Should Christianity remove sections of the bible?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm

Some of those things happen, yes. And those things go unpunished, yes. But do you bother reading what the rest of the Bible has to say about such things? The things that the kings of Israel and Judah did and encouraged the people of Israel and Judah to do are really horrible. The Bible records that God extended His patience towards His people for as long as He felt He could. The final straw came after King Hezekiah, the last king who kept the commandments. King Hezekiah was ALMOST perfect when held up to the example of a fine Davidic king. His only blunder came when an envoy from Babylon came to visit him and he showed them EVERYTHING they had in Jerusalem--weaponry, utensils used in Temple, and all the wealth of the king's palaces. The Bible reports that the kings following Hezekiah undid nearly all his reforms and continued to make foolish decisions. The prophets pleaded with the people to abandon false worship. Even in the chaos at the beginning of the exile, the people continued to ignore the advice of the prophets (the prophets told them if they remained peaceful and cooperated with the Babylonians, they'd get to keep their land. They chose to resist or flee to anywhere but Babylon. The consequences were further disaster). The ultimate consequence for Judah was loss of sovereignty to one nation or another: Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, the Sassanians, Byzantium, before being jerked around between Christians and Muslims. It took centuries of horrific persecution at the hands of nations throughout Europe, culminating (perhaps) with Nazi German atrocities to send them all back through the rise of Zionism. The 6-Day War, as I see it, was essentially their way of declaring to the world, "We're BAAAAAACK!"

Now, if you're talking about what Israel did during the time of the Judges up to the ascension of King David, keep in mind God had become displeased with the actions of the nations who coexisted with Abraham's people after they headed to Egypt. They had been in Goshen for a LONG time before the Exodus, and a lot of things changed during that time. Because we are God's creation, we are subject to God's punishment. God saw fit to deport those people from Canaan. If they would not/could not leave, God ordered His people to exterminate them--or as Captain Harris in the film "Platoon" so eloquently put it, "Expend all remaining." But rather than expending all remaining to rid themselves of foreign influence, the Israelites opted to make rash treaties with certain people groups or commit them to forced labor. The Jebusites remained in Jerusalem until David finally got rid of them. The influence of that idolatrous remnant had disastrous consequences for Israel because Israel fell under the influence of those people they enslaved (as often happens in nations when slaves are taken from other nations--the ancient Greek and Roman empires are prime examples of nations whose leaders tended to adopt the customs and traditions of the people they conquered. Why do you think Christianity was ultimately able to spread so quickly throughout Roman-occupied territories in spite of religious persecution?).

Why would God respond so harshly against His enemies? Well, consider what those people were engaged in: Incest, child sacrifice, bestiality, temple prostitution, and a host of other crimes against God and nature which were related to idol worship. "Passing through the fire" was a particularly brutal ritual. Such practices were so deeply entrenched in those cultures and societies that expatriation and extermination were the only solutions for ridding the region of evil. The people of those lands KNEW that the Israelites were returning and what they'd do when they got there. They had 40+ years to clean up or get out. So you can't say to God "That's not fair." God did everything He could do with the people that weren't even His "chosen" covenant people.

How horrible were these people that God should use Israel to get rid of them? Consider this: History records that similar practices were rampant in parts of North Africa when the Romans came to power. The Romans were NOT nice guys. And even THEY were horrified, repulsed, and disturbed by the things they encountered amongst the pagan people they encountered. What did the Romans do? They wiped them out.

My conclusion is that whatever charges you want to level at God's chosen people, those actions pale in comparison to the actions of the people they conquered. Now, if you wish to say otherwise, you're only right in the context that the Israelites came to adopt the customs and practices of those people and became a sort of runaway train that had run out of track by the end of the kingdom period. The Bible informs us that their crimes actually did exceed that of the Hittites, Amorites, and company. It was a relatively TINY remnant that were allowed to return to Jerusalem and start over when Babylon fell to the Persians and Medes. They lost sovereignty, which took MILLENNIA to regain. So the sins they were guilty of that lost them self-rule did NOT go unpunished, contrary to the above quote (from Fuzzy).

Now, those particular sections of the Bible read like a history textbook. A good history (of anything) will be neutral concerning what it reports. Judges reports how the Israelites fared during the conquest period. It alternately presents God's people favorably and unfavorably depending on what they were doing at the time. It does NOT present a pretty picture. But consider what you see in movies which dramatize historical events such as war, like "Platoon," "Saving Private Ryan," "Blackhawk Down," and others. Sure, those are works of fictions, though based on real events (more or less with "Blackhawk"), but they attempt to recreate the battlefield as closely as possible with the ugliness of war. In that context, the Bible neither glorifies nor condemns war, but rather reports the facts. The books of Kings and Chronicles are basically a record and report card of the kings of Judah and Israel/Samaria. If you want to edit out all the ugliness of wartime ancient Israel, then you might as well edit out all the scandals of US presidents and omit the entirety of the American Civil War from modern-day U.S. History textbooks. If you don't, then saying that the Bible ought to be "edited for content" is hypocritical.

