The Ten Commandments. No Ass Coveting and Few Others.
Right here, God says you're a jackass!
As we all remember in our last episode, we covered the four God commandments. You know the ones that instructed humanity what not to do against God, those terrible sins by which you, personally, can hurt the feelings of the Lord of the Universe, the prince of peace, the big guy himself. Unfortunately, as my readers know, I simply couldn’t answer the riddle of how anything we did, anything at all, would ever be of harm to an omnipotent deity. We are like yeast cells to him and ask yourself, has yeast ever really made you mad or made you cry? Ever??
I suspect the answer to God’s hurt feelings just doesn’t exist and like all the other puzzles of similar ilk lying within these pages, theists will insist we file it under the “Mysterious Ways” heading and never look directly at it again. If we don’t think about it, it won’t bother us. See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. Well, I’m a speakin’! Ignorance isn’t bliss; it’s just goddamned ignorant. Is that really what we are striving for here? I think not, my little buttercups! It’s my philosophy to pull all the assorted trash out of the closet and see what trite little trinkets it really consists of. Speaking personally on those first four commandments, I’ve gotten better advice off gum wrappers. And Simpson episodes? They are veritable tomes of human wisdom. The Lord my God in-frakking-deed!
But this episode, boys and girls, isn’t about those God Commandments. It’s about the human ones, five through ten, the back of the bus regulations. These are the laws meant to protect us from ourselves or, to be more accurate, each other. Now again, let’s take the Christian argument that the Ten Commandments are the very basis of our legal system today. Well, obviously the first four have nothing to do with any recognizable legal framework at work in America today, but the Fundamentalists could argue that our system with its vast number and variety of laws, restrictions and regulations is based innately on the next six. We’re going to do an in-depth check on that little fallacy right now.
By the way, I in no way mean to imply that any fundamentalist would ever consider those first four to be unimportant. Obviously, they would place respect for their bloody-handed God at the very top of their rigid pyramid of order, far above any respect for those things merely human in origin or, for that matter, those mere humans themselves. History is chock full of Christians massacring those who didn’t worship their God, who worshipped their God in a differing manner and those who worshipped their God in nearly identical ways but who owned a lot of cool shit that the first Christians wanted. If you hold your God first, ordinary people matter little.
In human affairs, the first commandment really should have been greed. The rest you could have just made up as you went along. Much like they did.
Onward you non-Christian soldiers for there are people to enlighten.
We start with commandment five: Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
Most of us who grew up with this directive have placed it in the background and never really thought about it. Of course you’re supposed to honor your father and mother. Duh! But after doing quite a bit of reading and thinking on this, my opinion has metamorphosed some. This is likely to be the most socially progressive commandment of the ten. The original intent here was not to insist on respect of people who may not even deserve it. It was an edict demanding that you take care of your parents even when they have become old and no longer economically useful, a kind of mandated and wholly privatized social security system. If everyone takes care of their own, there will be less poverty, starvation and misery. The logic for a primitive society is hard to argue with.
Overall, I’d have to give this commandment a thumbs up. In the interests of truth, however, I also have to point out that I do not get along well with my own parents. As any long time reader of this blog is aware, my atheism has strained our relationship to the breaking point. I believe I’m out of the will completely by now and when they find out about the Blessed Atheist Bible Study, it’ll be over for sure. So ironically, the one commandment I respect the most is the one I seem unable to follow. Damn my blackened and withered soul!
The next commandment is too important to be anything but the climax of my case so I’m going to skip number six for now and plunge into seven: You shall not commit adultery.
Ooooh! Well, we do see this mating jealousy even in the animal kingdom, monogamous marriage, driving away potential rivals and the like. This whole concept is a veritable foundation of evolution for we want our genes passed down, ours alone, not the genes of slick talkin’ Leisure Suit Larry over there. But at the same time if we can slip one in on the side and get Jim-Bob there to raise one of our kids as his own… Well, you can’t deny it happens and evolutionarily it’s still our genes.
It’s morally reprehensible but common. Evolution certainly favors an ethics system but hardly a perfect one. It uses a game theory of life: that which will get us ahead will be favored but not to the exclusion of other strategies. Evolution and ourselves are always hedging our bets. Both cheating and loyalty have some success. However, civilization is also dependent on stepping away from our animal instincts and forming something a bit higher, a new moral zeitgeist so to speak. We need to rise above thinking with our groins. Will this be successful? I’ll have to get back to you on that, but I’m pretty sure a moderate level of adultery will ensue well into the future no matter how high we rise.
Just to be clear here. I don’t favor adultery and have never even cheated on a girlfriend let alone my wife, ever, and seriously frown upon those who do. Nonetheless, I am quite aware of humanity’s foibles. Of course, if you use that old Fundy chestnut that if you have lusted in your heart then you have committed adultery then I’ve sinned on a daily basis. Though in my most humble opinion, what’s lusted in the heart stays in the heart. If they want to worship some kind of omniscient peeping tom, that’s up to them, but the sum-bitch gives me the creeps.
Eight: You shall not steal.
This one like the prohibition against adultery is obvious but hardly overwhelming. Killing and stealing and taking women as concubines from any outside group is not just frequently allowed but, at times, encouraged or even mandated. Doubt this? Read Samuel 15 and the God commanded Genocide of the Amalekites. Remember them? Or Deuteronomy 21, 10-14, the official guide on how to take conquered women as sex slaves. But those tidbits lie in the future.
Stealing, like adultery, causes conflict and hard feelings. Societies can only endure so much of these before collapsing and to reduce friction between men, families and clans, rules such as these are put in place. Don’t sleep with my wife. Don’t steal my shit. Any questions? Are there actually societies where these “crimes” are encouraged? They wouldn’t be societies for long. This is a given.
