Saturday, February 13, 2016
The Bible as bad writing
**When I was a Bible student, reading it every day, reading about it often, interpreting it for various audiences I would deal with the obvious mess that the Bible is by explaining that the message got so polluted by various political, mental, technical and cultural influences that the REAL meaning, the SPIRITUAL meaning became obscured.
This is how Mary Baker Eddy explained it. She of course set herself up —as so many have —as someone who had the unique divine inspiration to comb through it and discern the SPIRITUAL meaning that others mostly missed. But in the end she did what just about every Bible thumper does: cherry-pick passages here and there and weave them into support for a particular thesis. (Her "proof" that she was indeed this inspired scribe was that the system of "spiritual healing" that she invented based on it worked. But it doesn't.)
I didn’t grasp this at the time because I, too, was working under the assumption — delusion — that there is a divine Agent active in the universe who is trying to get through to us but for some never-explained reason has to use these woefully inadequate scribes to do it. As I studied more about the history of what we today call the Bible, I learned that it was a particular compilation of various myths, rumors, cultic rituals and other so-called doctrines of christianity, which freely circulated within that halcyon land mass we today call the middle east. Which stories got compiled into the present Bible depended on the opinions and political clout of various church authorities and scholars at the time. The Emperor Constantine, knowing that nothing unites like a common delusion — diverse people holding to the same religious precepts — decided that there should be one religion, and therefore one religious document that everyone would have to take as the final statement on the truth of Christianity. So he commanded that it be created. Yes, the Bible was created at a certain time and place. Those texts that became the canonical “winners” excluded many — most — of the “gospels” floating around in the 4th century and earlier. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi, an ancient library, biblical scholars had to deal with some of those contemporaneous texts: The gospel of Thomas, of Mary Magdalene, and a slew of other luminaries that would have been quite well known to the average person in the 4th century but who got obliterated by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Not that those other pieces of oral tradition were much clearer or more “inspired” than what got canonized but they illustrate the arbitrariness of what so many people consider a finished, divine work. And reading them was one of the reasons why my faith eventually crumbled.
Recently, it was refreshing to encounter a blog called Southern Skeptic, since I now live in the middle of the Bible belt where the State legislature is currently working on six or seven bills about “religious freedom,” which obviously is only about freedom for the mainline christian religion, preferably of the evangelical variety, and oppression for everybody else. (You can imagine what atrocities they will try to push through.)
The writer, known only as “Matt,” explores his journey from fundamentalism to skepticism. His article, 7 Reasons God is a Terrible Writer does a good job of filleting this revered mashup that has been directly responsible for so much evil in human history. He asks:
This is how Mary Baker Eddy explained it. She of course set herself up —as so many have —as someone who had the unique divine inspiration to comb through it and discern the SPIRITUAL meaning that others mostly missed. But in the end she did what just about every Bible thumper does: cherry-pick passages here and there and weave them into support for a particular thesis. (Her "proof" that she was indeed this inspired scribe was that the system of "spiritual healing" that she invented based on it worked. But it doesn't.)
I didn’t grasp this at the time because I, too, was working under the assumption — delusion — that there is a divine Agent active in the universe who is trying to get through to us but for some never-explained reason has to use these woefully inadequate scribes to do it. As I studied more about the history of what we today call the Bible, I learned that it was a particular compilation of various myths, rumors, cultic rituals and other so-called doctrines of christianity, which freely circulated within that halcyon land mass we today call the middle east. Which stories got compiled into the present Bible depended on the opinions and political clout of various church authorities and scholars at the time. The Emperor Constantine, knowing that nothing unites like a common delusion — diverse people holding to the same religious precepts — decided that there should be one religion, and therefore one religious document that everyone would have to take as the final statement on the truth of Christianity. So he commanded that it be created. Yes, the Bible was created at a certain time and place. Those texts that became the canonical “winners” excluded many — most — of the “gospels” floating around in the 4th century and earlier. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi, an ancient library, biblical scholars had to deal with some of those contemporaneous texts: The gospel of Thomas, of Mary Magdalene, and a slew of other luminaries that would have been quite well known to the average person in the 4th century but who got obliterated by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Not that those other pieces of oral tradition were much clearer or more “inspired” than what got canonized but they illustrate the arbitrariness of what so many people consider a finished, divine work. And reading them was one of the reasons why my faith eventually crumbled.
 |
| From Southern Skeptic article |
Recently, it was refreshing to encounter a blog called Southern Skeptic, since I now live in the middle of the Bible belt where the State legislature is currently working on six or seven bills about “religious freedom,” which obviously is only about freedom for the mainline christian religion, preferably of the evangelical variety, and oppression for everybody else. (You can imagine what atrocities they will try to push through.)
