And it came to pass that countless illiterate, sanctimonious, bible-whomping wankers got into the annoying habit of suggesting that we desperately need the guidance of the Judeo-Christian God -- and, more specifically, the Ten Commandments -- to show us the proper path, morality-wise. For without such guidance, we would be lost like, well, like Moses who took 40 goddamned years to cross a freaking desert because, being a guy, there was no freakin' way he was going to stop and ask for directions. But I digress. Onward, to where we can peruse carefully and appreciate the wisdom that should be imparted to our young'uns, so that they may know right from wrong:
1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."
4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. 5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD.
OK, OK, yadda yadda yadda, movin' on ...
10 Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you.
OK, then: God -- totally awesome. God roolz! Got it. Next?
11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
Glad to hear that, what with those Amorites and Canaanites and the rest of them being such total pains in the asses, but you'll handle all that. Excellent. One less thing to worry about. But can we pick things up here? I'm kinda nodding off. OK, here we go ...
14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Um ... OK, so ... the first major rule of Christian morality is to ... be really, really, exclusively Christian? I'm kinda missing the morality there but, no matter, let's move on. I'm sure it gets better.
15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
All right ... no treaties and avoid their dinner parties. Gotcha.
16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
Arranged marriages? Check.
17 "Do not make cast idols.
No cast idols, then. Check.
18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
Um ... all right, something about unleavened bread during the month of Abib. We'll see what we can do about that. Anything else?
19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
Sorry, come again? Can you clarify that bit about redeeming versus breaking necks? I'd hate to get confused and mix them up when it comes to my firstborn son. I'm sure you can appreciate my concern.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
OK, I'll see what I can do. Maybe a little something from the flock or the herd?
21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
All right, that I can handle -- plowing season does get a bit tiring, I'm sure we all understand that.
22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
Um ... not sure what all that "firstfruits" and "Ingathering" stuff is about, but I like the part about driving out nations and protecting my turf. Yeah, that totally rocks. Next?
25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
OK, blood ... yeast ... sacrifice ... and polish it all off, no leftovers. God doesn't like leftovers. If you insist. Anything else?
26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."
OK, there's that "firstfruits" thing again. And ... something about cooking a goat. I'll see what I can do. We just about done here?
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
All right, then, I think we have the basis for some seriously kick-ass morality here, so you damned kids can just, um, well, do that firstfruits thing, and something about an "Ingathering," and deal with that goat, and break a few necks, and something something whatever during the month of Abib. And get the hell off of my lawn while you're at it.
The Ten Commandments: When life is complicated, and morality can be confusing, and you're just not sure how to cook that fucking goat.
21 comments:
I will leave that to the literalists to defend. But most mainstream Jews and Christians would call much of this projection on the part of the writer. EL or YAHWEH was conceived as the tribal God fighting against pagan gods in the OT. There was a slow evolution on the part of the Jewish people to see God as universal as the OT progressed.
Jesus came along and said a lot of what is in the OT was wrong anyway.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be compassionate, therefore, as your heavenly Father is compassionate.
It's too bad that both the fundies and their detractors ignore the most challenging part of the Bible. It was the Sermon on the Mount that brought be back into the church.
You know, I haven't actually seen any of those ten commandments monuments that they've been arguing about in the States. But if they're going to sort out our goat-neck-breaking schedule during Abib, well, they're a lot more useful that I was giving them credit for.
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
Yeah, I'll let you know when I see any evidence of that among the Jebus enthusiasts.
Yeah, I'll let you know when I see any evidence of that among the Jebus enthusiasts.
Yeah, it seems part of the human condition to fall fatally short of the aspirations of our most enlightened documents.
I have wondered why Americans could write a document that calls human rights "inalienable" yet enslaved Africans and committed genocide against Natives. And how Stalinist-type regimes could grow out of such fundamentally humanistic writings of Marx and Engels, which were supposed to give the working class freedom from oppression and make everyone equal. And how Canada could have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms yet let Omar Khadr be tortured and abused while waiting for a kangaroo court to sentence him. And why such peaceloving Asian religions like Buddhism and Hinduism give rise to such violent religious and political regimes.
I really have no idea what it is about the human condition that the worst of who we are as people is brought to the surface when we organize ourselves. It must have something to do with group dynamics and the genes we inherited from our primate ancestors. But I am not sure the solution is to have no aspirations at all.
