First of all, the Bible is unclear on this point, look up Matthew 5:18 where Jesus says this in regards to the Old Testament law:
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."He said this despite some of his other statements that went against the barbarity of the Old Testament law, such as the nearly pacifistic Sermon on the Mount.
.jpg) |
| Display from the Alabama court case |
They are also quite fond of the Ten Commandments, too, even wanting old displays of them to remain in government buildings, such as in Alabama, which caused a court battle that went to the Supreme Court.
Christians of any variety get testy when those passages of the Bible are brought up, and they often try to explain it away, or deny that it is valid today. My question is, if you don't like those passages being mentioned, and you don't follow those commands anymore, then why even still have them in the Bible?
What is the point of still having those verses in the Bible? Get rid of them already!
If you no longer believe that they are valid scripture (whatever the specific reasoning may be), then there is no point to them, just remove them from the Bible entirely. There would be no need to hack away at the Bible with a razor like Thomas Jefferson did, that would be a bit of a crude way to do it, and besides, he cut out portions most Christians would want to keep, like the story of the resurrection.Just set up a commission, to decide what to remove, and print a new edition. It's not as though decided what should or shouldn't be in the Bible is a new idea, after all, most of what is recognized as Christianity to this day is the result of such a commission in ancient times called the Council of Nicaea
Before the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., there were many different texts out there of the Bible, containing different books, with different stories and spiritual claims.
Having competing factions of Christianity with different versions of the Bible wasn't much of a problem until the Roman emperor Constantine wanted to make Christianity the official state supported religion of the empire.
If he was going to make Christianity the official religion, then Christianity had to be defined by only one holy text, and one set of beliefs. It's not as though decided what is or isn't the holy text of the Bible is without precedent, because the Council of Nicaea defined the basics of what we know now today as the foundations of Christianity.
What does Christianity have to lose from tossing out some of the more barbaric/hateful portions of the Bible?
Nothing, it appears, Christianity has plenty to gain. Tossing these passages would show that Christianity has rejected it's more questionable past, and has come into the modern era. It's about time for it to be done.
Why hasn't Christianity done this already? Why hold onto what they supposedly don't even believe in anymore?
Good post Sheldon. Could one answer be that these Christians would then have to admit that their god "got some stuff wrong"? He is supposed to be infallible after all. I think it becomes something like a slippery slope argument for Christians...how would they know when, where, and what in the bible is worth keeping or sacred?
ReplyDeleteAh, that could be the objections, a feeling that it would be saying that god was wrong. It would be a challenge to theories of god's infallibility, and the infallibility of the Bible, as well as the idea of divine inspiration.
DeleteAlthough, liberal Christians wouldn't have much of those same objections, I wonder why liberal denominations haven't done this yet?
I think ReasonBeing hit the nail on the head, at least as far as fundamentalist Christians are concerned. If the Bible is supposedly the infallible word of God, they're forced to justify the barbaric passages instead of jettison them.
DeleteI think the whole old-covenant-doesn't-apply-now argument is problematic for another reason. If those barbaric practices were commanded in the past, then at one time, the Biblical God condoned genocide, slavery, homophobic violence, honor killing, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, sexual assault of female war captives, capital punishment for trivial offenses, ad nauseum. If the Biblical God is and always was good, why would he EVER condone such monstrous practices, past or present? If those practices were at one time commanded by God, doesn't that mean that they aren't intrinsically evil by Biblical standards? Defending Old Testament barbarism on the grounds that it invalid now still doesn't avoid disturbing moral conclusions.
Exactly, Ahab.
DeleteI've said before several times on the blog that very issue, and the questions surrounding it is what led me over the edge from the doubting/questioning stage, to outright rejection of Christianity.
It's something I like to bring up sometimes in discussions with fundamentalists, it really makes them uncomfortable. The Old Testament law is no better than Sharia, when you compare the two, yet many fundamentalists condemn Sharia law for it's barbarity (and rightfully so), but don't see the irony when it comes to what is in the Bible.
Well, many conservative Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy (i.e., God prevented the human authors of the texts from making any errors of translation or transcription at every stage along the way). Removing passages we don't agree with would certainly anger those religious conservatives who believe in the inerrancy of the text.
ReplyDeleteOf course, many who believe in Biblical inerrancy also reject much modern Biblical scholarship (e.g., the existence of the Q source, from which Matthew and Luke are derived), as well as many historical truths (e.g., there were many gospels to choose from, and the 4 we got were not necessarily the best of the bunch, but they were fairly consistent with each other and were suitable for instruction of people with varying educational backgrounds).
"Removing passages we don't agree with would certainly anger those religious conservatives who believe in the inerrancy of the text."
DeleteI don't think that's necessarily a bad thing :)
"Of course, many who believe in Biblical inerrancy also reject much modern Biblical scholarship (e.g., the existence of the Q source, from which Matthew and Luke are derived), as well as many historical truths (e.g., there were many gospels to choose from, and the 4 we got were not necessarily the best of the bunch, but they were fairly consistent with each other and were suitable for instruction of people with varying educational backgrounds)."
Oh yes, fundies reject much of the scholarship and facts surrounding the origins of the Bible. Most aren't familiar with the Council of Nicaea, the Apocrypha (the fact that it even exists), and the facts surrounding time written and true authorship of most of the accepted books.
They know the text of the Bible, but not exactly it's context, or where it comes from.