Christianity

[Belinda]

This creator god as you describe him was all very well for a small nomadic tribe under attack from every quarter, but the creator god as described by the parable of the Good Samaritan is more to the taste of people who have become civilised.

A small correction: when examined without bias it must be concluded that those nomadic people were not so much 'under attack from every quarter' as they were attacking.

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

It is interesting to note that in the parable of the Good Samaritan that the ethnocentric ethic inherent in Judaism, presenting ethnocentrism as a good and as god's requirement, was turned on its head. If you disobey that command -- note -- the same Yahweh will rouse up surrounding enemies and cause those enemies to inflict on you horrid cruelty:

The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;

A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:

And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.

And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, The Lord Thy God;

Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.

Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God.

And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.

And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind:

And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:

In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.

And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.

It would appear that with the parable of the God Samaritan that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth openly opposed Yahweh's former decrees. Not just partially, not superficially, but thoroughly.

So in fact two *images of god*, two very different descriptions of god, and also very different ethical imperatives, come into view.

Often in theological treatises, the original god Yahweh is said to have *evolved* or been brought into *clearer focus* through the ethical revelations of the Prophets. But I do not think this is altogether right. The original Hebrew Christians essentially tried to wage a sort of socio-religious revolution against a psychopathic god-concept which meant, in fact, against a priest-class that invented, held onto and gave power to that dreadful god Yahweh.

I presumed that the small nomadic tribe would be regarded with suspicion by settled peoples rather like some moderns regard immigrants or Roma. I supposed aggression by the nomads was due to the well -known reaction to fear. The advent of Isaiah and others heralded the sort of peacekeeping that is practised by settled peoples who have land that needs to be allocated and farmed according to a code of land tenure and reciprocity.I think.

The aggressive Jahweh developed into God as we have known Him ever since. Jesus completed the development by pointing up how love or fear is a choice we can make.

The priest class during the Roman occupation reverted to the 'dictatorship' style of deity that was more amenable to Roman laws under Pontius Pilate. "The original Hebrew Christians" were really courageous in their defying the Roman regime. A long time ago when I was doing Scripture for School Certificate the teacher provided references that link Isaiah and Jesus, but I am afraid I have forgotten where those Isaiah verses are to be found, they were very explicit.The idea was that Jesus intended to follow on from Isaiah.

As for Judaism, isn't Reformed Judaism universal not ethnocentric?

[Gary Childress]

With all due respect, IC. You must surely be familiar with a lot of contemporary biblical scholarship. For example, December 25th may not even be Christ's birthday but rather a holiday picked up from Pagan traditions by Christianity in order to blend in with the social norms of the day.

It's the Saturnalia, actually.

Because it was the Day of the Sun already, it was converted into "The Day of the Son." Pagan to Christian. You know what else is converted from pagan to Christian? People.

So was there a point?

All I'm saying is that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is of dubious authenticity, credibility or truth. You rely on the book like a manuscript for life, but that manuscript was put together by powerful men who may very well have had as much of an agenda as any other geo-political body. I think priests are frauds. They pretend to know things they don't and that's dishonesty.

[Harbal]

All I'm saying is that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is of dubious authenticity, credibility or truth.

I completely agree, Gary. I think someone should organise a "Burn Your Bible" day, and I think you might be the right man for the job.

[promethean75]

We used bible and encyclopedia paper to roll clips with in prison when we didn't have toilet paper roll wrap. A clip is a portion of a cigarette about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long and sells for anywhere from $1.25 to $3.00.

[Immanuel Can]

...an idea of god, a concept and a guilt-structure that is used to corral and control a people.

I cannot help but notice your resort to the use of passive voice, in order to avoid specifying a doer of the action.

Well, let's see what plausibility that theory has.

It is beyond doubt, it seems to me, that a priest-class invented, intoned, managed, and wielded the god-image of the terrifying Yahweh. So the 'doer of the action' is that class.

So, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was invented by priests, to increase their a"control"?

Just one question: how? How does it increase their "control"?

[Immanuel Can]

All I'm saying is that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is of dubious authenticity, credibility or truth.

Well, let's say we don't dispute Noah. I don't think you care about that anyway, so we can leave it aside for the moment.
The Bible is actually a library of 66 books. Only five of them are written by Moses, and in the first, we find the Noah account.

So let's say you reject Noah...and let's even say you reject Moses. How does that give you reason to also reject, "Love your neighbour as yourself," which was written by Matthew, some 1450 years later?

As a matter of fact, how does rejecting the Noah account amount to justification for even rejecting "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which was written also by Moses. For Jesus believed the same, as did all the NT writers. And even if we surmise that Moses was wrong about Noah, how would that conduce to the conclusion that he was also wrong about Creation?

