We went to the pier yesterday to provide support for those non-theists that think they might enjoy a group with no religious dogma. But this day-at-the-beach was special. We made a special point of tearing photocopies of verses from the Bible to show those who were watching that non one could claim these verses as moral, and if anyone actually did these verses in today’s society they would be thrown in jail. (see the verses below). Eric, the face in the photo from our bus campaigns, helped be as we traded off between the old and the new testament malicious verses. At the end of this Bible presentation, I tore out one random page of the Bible
. I wanted to make it clear that even though most Christians don;t read the Bible, if they did, they too would be appalled by many of the verses – and they would totally agree with us atheists that taken literally these parts of this bronzed-aged text are immoral. Some of the comments from Christians in the OC Register mentions that they are taken out of context (they’re not). And in what context could you place any of these verses into to make them right? Only if you used the Divine Commandment Theory (which has it’s own problems) would this work, but it still wouldn’t make any sense.
Some Xtians soy we are taking these out of context….but in what context would any of these verses be moral?
Bible Verses Christians Tend to Ignore (New Testament)
Don’t Get Married: 1st Corinthians 7:27 NASB
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Prayer (not doctors) if You’re Sick: James 5:14 NASB
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.
Women Should Shut Up in Church: 1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak.
The Wealthy Will Be Condemned by God: James 5:1-5 NASB
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted… Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will… consume your flesh like fire. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
Women: Don’t Dress Up, Fix Your Hair, or Wear Jewelry: 1st Peter 3:3 The Good News Translation
You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear.
Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message
I’m sending (the slave Onesimus) back to you… I wanted in the worst way to keep him here… But I didn’t want to do anything behind your back… Maybe it’s all for the best that you lost him for a while. You’re getting him back now for good—and no mere slave this time, but a true Christian brother!
Gouge Out Your Eyeball: Matthew 5:29 New Living Translation
So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away.
Cut Off Your Own Hand: Matthew 5:30 New Living Translation
And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
Never Swear an Oath: Matthew 5:34 God’s Word Translation
Don’t swear an oath at all.
Don’t Defend Yourself if Attacked: Matthew 5:39 Amplified Version
But I say to you, Do not resist the evil man [who injures you]; but if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too.
Give Anything You Have to Anyone Who Asks: Matthew 5:42 Common English Bible
Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you.
Do NOT Pray in Public: (Matthew 6:6) Common English Bible
When you pray, go to your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father… in that secret place.
Don’t Save Your Money: (Matthew 6:19) New Living Translation
Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal.
Don’t Plan for The Future: Matthew 6:34 NASB
So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself.
Do Not Marry a Divorced Woman: Matthew 5:32 NASB
Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Don’t Wear Nice Clothes: Matthew 6:28-29 NASB
And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you?
Hate Your Family: Luke 14:26 NASB
If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters… he cannot be My disciple.
Give Away EVERYTHING You Own: Luke 14:33 NASB
So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
Old Testament
Crushed Nuts = No Heaven
Deuteronomy 23:1 “If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.”
Slavery
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
OK To Beat A Slave to Death
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Stone your insubordinate son
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Deuteronomy 21:18-21
A Raped Woman Must Marry Her Attacker
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal.
Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10) Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”
Stone a Non-Virgin Bride
“But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…” (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
If you were born to an unwed mother, no heaven for you!
(Deuteronomy 23:2) “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.”
Well, It is funny to see folks openly tear up the Bible. It is great to live in this country, where we can openly mock God, his word, Christianity and Christians in general. I would like to see you do any of that in any muslim country concerning their religion. Heck, I would like to see you openly destroy pages of their quran here with the cameras rolling. It is easy to mock those whom you know will only try to talk to you and pray for you. I’m sorry that you so easily pick and choose those passages that you find so offensive without finding the whole true context. I know that you probably disagree, but the Christian men and women who established this nation guaranteed that you could mock them. They used many of those passages that you find so offensive to set up this government and its freedoms.
Hi Bob – could you please tell me which of the previous verses our founding fathers used to ‘set up’ our government? thanks
First off, this country was founded with the belief in god. Example, congress always opens with a prayer and pledge of allegiance to our Flag. In GOD we trust is on our currency as well as in state houses through the United States. Majority of our schools prayed before you idiots said it hurts your feelings and found some liberal judges to help push your pathetic agenda to rid the public of this long time tradition. Religion has been around longer then you folks. You can believe your B.S all you want, but don’t try to push it over on me. I believe in god and always will and as I teach my children. When my children had asked me about atheist, I just told them that they were nothing but a bunch of misguided folks.
@Donald Ingram
The pledge of allegiance did not originally contain the words “under God”. This phrase was not incorporated until 1954. “In God we trust” did not appear on our currency until 1956. Hinduism has been around much longer than Christianity so by your logic, we should be meditating and worshiping 1000s of gods in school rather than praying. Kids may pray all they want in school but the school cannot require it of a student. Your traditions are the real attempts to “push it over” on someone.
