Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
RIP Christopher Hitchens
I saw in the news this morning that Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62. Hitchens was a columnist, author, and pundit famous for his wit, his intellece, and his often controversial views.
I know him bast as an outspoken critic of religion. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism were his main targets but he viewed all religion as wrong-headed and evil, as can be seen inthe subtitle of his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
I've got mixed feelings about Mr. Hitchens. On the one hand I think his criticism of religion was mean-spirited and unfair, his understanding of the Bible superficial at best, and his suppositions about Christian theology often wildly innacurate. He was fond of making blanked condemnations such as this from God is Not Great...
Despite this, I have to must acknowledge that Hitchens often pointed to real problems that need to be dealt with. He raised important issues that need to be discussed honestly and seriously. While I often disagree--and strongly--with his conclusions, I think his questions are important and am grateful to him for raising them.
Goodbye, Christopher Hitchens. I'm not sure what to offer in farewell because I'm sure you'd scorn my blessing and be offended by my prayers. I guess I'll just thank you for making me think about uncomfortable things. I didn't end up where you'd have wanted me to, but I am better for having struggled with the questions.
I know him bast as an outspoken critic of religion. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism were his main targets but he viewed all religion as wrong-headed and evil, as can be seen inthe subtitle of his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
I've got mixed feelings about Mr. Hitchens. On the one hand I think his criticism of religion was mean-spirited and unfair, his understanding of the Bible superficial at best, and his suppositions about Christian theology often wildly innacurate. He was fond of making blanked condemnations such as this from God is Not Great...
"violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children".
Despite this, I have to must acknowledge that Hitchens often pointed to real problems that need to be dealt with. He raised important issues that need to be discussed honestly and seriously. While I often disagree--and strongly--with his conclusions, I think his questions are important and am grateful to him for raising them.
Goodbye, Christopher Hitchens. I'm not sure what to offer in farewell because I'm sure you'd scorn my blessing and be offended by my prayers. I guess I'll just thank you for making me think about uncomfortable things. I didn't end up where you'd have wanted me to, but I am better for having struggled with the questions.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Some Pre-Christmas Musings
There are some things that we don't always think about in the Christmas story as it appears in the Bible.
Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. We sometimes gloss over the scandalous implications of this because of the miracle, ut put all your expectations aside for a moment and think about it.
When we look at the age women were generally betrothed, Mary was an unwed, pregnant teenage girl. That's something that could be awkward even our more tolerant modern world, but think about thas. Mary lived in a culture that believed in "honor killings." The y may not have called them that but this law from Deuteronomy shows that it what they were.
It wasn't just a scandal; Mary's life was hanging by a thread. Joseph could have demanded that the men of the city stone her to death. Even putting her aside honorably would make her, as an unwed mother, an outcast, condemned by the whole community for her assumed loose morals. She knew what it meant to be vulnerable.
Which really gives a lot of extra meaning to what she says in the song we call the Magnificat.
This passage in Luke 1:46-55 is remarkible for what it tells us about God. This is not a God who kowtows to kings and presidents or takes special notice of the rich and famous. This isn't even a God who stands in solidatiry with the decent and morally upright church-going folk of the world.
The God who Mary sings about is a God who cares about the poor, the despised, the rejected, and the vulnerable. This is a God whose son is born out of wedlock to a poor couple with no social standing. It's scandalous but God's love is scandalous as he breaks all the social and religious rules out of love. And it's something that carries over to the ministry of Jesus who grows up to touch the untouchables, forgive the unforgivables, and embrace the unacceptables.
Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. We sometimes gloss over the scandalous implications of this because of the miracle, ut put all your expectations aside for a moment and think about it.
When we look at the age women were generally betrothed, Mary was an unwed, pregnant teenage girl. That's something that could be awkward even our more tolerant modern world, but think about thas. Mary lived in a culture that believed in "honor killings." The y may not have called them that but this law from Deuteronomy shows that it what they were.
It wasn't just a scandal; Mary's life was hanging by a thread. Joseph could have demanded that the men of the city stone her to death. Even putting her aside honorably would make her, as an unwed mother, an outcast, condemned by the whole community for her assumed loose morals. She knew what it meant to be vulnerable.
Which really gives a lot of extra meaning to what she says in the song we call the Magnificat.
And Mary said, "I'm bursting with God-news; I'm dancing the song of my Savior God. God took one good look at me, and look what happened - I'm the most fortunate woman on earth! What God has done for me will never be forgotten, the God whose very name is holy, set apart from all others. His mercy flows in wave after wave on those who are in awe before him. He bared his arm and showed his strength, scattered the bluffing braggarts. He knocked tyrants off their high horses, pulled victims out of the mud. The starving poor sat down to a banquet; the callous rich were left out in the cold. He embraced his chosen child, Israel; he remembered and piled on the mercies, piled them high. It's exactly what he promised, beginning with Abraham and right up to now.
This passage in Luke 1:46-55 is remarkible for what it tells us about God. This is not a God who kowtows to kings and presidents or takes special notice of the rich and famous. This isn't even a God who stands in solidatiry with the decent and morally upright church-going folk of the world.
The God who Mary sings about is a God who cares about the poor, the despised, the rejected, and the vulnerable. This is a God whose son is born out of wedlock to a poor couple with no social standing. It's scandalous but God's love is scandalous as he breaks all the social and religious rules out of love. And it's something that carries over to the ministry of Jesus who grows up to touch the untouchables, forgive the unforgivables, and embrace the unacceptables.
Friday, December 2, 2011
A Kinder, Gentler World?
This is a fascinating topic and one that gives me hope for the world.
Stephen is vague about the role of religion in this. He dismisses the Bible a bit sarcastically as the "source of our morality" when decrying the ancient practices of total annihilation of enemies, and the use of the death penalty for so many crimes. At the same time, he suggests the "logic of the Golden Rule" as one possible reason for the growing ethic of peace.
For what it's worth, I think he's right in criticizing the ancient rules about genodide (though it no good archaeological evidence to show that the ancient Israelites ever took them literally enough to wage a genocidal war), and the use of the death penalty (though Rabbinic tradition asserts that death was only the punishment of last resort and was seldom used).
I'll agree with him that The Golden Rule is a huge step forward from the ethics of honor and revenge. Of course, Jesus is not the only person to formulate the rule, which is sometimes also referred to as the Ethic of Reciprocity but I think his version is the best known and most influential in the western world.
Does this show the ethics of Jesus slowly but surely chipping away at the violence and hatred of the world? I think it does, and you can bet I'm going to learn all that I can about this. In the meanwhile I'll just say, I'm very happy to learn that "Peace on Earth and goodwill to all people" is so much more than just a hopeful saying.
Stephen is vague about the role of religion in this. He dismisses the Bible a bit sarcastically as the "source of our morality" when decrying the ancient practices of total annihilation of enemies, and the use of the death penalty for so many crimes. At the same time, he suggests the "logic of the Golden Rule" as one possible reason for the growing ethic of peace.
For what it's worth, I think he's right in criticizing the ancient rules about genodide (though it no good archaeological evidence to show that the ancient Israelites ever took them literally enough to wage a genocidal war), and the use of the death penalty (though Rabbinic tradition asserts that death was only the punishment of last resort and was seldom used).
I'll agree with him that The Golden Rule is a huge step forward from the ethics of honor and revenge. Of course, Jesus is not the only person to formulate the rule, which is sometimes also referred to as the Ethic of Reciprocity but I think his version is the best known and most influential in the western world.
Does this show the ethics of Jesus slowly but surely chipping away at the violence and hatred of the world? I think it does, and you can bet I'm going to learn all that I can about this. In the meanwhile I'll just say, I'm very happy to learn that "Peace on Earth and goodwill to all people" is so much more than just a hopeful saying.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Giving Thanks
There's an interesting Thanksgiving prayer in the classis movie "Shenandoah"when the family patriarch, played by Jimmy Stewart, says the blessing over the dinner.
The prayer does a lot to establish Stewart's character who is a proud, self-relaint, and pig-headed. He believes in himself and his family and not much of anything else. Bhy the end of the movie the tragedies he experiences in the Civil War have opened his heard and broadened his world at least a little.
I thought of this prayer on this Thanksgiving day because it reflects other things I've heard about thanking not thanking God. It's been a trend for a few years now for celebrities to thank God first when they win a Grammy, an Oscar, or some similar award. It's also become routime for comedians to mock this because it seems to suggest that this person winning is a priority for God.
Sports figures who thank God for a victory, a championship, etc. are also mocked by comedians. they point out that, if God has miraculously helped one team win he has also caused the other team to lose. Some also chide the athletes for failing to take responsibility for their own victories.
Finally, I've seen some people mock celebrities who thank God for healing. When Magic Johnson's HIV went into remission he and his wife publically thanked God, and I saw an on-line column blasting them for it. The article suggested that it would have been appropriate to thank his doctors, or the researchers who came up with AZT and other medicines that helped. Thanking God, the article suggested, was stupid and showed a lack of appreciation for the people who really helped.
There are things here that I agree with. I can't see God caring that much who wins"Best Album" at the Grammies, or intervening in the Superbowl. Also, if someone blows off the contributions of doctors and researchers when they thank God for a healing, I don't think that's right. (BTW, I don't thing that was Magic's attitude, or the attitude of many people who experience that kind of recovery. I don't think I've ever seen a case where thanking God made the recovering person any less grateful to all the people involved. It's not as if someone who's just gotten their life back has a shortage of gratitude.
As for "taking responsibility" for our acievements... that seems like a strange argument. It sounds like they are suggesting that superstars and celebrities suffer from tiny egos and that an excess of humility is going to sweep through them like a plague. (Wouldn't that be awful?)
The critics of thanking God have got some fair points, but I think they've missed the point. It's not about imagining that God likes me better then the next guy, or that every little success I have is thanks to supernatural intercession. Thanking God is realizing that we don't accomplish anything all by ourselves. We are connected to others, to family, to friends, to teammates and opponents, to docrtors and nurses and scientists, to producers, and backup singers, and directors, and to so many other people whose contributions to our lives we may not even be aware of. And as we are connected to each other, we are also connected to God. When we feel joy, success, elation, we are feeling our connection to God in that moment and thanksgiving is the most natural response in the world.
Thanksgiving shouldn't be just about the victories in our lives, because God is always with us. When we realize that, we find ourselves seeing blessings in every little thing, and feeling thankful every moment.
It's a better way to live, celebrating your blessings and feeling thankful for them. To go back to the movies, it's the difference between living like the stern and angry Jimmy Stewart from the beginning of "Shenandoah" and the thankful, joyful Jimmy Stewart at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life."
Which Jimmy Stewart would you rather be?
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
The prayer does a lot to establish Stewart's character who is a proud, self-relaint, and pig-headed. He believes in himself and his family and not much of anything else. Bhy the end of the movie the tragedies he experiences in the Civil War have opened his heard and broadened his world at least a little.
I thought of this prayer on this Thanksgiving day because it reflects other things I've heard about thanking not thanking God. It's been a trend for a few years now for celebrities to thank God first when they win a Grammy, an Oscar, or some similar award. It's also become routime for comedians to mock this because it seems to suggest that this person winning is a priority for God.
Sports figures who thank God for a victory, a championship, etc. are also mocked by comedians. they point out that, if God has miraculously helped one team win he has also caused the other team to lose. Some also chide the athletes for failing to take responsibility for their own victories.
Finally, I've seen some people mock celebrities who thank God for healing. When Magic Johnson's HIV went into remission he and his wife publically thanked God, and I saw an on-line column blasting them for it. The article suggested that it would have been appropriate to thank his doctors, or the researchers who came up with AZT and other medicines that helped. Thanking God, the article suggested, was stupid and showed a lack of appreciation for the people who really helped.
There are things here that I agree with. I can't see God caring that much who wins"Best Album" at the Grammies, or intervening in the Superbowl. Also, if someone blows off the contributions of doctors and researchers when they thank God for a healing, I don't think that's right. (BTW, I don't thing that was Magic's attitude, or the attitude of many people who experience that kind of recovery. I don't think I've ever seen a case where thanking God made the recovering person any less grateful to all the people involved. It's not as if someone who's just gotten their life back has a shortage of gratitude.
As for "taking responsibility" for our acievements... that seems like a strange argument. It sounds like they are suggesting that superstars and celebrities suffer from tiny egos and that an excess of humility is going to sweep through them like a plague. (Wouldn't that be awful?)
The critics of thanking God have got some fair points, but I think they've missed the point. It's not about imagining that God likes me better then the next guy, or that every little success I have is thanks to supernatural intercession. Thanking God is realizing that we don't accomplish anything all by ourselves. We are connected to others, to family, to friends, to teammates and opponents, to docrtors and nurses and scientists, to producers, and backup singers, and directors, and to so many other people whose contributions to our lives we may not even be aware of. And as we are connected to each other, we are also connected to God. When we feel joy, success, elation, we are feeling our connection to God in that moment and thanksgiving is the most natural response in the world.
Thanksgiving shouldn't be just about the victories in our lives, because God is always with us. When we realize that, we find ourselves seeing blessings in every little thing, and feeling thankful every moment.
It's a better way to live, celebrating your blessings and feeling thankful for them. To go back to the movies, it's the difference between living like the stern and angry Jimmy Stewart from the beginning of "Shenandoah" and the thankful, joyful Jimmy Stewart at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life."
Which Jimmy Stewart would you rather be?
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Burden of Proof
I run across a lot of interesting stuff while browsing the web. Yesterday I found a this poster on an Athiest perspective.
It's an interesting perspective. For one thing, it makes a point that not all Athiests disbelieve in the same way or for the same reason. For some, the problem of human suffering is the issue. I can see how an honest person with a conscience could have a hard time believing in a just and loving God. I think the problem of suffering is something that both believers and non-believers of conscience are bound to struggle with.
For some Athiests, I think it is the coolness factor. When you look at some of the mocking statements New Athiests make about how believers are stupid, delusional, superstitious, immoral, etc. the temptation is right there. Just declare yourself an Athiest and you can claim that you are smarter than the great majority of the human race. It's the flip side of people who become Christians thinking that will make them superior to everyone else. IMO, it's the shallowest reason to believe or disbelieve in anything.
Then there are some who just don't get believing. I've known a few folks in this category who aren't necessarily hostile to believers, but they don't see any logical reason to believe and don't feel any deep urge to believe. Without anything rational or irrational pushing them, the whole idea of believing in God just seems strange to them, and it's easy to see why.
