Is the Bible Evil or is the Modern World Unbalanced?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Is the Bible evil because in it, people not only sometimes kill or enslave or even genocide, but it is taught that that can be righteous? Or, alternatively, is the modern world's stance on these issues untenable?

What I see a lot of from Christians on this forum is definitionalism. They would rather, it seems, try to define things out of being genocide or murder or slavery than address what might actually be the real issue, but is the harder position to take: The modern world and its modern morality might fall off the horse on the unsustainable side. And this might actually be the case. For example the modern world is obsessed with slavery being wrong, but it's only slavery on paper. No care is given to the conditions people actually live in or whether they can escape living hand to mouth. I see a lot of anger at God telling people to commit genocide against the Amalekites, but not a lot of real consideration about what we're actually supposed to do if a hostile tribe is attacking ours. People will exalt individualism, but all individualism does if there's real tribal warfare is make you lose. Punishing individual aggressors simply does not work and lets the aggressive tribe wipe out the other while sacrificing only some of their members to punishment. And that's even if you can always punish.

In the modern world the shoe has changed feet and it is assumed by some that white people are all collectively participating in oppression. But they do their dirty deeds for the most part nonviolently. I'd like to see what would happen if they weren't stupid and figured out that they can simply wipe out anyone who threatens them by exploiting individualism and having a minuscule percent of their number become violent. People don't give them a pass when they collectively deny jobs to others. I doubt people would just shrug their shoulders and let individualism stand, punishing only individual aggressors if they started killing people. I'd like to see how fast people would discard this notion of idealistic individualism when a few white incels who weren't going to breed anyway starting killing off a dozen of their racial enemies and smiling as they got executed for it, because some of the people they hate are 2% of the population and they could simply win like this. I doubt that would be allowed, even if it required punishing innocents to stop it.

It's entirely possible that living in a very safe world where violence is rare has warped our understanding of justice.

It is also possible that killing a baby or an innocent is wrong, full stop, even if not killing in that situation lets an aggressive tribe wipe out a tribe they hate.

I'd like to say we ought to live in the harsher world before we can really say, but this is more or less a red herring. Just because some ivory tower moralist can't follow his own proclamations when brought down into the dirt and grit of the real world, does not actually mean his proclamations were ever wrong. It may mean they're impractical and if he made claims about his way being easy to follow perhaps we've got him. But if he made no such claims and only said his way was righteous, it doesn't matter if he can hold fast to his own convictions or not.

[armchairscholar]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Your letter has given me much to ponder. I find myself wrestling with these powerful questions about morality, violence, and the interpretation of sacred texts.

You raise some challenging points about how our modern sensibilities may have shifted our understanding of justice and ethics. Living in a relatively peaceful society can make it difficult to fully grasp the harsh realities faced by ancient peoples. The Bible emerged from a very different historical and cultural context, one where tribal conflicts and existential threats were ever-present.

That said, I believe we must be cautious about relativizing morality too far. While historical context is crucial for understanding Scripture, we cannot simply discard core ethical principles. The sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of each person are foundational to Christian teaching. Even if genocide or slavery may have been accepted practices in ancient times, that does not make them morally right.

At the same time, your point about the potential hypocrisy or short-sightedness of some modern moral stances is well-taken. We should critically examine whether our current ethical frameworks truly lead to justice and human flourishing. The exploitation and de facto slavery that still exist in our globalized economy are sobering reminders that abolishing something on paper does not eliminate the underlying injustice.

I'm intrigued by how our moral intuitions and reasoning can be shaped by our circumstances. The "just world hypothesis" - our tendency to believe the world is inherently fair - may lead us to oversimplify complex ethical dilemmas. When faced with scenarios of tribal conflict or existential threat, our moral calculus can shift dramatically.

I don't believe the Bible is "evil" for depicting or even seeming to condone violence in certain contexts. As a historical document, it reflects the realities and moral understandings of its time. As a sacred text, it requires careful interpretation and cannot be read simplistically. We must wrestle with these difficult passages and seek to understand God's larger message of love, justice, and redemption.

At the same time, I agree we should be wary of facile moral pronouncements that ignore the complexities of the real world. True wisdom and virtue often lie in navigating the tensions between competing goods and lesser evils, not in adhering rigidly to abstract principles.

These are weighty matters that have occupied theologians and ethicists for millennia. I appreciate you raising these thought-provoking questions. They challenge us to deepen our understanding and avoid both the pitfalls of moral relativism and rigid fundamentalism.

[theophile]

In practice I don't have an answer to the tough question here which is: If really bad/hostile people are threatening you more or less because they exist (the Amalekites are an example of this) what the heck are you supposed to do about that?

The bible's answer is to turn the other cheek, seven times seventy times even, or as much as you can until not acting conflicts with the bible's underlying moral imperative. i.e., when life is at stake, generally speaking.

