"The Bible is crammed from end to end with stories of temptation, interdiction and chastisement. A forbidden fruit hangs from a tree on the very first page, and as we go through we are given more terrible lessons on how greed is punished and lust accursed until we reach the full, final and insane damnations and ecstasies of St John's Revelations, having passed through wilderness and desert trials, locusts, honey, manna, ravens, sores, boils, plagues, scourages, tribulations and sacrifices. Lead us not into temptation. Get thee behind me, Satan. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay."
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
09/01/2011
Stephen Fry on the Bible
21/01/2010
Helping Haiti
What Haitians really need is help to recover from a devastating earthquake and the preceding lack of proper government and security. Among this help should be food, water, medical supplies and the expertise required for these to be used effectively.
What they do not need is solar powered talking bibles. Yes, some people will use their faith in Christianity to help them get through this tragedy, but the way to help is to provide items that are desperately needed and without which more people will die. Clogging up the limited transport routes into Haiti with nonsense such as this, at this time, is just plain wrong.
30/11/2009
Gang Rape, etc.
Over at Dwindling in Unbelief Steve takes a look at Judges 19. Can anyone explain why this story made it to the final cut?
18/02/2009
Guardian Bible Quiz
It's good to know about the bible. It will help you understand many references in our greatest literature and prevent you becoming a Christian. To see how well you know it check out the Guardian's bible quiz. I got a shameful 9/10!
24/11/2008
Measuring God
See Andrew Brown's (slightly old now) Guardian post. Biblical literalness gone to far?
10/11/2008
Religion and Child Abuse
I had a discussion with somebody recently about how I could not possibly be moral as I didn't believe in a god. The woman I had the conversation with was a devout Christian, but said I could have been Jewish, Muslim, or whatever (as long as it wasn't an atheist). After going through the usual Leviticus quotes and a kind and benevolent god causing suffering she quipped back with something along the lines of "this all happened long ago, things have changed".
Yes, things have changed. But not religion. The BBC reports of a woman (perhaps as young as 13) being stoned to death for being raped. This is a kind of cruelty that I find unimaginable. I find it hard to believe that these people share some of my genes. But then again, I must be wrong, I can't possibly be the moral one.......
Yes, things have changed. But not religion. The BBC reports of a woman (perhaps as young as 13) being stoned to death for being raped. This is a kind of cruelty that I find unimaginable. I find it hard to believe that these people share some of my genes. But then again, I must be wrong, I can't possibly be the moral one.......
06/10/2008
18/09/2008
Of Mice and Muslims
I have no idea why some religions seem to have obsessions with avoiding certain kinds of animals. Perhaps it originates with a basic knowledge of the fact that some may damage food and spread disease.
Steve Wells from Dwindling in Unbelief did some digging, and found that although not mentioned in the Koran, mice are permitted to be killed in the Hadith. The Old Testament god also seems to have had some issues with them, despite (as it happens) the fact that he surely created them?
12/09/2008
Christian Retardism
The Theos think tank has been awarded money by the John Templeton Foundation to do some work about Darwinism and Christianity. The aims of the project are, to put it mildly, ludicrous.
They plan to issue a report saying that: (1) Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism, and (2), Christianity and Darwinian evolution are compatible.
On point (1) they have a small point, a god or gods could have created the universe, or even given life a kick start. Although as a scientist this idea is plainly ridiculous. If this universe has a creator then he or she would be pondering their own origins in the same way we are. The god hypothesis just creates another level of complexity in the quest to discover the origins of life and the universe - apply Occcam's razor and just don't believe in it.
Point two is absurd, unless you ignore the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong but right at the start it says that the big man created all life forms, and gave man dominion over them. This is clearly not the Darwinian line.
This is a religion destroying its own foundations so that it might fit in with empirical truth.
They plan to issue a report saying that: (1) Darwinian evolution does not necessitate atheism, and (2), Christianity and Darwinian evolution are compatible.
On point (1) they have a small point, a god or gods could have created the universe, or even given life a kick start. Although as a scientist this idea is plainly ridiculous. If this universe has a creator then he or she would be pondering their own origins in the same way we are. The god hypothesis just creates another level of complexity in the quest to discover the origins of life and the universe - apply Occcam's razor and just don't believe in it.
Point two is absurd, unless you ignore the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong but right at the start it says that the big man created all life forms, and gave man dominion over them. This is clearly not the Darwinian line.
