Bryan L. suggested that I set up a pole and:
Ask who is bothered by the immoral things in scripture such as slavery, incest, genocide, murder, polygamy, etc. especially when they don’t seem to be condemned.
So here it is. Leave a comment and let me know if the bad parts of the Bible bother you when you read them. Let me cast my vote for not being bothered.
B”H
I would be very interested in such a post. I am a Christian, but I subscribe to an atheist website, in order to try to make some kind of witness. ‘The bad bits of the Bible’ are strong atheist arguments. I would, therefore, appreciate any such input.
Why not simply accept that the bad bits of the Bible are bad, that the authors of Scripture and the characters within its stories often fall short of the highest ideals that other parts of Scripture hold us to?
I am extremely bothered by the canaanite genocide. I’m not sure why anyone in their right mind wouldn’t be.
But I think the last sentence of the quote is better phrased, “especially when they are explicitly commanded.” In other words, I’m not bothered when the biblical writers don’t address topics they weren’t meant to address. They had other issues they were dealing with and we only have a sample of their writings, i.e. surely Paul wrote more than 14 letters in his lifetime.
The only one that God is said to have explicitly commanded though is genocide. That’s the bothersome part. So, James to address your comment, genocide commanded by God means he would be falling short of the highest ideals. I agree with your comment as regards humans. I’m fine with that. As I said, it’s the supposedly God-commanded genocide that I can’t wrap my head around.
Aren’t we meant to smite people who set up poles, and then cast the poles down?
For whoever may be interested, Greg Boyd has been walking through some of the issues of the old testament [genocide etc] for a couple months now. Just type in Greg Boyd on google and go to his blogspot to read his bloggings on these issues.
I would have to say that the “bad parts” of the Bible don’t necessarily bother me. I’m assuming that Bryan’s statement is heavily weighted in the Old Testament. On the one hand, there is much there that is descriptive of the sinful acts of fallen humans living in a fallen world. Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t make it prescriptive for the rest of us or good in general. In cases where certain “bad parts” are not explicitly condemned or punished, I think the “acceptability” of a certain act or practice can be inferred from other parts of scripture (10 commandments, gospels, Paul’s writing, etc.).
Stephen: Well I hope the comments to this post help out.
James: I do accept it, I’m just not bothered by it.
Alex: I’m sure God had a good reason for commanding it.
Doug: Depends on what’s on the pole and how people treat it I suppose. I’m not too worried about this poll becoming an idol, so I’ll rest without fear of being smited.
Troy: Well I won’t be reading what Greg “the Vegetarian” Boyd has to say on the issue, so can you give a couple of the main points?
Shaun: I’m pretty much of a similar mind to you on this one.
not nearly so bothered by it as am bothered by everyone who has monkeys in their blog header picture…
but thats just me
James brings up a point that I tried to mention earlier (I think) that those parts of scripture that we find bad, we then read in light of the better parts (like Jesus’ command to love enemies). It is still a recognition that those bad those are somehow corrected or even condemned in scripture even if they aren’t immediately in their context (I think Shaun’s comments kind of pick up on his too)
But something else he said made me curious. He mentioned that the authors of scripture often fall short of he highest ideals of other parts of scripture. I’d be interested in seeing him flesh this out more. How doe we see this. Is it just the OT. Do the authors of the Gospels or even Paul reveal their falling short of high ideals that might be contained within the books or letters that they write?
Alex:
I was thinking of both, those that are explicitly commanded and those that aren’t. But when I say “especially when they don’t seem to be condemned” I am not speaking of things that aren’t shown in scripture like abortion or euthanasia or drug use, I am speaking of the things that are described in scripture that aren’t condemned. Slavery is an important issue, and so misogyny. There are violent episodes described in scripture and incest is pretty common in earlier sections. An example of one of the many things that bothers be is when Phinehas kills the Israelite male and the Midianite woman it speaks of him driving the spear into the woman as if it was a violent rape. And he ends up being a highly celebrated example in Israel for his zeal for the Lord. Is that the kind of zeal the Lord looks for? There is just so much violence and killing in so much that is either left silent or even praised.
Either way it bothers me even if I learn to to dismiss it by reading it through the hermeneutical lenses of Jesus and the NT. The fact is that it is still in there and still associated with the word of God.
Bryan
Roger: That’s no ordinary monkey… that’s a monkey drinking the nectar of God: Pepsi! So if you are bothered then I imagine you are demon possessed and a drinker of the foul swine juice, Coke.
Bryan: How do these things bother you? I’m curious as to how that actually plays out in life. I mean do you cry about them? Do you spend a lot of time in prayer asking God why? Do you get angry about them?
I’m generally apathetic about the horrors I read about in Scripture.
