The Bible is an Evil Book? Objections 1-2 (Rebuttals 2)

"yet I can't help but think you're bending over backwards to apologize and justify what still is revolting and by any standard unacceptable pretense."

Reply
No bending over backwards here, as I just gave an exposition to the LOGIC of why the evils you speak of in the Bible are not what you allege it to be. This statement above does not at all respond to my expositions. Rather, it assumes the points above without providing the premises or reasonings to back it up. The statement above begs the question, so it is therefore in the category of Logical Fallacy. Please provide reasoning as to why my rebuttals to youR assumptions in Objection 2 ( Infanticide is an easy one. We need only look...etc.) is "bending over backwards to apologize and justify what still is revolting and by any standard unacceptable pretence".

"I get it you love your god. The Jo b story I have obviously confused for another, when I can find his name I'll gladly share it."

Let me know when you find the right one.

"Making apologies or justifying the cruelties of your god doesn't make it any less offensive."

Here is another Logical Fallacy of begging the question. What is the cruelty of God in following Justice in an uncompromising sense? Justice considered to its logical consequence is proportional to the cause of God's actions against the Egyptians, and the breaking of the Law. Ask those who work in the Legal profession what their take is on the actual events as I have exposed, ask them to judge whether it was justified. I believe that they will see the principle marks of Retributive Justice for which our current modern justice system employs. It is also kind of strange to me that you sta te an apparent injustice of God in how he treated the Egyptians and Law breakers, but yet you give no reference to the cause. It leaves me to question whether you have knowlege as to why God did those things which you think is evil. For a conclusion to be made on a thing, one needs knowledge of the cause. In this case, you have made no demonstration. You have substituted the cause (God's Actions) with uninformed speculation ("Infanticide is an easy one. We need only look...etc").

"You're okay with the god of the Old Testament being a capricious, cantankerous, mean old (*). I am no where close to okay with that."

I am not okay with God being any of those things you mentioned, for as I have articulated why certain things are in the events of the Bible you mention, God is not any of those things. In the passages I have addressed thus far which you contended, all I can see is the Nature of Evil and its seriousness, as well as the nature of Justice, what it is, and its execution to its Logical consequence. No one in their right mind would contend that Justice is evil or punishing evil would be unacceptable. One thing to consider also which really puts a lid in your argument that God is mean and unfair (paraphrasing here). With Justice, all m en deserve punishment for the wrong he has done (I accuse myself here first). But what does God do? He executes Justice without compromise while at the same time sparring all. How does He do that? He became man, took upon himself the punishment we deserve, suffered in His Passion and Died on the cross as a result. All this, for you, me, and everybody, so that we might live and not perish. Why do you think, those severe things in the Old Testament no longer happen in the present. Why does God now seem to be more lenient? I will tell you why. He took everybody's guilt and punishment and took it upon Himself by suffering and dying on the cross. He did this so that you, myself, and everybody else would not perish from Justice, but that we would be saved through Mercy. This too me is innefable. "God is Charity"(1 Jn 4:8). Good luck proving that God is those unfortunate things you say of Him in light of what he did for all of us in Jesus Christ. It is kind of ironic that somewhere else you say somewhere away from this thread: "26,000 that will die. I'm sure they pray harder than anyone and god either doesn't care, doesn't exist, or just says no," but yet when God takes action against evil or misfortune as is evident in the Old Testament, you call Him "capricious, cantankerous...". I suggest reconsidering your positions by reading the texts you question in depth and in context. Study the principles of Biblical Hermeneutics.

The Bible is an Evil Book? Objections 1-2 (Rebuttals 1)

Objection 1

“The bible also wrote about promoting, rape, infanticide, genocide, misogyny. Any bible that tells me to rape and sell my sister is not one I"m gonna associate with. I thinks I"ll stick to much less evil books. Like the Satanic Versus.”

