So someone posted some anti-religion pictures on FB, mostly anti-Christian comics, that I can’t help but provide some feedback on, after all, it’s important in any case to hear both sides of the story. Any logical person should do so before drawing conclusions. But most of all I feel personally pressed to address these images because I once believed in everything they attest to. But my opinions changed when I myself began to explore both sides of the story.
This is a common misconception that Christian missionaries just pass out bibles to poverty stricken people. This is hardly the case! Missionaries worldwide provide food, build homes, provide medical aid, job training, children education, and dig fresh water wells in addition to passing out Bibles. Christianity is the leading primary force behind feeding the poverty stricken all over the world. I volunteer with an organization called CHF (Children’s Hunger Fund) which alone provided $43.7 million dollars worth of food to poverty stricken people worldwide and domestically just last year (2010). Not to mention $24.6 million in medical aid. And this is just one of hundreds of Christian non-profit outreach organizations around the world. As of 2005, there were 4.19 million Christian Missionaries in predominantly Christian countries and 1.31 million missionaries in non-Christian countries. This is only taking into consideration full-time missionaries, not the millions of part-time missionaries.
Another factor to consider is the longevity of Christian Missionary Aid. Take the disaster in Haiti a few years ago. Whereas most secular organizations immediately responded to the disaster, did great work and saved many lives, the majority have packed up and left. Christian missions on the other hand were in Haiti long before the disaster, provided massive aid during the recovery, and still remain in Haiti and will remain for years to come.
You also can’t deny the immense dedication of missionary workers to the cause, often risking their lives to provide aid. A year or two ago a team of Christian doctors on a missionary journey through Afghanistan to provide medical aid to isolated villages were executed by a local militia. They were aware of the risks and dangers but proceeded anyways, because the danger factor was preventing any other forms of aid from reaching the villages.
Christianity also brings something else to the mix that secular aid organizations cannot; hope. You can feed a person, give them a home, but nothing is as powerful as instilling hope in a hopeless person. Matthew Parris, an atheist and a retired member of Parliament wrote the following about Christian aid in Africa; “Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.” To read Parris’ article in full, please visit: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
The message in this picture is obvious. All these men are respectable and intelligent and contributed much to mankind. So if they’re all atheist, then clearly atheism is for smart and respectable people. The problem is that whomever created this picture clearly doesn’t know the definition of atheism, or just flat out doesn’t know their history.
Take for example, Abraham Lincoln, WHO WAS NOT AN ATHEIST. He was more or less private about his faith. He came from a religious family and attended church from time to time with his own family, but not frequently. Yet historians agree he knew the Bible extremely well and used Biblical principals in his speeches often. His famous Emancipation Proclamation was actually inspired by the book of Exodus in the Bible. At one time, he was actually confronted about his faith in which he replied, “That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.” It may be a stretch to label him as a Christian but to call label him an atheist would be fallacious.
Benjamin Franklin- Wasn’t an atheist, nor a Christian. He was a deist, believing in God, but not in the Bible. During America’s rebellion against England, Franklin coined the term, “Rebelling tyrants is obedience to God.”
Albert Einstein- Also not an atheist, but certainly not a Christian either. Einstein was a Deist that did not believe in a personal God. You can look up all kinds of quotes from Einstein talking about a Creator God.
Charles Darwin- Though originally a Christian, Darwin did become an Atheist (or at least highly skeptical) after the death of his daughter. But, I should use this opportunity to point out Darwin’s education. After all, most people think he was a highly trained scientist. You may be surprised to find out Darwin had no formal training as a scientist outside a of a few classes taken in college. In fact, his only formal training was in Christian ministry. Which is ironic…
Thomas Jefferson- Not an atheist, but not a Christian either. He was a deist like Franklin.
Again, this picture seems to make it sound like atheism is for smart people. Well Christianity is for intellectuals as well: Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, Ben Carson, etc. just to name a few intellectuals whose discoveries changed mankind, yet were “Bible Thumpers.”
This picture is ultimately a strawman argument. Yes, many Christians do use this circular reasoning to justify their faith. But to claim this is all there is to Christianity is fallacious. I trust in the Bible’s authority based on its historical accuracy proven by archaeology and other extra-biblical sources , it’s incredible preservation, full-filled prophecy, uniformity despite the long periods of time separating the books and various authors, etc. Earning my trust, I affirm that it is the Word of God.
However, many people are quick to point out circular reasoning with Christians and ignore their own circular reasoning. For example, nothing in the Bible ever happened because the Bible isn’t true and the Bible isn’t true because nothing written in it ever happened. Many people to try to point out circular reasoning in Christians when they themselves are likewise just as guilty.
