 |
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/8/2002 3:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | An interesting thing happened the other day in one of my Bible classes. The professor said, “Turn to 2 Kings 2:23…” I winced—all the discussions we’ve had about this passage on the board came back to me, and I braced myself for some really intense questioning of our doctrine of God and biblical authority…
The professor read, “[W]hile [Elisha] was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the sity and jeered at him saying, ‘Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!’ When he turned rond and saw them he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”
When he was finished, the entire class of about 35 liberal Lutheran Bible students who are all about social justice burst out in good-natured laughter. I was absolutely bewildered.
The very bizarre biblical story of Elisha and the 42 youths has been popping up on many of our threads—probably more than any other passage of scripture. I propose we make it the Christus Victor theme verse. Just kidding. I do propose that we get to the bottom of why we, as evangelicals, are so scandalized by this text. Did Elisha forget to wear his WWJD bracelet that day? Did God?
Not in Kansas anymore,
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.” § Isa. 40:26
Edited by - Electra on 03/08/2002 08:01:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 3/8/2002 9:49 PM (GMT -6) | | This would be a fine example of the power of the tongue. This could be one good example why in James 3 he emphasizes the importance of bridling the tongue. With a simple word Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and with a simple word He killed a fig tree. The tongue has the power of life and death. Think about it...
MrI. :| | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/10/2002 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | From our earlier thread on this verse, I found the best combination of considerations to be
* the "little boys" may have been teenagers
* the taunt may have been a blasphemous railing
* the verse doesn't say GOD sent the "she bears". Spiritual authority may be used for the better or the worse.
* Relatedly, it may be that a spirit in God's council responded to Elisha's rebuke, though it wasn't necessarily God's will that it do so. Spirits too have free will.
Right now, this is the best I can do. If it wasn't for the endorsement of Jesus, it would be far easier to dismiss the whole thing as a piece of archaic legend that reflects the undeveloped moral sentiments of the time. But alas...
I'm certainly open to other considerations.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/10/2002 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Doc. I think that your point, “Spiritual authority may be used for the better or the worse,” is important. When God invests in people, they remain free to squander the investment, thought they will ultimately be held accountable for how it gets spent. The greater God’s investment, the greater the responsibility.
This is an especially interesting point to explore in the lives of the prophets. Von Rad has some really interesting things to say about the prophets’ freedom (in his Old Testament Theology, vol. 2), and how God’s election of the prophet as a messenger of God does not nullify the prophet’s autonomy.…come what may.
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.” § Isa. 40:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/10/2002 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | hmmmm...it's just not the case that God could have sanctioned Elijah's little curse, huh?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 03/10/2002 6:35:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/10/2002 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | | von Rad on the prophets’ freedom:
An examination of the prophetic preaching itself reveals that the case is much more complex than the widely accepted view that in most cases it was delivered under irresistible compulsion.…What makes it such a tremendous responsibility is the fact that the prophet is thus the one who puts the will of Jahweh into effect: Jahweh thereafter commits himself to stand by the decision of his ambassador. (72–73)
Mephi, here is a von Rad quote in response to your question:
In dealing with such passages exegesis has above all else to be clear about the criteria it proposes to apply. It ought to be perfectly obvious that…our modern Christian humanitarian ideal completely fails as a standard of judgment. But if such critical questions are left open—though there is no reason why they should be—it is, theologically, a bad sign that, as usually happens, they are asked only of aspects of the prophetic message which seems to us immoral or inhumane. The “base thing” which Jahweh rebuked in Jeremiah was certainly not his implacable feelngs towards his persecutors: it was his disobedience to God and his angry rebellion against his office. (79)
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.” § Isa. 40:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/11/2002 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
hmmmm...it's just not the case that God could have sanctioned Elijah's little curse, huh?
(This is a long sentence, so I broke it down:)
If
Doc’s intuition that "Spiritual authority may be used for the better or the worse" is on track,
and
von Rad is correct that "Jahweh commits himself to stand by the decision of his ambassador [e.g. the prophet]"
then
Mephi’s question, "it's just not the case that God could have sanctioned Elijah's little curse, huh?" is unanswerable (unless you are a theologian, in which case you are free to answer based on your doctrine of God),
since
the text does not specify God’s will in this incident.
It is true that Elisha invokes the name of the Lord when he curses the boys (however, cf. the second commandment), but the only will that is revealed in the text is Elisha’s. I would also note that the number 42 (6 X 7) is often used figuratively, to represent judgment (it shows up all over Revelation). So I wouldn’t necessarily interpret this passage as if it were a journalist’s eye-witness account.
