Then there was an Old Testament prophet (I forget who) - a bunch of kids made fun of him, so God sent some she-bears to kill the kids....

Then there was an Old Testament prophet (I forget who) - a bunch of kids made fun of him, so God sent some she-bears to kill the kids....

Elisha, IIRC.

Rick, I'm curious. What is it *textually* in the OT that makes you see God, as described, as a psychopathic warlord?

Then there was an Old Testament prophet (I forget who) - a bunch of kids made fun of him, so God sent some she-bears to kill the kids.

Elisha, I believe. The kids mocked him for being bald. And, really, life would have brought an ironic punishment to most of the male kids eventually, at least. Bears seem like overkill.

A bunch of kids made fun of Elisha because he was bald, and he cursed them, and God sent two she-bears who "tare 42 of them".

From memory. IIRC.

I don't belive that really happened; even if two bears really did kill a bunch of kids once, it wasn't because of a curse. But if it's read as truth, as something a god did? Seriously? That's a little psychopathic.

I was also confused about the bears specifically being she-bears. Are she-bears more fierce? Or is it more of an insult to be killed by she-bears than he-bears?

As amusing and even informative as it is to read the Bible simply as text, as a story, that doesn't provide an accurate understanding of it. It can't be understood outside of its cultural parameters.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with this, but David Plotz ("Blogging the Bible") is trying to understand it within its original cultural parameters, as well as trying to figure out how it applies to himself as a modern Jew.

Elisha, I believe. The kids mocked him for being bald. And, really, life would have brought an ironic punishment to most of the male kids eventually, at least. Bears seem like overkill.

I would LOVE to hear Stephen Colbert's take on that particular story from the Bible.

I'm speaking in general, and was responding to the comment above mine, by Rick. I'm not specifically referring to Blogging the Bible; I haven't read it. But since he was referring to that, I can see where it would've looked like I was too. Sorry.

edited because I'm typing this at work, and I can barely see what I'm typing. My spelling doesn't usually suck.

As amusing and even informative as it is to read the Bible simply as text, as a story, that doesn't provide an accurate understanding of it. It can't be understood outside of its cultural parameters. Which is true of any literary work, even, I argue, a divinely inspired one.

But in saying this you set yourself apart from those who read the Bible as the literal word of God. If we view the Bible as the struggle of a people to grasp and understand the idea of God, then of course it becomes a rich and spiritually exciting journey. It that case it makes sense that the early views of God borrow from relationships of power and obedience in the secular world, and that it was only later that a coherent view of God as something other than an abusive patriarch or a powerful warlord. It's a remarkable story of spiritual awakening.

But if we adopt for the moment the widespread view that the Pentateuch is the eternal and unchanging word of God, then it seems fair to read the text as text. It's hard to understand why any decent person would want to worship and obey the God who is revealed there.