heaven is a ball...

[thestoat]

I shall always bow to your better understanding of the Bible, Meade, but my reading of it does seem to indicate a good stoning to those with differing views ...

Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

2If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Seems to me that it says those who have a different religion (hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them) then kill them (shalt stone them with stones, till they die.)

[thestoat]

There is a lot like that in the Bible ...

He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21

[Crackpot]

The key word there is "gone" as in left once was but no longer a beliver. Which in the context of setting up a "godly" society which was what they were meant to be makes sense. THey were meant to be an example to the rest of the world not be just like them.

As for the second one Curses don't really mean the same as they once did. That being said as Jesus spent a good part of his ministry pointing out (and is also demonstrated throughout the OT for those that don't need everything spelled out for them) the intent behind the law matters more than the word of the law.

Which reminds me of one of the most morally interesting parts of the Bible (to me at least)
If you really want to look at someone who was left in a really shittly no-win situation in the Bible read up on Jonathan. Talk about getting screwed from every direction at once.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I shall always bow to your better understanding of the Bible, Meade, but my reading of it does seem to indicate a good stoning to those with differing views ... Seems to me that it says those who have a different religion (hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them) then kill them (shalt stone them with stones, till they die.)

What I clarified is the incorrect statement that Deut 17 commands "us" (presumably Christians) today to stone "everyone" who has "different religious views" to "yours" - which I presume referred again to Christians.

God directed that those of His chosen people who did evil and who broke the covenant between He and they, notably in worshipping false gods instead of the true Creator God, were to be stoned. It would require proper investigation and proper witnesses.

Perhaps instead of "His chosen people" I should have said "the Israelites" - that might have been clearer. There is a vast difference between "those who have a different religion" (which is a universal including all other religious faith followers anywhere in the world) and "the Israelites" (which is a particular group of people havin only one religion).

It's odd that if we agree on something there appears to be an impression that we disagree.

Meade

[thestoat]

It's odd that if we agree on something there appears to be an impression that we disagree.

Lol - that's forums for you

So does Deut not command gods followers to stone those who worship other gods? That is what those words say to me - though you will have studied it a lot deeper than my superficial effort.

[Big RR]

Big RR, thanks, yes I quite understand what you say but this part baffles me a bit:

We do not generally view god and and massacring people for silly slights(like calling a man, whoever he is, bald head) because that same god did not massacre those who tortured and killed his son (as for the veracity and accuracy of this account, let's just leave it be).

I'm having trouble formulating the comment I want to make in response to the above. Perhaps this way:

The veracity and accuracy of the account does matter because:

If the passage actually describes God massacring people for silly slights, then that's a wrong thing for God to do; we have to agree with atheists.

If it doesn't describe God massacring people for silly slights then why categorize it as coming from a false perception people had of God?

Not sure if that's really clear. I'm not saying you believe the passage is true. Nor saying that you think God massacres people for silly slights. But do you think that the passage describes God massacring people for silly slights?

No believer I know of views God as massacring people for silly slights; 2 Kings doesn't describe that either. I would agree with your example of the crucifixion as confirming that God did not massacre people for either horrible or silly slights. Either then or before. God is changeless - good Old Testament doctrine.

Meade

Meade--I think the biblical writer was quite clear about what he intended to say (although I'll admit I didn't read it in hebrew or whatever language it was originally written in, but he says Elisha cursed those who made fun of him, whereupon bears came out of the forest and killed those (or at least some of those) children who were tormenting him. Had the writer wanted to divorce this from the "curse in the name of the lord) (s)he (most likely he) could have used an adverb like "surprisingly" to avoid any tie between god and the revenge/"just" punishment, but I do think the writer wanted to show how god avenged those who god chose as his own, much like the Israelis viewed god at the time (as the avenging god of all slights), do you really dispute this? So far as i read it,god violently avenged this "silly"slight to his prophet, possibly to teach those who chose to ignore him (much as god chose to massacre the firstborn children of Egypt when Pharoah refused to listen to Moses. this is quite a different face of god who delivered his son (without any violence or punishment) to the romans to be crucified, as many now view god.

