The dialogue continues. Here are numerous rebuttals to Richard Abanes' rebuttal to my rebuttal to the radio caller's rebuttal to my original rebuttal to why religion should not be mixed up in the game of politics. Now that's a lot of butting and rebutting--like a bunch of bull mooses.
Richard Abanes asked me to let everyone know who wrote to him that he's in the midst of a book project with an upcoming publisher's deadline and that this is why he has not been able to respond. He says he will.
Hi Michael --
There is an important point about these biblical moral injunctions that has been overlooked by those arguing that you've taken the quotes out of context, and that they need to be considered in context.
Of course the Old Testament reflects the society a long time ago. That is exactly the point of your quote.
Most (maybe all) Christians assert that morality is ABSOLUTE, and is not relative (the relativists are demonized often by fundamentalists). A moral absolutist asserts that Gods laws/rules are absolute, which means that they cannot change over time, and are not dependent upon a particular group or civilization or time in history. If Old Testament morality is absolute, then the rules against eating shellfish and women wearing men's pants cannot change over time, cannot be right 2300 years ago, and be discarded today. If Old Testament morality is RELATIVE (which means that what was right for the Jews in Numbers and Leviticus is NOT right today), and if God has made a new covenant after the coming of Jesus -- this claim has the following implications:
(a) the standard Christian practice of quoting the O.T. to justify their anti-homosexual rhetoric is now impossible.
(b) are ALL the rules in the O.T. relative or superceded, and if not, how does anyone determine which are superceded and which are not? The O.T. is supposed to be the word of God, and the word of God is absolute, and if God considers it an abomination for homosexual behavior to occur, but God also considers it an abomination for a woman to wear a man's pants -- then both must be observed or discarded when we talk about the new covenant. Christians lose the ability to quote the O.T. to justify ANY morals (unless God speaks personally to let us know).
(c) Are the Ten Commandments superceded by Christian new covenants? Why not? If you argue that we should follow the Jewish Ten Commandments because Jesus was a Jew, then Christians should be stoning unruly teenagers, persecuting women wearing male clothing, and all the other Jewish moral and dietary rules (that Christians today ignore).
(d) If Christian morality is relative, then it may have been wrong for some behavior to occur in the middle ages, but it is entirely possible for it to be morally right these days.
Those are just some of the points that many of your correspondents have overlooked.
Best,
Bob Zeuschner
Prof. of Philosophy
Check out Deut. Chap. 25, v. 11
"If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand."
A little harsh?
I can't follow the logic of religious people. Can you? E.g:
You and a lot of other people who are not Christian, already follow biblical morality. 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.
Hold on! Didn't you just admit that only some of the Bible's rules for conduct apply these days? (Stoning's out, for one.) So how do you judge which ones do apply and which ones don't? If they were objective you wouldn't have to; you'd follow them all.
Simon Leigh
Toronto, ON
I agree with Michael Shermer, Philip Shulman, and Richard Abanes that biblical passages must be understood within the cultural context in which the Bible was written. Believers as well as nonbelievers should avoid the temptation of supporting their personal biases by selectively quoting Biblical passages out of context.
However, for the Bible to be relevant today, we can't just study the cultural context in which the Bible was written. We must reinterpret the Bible to show how it applies to the ethical issues of today's world. Such reinterpretation, however, is subject to personal bias since to reinterpret the Bible, one must evaluate the Bible in light of today's ethical standards. The Bible, after all, cannot be used to reinterpret itself.
Consider, the disagreement between Michael and Richard over Deuteronomy 22:5, which states "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." How does this apply to our world today? According to Michael, this passage prohibits women from wearing "business attire that may resemble men's business attire?" Richard counters that this interpretation reduces this Biblical passage to some bizarre rant. By today's standards, Michael's interpretation does make this Biblical passage seem bizarre, but that may just indicate that this passage is now irrelevant to us.
Richard is quick to point out that when the Bible was written, there "was no such thing as business attire, nor was their [sic] the kind of similarity that exists now between men's and women's clothing." From this, Richard somehow infers that today's attire is therefore morally permissible. But why? Perhaps the reason unisex fashions were not around during Biblical times was because of such prohibitions. Just because unisex fashion is commonly accepted today does not imply that it is right.
