Friend and colleague Elisabeth Fraser writes:

Just came across a loverly site on the net. It's quotes on religion, by EVERYBODY: from Hitler (pro) to E. O. Wilson (con). What about mentioning this to the gang?

http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/quotes/bl_q_QuotesIndex.htm

Here are two thoughtful responses to my posting about biblical morality.

Please remember that my radio comments were a flippant response to callers, and this was not a show in which we could discuss the subtleties and cultural context of the origins and development of biblical ethics. Yes, I know how easy it is to pluck passages out of context and ridicule them, but I did/do this in response to people who themselves do essentially the same thing, grabbing passages that suit their moral preferences and personal biases, and who themselves ignore the cultural context in which these rules were written. For example, prohibitions against birth control, abortion, homosexuality, fidelity, and other sanctions related to sexual behavior, may have been relevant to small pastoral communities struggling for their very survival, but are clearly and totally irrelevant today (at least as far as society is concerned--what individuals choose to do or not do is another matter). What possible difference can it make to the long-term survivability of the United States, for example, if a handful of people are homosexual? And with over six billion people on the planet I hardly need explain why birth control is now an acceptable practice.

Thus, I stand by my general comments that much of biblical morality is antiquated and not relevant to our time, and, of course, as a nonbeliever in God I believe that morality cannot be based on something/someone that probably does not exist.

This from Richard Abanes, an expert on cults who is also a Christian and who has spoken for us at our Caltech lecture series:

Michael,
In all fairness, I would ask that you please post this response to your E-mail about the Bible and "stoning to death disobedient children." I especially hope that you will forward my E-mail to the individual who donated his hard-earned $100. I believe that your use of Deut. 21 is misleading to those who are unfamiliar with scripture and/or the meaning of this passage, both culturally and contextually.

First, you incorrectly state that this passage is teaching "stoning to death disobedient children." You make it seem as if it condones the passing of a death sentence against kids ranging in ages from 5 years old to 18 years old. Whether or not this was your intent, I do not know. In reality, it is speaking of an older son, very near the age of an adult, NOT little children or even young teens. Let's clear that up right away.

Second, notice that the verses DO NOT include ALL forms of disobedience, but rather only "gluttony" (a inordinate/needless intake of food, which would in turn take precious food away from the others) and "drunkenness" (a sin often marked by socially disruptive behavior and possible violence to family, friends, and strangers). These actions, within the social structure of the close-knit tribal Israelites were EXTREMELY disruptive. Thus, the heavy penalty. WE MUST THINK LIKE THE JEWS, NOT LIKE MODERN AMERICANS.

Third, the action of taking a male-son (not any women by the way, contrary to your comment which seems to suggest ALL children) to the elders was a LAST recourse to an extremely rebellious individual whose actions clearly demonstrated a COMLETE LACK OF RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY (basically an anarchist), who might eventually proceed to more problematic-harmful actions. Why? Because he had already proven his total disregard for authority by ignoring counsel from his parents to stop such behavior. The parents had a very strong/respected hold over the children and his dismissal of their counsel proved that he had become rebellious to a point of no return -- at least in the eyes of the magistrates (i.e., the police and judges, for lack of a better expression). Allowing such a person to continue living within a fragile society could bring grave consequences for everyone. Hence, the serious penalty.

Also, regarding Deuteronomy 22: 5, this passage is not just some bizarre rants against women wearing "business attire that may resemble men's business attire. Michael, please. There was no such thing as business attire, nor was their the kind of similarity that exists now between men's and women's clothing. The whole point of this passage is entirely different from what you imply. Someone would not be punished for simply throwing on a guy's cloak to go for a wee in the middle of the night.

The whole thrust of this verse is that men should look/act like men, and women should look/act like women, there should be no blurring of lines between the sexes -- read transvestites. Get it? This particular prohibition was set to preserve the sanctity of maleness and femaleness. Clothing was simply an outer symbol of this sacredness, which God never intended to be confusing for people. Wiping out the distinctions between men and women was an "abomination" because it took away from the unique glory that is a man's, and the unique glory that is a woman's; both of whom are individual creations of God.