[thestoat]

35 By the word of the LORD one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.
36 So the prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the LORD, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.

(1 Kings 20 35-36)

Lots of reasons to die in that book

6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God

(2 Samuel 6 6-7)

How can any of this be justified? Seems pretty evil to me.

[Crackpot]

As I said it depends how you look at it taken in the context of the arks holiness and gods reaction vis-a-vis sin it's understandabe. Especially if you hold that physical death isn't nessessarily the worst thing that could happen or even in the grand scheme of things all that "bad"

Oddly It's things like this that actually make the Bible more beliveable to me since the absent an obvious purpose it raises more questions than it answers. Just like having a quite influential second tier character being torn betwen his God. His father, his best friend, his king and his birthright with no clear choice of action. Leading him ultimately to an untimely and grusome end.

The Bible isn't a Book for simple answers and where simple anwers are presented (if they're not flat out wrong) the reasoning behind them is quite complex.

What can I say I found it massively comforting that all those people telling me "God wants you to "X" were full of shit.

Mind you it also amuses me how Gob complains about these same simplistic answers and then gets his panties in a bunch because "if this god guy was real he should really provide simple answers."

[Sean]

If physical death isn't such a bad thing I wonder why God tended to use it as a punishment rather than as a reward...

[Big RR]

Not certain how great death is, although the afterlife may be quite good. The bible mentions two prophets, Elijah and Enoch (I think he was a prophet) who were taken up into heaven without dying; I believe the RC church also teaches the same thing about Mary (Jesus' mother). It may be that the death is not an easy transit into the afterlife as many imagine it to be (if it were, why would Elijah be "rewarded" by traveling to heaven in a flaming chariot? e.g. How comfortable would that be?)

[Sean]

Maybe it wasn't literal. Maybe it was witnessed by an Aussie.

"Strewth, old mate Elijah's just flown up to heaven in a flamin' chariot!"

[alice]

[loCAtek]

If physical death isn't such a bad thing I wonder why God tended to use it as a punishment rather than as a reward...

Facing your mortality, is a great object lesson in humility.

[MajGenl.Meade]

he says Elisha cursed those who made fun of him, whereupon bears came out of the forest and killed those (or at least some of those) children who were tormenting him. Had the writer wanted to divorce this from the "curse in the name of the lord) (s)he (most likely he) could have used an adverb like "surprisingly" to avoid any tie between god and the revenge/"just" punishment, but I do think the writer wanted to show how god avenged those who god chose as his own

Yes I have stated more than once that the writer wanted to show a connection between rejecting God and inevitable punishment for rejecting God. He wants the reader to draw the same conclusion.

Although stating that "veracity and accuracy" are set aside, surely you have judged the passage on both scores? Nothing wrong with that - so one should.

Elisha cursed - see discussion of Hebrew word which doesn't mean 'damn and blast you' - those who made fun of him - those who mocked God's ascension of Elijah (perhaps Aussies indeed! ) and mocked God's choice of Elisha as prophet - whereupon bears came out of the forest and killed children - see discussion of Hebrew 'word which has principal meaning of youth as in David at nineteen/twenty being a youth upon ascending the throne - who were tormenting him - yes but that was not the 'crime'.

Two rather different views of the same thing - yet both conclude that the meaning is the consequence of rejecting God.

In what follows, I am not characterizing or judging your beliefs. I want to explain what I see as three inevitable conclusions from three presuppositions that affect our hermeneutic. (It's like a herman munster only more dense).

The atheist presupposes that god is an arse. Or rather, (1) those who believe in this hypothetical god believe in a god who is an arse because (2) he cruelly killed 42 teeny innocent babies, therefore the good kind merciful god they speak of doesn't exist or isn't good kind and merciful and is an arse

It puts the Christian in a dilemma. One way or another, there are two choices (is there another?):

to presuppose that (1) God is not an arse and (2) the Bible is God's word that expresses what He wants us to know, written down by men He inspired to write truth in their own style, vernacular and understanding. Therefore (3) the Bible data and God's non-arsedness must be compatible through careful research and understanding of the passage concerned. i.e. the issue is one of our comprehension

to presuppose that (1) the passage does show a god who is an arse but (2) God is not an arse, probably. Therefore, (3) the Bible data must be wrong. i.e. the issue is determining which bits of the Bible to keep and which to dismiss.

