Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-06-2008, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haitu

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Who is saying the story isn't literal? :huh: Of course the story is literal.

you know what i meant

Nope. I guess you are objecting to people trying to determine a meaning behind the story. Do you think the story has meaning, or it is supposed to be a recording of some random event? And if you think the story has meaning, then how are you different to the rest of us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by haitu

you can continue stretching and interpreting your bible however you want it.

How am I stretching the Bible? And what is the non-stretched reading?

Quote:

Originally Posted by haitu

i admire you.

Thanks!

The Bible is a wonderful piece of ancient literature, which should be treated no better -- and no worse -- than any other piece of ancient literature. Honestly, I see no difference between those fundies who don't care about the cultural context in order to "soften" readings, and those "fundy atheists" who don't care about the cultural context in order to "harden" the readings.

How about we try to look at the literature in light of its cultural context first?

Toto · 09-06-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why is outrage not an appropriate reaction to the story, even if it is intended as fictional?

What! Do you truly get outraged by fictional stories??? Holy Ravioli, I hope I never sit next to you in a movie theatre.

I might get outraged over people promoting the idea that justice requires that kids who mock a prophet be eaten by bears.

Except that there is so much more to be outraged over.

Toto · 09-06-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
How about we try to look at the literature in light of its cultural context first?

And the cultural context seems to be that kids who mock prophets deserve to be eaten by bears.

From this you conclude - what? That the ancient Israelites were rather uncivilized and any religion that holds them up to special privilege as uniquely enlightened is mistaken? That's what I would conclude.

Clivedurdle · 09-06-2008, 01:12 PM

Wonderful comment in today's Guardian about his close friend Douglas Adams - instead of what would Jesus do, what would douglas say?

GakuseiDon · 09-06-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

What! Do you truly get outraged by fictional stories??? Holy Ravioli, I hope I never sit next to you in a movie theatre.

I might get outraged over people promoting the idea that justice requires that kids who mock a prophet be eaten by bears.

Sure, as would anyone. I guess, then, that you aren't outraged by apologists who promote the idea that the kids were a group of ruffians threatening Elisha, instead of a group of kindergarten kids out on a nature walk? Except that they aren't promoting the 'true' meaning of the passage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Except that there is so much more to be outraged over.

Well, don't hold back. What else outrages you about this story? I'd love to hear it.

Toto · 09-06-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... I guess, then, that you aren't outraged by apologists who promote the idea that the kids were a group of ruffians threatening Elisha, instead of a group of kindergarten kids out on a nature walk? Except that they aren't promoting the 'true' meaning of the passage?

They are promoting an obviously contrived interpretation to avoid admitting that the Bible is a poor source for morality.

GakuseiDon · 09-06-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... I guess, then, that you aren't outraged by apologists who promote the idea that the kids were a group of ruffians threatening Elisha, instead of a group of kindergarten kids out on a nature walk? Except that they aren't promoting the 'true' meaning of the passage?

They are promoting an obviously contrived interpretation to avoid admitting that the Bible is a poor source for morality.

Why is it contrived? What is the age range of the "little children" in question?

spamandham · 09-06-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Next, how you read the morality of the story depends on what you think the author is trying to say. Do you think it is about God killing small boys for teasing a prophet? Or is it about God protecting a faithful man in the face of an angry mob?

The story is the one written, not the one redacted by you filling in apologetic "details". The story as written is exactly the type of story you would expect from a cruel and primitive society that dictates the death penalty for damn near everything.

How many other of these prima facia brutal OT stories do you plan to rewrite into a more appealing version? All of them? If you do, then what purpose did Jesus serve? His alleged purpose was to free Jews from the brutal and arbitrary law. If you rewrite the OT to remove that, you have destroyed the purpose of the cross.

Just accept the brutal primitive nature of the text as it is. There's nothing the least bit unusual about such a degree of obscene brutality from ancient desert dwelling tribes. It was the norm. It still is in many places.

Toto · 09-07-2008, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

They are promoting an obviously contrived interpretation to avoid admitting that the Bible is a poor source for morality.

Why is it contrived? What is the age range of the "little children" in question?

Why does the age range matter?

If you can't see how contrived it is, I can't help you.

rfmwinnie · 09-07-2008, 01:56 AM

Here is a very interesting take on this subject. It is from the Journal of Biblical Studies by Jim West ThD. I don't know about either but it was a different view.

Quote:

In any case, the episode provides an occasion for the writer to show the fledgling prophet calling down divine curse as well as blessing, hurt as well as healing. The power at Elisha’s disposal is raw and amoral. Whether or not the bad boys of Beth-el got what was coming to them, the tale engenders in the reader a healthy respect for the authority of Elijah’s successor." In short, this very scintillating tale has evoked a few essays and a paragraph or two here and there. This is astonishing in light of the fact that other passages of lesser interest (at least to me) have generated monographs and articles and essays in the hundreds.

There is no reason, from a textual or translational perspective, that the passage should cause any problems. It is straightforward and textually certain (so far as that term can be used of any text). It is not the meaning of the words that causes problems but the meaning of the things those words say!

I love his final conclusion (not that I believe it - it is just people will try to explain the unpalatable parts of the Bible any way they can):

Quote:

Does the story of the cursing of the children, then, set the stage for how the reader is to understand this Prophet? Or is it possible that the story is told to demonstrate that the Prophet was a cruel and vindictive soul who’s entire ministry was one of destruction and warfare? If this is so, then were the miracle stories added at a later stage of the tradition in order to ameliorate the perception of the reader regarding the violence of the man Elisha? These questions are, at least at this stage, not answerable. What we do have at hand is the final redaction of the story, and the introductory section where Elisha is called and immediately active in a violent series of events makes us wonder if the story is a positive assessment of the man or a negative one. In other words, is Elisha a hero or a villain and how does the redactor wish us to understand him?

Our story, I think, demonstrates him to be quite villainous. His unbelievable pettiness is striking and serves, I think, to paint him darkly in order to criticize the prophetic office. It’s as though the redactor wishes us to say to ourselves—"this is what prophets have become: vicious petty warlords". As a post exilic composition it serves the newly restored community as a warning against prophets and their kind. Post exilic prophecy, when compared to the pre-exilic sort, is stale and limp and colorless and quite uninspiring and powerless. Perhaps, then, in Judaism at that time, Prophecy’s decline was assisted by a story in which a prophet is portrayed as a curser of children and a violent warrior. Tired of war and its effects, the population was no longer interested in the "Hawkish" mentality of classical prophecy and instead became enamored of the "end time apocalyptic" sort of hope embodied in Daniel and Third Isaiah. The cursing of the children insures the cessation of prophecy. Soon after this story circulated classical prophecy died.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2008, 01:12 PM	#54
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Wonderful comment in today's Guardian about his close friend Douglas Adams - instead of what would Jesus do, what would douglas say?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.