This text is concerned with authority. It does not include a disclaimer (i.e. "don’t try this curse at home, kids"), because prophets were never thought of as moral or spiritual exemplars; for better (as in Elisha’s cleansing of Jericho’s water that was causing death and miscarriage—2 Kgs 2:19–22) or worse (as in his cursing of the boys—2 Kgs 2:23–24), their authority originated with God by divine fiat, not with themselves. The only moral of the story is, don’t mess with a messenger of God.
We may wish Elisha would just go away because he is ugly (e.g. he was bald) or cruel (e.g. he cursed kids), but our objections are quite beside the point. He is a messenger of God and we are stuck with him—and, if Doc and von Rad are right, to some extent so was God. The message of the prophets was usually difficult to hear (almost always judgment) and they were so unpopular with the priests and the kings and their own people that often only gentiles would take them in. Many of them were killed. Well, maybe Elisha has something in common with Jesus after all.…
Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.” § Isa. 40:26 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/11/2002 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Just to clarify. This is what I'm hearing. Let's assume that SOMETHING like what was said happened...
God chose Elijah to be his prophet. When this happened, some level of "spiritual authority" was granted to him. This would be somewhat like the "irrevocable influence" Doc talks about. And Elijah can do this for better of worse. Elijah has a RESEVOIR OF SPIRITUAL POWER WITHIN HIMSELF which he could use more or less how he wills. Because God has given Elijah this power, he CANNOT "block" its usage...such that if Elijah makes a decision that God fundamentally disagrees with, God is absolutely powerless to stop it in any way. (Via angelic contact, divine vision, dream, etc. This would be important.) In other words, God doesn't "allow" it in the sense that we would understand. Like in Doc's main view, God is FORCED to "allow" it because of his ORIGINAL self-limiting choices.
So...
when Elijah curses the kids (or teens or whatever) it is not GOD who is doing something by way of Elijah's curse. It is the spiritual reservoir of power given to Elijah. Moreover, we could say that God was UTTERLY OPPOSED to what Elijah did...but had to go along with it because of the "granted authority" thing. God just had to watch as those kids or whoever died.
Is this what you are saying, Electra?
If so, then I have an observation. It would seem that, if this were the case, that ANY blessings that people got from Elijah should NOT to be seen as GOD helping them. It should be seen as ELIJAH, the MAN of God, helping them. God only had something to do with it INDIRECTLY by granting Elijah power initially. (thereby not at all) JUST LIKE God doesn't assume total, direct responsibility for Elijah's bad acts, he cannot assume total, direct responsibility for Elijah's GOOD acts. In other words, if we would want to THANK GOD for Elijah's good acts, it would seem that God could assume requisite responsibility for allowing Elijah's EVIL acts. Would you say that's fair?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/11/2002 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | What Meph said in trying to echo what he read -- "Because God has given Elijah this power, he CANNOT "block" its usage... -- would fit with Thomism's "Created Grace". But would be declared heretical by Orthodoxy. In my opinion. I'm not speaking to the discussion here. I'm just saying that the idea that God can detach energy from Himself (Created Energies) seems 190-degrees from the UnCreated Energies of Eastern Orthodoxy.That pitch is fouled-ed off by at least thirdty yards. Strike two.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhD MP
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 3/11/2002 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | A few historical/critical facts:
1. Elijah's context: the youths probably represent the culture's disdain for God's will and God's word. The gods of the Canaanites were in competition with Yahweh for the hearts of people. Yahweh jealously protects and nurtures his relationship with his covenantal people, even to the point of instilling fear via death to mockers.
2. The writer of Kings definitely appears to present this story with a purpose: he wants to provoke reverence for God's word and God's work. No apology is made by the author, but neither is there an apology by the writer of Acts for the deaths of Ananias and Saphira. The God of the OT is the God of the NT; in both contexts genuine fear of the Lord is fostered by these events and the narratives about them.
Edited by - phd MP on 03/11/2002 9:07:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/11/2002 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/11/2002 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Just to clarify. This is what I'm hearing. Let's assume that SOMETHING like what was said happened...
God chose Elijah to be his prophet. When this happened, some level of "spiritual authority" was granted to him. This would be somewhat like the "irrevocable influence" Doc talks about. And Elijah can do this for better of worse. Elijah has a RESEVOIR OF SPIRITUAL POWER WITHIN HIMSELF which he could use more or less how he wills. Because God has given Elijah this power, he CANNOT "block" its usage...such that if Elijah makes a decision that God fundamentally disagrees with, God is absolutely powerless to stop it in any way. (Via angelic contact, divine vision, dream, etc. This would be important.) In other words, God doesn't "allow" it in the sense that we would understand. Like in Doc's main view, God is FORCED to "allow" it because of his ORIGINAL self-limiting choices.