Regarding the virgin thing in Deut. 22, again you misstate the passage. According to Jewish law, it was the deception for which the woman was punished, not necessarily the act of intercourse. If two unmarried people had sex before getting married, there was no death, the man was simply told that he should marry the woman.

To give a running commentary on ALL of the complexities to these and other old testament laws would fill a book. Obviously, much too long for an E-mail. Suffice it to say, that there are endless volumes that explain all of these issues, but I have found that most atheists/agnostics are not interested in the truth, but only snippets of passages that seem to suggest the Bible is foolishness. Many quotes exist in the New Testament and Old Testament regarding love, gentleness, peace, joy, kindness, sensitivity, care, and compassion! yet these are ignored by atheists/agnostics in favor of tiny snippets here and there that can be twisted and misapplied conveniently whipped out to prove a point, or disarm a Christian caller on a radio show.

Furthermore, it is a widely accepted and acknowledged tenet of Christianity that the ceremonial laws and punitive laws of the OT are no longer in effect since Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection. More importantly, biblical "morality" is NOT equated with the punishments of the Old Testament. The morality in scripture outlines the beliefs associated with what is RIGHT and WRONG, not what the punishments used to be for violating those morals. Consequently, your comment "Are you SURE you want to legislate biblical morality" has nothing to do with morality (defining what is right and wrong). Even if there were not one single penalty in scripture for doing something wrong, the morals would still be intact because the morals exist independently from the penalties for violating those morals.

You and a lot of other people who are not Christian, already follow biblical morality. Aren't you faithful to your wife? Don't you choose to not steal? Don't you avoid committing murder? I follow these morals, too. But I have the Bible, an objective source of moral truth to turn to as a basis for my morals. What do you follow? Your own conscience? Your own brand of right and wrong? Whose morals do you follow when they conflict with your own? Whose to say yours are right, but their morals are wrong? What right do you have to even tell me what is right and wrong since you have no better basis for morals than the next guy?

I hope you can see that the issues surrounding these passage do not merit such a cut-and-dry, isn't-the-Bible-stupid, there-is-no-God type casualness evident in your comment to the caller. I do not mean to offend you, but your criticism is not in keeping with the kind of intellectual honesty and balance you always seem to show. Anyway, I thought you might enjoy my comments.

I leave you with your admonition to others "How about we think?"

Cordially,
Richard Abanes, richabanes@earthlink.net

I am a strong supporter of and subscriber to Skeptic magazine, but I must comment that recent posts on the subject of biblical ethics are,in my opinion, way off the mark. They don't see the forest for the trees. Mr. Cumbrow sensed correctly that there was something wrong there, but didn't understand what it was. It is easy to take specific verses out of context from the bible and ridicule them- that is a game that can be played endlessly. In general, the values and knowledge of the year 2000 can be retrospectively applied to the products of earlier times, with great hilarity but little understanding - this can be almost as foolish as clinging rigidly to those earlier times. There is no need to defend every last word in the bible- it needs to be understood as a whole, and in the context of its time. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of writings developed by a primitive nomadic people over 1100 years- seen as a developmental whole, it records the ethical and spiritual progress of this people over that period of time. Ethically, they reflected other Middle Eastern peoples of their time in some ways, but they were also more ethically advanced than their neighbours. They were the skeptics of their day, rejecting the idolatry of nearby peoples. The humanistic ethics reflected in Skeptic magazine actually derive ultimately from this tradition, especially from the Prophets. It ill behooves you to ridicule the roots of your own values. For more on this, see "You shall be as gods" by my old teacher Erich Fromm, a pretty profound skeptic himself. And re the snide comment about "faith", see his paper on "Faith as a character trait". Let us be skeptics, yes, but not mindless ones- skeptics informed by humanistic values and understanding, not by ridicule and ignorance. Let us be skeptical of some kinds of "skepticism".

Philip Shulman, M.D.
Los Angeles, CA