[Alexis Jacobi]

We used bible and encyclopedia paper to roll clips with in prison when we didn't have toilet paper roll wrap. A clip is a portion of a cigarette about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long and sells for anywhere from $1.25 to $3.00.

“A bit of a break from smoking the Bible”.

From the movie Hunger by Steve McQueen.

The sit down scene was all acted and shot in one scene.

[Gary Childress]

All I'm saying is that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is of dubious authenticity, credibility or truth.

Well, let's say we don't dispute Noah. I don't think you care about that anyway, so we can leave it aside for the moment.
The Bible is actually a library of 66 books. Only five of them are written by Moses, and in the first, we find the Noah account.

So let's say you reject Noah...and let's even say you reject Moses. How does that give you reason to also reject, "Love your neighbour as yourself," which was written by Matthew, some 1450 years later?

As a matter of fact, how does rejecting the Noah account amount to justification for even rejecting "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which was written also by Moses. For Jesus believed the same, as did all the NT writers. And even if we surmise that Moses was wrong about Noah, how would that conduce to the conclusion that he was also wrong about Creation?

I don't reject love thy neighbor. It's a very good premise. It's very difficult at times. My tendency is more to be civil to thy neighbor (at least in person, the Internet tends to bring out the worst in me), otherwise, I'd be a fraud to say that I love my neighbor, though I certainly don't hate them. I can't say I love or hate many people to be perfectly honest. It's not in this mind and body to do that. Love is given to those I admire or appreciate greatly. I also forgive pretty easily and in various ways don't blame people for having shortcomings or faults. I have them too and I could certainly have worse if my circumstances were different. That said, I do hold God accountable for the world he created. I can't say for sure too much about what God is about or like but I kind of hope he's there if for no other reason than to dispel loneliness.

As far as Moses being wrong about creation, there's not a whole lot to the creation story that can be confirmed or denied from the way it's told. I mean, given the allowances that are made to accommodate what is in there, I doubt creation will ever be %100 disproven. I've seen mitochondrial Adam and Eve used as proof that creation is true--never mind that researchers have apparently determined that mitochondrial Adam may have been 75,000 years before the appearance of mitochondrial Eve. Of course, cue in your professed interpretation of what "days" mean in the creation myth. Again, there's not much way to disprove your assertion that days refer to epochs or years or whatever in reality. If something were to arise, perhaps somehow proving that there were many incarnations of the Universe (as assumed by some Eastern Religions), then I'm sure someone would come up with the idea that "days" actually refers to "incarnations" of the universe or something. It's pretty easy to spot what's going on there.

Overall, I would say that rejecting the Bible as the last word on everything is not only reasonable but also pretty necessary for humanity. Otherwise, you have a "chosen" people who are going to run around thinking they're the chosen people and you'll have Christians and Muslims running around believing people that don't think as they do about God are all going to hell. Everyone should have an equal place at the table of humanity.

But yes, there are good things in the Bible, such as love thy neighbor, don't kill. No one can deny that. But one does not need to reject the good things if one rejects the literal translation of other stories such as creation, the flood or that Christ was God incarnate (unless one wishes to attribute divinity to all human beings). People can and do choose what we want from spirituality and I think that's fine, however, if the Bible is INDEED the last word on everything, then you can count me out because I'd be going to hell and quite frankly, I'll give God the middle finger if I end up somewhere horrible after death. Sorry, but that's my first impulse. I'm no longer in "just suck it up" mode in life and I'm not going to submit to God like some broken animal with a "yoke" around his neck. If that's what God wants, then I'm sorry but he's not going to get it if I can help it.

[Gary Childress]

...an idea of god, a concept and a guilt-structure that is used to corral and control a people.

I cannot help but notice your resort to the use of passive voice, in order to avoid specifying a doer of the action.

Well, let's see what plausibility that theory has.

It is beyond doubt, it seems to me, that a priest-class invented, intoned, managed, and wielded the god-image of the terrifying Yahweh. So the 'doer of the action' is that class.

So, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was invented by priests, to increase their a"control"?

Quite possibly.

Just one question: how? How does it increase their "control"?

Well if people believe what the priests say then it increases the control the priests have over them so long as the priests themselves don't commit adultery. In any moral system, hypocrisy will run counter to control. It's pretty obvious that priests have control over people in religion. You'd have to have your head in the sand to think otherwise. Headstrong preachers are a dime a dozen in Protestantism and Catholicism seems to be a good vehicle for some to get their way sexually with the "flock". Technically it's not what the priests are supposed to be about but that's what happens over time when a system is run by humans.

[Gary Childress]

All I'm saying is that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is of dubious authenticity, credibility or truth.

I completely agree, Gary. I think someone should organise a "Burn Your Bible" day, and I think you might be the right man for the job.

