I Am The Blog » Bible

Prop 8 proponents — which kind(s) of Biblical marriage do you support?

admin — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:26:25 +0000

A quick follow-up to my post on Prop 8. As pointed out by in a comment by a member of Atheist Nexus, the Bible is far from supporting only what Prop 8 proponents think of as “traditional” marriage. According to the site Religious Tolerance, there are at least 8 types of marriage the Bible specifically condoned by God in the Bible.

If Christians are going to only go to bat for god-friendly weddings, they’ll have to either endorse forced marriage of unwed, unbetrothed rape victims to their attackers or else explain why they are not campaigning for what the Bible clearly outlines as a required form of marriage. Do they really want to make their god angry by not allowing polygany (a man marrying multiple women) or thousands of concubines?

If we’re going to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow or legislate, I guess then that means that men “lying” with men (and women with women) should be fair game, too.

Image from http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2008/11/proposition-8-is-discriminatory-nonsense

Anne Rice loses her religion

admin — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:57:10 +0000

Famous author Anne Rice has said she’s leaving Christianity, specifically the Catholic religion she converted to 12 years go after recovering from a coma. This Freethinker article discusses the decision more in detail. She was raised Catholic, abandoned it for atheism, converted back to Catholicism, and is once again renouncing her ties with the church. She apparently has not given up on god or on Christ himself, but on organized Christianity. A few quotes from Anne Rice:

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.

I’ve come to the conclusion from my experience with organized religion that I have to leave, that I have to, in the name of Christ, step away from this.

I’ve also found that I can’t find a basis in Scripture for a lot of the positions that churches and denominations take today, and I can’t find any basis at all for an anointed, hierarchical priesthood.

She makes it clear that she’s not anti-Christ, just anti-church. Is this for PR (not wanting to alienating likely the majority of her readers who are Christians) or does she actually like the Bible and not like what churches have done with it?

I’ve heard some people say this and can sympathize to some extent, but if she’s looked at Scripture in detail though, doesn’t she see that not all, but a lot of what she is criticizing does in fact come from Scripture. To take feminism just as an example: 1 Corinthians 14, for example tells women it is “disgraceful” for them to speak in church. She might consider reading the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible’s section on women, for more insight on this…

In any case, I applaud people who reject Christianity’s hate-filled teachings, whether they do so by rejecting the religion outright, or by picking and choosing the occasional nuggets and insights — just so long as they don’t pretend that the Bible (including the New Testament) isn’t backwards, hateful, violent, contradictory, and just plain wrong a large portion of the time.

UPDATE: According to an LA Times article, Rice answers how she envisions being devoted to Christ without being Christian.

It’s talking to God, putting things in the hands of God, trusting that you’re living in God’s world and praying for God’s guidance. And being absolutely faithful to the core principles of Jesus’ teachings.

It would be interesting to know what exactly she thinks the “core principles of Jesus’ teachings” are, since the interpretations of his teachings have helped lead to thousands of denominations, religious wars…As an author herself, you’d think she would find fault with the Bible’s lack of clarity!

Christian leaders condemn overturning of Prop 8

admin — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:26:45 +0000

As most people who follow the news likely know, California’s Proposition 8 (the ban against same-sex marriage in that state) was just overturned last week in federal court. There will of course be appeals, but this is a major step towards the legalization of same-sex marriage not only in California, but if it survives appeal, possibly at the national level.

Since Christianity is all about love, they are throwing their full support towards gay marriage, right? (Did you detect a note of sarcasm there?)

Here is a link to an article by Christianity Today (which I saw posted in a few freethought-friendly places) which provides some reactions from the Christian community. To be fair, there are some quotes that are fairly neutral or even supportive of LGBT community, but here are a few gems to give you an idea of the other side of the coin.

Majorities are unstable, and while traditional marriage has the upper hand now, it may not in 20 years. [What is going to happen, LGBT people will suddenly become a majority in the next 20 years? Now that's what I call evolution! Or will they just corrupt the rest of God-fearing people by then?]

Because gay marriage is less than God’s best for relationship, we need to equip ourselves to minister to those who will choose it and later realize it might not have been the best decision. [Will they also equip themselves to minister to those who will choose and later realize it was the best decision of their life?]

At stake in the debate is the very nature of marriage itself. Thinking biblically does not allow us to regard marriage as merely prudential or preferential (I like strawberry, you like pistachio), but as a covenantal union of one man and one woman established by God for a purpose that transcends itself. [Comparing the love and devotion of two adults committing to spend the rest of their lives together...to liking pistachios. It'd be hard to make a more ignorant or belittling comparison. Although "my cute little strawberry" does sound like a nice pet name.]

The Bible makes clear that marriage is God’s idea rather than a social contract that we are free to renegotiate based on changing social trends. [So if we have to follow God's ideas on marriage, does this mean we're sticking with the whole you-must-marry-your-rapist thing dictated in the Bible, then? (Deuteronomy 22:28). If we mustn't follow social trends when it comes to marriage, should we also wear BC-era wedding attire?]

The gospel is deeply serious while Judge Walker’s decision is a jumbled mess of sloppy thinking [...] [That's funny; I would have said the exact opposite.]

Hopefully this ruling will lead society towards understanding of those who are not in the mainstream, instead of the continuing legacy of bigotry towards the “Other” that religions too often help perpetuate.

Love never fails [A post in memory of my mom]

admin — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:00:24 +0000

A universal sentiment for atheists and believers alike.

My mother died suddenly and unexpectedly last month. She died from what appears to have been a massive stroke. She had just seen a doctor, and while she had a few relatively minor health issues (as many 50-somethings do), she had just seen a doctor a few days prior to her death. There was nothing to indicate to her doctor or to any of her friends and family that she would suddenly be gone.

I simply could not believe the devastating news at first; this was nearly everyone’s reaction upon hearing it. It just didn’t make sense. From what my stepfather told me, my mom had a very fun night the previous night and had gone to bed happy. He goes to work early in the morning, so as was often the case he didn’t wake her up when he left and just let her sleep.

When he arrived home, she was already dead and had apparently never gotten out of bed. I mention this because it means she very likely died in her sleep and either did not suffer at all or suffered only very briefly. As I’ve mentioned before on my blog, my father died just a little over a decade ago after several years of painfully battling cancer. The suffering he went through made me question the existence of an all-powerful, loving God. My mother at least was hopefully not a victim of lengthy, unbearable, meaningless pain before she died. Although it is always difficult to lose a loved one, knowing they went as quickly and painlessly as possible is some comfort.

As you might expect, her death brought up a whole swirl of religious thoughts among her grieving family and friends, myself included. (I will go into these more in detail shortly, including the pastor who nearly ruined my mother’s funeral.) Not being religious at all anymore, and feeling certain that my mother isn’t in a “better place,” brought both comforting and distressing feelings in me. I know that dying is a natural part of life, and that helped me to some extent. A number of people said it didn’t seem or feel “fair” that my mother died so young.

I will admit that a part of me felt, and still feels, that way. Logically, however, I know that there is no cosmic fairness that determines when and how someone dies. Death is just a part of life, and we all will eventually die. Somewhat coincidentally, I had just become acquainted with George Hrab‘s song “Everything Alive Will Die Someday,” which helped comfort and remind me of death being a natural part of life.

But the other side of atheism is knowing that my mother isn’t in some magical place looking down on us, either finally at peace or having fun in paradise. I knew that other people (including family) saw the wake and funeral as a chance to see loved ones and celebrate her life on Earth — and for many if not most gathered there, what they believe to be her new life in heaven. A couple people have said they don’t know exactly where she is, but hope that she’s somewhere.

I don’t feel this way, however: I know with about as much certainty as possible that my mother, as much as I love her, simply doesn’t exist anymore. I’m sure most people who knew her don’t share my views on this, though. What was at least a somewhat comforting occasion to most was downright depressing to me. The wake and funeral felt to me overall as a sort of meaningless death ritual taking place around the rotting corpse of my mother. That was very difficult for me. I did what I felt was right though and played along for the most part, talking to loved ones and recounting memories of my mom.

Memories of her and her life will live on as long as we let them, but my mother herself is no more. On good days, I take time to remember and even laugh about fond memories of my mom, although there is still a great deal of sadness that I’m sure, if my experience after my dad’s death was any indication, will take quite some time to subside.

I was surprised actually at the wake and funeral, how few people actually said she was “in a better place.” Maybe it’s become too cliché now to say. Most people either said that they were very saddened and sorry for our loss, and/or their thoughts or prayers were with us. Their sentiments were appreciated. While the wake, conversations, and sympathy cards did include some “God” talk, there was only one thing that very much upset me, and it turned out that it upset some other people as well.

My mother had become more religious in recent years, but still was not a bible-thumping, church-every-Sunday sort of person. There was some basic Christian imagery and words chosen for the wake, but also some more general themes (peace, love). I think this reflected her well and I’m sure is what most of the family wanted. The chapter that was chosen to be read at her funeral was one that I thought was appropriate for a group of family and friends who are nearly all Christians, but also as a general message, too: 1 Corinthians 13.

As many believers and nonbelievers alike will recognize, this is the famous chapter that includes the lines “Love is patient, love is kind [...] Love never fails” and ends with “Now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Of all of the Bible verses that could be used, I was happy this one was chosen since it includes one of the most universal (as opposed to dogmatically-Christian) sentiments in the Bible, at least as it is widely taken by many people. The power and importance of love is a warm way to remember a mother, wife, daughter, sister, friend, and so many other roles she filled for the people she loved and who loved her so much.

But the pastor officiating the service did not leave the verse at this. In his message, he told my stepfather, me, and the rest of assembled grieving loved ones that my mother’s love did fail, and that our love for her also failed. He paused after each of these pronouncements, I presume to allow the full effect of his words to sink in. He then continued, saying that human love always fails, and that it is only Christ’s love that saves us.

I was shocked and infuriated that he would use those verses to deliver a message so dark and drenched in dogma at my mother’s funeral. My mother, despite any faults she may have had (who doesn’t have faults?), was perhaps the most loving person I have ever known. She very well may have believed some sort of afterlife, or specifically in heaven, or even in Christ’s saving love for her. But there isn’t anyone in that room who knew my mother who would actually think she would have approved of a pastor telling her husband and children that her love had failed us, and that our love had failed her. It felt like a hijacking of her funeral.

Fortunately, immediately after the service, when the funeral director was giving directions to the cemetery, he added a few much more positive words to end on a more upbeat and compassionate note. It was still a Christian message, but focused on life and death in nature, and love and memories. A few family members mentioned afterwards that they thought the pastor’s words were overly dark and “depressing.” So even some devout believers felt that message was just too much and inappropriate, although they didn’t put it in those words. My wife also agreed with this and we talked about it briefly. It gave me some comfort to know that I have loved ones who are not totally blinded by what was surely a valid, though cruelly heartless and insensitive, interpretation of their religion at my mother’s funeral.

But here’s what’s most important: I don’t feel the pastor, despite his best efforts to evangelize instead of comfort, ruined the commemoration and celebration of my mother’s life and love. In spite of the pastor’s words, and how difficult her sudden death has been on me and on my family, how much she’ll miss, how much we’ll miss her, there is something that comforts me. Not religion, but love. My mother is dead. But my mom loved me, and as long as I live, I will love her. Life ends, but love never fails.

Where’s Jesus’ birth certificate?! (Photo)

admin — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:19:06 +0000

While my wife and I were traveling through Arkansas this weekend, I decided we just had to pull over to take a picture.

I couldn’t help but laugh at this. I’m assuming there were two separate intended messages here:

• I haven’t seen enough proof that Barack Obama was really born in America, and therefore he shouldn’t be President.
• Jesus Christ is my savior, since he definitely died on the cross and rose again for our sins.

My reading of this scene, however, is

• People may say that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, but
• We don’t even have solid historical evidence of his birth, death, or resurrection, so how do we know he even existed?

My wife, who is a Christian, also understood right away why putting these two symbols together was pretty funny, since the result is almost certainly not what was intended in rural, highly Christian Arkansas.

By posting this photo, I am not necessarily claiming myself that Jesus never existed (although many before me have made such claims, understandly given the Bible can’t even get his stepdad Joseph’s ancestory right). It would be nice, though, if people became skeptical in a more productive way than being an Obama birther. They could start by demanding that their god or their church give them better proof of the “greatest story ever told” than a very deeply flawed Bible…

Quiz Show

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:29:37 +0000

Thanks to Dwindling In Unbelief, I just watched a funny video by nonstampcollector about contradictions in the Bible. The next time someone tries to tell you the Bible is inerrant, this should be a fun and educational way to show them that it’s most certainly not. I like the fact that the relevant passages are displayed each time an answer is given so that believer and non-believer alike can fact-check. Enjoy!

Bible warning

admin — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:49:44 +0000

Just in time for Easter, here’s a pretty scathing criticism I found of the Bible.

Oh wait, that’s from Wikipedia’s page about NORAD tracking Santa on Christmas Eve. My bad.

BBB: Brief Bible Blunders

admin — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:37:00 +0000

Thanks to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, I was recently introduced to a fun, yet educational series on YouTube called Brief Bible Blunders. I think this should be required viewing for any inerrantists out there!

Antievolution bill proposed for Missouri schools

admin — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:46:17 +0000

Robert Wayne Cooper, a Republican member of the Missouri House of Representatives, has proposed a bill that would require school administrators to “assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies.”

What scientific controversies, you may ask? According to the bill, this would include “the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.”

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization promoting the teaching of evolution in schools, reports on this bill in an article which also gives some background into previous attempts to attack evolution in Missouri. The frustrating thing is that lawmakers are getting craftier in wording such bills. On the surface, the current bill doesn’t sound that bad. According to the proposed legislation,

Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

Helping students to apply critical thinking in their learning is normally a laudable goal. But what purpose could Rep. Cooper have in mind by singling out evolution in his bill besides a veiled attempt to support the teaching of intelligent design / biblical creationism as an alternative to evolution? Especially in light of his previous efforts to legistlate in the matter, including a 2004 bill which would have mandated “equal time” for evolution and intelligent design, according to the NCSE article. That bill also stipulated that:

Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent, principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract.

I’m not the first to point out the irony that attempts to slip creationism into the classroom have been “evolving”, but it is both frustrating and worrisome that some government officials are still trying to sneak religion into our classrooms.

Music for the holidays: Two Lennon songs

admin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:46:41 +0000

John Lennon’s view on Christmas (or X-Mas in the official title) is unfortunately just as timely today as ever. It’s a song I always make sure to listen to every year around this time. I had also thought about posting “Imagine” here as well (if you’ve seen the icon I often use on the web, you’ll have figured out I’m a big fan of “Imagine”), but I decided to post another, lesser-known song of Lennon’s entitled “God”. If anyone has a doubt as to whether or not John Lennon was religious, this song should put it to rest. People don’t need gods or celebrities to idolize. We can learn from the good (and bad) examples of the past, but we should believe in ourselves, and our own ability to do good in this world.

I attended a talk about baby dinosaurs on the ark (& more fun facts!)

admin — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:37:59 +0000

Source of images: http://www.colliervillechurchofchrist.com/Special_Events.html

This weekend, my wife and I made a trip to see a seminar entitled “Truth About Human Origins” given at the Church of Christ in Collierville, TN. Given the titles of some of the talks ( “Atheism’s Attack on America”, “ Scientific Accuracy of the Bible “, etc.) we pretty much knew what we were getting into. My wife is still a believer (but not a fundamentalist), and I’d never been to a talk like this before, so we both thought it’d be interesting to see what the speaker would say.

The speaker, Dr. Brad Harrub , has an “earned” PhD in Anatomy and Neurobiology, so I figured he would try to harmonize the Bible with carefully selected scientific facts, or try to disprove scientific claims that don’t agree with the Bible. I was right on both fronts. We were only able to attend two back-to-back sessions: “Is Genesis a Myth?” and “The Dinosaur Dilemma”, but I think it was enough to get a good idea of Dr. Harrub’s arguments, which even my wife as a believer strongly objected to!

After a prayer (during which I bowed my head, kept my eyes open and kept quiet), the talks began: back-to-back talks with a 10-minute break in-between, followed by 10-15 minutes of Q & A. I didn’t take notes, but here were a few highlights of the talks. Please note that I am summarizing the information he presented, not advocating it!

Is Genesis a Myth?

* There are three options: the universe always existed, the universe created itself, or something else created the universe.
* We know the universe is expanding, so this proves that it didn’t always exist.
* The Big Bang is unsatisfactory: where did the matter for it come from? Something had to create that matter.
* God is eternal, outside of the universe: he’s the only one who could create without having to be created.
* Creation happened in 6 literal days (comparison with other verses to prove “day” is not a metaphor for millions of years, etc.).
* Evolutionists want us to believe humans started out stupid — but Genesis says Adam was smart enough for God to ask him to name all the animals
* There are no gaps in the lineage in the Bible, it says who was born when up until Jesus, so we can calculate the age of the Earth.
* Archeological evidence supports historical claims in Genesis and the Bible.

The Dinosaur Dilemma

* Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, and were created on the same day (5th day).
* The Bible mentions dinosaurs (but not by name since the word “dinosaur” wasn’t invented until the 1800s) after the flood.
* Dinosaur-like creatures mentioned after the Flood (in Job), so they must have been on Noah’s Ark.
* The way dinosaurs could have fit on Noah’s Ark was as unhatched eggs or small children. No, I am not kidding. (I would say this is the part where he seemed the proudest of what he was saying, like he was single-handedly defeating the infeasibility of the Ark and any objections skeptics would raise.)
* There’s proof for a worldwide flood since every continent has fossils from so-called “localized” floods, and fossils can be found at the top of the highest mountains in the world.
* Carbon-dating of fossils is not proven and is unreliable. Scientists have dated dinosaur bones to as recent as 9000 years ago (much closer to truth than the millions of years normally claimed by evolutionists
* Dinosaur artwork, in the form of carvings and figurines, can allegedly be found in a number of ancient artifacts from around the world, showing that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
* A mammal fossil was found eaten inside the stomach of a dinosaur fossil, which should be chronologically impossible if science is right about evolution.
* What was thought to be a prehistoric ancestor to fish was found to still exist today, proving scientists can’t date bones correctly.
* Important to tell kids early the truth about dinosaurs, creation, and the Bible, before books, TV, and school tell them lies.

I believe those were all the main points he made. Dr. Harrub had a very convincing, authoritative way of speaking and presenting his information. Although I found some of his ideas laughably funny (baby dinosaurs on the Ark!), I can see why people would want him to speak, and why people would be duped into his pseudo-science if they have been taught to believe that they should have faith in what the Bible says. The Bible says it, this guy with a PhD says it, so it must be true!

For most people, some of the claims should be obviously false at face value. Others would take a little more to debunk, and I don’t know if I’ll have time to research every one. Here are two that I did look up since I hadn’t heard about them before: the dinosaur figurines and Ica stones depicting humans and dinosaurs.

Dinosaur Figurines in Mexico: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html
Ica stones in South America: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Ica_stones

To my dismay, there were only two people who were clearly atheists or freethinkers who were asking questions in the Q and A afterwards. They were allowed to ask several questions each, which I thought was very fair of the speaker and congregation to allow. It’s interesting that at least some creationists, as one questioner pointed out, have changed their ways in the past few decades from denying dinosaurs existed, to saying of course they existed, it’s in the Bible! Scientists just have the dates wrong about when dinosaurs lived, according to Dr. Harrub. So now that we know baby dinosaurs were actually on the Ark, it’s okay for kids to be exposed to the “sugar candy” (his expression) of dinosaurs, which evolutionists try to give kids to lure into believing in evolution.

There were 3 or 4 other people who spoke, all supporting the Bible and the points Dr. Harrub had made. I wondered how many people were in the audience who were atheists or skeptics/skeptical but didn’t want to speak up. I know my wife afterwards said that she wanted to ask questions and make a point, but that she was too nervous to do so and didn’t know if he questions would sound stupid. Believe me, they were intelligent questions, and even if she tried they couldn’t have been any stupider than the nearly 2 hours of crap we had just heard!

I have to say I am frustrated that this man apparently goes around the country presenting himself as a scientist and appearing to present “proof” of his claims, when he is clearly trying to promote the Bible more than he is trying to promote science. Worst of all, Dr. Harrub said a number of times how important it was for parents to teach their children about the Bible and to tell them not to believe what science says about evolution. There were a number of small kids (pre-teens) in the audience, so I felt very sad that they were being exposed to / brainwashed by this information. He also told people to be ready to answer questions from teenagers when they come back from science classes they may have to take at college which might confuse them or raise doubts about their beliefs.

The message was pretty clear: scientists and atheists are lying to you and your children. Don’t listen to what they say; just believe what the Bible says. I’ll talk more about my wife and my reactions to the talk in a future post.

EDIT: Here is a link to audio from a previous seminar given by Dr. Harrub, so you can get an idea of what his talks are like.

I Am … (partially) out as an atheist

admin — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:11:37 +0000

I finally had "the talk" with my wife. It was very difficult to do, but it turned out a lot better than I had expected.

I had been considering coming out to her for the past month or so. I’m becoming more and more active in the atheist/freethought community. It just didn’t feel right for something that is such a big part of who I am to remain a secret from my wife. I’m posting this in hopes that the experience might help others who aren’t "out" yet to their wife/husband/significant other. I’m glad to say that coming out to your loved one doesn’t have to be a bad experience.

[UPDATE : This post is a play-by-play, which I'm hoping will be interesting and useful. A more concise version of my story can also be found here on Atheist Nexus.]

My decision to come out was helped along by a discussion from a less successful experience by a fellow Atheist Nexus member. His wife flat-out told him that she wouldn’t have married him if she had known he didn’t believe in God. I felt very sorry for him, especially since I’ve been fearing a similar reaction from my wife (who considers herself a Christian) if and when she found out I didn’t believe in God. So although I’d like to say I bravely announced my atheism, it was much less courage and more of a desire to deal with something that’s been worrying me for quite a while and a decision to be more open with my wife about my non-belief.

I was very nervous the night I had decided to come out to her. She could tell I was nervous, which made it a little easier to bring up the subject. If she can tell something’s bothering me, she’ll keep asking me what’s wrong until I tell her. So when there was a good moment that I knew we could talk for as long as we wanted, I told her there was something very important to me that I’d like to tell her about.We sat down, I took a deep breath, and just started talking. I had a general idea of what I wanted to say, but no specific speech written out.

She saw me reading the Bible a few weeks ago on my computer, which surprised her. So I started with this incident, saying that over a number of years, I have read a lot about the Bible, read a lot of the passages, and reminded her that for a while I had considered going to seminary to become a pastor. I told her that the more I had read, the more I started to have questions about some of the things the Bible said. I said that I had come to the conclusion that there were some things in the Bible that I just couldn’t believe — things that either didn’t make sense, or that contradicted other things, or that didn’t seem like they could happen. I told her that a lot of what I’ve been doing online lately has been related to this.

After this introduction to the topic, it was mostly she who led the conversation, with her asking questions and me answering. She asked me what sort of things I didn’t think were true. I asked if she remembered our nephew’s baptism, when we talked about whether or not to get him a Noah’s Ark book (she did). I didn’t tell her I was an atheist at the time, but had told her that the Bible doesn’t teach child baptism and that I felt children should be old enough to make up their minds before being baptized (a position she disagreed with, but understood). I said that I felt the Noah’s Ark passage in the Bible, like others, basically says that all people are evil by nature, and that God can kill them because of this.

I said I don’t believe humans are bad by nature, and that I didn’t like that this is what the Bible teaches. I then moved on to another example, and said I didn’t like what the Bible says happened in Egypt, where God kills all the firstborn male Egyptians just because the Pharaoh wouldn’t free the Israelites, even though the Bible says God was the one who made the Pharaoh act that way. I didn’t want to say too much to make it seem like I was just trying to rip apart the Bible, but I wanted to bring up a few specific instances that I thought she would be familiar with, and that I could make a clear argument about why I didn’t agree with them.

