Bears mauling children....

[Bruke]

There's a passage in the Christian Bible that's always puzzled me, and I thought I'd throw it out and see what others think of it...

I'd like to preface this by saying that the Christian God is supposed to be the Alpha and the Omega... Revelations makes that very clear that God exists outside of time.  As God exists outside of normal time, he is now, always was, and always will be.  OK, I'll accept that premise.  So, then, the God of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John must therefore be the same God as existed in the times of Noah and Moses.  So, why does he behave so differently?

The particular passage that has me puzzled today comes from 2 Kings 2:23 and continues to 2 Kings 2:25.  It reads (from the NIV translation):

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him.  "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said.  "Go on up, you baldhead!"  He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD.  Then two bears came out of the woods, and mauled forty-two of the youths.  And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

This casual brutality, apparently done in the name of God and by the power of God, seems in conflict with the God of compassion that is described in the New Testament.  How is this possible, if God is the alpha and omega, and outside of our linear time?  Surely we could not argue that God gained wisdom, or that he learned to be different... for that would imply that God is bound by linear time in the same way that we are, and would make it impossible for him to truly be the alpha and omega as he clearly states that he is...

So how is this possible?

Even more disturbing is the King James version of this story, in which the "youths" are referred to as "little children".  This translation as "little children" is also in two other Bibles that I checked, which makes me wonder if the NIV version isn't trying to soften the impact of this passage.  But, even if we take it to mean youths...

Does anyone else feel that the mauling of 42 youths is not a proper reaction to mockery?  No matter what those youths might have said, is that the proper response of a compassionate entity?

I welcome comments.

[Lugarou]

Interpretation #1:  Old Testament is the old message  and meant for a tough audience in a more primitive time. God had to be a rough and tough being to impress people out of other superstitions. ( aside- Old testament says "You shall have no other god but me" - other gods exist and it is the battle of market share - and that god has won so doesn't have to be so tough)

Interpretation #2: God works in ways beyond the knowledge of humans - these youths or children had done other evils and this was a punishment,  a test, a way to make a revelation and convert them or justified and "good" in ways  we don't know from the story.

Interpretation #3: It's all made up stories and parables meant to teach a code and power structure of, by and for people  and there is no supernatural being pulling the strings.  (since this is the theology thread, I'm assuming this is kicked out as "off topic")

[Bruke]

(since this is the theology thread, I'm assuming this is kicked out as "off topic")

Certainly not... the question of whether or not any God or Goddesses is real is a fundamental issue in theology... at least, I think it is.

[Lugarou]

2 Books: Bart Ehrman's "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer" and "Bad Things Happen to Good People" by Harold S. Kushner come to different and yet similar points in looking at the question of suffering.
Erhman is a former Evangelical Christian and PhD in New Testament studies who came to believe that the biblical God  wasn't running things and the bible was  "was a very human book with all the marks of having come from human hands: discrepancies, contradictions, errors, and different perspectives of different authors living at different times in different countries and writing for different reasons to different audiences with different needs. "  Suffering is a mix of random events, consequences of choices and risks, causes and conditions and acts of people. A God may be there - but remote and perhaps as more the Universal first cause than the active personal God and a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Kushner is an Orthodox Rabbi who also says that there is randomness but that God (and the seeds of future suffering) lies in Community and the response (or lack of response) to suffering.  Assigning it to God is actually a copout  on real sympathy and compassion.  The Jewish tradition views the scriptures as a mix of history, stories and allegories.  The Catholics also see the scriptures as metaphorical and philosophical rather than literal events.

As a gamer and GM, I do set up scenarios to challenge players and have the random elements of dice rolls.  I'm not a kind, compassionate god. I create conflicts, suffering, pain and death. And I roll dice for random encounters and events.  So the "youths" are just a bunch of NPC's or rival players afflicted with a divine intervention by a priestly miracle.

[Bruke]

An interesting analysis.  I've always liked the deep thinking that rabbis put into the Bible... It's so much better than the blind acceptance my own family's church encouraged while I was growing up.

