• Browse: About; New; Previous; Next
• Return to Letters Index
• Home to Positive Atheism

The Bible Unmasked
(Joseph Lewis)
Tim Uy

• Reference: The Bible Unmasked by Joseph Lewis

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2000 7:37 AM

I should preface this by saying that I am a Christian, but that I think it is a good thing overall that you've put all these books/arguments out of the open for consideration. Because it opens up discourse. Nothing annoys me more -- both in non-Christians and Christians, than people who hold a strong view without really logically explaining why. I've been studying the life of Jacob lately, which led me to

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewun02.htm

Joseph Lewis' argument essentially is that the Bible cannot be true -- because it presents immorality. He starts off with a Thomas Paine quote, that:

"Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."

And continues to comment on stories from the Bible that are indeed shocking. But the story of the patriarchs is not about goody-goody two shoes. It's not meant to be an example of what is ok and what is not. You would think, if this was written by men who highly esteemed the patriarchs, that all the frankly unflattering stories would be taken out. But instead, their dirty laundry is immortalized for all to see. Why? Because the stories aren't about men, they are about God -- and how God took the patriarchs, who were imperfect, and worked through them (via a promise to Abraham) to bring about His will. If you'll notice, everytime these morally shocking (though not so much these days I suppose...) things happen, there are reprecussions. It's a lesson from the story -- to make you same hmmm ...

Anyway, thanks for your time.

May God bless you,

Tim Uy

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2000 1:56 PM

The case of David is a classic (and undeniable) example of Lewis' point: David was a scoundrel throughout his life (according to the accounts, but let's take those accounts at face value for now). However, he was, throughout his life, called a favorite of God.

I have been told that loyalty to God is the only morality that matters in the long run. The Bible tends to favor this interpretation. If this is the case, I want nothing to do with it: what is to protect me from the wrath of one who gains earthly power, who then decides it is good punish me for my disloyalty?

At least Jesus (again, according to the accounts) gave lip-service to good deeds: "By their fruits you shall know them." This did not prevent Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) from snuffing out the lives and confiscating the estates of any who were disloyal to these Christians' particular version of the Christian faith, but at least the words are there.

I still think the ethical system of Thomas Paine runs circles around any that can be derived from the Bible. (I obviously think my own ethical system is superior to the Bible's -- otherwise, I would follow that which I find in the Bible.)

The Bible's system of ethics is based upon tribal loyalty, which was crucial to human survival several thousand years ago. This system is enforced by fostering superstition and fear. These methods enhanced human survival back then (although we who were of an inquiring mind tended to be killed off during these regimes).

However, the tribal totem mentality can only impair anyone's chances for survival today. It continues to discourage scientific inquiry and it continues to foster bigotry against any who do not tow the party line.

I will conclude by suggesting that the texts were indeed whitewashed: People who would have never been accepted as "righteous" in a more humane system are made the heroes in this barbarous religion. "David" and "Jacob" would never have cut muster in any other system; they would never have become heroes, and indeed ought never be emulated or respected by any human, for any reason.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2000 9:35 PM

Thanks for giving me a response so quickly. I do appreciate it -- though I'm a little unclear on what you mean -- and not really sure if you understood my point.


I have been told that loyalty to God is the only morality that matters.

In a sense that's true -- but doesn't tell the whole picture. What does loyalty to God mean? I believe it means to follow what He has revealed in the best way that we understand it. There's a difference between that and loyalty to the church, or church leaders, or a movement (such as Promise Keepers). God does lay down things that are right and wrong. I get the picture that you might be thinking more about loyalty to the church or to organization.

The case of David is a classic (and undeniable) example of Lewis' point: David was a scoundrel throughout his life (according to the accounts, but let's take those accounts at face value for now). However, he was, throughout his life, called a favorite of God.

Well, part of the reason he was called a favorite of God was because he was the king! But look at his life -- he WAS a scoundrel -- but the point is not that he got away with being a scoundrel, but he was a scoundrel who realized his errors, repented and received forgiveness from God -- NOT a free ride (an important difference). If you look, he and his family paid heavily for his sins.
 