This is a religion destroying its own foundations so that it might fit in with empirical truth.
09/07/2008
Advertising Religion
I get very, very annoyed by people advertising religion. Last Saturday I was making my way to Hampstead for coffee with a friend when somebody entered the tube carriage I was on and started giving out leaflets. Quickly realising they were of a Christian nature I tried to avoid the man, and firmly, but politely, said my 'no thanks' when offered one. My reward for not starting an argument? A promise that I would burn in hell.
There is also an advert bearing some Bible message at Slough train station, and I do have a strong, but not uncontrollable desire to deface it. Does anybody really read any of this 'literature' and suddenly believe in either a) an imaginary friend, or b) an imaginary friend other than the imaginary friend they already believed in?
Admittedly none of these are quite as annoying as Phil Howard's 'Be a winner, not a sinner' speech that used to plague Oxford Street., but it seems that I am not the only one that gets upset by these things. It seems that the revenge of the atheists might just be on its way, see here and here.
There is also an advert bearing some Bible message at Slough train station, and I do have a strong, but not uncontrollable desire to deface it. Does anybody really read any of this 'literature' and suddenly believe in either a) an imaginary friend, or b) an imaginary friend other than the imaginary friend they already believed in?
Admittedly none of these are quite as annoying as Phil Howard's 'Be a winner, not a sinner' speech that used to plague Oxford Street., but it seems that I am not the only one that gets upset by these things. It seems that the revenge of the atheists might just be on its way, see here and here.
21/05/2008
A ramble on the scientific method
Scientific ideas are out there to be attacked by scientists. If a theory survives an attack it lives to fight another day, if not it is either thrown onto the pile of rejected ideas (phlogiston) or it is used although it is kown to be incomplete (Newtonian mechanics is known to be wrong, however it agrees with relativistic mechanics so closely for 'everyday' situations that it used regularly as the mathematics is simpler). It is also possible to alter the theory so that it survives the attack.
These attacks need to be scientific attacks (i.e. they require empirical evidence). Attacks from revealed sources such as the bible are totally unacceptable. The process of attacking an idea is to develop an experiment that will either prove the theory wrong, or let it survive to be attacked by another experiment.
It is not possible to prove a scientific idea, but scientists have a lot of confidence in ideas that have withstood a large number of attacks.
These attacks need to be scientific attacks (i.e. they require empirical evidence). Attacks from revealed sources such as the bible are totally unacceptable. The process of attacking an idea is to develop an experiment that will either prove the theory wrong, or let it survive to be attacked by another experiment.
It is not possible to prove a scientific idea, but scientists have a lot of confidence in ideas that have withstood a large number of attacks.
07/05/2008
The Bible and the Koran agree!
Yes, two of the most influential texts of the last millennium do actually agree on some things. This brings joy to my heart, as the last thing we really need is any of this ridiculous Muslim/Christian. Islam/Christianity, Koran/Bible rivallry. So, you may ask, what do these two 'great' texts agree on? well the answer comes from Steve Wells over at Dwindling In Unbelief.
1) A woman is worth half as much as a man.
2) Insects have four legs.
Great! Good to see that recent advances in equal rights and insect morphology have filtered down into the core of some of the world's major religions!
1) A woman is worth half as much as a man.
2) Insects have four legs.
Great! Good to see that recent advances in equal rights and insect morphology have filtered down into the core of some of the world's major religions!
07/04/2007
Who Wrote the Bible? [Old Testament]
I must have missed this being on TV, but I managed to source a copy. It is a documentary by Robert Beckford, a Christian, and his journey to uncover who wrote the bible. I found it interesting to note that Beckford attributes his personal success and in some cases his morality to being raised as a Christian.
Early on in the documentary Beckford said something which I, as an atheist, was relieved by. He said that studying the history of the bible made him doubt his own beliefs. The ability to question religious beliefs is an important liberty.
Traditionally the first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses, although the archaeological evidence suggests that the people at the time were unable to record their history. Interestingly Beckford makes the claim that archaeology tests historical truth. He seems more confused however regarding whether a lack of truth means the bible is wrong. Beckford must be applauded as a Christian for actually seeking sound evidence, and ignoring 'Biblical Archaeology' where evidence is skewed to promote the accuracy of the Bible. Indeed he talks with Israel Finkelstein, a renowned mind from Tel Aviv University, about, amongst other things, the dating of the Solomonic Gate.
