Thursday, 8 May 2008

Is God a Bastard?

I though I would start off with something not too controversial as I write some posts on molecular evolution. It’s actually a modified post first published on richarddawkins.net in response to claims we get our moral values from god. Any Christian reading this will, I hope concentrate on the content and not the sarcastic tone – which I hope will raise a wry smile with my other readers.
I introduce it as a primer to some biblical difficulties that I hope to respond to in a more balanced manner in later posts. In the mean time, I hope you enjoy the rant.

Richard Dawkins describes God thus "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." This contrasts somewhat with the cuddly Christian God; one who supposedly cares intimately about us and wants the best for us. He cares when we are hurt, ill, hungry or lonely. All he wants is for us to reach out to him so that he can help us and lead us out of the mess we have made of our lives – a self inflicted mess - caused by wilfully turning our backs on our dear gentle lord and hurting him. And if we don't, well he's going to boil us for eternity in a cauldron of septic leper juice– as the saved sing Hallelujah over us as we writhe and squeal relentlessly for all eternity, constantly begging for relief from this constant and unbearable torment – but he still loves us!

So, why is God a bastard? Firstly, God deliberately set up man to fail. I say this because, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could not know that it was wrong to disobey this dictatorial and draconian god (Genesis 3:5 and 22). To make matters even worse, he put the serpent in the garden to tempt these naïve people into disobeying him (Gen 3:1-6). God even makes this evil creature in the first place (Gen 3:1). What a bastard! That shows as much parental responsibility as hiring a paedophile to baby-sit for you! Because of this situation, God condemns all mankind to die. What a thoroughly evil bastard! This is just the first of many examples of God punishing people for "sins" perpetrated by others:
Exodus 11 (very disgusting slaughter of children)
Isaiah 14:21-22 and
Deuteronomy 5:9, just for example).

Imagine the police arresting you one night because your great-grandfather was an Australian sheep fiddler or a German concentration camp guard - it is just ludicrous. Most bizarrely, he even punishes people for being evil and audacious enough to be born to unmarried parents, or because they were born in the wrong place, like Moab (Deut 23:2-3). It is truly bizarre, because he (through the birth of Jesus) is the bastard descendant of a bastard and a Moabite (Matthew 1:3-5, Gen 38, Ruth 4 and Matt. 1:18-19) – who apparently got his own mother pregnant??!!!???

Not only has God created evil, he often uses it to harm others (Lamentations 3:38, Jeremiah 26:3, 36:3, and1 Samuel 16 :14-23 to name a few). The God of truth even uses lies when it suits him (2 Chronicles 18:19-22). The bible also tells us that God hardens the hearts of those he wants to destroy, such as the Pharaoh (Ex 14:1-31) and he does this after he has bullied the Egyptians into getting his way. It didn't seem to matter that his gripe was with an individual - oh no! He just thought he would just be cruel to the whole nation instead. Then after much bum festering but holy nastiness, God basically took away Pharaohs' free will and lead him and others to destruction. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? If you are going to make Pharaoh do something, then why not just make him let the Israelites go free, without all that nastiness, plagues and the unjustifiable killing of Egypt's first born? If all this was true, you have got think Pharaoh must have been incredibly thick not to let the Israelites go. You can imagine the scene:
God "Let my people go or I shall smite you in the nuts with my boot"

Pharaoh "Nae danger ya tulip, smell yer maw ya baw bag!"

God: "Takest thou that" Boot! "now letteth my people go"

Pharaoh: "ooh yah cunt! Ma Swingers! Naw ya dobber!"

God: "Letteth them go or I'll shalt give thee piles"

Pharaoh: scratch scratch "sook ma banger ya dong"

God "OK then, I'll make it rain frogs"

Pharaoh "Ha ha ya fanny, I've got ma umbrella"

God "thou leavest me no choice. I shall createth a plague of Ainsley Harriets. Verily, that shall getteth it right up ye."

