Atheist Revolution

Pastor Claims Husbands Should Have Right to Rape Wives

2009-08-27T05:50:00.000-05:00

It is currently legal for a husband to rape his wife in the Bahamas. Who knew? Oh, and before we get all self-righteous about that "backward" country, let's remember that marital rape was legal in the U.S. until 1976 and continues to result in lesser sentences than rapes committed by other perpetrators in many states today. So yeah, we don't have much excuse for looking down on them.

The Bahamian government is now trying to outlaw marital rape via the Sexual Offenses Act, and Amnesty International is supporting their effort to do so. Bravo! I'm glad to see them doing the right thing and happy to hear that they have Amnesty's support.

Who would oppose such legislation? Evidently, some Christians. You know, I'm not sure why this even surprises me anymore.

From The Bahama Journal:

However, many Bahamian men, like taxi driver Pemmie Sutherland, say the bill is "simply unnecessary."

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

And yes, he's referring to the Christian bible.

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

This has to be a misreading of the Christian bible, doesn't it? I mean, rape is rape, isn't it? Surely, no member of the clergy would agree with such views.

According to The Tribune,

Controversial pastor Cedric Moss has vocally opposed the legislation claiming the amendment would create a "society of rapists." Citing the "word of God", Mr Moss argued that rape cannot be committed in marriage because the couple, gave each other authority over the other's body and agreed to open-ended sexual consent in the marriage contract.

I've said it before, and I am sure I'll say it again: it absolutely boggles the mind why any self-respecting woman (or man who doesn't hate women) would want to call herself a Christian.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Bible Commands Christians to Kill Nonbelievers

2009-08-04T06:04:00.002-05:00

Image by Wonderlane via Flickr

One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. That sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what shields religious extremists from criticism. The presence of religious moderates provides a context in which extremism doesn't seem nearly as dangerous as it should. Moderate believers makes it far more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs.

Isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that religious belief is dangerous? Maybe Islamic extremists are dangerous, but surely there is nothing wrong with Christianity! Let's examine the Christian bible:

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Fairly clear, isn't it? Christians are instructed in their "holy" bible to murder persons who do not believe in their god. Why haven't we heard more about this? Because many Christians are content to ignore certain parts of their bible while obsessing about others. And what of those who do not ignore such parts of their "sacred" text? We call them extremists.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Putting Christians to the Test: How Many Really Believe Their Bibles?

2009-08-02T13:09:00.000-05:00

I don't post many videos here, but when a reader sent me this clip from the Chaser with a glowing recommendation, I figured I better watch it. It turns out the reader was right. This is way too good not to share.

Even though it is funny, it raises an important question which all "bible-believing" Christians should be asked: If you insist that your bible is the inerrant word of your god, why do you feel free to ignore much of what it says?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Is Cheese Ever Morally Justified?

2009-07-28T06:59:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

What an absurd question! Cheese has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, so the question doesn't even make sense. And yet, it is no more absurd than the title of a recent article at the Christian Post blog, "Is atheism ever morally justified?" I'll briefly explain why and then point out something even more nonsensical about the post.

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god(s). It is morally irrelevant in the same way your lack of belief in unicorns is morally irrelevant. If you want to ask whether certain things are morally justified, focus on actions and not beliefs.

What about the even more nonsensical part?

I think here of a well known academic who avowed disbelief in the Christian God because he was told -- with a notable absence of pastoral sensitivity -- that a childhood Jewish friend who died in a car accident was burning in hell. As a result this academic came to believe that the Christian God is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust. So when he says that he disbelieves in God, he is saying he disbelieves in a god who is arbitrary, capricious and unjust. But I don't believe in such a god either.

Perhaps the "well known academic" was in error. Then again, if you are an atheist, you've heard some variation of this claim thousands of times. The author is essentially accusing the atheist of the straw man fallacy. But here is what Christians who are so fond of this do not seem to realize, a straw man built from the Christian bible is no straw man at all.

When confronted with the words in their own bible, the Christian has two choices: acceptance or mental gymnastics. Obviously, the first option is rarely utilized. But the second choice contains a trap for those Christians who insist that their bible is the inerrant word of their particular god: if it is really inerrant, then the words matter. One does not get to reinterpret them.

But what about the Christians who are not committed to the claim that their bible is the word of their god? Usually, they argue that we are misinterpreting their bible. Evidently their god is so deceptive that the true meaning of their bible is only revealed to those who already believe in it. Yep, the Christian bible is magic! And best of all, the "real meaning" of any passage selected at random just so happens to coincide with the Christian's own beliefs and values.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Does the Bible Say About Mark Sanford?

2009-06-29T06:27:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

One of the common claims I have heard about the Christian bible is that it provides an excellent guide for living. Even though it was written a long time ago, many believers consider it to have been divinely inspired and thus timeless. It is only natural, then, that we would look to the Christian bible in times of tribulation. What wisdom does the Christian bible offer in the case of Gov. Mark Sanford's (R-SC) extramarital affair?

Put yourself in the shoes of the core Republican base for a moment. As a proud bible-believing "family values" conservative, you were dismayed to learn of Sanford's sin. You know that he will be seen as a hypocrite and that this sort of publicity hardly helps your party. Moreover, you feel personally betrayed by Sanford because he seemed to speak from the heart when promoting your shared values. He spoke your language, and you were convinced that he was one of the good ones, a true believer like yourself. It is perfectly natural that you would feel betrayed.

As an evangelical Christian, you are used to finding strength in your bible when you most need it. So what does your bible say on the subject of Gov. Sanford, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), and so many others? According to Leviticus 20:10,

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

As State of Protest recently pointed out, Sanford had better hope that nobody takes his repeated references to "god's law" or his efforts to violate separate of church and state too seriously. Note to Sanford and Ensign: Stay the hell away from any future Palin rallies!

Of course, neither Gov. Sanford nor Sen. Ensign deserve death. But they do deserve to be labeled hypocrites. And the bible-believing "family values" conservatives? They deserve a therapeutic dose of reality.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Did Jesus Abolish the Old Testament?