I’m also apologize about the male centeredness of this post but these dealt primarily with men. There wasn’t anything about coveting husbands so ladies… have at it. Just not his ass! But that’s later.
Nine: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Don’t lie. Don’t say your neighbor did something he didn’t. Same as before, this one is a conflict preventer within a small tribe, but a paradigm shift in jurisprudence, it is not. Were the Hebrews lying bastards before this commandment? Not likely! Like all the other people on earth, they told enough truth to keep the tribe together, but also like every other society, I’m sure fibs and fictions weren’t unknown, just discouraged. Hell, just look at the whoppers Moses told. Burning bush, my ass.
Ten, the coveting ban: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey (ass) or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
A prohibition against envy and jealousy while potentially admirable, is hardly the foundation of Christianity-dominated capitalism rampant throughout the western world today. Isn’t the very basis of our consumer culture that we want what our neighbors have, or even better, what they don’t have… yet? Isn’t every ad campaign centered on creating covetousness in its targets? You want this (insert product here). Yeah, Baby! You know you do! C’mon people! We live amongst the most covetous population that has ever existed and who are predominately Christian, yet here is one of the commandments strictly prohibiting what our entire world is based on. WTF!
We have Sarah Palin @ www.dumbbitch.com (Sorry ladies, I couldn’t resist) trumpeting the importance of the Ten Commandments and then swearing she will restart our covetous-rooted economy better than the other guys. Does anyone else see the bullshit laced throughout her and other’s arguments? Are not these opposite and contradictory goals? Has she even read these things? For that matter, can she even read? Hmm? The world does wonder. But who the hell needs to read when you’re so damned cute?
Rants against coveting smack of the Buddhist ideals of giving up greed and desire, and I have to reject this entire notion completely. not that’s it’s been twisted into violence the way that so many other beliefs have, but still. The very essence of humanity is to desire, and, may I say, covet. We work very hard to achieve that which we covet whether it be a toaster from Walmart or the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, the love of our wife or the look of our children. Many things can be beautif to covet. It is these desires that have driven our society upwards to better places, and coveting and desire in moderation are essential to our happiness. Giving up my desires and lusts and… covetations (is that a word?) is equivalent to surrendering my emotions. I’m not bloodly likely to do either, but I’m just as bloody unlikely to surrender completely to them. Moderation!
These flaws make us human and I’m unwilling to become something else at this point. Not that I’m in any position to choose right now… Even so!
Now to return to the big one, Commandment number six: You shall not murder.
Well, goddamn it anyway! I was just getting the rifle out too. Now my afternoon is pretty much screwed! I jest, of course, the rifle’s in the shop, but they gave me this beautiful machete as a loaner, though. More work but the exercise would do me good.
Now, in no way am I ever insinuating that this restriction is not a good and necessary part of legal jurisprudence. In truth, I wish we as a species followed this particular statute more closely. But! But! BUT! Let’s assume this entire fairy tale is true and God came down and handed out the Commandments just as written. It’s not like that law wasn’t already in place in every society on earth. It’s hardly an epiphany, people!
Holy Shit, Jim-Bob! You better put down that bloody-knife and read this! No! No! No! Stop chasing that neighbor boy. The little bastard’s off-limits now!
Thou shall not murder has been on our books long before there were actual books. It’d be quite difficult to build any kind of society in which members killed other members indiscriminately. One of the absolute, most-fundamental prerequisites of civilization is not to kill each other. Think about it! How long would a tribe last if the hunting parties sent out in the morning came back at half strength in the evening? And those survivors returned munching on the human remains of their brothers! We’d not only be uncivilized: we’d be extinct. Even with an intelligence far beyond ours, a species who commonly murders their own relatives would never advance beyond living in trees and killing each other with coconuts. It simply can’t happen!
I’m not saying that the world can’t survive a little killing. It has and does. We’re resilient to say the least. It’s who gets killed that is most important. We seldom kill those who we regard as “Us” but regularly slaughter those we see as “Them”. Christians are forever hedging on the differences between murder and killing, but how else could a Christian ever support war or capital punishment of any kind? How could you have ever justified the mass slaughter of the infidels, so common through out all history, holding high a restriction on killing anyone? The difference between killing and murder is determined on where you draw the “Us” and “Them” line. It’s unthinkable to harm an “Us”, but a “Them”? Well…
In no way, shape or form am I implying that Christians are the only one who have done this. All humanity engages in this type of judgement constantly. We having varying degrees of both “Us” and “Them” and it can change on a daily basis. Islamic radicals blow up the World Trade Center and the whole Muslim religion slips further into “Them”. Certain nations helped us in our War on Terror and they slide closer to “Us”. This constantly shifting perspective lies both on a personal and a societal scale. Our societal consensus of who we see as “Them” is merely the cumulative total of all our personal scales.
If someone is kind they move closer to “Us”. If someone is mean or rude or cruel, they rapidly slide into “Them” As they go further from “Us”, it becomes increasingly easy to commit acts of aggression or violence against them. When a 6 feet 4 inch 240 lb. male breaks into our house at 2:30 a.m., they instantly slam to the far right side of “Them” allowing us to react in whatever way is necessary to protect our family. But at the same time, it has been difficult historically to add people to the “Us” group who are a different color, or who act, sound or seem different. It’s our nature to view differences as suspicious and “Them”. We don’t learn to be racist. We learn not to be!
We must always keep in mind that in spite of our bloody human nature, we need not be ruled by its dictates alone. We can progress, and the progress of civilization can be measured directly by the number of people we willingly place in the “Us” group. All of history could be viewed in these terms. As “Us” groups grow in size, civilization rises. As they shrink, societal progress reverses and we enter a “Dark Age”. One only need look at the rise and fall of the Roman Empire or any other empire or nation to see the truth in this. The very peak of civilization would be for us as a whole to consider everyone “Us”.