Lastly, circular arguments are not all logical fallacies. A circular argument is only a fallacy when it is arbitrary. Some circular arguments are not in this case. For example: Without the laws of logic we could not make an argument. We can make an argument. Therefore there must be laws of logic. This argument is circular, but non-fallacious. There is no other way to prove the laws of logic exist without presupposing them to exist in the first place. Same goes for mathematics. You cannot prove mathematics without assuming mathematics first. In any case, the picture above does little to undermine Christianity when there are so many highly rational arguments for it to rest on.
The message here is pretty obvious, Creationism is for the uneducated imbecile. This is of course neglecting the many well educated scientists that adhere to creationism. Furthermore, don’t be mistaken into thinking that the only evidence for Creationism is just “because the Bible says so.” Many of the evidences used for evolution can likewise be applied to creation theory. Though for someone who takes the Bible as the inherit word of God, “because the Bible says so” is a great conclusion. But I can’t expect someone who does not believe in the word of God to take the Bible as evidence. With that, there are many examples of the earth being young; Helium in the Earth’s atmosphere, Faint Sun Paradox, depleting magnetic field of Earth, the increasing orbit of the moon, accelerated nuclear decay problem, etc. As far as evidence showing that the earth is millions of years old, the mainstay is radiometric dating, which is prone contamination, inconclusive results and inaccurate results that are always been revised. Ultimately, the Bible does not give an exact date of earth’s creation and radiometric dating is a very broad series of dates. One says the earth is thousands of years old, the other millions to billions. Either way, no exact date is known, and no one should be arrogant enough to claim they do. All one can do is side with the worldview that earth is billions of years old, or the worldview that it is thousands of years old.
The inconsistencies with this statement show that the author has a very shallow understanding of Christian doctrine. First, God did not create man and women with sin, God’s original creation was “good” (Genesis 1:26-31). Man and woman however had freewill, and in their freewill they both chose to disobey God and therefore “sin” (Genesis 3). Eve also did not necessarily eat an apple, she just ate a “fruit” (Genesis 3:6). The Bible does not declare what kind of fruit was eaten. Only in traditions centuries later was an apple popularized as the fruit. Furthermore, Jesus’ sacrifice was not for the sin “I [God] originally condemned you too,” since as just stated, the sin was the result of man’s freewill. The author goes on to say that there is no evidence of this… despite there being 4 eye-witness narratives (one of which being a collaboration of multiple eyewitnesses [Luke]), corresponding historical references from Roman historians, corresponding documentation from the Talmud (anti-Christian), not to mention the dozens of historical locations and figures mentioned in these narratives that have all been confirmed by archaeology. As far as historical evidence from the 1st century goes, it doesn’t get any better than that!
In addition, the “tales” aren’t conflicting when one studies them objectively and without bias. What are usually misconceived as contradictions are usually variances that would naturally be found in testimony from different sources, which are in fact not found in conflict when thoroughly examined. Also, being written down decades after the events described was extremely common practice in ancient times. Only in more modern times are historical events recorded instantly. And calling the authors “uneducated desert people” shows again a lack of knowledge on the subject considering Luke was a physician and Matthew a tax collector. However, to compare people in the ancient world to people of today which have limitless amount of data at easy access is an unfair assessment to label them as “uneducated.” 50 years from now, people will look back at you and consider you an ignorant and uneducated person because you currently don’t know what they will know in the future… yet you think you are smart.
Then to go on and say that Christianity bears an incredibly similar resemblance to other religions, shows yet again, very little knowledge of not only Christianity, but the other religions it is unfairly accused of ripping off. Unfortunately, without a specific claim made though I cannot address this topic in more detail. In addition, God’s punishment for those who do not believe in him cannot be found contradictory to His love because God is all Just. He cannot be unjust. And because he cannot be unjust, He will always judge fairly. Love defined is not a blind love that allows all deeds to go unpunished. And considering His sacrafice for us to be reconciled to Him, we can clearly see His love!
To address the last line of this comic, which alludes to God’s knowledge of the future preventing our freewill, I have this to say: The argument is that if God knows everything you’re going to do before you do it, then you never had a choice in the matter. For example if God knows you’re going to pick plastic bags at the market instead of paper bags, then you were never going to choose paper, and therefore never had a choice. The counter-argument is that God is omniscient not humans. If humans were capable of knowing their future decisions, then yes, we would not have a choice in the matter. But since we do not know our future we do have a choice, God just knows in advance the choice we are going to make. We as humans have the free will to make any decision, and God knows the results of those decisions. God’s omniscience does not influence our decisions and therefore does not corrupt our freewill.
