http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

The incident, Sunday evening when the zoo was packed with visitors, was the first of its kind at the attraction. Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.

LOL, what a tard.

yea.... he should have read the bible, cuz it says: you shall not put the lord your god to a test.

Yes he should never have put God to a test and the "if He exists" is a dead give away.

Daniel was saved from Lions but Daniel did not jump into the enclosure he was thrown in.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

one less to f**k up the gene pool, and one more darwin award.

Well, we don't know whether God saved the man or not.

*If* the man said *only this* -- "God will save me, if he exists" -- then this is not specific enough. Maybe God did save him -- from Hell, but not from the lion.

If the man did *not* say "God, if He exists, will save me from this lion and this lion will not hurt me", then there is presently no case, as we do not know whether the man is in Heaven, or in Hell, nor did the test show anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

A wasted opportunity. People really should be more specific!

Well, we don't know whether God saved the man or not.

*If* the man said *only this* -- "God will save me, if he exists" -- then this is not specific enough. Maybe God did save him -- from Hell, but not from the lion.

Then, the man commited suicide, and he will go to hell.

Then, the man commited suicide, and he will go to hell.

Eh! But the test did not prove anything about God's existence! So we also don't know whether hell exists.

The test proves that God didn't, or wouldn't, or couldn't, or isn't.

The test proves that God didn't, or wouldn't, or couldn't, or isn't.

Bah. Such a god and such a test is not good enough for me!

Eh! But the test did not prove anything about God's existence! So we also don't know whether hell exists.

Sure it does, either way, a god did not save the man from the lions or from eternal damnation. The man was not trying to prove hell existed, as a theist, he knew it existed and knew that if he tried to commit suicide, he would go to hell.

Sure it does, either way, a god did not save the man from the lions or from eternal damnation. The man was not trying to prove hell existed, as a theist, he knew it existed and knew that if he tried to commit suicide, he would go to hell.

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.

Bah. Such a god and such a test is not good enough for me!

Hence you couldn't be bothered.

Why is it that Christians are so demanding? Even of their god?

if a person is true to himself (god), he can pet a lion and it wont eat him. remember, in ancient egypt they used lions to pull their vehicles!!

lions don't like people who are not themselves. lions are true, so they only accept the truth. if "i am what i am", i am god, and a lion wont harm me.

lions are with ra!!

he read the last few lines of mark one too many times. they have long been suspected/shown to be a later addition to the gospel, maybe that's why they don't work out.

16-Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 -And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18-they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

#16 looks like a big crock of shit to me? You?

Then, the man commited suicide, and he will go to hell.

There is no scriptural support for the assertion that persons who commit suicide go to hell.

This particular non biblical dogma was devised long after the bible was written by the (totally human) members of the RC church heirarchy as there were too many people deciding it would be nice to escape the unpleasant earth and get off to the literally paradisical heaven.

kind regards


Gordon.

#16 looks like a big crock of shit to me? You?

to me the whole thing looks like a crock of shit. we are in agreement.
mr pink is the best resevoir dog, although mr. blonde did give him a run for his money.

If only all believers in God would jump into a lion pit... hehe... haha... HAHA... HAHWH MWAHAHAHAHAH......

Yep, he just proved that his god didn't exist, or perhaps just confirmed what Jesus told Satan: that we mustn't put God to the test...

he read the last few lines of mark one too many times. they have long been suspected/shown to be a later addition to the gospel, maybe that's why they don't work out.
The ending of Mark also stated: "20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."

So the signs did accompany those who believed. But it didn't replace the warning Jesus gave. If this man knew the history he might have learned from a few early Darwin Award nominees who made the same mistake:
1 Cor. 10:5-9 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. ... We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.

Always the extreme justification in defense of their creed that feels anachronistic and bureaucratic!

Not really following you. Don't we have a responsibility to warn people against their own stupidity?

The test proves that God didn't, or wouldn't, or couldn't, or isn't.

well to make that stament correctly it should be

The test proves that God didn't, or wouldn't, or couldn't, or isn't willing to save people from their own stupidity

Hence you couldn't be bothered.

Actually, I prefer tigers. :)

Not really following you. Don't we have a responsibility to warn people against their own stupidity?

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

Maybe they are just bold, or have some particular insight, or ...

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

Maybe they are just bold, or have some particular insight, or ...
A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure ... an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.
You're right, this man was a brave, misunderstood genius...

Yep, he just proved that his god didn't exist, or perhaps just confirmed what Jesus told Satan: that we mustn't put God to the test...


The ending of Mark also stated: "20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."

So the signs did accompany those who believed. But it didn't replace the warning Jesus gave. If this man knew the history he might have learned from a few early Darwin Award nominees who made the same mistake:
1 Cor. 10:5-9 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. ... We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.

don't you find it sort of funny that jesus apparently says at the end of mark - "these are the signs that accompany believers", but then somewhere else says "don't try to test this, because you'll end up dead." that doesn't make sense, why tell believers that they will have these abilities, and then tell them not to use them, or even try to find out if they have them. thats ridiculous and awful.

in addition to that, the passage you quote is from the Old Testament, which i have come to see is apparently not as credible in the eyes of christians as the new testament is. if it were, we'd have people killing non-believers like deuteronomy says to. cherry pick all you like, the bible is useless.

