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.

[1213]

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?...

In the Bible, murder and killing are not the same. Murder is unlawful and killing can in some cases be lawful. Also in modern world killing is lawful, for example in wars. That something is lawful doesn't necessary mean it is good. I think it would be best to not kill anyone. However, I can understand, if God kills evil people. If evil people would be allowed to live forever, they would make life eternal suffering for all. And supporting eternal suffering for all, would in my opinion be evil.

I also think it is not good to enslave anyone, that is why I am against mandatory taxation. But, I think it can be accepted, if it goes by the rules given in the Bible, and if one first of all, loves as told in the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

I cannot think of any reason why someone would classify the bible as "evil"; it's not called "The Good Book" for nothing. I personally never let a day go by without reading a portion of the bible, and have found it an excellent source of guidance and enlightenment.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



New World Translation

• I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from The Savior of the world is communicated to us through this Book. - Abraham Lincoln

• A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education. - Theodore Roosevelt

• To what greater inspiration and counsel can we turn than to the imperishable truth to be found in this treasure house, the Bible? Queen Elizabeth II

• The Bible is worth all the other books which have ever been printed. - Patrick Henry

• It is the best book that ever was, or will be, known in the world; and because it teaches you the best lessons by which any human creature, who tries to be truthful and faithful to duty, can possibly be guided. - Charles Dickens

• If you look at the Bible as a whole, it's redemptive and beautiful, and it's God's love story to mankind. -- Tom Shadyac

• The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think. No book in the world equals the Bible for that. - Harper Lee

• The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure. - John Locke

• Want to hear God speak? Read your Bible. Want to hear God speak audibly? Read your Bible out loud! Justin Peters

RELATED POSTS

Is the bible an incomprehensible mess?
viewtopic.php?p=1054980#p1054980

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , BIBLE READING and ... HERMENEUTICS*

* bible interpretation

[theophile]

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?

The bible certainly conveys evil doings, many in the name of God. But this doesn't make it evil. And yes, the same act may be deemed right in one instance and wrong in the next. As Ecclesiastes puts it, there is a time for every thing. It is the specific circumstances, and how the action in such a moment aligns to the underlying moral imperative, that ultimately determines the moral valuation of an action. Not something inherent to the action itself. We have more-or-less lost this today, and tend to absolutely identify a generic act, like killing, as wrong, even as modern skepticism has eroded the foundations of any so-called absolute morality. (We are unbalanced, as you suggest.)

More to the point here, the bible also conveys an unbalanced world, a fallen world to use that terminology, wherein any good teaching, and the word of God in particular, gets corrupted on entry. Twisted into self-serving beliefs and actions. Like, the call to servanthood being twisted into the keeping of slaves. The call to multiply and fill the earth being twisted into the committing of genocides to free up living space...

God's name is co-opted for evil by many biblical heroes, like Moses and Joshua, and becomes contrary to the moral imperative that God represents.

We are still living in such a world (the heavenly city of Revelation has yet to descend). Worse, as noted, we've become distrustful of any so-called moral imperatives. We have a heightened case of nihilism on our hands on top of everything else that would prevent us from unifying around a set of values and direction for this earth.

So in direct answer to your question, I think it is more the world and people in it than the bible that is the problem. The bible and its authors have been keenly aware of this from the beginning, as it is the driving force of their narratives.

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible certainly conveys evil doings, many in the name of God. ...

Reporting evil acts is not the same as supporting or promoting them (I dont know what you mean by "conveying" in this context , I suspect you mean one of the above). News agencies, for example, often report the most horrendous acts, many of which the perpetrators remain unpunished or even prosper, but few reasonable people would conclude, the report of these facts are evil.

[theophile]

The bible certainly conveys evil doings, many in the name of God. ...

Resorting evil acts is nit the same as supporting or promoting them (I dont know what you mea by usjng the verb "conveying" I suspect you mean on of the above.

No, I don't mean that the bible supports or promotes evil when I say "conveys". I simply mean that it conveys evil doings. Like how any story or news report conveys an event.

[JehovahsWitness]

No, I don't mean that the bible supports or promotes evil when I say "conveys". I simply mean that it conveys evil doings. Like how any story or news report conveys an event.

English speakers then would use the word "REPORT", "recount" or "relate" (or even "expose"). To convey is somewhat ambiguous as it might imply that the bible is the means by which evil to transmitted or promulgated, and that without the bible evil would have remain unknown or less spread.

CONVEY

to communicate; impart; make known
Dictionary.com

[Purple Knight]

It is the specific circumstances, and how the action in such a moment aligns to the underlying moral imperative, that ultimately determines the moral valuation of an action. Not something inherent to the action itself.