This is a very common misconception, and it is flat out incorrect. Sure, there are a handful of Christians out there that do believe the earth is flat, but the vast majority has, for thousands of years, not believed in a flat earth. This misconception stems from three verses that are widely misunderstood in the Bible.
Daniel 4:11 is often taken out of context to prove the earth is flat because a tree is referenced as being so large all the world could see it. And how could that be possible unless the entire earth was flat, right? In context, one would understand that Daniel 4 is the retelling of a dream King Nebuchadnezzar had (Daniel 4:5). A dream in which symbol was used to represent what would later on happen to Nebuchadnezzar. It would be inappropriate to conclude that the symbolic dream of a Babylonian king is proof that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. A second verse used by skeptics is Matthew 4:8 in which Satan takes Jesus onto a high mountain to see all the Kingdoms of the World. How would it be possible to see all the Kingdoms of the world from a mountain unless the earth was flat? At this point though, we need to again take the verses in context. Satan appears to Jesus and instantly takes him to a high mountain top. Clearly this is a supernatural event! One must consider that this is also the third temptation of Satan to Jesus. The first takes place in the desert, the second on top of the temple, the third on top of the highest mountain. Clearly the anty is being upped as Satan is trying harder each and every time to tempt Jesus with power. Besides, even 1st century people were aware that even from a high mountain top you could not see the entire range of the earth (even if you thought it was flat). Lastly, some skeptics claim that Revelation 7:1 indicates the earth is flat. However, “four corners” of the world was used by ancient cultures for centuries to indicate the four directions of north, south, east and west. No where in the Bible is it written that the earth is flat.
In fact, Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:21-22 indicates that the earth is “circular.” Which also coincides with the “corners” being North, South, East and West and not corners on a flat surface as a circular disc would not have corners. It should also be noted that the word “circle” used in these OT verses comes from the Hebrew word “chuwg” which also means sphere or round.
The Greeks originally discovered the roundness of the Earth. Ancient civilizations were very knowledgeable of the earth being round considering the amount of attention they spent on observing the stars and other celestial objects in the night sky. Christian theologians by the numbers also proclaimed their belief in a round earth. In fact, only two Christian writers from the past have ever been recorded for promoting a flat earth, one a heretic from the 4th century named Lactantius and an Egyptian monk from the 6th century named Cosmas. So two… from the entire history of ancient Christian literature…
There are many claims that Christians prosecuted and condemned those who thought the earth was round, but there is no historical evidence of this what so ever. Contrary to popular belief that the Church condemned Christopher Columbus from traveling West because they though he’d fall of the face of the planet, in reality the Church was well aware of the Earth being round. They condemed Columbus because they believed the earth was too large for Columbus to circumnavigate cheaply. In otherwords, it was too expensive! The error the Church made was not the earth being flat, but instead thinking the ocean was too large.
In fact, no one has ever accused Christianity of being believers in a flat earth until the 19th and 20th centuries, when supporters of Darwinian Evolution were looking to discredit Christians challenging the theory. To do this they refer to Cosmas and Lactantius (ignoring the hundreds of other Christian authors distinctly not flat-earthers) and the three verses mentioned earlier, which only work when taken out of context. Clearly the Bible does not teach of a flat earth.
Notice how the author presents false alternatives, pitting science against the authors of the Bible in an effort to proclaim that the two are at odds with one another. The author assumes that you can only have one of the other; science or scripture. The author uses the word “primitive” as well to suggest the authors of scripture are ignorant. But the most ironic part is the assumption that all the animals from Noah’s Ark were within walking distance from Noah, which any numb-skull knows is impossible right? The problem is that the author does not know the Biblical Framework of the flood and Noah’s Ark. If they did, they’d know that creationists believe that prior to the flood all the continents were fused together in one giant landmass known as Pangea by modern scientists, which is of course well supported and established by modern geological synthesis and plat tectonics. The Bible suggests this as well in Genesis 1:9 in which during the creation God declared that the waters be gathered into one place, or one ocean.
Furthermore, assuming many animals were very far from Noah, they had many years to reach him, and as we know from observing animals today they are capable of great migrations that can cover hundreds and thousands of miles. None of which can be disputed by modern science, and therefore it would be incorrect to pit “the works of science” against “primitives” in regards to the animals traveling to Noah’s Ark, when the two are not in contradiction. Regardless, we can’t ignore the supernatural element of the flood and the Ark. If the entire event could be explained by natural causes and possibilities it wouldn’t be a supernatural display of God’s power would it?
