When confronted with ridiculous Bible rules, Christians often respond the same way, "That was the Old Testament. Those laws are no longer valid." Well, here's a little story from the New Testament that disproves their claim.In Matthew, chapter 15, Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the rule: "He that curseth his father or mother, shall be surely put to death." (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
So, is that rule still valid or not? How do Christians reconcile their unwillingness to kill their own children for cursing them, with their insistence that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
Deuteronomy explains it like this:
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all shall hear, and fear.
Pretty clear, huh?
14 comments:
Oh wow, I can't wait to see how the apologists are going to try to explain this one!
Ah, but the argument was misstated. The actual argument is not whether something was in the Old or New Testaments, but whether an event happened or a teaching was given while under the Old Covenant or under the New Covenant, which didn't come into effect until the crucifixion, which was obviously after this passage from Matthew.
The Gospels, while included in the New Testament, record events technically still under the Old Covenant, as it was the crucifixion that fulfilled the Law and Prophets, and ushered in the New Covenant. The entirely earthly ministry of Jesus occurred under the laws of the Old Covenant.
It's all bollocks, of course. Easier to dismiss BibleGod by the claims the God is the same yesterday, today and forever, neverchanging from everlasting to everlasting (which Christians will proclaim long and loud). Therefore, if BibleGod is a jerk in the Old Testament, he's still a jerk in the New Testament, and continues so today.
So, let me preface this by saying that I consider myself quite "ex-Christian" at this point. This comment is not a "pro-Bible" argument.
However, I think that if you're going to make a convincing argument (which I very much enjoy when you do), it helps to properly represent the other side of the argument.
I think most Christians view this passage as Jesus _discrediting_ the old law, not reinforcing it. The interpretation I always heard in this case (and in pretty much all the cases where Jesus challenged a Pharisee) was that Jesus was saying it was no longer required to follow _either_ of those old laws... that the Pharisees were, in effect, sinning by being _too_ legalistic. The same pattern happens in several passages.
You say that this passage "disproves their claim", yet I think most Christians would point to this passage as specific example of Jesus "de-emphasizing" the old law.
Anyone is welcome to disagree with that interpretation, of course, but I think you're going to have a hard time convincing most Christians that Jesus really was encouraging the killing of disobedient children in this passage.
You all make good points, but the fact I'm really trying to bring out here is that Christians use that excuse only when it meets their needs.
If the OT no longer applies, why do they still preach it in churches and street corners everywhere? Why do they quote from it ad nauseam? Why do they want to post the ten commandments everywhere. Why do they use Leviticus to condemn gays?
I just think it's a cop-out to use the OT when it agrees with their cause, but make excuses when it's errors are ridiculously obvious to modern people.
I absolutely agree, and I suspected that's what you were going for.
That's not what the post said.
*shrug* I realize I took this altogether more seriously than you intended. If the whole point was simply to make a funny for the people who already agree with you, then that's okay. Feel free to disregard me and go on with life. I promise I won't bug you again.
I follow your site regularly, though, and I get the impression that you would like to do more than that... to make peope think... maybe to prod a few people who don't agree with you into _considering_ to change their views just a little bit. All I'm saying is that if that's your goal, then _pretending_ to misunderstand the other side's argument looks remarkably like _actually misunderstanding_ (or worse, ignoring) the other side's argument. Many of the people you're trying to challenge might get so annoyed by your "mistake" that they'll probably miss your real point.
*shrug* My 2 cents. Believe it or not, I love the site, and I'm rooting for you. :)
Jeff,
So you're saying that because "most Christians" view this passage as discrediting the law, my point is invalid?
On the contrary, that makes my point. When I read the passage, it doesn't appear that way. What about you? Who gets to decide what it means?
The next two verses are:
15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
It sounds, to me, like he is specifically saying that they talk about honoring him, but they don't follow the laws of God. Rather, they follow the laws of men.
Your thoughts?
Heh,
I'm an atheist, and I live in Israel. I have a co-worker who is a religious Jew (so pretty much old-testament all the way). Occasionally friendly office discussions veer into religion, and there were actually a few times when he raised this exact same commandment. As an example of how wise and lenient the teachings of the bible are.
See, he said that this is indeed what the words command, but that in fact there were no cases where anyone was actually stoned because of it. That the command is there simply as a way to help parents scare their children into behaving, because they can be frightened that they may get stoned otherwise.