Pharaoh "aw naw, maaan, here huv them! A wis only pullin' yer plunger big man,"

The exodus probably never happened (and certainly not in Glaswegian). But that doesn't change the immoral nature of the god of the bible. Remember, this is a God who for no good reason other than because he is God, prevents people from believing in him and being saved (Romans 9:18).

The whole book of Joshua is about God-ordained acts of ethnic cleansing, intolerance and genocide. Apparently, God did not want his people contaminated with the practices of pagans. Again, this does not justify the extreme methods that God commanded, including infanticide. This means that if you are different, God does not want to forgive and enlighten you. In fact, he wants you and your babies dead. The contradiction with Jesus' hippyish New Testament theology is glaringly obvious! Have the publishers of the bible never heard of editors? Again, God's inability to be pleased (and inconsistency) is shown when he orders the Israelites to "righteously murder" the Midianites, including women and children (Numbers 31:7-18). This very act however makes the Israelites impure and unable to approach God (Num. 31:19). In other words, God says "I am the God of righteousness, who cannot abide evil. Go and carry out this evil act that I demand or I will be angry, even although this act will make you repulsive to me."

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty depressed at this point - but there's more.

God doesn't have a problem with forcing people into cannibalism, for example (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9). Neither does he have a problem with kidnapping women, nor with making them gifts to be used as sex slaves (Jud. 21:11-14). In fact, the god of the bible doesn't think too much of women at the best of times. The following makes me sick! A rapist must marry his victim (Deut 22:28-29) and pay compensation to her father! Forcing someone to live with their abuser is surely just about the worst thing you can make them do. At least I now know how to get a wife that I can use as a sex slave - thanks God! Right from the start, God has it in for women, and lays all the blame for the original sin on Eve (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women, even in the New Testament!

So, what does he like then? Well, slavery for one, as long as the slaves are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46). Furthermore, he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for their welfare to those of their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slave's eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). An eye for an eye, leaves everyone blind, according to some smart-arse like Gandhi – Pagan!.

And there's more, as God likes perfectly-formed people too. Anyone deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:41-46, Jud. 11:29-40). In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness! The only time God actually behaves himself, is when he is worried about how he appears to others, and not because it is the right thing to do (Ex. 32:11-14 and Num. 14:15-20). In fact, the supposed sacrifice on the cross was (as many Christians will tell you) was for his own glory.

Moral god? Don't make me laugh! I'll tell you what does make me laugh however, is the story where Elisha gets God to make some bears maul and kill 42 young boys for calling him baldy (2 Kin. 2:23-24). It's a good job that they didn't call him a specky big nosed feminist and abolitionist! If they had, the loving, forgiving and slow to anger god of the bible would probably eternally curse mankind (not again!), and make us all lesbian Moabite hunch backs. That would give him a real reason to be cruel to us.

46 comments:

Jonathan said...

Woohoo, first comment ever!

Ahem. Good post to open with Billy, and it certainly raises a lot of questions. I suspect the reflexive Christian answer might be culture of the time/Jesus changed things to explain away a lot of the bad OT verses.

Oh, and just curious- why did you pick "Basket of puppies" as your blog's URL?

Steve Zara said...

Good classic Billy writing :)

Billy said...

Cheers Jonathan and Steve, and thanks for dropping by. It is only fitting the great god Quetz should be first to speak :-) I though I might as well call a spade a spade with my first post as I do some background reading for my first evolution post which I think will be on the evolution of antibody gene rearrangement - interesting stuff.

I hope there are some christian responses or I will have to give standard answers on their behalf. There is no cultural excuse though as god's laws are apparently perfect. There are also many secular examples of "jesus like ethics" long before the NT was written - an example of forgive your enemies comes from 3rd century BCE Sumeria. Jesus added nothing new.

The basket of puppies is the name of one of my ice axes - yeah, weird I know - I thought the name was almost ironic

Steve Zara said...

I would love to read something about antibody genes. I chose the courses for my B.Sc. in biochemistry to avoid anything to do with "higher" animals, as I was squeamish about killing them and cutting them up. So, I know an awful lot about bacteria and viruses, and nothing much about immunology.

