It has occurred to me that the Bible god could not have dictated His book to the Eskimos*, for it says nothing of seal and caribou. Rather than the Canaanites and Hittites, the extreme-northern Americans of the time battled bitter cold and the occasional polar bear. While heat appears in the King James Version of the Bible 241 times; there are only 17 uses of cold; A search for lion yields 141 hits, polar bear, not one.
Speaking of bears, the Bible god grants humankind dominion over all the animals. In the case of the grizzly, it’s a good thing humans invented weaponry, because without spears at minimum, the grizzly would have dominion over us relatively puny, sometimes knee-knocking Homo sapiens. Quoting Genesis to lions and tigers and bears doesn’t seem to impress them. Oh my.
Many characters in the Bible owned slaves. As far as I know, that’s not part of Eskimo culture. In the ancient Middle East one class of men had dominion over another. And they were not condemned for it. Perform a bit of a white-wash and call them servants if that makes you feel better. It was the way of their world. Men of the Bible god owned and sold other men, women, and children.
Didn’t the god of these people, this entity from a higher world, hold a higher standard? Did the Bible, in fact, get it wrong, and those who no longer hold one race above another now have it right? Throughout the ages the Bible has been used to commend and later condemn a whole platoon of motley behaviors.
Fortunately, human social conscience has evolved and is evolving. In some cases the pulpit may have helped to spread the word. But as frequently, and maybe more frequently, preachers have been behind the curve of recognizing an expanding circle of rights.
Forget about gay marriage — some churches still do not grant full respect and rights to women. Many religious authorities continue to assert, in words often left unsaid, that women deserve the status of “household assistants” and not that of complete equals to men. Aren’t women as worthy of standing behind an altar as they are kneeling before it? If not, why not?
Outdated reasoning. Although size and might may have “made right” in the human animal’s distant past — in times of the origination of religious sentiments that persist today — this is far from an essential truth. Power, however, is all today’s men have over women. That and undeservedly revered documents such as the Bible.
—
*The indigenous peoples of near-polar regions, including the Yupik, Inuit, and Aleut. [Wiki info]
Dear Joey,
I am sad to report that you are on the Bible god’s shit list. You will remain on the list, and continue to get shit for it, for the entirety of your life. Why? It seems your grandfather did something really bad. Oh, and don’t expect to get off the list, because the Bible god never forgets.
And he [the LORD] passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:6-7, New International Version, emphasis added)
Yes, Joey, for a merciful and gracious god, he sure can carry a grudge. Punishing children to the fourth generation for something a long-dead ancestor did? Pretty nasty, huh? You’ve gotten a raw deal, I know.
Fundamentalists would like the Ten Commandments posted in the public school you attend. I would like the above verse discussed objectively in every classroom. Even elementary age children such as yourself can see how glaringly unfair it is to punish innocent children for what their father or grandfather did.
The only people who might find merit in such an extreme form of “mercy” are those with a long-standing hatred of another people . . . of another race, religion, culture. Armed with such an unyielding attitude, they could justify their hatred and keep persecuting, punishing and executing whomever they perceive as belonging to a people guilty of violating their god’s will.
As for you Joey, here’s my advice: If a person quotes scripture to you, recite the above passage in return. A scripture-loving person is someone who worships the hard-hearted divinity that insists on punishing you for what your stupid old grandfather did. I think it’s perfectly okay for you to gain a small sense of pleasure in witnessing that person blanch and then stutter as he or she tries defend something no fully sane and compassionate person should attempt to defend.
—
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
In the King James version of the Bible, Exodus 13:21 reads,
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.
Here’s how I expected the passage to continue: And the Lord went before them by weekend in a tree which sneaketh from one side of the trail to the other. The Lord had gone before them in a boulder, but he got sitteth upon, so he switched to the tree, the fire, the cloud, and, on special occasions, the talking Afflac duck.
Two chapters later the identity of this mysterious operative is revealed:
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:3)
The Lord is a man? Toto, did you hear that? Go to the curtain. Pull, Toto, pull!
Yah, with all his secrecy, his sneaking around, and his invisible whispering in the ear of the Israelite army generals, he certainly seems like a man of war. But I beg to differ about the name. This Lord’s name ought to be Sybil. For he is a loving god, an angry god, a god of the Jews, a god of the Jews and Gentiles, a god who demands you to get circumcised, a god who changes his mind about circumcision, etc., etc., etc.
Today’s civilized believers prefer to keep the “man of war” side of the Almighty Sybil (he of a divinely split-personality) in the closet, to be recruited only when it comes to squabbles over land or other conflicts with thine enemies. But he is still there, lurking. What else does a god do but lurk out “there,” just beyond sight? But you can kinda feel him, can’t you?
For those who said “yes,” I would suggest making an appointment with a psychiatrist real soon. No, not because you sense a god lurking out of sight in the clouds or darkness or shrubbery, but because while you were sleeping the CIA implanted a computer chip into your brain.
You can feel that, too. If you want.
