OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Evil Bible

Entry 1707, on 2015-03-19 at 12:47:22 (Rating 4, Religion)

There is a web site called "evilbible.com" which lists a lot of the material from the Bible which the site's creators consider to be corrupt, violent, or immoral in some other way. It makes a lot of good points although I do have to say that it is rather one sided and ignores some contradictory material where the Bible is quite good. But that isn't the purpose of this particular site and there are plenty of others designed to just present the good stuff.

Generally there are excuses and rationalisations for the evil material in the Bible but how convincing is this stuff? Well it varies, but I think there is some material in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, which is inexcusable without using the most ridiculous convoluted logic (or lack of logic), so let's have a look at one particular verse (or two verses) I find quite interesting...

The Bible clearly accepts slavery and specifies rules which slave owners should follow. It doesn't say that slavery is fundamentally immoral in any way, yet most people (including Christians) would say it is now. So if slavery isn't inherently immoral what is? Do God's moral rules change with time? If they do are they real moral rules at all or just some temporary whim of the creator?

Have a look at this rather interesting rule from Exodus 21:20-21: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

So this says several things. First, it is OK to use physical punishment on a slave. Second, you can kill a slave without punishment as long as the slave's death takes a day or two (instead of being immediate). And third, a slave is a possession ("for he is his money"). How can this be anything but evil?

Some sources try to justify this by saying it was part of the older tradition of societies at the time and that new standards have been introduced in the New Testament. But I have two issues with that. First, the NT doesn't exactly condemn slavery either, so it is barely much of an improvement on the OT. And second, does God change his mind? Was slavery OK at one point but then suddenly became more acceptable? Surely an immoral activity is always immoral not just good or bad depending on the standards of society? (at least morals are absolute for most religious people, I would claim that they are precisely based on societal standards although I would still have issues with supporting slavery).

For example, here is a justification of the verse I found on the web: "An entirely different culture. Slavery was an accepted practice and women could be treated as property. In Islamic countries, it's pretty much that way now." So God didn't try to fix this problem because it was an accepted practice? Isn't he supposed to tell us what is acceptable instead of just changing his rules to fit? And many Christians would claim that Islam has similar rules today because they are deluded. Does that mean that the followers of the OT were also deluded? Maybe they still are, and the followers of the NT too!

But slavery is a minor issue compared with a lot of the activities God approves of in the Old Testament. Mass murder, ethnic cleansing, rape, and other heinous crimes are actively ordered, encouraged, or at least tolerated by this "loving God". As I said above, I think the "Evil Bible" site does just consider one aspect of the message of the Bible (and that's fair enough because that is why the site exists) but it is an aspect which cannot be ignored, no matter how hard the Bible's followers try to make excuses.

Parts of the Bible are interesting, other parts are confusing, others are practically meaningless, and some present undoubtedly positive ideas. But there are also parts which are truly evil and if this represents the mind of the god that the Bible is about then I don't want to have anything to do with him!

Comment 30 (4627) by OJB on 2016-11-15 at 17:25:37: (view earlier comments)

Well the problem is that you make all of these judgements based on your interpretation, and while I agree your interpretation is quite moral according to your and my moral codes, that doesn’t make it any more correct. The thing about these holy books is that everyone thinks they have the correct interpretation.

The Islamic terrorists think they are doing what the Koran tells them, and we could possibly make a good case to say that they are right. The same applies to the Bible. It is a book of “moral guidelines, ceremonial religious guidelines, history, poetry, morality tales, and many other types of topics” as you said. But all of these are confused and contradictory.

That should be no surprise since it is sourced from so many different authors (most completely unknown) over a long period of time and with quite different agendas.

I have no problem with that, as long as people recognise the Bible for what it is, and don’t think it is the word of God and has some absolute value and meaning.

Comment 31 (4630) by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-16 at 10:16:45:

“The thing about these holy books is that everyone thinks they have the correct interpretation..while I agree your interpretation is quite moral according to your and my moral codes, that doesn’t make it any more correct”

The answer to this isn’t to get rid of God. It’s to get the correct answer. You throw up your hands as if to say that we can’t judge the difference between a Christianity that supports abusive slavery and one that abolishes it. Nonsense!

Your belief that there are no moral absolutes intrudes on your ability to call things what they are. You criticized me for being forced into defending an untenable position, but that is exactly what you are guilty of doing. Not everyone’s moral positions are equally valid. The one thing I can do under absolute morality is call a spade a spade.