Billy said...

Steve,
I'm the opposite. I dont know enough about prokaryotes. I can trace my scientific beginings back to the behaviour of cichlids (fish that are great for evolutionary analysis). I some how ended up doing a degree in parasitology. Fortunately I work on humans and dont need to do nasty experiments.

Steve Zara said...

As a teenager (before I went to university) I used to keep tropical fish. It was my ambition to keep cichlids. Wonderful animals.

I didn't quite manage to avoid animal parts in my degree. My project on plant biochemistry required an enzyme assay that could only be done using with far higher concentrations of the enzyme than could be found in plants. A good source of this enzyme was rat livers, so I was often seen, like some sort of ghoul, hanging around laboratories asking "has anyone killed any rats today?".

Jonathan said...

"I hope there are some christian responses or I will have to give standard answers on their behalf"

I'm sure Jimmy, Ryan and Bruce will stop by, maybe ER as well.

I warn you any comments I make on the evolutionary biology posts are likely to be profoundly ignorant! Still, hopefully I'll learn something!

Billy said...

I warn you any comments I make on the evolutionary biology posts are likely to be profoundly ignorant! Still, hopefully I'll learn something!


I'm sure they wont be. I encourage all questions. Part of my reason for blogging is that I want to provide ammo to use against creationists. I believe Steve might also be setting up some resource too. If the posts are not clear too, I hope people will let me know.

Steve Zara said...

Billy - I am indeed doing that.

There are a series of posts on my blog labelled

"The ID debate"

I will soon be indexing them and I would hope they provide an easy to access resource for battling against ID on sites such as RD.net.

If anyone has any comments, or suggestions, or criticisms, they would be welcomed. Any changes or additions to the material will be fully credited to those who suggest them.

Perhaps there is some way we could combine these efforts?

Rune said...

May the angels of Nebulebalar reign molten cheese upon your wretched atheistic, jihadi body. "Is God a Bastard?" Does the Pope fist young alter boys to death? Does Jeremy Paxman wear pants? Does the man from DelMonte say "yes"? I think we all know the answer to those questions. Anyway, Gene rearrangement eh? I must admit that I prefer Gene Hackman myself. Of course I was incredibly drunk. I will say Good Evening to you Sir.

Anonymous said...

Hey Billy, good luck getting Bruce to link to this ;-).

My latest facebook friend is (drum roll) Peter Tatchell! Yes, the real one. Cool, eh? Bet few people can boast both him *and* David McCarthy as facebook friends.

Failed an exam yesterday so am not really in a banging on about how good God is mood. Maybe he's punishing me for not being straight or something.

Steven said...

This fictional character named god that you speak of, does sound like a bastard.

Billy said...

Hi Ryan,

Sorry to hear about the exam, But you have the distinction of being my first theist visitor, so you win a cup of tea.

Billy said...

This fictional character named god that you speak of, does sound like a bastard.



But he is the best bastard in all fiction. Ming the Merciless is like Terry Thomas in monte carlo or bust by comparison

(Oh no, I've got the Flash Gordon theme in my head now)

Unknown said...

Some nice bible bashing :P

If you want a positive, scientific and hence credible explanation of where our morality and ethics come from I heartily recommend Matt Ridely's book "Origin of Virtue". (same guy that wrote Genome). ISBN-13: 978-0140244045

It's an excellent read.

Billy said...

Cheers Xzanron,

I got it from the library and only managed the first couple of chapters before someone recalled it. It was very interesting. I should get it out and finish it.
Ridley is a good writer. His book genome is well worth a read too.

I've linked to your blog (I meant to do that earlier - doh!)

Bruce said...

You're right CB, Billy's going to need more than luck! What I'm particularly curious about Billy's writing is the fixation with killing babies - and puppies! Like J, I do like the url though. Very cute.

Anyway, I guess you've set up a nice wee talking shop for atheists here old chum! Only CB and briefly here myself to break the mould thus far. I look forward to, er, much fruitful and erudite Christian atheist dialogue ahead. I feel you've struck just the right opening note of thoughtful diplomacy!