My follow-up questions, on things like how are people who just read the books are supposed to know when is God supposed to be serious, and when not, usually don't get any sensible answers. Neither does the idea that maybe putting an actual explicit law just to scare children is a problematical tactic.
But in any case, apparently this was never implemented in action, unlike many of the other terrible things that go on around that book. Then again, take it with a grain of salt, because while this guy knows his bible he isn't very knowledgeable about history in general.
DocMike:
I apologize. I just now did what I should have done before I made my first comment: re-read the entire passage myself.
This one is not an example of what I thought it was. I was probably thinking of something more like Matthew 12:1-12.
I pretty much agree with you now. Jesus quotes Exodus and Leviticus right there, and it appears that's exactly what he's referring to when he accuses the Pharisees of "breaking the commandment of God." No real de-emphasizing of the old law going on at all.
I don't remember how my particular branch of the One True Way (tm) dealt with that passage... probably found some way to water down the implication.
Instead of going on memory and assumption, I should have read it before I started typing.
Again, I apologize.
Matthew 5: "17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Worrying, isn't it?...
Anybody wearing polyester today?
Hi there!
I am writing a series of posts on God concepts and I was wondering if anybody is interested in playing the devils advocate – since all the comments I get are one sided and it just doesn’t make for a good debate. So if you are an intelligent individual that can respect different opinions and would like to pitch in a thought or two stop by :)
Thank you!
Um... don't you rather mean "the Divine's advocate", oh Enlightened Boddhisattva?
P.S.: Quite modern of you, to start surfing the web. So much for the cliché of all ancient folks being hostile to new life styles. ;-)
OK, more seriously now, I'd love to contribute, if only I could find the time. Maybe some day, I hope. Here's what I suggest: give us a specific link (I'm not sure on which of your several blogs you're doing this), and if/when I can, I'll visit with a, um, plea sample!
I think I'm potentially of interest to you: I'm a believer, but also an abigotist Bookoskeptic. You could say I'd like to defend God against his highly embarrassing quill-happy zealots. ;-)
Hey, glad to hear you're reading the Bible! Keep at it, it doesn't all come together at once.
Just a few things before I talk about the passage: "Who gets to decide what it means?" - Well, the answer as believers see it is God. From an atheist standpoint, though, I can see why there might be trouble separating truth from anyone's fiction. If I had a choice, though, I'd say that people who know the Greek and Hebrew used in the original manuscripts would probably have the best guess as to what this stuff means. A lot of those people are theology majors, so maybe they know better what they're talking about.
re: the passage, remember that Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. It wasn't as if everything that God said suddenly disappeared when Christ died upon the cross. His work remains.
Real quick, with the passage itself (you may already understand, but for anyone who doesn't) Christ is saying that the pharisees concern themselves to such a great extent about all the trivialities of their traditions (ie, not even the law, just their traditions) and yet they miss more important aspects of the law about honoring their parents. What they mainly did was take any of the responsibilities they had to their parents and would say "I'm giving this time I would've spent with you to God", effectively using their faith as a cover for their disobedience.
Christ was saying that if they take the smallest things to the full extent, how much more should the penalty of the law for dishonoring their parents be taken out upon them!
But even as Christ talks about what's written, he has also brought grace to the law - in other words, though the pharisees deserve to be stoned for dishonoring their parents, God's grace has allowed for us to continue living even though our due penalty is death.
(I cut this up into two to make the separate ideas more prominent)
So you're still saying "How can christians talk about the old law so much? 10 commandments, etc."
It's because the principles still remain true. Honor your father/mother, do not murder, do not commit adultery, etc. In fact, the 10 commandments pretty much cover all the big things that we tend to sin at.
Also, when talking about the law and Christ fulfilling it, the numerous dietary laws and other things are bound to come up (ie, the mixing of certain materials, eating shellfish, etc.) Please remember, then, that Christ, during his ministry, was primarily talking to Jews who lived under that law. But when Christ died and his holy spirit came upon the believers, his grace suddenly extended not only to the jews (who rejected him), but to the entire world. A world, I might add, that had no reason to follow the dietary laws, etc. that the Jews followed.
But the 10 commandments and Christ's teachings still remain for any believer, because they are at the heart of the law. Especially the ones about "honoring God".
You can read about the whole change over in the book of Acts and throughout the rest of the New Testament. Many churches had problems because there were Jews who were still clinging to the old ways while in the midst of new believers without the Jewish tradition (there's much talk about circumcision later on and whether or not it was necessary as a sign of the believer [note: it isn't].
