Prof Tiger & Sardis "All Things Considered" Theology Hut

[AlabamAlum]

I do love it. It's a perfect illustration of a hateful god's petulant nature.

The pulling out story is nice, too. I don't use that much. Also a fav is god telling Abraham to kill his son, putting him through agony, and then yelling "PSYCH!"

The bible is full of them. It's really a very interesting -yet completely fucked-up- mythology.

[Professor Tiger]

Do you realize that mocking the Old Testament to Christians is like mocking the Articles of Confederation to Constitutionalists?

[AlabamAlum]

I have heard that. It's a silly attempt at palliating the dickhole nature that is the myth of a Judeo-Christian god. You see, while Dickinson, Franklin, et al, were mortal men codifying an early set of rules for a new country; god, however, is a timeless, perfect diety. Killing a man because he pulled out instead of shooting his load into his brother's wife, or making someone *almost* kill his son, etc etc, and then to brush it off and say, "ya know, that petty, vindictive, petuant, evil, madmad god in the Old Testament? Yeah, totally didn't mean any of that! It doesn't count! He changed! Can't even really bring all that torture and shit up!"

I can't say that I blame any religious person for diminishing the insanity of god in the Old Testament. I would, too, because it's apeshit crazy. Really, the only defense is to say, "nope, none of that is real. It's just parable." But then you head down the slippery slope of discounting other parts of the bible. So most religious adopt an "it doesn't really count" and "in for a penny" stance.

Which would be fine (funny, but fine) EXCEPT the religious will cherrypick some Levitican law or whatever as a justification to hate on gays, or whatever serves their agenda.

[Professor Tiger]

Umm, just as an FYI, in that Onan story, Onan's brother was dead.

You usually get this riled up only when I besmirch your football team's fans.

[AlabamAlum]

I knew Onan was dead. Not even cold in the ground. The shocking thing isn't that god was okay with him screwing her, but that god killed the guy for pulling out.

Not riled at all.

[hedge]

Just like every other bible fable you spout to suit your purposes on a regular basis...

[AlabamAlum]

Me? Well, I love bible fables.

[sardis]

Because of Jewish Law and ancient tradition (not just Jewish people observed this), Onan was required to take on his first born brother's wife after he died. He was supposed to procreate with her, and the children of his brother's wife would receive the double inheritance their first born father was entitled while Onan and his children would get less. Onan didn't like that idea, but didn't mind banging another woman besides his wife so he did the deed anyway and pulled out. Onan broke the law, he was smitten. A fate common to the brutality of ancient times.

The modern day Western culture pictures God as a loving fuzzball. That is far from the truth. God can be brutally violent in his punishment if he chooses and it would be right because he is the author of right. His love stems from the fact that He provides an escape from damnation for eternity. No where does He promise a rose garden here on earth for his followers. A lot of needy Christians would like to think that God is your buddy, friend, always encouraging, ok with however you want to make of your god, etc. The reality is it's His way or the highway...to hell, so to speak. You may boohoo, "that's not a loving God!". So be it, God is not up there wringing his hands of whether society approves of his actions or not.

[AlabamAlum]

Brutal. Violent. Petulant. Bat-shit crazy. Am I leaving anything out?

It's all so obvious that man created god in his own image. Those times were brutal so "god" was brutal. And it's not just the judeo-christian iteration. Look at the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Norse (etc, etc) gods of that general epoch. They were all brutal. But when humanity became civilized, so did "god". He just transformed from Krampus to Santa in that particular mythology.

[hedge]

"Because of Jewish Law and ancient tradition (not just Jewish people observed this), Onan was required to take on his first born brother's wife after he died."

How do you know it was an ancient tradition back then? It might've been something they had just started trying...

[hedge]

"The modern day Western culture pictures God as a loving fuzzball. That is far from the truth."

I'm glad we have an expert in here who knows the "truth" about "God". LMAO...

[hedge]

"God can be brutally violent in his punishment if he chooses and it would be right because he is the author of right."

So basically everything that happens is "right" because it's God's will. In that case, there's no need to grieve or even have any opinion at all about stuff like 9/11 or any mass murders, b/c, well, it's God's will and it's therefor "right". Right? In fact, far from grieving or even indifference, I would think you would be praising and hallelujah-ing every event like that as proof of God's right will. Right?

