She-bears and the IFB pastor

[redbeardiam]

(02-12-2012 12:46 AM)Jeremy Wrote:  All of your assumptions may be true. But even if so, all they represent is your effort to understand the story in the best light possible. And the reason you feel this is necessary is because of your view of the authority of scripture, which I don't want to go into here. So you're starting with what you want to believe and making the story say that. That's not intellectually honest.

Her view of scripture influences the way she understands the passage in much the same way that your view of scripture influences the way you understand the passage. She's operating from a different presupposition than you. if you actually 'don't want to go there,' then stop going there. Start another thread re: inerrancy and authority. It seems to have been brought up in multiple threads lately. Then maybe every other thread discussing scripture or theology doesn't have to get the 'why should we care what the Bible says anyway?' treatment.

[Trapped Pentecostal]

The mental gymnastics that people go through to justify this verse in order to still be able to say "God is good" and "God is love" are absolutely astounding.

If someone has to go to such extraordinary lengths, make so many unfounded assumptions, and make so many twists in logic to justify something, then it's possible, just possible, that they may not be right about it.

Just admit that the God portrayed in the Old Testament is a rather capricious, malicious, heavy handed, quick tempered jerk. But Christians keep trying to give us the "God is love" angle, when even a casual reading of the Old Testament shows this to not be the case, and an in-depth reading only makes it worse. The writers of the Old Testament were not trying to portray a god of love; they were trying to portray their god of war as a god who could kick the ass of all the other pagan gods of the time.

There is no context that makes sending a bunch of bears out to maul kids an act of "love," unless one wants to redefine the term "love" so that it justifies this story somehow. Given the contortions that I've seen to justify many of God's actions as "good," it wouldn't surprise me to see someone try to do just that. This is a horrible act committed by a spiteful deity, period.

The creator of the universe couldn't have thought of a more effective way to tell the kids to stop what they were doing than sending bears to maul them? Really? That's how the creator of the entire universe, the lord of hosts, the ruler of heaven and earth, the creator of all physical laws, operates? Can you honestly tell me that this doesn't sound like the actions of a primitive pagan deity? Even if this deity exists, I refuse to worship him if this is how immature and cruel he is.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(02-12-2012 08:24 AM)Trapped Pentecostal Wrote:  The mental gymnastics that people go through to justify this verse in order to still be able to say "God is good" and "God is love" are absolutely astounding.

If someone has to go to such extraordinary lengths, make so many unfounded assumptions, and make so many twists in logic to justify something, then it's possible, just possible, that they may not be right about it.

Just admit that the God portrayed in the Old Testament is a rather capricious, malicious, heavy handed, quick tempered jerk. But Christians keep trying to give us the "God is love" angle, when even a casual reading of the Old Testament shows this to not be the case, and an in-depth reading only makes it worse. The writers of the Old Testament were not trying to portray a god of love; they were trying to portray their god of war as a god who could kick the ass of all the other pagan gods of the time.

There is no context that makes sending a bunch of bears out to maul kids an act of "love," unless one wants to redefine the term "love" so that it justifies this story somehow. Given the contortions that I've seen to justify many of God's actions as "good," it wouldn't surprise me to see someone try to do just that. This is a horrible act committed by a spiteful deity, period.

The creator of the universe couldn't have thought of a more effective way to tell the kids to stop what they were doing than sending bears to maul them? Really? That's how the creator of the entire universe, the lord of hosts, the ruler of heaven and earth, the creator of all physical laws, operates? Can you honestly tell me that this doesn't sound like the actions of a primitive pagan deity? Even if this deity exists, I refuse to worship him if this is how immature and cruel he is.

I agree with much of what you say here but I do think it is a little one sided. I gave my views in an earlier post so I won't reiterated them, only to say that the story is supposed to be more of a vindication of Elisha the monotheistic prophet since it was his curse in the name of YHWH that set off the events. Still horrible to be sure and no act of love (and I do think they were little children and not a group of rogue youths).