2009-06-17T05:32:00.001-05:00

Image by mharrsch via Flickr

A reader, I'll call him Jason, e-mailed me a great question. It is one I have received several times. In fact, it is one I have asked several times! I am going to post it here, take a stab at answering it and then invite you to chime in. I readily admit that my answer is tentative, as I am really not sure about the most effective way to respond. Let's get to the question.

Here is Jason's question:

I recently had a discussion with a Christian, and I asked him why Christians cherry pick from the bible. I brought up stuff from the old testament, like women not being allowed to dress fancy in church. His response was, "That's mosaic law and we are under a new law now." I didn't know how to respond to this. What would you say? I also hear Christians respond with "that's the old testament or Judaism. Christians follow the new testament". Are these legitimate responses to challenges to the bible?

No, I do not regard these as legitimate responses at all. The challenge, and what I hope to get some input from my more informed readers, is how best to articulate why.

It seems to me that one has a couple of avenues from which to respond. First and most challenging, there are passages in the New Testament where statements attributed to Jesus seem to make it clear that he was NOT coming to change anything about the old laws (e.g., John 14:15 says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments."). So the first line of response might be to point the Christian to such statements. The problem with this and the reason I described this route as most challenging is that the Christian bible can be used to support virtually anything. There are so many inconsistencies that it is difficult to come away without concluding that it is utter gibberish.

Some will argue that Jesus only abolished certain rules while endorsing others. Thus, I believe that Matthew 5-7 is often used to support the notion that Jesus came to fulfill prior law so that continued observance was no longer necessary. Of course, nobody seems to agree on what was supposedly abolished and what was supposedly retained. In fact, interpreting the meaning of "fulfill" is a massive controversy (Matthew 5:17 says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill"). Spend a little time on Google, and you'll get a sense for just how contentious this issue remains.

A second response, and the one which I tend to prefer takes the Christian's claim at face value and probes the implications. I might remind them that their Ten Commandments are found in the Old Testament. I might remind them that the biblical basis for anti-gay bigotry is found there as well. If this does not get me where I want to go, I might present them with some of the more atrocious parts of their New Testament and see how they excuse those. I might share some of the many contradictions of the New Testament. And then, the character of this supposed Jesus figure could be addressed too. Finally, I might demonstrate how the New Testament is cherry-picked as well.

Of course, one could also argue that none of the above really matters because there was likely no historical Jesus. Based on what we know of how and when the Christian bible was written, it is highly probably that none of the quotes are even remotely accurate.

What do the rest of you think? How would you respond to the question?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christians and Gay Marriage

2009-05-21T05:56:00.000-05:00

Image by City of West Hollywood via Flickr

One of the things I have not been doing nearly enough of here is featuring particularly thought-provoking comments from my readers. This is because I get so many that I typically feel overwhelmed when it comes time to select any. My new approach is going to be to simply select those that intersect perfectly with whatever I'm thinking about at the time I encounter them.

Here is a recent one from Jenni in response to the Idiot of the Week: Carrie Prejean post:

You know, with all this insistence by theists that a marriage is between a man and a woman perhaps they should re-read their holy books to remind them of just what kind of marriages are sanctioned by their "beliefs." According to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 a man can marry his rape victim, Deuteronomy 21:11-14 says a man can marry his female prisoner of war, Judges 19:1-30 reminds us that a man is not limited to his wife, he may take concubines. All this prompts one to ask exactly what makes theists think they have the right to define marriage at all. A loving same sex marriage is way better than any of these their bible sanctions.

Jenni's comment makes me suspect that many Christians who oppose gay marriage do so not because of anything found in their bibles but because of what their pastors tell them and because of their own hatred of those who are different from them. After all, there is much in their bibles which they are perfectly content to ignore. As Jenni points out, there is even plenty about marriage which they routinely ignore.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Fool Says In His Heart...

2009-04-01T05:16:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

As Sisyphus Fragment recently noted, one of the passages from the Christian bible which Christians are fond of quoting at atheists is Psalm 14:1-3. And no, my somewhat unusual use of the word "at" in the previous sentence was not an error. When on the receiving end of this quote, as I have been many times, it indeed feels as if it is being thrown in my face (probably because it is). I expect that it will be no different today. In this post, I'd like to remind you of one simple way to respond to this projectile quote.

As a brief reminder, this is what Psalm 14:1-3 says:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Most Christians who pitch this quote in your direction are content to use only the first sentence, essentially saying that atheists are fools. I have not encountered nearly as many who go the full distance and call us "corrupt," but I am confident that they are out there.

I absolutely love how Sisyphus Fragment phrases the following:

From Chuck Norris to the average Catholic blogging soccer mom, this little bible quote has been thrown around as though excreting scripture at atheists actually has a tangible metaphysical impact. While this is as effective as a witch doctor pricking a voodoo doll of me in the hopes that I will actually be pricked...

Since the Christian hurling such a quote in your direction likely believes that his or her bible is worth at least some attention, I suggest that you offer a quote of your own. Specifically, I'd refer to Matthew 5:22, which says,

Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Interesting, isn't it? The Christian who squeals with delight while tossing Psalm at you is risking the wrath of his or her god by doing so. That being the case, I think it is probably safe to conclude that such a Christian is either completely ignorant of his or her bible or - and this is where it gets fun - doesn't give a damn because the transient pleasure of insulting you is worth eternal punishment.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Christian Bible is Magic: Introducing Vjack's Law

2009-01-14T04:59:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaIt is no secret that many atheists know the Christian bible better than do many Christians. But attempting to use their "holy" book against them in any sort of argument nearly always leads to the same place. Confronted with contradictions, inconsistencies, unpleasantries, or just plain absurdities, the Christian inevitably makes the claim of last resort: Only a true believer can comprehend the bible. You see, what we atheists fail to realize is that the Christian bible is protected with a magic lock which can only be opened by the key of faith.

I've done some reading and analysis of the Christian bible myself. While I generally found it quite interesting for a time, I burned myself out after awhile and decided to take a break so I could return with fresh interest at some future time. In discussing what I read with Christians, the result was always the same: magic bible.

