CX

You'll get no argument from me about ongoing atrocities. Ultimately though if we are going to answer the OP about whether the HB is suitable reading for young people I'd have to agree with the poster that it is not. At least parts of it. And I don't back away from my contension that there are stories in the HB which are morally reprehensible. That that statement is framed by my own modern sense of morality is irrelevant since, in absence of an absolute moral standard handed down by a divine being, all moral judgements are necessarily framed by the context of the one doing the judging.

CX

Nonetheless your issue then is with Xians, rather than the text itself. I think that is Vork's point. The HB is first and foremost an Epic Myth of the struggles of the Israelites. As such it is to be expected to contain graphic and unpleasant imagery since such is a part of the life of any peoples and especially so with the ancient Israelites.

I personally take issue with the Xian tendancy to pick and choose which parts of the HB to accept and which parts to ignore on the basis of a priori philosophical beliefs, but again that criticism is levelled on some Xians not on the text itself and is, futhermore, irrelevant to discussions of biblical criticism and history.

Mageth

I personally think the real problem in Christiainity is not that they let "young Bible students" read the OT; I see more of a problem with what I see as them often hiding, covering up, or making excuses for the more distasteful parts of the OT.

For example, young children are taught the "shiny, happy" part of "Noah and the Ark", all rainbows and cute fluffy animals, while the fact that, in the story, God drowned hordes of men, women, children, babies, and the vast majority of the "cute, fluffy animals" in the world are igonred or glossed over.

It's all "God saved Noah and his family, and the cute, fluffy animals, and sent a beautiful rainbow promising never to flood the earth again", and none of "God drowned every man, woman, child and animal on earth save a handful". Pastel drawings of a smiling Noah tending a few sheep, giraffes and elephants; no drawings of a terrified woman desparately holding her newborn infant above the rising waters.

CX

What about the Chick tract? Frankly, the whole Noah thing drives me nuts. As a father of young children I feel beseiged by all the Noah's Ark crap everywhere with the cute animals and smiling noah. In my house we refer to Noah's Ark as "The Global Genocide Barge".

Mageth

Yeah, there are a few exceptions put out by some, and some people like Chick that aren't shy about showing the "not nice" side of Christianity's God - but with the intent of striking fear in the heart of "sinners".

Good one.

Magus55

Why do you consider them attrocious? Because they would be wrong in today's society? Considering the amount of crude pornography, violence, etc. in modern day, the Bible isn't exactly X-rated. I find it amusing that people here find verses like Ezekial 23 using words like flesh and issue, to be offensive and sick, yet would be the first people to support the continued prosperity of the multi-billion dollar pornography industry. In other words, you're being hypocritical.

Magus55

I think you have a poor conception of what the world was like during Noah's days. I don't imagine women desperately holding their newborn infants above rising waters to be an accurate depiction of those times. You seem to forget the whole world was purely evil. The Bible doesn't call mass amounts of people purely evil very often. Sinners yes, purely evil, even the children, no. You also forget that God gave people over a 100 years to repent of their evil. Its not like God randomly flooded the whole Earth, and never warned anyone. God doesn't judge without warning first. So lets see, purely evil society, who is warned about a coming judgement by God, yet are so evil and hateful that they ignore God and are surprised when God follows through on His warning.

budgie

The bible I grew up with had some interesting Albrecht Durer prints. Including the one you hypothesize.
-jim

Celsus

What is this beast you speak of, and what is wrong with it?
I think the OP sounds like raving paranoia, reading the Bible while forgetting the context in which it was written. We've been through several of these arguments before where people mistake the (modern, usually literalist) interpretation for the artifact itself. The artifact should be understood in its context, and then the problems vanish. Does anyone have a problem with a bright 12-year-old getting his hands on the Iliad and wanting to read it?

Joel

Mageth

And I suppose you claim to have an accurate conception?

No; it's an accurate description of mothers of all times. And I suppose imagining a mother doing that might make you feel a bit uncomfortable about God's actions. It's better for you to imagine maniacally evil mothers gleefully watching their children drown.

You seem to forget that the story is a myth. In any case, the story does not say that the "whole world was purely evil." Further, the hyperbole used in the account still would not make it unreasonable to assume that mothers were concerned for their children. What do you think a mother would do, hold her child's head under for the sheer joy of it?

The story doesn't say the children were purely evil. How could a newborn child, or a three-year-old, be "purely evil"? You're reading more into the account than is there.

This is a very questionable interpretation of the text, but if it makes you feel better about God's decision to kill everyone save a few (after himself repenting for making them in the first place, something you seem to be forgetting), then go for it.

Show me in the Bible where God warned anyone save Noah, and specifically where he warned everyone.

So, based on your interpretation of what God can or cannot do, you assume God warned everyone?

How exactly did God warn the three-year-olds and under, BTW?

Questionable. How can a one-month-old infant be "purely evil"?

An assumption not supported by the text.

A fanciful invention on your part, but one I can find no support for in the text.