Interestingly archaeology has provided no evidence for a Jewish kingdom or the exodus from Egypt, indeed at that time Jerusalem was not the capital of a great empire, but a small village.
The documentary's destruction of the Old Testament focused mainly on the pentateuch (the books of Moses). The Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch is questioned first by the Deuteronomy account of Moses' death - something impossible to write about in the first person. The weight of the evidence however came from Beckford's discussion with Jill Middlemas of the University of Oxford, who explained to him the theory, first advanced in the 19th Century, that the pentateuch itself comes from four separate authors.
This would not be so bad for the authenticity of the bible if these sources agreed on the very nature of god. In the 'J' text god converses with his peoples directly, whereas in the 'E' text god can only talk through intermediaries. There is not even a single word (or name) for god! This leads to the 'revelation' that the "Bible is a big editing job".
The most interesting point made on this is a rhetorical question: why have these details not filtered to the church going public?
The question of dating the Old Testament is left fairly open. A later limit is set at 586BC (the year of the destruction of Judah, which one of the Psalmist believes would stand forever). The Psalmists were also clearly aware of all four of the pentateuch texts.
Beckford then goes on to investigate the various spin-like modifications of the texts' meaning, favouring at various times monotheism, suffering and hope.
Particular mention is made of the prophet book Isaiah, although the authorship is split between more than one author. Perhaps the most important concept introduced by these authors is the prophecy of a messiah. as Beckford puts it; mission+messiah=hope for future.
So where do the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into the picture? These scrolls, found in the 1940s, are from a radical Jewish sect, the Essenes. The 'Temple Scroll' irons out many of the inconsistencies in the Old Testament, so why was it rejected? If it had been written previously it may well have been accepted as the word of god, however the Old Testament had been around long enough to become accepted, and the word of god could no longer be modified.
Well, that's it for now. I will comment on the New Testament soon, drawing from the same documentary. The documentary also reminded me to do a piece on Zionism, so that too should be up here shortly.
Somebody e-mailed me to say that I just regurgitate other articles and sources. That is true, I want to build a kind of mini-library for a while here, and I will add comprehensive personal analysis later when I have added sufficient source summaries. May sound odd but it makes sense to me!
Early on in the documentary Beckford said something which I, as an atheist, was relieved by. He said that studying the history of the bible made him doubt his own beliefs. The ability to question religious beliefs is an important liberty.
Traditionally the first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses, although the archaeological evidence suggests that the people at the time were unable to record their history. Interestingly Beckford makes the claim that archaeology tests historical truth. He seems more confused however regarding whether a lack of truth means the bible is wrong. Beckford must be applauded as a Christian for actually seeking sound evidence, and ignoring 'Biblical Archaeology' where evidence is skewed to promote the accuracy of the Bible. Indeed he talks with Israel Finkelstein, a renowned mind from Tel Aviv University, about, amongst other things, the dating of the Solomonic Gate.
Interestingly archaeology has provided no evidence for a Jewish kingdom or the exodus from Egypt, indeed at that time Jerusalem was not the capital of a great empire, but a small village.
The documentary's destruction of the Old Testament focused mainly on the pentateuch (the books of Moses). The Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch is questioned first by the Deuteronomy account of Moses' death - something impossible to write about in the first person. The weight of the evidence however came from Beckford's discussion with Jill Middlemas of the University of Oxford, who explained to him the theory, first advanced in the 19th Century, that the pentateuch itself comes from four separate authors.
This would not be so bad for the authenticity of the bible if these sources agreed on the very nature of god. In the 'J' text god converses with his peoples directly, whereas in the 'E' text god can only talk through intermediaries. There is not even a single word (or name) for god! This leads to the 'revelation' that the "Bible is a big editing job".
The most interesting point made on this is a rhetorical question: why have these details not filtered to the church going public?
The question of dating the Old Testament is left fairly open. A later limit is set at 586BC (the year of the destruction of Judah, which one of the Psalmist believes would stand forever). The Psalmists were also clearly aware of all four of the pentateuch texts.
Beckford then goes on to investigate the various spin-like modifications of the texts' meaning, favouring at various times monotheism, suffering and hope.
Particular mention is made of the prophet book Isaiah, although the authorship is split between more than one author. Perhaps the most important concept introduced by these authors is the prophecy of a messiah. as Beckford puts it; mission+messiah=hope for future.
