Jesus: All About Lies
30Sep. 09
Australian readers may have noted the media blitz by the Christians for their new campaign, Jesus: All About Life.
This has provoked a few responses
- Those in charge of the campaign failed to purchase www.jesusallaboutlife.com, they just use the .au version. This alternate site is called Jesus: All about Lies and says:
Jesus. All About Lies is an about-time media campaign developed by people who use reason. It aims to motivate people to use reason, rather than rely solely on institutions historically built on power, for the basis of their morals. We are aiming to run outreach events for the general public which are promoted by thinking people and through the jesusallaboutlies.com website.
- I wrote a song called All About Life that draws on the language of addiction to describe religion.
Tags: atheism, Christianity, Frozen Summers, music, Religion
December 17th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
“The evangelical view of the Bible as the unerring word of G_d is a modern and untraditional distortion that doesn’t stand up because of all the contradictions and different views and priorities expressed in it.“
I disagree with the modern part, but you are essentially correct. Unfortunately the word of God can’t be anything other than unerring, unless you want to admit that God isn’t perfect. At which point he isn’t worth worshipping at all.
“Another big thing is that if you are reading the Bible in English“
Who said I was? I used to be a Minister, I know my ancient languages.
“Find out what the Jewish perspective is before you disregard it as lies.“
It doesn’t matter what the “Jewish perspective” is. THERE IS ONLY ONE SET OF FACTS, and all the evidence we’ve discovered about the ancient world points to the events related in the Torah being entirely mythical, and as such the God it purports to reveal can be treated as mythical without any additional evidence.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:45 am
You are missing two points
1) The idea that the Bible is the unerring word of G_d is in the first place an evangelical idea based on Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine. Judaism and originally Christianity did not see scripture in that way, instead seeing it as the work of human beings — albeit divinely inspired to varying degrees, but fallible as a result of the human beings conveying it and trying to understand it. It was to be understood in light of the oral tradition and nothing was seen as able to over-rule anything that had previously been accepted. Many Orthodox Jews see the Torah passed to Moses as being the last time G_d spoke to anyone directly.
2) Where in the Bible does it call G_d perfect? Again the Jewish understanding allows for many possibilities, even including His not necessarily being omniscient, or purposely creating a finite world that has not yet finished. The end may not yet be certain in a finite universe because it hasn’t finished yet and even if He can do everything He could choose not to decide the outcome, but wait and see what path it takes.
Alternatively, a perfect G_d is so way beyond what we think is perfect we cannot comment on what makes Him worth worshipping or recognising or loving or not.
As for your “facts” regarding the Torah, I’ve said before there are facts that transcend material ones and secondly historians disagree on the facts of the ancient world.
Frozen Summers said:
“I used to be a Minister, I know my ancient languages.”
OK, so what’s your understanding of Ham’s crime against Noah — which interpretation of the Hebrew text do you favour and why?
December 18th, 2009 at 7:52 am
“Judaism and originally Christianity did not see scripture in that way“
Have you got any references on that?
Because I can quote say Cyril of Jerusalem from the 4th Century
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures”(Catechetical Lecture 4.17)
He doesn’t seem to be allowing anything to be able to trump Scripture.
“I’ve said before there are facts that transcend material ones“
I don’t think you understand what the word FACT means.
“secondly historians disagree on the facts of the ancient world.“
They might disagree on some details, but not on the major timeline. The world wasn’t made in 6 days. There was no garden or fall of man.There was no flood. There was no tower of babel. The jews weren’t in egypt and therefore didn’t need to exodus’d. Joshua’s invasion of canaan didn’t happen.
“so what’s your understanding of Ham’s crime against Noah“
That both characters and the events they were involved in are myths.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Your quote in no way infers a literalistic reading of text. For example, in Christianity, Jesus is described as a door, a vine, the son of G_d, the son of man, a lion, a lamb… the eucharist is described as being his body and blood — from this it is self evident that the language cannot in each and every case be taken in a word for word literalistic manner (interpretation of words in a basic sense without room for metaphor, symbolism or hyperbole) — it can’t be.
Additionally, your quote in no way states that one should interpret by scripture alone — it merely states that statements should be backed up by scripture. Importantly he does not say how literally, metaphorically or symbolically it is to be read. I’ll ask my friend who has a better knowledge of the early Church fathers to see if she can find other quotes from different perspectives, particularly those who made it clear that it was not to be understood absolutely literalistically.
Do you not think that if the compilers of scripture had really wanted to create the impression it was all literally accurate, they’d have taken the time to edit it so that accounts were the same? You must have noticed the fact that the 4 gospel accounts in the new testament differ from each other. Or that way back in Genesis / Bereishit the creation story is a little different in chapters one and two. You think they were too stupid to notice?