In essence we have an atheist, a fundamentalist and a liberal view. And I assume all three are those of intelligent, thinking people and not the knee-jerk dunderheads that inhabit all three persuasions.

The atheist rejects all of the Bible (in the theological sense)
The fundamentalist accepts all of the Bible, acknowledging that human understanding may be deficient at times
The liberal rejects much of the Bible (in the theological sense)

In this discussion I believe we see this played out. The atheist makes one interpretation and insists dogmatically that it is correct. The fundamentalist puts forward other interpretations and asks if these are not coherent. The liberal agrees with the atheist's interpretation and seeks to explain the passage away as "not really God".

The message is this: God created all things. Man sinned and brought evil into the world. God cannot abide with sin. Man cannot abide without God. God has provided the one and only way by which the gap between man and God may be removed; faith in His work on the cross. Those who believe spend eternity with God and in joy eternally. Those who do not believe spend eternity without God and regret it eternally. That is the message brought by Christ. No contradictory message follows Christ's teachings.

What we discuss is either/an/or (1) the existence of that God in the first place and (2) how do all the details of the message work themselves out in the Bible and in the world.

Cheers
Meade

[loCAtek]

I've noticed that before too, Genr'l sir, how can you best explain to the intolerant close-minded, that dogma and religion are not the same thing?

They don't even have the same dictionary listing.

re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

[Big RR]

Therefore (3) the Bible data and God's non-arsedness must be compatible through careful research and understanding of the passage concerned. i.e. the issue is one of our comprehension

but when I make the same analysis re the writings of Paul in his condemnation of homosexuality,e.g., you say that is picking and choosing; perhpas god inspired that to show that even those whom he chose to write his message down can be "arses", much as the passage in question shows his prophets (or at least Elisha) can be.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Interesting Big RR - you are (perhaps)(it appears to me) comparing this:

"I think Paul is an arse, therefore I will reject what he writes about X"

with this:

"I think God is not an arse, therefore I will try to understand how the Elisha passage is compatible with God not being an arse"?

You don't make the same analysis at all; just the opposite.

I accept what the Bible says (2Kings in this case) and I know it cannot conflict with God's goodness. If it superficially appears to me to do so and I think God or Paul or Elisha is an arse my opinion must be wrong. My opinion needs to be changed.

Your position surely (and I mean no disrespect) is that if your opinion is that something in the Bible superficially makes God or Paul or Elisha look like an arse, then the Bible is wrong. The Bible needs to be changed. To be more accurate, dismissed when it conflicts with your opinion.

The atheist makes one interpretation and insists dogmatically that it is correct. The fundamentalist puts forward other interpretations and asks if these are not coherent. The liberal agrees with the atheist's interpretation and seeks to explain the passage away as "not really God".

It really does pain me when Christians agree with atheists that the Bible (in as many parts as necessary) is crap. Am I really that dense I cannot understand or hear you?

Meade

[Crackpot]

Actually Paul pretty admits to being an ass and defintely a provocateer (there are instances in the Bible where others intervened to prevent Paul form starting a riot) but that has (almost) nothing to do with his doctrine.

I say almost because his views abotu women may well have colored that smallportion of his dotctrinal writings. (as opposed to his greetings farewells and assorted strongarming that usually begin and end his letters)

Paul is frequently subjected to the Genetic Fallacy.

Paul was an ass
Therefore Paul is wrong.

[Big RR]

As were many of god's prophets; as was David when he sent Uriah off to battle to be killed so he could have sex with his wife; as was the married solomon when he seduced the queen of sheba; as were the disciples when they argued again and again who was the greatest... I can't see how being sent or called by (or whatever) the lord keeps one from being an ass (oops, arse), nor do I think any correction is needed. indeed, if the bible made any of these look like they were perfect, I'd believe the corrections were needed.