Where the hell am I going with this, you ask…? Uh…? Sometimes I do have to wonder myself, but I think this sums up the sixth commandment best. The ancient Hebrews viewed this not as a rigid commandment not to kill anyone, only as a rule to not kill other Hebrews. As with any people on earth, they killed plenty of others, vast nations of others, really. They put their victims into the “Them” category. In their defense, there are very few groups of people surviving today who have not done similar atrocities. It’s the reason they have survived. A little cussed meanness has been a benefit evolutionarily. The meek? Those poor bastards will never inherit the earth, and whoever thought they would is an idiot. Sorry Jesus, but the truth must be said. Without some serious assistance from the strong, the meek are going to have their asses kicked and be buried in forgotten unmarked mass graves… just like they always have been.
I know this is off topic, but I feel strongly here. You ever wonder how a religion based on peace survived all these centuries? You ever wonder why Christians don’t just throw out the Old Testament altogether? These are intricately linked questions. Christianity has survived because at its core is a message of peace to draw people into the “Us” camp, but at the same time it retained the terrible potential and rational for violence contained in the Old Testament. This dual and at times contradictory purposes gave it both the carrot and the stick. Draw some in with the love of the New and smack down those who stand against “Us” with the Yahweh of the Old. Between these two poles lie an unlimited range of action, a supreme flexibility. There is little that lay outside of these parameters for nearly anything can be justified. With this adaptability, it’s no wonder they’ve been around so long.
But strong doesn’t always mean right.
In the world today, our “Us” has grown greatly the last century but I’m not sure we have it in us to go the distance. It seems to me that the fundamentalist ideology, whether Muslim or Christian, stands in our way. They are separators rather than gatherers, destroyers rather than glue. Look at how their churches continue to fragment over such “contentious” (bullshit! (Oops! Did I say that out loud?)) issues as whether to allow gays to serve in clergy or to even be part of the church at all. Look at how Christian fundamentalists have used immigration, gay marriage and the war on terror to divide, not only our nation, but the world. Look at how fundamentalist Muslims have used terror and murder to achieve the same goal. They use hate and fear to divide, and it’s working.
“If you hold your God first, ordinary people matter little”
I’d go a little further. If you truly believe in an afterlife, nothing you do in this life that hurts others is really of any lasting importance. Fundies can rave all they like about “where is your morality without God,” but their overriding morality teaches them that the only important thing is that someone’s soul is saved, and it doesn’t matter a damn how much harm they cause in this brief life to achieve that aim. An atheist who harms someone, on the other hand, has to deal with the consequences of diminishing, to whatever degree, the only chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that that person will ever get. So, which is likely to be the more thoughtful of other people’s feelings? (In general, of course.It would be wrong to stereotype.)
As for the murder commandment, and where you went with it, I was almost hand-clapping and cheering by the end. Great job!
It’s worth noting that when crossbows were invented, they were considered such a terror-weapon that the pope of the time banned them. But guess what, only against Christians. Not that it made a blind bit of difference; Christian armies were already using them against each other with gay abandon…
I have to go teach, and so don’t have time for a proper response, so for now I’ll just say:
Standing ovation, KK!
Yes, good job!
Oh hear hear!!
Your point was made about yeast cells never making anyone mad or making them cry. The point was made, but the example was a poor one.
I have had some yeast cells between my toes that made me cry. Right now I have some yeast cells under my overhanging belly and in my groin that really piss me off.
Perhaps if you rewrite this for between-covers publication you can pick another type of cell.
Why do I keep thinking that Moses in the header picture is Mr. Deity?
Blimey, you’re right!
KK, would blackmail suit your nefarious money-making scheme…?
Hmmm. Sure. Maybe even some kind of skeptical protection racket. It doesn’t have quite the romantic appeal of pure bank robbery, but it may get the job done.
It may not seem like it, but this last post has the record for not just the longest post on BABS but also the most rewritten. I was pretty satisfied on how it turned out, but still feel I could do better. Do you ever feel like you could continue refining your work forever and never perfect it enough.
I feel in need of a brain upgrade. KK 2.0 or so.
“Do you ever feel like you could continue refining your work forever and never perfect it enough”
Yep, and there’s *still* always a glaring typo visible to all after it’s posted!
Tip top KK!
Excellent post, KK. I loved the part about coveting.
Have you guys seen Robin Williams’ routine on Bible miracles? Just discovered this accidentally, and thought y’all might find it funny, too:))
Enjoy!
“Don’t eat the shellfish. I’ll tell you why later…”
Brilliant!
“Don’t eat the shellfish! I’ll tell you why later…”
See- that was exactly my point about things happening all out of order in the bible. I said this before, but I’ll say it again here–
Why did Yahweh give the 10 Commandments to Moses? Why not to Noah (fresh start, and all that)? That whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing could’ve been avoided had they had proper Guidance. Or, heck, for that matter, why not to Adam & Eve? Cain might have thought twice, mightn’t he, before asking his brother to go for that fateful walk…
What I’ve noticed is how much God has changed throughout the first two books of the Bible. To put it better, how much our species view of him has changed. He went from a manlike being who would walk around and meet people to a amorphous being of fire and smoke, from someone you could chat with to something that only the highest of priests could talk to.
Every part of this, to me, shows a growing priest class gathering power into it’s hands, and, of course, it all starts with Moses. Abraham is not the father of this cult, Moses is.
And ‘He’ will change even more in character, as you likely suspect.
A guy by the name of Jack Miles wrote a book called, “God: A Biography” with this very idea as the theme. He treated God as the “main character” in a piece of literature.