Taking the timeline of creation, we know that time is relative — Einstein showed that. There are parts of the universe where a clock could take 15 billion years to tick by 6 days here… so why assume the language describes human time? Here’s a clue — it’s a metaphor… It isn’t too surprising that if you were taught to read every word of the Bible literalistically you were going to feel let down when you discovered that a bit of it was not literally true — what is more surprising is that you didn’t spot the contradictions sooner and realise it couldn’t all be literalistically true.
The only possible explanation is that scripture consists of varying accounts, the same as if you went to an art gallery and looked at a painting, you might write a different review of it than the guy stood next to you or the lady stood over by the drink fountain. Consider even that if there were not different attitudes concerning how much importance to attach to scripture, why did Cyril of Jerusalem need to write what he wrote?
I understand perfectly what the word “fact” means but you have decided to become a materialist fundamentalist so you reject everything that is not material. Sorry to be blunt but you have just shifted your evangelical fervour from one extreme cause to another.
Within Judaism, the Torah has to be taught by oral tradition and with reference to other works such as the Talmud. The Talmud often has different accounts of the Biblical stories, but this is not seen as contradictory. The purpose of the Torah is moral instruction so the emphasis should be “what moral truth does this passage contain?”, not “well that bit’s not strictly historically accurate”. It’s not always as easy as quoting some ancient scholar to “prove” a viewpoint (well it probably is but I really can’t be bothered when you’re missing the point anyway), especially in Judaism where opinions vary so much they say that if you get 2 Rabbis in a room there’ll be 3 opinions. I know what I know by trusting the Jews who have told me and that’s fine.
QUOTE:
I said: “so what’s your understanding of Ham’s crime against Noah“
You said: “That both characters and the events they were involved in are myths.”
This evades the question — I asked in what manner you had translated the Hebrew because the 3 possible interpretations of the Hebrew text make is obvious that interpretation is absolutely required. Either he saw his father naked OR he had sex with his mother OR he had sex with his father. All 3 readings are possible. Cultural context is crucial, just as the statements “Andrew felt so gay when he saw his friend Barry” or “Suzie slept with Rachel” or “Suzie slept with Robert” could all be interpreted differently and would probably have been read very differently 50 years ago. Oh, you know what I’m saying is true on one level — you must do, you’re just being stubborn for the hell of it and I mean that literalistically.
p.s. I disagree with your historical assertions because you have no evidence that those events did not happen and there is no good reason to distrust the reports of the people who were there. Sure we can allow for a little variance, just as with eye-witness accounts now, but to dismiss all of the events entirely makes no sense.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“Your quote in no way infers a literalistic reading of text.“
I didn’t say it did, it infers that there is nothing that can be used above scripture — whether that is tradition or what the pope says or whatever.
“we know that time is relative — Einstein showed that“
Only under certain conditions, and a newly formed planet COULD NOT be accelerated to the speeds required without resulting in its destruction.
“why assume the language describes human time? Here’s a clue — it’s a metaphor“
I assume that because it doesn’t just say it was a day, it has the whole morning and evening idea — which implies human time and 24 hour days.
“You think they were too stupid to notice?“
Yes. Or they didn’t care about facts in anyway.
“The Talmud often has different accounts of the Biblical stories, but this is not seen as contradictory“
This kinda supports the “they were too stupid” hypothesis.
“in Judaism where opinions vary so much they say that if you get 2 Rabbis in a room there’ll be 3 opinions“
I don’t trust opinions. I especially don’t trust the source documents that such varied opinions are based upon.
“I know what I know by trusting the Jews who have told me“
How do you know those jews are right if there are so many opinions?
“This evades the question“
Yes, because I never completed my theological studies, and as such didn’t get past the basics of Hebrew, but the fact that the so called word of god is so badly written implies that it was not inspired or in any way connected to a supernatural being.
“I disagree with your historical assertions because you have no evidence“
Have you heard of archaeology? Or the historical records of other groups in the mideast like the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians etc that do match up in general — and contradict almost all the major events of the old testament except for the Babylonian captivity.
“there is no good reason to distrust the reports of the people who were there.“
Exactly, and you are disregarding the reports of people who we not only know existed, and were there, but have left many historical relics (including their mummified corpses) that verify the rest of their reports. Something the myths of jews have not.
“I understand perfectly what the word “fact” means but you have decided to become a materialist fundamentalist so you reject everything that is not material.“
Sorry to be blunt but you’re a nutter.
There is no evidence that there is anything except the material, and all the non-material claims and theories I’ve ever heard must in some way affect the material world or we’d have no knowledge of them.
The bible puts forth the concept of a personally knowable interventionist god. If such a god existed there would be evidence. There is not.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
““Your quote in no way infers a literalistic reading of text.“
I didn’t say it did, it infers that there is nothing that can be used above scripture — whether that is tradition or what the pope says or whatever.”