I have encountered some minor variations on the argument, but the crux of it is always the same. The Christian bible is the inerrant word of the Christian god, and is intended as a direct communication to Christians. It does contain much which may appear inconsistent, even ridiculous, but only to the untrained eye. One who approaches his or her bible with faith will understand in a way the faithless simply cannot.

I enjoy reading biblical analysis by other atheist bloggers, and there is quite a bit of it to be found. But given enough time and a sufficient number of comments, the magic bible claim is sure to surface. Hmmm...this gives me an idea. I've always wanted to name something after myself, so how about this:

Vjack's Law: Provided sufficient time and responses from Christians, any critical analysis of the Christian bible performed by an atheist will inevitably lead some Christian to claim that his or her bible can only be correctly understood by the Christian faithful.

I know it may need some refinement, but I submit this initial draft of Vjack's Law for your consideration. Hopefully, nobody else has already beaten me to it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Bible as Defense Against Child Abuse

2009-01-05T05:22:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaCan the Christian bible be used in a court of law to justify child abuse? Believe it or not, a federal court has been asked to rule on this matter. According to the Associated Press, an attorney for evangelist Tony Alamo is claiming that the Christian bible demands corporal punishment. Now Alamo, currently jailed over alleged abuse, is being sued to challenge this claim and make it clear that religious freedom cannot be used as an excuse to abuse children.

Alamo sounds like a real winner. He is awaiting trial on allegations that he took children across state lines for sex, and his record includes a 4-year prison term for tax-related charges. Six girls between the ages of 10 and 17 were removed by state and federal authorities from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries in Arkansas.

If convicted, Alamo will face even greater punishment at the hands of American Christians. He will be stripped of his status as a "real Christian." After all, real Christians do not do this sort of thing.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Guest Post: Bible as Human Creation

2008-07-16T06:15:00.001-05:00

Below is a fantastic (and very long) guest post from reader and atheist, Bill Carson. Bill lives in Colorado Springs, CO, approximately 100 yards from a certain James Dobson. Talk about a threat to property values! In the post that follows and which he agreed to let me share with you, Bill exposes some of the craziest parts of the Christian bible and asks believers to confront them. He raises some pretty persuasive questions. Frankly, I am baffled as to how Christians can get their heads that far underneath the sand.

It is hard for me to agree with the idea that an all-powerful god would allow so many errors, contradictions and horrible teachings to be in the Bible. It seems obvious that the Bible was written by men long ago with no influence from a god. At least not a god I would be interested in worshiping. Below, I would like to explain why I have come to this conclusion.

Ex. 31:15 Kill anyone that has worked on a Sunday.
Ex. 21:17 Kill anyone who has ever got upset and used swear words against one of their parents.
Lev. 20:10 Kill anyone that commits adultery (adultery is defined as marrying someone that has been divorced according to Matthew 5.32)
Ex. 22:20 Destroy those that follow other religions.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Kill anyone with a different religion.

There are many more outrageous laws and teachings in the Bible. Many Christians will say that since the above laws are in the Old Testament, Christians can ignore them because Jesus came to change those old laws. But, the Bible tells a different story. The writers of the Bible claim that the two verses below are direct quotes from Jesus.

Luke 16:17 “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.”

Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But, whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Here is more of God’s word (according to the writers of the Bible).

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”
Isaiah 40:8 “the word of our God stands forever”
1 Peter 24:25 “but the word of the Lord abides forever”
Psalm 19:7 “the Law of the Lord is perfect”

Do any of these verses make it sound like parts of God’s word should not be followed anymore?

Why have so many Christians told me the Old Testament teachings are not relevant when there are so many verses that clearly state that this is not true? The same people who will tell me that the O.T. verses I quote are no longer valid will quote other O.T. verses and claim they are God’s words which should be followed. Many Christians will quote verses that say different things than the verses I quote. Which makes an important point, the bible is full of contradictions! You can find plenty of verses that say you should kill people and plenty of verses that say to be nice to people.

Some of the teachings of the New Testament are not that much of an improvement.
For example:

a believer can drink any deadly poison and it will not harm them (Mark 16:18)
do not resist who is evil (Matthew 5:39) no one should have fought back against Hitler?
whoever curses against their mother or father should be put to death (Mark 7:10)
there are verses that still approve slavery in the New Testament (1 Peter 2:18, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2) these verses are telling the slaves to obey their masters

Another major problem with the Bible is this. Most of the stories are not from eye witnesses. They were written by people sometimes hundreds of years later who were trying to promote the religion they were writing about. Also, many of the stories in the Bible are very similar to stories that were written about other religions that had been created by men earlier. The Mormons, Muslims, Christians and Jews appear to have a lot in common. The men involved at the beginning of each religion claim that an angel or god himself told them what to write in their book (Book of Mormon, Koran, Old Testament). But, all 3 books have a lot of words that appear to have come from human sources, not from the mouth of a god or angel.

Many people have suffered or been killed because of those who follow the teachings of the Bible. A human being is probably less likely to want to hurt another person unless there is a book they think comes from the word of God that tells them to kill people that have different religions or work schedules that require work on Sunday, etc. Please do not make the argument that only radicals have done bad things in the name of religion. In many cases, they are just doing what the Bible tells them to do. How is that “radical” to just love the Lord and do what the word of God says?

The writers of the Bible were probably writing words which they hoped would help them to accomplish many different things. Below are some examples:

controlling behavior by making people afraid of going to a bad place after they die if they do not obey what the writers of the Bible say
keep the religion going a long time (encourage having lots of kids and indoctrinate the kids early to believe that they will go to a bad place when they die if they do not follow the religion of their parents)
own slaves Leviticus 25:44 (the writers of the Bible claim their god said it was ok to acquire slaves from the pagan nations, of course their race should not be slaves) and Ephesians 6:5 (they actually included a verse that told slaves to obey and serve their slave masters just like they would Jesus Christ)

When the writers of the Bible include verses like that, it makes me wonder if they were ever concerned that it was going to be too obvious that they were just making up verses that would be to their benefit. Look at the logic.

God’s people can acquire slaves from other nations
God’s people should not be slaves
God says that the slaves need to obey their masters (God’s people)

Isn’t that very convenient for God’s people? (the people responsible for writing the Bible)

The Bible teachings about women are so anti-women that it seems obvious that men, not a loving god had to come up with them. Look at the examples below.