Mind you, he was an Episcopalian…
“Cain might have thought twice, mightn’t he, before asking his brother to go for that fateful walk…”
Is it only me that *always* pictures James Dean in East Of Eden, when that subject comes up?
In the Cain role, I’m assuming. So who’d you get to play Abel?
Well it was Richard Davalos in the movie. (Yes, I had to look it up on IMDB)
Why, KK–you don’t mean to say that God has…*evolved*, do you!:))
Bite your tongue woman! I would never deign to teach something so “controversial”!
You know me. I always color within the lines. Since your sitting on my box of crayons, would you please pass me the Bloody-Handed-Red. There’s an action scene coming up. ;-}
Oh, yes, of course. And here’s Pus Yellow, Axe-handle Brown, Burnt-At-The-Stake Black, and Sacrificial Dove White…:))
Oops! Forgot the Render-Unto-Caesar Purple!
Seeing as this post was readily enjoyed, maybe a debate on the subject of morality would be as well. Collision is a very good watch, Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens are great! I think anyone on either side of the coin would agree its a great watch.
Amazon.com: COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson: Movies & TV
I’m impressed at how much writing you did here, KK. However, after reading the bulk of it (can’t blame me for skimming here and there, right? it is a novel, after all) it seems like the conclusion here is that you agree with each of these commandments in their intent. Your disagreement is with how “Fundies” have applied these truths. Does that about sum it up?
You say that Christians try to pull in unbelievers with the love of the New Testament but hang on to the God of the Old Testament to justify heinous actions. But isn’t it just as true a statement that atheists (in particular New Atheists) often only use the God of the Old Testament when ranting against Christianity, often completely ignoring the New Testament that contains the covenant modern Christianity is supposed to follow? I mean, is that not EXACTLY what you’ve been doing since you started this blog? It seems that if you want people to be open-minded to your opinions, then you logically must take the Bible as a whole. Otherwise, to draw a parallel, you’re left thinking that Severus Snape is an evil man without possibility of reconciliation because you’ve only read the first thee Harry Potter books. If one is truly to do a Bible study, then one must study the ENTIRE Bible, not the bits and pieces that make oneself feel better.
You certainly are welcome to your opinions, and I actually enjoy reading them. But seeing as this is a Bible study and you seem to agree in this case with what the Bible actually says, I’d say 98% of this post ought to go under another heading, wouldn’t you?
I’ll keep reading. I think we might all be surprised how much of the Bible you actually agree with.
No, it isn’t. Ironically, it’s what you’re doing. You’re saying that KK is concentrating mainly on the OT, while not having waited until he’s reached the NT. Admittedly you can’t read it any faster than he writes the posts, but criticising him for starting at the beginning and following the logical procedure of working through it in the order as laid down, would seem a tad disingenuous.
Point taken, but KK is using what he’s seeing in Exodus and acting like it’s the law Christians are supposed to live by. That’s like reading the first two chapters of The God Delusion and saying that Dawkins has no case because he doesn’t make any affirmative points. Would any of you like to go on record and say THAT statement is true, fact, and hilarious to spend a whole blog talking on?
I think we know what’s happening here, Daz. The Bible is the most-scrutinized book in the history of the world, with people taking it a million different ways. KK is choosing to take his own interpretation, which he is certainly entitled to do. I would just ask that he not make comments about what “Fundies” believe without taking into consideration what modern Evangelicals like myself have been trying to tell him that we actually DO believe. I would certainly never try to tell anybody that all atheists support suicide because it’s the quickest means to a Darwinian end. So let’s all be fair to both parties and just keep the text the issue.
I rarely go a day without seeing a post by a fundamentalist saying that the whole Bible, not just the NT, is the literal, unerring and unchanging Word Of God, that it contains no contradictions, ambiguities or impossibilities. Most, if asked, will claim the the whole book is a perfectly good guide to moral behaviour, and that their God is the ultimate example of such moral behaviour. When backed into a corner they will hastily point to the NT trumping the old, but not before. You should maybe take a look at some of PZ Myers’ posts about hate-mail, or have a look at Richard Dawkins’ collection, before projecting your idea of good, Bible-based morals and beliefs onto the whole group.
I quote:
“I hope you die slowly and you fucking burn in hell! You dammed
blasfemy!!! Right now you are rotting on the inside… But you must
now (sic) that there is indeed a God! A great god! And he will forgive you if you regret from your fucking behavior. And you should realise thatyour entire life has been a delusion…and that right now your destiny is all fucked up! Fucking atheist!!!!!!!!!!!”
This is not unusual. I’ve seen many like it on comments boards on any subject these people don’t like, from atheism to the theory of evolution, on discussions of the Big Bang and those of morals. Take a look at some of the recently discussed Bob Hutton’s posts. His language may be more polite and better spelled, but he’s just as small-minded and quick to judge anyone who doesn’t follow, not only his own religion in general, but his own narrow interpretation of scripture in particular. Given the power, these people would be no better than the current fundamentalist Islamic demagogues. The name changes, and some of the scripture, but the hate-speech stays the same.
And therein lies the inherent problem. We are so quick to lump the hate-speakers in with those that give opinions but do so in a polite manner. Would you say that I am the same way as the person whose quote you posted? Because you label us both as fundamentalists. Are we the same?
What seems to be necessary is to ask yourself about people like me that visit this blog, your blog and others. And when I say people like me, I don’t mean the ranters who sound as uneducated as they probably are on the subject. I’m talking about Christians who are aware of both sides of the coin. Christians who have read both Dawkins and Deuteronomy.