I think it would be best to not kill anyone. However, I can understand, if God kills evil people. If evil people would be allowed to live forever, they would make life eternal suffering for all. And supporting eternal suffering for all, would in my opinion be evil.

I also think it is not good to enslave anyone, that is why I am against mandatory taxation. But, I think it can be accepted, if it goes by the rules given in the Bible, and if one first of all, loves as told in the Bible.

This is an idea that links in with Theophile's post that the motivation, time, and place count. It's non-pacifist. A pacifist is an absolutist. He doesn't care how much murder that guy commits - he cares only if he murders that guy. 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?

We have this problem on an individual level in modern society because there are repeat offenders. Many people in prison have killed multiple times. We seem to just accept it and let them throw up their hands, go to jail, get out, and kill again. Maybe this is easier for a religious person to accept because all the good people go to Paradise or Heaven (depends which interpretation), but imagine being atheist. Imagine thinking you get what you see and those lives are over. Holy cow that's not okay, then.

I think the taxation also is an important point, because one way or another somebody owns us. Even American slavery, deemed the worst, therein sometimes allowed slaves to work their own plots and sell their own crops on certain days. Were they considered to not be slaves because a portion was free? Well no. And I don't think we are free either, we're just freer.

Ultimately we all serve the Federal Reserve and the banks, because no amount of cats I breed, corn I grow, microchips I produce, or code I write will pay the taxes on my house. Only money will do that. And only the Federal Reserve (or the banks) can create money. So no matter how many people I serve, those acts will not pay the taxes on my house unless those acts ultimately serve the Federal Reserve or the banks. And if I don't pay the taxes on my house, it will be taken, meaning it was never mine in the first place.

News agencies, for example, often report the most horrendous acts, many of which the perpetrators remain unpunished or even prosper, but few reasonable people would conclude, the report of these facts are evil.

This very thing probably engenders some misunderstandings of the Bible. I still don't quite understand that bit about Noah being naked (...and drunk...?) and someone looked at him like that and it became a big issue. Yet it's what I immediately thought of when I read this post because the idea that none of the protagonist Bible characters do anything wrong (except Jesus) might be a misconception.

Though it's a double-edged sword because the more what Theophile says about time, place, and motivation being relevant, the less we can rely on proclamations when the Bible gives whole strings of them, and the more we need real people to imitate.

[theophile]

Just a few remarks.

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...

This very thing probably engenders some misunderstandings of the Bible. I still don't quite understand that bit about Noah being naked (...and drunk...?) and someone looked at him like that and it became a big issue. Yet it's what I immediately thought of when I read this post because the idea that none of the protagonist Bible characters do anything wrong (except Jesus) might be a misconception.

I think the only 'perfect' characters in the bible are Jesus and Job. With all the rest we need to be real careful whether what they are saying / doing is truly in the name of God, or their own intentions. Abraham is potentially a third, but he did some really shady things with Sarah and then Hagar / Ishmael.

And the Noah story is a perplexing one. I would suggest that it builds on an underestimated theme / concept in the bible of nudity, which represents the free and willing giving of ourselves to God / others. (Think the "Here I am" response of those who come to commune with God.) Ham is cursed because he looked upon Noah without permission and now represents a line in violation of such a holy communion...

But there absolutely could be more to that story. It is a strange one.

Though it's a double-edged sword because the more what Theophile says about time, place, and motivation being relevant, the less we can rely on proclamations when the Bible gives whole strings of them, and the more we need real people to imitate.

We need people with wisdom. Practical discernment. Like Solomon who asks for this so he can make good decisions and judgments when no ready answers are available.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Jordan Peterson often complains of what he calls unearned false virtue and how the people raking it in are hurting everyone. This is only tangentially related to this conversation but as I listened to him rant, I started to realise that there is no such thing as unearned virtue. There may very well be easy virtue, or virtue that by its gain is very very harmful to others, but there is no unearned virtue unless someone is lying about what they did. If they do it and it accrues virtue then it is virtuous. This is because what is righteous and what doesn't hurt others are two separate things, just as what is righteous and what is practical are separate things. If it were virtuous to beat someone to death in the street unprovoked because he's a Nazi (and it may not be, but if it were) then it's irrational to complain about the person who gained virtue that way.

Now, that doesn't mean the person who won't beat someone to death in the street even if it were virtuous to do so, does not exist. But we don't have a name for this kind of person who will put others before not himself and his own benefit, but his own virtue. I would like to see this named and a society built on it. I actually think this trait describes Satan's ideal society. So maybe we should call it evil, because it's a true, honest, and entirely ideological rejection of good. (And maybe to differentiate between people just putting themselves first, we should NOT ever call selfish people evil.)