She didn’t dispute any of this, but said that there are parts of the Bible she doesn’t understand and like as much as other parts, but that she liked the New Testament better and that she thought it had a good message in it. I said I agreed that the Bible does have some very good messages in it, but that they are often surrounded by messages that are not so good that people don’t quote or talk about much. I brought up the massacre of the innocents sermon that I had blogged about earlier as an example of something bad that happened in the New Testament. I said I couldn’t understand why a loving God would let all those children be killed. She said that she didn’t know what to say, but that maybe that was the best thing that could have happened, that maybe that prevented something worse from happening. So I said that if God were able to do anything he wanted, I believe that he could have found a way around it.

Interestingly enough, she brought up at this point the fact that there was a lot of evidence for the stuff that happened in the New Testament, which I wasn’t expecting. I said that unfortunately, it isn’t always true that the Bible’s claims can be verified outside the Bible. Confirmation for some of the events in the New Testament comes over a hundred years later, and no independent evidence of a large amount of things in the New Testament has ever been found, such as for the massacre of the innocents.

At this point, she shifted gears. I don’t know if it’s because she realized that I had done a lot of looking into the Bible, or if my answers were satisfying her, or if they weren’t satisfying but she didn’t know how to respond. But then she asked me what I do believe if I don’t believe everything in the Bible. This was the question that I was the most afraid of. I told her that I used to be a very strong believer, much stronger than other people in my family. I gave the example of thinking songs shouldn’t be played because they were "lustful" (the Beatles’ "I Want You (She’s So Heavy)" was one song in particular), I told her I was confirmed, and then eventually I started to have little questions about my faith. Instead of finding answers, from looking at the Bible, looking online, listening to sermons, asking people, I just kept having more questions. Eventually, I realized there were some things I would never find answers to.

She asked me if I believed in the Bible at all, and I said that there are too many things in it that I don’t agree with, that I can’t say I believe in the Bible anymore. She then asked what I thought happens to people when they die. I think the atheist answer to this is very unsatisfying; I would like to believe something happens to us after death, but I know now that this isn’t so. This sounded depressing, so I thought for a few moments and said that I believe that we are all part of the circle of life, and that when we die our remains go back into nature, and life continues from there. This is not a main aspect of my belief system, but I do believe this occurs and I felt was a more satisfying answer than just "we cease to exist".

She asked if I believed in heaven. I told her that while I think it would be nice to think that heaven exists, I more have a problem with the fact that Christianity teaches that there’s a hell — that even though Jesus was said to die for our sins that there are still people who go to hell. I think that if there was a God and if he loved us, he would send us all to heaven. So at this point, I asked her one of the few questions I asked all night. I asked if she thought that people who don’t believe in Jesus go to hell.

My wife obviously had thought about the issue before, and said that she didn’t know what happens to people who don’t believe. She said that some people think that if you don’t believe in Christianity, then you go to hell, but other people think that if you’re a good person, that you’ll be saved even if you don’t believe in God. She brought up the issue of what happened to people who never heard of Jesus before, which I was glad to hear that she had heard of and considered before. She mentioned that Catholics believe in purgatory, so just because you don’t go to heaven doesn’t mean you go to hell. She said she wasn’t sure what happens, and that there were other things that she wasn’t sure about, but that she still has faith in God.

This was the only thing that frustrated me during the conversation. She used the word "faith" a couple of times basically when there was something that she couldn’t explain. I realized that she doesn’t know that having faith in something isn’t really an answer, since I’m sure she’s heard this thousands of times in her life. I felt she thought this was a perfectly acceptable answer, so I though it would be counterproductive to try to tackle the issue of faith then. So I told her that I respect her beliefs and that I’m not trying to say that she’s wrong, but just that based on the Bible, on what I’ve read, and what I’ve thought about for a long time, I don’t have faith anymore. I did not say I’m an "atheist", because of the baggage attached to this term. But she knows now that I don’t believe in God.

She had said a few times recently that I "don’t like church", so I asked her why she said this. She said that she could tell from some comments I made. I asked her what these were (since I had tried very hard not to make any such comments!), and she brought up the Noah’s Ark incident that I had mentioned earlier, and the fact that I made comments about the Catholic Church after the tragic child rape / excommunication case that was in the news (where they excommunicated a mother and her daughter’s doctors for giving the girl an abortion after she had been raped by her stepfather. They did not excommunicate the father, however.) I also apparently mentioned at some point about religious displays on public property being against the constitution, which I might have thought was a safe topic to bring up since there are many believers who also think religion should be kept out of government.

I told her I wasn’t "against" churches, but that I just didn’t believe in some of the things they taught. She mentioned that churches do good things, and I said that while I know that churches and people who go to church do a lot of good things, you can do these same things without going to church — you don’t need to believe in the Bible to be a good person. She didn’t argue with this. I then asked her if she remembered the fact that I brought up the fact that the town we used to live in had an intersection of "Church and State", and I had told her it was my favorite intersection. She said yes and she said she thought that was another clue. So I guess she had suspected for quite a while, but just didn’t know exactly where on the spectrum I was.

The only time religion really came up between us, except for the Noah’s Ark occasion, was a few months after we met. I had told her that I was brought up a Lutheran, that I had considered becoming a pastor. I had read a whole lot about religion, and I wasn’t sure what I believed, but I was pretty sure what I didn’t believe. She had never asked me to elaborate on this. She’s a Christian, and even did some missionary work when she was younger, but in the years I’ve known her, I don’t think she’s ever brought up God just out of the blue — both before the Noah’s Ark thing and afterwards, and even when she’s with other believers. I hoped that this was a good sign, and since things turned out well, I think it was.

She had revealed a secret to me early on in our relationship, and I told her that I had a secret too that I would tell her someday. I told her this was the secret. She said "That was it?! I thought it was something more serious than that!" I laughed and I told her it was kind of funny then, because I thought she would think it was a big deal. She said she may not agree with me, but she respects it. She then asked if I mind if she goes to church.

This was another thing that the Atheist Nexus thread I mentioned earlier helped with. One of the commenters mentioned Unitarian Universalism as a possibility for atheists with companions who still want to go to church, and it’s something I had looked at from time to time. I had a friend who had said he had gone to a UU church. I didn’t tell him much about much beliefs (or lack thereof) on Christianity since I was afraid he would tell others, but I did tell him that I wasn’t a typical Christian. He had liked it overall, so I looked into UU again after reading the post on Atheist Nexus.

When my wife brought up church, I told her that I would be willing to consider going to a UU church. I don’t believe in going to church — since I don’t believe in God, I don’t see the need of going to church. But I know church is something that is very important to my wife, so I told her I would be willing to try it. She said she had heard of UU, and I explained a little more of what I understood about it. I said that I liked the fact that they welcome people who have all sorts of beliefs there, but that they were generally based on a Judeo-Christian model and that a lot of people who come from different denominations go to UU to find a common ground.

I found a couple of UU churches online the next day, sent the links to her and we separately looked at them. We both looked at other ones as well, and we both decided on the same one, which I thought was a very good sign. We went to the first service this weekend, and overall I was pleased with how it went. The service started with a welcome to newcomers, which was very warm and funny; a thoughtful and at times funny sermon that my wife and I said we both enjoyed; and included several Christian hymns that we both recognized, with some altered lyrics. My wife said this after the service, and it was funny because even the pastor pointed it out that for the one hymn, he would understand if some people accidentally did the old lyrics since he liked those, too.

Although there were a couple of things on the website I find mildly objectionable, and I don’t feel comfortable with the mentions of God, even if I understand it’s not meant in the same way that it would be in a Baptist church for example, there was nothing in the service that I found objectionable (no "massacre of the innocents" moment, for example). The pastor mentioned non-belief and embracing doubt several times in his sermon, even though from references in church and on the site, it seems clear he believes in some sort of higher power personally. I very highly disagreed with this, but thought the repeated nods to doubt and non-belief in a God were good and inclusive, and I was glad in a way that God was mentioned since I thought this would be more welcoming to my wife. I was worried after the service because of what I would deem, with no offense meant to any UU followers, to be a "watered down" version of God, as compared to the one mentioned in Christianiaty. But my wife said she really liked the service and would like to go again.

Not only that, but she thanked me for going to church with her. I didn’t think she would thank me for asking her to go to a different church that she grew up in and did missionary work in. I think she very much likes the fact that I’m willing to go to church, and since she doesn’t bring up God herself very often she might be interested in more than just the God speak found in many services (she’s mentioned before that she really likes church music, so familiar hymns probably helped).

In turn, I thanked her for being willing to try out a different church that’s more inclusive of people. She mentioned some of the elements of the service that were like other churches she had been at, so I thought it was good that we were both trying to find common ground. She said that the sermon and other parts of the service seemed like it would be more my kind of thing than other churches we’ve gone to probably were, and I said I agreed. Hopefully we will both get something out of it.

I wouldn’t say I’m a UU, I don’t believe in a god of any kind, and I don’t think all atheists would be comfortable about this solution, but I think it will work for us for now. I would like to imagine a day where no one feels the need to talk about god, heaven, or hell, but that day is far off. For now, I feel like a great weight has been lifted off my shoulders and that I don’t have to keep my stance on religion secret from my wife, and she gets to go to church. Since we disagree, I won’t go out of my way to bring up various things I disagree with, but if she asks I feel like I can talk with her openly about it.

My coworkers and other family are another story. My grandmother just retired as church secretary after decades of service, and my future sister-in-law is becoming a pastor in about year, to give you an idea of some of the believers in my and my wife’s family. My mother seems to be becoming more religious and not less. Plus, I’m in a profession that does not lend itself to religious discussion in theory, although it comes up surprisingly often. Two of my coworkers have discussed religion with me — one very religious and one not very religious at all — and I’ve tried to be as vague as possible on my own views to avoid any problems down the road.

So for family and professional reasons, I’m not coming out to the whole world just yet, although someday I hope to do so. Hopefully this post will help someone who also hasn’t told their significant other yet about their atheism: it doesn’t have to be a bad experience.

I will continue posting and seeking out atheist news under my assumed name for now. I am out to the most important person for me now, which was a very huge step.

Robert Wright’s “new atheism” delusion

admin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:44:33 +0000

Robert Wright , who I mentioned in a recent post is the author of The Evolution of God , has now gone on the offensive to attack in an opinion piece in the Huffington Post what he calls "new atheism."

His book, reviewed in episode 58 of the podcast American Freethought , gives a history of the evolution of the Abrahamic God (of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths). Wright reportedly gives an account of the historical reasons behind the development of these religions, leading up to the modern day. While not taking an openly theistic stance in the book, he does include some enigmatic references to notions such as a "greater purpose".

In American Freethought, Wright criticized some of the so-called atheist leaders (Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc.), while co-host John Snider made it clear that atheism is not a unified movement and these people do not speak for all atheists. In the Huffington Post piece, however, Wright again depicts atheism (or at least "new atheism") as one voice. In the Huffington Post , Wright says:

When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens’s world view, but the whole ideology of "new atheism" [...]

Atheism has little intrinsic ideological bent. (Karl Marx. Ayn Rand. I rest my case.) But things change when you add the key ingredient of the new atheism: the idea that religion is not just mistaken, but evil — that it "poisons everything," as Hitchens has put it with characteristic nuance.

This does not represent all atheists, and not even all the prominent he mentions. Richard Dawkins specifically counters such a notion in The God Delusion . In response to the title of a television program(me) on BBC 4 that was entitled "The root of all evil?" (the title of which he had reportedly fought against), Dawkins said on the very first page of the Preface:

From the start, I didn’t like the title. Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything.

The Wright article is filled with mischaracterizations and overgeneralizations about both atheism and historical events. Does he truly think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "basically" unrelated to religion? Does he know for a fact that most atheists agree with Hitchens’ right-wing views on the war on terror? Where is the proof that new atheists think religion is completely evil? It makes me wonder what his agenda is, but it does seem like he is more openly criticizing atheism when before he seemed to be straddling the fence. The fact that he would still present atheism as some organized mass conspiracy, with no proof of this, is disheartening.

For a more in-depth critique of the article, see John Snider’s post on the American Freethought website.

YouTube cartoon — Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11)

admin — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:24:38 +0000

I just saw a funny yet thought-provoking video mentioned on the blog Asking the God Question . The video is about the story of Jephthah and his daughter, in Judges 11. It features God talking to Jephthah and a dramatic, but biblically-accurate ending.

If you aren’t familiar with the story, you can just watch the video or see the Brick Testament version for a quick overview. The video also mentions a number of related issues in it and gives the Bible verses referenced.

Remember the Sabbath, to spit on journalists

admin — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:40:38 +0000

A reporter for Australia’s ABC was recently attacked by Orthodox Jews. Her story is here . (Thanks to Richard Collins for posting a link to an article on End Herediatary Religion about this.)

A protester being carried away by Israeli police — Getty Images: Darren Whiteside

Basically, ABC Middle East correspondent Anne Barker took a wrong turn while covering a protest by (ultra) Orthodox Jews over a city parking lot being open on the Sabbath. And this is how she was treated. From the ABC Australia article by Anne Barker:

As a journalist I’ve covered more than my share of protests. [...] I’ve been at violent rallies in East Timor. I’ve had rocks and metal darts thrown my way. [...] But I have to admit no protest – indeed no story in my career – has distressed me in the way I was distressed at a protest in Jerusalem on Saturday[...]

Orthodox Jews are angry at the local council’s decision to open a municipal carpark on Saturdays – or Shabbat, the day of rest for Jews. [...] I was mindful I would need to dress conservatively and keep out of harm’s way. But I made my mistake when I parked the car and started walking towards the protest, not fully sure which street was which. [...]

Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me. I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting – on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms. It was like rain, coming at me from all directions [...] Somewhere behind me – I didn’t see him – a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me. wasn’t even sure why the mob was angry with me. [...]

In fact, I was later told, it was because using a tape-recorder is itself a desecration of the Shabbat even though I’m not Jewish and don’t observe the Sabbath.

Because they believe Yahweh doesn’t want anyone to break the Sabbath (after recently rereading Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, I know this is supposed to apply to both Jewish people and strangers), they think they are justified in repeatedly assaulting a reporter just because she has a tape recorder running.

Religion can be dangerous when it says it applies to not only people who follow it, but to everyone around you. I guess considering how God acts in the Old Testament, if you believe it literally I can understand why they’d want to make it clear to God that they were not condoning her breaking of the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2-3 (KJV) says

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

Since they were specifically upset about the tape recorder, my guess is that was because of the electricity ("fire") it uses. Dogma Free America recently reported on a claim by an Orthodox Jew couple that it is a "human right" not to have motion-sensor lights, since they believe they must stay out of the hallway so as not to trip the "fire" of the lights on the Sabbath.

The big question for me is this: the Bible is clear in a number of places that if you break the Sabbath, you should be put to death. But they left her alive. Why would they think that they still need to keep the Sabbath, but not apply the punishment? I guess it’s some small consolation at least that they didn’t decide to kill her.

I know that not all people who believe in Judaism or religion in general are like this, but it shows what can happen when people take dogma too literally. It’s sad when people hold ridiculous beliefs like this, but an outrage when they attack other people for not holding the same beliefs.

Jesus didn’t appear after his death (at least, in the oldest version of Mark)

admin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:00:32 +0000

The Telegraph has posted an article announcing the online publication of the Codex Sinaiticus (thanks to Cynical-C Blog for the link). This is a version of the Bible which is estimated to have been written in the 4th century A.D. It is missing most of the first part of the Bible (up to 1 Chronicles), but contains all of the rest of the Bible except occasional fragments missing here and there.

I will have to investigate this more, but one notable difference between modern Bibles and the Codex is the lack of the resurrection story in Mark. According to the Telegraph:

It offers different versions of the Scriptures from later editions of the Bible, notably in St Mark’s Gospel which ends 12 verses before later versions, omitting the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

It is also noteworthy I think that a number of articles I came across from American sources (such as the San Francisco Gate , Houston Chronicle , etc.) picked up the story, but are leaving out the part about missing and changed verses that the Telegraph article and Wikipedia mention. Here is the translation from the website of the Codex Sinaiticus (it may take a while to load; unchecking "Images" in the display options may help.

16:1 And when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first of the week they came to the sepulcher, the sun having risen.

3 And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulcher?

4 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great.

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

So here, we only have it on the authority of some guy in a white robe sitting in an empty tomb that Jesus is "risen", with no report of anyone actually seeing him again. Not very convincing proof. In fact, it says that the two Marys and Salome just ran away amazed and scared and "said nothing to any one."

Most other versions of the Bible since then have contained additional verses which claim that Jesus came back a week later, exorcised Mary Magdalene, appeared to his disciples telling them they’ll baptize, heal the sick, drink poison without getting hurt, speak in tongues etc. Then Jesus goes back to heaven. Here’s the King James Version, for example:

⁹ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

¹⁰ And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

¹¹ And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

¹² After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

¹³ And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

¹⁴ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

¹⁵ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

¹⁶ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

¹⁷ And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

¹⁸ They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

¹⁹ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

²⁰ And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

This is a very different ending. Jesus comes back, exorcises Mary Magdalene, appears to the incredulous disciples and tells them to baptize everyone, or else they’ll be damned to hell. Plus, they get to do magic tricks like heal the dead, drink poison, and speak in tongues. Very different endings than the oldest version of the text we have, which doesn’t even mention Jesus coming back. And yet, the mainstream American press apparently doesn’t find this worthy enough to mention.

I’ve read and heard about the final verses in Mark before (see a discussion of the resurrection discrepancies between gospels by Dan Barker here ), but it’s mostly scholars who know about this. No wonder some believers are still believers: their church, their pastor, their media, and their Bibles either leave out or gloss quickly over important details like known inconsistencies in Bible versions, and what implications this might have on the text. [Update: please see comments, some churches or Bibles may be more open about this than I had thought, but the jury is out as to how widespread this is.]

Jesus appearing or not appearing are two very different endings to Mark, wouldn’t you say? We don’t know for sure why those verses were added later, or by whom, but we do know they don’t belong there. Something tells me the significance of this will not be a topic of [most] sermons on Sunday…

I think it’s very good that more resources are being made freely available for people to inform themselves. As I said before, I will have to look more into the Codex project and the differences between the Codex and other versions. But at this point, I think it’s wonderful that it’s online for all to view and read freely, with translations in 4 languages (including English). Who would have thought 20 years ago that you could consult the actual manuscripts from the oldest Bible found in the world from the comfort of your own home? Hopefully it will lead people to consider the progress we’ve made as a race and consider whether some of the content in the Bible still deserves be taken literally in the modern world.

Fourth of July — Celebrate true freedom

admin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:09:11 +0000

When I was out and about recently, I saw this church marquee.

As with many church marquees, I assume it’s meant to be a clever reference to both God and a topical issue, in this case Independence Day / The 4th of July in the US and being Jesus freeing us from sin, or something similar I would guess.

But is being a Christian really about celebrating freedom? If you actually read the Bible, it talks a lot about slavery, going as far as to say that we should serve God as a slave!

Ephesians 6:6 — Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Scripture quotation taken from the New American Standard Bible, NASB . )

This is the New Testament we’re talking about here, not the endless rules about what you can and can’t due to slaves in the Old Testament. We are to be "slaves of Christ ", according to the Bible.

The King James Version would have you believe it’s "servant", but if you check nearly all more modern versions, you will see "slave" as the translation. It seems clear to me from this and other contexts that it means "slave." You’re not just supposed to serve God, you’re are a slave unto the Lord. You must serve him! "Down on your knees! ", as proclaims the song "O Holy Night."

Can one find "true freedom" in being a slave?? Slavery is freedom apparently, according to this church; sounds Orwellian to me.

To me, freedom means making up your own mind about what you believe or don’t believe, what religion if any you will choose, who you love or don’t love, who you marry or don’t marry (and whether or not you can get divorced if the need arises), without the threat of eternal punishment looming over you.

Some more liberal Christians would argue that God is love and grants us all these things because he loves us; and some may say that hell doesn’t even exist, or is only for truly evil people (even some non-believers and pets can come along). But that’s the thing: the United States doesn’t have freedom of religion (and from it ) because some god gave it to us.

We, just like many other nations around the world, created our own government. We are only truly free when we take our lives into our own hands and decide for ourselves what our destiny will be. For me, that means breaking away from the chains of religious dogma and being a freethinker.

On the 4th of July I will celebrate true freedom: the freedom to not be a slave to any god or government, the freedom to think and say what I believe. Now that’s something worth celebrating this 4th of July.

Revelation, according to The Brick Testament

admin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:15:30 +0000

The Brick Testament has recently posted the end of their coverage of the Book of Revelation . If you’re not familiar with the Brick Testament, you should definitely check it out. It tells the stories from the Bible using Legos (I kid you not). Here’s a picture of all of the non-believers burning in hell forever.

Source

What’s funny and/or sad is that they take the passages just as they are from the Bible, word-for-word. Occasionally, in a thought bubble, they will put something that isn’t in the text, but the text itself is directly underneath the images. With Revelation, I think the Brick Testament does an excellent job of showing all of these (perhaps literally) insane images that the author thought of and exposing them for the horrid, hate-filled foolishness they are.

I think if more people read The Brick Testament, they would realize how ridiculous, violent, and ungodly the Bible really is. I highly recommend it, and am going to add it to my humor and Bible links on my website.

God loves salt

admin — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:41:11 +0000

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

God loves salt

I’m not going to post all the time about where I’m at in reading the Bible, but this struck me as completely ridiculous. I’m reading Leviticus, and in Chapter 2 God tells the Israelites they must always put salt on their offerings

" neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt." (Leviticus 2:13, KJV)

This is sounding more and more to me like Moses and/or Aaron are coming up with a list of things THEY want: they want a fancy, minutely-detailed Arc of the Covenant with gold, bronze, and all, and say it’s God’s will (God only talks to Moses generally, so everyone just has to take Moses’s word on all this).

And all the very specific ways the meat must be prepared for the offerings, so that it will please God. Why? And now, all the offerings HAVE to have salt on them?! Why would God need salt on his offerings?!?!?!? He just likes salty food? He doesn’t have to worry about dying from high blood pressure and wants to flaunt it??

It sounds more likely to me that it’s Moses and Aaron who like salty food. Either that, or they want to make sure it’s preserved for when they eat it later.

Why else would God want salt on it? I’m trying very hard not to laugh at the Bible and keep an open mind, but come on. I had to laugh in spite of myself when I read that. Certainly someone must have suspected that these offerings weren’t really for God…

They must also have really liked barbecues, since they keep saying how much God likes the smell of burning meat. This also doesn’t make sense to me why God would love to smell his creations burning, and why sacrificing all these animals would forgive any so-called sins. It simply makes no sense.

Anyway, back to reading!

12:41 PM – 1 view – add eprops – add comments – email it

Heavenly Father not so heavenly

admin — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:32:05 +0000

Monday, June 22, 2009

Currently
The Very Best of Cat Stevens
By Cat Stevens
Father and Son
see related

Heavenly Father not so heavenly

Father’s Day was yesterday, and the past few years it’s made me think of God as a father figure. I’m not the only one.

Here’s Dwindling in Unbelief’s Father’s Day post , updated from last year. One thing I’m going to endeavor to do on my site is not just post links, since links change or disappear, but also explain what’s there. Basically, DIU goes through a number of patriarchs in the Bible and gives some examples of bad things they’ve done. Noah, getting drunk and naked and cursing Ham’s son (who didn’t even see the guy in that state!) to slavery because of what Ham did and saw. Lot getting drunk and having sex with his two daughters. Abraham abandoning his first son and almost killing his second on God’s command, etc.