Would it help if it was pointed out that in the case of the Israeli occupation of Canaan after crossing the Jordan, that roughly 700 year prior to the occupation, God had told Abraham he would not take the land just yet for the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached it’s full? Given this statement it seems that the Canaanites had more than a considerable amount of time, grace,, mercy, mulligans, whatever you want to call it to get their act together. They didn’t – thus the Israeli occupation of Canaan.
Nick:
How does it bother me? It makes me question the kind of God that approves or even commands these things. It makes me question whether there really is a disconnect between the God we see in the Old Testament and the God we see revealed in Jesus Christ. And when I think of Israelites invading a city and murdering women children and babies all at the command of God then I do get a little sick and disturbed (and perhaps a bit angry). Have you ever pictured that? Imagine the kids at your church being murdered. Imagine the babies of your friends at church being murdered. Now imagine that these people who are murdering and destroying your church are saying that it is God telling them to do so. When I think about that it does bother me and when I find it within the Bible it bothers me even more.
Why are you apathetic about them? What do you tell those who are younger in the faith than you and are bothered by that and seek guidance about that. What would you tell people that have problems taking Christianity seriously because of the stuff they read in the Bible. DO you at least recognize that some people do have real problems with that sort of stuff and that they may be genuine concerns?
Bryan
Brian: I’d hope that would help some of the folks that that stuff bothers.
Bryan: Yes, I’ve pictured it (as I tend to do with everything I read). It’s not the most pleasant idea, but it’s also not something that has made me question God the way you have described.
I don’t know why I’m apathetic about it, I just know that I am. And I have had people ask me about some of the more unpleasant things and my response is usually to just study the text as much as possible, get some background info on the culture, and try to get a clearer picture of what was going on. And I recognize that people have problems with this stuff, and these things might genuinely concern them, I just don’t share the same feelings.
Nick,
A good reason for the God revealed in Jesus Christ commanding humans to slaughter other noncombatant humans including women, children, presumably the handicapped, and even animals? In the past few years, I’ve actually been leaning more towards the view that God did not actually tell them to do this but the chronicler (author of Joshua) was aware of a tradition that claimed he did.
Bryan L,
I see what you’re saying and I actually am with Nick here in that these types of issues don’t bother me because I don’t think Paul set out to condemn every moral evil the world had to offer. If every time we wrote a letter, we had to pause to condemn every direct or oblique mention of sin, we wouldn’t get very far. Slavery, as an example, was a fact of life in the Roman world. Without a representative democracy, Paul, even with the backing of the church, had no chance at overturning this institution with a few letters. Instead, he writes to the churches that whatever situation they find themselves in, slave or free, jew or greek, male or female, they are to live in Christ.
I am confident that Paul, had he lived in the 18th century, would have written letters condemning slavery. But remember his words, God can be served in whatever situation we find ourselves in. He had a more important message that rang and still rings true whether slavery exists or not, and that message was the gospel.
So, I am not bothered that Paul did not condemn slavery, especially considering we have but a sample of 14 or so letters out of presumably thousands of others that Paul wrote, not to mention inumerable conversations and speeches he gave in his lifetime. And I do believe that the canaanite genocide is categorically different than the other “bad bits” that Nick mentions. One was a supposed command from God, the others were independent human actions not explicitly condemned in the small sampling of 1st century Christian literature/belief that we have today.
As an aside, I sometimes worry about the fact that we have constructed an entire theology and in fact an entire religion out of 4 bios, one short history, one apocalyptic vision and a collection of around 20 short letters! I think this should humble us beyond words about what we can and can’t know about God, about theology, about ourselves, etc.
Bryan,
Let me take a minute to clarify my earlier statement. I wasn’t trying to communicate that biblical authors often fall short of their own ideals or the ideals found in other parts of scripture. However, there is some truth in what you said. I would say that the biblical authors were sinners just like us and they would certainly fall short of moral ideals found in the Bible. I realize that there are many seemingly “harsh” circumstances found in the Old Testament. Throughout the Old Testament we see God choosing to deal with sinful beings and sinful nations in many ways (I.E. expulsion from the garden, world-wide flood, conquest by chosen people group, etc.) We also see that God’s chosen people group are not always immune from God’s correction either. Since God essentially created it all, I figure He can bless and curse as He chooses. When I come across these difficult circumstances, I’ll often try to get as much background information as possible, study it in the original languages, talk to other learned friends and bring it before to God in prayer. While I may not always find the answers I’m looking for, I try to keep in mind that there are some things I may never completely understand. Finally, I do feel that there is a unified message throughout the Bible in which God reveals Himself and the Old Testament builds on an expectation of a coming messiah that is realized in Jesus Christ. Hopefully that helps to clarify my position a bit. Thanks for the feedback.
Alex: I believe the examples of genocide in Scripture are God’s enacting of judgment. Sometimes he does it himself (e.g., Sodom & Gomorrah) and other times he uses people to do it (e.g., Jericho or Ai). The fact that the noncombatant end up being victims is evidence to me of the fact that it rains in the just and the unjust alike. The Bible is full of examples where people suffer for the actions of others, even if those people weren’t necessarily to blame.
