Lioness in zoo kills man who invoked God

[(Q)]

But was the man a theist at all?! If he conducted a test to find whether God exists or not?
A theist *already* believes God exists.

Sorry, and you're implying an atheist would be so incomprehensibly stupid?

 

[(Q)]

Maybe he was. Someone bold enough to actually ask God to finally show some proof of Himself, instead of leaving us to delusion.

It looks as though the latter will continue to be at the forefront of religion, as the dead, and probably eaten man would confirm.

 

[§outh§tar]

It's a shame that he didn't survive. Then all the theists who are now disavowing him would have sworn this was a testament of God's power.

Fun how that works.

 

[ggazoo]

It's a shame that he didn't survive. Then all the theists who are now disavowing him would have sworn this was a testament of God's power.

Fun how that works.

I'm a theist and that guy was a moron... its a ****ing lion!

 

[water]

I'm a theist and that guy was a moron... its a ****ing lion!

So what if it was a lion??
Does that make any difference to God?

 

[ggazoo]

So what if it was a lion??
Does that make any difference to God?

No, that guy was still a moron.

 

[Jenyar]

Sorry, and you're implying an atheist would be so incomprehensibly stupid?

"Eh? How do you know when someone is being stupid?"

Is there a double standard here?

But one who doesn't believe and would like to find out -- how is one to know?

Then there's no-one to test, is there? Why don't you follow your own logic for a change?

Maybe he was. Someone bold enough to actually ask God to finally show some proof of Himself, instead of leaving us to delusion.

Ha. That's funny. As if people waited all these millennia being too scared to ask God for proof of himself, and now at last this brave individual jumps in a lion's den and shows us something new.

There's no delusion, there's only unbelief (unless by delusion you mean unbelief). People who've been spending a lot of time in God's presence once tested Him, He warned them not to (Deut. 6:16), and the knowledge has existed ever since. Repeating the test would only yield the same results. Why don't we have people walking off cliffs to test gravity? Because the test has been done, and it would be stupid to expect different results.

We dont' call people who still walk off cliffs "enlightened" just because they were surprised at the result.

 

[Jenyar]

It's a shame that he didn't survive. Then all the theists who are now disavowing him would have sworn this was a testament of God's power.

Fun how that works.

Anything that happens contrary to what people expect raises interesting questions, and no doubt there will be just as many theists jumping to conclusions as there are non-believers jumping to conclusions now. What's the difference, really?

 

[water]

Sorry, and you're implying an atheist would be so incomprehensibly stupid?

"Eh? How do you know when someone is being stupid?"

Is there a double standard here?

I never expressed agreement with Q's implication, I did not imply what he proposes that I implied.

But one who doesn't believe and would like to find out -- how is one to know?

Then there's no-one to test, is there? Why don't you follow your own logic for a change?

What?

I didn't believe, and I wanted to find out. And nothing happened to convince me one way or another.

Maybe he was. Someone bold enough to actually ask God to finally show some proof of Himself, instead of leaving us to delusion.

Ha. That's funny. As if people waited all these millennia being too scared to ask God for proof of himself, and now at last this brave individual jumps in a lion's den and shows us something new.

There's no delusion, there's only unbelief (unless by delusion you mean unbelief). People who've been spending a lot of time in God's presence once tested Him, He warned them not to (Deut. 6:16), and the knowledge has existed ever since. Repeating the test would only yield the same results. Why don't we have people walking off cliffs to test gravity? Because the test has been done, and it would be stupid to expect different results.

Repeating the test would only yield the same results?
What about me? What about my salvation? That doesn't matter?

*I* do not know whether God exists, or not.
*I* wanted to find out, made an effort, followed instructions given by Christians.

*I* wanted to know -- and I was not given the credit to find out for myself. I was expected to believe hearsay.

 

[Jenyar]

well, it seems pretty unstraightforward. signs that you are a believer include being able to heal people, immunity to poison and snakes, but you shouldn't try to find out whether you have them, they'll just show up - ie: don't go out and try to heal people if you think your belief is true, just wait and see if it happens by accident and then you'll know. take a step back and think of how fucking stupid that sounds. jesus didn't think that people would want to know if they qualified as a true believer or not, but he went ahead and enumerated the criteria for them, hoping that they wouldn't try to test it out? absurd.

You're right. The distinction would have applied if it was consistent, but driving out demons and healing people are obviously abilities, not just signs. However, it still has nothing to do with whether someone is a true believer or not, since even then not every believer could heal or drive out demons. The same would apply to people who came into contact with snakes (as happened to Paul in Acts 28:4-5) or poison (which some of the church fathers reported happening). None of these were intended as parlor tricks or as lithmus tests for faith. And definitely not for testing God.

oh i see, what you are saying is that if somebody attempts to convert you, you should kill them. and it doesn't just apply to the israelites, because the christians accept the god of judaism as the same god that manifested itself in christ. who do you think the first christians were - descendents of israelites. but you can try to weave your way around it all you want. i love watching a christian try to justify why certain of god's statement's are more important than other's in convenient instances.

Israel was a kingdom on earth, just like any other, but with God as their king. That makes following a different God (or inciting someone to do it) an act of high treason. Up until very recently the penalty for treason was death or exile in most countries. Are you surprised it was the same in Israel 4000 years ago? Modern constitutions and systems of justice were built on the same principles. It was an earthly kingdom with laws designed to preserve it - these penalties were always presided over by judges, thoroughly investigated (13:14), and no person could take such laws into their own hands. The right for Israel to administer capital punishment had been taken out of the Sanhedrin's hands long before Christ. It is still less an option now that Christ has served out the death penalty for everyone who was previously condemned under that law, and people who've been pardoned aren't in any position to condemn others for the same sin. The principle of unfailing allegiance still applies (as we've seen in Matt. 10:27), but the judgement is now God's alone, as is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Jenyar]

I never expressed agreement with Q's implication, I did not imply what he proposes that I implied.