My favorite though, which got included in this year’s DIU post, is Yahweh towards Jesus. I brought this up (back when I was "Anon") last year. God sends Jesus down to suffer, die, and go to hell, just because he wanted a bloody sacrifice for humanity’s alleged sins.

Here’s a blog called Unreasonable Faith (linked to in DIU) which goes into greater detail about what a great Pop that Yahweh is. Some highlights (or lowlights, wonder if that word’s made the dictionary yet?) include:

• Setting up his creation to fail in the Garden of Eden
• Telling his chosen people it’s a good thing to slaughter entire cities, man, woman, and child, except for keeping the girl virgins alive for sex
• Getting Mary pregnant so that humanity could kill his son, as planned
• Sending plagues, death, and destruction when his son comes back to Earth again. I’ll have to read Revelation, but my understanding was that Jesus will do most of this on his own for the Second Coming, in which case it would mean Yahweh was a bad influence on his son. Like Father, like Son.
• And so on. Go read the post, it’s really well-written.

He ends the blog post by saying "If that’s not the worst, most abusive father ever imagined, I don’t know who is. Thankfully, it’s very unlikely he actually exists."

Agreed. I’m sure that most people haven’t thought about that side of their so-called Heavenly Father. "Heavenly" is "sublime; delightful; enchanting," according to American Heritage Dictionary . Based on this definition, the Bible’s "heavenly" father is anything but.

Notes: "heavenly." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heavenly (accessed: June 23, 2009).

11:32 AM – 2 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 50 — The end of the beginning

admin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:52:00 +0000

Friday, June 19, 2009

Currently
The Doors
By The Doors
The End [...of the beginning!]
see related

Genesis 50 — The end of the beginning

Chapter 50 of Genesis marks the end of the beginning in two ways. First, it’s the end of the first book of the Bible (which at times I thought I’d never get to!). Secondly, it marks a good time to do two things which I had decided to do several months ago, but which time and other commitments had prevented. I will explain this at the end of the message.

For Chapter 50, we see the death of two of our favorite characters from the second half of Genesis, Jacob and Joseph.

Joseph falls and weeps on his father after his father’s passing, which is touching. If the Bible were filled with more compassion and love, maybe it would be a better book. Joseph orders his servant/slaves to embalm his father, which apparently took 40 days back then. Egypt mourned Jacob for 70 days. Pretty amazing for a guy whose profession of shepherd was an "abomination" (Genesis 46:34, KJV) to Egyptians. You think I wasn’t paying attention, didn’t you?! I suppose it could be argued that they mourned him out of deference to Joseph, the guy who made them sell themselves into slavery for food. This possible inconsistency is not in the SAB I see, so maybe there’s some explanation I’m missing, or it’s just a fairly minor detail.

Pharaoh gives Joseph permission to go bury his dad in Canaan (don’t forget Joseph himself was a slave, but an important slave!) and all of Pharaoh’s servants and elders go with. The Canaanites see the Egyptians mourning (apparently not seeing it’s because of Jacob’s death) and name the place for this. When Joseph’s brothers see that Jacob is dead, they fear Joseph’s wrath. So they lie and say Daddy told Joseph to forgive them. Joseph weeps (as he is wont to do) and says it’s okay, because although they had evil intentions, it was all part of God’s great plan. So Joseph will be kind and provide for them and their families (no mention of servitude here, unlike the Egyptians!). Does Joseph know the brothers are lying? We’re not told, and their dishonesty appears to go unpunished.

Joseph eventually gets old himself, and at the ripe age of 110 he tells his descendants God will take care of them in the promised land. The end of Genesis says that Joseph was buried in Egypt. As the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible points out, this seems to go against what Jacob foretold to Joseph in Genesis 48. But, if you’re picky, you could say that Jacob did go back there, he just wasn’t buried there. If only the omniscient, infallible Yahweh and his followers would have known that this was unclear!!!

So Genesis begins with God’s creation of the world and ends with the death of two of God’s main men, who helped found the nation of Israel, which is meant to show I suppose that while God created everything, he has a special place in his heart for the Israelites. In the beginning of the chapter, God seems to be everywhere, towards the end God is pretty quiet, although I know he’ll be back again in force in Exodus.

The so-called "Good Book" starts out with Genesis, a violent, immoral, sick collection of stories that most believers know very little about, sprinkled with very rare goodness. I think if Christians and Jews took the time to read it through and thought about it with an open mind, it would really start to cast some doubts on the imaginary God they think they love, but who is likely very different than most of them imagine.

That’s the end of Genesis! There’s a lot left in the Bible, but first two announcements about my blog and site…

• I am planning to redo my website. Some visitors may be familiar with my blog only through Xanga, but for several months now I have a site which for the moment mostly features my blog. My intent is to finally have it so you don’t need to excuse my dust anymore, by revamping the site and expanding its contents to include useful links, news stories, and information. Since I’m not a professional web designer, it may take some tinkering for me to get this done, possibly a week or more.

I think the renewed site will be a much better experience for people. In addition to my blogs on the Bible, there will be a wider of variety of things to read about and explore. Right now, I have a couple of blog posts that have attracted a lot of people (in particular my Just Imagine… post, which caught the eye of over 400 people thanks to http://good.is and Skeptic Annotated Bible’s blog, Dwindling in Unbelief ). This made me realize that if I put my mind to it, I can reach more people and hopefully spark more discussion and reflection about religious issues (as well as a good dose of humor now and then)!

• I am also planning on reading the Bible cover-to-cover as soon as possible. Since it will take me years to blog the Bible in its entirety, I’ve decided that the end of Genesis is a good point to take a break from blogging chapter-by-chapter. I am going to start with Exodus, read the rest of the Bible through without stopping for posts, give some general impressions when I’m done, and then go back to chapter-by-chapter comments afterwards. This way, I can feel more knowledgeable about the book I’m talking about, and can also say that I’ve read the Bible cover-to-cover. I am sure I will find both positive and negative things in what awaits me, and I will go out of my way to note both mentally to be fair.

In the meantime as I’m renovating the site and reading the Bible, as I’ve already done here and there, I’ll also blog on other issues dealing with religion, atheism, freethought, and related current events.

I hope these changes sound good. If you have any ideas or comments, please let me know. Thank you for reading, hope you like the new site when it’s up!

3:52 PM – 8 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

God minus God

admin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:47:13 +0000

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Currently
Garfield Minus Garfield
By Jim Davis
see related

God minus God

Since I can’t sleep, I thought I’d share this hopefully funny thought.

Have you ever heard of Garfield minus Garfield ? It’s basically like it sounds: the daily Garfield comic strip, stripped of its famous striped cat. To quote its inventor/author, Dan Walsh, the strip shows

"the existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb."

I think it’s absolutely hilarious. I don’t read it every day, but every couple months I think of it and go and catch up on some ones I’ve missed. I find it a lot more entertaining than the original strip, and even Jim Davis (Garfield’s cartoonist) apparently likes it .

Well, I just had a thought, which unless it’s already been done, I hereby copyright (just as I’ve copyrighted "the-patriarch-intermittently-known-as-Israel" ©). What about a version of the Bible with God taken out of it? I think this would be a fabulous idea since, as you may know, it would reflect reality. It could either be called "God minus God", or "The Bible minus God", can’t decide which is better.

Here’s an example (proof of concept, if you will) of what this would be like, taking Exodus 3 . You can (re)read it first to get an idea of what the scene is like if you want, it’s the Moses and the burning bush story. (All quotes are paraphrases put in quotes for comic effect.)

Moses sees a bush burning and suddenly shouts out "Hey, here I am!" No response.

Then Moses suddenly ducks and hides his eyes for no apparently reason. Prolonged silence.

Then, he suddenly says "Who am I to go tell Pharaoh that I have to free the Israelites?!" Silence.

Then out of the blue, Moses says "I’ll tell the Israelites the God of their fathers sent me! But what should I tell him is his name?" No reply.

Moses then says "Yeah, I’ll tell them "I am" has sent me!!" Moses just stands there in silence.

The end.

Okay, maybe it’s only funny to me. Kind of like a Brick Testament rendering of the Bible, except without the God. If nothing else, the absence of God would make it closer to reality!!

One final note, and I don’t remember if I’ve mentioned this before — part of the reason I chose "I Am" for the title of the blog, in addition to the story I tell in my first post about my eventual coming out as an atheist, was because God refers to himself as "I Am", which even when I was a believer sounded weird to me. So instead of "I Am the LORD" or "I Am I Am" (or Popeye’s "I am what I am, and that’s all that I am"), we have "I Am the BLOG" (or Blog, take your pick).

Okay, time to try to get to sleep!

1:47 AM – 6 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 49 — Tiny Tim’s inspiration?

admin — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:01:54 +0000

Monday, June 15, 2009

Currently
A Christmas Carol
By Charles Dickens
see related

Genesis 49 — Tiny Tim’s inspiration?

In Genesis 49, we see the dying Jacob (who’s been dying for several chapters now) bless his children (plus two of Joseph’s), whose descendants will make up the 12 tribes of Israel. Hey, wait a minute: God renamed Jacob as Israel—although he seems to forget often enough—and his descendants are the basis of the nation of Israel. What a coincidence! It couldn’t be that Jacob was renamed Israel by his followers or descendants later on to show him as the founder of the nation of Israel? Nah… Just a suspicion—I’ll have to look into this sometime.

In any case, here’s some lovely parting words that what the patriarch-intermittently-known-as-Israel © had to say to his little nation-builders (which means George W. must not have liked them, since he was all against that nation-building thing, at least in theory).

Reuben will be " Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it" (verse 4, KJV). Translation: Reuben slept with his dad’s wife. Good old family values strike again. I’m sure some would say his sort is what he deserves, but why is he only punished now (and why should his descendants presumably suffer for what their dad apparently did?

For Simeon and Levi, who apparently killed a man in anger, daddy offers them a curse on their anger and violence and wants their descendants scattered. What were the circumstances of the death?? Why should their descedants suffer for it?

It’s a little hard to get what Jacob says to Judah, other than he’s like a lion cub, his brothers will praise him and he and his descendants will rule. He also apparently will have a descendant called Shiloh who will hitch his donkey up to a vine, stain his clothes with wine, and his teeth will be white like milk.

Some would have us believe that these verses announce Christ’s coming and second coming. I, as you might guess, take this with a grain of salt. Maybe it’s because Christ was named Jesus, not Shiloh. Even some sites that support this interpretation admit that we don’t know what Shiloh means. If it was something like the Son of God coming to Earth, you’d think Jacob could have been a little more explicit here. Of course, some of the imagery of Jesus’ followers used to describe their alleged savior could have been simply been "borrowed" from these verses in an attempt to prove their guy was foretold…Call me cynical, I guess.

Another son, Issachar, will bear a burden and become a servant (or slave, not clear from context). Another, Dan, will be a judge like a serpent who makes people fall back from their horses (more symbolism, I assume). Gad will be defeated, then defeat. Asher will be a chef making food fit for a king. Naphtali is like a doe, a deer, a female deer, giving beautiful words (or fawns, some translations say). Benjamin will be like a wolf, devouring others.

And then there’s good ole Joseph, who we’ve heard so much about. He’ll be like an tree who archers have shot at but who has kept strong thanks to Jacob’s God (isn’t he everyone’s God?!) and will be blessed by God more than his dad Jacob and more than his brothers. He’ll be blessed both by heaven and below, and by breasts and by wombs (verse 28, KJV): the latter two meaning perhaps he’ll "know" lots of women, in the Biblical sense?? What is heaven anyway? We haven’t been told yet in the Bible. Why would Joseph also be blessed by the "deep that lieth under" (verse 25, KJV), is this hell? The ocean?? Come on, Jacob, I know you’re dying here, but please explain what you mean, or tell one of your survivors to put it down for us!!!

After these blessings (I’m sure some were happier with their so-called "blessing"s [verse 28] than others!) for the founders of the 12 tribes, Jacob told his descendants to bury him with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah. Then he lays down and dies, or "yielded up the ghost" (verse 33, KJV). If I were just about anyone besides Joseph, I’d be pretty upset that this is what my father and/or his God had in store for me. Why would I want to worship someone who dooms me from the get-go, for example?? In some cases, references are made to past acts not mentioned in the Bible. If they were that bad, why aren’t the recorded with other bad acts we see? Something’s fishy about all this selective storytelling.

Speaking of stories, the end of the chapter reminded me of Tiny Tim (not the ukulele dude , but the kid from A Christmas Carol ). "God bless us, every one" says Tiny Tim at the end of that famous book (oops, should have said SPOILER ALERT first , and of the 12 founders of the tribes of Israel, the Bible says Jacob "blessed them, every one" (KJV, 49:28). What a coincidence! A quick search doesn’t seem to pull up references between the two, so it must not be a well-known similarity between the two works of fiction. I’m not sure if Dickens was borrowing a phrase from the Bible, or it’s simply a coincidence.

In any case, we’ve found out all that we wanted, and more, about what will happen to Jacob/Israel’s offspring. How much of this fortunate-telling by Jacob will actually come true, I guess we’ll see at the end of Genesis and the remaining Pentateuch.

PS Maybe when Xanga get their act together, I’ll put a picture of "A Christmas Carol" on here. The past few posts have been Listening/Reading/Watching-less because the site isn’t working right. UPDATE: Fixed, for now…

5:01 PM – 7 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 48 — Kidnapping

admin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:35:08 +0000

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Currently
Turn It on Again: The Hits
By Genesis
No Son of Mine
see related

Genesis 48 — Kidnapping

Here we see the dually-named Jacob-Israel close to death. The question of birthrights and firstborns comes up yet again.

God appeared to Jacob and told him that he would give Jacob’s descendants, who will be numerous, the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession" (verse 4, KJV). Since we know that the Israelites have not always had a homeland both in ancient and modern history, it shows God doesn’t know how to keep a promise (or doesn’t exist: take your pick).

Jacob tells Joseph that Joseph’s first two sons are now his. How that works, we’re not told. I guess if gramps wants to claim any of his sons’ sons as his own, he has the right? Did God tell him this?? But Joseph gets to keep all his other sons (they aren’t numbered here, maybe later; we’ll see).

So anyway Joseph, who is apparently fine with this arrangement, brings the two eldest to Jacob. Jacob blesses Joseph and then the two grandsons, but gives the secondborn (Ephraim) the blessing that should have been given to the firstborn (Manasseh). Joseph is none too pleased with this, and tells his aged, poor-sighted father that he’s mixed the boys up. Jacob insists, though, saying:

"I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations." (48:19, KJV)

Certainly Joseph, the not-eldest dream boy who became nearly as great as Pharaoh, can understand that the oldest son doesn’t have to be the most successful? Why is there this obsession with favoring the firstborn? Speaking of playing favorites, Jacob in fact promises Joseph that he’ll give him "one portion more" (verse 22) than his brothers, meaning I believe that he’ll inherit twice as much as any of his other brothers gets. Not very equitable, but God doesn’t protest.

By the way, everyone’s always going to give rise to great nations, according to God and the head honchos (okay, patriarchs) in the Bible so far. Why does he have to keep re-promising this? I guess with a God who sends 5 years of famine on a whim, you need reassurance sometimes. And his people have had mixed fortunes so far. In the last chapter (47:9), Jacob seemed to admit that he lived a long, hard life and didn’t get much out of it; although maybe the 17 years or so in Egypt made up for the over a century of not much). If I remember my Exodus well, good ol’ God will definitely find excuses to deny his chosen people what he promised.

One last thought: What happened to the 120-year rule in Genesis 6:3? God must be senile, or decided not to apply it to the over 140-year-old Jacob…

12:35 AM – 2 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 47 — Slave, or starve!

admin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:26:05 +0000

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Genesis 47 — Slave, or starve!

Currently
Forty Licks
By The Rolling Stones
Under my Thigh…er, Thumb

Pharaoh gives Jacob and his family land for their sheep. Jacob blesses Pharaoh (twice apparently: verses 7 and 10) and Pharaoh gives them the best of the land in Egypt. You’d think the Egyptians, in a time of severe famine, might not like foreigners taking up their best land. But we don’t hear of complaints, perhaps because of what happens next.

The famine continues, and because they’ve given all their money to Joseph, all the Egyptians have left is their livestock. So Joseph tells them to give him all their livestock in exchange for a year’s worth of food. What a nice man that Joseph was! Especially considering that he had an inside source (that rascal Yahweh) who had already foretold more than a year’s worth of famine. So after a year, they beg him for more food. They offer to give up their land and go into slavery so that they can eat. Joseph accepts their offer, and so all of Egypt goes into slavery. Good old Christian values strike again! Beggars can’t be choosers, I guess.

One omission here: the beginning of the chapter mentions Canaan also being hit by the famine. Are the Canaanites also bought as slaves, or are they just left to die? In any case, the priests don’t have to give up their land (freeloaders! are they even priests of Yahweh, by the way?!?). Everyone else, who has been made slaves, has to give 20% of their food to the Pharaoh once the famine is over. Joseph distributes seeds, so the famine must apparently be nearly over. How many have died or needlessly suffered due to God’s famine, we’re not told.

"Israel" (verse 27, KJV) lives in Egypt. Here it apparently means the nation and not the man, since it says "they had possessions therein", referring to Israel. They do well in Egypt under Joseph. After 17 years in Egypt, Jacob asks his son to swear that he will bury him not in Egypt, but with his forefathers. Joseph grabs his dad’s private parts ("under my thigh", which is a euphemism for genitalia — the link is to a Christian site so you don’t think I’m making it up) and swears it to his father. This was apparently a way of taking an oath in the ancient world, grabbing someone by their midsection and swearing on something. The word "testament " (a type of oath) is possibly related to the word "testicles". They didn’t teach that in Sunday School!

One other thing to note: Jacob was not happy with his life before coming to Egypt. He says "few and evil have the days of the years of my life been" (47:9, KJV). Based on consulting a number of other translations, the "evil" here appears to mean more wretched or miserable. Jacob isn’t happy with the life God gave him, and he thinks he hasn’t lived long (after all, some of his ancestors lived over 900 years!). But he’ll be happy as long as he’s buried with his family, some consolation apparently.

So in this chapter, we see God allowing Joseph, without comment or intervention, to enslave and take away the land of the famished Egyptians so that they don’t starve to death. Sounds like a nice story to me, Joseph definitely could have been a multi-billionaire businessman if he lived now!

4:26 PM – 5 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 46 — Well, we’re movin’ on up!

admin — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:08:17 +0000

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Genesis 46 — Well, we’re movin’ on up!

Currently
The Jeffersons – the Complete First Season
By Paul Benedict, Franklin Cover, Zara Cully, Damon Evans, Mike Evans

Here Jacob (aka the patriarch-intermittently-known-as-Israel ©) and the whole family move on up to Egypt to live in prosperity thanks to Joseph.

God calls out to Jacob in dreams or "visions", saying "Jacob, Jacob" (46:2, NASB ). Jacob doesn’t reply "But I thought you renamed me Israel!", or if he does it’s not reported here. God tells him his descendants will be great, and that he’ll die after he sees Joseph again.

We have a long list of who comes with that I’ll spare you, other than to mention that without Playstation back then, I guess he had to keep busy by having 70 children and grandchildren through all his various polygamous encounters.

In verse 28, Jacob sends Judah to get directions (gee God, couldn’t you have included those in one of those visions?) so Jacob and Joseph can meet up in Goshen. When they meet, guess what: they cry. If we didn’t know all that led up to it, and didn’t think about the fact that Joseph didn’t let his dad know all those years he was alive, then it might be touching.

Now that Jacob/Israel has seen Joseph alive again, he’s ready to die. Joseph will tell the Pharaoh that his family are shepherds, so they can settle in Goshen. Egyptians apparently don’t like shepherds, so the shepherds live in Goshen. Why, we’re not told, unless we’ll find out in Genesis 47 when they get to meet Pharaoh.

PS Scripture quotations taken from the NASB as indicated in this post and the few previous ones. I see that their site requires such a notice on web pages that quote from them. I’ve put the notice here, linked to their site in the previous posts I used their translation. Please do not take this as an endorsement of the NASB or the Lockman Foundation; I have been trying out various Bible versions. I have updated previous posts now as well on my own initiative respecting the guidelines as I understand them for a non-saleable, non-commerical blog only quoting snippets here and there. I see now why some sites opt to cite the King James Version…I’ll have to think about what I’ll do from here on out when I quote.

2:08 PM – 3 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 44-45 — Full House

admin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:22:10 +0000

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Currently
Full House – The Complete First Season
By Bob Saget, John Stamos, Dave Coulier, Candace Cameron Bure, Jodie Sweetin
see related

Genesis 44-45 — Full House

Joseph tries to mentally torture his brothers some more in these chapters, but breaks down and finally tells them who he is and acts nicely towards them. With God apparently away on vacation and having nothing to do with the story (which may be why it has a happy ending without bloodshed!), it’s a good thing that Joseph apparently has some morality on his own. The family will soon be united again!

In Genesis 44, Joseph orders his top servant to put his favorite silver cup in Benjamin’s sac of grain before the brothers leave, then he has them chased after and accused of thievery. The brothers, who apparently aren’t aware of what crazy shenanigans God and his people pull in the Bible all the time, say:

"With whomever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord’s slaves." (44:9, NASB )

Why does everything have to be so dramatic and involve promises of death? In any case they are searched and, lo and behold, Benjamin has the cup! The brothers rip off their clothes (presumably not because of the heat or a sudden urge for exhibitionism) and are escorted back to Joseph.

Back with Joseph, he generously offers not to kill Benjamin and enslave the otehrs, but just to enslave Benjamin and let the others go back. How nice of him! But Judah tells Joseph the whole story about their dad loving Benjamin, not wanting him to go with since he already lost one son, yada, yada, yada (rehashed stories like this make blogging the Bible easier!).

In Genesis 45, Joseph can’t stand it anymore and breaks down before he can hurry off. He admits that he’s their long-lost brother Joseph. The Bible says his brothers "were dismayed at his presence" (45:3). NIV says "terrified", KJV says "troubled". So it’s not clear to me exactly what they were feeling here: were they scared of what their brother would do to them, bothered by the reminder of what they had done to their brother, confused as to whether he was really their brother, troubled because dream boy’s dreams of power over them were apparently coming true? Probably the first one, I suppose.

Joseph tells them not to worry (why would they worry their little heads after how nice he’s been to them?!?), that he’s not mad about being sold into slavery by his brothers because God wanted Joseph to go to Egypt to hoard food for them. So anyway, Joseph tells them all to move nearby, they will be given the very best Egypt has to offer so that they can prosper for generations to come. They all cry, kiss, and make up.

A little reality check here: wouldn’t it have been a heck of a lot easier for God to just not do any of this in the first place? No Joseph to Egypt, no 7 years of famine, everyone’s fine and dandy. What does everyone get out of all this?!? Was it a test? Was it just meant to be like a "Full House" episode, where people do bad things and then at the end, the sappy piano music plays, make up, and they all live happily ever after? (D.J.: I’m sorry, Stephanie, that we sold you into slavery! Stephanie: I’m sorry, Michelle, that I tied you up and held you hostage! God just wanted us to learn us lesson and make us prosperous!)

So the brothers head back home with silver and wagons filled with goods. Jacob/Israel doesn’t believe all this crazy story at first, but when he sees the wagons he’s convinced. He’s happy that he’ll see Joseph again before he dies.

The House of Jacob/Israel will soon be a Full House again. All’s well that ends well. I’m sure the last 5 chapters of Genesis are just like the epilogue of a sitcom with some zany joke to make us laugh at the end, and maybe an old-school freeze frame with credits. Or maybe outtakes, with God accidentally smiting the wrong people or something.

