Cool, so we both think Musicat in post #65 and Morgenstern in post #5 had it right.
Sure it does. FriarTed’s view in post #82 seems particularly contemptible. Also I think it matters whether we think the 2 Kings author is honest or a liar, so we can better judge other aspects of the same book.
Of course not, but I don’t think one question necessarily follows from another.
I’ve already told you (in the other thread) that I am an atheist so I am not sure what you think you’re doing in what I quoted above.
One item I like to point out to Bible literalists that become excited when archeologists find some evidence of biblical cities and claim that that is evidence of the biblical god, is that when Schliemann found Troy, people did not turn to claim that the Greek gods were real.
(BTW I’m agnostic here, with Deistic tendencies)
This, as others have observed. Former liberal Christian here (now an atheist). Really, Kable, the story is pretty easy to understand. Whether it’s a historical account is beside the point.
Of course that is important too. There are people, even here, that take the story as historical.
It is important to realise that it is a made up story first. Then you can focus on why it was made up.
If you think it wasn’t made up, your primary reading would leave you to conclude it was written to convey a lesson; you should respect your elders.
You would bicker about the number 42 and such.
Realising it is all just made up, you’re free to see the real reason the story was created; to grant legitimacy to the claim that Elisha was a real prophet.
Yeah, I get that. The authors of 2 Kings were trying to deceive their audience into thinking Elisha had legitimacy and supernatural powers, when in fact he did not. That’s how I understand it too.
Well no, if the event really happened then the author would not be a liar and Elisha might actually have had legitimacy as a prophet of a real god.
Do you really think so? You think that a magical intelligence that can control the minds of animals really sounds like something it’d make sense to treat with the reverence due to a god?
It sounds more like an alien or genetic supermutant or something. No particular reverence due.
I mean, where’s the moral oomph in magical abilities? I don’t get any. Do you? If a voice from the sky said “I am god, you must obey me, and to prove it, I will turn the world’s oceans into ramen for seven seconds,” and the world’s oceans turned to ramen for exactly seven seconds, are you telling me you’d fall down and worship in the face of this awesome demonstration?
If so, then you’re even more of a stereotypical fundamentalist than I thought. But if not, then you know that, even though many Christians today have such a concept of divinity, there is nevertheless a better conception, one which doesn’t imply that magical powers impart legitimacy, one which expects something better and frankly more interesting from any conception of divinity, and one which makes the the truth or falsity of stories like Elisha and the Bear irrelevant to religious faith.
We’ve argued and killed ourselves over a Patriarchal book written by jaded and jaundiced old Jewish and Arab men that isn’t even a decent recount of history. These “Gods” and clearly there were more than one were more than likely Ancient Astronauts and the proof for that far exceeds any “Messiah” nonsense or this book another or the horrid books of the Old Testament. Get over it people the God they speak of in this book does not exist! Stoning teenagers for talking smack!? LMAO! A fantasy for some of us who run into true punks but these idiots obsessed about it to the point where they thought they should write it down so you cats could argue over it!
A point of context: Israel was a relatively small nation, surrounded by frequently hostile larger nations. The country was divided by political concerns leading to civil war and division into two nations. The point that the author(s) of 1&2 Samuel/1&2 Kings drives home repeatedly is: when the people of Israel and its leaders followed God, they prospered; when they didn’t, very bad things happened. God is represented as a national God of Israel, who works for Israel through his prophets and some of the kings. Accordingly, all threats against God, Israel or God’s prophets are dealt with in a manner that demonstrates extraordinary power.
I think Morgenstern did, I don’t think Musicat did. Which is to say, I don’t think the events actually happened, but I don’t think it’s right to say the story “reflects the mind of the twisted writer, nothing more”. First, the Deuteronomistic history is almost certainly a redaction of earlier works and stories. Secondly, the redactor probably has a reason for the stories and the narrative that he’s including. To say 'the guy just made it up for some reason and that’s all we can say seems to end discussion rather than start it.
Contemptible how? FriarTed and I differ on the direction from which we approach the text . . .he’s a fairly devout Christian of an esoteric bent, if I recall correctly, and I’m not. But the text does assume (and the contemporary audience would have assumed) that the boys mauled by bears would have deserved their fate. Elisha isn’t being condemned in the text for his actions, I don’t think. But if you’d like to make the argument that the writer/redactor of Kings thought that Elisha was wrong to curse the boys, I’d like to hear it.
