I’m getting so incredibly tired of hearing from the cherry-picking fundamentalists (yes, I admit. I shouldn’t have listened to fundamentalist talk radio on the way home from work tonight).
Here’s a challenge for each of them: If the entire Bible is inerrant, then read each of its passages closely. Don’t skip these parts. If the Bible is truly inerrant, give each passage equal opportunity. Every time you quote a part that suits your immediate needs, quote one of these passages. Quote them each slowly and let the words soak in, if you dare. Focus entire church services around each one of these passages, if you dare.
Put each of these principles into practice, if you dare. You’d better hope that the police don’t catch you in the act.
Erich, is that picture of a man eating a baby for real?? I'm feeling very ill from that and the other horrendous things that people do to each other that are pictured on that site. I understand and agree with the points being made, but I wish I could get those images out of my head!
gatomjp: I ASSUME that some of those images were Photoshopped. I certainly hope so. That particular cited passage does not seem to actually ADVOCATE cannibalism. The setting was a time of great famine. I would not have included that passage (or photo) in the otherwise instuctive list.
Cherry-picking comes in all manners. The problem of assuming that the Bible is "The Word of God" is that this leaves no room for what the writers themselves wanted to say from personal aims. The Psalm 137 quote is a good case. The whole verse says,
This is a personal assualt on Babylon, based on the experiences of the Exile, and a plea for revenge against a conquering power. In my edition (The Jerusalem Bible, which dispenses with the poetry of the KJV and often reads much more clearly in key places as a result) this Psalm is not on attributed to David. Many Psalmists contributed to Psalms, but it is a common misperception that David wrote them all. He did not.
If seen in the context of a Hebrew really pissed at what has befallen his or her country, then the passage reads sensibly as a human cry for revenge. Ugly, but heartfelt. If seen as "divinely inspired" it becomes a real problem for the inerrancy crowd.
I checked Snopes.com. I was relieved to read that picture is a fake.
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm
Just so you know…I was not offended that your post sent me to that site. Sometimes we need to be reminded of the atrocities that are committed in the name of war or religion. I also understand that the image was there to illustrate a certain passage from the bible and point out its unquestioned cruelty. For all we know, baby eating may be something that has happened at some place at some time…I'm just glad that I didn't actually see it!
Gotta go watch the laughing baby again to clear my head!
Can't you tell the difference between documenting what actually happened and condoning what happens? If it was really cherry picking wouldn't it all be cherries?
Larry: Specific rules of conduct are specified in a supposedly inerrant book. Many (though not all) of these rules are hideous. They are therefore downplayed and ignored by the inerrant crowd, yet the entire book is claimed to be wise and true and just.
What don't you understand?
I think what Larry is saying is that he views the bible as merely a record of ancient history whereas most believers use it as a system of rules to live by as Erich reiterates.
It would be like reading a book about the Germany during the second World War and then going out and trying to round up all the Jews in your neighborhood.
Is that what you meant Larry?
The Commandments, Judgements and Statutes are, of course, "rules to live by". Not living by them brings the things we are observing all around us. Man has had at least 6000 years to try and come up with something better, and is still failing.
Erich calls some of the rules "hideous". Well, yeah; sin is hideous. And dealing with it, rather than ignoring it, might seem hideous. But not dealing with it is worse. Because then it spreads like a cancer and ends up destroying the whole society.
The judgements are spelled out so that people will learn to avoid sin, and it's destructivness. No nation has ever survived once they embrace the wickedness that Americans seem to believe is their birthright. What is so special about us, that we may spurn God with impunity, while others are held accountable?
Larry,
Your posts suffer from the same kind of diffuse style of speech that I find characterizes many passionate believers. I still don't know if you agree with my above post. Did I misunderstand you or not?
I always try to write in clear, plain English, like Hemingway, Vonnegut and Twain. Please try to tone down the preacher-style ranting because, with all due respect, I don't know what you are talking about most of the time.
So, if I understand you correctly…SOME of the bible is history and SOME is "rules to live by"? If so, how do we know which is which?
Larry,
Slavery is condoned in the BIble. The commandment regarding theft and the one regarding covetousness includes a tacit approval of slavery. That one bit alone I think has been superceded and done better since. We cannot "own" people, which was perfectly fine under Yahweh's rules.
There's the bit of hypocrisy involved in Thou Shalt Not Kill which is overturned later by the unspoken addendum "except when I tell you to."
The other aspects Erich and me and others like us has to do with God telling people to do things that are patently unethical not to say immoral.
Now, you can say that Yahweh has a perfect justification for doing such things because, after all, he's the boss (in your view). But you can't claim that we haven't, in any event, come up with better. If not necessarily better laws, certainly better applications. And of course there are all those cultures where Yahweh was never heard of, much less the Ten Commandments, who managed to govern themselves by laws that worked quite well for them.