According to Richard, the "whole thrust of Deuteronomy 22:5 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." But why is this passage restricted to transvestites? Isn't the distinction blurred when women wear pants or short hair? I'm reminded of an old country song called "Why Do You Bob Your Hair Girls?" This song sternly warns women that short hair is only for men and that if they bob their hair, they won't get to heaven. These religious country folks seem to agree with Michael's interpretation.
Richard counters that clothing is "simply an outer symbol" to preserve the sanctity of maleness and femaleness. But what is the essence of maleness and femaleness? Can any scientist objectively identify this essence that transcends cultural differences? Not that long ago, many people, especially men, thought that it is unwomanly for a female to dress in jeans, play cards, smoke, work, vote, join the armed services, or drive a car. Except perhaps for driving, most now agree that such activities don't undermine what Richard calls the "unique glory that is a woman's."
To keep the Bible relevant, then, it must continually be reinterpreted as our society evolves. The danger, however, is that people who quote the Bible for authority often feel like their views are more objective than the views of nonbelievers or believers of differing faiths. Richard, for example, implies that his ethical beliefs are superior to Michael's because his are objectively based on the Bible, whereas Michael's are based on nothing but subjective opinion. Unfortunately for Richard, there is no objective proof of God's existence, or that the Bible unambiguously specifies God's commands, or that whatever God commands is morally right. Furthermore, the choice isn't between Biblical authority and subjectivism. There are other ethical theories that provide an objective framework from which moral issues can be rationally discussed. In reality, both Michael and Richard appeal to a form of Utilitarianism whereby acts are objectively judged in terms of their contributions to the well-being of society. Thus, Michael asks, "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 similarly, Richard asks "Allowing such a person [a son who is a drunkard and glutton] to continue living within a fragile society could bring grave consequences for everyone."
David Naiditch
It is my hope that you will reprint MY RESPONSE to Mr. Abanes' self-serving assertions, and also "E-mail it to the individual who donated his hard-earned $100." I believe that your use of Deut. 21 is NOT "misleading to those who are unfamiliar with scripture and/or the meaning of this passage, both culturally and contextually."
Regards,
Bruce Monson
RICHARD ABANES:
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.
BRUCE MONSON:
Why is it that we are constantly bombarded by Christians proclaiming the "goodness" and the "words of love" and the "truth" in the Bible, and that the God(s) portrayed in it are a priori loving, kind, forgiving and just? Why do they leave out the actions performed by said God(s) that clearly show him/it/they to be bent on revenge, torture, blood-sacrifice, mass-murder, infanticide, subjugation, discrimination and segregation? Why is that?
Christians have no problem taking any perceived "good" passages as meaning literally how they read, but whenever atrocious passages are seen they suddenly become supreme experts in devising the "true meaning" of the text and summarily feeding us reams of far-fetched damage-control-theology so as to protect their sensitive beliefs from the very real and very abundant passages that portray their God and their favorite heroes as morally repugnant tyrants.
Christians are fond of telling us that the Bible is the "ultimate moral guide" (from God) and that we should all read it because it is "applicable to all of mankind today as much as it was for the ancients." But is that really so, or could it be that biblioloters just repeat the same propagandistic tune that drips on them from the pulpits? Is seems that just as long as people stick to quoting ONLY the passages they perceive as "good," then there is no stink raised; it is only when the horrific and embarrassing passages are brought to light that the feathers start to ruffle. If the "bad" passages in the Bible ARE NOT to be taken as they plainly read, then we must also ask why the "good" passages SHOULD be taken as they literally read? Why the double-standard?
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Yes, let's "clear that up right away"! Mr. Abanes goes into "damage control mode" and attempts to defend the clearly stated law (from God, i.e., YHWH, i.e., JESUS, since for Christians they are one-in-the-same remember), and implies that it somehow makes it ok to "murder your son through stoning" if he is actually an adult rather than a child.