Okay, before I get too loopy, I’ll leave it there. See you soon: Same God time, Same God channel.

PS Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved. For ones marked NASB, Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.

11:22 AM – 2 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 43 — They’re ba-ack

admin — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:15:11 +0000

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Currently
Greatest Hits
By Thin Lizzy
The Boys Are Back In Town
see related

Genesis 43 — They’re ba-ack

God turns up the famine a notch, and Joseph’s brothers come back with Benjamin.

It took some convincing of Jacob/Israel. He’s smarter than has kids, asking them why on Earth they would have told the Egyptian leader that there was a younger brother who hadn’t come with them. They make it seem like Joseph forced it out of them, but that’s not what it seems like in Genesis 42 to me. Again, Joseph knows there’s a brother anyway, but they don’t know this is Joseph!

Judah then offers to safeguard Benjamin. Unlike Reuben, he doesn’t swear to kill any relatives or anyone else if he fails, just says that he’ll "bear the blame" (verse 9, NASB ). Jacob relents and sends off Benjamin plus a little gift basket of balm, nuts, honey, and so on for the Egyptian leader. Sure they’re in a famine, but I guess he considered it a good investment if it would get them more food. He also doubles the money they had mysteriously received in their food sacks before and return it.

Joseph has an animal killed for his arriving guests to eat (I wonder if God, who loves the smell of meat in the Bible, got a whiff of it!). The brothers are afraid that Joseph will arrest them because of the money situation, but the servant/slave who meets them tells them that it was God who gave them the money.

Hmm, if we look at Genesis 42:25, it says that Joseph, and not God, has this done. I checked, and this discrepancy is not mentioned in the SAB , but it does mention that the Bible says they found the silver in their sacks at two different places: at home and at the inn ("lodging place", NASB). So who did it, God or Joseph? Maybe later it will say that God told Joseph to do it, let’s see.

Before the meal, Joseph asks about his father and finds out he is well. Joseph gets all teary-eyed upon finding out that Benjamin (his full brother from his mom and dad) and goes out to weep, as he had done in the last chapter. I will say that it’s good that the Bible shows men, even strong and powerful ones, crying — it’s a natural emotion.

Joseph doesn’t eat with his brothers, since Egyptians and Israelites can’t eat together, a segregation that Joseph partly breaks by giving them some of his food from his table. Benjamin gets 5 times as much as everyone else, which must have struck them as a little weird, I’d think. I think Joseph’s secret will come out soon.

So besides deception, servitude, and segregation (and a dead animal for you vegetarians out there), this chapter is pretty tame, and even shows a Joseph who is emotional — although he tries to hide it, as many men and women would do nowadays. So if we’re grading on a curve, it’s not that bad as Bible chapters go. But where is all of this leading to?

PS Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.

2:15 AM – 5 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 42 — I wish I weren’t tied and bound

admin — Sat, 30 May 2009 19:22:22 +0000

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Currently
The Music of Simon & Garfunkel
Homeward Bound
see related

Genesis 42 — I wish I weren’t tied and bound

Here we have some more family values and brotherly love. When Joseph’s famine-plagued brothers come searching for food, Joseph throws them in prison, and keeps one as a hostage!

Jacob (aka the patriarch-intermittently-known-as-Israel ©) hears about the grain in Egypt and sends his sons off to buy some. He asks that the youngest, Benjamin, stay behind so nothing bad happens to him (since he believes Joseph dead).

When the brothers arrive, Joseph recognizes them, but they don’t recognize him (he "disguised" himself, 42:7 New American Standard Bible, NASB ). A possible inconsistency occurs here: Joseph calls them spies because he "remembered the dreams he had about them" (42:9 NASB, NIV gives the same idea slightly reworded). But, his dreams, at least as reported in the Bible, never mention that his brothers will be spies, or do him harm (which might have come in handy when they sold him off to slavery!!). So if he had dreams of the sort, the Bible doesn’t mention them.

In any case, Joseph tells them that they are spies, and that they must send someone back to go get their youngest brother. Good tip for you youngsters out there: when going to a foreign land, don’t tell the guy in charge that you have a brother back home, especially if the whole idea was to keep him safe! (Joseph would have known anyway, but they don’t know this since they don’t realize it’s Joseph.)

So he throws them in prison, after 3 days letting them all out except for Simeon, whom he ties up as a "hostage" (hey, it’s the NASB’s word choice for the section heading, not mine!). The brothers assume it’s because of what they did to Joseph that this is befalling them (little do they know!).

But Joseph isn’t all bad, he does give them grain for free: he gives them grain, and they discover that the silver has been returned to them in their sacks, too. This upsets them, I assume because they are afraid that Joseph will think it’s stolen, although we’re not told.

Back at home, Jacob is none too pleased. Now he’s down two sons, and the brothers want to take Benjamin back? Even though Reuben promises to kill his own two sons if Benjamin is not brought back safe and sound (what a nice dad, offering to kill his sons like that! What would that solve?). But Jacob refuses for now: "My son shall not go down with you" (42:38, NASB).

Well, this story sure is exciting, at least. It’s a nail-biter. Will the brothers find out who Joseph is? Will Joseph kill his bound-up brother? Will Jacob relent and let Benjamin go with (and if so, will Joseph kill him?) What horrible thing will happen next in this "good" book??

PS Scripture quotations taken from the NASB .

2:22 PM – 4 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 41 — God loves famine, this I know…

admin — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:03:06 +0000

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Currently
We Are The World: U.S.A For Africa
By Various Artists
We Are The World
see related

Genesis 41 — God loves famine, this I know…

As I’ve been reading the Bible, I just keep thinking to myself, "How do I know this Yahweh is really great, the best god of all? I need more convincing! If only God could do something, like correctly predict and cause a worldwide famine for 7 years, to show how great he is, then I would certainly worship him!"

Well, my wishes have come true. God’s new sidekick, Joseph, interprets more dreams, this time ones that Pharaoh has. Pharaoh has these weird dreams, with fat cows eating skinny cows, good and bad grains, and so on. For some reason, he and his people can’t make heads or tails of the dreams. The cupbearer finally gives Joseph his due and tells Pharaoh about him.

Our humble Joseph tells him that it is God and not he who can interpret dreams. Apparently God doesn’t want to tell Pharaoh directly what the dreams mean, or heck, even make the dreams’ message clear enough that he can figure it out on his own. Joseph tells Pharaoh that God will cause 7 years of abundance, followed by 7 years of famine.

So basically, since Joseph says it’s God who’s doing the dream-reading, it means that God is predicting that God will cause a famine. Wow, that’s pretty amazing! He’s a regular Kreskin ! Pharaoh believes Joseph and figures since he’s on God’s side, might as well make Joseph his second-in-command, ruling over all in Egypt but Pharaoh. Prison-slave to second-in-command, not a bad promotion! Pharaoh renames Joseph "Zaphenath-Paneah" (it must have been really confusing keeping people straight in those days with all these renamings!).

Joseph goes to work having people save up food during the 7 years of plenty. But as Job could tell us, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Not only Egypt, but "all the other lands" (verse 54, NIV) are struck with a famine. Since only Pharaoh, Joseph, and the Egyptians were warned to prepare for the famine (why couldn’t the rest of God’s beloved Israelites, or the rest of the world, be warned by Joseph or God?), Egypt’s the only place in the whole world apparently that has enough food, according to the Bible. Now that’s a famine only God could cause. This lets Pharaoh and Joseph make a killing by charging money for the food they’ve saved up, since everyone around comes to get food from them to avoid starving.

Now that’s what I call good Christian values: don’t warn anyone about an approaching 7-year famine, hoard food, and charge starving people for it!! I peeked ahead, and it gets even better in Chapter 47. But for now, I’m going to call it a day and leave famines and family reunions to another day.

1:03 AM – 22 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 39-40 — Joseph, the original Miss Cleo

admin — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:00:13 +0000

Friday, May 22, 2009

Currently
Miss Cleo’s Tarot Power Deck As Seen on TV
By JF Lambert & Seth Stephens
see related

Genesis 39-40 — Joseph, the original Miss Cleo

I’m going to combine two chapters in one here.

Joseph’s story continues. God loves Joseph so much, that after he allows him to be enslaved, he lets him be falsely imprisoned for a rape he didn’t commit.

Joseph becomes top dog among slaves and is trusted by his master Potiphar with everything except his wife. Well, Potiphar’s wife has the hots for Joseph, but he repeatedly refuses to sleep with her. So to get her revenge, one day she grabs Joseph’s robe and shows it to everyone as alleged proof that he came in and tried to rape her. Everyone takes her at her word, including her husband, so Joseph is falsely sent to prison.

But, don’t worry about Joseph. God is looking out for him, and the warden lets him be in charge of everything at the prison. Sure, God could have kept him out of prison, kept him from being falsely accused, or kept him from being a slave in the first place, but at least he lets him be head prisoner!

In Genesis 40, we find out that not only can Joseph dream, but he can reveal the meaning of other people’s dreams! (I kind of thought fortune-telling was frowned on in Christianity, but since Joseph is God’s main man at the time, I guess it’s okay.) Joseph correctly interprets two fellow prisoners’ dreams: in 3 days, the cupbearer will be restored to his old job, while the baker will be killed. Why these two are in prison, and whether it’s just or not, we’re not told. Maybe it’s because God loves them as much as he loves Joseph.

Joseph asks the cupbearer to put in a good word about him with the Pharaoh, to let Pharaoh know that he belongs with the Hebrews and doesn’t deserve to be in prison. 3 days later, the cupbearer is once again cupbearer, the baker gets butchered (while God just watches, we assume), but the cupbearer neglects to speak on behalf of good ole Joseph. Once again, God doesn’t seem to be looking out that much for poor Joseph, here.

But fear not! As we’ll see in the next instalment (spoiler alert!) God will remember Joseph again two years later, when Joseph puts his Miss Cleo -esque powers of divination to use for Pharaoh to warn of more death that God causes or just sits and lets happen.

What moral or spiritual purpose is all this serving, anyway? I wish they had told me in Sunday School.

1:00 AM – 5 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 38 — Don’t cry over spilled ***

admin — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:10:23 +0000

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Currently
Synchronicity
By The Police
Roxanne
see related

Genesis 38 — Don’t cry over spilled ***

As some other posts on here, this entry is rated at least PG-13, if not R. It’s not of my own doing but of God’s (or his minions who wrote the Bible).

Here we are treated to talk about semen, prostitution, sex between a woman and her brother- and father-in-law, and two deaths at God’s hands. Pretty much par for the course in the Bible so far, but disgusting nonetheless. Plus, this chapter is often used to attack anything from masturbation to homosexuality, because God is apparently not ashamed to have semen, murder, and prostitution with one’s father-in-law in his Holy Book, but allegedly didn’t want to come out and clearly say that masturbating or homosexuality is wrong in his eyes.

Judah finds a wife named Tamar for his firstborn son, Er, but God thought his son was evil, so he killed him. What he did must be so wicked, it’s unmentionable, and there’s plenty of twisted wickedness mentioned in the Bible. If only God had known this beforehand, he could have told Judah not to bother marrying him off! So Judah, instead of just counting on his second son to find a wife and continue the family line, decides he wants him to have sex with Tamar. This is called a "duty", so apparently this sort of thing was expected. I feel sorry for the brother-in-law and the widow in cases like this…

The second son, Onan, isn’t keen on this because the children "would not be his" (Genesis 38:9, NIV). I guess the idea is that they would be his brother’s children since his brother’s wife (who in those days would have basically been considered as property) would have bore the children. So instead of knocking up his sister-in-law, he decides to practice (or invent?) the withdrawal method. God kills him for doing this. What is interesting is that God doesn’t kill him after the first time he does this, for according to NIV the Bible says "whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen" (verse 10, emphasis mine). How much could it have displeased him if God let it happen repeatedly before he killed him?!

Tamar then gets the idea to have her father-in-law lay with her by dressing up as a prostitute. She did this because, the Bible tells us, she hadn’t been married off to Judah’s 3rd son, even though he was now old enough to inseminate her. Sounds like solid reasoning to me. Tamar gets pregnant and it isn’t until later that he finds out what happened, when he hears that his daughter-in-law prostituted herself. He orders her burned to death (because it’s apparently okey-dokey to sleep with a prostitute, but not to be one), but then she shows him his seal, cord, and staff to show Judah that she was the one he slept with. He decides not to kill Tamar because she is "more righteous" (NIV, verse 26) than he is, and not to sleep with her again. I don’t know, neither of them come out smelling like roses in this one, but I will go on the record saying that I am all for not putting people to death. So I guess Judah and Tamar come off a little better in this chapter than God, since unlike Yahweh, they have no blood on their hands (at least for this chapter).

Tamar has twins who fight with each other before birth (apparently not uncommon in those days). Perez came out all the way first, but it was Zerah who reached his hand out of the womb first. So who wins the all-important firstborn contest? I guess we’ll see.

So we know God doesn’t like men not impregnating their grieving sister-in-laws (no mention is made of masturbation or homosexuality, by the way). God also doesn’t like being vaguely wicked as the firstborn Er was, but God seems okay with people becoming or sleeping with a prostitute. A good lesson for Sunday School teachers out there to keep in mind…

3:10 PM – 29 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 37 — A coat by any other name…

admin — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:15:33 +0000

Monday, May 11, 2009

Currently
Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat: London Palladium Cast Recording (1991 London Revival Cast)
By Andrew Lloyd Webber, Michael Dixon, The Joseph Orchestra, Amanda Courtney-Davies, Aubrey Woods, Caroline Dillon, Connor Byrne, David Easter, Elizabeth Renihan, Gael Johnson, Jacqui Harman, Jacqui Jameson, Jason Donovan, Jason Moore, Jocelyn Vodovoz Cook, Johnny Amobi, Mark Frendo, Megan Kelly, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (Related Recordings)
see related

Genesis 37 — A coat by any other name…

In Genesis 37, we see the beginning of the Bible story that was the inspiration for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat . I haven’t seen the musical, and don’t really remember the story from the Bible, so I don’t know how faithful (if you’ll permit the word) the musical is to the original. But let’s see how this story goes.

We once again have a father who shows favoritism to one of his children: in this case, it’s Jacob (aka the-patriarch-intermittently-known-as-Israel ©) who loves Joseph more than his other sons. The story starts out by saying that the sons of both of Jacob’s wives are jealous of him, and I’m so used to the more-than-one-wife thing by now that it almost slipped by me.

So Joseph decides since his brothers dislike him so much, that he would tell them about this fantastic dreams he was having, with lightly-veiled symbolism indicating that he will rule over all of them (including mom and dad!). So, as any good brothers would do, they decide to kill Joseph. More good family values. Reuben (he of sleeping with his dad’s concubine fame) doesn’t want to kill his brother, just throw him into a pit (or a cistern, according to NIV) so that he can come save him later.

But as Joseph approaches, the other brothers decide instead to rip off his fancy-schmancy coat and sell him into slavery. The slavery is Judah’s idea; the others seemingly would have gone ahead and killed their brother while Reuben was away. So they dip the coat in blood to make it seem like some animal had devoured Joseph. Dad buys into this and mourns the loss of his son.

Surely they will be some moral to come out of this later? The Bible must eventually have some reasonable moral about something. If nothing else, I’m sure Andrew Lloyd Webber wouldn’t have made a musical out of it!

11:15 PM – 3 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 36 — Oh my darling Concubine

admin — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:32:38 +0000

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Currently
Shelley Duvall’s Tall Tales & Legends – Darlin’ Clementine
Oh My Darling Clementine
see related

Genesis 36 — Oh my darling Concubine

Nothing earth-shattering in Genesis 36. We have a long, boring list of descendants with virtually no action happening.

Esau moves away from Jacob because the former has acquired just too much stuff (as we saw with Abraham and Lot , brothers who are too rich just can’t live next to each other). And if you have to pick between blood and wealth, we know what is more important in the Bible. So Esau moves away from Jacob with his extended family. We have plenty of names and occasional tidbits about Esau’s descendants. The Bible does take time to point out (and notably does not condemn) Esau’s son Eliphaz having a concubine (36:12). The men in the Bible seem plenty "fruitful" without having to take on extra wives and sleeping with slaves and concubines all the time. I guess they just couldn’t control themselves.

Esau, aka Edom, fathers an entire nation of chiefs apparently (with a few daughters thrown in for good measure). What does all this mean? I’m not sure what happens to the Edomites, if anything, in the rest of the Bible. My guess is they will be peacemakers and spread the word that God is love. Sure…

10:32 PM – 3 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 35 — Sex, Death, and Reruns

admin — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:05:41 +0000

Friday, March 13, 2009

Currently
When Doves Cry
By Prince
When Doves Cry
see related

Genesis 35 — Sex, Death, and Reruns

Here God renames (or re-renames) Jacob as Israel; Rachel, Isaac, and a nurse of Rebekah’s all die in separate incidents; and Reuben (son of Jacob) has sex with his dad’s concubine.

Who was that (un)masked man that wrestled with Jacob back in Genesis 32 ? If it was God, which isn’t clear but which we’re led to believe, then God is forgetful. After the wrestling match, the being that Jacob defeated told Jacob he would now named Israel. The Bible still continues to call him Jacob, though. In chapter 35, this time we’re flat out told God is renaming him Israel. And just 4 verses later, the Bible starts intermittently calling him Jacob again! Get your names straight. Even the artist-once-again-known-as-Prince was less confusing than this.

In any case, Jacob-Israel and the gang are fleeing after his sons Levi and Simeon killed an entire city as revenge for one man rapes their sister. God speaks to Jacob, telling him to build him an altar. Jacob tells his family to get rid of all their gods (Yahweh was apparently being uncharacteristically lenient if they had gods and he didn’t show him some of that good ol’ wrath he’s known for) and off they go.

Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, dies (from what, or why this death is noteworthy, is left untold). God again promises to Jacob that his descendants will be fruitful and will get the land his dad and granddad were already promised. Maybe Jacob should have asked God for a timeframe on this recurrent promise.

Rachel, who’s pregnant with yet another child, has difficulty in childbirth and passes away. God didn’t want to save her, I guess. She names the son Ben-Oni, which the NIV tells us means "son of my trouble." Jacob renames his dearly-departed wife’s son Benjamin (or, I assume, Ben-Jamin), which means "son of my right hand." I don’t know whether to be upset that Rachel would give her son such a sad name, or to be upset at Jacob for undoing his wife’s dying act of naming her son. Rachel, on her deathbed, can probably be forgiven for her reaction. And let’s be generous and just assume that Jacob wasn’t being disrespectful of his wife, but just didn’t want to say "Hi, son of my trouble!" all the time.

Jacob-Israel finds out that his firstborn son has slept with his concubine. Unless we find out later, we don’t hear how God or Jacob-Israel deal with Reuben for this, or what God thinks of Jacob-Israel, in addition to having two wives and sleeping with their slaves, also having at least one concubine. How many women does one man really need? Sure, I can understand wanting to be fruitful and multiply, but come one! We get a listing of Jacob-Israel’s offspring, or rather just the 12 boys he has with his two wives and their two slaves. We know he had at least one daughter (Dinah), but she’s not mentioned here. Did he have any others? Did he have any sons or daughters with his concubine(s)?? The Bible doesn’t say.

In other news, Isaac lives to a ripe old age of 180 before passing away, and Jacob (who we thought was now Israel) and Esau reunite again to bury their father. Did Esau ask Jacob why he didn’t meet up with him in Seir as he’d said he would? The Bible doesn’t say, unless it comes up sometime later (it’s not in the next chapter, at least).

So we’re getting bits and pieces of stories that don’t really seem to tell us anything (other than it’s apparently okay for men to have sex with as many women as they want, that daughters aren’t important enough to mention in a list of descendants, and that renaming was apparently a big thing back then). Why is all this in a holy book again?

6:05 PM – 6 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 34 — Rape and murder, as God does nothing

admin — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:35:14 +0000

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Genesis 34 — Rape and murder, as God does nothing

The family-friendly Bible has what is hopefully a fictional account about what happens to Jacob’s daughter Dinah, and an entire city as a result.

Dinah is raped by Shechem, son of the leader Hamor. Rape and other sexual disfunction have come up a lot in the Bible so far, men wanting to rape women, angels, fathers having sex with their daughters, brothers with their (half)sisters. Were men that horrible back then that women were consistently at the risk of being stolen away or raped by the men around them? Rape is too horrible and frequent nowadays, it scares me to think that it may have been even more common back then. Give the way women are regarded overall in the Bible, and in most of human history, I guess it’s not surprising.

When her brothers hear about this horrible act, they go to have a talk with Hamor. They lie to Hamor and say that everything will be okey-dokey if all the men in the city circumcises themselves. We already found out earlier that God thinks male genital mutilation is pleasing to him, for whatever reason.

The townsfolk do this, and while they are still getting over the pain of the circumcision, Dianh’s brothers kill the entire city, plundering the city ("plunder" is the Bible’s own description: verse 29) and seizing all the livestock. While it is noble to defend one’s raped sister, the Bible does not say the entire city was to blame for this. It is mass slaughter and plundering for the crime of one man.

Jacob gets wind of this (maybe the stench of an entire city of dead bodies reached his nose) and he does not rebuke his sons for the mass murder. He just says they have to high-tail it out of there before the neighboring peoples try to attack Jacob in retaliation for what his sons did. The brothers reply, ""Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?" (34:31, NIV) Certainly, as painful and life-changingly horrible as raping someone is, there was some solution besides making all the males in town painful mutilate themselves so that they could then be killed en masse.

In the next chapter, neither God nor Jacob seem to condemn this. Certainly God, who opens and closes wombs, removes legs from serpents, and does other tricks throughout the Bible, could have found a way to punish Shechem and/or his father. Or in his omniscience and omnipotence, he might prevented Dinah from the forever-scarring experience of rape in the first place or at least warned someone about it so they could prevent it.

I guess God was too busy doing things like wrestling.

5:35 PM – 2 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 33 — (Brief) family reunion

admin — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:58:55 +0000

Monday, March 09, 2009

Currently
Family Ties: The Fifth Season
By Michael J. Fox, Michael Gross, Meredith Baxter, Justine Bateman, Tina Yothers
see related

Genesis 33 — (Brief) family reunion

Here we have a family reunion between Jacob and Esau. Esau, instead of being (probably justifiably) angry at seeing his brother Jacob again, welcomes him with open arms and a kiss. For some reason, Jacob and his wives, servants, and children all bow down before their "lord" Esau. This is a sign of submission, isn’t it? This is maybe Jacob’s way for apologizing for all he did to his brother, but it is not explained.

Jacob offers Esau the gifts mentioned in the last chapter, which Esau at first refuses but then reluctantly accepts. Jacob offers to stay behind and take care of the animals and says he will catch up with Esau in a place called Seir. Except for Jacob doesn’t go to Seir, he goes to Succoth instead. I looked ahead a few chapters, and no explanation is given for this in the text that I’ve found so far. He tells his brother, who welcomes him warmly, that he’ll catch up with him in Seir, but then instead goes off to other cities (first Succoth, then Shechem) and sets up camp there. He does set up an altar to God in Shechem (no word as to whether God wanted this, or what God thought of it).

So it is a very positive thing that despite his brother’s actions, Esau welcomes him warmly and they apparently make up to each other, and Esau is eager to find out about his brother’s family. Finally, some positive family relations in the Bible. But then Jacob appears to wander off on his own again for no stated reason, even though he told his brother he’d meet with him in Seir. If he did do so, the Bible doesn’t say here.

There is another line that is somewhat confusing. Jacob, when insisting is brother should take his gifts, says to Esau, "For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably." (NIV, 33:10). The author of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible recently hypothesized that this means God looks like Esau (who is red-haired and very hairy). This is a possible interpretation, but the text really isn’t clear, just as it isn’t clear who it is Jacob wrestled with in Genesis 32, nor why Jacob was renamed Israel, but is still called Jacob in this and other chapters later!