This is hard stuff! Thanks for allowing me a chance to write about it, I hope you at least read it and give it a chance.
Interesting position, Phineas, buy I do see a few flaws in it.
Firstly, what's the point about the dietary laws, anyway? I mean, LAWS? For THAT? Why not an altar to the FDA? God telling us what and how we should eat, and then not bothering for the vast majority of humankind who are not jewish and don't follow these rules? Or, for that matter, if God's law is so essential, why even TOLERATE plurality of beliefs? "I am a jealous God", it's written in several places of the Old Testament, I believe. [Exodus 20: 5] What, there was a dire shortage of Messengers to convert the whole Flock? Dang, just send your myriads of angels then!
Sounds much more like HUMAN rules to ostentaciously set themselves apart from the despised "others".
Some would want us to believe that the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl was in fact Jesus Christ sent also to the Aztecs, "but they later corrupted his message", and therefore the whole world DID receive it. Yeah, right. Here's a newsflash for you all : the Koran, Sourate 2, Al-Baqarah [The Cow] says the exact same thing about Jews and Nazarenes (Christians). That they received the Message given to Abraham by Allah, "but then they falsified it", which would explain any contradictions with the predicating endeavour of Muhammad, who of course brought "the final revised certified edition".
[Qur'an, Al-Baqarah, verses 75-79 : ]
"Did you expect that they[the Jews] would believe with you[Muslims], when a group of them had heard God's words then altered them knowingly after having understood?
And when they come across those who believe, they Say: "We believe!", and when they are alone with each other they Say: "Why do you inform them about what God has said to us? Then they would use it in argument against us at your Lord. Do you not understand?"
Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they declare?
And amongst them are Gentiles [better translation : illiterates] who do not know the Scripture except by hearsay, and they only conjecture.
So woe to those who write the Scripture with their hands then Say: "This is from God," so that they can seek a cheap gain! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gained.
Under that very canonic excuse, people like BinLaden call all those of a different belief "heretics". Deserving death for spitting in God's face, just like those "stinkin' heathen injuns" who were conciously exterminated back in the day. In fact, anybody not adhering to their fundamentalist positions, including moderate muslims, is considered a renegade anyway. Self-justifying irrefutable argument.
Does the All-Powerful really need us to do His job? Can you spell C.R.U.S.A.D.E. or J.I.H.A.D.?
I am knowingly and willfully making the parallel to give the topic some perspective. If we act or speak the same way as official monsters, it's high time to reconsider our ways and choices.
I seriously doubt that God has such a universal message to spread, including "don't eat ham, wear polyester or breed mules", and would use such a messy, clumsy, ultimately inefficient way to tell us all something that a Giant Face in the Thundering Sky would so promptly achieve. But maybe the Jealous One is shy?...
Even in our Age of Skepticism, the sci-fi events described in Exodus, rivers turning into blood, the sudden [and announced!] simultaneous death of all the first-borns, maelstroms of fire descending from the startosphere in a column, seas splitting... would promptly convince that planet of unbelievers to cease straying, if it were really that urgent for the Guy Above.
Not today, not yesterday. Exterminating forces of Nature don't descend on the guilty. Only on the poor. Katrina, the Tsunami, earthquakes, global warming, AIDS... Nothing divine about them, they're only signs for the spiritually deaf and dumb.
And, puh-leeze, who in their right mind could accept that decree that the world absolutely must remain immobile, forever unchanged, up to the tiniest nit-picking details of a millenia-old code whose divine origin is proven by no other argument than the belief of some people in said divine origin? The only people I ever met claiming to speak with God all turned out to be either frauds or pitiful deluded fools. I can thank the trial of Time. ("Praised be His Honour Kronos" then. Areopagus adjourned.)
But I'm mixing things. So, first of all : is the world and human society intended to never evolve? Some extremely extremists would declare, like the Amish, that anything not warranted by God is bad, or should be rejected out of caution, to Ragnarok with wide-mindedness! Any scientific progress, any technology. Our knowledge of Astronomy and Paleontology which only discovers the truth about God's creation (in the POV of "God created All"). Antibiotics. Modern surgery. Modern obstetrics. Electricity, running water. Motor engines for ambulances. Telecommunications. The telephone. Refrigerators and cold chambers for meat. Vaccines. Scanners and MRI. Rescue helicopters. Makes any sense to you? If there's one thing that's common to human societies and Life in general, all species included, it's that life is change, evolution, adaptation, progress. And human life is about always learning more. Otherwise, let's all live like the Talibans, who merely take to the literal extreme the sex discrimination written in THEIR bok, "by God" they believe, more than a thousand years ago.
