Nitpick: ends up.
In answer to the OP - no, there is no crime or wrongdoing that cannot be excused, whether quoting Scripture or not.
Regards,
Shodan
And what? This is wrong now??
Pick any book with a text as long as the Bible, and I imagine you’d be able to find points to interpret to approve anything you like.
There’s not going to be a factual answer the way there’s a factual answer to 2+2=4, especially when the tendency is to insist that one’s interpretation of the Bible is FACT and not an interpretation that is open to discussion and analysis.
One of the biggest reasons for this is the Old Testament/New Testament dichotomy. Eating pork is clearly totally wrong in the OT. But Paul uses it as an example of what we’re now permitted to do in the NT under the reasoning that the Hebrew law was there to show us what miserable sinners we were, and Christ came to fulfill the law through one final sacrifice that provided true, rather than symbolic, forgiveness of sins.
So this dichotomy means you can find some section that, taken out of context, will justify virtually anything.
The real answer, as others have said, is the commandment to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you find a passage that seems to condone rape, you can’t just take that as permission. You have to ask yourself “Will committing rape be an expression of how I love God? Would I like it if my neighbor raped me?”
And again, as someone else pointed out: just becuase something is described in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s condoned.
Of course it can be used, erroneously, to justify anything. Just like anything else. People are remarkably good at justifying themselves, they don’t need the Bible.
To quote the honorable Robert Anson Heinlein, “Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal.”
The Bible is many things: it’s a law book, it’s a history book, it’s an anthology of poetry. What it isn’t is some sort of general guide to life. Those who think it is can excuse anything.
My dear departed grandmother used to tell me “Even the Devil can quote Scripture to his own ends.” Which left me as baffled as ever and eventually led me to believe it is all beyond my understanding so the hell with it.
The subject of kings demonstrates how the Bible can be used to justify any position. Put bluntly, does the Bible say that having kings is a good thing … or a bad thing?
Depends on what part you read. As noted below, Judges 21:25
… which seems on its face to indicate having a king is a good thing, as a lack of one leads to a Hobbsian state of society (as does the identification of the kings of Israel (David, Solomon) as culture-heros).
But wait, what about 1 Samuel 8:10, responding to the demand for kings:
[Emphasis added]
… which seems to say pretty unequivocally that having a king is a bad thing.
The writer of Judges thinks that having kings is a good thing, because without kings you have tribal war and Israel won’t be strong enough to stand up against its enemies. The writer of Samuel thinks having kings is a bad thing because kings will oppress the people and limit the power of the prophets. The bible is 35 books, all written by different people with different viewpoints and backgrounds.
Exactly right. It is not a unitary work, but bits and pieces of stuff written by different people, at different times, for different purposes. It may have been redacted together (adding a very superficial gloss of unity) but it is not a single work.
The world-weary philosopher of Ecclesiastes is simply not the same “voice” as the iron-age primitives of Judges.
Jaywalking. Nowhere does Jesus, his disciples nor Yahwe Himself ever say you can cross the street when the light is red.
Also, “jaywalking” derives from “walking like a jay” – foolishly.
The Bible warns against denouncing one’s neighbor as a fool.
Implicit acceptance of jaywalking?
Are you not supposed to follow the way(crosswalk) and the light(WALK, DON’T WALK)?
They’d probably use the “follow the laws” scripture.
But there’s a nice little loophole: you are supposed to follow laws so you won’t get punished–Jaywalking laws are rarely enforced. I’ve even argued that an unenforced law is not a law at all.
But sometimes jaywalking laws are enforced; some years ago, I had an aunt who lived in Florida. She was hit by a car, and ended up having to have extensive surgery on her legs to repair the damage done by the accident. But because she was jaywalking, she was the one who got a citation out of the deal.
I was told that, at least at that time, jaywalking was taken very seriously in certain parts of Florida.
ETA: sorry for the hijack; fascinating thread.
Continuing the hijack : interesting. When I got run over and had to have surgery+readaptation done ; and neither my guys nor the biker’s guys could conclusively prove whether or not I was the one jaywalking, or he was the one who burnt a red light (the most probably case IMO being we both did), the verdict was that even IF I was jaywalking, and he hadn’t done anything wrong, he still was in his wrong because one’s supposed to be in total control of one’s vehicle at all times, esp. at a zebra crossing.
He didn’t get into legal troubles or anything like that, but his insurance did have to pony up for damages on top of the medical costs. The guy didn’t seem to mind when he came to see me at the hospital (which I thought was sweet of him), frankly he seemed more relieved not to have killed me than anything.
I think a better question might be whether there are any actions the Bible unambiguouously and consistently condemns as wrong. I would say that the only thing the Bible is really consistent about condemning is idolotry/false gods. As long as you’re loyal to Yahweh, everything else is negotiable.
Abhorrent actions not condoned? Well, that depends.
Plenty of things that are abhorrent aren’t simply things that happened and were put down in writing. They are things that the Tanakh deity Himself did, or directly ordered to be done, by his “chosen” people.
Even when things are done by the Hebrews the book in question often seems to be implying that what they did was okay. Unless divine disapproval comes in its wake. That happens surprisingly rarely, and has a very odd pattern.
But I don’t want to stray from my main point. The “Good Book” really, really sucks.
If anybody wants a list of atrocities that belie divine goodness, I’ll be happy to provide it.
In the meantime, this site is a good place to start.
Especially the Other Original Commentaries section.
It’s clearly not written by someone with any knowledge of the history of the times. It’s more snark than content.
Example, the analysis of Onan:
This is wrong on many levels. First, the author gets the basic story wrong - Tamar does marry Onan and does have sex with him.
Anthropologicaly, the issue of Onan marrying his dead brother’s wife was to provide for her. In nomadic patriarchal societies lacking social welfare, this was important for a woman’s welfare. What was necessary was to have children to carry on the patriarchal line, and to support you (this may be a particularly unpleasant form of society, but that is not the point: all Bronze/Iron Age societies were unpleasant by our social standards).
Onan was thus required to in effect make his dead brother’s wife pregnant to provide for her. Any children of such a union would be considered his brother’s and inherit his brother’s share. However, doing so was directly against his self-interest, as an inheritance that went to his brother’s line, was of necessity attracted from his own inheritance; it would fall under the woman’s control.
Thus, he was compelled to marry her and decided to have sex with her, but instead of doing his social duty he deliberately “spilled his seed on the ground”. The intention was (if you will excuse the expression) to fuck her over, deprive her of her rights, by depriving her of children and the inheritance that goes with them.
In that sense, “God’s” anger at his duplicity makes sense. The message - that women have rights that must be respected - isn’t even that bad, considering. Naturally, the notion that those rights should be protected by marrying and having sex with someone designated by the clan sounds horrible, but that is more a description of an ancient society than a proscriptive moral message.
Point being, that in order to critique an ancient text, you gotta have the first clue as to what it actually says and the context.