Can we make the wrong moral judgment? Yes. So we try to learn from our mistakes and be humble and loving when making moral judgments. We should consider our own moral failings before worrying about someone else.

Most of the disagreements within Christianity (and between world religions) are not disagreements on morality. Most are differences on theological, doctrinal, and procedural points. When there are moral disagreements, they usually pertain to applied morality rather than essential morality.
“confused and contradictory”

When you see an apparent contradiction, do you assume that it is a contradiction or do you try to find out if there is another more sensible conclusion? Perhaps you are confused because you are unable to separate good from bad. Application of reason goes a long way. Evilbible.com takes the intellectually dishonest approach to contradiction and is almost completely worthless as biblical criticism. It is nearly impossible to distinguish the few good points amidst the overwhelming bad.

Comment 32 (4631) by OJB on 2016-11-16 at 10:17:17:

Yes, we should get the correct answer if there is one, but there isn’t. We are looking for meaning where none (or very little) exists. Religious texts are like the theological equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot test (without getting into a debate on the scientific accuracy of that test). People see what they want to see, in what is basically just noise.

You say not everyone’s moral positions are equally valid. I would mainly agree with that. Moral standards are the outcome of social norms and these change over time, but at any one time they do exist and different people’s values match them to lesser or greater extent.

When I see what looks like a contradiction I usually consult a source which supports the religion concerned to see how valid the explanation is. Sometimes there is a reasonable explanation, but usually there is just a ridiculous rationalisation.

We can argue all day about what is contradictory and what isn’t though. Here’s a fact which I think proves my point: Most Christians say they are following the same source (mainly the Bible) yet there reach wildly different conclusions. Clearly people’s interpretations of the Bible are full of contradictions. That doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible itself is but the end result is the same.

Comment 33 (4637) by Derek Ramsey on 2016-12-03 at 10:48:40:

we should get the correct answer if there is one, but there isn’t

There is the meaning as intended by the authors and the ‘deeper meaning’ or truth/correctness/applicability of that meaning. It is most certainly possible to determine the original author’s intentions (‘exegesis’) by a wide variety of critical literary techniques. Any ‘deeper meaning’ truths (‘theology’) that do not conform to the original author’s intentions are ‘eisegesis’ and should be tossed. So yes, we can easily judge some positions as more objectively valid than others. It just takes time and effort.

The problem with evilbible is that it horribly fails at proper exegesis and jumps straight to (anti-)theological statements. You do the same by assuming that no answer exists without demonstrating it.
It doesn’t matter what people think is the correct interpretation, but what is the correct interpretation. Your presupposition biases your judgment against anything that might contradict the assumption.

More formally:
(1) There is no such thing as absolute truth.
(2) Therefore, biblical interpretation is arbitrary (i.e. there is no correct answer)
(3) Therefore, there is no such thing as absolute truth in the Bible.

The third conclusion is circular with the first. Sometimes you make the argument assuming arbitrary interpretation to prove the lack of absolutes, rather than assuming lack of absolutes to prove arbitrary interpretation. If it isn’t circular, then I’m not sure which of the two you feel is the assumption and which is the conclusion. If you let me know, I can target my responses more accurately.
..reach wildly different conclusions..

I’ve already addressed this in my last comment. There is a high level of core homogeneity among the various branches of Christianity. Also, you fail to consider a host of other valid reasons for difference in interpretation other than the validity of the text itself.

full of contradictions

Hardly. There are precious few passages of the Bible that can even be considered critically contradictory when taken in proper context.

Comment 34 (4638) by OJB on 2016-12-03 at 10:49:17:

It is possible to guess at (to be fair, an expert’s opinion is probably a bit better than a guess) what the author’s original meaning might have been, but never to be sure. As far as deeper meaning is concerned, I think that often gets back to the inkblot test again.

I have heard many contemporary authors asked about meaning in their works say that there just isn’t any. It’s up to the reader to create meaning. Nothing wrong with that, if you are interested in fiction and mythology, but it’s not a path to the truth.

I’m not quite sure what you are getting at int the middle part of your comment. What I will say is that there is an absolute truth, but we can never be sure we know what it is. That’s more my philosophical perspective than a scientific one.

Contradictions exist in many forms in the Bible. There’s the big thematic ones like the OT teaches kill your enemy and the NT teaches love your enemy. Then there’s the errors in detail (which are everywhere) like the genealogy of Jesus.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.