So where do the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into the picture? These scrolls, found in the 1940s, are from a radical Jewish sect, the Essenes. The 'Temple Scroll' irons out many of the inconsistencies in the Old Testament, so why was it rejected? If it had been written previously it may well have been accepted as the word of god, however the Old Testament had been around long enough to become accepted, and the word of god could no longer be modified.
Well, that's it for now. I will comment on the New Testament soon, drawing from the same documentary. The documentary also reminded me to do a piece on Zionism, so that too should be up here shortly.
Somebody e-mailed me to say that I just regurgitate other articles and sources. That is true, I want to build a kind of mini-library for a while here, and I will add comprehensive personal analysis later when I have added sufficient source summaries. May sound odd but it makes sense to me!
04/04/2007
Remove Gideon Bibles Petition
For all you UK residents I have made this petition on the Prime Minister's petition site. If you agree that Gideon bibles should be removed from hotel rooms then I urge you to sign up, it only takes a few moments.
If you want to link to the petition the address is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/removebibles/, or just link to this post.
If you want to link to the petition the address is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/removebibles/, or just link to this post.
01/04/2007
Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America
Louis Theroux is an undoubtedly talented master of documentary making. Indeed I would have found it nearly impossible to make this film.
It follows the Phelps family and what is effectively their church, the Westboro Baptist Church. The family has gained notoriety for protests at the funerals of American servicemen, blaming their deaths on an increasingly homosexual or homosexual tolerating country.
Theroux managed to cut to the heart of the matter. The family and church is led by 'Gramps,' who has a lot of unresolved anger, and a rather novel interpretation of the bible. Those of his children who do not follow his beliefs are disowned. Theroux couldn't even get an answer out of him for the number of children he has had, or has.
The most shocking part, as for Jesus Camp, was the indoctrination of the children. Theroux questioned several of them at a protest while they were holding up banners. One was only four years old and had no concept of tyranny she was supposedly supporting. The fact that the family allow this, and allow children to protest even when they come under fire from missile attacks shows just how sick and twisted the leaders of this cult are.
BBC Website
It follows the Phelps family and what is effectively their church, the Westboro Baptist Church. The family has gained notoriety for protests at the funerals of American servicemen, blaming their deaths on an increasingly homosexual or homosexual tolerating country.
Theroux managed to cut to the heart of the matter. The family and church is led by 'Gramps,' who has a lot of unresolved anger, and a rather novel interpretation of the bible. Those of his children who do not follow his beliefs are disowned. Theroux couldn't even get an answer out of him for the number of children he has had, or has.
The most shocking part, as for Jesus Camp, was the indoctrination of the children. Theroux questioned several of them at a protest while they were holding up banners. One was only four years old and had no concept of tyranny she was supposedly supporting. The fact that the family allow this, and allow children to protest even when they come under fire from missile attacks shows just how sick and twisted the leaders of this cult are.
BBC Website
29/03/2007
Jesus Camp
I finally got round to watching this film in some free time I had this morning. For those of you who haven't seen or heard about it, it follows a few kids attending a 'Jesus Camp' run by a larger than life evangelical woman. It really does ram home the problem of religion.
Most of the kids are home-schooled, apparently on religious grounds. The lessons seem to make a complete mockery of science, evolution, and who knows what else. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole of history was rewritten to support the Bible.
The camp itself used evocative music, dance, speech, lighting, etc to enchant the children and draw them into the fold. These tactics wouldn't be out of place in the arsenal of many a dictator, and the conviction of the speaker, and her eagerness to convert the people to believe her world-view reminded me of Adolf Hitler than the biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.
That made me angry, but the anger was overcome by sadness for the children. For those of you who doubted Richard Dawkins claim that this form of indoctrination is child abuse you need look no further. The children seem to be converted not just for their own good, but to be soldiers for the cause of evangelism.
Most of the kids are home-schooled, apparently on religious grounds. The lessons seem to make a complete mockery of science, evolution, and who knows what else. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole of history was rewritten to support the Bible.
The camp itself used evocative music, dance, speech, lighting, etc to enchant the children and draw them into the fold. These tactics wouldn't be out of place in the arsenal of many a dictator, and the conviction of the speaker, and her eagerness to convert the people to believe her world-view reminded me of Adolf Hitler than the biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.
That made me angry, but the anger was overcome by sadness for the children. For those of you who doubted Richard Dawkins claim that this form of indoctrination is child abuse you need look no further. The children seem to be converted not just for their own good, but to be soldiers for the cause of evangelism.