In the passage from Deut. 21:18 the Hebrew word used for "son" is {ben} which does imply a son that is not an infant {Heb. yalad} or small child {Heb. yelad}. However, Mr. Abanes is wrong in his assumption that the passage MUST refer to an ADULT son in terms that we view a legal adult today, e.g., 18 years of age and older. The text makes no such specification, however, and it must be remembered that in Biblical times people lived harsh lives and their life expectancy was much shorter than ours, particularly for the peasantry who's average lifespan was in the range of late 20's to mid 30's. Children were considered "adults" at a much earlier age than we think of them today. As such, stoning to death a rebellious "ben" (son) as stated in Deut. 21:18 could easily mean killing a teenager, and the fact that the passage specifies a son that "will not obey us [father and mother] when they discipline him" implies that that son is still living under the roof of his parents and that nurturing lessons are still being taught. Obviously, infants and very young children are not going to be "drunkards" but a young teenager most certainly could. On the other hand, maybe Mr. Abanes is right and we ARE talking about weather-worn adult mamma's boys that just couldn't break away from the coop; after all, biblical heroes such as Adam and Noah apparently lived for hundreds of years, so their sons (ben) might well be hundreds of years old themselves...
Ultimately, however, the age of one's son is not really the primary issue here, is it? The very notion of murdering your own child for most any reason is repugnant in the extreme, not to mention illegal by modern standards (and yet Christians insist that our Constitution is based on "biblical laws and values"). Whether we are talking about a 14 year old son or a 35 year old son is irrelevant. The fact is, murdering them (and in such a brutal fashion as by stoning) is neither just nor compassionate. We, as a modern society, have for the most part outgrown such barbarism (although there are exceptions); instead of killing our child we would get them the help they needed to overcome their "alcohol problems" and stick with them and guide them through their juvenile "rebellious" stages. But "God's Law" says that such "sons" must be put to death by stoning!
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Here we go again. If we "MUST THINK LIKE THE JEWS, NOT LIKE MODERN AMERICANS" then does that not flatly ADMIT that the laws and methods employed by ancient peoples DO NOT APPLY TO MODERN SOCIETY? And further that the fact that the average person cannot pick-up that Bible everyone tells him he should pick-up and read the texts for what they say, then how is anyone to know what is and is not valid "instructions from God"? Could it be that Mr. Abanes is taking a modern HUMANITARIAN stance on morality and justice by separating modern society from the ancient? Yes, I think he does, but then he (like all Christians I know) STILL want us to accept these ancient superstitious writings as being the divinely inspired words of some god that we must bow down to and accept as some incontrovertible truth.
Furthermore, I noticed that Mr. Abanes, when he places the focus on specific forms of "disobedience" as resulting in a death sentence, conveniently leaves out the fact that v21:21 says that the reason the son was a glutton and a drunkard and rebellious was because he was "evil" and that in stoning him to death the "men of the town" are "purging the evil from [their] midst" so that "all of Israel will hear, and be afraid." He is being murdered (oh, what was that commandment against killing, again?) because he was labeled "evil." And according to Isaiah 45:7; Lamentations 3:38; Amos 3:6; and Jeremiah 31:28, "evil" came from what source, Mr. Abanes? From the Devil? Nope! The answer is "The Lord," (i.e., Yahweh, i.e., Jesus).
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Interesting. Mr. Abanes just described Jesus! No wonder Jesus' relatives thought he was crazy!
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Yes, and "hence" the complete "lack of respect" for human life! And for how long should a "son" be expected to be under this umbrella of having to agree to everything his parents instruct him to believe, Mr. Abanes? Is this the standard of a free society that we live by today? Is this another one of those "biblical values" that Christians are constantly telling us "our country was founded on"? If your own son (be he 13 or 30) were to apply good critical thinking skills toward, for example, some questionable activity you proclaimed as a "biblically acceptable behavior," such as following the lead of the "righteous man" Lot, and you took to getting drunk (e.g., "gluttony," a problem that seemed to run in the family.) and impregnating your seductive daughters (incest), would your above standard against his being "rebellious" in the face of "your teachings" warrant a death sentence for him?
