GakuseiDon

Really? What are the percentages, then, in your opinion? I'd be interested in that information, if it's available somewhere.

I accuse SOME atheists of being "fundy" atheists, in that they seem to believe that the Bible has to be either the Word of God or it is all rubbish. That is not the majority of atheists by any means.

True, but then that wasn't your question. BTW, what's with the scare quotes around the word "liberal"? Am I not, then, a TRUE liberal Christian?

No. What's it like?

Well, tell me about it, and I'll let you know. I certainly wouldn't mind reading it. Do you recommend it?

James Brown

So this is a fictional story? A cautionary morality tale written to teach little boys and girls a life lesson? "Children who tease or threaten bald prophets will die nasty deaths; now run along and wash up for supper"?

This is a familiar argument. The Bible is God's word to a fallen world, a source of morality from a loving but just Creator to his depraved creation, a guidebook to lead us through the darkness of sin and ignorance. However, if a portion offends thee, then it's just a metaphor and can be safely ignored. No one really believes this stuff anymore. Why are you so upset over what is obviously just a harmless fireside fairy tale?

Of course, then we get to ask ourselves what else in the Bible is "just fiction." Adam and Eve? Original Sin? Noah's Ark? Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac? 400 years of Egyptian slavery followed by 40 years of desert wandering? I'm offended by the genocide of Canaanites--can we just shrug our shoulders and say it never happened? How about David slaughtering 200 Philistines and bringing back their foreskins in a bloody sack to win the heart of a woman--is that just another harmless children's story? How about 70,000 Israelites dying of plague for the crime of standing up and having their noses counted? How about this--I'm offended that an innocent man should undergo death by torture in order to let others be absolved of their crimes--that is injustice writ large and offensive. So can I conclude that the Resurrection was just a moral story told for effect and that it didn't really happen?

I'm curious what is the filter that we run the Bible through--if something is offensive, it didn't really happen. If something is sublime, it's God's work in a sinful world. What is this filter you are using to screen out the bad parts? How does it work? Where did it come from? What happens if different people have different filters? Maybe we could put your filter in every hotel room rather than a Gideon bible--after all, as you've admitted--not all of it is true, and quite frankly it's hard to tell which is historical and which is metaphorical. Maybe we can start having Filter studies instead of Bible studies. Maybe President whomever can be sworn in on a Filter instead of on a Bible.

GakuseiDon

James, reread Jane's posts in this thread. If she were an atheist and made THE EXACT SAME POSTS as she has already made, can you point to ANYTHING there that would outrage you? ANYTHING?

James Brown

Fair enough.

That offends me. While I'm not convinced that Elisha's life was in danger, I do see other instances when a man of God's life was definitely in danger--no semantic sleight-of-hand necessary--and the end result was not wholesale destruction of the enemy. Jesus was surrounded by a crowd who, as the text clearly states, meant to stone him for blasphemy, but he managed to slip away. No one killed. David managed to flee Saul hurling a spear at him. David escaped an army--not a group of jeering youths, but an armed marching force--sent by Saul to kill him.

On the other hand, no she-bears came to the rescue of Paul when he was repeatedly mobbed and stoned--but perhaps that was because Paul managed to survive. Stephen, though, was stoned to death without divine rescue or retribution. So when Jane discusses meta-lessons, the lesson appears to be that sometimes God won't save you, sometimes he will through peaceful means, and sometimes he will through violent means. In other words, life comes at you randomly, and yet all methods somehow bring glory to God, which is rather convenient for God.

Once again, I'm offended. Jesus on the cross offends me--that God would orchestrate the bloody death of an innocent man in order to appease himself is offensive. That Jews would "fight their way into the Holy Land" is invasive, imperialistic genocide, as offensive as European settlers "fighting their way" into North America.

This is not correct. No one is outraged at Disney because it wasn't Disney who turned the boys into donkeys--it was Honest John and Gideon who led the boys to Pleasure Island. They are the villains of the movie, not Disney who simply portrayed it.

I'm not offended at the author of the story for telling it--I'm offended that when Elisha is threatened (however we want to define it) he responds by commanding God to slaughter his enemies. Yes, Jane is correct--that particular theme is often portrayed in the Bible. But just because it appears often doesn't mean it isn't offensive.

Potoooooooo

Yeah, I think the movie makes it clear that this was not a good thing and that our sympathies should be with the boys!

Amaleq13

IMO, a story about God sending bears to eat those who disrespected the death of Elisha makes more sense than one about God sending bears to eat those who disrespected the bald head of Elijah.

And, as one who actually lives around bears and encounters them on a fairly regular basis, the explicit mention that the bears were female prior to their attack does create an immediate connection to mothers defending their young to anyone familiar with the species. In fact, I would suggest there is no other better reason to mention the sex of the bears than to deliberately bring about that association.

Toto

I believe that both "liberal" and "conservative" Christians, including some "fundamentalists," read the Bible the way new age Taoists read the I Ching. They assume it is a sacred text on some level, read the story, and wait for the Holy Spirit and/or their subsconscious mind to extract some "meaning," which is always uplifting and somehow embodies some inspiring "message." Then people like GDon get upset (or pretend to get upset?) when atheists actually want to read the text as a text and point out the parts that are in fact not very nice or inspiring - because this is treating the Bible as a text and not as sacred literature.

GakuseiDon

Just to be clear: Are you really saying that if an atheist had provided the analysis above, you would have been offended?

GakuseiDon

No, that's not it, Toto. The Bible is a wonderful piece of ancient literature, that should be treated no better or no worse than any other piece of ancient literature. It certainly shouldn't be treated as "sacred literature". My point has always been that people tend to read their own biases into the text, and that it is as wrong for atheists to do this as it is for theists. Now, even if you don't think that any atheists have done that in this thread, I'm sure you agree with my point, at least in the abstract.

On this board, Jane and I have tried to provide some analysis on the text in question. This analysis has been attacked, and the primary reason appears to be because we have tried to "explain away" the moral difficulties the passage presents. But I'll be darned if either Jane or I have tried to do that. Certainly, our analysis may be wrong (I disagree with Jane on the significance of the 42 dead, for example), and I'd love for this discussion to be about whether our analysis is right or wrong. But it appears hard to get past the idea that analysing the Bible means attacking or defending it.

Toto

Darned you are then. What other reason for turning a gang of impudent kids into a street gang of murderous thugs? For turning revenge for mockery into self-defense? I can't think of any.