Exodus 20:17 women are property of husband
Exodus 21:7-11 rules for selling your daughter into slavery
Leviticus 19:20-22 if a man rapes a female slave the female should be punished Deuteronomy 22:28-29 rules requiring a virgin to marry the man who raped her
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 women should remain silent in church
Ephesians 5:22-24 rules about how women should submit themselves to their husbands Numbers 31:17-18 here the writers of the Bible claim that their god has ordered them to kill all the Midianites except for the Midianite virgins which they can keep for themselves (I wonder if the women doubted whether their loving god really inspired this verse?)
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night

Isn’t it amazing that a group of primitive men could write stuff like this and have it catch on and last for thousands of years?

there are many examples in the Bible where men have multiple wives (another example of how the people who wrote the Bible keep favoring men over women)
get the masses to go to war to conquer new lands (the Bible has helped motivate believers to go kill people in other lands that have different beliefs)
get money (10% of everyone's money is supposed to go to the people who created and then later promoted the religion)
make their race the most important (the writers of the Bible made sure to claim that their God selected their race to be the “chosen one”) wouldn’t it have been a lot more believable if the Bible was inspired by a god and the people writing the stories did not happen to be the chosen ones?
to try to explain things that are probably always going to be unexplainable

There are even examples in the Bible where there are references to the 4 corners of the earth and going up high to see all ends of the earth. It appears that the writers of the Bible thought the earth was flat. Why didn’t an all-knowing god inspire only verses that clearly state that the earth is round?

Many people have told me that even if it is not true, Christianity is still a good thing. Of course women, slaves, non-Christians, gays, Sunday workers and adulterers may have a different opinion. Well, if is ok to believe in something that is probably completely made-up why don’t we make up a new religion where there is not so much bad stuff written in the book the followers base their beliefs from. Maybe the many problems with the Bible are a reason why Scientology was created and is popular with a lot of people. Of course, another question is why do so many people feel the need to believe in fairy tales and a space daddy in the sky? Why can’t we just live our life with the rational idea that we just do not know how we got here and what happens after we die?

Here is the most common point in favor of Christianity. Something had to have created all this. That may be true. Maybe something did create this world. But, how do you know hardly anything after that premise? Maybe this world was created by a few gods working together. Maybe the god or gods that created this are not interested in being worshiped. Worshiping is kind of a strange concept. If you had the power to create an earth with human beings, would you require that they all had to worship you? Maybe whatever created the earth is not paying much attention to us anymore. So, even if it is true that something created all this, we know virtually nothing about how this something wants us to live our lives. The Bible is certainly not a consistent, moral, practical guide to live by. And, I hope that most of this letter shows how obvious it is that a god did not inspire the Bible anyway. Also, it is difficult to respect this something if it has the power to stop really bad things from happening and does not bother to do it. Also, why don’t the creators or creator make it easy for a rational thinking person to know they are around? Is it maybe because they are not involved here on this earth or maybe do not exist at all?

Another common argument is “what if you are wrong?” I have trouble understanding that argument. If you want to believe in a religion just in case it might actually be true, how do you decide which one to believe in? Should I believe in the Greek gods just in case they might be true? Also, I do not see how I can pretend to believe in a religion if deep down I really do not think it is true.

What are the chances that the religion someone chooses to follow is actually truthful? Out of the thousands of religions that have been started throughout history only one could be completely true, and probably they are all wrong. No one really knows what created all this and what happens after we die. It is amazing how many religions are flourishing when there is so little evidence that any of them are telling the truth.

My experience has been that the more I read the Bible the more obvious it is to me that it was written by a small group of men trying to get a religion started that would benefit them. When you read the Bible carefully, does it really appear to be inspired by an all-knowing, all-powerful and loving god? There are just way too many errors, contradictions and horrible teachings for the Bible not to be the work of human beings. It makes sense to me that a group of men are likely to come up with a law where a raped virgin has to marry the man who raped her. If more people would read the Bible carefully, I think there would be a lot more atheists and agnostics in this world.

Bill Carson

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

God Wants Scorched Earth Warfare

2008-02-10T08:10:00.000-06:00

Continuing on with this project to read the Christian bible cover to cover is becoming increasingly arduous. I find that I have to be in the right mood to read it, and that even then, it is slow going. My last post in this series dealt with Deuteronomy and Joshua. This one has me moving through Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel. Frankly, it also has me wondering how much more of this I can take.

The first thing to strike me about Judges is that we have seen a pattern across several Old Testament books of the Israelites repeatedly committing evil acts in the eyes of their god. They are punished in a variety of ways, ranging from famine to enslavement by foreign nations. Each time misery befalls them, it is because their god either punishes them directly or punishes indirectly by withholding protection of some sort.

The reader can certainly sympathize with poor Gideon when he asks one of god's prophets, "But sir, if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, 'Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian" (Judges 6:13). He seems to be asking why the miracles he heard about in his youth have dried up and how a supposedly loving god could permit such horrors to befall his people. Inexplicably, this god returns to lead Gideon to greatness after some groveling and animal sacrifice.

The intensity of the superstition at this time is so great that human sacrifice is also needed to satisfy the bloodthirsty god created by this ancient people. In exchange for god's help in his military campaign Jephthah sacrifices his own daughter (Judges 11:29-40).

In Judges, we also see yet another mention of the scorched earth sort of warfare utilized by god's chosen people. They kill every last one of their enemies, including their livestock, and burn their towns to the ground (Judges 20:41-48). But the atrocities do not stop here, for the conquering Israelites also kill the women and children, saving only the female virgins (Judges 21:10-11). After all, they need to capture wives. Surely the Christian god would not condone such practices! Actually, this god not only condones but commands these very war crimes. When the Israelites refuse to kill sheep and cattle which they might actually be able to use, they are severely punished (1 Samuel 15:7-34).

That all of this appears to be condoned by the same Christian god whose name is today tossed around in the context of "family values" should give pause to even the most rabid believer. Considered against this context, atrocities ranging from the Inquisition to Bush's modern day crusades in Iraq take on a new meaning. This book is teaching me things about what Christians believe that I am starting to wish I didn't know.