Billy said...

Welcome Bruce.

If you think there is some thing wrong with what I have written, you are very welcome to share "the truth" - as Christians unassumingly like to call it - with a captive audience of atheists.

I would value your comments regarding god being loving despite the evidence above. It raises all sorts of issues and further highlights the weaknesses/presupposition of theology. I think it would be interesting if you were to give the issue some serious thought

Who knows, you might actually learn something :-)

PS, when has a preacher ever cared about diplomacy? I am supposedly going to hell afterall. It might be worth bearing that in mind.

Take care

Billy

Billy said...

What I'm particularly curious about Billy's writing is the fixation with killing babies - and puppies!

I'm curious as to how a loving god could actively participate in such acts.

Lee said...

"Is God a Bastard?"

I though I would start off with something not too controversial

That's right... keep it safe, nice and polite.

Like it.

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Billy,

What time do you make it?

"08 May 2008 17:02"?

I've got 09 May 2008 10:03?

Lee

brister said...

good god bashing!!
Any chance of highlighting the inconsistencies, ruthlessness, control freakery and downright lieing of the church through the ages.
That one could take a lifetime to unravel.

Billy said...

That's right... keep it safe, nice and polite.


You know me, I'm the friggin' Ayatolla of politenes.... :-)

It was about half past midnight

I hope someone does provide a christian take on this. This is in their holy book and the problems are often ignored. If they are offended by it, It wasn't me who put them in the bible.

Brister
Thanks for popping by. That is a good idea. I remember one christian who challenged Dawkins' quote. I provided relevant verses and he either denied they were attrocious acts or kept going Amen. I remember providing a verse on his Jealousy and his report was Amen, jealousy is his name - scary!

Lee said...

Hi Billy,

I hope someone does provide a christian take on this. This is in their holy book and the problems are often ignored. If they are offended by it, It wasn't me who put them in the bible.

I can guess ER’s response if that helps; it will be that you are taking the bible too literally and then call you a “fundie”.

It is what I am told whenever I quote the bible or “assume” Christian theology.
(Hope he doesn’t think I am putting words into his mouth or talking behind his back)

The problem though for Christian's like ER is where in the bible does it say to ignore this bit, accept this bit and have a jolly good laugh at this bit.

No where… it is all the word of God (or inspired by God – take your pick)

If the writers got any of it wrong, then when God “inspired” the leaders to put the final version of the bible together in 300-odd AD or whenever, God in His wisdom should have inspired them to write a friggin’ key on what is true, metaphor and humour. It would have saved a lot of killing and also silliness with that Galileo chap.

Lee

Philip said...

Ahoy!

Fantastic post Billy, I see you have been drinking the right kind of Tea!

I agree with you entirely, this is their book, they simply cannot say that it does not happen or it wouldn't be in there! I just cannot understand how people can then just chuck it out of their mind set and think "No, God and Jesus still love me!"

Bruce, its a classic example, you immediately looked at what Billy wrote and dismissed it. I am very interested as to how and why you want to do that?

I love the Glaswegian Pharaoh idea, must have been the flood that swept him over to Egypt then he set up rule from there! You can see the almost similar clothing in the Egyptian garb and some fine Scottish Tartan, but I am sure with the lack of proper paint the hieroglyphs can only depict so much!

Bloomin good blog sir, I raise my cup of Tea in honour of your work, may Quetz bless your lab coat and tea for ever more!

Philip

Billy said...

Hi Lee,

The way I see it, is that Jesus never revoked these Laws and said they will stand for ever. The killings display the moral character of god. You have to make some unjustifiable leaps to convince yourself that god is loving here (I have a post in mind for this).

Wotcha Philip ya pure nugget maaan! I'll huv a swig o' tea to that big man by the way!

Interestingly you are not far off with the Glaswegian Pharaoh. During the wars of independence, Robert the Bruce sent an appeal to the pope to control Edward. In it he claims that the Scots are decended from a lost tribe of Hebrews that journeyed to Scotland via Egypt - taking the stone of destiny with then (that Jacob supposedly dreamed of a ladder with angels going up and down to heaven on).