If God didn't want us to think and use sense, He wouldn't have given us a brain. Unless He's really sadistic and saw Saw (the movie).
Second, the origin of The Law. I'm going to ask you very literally, "where does it come from, to your KNOWLEDGE"? Please understand me, I'm precisely asking, in a methodical way, what strict facts you know about its origins. You, me, him, her, we were taught it, it comes from the society where we were raised. Next step : from there, where did it come from? Tradition transmitted unquestioned through the generations. And before that? Double origin : the Book, and those promoting it. The Book, itself, is established in more or less entirety to come from very ancient manuscripts. Those promoting it, are preachers and priests.
I'll start with the latter : do you people, honestly, seriously, with a straight face, TRUST those people? An entire worldwide establishment that's covered pedophile rapes for decades, centuries? That's committed and sanctioned and protected what I choose to view as far worse than two consenting adult homosexuals privately engaging in sodomy? (Incidentally, I challenge anybody to quote me a single Bible verse mentioning lesbians!) The same holy people who, more or less earlier, supported fascism? Decreed the Inquisition? Sent Crusades to ultimately destroy Constantinople? Lived in adultery with countless official mistresses? Staged wars? Plotted, poisoned, stabbed for power? Tell me, who can, and how, possibly sort out the good seed from the bad, if a robe a priori is to be automatically revered, and never questioned, "out of respect"?
Nearly ALL the mad cult gurus took the constraining decree of the Book (Bible or another), interpreted by them, which automatically granted them authority and a shield of respect due to prophets, and justified their crimes with that excuse. Oh, sure, they usually are brazen and blatant hypocrites towards the very rules which they claim to defend, but my question is : DO YOU TRUST THEM? CAN YOU?
What about that butt-faced Pope, and his literaly obscene decrees about condom use in Africa, contraception, or family planning in general? We all know that he's got one sole motivation : getting the Community of Believers to shun all birth control so they'll become ever more numerous, willingly or not. Breed like rabbits, listen to my decrees, and praise the Lord, but whatever you do, don't think for yourselves, 'cause it's a sin to question the Pope!
I've really tried to give the religious establishment, all of it, a fair chance. So far, my conclusion after nearly four decades of scrutinous analysis, is that the more a person is devout, the less they think. Either they don't think sensibly, or they don't think morally. It's as if faith needs the space occupied by reason.
[Side note on the Pope : last week I saw a documentary about the African nation of Swaziland. They never use condoms, or promote any kind of sex education... and 50% of the population has AIDS. A world record. Born from ignorance that the religious encourage. The whole country will probably disappear in 15 years from now. While american-style evangelist mystics are swarming like black-clad locusts or cackling vultures, promising miraculous healing through blind faith and relentless prayer... and collecting massive cash donations from the desperate.]
Now, let's get back at the manuscripts. How many of them are signed "God"? Or, for that matter, signed at all?
They all come from scribes who either copied older texts, or wrote stuff dictated by prophets, apostles, priests, etc. Muhammad was absolutely illiterate, the whole of the Koran was either dictated, or written down from memory years after he died (sorry, "ascended"). This was 13 centuries ago. And those who strictly follow that written down medieval mentality are usually shunned as "backwards" by any semi-modern mind. Well, the Old Testament is FAR older. It was written in an age when girls were married as soon as they reached puberty (like Muhammad, aged 56, married Aisha at 9), when people would sell members of their own family in slavery [Exodus 21:7], amputate thieves without a trial, betray and assassinate their allies in their sleep [Gen 34], and Yahve knows how many other utterly barbaric practices. These people either claimed, or genuinely believed sometimes, to be inspired by God. But how many of them were spoken to by a giant pillar of fire in front of witness crowds? None that are reliably documented outside the Bible. No possible verification of the whole thing, you always gotta take THEIR word for it. And if we are to even remotely consider the possibility of the Clergy at that time promulgating arbitrary stuff, like "obey God through us, or you have to perish", solely to sustain their delectable power... well, you see where this is going. People will readily lie, since the beginning of History. The bigger the lie, the easier it works, and God is undoubtedly the biggest excuse of all.
