Originally posted by rapalla7It means that whoever wrote Chapter 2 of II Kings wanted to make Elisha look powerful and terrifying so that people would not cross 'prophets' annointed by their god. It is a typical ploy taken by clerics to terrify their flock into obedience and ensure that they maintain their power over the people.
Maustrauser.
What does this mean to you?
Mike
One can see it today in the 'fire and brimstone' preachers, or in those fundamentalist islamic preachers who preach death in the name of Allah.
In short, it says: "You obey me or I kill you." An unsophisticated but effective method of control.
Originally posted by rwingettrwingett. So let me ask you, do you therefore see any form of punishment as immoral? If not, who decides what punishement types are moral and which not?
It doesn't matter how many passages there are that demonstrate god's supposed compassion. The fact is that there are a number of passages which demonstrate the opposite. Is having someone mauled by wild beasts an action that is compatible with a morally perfect god, or is it not? It doesn't help your case one bit to say that god is compassionate most of the time.
If the bible shows anything, it shows that God has passed responsibility to human kind, and that every single human is accountable to God. Responsibility implies that there is a right and a wrong way. Responsibility implies consequences.
Maustrauser. I like Australia so I have no intention to tarnish. The point I wanted to make is that for some reason you have posted a number of new threads to show that God is not always "nice". From your response I take it this was your reaction to posts from R B Hill. I do understand this, but again I don't think this is done with bona fides if you do not provide the context. You should not be surprised by this sort of response.
Originally posted by ReaperYou don't have to like Australia or dislike Australia. Rather, generalizations about a population from the poor behaviour of a Prime Minister is always likely to cause problems! No offence taken.
Maustrauser. I like Australia so I have no intention to tarnish. The point I wanted to make is that for some reason you have posted a number of new threads to show that God is not always "nice". From your response I take it this was your reaction to posts from R B Hill. I do understand this, but again I don't think this is done with bona fides if you do not provide the context. You should not be surprised by this sort of response.
Your point about context is interesting, but I don't believe I have changed the meaning of the passage by quoting only two verses of the story. Elisha demonstrates his lack of patience by cursing the kids in the Name of the Lord and the Lord sends a couple of bears to kill them. Elisha is cruel. God is cruel. QED. Does providing any more detail to give more context, provide any alternative to the conclusion that they are both cruel?
Originally posted by ReaperOf course I think there are punishments which fit within a moral framework, but having someone mauled by bears is not one of them. Nor is slaying all the firstborn of Egypt (and their cattle), or making a wager with the Devil over the fate of Job. None of those actions are compatible with the concept of moral perfection. You can't claim to have a morally perfect god and then try to re-define, or obscure, the meaning of morality so that it encompasses what are clearly immoral acts. You may have a veangeful and capricious god who is only concerned with being obeyed at all costs, but you clearly lose any claim to moral perfection, or omnibenevolence.
rwingett. So let me ask you, do you therefore see any form of punishment as immoral? If not, who decides what punishement types are moral and which not?
If the bible shows anything, it shows that God has passed responsibility to human kind, and that every single human is accountable to God. Responsibility implies that there is a right and a wrong way. Responsibility implies consequences.
Originally posted by MaustrauserMaustrauser. I don't realy want to go off topic too much but with reference to a PM: Do you not live in a democracy? So all eligeible people are allowed to vote for people who will enact laws and set policy based on the legal framework on their behalf? Is Australia not sovereign?
You don't have to like Australia or dislike Australia. Rather, generalizations about a population from the poor behaviour of a Prime Minister is always likely to cause problems! No offence taken.
Your point about context is interesting, but I don't believe I have changed the meaning of the passage by quoting only two verses of the story. Elisha d ...[text shortened]... detail to give more context, provide any alternative to the conclusion that they are both cruel?
Back to Elisha. Actually I am going to respond to rwingett and that response is also for your statement.
rwingett (and maustrauser). So who defines morality? I want to take a step back and say, you both are making moral judgements based on your specific human paradigm (western?) of what morality is in the 21st century - How do you two for instance feel about Islamic law demanding woman to be circumsized? The "morality" view of the human race has changed from the time of Adam and Eve to today. God does not change, but the way God works with people have changed, according to the different dispensations that have been. We are currently living in the dispensation of grace. Elisha lived during the dispensation of the Law. What seems immoral to you, the mauling of the children, must be set against the law from God. The minute you want to equate humans and God to the same level is the minute that your judgements will change over time - like a ship without a rudder.
Originally posted by Maustrauserhttp://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2kings/2kings2.htm#foot4
A moderately elderly chap called Elisha was walking towards the city of of Bethel one day when some kids espied him. Being bored (probably because they were sick of minding the goats), they called out to him Go up you Baldhead! Go up you baldhead!
Elisha, being one of the Lords Chosen Ones, was peeved. So he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Pro ...[text shortened]... Read this, and other stories of Godly compassion in The Bible (Rated R). See: II Kings 2: 23-25
[23-24] This story, like the one about Elijah and the captains (2 Kings 1), is preserved for us in Scripture to convey a popular understanding of the dignity of the prophet. Told in popular vein, it becomes a caricature, in which neither Elisha nor the bears behave in character. See note on 2 Kings 1:12 and the contrasting narrative in 2 Kings 4.
