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.
Friday, July 15, 2011
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.
Biblical Literacy - 2
In my last entry I mentioned a Bible Literacy Quiz that I'd found interesting. I scored a 40 on the test which got me this comment:
40 - 50: Wow! You know more than a minister, priest, or rabbi!
That's flattering, but a little exaggerated. I'm pretty good with Bible stuff but I don't know more than most of the other clergy I know.
I noticed as I looked through the answers that there were some inaccuracies, and a lot of commentary. In other words they were a good starting point for a conversation but not something I'd want to take as the final word. If you have the same reaction, here's my take:
SPOILER WARNING: If you are going to take the test, do it before reading this section!
I have copied the question from the quiz, followed by the correct answer (with commentary) posted on the Freedom From Religion Foundation site, then added my comments after.
1. What is the last of the Ten Commandments?
Answer: C - "Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother."
Believe it or not, this prohibition in Exodus 34:26 is the official tenth commandment, from the only set of stone tablets that were called "the ten commandments." There were three sets of commandments:
1) The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the "Ten Commandments," although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called "the ten commandments."
2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19).
40 - 50: Wow! You know more than a minister, priest, or rabbi!
That's flattering, but a little exaggerated. I'm pretty good with Bible stuff but I don't know more than most of the other clergy I know.
I noticed as I looked through the answers that there were some inaccuracies, and a lot of commentary. In other words they were a good starting point for a conversation but not something I'd want to take as the final word. If you have the same reaction, here's my take:
SPOILER WARNING: If you are going to take the test, do it before reading this section!
I have copied the question from the quiz, followed by the correct answer (with commentary) posted on the Freedom From Religion Foundation site, then added my comments after.
1. What is the last of the Ten Commandments?
Answer: C - "Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother."
Believe it or not, this prohibition in Exodus 34:26 is the official tenth commandment, from the only set of stone tablets that were called "the ten commandments." There were three sets of commandments:
1) The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the "Ten Commandments," although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called "the ten commandments."
2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19).
3) So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." (Exodus 34:1)
Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26)
My Comments:
This is an ingenious way of suggesting that all Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish interpretive tradition is wrong. I suppose that's a possibility but if you read Exodus 34 carefully you'll see that there's nothing that says that the list from Exodus 34 is the "official list" nor that it--and not the list from Exodus 20--was carved on the tablets. That's just the FFRF's interpretation.
There are several different lists of the Ten Commandments; the most familiar is from Exodus 20:2-17 and another version shows up in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. there are some subtle but interesting differences between these two versions of the Ten Commandments. Critical scholars believe that the lists were written at different times by different authors according to what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
So what do you do when you have several lists that don't quite match? You can't look at the tablets because nobody has them. Jewish and Christian interpretative traditions have chosen the Exodus 20 list as the one most reflective of their experience of God and the Laws of Moses.
I suggest you read the passages in full and decide for yourself.
2. What is the penalty for working on the Sabbath?
Answer: A - "You will be stoned to death."
Isn't this an excessively violent punishment from a supposedly "Good Book?" What is the harm in working on the Sabbath? It seems the only harm is to the ego of the Sovereign, who demands respect with no respect to human needs.
My Comments:
This is the punishment listed. It is indeed excessively harsh and we don't know exactly why. The best explanation I've heard is the Rabbinic tradition that the death penalty was proscribed for quite a few crimes in ancient Israel, but was very rarely used. In other words, the leaders of the community had the option of imposing the death penalty, but only used it in the extremely rare cases when everything else had failed. Both the Old and New Testaments use hyperbole a lot in making moral points. They set up a terrible penalty to show the seriousness of a crime, but when the crime is broken they show mercy rather than following the letter of the law. The story of Adam and Eve is a good example of this. God sets up the death penalty for eating the forbidden fruit, but refrains from killing them when they break the rule.
The FFRF cites an example of a man put to death for working on the Sabbath. It's a grim tale, but it is also the only instance of this happening in the Bible. Is it a literal story or a kind of boogie-man story designed to impress the seriousness of the law on people?
The FFRF also suggest that the only purpose of the Sabbath is to appease God's ego, but a look at the Sabbath laws shows that this is not the case. You aren't supposed to work seven days a week, and you're not allowed to make others work that hard either; not even animals. In addition, there was also a Sabbath year, called Shmita on which the earth was given a rest from labor and allowed to lie fallow. Then, after every seven sevens of years, on the fiftieth year, came a special Sabbath called the Jubilee. All debts were forgiven and all slaves were set free. The Sabbath Laws were about social and economic justice.
3. What is God's name?
Answer: A - "Jealous"
This is a petty self-described insecurity from a supposedly all-wise leader.
