From my book, The Naked Bible: An Irreverent Exposure of Bible Verses, Versions, and Meanings that Preachers Dishonestly Ignore, Chapter 22 -- "Those Harlots at the Car Wash"
LISTEN NOW
[audio:http://nakedbible.com/mp3s/naked_ch.22.mp3]
LISTEN LATER
(To prevent autoplay, press "Alt" while clicking)
"WATCH"
For more audio, click here.
If you read the Bible as a quasi-historical, anthropological document, it is an interesting, insightful read. Well, highly repetitive, and quite long, but interesting. If treated as an instruction manual for living in today's world--not so good. Many people do read it this way. They extract a verse from here and there to support a position they most likely already hold. And sure, the Bible contains some passages with positive teachings. Like turning the other cheek to the person who harmed you so you can take an eye for an eye. Or something. When I read the Bible as a repository of wisdom, however, I find it, in total, better suited as fodder for wisecracks. But then again, I’m a wise-cracking type of guy, so maybe it’s just me. What follows are six verses from the first few books that I fail to find wisdom in and provoked me into poking fun.
1. And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the alter. And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the alter. (Exodus 29:12-13, King James Version)
Making a sacrifice to a god is a form of gambling. Or an investment. You give up something you value—a virgin, a beast, a bunch of banknotes—in hopes your minor gift will reap major rewards. And it works, provided you are very good interpreting the events of your life. If Aunt Mabel is hit by a bus and dies instantly, well, things could have been worse. Fortunately, the god you prayed to in the church you funded was merciful. Mabel could have been run over by a moped and died a slow, painful, embarrassing death.
2. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)
What constitutes work? Are no dishes to be washed, no fancy foodstuffs prepared? You organized the refrigerator while reaching for the juice . . . oops. That’s work. You shall surely be pelted with ice cubes.
Now, this is just a guess, but maybe the Sabbath needed to be kept holy, with work outlawed, so people would have nothing else to do but go to the temple and keep the belief system alive and kicking. . . . And, very importantly, keep the priests housed and fed. No priests, no religion.
3. And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. (Exodus 32:15-16)
Doesn’t "both sides" mean one side and the other? Is this a test? A God himself wrote on the tablets--he swears he did. You can check the John Hancock. I think whenever a preacher today tells us he has received a message from his god, people should demand to see it in writing. And then verify the signature.
4. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. (Exodus 32:27)
If the Lord said, "Go jump off a cliff, and leave your parachute and helmet behind," would you? If a voice in your head told you to picket (or worse) the local abortion clinic, would you? If the charismatic minister of a mega-church told you to fork over 10% of your earnings to him . . . er, his god . . . and you knew the minister had a country-club membership while you couldn’t afford the greens fees at the local mini-golf fun park, would you? If . . . . Oh, never mind.
5. But ye shall destroy their alters, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other God: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:13-14)
What could the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, be jealous of? The lesser gods? Why would the one-and-only most high omniscient and omnibenevolent dude be jealous? Did he covet another god’s congregation?
6. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by the fire for a sweet savour: all of the fat is the LORD’S. (Leviticus 3:16)
Why are the bones not the Lord’s? Who gets the bones? What about the liver? Save the liver! (From the Julia Childs Cooking Bible, chapter 3, verse 11.) Fat burns impressively, giving off smoke and and smell. Meat and not bones, not so much. Imagine a religion today that insisted their god got all the meat, the preachers the fat, and the people the bones. My guess is that one wouldn't be very popular. And their festival feasts would be soupy affairs.
With the advent of Christianity, you could say "God" issued a new and improved, expanded version of his book. Why a god's book would need to be revised is a good question. As to whether the new material is any better than the old, my verdict is . . . maybe kinda sorta, but not really. Like a Frankenstein sent to charm school, there is a superficial improvement. But ultimately what you are left with in the Bible is a patchwork of sophomoric teachings coupled with an obsolete worldview. Not to mention the hell thing. Which was a revision that hardly qualifies as a step forward.
Consider the following six verses from Matthew.
1) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (5:28, King James Version)
You got a Y-chromosome-you're guilty. What male can look at a sexy babe and not think and/or feel, "Now that's one sexy babe!?" The answer: A male lacking the urge to make whoopee and thus make babies, intentionally or not. Of course, that you have lust in your heart, or in your pants for that matter, doesn't mean you will act upon it. And that should be the issue: actions.
2) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourself treasures in heaven, where neither moth not rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal. (6:19-20)
This preaching is a salve for the beaten and the broke--those early lower-class believers living in a land regularly torn by war, in cities and villages oppressed by the Roman Empire and the ruling classes. For them, relief and luxury will come later. Today's affluent American,however, need not worry. It is metaphor. Their god is not going curse the Brooks Brothers suits in the closet nor condemn the Mercedes in the garage. And thanks to scientific advancements, believers can purchase insecticide at the local hardware store for the moth problem and a can of Rustoleum for the rust.
3) Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.(7:7)
Wouldn't that be nice. Sure, expend effort at something and your efforts are likely to bring progress. But, "it will be given to you"? Every day countless Christians engage in honest asking. And they get a null result. My translation: "Aquarius through Pisces--You are a person with sincere desires; you will encounter advances among your setbacks."
4) And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.(9:2)
Rather than the germ theory of disease, this is the ancient "sin theory." In some circles today, the sin theory has been updated and revised into the "energy field" theory." You sick? Your energy field is out of whack--needs to be re-balanced. Thankfully, today we have science-based medicine to rely upon.
5) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (10:14)
It seems you don't want to be defiled by the dirt of nonbelievers. Just as holy water has greater restorative powers than tap water, apparently dirty dirt might trip you up. My translation: "To those who don't agree with thee, turn up thy nose." Is this really a transcendent teaching?
6) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (10:34-35)
So speaks the supposed prince of peace, the "moral philosopher" who is all about family values.
Have I taken a verse out of context? In a sense, yes. But this is what preachers do every Sunday. They stitch together assorted verses to generate a message that suits their desires and needs while failing to provide any wider context: historical, anthropological, religious, philosophical, etc.
Is the New Testament a good book? It depends on what you compare it to.
Sometimes an anchor is a good thing; sometimes it's not -- like when there is a need for progress.
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
[graphic thanks to truth-saves.com, click for larger image]
[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Continuing with the theme of the bogus dichotomy of logical thinking vs. illogical, another important question is raised by these phenomena: alter brain chemicals and you frequently change the behavior of that brain. If person A has high levels of serotonin, for example, and tends to interpret a scenario in a rosy fashion, while low-serotonin-levels person B interprets the same scenario differently, can we say one being more or less logical than the other?
Here's a problem: we can't just magically remove all the chemicals that influence the functioning of brains without crippling those brains. This very moment your brain is "under the influence." And it's a good thing. Is there an optimal level for serotonin, for testosterone and oxytocin and the countless other neurotransmitters and hormones, etc.?
In a fairly recent article found over at the Huffington Post (forwarded my way, I don't read the site), I encountered material about religious belief that pertains to the topic of this discussion. In I Know Because I Know - Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 3 of 6, Valerie Tarico makes some very important points. But also seems to fall into the black/white thinking about human cognition.
First the good. Tarico shares the opinion of neurologist Robert Burton -
"feeling of knowing" (rightness, correctness, certainty, conviction) should be thought of as one of our primary emotions.
Other research has likewise highlighted an emotional aspect to conclusions of right/good wrong/bad.
Tarico hits a supremely important nail on the head with this statement:
Nonetheless, it is a healthy mistrust for our sense of knowing that has allowed scientists to detect, predict, and produce desired outcomes with ever greater precision.
Yes, none of us is a cold computer capable of perceiving the world with perfect accuracy. We aren't logical creatures; nor are we illogical. Logic is the wrong word. However, where we know our thinking can go astray and want to prevent and correct it . . . we have the insights and methods of science.
Lastly, here is where I think Tarico gets it at least a bit wrong. She writes,
Religious belief is not bound to regular standards of evidence and logic. It is not about logic but about something more intuitive and primal.
What regular standards of evidence? And primal? As mentioned before, I love Einstein's description of science as the refinement of every day thinking. So we don't have logic here and primal irrationality there. We have a spectrum of thought from more refined to less. If we must simplify a very complicated issue.
I don't think it is helpful to approach the why of differing conclusions -- no god and no belief vs. god and belief -- by claiming the two positions rely on distinctly different categories of cognitive processes. Convenient as it may be, I just don't think that is the case.
Recent Comments