Because half the shit in the Bible Jesus didn't say...

Not really following you. Don't we have a responsibility to warn people against their own stupidity?

But the impression I get is of your own stupidity—your own limited scope—and projecting, or trying to squeeze so much exhaustive and elaborate detail pertaining to actuality into so little space—the printed word. It seems to me that much must be overlooked. Or ignored. Or swept under the rug when no one's looking. Justifying life, or yourselves?

I mean, the scope of a living detailed circumstance, the very components that interlink experience with personal and impersonal phenomena which in turn respond, consciously or not, to one's dynamic environment, an environment which is dependent or interdependent or not dependent at all on many more factors.

M: I mean, the scope of a living detailed circumstance, the very components that interlink experience with personal and impersonal phenomena which in turn respond, consciously or not, to one's dynamic environment, an environment which is dependent or interdependent or not dependent at all on many more factors.
Do you, can you, take the rest of actuality into account also?

don't you find it sort of funny that jesus apparently says at the end of mark - "these are the signs that accompany believers", but then somewhere else says "don't try to test this, because you'll end up dead." that doesn't make sense, why tell believers that they will have these abilities, and then tell them not to use them, or even try to find out if they have them. thats ridiculous and awful.
That's because there's a difference between a sign (which you have no control over) and an ability (which you can exercise and "test").

in addition to that, the passage you quote is from the Old Testament, which i have come to see is apparently not as credible in the eyes of christians as the new testament is. if it were, we'd have people killing non-believers like deuteronomy says to. cherry pick all you like, the bible is useless.
Exodus 23:9, Lev. 19:34, Deut. 10:19 - all say the same thing: "you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt." I'm not sure what passage you're referring to? (edit: 1 Corinthians 10 is in the New Testament, so I presume you mean the event the passage refers to?).

I'm reminded of a passage from one of the Discworld novels, I think it was Light Fantastic or Colour of Magic...
"...like a man standing on a hilltop in wet copper armor, shouting all gods are bastards".

That's because there's a difference between a sign (which you have no control over) and a gift (which you can exercise and "test").

how convenient. are you sure that the word sign is really the word sign? or was it just another one of those instances where we translated idiomatic hebrew into overly literal greek?


Exodus 23:9, Lev. 19:34, Deut. 10:19 - all say the same thing: "you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt." I'm not sure what passage you're referring to? (edit: 1 Corinthians 10 is in the New Testament, so I presume you mean the event the passage refers to?).

your passage was indeed in the NT.

however, the passage from deutoronomy that i'm referring to that you don't know about is as follows:

Deu. 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;


Deu 13:7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;


Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:


Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.


Deu 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

in the gospel of thomas jesus says: "Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man.

though another translation says "and cursed is the man whom a lion eats so that the man becomes a lion!"

There is no scriptural support for the assertion that persons who commit suicide go to hell.

there is: "thou shalt not kill!"

in the gospel of thomas jesus says: "Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man.

though another translation says "and cursed is the man whom a lion eats so that the man becomes a lion!"



there is: "thou shalt not kill!"

that's not even a commandment, read exodus.

how convenient. are you sure that the word sign is really the word sign? or was it just another one of those instances where we translated idiomatic hebrew into overly literal greek?
No, in this case it's just the difference between the word "sign" and the word "ability", or gifts - there are plenty of other places where believers' gifts are outlined, and they don't include protection from danger. Seems straightforward enough to me.

your passage was indeed in the NT.

however, the passage from deutoronomy that i'm referring to that you don't know about is as follows:

Deu. 13:6-10
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
The reason here is obviously that they "entice thee secretly" and "sought to thrust thee away from the LORD" - not that they believe differently or are non-believers, as you said. And as you can see, it pertains to the Israelites themselves.

Yep, he just proved that his god didn't exist, or perhaps just confirmed what Jesus told Satan: that we mustn't put God to the test...


If one already believes in God, then surely one can apply this, and not (want to) put God to the test.

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

A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure ... an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.
You're right, this man was a brave, misunderstood genius...

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

No, in this case it's just the difference between the word "sign" and the word "ability", or gifts - there are plenty of other places where believers' gifts are outlined, and they don't include protection from danger. Seems straightforward enough to me.

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.


"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
The reason here is obviously that they "entice thee secretly" and "sought to thrust thee away from the LORD" - not that they believe differently or are non-believers, as you said. And as you can see, it pertains to the Israelites themselves.

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.

by the way, here's the rest of that passage from deutoronomy:

Deu 13:12 If thou shalt hear [say] in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,


Deu 13:13 [Certain] men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;


Deu 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, [if it be] truth, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought among you;


Deu 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that [is] therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.


Deu 13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.