Tags: bible, god, Christianity, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, Old Testament

What Happened To The Miracles?

2007-12-19T18:41:00.000-06:00

The Christian bible is filled with miracles, direct communication between god and man, and tales of god regularly intervening in human affairs. So what happened, Christians? Did this god die, lose interest, go away on a long vacation, what? I encourage you to check out this great post at de-conversion on the subject of miracles and typical Christian responses to questions such as these. It is well-written and thought-provoking.

Tags: Christian, bible, god, miracles

God Orders Persons Of Other Faiths To Be Killed

2007-12-14T06:12:00.000-06:00

Progress on my reading of the Christian bible stalled for awhile, mostly due to changes in my work schedule resulting in a significant reduction of free time, but I have not abandoned the task. This post will continue where I left off by discussing Deuteronomy and Joshua.

On the surface, Deuteronomy continues the story Moses and of how the Christian god provided a rather thorough set of laws to humankind. A cursory read is likely to convey the impression that much of Deuteronomy is simply rehashing the law set down in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. To be sure there is some repetition, however, Deuteronomy deserves a closer look, as it reveals considerable insight into the character of the Christian god. Moreover, Deuteronomy offers some of the most relevant bits of god's law for atheists we have encountered yet.

Like Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers before it, Deuteronomy reminds the believer that the ten commandments are but one part of what this god expects. We have already seen that this god despises yeast and desires animal sacrifices. Now we learn that believers must kill persons who worship other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-11). Once again, this god makes it clear that those who follow all these laws will be rewarded, not in some distant afterlife but now (Deuteronomy 5:32-33).

Obedience is clearly valued, and the support this god provides is completely conditional. Earthy fortunate is bestowed on those who obey (Deuteronomy 6:10-12), but this is also a jealous and wrathful god who will not hesitate to destroy those who do not demonstrate their obedience (Deuteronomy 6:15). This is a god who has little sympathy for conquered peoples. They are to be completely eliminated, down to the last child, so the remnants of their cultures will not tempt our conquerors (Deuteronomy 7:1-6).

A particularly fascinating insight had been brewing in previous books but finally solidified in Deuteronomy: this god can be argued with, bargained with, and even persuaded by humans. Moses repeatedly talks god out of inflicting certain types of punishment, utilizing all sorts of tactics. As one prominent example, it is Moses who talks this god out of slaughtering everyone over a golden calf. What are we to conclude about this supposedly divine being whose will is so frequently swayed by human persuasion? If we were given freewill as some sort of test, how does it make since that we are influencing this god's behavior through our actions? Who really has the power here?

And yet, the god of Deuteronomy does show some understanding of humanity. When instructing the people how to explain their religion to future generations, this god refers to the miracles and signs provided (Deuteronomy 6:20-25). Nobody is expected to believe on the basis of faith but because of what they have witnessed through their senses. I wonder what happened?

I found Joshua far less remarkable than Deuteronomy, but I do have a comment regarding this part of the story which begins right after the death of Moses. Together with Deuteronomy, Joshua provides a justification for ideas such as manifest destiny, scorched earth, shock and awe, and the like. A nation with this god on its side can conquer all before them, especially when those before them worship other gods. In fact, it almost reads as if there would be an obligation to do so. Indeed, Joshua tells the story of the Israelite army moving through the land and slaughtering all in the way. Few are spared, and virtually none receive mercy. There seems to be no motive for this aggression other than the desire to expand their territory. It is no wonder that the Pat Robertsons of America read their bibles as justifying war!

Tags: god, religion, Christianity, bible, war, atheist, Christian, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Moses, atheists

Christian Reactions To My Bible Commentary

2007-11-23T05:35:00.000-06:00

Just because I have received precisely the reaction I expected on my first and second bible commentary posts from Christian readers does not mean that I'm not still disappointed. Maybe it was merely a case of expecting the worst while hoping I'd be pleasantly surprised. What I am talking about is the accusation, no matter how subtle it may be phrased, that I'm attacking a straw man.

Many Christians are fond of criticizing atheists for rejecting their religion because we do not fully understand it. When faced with an atheist who is actually reading their bible and still rejects it, the argument becomes one of interpreting things too literally. "You're missing the point. Christians don't read their bibles literally like you are doing." In other words, I am attacking a straw man by unfairly criticizing Christians for believing things they don't actually believe.

As I have many times before, I will remind anyone tempted by this line of criticism that the majority of Americans do in fact interpret many parts of their bibles literally, and a full third believe their bibles to be the inerrant word of a supernatural being. In fact, this is part of the definition of fundamentalism. I care about this because I am convinced that when people in power assume the Christian bible to be literal truth and act in a manner consistent with this assumption, we are all endangered.

I'll also point out that those Christians who pride themselves in their assorted non-literal interpretations have a serious problem to overcome. When a reader of the Christian bible interprets the text in a non-literal manner, the resulting interpretation reveals much about the reader but nothing about reality. That is, selective interpretation cannot possible lead us to a shared truth because it is nothing more than using the text to support what one already believes.

A literal interpretation of the Christian bible cannot be reconciled with reality. Fundamentalists embrace their bibles and reject reality. Instead of attempting to navigate the intellectual morass of claiming their non-literal bibles are simultaneously more meaningful than any other book yet too flawed to be inerrant, it is time for progressive Christians to give up their magical thinking and embrace reality. They will gain so much more after escaping the bonds of superstition.

Tags: Christianity, Christian, bible, inerrant, fundamentalism, fundamentalist, progressive, superstition, atheist, interpretation

God Wants Animal Blood

2007-11-14T06:01:00.000-06:00

I'm continuing on with my cover-to-cover reading of the Christian bible, and it is time for another bit of commentary. At the time of my last post on the subject, I had finished Genesis and Exodus and was midway through Leviticus. My pace has slowed, as I haven't had as much reading time as I'd like. I've finished Leviticus and Numbers and am now into Deuteronomy (although I will refrain from commenting on Deuteronomy just yet).