And when you ask yourself about us, do you see us as inflammatory hate-mongers that are bent on trying to destroy you and hoping bad things for your life? Or do you see us defending a God we believe in from some pretty vicious attacks by folks like KK on this blog? If you’re wondering about who is spewing the hate-speech, take a look at who you believe is considering the issue thoughtfully on both sides and which one’s language is more inconsiderate and abrasive.
I may have at times labeled atheists under one generalization in the past, and for that I am sorry. Everyone is an individual, atheist, Christian or other belief considered. I would just hope that you would consider those of us for what we are and not just lump me in with your quotee or Bob Hutton unless you truly believe we are cut from the same cloth. If you do that, you might actually catch something interesting from the thoughtful ones. If you’re willing to listen.
“We are so quick to lump the hate-speakers in with those that give opinions but do so in a polite manner.”
Hate-speech is hate-speech, no matter how politely framed.
No, I wouldn’t count you as the same, for the simple fact that you haven’t produced hate-speech. That doesn’t mean that a vast number of fundamentalists don’t produce hate-speech, though.
“Or do you see us defending a God we believe in from some pretty vicious attacks by folks like KK on this blog?”
How could we attack something that doesn’t exist? We attack the concept, we attack the idea that this rather laughable, contradictory, amoral and primitive myth, is held up as an example of shining virtue. It is those who are attacked here, the hate-spewers and would-be theocratic demagogues.
I stick to my claim, made in a couple of places on this blog as well as on my own blog and elsewhere, that anyone who reads this book and comes away with a decent set of morals must be applying morals developed outside that dogma, and cherry-picking passages from the book to fit those pre-existing moral decisions. The whole point of the exercise is to point out, often with humour, sometimes with disgust, or both, the many ways in which these stories, these saintly people, and this god, are totally lacking in what we would consider any good moral character. If you see that as ‘petty’ and ‘vicious’, so be it. We see children being taught hogwash in place of science, homosexuals being driven to suicide, or denied the same rights as other citizens, churches receiving tax-breaks for espousing unproven myth as fact, people the world over oppressing and killing each other merely for believing different things about the messages attributed to a non-existent being, and you don’t think we have the right to a little vitriolic humour?
I’d like to ask you a question in return. Why do you say ‘us’? Why willingly group yourself with people who do nothing but spread hate, fear and oppression in the name of their ‘loving god’ (a phrase they often use in the same sentence as wishing a slow painful death on people of other beliefs)? While I might find your ideas about science silly and uninformed, to say the least, I certainly wouldn’t group you with them, yet you yourself seem willing to do so. Most odd.
Mr Hubbo, we are not the ones who insist that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. If this book is the unchanging and inerrant word of a supreme deity and his testament on a moral life, then I should be able to take Books and chapters out of it and use them literally as stand alone morality lessons. This is what I am doing. I take this book in a chronological order and view it as if it were literally interpreted.
This difference you espouse between a new and an old covenant is so at odds with a perfect being, it makes no sense to me. Why would you perfect God need to revise his plan? Was the first one not working? Why would he feel the need to change everything by sacrificing himself to himself to change the rules he made? I see nothing of perfection here. I see fecklessness, randomness, senselessness.
Your insistence on viewing the Bible as a whole is nothing more than picking what you want to believe. When there are contradictory parts you simply choose the ones that makes the most sense to you. The Westboro Baptists choose one set of passages to emphasize, and you choose another. If this book has the truth written so plainly within it for everyone to see, why are there so many different Christian sects who have radically differing interpretations. Why are churches breaking up left and right over questions such as gays and health care? Why are there an estimated 30,000 minor sects of Christianity, most who think that they have the real truth? Even if you take just the major denominations, the marketplace of religion offers a vast banquet of interpretations. I see this as strong evidence of a lack of divine guidance.
You continue to bring forth examples of Darwin’s or Dawkin’s work in the same vein, but we have never claimed that these people are infallible. They are human and fit into a different standard. When you insist on the infallibility of your source, you force yourself into a vastly harsher judgement of that source.
Logically, I don’t have to take the Bible as a whole every time I study it. Everything should be able to be broken down into its major constituent parts and examined, and when I find inadequacies, I am fully within reason to point them out. Just because you think that there are passages later in the book which change the tone of the passages I mock only shows me that you view this book as more of a cipher or code than a real book. You study it until you find the meaning you want just as the Muslims study the Koran and find what they want to.
In addition, if you think I agree with the commandments as a whole, you should reread this section. I understand why HUMANs came up with them, but to say that I think the first four commandments are just is taking everything I said backwards.
You may be a great person Mr Hubbo and make a wonderful neighbor but just like the neighbors I have who believe in astrology and psychics, I may love them, but I don’t feel the need to take their beliefs as a whole before I can systematically deconstruct them.
This is a Bible Study not a biblical apologetics program. I love the Bible as a study of human relations and how ancient peoples explained the world around them. Like Homer and Gilgamesh, these stories have a great value there, but as with all ancient epics, dragging them into the modern day and insisting they be used as guides to a just life is nonsense. I would no more use Abraham as a moral guide that I would use Achilles.
Dear Mr. Hubbo, your sincerity must disarm reproof
)
What is truly ironic is that you yourself, Mr. Hubbo, are a much better person than the god you worship. You would never condemn an entire city to destruction, righteous and unrighteous alike, for that would be unjust. You would surely stand with Abraham, pleading for the twenty, the ten. But is it not strange that it is the humble human who must point out that inherent injustice to the Giver of Justice and the Law Himself?
Thanks Amy and your candor is much appreciated.
One of things I’m sure you’re aware of is that sort of slogan that Christians use frequently: “It’s not a religion; it’s a relationship.” I agree with this statement, that the best way to know God is to develop a relationship with Him. However, those who do not believe in God have no means with which to begin a relationship, so even if God were trying to defend Himself to you it would be like talking to a brick wall. Sometimes the only way God’s voice can be heard is through others. I know this sounds a bit hollow, but sometimes we don’t listen to our siblings’ point in a fight until Mom or Dad makes it for them. Think of it that way.