Bob, I just read your comment and I had a few thoughts of my own. It is great to live in this country, where we can mock not just Christianity, but other religions and beliefs as well. In fact, I would note that you are doing it yourself when you do not capitalize the word ‘Muslim’. I can’t help but notice that Christians constantly denigrate Muslims and their religion but then play the persecution card when any mockery is directed at themselves. I would also question your assertion that Christians only respond with talk and prayer. What about the Army of God anti-abortion group? Are they Christians? While it is true that some of the men and women who founded this nation were Christian, many were deists and some were non-believers. It is incorrect to infer that they were all Christians. I would also argue that they used Enlightenment ideas to found this nation, not Christian. I do not think that freedom of religion is a Christian idea. I would like to know which of the offensive passages that are used in this blog post were used to set up our government and our freedoms. Is it the one where I can stone my insubordinate son? I would love to read your response my questions/assertions. Most Christians that I talk to just consign me to a Hell that I do not believe in.
Pingback: Moronic | Greetings from Hellsinki
Hi Backyard skeptics,
Literally every single one of those verses has been stripped from it’s historical and social context. When you read ancient literature you must consider how it was understood by those who authored it and the audience it was intended for.
With that said, I have a challenge for you. If I can provide the necessary background information and demonstrate that the only thing wrong with those verses is your fundamentalist reading of them, will you remove them from your list?
The first response to your list is on my blog: http://thepassivehabit.blogspot.com/2011/09/backyard-skeptics-and-lousy-exegesis.html
You never agreed to take down misinterpreted verses, but I hope you will in light of this information.
Your blog has a different explanation than others from the verse you quote – so anyone can ‘make up’ an excuse for bad behavior from nearly any place in the Bible.
So, what you’re saying is, one must love God more than one’s own family, similar to the relationship between God, Abraham, and his son Isaac, or perhaps the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. If we are expected to sacrifice those we “like second” at God’s whim, I don’t think the ancient Hebrew definition of ‘hate’ was substantially different from the modern one.
What scripture verses mentioned in the blog post did our founding fathers use? None of the ones you posted. But, check out Isaiah 33:22 and see if you can figure out how they used that one. You are right. Not all of the founding fathers were Christians. However, they all understood that in order for self-rule to work it required that both the leaders and the goverened be a moral and religious people. Romove that element and society will fall apart. Just look around.
You should read the book “Society without God” by Zuckerman. Yes I and other atheists have looked around and have seen that the more secular a society is, the better societal health it has – look at Denmark, Sweden and Norway – they are the most secular countries on earth and are doing great!
Maybe next time instead of tearing up literature, you could read it and maybe learn a little grammar and spelling.
Administrator, that’s a fantastic dodge. The information in my post came directly from scholarly sources – hardly a made up answer. I’m glad to see how truly rational you skeptics are.
If you’re very interested in using scholarly authority as a basis for fact, perhaps we could talk about evolution.
The administrator is right, though. The fact that there is an obscure linguistic justification of sorts for some of these passages doesn’t make them less problematic in the hands of your typical Christian. How many Christians today take the time to concern themselves with the fact that the Bible doesn’t tell them to treat homosexuals in a discriminatory manner, and in fact tells them the opposite? How many Christians gave a thought to context when burning witches, taking slaves, subjugating women, and slaughtering children? Why would they bother? The scripture to support their decision is right there in the Bible.
@ Cameron: The “appeal to authority” (which you did, when you stated “The information in my post came directly from scholarly sources “) is not in itself evidence of anything, nor it a logical position of any value, since you are only saying, in effect, “someone said.” To which any rational response is “So what?” Why should anyone value scholarly sources in and of themselves – why should their alleged scholarly status afford them any greater status than a valid point in argument?
Please note that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Try again.
You may also listen to “The Atheist Experience”, and see clips on YouTube.
Wishing you all the best.
Pingback: If You Don’t Agree With Me, Please Do So Quietly to Yourself « Skeptic Logic
Andrew,
we could talk about Evolution…or we could stick to the topic at hand, which is this bogus list of Bible verses you guys have ripped from their proper context.
And I don’t particularly care what typical Christians say or do. The only thing that matters is evidence – something ignored thus far. Furthermore, my explanation is obscure only in the sense that you’re too lazy to go do the research and find it.
By the way, we’ll get to those other abhorrent passages. But you guys first have to answer my argument or remove the verse from Luke that you have butchered.
George, I committed no fallacy when referencing two credible scholars. If I had said only that experts disagree with you, you may have point. But I didn’t. I made a legitimate point and backed it up with reliable sources. I will say, though, that I find this dismissive response hypocritical, because it’s you “freethinkers” that place so much evidence on scholarship and expert opinion. Awesome.
Bogus Bible verses? Our of context? Tell me sir, in which ‘context’ is immoral behavior allowed. “One who believes in absurdities can commit atrocities” Voltarie
I love loaded questions. They allow people to avoid the arguments they can’t address. I explained why that particular verse does not approve of immoral behavior, but you go on as if no valid answer has been offered.
You are correct – I do reject your explanation because I do not think your answer is valid – in fact it is immoral to condem and allow (or take part of) any killings because of a silly religious leader has approved it – period. It is incredible that you believe in this explanation – do you approve of killing those Muslims that don’t believe in your Christian god? just like those who believed in the god baal?
It seems to me that we might have an impasse over what is considered moral and what isn’t. You feel that placing God above one’s family is acceptable. We feel otherwise. I really don’t think we’re going to reach a satisfactory accord on this particular verse, and we would all be best served to move past it.