I was really fascinated by Leviticus. It shows that the Ten Commandments about which one hears so much from contemporary Christians were merely the tip of a massive iceberg. What I mean to say is that the law supposedly given to humankind by the god of the bible is far more extensive than the commandments. Christians who want to claim a biblical source for modern American law should certainly refer to Leviticus, for it would provide far more support for their claim than the Ten Commandments. What Leviticus and Numbers make abundantly clear is that we are supposed to obey all of god's rules for us and not merely the ten with which most of us are more familiar.

So what exactly are these other rules we are supposed to obey? Well, most deal with slaughtering animals on sacrificial altars and procedures for making the unclean clean again. There are many others, but these are the themes which pervade these books. The price for disobedience is also quite clear.

From Leviticus 24:15-16, we learn that blasphemy is to be punished by death. Specifically, the blasphemer is to be stoned to death by his or her community. From Numbers 15:32-36, we learn that gathering wood on the Sabbath will also get one stoned to death. There are many more similar examples, but these impressed themselves in my memory the most.

Of course, this is probably a good time to stop and address some criticism my commentaries are likely to encounter. When confronted with scriptural evidence that there are many laws, clearly stated as such, for which the penalties are often banishment or death, which virtually no modern Christian even attempts to follow, one should expect a predictable Christian response. The wording will vary, but the response will be along the lines of how the Old Testament no longer applies because god's covenant with Moses and his predecessors was replaced by Jesus and the New Testament.

Fair enough. I'll ask two things of the Christian making this claim, and I'll ask them not in a challenging manner but as a plea for assistance. First, please help me locate the part of the New Testament that will make it clear to me that Leviticus, Numbers, and whatever other books to which this claim applies were invalidated by Jesus. I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm nowhere close to even starting the New Testament yet - I'd just like to know where I'll find this part so I can be more careful about how I'm reading the Old Testament now.

Second, is the god depicted in the Old Testament books I have read so far (Genesis through Numbers) the same god that I will encounter in the New Testament, or are these two different gods? If it is the same god, then it would seem that reading the Old Testament is worthwhile because it will teach me quite a bit about the character of this god, even if the covenants change. On the other hand, if we have two different gods here, then I should probably stop reading the Old Testament, as it is really telling me nothing useful.

Tags: Christianity, bible, god, Jesus, religion, Old Testament, Ten Commandments, Leviticus

God Hates Yeast

2007-11-05T05:50:00.000-06:00

So I've decided to read the Christian bible from cover to cover. Why? The last time I did so was quite awhile ago, well before I had read much about atheism. When I've referred to biblical passages here, Christians sometimes complain that I'm taking the passages out of context. So I picked up a parallel bible with the NIV version presented column-by-column with the King James version. I'm about mid-way through Leviticus now and ready to share some initial impressions.

This is the first time I've read the NIV translation, and it certainly makes for an easier read than the King James. Still, I like to go back and forth to compare both versions and note some of the seemingly important differences. As but one example, NIV replaces "thou shalt not kill" with "you will not murder." At least to my mind, there is a world of difference between the meaning of "kill" and that of "murder."

Genesis makes for an interesting read, and I genuinely enjoyed it. A certain beauty is evident in some of the language and imagery. Of course, one must set aside the realities of modern science to some degree or else one will experience it as little more than a list of false claims about nature.

The god described in these first three books is difficult to recommend. This god is presumably almighty and yet needs to rest while creating the universe. This god is presumably wise beyond measure but places two forbidden trees (that of knowledge and that of life) in the Garden of Eden where early humans can access them. Moreover, this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan. Thus, with regard to power and knowledge, this god seems to be quite flawed.

What about morality? Well, there is little question about this. This god repeatedly refers to itself as jealous and demonstrates wrath, impatience, cruelty, intolerance, and more. The god described in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus is certainly willing to provide humanity with a number of laws, the majority of which are completely ignored by virtually all modern Christians. This god makes it clear that it is to be honored with animal blood and burnt offerings (i.e., animals sacrificed and burned on altars). However, most modern Christians would never dream of doing this, going so far as to equate such acts with Satanism when they were in fact mandated by the very god they claim to worship.

The infamous passage in Leviticus does indeed state that male homosexuality is wrong (and that men who engage in homosexual must be killed), and yet, this is embedded among so many other laws given to humanity that it hardly stands out. It is fascinating that Christians obsess about the couple brief mentions this receives while completely ignoring the call for blood sacrifices, the clear requirement of stoning for minor crimes, and the multitude of references to the evils of yeast.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that today's Christians ignore nearly all of the laws their biblical god hands down in these three books. And yet, I remain puzzled that anyone claiming to be a Christian can ignore all of this, selectively choosing the couple parts that make them feel good while neglecting the bulk of what is actually there. This is the sort of god who is unlikely to react favorably to such neglect. If I believed in such a god, I don't think I'd go near anything containing yeast!

Tags: bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, homosexuality, Christianity, Christian, religion, fundamentalism, atheism, god

So Many Christians Ignorant About Their Bible

2007-08-28T05:37:00.000-05:00

While catching up on some atheist-related reading last Sunday morning, I was struck by how ignorant many Christians are of their own "inerrant" bibles. I realize this is not a new thought, but I can't resist sharing a couple examples with you.

We can start with this great little post by the Educated Eclectic from Pam's House Blend. It is widely known that fundamentalist Christians rely on Leviticus to justify their preexisting hatred of GLBT individuals. Their argument is quite simple:

The bible is the inerrant word of some god.
The bible condemns homosexuality (in Leviticus).
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

The first claim is accepted uncritically for it is a core tenet of Christian fundamentalism. That the bible condemns homosexuality is clearly evident in Leviticus. So the conclusion is inevitable, at least to the fundamentalist Christian.

The Educated Eclectic invites us to apply exactly the same argument to another part of Leviticus.

Leviticus 19:19 says:

.. neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

There is nothing in the Christian bible to suggest that this portion of Leviticus is any less serious than the part about homosexuality. And yet, the inescapable conclusion is that wearing clothing made of linen-wool blends is wrong in the same way homosexuality is wrong. I see two possible explanations for the fact that fundamentalist Christians ignore this passage. First, they are unaware of what the rest of Leviticus says, suggesting that they are not the Christians they claim to be. Second, their objections to homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with their bibles and are simply based in prejudice.