Fair enough.

What?

I didn't believe, and I wanted to find out. And nothing happened to convince me one way or another.

Nothing would have happened. Very few people convert because they were persuaded to by something expected or unexpected (either can be explained away quite naturally). God isn't a on a rope that goes up and down all the time so that people can see the movement and say, "I've seen Him move, now I believe". From the perspective of a single cell, wouldn't our bodies always seem to be standing still, even though we're spinning at a 1000 miles an hour? How little must God do before we can notice Him, and how great must it be before we will believe it's Him?

My personal acceptance wasn't because something small happened - and by small, I mean something that I could fit into a few miniscule moments of my life. It was because something greater than me happened, something I want to be part of. It's something that's been happening since man could perceive it, that has been traced to a point in history that completely overwhelmed even those who were expecting it, and that humanity has been trying to come to terms with despite itself ever since. For me to want evidence that will fit into my limited perspective would be like asking the theory of relativity to prove itself. I still hope to see something I can isolate, as many others have, but I don't depend on it. At the end of my life, I'm sure I would be able to say with equal conviction "nothing happened" and "everything happened".

Repeating the test would only yield the same results?
What about me? What about my salvation? That doesn't matter?

Of course it matters. But if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got. If a test keeps failing, it's not because nobody cares, it's because the test produces no result.

*I* do not know whether God exists, or not.
*I* wanted to find out, made an effort, followed instructions given by Christians.

*I* wanted to know -- and I was not given the credit to find out for myself. I was expected to believe hearsay.

You don't need "credit" to do something - you have exactly the same opportunity now than you ever had. There are no instructions and no recipe. Everybody has to come to God from within their own unique situation. Other people's experiences will be hearsay, what else? Whether they expect you to believe them or not really doesn't make a difference.

If you think God would have a coherent existence only for you and not for everybody else who seeks Him, you must be prepared to find something that nobody else has seen or heard, and be content with that. If, on the other hand, you're looking for a God who can also be found by others, you will have to at least consider the testimonies of other people as possibly more than just hearsay - and that includes testimonies that survived over time. Decide for yourself what to do, because nobody will do it for you - especially not people who just expect you to believe them.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Maybe god does exist....we will never know if after years of captivity the lioness finally had one of her prayers answered.

 

[(Q)]

"Eh? How do you know when someone is being stupid?"

Is there a double standard here?

Ignorant means not knowing any better, stupid means already knowing but doing it anyway.

Ha. That's funny. As if people waited all these millennia being too scared to ask God for proof of himself, and now at last this brave individual jumps in a lion's den and shows us something new.

The lion killed him, that's nothing new.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Sadly, there was another occurance recently about a European couple on safari in the Kalahari.

REUTERS stated "The woman, who was a German National, and her husband who was from Czechoslovakia, came upon a pride of lions hidden in the bush and were unable to defend themselves satisfactorily with the weapons they carried. The safari guides told reporters that the woman was mauled and eaten by a lioness, apparently trying to protect her cubs, but the Czech was in the male."

 

[Meantime]

The human sense of consciousness with flaring emotional content is just not compatible with wild life. So that's that.

 

[§outh§tar]

Anything that happens contrary to what people expect raises interesting questions, and no doubt there will be just as many theists jumping to conclusions as there are non-believers jumping to conclusions now. What's the difference, really?

As far as I can think, there is only one conclusion an unbeliever can / could have 'jumped' to. Unless you are supposing that God could possibly have saved this man?

 

[Adstar]

The man was Not a theist. He may have been an agnostic, A theist would not have added the "if He exists" to the end of the statement he made. A theist is sure that God exists, Maybe a theist would say "if God is willing" But they would never say "if He exists".

Also laying hands on someone to heal them is Not putting God to the test. Scriptures make it clear that the sign of healing would not be given to all followers of the Messiah Jesus, same with prophesy same with tongues ect. So if i was to try to heal someone i would not be testing the existence of God i would only be finding out if i had been selected by God to be used as a conduit of His healing power.

Snake venom. The apostles did not go out of their way to grab snakes with the intent to make themselves be bitten as a demonstration or to put God to the test. When Paul was bitten it was not by intent but it was by accident.

Acts 28
1 Now when they had escaped, they then found out that the island was called Malta. 2 And the natives showed us unusual kindness; for they kindled a fire and made us all welcome, because of the rain that was falling and because of the cold. 3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.” 5 But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.


The Spirit of putting God to the test is the act of a person trying to force Gods hand. An attempt to make God intervene.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[water]

Nothing would have happened. Very few people convert because they were persuaded to by something expected or unexpected (either can be explained away quite naturally). God isn't a on a rope that goes up and down all the time so that people can see the movement and say, "I've seen Him move, now I believe". From the perspective of a single cell, wouldn't our bodies always seem to be standing still, even though we're spinning at a 1000 miles an hour? How little must God do before we can notice Him, and how great must it be before we will believe it's Him?

How convenient. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Polished up, noble-seeming excuses.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA..................

GOD WILL SAVE HIM...... from viscious lions....
that he willing put himself in front of.....


hahahahahahaha... what a moron.

God, gives us life and the will to live it... everything else is up to us.

hahahahahahaha........... its hard to believe he could be so stupid.

God helps those who help themselves.... (like avioding lions.)

-MT

 

[Jenyar]

How convenient. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Polished up, noble-seeming excuses.

It's possible to say the same of your post. But I didn't, I tried to answer. I don't care if you think they're excuses - it's your decision what you do with the words.