The poster picks up on that, though it takes it in an angry direction. It implies that it is unfair to tell people that they should have to justify themselves by disproving the existence of God.
This is true. I can't make you believe and you're under no obligation to justify your disbelief. I completely agree with the poster to that point.
It's when you take the saying on the poster a little further that I disagree. If you take the "burden of proof" argument to suggest that believers should have to prove God's existence to justify our beliefs, I have to disagree.
I believe deeply and fully in God, but it's never been a matter of evidence. Faith in God seems as natural as eating or drinking to me, and I suspect that's the case for most believers. For us, needing to justify our faith in rational scientific terms is a bizarre idea. Faith, after all, is more about a relationship than about believing an idea.
I think I can get across what it's like with the analogy of falling in love. When you fall in love, there's no difficulty in proving the existence of the other person, but the bond between the two of you is a different matter. Your feelings of love are real, true, and powerful, but impossible to demonstrate. Imagine if someone said this about your love.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
As wonderful and useful as the scientific method is, there are areas of life where it's the wrong tool for the job. There are many unscientific questions that it is powerless to help us understand, yet things like love, beauty, compassion, justice, and (yes) God are still meaningful and important to the majority of people.
The bottom line for me is that the argument about proving God's existence is a silly one. In the modern world we talk about God vs. science, but trying to prove God in scientific terms doesn't make any more sense than trying to prove science in the terms of faith.
Faith and science are two different tools with different uses, different strengths and different weaknesses. Just because science can't answer a question doesn't mean it's a bad question. I really think that we need both the insights of faith and of science. I think that we should stop seeing this as a war and start seeing it as a conversation where each side has a lot to learn and a lot to offer.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Bully Pulpit
I stole my title from Stephen Colbert this week because it kind of says it all.
In an attempt to protect kids from being bullied in public schools, the Michigan legislature has enacted an anti-bullying measure. Michigan Republicans, however have added language to the bill allowing bullying on religious and moral grounds.
Colbert says it better than I can.
I hope it's obvious to everyone without me having to say it just how un-Christian this is. The idea that anyone needs the freedom to physically or even verbally bash another human being to express their religious or moral convictions is absurd. The fact that is it people who call themselves Christians pushing this is deeply offensive to be and about as blasphemous as anything I've ever heard. It shows a tragic lack of understanding of Jesus, who spent his life touching the untouchables, welcoming the outcasts, and standing up for the marginalized.
We have the freedom in the US to express our opinions, even our most hateful and mean-spirited opinions. That's a valuable freedom, but it was not and never should become license to bully.
"My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
In an attempt to protect kids from being bullied in public schools, the Michigan legislature has enacted an anti-bullying measure. Michigan Republicans, however have added language to the bill allowing bullying on religious and moral grounds.
Colbert says it better than I can.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - Bully Pulpit | ||||
| ||||
I hope it's obvious to everyone without me having to say it just how un-Christian this is. The idea that anyone needs the freedom to physically or even verbally bash another human being to express their religious or moral convictions is absurd. The fact that is it people who call themselves Christians pushing this is deeply offensive to be and about as blasphemous as anything I've ever heard. It shows a tragic lack of understanding of Jesus, who spent his life touching the untouchables, welcoming the outcasts, and standing up for the marginalized.
We have the freedom in the US to express our opinions, even our most hateful and mean-spirited opinions. That's a valuable freedom, but it was not and never should become license to bully.
"My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Thank You Bishop Spong
I've been reading columns by retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong for quite a few years. He is an important voice in modern Christianity and, though I often disagree with him about details, I have a lot of respect for him.
There's something that Bishop Spong says about what he calls the "God of theism" that has always bothered me. He seemed to be saying things about God that I disagreed with and I wanted to understand better. I once e-mailed him a question about it but never saw the answer in his column. It turns out that he did answer; I just found what he said in another blog. What he said helped me understand him better, and let me know that we are closer to agreeing than I realized.
Here are question and answer:
----------------------------------------------
Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong
Matthew Baugh, via the Internet, writes:
I've wondered for a while about the definition of theism and its implications. There seem to be three central points you use most often. The God of theism is 1) external, 2) supernatural, 3) intervenes in human lives. Does this statement imply that God is the opposite of these three things?
Much of what you write suggests that this is clearly true of point 3. You present God as not intervening and not capable of intervening. The opposite of point 2 would seem to be that God is natural. Is this a correct assumption and, if so, how do you see God as manifest in the natural world? The opposite of point 1 would seem to be that God is internal.
I'm very aware that I might be reading too much into your words but the sense I get is that you suggest that God is internal to human experience. This seems to fit with some modern brain research that suggests that human beings are "hard-wired" to believe in some higher power and to worship it. This research suggests that belief in God is a natural part of being human rather than a social construct imposed from without.
Is this the non-theistic understanding of God? Internal, natural (though not manifest outside of human consciousness) and unable to intervene in the world (except perhaps through God's effects on the consciousness of each believer?)
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your penetrating and perceptive letter that gives me an opportunity to think publicly once more about the meaning of the word "God" in human experience.
Let me begin by making a distinction. I try not to talk about the "God of theism." I regard theism as a human definition of God. It is not who or what God is. Theism is a human attempt to describe a God experience in pre-modern language. Prior to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, people inevitably thought of God as a supernatural presence over the natural world.
Before Isaac Newton, they thought of God as setting aside the laws of the universe to do miracles or to answer prayers. Before Darwin and Freud, they thought of God as the external creator and portrayed God as a heavenly parent. Prior to Einstein, they assumed that these perceptions were objectively true and not subject to the relativity in which all human thought dwells since both the time in which we live and the space we occupy are relative, not absolute. So when I dismiss theism, I am not dismissing God. I am dismissing one human image of God that sought to define a human experience of the divine.
To suggest that if theism is not true then the opposite of theism is true is to make the same mistake. Every human attempt to define God is nothing more than a human attempt to define the human experience of the divine. We can never tell who God is or who God is not. We can only tell another of what we believe our experience of God has been. Even then we have to face the possibility that all of our God talk may be delusional.
When I try to talk of God, I am only talking of my God experience. That is not what God is, that is only what I believe my experience of God to be.
I do not experience God as a supernatural power, external to life invading my world in supernatural power. I see no evidence to think this definition is real. The problem is that most people have most deeply identified this definition of God with God that when this definition dies the victim of expanded knowledge, we think that God has died.
I am not trying to form a new definition. I am only trying to share an experience. In my human self-consciousness at both the depth of life and on the edges of consciousness, I believe I encounter a transcendent other. In that encounter, I experience expanded life, the increased ability to love and a new dimension of what it means to be. I call that experience God and that experience leads me to say that if I meet God in expanded life, God becomes for me the source of life. If I meet God in the enhanced ability to love, God becomes for me the source of love. If I meet God in an increased ability to be all that I am, God becomes for me the ground of being.
I can talk about my experience. Having only a human means of communication I cannot really talk about God. Horses can experience a human being entering their horse consciousness, but a horse could never tell another horse what it means to be human. Somehow human beings have never quite embraced that fact that this is also true about the human being's knowledge of God.
I do not know how God acts therefore I can never say how God acts. For me to say God is unable to intervene would be to say more than I know. For me to explain how God intervenes or why God does not intervene is to claim knowledge of God that is not mine.
I test my experience daily in the light of evolving human language. The result of that is that every day I believe in God more deeply, while at the same time, every day I seem to have less and less beliefs about God. Human beings seem almost incapable of embracing mystery, especially ultimate mystery. I am content to walk daily with the mystery of God. I walk past road maps, past religious systems, even my own but never beyond the mystery of God. I suppose that makes me a mystic, but an uncomfortable, never satisfied, always-evolving one.
I find great meaning and great power in this approach. I commend it to you. Thank you for your super letter.
There's something that Bishop Spong says about what he calls the "God of theism" that has always bothered me. He seemed to be saying things about God that I disagreed with and I wanted to understand better. I once e-mailed him a question about it but never saw the answer in his column. It turns out that he did answer; I just found what he said in another blog. What he said helped me understand him better, and let me know that we are closer to agreeing than I realized.
Here are question and answer:
----------------------------------------------
Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong
Matthew Baugh, via the Internet, writes:
I've wondered for a while about the definition of theism and its implications. There seem to be three central points you use most often. The God of theism is 1) external, 2) supernatural, 3) intervenes in human lives. Does this statement imply that God is the opposite of these three things?
Much of what you write suggests that this is clearly true of point 3. You present God as not intervening and not capable of intervening. The opposite of point 2 would seem to be that God is natural. Is this a correct assumption and, if so, how do you see God as manifest in the natural world? The opposite of point 1 would seem to be that God is internal.
I'm very aware that I might be reading too much into your words but the sense I get is that you suggest that God is internal to human experience. This seems to fit with some modern brain research that suggests that human beings are "hard-wired" to believe in some higher power and to worship it. This research suggests that belief in God is a natural part of being human rather than a social construct imposed from without.
Is this the non-theistic understanding of God? Internal, natural (though not manifest outside of human consciousness) and unable to intervene in the world (except perhaps through God's effects on the consciousness of each believer?)
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your penetrating and perceptive letter that gives me an opportunity to think publicly once more about the meaning of the word "God" in human experience.
Let me begin by making a distinction. I try not to talk about the "God of theism." I regard theism as a human definition of God. It is not who or what God is. Theism is a human attempt to describe a God experience in pre-modern language. Prior to Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, people inevitably thought of God as a supernatural presence over the natural world.
Before Isaac Newton, they thought of God as setting aside the laws of the universe to do miracles or to answer prayers. Before Darwin and Freud, they thought of God as the external creator and portrayed God as a heavenly parent. Prior to Einstein, they assumed that these perceptions were objectively true and not subject to the relativity in which all human thought dwells since both the time in which we live and the space we occupy are relative, not absolute. So when I dismiss theism, I am not dismissing God. I am dismissing one human image of God that sought to define a human experience of the divine.
To suggest that if theism is not true then the opposite of theism is true is to make the same mistake. Every human attempt to define God is nothing more than a human attempt to define the human experience of the divine. We can never tell who God is or who God is not. We can only tell another of what we believe our experience of God has been. Even then we have to face the possibility that all of our God talk may be delusional.
When I try to talk of God, I am only talking of my God experience. That is not what God is, that is only what I believe my experience of God to be.
I do not experience God as a supernatural power, external to life invading my world in supernatural power. I see no evidence to think this definition is real. The problem is that most people have most deeply identified this definition of God with God that when this definition dies the victim of expanded knowledge, we think that God has died.
I am not trying to form a new definition. I am only trying to share an experience. In my human self-consciousness at both the depth of life and on the edges of consciousness, I believe I encounter a transcendent other. In that encounter, I experience expanded life, the increased ability to love and a new dimension of what it means to be. I call that experience God and that experience leads me to say that if I meet God in expanded life, God becomes for me the source of life. If I meet God in the enhanced ability to love, God becomes for me the source of love. If I meet God in an increased ability to be all that I am, God becomes for me the ground of being.
I can talk about my experience. Having only a human means of communication I cannot really talk about God. Horses can experience a human being entering their horse consciousness, but a horse could never tell another horse what it means to be human. Somehow human beings have never quite embraced that fact that this is also true about the human being's knowledge of God.
I do not know how God acts therefore I can never say how God acts. For me to say God is unable to intervene would be to say more than I know. For me to explain how God intervenes or why God does not intervene is to claim knowledge of God that is not mine.
I test my experience daily in the light of evolving human language. The result of that is that every day I believe in God more deeply, while at the same time, every day I seem to have less and less beliefs about God. Human beings seem almost incapable of embracing mystery, especially ultimate mystery. I am content to walk daily with the mystery of God. I walk past road maps, past religious systems, even my own but never beyond the mystery of God. I suppose that makes me a mystic, but an uncomfortable, never satisfied, always-evolving one.
I find great meaning and great power in this approach. I commend it to you. Thank you for your super letter.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A Prayer for Egypt
I heard some disturbing reports about violence in Egypt last week. As you probably know, Egypt was one of the first great successes of the Arab Spring when popular demonstrations managed to dislodge the dictator, Hosni Mubarak. I thought it was wonderful, and was heartened to hear young Arabs and Egyptians rejecting terrorism in favor of the power of peaceful protest.
Unfortunately, there is a dark side to the revolution. A month ago, Egyptian crowds attacked the Israeli Embassy, and just a few days ago saw a rash of anti-Christian violence.
According to reports, a radical Islamic group called the Salafis are targeting the Coptic Christians with several church burnings and acts of violence. The Copts, who have lived in the country since before the time of Muhammed, are upset by the transitional government's lack of action on the matter. To make matters words, a non-violent Christian protest was attacked by the army leaving at least 25 dead and nearly 300 injured.
The government blames a outside conspiracy that wants to destabilize the country while many on the street think the army may be encouraging chaos in a bid to remain in power. This isn't helped by a the fact that the government controlled media will not report the Coptic side of the story or broadcast any story that accuses government forces or Muslims of wrong-doing.
I believe there are many people in Egypt who want to see peace between the different religions, but it's an uphill battle. What looked like good news for all Egyptians may not be such good news for the religious minorities. Only time will tell. I hope that the prayers of the rest of the world will be with Egypt and the whole Arabic world, and I also hope that the eyes of the world will be on them. May peace prevail on earth but may that peace always include justice for all.
(NOTE: I put this entry aside for a week. In that time there have been huge developments in Libya where dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. My concerns, and hopes, for that country are very much like those for Egypt.)
Unfortunately, there is a dark side to the revolution. A month ago, Egyptian crowds attacked the Israeli Embassy, and just a few days ago saw a rash of anti-Christian violence.
According to reports, a radical Islamic group called the Salafis are targeting the Coptic Christians with several church burnings and acts of violence. The Copts, who have lived in the country since before the time of Muhammed, are upset by the transitional government's lack of action on the matter. To make matters words, a non-violent Christian protest was attacked by the army leaving at least 25 dead and nearly 300 injured.
The government blames a outside conspiracy that wants to destabilize the country while many on the street think the army may be encouraging chaos in a bid to remain in power. This isn't helped by a the fact that the government controlled media will not report the Coptic side of the story or broadcast any story that accuses government forces or Muslims of wrong-doing.
I believe there are many people in Egypt who want to see peace between the different religions, but it's an uphill battle. What looked like good news for all Egyptians may not be such good news for the religious minorities. Only time will tell. I hope that the prayers of the rest of the world will be with Egypt and the whole Arabic world, and I also hope that the eyes of the world will be on them. May peace prevail on earth but may that peace always include justice for all.