The writer, known only as “Matt,” explores his journey from fundamentalism to skepticism. His article, 7 Reasons God is a Terrible Writer does a good job of filleting this revered mashup that has been directly responsible for so much evil in human history. He asks:
“So what would we expect to find in a book that was written by God (or “divinely inspired”)? Here are seven suggestions.(I’ll just quote the top line items and encourage you to read the details:)
1. It would be well-organized.While many would object to that last feature, he makes a convincing case that most of the stories are strange, pointless and/or disgusting. He prefers hundreds of other, human writers. As do I.
2. It would be more specific.
3. It would be easy to understand.
4. It would be perfectly consistent.
5. It would have specific, verifiable prophecies
6. It would contain knowledge that humans couldn’t have had.
7. It would have beautiful, heart-rending poetry and stories
Ask a believer why the Bible is inspired and the answer you get is, the Bible says it is. That's known as a tautology. But even if you accept that it could be inspired and absolutely true and an unerring guide to righteous human living, that acceptance would most likely crumble once you start reading it Because the writing is so bad.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
Maintenance or Revolution?
**The following is response to a FB post made by a friend:
___, I’ve appreciated your posts on FB and have wanted to chime in on the conversations about the campaigns, but I really don’t want to get into scraps with the likes of ___, who rails against a polarized nation and then goes to show why it’s so polarized. A one-issue voter is a failed voter, one who doesn’t/won’t understand that governance is complex. The Tea Partiers in Congress are a good example of what happens — and doesn’t happen — when these narrow thinkers get power. Worrying about unborn, non-viable “babies” is an effective distraction/excuse for not dealing with the general realities of life. Some of these realities concern actually born babies — most of whom are black or brown, poor and extra susceptible to poisoning — who have to suffer the consequences of such blinkered thinking,
___, I’ve appreciated your posts on FB and have wanted to chime in on the conversations about the campaigns, but I really don’t want to get into scraps with the likes of ___, who rails against a polarized nation and then goes to show why it’s so polarized. A one-issue voter is a failed voter, one who doesn’t/won’t understand that governance is complex. The Tea Partiers in Congress are a good example of what happens — and doesn’t happen — when these narrow thinkers get power. Worrying about unborn, non-viable “babies” is an effective distraction/excuse for not dealing with the general realities of life. Some of these realities concern actually born babies — most of whom are black or brown, poor and extra susceptible to poisoning — who have to suffer the consequences of such blinkered thinking,
There is an important distinction between the two Democratic candidates. As Robert Reich has said:
I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.
But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.
I just turned 75. I will feel no effects from the outcome of this election. My Social Security will continue. So will my Medicare. I live in a comfortable home with all the gadgets and amenities I could desire (thanks Apple discount). I even live now in a Red State but don’t expect to be persecuted much for being a Liberal/Progressive. Rednecks tend to leave old farts alone.
BUT, my kids and grandkids and people of your generation will have to live with the consequences of this election for a long time. And those consequences could be quite severe, — sometimes I think even apocalyptic: voting rights curtailed, police violence unrestrained, mass incarcerations, more medical bankruptcies, and other kinds of right-wing destructive lunacy rampant.
Despite being actuarially insulated from its consequences, I’m really concerned about how this election goes. It’s different from elections of recent times, even 2008’s watershed. That moment gave the first hint of the stakes on today’s table. Obama’s election wasn’t just about a black man being elected president. It was an indication that the public wants to be involved in the political process. Another word for that is “revolution.”
With all the trumpeting of personalities in the campaigns, the media is missing the point — maybe not missing it but attempting to distract from it: the choice is between maintenance and revolution. If a Democrat is elected the people either will get more power or they will stay unempowered. If a Republican, it’ll be the end of democracy, religious fanaticism will lead to the western version of sharia law, segregation, inequality and poverty will increase, and we’ll probably invade somewhere and lose.
I’m often tempted by Hillary’s “competence” and political savvy. She may maintain Obama’s management of government, but that would not be an entirely good thing. Obama has disappointed progressives by being a left-centrist. I understand that political realities may dictate that, and one person can hardly do what has needed to be done since the 2000 election debacle. No, it wouldn’t be as bad as a Republican victory in November. But that isn’t the only choice this season. Hillary would be maintenance. Bernie would be revolution.
No, Bernie can’t do it all by himself. But as a seasoned member of Congress he certainly knows the ropes when it comes to bipartisanship — after all, he’s had to work with both parties most of his career! But just as Obama’s inexperience was mitigated by his choice of advisors and Cabinet, so Sanders will lead in concert with like-minded people. And let’s not forget the importance of Supreme Court posts that will likely be filled during the next president’s term. A Democrat will help steer the court leftward, whereas a Republican will steer it toward more Citizens United, etc.
So, this year I will “waste” my vote on the prospect of revolution. I will vote for Bernie in the Primary and the Democrat in November.
I’m heartened by your activism and hope you will increase and extend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)