But I am not sure the solution is to have no aspirations at all.
Absolutely -- couldn't agree more. But it's funny how the people who claim to be the biggest Jesus lovers (from Dubya to Kate's winged monkeys) are also the ones who support torture, war, and the invasion and oppression of entire countries.
I'm not amazed at those people, really, as much as I am at the people who actually believe the "religious" people's bullshit, while atheists remain the least trusted minority in America. I'd laugh it off if they didn't own all the guns and cash.
I should leave it to Jews to answer questions about the mixing of milk and meat, blood and yeast and wool and linen fabrics. But I used to date a Jewish guy and went to his gay Conservative Temple on Friday nights. From what I recall, the mixing restrictions were supposed to be an ongoing reminder that human beings don't have ultimate control over creation to do with as we please; that just because we CAN do things like mix meat and milk together doesn't mean we SHOULD.
I didn't see the wisdom of this until I thought about what human beings were doing to the earth by mixing chemicals to create toxic poisons that will end up poisoning the earth for generations: the oil spills, the plastic in the oceans, the toxic dumps, etc. A reminder that just because human beings can do things doesn't mean we should makes a lot of sense. We should give pause for thought before blazing ahead. I don't keep Kosher but certainly appreciate it more than I did before.
And "40 days" in the Bible is not a literal number. Moses was on the mountain for 40 days, Noah was in the ark for 40 days, Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days, etc. 40 days in Jewish numerology refers to a time of trial. Almost every number in the Bible is symbolic, not literal. 7 is the perfect number, so 6 is incomplete. So 666 is an emphasis of this imperfection personified in the Mark of the Beast in Revelation.
m@, some examples of Ten Commandments monuments are here. They mostly look like headstones, a few look like stone books.
And yes, they pretty much all list the Protestant reckoning, not the Jewish nor Catholic numeration. And they all use the list from Exodus 20, not Exodus 34 or Deuteronomy 5.
Basically, they're all props from the Charlton Heston film. Fundies just love their kitsch. Back during the Byzantine Empire, Russian visitors to Constantinople went to the Hagia Sophia and thought they were in heaven itself. Walk into your typical megachurch today and you'll think you're either at the mall or a bad rock concert.
wait... it took him 40 days to write all that?
Why are they listening to this guy. You could write a novel in 40 days... he's also the guy who got the jews lost in a desert for 40 damned years.
the mixing restrictions were supposed to be an ongoing reminder that human beings don't have ultimate control over creation to do with as we please; that just because we CAN do things like mix meat and milk together doesn't mean we SHOULD.
This philosophy is very appealing, especially in our current time of plenty (and excess). However, I maintain that it is the individual's job to seek fulfillment in this way. The problem with religions is that they're prescriptive; it leads to "you can't have an abortion". If all they were saying was "I won't have an abortion", I would have a lot more respect for the anti-abortion brigade. (And I know there are members who do say exactly that, but they're not the ones bombing clinics so they don't really concern me as much.)
Walk into your typical megachurch today and you'll think you're either at the mall or a bad rock concert.
Or a Nuremberg rally, as Dawkins pointed out. That bit Jesus said about "when you pray, go lock yourself in a closet and don't be a pompous ass about it" (paraphrased)? Obviously not a central theme in the megachurch sermons.
The problem with religions is that they're prescriptive; it leads to "you can't have an abortion". If all they were saying was "I won't have an abortion", I would have a lot more respect for the anti-abortion brigade.
I am an Anglican and my church doesn't tell me that. Neither does the United Church, or the Quakers, or the mainline Protestant churches in the U.S.
We believe it is a serious procedure that should only be done if all other options have been considered first, but also oppose legal restrictions on the procedure if people come to the conclusion that it is the only path that they can take.
Statement on Childbirth and Abortion
All human life is sacred. Hence, it is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness. Human life, therefore, should be initiated only advisedly and in full accord with this understanding of the power to conceive and give birth which is bestowed by God.
It is the responsibility of our congregations to assist their members in becoming informed concerning the spiritual, physiological and psychological aspects of sex and sexuality...
...We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community.
While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.
In those cases where an abortion is being considered, members of this Church are urged to seek the dictates of their consciences in prayer, to seek the advice and counsel of members of the Christian community and where appropriate the sacramental life of this Church...
We believe that legislation concerning abortions will not address the root of the problem. We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored...
