The Bible is ignorant on so many topics…

Do not feel compelled to click on my ad above. – BUM

Nate wrote a HUGE entry. (here: http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D781466&entry=10003&mode=)  I have so much that I want to respond to, but I’ll have to topically hit a number of things, and I’ll have to break this up across a couple of entries.

First, thank you, Nathan, for coming out guns blazing. I get the sense that you have some very visceral moral outrage at us atheists (or at least a few specific atheists — me included). You better not admit it, though, if you want to continue claiming that you don’t have a moral sense. I honestly find it irritating when Christians talk to me as though I’m harmless when they simultaneously think that if my thoughts convinced their children about the falsehood and immorality of Christianity that their children would be tortured in hell forever by their loving God.

This ought to set a fire under them at least a little!

Of course, it should go without saying that I think organized superstition (Christianity for example) is a blight on society for a number of reasons.

We’ll get to that though in time, let me begin near the end of your essay and work my way toward the beginning:

"But all this vaunted "conversational atheism" is nothing more than a religion you have made for mediocre philosophers and slavish "freethinkers," who traffic these sites and learn nothing but how to parrot their sophistry in turn, ever eager for some new feat of hollow pith to bolster them in the zealotry of their disdain. It is a zeal that smiles on its face but clutches its malice close, representing nothing uniformly but its own unearned intellectual smugness and the hope of its day of power, all the while eating at the roots of our kind philosophies and the great moral achievements that rest squarely upon them."

unearned intellectual smugness…

What do you call the theist who has the answers to the meaning of the universe in a magic book?

Let’s think about this for a minute: Aquinas, for example, would tell you at great length about the creation of the universe with a certitude that no astrophysicist of today would even approach.

Why? Because Aquinas, you see, has the answers to the meaning of the universe in his magic book. His answers would also, largely, be wrong because his magic book doesn’t know as much as we know today.

Unearned intellectual smugness…

Yes. I like that phrase quite a bit.

"The reason is that our form of government, a masterwork of political science even if it can be frustrating, is intended to produce wise decisions only as a corollary to its main purpose, which I cannot overemphasize: To prevent internal instability from bringing about the premature collapse of our society … I raise these points in order to demonstrate what must surely be one of our greatest protections against instability as a nation, which is our tradition of religious tolerance, enshrined in our constitution and practiced unswervingly by the vast majority of Americans today. … Well, that is surely what an intolerant person of any belief would say."

Tolerance — that’s a virtue that Jesus mentions frequently, right?

Come to think of it… I can’t think of a single time when He mentioned it — must not have been too important. Perhaps my memory fails me: if you could provide a verse to correct me, I’d concede this point.

Hopefully you aren’t letting the virus-morals of your surrounding culture determine what you think is right and wrong!

 

It is a bit bewildering to be lectured to by a Christian who wants to maintain our society without collapse — as though the most joyous moment that could happen is NOT the end of the world! It just seems odd for a person who hopes and prays for Armageddon, the apocalypse and rapture is so concerned with such temporal things like democracy or long term environmental planning for the planet.

Hey. Speaking of the advances of political science … we seem to have a point of agreement: The Bible does not represent the best ideas that we can have on the nature of government that we should form. We should start a list of things like this we agree on.

"Conservative Christians have undeniably directed the national agenda rightward on issues that they consider to be of moral import…fighting hard against gay marriage… Objectively, however, this are not issues of real significance for the well-being of our nation."

I think that if religious belief can get an otherwise smart and considerate person to condone genocide, that faith really is a significant threat to the well-being of our nation. How does that saying go? If you can get a person to believe in absurdities you can get him to commit atrocities? Perhaps a better wording would be: If you can convince a person to believe that genocide isn’t an atrocity — then you can convince him to commit genocide.

I know, I know. You will counter, ‘well, what’s wrong with genocide?’ — But I submit that if you are trying to appeal to some kind of common understanding that we ought to oppose things that are dangerous to the well-being of our nation, it should be obvious that such a pernicious degrader of human dignity deserves to be on that list.

Now, I understand that to a genocide apologist, an issue like enshrining discrimination against gay people into that state constitution of California might seem like a small issue.

Perhaps I can personalize it a bit to warm that genocide-approving heart of yours:

Let’s just consider my 15 year old cousin who has several conditions which have already required her to have both a kidney and a liver transplant (and will need multiple kidney transplants throughout the rest of her life). And to her younger sister who has the same condition, but so far hasn’t required the transplants (but she will one day).

Please explain to them that, although her doctors think that the best chances she has for a cure is stem cell research, the reason that this research is being curtailed is that a group of superstitious men think that they have a magic book that is against it. Be sure to emphasize that this superstition isn’t really a "nation-threatening" level of idiocy.

If you want, I’ll be happy to email them your response.

 

To be honest, it’s enough for me that Christianity makes innocent children needlessly worry about an eternity of hell-fire and torment. That alone is enough motivation for me, I don’t need the gay marriage thing, or the stem cell thing to get me motivated — although it never hurts the motivation.