Maybe I'll turn him into a cartoon character :-)

Erudite Redneck said...

Lee, "The problem though for Christian's like ER is where in the bible does it say to ignore this bit, accept this bit and have a jolly good laugh at this bit. No where… it is all the word of God (or inspired by God – take your pick)"

Sorry. But you HAVE to gain some ideas about the collection of writings known as the Bible from some other souce besides fundamentalists. Not to be rude, but I will not engage you on "the Bible" as long as you insist that it be taken or left as a whole -- since I, as an actual Christian believer, do not do that and have no qualms about it.

Good Lord, so to speak. The Bible is the best place to start, in my view, to get a handle on why the earliest followers of Christ thought what they thought, and believed what they believed, and interpreted their experience with Jesus as they did. It is NOT the end-all-be-all source of what it means to believe in God, or to be a Christian. And I will not let anyone, fundamentalist Christian, or evangelical atheist, put me in that damned box.

Learn some moe about different ways different Christians look at "the Bible," and get back to me, 'k? Your assumptions are limited, dated and, well, false.

Welcome to blogdom, Billy.

Steve Zara said...

I will not let anyone, fundamentalist Christian, or evangelical atheist, put me in that damned box.

Excellent. So what criteria do you use to determine which sections of the bible are true, or have some meaning, or are simply outdated?

Billy said...

I will not let anyone, fundamentalist Christian, or evangelical atheist, put me in that damned box.


Hi ER,

No one is actually putting you personally in a box here and your personal take is welcome. As I said at the start, the post was originally written in response to a claim that we get our moral values from the bible - something that I hope we all agree on - with the example above - that we dont.
It also brings up some interesting questions about the "nature" of god though.

Why should we accept that he is good?

You make avalid point about context, and I think a lot of these verses were written to respond to various needs affecting the Jews throughout history. Shunning Moabites for example is perfectly consistent with having them as enemies. It is about politics and not morality. I dont consider OT and NT to be consistent enough to claim that one is the natural successor of the other.

I would be very interested in your answer to Steve's question.

Erudite Redneck said...

Sorry, Billy. I was reacting to Lee's repeated assumptions that I accept, or reject, "the Bible" as a whole -- or that I should, because "the Bible" does or does not say one thing or another -- when I've made it fricking cleasr that I do not.

Re, "So what criteria do you use to determine which sections of the bible are true, or have some meaning, or are simply outdated?"

Christian scholarshipl to start with -- although "truth" is fuzzier that you want it to be.

If I wee to rank the varioous writings in the Bible based on their factual accuracy and legitamacy, based on what I know about historical-linguistic-church scholarship, it would be:

The Epistle of James. Almost no one doubts that the brother of Jesus wrote it. I accept that he meant what he wrote.

The near universally accepted writngs of St Paul; I accept that he meant what he wrote.

The Pauline writings -- that is, the epistles written in Paul's name by others, because, while they obviouasly had their own biases and agendas, they clearly mean to pay homage to Paul, not just ride his name and influence.

I'd place Mark next, mainly because scholars place it first in history. And I consider it an "apology" for the thinking of some, but not all, of the earliest Christians. It's an editorial, in other words, not a work of history or reporting as we understand those kinds of writings today.

I think I'd put Luke and Acys next, buit I conder them as theological narratives -- again, not history or reports, as we understand such today.

Next, I'd put John -- as an almost total piece of theology-philosophy -- ajnd quite beautiful and profound poetry.

Then Matthew because, well, I just do -- although the Sermon on the Mount I would rate higher because it largely is echoed in Luke and because that section seems to fit with the messages of Jesus over all.

Then, I'd probably place some noncanonical Gospels.

I'd make the entire Old Testament apocryphal, mainly because I'm not a Jew.

And I'd put the Revelation last because it's an account of an apocaluptical dream that makes no sense to me today, in 2008.