So...
when Elijah curses the kids (or teens or whatever) it is not GOD who is doing something by way of Elijah's curse. It is the spiritual reservoir of power given to Elijah. Moreover, we could say that God was UTTERLY OPPOSED to what Elijah did...but had to go along with it because of the "granted authority" thing. God just had to watch as those kids or whoever died.
Is this what you are saying, Electra?
If so, then I have an observation. It would seem that, if this were the case, that ANY blessings that people got from Elijah should NOT to be seen as GOD helping them. It should be seen as ELIJAH, the MAN of God, helping them. God only had something to do with it INDIRECTLY by granting Elijah power initially. (thereby not at all) JUST LIKE God doesn't assume total, direct responsibility for Elijah's bad acts, he cannot assume total, direct responsibility for Elijah's GOOD acts. In other words, if we would want to THANK GOD for Elijah's good acts, it would seem that God could assume requisite responsibility for allowing Elijah's EVIL acts. Would you say that's fair?
I think the implications you draw from what I said in the first sentence are fair, although I went a different direction in the rest of my post—e.g. “The only moral of the story is, don’t mess with a messenger of God.” (But hey, when it comes to surplus of meaning—“my cup runneth over.”  )
quote:
What Meph said in trying to echo what he read -- "Because God has given Elijah this power, he CANNOT "block" its usage... -- would fit with Thomism's "Created Grace". But would be declared heretical by Orthodoxy. In my opinion. I'm not speaking to the discussion here. I'm just saying that the idea that God can detach energy from Himself (Created Energies) seems 190-degrees from the UnCreated Energies of Eastern Orthodoxy.That pitch is fouled-ed off by at least thirdty yards. Strike two.
POW, I don’t know anything about the Orthodox view of UnCreated Energies, but it sounds like monergism to me (there is only one energy in the world—God’s), which I have a hard time distinguishing from pantheism (I’m theologically dislexic  ). And I’m not sure how the concept helps us understand the text.  Electra
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“The star truly is high in the sky, is just as high in the sky although, reflected in the sea, it seems to lie far under the earth.” § Søren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Electra on 03/11/2002 10:11:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/12/2002 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
POW, I don’t know anything about the Orthodox view of UnCreated Energies, but it sounds like monergism to me (there is only one energy in the world—God’s), which I have a hard time distinguishing from pantheism (I’m theologically dislexic ). And I’m not sure how the concept helps us understand the text. Electra
Here's form Christian History Mag (CT):
quote:
Gregory, in particular, argued that God was absolutely unknowable and transcendent in his essence; no human can ever know the inner being shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, the unknowable God was made known in Jesus Christ and is directly encountered in his energies. The energies of God (sacraments, grace, the miraculous experience of Divine Light) are as much God as is the essence of God. However, energies are accessible to the believer and essence is not.
Thomas A. and others taught that God worked indirectly through Created Energies/Grace. That seemed what was described. That view changes God.
I have no idea how you confused it with "monergism".
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/12/2002 06:25:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/12/2002 3:05 AM (GMT -6) | |
Phd MP (emphasis mine) :
quote:
1. Elijah's context: the youths probably represent the culture's disdain for God's will and God's word. The gods of the Canaanites were in competition with Yahweh for the hearts of people. Yahweh jealously protects and nurtures his relationship with his covenantal people, even to the point of instilling fear via death to mockers.
2. The writer of Kings definitely appears to present this story with a purpose: he wants to provoke reverence for God's word and God's work. No apology is made by the author, but neither is there an apology by the writer of Acts for the deaths of Ananias and Saphira. The God of the OT is the God of the NT; in both contexts genuine fear of the Lord is fostered by these events and the narratives about them.
Sounds good to me. I'd agree. I just don't think that some people could reconcile this with an totally loving being.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Orpheus42
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 3/12/2002 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Is it possible for God to be in a situation where he has to choose the lesser of two undesirable acts due to the corruption of mankind? Could our actions put God in the position of the hypothetical lifeboat captain who has to sacrifice one of his crew or else the excess weight will sink the ship and kill them all- and he is the only one with the expertise to keep them alive and so he can't be the one killed? It seems to me that there are no wholly desireable solutions in a case like that. You can only choose the most humane solution. In this case, perhaps it was better to kill 42 young men to serve as a warning that would hopefully put his people back on track rather than let them harm or kill his anointed prophet for whom he had a special mission to preach his message to the people- thus giving them the words they need to hear so that they could repent. Of course, we know they DIDN'T repent and went into exile, but it seems to me they had more than ample warning and opportunity to change their ways.