There really should have been an editor to check all this for continuity and clarity. If God was the source for the Bible, he really ought to have done a better job at finding editors. Or why delegate, certainly the big man himself could have done a better job.

In any case, nothing overtly negative happens in this chapter, and the reunion between Jacob and Esau might teach some to let bygones be bygones. Something that should happen more often in the Bible, and in the modern-day Middle East, for that matter.

7:58 PM – 13 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 31 — The Yahweh made me do it

admin — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:42:46 +0000

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Currently
Out of the Blue
By Debbie Gibson
Only in My Dreams
see related

Genesis 31 — The Yahweh made me do it

Fortunately for Jacob, people are scared of Yahweh. So they often seem to do unfair things clearly against their interests just to make him happy.

Now, I am not an expert in the Bible, and that’s not the point of this blog. The point is to go through it as an average person and see what’s there. I do probably a little more than the average person, since I often compare different versions (on http://www.biblegateway.com/ , etc.), but later I plan to investigate more. For now I want the text to stand for itself.

If I compare Genesis 30 and 31, I see that in Genesis 30, it makes no mention of God, or an angel of God, telling Jacob to make Laban’s goats and sheep streaked and spotted, or telling him that what he did was good. But in Genesis 31, not until AFTER Laban’s sons catch on to Jacob’s trickery, does Jacob tell his wives that:

The Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, ‘Jacob.’ And I said, ‘Here I am.’ And He said, ‘Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.’” (Genesis 31:11-13, NKJV)

Suddenly, what appears to be Jacob ripping off his (unfair, yes) master is actually God’s idea. But God doesn’t tell us this, and not even an angel of God. Jacob tells us that an angel told him this in a dream. This seems rather convenient to me. We only see God tell Jacob to go home to daddy, and he’ll be with him (verse 3). All the rest, we just have to take Jacob’s word that he was told in a dream. He’s proven to be an honorable sort, so I’m sure we can trust him.

His wives decide they might as well run off with him and all the riches, since after all, Jacob says an angel says that God says to do so, and their dad doesn’t have much anymore (31:15). And to add insult to injury, Rachel steals her father’s gods. Take his goods, and steal his religion. So they just up and leave likw dishonest cowards (the NIV even says "Jacob deceived Laban the Aramean by not telling him he was running away", 31:20). Surely this isn’t how God wants honorable people act, right?!

Well, God reportedly appears to Laban in a dream telling him not to say anything good or bad to Jacob. Well Laban, when he tracks down Jacob, does outline the case against him, but is most concerned about the stolen gods (maybe he wants protection from Yahweh and his hare-brained schemes?). Rachel hides them by sitting on them and pretending that she’s having her period. Jacob is said to not know that Rachel stole them, and we’re not told why Rachel stole them anyway (if it was because they were an outrage to Yahweh, you would think she’d just destroy them. Maybe she just thought they looked pretty and would be nice to steal, or wanted a back up in case the whole Yahweh thing didn’t work out. Who knows?).

So since Laban can’t find his gods, he gives up and makes a covenant with Jacob, making him promise that he’ll take no other wives than his two daughters (does he know about all the slave sex and resulting children earlier?) and treat them well. They swear by "The God of Abraham, the God of Nahor, and the God of their father" (31:53) that they won’t cross past the pillar to harm each other. Sounds like polytheism to me, although I’m sure some would claim that these are just different names for Yahweh. Yahweh is also given a different name twice in the chapter, "the Fear of Isaac." A quick look at a few sites indicates that this apparently is a generally accepted translation. That’s what I want my God to be known as, the Fear.

They put up a pillar, offer a sacrifice, eat, and the deal is sealed. Yahweh seems to find unusual chosen ones, who use decipt, lying, cowardice, slavery, and messed up competitions over sex and children to become rich and plentiful.

PS Copyright notice for NKJV : "New King James Version®, Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved. Bible text from the New King James Version® is not to be reproduced in copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, TN 37214-1000."

Copyright notice for NIV: Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved.

10:42 AM – 3 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 30 — Meddling and Mendelism

admin — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:29:59 +0000

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Currently
Heathcliff: Terror of the Neighborhood
Theme
see related

Genesis 30 — Meddling and Mendelism

The rivalry between Rachel and Leah deepens in this chapter, and like a shady political campaign contributor, God helps out both sides.

Rachel is upset that she isn’t bearing Jacob children (Jacob says it’s all God’s fault), so Rachel tells Jacob to have sex with her servant. He obliges (reluctantly, I’m sure). What the servant thinks of all this, we’re not told. In any case, the fact that her husband has a child with his wife’s slave makes Rachel thinks this is proof that God is now on her side. Her servant has a second child. Rachel takes this as proof that she’s beaten her sister now.

But much like that lovable cartoon cat Heathcliff, Leah just won’t be undone. Leah has stopped having children (whether it’s age or God’s doing, we’re not told), so Leah decides to one-up her sister again. She has one of her own servants become Jacob’s wife, and that servant bares Jacob a child.

Then Rachel and Leah strike up a bargain. Leah can sleep with Jacob if Leah’s son gives Rachel some mandrake. This apparently seems like a good deal, and Jacob doesn’t mind apparently since he sleeps with Leah. Leah becomes pregnant, not once, but twice. And her reasoning is interesting: she thinks it’s because "God has rewarded [her] for giving my maidservant to my husband." (Genesis 30:18, KJV). Is that crazy, or what? She thinks Jacob will honor her now because she’s given him a total of 6 kids now.

But God doesn’t want Rachel left out. He again "opened her womb" (30:22, KJV) and let her have another son, and she thinks she no longer has to feel disgraced.

What a crazy, mixed up story this is. And God apparently is fine with all of it, since he keeps opening up these women’s wombs and doesn’t prevent or condemn any of it, unless a very much delayed condemnation is in the works.

Then we have Jacob being cheated out of his freedom, and Jacob getting back by cheating his master (who is Rachel and Leah’s father, by the way). Jacob, initially refused his freedom, is able to haggle Laban into giving Jacob only his spotted goats and brown/black sheep while Laban can keep the rest (the white, non-colored animals being more pure, presumably). But Jacob, who hadn’t learned about Mendelian genetics in school, decides he’ll turn more goat and sheep colored by putting branches around them when they’re mating. He takes care to put the strong ones by the branches so that Jacob will end up with the stronger animals and Laban with the weaker ones.

And, miracle of miracles, it works! Did God help with this feat? We’re not told. But in either case, Laban apparently didn’t catch him in the act, so Jacob ends up becoming very weathly with a lot of slaves.

So we have sisters using sex, the sex of their slaves, and the resulting children, as a way to get back at each other, God meddling in the feud by helping them get pregnant, Jacob being refused freedom as God does nothing, and Jacob cheating his master and the laws of nature so that he can become rich and own tons of servants of his own. More morality brought to you by God.

10:29 AM – 14 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 29 — Switcheroo!

admin — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:41:15 +0000

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Genesis 29 — Switcheroo!

Genesis seems to be filled with switcheroos and deceit. Here, Jacob wants to marry his cousin Rachel (a little further on the family tree than one’s half-sister), but Rachel’s dad tricks Jacob into sleeping with Leah, her older sister, first.

Jacob agreed to slave away for 7 years to have Rachel’s hand in marriage, but after those 7 years of work his uncle Laban sends Leah to sleep with Jacob. "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one," according to Laban (Genesis 29:26). Why didn’t he tell Jacob this before the 7 years of labor? If Jacob loved Rachel so much, how could he not notice the difference?! Didn’t they say anything to each other before getting down to business?!?

Maybe he figured that Jacob would be willing to be a slave for ANOTHER 7 years so that he could also marry Rachel. If so, he figured right. So Jacob marries Rachel after agreeing to another 7 years of servitude, and he loves her more than his first wife, Leah.

Unfortunately for the couple, Rachel is apparently barren. Leah keeps popping out kids, though, because God saw how unloved she was. But even after 3 kids, Jacob still doesn’t love her. Finally, she has a 4th kid with him and names him Judah to honor God (according to NIV it may mean "Praise") and decides she’s through with kids.

So let’s see, we have yet another case of sex switcheroo, another case of polygamy, another case of marrying within one’s family (Laban even says to Jacob in verse 14, "You are my own flesh and blood"), two more cases of servitude (Jacob to Laban, and the servant Bilhah to Rachel), and another woman that God has either made barren or refuses to help have children.

Now, after being surprised at some of the messed up stuff that was put in Genesis, I’m almost more surprised at how similar a number of the stories in Genesis are to each other. Maybe they call it the "Old" Testament because it’s the same old story over and over again?? In any case, I don’t see much morality in all of this. The only thing someone might see as moral in here if you think religion is good, is that Leah names her 4th child in praise of God, putting God above her husband. But that’s reaching, because surely God if he really has to be praised, could have thought of a less convoluted way to get Leah to praise him than the deceit of her father, the labor and lovelessness of her husband, and the sterilty of her sister. Why would a loving God do all that??

4:41 PM – 10 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 28 — 3 wives are better than 1

admin — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:35:27 +0000

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Currently
Led Zeppelin IV (aka ZOSO)
By Led Zeppelin
Stairway to Heaven
see related

Genesis 28 — 3 wives are better than 1

Esau wants to get back at his lousy parents for being cheated out of everything and made a slave, so he decides a good way to do this is marry yet again, this time to a woman of the much hated Canaanites. That will teach them! There seems to be a mixing of names for these people: Canaanites, Hittites, Philistines, etc. I wonder if some distinction is made later or not.

In any case, Jacob has a dream with a magical ladder, or stairway to heaven (or "staircase to heaven", as I sometimes jokingly call the song). God tells him that " in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (KJV, 28:14) Not just his descendants, but all families on earth are blessed. I wonder if the people who are massacred at various times in later books realized how blessed they really were.

One thing to note is that Jacob, while clearly amazed at this dream, doesn’t just completely take it on face value; he wants proof (28:20-22 KJV)

"If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment [clothes] to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God"

So only if God does this, will Jacob take the Lord into his heart. I think that Christians nowadays should heed this: I’ll only worship God if he takes care of me. Of course, I’m sure many people can convince themselves that God is taking care of them even when he isn’t (the Devil may have destroyed my house in that hurricane, but at least the Lord protected my basement!).

Jacob continues: "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou
shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." This is tithing, a practice that some still practice today. Because God isn’t rich enough, we need to give him a tenth of everything we own. Of course, in real life, it’s the church or the priests that get this tenth, often to divide as they (and/or the church elders) please. Methinks some crafty priests may have come up with this tithing idea…

In the dream God promises to be with Jacob and all his descendants (and depending on your interpretation, it sounds like he is even willing to bless all families this time; how open-minded of him for once). In the dream, God even says " I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you." (NIV 28:15). Will God provide for Jacob and all families in the rest of the Bible? I fear alas that it was only a dream…

5:35 PM – 7 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 27 — Thou shalt steal

admin — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:41:14 +0000

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Currently
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
By Monty Python’s Flying Circus
Brave Sir Robin
see related

Genesis 27 — Thou shalt steal

In this chapter, we see Jacob steal Esau’s blessing, with no immediate consequences for Jacob.

Isaac plans to bless Esau as soon as he comes back from the hunt. Jacob takes advantage of his dad Isaac’s advanced age to trick him into thinking he is Esau. His mom helps out, by helping prepare meat like Isaac likes, to trick Isaac into thinking he’s Esau. Isaac suspects something’s up based on Jacob’s voice, and the fact that his son is back from the hunt unexpectedly soon. Esau you’ll remember has very long hair, but apparently Jacob’s hand is hairy, so his dad doesn’t notice this either. [Update: Thanks to a recent Dwindling in Unbelief post , I realized that I missed something the first time around: Rebekah puts Esau's clothes on Jacob as well as goatskin on his neck and hands. This is in part how Jacob fools his dad. So much underhandedness going on, it's hard to keep up!]

When Esau finds out that his dad "made him lord over you and have made all his relatives his servants" (27:37 KJV), he’s understandably not too pleased. But Isaac claims there’s nothing to be done (do undosies with blessings apparently). Jacob had now stolen both the birthright and the blessing. The only consolation Isaac gives is that eventually he’ll get tired of being Jacob’s slave and throw off the shackles. Some minor consolation.

No word as to why Isaac couldn’t just share everything between the two sons to begin with, or why after this deceit by Jacob that Isaac can’t do something better for his son (or why God doesn’t intervene).

Esau decides he wants to kill his brother, so brave sir Jacob flees on his mom’s advice. And mom is racist, just like Sarah had been. "If Jacob takes a wife from among the women of this land, from Hittite women like these, my life will not be worth living." (27:46 KJV) From context, it seems Hittite is referring to the same people they are living with (Abimelech et al.), unless I am mistaken. In any case, after the tricks this family have pulled on their neighbors over the years, perhaps no one would want to marry them anyway…

4:41 PM – 10 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 26 — Like Father, Like Son

admin — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:14:48 +0000

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Currently
The Ditty Bops
By The Ditty Bops
Sister Kate
see related

Genesis 26 — Like Father, Like Son

The land is in famine (the Bible has to specify that this is a different famine than the one mentioned previously, since God apparently sends so many). In this chapter, we have Isaac trying to pull the same old "she ain’t married, she’s my sister " trick that Abraham had done. And the victims of this deceit are none other than the people of our friend Abimelech, whom Abraham had deceived back in Genesis 20. This time though, Abimelech sees Isaac and Rebekah in flagrant PDA and calls him on it before anyone sleeps with Rebekeh.

Why doesn’t God ever punish this sort of deceit? Or if Abimelech’s people are really so horrible that they would have harmed Abraham or Isaac because of their beautiful wives, then why doesn’t God punish the people Sodom-style?

Even though no one had touched the previously-thought-to-be-unmarried Rebekah, Abimelech doesn’t want to take any chances, so he tells everyone to stay away from Rebekah and Isaac. God gave Isaac plenty of crops and riches, the locals are disgruntled and ruin Isaac’s wells, so Abimelech sends him away so the Philestines don’t lynch him.

God blesses Isaac, and Abimelech stops by to make an agreement (a peace treaty?) with Isaac. Abimelech still wants to keep on the good side of Yahweh and whomever he’s blessing, despite (or perhaps because of) the way he’s been treated. Another story that doesn’t quite make sense in the good book.

As a footnote, we’re told that Esau marries two women. This models the story of Adam, Eve, and Sally, from earlier in Genesis. This sort of polygamous union serves as a model for all Christians to this very day. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.)

2:14 PM – 4 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 25 — Give me your birthright, or die!

admin — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:16:33 +0000

Friday, February 13, 2009

Currently
Angel with a Lariat
By k.d. lang & The Reclines
Diet of Strange Places ("Starving, I’ve got this hunger…")
see related

Genesis 25 — Give me your birthright, or die!

Abraham dies in this chapter, but not before finding another wife and keeping busy siring more boys. It doesn’t say why he does this (other than the obvious explanation), since he just sends all his other kids all away so that Isaac can inherit everything and God could bless him. The Bible doesn’t criticize Abraham’s complete disregard for his lovers and offspring. This certainly sets a poor example! (We’re perhaps supposed to be consoled by the fact that he gave them some unnamed "gifts".)

We’re told that Ishmael’s offspring fight with everyone (the KJV however only says "in the presence", an interesting divergence that according to the TNIV [Today's New International Version] may be due to a confusion with a word or expression that could mean "east" or "hostility"?)

Then we’re told Isaac’s story. His wife Rebekah, like his mom, was apparently barren. God comes through again as the world’s premier fertility expert, and Isaac’s wife Rebekah conceives. The babies start fighting in the womb through, foreboding the fighting they and their descendants will have.

The twins are Esau and Jacob. We’ve all heard of Jacob, right? Well this is because Jacob forced his brother to give up his birthright. Esau, who’s described as the ugly brother, came home starving. Instead of Jacob giving his brother food, he tells him Esau he must give up his birthright or starve. Nice example of brotherly love! Brother, can you spare a meal so I don’t starve to death? Only if you make it worth my while!

Another important thing to note is that mom and dad play favorites. Isaac loves Esau (because he brings him venison) and Rebekah likes Jacob (a quiet young lad, the first stereotypical momma’s boy perhaps?). If the Bible is meant to be an example, should it discourage playing favorites with your children? Or blackmailing your near-death brother before feeding him? Or birthrights in general? Why should you favor a son or daughter just because he or she was born first?

I’m sure the response would be "Those were different times, etc." It’s too bad God didn’t realize this story, and many other objectionable ones, would be in there for modern readers to either have to ignore, explain away, or (in my case) reject as unjust.

4:16 PM – 2 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 24 — looking for SWF, no Canaanites, please!

admin — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:19:34 +0000

Friday, February 06, 2009

Currently
Half Breed
By Cher
see related

Genesis 24 — looking for SWF, no Canaanites, please!

This is a long-winded, but interesting story. I think it reveals a lot about the mindset of the author and/or the people of the day.

First, you would think a marriage would be important enough for someone to take care of personally, but not so in the Bible. Not only does Isaac not try to find a wife, his father doesn’t either: he sends a slave to take care of it. It was the "chief servant" though (24:2, NIV), thank goodness! Some translations have "oldest" or "eldest", but I think the idea is the same.

We see that racial purity is important. God doesn’t want Isaac to be breeding with those Canaanites apparently. No reason is given, but what other reason would there be than to maintain a "pure" bloodline? No mixed breeds allowed I guess. I wonder what God thinks of Obama….If Abraham’s story is any sign, God would rather you marry your half sister than someone from outside your clan. He didn’t seem to mind Lot’s daughters having children by their dad, either…

The way the servant, who is a complete stranger sent by the father of a complete stranger, convinces the family to give up Rebekah to him, is funny in my opinion. It’d be sad if it actually happened, but I suspect and hope not. Rebekah offers the stranger and his camel water. Later, this random guy comes in to her parents’ place and says, after the fact, that he knew if a beautiful girl offered water to him and his camels, then she would be the girl for his master’s son to marry. That proves that God wants her to marry his son!

And the best part is, they completely buy the story. "This is from the LORD; we can say nothing to you one way or the other." (NIV 24:50) Just mention Yahweh, and people believe the strangest things I guess.

What is interesting, though, is that the family wants a 10-day waiting period first. Why, we don’t know. But when Abraham’s servant refuses, the family actually asks Rebekah if she will go with the servant, and she agrees. Now, they’re probably only asking her how soon she will go (they had already agreed, without consulting Rebekah, that she would go with the servant), but it’s still a good thing that she has at least SOME say in the matter. This surprised me.

Another thing that is good is that it says Isaac loved Rebekah. Unless my memory deceives me, the Bible really hasn’t talked about love up until this point. It’s mostly been about having children to carry on the line. If Isaac truly loved her, then that is a good model for people. We’ll see in future chapters if something comes up that goes against this.

Two other quick observations:
• The oath by Abraham and the servant at the beginning of the chapter is weird. Why should putting your hand under someone’s thigh (or perhaps this is a euphemism for somewhere higher up??) seal the deal? Is it to prove that the servant wasn’t crossing his fingers behind his back, or something???

• When Rebekah approaches Isaac for the first time, she suddenly puts a veil on. Why would she do this? It isn’t explained. If it’s some sort of decorum, I don’t see why you would NOT wear a veil in front of a strange man but would wear one in front of your future husband. I don’t see why you’d wear a veil at all, but that’s another story. If it’s similar to Islam tradition, then it’s degrading to women to say they have to cover themselves up. Instead, God should have created men with a little more self-control and respect for women…

No one dies in this chapter, making it tame compared to many others I’ve read so far. Isaac and Rebekah appear to actually love each other. But the way they meet and marry is not a model, and the fact that Abraham excludes an entire clan of people from possible wives for his son shows his and/or God’s bigotry.

3:19 PM – 6 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 23 — Sarah dies

admin — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:51:49 +0000

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Genesis 23 — Sarah dies

There’s really not very much to this chapter, as far as I can tell. Sarah dies (the Bible doesn’t say how. I wonder if any of those leaders she slept with has an alibi? Or Hagar, for that matter?) Abraham insists on paying the Hittites for some land to bury her on, they sell it to him and he buries her.

The Bible doesn’t say why Abraham wanted to bury her there, nor why burial would be necessary at all. It’s something genetic in humans I suppose to want to bury dead ones. It also serves as a way of getting "closure" and (in the case of some belief systems) sending them off into the next realm.

But in any case, there’s nothing really shocking in this chapter, for a change. This might be viewed as a good chapter since Abraham did mourn his wife’s loss, which is respectful of her and her memory.

Not only that, but God doesn’t meddle in this chapter! A godless chapter. No wonder there’s nothing totally messed up for once.

3:51 PM – 55 views – 2 eprops – 15 comments – email it

Genesis 22 — If you love me, kill your son

admin — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:38:11 +0000

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Currently
Real Love
By The Beatles
Real Love
see related

Genesis 22 — If you love me, kill your son

If you really love me, prove it by killing your son! That’s what God says to Abraham in this chapter.

God doesn’t make Abraham go through with it, though, so all’s well that ends well, right? There is so much wrong with this story that it’s hard to know what to say.

Let’s say God never intended for Abraham to kill his son, he just wanted to see if he would. To which I say, Doesn’t God know everything already? This is a perfect example of the sort of mind control that cults try to have over people, getting them to the point that they would do anything for you, including kill your own son.

Maybe God wanted to prove that Abraham would do anything for him. To which I say, why does God always have to prove how great he is? Did some other god give him an inferiority complex? Certainly he must already know how great he is, and such a great God could find a better way to prove it other than having his biggest fan almost sacrifice his son to him.

What about Isaac in all this? I would think it would be rather life-changingly scary to have your dad try to burn you alive. That’s the sort of abuse you don’t outgrow. It doesn’t say here how old Isaac was, but even if he was an adult, I think it is inexcusable torture to be tied up by your dad on an altar, knife in hand ready to kill you and burn you up.

I remember vaguely this story being taught to me as a kid, either in Sunday School or in church. Some explanation about showing that Abraham was willing to give up what mattered to him most. I think it is dangerous and sick that churches teach that this story is a model to look up to. No one should be willing to kill their son, or anyone else for that matter, just to prove how much you love someone. You shouldn’t have to prove love, not to God or anyone. That isn’t real love. Anyone who actually demands you do something to prove that you love them doesn’t deserve your love.

Here are a couple other reflections on this chapter:

* God makes a huge deal out of calling Isaac Abraham’s only son. What happened to Ishmael becoming a great nation? Why is he now completely disowned, and after worrying so much about him, Abraham seems not to care any more? Did God and Sarah wear him down? I guess if he’s willing to kill Isaac for crazy God, he’d be willing to forget his firstborn son as well.

* God has Abraham kill a ram instead of his son Isaac. What’s with the sheep? God could’ve just said that after all that almost killing your son stuff, you’ve done enough Abraham to prove you love me. But no, Abraham also has to sacrifice a ram. God loves the smell of burning sheep!

* The little ending about Nahor, whoever that is, includes a mention of a concubine. So God seems to be okay with having more than one sexual partner, since it’s not condemned here and I know even great kings later on have tons of concubines and wives.

Disowning your firstborn son, trying to commit a human sacrifice on your other son, having sex with whoever you want. True love, God style.

12:38 PM – 48 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 21 — EweTube

admin — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:51:52 +0000

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Currently
Peacenick
By Roy Zimmerman
Two brothers
see related

Genesis 21 — EweTube

Some more great family fun here, with some ewes thrown in at the end for fun!

Sarah the 90+ year old has a boy, Isaac. She thinks it’s hilarious that she would have a son at her age, as does everyone else. That rascal God, he really knows how to make people laugh.