[AlabamAlum]

And, back to my fav Bible story: Kids taunting Elisha by calling him bald. There is probably some truth to that. It's possible that a kid did taunt Elisha and was later attacked by a wild animal and everyone bought into the "see what god did?" angle. "He was angry at those kids!" Over time, the story goes from a couple of kids being attacked to bears killing 42 children. You know how fish stories go "A 400-lb marlin got away!" And people love to connect dots and attrubute god's intervention as the cause of an event ("14 houses destroyed in the tornado and mine was saved by god!").

[sardis]

Hey, those houligan's deserved it.

[Jungle Rat]

Exactly

[Johnette's Daddy]

And, back to my fav Bible story: Kids taunting Elisha by calling him bald. There is probably some truth to that. It's possible that a kid did taunt Elisha and was later attacked by a wild animal and everyone bought into the "see what god did?" angle. "He was angry at those kids!" Over time, the story goes from a couple of kids being attacked to bears killing 42 children. You know how fish stories go "A 400-lb marlin got away!" And people love to connect dots and attrubute god's intervention as the cause of an event ("14 houses destroyed in the tornado and mine was saved by god!").

Not going to try to convince/convert you, but like many surface readings of Old Testament scriptures, the story is better explained when you understand what had happened prior to the incident, and when you don't use a 21st century lens, but instead read it from the mindset of the people of that day (yes, the whole "context" thing).

1 - the word that has been translated as "boys" in that passage is also the same word used for unmarried young males (and in some cases, females), or even young warriors.

2 - the area Elisha was in had fallen to idolatry and abandonment of the ways of God and the young men in the story were symbolic of those who had turned from God in a city itself named "House of God."

3 - Elisha was a young man (probably the same age as his attackers) and his bald spot was likely a result of a ceremonial head shaving (like monks do even today). So their taunting wasn't of his baldness, but because of his spiritual commitment.

4 - The bigger insult was them telling him to "go up" as in go up to Heaven, as Elijah had done earlier in the chapter. They were either doubting Elisha's fitness to succeed a great prophet like Elijah, or they were telling him to go away and leave Bethel alone.

So, in context:

A large mob of 20-something men surround Elisha while he is on his way to Jericho. They insult Elisha and God, while presenting a threat to Elisha finishing his mission. Elisha calls on God to either protect him or to show his power to the mob. Two bears come out and maul 42 of the mob members (not necessarily killing them, but still, the bears do bear stuff to them). Elisha keeps it moving.

Hmmm - not a bad sermon outline. Let me put this in the file.

[AlabamAlum]

So, the kids are not kids but an angry, dangerous mob of men dissing God.

Dear lord. Figuratively, of course.

[AlabamAlum]

Possibly, if the bible can have such a significant translation error as 'little children' to men, warriors, women, and so forth, even more scripture needs to be rejected as completely inaccurate:

2 Kings 2:23-24King James Version (KJV)

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

[Johnette's Daddy]

Possibly, if the bible can have such a significant translation error as 'little children' to men, warriors, women, and so forth, even more scripture needs to be rejected as completely inaccurate:

Not completely inaccurate, but certain parts are inaccurately translated, or more often, the meanings of words have changed.

Many people do not realize that the 1st several versions of the english-language Bible were translated into MIDDLE English. For 450+ years, english speakers were essentially reading the Bible in a foreign language.

If you read a KJV Bible that was printed in the 1950s or earlier, Mark 10:13 is translated "And they brought young children to Christ that He might TEACH them."

Read a KJV translation from 4 or 5 years later and it reads "And they brought young children to Christ that He might TOUCH them."

The difference? In Middle English, "teach" is the past participle of "touch," so if you read that passage in the 1400s through the mid 1700s, you'd understand that the kids were being brought so that Jesus could touch (lay hands to administer a blessing to) them. After that, people who read that passage had the image of Jesus sitting with the kids in a little circle, instructing them on the Kingdom of God. A cute picture, but inaccurate.

I will concede that a portion of what some teach/preach about is inaccurate and/or inauthentic to God's original intent. Most churches have - due largely to cowardice - have been unwilling to search their history for erroneous teachings, etc., because they venerate the old pastors/professors/teachers who propagated it. Others don't want to deal with the angst and reality of members inevitably asking "OK, so what else did you get wrong?"

[Professor Tiger]

Forget Middle English. Go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.