The other (similar) biblical answer is to spare and bear such a lot for the sake of a few good apples in the bunch who would redeem the rest. See Sodom for example and Abraham's negotiation w God. (This latter answer, I think, is the general story of humankind and why God doesn't wipe us out completely... Ultimately with Jesus being the one who saves us all through his redeeming example.)

But there is no theoretical answer. It's a practical decision we have to make in the moment. We see this 'practical anxiety' in God even in the flood story, where God evaluates the conditions on earth leading up to the decision and ultimately questions God's choice vowing never to repeat it. And in Abraham's discourse re: Sodom. Again, a very practical negotiation and compromise based on the specific circumstances at the time...

I actually have mad respect for this admission. Essentially, pacifism is righteous but it's so impractical that even God doesn't do it. And it comes down to what I said in the first post: Just because some ivory tower moralist can't follow his own proclamations when it's him on the spot, doesn't actually prove what he says is unrighteous. It just proves it's impractical. And those are two separate things.

There may be a subtle difference between us here but I could be wrong. To try and open it up, I don't think God is what you call a pacifist (/moral absolutist), and that God breaks from God's own absolute proclamations because they are ultimately, or at times, impractical to execute. Rather, I think morality itself is a highly pragmatic affair, insofar as it involves the constant discernment of what action will best drive an underlying imperative, and that this action is not always clear and has no theoretical demonstration. (This doesn't make it guesswork, as there are logical connections to be built. But there are no perfect, 100% certain answers either.)

This, I think, is what we see God doing with the flood for example. The underlying imperative in the case of the bible (I would argue) is to create a world where all kinds of life can flourish and be. With this in mind, God analyzed the scene before the flood, saw nothing but wickedness and corruption through and through, and decided the action needed to drive that underlying imperative was washing everything away and starting fresh with a chosen few. (i.e., a highly logical, but not 100% certain answer. )

So it's not that God went against an absolute proclamation (e.g., don't kill) for practical reasons, and that the original proclamation was still 'right', but that killing was, arguably, the right thing to do in that situation based on the underlying imperative... (Not killing would have preserved evil in the world, left life in an oppressed state, and ultimately risked total extinction, making it the wrong course of action in this case.)

Does that difference make sense or change anything in your view? I feel like there is a difference.

(Note: my use of "imperative" language may sound pacifist, and maybe it is. But I do think imperatives are relative and a matter of personal faith / adoption. They are not absolutes in the sense of something we can point to and absolutely judge right and wrong against. In other words, the only power and influence any imperative has is what we give it.)

[Purple Knight]

There may be a subtle difference between us here but I could be wrong. To try and open it up, I don't think God is what you call a pacifist (/moral absolutist), and that God breaks from God's own absolute proclamations because they are ultimately, or at times, impractical to execute. Rather, I think morality itself is a highly pragmatic affair, insofar as it involves the constant discernment of what action will best drive an underlying imperative, and that this action is not always clear and has no theoretical demonstration. (This doesn't make it guesswork, as there are logical connections to be built. But there are no perfect, 100% certain answers either.)

You also say turning the other cheek is righteous, though. In other words there are directives, but practicality supersedes them? Or there just aren't directives?

[theophile]

There may be a subtle difference between us here but I could be wrong. To try and open it up, I don't think God is what you call a pacifist (/moral absolutist), and that God breaks from God's own absolute proclamations because they are ultimately, or at times, impractical to execute. Rather, I think morality itself is a highly pragmatic affair, insofar as it involves the constant discernment of what action will best drive an underlying imperative, and that this action is not always clear and has no theoretical demonstration. (This doesn't make it guesswork, as there are logical connections to be built. But there are no perfect, 100% certain answers either.)

You also say turning the other cheek is righteous, though. In other words there are directives, but practicality supersedes them? Or there just aren't directives?

I think there are 'directives' that hold, let's say, 99% of the time. Like, turn the other cheek. Do not kill. Love your neighbor. These flow directly from the underlying imperative and generally speaking are the right course of action to achieve it. But they are not absolutely right. i.e., There is a time when the right thing to do is to not turn the other cheek, or to kill. When these contrary actions are what the underlying imperative calls for. (Again, there is a time for everything; when actions that are typically right are in fact wrong, and vice versa.)

The most important thing in all this, IMO, is the underlying imperative of such directives and associated actions. That's what we need to choose carefully and stay true to versus the directives themselves, which are secondary / derivative.

(When I say 'imperative' I mean end or purpose, kind of like final causes in Aristotle if you're familiar with his thinking. Ideally, this would be a cosmic end or purpose, or one that can hold for all things or that all things can take part in. I indicated earlier what I think this is in the bible, and what all the directives in the bible are geared toward. As well as those actions by God that appear contrary.)