"By their fruits you shall know them." This did not prevent Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) from snuffing out the lives and confiscating the estates of any who were disloyal to their particular version of the Christian faith, but at least the words are there.

And they were very wrong to do this. If I could undo what they did -- I would ... unfortunately the messengers are flawed -- not that this is an excuse, but try not to judge the message by the messenger (though this is very hard.)
 

The Bible's system of ethics is based upon the tribal loyalty which was crucial to survival several thousand years ago. This system is enforced by fostering superstition and fear. These methods enhanced our survival back then (although we who were of an inquiring mind tended to be killed off during these regimes).

However, the tribal totem mentality can only impair anyone's chances for survival today. It continues to discourage scientific inquiry and it continues to foster bigotry against any who do not tow the line.

This was not exactly clear to me. Can you give examples of what you mean?

I wish I could explain better what I mean -- but these people in the Bible, Jacob, David -- many of them messed up in a very visible way. By their own power, they were in no way, shape or form righteous. No way. And really, if you take the route that if God only accepts those who are "perfect" ethically -- no way would they ever be in any sort of positive relationship with God. And yet, we see, that somehow, God builds a relationship with them -- why? I don't know. But that's the bottom line message of Christianity! Not that these were heroes, not that we are to emulate these people's faults, but that God is merciful.

Romans 4:1-8 puts it quite cleanly I think:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about -- but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

'Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.'"

How can this be? It's not that people don't pay the penalty for their sin -- because if you look at David's life, or Jacob's life, or Abraham's life -- they did! But it is that the relationship with God can be restored by a humble and repentant heart.

But, tell me about your ethical system.

Sincerely,
tim

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 2:22 AM

In a sense that's true -- but doesn't tell the whole picture. What does loyalty to God mean? I believe it means to follow what He has revealed in the best way that we understand it.

To the Hebrews, loyalty to God meant exterminating His enemies. The Church (both Catholic and Protestant) practiced similar loyalty, being sure not to break God's law against spilling blood, so instead they burnt God's enemies in obedience to Jesus's command in John 15:6.
 

Well, part of the reason he was called a favorite of God was because he was the king! But look at his life -- he WAS a scoundrel -- but the point is not that he got away with being a scoundrel, but he was a scoundrel who realized his errors, repented and received forgiveness from God -- NOT a free ride (an important difference). If you look, he and his family paid heavily for his sins.

Even to the point where they kidnapped a virgin to sleep with him on his death bed. Right.

David was called a man after God's own heart. I agree with this because the Yahweh character was more of a butcher even than the David character. David was a scoundrel through and through, and I see nothing in the tale about him repenting. The whole story is about him amassing wealth and practicing debauchery at others' expense. The reader keeps waiting for him to turn around, but this never happens. Stopped in his tracks a few times? Yes. Learning and beginning to practice genuine humanistic morality (which he ought to have practiced from the start if he were to truly earn our respect)? If it did happen, the Bible forgot to tell that part. But even if he had repented, I do not see it as a good thing for him to have been honored at all.

Nevertheless, David is among the most highly honored Bible characters of all time. It is this "honor" granted by theists (Christians and Jews) that originally steered me away from having anything to do with the Judeo-Christian ethic. I saw this as a child when we learned about David killing a man with a sling shot (I was only four years old!). And killing him for what!?

I have, as an adult, reexamined the initial shock I felt as a child, and still feel it. Goliath was boasting and denigrating the servants of the god of Israel ("who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?"). This is all about tribal loyalty and about nothing else. It is this attitude of tribal loyalty, continuing in the modern world, that is more likely to wipe out our species than any other threat.

And yet you still argue that David is worthy of honor!
 

I wish I could explain better what I mean -- but these people in the Bible, Jacob, David -- many of them messed up in a very visible way. By their own power, they were in no way, shape or form righteous. No way.

No, because the Bible god has "revealed" an alien form of morality which you call "righteousness." It is alien in that it is inhumane -- un-human. It is the inversion the complete reversal -- of natural human compassion which is (usually) the result of our childhood nurturing.''

(Those of us who were fortunate to have been nurtured as children were more likely to survive long enough to procreate and then nurture our children: this is humanity. The "dog-eat-dog" "law-of-the-jungle" social Darwinism does not apply to humanity, which survives only through nurturing children through a the longest childhood [the highest childhood to life-span ratio] of any life form.)