Deu 13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;


Deu 13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do [that which is] right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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


No, that guy was still a moron.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

*************
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."

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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?
There are two: 1) that this man's action says something about God because he mentioned Him, and 2) that nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God. Considering what unbelievers believe, I would have thought 2 will be thought more likely. That would have been their train of thought if the man had survived, wouldn't it? Believers might conclude that 1) the test failed, and God had (obviously) not spared him; 2) nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God.

Had the man survived the mauling, either intact or just with his life, the same conclusions could be reached. Unbelievers would say it proved nothing, believers would say that God had (obviously) spared him, and either way, nature would have gone its natural course with nothing new.

Face it, this debate has very little to do with what happened and what we think didn't. It's about the caption under the story, and the emotions it evokes.

There are two: 1) that this man's action says something about God because he mentioned Him, and 2) that nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God. Considering what unbelievers believe, I would have thought 2 will be thought more likely. That would have been their train of thought if the man had survived, wouldn't it? Believers might conclude that 1) the test failed, and God had (obviously) not spared him; 2) nature is still doing what it always has, and it says nothing new about God.

Had the man survived the mauling, either intact or just with his life, the same conclusions could be reached. Unbelievers would say it proved nothing, believers would say that God had (obviously) spared him, and either way, nature would have gone its natural course with nothing new.

Face it, this debate has very little to do with what happened and what we think didn't. It's about the caption under the story, and the emotions it evokes.


I said right away that the test was not specific enough to give any meaningful results.

The man prayed: God let this lion be a christian, that it shall not kill me.

The lioness; Thank you lord for this meal I'm about to receive.

:D

Godless

I think though that the whole issue here was actually about this lion being female!

I think though that the whole issue here was actually about this lion being female!

I'm pretty sure it's the female lions that hunt the prey anyway. I think the males just beat each other up for mating rights.

Female lions defend the territory, the males defend the pride.

Female lions defend the territory, the males defend the pride.

lions have good reasons to be proud. they follow god.

lions have good reasons to be proud. they follow god.

So, why did god create carnivores and why do they follow god?

So, why did god create carnivores and why do they follow god?

If you throw a rock, it falls on the ground because it follows the laws of God (and the laws of God follow God) Rocks don't really have any choice though. Animals don't have much choice either, so even though the laws they follow are a lot complicated than the ones that rocks follow, they still follow them perfectly.

You know, when there's a great natural disaster (like the tsunami) or maybe when lightning strikes, people often says that it's God who does those things. So where is the limit. If "God" controls natural powers, he is probably also in animals, and in humans, and he controls them... yes... that's why I say that God is the self...

Life/God/consciousness becomes conscious of itself. When you lift your hand, it's the same God which makes it move as the one which makes lightning strike.

Why did God create flesheating beings?

One reason is that lions are cool and we want to express ourself/God in infinite ways. Everything is separated from God, from themselves, so everything always seeks unification. Lions want to unify with life itself, that's why they're much happier if they can eat alive beings instead of if they're at the Zoo and people give them dead food.

The law of matter is egoism. Satan is the law of matter. As long as people and things identify themselves with the body/person, they will be egoistic.

But they seems so cute and cudly?

http://www.anderson4.k12.sc.us/schools/les/Default_Page_Links/images_default_page/lion-cartoon-05.png

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukraine_lion_dc

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

The incident, Sunday evening when the zoo was packed with visitors, was the first of its kind at the attraction. Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.

LOL, what a tard.

That poor lioness, she's probably got a bad case of the runs from chewing on that fool. When the sign says dont feed the animals, they really mean it!

So, why did god create carnivores and why do they follow god?

Duh, to eat theists.

in the gospel of thomas jesus says: "Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man.

though another translation says "and cursed is the man whom a lion eats so that the man becomes a lion!"



there is: "thou shalt not kill!"

The correct translation is 'Do not commit murder'. It is unfortunate that here as in other places the King James translation (so revered by many) is actually inaccurate. There are plenty of occassions when killing is permitted in Mosaic law.

Murder is 'To kill (another human) unlawfully' (dictionary definition). So committing suicide is not committing murder. And in fact when suicide was still a criminal offence in the UK (in practice you could of course only ever be prosecuted for 'Attempted Suicide') it was a completely separate offence from murder.

It is an historical fact that suicide was 'made a sin' by the church establishment long after new testament times for the reason I have already described. This dogma has continued to be perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church and is described as thus in the Catholic (i.e. Roman Catholic) encyclopedia but that of course is not a scriptural document.


There is in any event no particular sin which would take you to Hell as opposed to any other. Again a special hierarchy of sin is very much a Roman Catholic dogma rather than being scripturally based.

regards,


Gordon.

In practice most Christians don't trust their god - there are probably no church spires or steeples that do not have a lightning rod.

A good builder builds on rock, not sand. A good builder also installs a lightning rod. Maybe you're thinking of Zeus, who used to throw bolts of lightning at people. Cool post count, though (6,666) :)