Andrew,
That’s an interesting point, and I’ve posted a response on my blog. But here’s the gist: Placing God above family may seem excessive to you, but in the context of Christianity, there’s really nothing appalling about the idea. Of course we disagree about God’s existence, so that presents an impasse. But assuming he does for a moment, what would it mean to put faith above family? It would mean loving your neighbors as yourself, reserving your judgment of others, caring for those in need, essentially not letting your relationships, even the closest ones, inhibit your living a Christian life. That’s all.
So the problem comes back to your misunderstanding, nothing else.
Cameron,
Well, I was assuming God, the one described in the Bible, existed for the sake of my reply, and I do stand by my answer. I still feel that we’re not going to see eye to eye on this one, but I’m willing to take it a little further.
From your latest posts, it looks like you’re saying that an accurate translation of the passage in question would be something like “Above all else, be a good person”. Is that correct?
I think your summary oversimplifies my view, Andrew. But if we can agree to stick with “…not letting your relationships, even the closest ones, inhibit your living a Christian life,” I think we can dialogue.
Cameron,
The sticking point here is the phrase “Christian life”. That could mean a lot of things. I mean, Torquemada technically lived a “Christian life”. The adjective Christian is extremely vague in this context. I’m going to take some liberties and equate “Christian life” with, “…loving your neighbors as yourself, reserving your judgment of others, [and] caring for those in need…” which isn’t exactly what you said, but incorporates the most important elements of it. I would prefer “all people” in place of “your neighbors”, but hey, close enough. Another possible meaning would involve placing God above family, and I’ll address that second.
Placing “Christian life”, or, as we atheists say, humanist values, above one’s family isn’t really that objectionable to me personally. If it really came down a test of which is more important to me, family would probably still win out, but it would be close. Still, it’s a very valid suggestion, but then that’s not placing God above family, which seems more like what we’re talking about in Luke 14:26.
I would tend to dispute this translation on the basis that Luke 14 appears to be instructions for disciples or clergy, and not for the general public. Instructing the clergy to place God before family makes more sense than instructing the clergy to be good above all else. One would assume that disciples or clergy would have that concept well in hand before they even considered becoming disciples, whereas it’s reasonable to assume that they might not understand that they may have to distance themselves from family and worldly things in order to be fully devoted to God.
Placing God or love of God above family is not the same as being a good person, and of course as an atheist I find the idea of worshiping God objectionable. The very concept of God is self-contradictory, which I have always considered to be proof that God does not exist. Early in the Old Testament we hear about how God is all powerful, the essence of good, and loves every one of us. Then we see examples of His behavior, both in the Bible and the world around us. The contrast between the two is remarkable. God ends up looking, at best, bipolar, and at worst malicious. As a sort of middle ground one could describe God as alien and incomprehensible. This is nothing new, of course. Epicurus summed this all up nicely. Essentially, how can a purportedly all powerful, perfect, loving being not measure up to human standards of morality?
Most religions which feature a god agree that it is more important to worship that god than it is to be a good person, which really makes no sense unless you look at it in terms of recruitment. If people are allowed to be good without being Christian, for instance, and they don’t go to hell for it, then who is going to put money in the collection plate? But then if someone makes peace and helps the needy all their life and is sentenced to hell because they didn’t do it in a specific god’s name, what does that say about the deity in question? On top of that, Judaism, Islam, Baha’i, Christianity, and numerous sects and subsets of same all appear to be talking about the same God, but all of those religious flavors insist that you will go to hell if you follow God the wrong way, and the only person with no statement on the matter is God Himself. I find myself picturing some cosmic equivalent of a shell game.
Essentially, what we’re looking at if we consider “hate your family” to mean “place God above your family” is a being that is all powerful insisting that you worship Him even unto the detriment of your family under threat of eternal damnation despite the fact that this being is, as mentioned, all powerful, and as such does not actually need worship, praise, or anything from humans. In that case, and for the reasons stated, I would find the passage objectionable.
No matter what you say we were and are a christian nation. You have failed to do a serious study of our heritage. The real waste is that Jesus died for you and all he wants is for you to love him back. You are doing a great job of showing the world why Jesus shouldn’t love you. Nevertheless, He still does.
“Jesus died for you” Sorry, I think human sacrifice it a terrible thing. Don’t you?
I have one question for non-believers. For what reason are you trying to convince
people that there is no God? Christians speak of God out of love, so all know there
is eternal life. We do not want ANYONE to go to hell. That is our sole reason for
speaking of scripture and God’s love. I don’t understand why you speak of not
believing. Is it to convince people that the only life they have is here on earth. That
once a person dies here, there is nothing more? Please enlighten me.
Speaking for myself, I don’t want anyone to go to hell, either. The good news is, it looks like nobody is going to, so there’s that covered. The bad news is that there are huge numbers of people out there who are convinced that pretty much everyone is going to hell. Their efforts to correct a problem that doesn’t exist is trampling all over everyone’s rights and freedoms. The worse news is that there are still other people, just as convinced of their own correctness and with no evidence other than hearsay and self delusion, who believe that the destruction of the world is a good thing, and they are actively seeking it. Do you see a possible problem there?