Eschew superlatives. They'll undo you everytime.
Oh, and the specialness of Americans? It's the same tendency every group of successful outcasts has for casting itself as God's Chosen. I agree with you, without justification. The only thing Americans can claim as superior is our Constitution and our willingness to work our butts off for what we have, but none of that is god given.
The errors of the errancy crowd are built upon the errors of the inerrancy crowd. These misperceptions cause the bitterness toward God that is apparent here.
. . .
Yes, you are absolutely right that we desperately need "better applications". To me, this means leadership with a christ-like spirit applying the Law in Love, not in retribution. We must become "workmen that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth".
[Note from admin: edited for length and proselytizing]
Larry wrote…who the hell knows??!
Erich wrote: "[Note from admin: edited for length and proselytizing]"
The guy can't give a straight answer!
I have no "bitterness toward god", Larry. I have only frustration with people who obfuscate and cloud the issue and give roundabout meaningless answers when asked a simple question.
So many many times have I gotten answerless answers from believers like Larry to simple, basic questions. Either their minds already work in a roundabout way, which makes them susceptible to the comfortable doctrines of religion, or it is the irrational religious dogma itself that makes their minds react that way. I haven't figured it out yet.
I think that Larry means well, and he's probably a nice guy who does good deeds, but as a conversationalist he leaves much to be desired.
gatomjp wrote, "I have only frustration with people who obfuscate and cloud the issue and give roundabout meaningless answers when asked a simple question."
The problem is your questions are based on false premises taught by religion that I refuse to support. I am not a fundamentalist, I am not an evangelical, I am not a creationist. The errors in versions of the Bible are the work of men. When I try to explain this our moderator throws out anything I say that keeps me from looking like an idiot. I will not be pigeon-holed so you can pretend I'm not answering since most of my answer is edited.
I confess to having sympathy for Larry in this instance. I've participated on discussion boards in which I held the minority view on certain of these issues and found myself getting "edited for length" on several occasions. Perhaps I did run on long, but any points I may have been making never got to most of the people reading the board.
But on the issue at hand, the problem, Larry, is that both the crowd you seem to be distancing yourself from and yourself hold to a view of the universe which, regardless of provenance, I and others like me find unsupportable. You seem to believe there will be an apocalypse. You seem to think there is a heaven and, maybe, a hell. You seem to think the god of the Old Testament, though misrepresented by that very document, is real and that we ought to acknowledge and worship him. Some of your arguments in support of this and related positions are, to say the least, creative. Ultimately, though, I–and I will speak for myself alone here–just can't swallow it. In my experience and opinion, the universe doesn't work that way, and all gods are fables designed to scare children into being good citizens when they grow up.
But I do think you deserve to have your say.
"The errors of the errancy crowd are built upon the errors of the inerrancy crowd. "
BTW, this makes perfect sense. Translation–the arguments raised against the proposition that the Bible is inerrant are in part grounded on an assumption that those who freely intepret and treat the Bible as metaphor assume there is something of value in the debate. The people who argue the Bible is wrong usually do so by accepting the premise that those who believe the Bible is absolutely right have made a simple mistake with regards to the nature of truth. Both end up arguing over something that is beside the point (if I understand Larry's observation correctly). I made allusion to this in my post The Real Issue. The debate ain't got nothing to do with whether the translations are right/wrong/inside out/backwards/or inverted. It has to do with how we wish to live TODAY and denying the "inerrancy crowd" the right to dictate behaviors. The Bible at some point becomes irrelevant to this debate.
I've struggled with how to handle Larry's (often lengthy) comments. He is a thoughtful and creative fellow. When he's on-topic and to the point, his comments are displayed in their entirety.
Based upon the vast amount of Larry's writings that appear on this site, I hope it's clear that I am not trying to censor the content of Larry's writings.
On the other hand, I've been getting repeated feedback that Larry is tedious when he repeatedly embeds assumptions (see the partial list in the immediately preceding comment by Jason) that X, Y and Z are true RATHER than making it clear that HE believes that they are true. Whenever Larry assumes as fact that GOD is of such and such character, that the Old Testament that many of us find problematic is simply a false account (even though millions of people try to inject that "false" account into our political lives), and that Larry has the key to supernatural truth, it has the tendency of pulling us off topic. We now have to deal with Larry's version of religious truth rather than the prevalent social reality that concerns most of us.
I have made suggestions to Larry regarding his posts: Keep them brief and on point. Don't write in such a way that you are painting general truths when you are advocating your own idiosyncratic views–Instead of writing that "God is X," write "I believe that God is X." This will keep so many of us from feeling compelled to jump in to remind Larry (and other readers) that not everyone on this site believes that "God is X." Until recently, many of us felt that we had to jump in every time Larry appeared to remind others that we don't find Larry's theological views helpful to resolving the points made in the posts.