(NOTE: I put this entry aside for a week. In that time there have been huge developments in Libya where dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been killed. My concerns, and hopes, for that country are very much like those for Egypt.)
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Happy Halloween (early)
I'm a pastor but I've never seen the sense in the anti-Halloween sentiment that you find in some churches. Children dressing up as ghosts and witches is innocent fun (besides, these days it's more about superheroes and Disney princesses than spooky creatures).
Like anything else, Halloween can be made into what we want it to be. It can be just another excuse for a party, or it can be a time to have some quality time with the kids, or you can even find a lesson in it.
Here's something a parishioner pased on to me that I used in church today. I carved a pumpkin as an illustration. (Man, it's been too many years since I did that.)
THE JACK O'LANTERN PRAYER
"Pumpkin Prayer"
{cut off top of pumpkin}
Lord, open my mind so I can learn new things about you.
{remove innards}
Remove the things in my life that don’t please you.
Forgive the wrong things I do and help me to forgive others.
{cut open eyes}
Open my eyes to see the beauty you’ve made in the world around me.
{cut out nose}
I’m sorry for the times I’ve turned my nose at the good food you provide.
{cut out mouth}
Let everything I say please You.
{light the candle}
Lord, help me show your light to others through the things I do. Amen
By: Liz Curtis Higgs
Saturday, September 24, 2011
New Blog
I've wanted to go through the entire Bible with a blog, but there are enough topics I want to cover here that it would get a little cluttered.
Because of this, I've started a NEW BLOG to cover the Bible. I hope you'll join me there to take a fresh look at familiar stories and maybe even to discover a few new things.
Because of this, I've started a NEW BLOG to cover the Bible. I hope you'll join me there to take a fresh look at familiar stories and maybe even to discover a few new things.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Bad for Women?
I recently signed up for a wonderful site called Bible Study Tools.com which has an even broader assortment of versions of the Bible than my old favorite, Bible Gateway. I'm just learning all the features but one I love is the ability to look at passages from two different versions side by side.
There's a downside to everything, I suppose. The articles I've seen there are (so far) all very conservative. One of these that really caught my attention was an article by Mary Kassian, an author, speaker and professor of women's studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
In her article 10 Reasons Why the New 2011 NIV Is Bad for Women she takes aim at the practice of using gender-inclusive language in the Bible.
In case you're not familiar with it, "inclusive language" means using language that isn't just male. For example, when addressing a group of people where there are men and women mingles it means saying something like "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers" or when talking about all the people in the world it means using "humanity" instead of "man."
This has been fairly common practice in my church (the United Church of Christ) for at least thirty years but has only recently made inroads into Mrs. Kassian's Southern Baptist denomination. This trend bothers her and she has listed 10 reasons that she thinks inclusive language in the Bible is bad for women.
I disagree with her. While I think that inclusive language (like any cause) can be done poorly, I think the basic idea is theologically sound, rooted in authentic Christian faith, and important for modern people. I'll try to explain why point by point.
Here are Mrs. Kassian's points (in bold) followed by my comments.
1. It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:
There may be something in this point, though Mrs. Kassian doesn't develop it. I'll concede that she might be right about some positive symbolism being lost, but I believe that is overshadowed by the negative and sexist symbolism. The Bible was written in a deeply sexist culture where women were not only considered inferior but treated as property. Modern sexists use this to pretend that these attitudes are God's will in the same way that preachers in the Antebellum South used scriptures about slavery to claim that was God's will. We need to strip away the cultural baggage in scripture to discern God's truth more clearly and inclusive language can help to do that.
2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:
Mrs. Kassian says . . .
Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately . . . about Jesus
I agree that the grand sweep of the Bible is about God more than it is about gender. We should not use inclusive language in such a heavy-handed manner that the Bible seems to be a manual on gender rather than the story of God and humanity. Fortunately, nobody who wants to use inclusive language is trying to do this. The changes are subtle and don't alter the story of God or Christ one bit.
3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:
I'm not sure what to say in response to this. I don't see it, and Mrs. Kassian doesn't ever say how it diminishes women.
4. It is less inclusive of women:
This is an interesting point. Mrs. Kassian points out that the Hebrew word for all people, male and female, is 'adam. She says that when we say "men and women" we are excluding women from the collective whole.
While I can see her point, it would really only be true if people were talking about changing the Hebrew word. No one is doing that. The question is what the best translation of 'adam is. She seems to argue that "man" or "mankind" is the only appropriate English translation. She doesn't say why she believes this is better than a gender neutral term like "humanity."
5. It demeans women:
Mrs. Kassian says that a gender inclusive Bible assumes that women are too stupid that "man" actually means "human" and that "brothers" often means "brothers and sisters." The truth is that this doesn't make any judgment that women are stupid at all. It simply addresses the reality that there are many people who have heard from their preachers that, when the Bible says "men" it means "males only."
6. It patronizes women:
I was surprised by how sarcastic Mrs. Kassian got on this point. She says...
Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo.
She says that changing the language of the Bible to avoid hurting women's feelings is wrong. She's right, if that was what was happening, it would be patronizing. But that's not what's happening; inclusive language Bibles exist to give us a more accurate understanding of God's word, free from the sexist prejudices of older generations of translators.
7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:
She rightly says that God loves men and women equally, but assumes that inclusive language is criticizing God for giving men more air time than women. The truth is that inclusive language criticized not God, but the human writers and translators of scripture who sometimes let their own prejudices overshadow God's truth.
8. It calls God's wisdom into question:
Again, there is no criticism of God, only of the wisdom of humans who bring a sexist agenda to biblical translation.
9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:
Mrs. Kassian says . . .
I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book.
This one stunned me, not that a Muslim would be agast, but that a Christian would use this as an argument. The Muslim approach to scripture is very different from that of Christianity. Muslims seek to avoid even translating the Qur'an as much as possible and I've seen Muslim critics of Christianity say that the sheer number of versions of the Bible is proof that we are drifting further and further from the original meaning.
Actually, the opposite is true. The reason we have new translations is because we have better scholarship and better access to good ancient manuscripts. Our modern versions, and that includes gender inclusive versions, are attempts to get closer to the meaning of the originals scriptures.
10. It leads women away from truth:
Mrs. Kassian rightly feels that the scripture shoudln't be watered down or made more palatable. But she is mistaken if she thinks that is what lies behind the gender inclusive versions. As I've said, this movement seeks to strip away human prejudice and offer a more accurate and more faithful understanding of our holy scriptures. That's not to say that inclusive language Bibles are automatically good. Like any other approach it can be handled faithfully and well, or clumsily and dogmatically.
The challenge is not to accept inclusive language because we like it, or to reject it because we are blindly afraid of it. We should use it fairly and rationally to help us grow closer to God.
There's a downside to everything, I suppose. The articles I've seen there are (so far) all very conservative. One of these that really caught my attention was an article by Mary Kassian, an author, speaker and professor of women's studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
In her article 10 Reasons Why the New 2011 NIV Is Bad for Women she takes aim at the practice of using gender-inclusive language in the Bible.
In case you're not familiar with it, "inclusive language" means using language that isn't just male. For example, when addressing a group of people where there are men and women mingles it means saying something like "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers" or when talking about all the people in the world it means using "humanity" instead of "man."
This has been fairly common practice in my church (the United Church of Christ) for at least thirty years but has only recently made inroads into Mrs. Kassian's Southern Baptist denomination. This trend bothers her and she has listed 10 reasons that she thinks inclusive language in the Bible is bad for women.
I disagree with her. While I think that inclusive language (like any cause) can be done poorly, I think the basic idea is theologically sound, rooted in authentic Christian faith, and important for modern people. I'll try to explain why point by point.
Here are Mrs. Kassian's points (in bold) followed by my comments.
1. It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:
There may be something in this point, though Mrs. Kassian doesn't develop it. I'll concede that she might be right about some positive symbolism being lost, but I believe that is overshadowed by the negative and sexist symbolism. The Bible was written in a deeply sexist culture where women were not only considered inferior but treated as property. Modern sexists use this to pretend that these attitudes are God's will in the same way that preachers in the Antebellum South used scriptures about slavery to claim that was God's will. We need to strip away the cultural baggage in scripture to discern God's truth more clearly and inclusive language can help to do that.
2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:
Mrs. Kassian says . . .
Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately . . . about Jesus
I agree that the grand sweep of the Bible is about God more than it is about gender. We should not use inclusive language in such a heavy-handed manner that the Bible seems to be a manual on gender rather than the story of God and humanity. Fortunately, nobody who wants to use inclusive language is trying to do this. The changes are subtle and don't alter the story of God or Christ one bit.
3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:
I'm not sure what to say in response to this. I don't see it, and Mrs. Kassian doesn't ever say how it diminishes women.
4. It is less inclusive of women:
This is an interesting point. Mrs. Kassian points out that the Hebrew word for all people, male and female, is 'adam. She says that when we say "men and women" we are excluding women from the collective whole.
While I can see her point, it would really only be true if people were talking about changing the Hebrew word. No one is doing that. The question is what the best translation of 'adam is. She seems to argue that "man" or "mankind" is the only appropriate English translation. She doesn't say why she believes this is better than a gender neutral term like "humanity."
5. It demeans women:
Mrs. Kassian says that a gender inclusive Bible assumes that women are too stupid that "man" actually means "human" and that "brothers" often means "brothers and sisters." The truth is that this doesn't make any judgment that women are stupid at all. It simply addresses the reality that there are many people who have heard from their preachers that, when the Bible says "men" it means "males only."
6. It patronizes women:
I was surprised by how sarcastic Mrs. Kassian got on this point. She says...
Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo.
She says that changing the language of the Bible to avoid hurting women's feelings is wrong. She's right, if that was what was happening, it would be patronizing. But that's not what's happening; inclusive language Bibles exist to give us a more accurate understanding of God's word, free from the sexist prejudices of older generations of translators.
7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:
She rightly says that God loves men and women equally, but assumes that inclusive language is criticizing God for giving men more air time than women. The truth is that inclusive language criticized not God, but the human writers and translators of scripture who sometimes let their own prejudices overshadow God's truth.
8. It calls God's wisdom into question:
Again, there is no criticism of God, only of the wisdom of humans who bring a sexist agenda to biblical translation.
9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:
Mrs. Kassian says . . .
I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book.
This one stunned me, not that a Muslim would be agast, but that a Christian would use this as an argument. The Muslim approach to scripture is very different from that of Christianity. Muslims seek to avoid even translating the Qur'an as much as possible and I've seen Muslim critics of Christianity say that the sheer number of versions of the Bible is proof that we are drifting further and further from the original meaning.
Actually, the opposite is true. The reason we have new translations is because we have better scholarship and better access to good ancient manuscripts. Our modern versions, and that includes gender inclusive versions, are attempts to get closer to the meaning of the originals scriptures.
10. It leads women away from truth:
Mrs. Kassian rightly feels that the scripture shoudln't be watered down or made more palatable. But she is mistaken if she thinks that is what lies behind the gender inclusive versions. As I've said, this movement seeks to strip away human prejudice and offer a more accurate and more faithful understanding of our holy scriptures. That's not to say that inclusive language Bibles are automatically good. Like any other approach it can be handled faithfully and well, or clumsily and dogmatically.
The challenge is not to accept inclusive language because we like it, or to reject it because we are blindly afraid of it. We should use it fairly and rationally to help us grow closer to God.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
What About Hell?
A friend sent me Time magizine article from earlier this year. It seems that Rob Bell, the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church is making waves in Evangelical Christianity with his new book, Love Wins. He is raising the question of whether people who don't believe in Jesus are doomed to suffer for eternity in Hell, or whether the truth is different than what so many Christians expect.
Bell has been criticized for this book. Even though he doesn't come to any firm conclusions about who goes to heaven and who to Hell, he opens the door to the question. This has been called "theologically disastrous" by Conservative Evangelical radio host Albert Mohler. The objection (if I understand it correctly) is that we need the threat of Hell because people aren't going to follow Jesus just because of his goodness, mercy, wisdom, and the way he draws people into a new relationship with God.
Some Evangelical critics have called Bell a Universalist because of the book. For the record, he is not, but he does believe that the question of who is saved and who is doomed is an open one, and the most honest way to discuss this is to affirm that this is a mystery here.
I have a lot of respect for the wisdom, insights, scholarship and compassion of Rob Bell. I haven't read his book yet, but I agree with everything I've heard him say about it in articles I've read. When he says that eternal damnation for all non-Christians seems incompatable with the loving ministry of Jesus, I have to agree 100%.
I'm going to say more about Hell in my next several blogs. It's always surprised me how little the Bible has to say on the subject. Most of what we believe in Hell comes from much later Christian preaching and traditions. But more on that later. Till then, I'll just leave you with this video of Rob Bell debating this topic with < href="http://adrianwarnock.com/">Adrian Warnock a conservative Evangelical pastor from the UK.
See who you agree with.
Bell has been criticized for this book. Even though he doesn't come to any firm conclusions about who goes to heaven and who to Hell, he opens the door to the question. This has been called "theologically disastrous" by Conservative Evangelical radio host Albert Mohler. The objection (if I understand it correctly) is that we need the threat of Hell because people aren't going to follow Jesus just because of his goodness, mercy, wisdom, and the way he draws people into a new relationship with God.
Some Evangelical critics have called Bell a Universalist because of the book. For the record, he is not, but he does believe that the question of who is saved and who is doomed is an open one, and the most honest way to discuss this is to affirm that this is a mystery here.
I have a lot of respect for the wisdom, insights, scholarship and compassion of Rob Bell. I haven't read his book yet, but I agree with everything I've heard him say about it in articles I've read. When he says that eternal damnation for all non-Christians seems incompatable with the loving ministry of Jesus, I have to agree 100%.
I'm going to say more about Hell in my next several blogs. It's always surprised me how little the Bible has to say on the subject. Most of what we believe in Hell comes from much later Christian preaching and traditions. But more on that later. Till then, I'll just leave you with this video of Rob Bell debating this topic with < href="http://adrianwarnock.com/">Adrian Warnock a conservative Evangelical pastor from the UK.
See who you agree with.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Bible Literacy - Wrap Up
Just a few final thoughts on the Bible Literacy quiz.
1) The Freedom From Religion Foundation is correct that a lot of Christians don't know the Bible as well as they should. For one thing, it's shocking how many believers have trouble differentiating between what is actually in the Bible and what their church and/or preacher says about the Bible.