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)
My Comments:
The quiz makers correctly state that the name Jehovah is an erroneous reading of the Hebrew name YHWH by medieval Christian writers.
However, the statement that God's proper name is "Jealous" is erroneous. It may look that way in some English translations but "jealous" is simply one of many epithets assigned to God and versions of the Bible that translate this more accurately say "the jealous one." The only name in the Bible that can described as God's personal name is Yahweh (traditionally spelled without vowels as YHWH).
I do agree that calling God jealous reflects a crude understanding of God. Other biblical images of God as the merciful one, the just one, etc. hew closer to God's true nature.
4. How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?
Answer: D - He should be stoned to death.
This cruelly excessive Mosaic law was actually enforced at one time by the Massachusetts colony and has been used to justify child abuse and murder.
My Comments:
This another example of exaggeration to make a point. There is no instance in the Bible of someone carrying it out. The fact that Christians in several times and palces have used this to justify child abuse and murder is chilling, but the fault with is with the abuser, not with the scriptures they twist to their own ends. This kind of behavior is condemned by the vast majority of Christians and Jews.
5. What happens if you are not a virgin on your wedding night?
Answer: D - You will be stoned to death.
This barbaric punishment is still being followed in some parts of the Moslem world, which share some of the teachings of the Hebrew bible. There is no such penalty, needless to say, for a groom who is not a virgin. The fact that Christian women who have engaged in premarital sex are not being stoned to death today shows that even believers recognize cruelty and absurdity in their own "Good Book."
My Comments:
I agree that this is a brutal and senseless rule, and one which reflects the fact that women and girls were horribly undervalued in ancient Hebrew culture. The Bible was written in a particular time and place to a particular culture. That culture owned slaves and treated women like they were less than men. That wasn't just a Hebrew attitude though, it was more or less universal through the ancient world.
While it is ridiculous to take these words as moral guidance, it is absurd to condemn people who lived thousands of years ago because they didn't conform to twenty-first century standards.
6. What does the bible say about witches?
Answer: A - Witches should be killed.
Tragically, tens of thousands, if not millions, of innocent women in Europe and the American colonies were cruelly accused, tortured and executed because of one single bible verse.
My Comments:
The Hebrew word translated "witch" here refers to someone who speaks to the spirits of the dead so "medium" would be a better translation. It's kind of amusing to note that this would condemn phony psychics like John Edward.
While this I agree that this is an ugly passage, it is probably another of those exaggerations I've mentioned. Certainly those who wrote it could never have imagined the witchcraft persecutions. For that matter, the authors of the quiz seem to accept some myths and misperceptions about the witch persecutions at face value. In fairness, it's best to be accurate all around.
7. Which of these foods does the bible expressly permit you to eat? (The others are "abominations.")
Answer: C - "Locusts."
Since ham and lobster are verboten to bible believers, how about some barbecued grasshopper or steamed locust for dinner?
My Comments:
True, though there are several New Testament passages including one from Jesus that address this specifically.
Bon apetit.
8. When the Israelites conquered the Midianites, what part of the spoils of war was given to the priest as "the Lord's tribute"?
Answer: D - 32 virgins.
Of the 32,000 virgins that were kept alive as "booty" for God's warriors, 32 young captives were handed to the priest. The bible brutally sanctifies war crimes against girls and women that continue to this day. Who could possibly respect a dictator who behaves like this?
My Comments:
If God were a dictator who sanctioned this sort of thing, I would agree, but that's not the case. The Bible was written a long time (2-3 thousand years) ago and people in the ancient world had a number of things they took for granted. The inferiority of women, the taking of booty in war, and slavery were only some of these things.
What we see in passages like this is a primitive people projecting their cultural assumptions on God. This stands in contrast to the more enlightened words from the prophets, Apostles, and Jesus as people developed a better understanding of the nature of God.
9. What is the origin of the "mighty men" giants known as nephilim?
Answer: A - They were the offspring of God's angels and young women.
Can't God maintain better control over his libidinous troops? This is scandal in high places.
This is obviously mythical. The "sons of God" were angels: "the expression clearly refers to divine beings." (Harper's Bible Dictionary) The word nephilim "could mean 'fallen ones' and allude to stories in related cultures of rebellious giants defeated by the gods in olden times (cf. Isa. 14:12)." (Harper's)
Some suggest this is why Paul admonished Christian women to keep their heads covered in church, so as not to sexually tempt the angels: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (I Corinthians 11:10)
My Comments:
This is pretty accurate. There are some stories in Genesis that make you shake your head and wonder. I will say though, that it is inconsistent with every other depiction of angels in the Bible.