Thank you, Harbal. I appreciate it. You are a very kind man.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was invented by priests, to increase their "control"?

Just one question: how? How does it increase their "control"?

In a number of posts I have pointed to the figure of Yahweh and indicated that in him we see a picture, a projection, of a psychopathic personality. The men who created, who scripted as it were, who managed and wielded this figure were, obviously, the priest-class who dominated Hebrew society. I provided some quotes for Deuteronomy where one can see, quite clearly, how insane this figure is. Or to put it another way the way he was written.

I also said that examining the Bible texts requires not a blunt mind or a blunt analysis but a careful and a nuanced analysis. There is a great deal in it that is unquestionably magnificent. Sometimes, what is psychopathic stands next to elements that are of a transcendent order. For example in Isaiah.

Seeing into and also through this issue, this problem, requires a mature mind.

Now, I am pretty certain that because you are steeped in religious fanaticism that you cannot see what I see, and what other people see, when they examine the dangerously strange psychological aspect of this god-personality. The reason? You are a religious zealot and can hardly examine the sourcebook through a critical lens. In regard to the Bible you do not have a critical lens. Fanaticism pushes that critical capacity aside.

Is this getting any clearer? We've been at this for months now. I'd have thought you'd have been somewhat further along by now.

The ethical commands, and so much else in the Bible that is considered important, influential and as I say 'magnificent' (what other word should be used?) need to be examined separately and on their own merits.

You had just one question but I am not closed to answering a few others.

[Immanuel Can]

All I'm saying is that a lot of the stuff in the Bible is of dubious authenticity, credibility or truth.

Well, let's say we don't dispute Noah. I don't think you care about that anyway, so we can leave it aside for the moment.
The Bible is actually a library of 66 books. Only five of them are written by Moses, and in the first, we find the Noah account.

So let's say you reject Noah...and let's even say you reject Moses. How does that give you reason to also reject, "Love your neighbour as yourself," which was written by Matthew, some 1450 years later?

As a matter of fact, how does rejecting the Noah account amount to justification for even rejecting "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which was written also by Moses. For Jesus believed the same, as did all the NT writers. And even if we surmise that Moses was wrong about Noah, how would that conduce to the conclusion that he was also wrong about Creation?

I don't reject love thy neighbor.

But you should...if the fact of the Noah narrative is sufficient to make you doubt all 66 books in the Bible. That would, at least, be consistent.

As far as Moses being wrong about creation, there's not a whole lot to the creation story that can be confirmed or denied from the way it's told.

I simply mean the premise that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I'm not asking you to believe more. I'm just asking you if your skepticism about Noah would be any warrant for denying that premise.

Overall, I would say that rejecting the Bible as the last word on everything is not only reasonable but also pretty necessary for humanity.

Lots of folks think that's wrong. Why do you think it's right?

Whatever the answer is, it's certainly not because of Noah.

[Immanuel Can]

It is beyond doubt, it seems to me, that a priest-class invented, intoned, managed, and wielded the god-image of the terrifying Yahweh. So the 'doer of the action' is that class.

So, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was invented by priests, to increase their a"control"?

Quite possibly.

Just one question: how? How does it increase their "control"?

Well if people believe what the priests say then it increases the control the priests have over them so long as the priests themselves don't commit adultery.

Does that seem plausible to you? You say that adultery is attractive and pleasurable. Okay. But then, it doesn't make sense that some priestly caste would deny themselves that "pleasure" simply in order to control others' "pleasure."

It's pretty obvious that priests have control over people in religion.

In those religions that have priests? Sure. But not all religions have priests, of course. Nor are all the people who exercise control over others "priests." I haven't noted that secular authoritarians are behind in that regard.

But it's not so easy to say how their "control" of particular commands always serves some power interest they would have. What does limiting "adultery" get them? What does Sabbatarianism get them? How about "honour your father and mother"? And if you can't even explain clearly how three of the Big 10 serve the power interests of some priestly caste, how well are you going to do with the other 610 commandments?

How about "love your neighbour"? Whose "control" is benefitted by that one?

[Immanuel Can]

So, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was invented by priests, to increase their "control"?
Just one question: how? How does it increase their "control"?

Is this getting any clearer?

No. You didn't even answer the question.

Again: how does "thou shalt not commit adultery" serve priestly "control"?

[Gary Childress]

How about "love your neighbour"? Whose "control" is benefitted by that one?

As I' stated it's a good concept. There are gems in the Bible. As far as control "benefitting" someone, it depends upon what is being asked by the masters. Personal power over others is also a lucrative thing. However, I doubt "love your neighbor" benefits anyone in particular (at least not in a purely selfish way I suppose). Even oligarchs sometimes get it right.