2) However it is also true that many Athiest critics are equally sloppy, take passages out of context, and fail to distinguish between doctrines and actual scriptures.
3) The FFRF is correct that there are quite a few passages in the Bible that are shocking. There is violence, intolerance, sexism, and hate speech.
4) But, like a number of athiest critics, they tend to cherry pick the worst scriptures and turn a blind eye to the overrisding themes themes of mercy, compassion, and justice. (There are more than 2000 passages about showing compassion and justice to the poor making it the second most dominant theme, only surpassed by the theme of faith in God.)
5) The FFRF correctly points out that the Bible is not an accurate source for scientific or medical information.
6) But they tend to distort the passages about ethical and spiritual teachings to try to discredit them. They pull passages out of context and offer unreasonable interpretations.
Bottom line: There are some areas where there is real need for investigation and criticism of the Bible and especially of a narrow and literal reading of the Bible. It's an important conversation and I think that believers and nonj-believers alike could benefit form an open dialogue.
This would need to be an honest conversation to accomplish anything. Neither side could come in assuming that only they had all then answers. The dialogue would have to inlcude respect, humility and an openness to learning something new.
I'd love to see that happen someday.
1) The Freedom From Religion Foundation is correct that a lot of Christians don't know the Bible as well as they should. For one thing, it's shocking how many believers have trouble differentiating between what is actually in the Bible and what their church and/or preacher says about the Bible.
2) However it is also true that many Athiest critics are equally sloppy, take passages out of context, and fail to distinguish between doctrines and actual scriptures.
3) The FFRF is correct that there are quite a few passages in the Bible that are shocking. There is violence, intolerance, sexism, and hate speech.
4) But, like a number of athiest critics, they tend to cherry pick the worst scriptures and turn a blind eye to the overrisding themes themes of mercy, compassion, and justice. (There are more than 2000 passages about showing compassion and justice to the poor making it the second most dominant theme, only surpassed by the theme of faith in God.)
5) The FFRF correctly points out that the Bible is not an accurate source for scientific or medical information.
6) But they tend to distort the passages about ethical and spiritual teachings to try to discredit them. They pull passages out of context and offer unreasonable interpretations.
Bottom line: There are some areas where there is real need for investigation and criticism of the Bible and especially of a narrow and literal reading of the Bible. It's an important conversation and I think that believers and nonj-believers alike could benefit form an open dialogue.
This would need to be an honest conversation to accomplish anything. Neither side could come in assuming that only they had all then answers. The dialogue would have to inlcude respect, humility and an openness to learning something new.
I'd love to see that happen someday.
Bible Literacy - 6
41. Paul forbids divorce, but Jesus allows it under one circumstance. What is that circumstance?
Answer: B - If the wife has sex outside of marriage.
Sexism illustrated: in Christianity, only a male can divorce a cheating spouse.
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32) Not only did Jesus contradict Paul (I Corinthians 7:10), he admittedly contradicted the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1), which allowed divorce on much broader grounds.
My Comments:
Divorce in Jesus' time was sexist, just as marriage was sexist. The wife had few rights under Jewish law and divorcing her husband was not one of them. The husband on the other hand, could divorce his wife if he decided there was anything wrong with her or if he simply got tired of her.
This teaching from Jesus came because he was upset by seeing women cast off so casually. Women in Jewish soceity were extremely vulnerable and a divorced woman was put out of the house with no money, property, or means of support. Often begging or prostitution were her only means of survival. Jesus' teaching was meant to protect women from this harsh and unfair practice.
42. What group of people will make it into the heavenly choir?
Answer: D - 144,000 male virgins who have not been defiled with women.
No women allowed! Notice the sexism: women "defile" men.
"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. . . . And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth." (Revelation 14:1-4)
My Comments:
The FFRF got this one pretty much right. Like most of the images in Revelation, this is symbolic rather than literal (the number 144,000, for instance is symbolic. It is created by multiplying 12 squared by 10 cubed. Both 1 and 10 are symbolic of wholeness.)
43. Which one of these words is in the bible (Trinity, Liberal, Christmas, or Rapture)?
Answer: B - Liberal.
In the King James version of the bible, "liberal" is a good word. The word "conservative" appears nowhere in the bible.
Different translations translate this differently: NIV="giving generously" giving liberally in , which is rendered:
"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself." (Proverbs 11:25) "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." (Isaiah 32:5) "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." (Isaiah 32:8) "Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men . . . Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift." (II Corinthians 9:13-15)
My Comments:
Very true. It's an amusing thought, if not really a comment on modern politics (though it is true that many Christians are political Liberals and vice versa.)
It is hard to know when early belief in the Trinity arose, (likely sometime in first several centuries of Christianity) but the word "Trinity" only dates back to the 13th Century and never appears in the Bible.
The Christian celebration of Christmas dates back to the 4th Century CE. The actual word "Christmas" is pre-12th Century but does not appear in the Bible.
The word "rapture" comes from 1594 but the theological understanding of the Rapture is much more recent and comes from 17th Century America.
44. Where does the bible say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?
Answer: D - Nowhere.
Nowhere in the bible will you find an acknowledgement that human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves--God has all the rights.
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12) "Lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5) "Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (II Corinthians 10:5) "Captivity" is not freedom. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is a humanistic, anti-biblical document.
My Comments:
It is true that the Bible contains no declaration of human rights; no ancient document does. The very concept of a declaration of human rights is a modern one.
The focus on human beings as "sinners, worms, and slaves" is not really biblical. A quick survey of the KJV trns up only 3 instances of people being called worms. Two of these (Job 25:6 and Psalm 22:6) are the reflections of deeply depressed men and the third (Isaiah 41:14) a word of reassurance to Israel at a time when the people feel like worms. In all these cases, it is the people, not God, who call themselves worms.
The words "sinners" and "slaves" are much more common in the Bible but they are not really used as the FFRF characfterizes them. Different specific groups are called "sinners" in scripture but the word is never used as a blanket characterization for all people. As for "slaves", the term is used a lot in the parables of Jesus, but it is a reminder that all people have responsibilities, not that we are unworthy. The FFRF's objection really applies to the way some preachers talk about humanity, not the way the Bible talks about them.
When the Bible says that people should submit to God it means that they should be loving, truthful, generous, forgiving, etc. It is not the same as the freedom to lie, to hate, to act out of greed, malice or selfishness, but these are the only "freedoms" that submission of God takes from us.
As for the Declaration of Independence, it is a noble documant and it is humanistic. It is hardly anti-Bible though, not in the eyes of most American Christians, nor in the eyes of its Deist author, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.(emphasis mine) nor in the eyes of the signers of the Declaration, 32 of whom were Episcopalian, 13 Congregationalist, 12 Presbyterian, 2 Quaker, 2 Unitarian, and 1 Catholic.
45. Should Christians allow nonbelievers into their homes?
Answer: No
Acting inhospitably is the Christian thing to do. Notice how this verse unfairly equates unbelief and diversity with evil: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 10-11)
My Comments:
Like many of the writers of the epistles, the author of 2 John was dealing with a specific situation. It looks like there were some non-believers in the community who were actively trying to talk believers out of the church. His advice made sense in that situation but wasn't meant to be for all Christians everywhere.
Hospitality is one of the core values of Christianity ans it shows up in many scriptures, including Matthew 25:34-40.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. And here's why:
I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was homeless and you gave me a room, I was shivering and you gave me clothes, I was sick and you stopped to visit, I was in prison and you came to me.'
"Then those 'sheep' are going to say, 'Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' Then the King will say, 'I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me—you did it to me.'
46. Should Christian men kiss each other?
Answer: Yes
Why do we not see men kissing in church, then? "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss." (I Thessalonians 5:26. See also Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Peter 5:14)
My Comments:
Well... this was the custom of the time, but it's not exactly a command. :-)
47. Should Christians always give what they have to anyone who asks for it?
Answer: Yes
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Try asking Christians for their houses and possessions, and see how faithful they are to the teachings of Jesus. Borrow a Christian's car and see if they ever ask for it back. Modern believers know that Jesus was wrong and the bible is not to be taken literally.
My Comments:
Jesus was using exaggeration to make a point about generosity. Rather than hoard resources and turning a blind eye to people in need, he suggests sharing without complaint. Ther FFRF is half right here, this passage shouldn't be interpreted literally, as an inflexible rule, but Jesus wasn't wrong: generosity is a better way to live than selfishness.
48. Do the Ten Commandments prohibit incest or rape?
Answer: No
The "ten commandments" (see Question 1) do not condemn any sexual acts. The only sexual practice prohibited by the list in Exodus 20 is adultery, which, although a valid marital concern, is a legal act between consenting adults. The violent and degrading crimes of rape and incest surely should have rated a "top ten" list, but they do not appear. Adultery in the Old Testament was considered a crime that could only be committed by a wife. Harper's Bible Dictionary explains: "The law was probably intended to ensure that any child born to the wife was really the husband's child, since it was considered crucial for the husband to have offspring, so that the family name could be perpetuated." Adultery had bearing on the patriarchy, while more violent crimes did not.
My Comments:
This is essentially correct. Rape and incest are prohibited but are not given the special status of being in thew 10 Commandments. The Ten Commandments do reflect the culture and the time they were written. as much as they reflect the word of God.
49. If you lose a lawsuit, should you pay exactly what the court decides?
Answer: No
You should pay twice as much! In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commands: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matthew 5:40-41) Are bible-believing Christians really paying double court-ordered child support? Or are they wiser than Jesus?
My Comments:
This is another case of Jesus exaggerating to make a point (as with question 47). In this instance the point is that Christians should try not to get caught up in the hostile dog-eat-dog world of lawsuits. When you are in a dispute, Jesus teaches that it is better to reach out in kindness and generosity than to lash back. It wouldn't work as an inflexible rule, but Jesus had little use for those and offers it as a guiding principle.
50. Can Christians ask their boss for a raise?
Answer: No
It is un-Christian to ask for a raise: "And [John the Baptist] said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? and he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:13-14) Modern Christians who love their families know better than this: it is not responsible to deny yourself a fair market wage, especially if you have children to support. Real family values transcend the bible. [John the Baptist was "preparing the way" for Jesus when he supposedly spoke these words.]
My Comments:
As with a number of scriptures the FFRF cites, this one changes when you read the whole thing. Here is is in KJV:
And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Then came also publicans (tax-collectors) to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. (Luke 3:10-14
And it's even clearer in the Message version:
The crowd asked him, "Then what are we supposed to do?"
"If you have two coats, give one away," he said. "Do the same with your food."
Tax men also came to be baptized and said, "Teacher, what should we do?"
He told them, "No more extortion—collect only what is required by law."
Soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"
He told them, "No shakedowns, no blackmail—and be content with your rations."
John the Baptist was telling people to stop harassing and eploiting others. There's nothing here to suggest he'd have any issue with a laborer asking for a fair raise.
So... how did the FFRF do on their own test? FWIW, I'm giving them credit for all correct answers even where they made false statements in their comments.
THEIR SCORE: 36 out of 50.
Answer: B - If the wife has sex outside of marriage.
Sexism illustrated: in Christianity, only a male can divorce a cheating spouse.
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32) Not only did Jesus contradict Paul (I Corinthians 7:10), he admittedly contradicted the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1), which allowed divorce on much broader grounds.
My Comments:
Divorce in Jesus' time was sexist, just as marriage was sexist. The wife had few rights under Jewish law and divorcing her husband was not one of them. The husband on the other hand, could divorce his wife if he decided there was anything wrong with her or if he simply got tired of her.
This teaching from Jesus came because he was upset by seeing women cast off so casually. Women in Jewish soceity were extremely vulnerable and a divorced woman was put out of the house with no money, property, or means of support. Often begging or prostitution were her only means of survival. Jesus' teaching was meant to protect women from this harsh and unfair practice.
42. What group of people will make it into the heavenly choir?
Answer: D - 144,000 male virgins who have not been defiled with women.
No women allowed! Notice the sexism: women "defile" men.
"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. . . . And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth." (Revelation 14:1-4)
My Comments:
The FFRF got this one pretty much right. Like most of the images in Revelation, this is symbolic rather than literal (the number 144,000, for instance is symbolic. It is created by multiplying 12 squared by 10 cubed. Both 1 and 10 are symbolic of wholeness.)
43. Which one of these words is in the bible (Trinity, Liberal, Christmas, or Rapture)?
Answer: B - Liberal.
In the King James version of the bible, "liberal" is a good word. The word "conservative" appears nowhere in the bible.
Different translations translate this differently: NIV="giving generously" giving liberally in , which is rendered:
"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself." (Proverbs 11:25) "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." (Isaiah 32:5) "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." (Isaiah 32:8) "Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men . . . Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift." (II Corinthians 9:13-15)
My Comments:
Very true. It's an amusing thought, if not really a comment on modern politics (though it is true that many Christians are political Liberals and vice versa.)
It is hard to know when early belief in the Trinity arose, (likely sometime in first several centuries of Christianity) but the word "Trinity" only dates back to the 13th Century and never appears in the Bible.
The Christian celebration of Christmas dates back to the 4th Century CE. The actual word "Christmas" is pre-12th Century but does not appear in the Bible.
The word "rapture" comes from 1594 but the theological understanding of the Rapture is much more recent and comes from 17th Century America.
44. Where does the bible say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights?
Answer: D - Nowhere.
Nowhere in the bible will you find an acknowledgement that human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves--God has all the rights.
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12) "Lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5) "Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (II Corinthians 10:5) "Captivity" is not freedom. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is a humanistic, anti-biblical document.
My Comments:
It is true that the Bible contains no declaration of human rights; no ancient document does. The very concept of a declaration of human rights is a modern one.
The focus on human beings as "sinners, worms, and slaves" is not really biblical. A quick survey of the KJV trns up only 3 instances of people being called worms. Two of these (Job 25:6 and Psalm 22:6) are the reflections of deeply depressed men and the third (Isaiah 41:14) a word of reassurance to Israel at a time when the people feel like worms. In all these cases, it is the people, not God, who call themselves worms.
The words "sinners" and "slaves" are much more common in the Bible but they are not really used as the FFRF characfterizes them. Different specific groups are called "sinners" in scripture but the word is never used as a blanket characterization for all people. As for "slaves", the term is used a lot in the parables of Jesus, but it is a reminder that all people have responsibilities, not that we are unworthy. The FFRF's objection really applies to the way some preachers talk about humanity, not the way the Bible talks about them.
When the Bible says that people should submit to God it means that they should be loving, truthful, generous, forgiving, etc. It is not the same as the freedom to lie, to hate, to act out of greed, malice or selfishness, but these are the only "freedoms" that submission of God takes from us.
