Is it good to ignore the bad in the Bible?

[marco]

Let's take Deuteronomy's advice on how to deal with a disobedient, drunkard of a son.


Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

How can we read this advice and still have regard for the Bible as a holy book?
Is it even correct to allow such advice to be printed in a modern society?
Or can anyone see ANY good in these verses?

[ttruscott]

Post 1: Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:09 am Is it good to ignore the bad in the Bible?

I have never ignored the bad in the Bible. I used to use it just like the non-believers here with derision, sarcasm, incredulity and disparagement of believers. For a long time. Years...

But after GOD jumped me and I caved in to HIS duress and accepted Christ (again, though I knew it not) I asked HIM what to do about the Bible. I was told it was HIS word and said everything exactly that HE wanted to say. I told HIM I could not accept the bible until HE proved to me that all the bad things by GOD were not bad at all but good. HE said "Sure, get busy reading it till you know it." I read it through three times in three years (skimming the begats, sigh). During the second reading I was given the theology of our creation before the creation of the physical universe , (what I call PCE) and by the end of third reading I believed in what I had been given.

Though it is hard to accept...(at least I found it hard):
No innocents are born on earth. Only sinful people are born on earth.
No innocents suffer or die. Only the guilty suffer or die.
All suffering or death is due to our sin and our chastisements or judgements for that sin.

GOD is holy, just and loving. Every understanding of a situation must start with that; GOD is holy, just and loving! And not by lip service but as the controlling factor behind HIS every decision. And being caught in HIS wrath, though perfectly just, is full of terror.

HE does not need evil. HE hates evil, ergo HE never created nor does any evil. All evil was created by the free will of the person, not by anything in their created nature. Of course this also makes us individually totally responsible for our own lives, suffering and failures, not HIM. Our sufferings are perfectly in accord with our pre-earth choices and our lives are perfectly designed to bring all HIS sinful elect back to HIM and ready for marriage.

So I do not judge GOD by earthly standards anymore and I also accept HIS judgments against the world as being heavenly. IF GOD is who HE claims to be, how could it be anything else?

[marco]

The question is based on a false premise ie that there is "bad in the bible". I don't believe there is any bad in scripture and since many will argue there is no universal standard of good and evil (bad) then anybody that does is just sharing their beliefs as well.

The premise is the advice in the example I quoted, which involves stoning a man because he's disobedient to parents. Most would designate this advice as bad. I do. You BELIEVE otherwise; that is your choice, not a refutation of the bad in the example.

I see the punishment as befitting the crime but that probably has a lot to do with what I understand the verse to be saying. There is nothing unholy about punishing criminals; in fact it would be unholy not to.

The punishment does not fit the crime -that is the point of the OP. The platitude that one must punish criminals is not in dispute.

Censorship is generally accepted as bad. Recently in Saudi Arabia two sons murdered their mother because of some Wahhabi interpretation of Koranic instruction about apostates. If a text is circulated which clearly encourages murder is it still good to uphold the principle of free speech? If ISIS prints literature should one permit its spread?

[marco]

There is a presupposition that an ancient societys methods for dealing with breaking a norm/more is bad. Granted, we might think that such treatment is barbaric by todays standards but some people are already calling todays capitalist economy the same as wage slavery.

You misunderstand what is being presented. The mores (the word has no English singular by the way) of ancient people are not being disputed; we are examining the instruction in a book used by people for guidance and direction TODAY. I agree that ancient people did what we would consider savage. One hopes that God directs people into ways that do not require murder.

The path you are on is a dangerous one, for you are saying that any act, advocated by your Holy Book, is made good because God is good. We suffer today because this way of thinking is endorsed by people who would kill us in God's name. It is pointless to condemn terrorists for their misguided faith when we use exactly the same reasoning ourselves..... to justify the unjustifiable.

[marco]

As for the question of the thread: "Is it good to ignore the bad in the Bible?"

Absolutely not. To ignore it is the same as ignoring the fact that the Bible requires that its God be ignorant. And to support it is to support ignorance.
sh God were like.

To support the Bible is to support ignorance, immorality, and unjustified violence. And the same holds for the Qur'an as well.

I am in complete agreement with your condemnation of texts, purporting to be holy, that offer unholy advice. On the question of "should we ignore" - I was thinking of those who respect the authority of the Bible. Should they simply pay no attention to the parts that advocate savagery. I thought the answer would be a resounding affirmative but it would seem not. The "bad bits" are not bad at all - it seems.

[marco]

As I so often say, the Old Testament is not authoritative to Christians in determining how we apply our faith.

And what you say is wise counsel, catnip. Sadly, a large corpus of thought opposes what you say.

I don't think there is any possibility of removing it from the world now.