Shaun: You said: “Since God essentially created it all, I figure He can bless and curse as He chooses.”
That’s how I figure it. I believe God to be absolutely just, so when he commands the killing of a people, I believe that he does it with good reason. And while that might not necessarily be how I would have dealt with the situation, I’m not God.
Shaun:
I understand what you are saying. I think though in short it just shows that you are uncomfortable with the bad bits of the Bible. Unless you can just shrug it off and say God is free to say and do whatever he wants even if it seems contrary to his nature, then any excuse or reason you try to come up with that tries to soften it or see it in the light of something else in scripture seems to show that one is bothered by those parts of scripture.
Anyone else (not just Shaun):
I guess something that I am troubled by with some of the answers I see to the problems that are being raised here is that God seems to have an ethic that he expects us fallen and imperfect creatures to follow yet he who is God and infinitely wise, powerful and resourceful seems to just skirt that ethic. And we just shrug it off with “that’s God he can do whatever he wants”.
My question then: is there a point where we look at a depiction of God in scripture and say “No that does not accurately reflect God! That can’t be what God is like!”? Amazingly people do seem to have that line but it’s most often not God commanding genocide or condoning slavery (even to the point of saying if a slave dies a few days later from a beating from it’s owner there shall be no penalty since the slave is mearly property), or striking his own people dead for sinning. Instead it is lying. For some reason that is the line that people say God can’t cross. For some weird reason that is the ethical issue that God cannot do. And they will spend all their time defending him and trying to prove any accusation that he might lie or contradict himself to be false and mistaken.
That just seems weird to me.
Bryan
Bryan: What ethic do you see God not following that he expects from us? Certainly killing as a means of exacting justice is something that both God and man does. Shortly after the commandment was given not to murder, God prescribed death as the penalty for breaking certain commandments. But God never commands mankind to lie, indeed, we have explicit statements in Scripture that say it is impossible for God to lie. Do we have any such statement that addresses killing with regard to exacting justice or as a means of judgment?
You asked:
I’m wondering, on what basis do we determine what God can and cannot be like? I think if Scripture is the standard, then there’s really no basis for suggesting that God can’t kill or command his servants to kill for certain reasons and under certain circumstances. It’s also by that standard that we can determine that God cannot lie and commands his servants not to lie.
I certainly believe Scripture to be God’s special revelation to mankind, and as such it is our best means to know who God is and what God is like. So from where I’m standing, I don’t think I could read something about God in Scripture and say: “No that does not accurately reflect God! That can’t be what God is like!” If I do say that then where do I turn to learn the truth?
I think Bryan L. really got to the heart of the issue with his question. Obviously, Nick, if Scripture is the standard then anything in Scripture must be judged right according to that standard since, after all, it is the standard of itself. It becomes a sort of circular argument.
I think it kind spits in the face of everyone who has ever struggled with pain, loss, and evil to simply throw a verse at the problem, i.e. “it rains…”, as if this solves thousands of years of theodicy in one fell swoop.
Your argument about the Bible as standard can essentially be boiled down to this: “The Bible says it, therefore I know it’s true.” Come on. That’s a cop-out.
Nick, your last question has me wanting to ask you a question. Why would you need to turn anywhere to learn the truth just because not every last piece of the Bible is historically accurate? If one mistake is found, does the whole system fall apart for you? Not every historical source is 100% accurate, but that doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.
As an example, there are thousands of perspectives and accounts of WWII out there, each with varying degrees of truth and embellishment. Regardless of the errors, I can come away confidently being glad that the Allies won and that I am on the side that is against Fascism come what may. So goes it for me with the Bible. I can confidently say, though I believe it may or may not be completely historically accurate, and I understand the history of the people of God well enough to know that I am glad Jesus won and that I am on his side come what may. I turned to the Bible to learn this truth, historical errors and all.
Alex: Let’s suppose that the argument is in and of itself circular… what else do you have? What standard are you using to determine what God is and is not like?
And you’re shifting gears here with regard to theodicy — my concern here isn’t the feelings of people who have suffered loss (we all have), it’s with the assertion that God can’t be a certain way or do certain things. The question is: why can’t God be that way or do those things? Your previous comment intimated that you can’t think of a good reason for noncambative people to fall victim to what is basically akin to a military strike. I simply pointed out a reality, that it rains on the just and the unjust (assuming that we could even consider the noncombative just) alike. People suffer for the actions of others all the time. How does that indict God?
And my argument is essentially this: God has revealed himself in two ways: (1) natural revelation (which tells us that there is a God but doesn’t give us specifics), and (2) special revelation (which is God speaking to mankind through various means, e.g., prophets, Scripture, the incarnation of his eternal Son). #2 tells us who God is and what God is like. Do you know of any other options? If so, what are they? Do they contradict the two I have presented? If so, why trust them?