But Ishmael laughed at his new brother, and Sarah is outraged. Laughing at what God does, okay. Laughing at your younger brother, not okay. Sarah wants rid of Ishmael and his mom. Abraham doesn’t want to kick out his son, but God sides with Sarah on this. God tells Abraham not to worry though, because Ishmael will also become a great nation after you kick him and his mom out.

After their meager supply of water run out (how nice of Abraham to abandon his son and the woman he slept with in the desert without enough water!), Hagar the mom tries to abandon her son to die, but just can’t go through with it. Turns out though that there was actually a well of water there, Hagar just couldn’t see it until God "opened her eyes" (21:19). From then on, God followed Ishmael wherever he’d go, kind of like the My Buddy doll from the 80s, I guess. Ishmael got to be an archer!

The story of Ishmael, Isaac, and the gang, along with some other related anecdotes from the Bible, is related in Roy Zimmerman’s song Two Brothers , which you can see on YouTube.

Speaking of you/ewe, the last part of this chapter is some more business between Abraham and Abimelech, the leader Sarah and Abraham duped in the last chapter. Abimelech makes Abraham promise God won’t pull any more shenanigans on him or his ancestors. There was this dispute about a well of water, but it was nothing that seven female sheep couldn’t clear up. I would have thought five ewe would have sufficed for such a minor matter!

Genesis seems to be obsessed with saying why places and people were named as they were. Beersheba is apparently named because of the oath between Abraham and Abimelech there. To me, it kind of sounds like they had the names for these places and people and then they just made up the stories, kind of like how parents make up stories for little kids when they don’t know why something is the way it is, or how kids just make things up when they don’t understand something.

Nah, that couldn’t be the case!

Update: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible gives a possible explanation of why Ishmael was kicked out. Maybe it was more than just laughing at his brother…

11:51 AM – 5 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 20 — She ain’t married, she’s my sister

admin — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:55:19 +0000

Monday, January 19, 2009

Currently
He Ain’t Heavy He’s My Brother
see related

Genesis 20 — She ain’t married, she’s my sister

So here we have Abraham passing off Sarah as his sister again (how tantalizing a woman she must have been, even approaching 100 years old, that the local leaders just couldn’t keep themselves from marrying her!). But this time, we find out Abraham wasn’t totally lying about Sarah being his sister.

" Yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father , but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen 20:12, KJV)

So apparently, Sarah is only Abraham’s half-sister. Which apparently makes it okay? Sounds pretty sick to me, but God doesn’t say anything against this in these verses. Nor does he appear to get mad at Abraham and Sarah for lying again.

Instead, God threatens the local leader (Abimelech) with destruction because he married Sarah, who’s already married to Abraham. After the local leader points out that they haven’t consummated the relationship, and that he had been lied to about Sarah’s identity, then God lets him off the hook. The local chieftain even tells Abraham to make himself at home, and to make up for everything gives Abraham a thousand shekles.

And the moral is?? Who knows. My guess is the leader saw how completely screwy the whole situation and figured he’d better make nice with Abraham and his god to avoid punishment. A wise move, I’d say.

2:55 PM – 8 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 19 — The Bible should be rated NC-17

admin — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:49:14 +0000

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Currently
Two Virgins
see related

Genesis 19 — The Bible should be rated NC-17

I was aware of the two stories in this chapter, but it was still somewhat shocking and sickening reading them. It’s hard to keep this blog family-friendly with a book like the Bible, so be forewarned that what follows is just plain sick and shouldn’t be read or believed by anyone, much less children.

God sends two angels to prepare for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot insists that these angels of death stay over at his place. But the angels are so irresistible, the crowd wants to have sex with them. Lot is against this, as he should be. But his solution is to offer up his two daughter to the crowd instead. I quote Lot, from the NIV (Gen 19:8),

"Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

There is no way to misinterpret this: Lot offers his own daughters to a sex-crazed crowd and tells them to have at them. There is no excuse for this. Even the author of the Annotated Skeptic’s Annotated Bible says

"There are a few things that can be said in his defense, but in the end, this is one of those things I have to admit I just can’t quite comprehend. [...] Apparently just leaving the door locked wouldn’t be enough, as after he spoke with them, they tried to break his door down. In my opinion, that doesn’t justify him, but I’d take a plea of "temporary insanity" on his part, so to speak."

In any case, the crowd doesn’t take him up on his offer to gang-rape his virgin daughters though because the angels are just too sexy apparently. The angels work some hocus-pocus and the crowd is dazzled long enough for Lot, his wife, and his daughters to escape.

Now here’s something that I don’t remember being mentioned, although I’m sure I’m not the first to notice it. The next morning, Lot and family are to leave, but in verse 16, it says Lot "hesitated" (NIV) (ASV) or "lingered" (KJV), so the angels have to convince him again to skedaddle. Lot talks them into saving a nearby town for them to escape to. As you probably know, Lot does eventually leave, and God rains fire and brimstone to kill everyone who’s left in town, but his wife looks behind and is punished by turning into a pillar of salt. The Bible doesn’t say much at all, just matter-of-factly says that she’s turned into salt and then goes on with the story.

This is simply not fair. Lot not only hesitated, he actually argued with the angels until he got something out of them. Lot’s wife merely looks back for a moment and is turned into a pillar of salt. What’s the moral of this: it’s fine to argue with angels to get them to change God’s plans, but if you look back, you’re dead? Do Lot and his daughters even mourn the death? The Bible doesn’t tell us.

Later on, Lot and his daughters are living in a cave (he was too afraid to stay in the town God had spared him) and they both decide to get him drunk and have sex with him. Not one night, but two nights in a row. (Don’t you think after the first night, Lot might have been suspicious that something was up?!?) They say that it’s to keep up the family line. Mission accomplished: they both have sons.

Besides saying that Lot was unaware of what was going on, the Bible doesn’t offer any other condemnation (we’ll see if there’s one later on, but based on the SAB and a couple other sites I quickly looked at, it doesn’t look like it).

So we have, in one chapter
* a sex-crazed mob that wants to rape two angels
* a father who offers his virgin daughters to a sex-crazed mob
* a God who completely destroys an entire city, humans, plants, presumably animals, and all
* a God who turns a woman to salt for daring to look back at the city she’s being kicked out of
* two daughters who get their dad drunk
* a father who has sex with both of his incestuous daughters
* two children born of incest

Julia Sweeney, of SNL fame, thought this story was disturbing enough to mention as part of her "Letting Go of God " one-person-show-turned-book-turned-audiobook-turned-movie. I listened to her audiobook, and she somehow manages to make telling her deconversion from being a Christian into an inspiring and laugh-out-loud story. Otherwise, this would have been an even more depressing chapter to cover.

If there is any book that should be banned from libraries, it should be the Bible with stories like this. But I don’t believe in censorship, and maybe it’s better the book isn’t banned anyway. I don’t know how my deconversion would have went, if at all, if I hadn’t have had access to the Bible (and the SAB’s comments in a number of cases) to look at and actually think about. If someone reads the Bible from a library and it opens their eyes a little, that would be a good things.

Why would these stories be in the Holy Word of God? I would like to see how my soon-to-be-ordained relative, that I mentioned in a previous post, would wiggle out of this story. I honestly don’t see how.

2:49 PM – 58 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 18 — Please Yahweh, don’t hurt ‘em

admin — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:24:13 +0000

Friday, January 09, 2009

Currently
Please Hammer, Don’t Hurt ‘Em
By MC Hammer
see related

Genesis 18 — Please Yahweh, don’t hurt ‘em

We have two different episodes in this chapter. First, God and Abraham have dinner together with Sarah (and a few men?), then Abraham tries to plead with God not to kill an entire city.

In the first part, God appears by Abraham’s tent with three men. It’s unclear to me, even after consulting several versions of this chapter, who is who at some points due to unclear pronouns and references to who is speaking to whom. But the general idea is God stop by, Abraham invites him in, Sarah prepares bread, milk, and beef (the SAB points out this isn’t kosher , but I’m sure some would argue that’s because God hadn’t arbitrarily decided what was and wasn’t kosher yet) and they chat.

God says that Sarah will have a son, but she laughs. Abraham and Sarah like laughing at God apparently (since Abraham did the same in the last chapter on this subject), but this time the Lord calls her on it. She lies and says she didn’t laugh, but shouldn’t she know you can’t lie to an all-knowing being? She isn’t punished here, I guess we’ll see if it comes up later or not.

In the second part, God’s deciding whether or not to tell Abraham about his upcoming mass murder of Sodom and Gomorrah. Since Abraham is so great, God decides to go ahead and tell him his upcoming project. Abraham is taken aback and says (Gen 18:23-25, New King James version: NKJV)

"Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked"

Abraham must not know Yahweh very well if he thinks God will have any problem whatsoever killing whomever he pleases. So anyway, Abraham starts to plead with God, asking God if he can find 50 righteous people there, will God still kill the whole city? God says no, he will spare "all the place" for the sake of the 50. He’ll mosey on down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see what they’re up to. (So much for an omniscient God!) Abraham haggles with God all the way down to 10 people. If even 10 people are righteous, S & G will be spared. After this, the Lord goes on his merry way.

Isn’t there something wrong with a God when his creation is more just and compassionate than he is? I’m sure some would argue God is just testing Abraham, or proving a point that not even 10 people were righteous there.

Instead, one could argue that this is a sign that people should not just blindly follow what God says. God left on his own apparently would have just killed an entire people without even looking into whether or not he’d killing innocents, too. Acceptable losses, I guess. Guess we know now who many military leaders look up to…

PS Here is the copyright notice for the New King James Version . "Bible text from the New King James Version® is not to be reproduced in copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, TN 37214-1000." I am putting this here on my own initiative even though I do not believe such a lengthy copyright notice should be necessary, especially since according to their guidelines, if I were a church I wouldn’t have to put this here…

12:24 PM – 11 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 17 — God likes genital mutilation

admin — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:56:53 +0000

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Currently
Automatic for the People
By R.E.M.
Everybody Hurts
see related

Genesis 17 — God likes genital mutilation

God created us so perfectly (in his image, right?), that he decides in Genesis 17 that genital mutilation is mandatory for all his male believers.

Yes, billions of baby boys (and adults, too) everywhere have suffered this pain at God’s command. I guess when we go to the Pearly Gates, God asks us to drop ‘em and checks to see if we’re circumcised. No shirt, no circumcision, no salvation.

Sure, some will argue that was the Old Testament. Some New Testament verses speak out against it (e.g. Galatians 5:2). But Jesus himself was allegedly circumcised (many churches even have this glorious day on their calendar, including Catholics) and he did not speak out against it, even though he had a good opportunity to (John 7:21-24).

Not only do all male babies have to be circumcised to keep God’s covenant, but one’s slaves/servants as well. Talk about adding insult to injury: you’re bought as a God-sanctioned slave, and then you have to have private parts mutilated. And the babies can’t even talk yet to protest.

I guess this is one case where women can praise the Lord for being sexist, since women are not told they need to be circumcised (unlike some other cultures and religions, including some forms of Islam).

God praises Abram (yet again) and gives him and his wife new names, Abraham and Sarah. Then God tells Abraham that he and Sarah will have a son. Telling from his reaction, Abraham apparently forgot about this (God promised this in the last chapter, but apparently over a decade has passed based on comparing his age in the two chapters). Even Abraham laughs at God for suggesting that two near-centenarians can have a baby. Fortunately God’s apparently in a good mood that day and doesn’t seem to mind being laughed at.

Abraham is able to squeeze out a little mercy for his other son, Ishmael, who had been cursed in the previous chapter. God promises Ishmael fertility and fathering 12 rulers. Why did God have a change of heart about Ishmael? I guess because Abraham circumcised him! (Even though God comes out and indicates in verse 21 that he’s establishing his covenant with Abraham’s upcoming son instead. Doesn’t make sense Ishmael would have to pay the price for the covenant but not be included!)

It seems silly that God would want people to mutilate themselves (or worse yet, their babies) for him. But that’s what God wants, and billions of babies have suffered the consequences of it. Some people think it’s necessary and even cleaner for boys to be circumcised. Besides the fact that there’s apparently no consensus that this is true and that circumcision has other negative side effects (google it if you want; I want to keep my blog more family-friendly than the Bible is)—even if it were true that it’s better to be circumcised, why couldn’t God just get it right the first time then when he created us?

Why does God like to see people suffer?

3:56 PM – 34 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Just imagine… (a world without God)

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:12:19 +0000

Monday, January 05, 2009

Currently
Sounds Of Summer – The Very Best Of The Beach Boys
By The Beach Boys
Kokomo
see related

Just imagine…

Imagine for a second that an insane bloodthirsty maniac decides he is going to kill the entire population of the Earth. He’s a whiz at computers and breaks into the US Defense Department’s computers and gains access to the United States’ vast nuclear arsenal (hey, if Matthew Broderick can do it in WarGames , so can he).

To be thorough (and dramatic), our madman decides to start at the bottom of the list of countries in the world and work his way up one-by-one. (He uses Wikipedia’s list of countries and self-governing territories as a source because like many computer-savvy people, he’s a huge fan of Wikipedia.) He is able to launch nuclear weapons against the 41 least populous places in the world before he is found and his killing spree is stopped. The entire populations of these countries and territories either die immediately or in short order due to the nuclear blasts he launched.

Now, who do you think will have killed more people: this crazy mass-murderer, or the God of the Bible? If you said the insane madman, you’d be wrong. According to Wikipedia (as of Jan 5 2009), the 41 least populous countries or self-governed states have a combined population of 2,211,501 people. That’s a lot of people. But according to the Bible, God killed at least 2,301,417 people . Steve Wells, the author of the Skeptics Annotated Bible , did the calculations in his blog Dwindling in Unbelief , but the numbers come directly from the Bible itself. The figure includes people that God killed personally, plus ones he commanded or sanctioned the death of in the Bible. It only includes incidents for which death totals are given in the Bible. So God outdoes our fictional mass-murderer by almost 100,000 people!

But wait, you protest. The nuclear fallout from our imaginary madman would certainly kill millions more, so he still is the top killer. Well, it turns out that God has also killed millions more. The 2,301,417 people Steve Wells includes in his total of God killings are just the ones for which figures are given in the Bible. If we include estimates for all the times God kills or sanctions a killing when the Bible doesn’t even bother to tally the dead, Steve arrives at a much larger figure : 33,280,237 . Our fictional madman would have to kill the inhabitants of Wikipedia ‘s 80 least populous places in the world to match this total (either by nuclear bomb, or some other ingenious scheme).

You may argue with some of the estimates Steve gives (who besides God would know how many people actually died in the Flood, for example), but since the Bible doesn’t think it’s important enough to mention how many people died in these massacres, Steve had to come up with his own estimates. He gives his reasons behind the numbers if you follow the links. Some are more exact estimates than others. But even if he’s a few million off, that’s still an amazing amount of killing for an entity many Christians believe is a loving God who is the source of all morality.

To get an idea of just how many people the Bible says God killed, according to the conservative total (2.3 million), the following 41 countries or self-governing territories could all have their inhabitants wiped off the face of the Earth and still not equal the killings God is credited with in the Bible : São Tomé and Príncipe, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, U.S. Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Grenada, Aruba, Tonga, Kiribati, Jersey, Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Northern Mariana Islands, Andorra, Isle of Man, Dominica, American Samoa, Guernsey, Bermuda, Marshall Islands, Greenland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Faroe Islands, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Gibraltar, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Palau, Anguilla, Tuvalu, Nauru, Saint Helena, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Vatican City, Pitcairn Islands.

If we take Steve Well’s estimated total of over 33 million, here’s the list of places that could all have their entire populations slaughtered without reaching God’s glorious total : Slovenia, Lesotho, Botswana, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Gabon, Mauritius, East Timor, Swaziland, Qatar, Djibouti, Fiji, Cyprus, Bahrain, Guyana, Comoros, Bhutan, Montenegro, Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea, Solomon Islands, Luxembourg, Western Sahara, Suriname, Malta, Brunei, Bahamas, Iceland, Maldives, Barbados, Belize, Vanuatu, Netherlands Antilles, Samoa, Guam, Saint Lucia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, U.S. Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Grenada, Aruba, Tonga, Kiribati, Jersey, Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Northern Mariana Islands, Andorra, Isle of Man, Dominica, American Samoa, Guernsey, Bermuda, Marshall Islands, Greenland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Faroe Islands, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Gibraltar, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Palau, Anguilla, Tuvalu, Nauru, Saint Helena, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Vatican City, Pitcairn Islands

Sure, if you’re like me and most people, you probably don’t recognize or know a lot about some of these places, but certainly you recognize a good number of them. But in case a list of random countries don’t hit home, maybe a few other examples might help:

• The entire region/continent of Oceania has around 30 million people, according to Wikipedia. If our crazy murderer could just make Australia, New Zealand, and the population of most of the Pacific Islands die overnight, that would still be less than how many lives God took in the Bible.

• The top 20 cities in the US could have their entire population croak on the spot (32.4 million people in all), and God’s total would still be almost 1 million more.

• According to Wikipedia , 185 countries/territories out of the 221 (about 4 out of 5) in the world have a population of less than 33 million people. If our madman could randomly take any one of these countries and just kill all of its inhabitants with a snap, he would likely have killed less people than the biblical God killed.

• With those odds, he could even just pick to destroy any one country in the world at random and he’d have about a 4 out of 5 chance of killing less people than God did in the Bible.

• The Bible was written (primarily) in Hebrew and Greek. God has killed more than the current populations of Israel and Greece combined (plus you can easily throw a country like Cuba or Belgium in for good measure).

• The Beach Boys (or what’s left of them) could go butcher all the inhabitants of the places they mention in the song Kokomo , and it would only add up to around 4.7 million people. They could also go ahead and easily bump off any tourists who might be there at the time, too, and still fall far shy of God’s 33+ million estimated deaths.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. The Bible depicts a God with the blood of millions of people on his hands. Is this a good model for us or our children?

Fortunately, I have good news. Besides being mass-murders, our insane bloodthirsty maniac and our insane bloodthirsty God have one other thing in common: they’re both fictional. Unfortunately, at least some of the people in the Bible probably did die because people thought God wanted them to do it. Not to mention the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burning, and countless other cases where people have killed in the name of God. Or other deaths some people have recently attributed to God (Katrina, etc.). Or all the future deaths certainly still to committed in God’s name.

Couldn’t an all-powerful, all-knowing God and his followers think of a better way to get things done than death? Instead of thinking of all this senseless killing, wouldn’t it be nice to imagine a world without God? Just imagine…

10:12 AM – 422 views -

Genesis 16 — Call me Ishmael

admin — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:32:12 +0000

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Genesis 16 — Call me Ishmael

Close down the fertility clinics! We should all follow the example of Abram and Sarai in Genesis 16.

Abram can’t have any kids with his wife, so she tells him to sleep with one of the servants named Hagar. So far we’ve learned that polygamy is perfectly okay when you’re dealing with the Pharaoh (as long as you pretend you’re just your husband’s sister), or when you can’t have a kid (as long as it’s with one of your wife’s slaves).

When the servant gets pregnant, she gets all uppity towards Sarai. In just what way, we’re not told, so we’ll just have to take the Bible’s word on this. So Abram tells Sarai to deal with Hagar however she wants, and Hagar flees. But God will have none of that. (No fleeing that is, the abuse is fine.) If your master impregnates you and your mistress mistreats you, you have to stay put, no if’s and’s or but’s. God sends an angel to convince Hagar to go back and "submit" to her mistress (16:9).

But never fear, the Lord feels her pain and promises her that she’ll have lots of descendants, although the first one will be called Ishmael and be quite a handful—"his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him" (16:12). Abram is 86 when Ishmael is born. No one says how old or young Hagar was, but what should the mother’s age matter since she’s just a sassy slave anyway?

So what gems of wisdom has the Bible taught us in this chapter? If you have a slave, just get her pregnant and she’ll have to submit and bare your child. This must be the right way to do it, because God sure doesn’t say anything against it. And if you’re a slave, submit to your masters if they can’t have a baby. Bare the child and if they mistreat you, don’t run away!

Yet another heartwarming and inspiring story from the Bible.

3:32 PM – 19 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 15 — Good news, bad news

admin — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:56:26 +0000

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Currently
Somewhere Down in Texas
By George Strait
Good News, Bad Bews
see related

Genesis 15 — Good news, bad news

God has some good news and some bad news for Abram. Abram’s upset that he doesn’t have a kid yet, so God reassures him that he’ll have as many descendants as there are stars in the sky. (How many is that, by the way? God dares Abram to count, kind of like those contests where you have to guess how many jellybeans are in the jar!)

Then God tells Abram to bring him a cow, a she-goat, a ram, a dove, and a pigeon. Why does God want these specific animals? God sounds like a 3 year old making up the rules to some game as he’s going along. Anyway, Abram cuts all but the birds in two. Abram falls a sleep and a "horror of great darkness" (15:12 KJV) falls upon him. (Sounds like God’s handiwork to me!) God then tells him his descendants will be enslaved for 400 years.

Whoa, did that come out of left field, or what? First God reassured Abram that he’ll have offspring, then Abram brings God all these animals, and God tells him he’ll just sit by and let his descendants be slaves for 400 years (or until the 4th generation as it says later; whichever comes first, I guess). But the good news is, then God will punish the slaveholders and the slaves will come out of it with a bunch of stuff. Plus, Abram will be buried at a good age. So it’s not all bad!

Why must God wait 400 years to punish those who enslave Abram’s descendants? Why must they become slaves in the first place? I know, the Amorites are bad and Abram’s family can’t go there yet. But why punish Abram’s family, then?

Just imagine what horrible things God would have let happen if Abram had forgotten to bring that she-goat.

1:56 PM – 12 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 14 — Save A Lot

admin — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:27:30 +0000

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Genesis 14 — Save A Lot

Happy New Year to all!

I’ve realized that if I’m ever going to get through the Bible, I’ll really have to pick up the pace here. So I’m going to try to be a little less verbose. I’m flirting with the idea of just reading a whole book at a time and then commenting on it, instead of going chapter by chapter. But I also don’t want to lose the details. I guess we’ll see how things go; for now, I’ll do a couple more chapters.

Here, we see a whole lotta warring going on. Sodom and Gomorrah are defeated, and Lot is captured. Abram goes with an army to win back Lot. Abram uses the food and men of the king of Sodom to help him do this, but when the king of Lot offers him more, Abram refuses to take anything else.

Why couldn’t Abram just assembled his own army and provided them with his own food? If you’re rich and God is on your side, you’d think that would be possible. But instead, Abram allies with a wicked man to save Lot. The moral is, I guess, that it’s okay to ally yourself with evil people to defeat a common enemy, as long as you only take food from them. Or something like that. Another one of these stories with a clear moral that we see throughout the Bible.

1:27 PM – 4 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Christmas hits home, part II – Suffer, little children

admin — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:01:59 +0000

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Christmas hits home, part II – Suffer, little children

While visiting family over Christmas, there were several other disappointing things that happened involving family members. One involves politics (hogwash), one involves teaching (brainwash), and one involves preaching (whitewash).

* POLITICS (aka hogwash): One thing deserves just a fairly brief mention: somebody suggested that there should be a religion-based party in the US, one based on their denomination, to make it easier to know who to vote for. We already have entirely too much religion in politics. Many Christians even think so. It’s sad that someone, much less a family member, would think that religion should be the main defining point of a party or candidate. Shouldn’t their positions on issues figure in there somewhere? Christians, even within denominations, often disagree very strongly on a number of important issues. JFK, in a famous speech I became (re)acquainted with thanks to the FFRF , stated that politicians should not take their policies from the Pope or any other religious authority. If you’re a Baptist, would you want a Catholic running the country based on the Pope’s dictates?!? Politicians should not use or abuse religion to run for office or run the country. People have a right to their opinion, but I don’t think one religion should be preferred over another, and I have the Constitution to back me up on this one.