"These things have been done on explicitly religious grounds, although sometimes on dubious scriptural authority; there are no stem cells in the Bible."</stron

g>

Oh that’s right, the Bible doesn’t mention stem cells.

We have yet another issue that we agree that the Bible does not have the best writings and considerations on medical topics like stem cells.

Let’s hammer out this list a bit.

Let’s call it: Topics talked about in the Bible for which the Bible is no longer the best writing and thinking that we have available.

Let’s start with: the beginning of the universe, how the earth was formed, that the earth is round, that the earth orbits the sun, evolution, biology, chemistry, mathematics, psychology, economics, political science, history (world-wide flooding anyone?).

Medicine: demon possession (apparently) causes nearly every ailment and disease.

The Bible represents the best knowledge we have in NONE of the areas that are observable.

I’ll say it again because it’s important.

The Bible represents the best knowledge we have in NONE of the areas that are observable.

And we have Nathan, striding into the arena.

I don’t know, what could Nathan say, "Sure sure sure, the Bible, written/inspired by the all-knowing creator of the universe, has written on many topics that have since been surpassed by the efforts of mere mortal men.

In fact, every topic which inquiry can be undertaken has made progress since the Bible has been written.

HOWEVER, in that long list of outdated thinking and knowledge, MORALITY stands as the remaining clarion call of God’s word."

Morality is the one remaining outcrop that the Bible can cling to?

Right.

The morality of the Bible which, as you continue to admit, approves of genocide and slavery (at least at times).

The Bible which legislates that woman must marry her rapist:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version)

 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

What could I possibly say in the face of such blistering rhetoric and logic?

So many things… for now, though, I’ll make a fool of myself by saying ridiculous things like: genocide is wrong! owning people as property is wrong!

As though the "morality of the Bible" could be improved upon like EVERY OTHER TOPIC that that miserable book the BIBLE dirties with its grubby little meat-hooks.

Consider, briefly, demon possession.

Is there any deed that Jesus does more of in the Gospel accounts than cast out demons? I can’t think of one… here are a few from just the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 4.24:

So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them.

Matthew 8.16:

That evening they brought to him many who were possessed by demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and cured all who were sick.

Matthew 8.28:

When he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs coming out of the tombs met him. They were so fierce that no one could pass that way.

Matthew 9.32:

After they had gone away, a demoniac who was mute was brought to him.

Matthew 12.22:

Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see.

Matthew 15.22:

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’

Matthew 17.18:

And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.

Let’s delve into this a bit more by reading an article from the past month (worth reading in its entirety):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

‘Child-witches’ of Nigeria seek refuge

"The religious leaders offer help to the families whose children are named as witches, but at a price. The churches run exorcism, or "deliverance", evenings where the pastors attempt to drive out the evil spirits. Only they have the power to cleanse the child of evil spirits, they say. The exorcism costs the families up to a year’s income."

"At his church in Ibaka, the Bishop pours a homemade substance called African mercury, a potion of pure alcohol and his own blood, into the eyes of a young boy lying on a table. "I want this poison destroyer to destroy the witch right now, in Jesus’ name," he says.

…

He has recently refined his techniques for dealing with child witches. "I killed up to 110 people who were identified as being a witch," he says."

Oh good, the Bishop has killed 110 people who were witches.

Where did he get such an awesome idea?

Oh wait:

Exodus 22:18 You shall not permit a witch to live.

Nathan, are you glad that these demons are being sent out of the children? Are you pleased that 110 witches have been killed?

Did you read the article? It sounds like they are afflicted by demon possession like crazy… almost as bad as 1st century Jerusalem!

How did you put it?

"The problem, as I see it, with subjective morality is that one person has no real authority to steer the behavior of others in a moral direction."

Good thing this guy has the clear moral authority of the Bible to kill the witches. Hell, I bet he can even steer the behavior of others!

You continue: "Scripture sets a fixed point in the moral landscape, something to which the people who believe in it can return again and again in all places and times, seeking God’s will."

Good thing God was so clear about those witches… because people certainly do return again and again.

Well, either way, I’m sure that you’ll admit that this man’s religious beliefs are as justified as yours — and I’ll agree with that statement entirely.

His religious beliefs lead him to pouring blood and alcohol into the eyes of a young boy. Your religious beliefs lead you to condone genocide. On balance, I’m not sure which religious derangement is worse.

Let me now directly address some of your statements:"the Christians whom they are trying to strip of their beliefs are certainly mostly the Westerners who visit pages like this one … I think there is certainly an argument to be made for spreading this modern Christianity to places.

.."

Perhaps Western Christians who visit this page do not consider it a good thing that witches are being killed and that children with demons are being cast off into society. Two points.

1. Why would these Western Christians no longer worry about demon possession and witches? A closer reading of the New Testament? Surely not.

2. Western Christians often feel the need to spread their superstition to all corners of the world through missionary work — and perhaps their own … tempered … view of Christianity is less of a problem. But when you get an already highly superstitious place to adopt your version of superstition, they just may believe in your magic book even more fully than you do.

I’m ending this entry for now… don’t worry, I have a LOT more to say about the rest of your entry. But that’s for a later date.