That said, I do find it interesting that you made the comment I’ve heard so often about Christians being nice, but their God being cruel and capricious. Yet you and other atheists in a sense claim to know better the Christian God than those that actually believe He exists. Isn’t that just as ironic? “If He were to exist (and I don’t believe that in the slightest), He would be exactly this way because that’s how I read and interpreted His book. It doesn’t matter what anybody else tries to tell me about a God I think is non-existent and therefore have no need to try to understand. I know what’s right.” To use a couple of common atheistic symbols, how come atheists don’t also claim to know better what would come of pixies, unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why is it only the Christian God that atheists claim superior knowledge of in spite of their disbelief?
If any atheist reading this blog would truly like to know more, I would recommend reading not only the Bible but a Systematic Theology book. That would be comparable (sort of) to reading Darwin AND Dawkins. Take it one step further. You’ll find many of your common objections and their responses by some of the best theological minds of our time. If someone actually wants to give this a shot, I recommend Norman Geisler’s.
I guess my overarching point in this whole shot is this: those who will develop a relationship with someone and take the time to get to know them will obviously know them the best. So when trying to understand that person, wouldn’t it make the most rational and logical sense to ask those that know that person the best, rather than trying to formulate your own opinions without taking the time to get to know them? Perhaps that’s the tack that some atheists ought to take when approaching the Bible and Christian God.
Mr Hubbo, please don’t take this as a personal jibe at you. From the few off topic snippets of conversation you’ve taken part in, I believe you to be a well adjusted and quite nice person. Certainly not one of those whose views this blog is primarily aimed at. That said:
“Yet you and other atheists in a sense claim to know better the Christian God than those that actually believe He exists”
No, we claim to look with unblinkered eyes at the texts (The Bible) which literalist (‘fundy’) Christians claim is the ultimate, unerring guide to the character and wishes of that god. What we don’t do is ‘interpret’ it. After all, these people claim it’s ‘literal’, in which case there is no interpretation needed.
If you’re applying interpretations, then you’re not taking it literally. To make interpretations you have to be applying judgements based on ideas from outside the dogma, as I said above.
I sort of see your point about reading the works of people who’ve interpreted it, but that’s not where the grass-roots believers get their ideas from. They take them from the book itself (the KJ, mostly). You seem to be making the same error that Tony Blair kept making in his debate with Hitchens the other day. Thinking that your own, probably quite lofty, interpretations are the grass-roots norm. To make a scientific parallel, that’s like saying everyone in Plato’s time knew the Earth is round, because a relatively small intelligentsia knew that it is.
“No, we claim to look with unblinkered eyes at the texts (The Bible) which literalist (‘fundy’) Christians claim is the ultimate, unerring guide to the character and wishes of that god. What we don’t do is ‘interpret’ it. After all, these people claim it’s ‘literal’, in which case there is no interpretation needed.”
Three quick points. First, if you’re considering only the text, then you have absolutely no basis for making any claims about God. The statements made by folks such as yourself are nothing more than your opinions, which are quite rooted themselves in as much dogma as anything I would say. Don’t pretend for a second that anybody on this blog is taking an objective look at the text for what it says. You mock the book based on how it differs from your worldview. To me that seems a rather good definition of interpretation.
Second point. If you are really looking at the text, then why ignore time and time again what is being told to you about the text, which is to look at it as an entire body of work? Naturalists constantly lash out at ID proponents for taking snippets of Darwin out of context, but are no better when critiquing the Bible. Looking at the text means looking at ALL of the text, not just the parts that support your point. If you can look at the God of the OT and call Him mean and capricious, but then look at the God of the NT and realize that He is the same God but does not come across as mean and capricious, then you must ask yourself, “What am I missing?” That type of question warrants further research (just like science), not the mockery that is so rampant here. That just seems like lazy work, particularly on a blog that is called a Bible STUDY.
Third, the Bible is considered to be literal only inasmuch as the text dictates a literal interpretation. Looking at Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc. as literal only is bad hermeneutics. The text has but one MEANING, and that meaning can be either literal or symbolic. But trying to shoehorn the Bible into a “literal only” pattern is a wrong approach, and would put you in the same position of “interpreting” the text to fit what you want.
I like you, Daz. Much of what you say seems educated and you are not typically a ranter. And for the most part you have been gracious and welcoming of my comments here. However, as you are a frequent contributor on a “Bible study” website, I encourage you to take that phrase “literally” and see what is being said on both sides of the coin. Again, read a Systematic Theology book, because it’s all about what Evangelical Christians believe based on what the Bible says. Dogmatic issues (Calvinism, Rapture of the church, etc.) aside, you will get a comprehensive look at what the other side actually believes. Don’t sell yourself short. Take the opportunity to educate yourself further. You might be glad you did.
“First, if you’re considering only the text, then you have absolutely no basis for making any claims about God”
You claim that there are other sources than the Bible, and related materiel like the gnostic gospels, which give ‘direct’ (please note quotes) evidence of the existence, character and wishes of this god? To clarify, I wouldn’t consider later commentaries and such as being primary evidence, as they add no new information, merely being the opinions of the authors or their church bosses.
“You mock the book based on how it differs from your worldview”
I agree, especially as concerns moral behaviour. That’s because the whole point is that the morals of the people who recorded these myths are no longer the prevalent morals upon which we base our societies — even literalists don’t. They claim to take it literally whilst (a): many of them don’t even know, or manage to ignore, much of the more, shall we say distasteful, materiel, and (b): cherry-pick the bits they want to uphold and quietly ignore the other bits.