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Again, Mr. Abanes attempts to "justify" the admonitions based on assumptions that DO NOT APPEAR IN THE TEXT! The text of Deut. 22:5 categorically states that apparel from the opposite sex "shall not" be worn, period, . "for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God." That is pretty specific, is it not? It does not say that it is ok for a man to put on a dress just to "go for a wee in the middle of the night." Throughout the Hebrew Bible we frequently see just how SPECIFIC the good, loving, Yahweh (i.e., Jesus) really is when it comes to His laws.
For example, when he says that no one except his specially privileged priests are supposed to touch the Ark of the Covenant, HE MEANS IT! Just look what happened to the poor cartdriver (Uzzah) who reached out to steady the Ark to keep it from falling off the cart (just trying to protect it from getting damaged)-the good, loving, Yahweh (i.e., Jesus) became so angry He killed Uzzah on the spot (2 Samuel 6-7).
And when Yahweh (i.e., Jesus) says that you shall "observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy" he means business! When a stranger who was minding his own business picking up sticks in the wilderness {on the Sabbath day} was discovered by the Israelites, they brought him before Moses and Aaron for this abomination, and THE LORD SAID TO MOSES, "The man shall be PUT TO DEATH; all the congregation shall STONE HIM." and that is exactly what the "whole congregation" did; but not because of anything this man did to them (he was minding his own business, remember), but because that was what they were told to do by this loving, forgiving, kind, just, God, Yahweh (i.e., Jesus).
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Gee, no conjecture here.The actual answer to this is not clear, and the "transvestite" conclusion is pure speculation. The law against wearing one-another's clothes was probably from the Deuteronomist's admonition against partaking in Canaanite rites of worship, which in this case involved simulated changes in sex. Indeed, this makes sense given that it was the primary philosophy of the Deuteronomist to dispel of pagan religions and their customs, and to direct all focus toward Yahweh.
Moreover, was it not the alleged "fall" that allowed man (and woman) to be cognizant (embarrassed) at their "nakedness" to begin with; and from then on required to cover themselves? Is it not the "uncovering" of one's "nakedness" that is sinful, like when Ham (Canaan) is cursed for exposing Noah's nakedness? Thus, clothing would not be a symbol of sacredness, but a symbolic reminder of sin (Genesis 3:7-10). But it's interesting that in
Genesis BOTH man and woman WORE THE SAME CLOTHES-a "loincloth made of fig leaves."
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
This typical response falls well short of the mark, and attempts to "tone-down" the atrocious implications of these barbaric "Laws from God."
There are several variant situations outlined in Deut. 22, and the (ridiculous) punishments varied according to the situation and whether the girl was betrothed or not. Also, the thoughts and wishes of the girl were not a consideration (more examples of biblical mores that do not, and should not, equate with modern society).
A father held the absolute rights over the sexuality of his daughter; as such, when she was violated it was considered a violation (and financial loss) against him. If she was a virgin and was seduced (or RAPED) by a man who is not her fiancé, the father MUST (not "should") marry-off the daughter to her seducer (or RAPIST). The man also had to pay the father 50 shekels of silver as compensation. This situation HAD NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the girl resisted, or tried to deceive, as Mr. Abanes implied in his statement. [see Deut. 22:28-29]
If a young woman who is betrothed to one man (such as in the case of Mary and Joseph) but is caught having sex with a different man (whether it is her fault or not), then someone is going to be executed! If the act occurred within a town and she DID NOT call-out for help, then it is assumed that she wanted to have sex and both her and her lover (or rapist) are stoned to death at the city gate. If the act occurred in the countryside, she is acquitted (on the assumption that her calls for help could not be heard), but her lover (or rapist) is executed. [See Deut. 22:25-27]
If a bridegroom accuses his bride (whom he expected to be a virgin) of NOT being a virgin, the girl's mother and father would have to bring the bloodied marriage consummation sheets to the town elders to prove that she was a virgin. If they presented unbloodied sheets, that would be considered proof that she was not a virgin (which is silly) and she would be summarily executed by stoning in front of her father's home "because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by being faithless to her father's household."
[See Deut 22:13-21]
Somehow I doubt there are too many "Christian women" here in the U.S. that would be willing to follow these "Laws from God" if they were ever actually told about them, that is. The problem is Christians typically don't read these passages in Sunday school and church services.