But your quote is a single source. There is also a Rabbinic tradition to trust Rabbis and do what they say and a Priestly tradition to trust the Pope… “as you bind on earth so shall be bound in heaven, as you release on earth…” Neither Judaism nor Catholicism have ever believed for the most part that scripture should be a single authority. Just look into the history of the religions — you’ll no doubt always be able to pluck a voice from somewhere that disagrees but it isn’t necessarily normative.
““You think they were too stupid to notice?“
Yes. Or they didn’t care about facts in anyway.
“The Talmud often has different accounts of the Biblical stories, but this is not seen as contradictory“
This kinda supports the “they were too stupid” hypothesis.”
You know this is quite an obtuse response from you. The fact that someone might use a parable — an illustrative story to make a moral point — does not indicate stupidity. What is stupid is to insist on reading something out of context. If traditional Judaism and Christianity read scripture literalistically and viewed it in such a manner you might have a point, but they don’t.
““I know what I know by trusting the Jews who have told me“
How do you know those jews are right if there are so many opinions?”
It isn’t always necessary for me to arrive at a conclusion about everything. I don’t always need to form a firm opinion of my own. I think it is often wiser to allow for multiple realities to co-exist rather than wasting my life being cynical about things I can’t prove one way or another. Your response to such a situation is to be sceptical, mine is to remain agnostic and see if the teaching has anything useful to impart. I assume the universe has a purpose rather than assuming it has not, and that life is preferable to death, mercy is preferable to cruelty and people should be given the benefit of the doubt rather than being made to prove everything. Not everything that is true is provable and not everything that is provable is true.
““This evades the question“
Yes, because I never completed my theological studies, and as such didn’t get past the basics of Hebrew, but the fact that the so called word of god is so badly written implies that it was not inspired or in any way connected to a supernatural being.”
One always has to work within the parameters of language when communicating and recording ideas between people. This inevitably leads to different interpretations, which is the whole point. Consider also that there are not always words to express certain concepts (“the way [that is or can be] expressed in words is not the complete way” — Laozi, Daodejing) … Innuit instructions about snow and ice constructions would be very limited in a culture that talks merely of “snow” and “ice”, without discussing various states of compactness. In Chinese martial arts, the term “qi” covers so many disparate ideas that it just isn’t useful as a concept. Most people still use the word anyway — I choose not to, preferring to explain all qi-related phenomena in more precise Western terms (breath, centre of balance, momentum… )
Some views on the archeology issue:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_arhs.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_arch.htm
http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/word-03.html
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/archeology.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/
“The bible puts forth the concept of a personally knowable interventionist god. If such a god existed there would be evidence. There is not.”
Aside from empirical evidence, which generally counts, otherwise scientific experiments would be invalidated too. History is full of religious ideas, revelations and miracles (which can present as no more than a series of highly improbable events that somehow manage to happen against all of the odds). Many of these events are quite inspiring. You choose to discount them all out of hand because they won’t come to you and jump through some hoops you’ve set up in your garden — that’s your loss.
While your position inspires you to make personal attacks such as this “Sorry to be blunt but you’re a nutter.” I will have to remain wary of scepticism because it does not seem to produce benevolence.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Perhaps you could accept that disciplines such as science, religion, politics and philosophy are all just different ways of man trying to ascertain truth. Each has its own criteria and area of expertise. Material science seems to focus on that which is replicable while the other disciplines don’t generally place such restrictions. Religion often deals specifically with very personal and frequently unique experiences, politics focuses on cause and effect within society and philosophy largely employs fairly abstract logic and reasoning. Common sense is pragmatic.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“The fact that someone might use a parable — an illustrative story to make a moral point — does not indicate stupidity.“
BZZZZT!!!! I’m sorry, you seem to be saying that all or most the stories related as history in scripture are nothing but parables. As you said yourself “What is stupid is to insist on reading something out of context.” Most of the Bible is implied to be history — especially the Torah — that is why there are things like genealogies.
“I think it is often wiser to allow for multiple realities to co-exist“
BZZZZT!!!! I’m sorry, multiple realities can’t exist, at least not in the sense that you are implying.
“Not everything that is true is provable and not everything that is provable is true.“
BZZZZT!!!! I’m sorry, everything that is true is provable. That is what it means to be true.
“One always has to work within the parameters of language when communicating and recording ideas between people. “
BZZZZT!!!! I’m sorry, but you seem to want to destroy all concepts of logic and language to make ideas that are mutually contradictory fit together. Every religion can’t be true, every part of the Bible can’t even be true.
“Aside from empirical evidence, which generally counts, otherwise scientific experiments would be invalidated too.“
BZZZZT!!!! I’m sorry, but there has been no empirical evidence of the supernatural.