If Larry will adhere to these rules, his comments to these posts will be much less repetitive and tedious. Hence, they will be published in their entirety.
In sum, Larry can have his say, but he needs to keep it short, fresh and non-repetitive. He has an open door here as long as he follows these rules and writes in such a way that it is clear that he is only speaking for himself and his own interpretation of the Bible (which runs counter to the commonly-held interpretations that are the subject of many of these posts). When he launches into the self-evidence of the theological beliefs he (sincerely) holds, however, I will feel compelled to trim back his comments, because those sorts of comments put the onus on too many of us to jump in (again and again) to say "You're not speaking for me."
I'm open to other suggestions from other readers and commenters.
Larry, it seems that you know a lot about God. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all of your posts. Be assured that I have been able to understand most, if not all of your main arguments, responses, and ideas, in lieu of any *editing* for length. That is not to say that I agree with you or your logic.
How is it that you have gained access to so many hidden answers, and knowledge, and the wishes of God, if indeed the Bible is flawed?
I am equally impressed with your ability to formulate "excuses" for the mistakes in the Bible almost as quickly as we point them out. I realize that you may feel that you are being attacked, but it is only the logic which we disdain. In terms of your 6000 year old Earth defense, I solemly offer you some of what my eyes have seen and what my mind has learned on the subject of the age of the Earth. Please accept these links to wikipedia's new section on evolution and creationism.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Age_of_the_Earth
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
Excerpt: The oldest minerals which are found on earth are zircons in Australia and show an uranium-lead age of up to about 4.4 billion years. The oldest known minerals which formed in our solar system are CAIs (calcium aluminium-rich inclusions) which can be found within primitive meteorites. The uranium-lead ages of this CAIs were determined to 4.5672 billion years.
Of course, those who formulated the various bibles didn't know this. Furthermore, people who lived just 150 years ago didn't have this scientific knowledge either. Larry J. Carter, as a thinking member of the 21st century (who has access to science at his fingertips), you should be ASHAMED to have EVER supported the Dark Ages mentality.
I apologize, Larry, if I insulted you. On the other hand, I trust Erich's intelligence and feel that he would not edit without good reason. Please, may I re-ask a question of you that I asked a few posts back and hopefully get a plain and straightforward answer?
If SOME of the bible is history and SOME is “rules to live by", how do we know which is which?
Anyone…is this a stupid question? I know that I am not as well educated as some on this blog but if Larry answered that question somewhere in his posts I sure missed it!
So many times I ask what I think are simple yet interesting (I hope) questions of the believers only to have them ignored. Do they think that the questions are rhetorical? They are not.
Jason makes a good point about the inerrancy debate being somewhat beside the point but I would still be fascinated to hear from any believers out there who do not take all of the bible as literal and would like to know how you make the determination as to what to accept and what to reject. (I believe this is still on topic for this discussion.)
In Larry's defense, this IS a personal question and one I would like to hear answered from a personal perspective.
Erich,
Why don't you post Larry's edited post in it's entirety so that we can decide for ourselves if he answered the questions or not? I fear that he may not return to DI if he feels that he is being unfairly treated. Your call. Just a suggestion.
Given the concerns raised (legitimate freedom of expression concerns), I am reassing my handling of some of Larry's comments.
I would have been happy to repost Larry's comments in their entirety so you could compare, but I can't. They come into the comments queue where I approve, disapprove or edit. Once I make any edit choices in WordPress, the original is gone.
Other than the spam, I've approved 99% of the comments received by this site in their entirety. If Larry will give us another chance, I will print his next couple of comments in their entirety, but I will also indicate the sorts of edits I would make, if any.
I've been over at http://www.edge.com reading Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the crew. I don't find them saying "I believe" or "I think" or "In my opinion" when they are writing things that are obviously what they believe, think or have an opinion about. And I don't find people accusing them of "proselitizing" when they are voicing an opinion about something. The whole reason for having a message board like this is so people can argue, reason together and debate. What are you so scared of?
Augustine introduced the idea of eternal punishment and it's predictable companion "forced conversion". His idea was; If God was going to punish unbelievers for eternity it would be better to convert them any way you could than to let them suffer forever, and once you got a few converted they would convert their children and grandchildren {to a religion!!}. He brought the idea of Hades in from paganism and the Greeks. But Hell is just a hole in the ground for dead meat and cannot contain our spirit.
"Slavery" in the Bible is about the ownership of a person's productivity, not his person. You are projecting slavery as practiced much later onto an economic arrangment more similiar to our concept of employee/employer today. A person could sell his productivity for a set period of time, no more than six years {until the sabbath year} to raise funds to pay off a debt or whatever. Many of the people who came to America had to enter endentured servitude to finance their passage. There were {are} strict laws concerning redemption and the treatment of "slaves" and their rights. It is the ignorance of these laws that ever permitted slavery as we knew it in America, and the reason that we were disciplined severely with a civil war.