If you’re asking why we think there isn’t a God, my answer is actually 3 posts back.
Dear One: As I do not have alot of time, I will give you the meaning of the scripture that you have taken out of context on a one by one basis:
Corinthians 7:27 – Paul foresaw impending persecution from the Roman Government upon Christians. Paul was merely trying to give practical advise to save Christians
from much suffering. Marriage alone does not hold a couple together; but commitment to the Lord and each other through conflicts and problems.
I will give you additional “correct” interpretations as my time permits. May our Lord’s
peace, love and grace be with you! Carole
Lovey Dovey: Please bear in mind that we are aware of various justifications for several of these items of scripture, and in fact I am currently discussing one of them with Cameron above. It might help if you were to read other people’s comments before posting your own. I personally would appreciate it if you were to refrain from assuming that we are simply ignorant on the subject, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from using diminutives.
Thanks,
AF
James 5:14, 15: Before I put this into context for you, please remember to read the total
scripture, by taking bits and pieces, you are not understanding the meaning. For example, if I was to write only…”you are a jerk”….but left out other parts of the story…
like “Oh, I was so upset because he said, “you are a jerk. My feelings are hurt.” The Bible is a very complex book of our Lord’s Word. It must be studied and understood in the total context. now for James 5:14,15: Christians are not alone. We count on our church body for support. The prayer “offered in faith” does not refer to the faith of the sick person, but the faith of the people praying. God heals, faith does not…but
the main point….AND ALL prayers are subject to God’s will. Our prayers are part of the healing process and part of bringing us closer to Him.
The Bible is actually a very simple series of writings that take much less study for some people than others. You have yet to reveal any context that rationalizes these verse. Perhaps you could explain under what contexts it is moral to murder homosexuals as it demands in the scripture.
When printing parts of scripture as you’re doing, it is out of context. Please read
the total verses, books etc. Then you will see their true meaning. For example,
if I said “you’re a jerk!!!!”…..and you didn’t know I left out parts of the complete
sentence, which was “he said to me, ‘ you’re a jerk!’ It made me very sad.” The meanings are completely different. You’re not doing others a service by quoting
only the parts of scripture that you want to, so they do look horrible.
NOW to James 5:14 – Jesus is Lord over both body and soul. People are not alone.
We can count on members of a church for support/prayer. The prayer offered in faith does not mean the faith of the sick person, but of the people praying. We pray for
God’s WILL be done…because He does know best. Prayer’s are part of the healing process. And if we’re not healed, its because God has a bigger purpose. And if we
pass from this earth, its not a bad thing, its glorious!
Hi Andrew,
My response is posted on the blog. Thanks for your comments. I think we’re actually having a fruitful exchange.
Cameron,
First, I should point out that I am not a member of Backyard Skeptics, nor do I represent them in any way. I apologize if I gave that impression. I have enjoyed our discussion, but I realize now that you may be expecting it to result in a change to the above article, and I have no control over that. If it helps, I don’t feel that this passage is offensive as such, or at least it isn’t any more offensive than any corporate or military propaganda, and I probably wouldn’t have included it if I had been writing the list.
None of the terms we’re using in this discussion existed when the Bible was written. By clergy I mean the central officials of a church or, in this case, a religious movement, as distinguished from the laity. The passage uses the word disciples. He was speaking to everyone at the time, but he was telling them what the requirements are to be a disciple. It seems clear, to me at least, that these are not instructions for the general public, and as such would not simply be instructions to be good. The rest of Luke 14 also talks of giving up everything one has and shouldering a burden, as well as building a foundation and making plans for war. These points argue against this being an admonition to simply “be good” and point toward the interpretation that those who would serve as disciples should place family, friends, and all worldly things second to service to Jesus.
Now, if we substitute any other organization for Christianity, say PETA or CNN, and said “Your loyalty to PETA comes before your family, friends, yourself, and all worldly things, because you can’t build a tower without a strong foundation, and you can’t fight a war with a weak army.” would we be talking about being good people or solidifying group membership?
So, to summarize this, regardless of the translation of the word “hate”, the passage in question appears to be instructions to clergy emphasizing loyalty to the church over loyalty to friends, family, and self. As Jim Jones taught us, this is potentially a bad thing.
I was assuming God exists throughout my previous post, and I do find the idea of worshiping the God of the Bible objectionable for the reasons I stated.
And again, I realize that being good is, in theory, part of being Christian, but it is possible to be good without being Christian, and according to most organized religions, including Christianity, doing so will land a person in hell. Conversely, worshiping God without ever really going out of your way to help people, so long as you don’t actively do wrong, will get you into heaven. Clearly heaven is not a place for good people, it is a place for those who worship God. The worship is necessary, being good is not. The first commandment is to worship the one and only God. There is no commandment that says you should help others. The new testament does place emphasis on good works, but, much like the Quaran, it also says that one can’t actually do good works unless one worships God. The message, throughout the Bible, is that worshiping the all-powerful being is more important than helping your fellow humans.
What I’m saying with this is, assuming the God of the Bible exists, His standards of morality, His level of empathy, and His priorities are such that I can not see worshiping Him as a good thing, especially if I were required to place Him above my family and friends.