* TEACHING (aka brainwash): One of the little kids in our family received a manger scene for Christmas. When his mom asked who the baby was, he knew right away it was Jesus. This cute kid, who is just barely a toddler, can hardly say anything at all, is still learning his numbers, etc. Yet, he’s being taught about Jesus already, so much that he immediately could say who the little baby figurine represented. He’s obviously been exposed to a lot of religion at home or with his parents in church. He went to Sunday School for the first time the Sunday after Christmas. Now I don’t know what they do or don’t teach a toddler in Sunday School, but I don’t think a child should be taught religion before he can even form full sentences or do enough math to figure out that 1 + 1 + 1 equal 3 and not 1 (a little reference to the Trinity there). People should be allowed to make informed decisions about their religious beliefs, and a small child isn’t mentally prepared to make such decisions.

I don’t know what age would be good, but I would think they should at least be in regular school before they can be in Sunday School. (People aren’t allowed to even vote until they’re 18, and isn’t religion an even more important choice?!) Most kids who are indocrinated with Christianity seem to turn out more or less normal, but other people like me who took religion very seriously can be seriously damaged by the threats of hell and suffering or the crazy, warped logic (or lack of logic) found in the Bible. At best, the child is not taught to think critically. "Why do we believe what the Bible says? Because that’s what Pastor says, that’s what your Sunday School teacher says, and that’s what Mommy and Daddy say." "You’re just supposed to believe it and have faith!" etc. Not a lot of people go to Sunday School and then decide to read the whole Bible to find out more. Instead, they just listen to what their teachers and preacher say, go to church, do and say what you’re supposed to, love or be afraid of God (or both) and be duped into believing that doing what your church says will make you live forever, and don’t ruin your chances by asking too many questions.

That’s maybe a cynical way of viewing things, but not an untrue way of looking at it. It may not be the parents’ intent (who are themselves presumably brainwashed), but it is the result. It’s sad to think I have a little relative who is going to be brainwashed by Christianity before he can see through it. Maybe eventually I can "come out" as a non-believer and be an example to him (or at least he might wonder why I’ve been disowned even though I seem like a nice enough person).

* PREACHING (aka whitewash) I have another family member who will soon be ordained. I will name this person Pat, for the purposes of this blog. Since I once considered this route myself, I am very sympathetic to Pat and find we share a lot in common. So I have been curious as to what sorts of things Pat believes in terms of the nitty-gritty of religion, and how Pat will preach. I got a good sample of it over Christmas, since the family went to service on Sunday and Pat delivered the sermon. I didn’t know until fairly recently that for many denominations, you don’t have to be ordained to give a sermon. Pat is well on the way and was invited as a guest minister for Sunday. I was actually almost looking forward to going to church, to satisfy my curiosity as to whether Pat would be a kinder, gentler love-and-peace sort of minister or more of a traditionalist, fire-and-brimstone type.

The result was somewhere in between, but the message of the sermon simply infuriated me. It may have been the worst message I’ve ever heard in a sermon. I say "may have been" because I don’t know what sort of craziness I heard as a kid. The few sermons I’ve heard as an adult and after deconverting have been surprisingly tame and overall positive. Not this one.

To give Pat credit, it did something that I accused most Christians of not doing normally: linking Christmas with Easter. The reading was Matthew 2:1-16 , and was apparently what is normally taught the Sunday after Christmas. But Pat’s take on it was an interpretation that is inhuman, inhumane, and for lack of a better word, crazy. The fact that several family members thought it was a good sermon shows how much people just can’t get past the idea that they have to accept the Bible as the truth, no matter what atrocities are commitment or what flimsy excuse, or lack of any excuse, is given for it.

In these verses, we find out how King Herod supposedly had all children (presumably "just" the boys, but it doesn’t say) under 2 killed in Bethlehem in an attempt to have the rumored son of God killed. Herod figured having all kids under 2 killed should make sure God’s son was killed and that Herod’s power would go unchallenged. But Mary et al. had fled to Egypt (to fulfill prophesy, according to Matthew), so Jesus was spared. The lesson was that even though Christmas is a season of joy, we have to remember why Jesus came down to Earth. We sinners are responsible for Jesus’ coming to Earth and dying on the cross because, like Herod, we want to be king instead of God. We put our selfish desires first and God second. We are selfish with our time and think and say bad things (soon-to-be pastor Pat gave the example of us not wanting our life from last week to be displayed on film to the congregation). But in spite of the fact that we all do this, God still loves us anyway, so much that Jesus would come down to Earth and die for us. That is the reason we should be joyous on Christmas.

There is so much wrong with this sermon, and I am getting so upset again, that I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll just do bullet points

* Why Jesus came down to Earth: God decided he wanted to send him here. Instead of just forgiving our sins, God the father was out for blood. He wanted someone to pay, and that someone was Jesus. He took on human flesh so he could suffer in our place and appease the bloodthirsty father.

* We want to be kings instead of God: The continual use of lord and king to refer to God is appropriate, but people don’t think behind this. In America, we got rid of kings centuries ago because no one should have to put a king ahead of what is important for the people. Why should we put God’s desires first? What should matter is what’s important for people, not some ruler (divine or not). I’m not saying that people aren’t too selfish, but the whole idea that we should devote ourselves to Christ the King is very harmful. People should not be taught unquestioning obedience to anyone or anything. Wouldn’t it be a much better idea to teach people compassion and justice instead of being taught to serve a master? Then maybe we wouldn’t have so many killings in the name of religion, or in the name of blind obedience to one’s leaders (I was just followin’ orders).

* We don’t want our lives displayed on movie for all to see. The old make-people-feel-unworthy trick. We humans are horrible beings that think and do disgusting things. We should be ashamed! We don’t deserve to live! This is a very negative vision of humanity, that I still have trouble shaking sometimes. Yes, humans do, say, and think horrible things, but they also do very positive things. Why don’t we put up a film of all the generous, kind, and thoughtful things congregants did in the past week, and then do a reel of all the good things God or Jesus did this past week. We haven’t heard from God in almost 2000 years, so the second half of the presentation would be rather short. Some people have undoubtedly done good things in Jesus’ name, but Jesus hasn’t bothered to show up in millennia.

Some would argue that Jesus does good things: save kittens from trees, etc., but just doesn’t show himself to us (he’s too camera shy? Yahweh would have to pay him more if he had a speaking part?). But if we’re going to say he does good things, then he obviously either does bad things as well or lets bad things happen. Let’s show all the bad things that people in the congregation did in the past week, and all the bad things God did or let happen in the past week. I’ll betcha God’s total active or passive wickedness is much higher than the whole congregation put together.

* One important thing that was not explained in the sermon was: why did all those innocent toddlers in Bethlehem have to die? Couldn’t God have struck down Herod instead of letting him kill all those kids? What purpose did their deaths serve? Why should they be killed and baby Jesus spared? God’s responsibility for allowing these deaths was whitewashed by the message of us being unworthy of his love and sacrifice. But what of the sacrifice of those little children? We don’t know how much a 2-year-old or so deity can do, but I would think he or his father could have just stayed in Bethlehem to ward off Herod’s men, or persuade them not to kill those kids.

Jesus, son of the all-powerful God, being carried off to Egypt and letting those kids be slaughtered is nothing short of an act of cowardice . If Jesus was too young in his human form to know better, then his father should have done something about it. It’s inhuman for God to have let those babies die, it’s inhumane to have let them and Jesus be killed just because God was still upset about our sins, and the reasoning behind the whole thing is absolutely crazy. Allowing the mass slaughter of children is not justifiable, which is why Pat, either consciously or unconsciously, chose not to dwell on the most striking and appalling part of this story.

And yet, I heard more than one person say that this was a good sermon. It explained nothing about why Jesus had to come to Earth or why the children had to be killed. It unnecessarily ruined the joyous mood that many certainly had going into church on the Sunday after Christmas by telling people how bad and unworthy they are of God’s love because we don’t love God enough and we do or think bad things. I really doubt that made most people "joyous" as promised. Perhaps ashamed and falsely grateful to God for dying for and forgiving us. But I guess that’s what people expect sometimes from a sermon. I think I may have just been lucky in the few recent sermon’s I’ve heard.

Fortunately, I’ve read that it’s pretty unlikely this massacre of the innocents actually took place historically. But the fact that it is being taught as the gospel truth and being used to brainwash people into submission to a supposedly merciful God is so disappointing and frustrating. If God were really merciful, he wouldn’t have let those children be killed. If God were really loving, he wouldn’t have needed to send Jesus to Earth on Christmas to suffer and die on Easter, he would just forgive us and love us as the imperfect beings we are. Does Pat truly not see what is wrong with all this?!

So I am deeply upset by the fact that one of my relatives will be teaching hundreds of people (and probably thousands over a lifetime) lessons like this one. I’m sorry that I probably sound really upset about all this, but I was really hoping Pat would have a more enlightened take on Christianity than "You are not worthy, bow down to your master." or "You’re a very bad person, but God loves you anyway even though you don’t deserve it." or "The slaughter of children while Jesus was safe elsewhere is okay because Jesus was coming to die to save wretched old humanity." Pat delivered the sermon very well: very filled with what appeared to be genuine emotion. If only people of Pat’s intelligence and talent could work towards improving humanity instead of beating down children and adults alike with the same old myths.

The King James version of Luke 18:16 reports Jesus as saying "Suffer little children to come unto me". This "suffer" is in the olden sense of "allow" or "let". But by perpetuating violent, morally harmful stories such as these among adults, and teaching them to kids too young to know what a horrible story this is, I feel that "suffer, little children" would be an appropriate motto for Christianity. Let’s hope someday children won’t have to suffer because of their parents’ religion and can make an informed choice as adults whether or not they want to listen to this crap.

4:01 PM – 56 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Christmas hits home, part I – Nothing fails like prayer

admin — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:01:37 +0000

Monday, December 29, 2008

Currently
Nothing Fails Like Prayer
Dan Barker Salutes Freethought Then & Now

Christmas hits home, part I – Nothing fails like prayer

I hope everyone has had or is having a happy holiday season, no matter what you do or don’t believe!

I’ve just spent Christmas with family. I had a very nice time overall, a nice break from the craziness that has been my life the past year or so. I have to say though that I am getting more upset and frustrated by religion. I tried not to be affected with it and ruin my visit with my family, because it was so wonderful to get to see everyone and have some great times with people I don’t get to see often, but now that I am back home I need to vent.

The next couple posts I do will be the most personal I’ve done since my very first post. I will get back to blogging the Bible soon, and plan on doing it several times a week now. I’ve been inspired by recent events to ramp-up my exploration of the Bible (more on this in a future post).

My mother is apparently getting more religious as she gets older. She said a prayer at dinner the first day I was home, and the only day we had dinner at my folks’ place. We never, ever used to pray before dinner. This used to only happen at my grandparents’ house. Since my grandfather passed away some years ago and my grandmother is getting older, we no longer have Christmas at her house. This may partly explain the situation (a desire to carry on tradition), but there have been other hints as well that she is going back to the fold, so to speak. Quotes on email signatures, little asides on the phone or in emails, etc.

But since my brother is openly not Christian (he’s another religion), I thought it was very rude, or at least unthoughtful, for her to lead a prayer. The prayer started "Dear Lord" and I don’t believe mentioned Jesus specifically, but if she’s the one praying it’s obvious that she’s talking about the Christian God and not a general, unitarian sort of god or about my brother’s religion.

She doesn’t know that I’m an atheist, so I haven’t decided yet whether or not to say anything to her. I may talk to my brother about it first to get his reaction. The problem with talking to my brother is that he isn’t areligious, although he flirted with this for a while. He is actually active and, from what I can tell, a strong believer in another, alternative religion. So we share an anti-Christianity point of view, but do not share a rejection of the supernatural in general. Since we differ, I do not talk to him much about religious matters as I once used to. He tends to be more open with his life and personal matters than I am, and I do not want him sharing my beliefs with others in my family (at least, not just yet).

I think he’s pretty much onto me though. A day or two later, when no one else was around, he brought up a funny line I had made up off the cuff once from "O Holy Night". The line "Fall on your knees", while I was still more on the Christian side of the spectrum, struck me as somewhat out of place. Why should we fall on our knees to God? So one year several years back, when I was more on the atheist side of the spectrum, I just came up with the line "Down on your knees, And beg for your supper". It doesn’t quite go in the beat, but it reflects my feelings at the time: why should people be going on our knees, a sign of submission, to a supposedly loving God?

And I’m fairly certainly he and I share the belief though that religion is a private matter and should not be forced on people. I think that was what I objected to most with my mother’s prayer. I am deeply saddened and disappointed that she is turning to religion more in her life, and don’t know if there’s anything that I can or should do about it. That is more of a personal issue that I won’t go into here.

But her beliefs aside, I am upset and do not find it acceptable that she feels she has a right to impose this on others, especially family. It would be different if she didn’t know my brother wasn’t a Christian, but she does. So she specifically did something we didn’t used to do that might make my brother uncomfortable. Was that a very "Christian" thing to do? I think praying around my brothers (or others who may not share her beliefs) is something that would be a legitimate thing to bring up to her. It’s a difficult decision about whether to do this, though.

I’m too afraid that it will be one of those stories where my relationship with my mother and/or other family members will worsen if people start getting wind of my unbelief. As I mentioned in my first post on this blog, I at one point considered becoming a pastor, for goodness sakes! I am not sure of my sister’s beliefs, but she wasn’t there for that first dinner. I know her significant other is either a very weak Christian or an agnostic/atheist, but I’ve never dared to bring up the topic. But everyone else either is very clearly, or is seemingly, either vaguely or strongly Christian. So finding out that I no longer believe in God, much less that I have this blog and am actively posting elsewhere in the non-believer universe, would be a shock to many.

I will talk more about my religious experiences over Christmas tomorrow in Part II, in which I will describe my thoughts on seeing a family member becoming a pastor, another wanting a new religious-based political party, and a nephew in the early throes of Christian indoctrination.

1:01 PM – 18 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 13 — Too rich for my blood!

admin — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:51:34 +0000

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Currently
With the Beatles
By The Beatles
Money (That’s What I Want)
see related

Genesis 13 — Too rich for my blood!

Don’t you just hate it when you’re just too rich? That’s the predicament Abram and Lot are in for this chapter. They just have too much cattle and sheep, and too many people to tend all this livestock, that they just couldn’t live together anymore.

So they start fighting, perhaps it went something like this:
—Abram: You’ve got way too many sheep, bro! They’re giving my legions of shepherds headaches. Then they come complain to me, and make me lose count when I’m trying to count all my vast sums of money. What a buzz-kill.
—Lot: Oh yeah, well tell all your shepherd dudes to steer clear of my insanely large group of sheep, bro! I’m way too rich and important to be bothered by all this sheep nonsense.

Family counseling wasn’t available back then, but something had to be done. They decide that riches are more important than family. They could have given some of their sheep and riches to the poor, or given some to their shepherds so the shepherds could start a new life somewhere else. But then Abram and Lot wouldn’t be fabulously wealthy anymore. So instead of parting with some of their riches, they decide to part ways.

Lot ends up going to live by wicked people (which is a lot better than living next to a rich family member, I guess!), and after Lot leaves, God decides to give Abram all the land in sight to all his descendants, forever. That must have been a relief to Abram knowing that future generations of his family would always have land to live on.

That’s what really happened, right? All of Abram’s descendants have always had somewhere to live, haven’t they? God promised it, and you can always count on God to keep his word, can’t you? God’s promises are good as gold, right? Hmm, maybe that’s why Abram and Lot didn’t want to part with their riches so soon. It’s always good to keep a rainy-day fund when dealing with God.

11:51 AM – 2 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 12 — Plagued Like an Egyptian

admin — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:43:24 +0000

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Currently
Walk Like An Egyptian (Extended Dance Mix)
see related

Genesis 12 — Plagued Like an Egyptian

In this chapter, we see the Egyptian Pharaoh and the people in his palace punished because Abram and Sarai lie to them. Not very fair, but we’ve already seen (and I’m sure will see many other times) that God is anything but fair a lot of the time.

First though, God sends Abram on a wild goose chase so that he can go somewhere where there isn’t enough food to eat. He loves Abram, and blesses him, but doesn’t like him enough to let him and his family eat right, I guess. God shows him Canaan, but then says he can’t live there (his descendants will, lucky them). Then Abram moves on, because of a famine, has to settle in Egypt. God could have just stopped the famine of course, but apparently wasn’t in the mood.

His wife Sarai (who amazingly has a name, unlike many women in the Bible) is so beautiful, Abram decides the Egyptians would be too jealous if they knew she was already married to him. So they just lie and don’t tell anyone that they’re married. They tell the Egyptians that they’re just brother and sister. So the beautiful Sarai is taken to the Pharaoh’s palace. We’re told Pharaoh marries her, so we can only assume what else goes on behind closed doors…

Then God sends plagues on the Pharaoh’s house (which ones, we’re not told, but I have faith that God could come up with something violent or nasty like he does for the later plagues he sends the Egyptians), and Pharaoh of course figures out it must be because Sarai and Abram are actually married. That’s what I always assume when there’s a plague: I must have married someone who was already married, and God wants to punish me.

So to sum up, Abram lies and says Sarai is his sister, he lets her get taken to the Pharaoh’s palace, Sarai apparently says nothing and marries Pharaoh, and then God punishes Pharaoh for Abram and Sarai’s sins. How is this fair? God expects the Pharaoh to be psychic, I guess.

Why isn’t Abram punished for lying? The 10 commandments didn’t exist yet, so I guess it was okay for Abram to lie to the Pharaoh. No wonder Pharaoh sends them on their merry way. Why would he want anything to do with them or their God if this is how they act? Seems like God just entrapped Pharaoh.

And shouldn’t Sarai be punished for polygamy (and presumably adultery)? The Bible says nothing about her being forced into any of this, and she was already married to another man.

What is the moral of this story: men should not marry women who claim to have a brother, in case their brother is actually their husband, or else God will send you "great plagues" (12:17). Or maybe the moral is that, if you lie, then God will punish the people you fooled. I can’t even figure out what would be the moral of such a story. The Bible, your guide to morality.

10:43 PM – 42 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 11 — A bunch of Babel

admin — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:53:12 +0000

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Currently
Synchronicity
By The Police
O My God
see related

Genesis 11 — A bunch of Babel

It’s actually almost funny to read the story of the Tower of Babel now as an atheist. It seems so obviously fake that I wonder how many people truly believe it happened. I don’t know if I ever did or not, I don’t think I really thought about it a whole lot, although I do remember us going over it in Sunday School.

Now though, for some reason, it seems even more fake to me than the Noah and the Ark story, maybe because this one is so short and to the point. I just envision a kid asking his dad, "Why do people speak different languages?", and the dad just makes up a story on the spot. And then somehow it ended up getting in the Bible and being taken for real.

But let’s look at the story itself. People all speak the same language. They start moving east. They decide they want a tower to reach up to the heavens. They give two reasons for this: to be famous, and to not be all spread out from each other.

The first reason is what is normally emphasized, from my recollection and understanding. Those uppity humans got too proud and wanted to be like God, so God had to do something about it. But even if we pretend God exists for a moment, what is wrong with us humans trying to "make a name for ourselves" (NIV)? It doesn’t say humans were trying to be better than God, that we were trying to usurp him or outdo him. I don’t think it even implies it. If anything, they were trying to get closer to God. (Like The Police song "O My God") But even if they were trying to show up God, certainly God would know that they could never build a tower high enough to reach him.

Maybe humans were just trying to be like God, like a son follows his dad around and tries to be like him. God created the universe, so humans were trying to do something great, too. What’s wrong with that?

But I don’t think people focus on the second part of the story here. The folks building the Tower of Babel wanted "not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." (NIV) No Google Earth or Street View back then, so building a tower so they could see everyone apparently sounded like a good plan. So basically, humans were spreading out, but didn’t want to be isolated from each other. What’s so wrong with that?

God’s apparently mad and/or threatened that humans would dare to try building a tower that could reach up to him, and jealous and/or threatened that humans would want to stay as one big family instead of being scattered into little groups. So he destroys the tower, makes humans all speak different languages, and spreads them out over the planet. That’ll teach them.

This brings up an interesting thing I had never thought of before. Let’s again pretend we’re in a Christian world and the Bible is true (for the second time in this post; it’s getting scary!). The Bible says it was God’s doing that people are spread out and speaking different languages. So when all the people living in the Americas and other lands unknown to Christians were being sent to hell because they didn’t know Jesus, it was God’s fault. If he hadn’t have taken down the Tower and scattered humans, they would have all kept nearby and in touch. There would have been no American Indians and Chinese thousands of miles away that God would have had to send straight to hell. They would have quickly heard of Jesus’ death-defying feat and at least have been able to be saved!

In his infinite wisdom, God certainly could have chosen a different punishment than ensuring millions of people would be sent to hell for thousands of years just because he spread them around the planet. I wonder what response Christians would have to this, other than we all deserve to die anyway because of original and continuing sin, so the unsaved deserve to die anyway. I think if most Christians took the time like I’m doing to actually go through the Bible and see how everything fits together (or rather doesn’t fit together), there would be a lot more agnostics or atheists.

8:53 AM – 56 views – 4 eprops – 8 comments – email it

Genesis 10 — Family tree, very silly

admin — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:49:15 +0000

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Currently
Peter, Paul, and Mary
Lemon Tree
see related

Genesis 10 — Family tree, very silly

I’ve been gone for a while (hard to believe it’s been almost a month) due to being busy again. I’ll try to be able to post quickly at least once a week in the future. If I take a month in-between posts, I may never get through the Bible!

Genesis 10 is an easy one to knock off. It’s mostly a family tree of Grandpa Noah, that great guy God chose as the father of humanity. I guess if you’re trying to keep a play-by-play history of the Israelites, this might be vaguely useful, but what it’s doing in a Holy Book meant for the whole world I’m not sure.

I guess if we had any way of knowing whether or not these people were real and what they did, and the significance of the places they allegedly went to, it could be an interesting footnote. I guess I’ll find out how many of these people and places actually play a role in the rest of the story, but my hunch and recollection is most of them will not. Once again, God could use an editor to cut out all the bloat in this book.

One interesting thing to note is that it talks about people having different languages. We haven’t yet heard the story of the Tower of Babel yet. Is it possible different languages developed *before* God allegedly did so? Houston, we have a problem!

11:49 AM – 13 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 9, Noah invents slavery

admin — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:31:15 +0000

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Genesis 9, Noah invents slavery

We see some great family-friendly entertainment in this chapter.

God decides to make all animals afraid of humans, so that humans can eat them more easily. Violence, and the fear of violence, seems to be the main motivation for most of what happens in the Old Testament.

Apparently, God does postmortem interviews with all animals to find out how they were killed. If people eat animals that still has blood in them, it’s a big no-no (for some ungiven reason). And killing humans is right out. Genesis 9:6 (KJV) says:

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed "

This is probably how some people who are pro-capital punishment justify it. Problem is, there are many, many times that God commands people to kill other people for crimes less than murder. And times when people kill other people and aren’t put to death (Cain’s murder, for example). If God really wanted murderers killed, couldn’t he do so himself instead of letting imperfect humans decide who should and shouldn’t be put to death? Not to mention that God kills plenty of people himself, meaning he should kill himself (maybe that’s why we don’t hear from him much anymore?).

God also promises (again) not to flood the earth and kill everything again. How nice of him not to kill off his creation! Rainbows remind him not to kill everyone in a flood again. It would be better if the rainbows came BEFORE the rain, so maybe he would remember to spare people in the non-global but still lethal floods that are increasing around the globe.