“History is full of religious ideas, revelations and miracles“
“You choose to discount them all out of hand because they won’t come to you“
Yes, but each is claimed with the same shoddy evidence as proof of gods that can not logically coexist, many of these gods claim to be the only god.
If only one religious tradition had evidence or claims of miracles, or the followers were magically protected from attack, or had rates of medical recovery that were higher in a statistically significant way, then we could talk about these evidences.
In the words of highlander: there can only be one (or none).
“Perhaps you could accept that disciplines such as science, religion, politics and philosophy are all just different ways of man trying to ascertain truth.“
BZZZZT!!!! I’m sorry, but I do.
The issue is that only of those methods has success at finding truth. Science, unless the rest of those disciplines, makes claims and then accomplishes them. The rest make claims and fail miserably.
Religion didn’t land man on the moon.
Politics didn’t invent the microchip.
Philosophy hasn’t cured a single disease.
If it wasn’t for science you’d probably still be in a cave bashing rocks together hoping not to get raped or eaten.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
“you seem to be saying that all or most the stories related as history in scripture are nothing but parables. … Most of the Bible is implied to be history — especially the Torah — that is why there are things like genealogies.”
So why isn’t it seen by Jews and Catholics as historical? As I’ve said, its purpose is moral instruction. This is not unusual in writings of the time — look into the history of Chinese writings — people quote each other and change each others’ words without sourcing … there weren’t the same academic standards back then. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing of value in the writings though scholars today invariably read selectively from them to prove an agenda — that’s people.
“everything that is true is provable. That is what it means to be true.”
No way. I’m quite sure you’d be able to search your own life for an example of something you know to be true that you cannot prove. I know I can think of plenty. Here are a couple of simple examples off the top of my head — my mother called me Joanna — that’s true. She never once called me Susan — can I prove that to you? No. I once made a toy lifeboat out of a smartie tube — it has long since been thrown away. Can I prove it to you? No.
“I’m sorry, but you seem to want to destroy all concepts of logic and language to make ideas that are mutually contradictory fit together. Every religion can’t be true, every part of the Bible can’t even be true. ”
There is only one truth but the wise speak of it in many ways.
“I’m sorry, but there has been no empirical evidence of the supernatural.”
Look up what empirical means — “based on, concerned with or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic” yup, there has been.
“If it wasn’t for science you’d probably still be in a cave bashing rocks together hoping not to get raped or eaten. ”
A bit presumptuous — I’d be inventing weapons I would think.
Science evolved out of proto-science and religion. There has not always been a dividing line. Until recent times they existed peacefully side by side, scientific and educational institutions as well as hospitals were organised by the Church.
Many scientists were and still are theists, so don’t jump the gun. The atheists don’t have it all sewn up yet. The reason I allow for multiple realities to co-exist in some instances, at least for now, is because we have no choice with matters that are unknowable or at present unknown.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
“So why isn’t it seen by Jews and Catholics as historical?“
It is by all those I’ve talked to, along with every single protestant.
“That doesn’t mean there’s nothing of value in the writings“
I never said that, it just makes it as important as Spiderman comics. In fact, it makes it less important because I can learn better morals from Spiderman without having to worry about cultural contexts or translation issues.
“an example of something you know to be true that you cannot prove“
I don’t know your examples are true, and knowing what science has discovered about the fallibility of human memory any similar examples from my life I wouldn’t KNOW to be true. I might think they are likely to be true, but without confirming evidence I could never be sure.
As for the boat, if you had a picture of it that would be sufficient proof for the claims being made. Unless you want to claim that this boat was somehow supernatural.
“There is only one truth but the wise speak of it in many ways.“
No. There are not many ways up Mount Fuji. The catholics you talk about would have burned you at the stake when they were in charge for expressing such heresy. Even today in some Muslim dominated areas you’d get stoned for preaching such ideas.
A and NOT A cannot both be true.
“verifiable by observation“
“there has been.“
No. The key word is verifiable.
If you believe the Bible is enough proof of God then you MUST believe all stories of alien abductions, ghosts, demons, bigfoot, yeti, the loch ness monster, elvis not being dead, vampires, werewolves, every religion — even those of cultures that no longer exist like the Incas — and every other crazy story that people tell.
“Until recent times they existed peacefully side by side“
You have an interesting idea of peace, it wasn’t until the enlightenment that science was allowed to redevelop in the west. Before that the Catholic church had a habit of killing and excommunicating people who challenged the church in any way.
Since then the church has been declining in relevance and power because the only reason people cared about it because it had the only answers, answers that have been proven to be wrong be science.
“The reason I allow for multiple realities to co-exist in some instances, at least for now, is because we have no choice with matters that are unknowable or at present unknown.“
So you make the illogical jump to “god did it”? And not just a general god but the specific god of the Bible?