It wasn't a practical suggestion merely a what if? I often read how advice in Holy Books, or from Holy Men interpreting Holy Books, leads to disaster and savagery. A young Pakistani boy, taking the advice from his Imam that his hand had offended Muhammad, cut his hand off and presented it to the Imam as a penitential gesture. His parents and the Imam were pleased with the boy's faith.

What makes things good in Christ's book is loving, forgiving, compassionate behavior. He requires mercy, not sacrifice.

This is true. Had I quoted Christ then we would have seen the woman taken in adultery walk free. I quoted the Bible because, as you see, it is considered God's word. And if God asks a man to kill his son, God can do no wrong. That is the issue I was confronting; for I have no problem with the beatitudes. I appreciate your line of thought, and admire it.

[marco]

The law tries to provide guidance and an easy answer to this impossible question which has so many factors swirling around it (such as the context of the act, the mental health and genetics of the person, and a million other things). As such, the law is a dangerous thing and something we need to be extremely careful of... (A core aspect of Jesus' teaching in a nutshell as he time and again opens up the law - or truly fulfills it - by breaking it of its hardness).

Yes, Jesus appears to confront the question of capital punishment for trivia by clever oratory. I wasn't asking how we get round the atrocious advice - merely what we do with it and how we regard it, in a Holy Book. The details in the example require no great exegesis - do we stone our son to death for disobedience or drunkenness? The civilised answer is NO. That we get down to debating this answer, as we do here, shows what a malign influence a Holy Book can be.

[marco]

I have never ignored the bad in the Bible.

I can back you up 100% on that, ttruscott. You never do.

I told HIM I could not accept the bible until HE proved to me that all the bad things by GOD were not bad at all but good. HE said "Sure, get busy reading it till you know it." I read it through three times in three years (skimming the begats, sigh). During the second reading I was given the theology of our creation before the creation of the physical universe , (what I call PCE) and by the end of third reading I believed in what I had been given.

Well Christ did a wonderful job because he has made you impervious to any assault on what you hold as true. Are you quite sure that Christ would employ the colloquialism "Sure..."? You do know that the Devil is 100% proficient in quoting Scripture and giving seemingly good advice. I would have asked for more identification. I'm suspicious of the Lord's use of the vernacular.

No innocents are born on earth. Only sinful people are born on earth.
No innocents suffer or die. Only the guilty suffer or die.

Yes, the wicked baby theory is hard to swallow especially if you entertain the notion


" GOD is holy, just and loving."

I suppose we should be thankful that we have not seen what things would be like if he were unholy, unjust, and hateful, for with his nice qualities he gets through a great deal of what my naivety would term nastiness. All in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Go well.

[JLB32168]

we are examining the instruction in a book used by people for guidance and direction TODAY.

Can you name an example? Is it going to be an OT example of stoning someone " in spite of the fact that the Christian believes that the law was accomplished by Christs Passion and Resurrection; therefore, we are no longer under the constraints of the OT " such as stoning violators of the law?

I predict that any and every example you give will be an OT example given to the ancient Hebrews.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

The problem I have with the Bible is that it doesn't even address issues like mental illness, or genetic disposition to alcoholism, or what to do about these things even if they could be diagnosed.

Look at your question:

How many times should we turn our cheek and forgive? Once? Twice? Twenty times? ...

If that's all we're doing then we aren't addressing the cause of the problem at all.

This isn't about "forgiveness". What good would it do to forgive someone for having a mental illness? What good would it to do forgive someone for having a genetic disposition to alcoholism?

The context of this conversation was the law, and how the bible could be held in high regard when it prescribes such harsh measures in response to wrong-doing. I'll hold to my answer on that: the purpose of the law is guidance when we're not mature enough to know the way ourselves. As such, it tries to simplify what in reality is an impossible decision, or a situation too complex for us to possibly process given our current development. Just like parents give simple rules for their children to obey to keep them safe and on the right track, so God gave laws to humankind in its immaturity...

As such, the law is not the truth (even as it contains something truthful), but it does have a high status and imperative behind it. This makes it extremely dangerous, and always at risk of being taken too literally and of being applied too hard (becoming the truth and the end in itself versus a temporary guide while we grow our wisdom). Thus we need to always push ourselves from accepting its prescriptions and keeping its true letter open and alive through understanding, forgiveness, etc...

But here's the point: the law, and its true letter, i.e., forgiveness, is in regards to wrong-doing. There are other things that we need to respond to in life, i.e., things that are simply broken. Hearts, bodies, minds...

For this, isn't there a pretty strong calling in the bible to act as healers in the world? And to address the root causes of evil versus applying rules in response to it? Sure, mental illness and genetic predispositions are not directly discussed in the bible (these concepts didn't exist!), but I find it hard to believe that these wouldn't be included in Jesus' ministry of healing...