As for the Declaration of Independence, it is a noble documant and it is humanistic. It is hardly anti-Bible though, not in the eyes of most American Christians, nor in the eyes of its Deist author, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.(emphasis mine) nor in the eyes of the signers of the Declaration, 32 of whom were Episcopalian, 13 Congregationalist, 12 Presbyterian, 2 Quaker, 2 Unitarian, and 1 Catholic.
45. Should Christians allow nonbelievers into their homes?
Answer: No
Acting inhospitably is the Christian thing to do. Notice how this verse unfairly equates unbelief and diversity with evil: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 10-11)
My Comments:
Like many of the writers of the epistles, the author of 2 John was dealing with a specific situation. It looks like there were some non-believers in the community who were actively trying to talk believers out of the church. His advice made sense in that situation but wasn't meant to be for all Christians everywhere.
Hospitality is one of the core values of Christianity ans it shows up in many scriptures, including Matthew 25:34-40.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. And here's why:
I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was homeless and you gave me a room, I was shivering and you gave me clothes, I was sick and you stopped to visit, I was in prison and you came to me.'
"Then those 'sheep' are going to say, 'Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' Then the King will say, 'I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me—you did it to me.'
46. Should Christian men kiss each other?
Answer: Yes
Why do we not see men kissing in church, then? "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss." (I Thessalonians 5:26. See also Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Peter 5:14)
My Comments:
Well... this was the custom of the time, but it's not exactly a command. :-)
47. Should Christians always give what they have to anyone who asks for it?
Answer: Yes
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Try asking Christians for their houses and possessions, and see how faithful they are to the teachings of Jesus. Borrow a Christian's car and see if they ever ask for it back. Modern believers know that Jesus was wrong and the bible is not to be taken literally.
My Comments:
Jesus was using exaggeration to make a point about generosity. Rather than hoard resources and turning a blind eye to people in need, he suggests sharing without complaint. Ther FFRF is half right here, this passage shouldn't be interpreted literally, as an inflexible rule, but Jesus wasn't wrong: generosity is a better way to live than selfishness.
48. Do the Ten Commandments prohibit incest or rape?
Answer: No
The "ten commandments" (see Question 1) do not condemn any sexual acts. The only sexual practice prohibited by the list in Exodus 20 is adultery, which, although a valid marital concern, is a legal act between consenting adults. The violent and degrading crimes of rape and incest surely should have rated a "top ten" list, but they do not appear. Adultery in the Old Testament was considered a crime that could only be committed by a wife. Harper's Bible Dictionary explains: "The law was probably intended to ensure that any child born to the wife was really the husband's child, since it was considered crucial for the husband to have offspring, so that the family name could be perpetuated." Adultery had bearing on the patriarchy, while more violent crimes did not.
My Comments:
This is essentially correct. Rape and incest are prohibited but are not given the special status of being in thew 10 Commandments. The Ten Commandments do reflect the culture and the time they were written. as much as they reflect the word of God.
49. If you lose a lawsuit, should you pay exactly what the court decides?
Answer: No
You should pay twice as much! In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commands: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." (Matthew 5:40-41) Are bible-believing Christians really paying double court-ordered child support? Or are they wiser than Jesus?
My Comments:
This is another case of Jesus exaggerating to make a point (as with question 47). In this instance the point is that Christians should try not to get caught up in the hostile dog-eat-dog world of lawsuits. When you are in a dispute, Jesus teaches that it is better to reach out in kindness and generosity than to lash back. It wouldn't work as an inflexible rule, but Jesus had little use for those and offers it as a guiding principle.
50. Can Christians ask their boss for a raise?
Answer: No
It is un-Christian to ask for a raise: "And [John the Baptist] said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? and he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:13-14) Modern Christians who love their families know better than this: it is not responsible to deny yourself a fair market wage, especially if you have children to support. Real family values transcend the bible. [John the Baptist was "preparing the way" for Jesus when he supposedly spoke these words.]
My Comments:
As with a number of scriptures the FFRF cites, this one changes when you read the whole thing. Here is is in KJV:
And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Then came also publicans (tax-collectors) to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. (Luke 3:10-14
And it's even clearer in the Message version:
The crowd asked him, "Then what are we supposed to do?"
"If you have two coats, give one away," he said. "Do the same with your food."
Tax men also came to be baptized and said, "Teacher, what should we do?"
He told them, "No more extortion—collect only what is required by law."
Soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?"
He told them, "No shakedowns, no blackmail—and be content with your rations."
John the Baptist was telling people to stop harassing and eploiting others. There's nothing here to suggest he'd have any issue with a laborer asking for a fair raise.
So... how did the FFRF do on their own test? FWIW, I'm giving them credit for all correct answers even where they made false statements in their comments.
THEIR SCORE: 36 out of 50.
Bible Literacy - 5
31. According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?
Answer: B - "Sell everything you have and give all the money to the poor."
Heaven will be very empty, it seems. How many Christians take seriously this direct command of Jesus?
My Comments:
This is a potent lesson that more affluent Christians could afford to think on, but it is an exaggeration for the sake of effect. We know that the Disciples had a common purse for their expenses. We also know that there were several generous female followers of Jesus who funded his ministry.
While selflessness and generosity are important in Christianity, Jesus isn't laying down inflexible rules. When he speaks to the Rich Young Ruler the instruction to give all he has is to him alone. Those of us who "overhear" the instruction learn a lot about generosity and the dangers of being too tied to wealth and possessions.
Jesus offered different advice to others who wanted to enter the community. To some he said that entering the Kingdom had to do with caring for those in need, to others he said it had to do with having the openness and simplicity of a child. Everyone needs all of these things in some measure. A lot of the genius of Jesus was to perceive the needs of each person he spoke to.
32. According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?
Answer: C - Parents should be hated.
More family values from the "Good Book."
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny." The same writer uses miseo in such verses as: "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you." (Luke 6:22)
The concept of devaluing your family is reflected by Matthew: "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38) Why not love your family first? This sounds like something an uneasy dictator would say.
My Comments:
This is another answer that is technically correct but completely misses the spirit of Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught love for all people, but did a lot to shake up the idea of what constituted family. He reached out to the outcasts and the rejected to include them in the family of God.
It is natural to put out families first, but with that comes a constant danger. The Corleone family may be fictional, but their story makes the point of what can happen when family is the ultimate value. We can use our loved ones to justify all manner of selfish and even cruel behavior
The scene shows the contrast in the values espoused by Michael Corleone in the baptism vows, and the terrible things he is willing to do in the name of his family.
By putting God ahead of family, Jesus is saying that God's values of compassion, honesty, justice, etc. come first and nothing, not even family, not even your own life should be an excuse to settle for less.
33. According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated?
Answer: B - They should be beaten for disobedience, but not more severely then they deserve.
Jesus never denounced slavery: he endorsed it! He incorporated it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was for the biblical writers who didn't know any better). Why doesn't the bible--supposedly inspired by an all-loving deity--ever hint that there is something wrong with such a brutal social institution? If it were not for the influence of the bible, the appalling American slave trade might have been curtailed, along with the bloody Civil War.
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
(Luke 12:47-48) The entire context (Luke 12:41-48) shows that this is not part of a parable--it is the explanation of a parable, after Peter asked a question. But even if it were a parable, it would carry the same weight as a teaching of Jesus.
The word "servant" above is doulos, which means "slave" in Greek, and is correctly rendered "slave" by the NRSV, NAS, Scholar's Version, and others. "Shall" meant "should," as Jesus adds: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)
My Comments:
Slavery is wrong. That's something that is terribly obvious to any modern person. Unfortunately, (as the FFRF points out) slavery was an accepted fact in the ancient warrior. It was a worldwide phenominon and wasn't seriously questioned until the modern period.
It would have been great if Jesus had explicitly come out against slavery, just as it would have been nice if he'd made statements about sexism, the destruction of the environment, racism, homophobia, etc. That kind of argument is unfair, though, and would also condemn Buddha, Lao Tsu, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, and pretty much every other great thinker, religious or secular, of the ancient world.
I think it's a stretch to blame American slavery on the Bible, let alone the Civil War. Slavery existed in the Americas because of for the same kind of economic reasons that had always driven it, and by the attitude of superiority that had always helps people justify exploiting others. Christianity shares some of the blame, but Christians have also been in the forefront of ending slavery. While many preachers in the American South used the Bible to justify slavery, the Abolitionist movement was also spear-headed by Churches and Christian groups. My own church took very noble efforts abainst slavery, including their role in the Amistad Incident.
To get back to the scripture cited, let's look at the full passage. Judge for yourself if it is an endorsement of slavery, or Jesus using an image the people of his time would have known to make a point?
34. What did Jesus say about peace?
Answer: B - "Don't think that I came for peace on earth. I came to start wars."
Are these the words of a good man?
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:49-51) These words, by the way, come immediately after Jesus talked about beating slaves. (See Question 33)
My Comments:
The words, "I come to start wars" would not be the words of a good man, so it's good that Jesus didn't say them. As you can see from the scripture the FFRF cites, the actual words (in their common English translation) are "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." The question is what he meant by a sword.
The usual understanding of this text is that Jesus is promosing that his life and ministry will shake things up. He is challenging the prejudices and power structures that have marginalized so many people. He is going up against the elites who want to keep things just as they are. With all that, there is going to be division, and trouble. This is a warning to anyone who follows him that they are not going to be safe from the turmoil. The reality is that many of them will face anger and rejection, even from friends and family members.
But is Jesus pushing for physical violence? It's hard to make that case against the man who taught about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. How can we make such an assumption about the man who refused to fight back when he was arrested? The man whose last words as he was crucified were to pray for firgiveness for his executioners.
The early Christians certainl;y did not interpret this saying as Jesus wanting to start wars. Though most Christians were still Jewish in the first century, they refused to take part in the Jewish Uprising of 66-73 CE, nor the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-136 CE. The first few generations of Christians were pacifists who would not enlist in the army or become gladiators. Many would not even fight back when sentenced to die in the arena. Given all this, there is no way the words of Jesus can be understood as promoting war.
35 Which of the following did Jesus not say about witnessing?
Answer: B - "God is my witness."
Paul wrote: "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son." (Romans 1:9)
Notice that Jesus contradicts himself below.
"Jesus answered and said unto them, though I bear record [martyria] of myself, yet my record [martyria] is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and wither I go." (John 8:14) Martyria means "bear witness" (NAS) or "testify" (NIV, NRSV), the same word used in the contradictory John 5:31 (below).
"If I bear witness [martyria] of myself, my witness [martyria] is not true." (John 5:31)
Needless to say, Jesus was not very reliable, nor was he very clear.
My comments:
In John 5 Jesus is speaking to a group of Pharisees who have just challenged his authority to heal on the Sabbath. He responds that, since the healings he does come from God he isn't doing anything wrong; God is clearly working on the Sabbath too.
He goes on to say that his authority comes from God, and he has evidence. If he were just some guy claiming to have authority, they wouldn't need to take him seriously. The fact that he can heal, though, shows that God is bearing witness for him, and it's the kind of witness they can't deny.
In John 9 we see Jesus arguing with the Pharisees again and he tells them that he is the Light of the World. They ask for proof and he essentially "You can trust me, I know. I'm my own witness."
If that was all he said, it would be a contradiction, but here's what he goes on to say in verses 16-18.
And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
In other words, though the passages may sound contradictory, but a closer reading shows they are saying exactly the same thing.
36. What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?
Answer: D - Castrate yourself.
No wonder we don't hear sermons from the entire New Testament--how many preachers actually take this ghastly advice seriously?! Although some have prudently tried to interpret this as celibacy rather than castration, the early church father Origen read it literally and took a knife to himself. There were entire monastic orders, and church choirs in need of sopranos known as "castrati" based on this teaching of Jesus. Literal or not, the face value of this verse is physical mutilation:
"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs from the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11-12) The Scholar's Version has: "There are castrated men who castrated themselves because of Heaven's imperial rule. If you are able to accept this (advice), do so."
Tragically, every year there are reported cases of Christian followers mutilating themselves because "the bible tells me so."
My Comments:
The story about Origen castrating himself may be true but it is controversial among historians. Is is true that some Christians have believed the story and have castrated themselves. I haven't been able either to verify or rebuke that this passage has ever been used to justify the castrati singers as FFRF claims. I have also been unable to verify the claims of Christian self-castration every year. If it is true it is a terrible tragedy.
But does the passage really mean what some have taken it to mean? I haven't checked out in the Greek myself, but talented translator and exegete Eugene Peterson translates the passage this way in The Message version of the Bible:
But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it." (Matthew 19:11-12)
37. According to New Testament medical advice, what should you do if you are sick?
Answer: B - Ask the church elders to apply oil to your skin and pray for you.
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." (James 5:14-15)
Verses like these have resulted in the needless deaths of adults and criminal-neglect deaths of children from treatable illnesses that were left untreated because of prayer. Why couldn't the biblical deity have dispensed some useful medical advice to the human race instead of placebo prescriptions for prayer?
My Comments:
Actually, it's not the prayers or the anointing with oil that results in illness and death, it's the insistence of some Christians that those are all that they need. I agree that this is a problem, but it's unfair to blame the Bible for a faulty reading. There is no prohibition on modern medicine in this passage.
38. What does Paul prohibit a woman from wearing in church?
Answer: B - Gold.
How many Christian women know they are breaking God's law by wearing gold wedding rings to church? Or pearls or braids or expensive clothing? This is all part of the biblical plan to keep women in their place (see Question 39.)
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." (I Timothy 2:9) Paul was not simply giving his own personal advice here; he introduced these verses with: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." (I Timothy 2:7)
My Comments:
There is a long history of sexism in the church, it is true. The Bible was written in a sexist time and a sexist culture and Christians need to realize this and stop treating passages like this as a mandate for keeping women down.
Having said that, this is not a rule, and the fact that Paul asserts his authority at the beginning does nothing to change that. Paul had very strong views on the law, which he felt was incapable of bringing salvation. Paul was very confident in his insights and authority, but he didn't have any use for new laws. He offered advice to cthe people and churches he wrote to, usually about specific situations.
In this case, he wanted the focus of women in church to be on the spiritual rather than the superficial. Good advice, but repressive when it gets used as a rigid set of rules.
39. According to Paul, what is the role of women in the church?
Answer: C - Women must keep silent. They should learn from their husbands at home.