Now. concerning "which is which". Be careful of setting up a false dichotomy by dividing the Bible into "history OR laws to live by". It is all of this and more. The things that were written before time were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures {NOT a VERSION of the scriptures} might have hope. Every word of the original writings is there for a reason. We certainly have not discovered every reason yet. Many times the original writing is just about what happened; but it was also a way to set up a type so that a later anti-type could be fufilled. Men do not write this way. The teachings, doctrines and commandments of men are condemned over and over in the scriptures.
In the case of Psalm 137 and the grief and vengence wished upon the Babylonians: the Israelites did not realize that they had made themselves the enemies of God, and had disowned Him {in practice if not in words} and that He was using the Babylonians or Assyrians to get them to change their minds {repent} much as He is using the Iranians and Iragis now to try to change the church's mind. We still have people like Augustine running things. I've been in a lot of churches where when you start speaking truth, you can see their eyes glaze over and {figuratively} witness their hands moving up to cover their ears.
There is a famine of HEARING the Word of God. It is not limited to http://www.dangerousintersection.com, it is worldwide. It is in the churches because many of them write their own versions to support their pet doctrines and ignore stuff they don't want to think about. The only difference here is you people want to rationally ignore all of it. Two sides of the same coin. You pick out the stuff that the churches have made up and find fault with is so you can do your own thing. There is no new thing under the sun. I would challenge you to be different from your forefathers.
"Education is the organization of knowledge within the constraints of scarcity. Education "disciplines" knowledge, segregating it into homogenous fields, presided over by suitibly "qualified" gaurdians charged with policing th representation of the field. One may aquire an education, as if it were a thing, but one can only become knowledgable through a process of transformation." McKinzie Wark
Maybe controversy is God's corrective method.
Larry. I'm not scared of anything you write. Rather, I find it equally boring and frustrating. Your writings start, repeatedly, from the assumption that the Bible is inspired writing, written by a fairy tale being. Many people simple don't buy into that assumption for detailed reasons that are set out in posts throughout this site. Many of us aren't into proving the authenticity of the Bible by reference to the Bible itself. That is a stark logical fallacy called bootstrapping.
It's as if I repeatedly asked you to assume that people were actually large green triangles, basing dozens of arguments on that assumption. What would you say to someone who keeps making arguments based on that highly questionable assumption? How much space would you want to give that person's writings? What if respected others repeatedly raised the question of why we are publishing writings of someone who bases all of his arguments on a puzzling assertion that people were large green triangles?
The problem, Larry, is that your basic assumptions are disconnected from empirical experience. I don't feel that your arguments are connecting with the posts. That makes them off-topic and tedious, in my opinion. Take, for example, a passage you just wrote:
This is preaching. You are not intellectually engaged with the focus of the post.
I have to wonder why you don't start your own website and see whether anyone wants to come banter with you based on your operating assumptions. I'd be happy let you mention the link to your own site, if you start one. I'm willing to do this, even though this site might lose one or two readers (who would possibly become regulars of YOUR site) as a result.
I'm not trying to be hostile, but I'm utterly frustrated with your non-evidentiary approach to reality.
Larry,
If you can "sell" a person and/or their labor without their permission, that is slavery, I don't care how long a time period you're talking about. It's like putting limits on evisceration. It's repugnant, it's immoral, it's condoned (in more forms than the one you recount) in Scripture. Slavery is slavery. My point was that we have subsequently found a higher moral ground than what is allowed for in the Bible. That's all, since you questioned our ability to do so.
As for God punishing Israel….gimme a break. Israel was the Poland of the Levant. The Hebrews, believing that God would make it all work for them, didn't bother to learn how to run their country or properly defend it or make it more valuable in their hands than in a conquerors. They botched it, were conquered (repeatedly) and the result was exile and captivity. God didn't have anything to do with it. The Hebrews were just lousy nation builders.
BUT THEY BLAMED IT ON FORCES OUTSIDE THEIR CONTROL AND YOU CLAIM THOSE FORCES TO BE GOD.
In a word, bullshit.
It's been interesting.
I can see now why Erich edited Larry's comments. In every paragraph, sometimes in every sentence, Larry talks about a different topic, with no transition — indeed, no coherent point — in going from one to the next. First he talks about Sam Harris, then Augustine, then slavery, then biblical apologetics, then the Babylonians…he's all over the place.
"I’m not trying to be hostile, but I’m utterly frustrated with your non-evidentiary approach to reality."
I'm sorry to be so frustrating. The subject we were discussing was the errancy/inerrancy of the Bible. I think it is appropriate to quote the Bible {the evidence} in order to consider it's contents. Maybe you know a better way.