As for

It really does pain me when Christians agree with atheists that the Bible (in as many parts as necessary) is crap. Am I really that dense I cannot understand or hear you?

why does pointing out the flaws of those who many accept as being "chosen by god", or inconsistencies between different parts/stories/accounts make the bible crap? I will say I disagree with what is written in some parts (like the passages of Paul I alluded to above) and do not accept them as being true any more than you accept the inference of the writer that god sent the animals to avenge the wounded pride of elisha; like you, I try to point out that maybe we are misinterpreting the truth behind what is said, and you accuse me of proclaiming the bible is "crap". why?

[MajGenl.Meade]

As were many of god's prophets; as was David when he sent Uriah off to battle to be killed so he could have sex with his wife; as was the married solomon when he seduced the queen of sheba; as were the disciples when they argued again and again who was the greatest... I can't see how being sent or called by (or whatever) the lord keeps one from being an ass (oops, arse), nor do I think any correction is needed. indeed, if the bible made any of these look like they were perfect, I'd believe the corrections were needed.

Absolutely. I'm beginning to see where our understanding doesn't quite meet and nothing that follows is intended as hostile to you.

The Bible makes it clear that human beings are fallible, pig-headed, lying, cheating, awful etc etc (let's get away from the pejorative 'arse') people. I don't think I would have been fond of Elijah or Elisha as people. We are both agreeing with the Bible accounts there aren't we?

Next quotes are reordered but not altered as to meaning (I think):

why does pointing out the flaws of those who many accept as being "chosen by god", or inconsistencies between different parts/stories/accounts make the bible crap?

To the first part, it does not - agreeing with the Bible can never make it crap. We agreed the Bible mercilessly points out flaws of men, even those chosen by God. To the second, pointing out inconsistencies also does not make the Bible crap.

But there is a huge difference between the person who does the pointing saying "There seems to be an inconsistency. I must find out more so that I can resolve it without rejecting the truth of the Bible***" and saying "Well because that says X and I don't believe X, therefore the Bible is wrong there but right there". In the latter case, a portion of the Bible has been declared to be crap - assuming that we mean 'rubbish'. I believe that disagreeing with the Bible is a problem of me - you appear to believe it's a problem of the Bible.

like you, I try to point out that maybe we are misinterpreting the truth behind what is said, and you accuse me of proclaiming the bible is "crap". why?

This is why:

I will say I disagree with what is written in some parts (like the passages of Paul I alluded to above) and do not accept them as being true any more than you accept the inference of the writer that god sent the animals to avenge the wounded pride of elisha;

If one disagrees with a part of the Bible, non-acceptance declares it (along with the atheists) to be rubbish - wrong - false. Call it whatever word is acceptable. Logically if part of the Bible rubbish (solely because someone disagrees with it) then any thinking person is entitled to ask why they would be wrong to discard all of it as rubbish - or perhaps just keep the cosy bit where Jesus says "D unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It cannot be valid to insist, without anything in the Bible saying so, that the passage can only be interpreted to say that God was offended by insults to Elisha and that therefore the passage is must be wrong and rejected. This ignores the multitude of ways in which the passage may be non-contradictory of God's grace without changing a word of it.

I have no trouble with the inference of the writer that he believed God sent the bears as a direct consequence of the youths insulting God. (If it were the case, I'd have no problem with God being offended by insults to Elisha either; it wouldn't cause me to reject the passage). I acknowledge that there is more than one way to understand the incident as described and yet the message remains exactly the same.

CP: genetic fallacy? Geddahdaheah! You must be referring to 2Timothy where he says that HE does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over men? How was he wrong - that he actually did permit it but had forgotten he did? Or do you mean that in your view he should have allowed women to teach and have authority over men? I doubt that I would have likd Paul very much (any more than Elijah or Elisha); irascible and abrasive seem to describe him. But I think his views deserve to be understood before condemning them on a false basis.

Thanks both!
Meade

PS ***if there is absolutely no way to resolve an inconsistency without rejecting the truth of the Bible, then the Bible is wrong. However, is there a way to know anything absolutely?