So the Anglican Church in Canada and Episcopal Church in the U.S. support legal abortion rights but counsel its own members to consider other options first.
Like Toujoursdan, I am an Anglican, and like him I do not take the Bible literally, nor do I accept all of its passages as gospel. And I believe that the Bible advises this.
Yes, Bible literalists are a problem and, strangely enough, they don't seem to know their Bible; witness how somebody on Fox News called Obama's belief in "love your neighbour" as something other than a Christian philosophy. Bible literalists also don't seem to follow my interpretation of the passage, Mark 12:30
This is a quote from a lengthy review I made from about Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials sequence.
'For me, the central message of Christianity is the passage in the Bible (Mark 12:30) where Christ says "you will love your god with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second rule is like unto it, you will love your neighbour as yourself. Upon these two commandments hang all the law of the prophets."
'The second part of this passage is obvious, in my opinion: respect others as you would have yourself respected. This is not limited to people within your own ethnic or religious group, but all humans -- even all sentient beings. I interpret the first rule as stating that God should be the central part of your life. That's fine. But if God is impossible for an individual to conceive (as I show later), how does one go about doing this? The answer is that one should let no earthly concern become the one overriding goal in one's life. Such things as power, money, sex and religion are all artificial concerns and, in my opinion, meaningless in the cosmic scheme of things, although one does not need to condemn these things utterly. Make your number one priority your spiritual health, and follow the other matters with the requisite sense of balance.
'It is the final passage that I think is most important, however: "Upon these two commandments hang all the law of the prophets". This suggests to me that, if I pursue these two goals to the best of the ability, things like most of the ten commandments become matters of common sense (I will not rob, kill or otherwise do harm to others if I respect their own sense of self and understand that their needs are as important as my own). At the same time, it allows me range to interpret, as best I can, the best path to follow (I can kill, if I have no choice but to do so in order to defend myself, my loved ones or other innocents). Moreover, this line explicitly sets the passage down as the central message of Christianity. If you find any other passage in the Bible that counsels you to go against the Golden Rule, then that offending passage must be considered null and void. Therefore, it is possible to come to a rational moral decision that is right, even if the Bible or the organized churches disagree with you.'
The thing about Anglicanism (which can be also found in many other liberal Christian denominations) is that we see ourselves as a community of like minded worshippers, rather than a community of like minded believers. So there is a huge spectrum of individual beliefs and opinions on nearly everything. While the church may issue statements on faith and morals and recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, its members can legitimately dissent from those statements and remain full and equal members. Excommunication is really only used in disruptive situations. My priest has only done it once when a parishioner was stalking another one and wouldn't stop despite an intervention; it was lifted when the stalked was hospitalized for mental illness. It's not used for doctrinal or moral dissension.
You'll find individual Anglicans who are pro-choice and pro-life. My former church, which tended to be on the progressive end of the spectrum, used to have a booth for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice on the lawn after church, but several members belonged to Anglicans for Life which is anti-choice. Both groups were welcome and an atmosphere of agreeing to disagree was kept. Some people like myself, think the Book of Revelation, was written in code to encourage Christians during Roman persecution and nothing more, while others believe that it predicts something that is going to happen in the future. We also agree to disagree.
The running jokes is that a Catholic, a Baptist and an Anglican each die and show up at the Pearly Gates. Jesus asks the Catholic: "Who do you say I am?" and the Catholic replies "The Church tells me that..." Jesus interrupts and says: "Sorry. That's not what I am looking for." Jesus then asks the Baptist: "Who do you say I am?" and the Baptist replies "The Bible tells me that..." Jesus interrupts and says: "Sorry. That's not what I am looking for." Finally, Jesus asks the Anglican: "Who do you say I am?" and the Anglican replies "You are the Son of the Living God!" Jesus says: "Yes! That is what I am looking for. You may proceed" and the Anglican says "But on the other hand..."
A lot of the Jewish laws have a very practical base. Start with putting God in the sky, instead of being some idol that has to be lugged all over the place. Inconvenient for a desert nomadic people.
I've read that milk and meat will tend to cause stomach fluids to neutralize each other, so eating them together is taboo.
Pork is forbidden because it has to be very thoroughly cooked, otherwise you can get what we call trichinellosis. Difficult to ensure the required cooking temperatures are achieved in those times, so instead it was banned.