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
The only amazing thing about the above statements would be if Mr. Abanes can really sit there and say them with a straight face! If he is really the "expert on cults" that Michael Shermer noted he is, then I'm sure he has no problems applying good critical thinking skills toward all of those other religions (cults) that he has examined, and concluded every one of them to be nothing more than constructs of crack-pot delusions and wishful thinking.
However, no sooner does HIS CULT (and I challenge him to show how Christianity IS NOT, by definition, a cult), come into question that he becomes defensive and shifts those critical thinking skills into neutral. His version of the "truth" is, of course, the "truth" and contrary to the evidence against his "truth" he will do everything possible to protect those sensitive beliefs. He clearly couldn't care less that these same "most atheists/agnostics" were at one time "believers," and far from "not interested in the truth," they came to their disbelief through coming to grips with the truth.
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
"Tiny snippets here and there"? Well, Mr. Abanes, perhaps you should send me the Bible you have been reading because all the ones I have read are replete with atrocities and morally repugnant behavior by the God(s) and heroes portrayed within its pages. Also, as I mentioned earlier, why is it that Christians have no problem pointing out the good passages (which ARE in there, I admit) just as they are written, but when asked about the atrocious, contradictory, anachronistic or just plain inconvenient passages, they suddenly resort to all sorts of damage-control-gymnastics to show that what the texts clearly state ARE NOT what they actually mean, and thus require "interpretation" for "proper understanding" (with "proper" being code for "Christian apologetic")?
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
This is one of the most commonly blurted interpolations you'll hear from the good Christians. On the one hand they WANT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN OUR SCHOOLS (as if they are some sort of magic charm that will resolve everything), but when pressed about WHY they don't actually FOLLOW ALL THE COMMANDMENTS, they retort that "er... well, the Law was fulfilled in Christ and nailed to the cross, so we are no longer governed by 'those' Laws." There are a host of problems they open themselves up to with such statements self-serving statements, and one of the biggest is how they attempt to REWRITE HEBREW THEOLOGY to suit their own purposes by IGNORING passages in the Hebrew Bible where "God" instructs the Israelites, in no uncertain terms, that "His Laws" are to last FOREVER! Nowhere does it say that "one day I, the Lord your God, will send a Messiah to fulfill these Laws." Nowhere is there any indication that God was planning to abolish the law. In fact, quite to the contrary, Yahweh set a list of CURSES at the end of his covenant to ENSURE that his law was obeyed FOREVER:
[Deuteronomy 28:45-46] "All these curses shall come upon you ...{if you will not} obey the LORD your God, BY OBSERVING THE COMMANDMENTS AND DECREES that He commanded you. They shall be among you and your descendants as a sign of portent FOREVER." [NRSV] (My Emphasis) And the Deuteronomist also closes the Law against change, just as the writer of the Book of Revelation does centuries later (NOTE: this is something Christians are fond of bringing up when issues of whether other "books" should be included in the Canon, books that paint Jesus in a little different light than Christians like to see him in-it suits their needs so they use it, but why should the Jews be any different with their Bible? Such is the double-standard of Christian apologetics):
[Deuteronomy 4:2] "You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take anything away from it, but KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of the Lord your God with which I am charging you." [NRSV] (My emphasis) There are a multitude of verses I can cite to confirm the point that the Hebrew Bible has its God intending "His Laws" to be in place forever. I will gladly start listing these verses out for anyone who doubts this, but before I do I would like for Mr. Abanes to give us his definition of the following terms:
"will stand FOREVER"
"will be a statute FOREVER"
"EVERLASTING covenant"
"EVERLASTING statute"
"PERPETUAL covenant"
"PERPETUAL ordinance"
"THROUGHOUT your generations"
I look forward to your definitions. Please remember that quoting from the New Testament DOES NOT help your cause. We can agree that the New Testament does attempt to do absolve the Law, although that is by no means without contradictory problems in the New Testament itself. The oft-quoted Paul, for example, contradicts himself on multiple occasions (See Bible Review, 12/98, "Pauls Contradictions," by Gager, p.33-39 for an excellent discourse on this).
ALBANES:
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.
BRUCE:
ABANES:
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?