I don't use all those big theological terms, I'm not as familiar with that sort of thing ;) That's one reason why I'm here.
I'm working on a really long essay comparing difficult "judgement" passages and attempting to come up with a coherent explanation that doesn't make God out to be a bad guy and yet keeps the integrity of Jesus' view of the OT's authority. As the Doc said...
quote:
If it wasn't for the endorsement of Jesus, it would be far easier to dismiss the whole thing as a piece of archaic legend that reflects the undeveloped moral sentiments of the time. But alas...
On the other hand, if Jesus endorses them, perhaps there's something fundamentally important that we're missing.
Peace, Love, and Jesus Christ,
Jason
God loves us exactly the way we are, but He loves us far too much to leave us that way. --- Leighton Ford | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 3/12/2002 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | At the very least, this would be a good reminder of the power and authority that had been bestowed upon Elisha. In certain situations, you need an incident like that to get peoples attention.
MrI. :| | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 3/12/2002 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm.... makes me wonder what we mean when we say someone has a "God-given talent" . Do we mean to say we can only use that talent for good purposes? or maybe we can use it for evil? Or, maybe there is no such thing as a "God-given talent" ?
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 3/12/2002 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I would have to say that He simply gives us certain tallents, but it is up to us as to how we choose to use them. Lets say that I have the gift of empathy. I know what people are feeling at given moments. I could use this info to help minister to them, manipulate them, or do nothing at all. What is the difference between the gift of "word of knowledge" and having psychic abilities? They are very similar in nature, but used in different ways and more than likely recieved from different sources.
MrI. :| | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/12/2002 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra is right that I'm not following the topic closely.
But I'd like to make one more interjection. For the Prophet to HAVE the power so as to be able to make any action without God possibly recalled. . . would be MORE than when Jesus felt the Power go from Him.
Does not compute... Does not compute... Does not compute... Does not compute... | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 3/13/2002 3:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm... if the "power" (or might I say, "say-so" ) doesn't reside in us, what do we really have at the end of the day ? Could it still be that God still holds the reins after all and our say-so is really an illusion ? Just thinking out loud.
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/15/2002 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra, On von Rad: An examination of the prophetic preaching itself reveals that the case is much more complex than the widely accepted view that in most cases it was delivered under irresistible compulsion.…What makes it such a tremendous responsibility is the fact that the prophet is thus the one who puts the will of Jahweh into effect: Jahweh thereafter commits himself to stand by the decision of his ambassador. (72–73)
Doc: Woe, I like that. This whole deal about Yahew committing himself to stand by the decision of his ambassadors has huge possibilities for our understanding of the OT. I mean, if we apply it to God's "heavenly council..." and combine it with the overarching concern of the OT to emphasis how ONE CREATOR is Lord of all, combine it also with (possibly) the idea of God giving "power" that is, at least to some extent, conditioned on the will of the one endowed, and its possible we might be able to explain a number of things that "come from the Lord" but which seem out of character.
I think this is all very intriguing stuff here.
I especially like the moral of the Elijah story...
Don't Mess With The Man Of God
Doc
Edited by - GregBoyd on 03/15/2002 10:49:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 3/15/2002 9:12 PM (GMT -6) | | I think that what happened to those youths was just God making good on an earlier promise He made in Deut 18 and which is quoted in Acts 3.
quote:
Deuteronomy 18:18-19 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 'And it shall be [that] whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require [it] of him.
Acts 3:22-23 "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 'And it shall be [that] every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'
The 42 youth didn't hear God's prophet so He destroyed them. God's ability to communicate with His nation rightly holds more weight than the length of life (so they died young instead of old) of those 42 youth.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/16/2002 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra said:
quote:
We may wish Elisha would just go away because he is ugly (e.g. he was bald) or cruel (e.g. he cursed kids), but our objections are quite beside the point. He is a messenger of God and we are stuck with him—and, if Doc and von Rad are right, to some extent so was God. The message of the prophets was usually difficult to hear (almost always judgment) and they were so unpopular with the priests and the kings and their own people that often only gentiles would take them in.
and she quoted von Rad:
quote:
It ought to be perfectly obvious that…our modern Christian humanitarian ideal completely fails as a standard of judgment.
This is such a predictable, common response to the Bible's "texts of terror"... what it always ends up doing is placing whatever God does (no matter how evil it may seem to us) ABOVE human judgments and/or knowledge of right and wrong. I think this leads us into a terrible, unresolvable quandry that no one seems able to admit or honestly deal with. I honestly am not sure why people end up saying things like the above except that they feel forced to suspend all logic and their own moral intuition out of their need to justify everything in a particular text. But then again, I imagine followers of any religious tradition will be willing to justify all the atrocities in their own holy books if their religion demands it. (And I'm sorry if I sound rude...I am just being honest.)