Also, I was reading your most recent post and I have to say I agree that atrocities can’t be linked to religion or irreligion. I find it immature and dishonest to even make that claim. It implies a total ignorance of familiarity with human nature that is disheartening. At the risk of calling myself a hypocrite I will say that I have accused proponents of Intelligent Design of lying for religion, but I would never say that it was the religion’s fault they did so.
Regards,
AF
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the clarification. My initial intention was to get them to pull the verse, but our interaction is worth it. If people read the comment thread they’ll that the verse doesn’t belong on the list, and I’m glad to see you don’t find it that objectionable.
Anyway, I think a lot of what you said I’ve already addressed, so I won’t make the same points again, except to summarize. No such thing as the church existed at that time, only Jesus and those who followed him. The passage, beginning at verse 25, says “large crowds were travelling with Jesus…” There is no distinction between laity and clergy, or disciple and crowd member, etc. Furthermore, all Christians are called to be disciples, so it could be reasonably said that Jesus is only talking to those who would become disciples, but that wouldn’t mean what you claim it does.
As with verse 26, your interpretation of the rest of the chapter doesn’t square with the context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you’ll see that the parable is about relying on our inadequate resources when what we need to do is humble ourselves and put our trust in God. So quit reading a parable as if it’s a literal, word-for-word instruction.
There’s no commandment to care for others? What about Matthew 22:35-40? Again, putting God above family simply means that we cannot let them lead us away from God. As I have pointed out, a healthy family life is clearly not objectionable from a biblical perspective, and nowhere does the Bible say what you’re still implying, that you will leave your family behind to be a follower of Christ. Jesus himself maintained a relationship with his immediate family throughout his ministry.
I don’t think ethical treatment of animals or up-to-date news is the equivalent of a biblical worldview, so you’re comparison breaks down. Both of those organizations may be things you’d be involved in based on your philosophical views – I joined PETA because all life is equal and worth protecting, I watch CNN because being informed is an important part of being a patriot (or whatever) – but it wouldn’t make sense to set allegiance to the news or animal rights on the same footing as membership in Christianity. One determines how you treat others (a worldview); the others are actions based on your worldview.
I’m glad you agree with my post about atrocities. Perhaps you can let Hector Avalos know.
A lot of these debate deals with morality (I didn’t have time to read everything, so I only skimmed a few posts). Where does it come from? Who sets the standard? I’ve read in a few places that atheists are their own moral agent? Is this true?
I wrote a response, Andrew, but I don’t if my comment saved. Is there a moderator who can let me know?
I am the admin [email protected]
Cameron,
Well, on the plus side we only disagree on three points now. The down side is we’re only discussing four points, and when we started out we pretty much just disagreed about the one thing.
I’ve done some more research and everything I turn up online seems to agree with you that there was no distinction between clergy and laity at the time. That doesn’t agree with scholarly sources I have consulted in person, and based on this passage I would not have reached that conclusion, but the bulk of the evidence agrees with you, so I’ll concede the point. It does, however, make this passage read more like Jesus expects everyone to give up their family. It clearly describes giving up everything one has and taking up one’s cross. Then again, the passage does end with salt losing its flavor, which makes no sense, so maybe I’m expecting too much.
As far as my interpretation not squaring with the context, it is my contention that the context does not square with the context. The analogy of the tower and the analogy of the warring kings both speak to resource management and prudent planning, but the rest of the parable is about sacrifice. Nowhere within the parable does it say that the solution is to humble yourself and put your trust in God, and Jesus was never shy about saying to humble yourself and put your trust in God when that was the message he was getting at. In fact, in the analogy of the warring kings, the solution is provided.
None of the ten commandments says to help others. What did I say about the new testament? In fact, I had a whole paragraph and a summary there and you picked one sentence out of it and ignored the rest. Bad form.
What I was doing with the PETA and CNN analogy is called re-framing the argument. You change a component of a statement and analyze how the meaning of that statement changes. The statement was “Your loyalty to [group] comes before your family, friends, yourself, and all worldly things, because you can’t build a tower without a strong foundation, and you can’t fight a war with a weak army.” I invite you to substitute an organization for [group]. Also, feel free to to provide a re-framing of the parable which contains all the elements of the parable (I left out the salt because, like I said, it made no sense, and the cross-bearing made the sentence very unweildly.) As a rule it should condense the parable down to one sentence. Or, alternatively, you could choose not to do so. I would not mind. No offense intended to you or your faith, but I’m getting fairly sick of Luke 14.
You cautioned me against treating the parable as “a literal, word-for-word instruction.” I’m pretty sure I never did that. I have assumed that there is a meaning to be had from this passage, and I am aware that Jesus isn’t telling us to build a tower, throw out the salt, and assemble an army. At least I really hope that’s not what He’s saying. If He is, we have bigger problems than some questionable scripture. I’m aware that some of this is allegory, but at some point you have to take a meaning from the scripture. If you ignore what is implied and, in some cases, flatly stated, and then simply substitute your own meaning, what was the point of writing any of this down in the first place? At that point, you may as well just shake the Bible around and say, “Don’t bother reading it. I just says to be nice and go to church.” That cavalier handling of what is, supposedly, the word of God is what a lot of atheists find more objectionable about the Bible than any of the bloodshed and barbarism contained in it.