That explanation sounds like Deism (wiki is HERE), in that it portrays God as less directly involved.  I like it.  I'd hate to think that there was a God that actually was directing some of the events going on in the world today.

But, then, how would you respond to Einstein's famous (and often misquoted) comment about God not playing dice?

[Lugarou]

Einstein's quote I believe was in part of a disagreement with quantum mechanics and quantum theory.  He was more of a solid maths underlying of the universal laws and the math of Chaos theory hadn't been developed.

[Bruke]

Interpretation #1:  Old Testament is the old message  and meant for a tough audience in a more primitive time. God had to be a rough and tough being to impress people out of other superstitions. ( aside- Old testament says "You shall have no other god but me" - other gods exist and it is the battle of market share - and that god has won so doesn't have to be so tough)

Interpretation #2: God works in ways beyond the knowledge of humans - these youths or children had done other evils and this was a punishment,  a test, a way to make a revelation and convert them or justified and "good" in ways  we don't know from the story.

Interpretation #3: It's all made up stories and parables meant to teach a code and power structure of, by and for people  and there is no supernatural being pulling the strings.  (since this is the theology thread, I'm assuming this is kicked out as "off topic")

So... you advanced 3 options, but which one do you think is the most likely answer?  I'd tend to go with #3, but I'm a cynic.

[Lugarou]

Yes, I'd agree with #3. 
Superparent is a fiction created by superstitious primitive people and perpetuated out of fear and control.  So many Christians have asked how I could be moral if i didn't believe in God. Or how could society continue without the Christian god? - as if only that stopped them from robbing, burning and raping. Only the promise of eternal reward keeps them at empty and meaningless jobs, marriages and lives.

Certainly if you only have this life, and the world is made by human actions and the various nearly random causes and conditions of weather, disease, mutation and geological events then for much of the suffering - we are responsible, we can change it and people don't have to put up with things out of fear of God's wrath or eternal punishment.  And there is no "divine right" to conquest or rulership. Nobody is better because they are the "true" or "chosen" followers of the diety.  People, being what we are will shift those to  superior race, superior political party and other causes.

[Chak]

Interpretation #4: Many of our years ago God caused 2 bears to maul 42 youths because they were rude... and someone wrote it down for our reference.  Today god caused a plane to go down, killing 312 youths because they didn't believe in "him"... no one has wrote it down in Biblical context yet.

[Yoda]

kill all the theifing chavs especially ones at my school constantly smoking crack which when walking constantly having to walk through and yet nobody cares I DO THE ARSES

[Blood Fire]

I believe that God would've done that to prove that He was with Elisha and to show the people of Bethel that He must be feared which in turn would turn many of Bethel's people towards Him

[Bruke]

kill all the theifing chavs especially ones at my school constantly smoking crack which when walking constantly having to walk through and yet nobody cares I DO THE ARSES

Don't worry, if they are really smoking crack they will suffer for it when they are older.  That stuff does bad things to a person's body, and long term use leads to early old-age.  They'll be in worse shape at 35 than a normal person would be at 50.  It may take time, but there are always consequences.

[Bruke]

I believe that God would've done that to prove that He was with Elisha and to show the people of Bethel that He must be feared which in turn would turn many of Bethel's people towards Him

This begs the question... if a "god" is willing to cause the death of 42 children in order to create fear, and then to cause worship to result from this fear... is he a god that is worthy of worship, or an abomination that should be fought against?  If a man killed 42 people in order to gain power over others, we would call him sick... I think that, if anything, we should hold god to a higher standard than a man.

However, I think that the common use of the word "fear" in the bible may be an error in translation; I've come across many sources that claim "fear" should instead be translated as "respect".  Not sure.

[Chun]

I have often wondered, if there are ANY spiritual beings, and God is one of them.  I would say that the various acts of causing fear, killing every man, woman, child, first-born son, wiping out massive populations, condemning the unfaithful to eternal punishment, demanding the first-born of every womb to be ritually slaughtered in his name, the fact that we're god-fearing, not god-loving, the signs moses was given etc.. etc.. etc...

Well, I would say if there are spiritual entities at all, that the judeo-christian entity.....would better fit my concept of demonic, rather then divine.