Now we turn to a commentary by Jeff Mullin in Oklahoma's The Enid News & Eagle. What got my attention about this fairly pointless article was the following statement:

He [god] can’t be happy with the violence that is being, and has been throughout his history, perpetrated in His name, no matter what name that is.

In reading these words, one must wonder whether Mullin has ever read the Christian bible. The god depicted in this book is a jealous, vengeful, and bloodthirsty monster. Based on the deeds of this god, isn't it far more likely that he/she/it would delight in the atrocities committed by humans suffering from religious delusion?

Tags: religion, Christian, Christianity, god, bible, homosexuality, GLBT, Leviticus, violence, belief, atheist, atheists, atheism

A Third of Americans Read Their Bibles Literally

2007-06-07T05:34:00.000-05:00

According to Editor & Publisher, a recent Gallup poll indicates that almost a third of Americans believe that the Christian bible is the literal word of god and should be read as such. Yeah, I suppose I'm not surprised either. Then again, I live in the South where the percentage is quite a bit higher. While these numbers are alarming, poll results also contain some reason for optimism.

One important implication of this poll is that the results should be cited when one is confronted by moderate Christians claiming that nobody reads the bible literally anymore. I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered this reaction. It is nice to have some data to show that 31% is not exactly "nobody."

Although the article notes that the percentage of Americans believing in a literal reading of their bible is "only slightly lower than several decades ago," it appears that there was a 7% decline when compared with 1970s and 1980s data. Small progress to be sure, but it at least suggests that there is movement in the right direction.

What is the solution to correcting such irrational beliefs? It appears that education offers at least a partial solution.

There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, Gallup explains, with such belief becoming much less prevalent as schooling continues.

Believe [sic] in the literal word of the Bible is strongest among those whose schooling stopped with high school and declines steadily with educational level, with only 20% of college graduates holding that view and 11% of those with an advanced degree.

I suppose this is more evidence about how important it is to promote secular education in place of indoctrination.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Tags: Gallup poll, poll, religion, Christian, Christianity, bible, god, education, secular

Christian Bible is Poor Basis of Morality, Part II

2007-05-02T05:28:00.000-05:00

In a recent post in which I pointed out that the Christian bible is a poor basis of morality, many interesting comments emerged through the sea of argument between a handful of Christian trolls and regular readers. I realized that my initial post did not do justice to the points I was trying to make. This is an elaboration on that post.

In my previous post, I offered the example of Exodus 34: 13-17 to suggest that the Christian bible cannot seriously be viewed as any sort of guide to moral behavior. I noted that the Christian has a few options for dealing with passages such as this one, one of which is to interpret them away through the standard claim that context is lacking and that additional study is needed to arrive at the "right" interpretation. My previous post criticized this viewpoint as being arrogant (which it is), but that does not do justice to the far more important problem with such claims.

This is how Richard Dawkins expresses the more important problem to which I refer in The God Delusion:

Once again, modern theologians will protest that the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac should not be taken as literal fact. and once again, the appropriate response is twofold. First, many many people, even to this day, do take the whole of their scripture to be literal fact, and they have a great deal of political power over the rest of us, especially in the United States and in the Islamic world. Second, if not as literal fact, how should we take the story? As an allegory? Then an allegory for what? Surely nothing praiseworthy. As a moral lesson? But what kind of morals could one derive from this appalling story?

I understand this excellent point to apply to any biblical passage selected by a critic of Christianity to illustrate problems with the Christian bible. An atheist might select any passage from here and present it to a Christian as an example of how the Christian bible fails to provide a consistent and worthwhile moral message. The Christian will dismiss the criticism, usually by explaining it away as I previously noted. As Dawkins suggests, the Christian who does this must be reminded of two crucial points.

First, many Christians are not only biblical literalists themselves, but many readily question whether those who are not are "real Christians." Christian fundamentalism is not a myth. Its followers helped President Bush to office, and they haven't gone anywhere. Any time a Christian wants to say, "Yes, but we don't take that literally," they must be reminded of the many Christians who do. To this, I would add that they should be asked about their grounds for deciding that this particular passage should not be taken literally. How did they arrive at that decision, and what does it mean to them that many other Christians take it literally?

Second, if we agree not to take it literally, how do we take it? The Christian bible is filled with both admirable (if often grossly unrealistic) tales and cruelty. When we examine the passages highlighting intolerance, hatred, and cruelty, what symbolic interpretation do we conjure? What suitable interpretation can we invent? And to this, I would again add the question of how we know that our chosen way of interpreting (whatever that might be) is correct. How do we judge the merits of one interpretation against another?

Tags: religion, bible, Christianity, Christian, morality, ethics, Richard Dawkins

Christian Bible is Poor Basis of Morality

2007-04-20T10:00:00.000-05:00

Many Christians claim that their bible is the source of morality and that it is something of a guide for Christians to determine how to live their lives. If we accept this claim (i.e., that they believe this to be the case), the implications are terrifying. Granted, there are some good things in the Christian bible, and even if they can be traced back to moral systems that pre-date Christianity, this does not necessarily diminish their value. However, there are also many terrible things in the Christian bible, making me extremely uncomfortable with the suggestion that this book should guide anyone's behavior. Let's look at an example.

The following comes from Exodus 34: 13-17 and provides a decent example of why the Christian bible cannot seriously be regarded as any sort of guide to moral behavior:

...ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make they sons go a whoring after their gods. Thou shall make thee no molten gods.

Even if you can ignore the obsession with "whoring" evident here, what do you think about the merits of the jealous god described here? I see little worthy of admiration and even less worthy of emulation here. For additional examples, see this post at Evolving Mind.