Here we see a classic example of common belief among individuals towards the scientific community. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me that scientists strive for truth and have no predetermined beliefs, it is only what is provable that they believe in ect ect. Here is a new flash for everyone: … EVERYONE has presuppositions and predetermined beliefs, even scientists. EVERYONE is guilty of what this comic declares that science is innocent of; letting presuppositions determined conclusion.
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s here from anti-creationists…
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
-Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
“Philosophically, the notion of a being of the present order of Nature is repugnant… I should like to find a genuine loophole. We must give evolution time to get started.”
-Sir Arthur Eddington, Cosmologist
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist.
“…evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible.”
-D.M.S. Watson, Professor and Chairman of Evolution, University of London
“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.”
-Boyce Rensberger, Scientific Author and Writer
“Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.”
-Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian
As you can clearly see, evolutionists (or scientists as this comic portrays them) are guilty of doing the very the same thing this comic mocks Christians of doing: Already having a conclusion and fitting the evidence to match the conclusion. This is referred to as having a presupposition. And to accuse someone else of doing it but not yourself is hypocrisy.
The message of this image is clear: How could there be a loving God with so much hate, pain and suffering in the world? There is so much to write about this subject, yet for sake of space I’ll recommend you to sources that have already addressed this: http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-cruel.html, http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-suffering.html, http://www.bookemon.com/read-book/51472/page-1284106, or http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering
The message in this picture is evident as well: Christians tend to ignore or not bring any attention to the mean God of the OT. Honestly, I can see the reasoning behind the person who created it: The Old Testament speaks of a God OK with killing, while the New Testament speaks of peace and kindness, even to our enemies. What a contradiction! But this contradiction is only warranted when the verses are taken OUT of context, with the verses isolated. This is an issue I seem to come across consistently with people who discredit the bible based on reading a few verses and not reading the entire book. If they took the time to read it all, with un-bias, they might be surprised.
One of the first topics people bring up to show how evil and brutal God is in the Bible is the Flood. Genesis records a global flood that killed all of the human population. How could a loving God kill so many people? Well the Bible says God is all knowing, Job 12:13, pure Justice, Psalm 9:16/Psalm 11:7 and is the only thing truly good, Mark 10:18. So God is all knowing, who’s decisions are good and just. In Genesis we read that prior to the flood everyone in the world was evil, Genesis 6:5-13. God found Noah and his family in favor and thus gave him instruction to build the Ark prior to the flood. 2 Peter 2:5 states that Noah warned people of the impending flood as well. This is a common theme we find in the Bible prior to massive judgment from God. There’s always a chance provided for those committing evil to stop and turn from their ways. So we see that an all knowing God deemed all the world evil except Noah and his family, subsequently people where warned of the impending flood but chose to ignore the warnings, and the only people who remained righteous were spared. That sounds just to me.
Then there is Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis 18:20-33. Cities that were found to be full of evil people to the point where Abraham asks God if He would spare the cities if 10 righteous people were found in the cities? God said in that case that He would spare the cities. Well, all-knowing, good and just God destroyed both cities so we can conclude that there were not 10 righteous people there. But God did send two angels to retrieve Lot and his family from the impending destruction, which only numbered six. Here we see God providing a means of escape and salvation for particular family members in the city, because he promised Abraham he would.
Then there are the 10 plagues of Egypt. In which the Pharaoh is asked multiple times to let the Israelites leave. Every time the Pharaoh refused, God released a plague on the Egyptians. The Pharaoh didn’t agree to release the Israelites until the final plague of Egypt, which was the death of all firstborns written of in Exodus 11. Here we have another example of God giving evil people (in this case Pharaoh and the rest of Egypt that was keeping the Israelites in punishing slavery) multiple opportunities to avoid harm done onto them.
God even punished His own Israelite people when they didn’t listen to His commands. The prophets warned the Israelites numerous times to turn from their ways and begin to follow God’s Laws again. But they refused, multiple times. And multiple times God punished them, allowing other countries to invade and conquer His own people. This is a great testimony to how just God is, that he would even bring harm onto His own people when they commit to evil.
Isn’t interesting that people will call someone evil if they’ve been wronged against, and demand justice. Yet will question God for destroying evil populations of people even though they were warned prior to (in some cases multiple times) and the righteous were spared from harm. That sounds like a Just God to me.
Now that God has been addressed, what about people killing in the name of God? Is it Ok to kill? Well, Exodus 20:13 states not to commit murder. But just a few chapters later in Exodus 22:2 we’re told it is OK to kill a thief? What? I’m confused. And instead of just writing this off as a contradiction thus proving the Bible is a ridiculous book written by dumb people in the past… let’s stop try to understand what is really being written here.