This sexist admonition continues to be invoked by Catholics and patriarchal Protestant denominations to turn women into second-class citizens.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35) "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (I Timothy 2:11-15)
My Comments:
Paul was a sexist, and Christians who want to keep women "in their place" delight in repeating his sentiments about women. IMO, this is a legitimate gripe with the Bible and with Paul. Fortunately, Christians do not need to take every bit of advice this brilliant and faithful but flawed apostle as iron-clad law. Paul himself believed that laws and rules were useless when it came to saving people so the last way he would want to see his letters used would be as books of inflexible rules.
40. What does Paul say about marriage?
Answer: A - "I wish everyone were single like me."
As author Ruth Green put it, the "Christian family" is a "Christian fantasy." Paul's belief that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (I Corinthians 7:1) led to the doctrine of celibacy and other warped teachings on sexuality. Nineteenth-century feminist author Matilda Joslyn Gage pointed out that this teaching directly led to such woman-hating abuses as the witch-hunts.
"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)
My Comments:
We don't really understand much about Paul's sexual hang-ups except to say that he had them. I've heard a number of theories, including the ideas that he had suffered from a terrible marriage or that he was a closetted homosexual. Whatever the reason, Paul knew that others didn't agree with this idea and grudgingly accepted that. In no way does he try to forbid marriage, only to offer his opinions.
While the FFRF are correct in describing Paul's ideas, their history is shakey. The practice of a celibate priesthood did not come from Paul. When celibacy became a big deal for the clergy, Paul's letters were used as a justification, but the actual reason was a struggle with a religious movement known as the Cathars about a thousand years after Paul's death. The connection they draw between Paul and the witch hunts is also incorrect and relies on errors and myths about the witch hunts. Here and elsewhere I've linked to websites by wiccan historians who deserve a great deal of praise for separating myth from reality in this tragic history.
Answer: B - "Sell everything you have and give all the money to the poor."
Heaven will be very empty, it seems. How many Christians take seriously this direct command of Jesus?
My Comments:
This is a potent lesson that more affluent Christians could afford to think on, but it is an exaggeration for the sake of effect. We know that the Disciples had a common purse for their expenses. We also know that there were several generous female followers of Jesus who funded his ministry.
While selflessness and generosity are important in Christianity, Jesus isn't laying down inflexible rules. When he speaks to the Rich Young Ruler the instruction to give all he has is to him alone. Those of us who "overhear" the instruction learn a lot about generosity and the dangers of being too tied to wealth and possessions.
Jesus offered different advice to others who wanted to enter the community. To some he said that entering the Kingdom had to do with caring for those in need, to others he said it had to do with having the openness and simplicity of a child. Everyone needs all of these things in some measure. A lot of the genius of Jesus was to perceive the needs of each person he spoke to.
32. According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?
Answer: C - Parents should be hated.
More family values from the "Good Book."
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny." The same writer uses miseo in such verses as: "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you." (Luke 6:22)
The concept of devaluing your family is reflected by Matthew: "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38) Why not love your family first? This sounds like something an uneasy dictator would say.
My Comments:
This is another answer that is technically correct but completely misses the spirit of Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught love for all people, but did a lot to shake up the idea of what constituted family. He reached out to the outcasts and the rejected to include them in the family of God.
It is natural to put out families first, but with that comes a constant danger. The Corleone family may be fictional, but their story makes the point of what can happen when family is the ultimate value. We can use our loved ones to justify all manner of selfish and even cruel behavior
The scene shows the contrast in the values espoused by Michael Corleone in the baptism vows, and the terrible things he is willing to do in the name of his family.
By putting God ahead of family, Jesus is saying that God's values of compassion, honesty, justice, etc. come first and nothing, not even family, not even your own life should be an excuse to settle for less.
33. According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated?
Answer: B - They should be beaten for disobedience, but not more severely then they deserve.
Jesus never denounced slavery: he endorsed it! He incorporated it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was for the biblical writers who didn't know any better). Why doesn't the bible--supposedly inspired by an all-loving deity--ever hint that there is something wrong with such a brutal social institution? If it were not for the influence of the bible, the appalling American slave trade might have been curtailed, along with the bloody Civil War.
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
(Luke 12:47-48) The entire context (Luke 12:41-48) shows that this is not part of a parable--it is the explanation of a parable, after Peter asked a question. But even if it were a parable, it would carry the same weight as a teaching of Jesus.
The word "servant" above is doulos, which means "slave" in Greek, and is correctly rendered "slave" by the NRSV, NAS, Scholar's Version, and others. "Shall" meant "should," as Jesus adds: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)
My Comments:
Slavery is wrong. That's something that is terribly obvious to any modern person. Unfortunately, (as the FFRF points out) slavery was an accepted fact in the ancient warrior. It was a worldwide phenominon and wasn't seriously questioned until the modern period.
It would have been great if Jesus had explicitly come out against slavery, just as it would have been nice if he'd made statements about sexism, the destruction of the environment, racism, homophobia, etc. That kind of argument is unfair, though, and would also condemn Buddha, Lao Tsu, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, and pretty much every other great thinker, religious or secular, of the ancient world.
I think it's a stretch to blame American slavery on the Bible, let alone the Civil War. Slavery existed in the Americas because of for the same kind of economic reasons that had always driven it, and by the attitude of superiority that had always helps people justify exploiting others. Christianity shares some of the blame, but Christians have also been in the forefront of ending slavery. While many preachers in the American South used the Bible to justify slavery, the Abolitionist movement was also spear-headed by Churches and Christian groups. My own church took very noble efforts abainst slavery, including their role in the Amistad Incident.
To get back to the scripture cited, let's look at the full passage. Judge for yourself if it is an endorsement of slavery, or Jesus using an image the people of his time would have known to make a point?
34. What did Jesus say about peace?
Answer: B - "Don't think that I came for peace on earth. I came to start wars."
Are these the words of a good man?
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:49-51) These words, by the way, come immediately after Jesus talked about beating slaves. (See Question 33)
My Comments:
The words, "I come to start wars" would not be the words of a good man, so it's good that Jesus didn't say them. As you can see from the scripture the FFRF cites, the actual words (in their common English translation) are "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." The question is what he meant by a sword.
The usual understanding of this text is that Jesus is promosing that his life and ministry will shake things up. He is challenging the prejudices and power structures that have marginalized so many people. He is going up against the elites who want to keep things just as they are. With all that, there is going to be division, and trouble. This is a warning to anyone who follows him that they are not going to be safe from the turmoil. The reality is that many of them will face anger and rejection, even from friends and family members.
But is Jesus pushing for physical violence? It's hard to make that case against the man who taught about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. How can we make such an assumption about the man who refused to fight back when he was arrested? The man whose last words as he was crucified were to pray for firgiveness for his executioners.
The early Christians certainl;y did not interpret this saying as Jesus wanting to start wars. Though most Christians were still Jewish in the first century, they refused to take part in the Jewish Uprising of 66-73 CE, nor the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-136 CE. The first few generations of Christians were pacifists who would not enlist in the army or become gladiators. Many would not even fight back when sentenced to die in the arena. Given all this, there is no way the words of Jesus can be understood as promoting war.
35 Which of the following did Jesus not say about witnessing?
Answer: B - "God is my witness."
Paul wrote: "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son." (Romans 1:9)
Notice that Jesus contradicts himself below.
"Jesus answered and said unto them, though I bear record [martyria] of myself, yet my record [martyria] is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and wither I go." (John 8:14) Martyria means "bear witness" (NAS) or "testify" (NIV, NRSV), the same word used in the contradictory John 5:31 (below).
"If I bear witness [martyria] of myself, my witness [martyria] is not true." (John 5:31)
Needless to say, Jesus was not very reliable, nor was he very clear.
My comments:
In John 5 Jesus is speaking to a group of Pharisees who have just challenged his authority to heal on the Sabbath. He responds that, since the healings he does come from God he isn't doing anything wrong; God is clearly working on the Sabbath too.
He goes on to say that his authority comes from God, and he has evidence. If he were just some guy claiming to have authority, they wouldn't need to take him seriously. The fact that he can heal, though, shows that God is bearing witness for him, and it's the kind of witness they can't deny.
In John 9 we see Jesus arguing with the Pharisees again and he tells them that he is the Light of the World. They ask for proof and he essentially "You can trust me, I know. I'm my own witness."
If that was all he said, it would be a contradiction, but here's what he goes on to say in verses 16-18.
And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
In other words, though the passages may sound contradictory, but a closer reading shows they are saying exactly the same thing.
36. What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?
Answer: D - Castrate yourself.
No wonder we don't hear sermons from the entire New Testament--how many preachers actually take this ghastly advice seriously?! Although some have prudently tried to interpret this as celibacy rather than castration, the early church father Origen read it literally and took a knife to himself. There were entire monastic orders, and church choirs in need of sopranos known as "castrati" based on this teaching of Jesus. Literal or not, the face value of this verse is physical mutilation:
"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs from the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11-12) The Scholar's Version has: "There are castrated men who castrated themselves because of Heaven's imperial rule. If you are able to accept this (advice), do so."
Tragically, every year there are reported cases of Christian followers mutilating themselves because "the bible tells me so."
My Comments:
The story about Origen castrating himself may be true but it is controversial among historians. Is is true that some Christians have believed the story and have castrated themselves. I haven't been able either to verify or rebuke that this passage has ever been used to justify the castrati singers as FFRF claims. I have also been unable to verify the claims of Christian self-castration every year. If it is true it is a terrible tragedy.
But does the passage really mean what some have taken it to mean? I haven't checked out in the Greek myself, but talented translator and exegete Eugene Peterson translates the passage this way in The Message version of the Bible:
But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it." (Matthew 19:11-12)
37. According to New Testament medical advice, what should you do if you are sick?
Answer: B - Ask the church elders to apply oil to your skin and pray for you.
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." (James 5:14-15)
Verses like these have resulted in the needless deaths of adults and criminal-neglect deaths of children from treatable illnesses that were left untreated because of prayer. Why couldn't the biblical deity have dispensed some useful medical advice to the human race instead of placebo prescriptions for prayer?
My Comments:
Actually, it's not the prayers or the anointing with oil that results in illness and death, it's the insistence of some Christians that those are all that they need. I agree that this is a problem, but it's unfair to blame the Bible for a faulty reading. There is no prohibition on modern medicine in this passage.
38. What does Paul prohibit a woman from wearing in church?
Answer: B - Gold.
How many Christian women know they are breaking God's law by wearing gold wedding rings to church? Or pearls or braids or expensive clothing? This is all part of the biblical plan to keep women in their place (see Question 39.)
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." (I Timothy 2:9) Paul was not simply giving his own personal advice here; he introduced these verses with: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." (I Timothy 2:7)
My Comments:
There is a long history of sexism in the church, it is true. The Bible was written in a sexist time and a sexist culture and Christians need to realize this and stop treating passages like this as a mandate for keeping women down.
Having said that, this is not a rule, and the fact that Paul asserts his authority at the beginning does nothing to change that. Paul had very strong views on the law, which he felt was incapable of bringing salvation. Paul was very confident in his insights and authority, but he didn't have any use for new laws. He offered advice to cthe people and churches he wrote to, usually about specific situations.
In this case, he wanted the focus of women in church to be on the spiritual rather than the superficial. Good advice, but repressive when it gets used as a rigid set of rules.
39. According to Paul, what is the role of women in the church?
Answer: C - Women must keep silent. They should learn from their husbands at home.
This sexist admonition continues to be invoked by Catholics and patriarchal Protestant denominations to turn women into second-class citizens.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35) "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (I Timothy 2:11-15)
My Comments:
Paul was a sexist, and Christians who want to keep women "in their place" delight in repeating his sentiments about women. IMO, this is a legitimate gripe with the Bible and with Paul. Fortunately, Christians do not need to take every bit of advice this brilliant and faithful but flawed apostle as iron-clad law. Paul himself believed that laws and rules were useless when it came to saving people so the last way he would want to see his letters used would be as books of inflexible rules.
40. What does Paul say about marriage?
Answer: A - "I wish everyone were single like me."
As author Ruth Green put it, the "Christian family" is a "Christian fantasy." Paul's belief that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (I Corinthians 7:1) led to the doctrine of celibacy and other warped teachings on sexuality. Nineteenth-century feminist author Matilda Joslyn Gage pointed out that this teaching directly led to such woman-hating abuses as the witch-hunts.
"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)
My Comments:
We don't really understand much about Paul's sexual hang-ups except to say that he had them. I've heard a number of theories, including the ideas that he had suffered from a terrible marriage or that he was a closetted homosexual. Whatever the reason, Paul knew that others didn't agree with this idea and grudgingly accepted that. In no way does he try to forbid marriage, only to offer his opinions.
While the FFRF are correct in describing Paul's ideas, their history is shakey. The practice of a celibate priesthood did not come from Paul. When celibacy became a big deal for the clergy, Paul's letters were used as a justification, but the actual reason was a struggle with a religious movement known as the Cathars about a thousand years after Paul's death. The connection they draw between Paul and the witch hunts is also incorrect and relies on errors and myths about the witch hunts. Here and elsewhere I've linked to websites by wiccan historians who deserve a great deal of praise for separating myth from reality in this tragic history.
Bible Literacy - 4
Here are the answers to 21-30 with comments. If this is confusing, please go back three entries to the beginning of this series.
21. What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
Answer: C - "Satan dared me, so I destroyed Job for no reason at all."
This is a damning confession. In a court of law, this would be enough to convict God of the highest reckless crimes against humanity. In addition to ruining Job's livelihood and inflicting him with a debilitating illness, God murdered his 10 children and his servants--"without cause."
My Comments:
It would be damning, if that was what God said. Let's take a look at several translations to see if the FFRF has accurately understood God's words. First, in the translation they uses, the King James Version, we see:
"And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." (Job 2:3)
You can kind of see how the archaic English of the KJV might lend itself to such an understanding, but let's see if that holds up in a highly accurate modern translation, the New Revised Standard Version:
The Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil. He still persists in his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason."
21. What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
Answer: C - "Satan dared me, so I destroyed Job for no reason at all."
This is a damning confession. In a court of law, this would be enough to convict God of the highest reckless crimes against humanity. In addition to ruining Job's livelihood and inflicting him with a debilitating illness, God murdered his 10 children and his servants--"without cause."
My Comments:
It would be damning, if that was what God said. Let's take a look at several translations to see if the FFRF has accurately understood God's words. First, in the translation they uses, the King James Version, we see:
"And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." (Job 2:3)
You can kind of see how the archaic English of the KJV might lend itself to such an understanding, but let's see if that holds up in a highly accurate modern translation, the New Revised Standard Version:
The Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil. He still persists in his integrity, although you incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason."