With regards to Hector Avalos, I have a great article on the subject that I’ll be publishing as soon as Google gets back to me, which should be inside the next decade. In the mean time, if there’s a thread going on somewhere I’d be willing to comment.
Regards,
AF
Andrew, I think we’ve both had our say on family hating in the Bible. I’m willing to leave the subject, but am interested in moving onto another verse if you are. And you’re always welcome to comment on my blog posts; I saw you left one already. Critical feedback is always useful.
Sure, on to the next.
Let’s try this one:
A Raped Woman Must Marry Her Attacker
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Two things to note immediately: the verse doesn’t actually speak of rape; people who claim otherwise are finding something in the text that isn’t there. Secondly, v.25 of the same chapter actually does speak of rape – “… and the man forces her and lies with her…”
I suggest the two verses are describing different scenarios, one in which the woman is actually raped (v.25) and another in which the encounter is consensual (v.28-29). If not, why not use the same wording in both verses? Also, in the verse that clearly speaks of abuse, the man is to be punished for his crime.
That should get us started.
Cameron,
Well, this is a fun one. I’m going to surprise the hell out of you and say I disagree with your interpretation. Bet you didn’t see that coming.
Within Deuteronomy 22 what I came up with was one clear reference to consensual sex, 22:22, one clear reference to non-consensual sex, 22:25, our passage in question, 22:28, and 22:23, which is kind of iffy. So the relevant verses are 22:22 (consensual), 22:25 (non-consensual), and 22:28 (in question). By “clear” here I mean relatively clear from the context.
All three verses use the Hebrew word shakab, “lie down” to reference intercourse.
Verse 25 prefaces shakab with chazaq, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 28 prefaces shakab with taphas, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 22 does not preface shakab.
So, just based on that, we see a tendency to indicate non-consensual sex by prefacing “lie with” with “grab”, and we see that 22:28 does so.
It’s also interesting to note that 2 Samuel 13:14 references rape clearly by using the phrase “violated (‘anah) and lie down with”. This is similar to “grabbed and lie down with”, or a forceful verb followed by shakab which is found in Deuteronomy 22:25 and 28. Genesis 34:2 refers to rape with laqach and shakab, “take and lie with”. The other verses I was able to locate in the old testament use only ‘anah without a modifier to indicate rape, with the exception of Zechariah 14:2, which uses shakab in conjunction with the destruction of a city. Exodus 22:16 uses patah (seduce or convince) and shakab, which is a similar structure, but the modifying verb is less forceful than “grab” or “violate”, and I’m told this law does not describe rape in any event.
It is also interesting and somewhat more relevant to note the use of ‘anah in Deuteronomy 22:24 and 29, translated as “humbled” or “violated” depending on the version. As I said above,‘anah is used as an idiom for rape in other places in the old testament.
While I don’t generally like stepping outside a given book for Biblical context, in this case at least three other books encompassing all the clear old testament references to rape (that I could find) support that use for ‘anah, and 2.5 out of 4 other books support the forceful verb followed by shakab formula to indicate an idiom for rape.
Lastly, a few of the sources I consulted indicated that 50 shekels of silver was an extremely steep fine, amounting to something like 8-10 years wages. While this is less severe than a death sentence, it does indicate that the people of that time considered whatever they were describing to be a serious crime with damaging repercussions for the woman in question. It seems nonsensical to me that marriage to someone who had committed a serious crime against you would somehow equate to justice, especially if the criminal in question was recently impoverished. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the crime in question was rape, but it does tend to indicate that the morality of this verse is dubious. In any event, it’s interesting to consider.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Regards,
A.F.
“Well, this is a fun one. I’m going to surprise the hell out of you and say I disagree with your interpretation. Bet you didn’t see that coming.”
Indeed, I am shocked.
“All three verses use the Hebrew word shakab, “lie down” to reference intercourse.
Verse 25 prefaces shakab with chazaq, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 28 prefaces shakab with taphas, which means, among other things, “grab”.
Verse 22 does not preface shakab.”
I’m glad you’re willing to actually look at the Hebrew used in the different passages, but let’s look at the context of each verse. You’re not entirely incorrect to see these words as synonymous, but this is not always the case.
“It’s also interesting to note that 2 Samuel 13:14 references rape clearly by using the phrase “violated (‘anah) and lie down with”. This is similar to “grabbed and lie down with”, or a forceful verb followed by shakab which is found in Deuteronomy 22:25 and 28. Genesis 34:2 refers to rape with laqach and shakab, “take and lie with”. The other verses I was able to locate in the old testament use only ‘anah without a modifier to indicate rape, with the exception of Zechariah 14:2, which uses shakab in conjunction with the destruction of a city.”
So far, so good. But here’s something to chew on. The point of listing Deuteronomy 22:28 on this “naughty Bible verses list” is to demonstrate how evil God is. But notice how Dinah’s family reacts to her being raped in Genesis 34:2 – “…Jacob’s sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in[a] Israel…”(v. 7) That hardly sounds like approval from God or his people.