Originally posted by ReaperAs for myself, I do not believe in god so I do not believe in moral absolutes. But for the theist to say that god is morally perfect and does not change is to say that there is a standard of moral perfection which does not change. Having children mauled by bears is either compatible with that moral standard, or it is not. It shouldn't matter what humans from different eras think.
rwingett (and maustrauser). So who defines morality? I want to take a step back and say, you both are making moral judgements based on your specific human paradigm (western?) of what morality is in the 21st century - How do you two for instance feel about Islamic law demanding woman to be circumsized? The "morality" view of the human race has changed fro ...[text shortened]... e level is the minute that your judgements will change over time - like a ship without a rudder.
To say that we cannot know what moral standard god is held to, or that he is not bound by a human conception of morality is to say that we cannot know whether god is morally perfect or not. In order to claim that god is morally perfect, we must have some conception of what that morality is.
I will never understand why christianity didn't just throw out the Old Testament instead of wasting so much time and effort trying to reconcile it with the New Testament. The vengeful god of the law and the (supposedly) compassionate god of grace cannot be reconciled.
Originally posted by rwingettAs for myself, I do not believe in god so I do not believe in moral absolutes.
As for myself, I do not believe in god so I do not believe in moral absolutes. But for the theist to say that god is morally perfect and does not change is to say that there is a standard of moral perfection which does not change. Having children mauled by bears is either compatible with that moral standard, or it is not. It shouldn't matter what humans fr ...[text shortened]... ngeful god of the law and the (supposedly) compassionate god of grace cannot be reconciled.
So far this is perfectly understandable.
But for the theist to say that god is morally perfect and does not change is to say that there is a standard of moral perfection which does not change
Ok...but you gotta clarify one item you mention. The standard of perfection that does not change is god's not human's.
Having children mauled by bears is either compatible with that moral standard, or it is not. It shouldn't matter what humans from different eras think.
Doesn't that presuppose the bible is true? Why do you consider all theists to believe in the god of the bible?
To say that we cannot know what moral standard god is held to, or that he is not bound by a human conception of morality is to say that we cannot know whether god is morally perfect or not.
incorrect. That is the only conclusion we can make about god as long as we define god as the ultimate in perfection (do you see god being defined as the god of the bible?).
In order to claim that god is morally perfect, we must have some conception of what that morality is.
Wouldn't our definition of morality be a human definition? Your a graphic artist so let's see if we can sort of use a visual concept. In one dimension you have a point. Suppose by some miracle we find ourselves outside of the one dimension we were in and are now in two dimensions. We now see that point as a line. Back in one dimension it still appears as a point. In other words, the perfection of god (or whatever you prefer to call him) is, to use an Albert Einstein term, relative to the viewer (definer?).
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelI don't think that all theists believe in the god of the bible, but that is (I think) what we are specifically talking about here.
[b]As for myself, I do not believe in god so I do not believe in moral absolutes.
So far this is perfectly understandable.
But for the theist to say that god is morally perfect and does not change is to say that there is a standard of moral perfection which does not change
Ok...but you gotta clarify one item you mention. The standard of pe ...[text shortened]... er to call him) is, to use an Albert Einstein term, relative to the viewer (definer?).
Feivel[/b]
If humans can have no conception of what god's morality is, then they are incapable of saying whether god is morally perfect. To say that god is "x" is to say that you know what "x" is, otherwise you are not justified in making any claim at all.
Originally posted by rwingettSure you are. Just because we are limited by our hum an kanguage does not mean that god is not perfect. that just means that our standards do not apply to god, if they did...we would be god. Are you telling me that perception is not a relative item ?
I don't think that all theists believe in the god of the bible, but that is (I think) what we are specifically talking about here.
If humans can have no conception of what god's morality is, then they are incapable of saying whether god is morally perfect. To say that god is "x" is to say that you know what "x" is, otherwise you are not justified in making any claim at all.
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelIf there is a god, I'm not saying (for the purposes of this discussion) whether he is, or is not, perfect. I'm saying that if our standards do not apply to him then we have no way of knowing if he is perfect.
Sure you are. Just because we are limited by our hum an kanguage does not mean that god is not perfect. that just means that our standards do not apply to god, if they did...we would be god. Are you telling me that perception is not a relative item ?
Feivel
Let's say that someone does the following:
A) He claims that god is morally perfect
B) He then says that god's standards are not the same as ours, or are of an unknown quality
He has undermined his original statement by making the term "morally perfect" meaningless.
Either god is morally perfect as we understand the term, or his moral status will be of an unknown quality.
Now we understand that having children torn apart by bears is an immoral act. We can then say that god is immoral as we understand the term, or we can say that god has a different moral standard which is unknown to us, therefore nothing at all can be known about his moral status.
This brings us to one of three possibilities:
1) The god of the bible is a logical contradiction which cannot exist
2) The god of the bible is an immoral god who is not worthy of worship
3) The god of the bible is completely unknowable to man
Originally posted by rwingettwe can say that god has a different moral standard which is unknown to us, therefore nothing at all can be known about his moral status.
If there is a god, I'm not saying (for the purposes of this discussion) whether he is, or is not, perfect. I'm saying that if our standards do not apply to him then we have no way of knowing if he is perfect.
Let's say that someone does the following:
A) He claims that god is morally perfect
B) He then says that god's standards are not the same ...[text shortened]... mmoral god who is not worthy of worship
3) The god of the bible is completely unknowable to man
That is what I am saying only i do not reach the same conclusion as you. If, as you say, god's perfection is different than ours then we are fully justified in saying his perfection is different than our understanding.
This brings us to one of three possibilities:
And those three possibilities are only applicable if we are discussing the god of the bible. That is a condition of your making.
Feivel