Then, we have something funky going on between drunk Noah and his family (9:18-28). It’s not clear what on earth happened other than Noah got drunk, one of his sons (Ham) sees him naked, two of his other sons go in and cover him up, and then after Noah sobers up (and is probably hung over) he unilaterally curses Ham’s son Canaan slavery. Why would Noah curse Ham’s son because Ham saw Noah naked and told his brothers? You could argue that Noah would want to curse Ham for seeing him naked and spreading the word to his brothers without covering him up. But what does this have to do with Ham’s son?!?

If God disapproved of this behavior (both the lying around naked and the seemingly randomly making his grandson a slave), he certainly could have said or done something about it. But no such thing happens. Noah condemns his grandson to slavery. A "righteous" man (Genesis 7:1) indeed…

Christians tell their kids about how Noah built the ark, but never explain that he invented slavery.

12:44 PM – 30 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 7-8 — What a cute children’s story!

admin — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:48:12 +0000

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Genesis 7-8 — What a cute children’s story!

I’m continuing with Genesis 7-8 right away since it continues the flood story. Noah and the Ark is considered a fun kids’ story. I used to think so, too, when I was a kid. God saving all the animals! One of my favorite songs was (and is, for different reasons now) "Rise and Shine". But how does the sanitized song compare to the "real" thing? Let’s see!

(PS I can’t find authorship for this song, and there appear to be a number of variations out there; if I find the original or the authors, I will list them here. Here’s a similar version on YouTube. )

CHORUS:
Rise and shine, and give God the glory, glory
Rise and shine, and give God the glory, glory
Rise and shine, and give God the glory, glory, children of the Lord.

Yes kids, you are God’s special children! … What did you say, Timmy? Are children of the Lord the same as sons of God in Genesis 6? Where did that question come from? Well, I guess so, we’re all sons and daughters of God because he loves us! Okay, let’s continue with the song now!

1. The Lord said to Noah, “There’s gonna be a floody, floody.”
Lord said to Noah, “There’s gonna be a floody, floody.”
“Get those animals out of the muddy, muddy, children of the Lord.”

Wasn’t it nice, children, for God to warn Noah about the flood? Otherwise Noah and the animals would have gotten all wet! …What’s that, Timmy? Why was there a flood? Couldn’t God have stopped the flood and eliminated the need to build an ark and save the animals? Umm…be quiet and sing!

2. So Noah, he built him, he built him an arky arky
Noah, he built him, he built him an arky arky
Made it out of gopher barky, barky, children of the Lord

Noah was a great builder! Do any of you like big boats, too? … What’s up now, Timmy? … No, I don’t know what gopher bark was, the Bible doesn’t say. It must have been some magical material because it was strong enough to hold all the animals, and Noah and his family! … No, it’s not impossible to build a vessel like the one described in the Bible, and even if it was God can help people do things that seem impossible! Okay? Now, let’s go on!

3. The animals, they came on, they came on by twosies, twosies,
Animals, they came on, they came on by twosies, twosies,
Elephants and kangaroosies, roosies, children of the Lord

Wouldn’t that be fun to go on a big boat with all those animals? It would be tons of fun, just like a big old zoo! … Now what, Timmy? … Yes, it does say in Genesis 7 that Noah took seven of clean animals and birds. That’s a pretty smart question for a 5-year-old! …What does "clean" mean? Well it means that they weren’t dirty, I guess. Just like you’re supposed to be nice and squeaky clean before you go to church! …No, God wouldn’t have drowned you if you forgot to clean behind your ears, don’t be silly! Moving on…

4. It rained and poured for forty daysies, daysies
Rained and poured for forty daysies, daysies
Nearly drove those animals crazies, crazies, children of the Lord.

Forty days is a long time to be in a boat, isn’t it kids? But I bet it was still fun! … What do you want now, Timmy? … Well, yes I guess you could say the verses about the flood give different numbers that seem contradictory, who told you that? And where on Earth did a 5-year-old like you learn the word "contradictory"? You’re driving me crazies-crazies with all these questions! … Well, yes all the other animals that weren’t on the ark did die in the flood … Well, no the animals didn’t do anything wrong. … Yes, all the people died, too, except Noah and his family, because God saved them! … Why’d he kill the rest of humanity? Because they were bad and God wanted to teach them a lesson, but Noah was a good man. … What do you mean he was a drunk who liked to lay around naked? Where do you get such crazy ideas?!?! …Stop crying, Sally, Timmy doesn’t mean it! Now just be quiet kids and listen!

5. The sun came out and dried up the landy, landy
Sun came out and dried up the landy, landy
Everything was fine and dandy, dandy, children of the Lord.

After the flood, God sent us a beautiful, sunny day to show us everything was okay!! You again, Timmy? … I guess there would be dead carcasses everywhere after the flood dried up. … Yes, and dead people everywhere. … Yes, I’m sure it smelled really bad. … Well, besides that, it was fine and dandy, and it was nice and sunny again! Stop interrupting!!! And Sally, quit pinching your nose!

6. The animals, they came out, they came out by threesies, threesies.
Animals, they came out, they came out by threesies, threesies.
Dogs and cats and chimpanzeesies, zeesies, children of the Lord.

You see kids, then all the animals could come out and play again! … Yes, Timmy? … They came out by threesies because all the mommy and daddy animals had a baby! … Um, you can ask your mom how that happens. … Is that why God had Noah put seven storks on the ark? I guess that would make sense, thank you Timmy! … You were being sarcastic? How do you even know the word "sarcastic"? We’re almost done, so just be quiet!!!!

7. Now this is the end of, the end of our story, story.
This is the end of, the end of our story, story.
Everything is hunky dory, dory, children of the Lord.

That’s the end of … What it is NOW, Timmy?!?! … Yes, it was honky dory, why do you ask? … Well, the Bible says God did feel bad about the flood, yes… No, that doesn’t mean he made a mistake! God is perfect! … Yes, God did promise never to flood the planet again. See how nice God is! … Well Katrina was different. … No they didn’t deserve it because they were all gay, where did you hear that? … Your mom said that? Well, you’ll have to take that up with her, then.

Well, that’s it, kiddies! Time to go out and live like God’s little children! … This is the last time, Timmy, now what do you want to ask? … Well, yes, people still sin. … So what did it solve to kill all those people and animals, then?!?

I give up!!! I’ve had it!!! Either you go Timmy, or I go! God, where’s a flood when you need one? Calgon, take me away!!!

12:48 PM – 17 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 6 — Sons of god, weird His floody word

admin — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:06:57 +0000

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Genesis 6 — Sons of god, weird His floody word

The "perfect" Bible in Genesis 6 starts out with a bunch of nonsense that still hasn’t been completely deciphered by anyone. I’ll cite the NIV this time, so its language is an easier read for modern English speakers:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. [...] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when
the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.
They were the heroes of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:1-2, 4)

So what’s going on here? The Bible does not tell us who the "sons of God" are (some say angels, though the Bible doesn’t support this), who the "daughters of men" are (human women?), or who these "Nephilim" are (the KJV calls them "giants"; are they tell humans or a different race?), or what their offspring were (half-angel-half-humans and half-giant-half-humans; were they demigods???)

Most translations also hide the fact that there is strong evidence for Hebrew polytheism in the Bible: the word "Elohim" is being used here for God. This is a word that is contrasted with the word "Yahweh" in Job. Many Christians are aware of the quote "Let us make man in our image "
(Genesis 1:26, KJV). Well, Elohim is used there and here in the original Hebrew. It’s a plural and is distinct from Yahweh in other parts of the Bible (e.g. Job 1).

In any case, no one knows for sure what on Earth (or heaven) Genesis is talking about in these verses. An informal discussion of these beings (also in relation to God and Satan talking in Job) can be found here in the SAB blog, Dwindling in Unbelief. My comment goes into more detail about what I’ve been able to figure out about these beings from among this biblical nonsense.

Maybe this is why God decided to order a flood, he/they just had too hard a time keeping all these crazy different beings straight and decided to start over?!?

But the reason given is that man was just too evil, and there was too much violence on the planet. God’s solution to this problem, like many others in the Bible, involves…violence. Fight fire with fire, I guess. Or in this case, water. God wants to start off with a clean slate, and decides to kill offf humanity. Nothing solves a problem like a good mass murder. He chooses though to save one family: Noah’s. Noah apparently was "perfect" (KJV) or "blameless" (NIV) and the best human God could find at the time — so good, that God "walked" with him. So we are all directly descended from the late, great Noah, according to the Bible.

God commands Noah to put his and his children’s families in a big wooden boat, and to bring two of every animal as well as all food. Reasonable people realize it would be impossible to put two of every animal and all their food into one boat for a number of reasons (space, weight, etc .). There are some people though who are too endoctrinated and honestly believe it must be true somehow, despite explanations.

I guess if you believe the rest of the Bible, this isn’t too hard to accept. With God, all things are possible, including a physics-defying boat and viciously killing nearly all humans, animals, and other life on Earth in a flood.

11:06 AM – 13 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 5 — Be begotten, not forgotten?

admin — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:20:45 +0000

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Genesis 5 — Be begotten, not forgotten?

Genesis 5 is pretty easy to blog. Mostly a lot of "begats" in some attempt apparently by God’s chosen people to keep a history of their ancestors. There is nothing wrong with doing this of course, it might even be considered a noble sort of pursuit, provided the information you keep is accurate and not just made up.

God was apparently so mad at humans after Adam’s fall that he originally let humans live up to 969 years. As the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible points out, this was despite the fact that God promised Adam he would die the day he ate of the fruit of knowledge. God was only hundreds of years off, which is a lot more accurate than his faithful young-Earth creationists likely being billions of years off about the age of the planet!

Was this reprieve a blessing or a curse for Adam and Eve? Genesis 5:2 says that God "blessed them". This is the same God who threw them out of paradise and condemned them to suffering and death for all their descendants, all on account of eating some fruit that made them smart. And then after this, God lets them suffer for hundreds of years! Genesis 5:29 correctly reminds readers that God "cursed" the ground. So it doesn’t seem like such a blessing to me. What on Earth did Adam and Eve, and their ancestors, do with their lives for hundreds of years? Struggle to survive, I suppose. I would think with having very little else to do in those days (few people around to talk to, no pay-per-view…) that it may have been worse than death. Maybe that was God’s idea, to keep them around to suffer even more?!?

I’m glad this is a fictional account, otherwise it would be rather cruel. You could actually see someone enjoying living 900 years nowadays if their health permitted it, but just wandering around the desert for hundreds of years must not have been pleasant. Fortunately, there is no reason, besides the Bible itself, to believe humans used to live (and suffer) that long. I used to take "for the Bible tells me so" as proof enough for anything the Bible said, but realize now that you shouldn’t based your entire worldview on one grossly unproven document, no matter how much it (or other people) tells you it’s true.

About all the people born in this chapter, as far as I know, we find out little to nothing about most of them. Why are they included in the Bible, then? What good is just having someone’s name if you’re trying to remember your civilization’s history? How does a list of random names fulfill God’s holy purpose? God really needed an editor to cut the bloat out of this thing.

We do see that Adam (and presumably Eve) had some daughters in this chapters, though they go unnamed (since women aren’t really all that important). So this may answer how the human race got started: it was brothers and sisters having sex. Don’t try this at home, folks, it’s just some good ol’ family values from the fictional Bible.

1:20 PM – 26 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 4 — God hates vegetables

admin — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:17:37 +0000

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Genesis 4 — God hates vegetables

Well, it’s time for Genesis 4, the chapter where we find out that God the father, just like George Bush the father, doesn’t like broccoli.

God rejects Cain’s offering of "fruit of the ground" (I think we are supposed to assume this means vegetables, fruits, grains, or something of the sort). God likes Cain’s brother’s offering, however: a dead animal. God just loves the smell of dead animals, as we’ll see in later verses.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I’m a vegetarian. But it still seems silly to me that God would only accept a meat offering. What exactly is God using these offerings for? If he’s hungry, couldn’t he whip up something for himself? If he didn’t like vegetables/fruits, why did he create them and force many animals to eat them to survive? Humans also cannot be healthy if they eat ONLY meat, so plants are a necessary part of his creation, aren’t they?

We also don’t know why Cain is supposed to give an offering to God (as a thanks to God for condemning humanity to pain, suffering, and hard work for the rest of our days?). And we don’t know if God’s instructions were clear about what Cain was supposed to offer (telling from God’s other instructions in the Bible, my guess is, not so much).

In any case, this rejection really upsets Cain and he murders his brother, presumably out of jealousy. God apparently was apparently playing solitaire and couldn’t be bothered to intervene and prevent the death, or heal Abel before his death. So God punishes Cain by making him an endless wanderer who can no longer grow crops. God does put a mark on him though so no one will kill him (too bad he didn’t do that to Abel!). Who this no one is, we’re not told. We’re also not told what Adam and Eve think of the whole thing, other than the fact that they had another son. Cain finds a wife and has kids, and their kids have kids. No mention as to where all the women in the Bible come from, since Adam and Eve aren’t mentioned as having any daughter. Certainly even back then someone must have thought of the fact that this doesn’t explain how humans were "fruitful and multiplied" without committing incest. God could have magically made women appear, but why not mention this in the Bible, then?

We do find out where some of the professions come from: Jubal is the father of all harp and flute players, it would seem. Verses 18-22 definitely sound more like a children’s story or fairy tale than the true word of God (if it weren’t for the killings before and after it in this chapter). Some people apparently still believe this stuff literally?

Anyway, I think the moral of the Cain and Abel story is, if you don’t offer meat to God, you’ll become a murderer with a black thumb (I think that’s the opposite of a green thumb). In light of this, I’m giving up the whole vegetarian thing— I’m going to go out and get some veal and burn it. I’m sure this will please God, and my brother can sleep a lot easier, too.

2:17 PM – 35 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

Genesis 3 — You’ve come a long way, baby…

admin — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:26:09 +0000

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Genesis 3 — You’ve come a long way, baby…

I’ve decided, to keep the blog a little more manageable (and to keep me from posts that take hours to write!) I’m going to try to deal with one or two chapters of the Bible at a time. It looks like that should still keep me pretty busy.

So now we come to Genesis 3 . We’ve come a long way from the co-creation of men and women in the first chapter. Turns out, women are to blame for everything wrong on the planet! There’s an excellent song about this, Robert Hoyt ‘s "Genesis 3:6". I don’t get how any modern church can hold that the Bible is the true word of God when it is so clearly misogynistic.

This is the biggest set up of all time, both for women and for humanity as a whole. If God created everything, including the serpent, the infamous tree of knowledge, Adam, and Eve, then whose "fault" is it that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit? If I construct a building and it crumbles to the ground a week later, do I blame the building, or my design? Everything was exactly how God created it. Either he really screwed up royally in his creation and didn’t know his creations Adam and Eve would be imperfect and sin (meaning God isn’t so perfect and all-knowing after all), or else he cruelly set up Adam and Eve to fail by putting all the ingredients there for them to fail and then punishing them for the inevitable.

If he didn’t want Adam and Eve, and all of humanity afterwards, to suffer interminably on the Earth, there was plenty God could have done to prevent this.

1) God could have not created the serpent. Now, most Christians assume the talking serpent is the Devil. This is not stated in Genesis, and there are other examples of talking animals in the Bible (the donkey one is my favorite). But let’s assume it was the Devil. Where in the creation story did God create the Devil? If he’s a fallen angel, yet more proof of God’s fallibility. Or maybe the Devil existed prior to creation? Why wouldn’t an all-powerful God destroy the Devil, or at least warn Adam and Eve he’d be lurking around trying to trick them? It simply makes no sense. In any case, with no serpent, there’d be no Fall of Man (and Woman).

2) God could have not created the Tree of Knowledge, or not put it in the Garden of Eden. Why put a big tree in the middle of the garden that Adam and Eve weren’t supposed to eat from? If God really needed this tree for some reason (to help him remember not to create all the animals, plants, and humans a third time??), there’s plenty of real estate on earth he could have used besides that Garden. There was no reason for it to be in the Garden if he wanted Adam and Eve to leave it alone. Or better yet, God could have just not created the tree to begin with. Or…

3) God could have not forbidden Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. If this was a test, then what was the test for? Certainly God, who created everything, would already know that Adam and Eve would be tempted and would eat from the tree. Why go through the whole charade to begin with? Why forbid them from something that he knew they would do anyway: why not just damn humanity from the get-go?

Most importantly, which a lot of people don’t know or don’t think about, the full name of the tree that was forbidden was called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The symbolism behind the whole thing is atrocious. Basically, God wanted to keep Adam and Eve stupid. Eve ate it in part because she wanted to be smart: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof" (Genesis 3:6 ) The Bible even says that part of the reason Eve wanted to eat the fruit was because she thought it would make her wise. What’s wrong with wanting to be wise?!?!

Apparently, it was evil for Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of this true. But how were Adam and Eve to know this? It goes to reason that they didn’t fully understand good and evil until they ate of the tree, right? The lesson here appears to be that it’s best to blindly do what you’re told, whether it’s right or wrong. Humanity was condemned forever because, instead of just blindly doing God’s bidding, we were curious what it might be like to be wise. God’s so nice to us. The whole idea of book burning makes a lot more sense…

4) God could have paid attention to his creation and intervened before they partook of the fruit . What’s up with God walking around the Garden when the fate of humanity was at stake?!? The Bible says after Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, "they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." So God apparently only cares to come visit Adam and Eve during the part of the day when it’s not too hot out (whose fault would that be, by the way?) . So God didn’t know the serpent was tempting Eve and couldn’t have come intervene? Even Spiderman has "Spidey sense". Apparently Spiderman is better than God is at telling when something wrong is happening.

5) God could have just forgiven Adam and Eve . This seems to be a recurrent problem for God. He just can’t find it in his Holy heart to forgive people. Obviously Adam and Eve didn’t know any better. Why couldn’t God just forgive them and, if he really felt someone had to pay, why not only punish the serpent, since it was his idea anyway? Instead, he condemns an entire species for all eternity based on one incident. Not very forgiving of him.

I’m sure I could think of other alternatives, but that’s plenty for now.

It’s also interesting to note that God didn’t want humans to live forever (3:22). There was a second magical tree in the Garden that would have let people live forever if Adam (and presumably Eve) would have eaten from it. If this was the case, and God didn’t want humans to live forever, why not warn humans not to eat of that tree, too? Or was it only after the fall, when humans knew good and evil and had "become as one of us", that God didn’t want humans to live forever (if they stayed dumb he wouldn’t have cared)? Now that humans were smart, he didn’t want them around forever. Who knows?

Notice how the women gets punished in Genesis 3:16: God out-and-out says that Adam should "rule over" his wife (when did they get married, by the way??), and by extension all husbands over their wives. She will also have painful childbirth and bear children "in sorrow". People say childbirth is a beautiful thing. If they say that, they are missing the point apparently because God wants it to be painful and sorrowful. Adam in the next verse is punished not just for eating the fruit; the first thing he is chastised for is choosing to listen to his wife. An important life lesson: God is more important than your wife or family. (By the way, Jesus thinks so, too .)

Some people argue that we chose to sin and disobey God, so it is our fault that we are not closer to God. The reasoning goes that God wanted to give us free will so we could choose to love him with all our heart. But we chose instead to disobey God and turn away from him, so we deserve to be punished. The sad part is, people actually believe this, even though it makes absolutely no sense. God created us so that we could sin against him, put a tree there that we couldn’t eat from, and then had (or let) a talking serpent talk us into eating that fruit. And that’s why women have to listen to men and suffer or die in childbirth, why men have to work so hard, and this original sin is, according to many Christians, why we will burn in hell forever unless we love and accept God into our lives. Why would I love a being who set us up like this and after all this time still hasn’t forgiven us. (God will only consider letting us into heaven if we believe that he sent his only Son to be savagely killed by us, and if we eat his Son’s flesh and blood to celebrate this fact. Makes sense to me…)

So we went from Genesis 1, a fairly poetic way of looking at the start of the world, to a completely crazy story saying how women (and snakes) are to blame for people suffering forever because the first two humans ate some fruit that they thought would make them smart.

Time flies when you’re blogging the Bible. I’ll have to finish more on this another time. All this talk of fruit is making me hungry.

PS God was nice enough to make clothes for Adam and Eve after the fall. Was he regretting all the heinous punishment he just inflicted on his creations and decided to make it up to them by making them some clothes?

2:26 PM – 33 views – add eprops – add comments – email it

In the beginning…Genesis 1 & 2

admin — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:01:24 +0000

Saturday, September 06, 2008

In the beginning…Genesis 1 & 2

I’ve been reading Genesis, and it’s actually amazing how tame the creation story is compared to much of the rest of the Bible. I’m also realizing though that I can’t possibly comment on every single thing I find wrong (or right) with the Bible; I’ll eventually have to pace myself. But for now, I’ll do a couple of the first chapters of Genesis. I may come back and look at some parts more in detail later; for now, this is a quick overview.

Genesis 1. Might as well start with the beginning. Obviously, scientifically the 7-day creation story (or 6 days, plus a personal day for God) is complete nonsense, but the idea behind the whole thing is kind of nice and the language is actually poetic. Some people claim that the days aren’t real day as we humans count them, or that it’s not meant to be literal. Then why not just explain that in the Bible?? The darn thing is certainly not meant to be concise as it is, so a few words of explanation here or there wouldn’t really have hurt.

The first creation story (Genesis 1) seems to put women on a level playing field with men, which is a very good thing, but not in sync with the rest of the Bible and pretty much most civilizations until very recently (we’re still not at total gender parity, but thankfully we’re light years ahead of some of the stuff in the Bible I know is coming up). There are theories about different authors being responsible for the various parts of the Pentateuch (5 so-called books of Moses), so it’s hard to say if it was some fairly forward-thinking writer whose ideas in the first chapter of Genesis were merged with most of the other xenophobic, women-hating blood-thirsty wackos who wrote the rest of the Bible, or if it’s just a fluke that there was something laudable so early on in the "great book".

I personally don’t like though the idea that God gives humans "dominion" over everything on Earth. I don’t know what gave humans the idea that we could just do whatever we wanted to the living things on the planet. I think this is a huge problem in human history, and the Bible isn’t the only problem-causer. We think we’re so smart and advanced that we are better, or at least separate, from every other living thing on this planet. Which apparently means we have the right to destroy and abuse everything with impunity at our every whim. Given the planet’s rapidly deteriorating health and how many species have gone or may soon be extinct due to human "mismanagement" of the planet, if God really did put us in charge of the Earth, he really screwed this one up.

Genesis 2. One thing the Bible can be thanked for is the idea that even an all-powerful being needs a day off from work every once in a while. Although there is a lot I don’t like about the Sabbath, Genesis 2 at least set a precedent for taking a break from work. It’s too bad this arguably worker-friendly beginning is offset by the whole pro-slavery thread that runs through the Bible (even Jesus gets in the act, but that’s many books later that we’ll see that).

Humans are created again in Genesis 2 (God can be forgetful at times). When Adam doesn’t take to any of the animals God creates for him (again, he already forgot he created the animals! Maybe that’s why they went in by twos, or sevens, into Noah’s Ark?), then God decides to invent a woman (again) by forming her from Adam’s rib this time around.

I don’t know which is worse, being made out of some wet clay like Adam was, or out of a man’s rib like Eve was. I think this storyline, whether intentionally or not, serves to go against what many cultures believed: that women are the sacred givers of life. Since women give birth, it seems like a logical way of looking at things. But since God tells us in the Bible that Eve came out of Adam’s rib, then obviously women come from men, and not vice versa. This conveniently (intentionally or not) reinforces men’s claim to dominance over women.

5:01 PM – 29 views – add eprops – add comments – email it