There is Steve an answer.

As they say in our Congress: I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Lee said...

Hi ER,

Not to be rude, but I will not engage you on "the Bible" as long as you insist that it be taken or left as a whole -- since I, as an actual Christian believer, do not do that and have no qualms about it.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to be rude either - I have no problem if you 'reject' some of the books in the bible as literally true - I was only asking for your justification and/or reasoning.

One (or more) books could be false and it does not invalidate the rest of the bible or God. I thought we discussed this before?

Question thought - Am I to take it that the decision to compile the bible in - whenever it was - wasn’t inspired by God?

I’ve not problem if you said it was just a bunch of guys who got together and decided on their own (without God) what got in and what didn’t and since their stick was bigger, the bible became what they wanted (and not God's or Jesus').

Some Christian’s say God inspired this decision; I’ve no problem if you don’t.

Equally, you could say it was all inspired by God, and the books selected had different meaning and some should not all be taken literally – I just wish we were told (when the men were being inspired by God to compile the bible) which ones were which. It saves a lot of guess work today.

I was reacting to Lee's repeated assumptions that I accept, or reject, "the Bible" as a whole -- or that I should, because "the Bible" does or does not say one thing or another -- when I've made it fricking cleasr that I do not.

Sorry for my clumsiness in writing – I did not wish to cause offence.

Lee

Billy said...

ER wrote

Christian scholarshipl to start with -- although "truth" is fuzzier that you want it to be.


That's an interesting comment, what do you mean by that?


I would imagine the original gospel (Mark) to be closer to the truth than the others - assuming there is any truth in it (the virgin birth post will give you an idea why I doubt there is).

Interestingly, if you look at the resurrection stories in the different gospels, you notice that the more recently they were written, the more fabulous the events recorded are. This tends to make me think that the stories have become embelished and not true witness accounts (which I don't think any are - a possible future post)

Erudite Redneck said...

I guess I think that "is it accurate?" or "is it true?" aren't really the best questions to ask about the Bible, since the writings are not the founding documents of the Christian faith; they reflect thinking *about* the Christian faith. There ARE no founding documents. There were founding people, with whom we are barely equated.

I think a better question to ask is this: Were the authors of the various writings HONEST? Can they be trusted? Which is a different question totally than "can they believed?"

There is no doubt that they were ignorant of science, by present standards, in the same way even the most brilliant of us would be considered ignorant by future standards of science a couple thousand years from now.

But the evidence suggests thatk for the most part, the writers of the various Scriptures were very transparent, and honest, about the earliest believers: They were utter failures, for the most part, not just Judas and Thomas. Peter was a wuss, until Pentecost. Paul was an emotional and psychological wreck. James were earnest to the point of the kind of judgment of others that other scruptural writers advised against.

They were open and honest about all of that. And that's a good reason to take them seriously, if not literally.

The same maybe could be said about the earliest believers of other faith traditions. I don't know. Does anyone else? Were the earliest Buddhists, or Muslims, or Jainists, or whatever, such fuck-ups and so totally lacking in the faith, and the commitment that they nonetheless felt compelled to preach as "The Way"? I don't know.

The Church - and by that I mean the universal "church," those who have believed through the ages, in general has not even tried to hide the fact that they were a bunch of weaklings, as far as I know.

Nor, actually, until fairly recent times, in the United States, at least, has anyone tried to gloss over the general idea that Jesus was a poor peasant, not a noble of some kind; that he was not preaching a return to some morality that he claimed had been abandoned; or, for that matter, someone who was out to set up a religion, or other organization, of any kind. In other words, while Jesus can be seen as radical, he most certainly cannot be seen as one who was seeking power for any reason, earthly or heavenly.

"My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?" That's not a just a line from a passion play. It's at the very heart of the story -- and it contradicts about every assumption one would make about a confident man, or a god, or one who could even see past the sweat in his eyes, the blood coming from his hands and feet or the weakening heart in his chest.