BTW, how come the 10 condemn lying, and it is not put on an equal position with murder and adultery? There's one commandment against perjury, but another just for lying. Care to find me ONE single socially functional human being (to exclude the mutes and the mentally challenged), since Adam and Eve [included], a single person that's not lied? And in fact, watch Jim Carrey's movie, and tell me, is it only possible to live among people and never lie? You'd soon get lynched!
Makes you wonder about how strict all the other rules must be, and who decides about them. Having sex outside marriage, between unmarried consenting adults, is it adultery anyway? I thought the word meant cheating on your spouse. And what about clearly unhappy marriages, with no love before God, that don't divorce for the sake of the children? Is it worse to be "unfaithful" to a hollow bond that's a lie, or to abandon one's children and deny them a stable home? [Does the OT even command to care for your children?] What about theft? Murder? Is lapidation murder? What about working on a Saturday? (Or maybe Sunday, whatever suits your fancy.) What about dietary rules? What about that lengthy bit on moldy walls [Lev 14: 34-53]? What about all those modern ethical dilemmas, like therapeutic abortion (to save the mother instead of letting BOTH die), or condoms, or the Pill.... that were never explicitly envisioned, while so many other things are dissected in minute obsessive detail?
If the mere disobedience to God's alleged law is "sin, period", then all transgressions, big or small, are intrinsically equivalent. Bring on the rocks and warm up your throwing arms, everybody!
If things are relative, then there's no possible way to declare ANYTHING as "non-modifiable". Haven't we modified the death penalty as something justifed, and in fact prescribed murder? Between God and the community of Hebrews, in Exodus, by far the most elastic rule of all is about killing a human being. A bona fide genocide of the Chosen People in the desert, sanctioning slip-up after slip-up with draconian unmercy, sometimes by the thousands. [Ex 32: 28] ; [Numbers 16: 31-35] ; [Numbers 17: 9-14] ; [Numbers 21: 5-6] ; [Numbers 25: 1-9] So much, that at one point the survivors needed an inventory, for apparently Yahve had lost count [Numbers 20]!!!
I rest my case. In peace. RIP.
Ah, and I see that Muhammad did not either invent the unbridled barbary of "holy war", a.k.a. religiously sanctioned genocide, of a whole nation : [Numbers 31]
"(there's much talk about circumcision later on and whether or not it was necessary as a sign of the believer [note: it isn't]."
According to who? That's not what was told to Abraham. If nothing of the old law is suppressed, then all christians are expected to circumcise their males, and any male servant of theirs. Read [Gen 17: 9-14], it's very clear. Circumcision is textually declared "the token of the Covenant [with God]". Under penalty of death, for "being cut off from his people" wasn't done gently, see [Exodus 31: 14-15]. According to Jesus, the New Alliance doesn't void one iota [Matt 5: 18] of the Old one.
And this was the first elasticity inserted by the self-declared Church of Christ, in a long schizophrenic series of concessions and rigid strictitudes.
To be on the safe side, I suppose a boss had better get all his employees circumcised, along with their sons, and to Hades with the right to corporeal integrity! An iota is an iota...
BTW, isn't PB&J considered as mixing two breeds of cultivated food/fruit?... (Not to mention the bread of the sandwich, which is possibly a third one!)
As for the dietary laws, no offense but you're mistaken again, Phineas. They're part of everything that's "not supposed to change one bit". The actual reason christians don't follow them any more is [Matt 15: 10-20] and [Mark 7: 14-23].
Which makes one wonder whether that iota thing was actually meant for the official written law followed by the Hebrews, or a symbolic way for Jesus of hinting that God's actual law is something quite different from what it is believed. Maybe Big Jay used sarcasm?... Same question about divorce and re-marriage : maybe the point was to hint that adultery is way over-hyped.
I'm still uneasy about that killed fig tree, though.
I like figs.
"From an atheist standpoint, though, I can see why there might be trouble separating truth from anyone's fiction."
I'm by no means an atheist. But as you can see, I too am highly wary of some people's fiction, presented as the One True Interpretation.
Okay, gotta go now, I've still got 80% of the Koran to read, better get started.
It's amazing, really, how this book mixes some darn sensible stuff with some other that's absolutely catastrophic. And it's a hard read, because it lacks any narrative continuity.
Even worse that my comments on random unsuspecting blogs. ;-)
Post a Comment