[SERIOUS] Is Kidicious getting dumber?

[Kidlicious]

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

Wow. No. I'm saying the lesson is not to act against God, not just not to call people baldy.

[loinburger]

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

Perhaps you can help me out with the lesson of Numbers 2. It's an entire chapter, so it ought to be chock full of lessons.

1. Now the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, 2. "The sons of Israel shall camp, each by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers' households; they shall camp around the tent of meeting at a distance. 3. "Now those who camp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah, by their armies, and the leader of the sons of Judah: Nahshon the son of Amminadab, 4. and his army, even their numbered men, 74,600. 5. "Those who camp next to him shall be the tribe of Issachar, and the leader of the sons of Issachar: Nethanel the son of Zuar, 6. and his army, even their numbered men, 54,400. 7. "Then comes the tribe of Zebulun, and the leader of the sons of Zebulun: Eliab the son of Helon, 8. and his army, even his numbered men, 57,400. 9. "The total of the numbered men of the camp of Judah: 186,400, by their armies. They shall set out first. 10. "On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben by their armies, and the leader of the sons of Reuben: Elizur the son of Shedeur, 11. and his army, even their numbered men, 46,500. 12. "Those who camp next to him shall be the tribe of Simeon, and the leader of the sons of Simeon: Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai, 13. and his army, even their numbered men, 59,300. 14. "Then comes the tribe of Gad, and the leader of the sons of Gad: Eliasaph the son of Deuel, 15. and his army, even their numbered men, 45,650. 16. "The total of the numbered men of the camp of Reuben: 151,450 by their armies. And they shall set out second. 17. "Then the tent of meeting shall set out with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps; just as they camp, so they shall set out, every man in his place by their standards. 18. "On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim by their armies, and the leader of the sons of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud, 19. and his army, even their numbered men, 40,500. 20. "Next to him shall be the tribe of Manasseh, and the leader of the sons of Manasseh: Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur, 21. and his army, even their numbered men, 32,200. 22. "Then comes the tribe of Benjamin, and the leader of the sons of Benjamin: Abidan the son of Gideoni, 23. and his army, even their numbered men, 35,400. 24. "The total of the numbered men of the camp of Ephraim: 108,100, by their armies. And they shall set out third. 25. "On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan by their armies, and the leader of the sons of Dan: Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai, 26. and his army, even their numbered men, 62,700. 27. "Those who camp next to him shall be the tribe of Asher, and the leader of the sons of Asher: Pagiel the son of Ochran, 28. and his army, even their numbered men, 41,500. 29. "Then comes the tribe of Naphtali, and the leader of the sons of Naphtali: Ahira the son of Enan, 30. and his army, even their numbered men, 53,400. 31. "The total of the numbered men of the camp of Dan was 157,600. They shall set out last by their standards." 32. These are the numbered men of the sons of Israel by their fathers' households; the total of the numbered men of the camps by their armies, 603,550. 33. The Levites, however, were not numbered among the sons of Israel, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. 34. Thus the sons of Israel did; according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so they camped by their standards, and so they set out, every one by his family according to his father's household.

[Elok]

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.

The Bible isn't the Word (at least, not with a capital W), because it says that Christ is the Word and to assume the one equals the other entirely is to say something not supported by the text. The error of fundamentalism, from my POV, is to read the Bible without bothering about what others have read before--to assume that one's own judgment is sufficient, or worse yet to court blasphemy by calling one's personal opinions on the text "the guidance of the Holy Spirit." I haven't read much commentary--okay, basically any commentary at all--on the verses in question, but honestly, the Fathers are usually more interested in how the OT presents "types" of the New than in the actual events.

And Orthodox policy, in general, is minimalist: don't say more than you know for sure. By that rule of thumb, my personal reading errs on the side of caution, going for the clearest and simplest answer. By that same rule, I refrain from calling the Bible infallible--not so I can pick out this text or that, as you've claimed, but because that would be assigning to what is ultimately a human composition, edited and arranged by humans, the perfection of God.

[Elok]

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

Yeah, but if I'm following you correctly you were talking about the days when you were a Christian, not now. Was your response back then to assume that the bears weren't sent by God? I suppose it doesn't especially matter, I'm just going for clarity for clarity's sake now.

[loinburger]

My response back then was to first assume that the bear attack never happened, and to then assume that if the bear attack happened then it wasn't directed by God.

[Kidlicious]

I don't want to go there again. Just pointing out that you claim to not be a fundamentalist.

[Elok]

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

I don't think you follow me here. I'm trying to make a point about how humans choose to judge God's actions, not a point about exegesis itself.

Wow. No. I'm saying the lesson is not to act against God, not just not to call people baldy.

I was talking to Loin (hence the "XPost").

[Imran Siddiqui]

I favor Jon's interpretation when it comes to Elisha and 2 Kings. I also read somewhere that baldy wasn't just about not having hair, but apparently it was a symptom of leprocy and so referring to someone like that a lot of times was calling them a leper - and we all know what the Israelites thought of lepers from what Jesus did when He came.

[Aeson]

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

I've read The Brothers Karamawhatever. It was a while ago and I don't remember the tale very well.

Regardless, creating someone simply so they can experience an existence they think is worse than death makes you a dick. Doesn't matter what some Russian writer thought, that's just how it is.

[loinburger]

The "God is a dick because of suicide" argument only makes sense if we don't have free will - otherwise it leads to "God is a dick because somebody is miserable," instead of "God is a dick for making somebody miserable." (I'm not saying that a suicide actively chooses to be miserable, but I am saying that a suicide isn't destined from birth to be miserable.)

[Aeson]

The "God is a dick because of suicide" argument only makes sense if we don't have free will - otherwise it leads to "God is a dick because somebody is miserable," instead of "God is a dick for making somebody miserable." (I'm not saying that a suicide actively chooses to be miserable, but I am saying that a suicide isn't destined from birth to be miserable.)

No, it only necessarily presupposes omniscience and free will for God. Free will may not even be required for God depending on how you define "dick".

[Kidlicious]

I don't think you follow me here. I'm trying to make a point about how humans choose to judge God's actions, not a point about exegesis itself.



I was talking to Loin (hence the "XPost").

Ah well humans shouldn't judge God. You're asking for trouble.

I still don't understand why you don't accept the lesson that you shouldn't oppose God and/or his prophet. Care to explain?

Otherwise I still consider this a troll by loinburger who is on my ignore list. So please put whatever you got on the table, because my intererest is limited.

[loinburger]

No, it only necessarily presupposes omniscience and free will for God. Free will may not even be required for God depending on how you define "dick".

Depends on what intent you ascribe to God. If his intent was to create heaven on earth then yeah, he's doing a ****ty job of it. If his intent was instead something along the lines of putting humans to the test then he's not necessarily to blame if some people choose to opt out.

[loinburger]

Otherwise I still consider this a troll by loinburger who is on my ignore list.

You're the one who cited the passage without actually bothering to read it first. How lazy can you get.

[Aeson]

Depends on what intent you ascribe to God. If his intent was to create heaven on earth then yeah, he's doing a ****ty job of it. If his intent was instead something along the lines of putting humans to the test then he's not necessarily to blame if some people choose to opt out.

His intent doesn't matter so long as he's omniscient. He knew it would be worse than death for specific people and chose to create that test and those people anyways. That's being a dick, regardless of what he hoped to achieve out of it. (It's especially dickish if you believe in an eternal hell.)

His ability does matter. If he didn't know what he was doing, then there's some gray area where maybe he's just a well-meaning bumbler who screwed up.