the presupposition that God doesn't exist) since it makes no difference. The point of the story is the danger and the consequences of holding God up to ridicule (I think). It may be a real incident, partly a real incident or entirely metaphorical (as I suppose the book of Jonah to be) - but that doesn't change the author's purpose. I could be wrong.
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:06 am
by loCAtek
Oh, of course, Genr'l Sir, thank you for the further information, I did meant to say that the passage;
Gob wrote:
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. 2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB
...had to be taken in context of all that you and I have presented, or else it might appear harsh to the layman; perhaps one who hasn't read the bible.
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:18 am
by Big RR
"Cursed them in the name of the Lord"? A far cry from "love thine enemies" or "father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:49 am
by Gob
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
I think I’m exhibiting open-mindedness and an accusation of evading the issue (which you would not make anyway but others might) is not borne out by my willing confrontation of alternatives detailed above. On a personal note, I don't mind how the story is interpreted (other than from the presupposition that God doesn't exist) since it makes no difference. The point of the story is the danger and the consequences of holding God up to ridicule (I think). It may be a real incident, partly a real incident or entirely metaphorical (as I suppose the book of Jonah to be) - but that doesn't change the author's purpose. I could be wrong.
Meade
That's where you are getting my positing that the bible is not communicating a message well.
If it is the message of an omnipotent being, it shows poor omnipotence.

Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:29 am
by MajGenl.Meade
That's where you are getting my positing that the bible is not communicating a message well. If it is the message of an omnipotent being, it shows poor omnipotence.
Gob, I get the message (from any interpretation of the event) as: “it is a very bad idea to anger God because bad consequences will follow”. That’s communicated very well.
What’s open to consider is whether the message comes from a real event or otherwise. Which one of the alternate approaches to interpretation did you favour? Although it’s not my first choice, I admit a sneaking fondness for “We don’t know – yet”. It has a nice scientific rationale to it as well as a good Christian one.
Besides, even if you or I did not understand the message of a specific passage (which so far is unproven), it does not mean that God has not communicated exactly as (and what) He wished to communicate. That has nothing to do with God’s omnipotence – which is the power and will to do whatever he desires to do.
Cursed them in the name of the Lord"? A far cry from "love thine enemies" or "father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Indeed so, Big RR. Of course I’m sure you read the meaning of “curse” (belittle, dismiss etc)? It occurs to me that the man was a prophet; he prophesied. “In the name of the Lord I’m telling you stupid twerps to shut up and gedadahere or something real bad is gonna happen to youse guys”. Do you think it happened as recorded (see choices in prior post)
Cheers!
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:48 am
by Gob
MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Gob, I get the message (from any interpretation of the event) as: “it is a very bad idea to anger God because bad consequences will follow”. That’s communicated very well.
"Anger god", you really believe that a mere mortal is capabale of creating 'anger' in in an omnipotent being?
I prefer the "God is such an arse he sends bears to kill kids," explaination, it's just as coherent.
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:49 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Gob wrote: "Anger god", you really believe that a mere mortal is capabale of creating 'anger' in in an omnipotent being? I prefer the "God is such an arse he sends bears to kill kids," explaination, it's just as coherent.
We have not established that God "sent" the bears yet, have we? If so, and if your explanation is coherent then I take it that you have become a believer in God and the remaining open issue is whether he is an 'arse' or not?
The scriptures aver that humans do indeed offend God. And why not? He's a person, not a block of wood (unless you have an argument for that?

)
I remain without understanding that omnipotence means a person would not have emotions. I also see no contradiction between an omnipotent message giver and the failure of humans to understand a particular element of that message (or more probably understand but 'prefer' to dismiss) - yet.
I feel that you are rather avoiding substantive responses to the careful reply I gave on the passage itself and about which I asked some questions. But I appreciate your continuing the dialogue.
As ever
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:52 am
by Gob
God is a person?
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:03 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Side-step #3 - are you now acknowledging that God exists (but is an "arse" as you prefer to imagine)?
Trinitarianism would answer One in essence; three in persons actually. "oh oh oh he said god's a schizo". Saved you some key strokes there.
But yes, God is a person (the person I suppose). He possesses (perfectly) all and more of the elements that make you a peson: will, rationality, goodness, love, mercy, grace, morality, creativity etc etc. Far as we know, those are not attributes of a rock or a pear or an ant.
Why djask?
Meade
Re: heaven is a ball...
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:00 am
by thestoat
MajGenl.Meade wrote:He possesses (perfectly) all and more of the elements that make you a peson: will, rationality, goodness, love, mercy, grace, morality, creativity etc etc.
... and jealousy ("You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)")