BRUCE:
Since when does the Bible offer a good example of "faithfulness" to one's wife? Were the patriarchs faithful? Was David faithful? (let's ask Uriah, shall we? Let's also ask the infant born to David and Bathsheba whether he deserved to be tortured and murdered by God for his parents sins!) Was Solomon faithful? Are the Mormons "immoral" for their polygamy? Yes or no, Mr. Abanes! And do you really want to open the "Murder" issue, Mr. Abanes? Would you like to put "God," all the biblical heroes, and even the flocks that supposedly followed them to the "murder-test"? I'm game! If you think the Bible is so good and inspires goodness and morality in people, then why should we not expect all of its horrible aspects to inspire hatred and bad moral behavior?
ABANES:
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?
BRUCE:
EXACTLY! Mr. Abanes, you just shot yourself in the foot!
"Whose (sic) to say yours [morals] 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?"
If Christians would just enjoy the already vast government benefits they enjoy from having tax-free status, and just sit in their posh churches and congratulate each other on having their "one and only truth," and just leave the rest of the world alone, there would be no problem. The PROBLEMS arise when self-righteous Christians think that they have some God-given-right to subject and impose the rest of the world to "their truth" and to use psychological torture methods to propagate their subjective religious dogma.
When the Spanish Conquistadors invaded Central America, they viewed the Aztecs as this morally bankrupt society of savages who sacrificed people in a blood-thirsty frenzy, even as the Christian Conquistidors murdered and virtually wiped-out an entire race of people through the spread of diseases they brought with them and that the Aztecs were not immune to (the effects of evolution in action, BTW). The Aztecs views of the Conquistadors, however, was likewise; seeing them as ravaging savages who murdered people by the hundreds on the battle fields in a pointless and shameful disrespect for human life. You see, just like in the Bible, the Aztecs sacrificed people to the Gods in order to appease then and thus sustain the world, without which cataclysmic destruction would be imminent-at least that's what they thought. Further, those sacrificed were quite often willing victims in lieu of a promise for divine rewards. Sound familiar?
Now, tell me Mr. Abanes, WHO WERE THE IMMORAL ONES in this scenario, the Aztecs or the INVADING Conquistadors who came to pillage and impose their religious dogma? The answer is obvious, and yet proselytizing missionaries continue to trek all over the world to inflict the horrors of Judeo-Christian "morals" upon them-but, of course, it is "the Christians" that are "persecuted." Yeah, right!
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
I hope you can see that the issues surrounding these passage(s) DO MERIT CRITICAL EXPOSURE, since no matter how many times you try to white-wash them with the "isn't-the-Bible-great, there-is-a-God (the Christian god)" arrogance, you still get the same silly answer; that the Bible is abundant with bad advice, bad ethics, morally repugnant behavior from "God" and your favorite "heroes," and silly "Laws" that have no place in modern society-a point made clear by the fact that Christians flatly do not follow these atrocious "demands from God." But that certainly doesn't stop Christians from trying to impose the so-called "Ten Commandments," prayer, and other Christian dogma on our public schools, does it?
ABANES:
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.
BRUCE:
Spare us the melodrama! The day Christian apologetics offers " intellectual honesty and balance" is a day I will be on the lookout for flying pigs. Whenever Christian "scholars" have shown a propensity for looking at Christianity with "an honest eye," they typically get ostracized, excommunicated, labeled as heretics, or worse. To Christians, if you're not with them then, a priori, you're against them. If you want to entertain "intellectual honesty," Mr. Abanes, then step down from your high-horse and have a look at the Bible without all of the protective shields erected to protect the sheep from it's very real and very abundant atrocities, injustice, and morally repugnant behavior.
ABANES:
I leave you with your admonition to others "How about we think?" Richard Abanes, richabanes@earthlink.net
BRUCE:
Yes, how about it?