(Not playing the "emotion" card; but he was, the story goes, crucified -- one of many capital executions committed by Rome, yes, but crucified still, and crucifixion clearly was hideous, and worth being reminded of in this discussion, which so often seems to reduce the people we're talking about to stick figures and the Scriptures to some kind of two-dimensional story that one can edit like an instruction manual, which I don't think it was ever meant to be.)

Jesus was/is not much of a superhero, and "the Bible" is not much of a foundational document for the faith, which is OK, since the faith existed a long time before the Canon was formed.


BTW, this is something I've been meaning to mention and kept forgetting until now.

I am a historian. One of the gravest offenses that a historian can commit in the act of researching, writing, evaluating and interpreting history is "presentitis" -- that is, judging the acts, or words, or thinking of someone in the past by present ideas, understandings and standards.

I try not to do that with the writings of Scripture. (Or anything else from the past, especially ancient writings). I suggest that you and others guard against it as well.

Erudite Redneck said...

Grrr. Strike "equated" in the first paragraph; insert "acquainted."

Billy said...

Hi ER,

You raise some interesting points. I think you are correct about interpreting past events.
I'm not sure that I agree though that presenting peoples weaknesses makes the stories true though. One could cynically say that was planned to make the events described more miraculous.
There are aspects -like the virgin birth prophecy, and other recycled OT stories- that make me doubt the honesty of the writers. Also, apparently Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake in Malta - I believe there never have been snakes there.

I agree that they were ignorant of modern science (thinking the earth was flat etc) but the question I think is were they writing under the assumption that what they were conveying was literally from god or not. The bible does claim that all scripture is god breathed (2 tim 3:16). So the question then is when they said the earth was flat, are they saying so because they are actually claiming god says so or not? Similarly with the flood and creation stories. There are certainly various verses that indicate that they are (I have the foundations of a post on that).

I will be writing a post soon on the idea that we are all screw ups too.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "I'm not sure that I agree though that presenting peoples weaknesses makes the stories true though."

I said nothing about truth. I wondered whether they were being honest. One can be honestly wrong about details, even some pretty big things -- and it's easy if one is ignorant.

I'm reminded that in the American South during our Civil War, Christians argued not only that slavery was "OK," but, using Scripture "in good faith" firmly believed that it was God's overt will that Africans be enslaved, for thee furtherance of the Gospel.

Well, they were wrong. But while particularly cruel slaveowners were evil incarnate, and while slavery, clearly, is a kind of systemic evil, that's from view of the 21st century. Most of the Christians in the American South -- and some elsewhere -- were wrong. But I can't dismiss them, or condemn them. They were just wrong.

Nazi history comes to mind, too. Yes, it's damn easy to say, from 2008, that those who failed to challenge it, those who went about their business, earning their paychecks, pulling this lever and pushing this button of a sick society, were being complicit. Yes, by present standards. But I honstly cannot say what I would have done in Germany, or in the American South, if my life and family and important things like food and shelter for them, depended on me pulling levers and pushing buttons. I like to think I'm fairly noble. But when I'm hungry or sleepy, I can be a real jerk. I can't imagine how I would have acted in such extreme circumstances.

Erudite Redneck said...

Oh, my point being this:

The earliest followers of Jesus may have been wrong about lots of things. They may have misunderstood some of the things they saw and heard. They may very well have taken pains to draw connections between O.T. prophecies and their own experience and interpretation of Jesus (much like preachers do today, drawing connections and conclusions from Scripture and applying them to an understanding of current events.)

The Church, as an organization, as you are gleefully ware, has been wrong about more than it's been right since its inception.

But all those distractions pale when one gets to the nut of the Jesus message: Love God, and love neighbor as self.

Those earliest followers of Jesus stressed their relationship with God, and others, and, for them, it all centered on their trusting relationship with Jesus.

That's the life path they were on, it hasn't changed, despite so much else that has changed in two millenia -- and it's the same path that I'm on, and have been on for 36 of my 44 years, although my own life path has changed in many of its particulars as regards my faith.

Billy said...

Hi ER,

I said nothing about truth. I wondered whether they were being honest.