“Exodus 22:16 uses patah (seduce or convince) and shakab, which is a similar structure, but the modifying verb is less forceful than “grab” or “violate”, and I’m told this law does not describe rape in any event.”
Based on my research, it appears that this verse is a parallel to Deuteronomy 22:28-9, and patah is much closer to taphas (used in v.28-9) than chazaq or laqach. The latter two are used to describe rape in Deut. 22:25 and Gen. 34:2, and you acknowledged that those two interactions were not consensual.
Since Deut. 22:25 denotes rape with chazaq, why switch to a different verb to describe the same thing just three verses later? I think it’s because v. 28-9 are not discussing rape. A few notes from the context: “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered…”
So v. 28 speaks of both of them being discovered, but why do so if only the man has committed the crime? Also take note that in v. 25 the woman is said to have screamed; she’s not interested, obviously. But v.28 makes no mention of her trying to resist, nor does it make an attempt to label her the victim in these circumstances.
Furthermore, in Gen. 34:2 and in Deut. 22:25 nobody is pleased with the rapist, he’s killed in both accounts, in fact. So why the sudden change of heart towards the man in v.28 if he actually raped somebody?
I think this is reflected in the reasons these marriage laws were put in place. (See here – http://christianthinktank.com/virginity.html). For socio-economic reasons, it had to be possible to demonstrate paternity in case a child was conceived, and the only way to do that was for a mother to be a virgin at the time of her marriage and completely faithful to her husband until the baby was born.
These verses make much more sense with that in mind. Deut 22:25 – the man is killed because he has raped an engaged woman. Deut. 22:28 – the man isn’t killed because he has only engaged in consensual sex with a virgin not pledged to be married. It’s possible here to determine paternity if the man and woman are married (Hence, the law) after having sex. This is why he is only required to provide for the woman and not face the death penalty.
“It is also interesting and somewhat more relevant to note the use of ‘anah in Deuteronomy 22:24 and 29, translated as “humbled” or “violated” depending on the version. As I said above,‘anah is used as an idiom for rape in other places in the old testament.”
Deut. 22:24 is describing adultery, though. And “…she was in a town and did not scream for help…” This also fits the data about the marriage laws I mentioned above.
“While I don’t generally like stepping outside a given book for Biblical context, in this case at least three other books encompassing all the clear old testament references to rape (that I could find) support that use for ‘anah, and 2.5 out of 4 other books support the forceful verb followed by shakab formula to indicate an idiom for rape.”
But there are more relevant words than just anah, and none of the verses that we agree describe rape use taphas, which is used in Deut.22:28.
And to underscore my case, I haven’t yet found a scholarly commentary on this chapter of Deuteronomy that confirms the skeptical claim. Perhaps you’ll have better luck.
“Lastly, a few of the sources I consulted indicated that 50 shekels of silver was an extremely steep fine, amounting to something like 8-10 years wages. While this is less severe than a death sentence, it does indicate that the people of that time considered whatever they were describing to be a serious crime with damaging repercussions for the woman in question
Wouldn’t that mean the Bible doesn’t condone rape?
“It seems nonsensical to me that marriage to someone who had committed a serious crime against you would somehow equate to justice, especially if the criminal in question was recently impoverished. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the crime in question was rape, but it does tend to indicate that the morality of this verse is dubious. In any event, it’s interesting to consider.”
The article I linked above goes into this in detail. The purpose of the law was to ensure that the woman, whether raped or seduced (though I say seduced), would be provided for later in life. The bride-price was paid to her father in the event that her new husband illegally abandoned her, which would explain why it was so high (my NIV says 1 1/4 pounds of silver).
Sorry for the lengthy post.
Cameron
…and all my formatting errors. Wow.
Cameron,
That is a long post. I’m not complaining, mind you, but I may have to respond in sections. Additionally, for scheduling reasons, it may be a few days before I respond in earnest. For now, I have come up with an alternative theory for why v.25 uses chazaq and v.28 uses taphas. My suspicion is that the crime was not rape or consensual sex outside of marriage, but rather an ancient Hebrew aversion to Spanish appetizers. So the passage, accounting for an extra H which may have entered the text over the milennia, would read, “If a man find a woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and takes her out to a tapas restaurant, and lie with her, and they be found…”. So the answer here is if it’s a proper date, the man should at least spring for a nice steak dinner. I’m also working on an etymology for ‘anah that involves kimchi. I can’t stand that stuff.
Regards,
A.F.
Cameron,
Sorry for the delay. I don’t think this excerpt from Deuteronomy was included to show that the Bible condones rape (of non-Israelis). You might be thinking of Zechariah 14:2, which does condone rape (of non-Israelis). Indeed, just a few verses before this, the Bible suggests killing rapists (of Israelis) with rocks. This one is more about bizarre, cruel and nonsensical punishments for rape (of Israelis).