“f you can look at the God of the OT and call Him mean and capricious, but then look at the God of the NT and realize that He is the same God but does not come across as mean and capricious”
Good point. Your God is perfect, right? Yet he holds two almost completely opposing points of view in the two testaments. So, which view is perfect, and which is imperfect? Well, he’s perfect, so obviously neither. A perfect being could never hold an imperfect view. Feel free to continue that circle of reasoning as long as you like. I’m dizzy already.
“That type of question warrants further research (just like science), not the mockery that is so rampant here” (my italics)
If we’re going to do this ‘just like science’, I suggest you cease all talk of ‘a personal knowledge of God’ and such. If you can’t show it, measure it or point to extremely persuasive evidence, it ain’t science. At the risk of pigeon-holing you as ‘just another fundy’, I find it curious that you’ll suggest the application of the scientific method when talking about the Bible, but refuse to follow it when talking about global floods, men living in fishes, empty tombs automatically leading to the assumption that the corpse left of its own accord, and much much more.
Application of the scientific method leaves me no conclusion than that there is absolutely no evidence pointing to the existence of god(s), other than human-made mythology. Even the concept of god-hood is a human-made idea.
“Third, the Bible is considered to be literal only inasmuch as the text dictates a literal interpretation.”
By you. Most, however view it a lot more literally than you do. If a passage isn’t marked ‘Parable’ in twelve-foot high neon lettering, they take it as a literal description of real events and instructions.
“I encourage you to take that phrase “literally” and see what is being said on both sides of the coin”
My side of the coin is that these are myths. Most of the characters are mythological, including the main ‘God’ character. As such, the book is only useful in what it tells me about the many people who claim to take it literally, the absurdity of which is exactly what KK is pointing out by ‘mocking’ it.
“You mock the book based on how it differs from your worldview”
No, Mr. Hubbo, I mock the book for how it differs from “our” worldview. This book doesn’t fit in at all in today’s world unless you start dropping parts wholesale which is precisely what most Christians have done, and honestly, I salute them for it. All they need to do is drop the rest and we as a society can move on.
I really need to check in here more regularly…
“If any atheist reading this blog would truly like to know more, I would recommend reading not only the Bible but a Systematic Theology book.”
and
“First, if you’re considering only the text, then you have absolutely no basis for making any claims about God.”
and
“Again, read a Systematic Theology book, because it’s all about what Evangelical Christians believe based on what the Bible says.”
But, according to the Bible itself, and also according to Christians, nothing other than the text of the Bible itself can be used as a source of information for Christianity.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html
So now, tell me. Should I take my information from the bible only, like the bible says? Or should I just accept your interpretation?
“So when trying to understand that person, wouldn’t it make the most rational and logical sense to ask those that know that person the best”
Absolutely not. I don’t choose my friends based on what others say about them. Your idea that atheists don’t know the christian god is scientifically unsound; studies show that atheists actually know more about religion that religious people do.
“You mock the book based on how it differs from your worldview.”
My worldview is that murder is wrong, that slavery is wrong, that forcing a woman to marry her rapist is wrong, that drowning all the animals because god is mad at people is wrong, that the death penalty for working on the Sabbath is wrong. Hmmmm, what’s YOUR worldview?
“Third, the Bible is considered to be literal only inasmuch as the text dictates a literal interpretation.”
And it is an interpretation – a worldview, to coin your phrase – that determines which parts one takes literally and which parts one doesn’t. Christians disagree widely on this, and the purpose of this blog, it has been stated clearly, is to read the whole thing literally.
“But trying to shoehorn the Bible into a “literal only” pattern is a wrong approach”
Then please share your arguments with the Christians that do so, so that they will stop trying to use tax dollars to teach Creationism, discriminate against homosexuals, and deny women’s rights to ob/gyn.care.
1. Sola scriptura is the belief that only the Bible is an INSPIRED word of text, but it doesn’t say that no other information can be obtained elsewhere. Just that the basis for all belief in Christianity must be rooted in the Bible.
2. You may know more about religion than me; you do not know more about my God than me. It’s because you’ve never taken the time to develop a relationship with Him. Don’t you think someone who’s invested time in getting to know someone probably knows that person better than someone who studies that person occasionally from a distance and can only make judgments based on a perspective from afar? The latter of the two people is the atheist, and your position appears no different than a person who witnesses a murder from 500 yards away and can’t pick out the killer in a line-up because they were too far away to see the person’s face. Your word holds no water when it comes to this.
3. I understand why you have what you call your worldview. My question would be this: what is your baseline for calling all of these things wrong? How do we know something to be definitely wrong, like the list of things you just gave? I could continue this whole argument, but we hit it pretty hard a while back.
4. Then the purpose of this blog is wrong, because then when we get to Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, this all goes completely nuts. If the purpose of this blog is to study the Bible, then study it as it was meant to be understood, not how you want to understand it. That’s a key difference that we apply to every other book we read. Just be fair to yourself.
5. The parts that aren’t meant to be taken literal and are by some, I’ll gladly share with any Christians what I believe to be proper hermeneutics. However, I can’t see how to take the creation account as anything other than literal, the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin (but it doesn’t say to discriminate against those committing the sin, much to your chagrin I’m sure) but I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in there about OBGYN care, so you would be talking about fringe Christians in this sense, in which case I would just ask you to go back and re-read everything and tell me that I’m on the same level as the Westboro Baptist people (who are NOT Christians because they don’t follow Biblical principles).
You really ought to come on here more. You’re way behind on this argument already. Let KK and Daz fight your battles for you.
Again you state your own view is if it was representative of all. There are many many people who claim that the Bible is not merely ‘inspired’ by God, but the literal word of God, and a completely accurate history of the 4,000-odd years it claims to tell the story of.