On this closer examination it seems that Satan tried to get God to destroy Job, but it didn't happen. Let's take a look at a final version, The Message paraphrase version, which is noted for skillfully rendering the subtle shadings of the original languages of the Bible into English:
GOD singled out Satan, saying, "And what have you been up to?" Satan answered God, "Oh, going here and there, checking things out." Then God said to Satan, "Have you noticed my friend Job? There's no one quite like him, is there--honest and true to his word, totally devoted to God and hating evil? He still has a firm grip on his integrity! You tried to trick me into destroying him, but it didn't work."
It's a clear case of sloppy Bible reading. Where the FFRF says God is saying "I destroyed Job without cause" God is actually saying the opposite.
So, if this isn't the confession the FFRF says it is, why does Job suffer? Is it because God wants to test him? Is it because Satan wants to destroy him? Is it just because bad things sometimes happen to good people?
The frustrating thing about this book is that Job never learns the reason, and neither do we. When God finally speaks to Job there's no explanation, only a mystery. In fact, God slams the armchair theologians who have been trying to explain things to Job for speaking about things they don't understand. Job's honest questioning is praised while the false self-assurance of the 'friends' is repudiated. The question of suffering is a mystery, but we are left with the assurance that God is with Job, and with us, even when we suffer.
22. According to the bible, what does Satan look like?
Answer: B - A red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns.
Are there still adults in the 21st century who believe in the existence of Satan? If they do, they are forced to picture him as a mythical 7-headed dragon, the only physical description of Satan given in the bible.
My Comments:
This is correct. Revelation is a book of symbols and visions so this is a metaphoric rather than a literal image, but is it still the only description of Satan anywhere in the Bible.
23. How does the biblical god treat haughty women?
Answer: B - He puts scabs on their heads and uncovers their private parts.
This is sexual harassment and molestation. "Secret parts" is poth, which means "hinged opening" (vagina). This is just one of many biblical instances in which women are debased, immorally or cavalierly treated as male property, subject to purchase, sale, abduction, and even sexual assault. No wonder the biblical writers never disapprove of such crimes when they are committed by God himself. How can anyone possibly pretend to love a god who would say such a thing?
My Comments:
The problem addressed here is pride and more than pride, injustice. The haughty women are a symptom of what is happening in Israel in Isaiah's time. The poor suffer while the wealthy indulge themselves with luxuries. The corrective that is that the proud are humiliated.
I agreee that the image is a disturbing one, and I agree that the treatment of women in the ancient Hebrew culture was sexist and exploitative. While I dislike the image, though, I hope modern readers can see past it. The eart of the passage is a call for justice and an attempt to shame the wealthy into showing more compassion and justice for the poor and oppressed.
24. In dollars (shekels), how much is a woman worth?
Answer: A - Half a male.
Modern sexism and inequality have their roots in the Bible. Depending on age, a female is worth approximately half as much as a male:
This devaluation of women is reflected in the "double uncleanness" of giving birth to a daughter.
My Comments:
There is no denying that there is a huge amount of sexism in the Bible. It improves in the New Testament, but even there women are devalued in disgraceful ways.
The only statement I will take issue with here is the claim that the Bible is the root of modern sexism and inequality. This would mean that non-Christian countries would be free of sexism. Sadly, that is not the case; sexism is a world-wide problem and crosses national, cultural, and religious boundaries.
25. What happens if a man rapes an engaged virgin in the city, and no one hears anything?
Answer: D - They are both stoned to death.
What if she was gagged, or had laryngitis, or the neighbors were out of town? Is it fair to punish the victim of a crime, much less mete out the death penalty to a victim of violence?! The bible primitively and unfairly frames rape as a crime committed by a man against another man's property.
And if the woman is not engaged, she is forced to marry her rapist! The rapist simply pays a fine.
My Comments:
This time the FFRF nailed it. It's impossible to justify this terrible attitude about women, even in the context of the ancient world. To try to apply this in the modern world would be inexcusable.
Sometimes the Bible reflects cultural values that we are well-rid of in the modern world.
26. What is the Mosaic Law punishment for being handicapped?
Answer: C - You are not allowed in church.
This is an ancient, unenlightened view, treating the disabled as inferior people. Shouldn't an all-loving God be bigger than this?
My Comments:
I have to agree. Fortunately, Jesus also agrees and made it a focus of his ministry to include and heal the mentally and physically handicapped.
27. According to the Bible, when may a husband have sex with his wife?
Answer: B - Not during her menstrual period.
Another example of biblical sexism: women are "unclean." This is also an example of disproportionate punishment, as being "cut off" from the tribe for this "crime" was likely a death sentence in a nomadic culture.
My Comments:
I have to agree with this one too. These ancient purity rules don't make sense, and didn't even back then.
28. How should you feel when you dash babies against the rocks?
Answer: A - Happy.
Is this "pro-life"? This is one of numerous examples of god-ordained genocide. Even if you coldly feel there is justice in killing the innocent infants of people deemed "evil" by your religion, would you be happy to do it, as the bible declares? If this is not evil, then what is?
My Comments:
This is a deeply disturbing passage from the Psalms. For what it is worth, this was written during the Babylonian Captivity when the people of Israel had been conquered by the Babylonian Empire. Imagine that the European Jews of World War 2 had to write a Psalm about how they felt living under the Nazis. They might well have included some similarly hateful and violent language, as would most people in their position.
I think the image of dashing babies to death is horrible no matter what the situation, but I don't think calling this "genocide" is in any way fair. The Jews were powerless under the Babylonians and incapable of genocide, except in their darkest fantasies. They were the ones in danger of being wiped out.
29. How many human generations were there before Jesus?
Answer: D - 62.
The bible got it wrong by two orders of magnitude. History and archaeology prove that there were more than a mere 62 generations before Christianity. The species Homo sapiens has existed for 100,000 - 200,000 years, which would be at least 5,000 generations.
Luke 3:34-38 lists 20 generations between Adam and Abraham: Abraham, Thara, Nachor, Saruch, Ragau, Phalec, Heber, Sala, Cainan, Arphaxad, Sem, Noe, Lamech, Mathusala, Enoch, Jared, Maleleel, Cainan, Enos, Seth, Adam. Then Matthew 1:17 gives 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
Matthew and Luke also contradict each other: both genealogies claim to go through Joseph, the father of Jesus (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23. Why Joseph? Wasn't God the father?), yet their lists disagree in length and in names--except for Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, an intersection that proves they were not intended to be separate lines. They also contradict the Old Testament genealogies, conveniently deleting and adding in order to make the numbers fit a pattern.
My Comments:
This one is pretty much right on. Trying to measure the age of humanity, or the age of the earth from the dates in the Bible is an exercise in futility. The Bible wasn't written with this sort of question in mind.
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are symbolic, by the way. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience and the genealogy was meant to show continuity with Jewish tradition so it traces him back to Abraham. By contrast, Luke was written for a mainly Gentile audience and created a lineage going back to Adam to show that the Gospel was for all people.
30. What Christmas tradition is expressly forbidden in the bible?
Answer: C - Christmas trees.
Many other Christmas traditions have their roots in pagan practices, such as the holly wreath, a fertility symbol. Even the date of Christmas, near the winter solstice, is linked to sun worship. Modern Christians have stolen Christmas from the pagans.
My Comments:
There are Fundamentalist Christians who imagine that this passage is talking about Christmas trees but this is actually a reference to a Middle-Eastern fertility worship object called an Asherah pole. So, unless you're using your Christmas tree for ancient fertility goddess worship, you're okay as far the Bible goes.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Biblical Literacy - 3
CAUTION: If you're start here this won't make much sense. Go here and read the entries in order.
I've gone through questions 1-10 of the quiz created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Now, here are questions 11-20.
-------------------------------------------
11. According to the bible, who created evil?
Answer: C - God.
Now we know who is to blame.
The word "create" above is bara, the same word used in Genesis 1:1. The word "evil" is ra, such as in Genesis 2:9, "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Some versions, such as the NIV, have unjustifiably softened the implications of this verse by translating ra as "disaster" or "calamity," although ra is used repeatedly throughout scripture to refer to moral evil. (See Isaiah 7:14-15: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil [ra], and choose the good.") But even if the "disaster" interpretation were allowable, the verse still depicts God as a troublemaker.
My Comments:
The question of evil is the most difficult question in the monotheistic religions. You can find a variety of answers in scripture including the idea that God is the creator of evil.
Could it be that God created evil as a kind of sadistic practical joke on humanity? This is the position of maltheism though the Bible itself never suggests that God either approves of nor rejoices in evil.
Could it be, as some theologians suggest, that evil is in some way a necessary part of creation? The movement known as process theology suggests that Creation is an ongoing process and that God continues to both guide and move the world toward a future in which evil will be no more. This and the liberation theology movement say that we are partners with God in working for a world where there is justice and peace for everyone.
The Bible never gives a reason for the existence of evil, but I find the process and liberation ideas much more helpful and think they give a much truer picture of the character of God than other ideas.
12. According to the bible, what is God not able to do?
Answer: C - Repel chariots of iron.
So much for omnipotence.
My Comments:
This passage always makes me chuckle. There was no continuity editor working on the Bible and some of the authors had odd ideas.
13. According to the bible, where does God live?
Answer: B - In darkness.
How can the "God of light" live in darkness?
"Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (I Kings 8:12. Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1) "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies." (II Samuel 22:12) "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."< (Psalm 18:11) "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him." (Psalm 97:1-2)
This contradicts I John 1:5: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all . . . If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
My Comments:
This is true, though the contradiction is not nearly as strong as the FFRF suggests. Like many words, "darkness" has shadings of meaning. In the Old Testament passages cited, God "dwelling in darkness" is a poetic way of saying that God is beyond the sight of humans (IE, God is invisible). In the I John passage, "darkness" is used as a metaphor for evil and sin, which is a completely different use. I suspect the authors of these books would agree: God is invisible to human eyes but there is no place in God for evil and sin.
14. According to biblical biology, what is a bat?
Answer: A - A bird.
Biblical biology rates an 'F.' Bats are mammals, not birds. This is another good reason to keep bibles out of science classes.
My Comments:
For what it's worth, I agree completely about keeping Bibles out of science classes. The Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a science text. It is a book filled with stories of fallible, faithful people coming to know their God. It is also colored by the pre-scientific views of those people. Whaddaya expect? Nobody in the ancient world knew about modern biological classifications.
15. According to biblical anatomy, where does thinking happen?
Answer: A - In the heart.
Biblical anatomy also rates an 'F.' The heart is an organ that pumps blood--it does not process thoughts, although the biblical writers erroneously thought it did. The word "brain" appears nowhere in the bible.
My Comments:
Those silly Hebrews! They should have checked with the Greek philosophers on that one. Those enlightened souls could have told them that the liver is the seat of reason.
:-)
16. How did Gideon demonstrate his family values?
Answer: C - He fathered 71 sons through many wives plus a mistress in Shechem.
So much for monogamy and fidelity. Is this how the hotel-bible Gideon Society expects us to demonstrate family values?
My Comments:
Yup, like Jacob, David, Solomon, and so many others, Gideon is not a model for ethical behavior. The idea that the heroes of the Bible were morally perfect and should serve as role-models for modern people is patently false. With a few notable exceptions, Bible heroes are deeply flawed people who succeed only through the grace of God.
The FFRF is correct on the second point also; the idea of a monogamous marriage exists in the Old Testament, but there is no moral judgment against men who have several wives and/or concubines. It's a part of that ancient culture that we are better off leaving behind. However, the fact that Gideon and others were total dogs as far as women went is a reflection of their time, not an indictment of God.
17. After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?
Answer: D - His virgin daughter.
Another example of family values from the "Good Book." Jephthah's nameless daughter is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God, who tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice.
The bible sanctions child sacrifice here. Notice how everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah's actions: there is no denunciation of this pointless murder from God, or from anyone in Jephthah's community, or from the biblical writers. It was the right thing to do.
The ultimate child sacrifice, of course, is the story of Jesus being put to death to appease the wrath of his offended father. Ruth Green, author of The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible, puts it this way: "If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and worthy of society's admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible?"
The biblical god often requested and accepted human sacrifice: "And he [God] said [to Abraham], Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." (Genesis 22:2) "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." (Exodus 22:29) "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land." (II Samuel 21:8-14) "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." (Hebrews 10:10-12)
My Comments:
The FFRF claims that the story of Jephthah is proof that the Bible sanctions human sacrifice. While it is a very disturbing story, it is more accurate to say that the Bible fails to comment on child sacrifice in this instance. Some scholars agree with the FFRF that God's silence in this story implies consent, but when the Bible does speak in Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:3, Deuteronomy 12:30-31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 it is always to condemn the practice.
Historians have a hard time saying much about child sacrifice in ancient Israel or even in the ancient Middle East as a whole. We are confidant that the practice existed but don't know how common or widespread it was.
The FFRF presents 4 scriptures to back up their claim that God often demanded and received child sacrifice; they deserve to be looked at individually.
1) The story of Jephthah is tragic and horrible. The story comes from a very primitive time in Israel's history and presents a violent and tribalistic understanding of God. Even taking the story by itself, Jephthah does not come across as an admirable character. He is a proud man who makes foolish promises and suffers as a result. The book of Judges is filled with similarly grim stories and reflects a savage time in Israel's history. Perhaps this best summed up by the last line of the book: In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (Judges 21:25.)
2) The story of the Binding of Isaac is one of the most difficult to understand in the Bible. While the story has a happy ending, it begins on a terrible note as God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son.
Jewish tradition suggests this was meant to be a symbolic sacrifice but Abraham mistook it for a literal one. Modern Christian scholarship points out that this seems to be a combination of two older stories. When Abraham is told to sacrifice his son, the name used for God is "Elohim" but the name changes to "Yahweh" when God stops Abraham. In his book Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature literary critic Erich Auerbach suggests that there is a buried struggle between the gods of sacrifice (represented by Elohim) and the God of mercy. in this story. This seems to be a shift in the theology of the Hebrew people, from understanding God as one who demands terrible sacrifices, to a deity who cares about all people.
3) The FFRF says that Exodus 22:29 implies human sacrifice was performed, but the scripture goes on to say how the firstborn can be redeemed from this fate. The impulse to sacrifice firstborn sons to the gods seems to go back to pre-Jewish traditions. The idea of saving the children by redeeming them is a first step away from this practice. There's a good discussion of this here.