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who hope in me will not be disappointed.” (Isaiah 49:23)
Human hierarchies are a complicated thing. There are rarely clear ladders of ascension, with one individual per distinct rung. Chicken hierarchies: simple. Some primate hierarchical relations, simple as well.
You are exalted far above all gods. (Psalms 97:9)
In the above Bible verse, we see that one agent is first in line, no questions. But beneath that first rung, what? The truth: human beings often do not stand alone. Rather, their relationships to others will inform where they stand. A relationship with one on a higher rung can help elevate and maintain your own position. As the “those who hope in me” line from the opening verse illustrates.
In terms of primate behavior — and human beings are primates, their deities having the concerns and behaviors of primates — there is a notable difference between coalition and alliance: the terms for relationships advantageous to social functioning and position.
“Coalition is defined as two or more individuals joining forces against one or more individuals joining forces against one or more conspecific rivals. Now, there are many examples of coalitions in mammals and birds. However, coalitions among chimpanzees, adult males in particular, are exceptional in their frequency, complexity and flexibility. Some coalitions are so persistent that one may well call them alliances.” (1)
As for human beings, do we form coalitions or alliances? Both. Watch one episode of Survivor and you will see that our we are social opportunists. During one social event/interaction (on one issue?) we can side with and support person X. The next moment/issue, person Z. But then there certainly are those lasting relationships we remain relatively true to. We support and defend those individuals, almost without exception, we have crucial relationships with. Spouse, parent-child . . . ?
Chimpanzees, too, readily form coalitions and even lasting alliances. As Franz de Waal has noted, “A male chimpanzee’s position in the hierarchy often depends much more on his cooperative alliances with other males than is the case with male baboons.” (2)
Another noted primatologist, Allison Jolly, almost under-states the case with this conclusion: “People are not less likely to form alliances than chimpanzees.” (3)
Within a single pack of primates you will find a number of unwritten “pacts.” Sometimes blood is indeed thicker than water. But human alliances go much farther. To non-blood, close associates and more. How far to they extend? At minimum to group level. Other people are perceived as being “in group” or out. Psychological studies have found that something as basic as eye color can be used to identified cohorts.
In one study researchers found that in a rural Caribbean village adult males in two-men teams competing at a game of dominoes experienced higher testosterone and cortisol levels when competing against men from outside their village compared to when playing against village cohorts.(4)
Is it any wonder the Bible god of the Old Testament has different laws and sentiments for “one of mine” (the Israelites) and others? The commandment “do not kill” is a perfect example. For it is meant as “Do not kill a cohort – but thine enemies, have at it.”
In the following number of Alpha posts I will be exploring topics including these: the evolutionary origins of these types of social pacts, the social functions they serve, and how they are manifest in the Bible.
—
(1) Nishida, T., and Hosaka, K., “Coalition strategies among adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 114
(2) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, P. 23
(3) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 410
(4) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G., “Hormonal response to competition among male coalitions,” in Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, Pages 437 442.
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16, New International Version)
Eve is curious, independent. She eats from the tree of knowledge. The teacher won’t share his apples of higher learning, so she shows initiative. And she is punished.
The question of whether to-eat or not-to-eat from the tree of knowledge constituted the very first IQ test. Eve passes with flying colors. The Bible god takes a look at her score and decides, This won’t do, the clever broad is bound to give the rat-pack grief. And they won’t be able to do it myyyy wayyyy!!
So all women are punished by being made to suffer while giving birth.
Childbirth is painful because, funny thing, if a woman’s hips were sufficiently wide, she couldn’t walk well. Physiologically, the design would be more Yugo than Cadillac.
Take a look at elite female sprinters. Many if not most of these women tend to have narrower hips. Not “best-for-birthin’” kind. Wide hips slow you down. In terms of economy of motion and speed, keep them narrow.
And yet, among females, there was an evolutionary move away from narrow hips. Away from more guy-like hips. Why? Something more important was at stake.
What is that? Women have wider hips (and suffer during childbirth) to bear very large-brained children with an appetite for learning.
To then saddle a woman and all human-kind with the edict “don’t eat from the tree of knowledge” is an incredible irony.
In the biblical story of Genesis, intelligence is sacrificed at the altar of a blatantly patriarchal mythology.
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. (Genesis 38:9-10, King James Version)
FYI — by “seed” the Bible does not mean “sesame.” So, paraphrasing here, Onan had sex with his brother’s wife, but pulled out in time for his semen to hit the dirt. And his god killed him.
You might say the Lord performed a post-birth abortion.
Apparently, the Lord of the Old Testament is ultra-conservative. He believes that life begins not at conception, but at ejaculation.
Maybe the Bible god’s parents weren’t very explicit on the whole birds and the bees thing. Semen isn’t seed any more than pollen is. If you’ve taken BIO 101, you know you’re not going grow an eggplant by burying pollen. Ancient Hebrew story-tellers, however, didn’t know, and thus neither did their god.
You could additionally say about this verse that the Bible god wasn’t maddened by Onan sleeping with his brother’s wife. No, as the context makes clear, the crime was not giving this god another grandchild. And the brother an heir.
Where would we be without the teachings of the Bible? Right here in the 21st century.