The Christian confronting this passage has a few widely used options, none of which strikes me as satisfactory. First, the Christian may claim that this passage has nothing to do with morality and should never be regarded as such. Okay, but what are we to make of the "ye shall" part that certainly sounds like an order? Who are we to ignore what this god tells us to do? Second, the Christian may say that I am simply misinterpreting this passage and that understanding the bible requires some form of guided bible study. Again, who am I to say that the meaning conveyed by these words is not the meaning intended by god? Can I be that arrogant? Is it really wiser to conclude that I need trained clergy to decipher this text for me because this god can't communicate well? Third, the Christian may simply say that this is not a significant passage and that many others are far more important. Says who? It seems that I should read these words attributed to this god in order to understand what this god wants of me rather than to selective pick and choose what I will follow and what I will reject. Again, how could I be so arrogant as to assume I have the right to follow what I like and disregard the rest?

A far more reasonable conclusion is to realize that this book had little to do with morality when it was written and even less so now. Then again, I don't suppose it is fair to accuse someone who claims to have a personal relationship with a dead person (who possibly never existed) of being reasonable. As nice as it might be to have an instruction manual for life, this isn't it.

Tags: religion, Christian, Christianity, bible, morality, ethics

Domestic Violence and the Bible Revisited

2006-10-15T08:10:00.000-05:00

Since there was some interest in my original post, I decided to do a follow up. In the previous post, I was struggling with the question of whether to introduce religion in general, and the Christian bible specifically, as one of many factors contributing to male subjugation of women. The intent of that post was not to argue that religion causes domestic violence; it was intended as a brief exploration of academic freedom in our politically correct environment.

During the class where I was presenting material on family violence, I ran through all the standard contributing factors. One of these factors was our patriarchical culture. No serious scholar with knowledge of family violence, disputes the importance of this cultural variable. True, it is only one among many, but this does not detract from the importance of understanding it. In addressing the patriarchical culture and related themes (e.g., rape myths, gender role socialization, etc.), I noted that organized religion has helped to maintain male-dominated culture into modern times. I offered the example of the Christian bible.

Looking at Genesis alone, we see numerous examples of a biblical basis for male subjugation of women. Woman is blamed for giving into temptation (3:12-13), and all women are punished by the Christian god for her failure with the pain of childbirth (3:16). Adam's punishment? He is sentenced to work for a living (3:17). Polygamy is condoned by the Christian god (4:19, 23, 26:34, 28:9). Lot offers up his own daughters for gang rape (19:8). We could go on and on because the bible goes on and on, providing numerous examples of male subjugation of women not just existing but being condoned by the Christian god (click here for more examples).

Again, I am not now nor have I ever said that religion causes family violence. This is far too simplistic. As evident by these biblical examples, the Christian bible teaches that men are dominant over women just as it teaches that humans are dominant over the rest of nature. This is an important reason for our patriarchical culture, and this culture is one of many causes of family violence.

As before, my intention here is not really to argue these points with you. They are not controversial among rationale persons. What is controversial, sometimes even for me, is whether and how such issues should be introduced into college-level education. If you believe, as I do, that an important function of higher education is to teach students how to think critically, then information which is highly regarded among scholars (i.e., that which has achieved a reasonable level of acceptance in the academy) is fair game. In fact, one could probably make a compelling argument that teaching such accepted information is mandatory because to do otherwise misleads students about the state of scholarship in a particular area. The key is to encourage critical thinking and debate even in these cases where a consensus position has been reached.

When I brought up religion as an important system for maintaining our patriarchical culture, the students nodded knowingly. This was not the first time they had heard this, and the overwhelming majority (who is also predominately Christian) agreed that religion serves this function. I suppose the concern I expressed in my original post over students becoming upset over this was misplaced. I think I need to give them more credit in the future. Many are here to learn and are at least open-minded enough to struggle with their beliefs.

Tags: education, religion, college, domestic violence, family violence, violence, culture, Bible, Christian

Domestic Violence and the Bible

2006-10-08T14:27:00.000-05:00

I'm getting ready to address domestic violence in a class I teach soon, and I'm already starting to get nervous. Why? Because this topic almost inevitably brings me to criticize the Christian bible. As much as I go out of my way to be PC at work (while detesting it constantly), a student will almost always raise the question of why men think it is acceptable to treat women as subservient. I go through all the explanations that don't directly involve religion, but I do feel obligated to point out that many perpetrators will refer to the Christian bible as an authoritative source of justification for their beliefs and actions.

Naturally, this ruffles many feathers here in conservative Jee-zuhs land. Then again tenure and academic freedom have to stand for something, don't they? I am going to be as respectful as I can, but I think I would be doing the students a disservice to ignore this. Besides, teaching is supposed to be about expanding the mind rather than reinforcing ancient superstition.

The "Truth" of the Bible

2006-03-10T06:34:00.000-06:00

The State News - www.statenews.com

This is a great article by John Bice in Michigan State's independent paper, The State News. It is always nice to see that the reality-based community can still be found in academia. The main point of the article is that one cannot know the history of how the Christian bible was written and still claim that it is the inerrant word of anyone. I'm sure its publication created a bit of a stir on campus, and I applaud the author for making such an important case so well.

My favorite quote has to be: "Christians...who are blind to any dissimilarity between reality and their faith, will likely remain unconcerned with problems of Biblical reliability. Rational people, however, will recognize that the Bible is a demonstrably imperfect, purposely altered and error-ridden collection of texts created by humans, not a mythical supreme being."

Tagged as: bible, atheism

The Book of Job

2005-08-15T13:55:00.000-05:00

In the book of Job contained in the Christian bible, we get a nice little story about god and the devil torturing Job as part of a bet to test his faith. This is a great story in which the invisible superman in the sky lets the devil kill Job's family and do all sorts of other things simply to prove himself. This is the god we are supposed to worship? This is the "kind" and "loving god" we are expected to embrace? No thanks.

A god like this goes a long way toward explaining why Christian extremists are so bloodthirsty, but it teaches an even more important lesson. Put whatever spin on the story you like, but in my mind, this helps to expose "moderate" Christianity for the danger that is is. Regardless of how you interpret it, the inescapable conclusion is that even those who call themselves moderate or progressive Christians claim to believe in this same evil god. Yes, manipulating others by deliberately causing them tragedy just to see how they will respond is evil. This is your god? You can have it. I will continue to oppose it with every fiber of my being because it is destructive.