10. What happened to Korah and his family, Israelites who thought they could talk directly with God without a human intermediary?
Answer: C - The earth opened and swallowed them up.
See Numbers 16:31-35 for the whole story, in context, of God killing 15,000 of his own people for daring to question the authority of Moses. But it gets worse! Some who thought this was pretty harsh treatment were killed by a plague.
My Comments:
This is one of a number of brutal stories that believers and non-believers alike have a hard time with. Aside from repeating that ancient and primitive people have a different set of values and perception of God, there's not much to say. Of course to condemn God on the strength of these stories is to assume that these writers have a handle on the real God while the writers of books like Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Ruth, etc. (not to mention the Gospels) are clueless.
Believers have to struggle with these stories and the dark side of religion/God that they raise, but they are ultimately not the decisive stories in how we understand God.
Biblical Literacy - 1
How well do you know the Bible?
According to a 2010 study by the Pew Institute, Jews, Athiest/Agnostics, and Mormons score overall higher on religious knowledge than Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants, or Catholics. The findings are interesting (and a little embarassing) and fit with a 2005 Gallup study commissioned by the Bible Literacy Project that suggests high school students have a lack of adequate exposure to the Bible to help them understand English literature like the works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and John Steinbeck. This is interesting to look at in conjunction with the 2009 Barna Group study which indicates that, while interest in faith is rising in the US, Bible literacy is going down. Younger Americans, particularly those who have become adults since 2000 are interested in God, and even in Jesus, but not as much in the Bible.
I suspect this is a reaction (possibly an overreaction) to the way that the Bible has been used for some time in the US. Since about 1900 there has been a movement called Fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalists teach that there are several principals (or fundamentals) that one must believe in order to be called Christian, inclusing the idea that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is thus perfect, without contradiction or error.
This insistence that the Bible is always right has led some Christians to insist that science, medicine, history, etc. must be wrong when they contradict the Bible. They also insist that the Bible is the perfect moral guide, even those portions that say things that seem horribly unjust and cruel to us. Those are two hard pills for a growing number of modern people to swallow, and I think they are right to question them.
I don't think turning away from the Bible is a good solution, though. You shouldn't either blindly accept or casually reject anything, including the Bible, without properly understanding it. Fortunatly there is a very good way to study the Bible critically and gain a deeper understanding of it.
The thing that has me thinking about this is a survey on Bible Literacy I recently took. The survey comes from the Freedom from Religion Foundation and, as you might guess, has a strongly anti-Bible slant. Still, it's an interesting test that covers some obscure but important parts of the Bible that ought to be looked at by believers.
There are a lot of questions so, take the survey, but if you don't test well, don't despair. I'll be doing a few more blog posts to look at the answers and deal with the spin.
According to a 2010 study by the Pew Institute, Jews, Athiest/Agnostics, and Mormons score overall higher on religious knowledge than Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants, or Catholics. The findings are interesting (and a little embarassing) and fit with a 2005 Gallup study commissioned by the Bible Literacy Project that suggests high school students have a lack of adequate exposure to the Bible to help them understand English literature like the works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, and John Steinbeck. This is interesting to look at in conjunction with the 2009 Barna Group study which indicates that, while interest in faith is rising in the US, Bible literacy is going down. Younger Americans, particularly those who have become adults since 2000 are interested in God, and even in Jesus, but not as much in the Bible.
I suspect this is a reaction (possibly an overreaction) to the way that the Bible has been used for some time in the US. Since about 1900 there has been a movement called Fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalists teach that there are several principals (or fundamentals) that one must believe in order to be called Christian, inclusing the idea that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is thus perfect, without contradiction or error.
This insistence that the Bible is always right has led some Christians to insist that science, medicine, history, etc. must be wrong when they contradict the Bible. They also insist that the Bible is the perfect moral guide, even those portions that say things that seem horribly unjust and cruel to us. Those are two hard pills for a growing number of modern people to swallow, and I think they are right to question them.
I don't think turning away from the Bible is a good solution, though. You shouldn't either blindly accept or casually reject anything, including the Bible, without properly understanding it. Fortunatly there is a very good way to study the Bible critically and gain a deeper understanding of it.
The thing that has me thinking about this is a survey on Bible Literacy I recently took. The survey comes from the Freedom from Religion Foundation and, as you might guess, has a strongly anti-Bible slant. Still, it's an interesting test that covers some obscure but important parts of the Bible that ought to be looked at by believers.
There are a lot of questions so, take the survey, but if you don't test well, don't despair. I'll be doing a few more blog posts to look at the answers and deal with the spin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