It would appear that truth is the issue, especially in cases where faith supposedly changed character, but I get your point

Dont you think the bible allows slavery? It has laws regulating it. It does not say that it is wrong. I agree that it is wrong (not in an absolute sense - I dont believe in metaphysical moral absolutes)

I agree that in places like Belsen, normal behaviour goes out the window, and I dont think we can blame people for wanting to survive - it is a natural instinct. It is different being outside (and safe) condemning something to being inside suffering it.

Billy said...

But all those distractions pale when one gets to the nut of the Jesus message: Love God, and love neighbor as self.


I have no problem with the second part. I do however have a problem with the idea of a god who has carried out the deeds of this thread (My next post touches on this).

Those earliest followers of Jesus stressed their relationship with God, and others, and, for them, it all centered on their trusting relationship with Jesus.

The trouble is that there is no clear means of guidance for the believer. From my experience it is all subjective and open to personal interpretation. I have seen believers make big mistakes.

Perhaps you could write a guest post on the topic so we know what your particular take on the matter is - or let me know if you want to start on on your own blog (sorry I haven't reciprocated yet - I hope to find time soon)

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "The Bible" and slavery.

The Bible can be read to not only allow, but to encourage slavery. Most Christians in the American South during our Civil War believed such. And today, we are appalled.


Re, "The trouble is that there is no clear means of guidance for the believer. From my experience it is all subjective and open to personal interpretation."

Well, the guidance is clearer for believers than it is for yourself. But even we disagree on much.

Life, as they say, is a journey, not a destination, which is to say, seeking is the thing.

There is really only one thing that all Christians, in my view, have to agree on, by definition: Jesus is da bomb.

That's it. No more and no less. Now, working out what that means exactly is a main component of the Christian life, and diffences is conclusions is part and parcel of it, and, as far as we know, has always been part and parcel of it.

This insistence on exactitude boggles.

Erudite Redneck said...

Hey, Billy, you should read this book, by Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love" -- check it out on Amazon. Your post here barely scratches the surface.

Billy said...

Hi ER,

I've come across spong by reputation. Dawkins seems to like him and David Robertson loathes him as an atheist Bisshop. I think I might just like him too:-)

I dont think there is a problem with interpretation with slavert. The OT clearly approves. The problem that I see is that the teachings of Jesus are at odds with the OT god. That is where the problem lies.

Philip would be beter placed than me to comment on this, but one reason behind the teachings of Jesus was to facilitate empire building - getting different groups to get along.

Anonymous said...

Here's Spongs infamous '12 theses" and Rowan Williams' criticism of them (before he became AB of C)

http://www.anglicantas.org.au/tasmaniananglican/200310-spong.html

I don't, generally, think that Christians figuring out (as Lee says) different ways to interpet scripture is sophistry; all texts make implicit demands on the best way to read them. Question: if the Bible was written to dupe individuals into believing in an invented God, then would it really have potrayed all sorts of nasty stuff (genocide etc) and implied that they are indicative of God's unchanging nature? I also don't think that history validates the merits of pacifism; quite the opposite.

Billy said...

Question: if the Bible was written to dupe individuals into believing in an invented God, then would it really have potrayed all sorts of nasty stuff (genocide etc) and implied that they are indicative of God's unchanging nature?

Fear is a good motivator though. I think the likes of Joshuas campaign can be used to justify war - because god says so, you cant question it - can you?

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "one reason behind the teachings of Jesus was to facilitate empire building - getting different groups to get along."

Really?? I see nothing of the sort. At least in the Bible itself. Tell me where there is any hint of that in Scripture. The N.T. see,s pretty individualistic to me.

And someone will have to raise this post where it casn be found. It's been buried now.

Dang.

Billy said...

Really?? I see nothing of the sort. At least in the Bible itself. Tell me where there is any hint of that in Scripture. The N.T. see,s pretty individualistic to me.

I mean the values are conducive to empire building - get along with each other and forgive them. It is aplausible reason for the difference between OT and NT god.

I'll look into bringing this post up