[SERIOUS] Is Kidicious getting dumber?

[Jon Miller]

Simple textual answer (emphasis added):



The simplest answer has nothing to do with ascending to heaven (if it did, why would they say simply "go up," and expect it to be understood as such?). He is, at the time, going up. The kids (or youths, or men-just-under-thirty) have come out of the city he just left and told him something to the effect of "yeah, keep walking away, punk."

I had actually forgotten that he is described as telling others, and they were doubtful (which is exactly what I was thinking about the youths, and it was describing the prophets!).

Isn't it the case that whenever someone in the Bible goes to a place, they go up to it? That is just a figure of speech (I don't know the hebrew). Of course, 'go up' is also obviously a figure of speech (whether it is a reference to Elijah or not).

I think your interpretation is reasonable, but still favor mine.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Like I said, it's only reasonable to say that the youths were mauled because Elisha was a prophet. It's absurd to say that people are mauled just for calling just anyone baldy.

More to the point, this interpretation is uncharacteristic of you, which is suspicious.

[Elok]

Suppose the passage read "as Elisha went out of Jericho, he saw children of the city playing in the field. And two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of them, for it was their appointed hour to die. And Elisha went on to Bethany."

That would actually be worse, if we're to judge God as we judge people. Instead of dying for what we might think a poor reason, the children would have died the same death for essentially no reason at all. Yet if the passage read like that, I don't think anybody would be outraged, or nervously try to explain it away. It would just be a weird OT anecdote. At worst, somebody like Al might post it on here with a comment like "LOL WTF." And a couple of irreligious folk would laugh along at that wacky Bible, and that would be that. Biblical scholars would examine it carefully in light of the Kabbala, the Talmud, and every other document or tradition they could think of to try and find a mystical significance in the number forty-two, or in female bears, but very few, if any, would think, "gee, that was rotten of God."

I'm not sure what the lesson there is. Perhaps that we would rather the universe be meaningless than for it to have an order we don't agree with?

[Elok]

Like I said, it's only reasonable to say that the youths were mauled because Elisha was a prophet. It's absurd to say that people are mauled just for calling just anyone baldy.

More to the point, this interpretation is uncharacteristic of you, which is suspicious.

Okay, I'll bite. Why is it "uncharacteristic"?

[loinburger]

I'm not sure what the lesson there is. Perhaps that we would rather the universe be meaningless than for it to have an order we don't agree with?

For me it's a question of intent. If my apartment is struck by lightning and starts on fire and I horribly burn to death, well, that sucks, but oh well. If instead an arsonist set my apartment on fire and I horribly burn to death, well, **** that guy. If we hold God personally responsible for everything that happens, then he's the arsonist at every single fire that has ever started (e.g., when my apartment is struck by lightning then God is the one who flung the bolt), and as a result he's kind of a dick. (God would also be personally responsible for everything good that happens, which is why the "God is responsible for everything" mindset turns into a glass half empty / full question. Somebody who is Mad At God will focus on the negatives, while Oprah will say "I see God in every baby's face" or whatever.)

[Aeson]

I always figured the bears were bald and got offended... easy mistake to make.

[Elok]

For me it's a question of intent. If my apartment is struck by lightning and starts on fire and I horribly burn to death, well, that sucks, but oh well. If instead an arsonist set my apartment on fire and I horribly burn to death, well, **** that guy. If we hold God personally responsible for everything that happens, then he's the arsonist at every single fire that has ever started (e.g., when my apartment is struck by lightning then God is the one who flung the bolt), and as a result he's kind of a dick. (God would also be personally responsible for everything good that happens, which is why the "God is responsible for everything" mindset turns into a glass half empty / full question. Somebody who is Mad At God will focus on the negatives, while Oprah will say "I see God in every baby's face" or whatever.)

The question for me is, why is God a dick? Do we expect Him to make everybody's life perfect forever? What do we base that expectation on? He already gave us life, which is more than He ever needed to do. Did He promise us perfection, or lead us to expect it? And how can we evaluate His motives, given the vast difference in our perspectives?

Okay, I'd better stop before I wind up paraphrasing the whole Book of Job.

[Aeson]

Suicide is proof enough. Why give life to a being you know in advance is going to rather be dead than alive. There is no point except to be a dick.

[Elok]

Or to give you the choice to make for yourself. Ever read Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor?

[loinburger]

The question for me is, why is God a dick? Do we expect Him to make everybody's life perfect forever? What do we base that expectation on? He already gave us life, which is more than He ever needed to do. Did He promise us perfection, or lead us to expect it? And how can we evaluate His motives, given the vast difference in our perspectives?

Okay, I'd better stop before I wind up paraphrasing the whole Book of Job.

When I was a Christian I didn't consider God to be dickish for allowing evil in the world, but nor did I think that God was personally responsible for every bit of evil. If somebody committed a murder, then it was the fault of the murderer, not God. If a hurricane killed somebody then God was responsible for setting the weather patterns in motion billions of years ago but was not personally responsible for creating the hurricane in question. When God did horrible things in the Old Testament then that was just ****ty things happening thousands of years ago same as ****ty things happen today - for example, God wasn't personally responsible for siccing bears on children (assuming for the sake of argument that this actually happened), but when Elisha saw bears attacking children who made fun of his baldness then he thought "serves them right for insulting God's servant" because he was probably just a tad bit prideful.

[Kidlicious]

Okay, I'll bite. Why is it "uncharacteristic"?

You're not a fundamentalist. At least that's what you often claim. I would expect that interpretation from someone who says to read the Bible literally, not someone who says things like the Bible isn't the Word.

[Elok]

You mean you thought the actual curse didn't happen, that the bear attack was just a coincidence? I don't understand that last bit.

XPost

[loinburger]

You mean you thought the actual curse didn't happen, that the bear attack was just a coincidence? I don't understand that last bit.

I doubt that the bear attack happened at all, but assuming it did I would chalk it up to coincidence.

[Jon Miller]

I thought about presenting that interpretation myself, thought it would be too complicated if I presented more than one.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Suppose the passage read "as Elisha went out of Jericho, he saw children of the city playing in the field. And two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of them, for it was their appointed hour to die. And Elisha went on to Bethany."

That would actually be worse, if we're to judge God as we judge people. Instead of dying for what we might think a poor reason, the children would have died the same death for essentially no reason at all. Yet if the passage read like that, I don't think anybody would be outraged, or nervously try to explain it away. It would just be a weird OT anecdote. At worst, somebody like Al might post it on here with a comment like "LOL WTF." And a couple of irreligious folk would laugh along at that wacky Bible, and that would be that. Biblical scholars would examine it carefully in light of the Kabbala, the Talmud, and every other document or tradition they could think of to try and find a mystical significance in the number forty-two, or in female bears, but very few, if any, would think, "gee, that was rotten of God."

I'm not sure what the lesson there is. Perhaps that we would rather the universe be meaningless than for it to have an order we don't agree with?

Well duh. There's no lesson there. What's the point of an interpretation with no lesson, unless you are avoiding the lesson.