First, let’s distinguish between killing and murder. Murder is an unlawful taking of life. Killing may be either a lawful or unlawful taking of life. Killing is not a simple black and white case of either right and wrong, there are qualification outlined in the OT. For example, killing another person in an act of self-defense Exodus 22:2 was considered acceptable, just as it is today. That was considered a capital offense. Mosaic Law made certain crimes a capital offense, the punishment of which was death, thereby making the death an execution not murder.
When Joshua was ordered to conquer the land in Canaan in Deuteronomy 20:16-17, he was ordered to kill everyone. Skeptics will often make the logical fallacy of begging the question, by stating that the people that inhabited the land were innocent. But from reading Leviticus 18 we learn that the people inhabiting the land were not innocent, but instead committed to bestiality, pedophilia, murder and child sacrifice among other evils. Again, we see that God deemed all of them as evil. In these situations were Joshua killed these people, he was commanded by God as an instrument of God’s justice.
So we see that God acts justly against evil; Isaiah 13:11, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and Proverbs 11:21. But also offers mercy to those that turn from their evil ways, Exodus 20:6, Deuteronomy 7:9, Ephesians 2:4. This is mostly seen by God sending of Jesus to earth to better demonstrate and communicate His mercy and salvation, John 3:16. We should also consider the fact that God is responsible for all life. So if God, is all-knowing, good, just, and gives us life. How can we argue why and when he takes that life? If God exists, you can’t argue His motives. If God doesn’t exist than why would you argue his character? Arguing his character as portrayed in the Bible does not make God any more or less real. You can choose to disagree with God’s motives and turn from Him, but that in no way makes God any more or less real. If you believe he doesn’t exist, than what is the point of arguing His character?
I also feel compelled to question how certain atheists or agnostics could label God to be bad, evil or wrong. Without a God, how do we know what is good? What makes it “good” to be “good?” How can we determine what is bad. If it is an individual’s opinion, we can simply reject it. If it is public opinion, then it is only as good as the public agreement can make it. To truly know if something is good or not, we’d need an outside source from which to derive this goodness. A source that is universal and abstract: God. Without God, then who is to really say you’re being good? Remember, the Nazi’s thought what they were doing to the Jews was OK. But yet we can all agree it wasn’t, right? Well if good and bad is not absolute, but instead a matter of convention, than how can we say the Nazi’s were wrong for doing what they did. How can we punish them for doing something they thought was OK? Yet, we do and did. Because good and bad is an absolute abstract non-material concept. Without the outside source of an all good and all just God who is to say what is really good or bad, right or wrong? Food for thought next time you may be thinking God is being a little too harsh…
In regards to the slavery, I’ve posted about this subject before which can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=151171118266578
And in regards to bears killing children… that comes from 2 Kings 2:23-25. You better believe I’d know this one considering my affinity for bears! The verses read as follows: “He (Elisha) went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” 24 When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.” Wow, that sounds kinda gnarly! But you can’t formulate an opinion on a bible verse without knowing the context or the characters involved. So let’s break down these verses.
First, Elisha was traveling to Bethel after leaving Jericho where Elisha had just performed a mercy-miracle, thus demonstrating God’s mercy. Second, the populations between Bethel and Jericho (a 10-mile distance) were notorious for containing idol worshippers and cult followers. These “boys” weren’t just playfully mocking him for having a baldhead. Elisha was well known and well respected as a prophet of God. The jeers were certainly attacks at Elisha’s belief and role as a prophet for the God of Israel. Third, the term “boy” should be better understood. During this time, a male from twelve to thirty was referred to as neurim qetannim, which is translated to boys or young men. Isaac was referred to as a boy in Genesis 22:12, when he was in his early twenties. Kings 20:14-15 refers to their Army men in similar fashion. So these “boys” are more adequately young men between the age of 12 and 30. Fourth, pointing out someone’s baldhead in the past was a pretty disrespectful. Lepers were forced to shave their heads to distinguish them as outcasts in these times. Baldness was deemed a curse. Fifth, this wasn’t just an innocent jeering. The last verse says the bears mauled forty-two of the young men, alluding to the fact there were more than that in total. Sounds like a mob or mass demonstration. So in summary, a prophet of God who just conducted a mercy miracle is confronted by a mob of young men that are challenging God and more than likely jeopardizing Elisha’s safety. In knowing this we can see that God sending two bears to protect Elisha and harm the cult following idol worshippers shouldn’t be considered evil by God.
So these are all my retorts and rebuttals. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when it appears that opinion has been made without consultation of the opposing viewpoint, I feel compelled to respectfully provide a counter-argument. Thank you.