My biggest disagreement is with how you appear to go to the opposite extreme in your views of the Hebrew scriptures' teachings about God. Yes, there are definitely passages that make God sound capricious and petty, and quite a number of them too. But there are also passages that make God sound patient and loving. It is not all in one direction. While it is dishonest to try and make the passages where God appears capricious less then they are, I think it is unfair to suggest that this is the only view of God put forth in the Hebrew bible. Many Jewish and Christian people are willing to admit that both portraits are there. It is really a case of different writers and editors with different views of God - some of them competing views. The writer of Jonah has a different view of God and Nineveh than the prophet Nahum for example. The writer of Ruth is more open to the Moabites than the writer of Deuteronomy. And then Jesus has different views still.

Many exfundies are never given the opportunity to read the bible in any way other than how they were taught in fundamentalism. I agree that when you read it as an inerrant book of truth you run into serious trouble with passages such as this. But many Jews and Christians do not read it that way and still find that they encounter God in its pages - even when they read it critically. That's where I am at.

[GraceThruFaith]

It looks like we're straying from the path that I originally intended for this thread. I wanted to discuss why IFB's use this verse to justify not speaking against the IFB pastor in even small matters. The issue is not about why God allowed 42 people to be mauled by the bears. Please stick to my initial question.

[Jeremy]

(02-12-2012 04:56 PM)GraceThruFaith Wrote:  It looks like we're straying from the path that I originally intended for this thread. I wanted to discuss why IFB's use this verse to justify not speaking against the IFB pastor in even small matters. The issue is not about why God allowed 42 people to be mauled by the bears. Please stick to my initial question.

Conversations migrate; especially internet ones. Also, in raising the question of how people misapply the verse, you can't help but consider how the verse SHOULD be applied. And given that it's a controversial passage, here we are.

[myotch]

Starting with Genesis 1, just about every story in the Bible is controversial in one way or another, even when it deals with simple matters of history.

Adding to the problem of "literal inerrancy" is one of "interpretation inerrancy". It's kind of funny that atheists and agnostics that cherry pick passages like the she-bears often take the position of "inerrant literalism" AND fundamentalalist interpretation to prove that God is not just or merciful, OR the passage is wrong AND, it follows, Scripture itself cannot be trusted.

See also: genocide.

Instead of digging for deeper meaning, why not just acknowledge God's autonomy and sovereignty?

[Jeremy]

(02-12-2012 06:06 PM)myotch Wrote:  Instead of digging for deeper meaning, why not just acknowledge God's autonomy and sovereignty?

Because that's a cop-out that basically says God doesn't follow his own rules.

[myotch]

I would posit that God's rules are God's rules for us, not Him.

If I tell my 6 year old not to light my Zippo, when I light the Zippo, I'm not a hypocrite, nor am Ifailing to live up to my own standards.

[Jeremy]

(02-12-2012 07:15 PM)myotch Wrote:  I would posit that God's rules are God's rules for us, not Him.

If I tell my 6 year old not to light my Zippo, when I light the Zippo, I'm not a hypocrite, nor am Ifailing to live up to my own standards.

Right. There are age-appropriate rules in place with kids. Analogous to how God has certain responsibilities and powers as the Ruler of the Universe that are not available to us. I get that. However, he is still subject to basic right and wrong because he created right and wrong as a manifestation of his nature. So if he went against his nature he would be contradicting himself. The commandment, even in the OT, is "be holy as I am holy," vice "do as I say, not as I do." So just because God has all power and sovereignty doesn't mean he can go off on a whim and do whatever fallen human beings would feel like doing were we in his shoes. Nor does it mean that we can't hold up standards of right and wrong to actions attributed to God, as a test of whether they REALLY come from God or not.

If we worshipped a god who followed his whims regardless of right and wrong we would be worshipping a pagan deity for no other real reason than to accrue good fortune as a result of pious acts.

[pastor's wife]

(02-12-2012 04:56 PM)GraceThruFaith Wrote:  I wanted to discuss why IFB's use this verse to justify not speaking against the IFB pastor in even small matters.

Hubris probably.

Conflating their position as shepherd with being an OT prophet.

If you are a pastor because of issues of authority, power, and control, you will seek to crush any challenge to your rule. You will use fear, manipulation, and intimidation to keep anyone from questioning you.

If you are a pastor who serves (the way Jesus both commanded and modeled), you don't need to threaten people.