Both, but I not meaning to challenge you. I just want to help keep the record clear:



Absolutely.

because the good stuff is- well- apocraphil!
The good stuff is not considered well documented ( just fables). The bad stuff is well documented!

There is a saying that "truth is stranger than fiction."

Besides, which is easier? In the book of Genesis, it is written that "you may eat from any tree in the Garden" except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's actually a rather broad range of choices. The 10 Commandments are the same way. There are really only a few "do nots," but no list of "do's." The "don'ts" occupy a very small circle of things within a greater realm of freedom. There is no limiting list of things one may do, indicating the vastness of freedom God intends His people to have.

The "bad stuff," such as it is, represents the consequences of sin and the importance of avoiding sin--wars, famine, disease. The culmination of all law and prophecy of the OT is there is nothing especially good about the heart of man, that man fails despite his best efforts. Without the bad stuff, there is no need for the good stuff, which is the good news of Jesus and His atonement through death, burial, and resurrection.

The issue is about how just is biblical justice rather than 'merciness vs justice'.

So, I'll ask:
Is it justice to kill all first born children?
Is it justice to erradicate a whole population on a planet which includes innocent children and babies by drowning all of them and select only 8 privileged people to survive (apparently all adults)?
Is it justice to punish children until the fourth generation for their parents crimes?
Is it justice to kill an entire town because of either "sexual deviance" or poor treatment towards two visitors?

Death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, is that justice?
Is it justice for a woman who was raped, to be ordered to marry her agressor?

also, a woman who wasn't able to bleed in her "wedding night" was casted out as unpure.

And yet, muslims are the bad guys for applying biblical (OT) justice.

You are avoiding answering the question. However, I'll give your questions a go.

Is it justice to kill all first born children? The issue here is a ruler's obedience and acknowledgement of a sovereign God. Said ruler was given fair warning of consequences of disobedience. It is the ruler's fault, NOT God's fault, that the firstborn MALE child had to go. Considering the sins of Pharaoh, he got off light. I don't recall whether it was the same pharaoh, but the Egyptian king had actually had ALL male children under a certain age killed about the time of Moses' birth. Where was Pharaoh's justice then? Pharaoh of the Exodus time should be delighted that the firstborn males at that time were ALL that were taken and not worse.

Is it justice to erradicate a whole population on a planet which includes innocent children and babies by drowning all of them and select only 8 privileged people to survive (apparently all adults)? This has to do with the capacity of a population to repent and turn their ways back towards God. Any time depravity is such an integral part of society and culture, God is within His rights to wipe the slate clean. God shows mercy in allowing ONE family to remain to repopulate the earth, else we'd never have existed to even discuss it. Children are innocent, on the other hand. However, it's greater injustice to take away one's parents who are responsible for their own depravity and leave orphans. What do you think those orphans would do once they got old enough? Give God thanks and glory? Of course not! In that case, it's better to be taken in innocence than to exist in a hell-on-earth. Same applies to the conquest of Canaan post-Exodus.

Is it justice to punish children until the fourth generation for their parents crimes? OK, this is a clear misunderstanding of scripture. Children often repeat the sins of their parents and forbears. The sins of the parents become the sins of the child, and until such children or grandchildren recognize that sin and turn away from it, they are subject to God's punishment. Go back and read what the Bible says about those who DO turn away from their parents' sin and the blessings they will receive. The Law explicitly states, even, that parents cannot be punished for the sins of their children, nor can children be punished for their parents' sin. They are only responsible for their own actions. It is only when a child grows up and imitates sinful parents that such punishment will be met with.

Is it justice for a woman who was raped, to be ordered to marry her agressor? This has to do with the depravity of the human heart. God knew very well that men would look down upon women as property and not human beings. Such laws were to elevate the status of women. If a man raped a woman, then that meant no other man could have her because rape called into question whether children from her belonged to whoever she might marry. If a man loved the woman and all parties were agreeable (the woman, her parents, etc.), then marriage was a remedy that allowed everyone to live happily ever after in spite of circumstances. Most often, however, when you read about sexual laws, rape is a cause for death of the rapist.

also, a woman who wasn't able to bleed in her "wedding night" was casted out as unpure. Ok, I don't know what this one is all about. The Law made provisions (though I'm not sure how this was done, exactly) for proving that a woman WAS pure on her wedding night and penalties would be imposed upon a husband who made false claims against her.

