Why did God murder children for making fun of a bald guy?

[Chad32]

This isn't about a faulty weapon. It's about abusing the weapon by killing people who were not threatening you.

[Urizen]

The passage in question only seems absurd if, on the one hand, one lacks the perspicacity to comprehend symbolism in general, and on the other, is disposed to grasp at the most superficial of conceivable interpretations of Biblical narratives. The first is a relatively normal human limitation; the second is a pitiful display of insincerity that is degrading to the human soul, a deviation from the divine norm; for to be untruthful in anything, is to negate one's very being, which is truth itself. Now as regards the passage under consideration, there is, first of all, no absurdity in its anthropmorphic symbolism, which really signifies the theomorphic nature of man. Second, no injustice was committed in killing the mob, for they had declared murderous intentions. Read in context, 'go up' was a call to murder Elisha; 'baldman' signified leprosy, which would have been an incitement to violence. The only absurdity is the atheistic mind which needs to invent absurdities in order to reassure itself that God does not exist, so that it may sin with a clear conscience, and get more and more lost in the illusions of this world; it is absurd because the atheist can at any time transcend the prison walls of his mind and enjoy inner eternal life.

[bluemonday]

The passage in question only seems absurd if, on the one hand, one lacks the perspicacity to comprehend symbolism in general, and on the other, is disposed to grasp at the most superficial of conceivable interpretations of Biblical narratives. The first is a relatively normal human limitation; the second is a pitiful display of insincerity that is degrading to the human soul, and a deviation from the divine norm; to be untruthful in anything, is to negate one's very being, which is truth itself, and ultimatlt tondisintregate into primordial Chaos. Now as regards the passage under consideration, there is, first of all, no absurdity in its anthropmorphic symbolism, which really signifies the theomorphic nature of man. Second, no injustice was committed in killing the mob, for they had declared murderous intentions. Read in context, 'go up' was a call to murder Elisha; 'baldman' signified leprosy, which would have been ani ncitement to violence. The only absurdity is the atheistic mind which needs to invent absurdities in order to reassure itself that God does not exist, so that it may sin with a clear conscience; it is absurd because the atheist can at any time transcend the prison walls of his mind and enjoy inner eternal life.

Typical. Any passage where God is bloodthirsty or unjust, it's "symbolic" - and I can assure you, I am very sincere in wondering how anyone can defend this passage.

If I wanted to be insincere, I would have asked questions about the passage where goats are bred like this:

"Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted."

...Seems legit.

You also didn't mention how the bear managed to maul ALL42 children? NONE of them running away? Or was the mauling symbolic as well?

If a Muslim was explaining a questionable verse in the Koran, would you accept the explanation of "symbolism" ?

How do you know the Koran is incorrect for that matter?

I'm all ears.

[Chad32]

He was heading up the mountain, so "go up" didn't necessarily mean to die. Still, even if someone says go die in a fire, that doesn't mean you're justified in using whatever is at your disposal to slaughter the person. If he was really worried, and had the power to summon bears, then just summon two she-bears to his side and escort him up the mountain.

I'm not sure how calling someone bald would be an accusation of leprosy, or even a threat if it was. "I wish you'd get leprosy" is not a good reason to kill someone anyway.

I point out stuff I don't agree with in the bible, not because I just want to "sin", but to explain why I wouldn't want to worship such an individual even if he did exist, and I don't think you should either.

The story isn't likely a literal story, though who knows what the original author intended. Still, it sends a bad lesson. Don't question, lest you be cursed allows corruption to take over. After all, you'd like us to question the validity of other divine claims, right? It has to go both ways, though.

[Tonus]

So far, this topic is an excellent example of how easy it is to interpret scripture in any number of ways in order to support the view you want it to support.

[Bad Writer]

This isn't about a faulty weapon. It's about abusing the weapon by killing people who were not threatening you.

Thanks for detracting from the point I was making about the Ford manufacturer.

[Chad32]

I haven't been following too closely on the ford Manufacturer analogy. Sorry.

[Jacob(smooth)]

The passage in question only seems absurd if, on the one hand, one lacks the perspicacity to comprehend symbolism in general, and on the other, is disposed to grasp at the most superficial of conceivable interpretations of Biblical narratives. The first is a relatively normal human limitation; the second is a pitiful display of insincerity that is degrading to the human soul, a deviation from the divine norm; for to be untruthful in anything, is to negate one's very being, which is truth itself. Now as regards the passage under consideration, there is, first of all, no absurdity in its anthropmorphic symbolism, which really signifies the theomorphic nature of man. Second, no injustice was committed in killing the mob, for they had declared murderous intentions. Read in context, 'go up' was a call to murder Elisha; 'baldman' signified leprosy, which would have been an incitement to violence. The only absurdity is the atheistic mind which needs to invent absurdities in order to reassure itself that God does not exist, so that it may sin with a clear conscience, and get more and more lost in the illusions of this world; it is absurd because the atheist can at any time transcend the prison walls of his mind and enjoy inner eternal life.

The excessively effuse verbiage and unnecessarily torturous extension of sentence structure may not have delivered the impression of intellectual capacity and veracity of expressive intention which one may suspect the author desired. The adage that "the medium is the message" is not one which bears close examination, the message is the message and the loquacious and needless obfuscation of a simple concept behind pretentious prose does nothing to distract from the core inadequacy of the argument. The hypothesising of the alternative textual meaning in which the author indulges, even if based in sound hermeneutical principles, does nothing to detract from the moral turpitude of the core precept, that is the wanton and needlessly violent slaying of young people when equally effective and less terminal options were readily available. Furthermore the extended meaning which cognitive dissonance demands that he extrapolated to the naked and self evident meaning of the text is inconsistent with the use of language in the passage which clearly states that the youths were mocking elisha, not threatening him..

Or we can talk like normal human beings instead of pretentious pricks who think access to Google thesaurus adds weight to a dodgy argument

[fr0d0]

Chad's point was spot on imho

[Bad Writer]

Good grief.