26/03/2007
Elton John: "Ban Religion"
This post was originally going to be called "Leviticus: 2000 years of suppression in a nutshell" but then I saw this article where Elton John calls for organised religion to be banned. So I have sort of merged the two.
The focus is now on the Bible's teaching on homosexuality, and the suppression of women and other such horrors will come along in future posts.
Well, I took a look at Leviticus in the Good News (unless your homosexual) translation of the Bible. It appears that god "hates" it when a man has sex with another man. The punishment for this "disgusting thing" is death.
So why are we having debates about gay priests? Surely this will disgust god?
It's time to face facts. The apocalypse is coming, but not as it is told in Revelations. The horsemen of this apocalypse are reason, truth, science and acceptance.
The focus is now on the Bible's teaching on homosexuality, and the suppression of women and other such horrors will come along in future posts.
Well, I took a look at Leviticus in the Good News (unless your homosexual) translation of the Bible. It appears that god "hates" it when a man has sex with another man. The punishment for this "disgusting thing" is death.
So why are we having debates about gay priests? Surely this will disgust god?
It's time to face facts. The apocalypse is coming, but not as it is told in Revelations. The horsemen of this apocalypse are reason, truth, science and acceptance.
21/03/2007
At Least Make Your Mind Up
I have met so many people who somehow manage to accept not only the history of the Earth being uncovered by science, but also manage to claim to be Christians. This is pure idiocy.
If you believe that the Bible is the word of a god, and you choose to believe and follow the teachings of that god, then surely it's all or nothing? Surely you can't pick and choose?
Well, apparently you can, because what they believe to be the divine word of god they feel free to interpret however they want. The Bible says, explicitly, that god "hates" homosexual men, yet we now have "gay priests". I'm all for equal rights, but equality for homosexuals and Christianity are mutually exclusive. It says it in the book, and the book comes from god.
Similarly I was recently told that the story of Adam and Eve was meant to be metaphorical. A metaphor for what exactly? Was it taken to be metaphorical when it was first written? The only real thing that has resulted from it is widespread misogyny.
Is it possible to combine rational belief with the book of Genesis (we'll ignore the rest for now)? Of course not. You can accept reason, or accept the doctrine. Is it reasonable to expect Noah to build an ark to carry two of every animal? No, and especially not given the dimensions. Is there sufficient water on the planet to cover the near-entirety of the Earth's surface? Obviously not.
There are even people who claim to be able to reconcile the existence of dinosaurs with Genesis, even claiming that they were on the ark. The top trump is yet to come, the dating of the bones by various scientific disciplines (which all agree) are a test of faith by their god.
Isn't this just getting desperate? Isn't their sufficient evidence already to show your holy book to be at best factually flawed?
I'd argue that the case was stronger than that. The Bible claims to be the true words of god. The fact that the words are now wrong surely implies that god was wrong. For a self-declared supreme being this is tragic indeed. RIP.
If you believe that the Bible is the word of a god, and you choose to believe and follow the teachings of that god, then surely it's all or nothing? Surely you can't pick and choose?
Well, apparently you can, because what they believe to be the divine word of god they feel free to interpret however they want. The Bible says, explicitly, that god "hates" homosexual men, yet we now have "gay priests". I'm all for equal rights, but equality for homosexuals and Christianity are mutually exclusive. It says it in the book, and the book comes from god.
Similarly I was recently told that the story of Adam and Eve was meant to be metaphorical. A metaphor for what exactly? Was it taken to be metaphorical when it was first written? The only real thing that has resulted from it is widespread misogyny.
Is it possible to combine rational belief with the book of Genesis (we'll ignore the rest for now)? Of course not. You can accept reason, or accept the doctrine. Is it reasonable to expect Noah to build an ark to carry two of every animal? No, and especially not given the dimensions. Is there sufficient water on the planet to cover the near-entirety of the Earth's surface? Obviously not.
There are even people who claim to be able to reconcile the existence of dinosaurs with Genesis, even claiming that they were on the ark. The top trump is yet to come, the dating of the bones by various scientific disciplines (which all agree) are a test of faith by their god.
Isn't this just getting desperate? Isn't their sufficient evidence already to show your holy book to be at best factually flawed?
I'd argue that the case was stronger than that. The Bible claims to be the true words of god. The fact that the words are now wrong surely implies that god was wrong. For a self-declared supreme being this is tragic indeed. RIP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
