Did God send bears to rip open 42 little boys?

[amortalman]

In chapter 2 of 2 Kings, we read an odd tale concerning the Fantastic Duo, prophets of the Lord, Elijah and his sidekick, Elisha. We find the Duo wandering around with Elijah not really knowing which town he wanted to land in. But it was settled when a chariot of fire and horses of fire came down and took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So Elisha doubles back and with the help of Elijah's cloak and "Elijah's God," he parts the Jordan river so he can walk over on dry land. He must be in a very nasty mood because this is where he loses it when some kids start mocking him:

23 He went up from there to Bethel, and going up on the way, little boys came out of the city and made fun of him and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!� 24 He turned around, saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and ripped open forty-two of the boys.

For debate: What do we make of this horrifying tale?

(1) Is it fact or fiction?
(2) If fiction, why is it presented as fact?
(3) If fact, what does this say about the Lord's prophet and the Lord himself?

[Charles]

The bias comes from those who insist the Bible says what it does not say, i.e. changing "little children", "boys", little boys", "young boys" into late teens or twenty-somethings.

Changing?


Ummmm, the bias is also evident in the choosing of one narrow meaning that happens to portray GOD in the bad light of modernism instead of the perfectly acceptable alternatives which imply a more reasoned explanation of what happened, the bias I prefer.

Even your intransigence against the loftier doctrine of HIS righteousness is a bias, eh?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

By mocking Elisha, a prophet of God, they are actually mocking God himself. So we are talking about young men or lads or fellows, as some translations note, old enough to know what they're doing and who they're belittling. To stand in opposition to Elisha and his message was to stand in opposition to God who gave Elisha the message.

In what way does any of that justify their brutal slaughter?

Because God decides what is good and God is good by definition.

My idea is that the standards that apply to people simply don't apply to God.

If it hadn't been hairism, some human being slaughtering another human being for poking fun would be absolutely evil. That doesn't mean it's not fine for God, though.

I argue that this effective double standard makes religion useless to people who actually want to be good and do good. You can define things into rightness by virtue of who is doing them, but once you've done that, it ceases to help anybody in the real world be even one iota better.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 22 by Purple Knight]

Because God decides what is good and God is good by definition.

I've often wondered why God has to be good. Just because we chose to define him that way doesn't mean it's a necessity. All of God's attributes have come from the human imagination but he has never actually demonstrated any of them. The universe fits equally well in a scenario with a God that is not necessarily all good in my opinion. For many he is probably just a security blanket to make them feel warm and fuzzy and help them through the tough times.

[Purple Knight]

The universe fits equally well in a scenario with a God that is not necessarily all good in my opinion.

Actually if you start to really imagine an evil creator, the theistic universe starts to make a lot of sense.

But nevertheless, the word good, and the entity God, are simply defined by theists so that God is good by definition. So when I talk about God being "evil" what I actually mean is that its actions, views, rules and feelings would describe the most evil human imaginable, if they described a human.

In other words, if I told someone to kill all the Amalekites, I would be a horrible genocidal person. If I told them to include infants, that would probably ding the top bell on how evil a person can possibly be.

But for God it's fine. It's not even considered genocide. Christians will simply define words so it isn't. So you have the double standard baked into the definitions of words, but it's still there. (Imagine if a white person killing a black person wasn't called murder, but a black person killing a white person was called murder. You have, on the surface, an equal standard - don't murder - but the double standard is baked into the word murder.)

It doesn't matter if there are double standards or not. Good is good and evil is evil. Yes, according to how religious people define it. If it's fiction it's totally acceptable for them to define the powers of the characters in their canon. God can make his own actions good where for a human those actions would be evil. Fine. Fair enough. Arguing that God can't do that is like saying Goku can't really go supersaiyan.

The question to me is whether this helps me be a good person, and the answer is that it doesn't. I have to lean on actions alone, and sort the good actions from the bad. That some people have special permissions makes my task basically impossible, because all the good people are good because of those special permissions. I can't just imitate their actions and be good myself - I'd be evil.

[William]

In chapter 2 of 2 Kings, we read an odd tale concerning the Fantastic Duo, prophets of the Lord, Elijah and his sidekick, Elisha. We find the Duo wandering around with Elijah not really knowing which town he wanted to land in. But it was settled when a chariot of fire and horses of fire came down and took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So Elisha doubles back and with the help of Elijah's cloak and "Elijah's God," he parts the Jordan river so he can walk over on dry land. He must be in a very nasty mood because this is where he loses it when some kids start mocking him:

23 He went up from there to Bethel, and going up on the way, little boys came out of the city and made fun of him and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!� 24 He turned around, saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and ripped open forty-two of the boys.