I don’t think so either, so why all the focus on whether the events actually happened or not? It seems to me that asking whether so and so actually happened is the least interesting part of studying the bible.
Because studying and bashing are two contradictory pursuits. As shown in this thread, people are constantly studying and thus giving ideas of what the text means. But you, because you are here to bash, keep trying to shut that down, reducing the complexity to pithy sayings.
It’s not complicated. Studying something means leaving your own personal emotions at the door. If you can’t do that, then you just wind up promoting ignorance.
The only reason I’m not more upset is that I saw the thread that spawned this, and your intentions were clear from then, too. What I don’t get is why the mods didn’t force you to put it in the pit, the forum for bashing things.
You can’t bash something legitimately until after you’ve studied it. Yet you constantly want to shut down discussion and say that it’s shit and we shouldn’t discuss it. Even though you created the thread, claiming to want to discuss it.
EDIT: I also notice that you claim you want to stir up shit just to see how people react.
Where, outside the imagination of fiction writers, are you getting any idea of aliens or genetic supermutants from? How can you possibly say something “sounds more like” something that, so far as we know, does not exist anywhere on Earth or anywhere else? And is there any motive for saying so other than that you could then comfort yourself with the thought that “Well, that’s not so different to me after all - nothing I ought to revere or even listen to if I don’t happen to feel like it”?
Nowhere other than the imagination of fiction writers. I actually am not sure what your point is, for example:
My motive for saying so was to point out that supernatural power does not come with any particular moral oomph. Was this not clear? Or do you disagree with this claim?
I think Kable means that the story’s message is contemptable & thus my belief in its reality & validity shares in that.
As for how esoteric I am…
Member of my local Assembly of God. Prays in tongues but doesn’t emphasize it as
meant for all Christians.
Hold most all Trinitarian Churches - Catholic, Orthodox, & Protestant-
to be validly Christian.
Old-Earth Creationist. Not hostile to Theistic Evolution.
Former Rapturist, now wavers between basic PreMillenialism & Preterism.
Moderate Dominionist, kinda Libertarian
Very elastic view of Hell & eventual salvation for most of humanity.
Favorite Christian authors- C.S. Lewis, Taylor Caldwell
Favorite atheist author- Ayn Rand
Unless you can point to some non-fictitious supernatural power that we can agree certainly comes with no moral oomph, I think we’re on shaky philosophical grounds here. It’s like arguing that there is nothing remarkable about the Resurrection on the grounds that any two-bit 9th-level cleric can duplicate the feat.
We are not on shaky philosophical grounds. This is extremely obvious. Just because an entity can do supernatural things, this does not give us any particular reason to think that it is morally good or that we ought (morally) to do what it says.
I have not said there is nothing remarkable about resurrection. I have, instead, said that no matter how remarkable it may be, we have no reason to draw any moral conclusions from an instance of it.
I note that there are two claims I’ve sort of smushed together in the last two posts, but I’d stand by both of them so here just let me separate them so a clear view can be had of each.
If a resurrection occurred, we’d not have a good reason to think it was supernatural.
If a supernatural event was caused by some entity, we’d not have a good reason (just because of that event, anyway) to think the entity’s commands have any moral significance (anyway not purely in virtue of the fact that the entity gave those commands).
I disagree, given that we have ample evidence to suggest that human resurrection does not occur by the operation of any natural agency.
The event itself would not be reason to think so, agreed. However, it’s significant if we admit that no known entity other than God can perform it. We might say “The story of Elisha and the she-bears makes God out to be a jerk-ass”, but we can’t say “The story of Elisha and the she-bears doesn’t make God out to be any more supernatural than {this thing that doesn’t exist}”, at least not if we hope to be taken seriously.
Are you taking a lack of evidence for X to be evidence against X?
Well, that was my point, so I guess we’re substantially in agreement?
Normally it wouldn’t matter that you started this thread under something like false pretenses: it ought to be possible to debate a topic regardless of what the OP had in mind. But even in that context, you’re going about this is a way that seems disingenuous. Is there any reason anyone should treat this as a debate when you’re more interested in scoring some cheap points rather than discussing the subject? If not, I’ll either close this or move it to the Pit.