Also, I’m not arguing for inerrancy. I don’t believe the Bible to be inerrant (at least according to CSBI standards), but I’d need a very good reason to doubt what it says about God. In some cases I have such reasons with regard to history and science, but what are you offering with regard to God? I understand that you and Bryan and countless others have a problem with certain aspects of how God is portrayed, but I don’t find that a compelling enough reason to say that the authors have misrepresented God, or that isn’t what God is like.
So back to my question, and this is a question for all: What’s the standard by which we determine what God can or cannot be like?
As an aside, is part of the genocide issue a post-Enlightenment problem?
Here in China we still have some very communal villages, and in these villages when one person does something causing them to lose face, the whole village will join together and bear the scorn because as a community they see themselves as all being part of the problem. If one member loses face, they all lose face. If a girl gets pregnant outside of marriage, she does not feel personally guilty, but knows that her mistake has brought shame to her family, friends and village. And as such, they must bear this shame together.
I think this was the same principle at work in Exodus, Numbers and Joshua (those are the three that really focus on these issues in depth IMO). The community, their possessions and even the following generations who have yet to be born will be guilty of their sin and worthy of judgment. Is that fair in a post-Enlightenment Western mindset? No, but I believe it to be the standard view of these passages, and also the standard view of much of the world today.
This is the cry of the prophets and of Jesus. Jesus says, “Woe to you Chorazin, woe to you Bethsaida, for if the works done among you would have been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Notice that Jesus didn’t say, “Woe to you Ananias of Chorazin, woe to you Junias of Bethsaida.” Even Jesus spoke of judgment as on communities and not toward individuals.
Furthermore, I think our post-Enlightenment view taints the issue in that we see humanity as naturally deserving good. For instance, none of us are up in arms over God’s promises of mercy to generations that have never been born simply based on a covenant with a community of people, but when he promises judgment to those who have yet to be born we get defensive.
So I think much of the issue may be our Western, post-Enlightenment mindset. Does anyone happen to have studied or know how these passages were interpreted pre-Enlightenment and outside of Europe? I’d love to see how these passages were historically been interpreted by the Coptic, or Syrian churches, or areas that probably had a more communal mindset.
They slightly offend my sensibilities just like foreign food offends my sense of smell at first. But that doesn’t mean that it is actually bad, just that I am not used to considering such a smell as normal for dinner time.
In the same way, I may think, “how dare this happen in the scriptures.” But I must realize that this is foriegn to me and I am not yet used to thinking that such a thing may be just.
But just because I’m ambiguous on this, or because somebody else is, I wouldn’t say that such is a reason to abandon the gospel, just like I wouldn’t tell somebody to abandon an idea that they don’t fully understand, but only if they were convinced it was untrue.
So, all in all, they bother, but simply because I’m not accustomed to such manner of justice. But because such bits are mostly mysterious to me doesn’t make the whole of the faith sensless or stupid.
Ranger: Thanks for the non-Western perspective. I think you’re right on the money. I think it’s pretty well established that ANE culture was definitely collectivist, so when judgment falls on a people group, it falls on them all.
I appreciate your point about generational blessing vs. generational cursing. The same principle is at work, just at opposite ends of the spectrum. Although a bit different from the genocide issue, I think the same principle is at work. When a nation as a whole is blessed or rewarded even though some inidividuals within the nation don’t seemingly deserve it, no one wants to argue that God is being unjust or misrepresented, or un-Godlike. But turn the tables and it becomes a problem.
I share your curiosity about how these passages have been interpreted by some of the Eastern churches. I think I’ll see what I can dig up. Hopefully it will be something worth posting about. Maybe I’ll start with Ephraim the Syrian and see if he had anything to say. Thanks for raising the question!
Nick:
Good thoughts and good questions in response. I think it would take far more space on your blog to respond back and really go into this and unpack it all; more space than I think I’m comfortable taking (plus I know you don’t care for really lengthy comments and I seem to have been leaving a bunch of those lately). Maybe I’ll eventually discuss it over on my blog.
Thanks,
Bryan
Bryan: Sounds good. Let’s just make sure that we don’t call it a “blogersation” or “blogathon.” ;)
Geoff: Don’t know how I missed your comment, but it makes sense. It’s definitely a challenge to read the Scriptures through lenses other than the ones we’re accustomed to.
Blogersation? Bolgathon? Hah!
They mean well.
Bryan
GREAT post
Bryan: I’m sure they do, but me thinks some folks are a bit too enamored by blogging! ;)
Ferg: I reckon the comments are better than the post and for that I take no credit. I’m just a guy who isn’t bothered by bad bits in the bible. Now say that 10x fast! :-P