For debate: What do we make of this horrifying tale?

(1) Is it fact or fiction?
(2) If fiction, why is it presented as fact?
(3) If fact, what does this say about the Lord's prophet and the Lord himself?

William: 1: The answer depends upon how one views the world.
As a Fireside Story, it may just have been entertaining fiction.
In that - it might serve to get the attention of the listeners not to get on the wrong side of the unnamed 'Lord' by disrespecting ones elders.

2: Often the long-lived fictions are those which are presented as fact.

3: It say's 'don't mess with these fellers' or you will live to regret it.

[amortalman]

The bias comes from those who insist the Bible says what it does not say, i.e. changing "little children", "boys", little boys", "young boys" into late teens or twenty-somethings.

Even your intransigence against the loftier doctrine of HIS righteousness is a bias, eh?

To say that one is biased is to say that one is prejudiced. If one is prejudiced he has a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. You make the claim that the God you believe in possesses righteousness. Would you say that your belief is based on reason or actual experience? If so, how so?

[Charles]

To say that one is biased is to say that one is prejudiced. If one is prejudiced he has a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

I don't think I agree. I did look up bias and prejudice and some said they mean the same thing and others said they are related but different concepts.

IF I peruse concept A and then concept B and after thinking it over I become satisfied that concept A is a superior definition of reality and come to use it as my operating definition for life, am I biased in favour of A? Yes, I believe I am - I define reality in terms of A, it is my go to pov...it is my bias.

Does this mean that I am prejudiced for A or against B? Not at all. Prejudice as: "Prejudice is an unjustified attitude or opinion, usually a negative one, directed toward an individual for something the individual cannot control." has no meaning here. Prejudice seems to always connote a meaning of being unjustified.

Do I not have as much right to feel justified as you?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 27 by Charles]

According to Merriam-Webster, the word "bias" carries a negative connotation but if you prefer to define it as nothing more than a personal preference go right ahead. In that case, I have a bias for a banana in my oatmeal. It really isn't that important to the real point I was trying to get at.

You spoke of my "intransigence against the loftier doctrine of (GOD's) righteousness."
This assumes that your god is righteous.

So my question to you, Charles, is what makes you think your god is righteous? It's a fair question.

[marco]

I've often wondered why God has to be good. Just because we chose to define him that way doesn't mean it's a necessity. All of God's attributes have come from the human imagination but he has never actually demonstrated any of them. The universe fits equally well in a scenario with a God that is not necessarily all good in my opinion. For many he is probably just a security blanket to make them feel warm and fuzzy and help them through the tough times.

It's a reasonable idea to take it that there are greater beings than ourselves. Presumably if they wanted anything to do with us, they would let us know. If they do that, they do it unobtrusively, secretly and perhaps inspirationally.

The God of Abrahamic religions seems to be an outpouring of spite and brutality. It is utterly silly to have some powerful being intervening in boyish nonsense and having the kids slaughtered; it is absurd for him to declare Lot's wife is worthy of being spared then, having spared her, he savagely kills her because - being human - she turns round. Allah - described everywhere as merciful (I suspect sarcastically) burns non-believers post mortem and having burned them, renews them for more fun - for ever. I find it hard to see how people can accept such an unlovely being. If, as some think, he has been maligned biblically, then it can't be too hard to issue a disclaimer.

[The Nice Centurion]

I've often wondered why God has to be good. Just because we chose to define him that way doesn't mean it's a necessity. All of God's attributes have come from the human imagination but he has never actually demonstrated any of them. The universe fits equally well in a scenario with a God that is not necessarily all good in my opinion. For many he is probably just a security blanket to make them feel warm and fuzzy and help them through the tough times.

It's a reasonable idea to take it that there are greater beings than ourselves. Presumably if they wanted anything to do with us, they would let us know. If they do that, they do it unobtrusively, secretly and perhaps inspirationally.

Yeah, I give that bears are physically greater than humans, especially standing on their back feet.

But ripping open 42 little kids I would not call unobtrusively, secretly and perhaps rather not inspirationally.

Said, that to make something of the bible story I would first remark that its fitting for an all good bible god that he wouldnt let the mistreating of two baldys go unpunished and neither two bears go hungry.

Therefore here we have an example of an an all good bible god doing the exactly right thing.

Even the supposed moral teaching of the story can be described as above; No crime ever should go unpunished, no bear ever should go hungry!
(We may safely assume the anymals feasted on the kids, as its their nature.)

Perfect morality from an allegedly perfect bible god!

This proves there are good tales too in the bible!