Reply

Please post the passages you are referring to which you think promotes "rape, infanticide, genocide, misogyny". I will respond to them. I believe you are misinterpreting the scriptures. Scriptures can easily be misinterpreted, if read subjectively and w/o knowing a basic understanding on how to read it correctly. You need to read it in context and as a whole to understand it or to avoid misinterpretation. No part is greater than the whole. Also, you must remember that terminology in languages differs. The Hebrew language in which the old testament was written originally, has terms that have a more expansive meaning than the English language. The English translations of the text are limited. You also have to know the Two Senses of scripture to have a correct grasp of the text. These two are Literal and Spiritual (spiritual is divided into, allegorical, moral, anagogical). I mention these only to demonstrate that reading the texts in part and in a simple sense w/o the two senses easily distorts the texts and can easily be misinterpreted. I have an idea of which texts you may be referring to, but for clarity and so as to reply more adequately to your objections, please post the passages you are referring to and I will reply to it. Your statement of the Bible's alleged promotions is a result of based and LITERAL ONLY interpretation of the Scriptures. The scriptures need to be read in two senses. Also, Satan has no verses, and has no need of it. His very actions are marked in Human History. To express this mark in simplicity, we can infer that Satan's only verse and not verse(s) is the Destruction of Man. He has no need of verses, for this single verse hits the point precisely. With that in mind, why would you say that you would "stick to much less evil books. Like the Satanic Versus"?

Objection 2

“Infanticide is an easy one. We need only look to his his petty murder of the firstborns of Egypt.”

Reply

When reading the Old Testament you must keep in mind its context in relation to the New Testament. Since Christ has not yet arrived in the scene, much of the offences in the Old Testament are treated with severity in balance with Retributive Justice. God who is perfect executes justice in a more strict sense without compromise. For His son, who is to apply Mercy and Forgiveness to the whole world through His death and resurrection by taking upon Himself the sins of the whole world, has not arrived yet. I do not consider the death of the Firstborns in Egypt as murder or infanticide (it does not treat of children or infants alone, but all of the firstborns of Egypt which includes animals), but rather, it is justice being executed to its logical conclusion. Through justice, Egypt as a Nation was punished for its DECREE AND COMMAND TO ALL OF EGYPT to cast into the river all whomsoever would be born of male sex in the people of Israel (Ex 1:21). This to me is Retributive Justice. Also bear in mind that this is severe (killing of all Male Born Israelites) in comparison to what God did to the Egyptians (First-borns only and only after numerous warnings). God constrained himself into the first born only. Nor did God end the lives of the first born by dashing them into the river which the Egyptians did, or inflict death through the sword. Instead, he put to death by disease or sudden death. He also gave Pharaoh a warning as to what will come unto them if they do not let go of His people from slavery and oppression. This is evident in His command to Moses to warn Pharaoh through plagues and continual pleading until eventually when God warned that through the hardness of heart of Pharaoh, death will come upon the first born. God pretty much gave them a heads up and an opportunity to avoid such events. Petty Murder? More like Justice and Mercy.

“Incest is welcomed in so many places but my favourite is when Job loses his wife and home and the angel Gabriel asks his own daughters to go lay down with him.

Reply

Where in the book of Job does he lose his wife, or where does the Angel Gabriel ask his daughters to go lay down with him? I do not see it anywhere. Job’s wife lived with him throughout his ordeals, his first daughters died from a wind storm which caused the house they were in to collapse on them (Job 1:19), and new daughters were given to him (Job 42:13-15) after his tough ordeals. Regarding these daughters of Job after his ordeal, they are only mentioned in the end, and that they were beautiful and received inheritance from their Father.

“How about that he flooded the whole world, that covers genocide, on one occasion.”

Reply

Genocide is broad in its definition, and to apply it to this passage demonstrates a lack of understanding for the term. Universally, it is understood by Genocide Scholars as an “intent to destroy”, or annihilate in totality a particular nation, race, group or religious group. In more recent times, a qualification is posited and added to the genocide definition debate by Dovid Kotz who is a Jewish human rights activist and scholar. He posits in addition as a qualification to the definition: “without allowing the victims any option to change views, beliefs or allegiances to save themselves”. In this case, I do not see this as fitting in any of the categories that define Genocide. The men in this case (flooding) was put to death due to their evil doing and not due to their particular nation, race, group or particular religious leaning if they had any. I would even argue that these men were of the same race, group, and nation as Noah. This is simply God’s Justice being executed to its logical conclusion at a time when Christ has not come yet as a sacrificial lamb to atone and repair for the sins of men. At this time as is evident in Genesis, just before God ordered Noah to build the Ark, God saw “that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that ALL the thought of their heart was BENT UPON EVIL AT ALL TIMES”(Gen 6:5). He is justified in deciding to put an end to their life. He also has the right to do so since He created Man with a purpose in mind with evil not being one of them. Since His Son has not arrived yet to atone for the forgiveness of sins, God’s Justice which is executed precisely to compensate for injustice, is retributive and rightly so. But thanks be to God, He sent his son in the fullness of time for the forgiveness of sin which no man can repay. I would think that Genocide applies to the killing of the innocent in a particular race, group, nation or religion and not to the evil and guilty in general. Evil and Guilt is not constrained to a particular race, group, nation, and religion.