“…patah is much closer to taphas (used in v.28-9) than chazaq or laqach. The latter two are used to describe rape in Deut. 22:25 and Gen. 34:2…” That wasn’t my finding at all. I’m using Strong’s lexicon and the Brown, Driver, and Briggs lexicon. What source are you using? For these words, at least, both lexicons seem to more or less agree on the definitions. chazaq seems to be sort of a wild card word, like “thingy”, but taphas and laqach are almost synonymous, and none of the three seems to have much in common with pathah. I’m hesitant to post the definitions because of what it’ll do to the size of the post, but that seems to me to be the best way to go.
taphas(the word in question):
1. to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
a. (Qal)
1. to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch 2. to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b. (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c. (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)
pathah(agreed to indicate consensual sex):
1. to be spacious, be open, be wide
a. (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b. (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2. to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a. (Qal)
1. to be open-minded, be simple, be naive 2. to be enticed, be deceived
b. (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c. (Piel)
1. to persuade, seduce 2. to deceive
d. (Pual)
1. to be persuaded 2. to be deceived
laqach(agreed to indicate non-consensual sex):
1. to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away
a. (Qal)
1. to take, take in the hand 2. to take and carry along 3. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away 4. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept 5. to take up or upon, put upon 6. to fetch 7. to take, lead, conduct 8. to take, capture, seize 9. to take, carry off 1a
2. to take (vengeance)
a. (Niphal)
1. to be captured 2. to be taken away, be removed 3. to be taken, brought unto
b. (Pual)
1. to be taken from or out of 2. to be stolen from 3. to be taken captive 4. to be taken away, be removed
c. (Hophal)
1. to be taken unto, be brought unto 2. to be taken out of 3. to be taken away
d. (Hithpael)
1. to take hold of oneself 2. to flash about (of lightning)
chazaq(agreed to refer to non-consensual sex):
1. to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore
a. (Qal)
1. to be strong, grow strong 1a
b. to prevail, prevail upon 1a
c. to be firm, be caught fast, be secure 1a
d. to press, be urgent 1a
e. to grow stout, grow rigid, grow hard (bad sense) 1a
f. to be severe, be grievous
1. to strengthen
g. (Piel)
1. to make strong 2. to restore to strength, give strength 3. to strengthen, sustain, encourage 4. to make strong, make bold, encourage 5. to make firm 6. to make rigid, make hard
h. (Hiphil)
1. to make strong, strengthen 2. to make firm 3. to display strength 4. to make severe 5. to support 6. to repair 7. to prevail, prevail upon 8. to have or take or keep hold of, retain, hold up, sustain, support 9. to hold, contain
i. (Hithpael)
1. to strengthen oneself 2. to put forth strength, use one’s strength 3. to withstand 4. to hold strongly with
Hopefully that comes through without monstrous formatting errors.
“Since Deut. 22:25 denotes rape with chazaq, why switch to a different verb to describe the same thing just three verses later?”
Short answer: Who knows? Given the age of the document it’s impossible to say if the words were originally different, much less that this was a clue that a different situation was being described. We don’t even know that both of those verses were written at the same time by the same person. Where I live, most people refer to a soft drink as “a coke” or “a soda”. I can travel fifty miles and suddenly a soft drink is universally known as a “pop” and what was a “bag” has become a “sack”. Each of those words are being used as synonyms but they also have a range of other meanings attached to them. This problem is compounded if you look at modern day legal code. Despite the fact that modern law is written recently in a living language, the wordings of laws are generally so vague that the enforcement of those laws is based on precedent rather than interpretation and logic. No worthwhile effort has been made to agree on or standardize definitions, so it is actually more reasonable to base enforcement on tradition rather than the written text of the law. And that’s recent, living law. Honestly, in my opinion, everything we’ve discussed up to this point is as good as conjecture. This is one of the reasons atheists find religion incomprehensible, and consider the belief that the Bible should be taken literally to be laughable, and then very, very frightening. But I digress. Boy did I digress. And I started all that with “Short answer:”. That’s a little embarrassing.
“So v. 28 speaks of both of them being discovered, but why do so if only the man has committed the crime?”
Could be, but do you have other evidence of this being the linguistic convention at the time? Is there a pattern of use that supports this hypothesis?
I’m going to skip ahead a little bit before I finish, but I promise I’ll come back to the points I’m skipping.
“And to underscore my case, I haven’t yet found a scholarly commentary on this chapter of Deuteronomy that confirms the skeptical claim. Perhaps you’ll have better luck. ”
I haven’t seen many scholarly and skeptical arguments for Biblical interpretation in general. I would suspect that the necessary combination of an in-depth knowledge of ancient Hebrew coupled with an authoritative knowledge of Biblical interpretation is a course of study the irreligious wouldn’t find appealing. To be honest, I’m glad there isn’t a lot of scholarly work to go on for this argument. I’m learning more this way than I would otherwise, and if I make a fool of myself, it’s not like I squandered an expensive education.
Finally (for now):
“Wouldn’t that mean the Bible doesn’t condone rape?”
I addressed this above in the same post. Way, way above. This chapter isn’t objectionable because it condones rape, it’s objectionable because it suggests bizarre and needlessly cruel punishments. Not just the marrying your rapist thing, either. These people had blades and ropes. Why were they executing people by throwing rocks at them? Are we supposed to believe that loving, caring, and perfect God suggested the death penalty by a slow, painful, public and almost comically barbaric method? Well, actually, feel free to answer that at a later time. I think we have our hands full enough with the existing arguments.
Regards,
A.F.
Tremendous issues here. I’m very satisfied to see your post. Thank you a lot and I am looking forward to contact you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?