Then we have the ban on "fish without scales". That eliminates shellfish and avoids tainted mussels that happen from time to time. Basically anything that lives on the sea bottom is avoided.
I should have been a little clearer; religions tend towards prescriptive ideas on morality.
There are religions that are more tolerant, and religions that are more strict. But religions by definition prescribe beliefs (and by extension, morality -- that is, actions that comply with those beliefs). A religion whose credo was "do what you think is right, based on your own feelings and beliefs" wouldn't really be a religion at all.
If a religion wasn't prescriptive, it would basically be deism.
I say this as someone who knows a thing or two about Catholicism, by the way. Catholicism is similarly non-literalist, although there are some branches of that church that do move towards the literalist side.
You know, I am a complete and utter atheist, but I quite like Matthew 25.
I wonder why more Christians, especially those that say they believe the Bible to be literally true, don't follow it. Most, sadly, stampede directly to the 10 commandments, Numbers and Deuteronomy to justify themselves.
Pity.
"Basically, they're all props from the Charlton Heston film."
they'd look great next to my lawn jockey....
KEvron
I should have been a little clearer; religions tend towards prescriptive ideas on morality.
There are religions that are more tolerant, and religions that are more strict. But religions by definition prescribe beliefs (and by extension, morality -- that is, actions that comply with those beliefs). A religion whose credo was "do what you think is right, based on your own feelings and beliefs" wouldn't really be a religion at all.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing provided that the religion doesn't attempt to impose belief and morality on those who choose not to join.
Most liberal denominations, like the Anglican Church, tend to say "This is what we proclaim through our rites and ceremonies" rather than "This is what you must believe in order to belong". Some people find that to be too much and others not enough.
I wonder why more Christians, especially those that say they believe the Bible to be literally true, don't follow it. Most, sadly, stampede directly to the 10 commandments, Numbers and Deuteronomy to justify themselves.
I think it is human nature to try to establish boundaries of who is in and who is out. We have millions of years of genetic baggage that orients us toward xenophobia and self preservation. Matthew 25 forces us to act against our instinct by telling us that we are all in the same boat. And I think all of us struggle with that from time to time.
I wish I was better at it. I am in New York one week each month and pass by all kinds of people in bad shape wanting money. I still haven't figured out the best way to handle it other than giving to homeless shelters. But that doesn't help the people I encounter with their immediate needs, and I know that many of those people never get help through agencies. So I still struggle with it.
" But religions by definition prescribe beliefs (and by extension, morality -- that is, actions that comply with those beliefs)."
I understand what you are saying, but I think it should be said that it should be said that perhaps this has things the wrong way around.
It seems to imply that morality is derived from the rules laid down by religion. I disagree. To my mind, morality is the provisional idea of what is right and wrong (that is, it applies to most people most of the time) and it is based on our biology, driven by evolution. Simplified to a great extent, people who are altruistic, cooperative and treat others well are more likely to survive to procreate or to ensure that their genes make it to the next generation. Over millions of years, this calculation becomes replaced with "feelings" - feelings that are stand-ins for the conscious moral calculation above. Religion is merely the formal expression in words and reinforcing rituals of those natural morals.
The morals came first and the religion arose to express and explain them. Difference in religions reflect regional environmental and political differences that crept in over the centuries.
I want to make that point because I am an atheist and I am quite moral. Morality does not flow from religion, religion flows, in part, from natural morality.
I didn't mean to imply that religion was the only source of morality. In fact, I agree that morality is internal (making it distinct from ethics, which are the social contracts we live under collectively). And as an atheist myself, I of course agree that atheism precludes neither moral nor ethical behaviour.
It would probably have been clearer if I'd said that religions prescribe a morality, a personal code that imposes values on an individual.
And this is where I have problems with many religions: they try to create in the follower an internal sense of what is right and wrong, completely divorced from the social context in which a person lives. It is the source of many good things, to be sure, but it is also the source of things like shooting abortion doctors and feeling guilty about masturbating. All in all, I'd rather see people work this stuff out for themselves, with the help with the people around them -- the way atheists often seem to do.
In verse 1, god says he will write them. But come verse 27, he doesn't do it.
Fucken liar.
"I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing provided that the religion doesn't attempt to impose belief and morality on those who choose not to join."
and history shows us that this hardly ever happens.
KEvron
Post a Comment