4) Hebrews 10 is one of the key verses for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement which compares Jesus' death on the cross to an Old Testament blood sacrifice.
The FFRF's objections refelct the fact that many Christians take this symbolism literally and claim that God must be appeased by blood. The truth is that Jesus' dies because he loved people enough to put himself in harm's way for their sake. The writers of the New Testament had to help the people of their world understand this so they used a metaphor they would understand--the image of blood sacrifice.
As modern people, many centuries removed from this ritual, we need a different metaphor to understand. Let's look at another martyr, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Most believers would agree that he was one of the most Christ-like leaders of the tewitieth century. He risked, and lost, his life because his faith in God and his love for his fellow man compelled him to do so. While I'm not saying that Dr. King was another Christ, his personal sacrifice helps us to understand Jesus' sacrifice.
5) The story of David and the sons of Saul is a brutal one, but it is not the story of a religious sacrifice, it was a legal proceeding. Saul was guilty of genocidal raids against the Gibeonites, who should have been protected by a treaty. David went to the Gibeonites to ask how to atone for the damage the earlier king had done. Since Saul was dead they settled for executing seven of his grown sons.
18. What price did David pay King Saul for his first wife?
Answer: C - The foreskins of 200 Philistines.
David is supposed to be a biblical role model; but how does massacre and mutilation show moral leadership? What would Saul want with 200 foreskins? Possibly proof that his new son-in-law was a truly macho man for his daughter. (More likely, this reflects the pagan practice of offering foreskins as a rain/fertility ritual.)
My Comments:
This is pretty much accurate; the business with the foreskins is one of several gruesome traditions associated with warfare in the ancient Middle East. It's hardly unique to David, but there is no way to sugar coat it.
I do think the FFRF is missing the boat when they say that David is meant to be a role model, though. He is far from that, as anyone who has read his story knows. David was a very human mix of good and bad qualities and was rebuked by God on many occasions, notable in the story of Bathsheba and Uriah.
19. How many regular sexual partners did King Solomon have?
Answer: D - One thousand sexual partners.
At least one thousand. Another fine example of family values from one of God's favorites. "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites . . . And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines." (I Kings 11:1-3)
Notice that this lifestyle is never denounced by God, Jesus, or the biblical writers. Solomon, supposedly an ancestor of Jesus, was praised by Jesus: "all his glory" (Matthew 6:29), "wisdom of Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). Jesus compared himself (not so humbly) to Solomon's greatness: "a greater than Solomon is here." (Luke 11:31)
My Comments:
I agree that Solomon is no role model. In addition to his many wives he allowed images of the gods his wives worshipped into the Temple, and instituted forced work-gangs to build the Temple and other public works. He was a brilliant diplomat and was revered for his intelligence but he wasn't much as a role-model.
Still, it's not accurate to say that God never denounces Solomon. If you read the full passage of 1 Kings 11:1-13 you see that God comes down hard on Solomon for just that. And Jesus' praise isn't high as the FFRF makes it out to be. When Jesus praised Solomon he wasn’t approving of his life style, he was saying he was a snappy dresser (Matthew 6:29) and a clever ruler (Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31).
20. What happened to 42 little children who teased God's prophet Elisha for being bald and he cursed them in the name of the Lord?
Answer: C - Two bears came out of the forest and killed them all.
Note that this bloody execution for a childish prank is the work of the God of the bible. Is a person like this worthy of worship? Is this "pro-life"?
My Comments:
This is a strange and gruesome story that is at odds with the usually kind and quiet character of Elisha. It's also a great favorite of critics of the Bible for obvious reasons.
I've seen some commentators suggest that the phrase "little children" really indicates "young men" and that this a youth gang of considerable size. I don't know if this is the case or not, though even then it would be an ugly story.
I'll have to study this one in more detail and come back to it later. For now I'll just say that it's a strange incident that stands out because it is so different than the story surrounding it.
I've gone through questions 1-10 of the quiz created by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Now, here are questions 11-20.
-------------------------------------------
11. According to the bible, who created evil?
Answer: C - God.
Now we know who is to blame.
The word "create" above is bara, the same word used in Genesis 1:1. The word "evil" is ra, such as in Genesis 2:9, "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Some versions, such as the NIV, have unjustifiably softened the implications of this verse by translating ra as "disaster" or "calamity," although ra is used repeatedly throughout scripture to refer to moral evil. (See Isaiah 7:14-15: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil [ra], and choose the good.") But even if the "disaster" interpretation were allowable, the verse still depicts God as a troublemaker.
My Comments:
The question of evil is the most difficult question in the monotheistic religions. You can find a variety of answers in scripture including the idea that God is the creator of evil.
Could it be that God created evil as a kind of sadistic practical joke on humanity? This is the position of maltheism though the Bible itself never suggests that God either approves of nor rejoices in evil.
Could it be, as some theologians suggest, that evil is in some way a necessary part of creation? The movement known as process theology suggests that Creation is an ongoing process and that God continues to both guide and move the world toward a future in which evil will be no more. This and the liberation theology movement say that we are partners with God in working for a world where there is justice and peace for everyone.
The Bible never gives a reason for the existence of evil, but I find the process and liberation ideas much more helpful and think they give a much truer picture of the character of God than other ideas.
12. According to the bible, what is God not able to do?
Answer: C - Repel chariots of iron.
So much for omnipotence.
My Comments:
This passage always makes me chuckle. There was no continuity editor working on the Bible and some of the authors had odd ideas.
13. According to the bible, where does God live?
Answer: B - In darkness.
How can the "God of light" live in darkness?
"Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (I Kings 8:12. Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1) "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies." (II Samuel 22:12) "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."< (Psalm 18:11) "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him." (Psalm 97:1-2)
This contradicts I John 1:5: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all . . . If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another."
My Comments:
This is true, though the contradiction is not nearly as strong as the FFRF suggests. Like many words, "darkness" has shadings of meaning. In the Old Testament passages cited, God "dwelling in darkness" is a poetic way of saying that God is beyond the sight of humans (IE, God is invisible). In the I John passage, "darkness" is used as a metaphor for evil and sin, which is a completely different use. I suspect the authors of these books would agree: God is invisible to human eyes but there is no place in God for evil and sin.
14. According to biblical biology, what is a bat?
Answer: A - A bird.
Biblical biology rates an 'F.' Bats are mammals, not birds. This is another good reason to keep bibles out of science classes.
My Comments:
For what it's worth, I agree completely about keeping Bibles out of science classes. The Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a science text. It is a book filled with stories of fallible, faithful people coming to know their God. It is also colored by the pre-scientific views of those people. Whaddaya expect? Nobody in the ancient world knew about modern biological classifications.
15. According to biblical anatomy, where does thinking happen?
Answer: A - In the heart.
Biblical anatomy also rates an 'F.' The heart is an organ that pumps blood--it does not process thoughts, although the biblical writers erroneously thought it did. The word "brain" appears nowhere in the bible.
My Comments:
Those silly Hebrews! They should have checked with the Greek philosophers on that one. Those enlightened souls could have told them that the liver is the seat of reason.
:-)
16. How did Gideon demonstrate his family values?
Answer: C - He fathered 71 sons through many wives plus a mistress in Shechem.
So much for monogamy and fidelity. Is this how the hotel-bible Gideon Society expects us to demonstrate family values?
My Comments:
Yup, like Jacob, David, Solomon, and so many others, Gideon is not a model for ethical behavior. The idea that the heroes of the Bible were morally perfect and should serve as role-models for modern people is patently false. With a few notable exceptions, Bible heroes are deeply flawed people who succeed only through the grace of God.
The FFRF is correct on the second point also; the idea of a monogamous marriage exists in the Old Testament, but there is no moral judgment against men who have several wives and/or concubines. It's a part of that ancient culture that we are better off leaving behind. However, the fact that Gideon and others were total dogs as far as women went is a reflection of their time, not an indictment of God.
17. After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?
Answer: D - His virgin daughter.
Another example of family values from the "Good Book." Jephthah's nameless daughter is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God, who tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice.
The bible sanctions child sacrifice here. Notice how everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah's actions: there is no denunciation of this pointless murder from God, or from anyone in Jephthah's community, or from the biblical writers. It was the right thing to do.
The ultimate child sacrifice, of course, is the story of Jesus being put to death to appease the wrath of his offended father. Ruth Green, author of The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible, puts it this way: "If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and worthy of society's admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible?"
The biblical god often requested and accepted human sacrifice: "And he [God] said [to Abraham], Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." (Genesis 22:2) "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." (Exodus 22:29) "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land." (II Samuel 21:8-14) "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." (Hebrews 10:10-12)
My Comments:
The FFRF claims that the story of Jephthah is proof that the Bible sanctions human sacrifice. While it is a very disturbing story, it is more accurate to say that the Bible fails to comment on child sacrifice in this instance. Some scholars agree with the FFRF that God's silence in this story implies consent, but when the Bible does speak in Leviticus 18:21, Leviticus 20:3, Deuteronomy 12:30-31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 it is always to condemn the practice.
Historians have a hard time saying much about child sacrifice in ancient Israel or even in the ancient Middle East as a whole. We are confidant that the practice existed but don't know how common or widespread it was.
The FFRF presents 4 scriptures to back up their claim that God often demanded and received child sacrifice; they deserve to be looked at individually.
1) The story of Jephthah is tragic and horrible. The story comes from a very primitive time in Israel's history and presents a violent and tribalistic understanding of God. Even taking the story by itself, Jephthah does not come across as an admirable character. He is a proud man who makes foolish promises and suffers as a result. The book of Judges is filled with similarly grim stories and reflects a savage time in Israel's history. Perhaps this best summed up by the last line of the book: In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (Judges 21:25.)
2) The story of the Binding of Isaac is one of the most difficult to understand in the Bible. While the story has a happy ending, it begins on a terrible note as God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son.
Jewish tradition suggests this was meant to be a symbolic sacrifice but Abraham mistook it for a literal one. Modern Christian scholarship points out that this seems to be a combination of two older stories. When Abraham is told to sacrifice his son, the name used for God is "Elohim" but the name changes to "Yahweh" when God stops Abraham. In his book Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature literary critic Erich Auerbach suggests that there is a buried struggle between the gods of sacrifice (represented by Elohim) and the God of mercy. in this story. This seems to be a shift in the theology of the Hebrew people, from understanding God as one who demands terrible sacrifices, to a deity who cares about all people.
3) The FFRF says that Exodus 22:29 implies human sacrifice was performed, but the scripture goes on to say how the firstborn can be redeemed from this fate. The impulse to sacrifice firstborn sons to the gods seems to go back to pre-Jewish traditions. The idea of saving the children by redeeming them is a first step away from this practice. There's a good discussion of this here.
4) Hebrews 10 is one of the key verses for the doctrine of substitutionary atonement which compares Jesus' death on the cross to an Old Testament blood sacrifice.
The FFRF's objections refelct the fact that many Christians take this symbolism literally and claim that God must be appeased by blood. The truth is that Jesus' dies because he loved people enough to put himself in harm's way for their sake. The writers of the New Testament had to help the people of their world understand this so they used a metaphor they would understand--the image of blood sacrifice.
As modern people, many centuries removed from this ritual, we need a different metaphor to understand. Let's look at another martyr, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Most believers would agree that he was one of the most Christ-like leaders of the tewitieth century. He risked, and lost, his life because his faith in God and his love for his fellow man compelled him to do so. While I'm not saying that Dr. King was another Christ, his personal sacrifice helps us to understand Jesus' sacrifice.
5) The story of David and the sons of Saul is a brutal one, but it is not the story of a religious sacrifice, it was a legal proceeding. Saul was guilty of genocidal raids against the Gibeonites, who should have been protected by a treaty. David went to the Gibeonites to ask how to atone for the damage the earlier king had done. Since Saul was dead they settled for executing seven of his grown sons.
18. What price did David pay King Saul for his first wife?
Answer: C - The foreskins of 200 Philistines.
David is supposed to be a biblical role model; but how does massacre and mutilation show moral leadership? What would Saul want with 200 foreskins? Possibly proof that his new son-in-law was a truly macho man for his daughter. (More likely, this reflects the pagan practice of offering foreskins as a rain/fertility ritual.)
My Comments:
This is pretty much accurate; the business with the foreskins is one of several gruesome traditions associated with warfare in the ancient Middle East. It's hardly unique to David, but there is no way to sugar coat it.
I do think the FFRF is missing the boat when they say that David is meant to be a role model, though. He is far from that, as anyone who has read his story knows. David was a very human mix of good and bad qualities and was rebuked by God on many occasions, notable in the story of Bathsheba and Uriah.
19. How many regular sexual partners did King Solomon have?
Answer: D - One thousand sexual partners.
At least one thousand. Another fine example of family values from one of God's favorites. "But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites . . . And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines." (I Kings 11:1-3)
Notice that this lifestyle is never denounced by God, Jesus, or the biblical writers. Solomon, supposedly an ancestor of Jesus, was praised by Jesus: "all his glory" (Matthew 6:29), "wisdom of Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). Jesus compared himself (not so humbly) to Solomon's greatness: "a greater than Solomon is here." (Luke 11:31)
My Comments:
I agree that Solomon is no role model. In addition to his many wives he allowed images of the gods his wives worshipped into the Temple, and instituted forced work-gangs to build the Temple and other public works. He was a brilliant diplomat and was revered for his intelligence but he wasn't much as a role-model.
Still, it's not accurate to say that God never denounces Solomon. If you read the full passage of 1 Kings 11:1-13 you see that God comes down hard on Solomon for just that. And Jesus' praise isn't high as the FFRF makes it out to be. When Jesus praised Solomon he wasn’t approving of his life style, he was saying he was a snappy dresser (Matthew 6:29) and a clever ruler (Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31).
20. What happened to 42 little children who teased God's prophet Elisha for being bald and he cursed them in the name of the Lord?
Answer: C - Two bears came out of the forest and killed them all.
Note that this bloody execution for a childish prank is the work of the God of the bible. Is a person like this worthy of worship? Is this "pro-life"?
My Comments:
This is a strange and gruesome story that is at odds with the usually kind and quiet character of Elisha. It's also a great favorite of critics of the Bible for obvious reasons.
I've seen some commentators suggest that the phrase "little children" really indicates "young men" and that this a youth gang of considerable size. I don't know if this is the case or not, though even then it would be an ugly story.
I'll have to study this one in more detail and come back to it later. For now I'll just say that it's a strange incident that stands out because it is so different than the story surrounding it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