Note: this is not to say that all such things need to be healed and returned to some human ideal. Broken means broken. It means there is pain and suffering and something that needs to be fixed. It does not mean that there is something different that needs to be made the same as everything else. (That, I'm afraid, is the worst sin of Christians in their assault on such things as homosexuality... Thinking there is something broken when in fact there is just something different...)

On your final point, about biblical orders to destroy non-believers, or the SUPERIOR law to have no gods besides God... What I said above holds to this as well... Try to put yourself into the spirit of what I'm saying here and imagine a true believer as someone who keeps things open and relentlessly works toward the truth versus resorting to the simplicity and easy answers of the law or any other supposed deity (the law can be an idol just like anything else...). It is this close-minded, reductionist, and extremely dangerous mindset (described above) that such orders are against, and are trying to prevent or break open (wherever found). Taking another god above God means opting for an easy answer versus the hard path of discerning truth in the complex environment we find ourselves in. It means staying a child versus becoming an adult...

To make this extremely real using an example: I would say that anyone who takes the law that started this post, i.e., "stone stubborn drunkards", as absolute, i.e., as something that is to always be applied, has taken that law above God and is in violation of the SUPERIOR law to have no other gods... Thus, the SUPERIOR law, the law above all other laws, would tell me, as a true believer, that this other so-called believer is wrong, and is in fact an idolater. There is extreme danger in their view (as the original post quite rightly calls out) that needs to be resisted and, in extreme cases when no other resort exists, destroyed.

Can you see the purpose of that first and all important law that you find problematic? Clearly the same holds for this SUPERIOR law as well (you are right to find issue with it...). Anyone who takes it as absolute, i.e., as above God, and starts destroying perceived non-belief wherever it is found, has just broken the law and is just as idolatrous and dangerous and needing to be stopped as any other idolater... The point of this law is to keep things open, to prevent closure around a simplistic, reductionist mindset, and to keep pushing for wisdom in the impossible situations where no easy answers exist. Staying true to this harder path, and trying to find wisdom versus absolute rules that can simply be obeyed, is staying true to God and truly fulfilling the law.

Sorry for going on so long. But is this logic making any sense?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

theophile wrote:

The law tries to provide guidance and an easy answer to this impossible question which has so many factors swirling around it (such as the context of the act, the mental health and genetics of the person, and a million other things). As such, the law is a dangerous thing and something we need to be extremely careful of... (A core aspect of Jesus' teaching in a nutshell as he time and again opens up the law - or truly fulfills it - by breaking it of its hardness).

Yes, Jesus appears to confront the question of capital punishment for trivia by clever oratory. I wasn't asking how we get round the atrocious advice - merely what we do with it and how we regard it, in a Holy Book. The details in the example require no great exegesis - do we stone our son to death for disobedience or drunkenness? The civilised answer is NO. That we get down to debating this answer, as we do here, shows what a malign influence a Holy Book can be.

Just as you can't have any hope of discerning the meaning of a passage taken in isolation, stripped of its context, so you can't have any hope of properly evaluating a law, stripped of why it was given in the first place and the other laws that help frame it.

So contrary to what you say, exegesis is required. Taking this law as absolute, or as in itself something that must be rigorously upheld, would be wrong, and would in fact be an idolatrous move in violation of other laws...

If we were to do what you are trying to do, I would wholeheartedly agree. This law is uncivilized, and extremely dangerous. However, if we try to understand this law in its proper context, of why it was given in the first place, I would say that it is still extremely dangerous, insofar as it represents a simplified answer to a complex reality, but that it does contain important guidance. The law is tantamount to saying "stubborn drunkenness is not a good thing and needs to be addressed", but addressing it in all instances as prescribed, i.e., by stoning, neglects the complexity of life. Recognizing the law for what it is, i.e., as a simple answer that does not do justice to any situation, should push us, if we truly want truth and wisdom, to look more deeply at any instance of drunkenness that we face.. Is there true evil present that needs to be destroyed / stoned? Is it a time for forgiveness and a second (or third) chance? Is there a deeper problem that needs to be healed, such as a mental illness or predisposition, as per Divine Insight's point?...

Taking the law in itself and applying it without question or thought would be idolatrous, i.e., tantamount to taking it above God, and as such would be a violation of the explicitly superior biblical law (see? context!) to have no other gods. Understanding the context of the law tells us not to be too quick in upholding the law... that simple answers such as the law never do justice to life. They are directionally correct, but their true value lies in calling us to greater discernment and wisdom.

Understanding this proper context is how I can regard the law and the bible more broadly. But how often I wish that the law was never introduced given all the problems it causes, and that we could finally, as Paul declares, "put down the things of our childhood," these simple rules that help keep us on a safe track when we don't know any better, but that are now preventing us from becoming true adults in life! Like you, I would love to do away with them. But this doesn't mean I don't understand - and regard - why they were given in the first place, and the value they hold.