Yesterday I read a few articles from infidels.org (thanks Mephi for pointing this site out) and was quite enthused to see that others have thought similarly to me on this issue (alas I may not be totally crazy after all!).
Kyle Gerkin writes (my editing):
quote:
The fundamental issue at stake here though is defining "good and evil." Why are certain things good and others evil? To a Christian the answer is, more or less, because God says so. But then, if we are to say God is "good," what standard are we judging him by? The only standard a Christian has is that which God has ordained. But....(no human standard) can be used....God plays by his own set of rules. However, (theologians) assure us that God will eventually bring about the ultimate good. Why? Because He is all-good, silly! Wait a minute, though. Then the argument is: God is good because God is good? Unfortunately, it doesn't amount to much more than that tautology. If we, as humans, can't judge God by his actions (or inactions) that cause suffering and evil, then how are we to know that he is good? We're not to know. We are to presuppose. But even presupposing that God may be good, how do we know there are justifying reasons for him to refrain from freeing people from the many traps they do fall into? Or even to lay those traps in the first place, given the inherent dangers found throughout nature?
In another essay he writes:
quote:
Geisler then expresses the notion that "people [incorrectly] assume what's wrong for us is wrong for God" (119). Basically this is an excuse for God to get away with anything. It renders God above our judgments of evil. What I think most theologians fail to understand is that, if we render God above judgment for evil, then he is above judgment for good as well. We cannot consider Him anything but amoral.
This is exactly the point I've been making for months. I still have not heard any satisfactory responses to it.
Still Baffled,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/16/2002 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, E, it doesn't seem that hard to me. If one are going to assert that these nasty things in the Bible happened...AND you want to maintain a concept of 'good" and "evil" that is analogous to ours,
just say that God does sometimes do "evil" acts for his own purposes. For God, in some cases,
--might makes right
--ends do justify means
--He IS above good and evil.
Simple, yes?
See, at the end of the day, I can easily couch my ideas in order to fit into Christian dogma. (Hence, the glorification idea and reconcilation statement I made) But at the end of the day, what I've just typed above is how many atheists and freethinkers are going to see it. God can do things that we feel are morally repugnant (or morally INCOMPREHENSIBLE) to us...and get away with it because He's God. Sure, we can postulate an endless amount of events the self-limitations that make these things "justifiable", but I don't see the point ultimately.
I ain't got no problem with God being above good and evil. But that's just me.
Mr. Face-the-Music,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/16/2002 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, if you think about it, what better justification is there for God's actions?
"I made this mess, dude. This is MY universe and everything in it.
Like Psalm 50:9-12 says...
I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
Like Scarface said, the friggin world is MINE. I'll do what the hell I wanna do. Deal with it, mortals. Revolt if you want to. You only do so because I allow it.  "
Sure, my character is is tart, but the idea would still be essentially the same. One is able to do WHATEVER ONE WILLS with what one owns!
Mat 20:13-15
"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
Doesn't God have the right to do whatever God chooses with his creation? Uh, yep. I see this as THE justification. Hey, sounds cool to me. Of course this won't sound cool to others. But it's just like I say. You only have two choices about it: Grin and bear it or revolt. Whatever you choose in the end, deal with the consequences. I choose to accept God however God ends up being. Screw it. Why NOT? Heh.
Ever the theistic bootlicker,
PS: It's interesting. Wifey, some friends and I were just talking theology. And we came up with a scenario. What if we died and found out that there WAS a monotheistic God, but that God was nothing more than a mischievious Loki type beings. Like Al Pacino said in "The Devil's Advocate", "God just likes to watch" and "laughs his --- off" What would we do? Nette said she'd try to kick God's butt. (I laughed at that) One guy said that nothing would matter anymore so he could go wherever. For my answer I thought about it. And I figured I'd do something like this: I'd tell God "Well, I hope you got some good laughs. Where am I headed?" What ELSE would there be to say? Curse him? Cry? Fall into despair? All useless ideas, in my opinion (though justifiable given some people's ardent expectations.) The more I think about it...I have an interesting view of God, death, and reality: We often say "reality bites" or "---- happens" to illustrate that ambiguity of reality is something to just be accepted. Tragedy and triumph are viable possibilities. We hope for the best, but make adequate preparation for the worst. No guarantees. I feel the same way about God and death. Just deal with it. Hmmmm...
Edited by - Mephi2K on 03/16/2002 10:24:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 42 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:14 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|