Is it justice to kill an entire town because of either "sexual deviance" or poor treatment towards two visitors? First, in Biblical times, people had a high sense of community that we lack in our day and age. They believed (correctly) that the sins of the few would result in the punishment of all who tolerated sinful behavior. The instance you're talking about has to do with the destruction of Sodom. Second, the Bible informs us that the depravity was so severe that no one in the city could be found to be righteous, save Lot and his family, hence the entire city was worthy of destruction. Third, the two visitors were no ordinary visitors--they were messengers of God (angels) sent to destroy the town anyway and rescue Lot's family. It was obvious they weren't ordinary men. And yet the men of the city set out to gang-rape them. Nice.

Death penalty for adultery and homosexuality, is that justice? Homosexuality is included in the definition of idolatry. Idolatry is a rejection of God. When someone, especially in time of war, switches sides and is caught acting as a traitor, he is put to death for treason. Idolatrous practices is equivalent in God's view as switching sides. This cannot be tolerated. We're lucky that God has extended much more patience to us now than He did then.

Now, heterosexual adultery is a different game altogether. You'll notice in the OT not ALL cases of adultery invited death. Rape was one case that did. Consensual sex was remedied by the demand that the two adulterers marry, and, as I recall, they were forbidden any chance for divorce. I'm not sure why, exactly, but sex with slaves was also permitted. Taking another man's slave demanded that the "thief" buy her from him. There were a number of other sexual laws, in fact, that actually sought to protect women, even slaves or wives taken from conquered nations.

Ah, I think I get your meaning. While there may have been divine punishment after life, there needs to be justice in earth as well for the sake of the living. David wasnt made to pay for these things, nor was Lots daughters punished on earth for their incest. Elijah had 42 kids killed by bears for teasing him about being bald.

David actually did all sorts of horrible things, like killing hundreds of men for their foreskins just to impress a womans father. He actually killed twice as many as he needed.

First one was not Elijah, but rather Elisha and the kids/teens were mauled not killed. Second, yes David did kill Philistines, in battle, which would have probably been killed, in battle, anyway.

Well this is the hard to figure out part for me and a lot of people. Jesus said that, but in other places breaks the sabbath to help people, tells people off for being too legalistic, and asks for common sense about it. (later telling Paul Christians did not have to keep kosher or other Jewish rituals). I think i heard that some christians believe that what Jesus meant there was, he fulfilled the law, so it was "accomplished", so after Jesus people didnt have to follow the law anymore, just believe in him. So it remained and didnt pass away but wasnt to be followed literally anymore but replaced by jesus, i think. i know i dont get it much.


Paul in the NT was apparently against gays and people who had sex out of marriage though. I don't think that is so much a question of "interpretation" as of whether you accept Paul as the mouthpiece of Jesus or not. Some christians don't but those who do became the mainstream/dominant type.

I was thinking about this after I read that the Dalai lama doesnt agree with anything except penis-vagina sex. I dismissed those views as rubbish and so wondered whether that made me not a buddhist.

But what is the point of religious teachers if we think we know better.

However Buddha said that teachers dont know everything and you should always question teachings and follow your own beleifs not follow others blindly.

I cant follow principles that I dont beleive in and I am quite happy to pay the price for that whatever it may be.

I think there is some higher power or source or God, and all religions have a description of it but it is the same thing, experienced by different cultures. In my experience, people should just read the words of the Dalai lama, bible, koran, and feel the spiritual peace they want, the help and guidance. And just follow the parts that feel good. I know strict "fundies" mock that attitude but i ihink you can trust your feelings with spirituality/god. I have read the gospels, Nt, some of the koran and zen books, and find them all have powerful parts. A person who "feels" things and is in touch with wanting to do good for people feels God imo. It should be making the world better, not legalistic. I personally think muhamad, jesus, buddha all thought the same, that is the impression i get from them.

I agree, that is really interesting to get to grips with for me. No hero is perfect for me, I admire lots of people who have aspects I didn't like. Often i think admirable and heroic people can be pushed to doing wrong things by their circumstances. for instance, martin luther king had an affair (i think), ghandi was supposedly too religious and racist, the russian socialists went authoritarian, nelson mandela said he regreted militant things he did in the past.. But it matters to me to see the big picture, you can still like a person or group and be disagreeing of somehting they have done, also to have compassion and see they may have had bad circumstances. I personally don't mind seeing the Dalai Lama as really wise and great, but also seeing him as a bit too old fashioned in some ways, he is still inspirational.

No, but it should come with this warning:

Yes, thank you Mutate. I'm not the most articulate person. lol This is exactly what I was talking about, but it still does have to do with interpretation of scriptures.

Like anyone else, the Dalai Lama is human and therefore flawed. Not following all of his teachings doesn't make you less Buddhist. It makes you analytical and shows you have a mind of your own.

This is one of the reasons I have so much trouble with Christianity. From the time I can remember, I was told to be 'the sheep'. I cannot. I have to question everything, and if it doesn't make sense, I want to know why before I commit it to memory as a belief or fact.

Anyway... little off topic there. Heh