“Stoning adulterers, and those that break the sabbath, a verse very close to that one about gays in Leviticus,”

Reply

This passage which I think you are referring to (Lev 20:10,13) deals more with Human instituted Law (Stoning and Putting to Death etc..) as a means to deter anybody from breaking the Divine Law (e.g. adultery, same sex intercourse). In context of the present Biblical time in question, life was unruly and is given over to lawlessness, therefore great evils (adultery, murder, robbery, etc...) occurred. Also, men have for generations been habituated to do evil, that to undo such a habit would take grace. Since Christ has not yet come, avoidance from evil or breaking of the law depended on human establishments, whereas when Christ came into the world, the doing and keeping of the law dependent on Grace and his revelations or teachings. These Human Laws in particular was by the circumstances of the time necessary, otherwise, there is no possible way that this law could be observed which in turn affects the welfare of others due to the hardness of Man’s heart at the time. But as a reminder, this was only applicable in the Old Testament before Christ came to teach us how to observe the law and for Himself to atone for our sins by His sacrificial death. This is evident when Christ spared the Adulterer in the Gospel of John (Jn 8:11). Christ having come into world through his sacrifice and entrance into Human Life, makes it possible for Man to observe the law not only in letter but also in spirit. Justice entered the world through the Law, but in Christ, Justice is fulfilled (His Sacrifice on the Cross), through Mercy and Grace. Hence, it is impossible to posit in the context of the Scripture in whole that it promotes what you mention. Since the Scriptures comprise of the Old AND the New and taken as a whole and the old being understood only in the light of the New, it is impossible to posit the Scripture for promoting the evils you speak of.

With regards Exodus 31:14 which I think you are referring to with the Sabbath observance, it is Divine Law. However there needs to be a distinction made in the passage itself by careful reading. Here is an example of one such passage that if read simply without consideration of Hermeneutics (Interpretation), can be misunderstood. “Keep you my sabbath: for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it, shall be put to death: he that shall do my work in it, his soul shall perish out of the midst of his people” (Ex 31:13). Note the distinction between “he that shall profane it, shall be put to death” and “perish out of the midst of his people”. Doing work in the Sabbath only entailed the outcasting of the offender from the Nation and its privileges (covenant) and not physical death, whereas profanation of the Sabbath is a direct insult towards the remembrance of God’s Work in saving them. Since profanation affects the well being of the Nation as a whole which could spread to others and thereby risk others from losing the covenant, it is in this case that the Public Authority has the power to inflict death in this instance. The Death sentence was applied as protection for the welfare of the people.

“but I know how you guys like to pick and choose.”

Reply

I hope I do not fall into that error. I will try my best not to. However since time is limited, I will respond gradually as it would be impossible to respond to all of your objections at one sitting. I will respond to your first reply. Then when the debate on this part is exhausted, I shall move onto your next stated objection(s).

Going back to picking and choosing, I think I could say the same with your method of argumentation to support your claims, for they you only have thus far quoted the passages without consideration of its relation to the New Testament. You have only thus far critiqued the scriptures in part by picking and choosing. I noticed that you have only thus critiqued the old testament apart from the new testament. In Empirical Sciences one comes to the full knowledge and assessment of a thing by considerations of all its parts. Thus, a thorough hypotheses of a thing can be made. Can one then critique the substance of a thing or give a hypotheses of it (Bible) by consideration in part only (consideration of the old testament without the new)? Perhaps this is something you might consider.

“How about when asked to prove his love to god Job was asked to drown his own children.”

Reply

Job was asked to drown his own children? Perhaps you have mistaken it from another passage somewhere or heard it as hearsay. In the Book of Job, there is no mention of being asked to drown his children.

Concluding Comments to Objection 2

Hopefully these response would be enough for the moment for discussion. Then we shall move on to the other passages you mentioned. Thanks for welcoming the dialogue. The Greek ancient scholars (Socratic Method) were very familiar to dialogue. It served as a great means for acquiring knowledge for both sides through critical thinking. I hope this suffices for now, please be assured that I will respond to your remaining quotes as soon as I am able to.