You are claiming to have a relationship with a fictitious character. Should I claim to be Biggles’ co-pilot, or a correspondent of Dr John Watson, you would quite rightly believe me to be living in a fantasy-world. Sorry, but we see you in just the same light. But anyway, the subject at hand isn’t the existence of god(s), it’s the idea that the Bible can be taken, especially if taken at the literal extreme that many do take it, as an absolute guide to moral behaviour. As an aside, I’d also like to note that Biggles and Dr Watson would make much better moral role-models than the Biblical God-character.
If it hurts others unnecessarily, it’s wrong. Note that this changes meaning from culture to culture, and time to time. But as you say, we’ve covered that before, quite heavily.
How is the purpose of this blog ‘wrong’? It claims to talk about the Bible as if it is literal, as discussed in point one, and examine the stories from a moral perspective. We might apply this key difference, but, as aslo discussed in point 1, many people do not do this. They even claim that the probably most inaccurate (as compared to the original) version ever mass-produced is the most accurate. They are not applying the interpretation-methods that you advise we use, so why should we, in answering them?
How do you decide which parts to take literally? Personally, I’d say that much of Kings, for example, is worth looking at as partial (if partisan) history. In combination with Assyrian and other records of the period, it can give us a decent idea of the major political events of the region at that time. The creation accounts, on the other hand, scream ‘mythology’ at any reader who hasn’t already decided they must be true. For you to lecture us about reading objectively, and then state that an obvious myth is ‘reality’ does nothing but highlight your own blinkered approach to the subject.
Ouch! Bit patronising, wasn’t it? Plus, you haven’t actually answered any of the points KK and I have both brought up, so why shouldn’t others have a try?
Damnit, I did it again. I should change my user-name to ‘Anonymous’. It would make life much easier…
sabepashubbo wrote:
“Sola scriptura is the belief that only the Bible
is an INSPIRED word of text, but it doesn’t say
that no other information can be obtained elsewhere.”
So… Your interpretation of the bible is that I should read other books. But the bible itself says that I cannot read other books:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19
So… I should believe YOUR interpretation of the bible, and NOT believe what the bible actually says, is that right?
sabepashubbo wrote:
“You may know more about religion than me; you do not know
more about my God than me. It’s because you’ve never
taken the time to develop a relationship with Him.”
Ad hominem and ad verecundiam. It doesn’t even matter whether these things you say are true or not (you don’t know anything about me), your conclusion is still wrong. I don’t need to get intimate with Charles Manson to know he’s a horrible person.
“I understand why you have what you call your worldview. My question would be this: what is your baseline for calling all of these things wrong?…”
You never answered my question: I asked you, and this is a direct quote from my post: “Hmmmm, what’s YOUR worldview?” Let me put it another way: Do YOU think these things are wrong?
“If the purpose of this blog is to study the Bible, then study it as it was meant to be understood, not how you want to understand it.”
I am studying what the bible actually SAYS. You know, like, the words that are actually in there. YOU are the one who studies it the way you want to understand it. Perfect example: You want us to “read a Systematic Theology book,” but when we read KK’s blog, oh, then that’s bad; nope, only the books YOU approve of, and YOUR interpretation of the bible are correct. No one else’s.
“I can’t see how to take the creation account as anything other than literal”
Excellent. Just one question. Which creation account?
“the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin (but it doesn’t say to discriminate against those committing the sin, much to your chagrin I’m sure)”
Again, ad hominem. I never said one should discriminate against homosexuals; however many Christians tend to do that.
I see, hubbo, you’re starting to crack under the stress of defending nonsense. You came in here with your thin veneer of niceness, gonna convert a few godless heathens to Jeebus. God is on your side, how can you possibly fail, right? Oh, you’re so nice, so respectful to the atheists, but only on the outside. Deep inside, you’ll never listen to us though you expect us to listen to you, and demand we use your – and only yours – interpretation of the bible. And when we ask you questions you can’t answer, when we say things that are blatantly obvious, you don’t think about them, and try to learn (like you say we should do). Nope, you just ignore the actual issue, and go on attack. You’re not the first person to do that on this blog, and you won’t be the last.
“but I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in there about OBGYN care, so you would be talking about fringe Christians in this sense”
Yeah, those other Christians whose interpretation of the Bible is different than yours and therefore wrong, correct? Those “fringe Christians,” those Others, are responsible for Colorado’s failed Amendments 48 and 62, which basically would have taken away women’s rights to birth control and in many cases, to any health care at all.
http://www.csindy.com/colorado/the-egg-and-i/Content?oid=1144952
Again, hubbo, if, as you said earlier, “trying to shoehorn the Bible into a “literal only” pattern is a wrong approach,” please share your arguments with those “fringe Christians.” Let me know the outcome.
“You really ought to come on here more. You’re way behind on this argument already. Let KK and Daz fight your battles for you.”
Oh. MY. GOD!!! Here I was in front of my computer, stewing in my sinful fumes, when I read this. You insulted me! Hallellujah! I’ve seen the light! I’m converted! I’m saved!!!11111!1!
Yeah, that didn’t actually happen.
From the link Nancy provided
From the context, that looks like fiction, a parable if you will, made to emphasise the consequences of the proposed law. Sadly I had the dubious pleasure of watching a half-hour news special some time back about a very similar case, where a young rape-victim had been crippled for life because a doctor had refused, on religious grounds, to perform an abortion, even though the baby (the result of the rape by her uncle of a 13 year-old, only just pubescent, girl) was 100% certain to die anyway.
You’re going to have to take my word for this, as I never noted names or locations, but this wasn’t some fringe-believer. This was mainstream Catholicism. So, would we like to re-examine the question of ‘fringe’ and ‘extremist’ interpretations?