Bruce Monson
bamonson@pipeline.com
Michael:
I wish to respond to Richard Abanes and Philip Shulman, who criticized your ridicule of Biblical passages that mandated cruel and unusual punishments for members of the Hebrew community. Instead of ridicule, Richard Abanes wants us to deal with the ancient Biblical punishments historically and rationally. He tells us that stoning a disobedient son meant a son older than 18 years who was also a glutton and a drunk. Well, I'm glad he cleared that up, but I am curious why 17-year olds escaped such justice, and where Mr. Abanes learned this qualifying detail. There are many scriptural injunctions to kill a disobedient child, and the others don't require gluttony and drunkeness (and omit the age factor, too). Interested individuals should visit the Landover Baptist Church Biblical Punishment Quiz at
Mr. Abanes wants us to think like ancient Jews, not modern Americans, to see the wisdom of such cruel punishments as supportive of a "fragile" and "close-knit" tribal society, pointing out that other ancient cultures had extreme consequences for disrepect for authority. Yes, some did, but others didn't. Not all ancient cultures were as backward, arbitrary, and superstitous as the ancient Israelites. As is well known, most of their neighbors--the Canaanites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Philistines, etc.--were culturally more advanced (but just as supertitious, I admit). I've am not aware of stories of them stoning their children or women for individual moral lapses and weaknesses. They also treated their women better.
Dr. Shulman's statement that the ancient Hebrews were ethically more advanced than their neighbors, and that they were the skeptics of their day, rejecting the idolatry of others, is ludicrous: the evidence is just the opposite. Torah ethics and values reveal a cruel, arbitrary, egocentric, jealous, vindictive, bigoted, xenophobic, and hateful God, whose attributes were found in abundance in those who created and worshipped Him. It is simply untrue for Dr. Shulman to state that humanistic ethics and values derives from this ancient, Hebrew tradition. Humanistic ethics is the repudiation of that tradition, being based on pagan (Hellenistic) and Enlightenment philosophers who ignored or condemned Judeo-Christian morality. Humanistic ethics is derived from cultural and genetic evolution, human experience, social happiness, and reason, not from arbitrary, cruel, and unusual laws written by superstitious priests and prophets in the name of an invisible God.
Mr. Abanes says that "most atheists/agnostics are not interested in the truth, but only snippets of passages that seem to suggest the Bible is foolishness." Well, as Pontius Pilate once asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The Deut. 22:28-29 passage refers to the rape of a virgin; the victim is forced to marry the man, who in turn is forced to support her. What "deception" by the virgin who has sex with an unmarried man can Richard Abanes possibly be referring to that leads to her punishment? That she wasn't really a virgin? (At least she won't go to Hell, which is the punishment Jesus has in store for those who fornicate (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).) I know a number of atheists, heretics, and lapsed believers who know the Bible, its history, and its accurate historical interpretation and understanding, much better than most Jewish and Christian Biblical scholars. Most becames atheists and unbelievers BECAUSE they read and understood the Bible. Any sane human is more ethical, compassionate, and just than the God of the Bible; I can't believe any human would condemn any other human to an infinity of tortue for finite acts on Earth.
The most bizarre statement of Mr. Abanes is that the Christian new covenant means that all the "punitive laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect" (presumably he means "no longer in effect" for Christians, not Jews and Moslems, who may after all be permitted to still believe in the OT). I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is true, would Mr. Abanes please inform all those Christians who have been tirelessly trying to have the Ten Commandments hung in schoolrooms and courtrooms all over the nation. Tens of millions of Christians say that the Ten Commandments are the basis of their ethical beliefs and, for that matter, the foundation of America as a Christian nation. Please, Richard, tell them they're wrong! That they don't have to--in fact, shouldn't--believe in the Ten Commandments, because the death and resurrection of Christ has removed that obligation! From a church/state separation standpoint, that would really simplify my life.
No doubt Richard Abanes statement, that we non-Christians follow Biblical morality when we are faithful to our wife, don't steal, don't murder, etc., will be challenged by other readers of this list. Honestly, I thought the Bible said I could have many wives, and stealing from and murdering my enemies, i.e. God's enemies, is not only okay, but virtuous in the sight of the Lord. Just like those letter writers to Laura Schlessinger, I'm confused. Didn't ethics and morals among humans exist before the Christians? Before the Jews? Of course, for Mr. Abanes, Judeo-Christian ethics is the only true ethics, and thus the first real ethics. That must explain it.
Cordially,
Steven Schafersman
schafesd@freeinquiry.com