"Righteousness" stifles all human passions and desires. "Righteousness" turns a woman away from her children and turns a child against its parents, placing tribal loyalty above even one's own self-interest: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

You are right: only by stifling and forfeiting your humanity can you become "righteous." No. I am human, and will strive to be the best human I can be with what little I have.
 

And they were very wrong to do this. If I could undo what they did -- I would ... unfortunately the messengers are flawed -- not that this is an excuse, but try not to judge the message by the messenger (though this is very hard.)

By their fruits shall you know them.

The fruit of the Christian message is that it makes people forfeit their own human compassion for the sake of loyalty to the tribal totem (in this case the Gospel message).

And, if they hadn't killed off their philosophical opponents, you probably wouldn't be a Christian today, because the Gospel message has never been able to stand on its own merit. It must be forced upon others either by violence or through deception -- otherwise very few would buy it.
 

But, tell me about your ethical system.

My ethical system is my ethical system. I have spent decades developing it, and I am very happy with it.

I can live with any decision I make and not be ashamed because I have worked very hard at trying to learn how to make the best decisions. I do what I say and I say what I do and I have nothing to hide. I don't say something unless I both intend to do it and know that I can do it (that it is not impossible for me to do; that I don't lack the resources).

This is all I care to tell you about my ethical system because it is mine and nobody else's. Although I do expect a minimum behavior of others if they wish to associate with me (as friends or business associates, etc.), I do not hold others to the strict accounting to which I hold myself.

Most importantly, though, I do not tell others what to do or how to live their lives. While I will offer suggestions, this is always done in the context of what I would probably do in a given situation. In this sense, I need to witness a real situation before I will offer such a suggestion; I don't sit here and think of possible scenarios or how I would act in them.

Finally, the only time I actually oppose someone is when what they are doing endangers myself or others. In lieu of this endangerment, I usually let people make their own mistakes. This is why I seldom offer suggestions to people (businesses; business associates; managers or workers at bars where I spend lots of time; the landlord; etc.) unless the outcome directly impacts my life.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 4:22 AM

Wow, you are up pretty late!
 

And yet you still argue that David is worthy of honor!

Uhhh, no ... you aren't hearing me. Work with me, I DO want to see where you are coming from.
 
 

he was the king! But look at his life -- he WAS a scoundrel

NOT a free ride (an important difference). If you look, he and his family paid heavily for his sins.

Even to the point where they kidnapped a virgin to sleep with him on his death bed. Right.

I think you have a point -- and I'm thinking about it. But you have to dig a little deeper than that. Yes, they found a beautiful virgin to nurse the dying king ... but lets back track a bit -- at least on your end you have better ammunition than that:

<war and killing set aside for now>
(*) David commits adultery, and murders the woman's husband -- ESCAPES THE PUNISHMENT WHICH IS DEATH! How? He was king.
(1) His son from that affair dies. Did this matter to him -- after all, he had all those concubines ... (see 2 Samuel 12:15-23)
(2) No longer able to lead his household in sexual morality, son rapes sister. (After all, dad satisfied HIS sexual urges). (2 Samuel 13:1-20)
(3) Dad is furious -- but what could he say? He's lost all credibility. (2 Samuel 13:21)
(4) Son kill son (2 Samuel 13:28-29)
(5) Absalom turns against David -- forces David to flee (2 Samuel 15)
(6) Examine 2 Samuel 16:7-8
(7) Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines in front of everyone (2 Samuel 16:21-22)
(8) David loses his son Absalom to three javelins (2 Samuel 18:14-15)

uhh, yeah, they brought him a beautiful babe to feed him metamucil in his old age -- big deal ...

here's another free one for you
(*) 2 Samuel 24:11-17 -- David, not wanting to fall into the hands of men, chooses a plague for his country -- 70,000 people died -- why, because somehow God wanted to punish David -- what's up with that?
 

about him repenting. The whole story is about him amassing wealth and practicing debauchery at others' expense. The reader keeps waiting

But if he was so honored, why are these stories in there. Are the Hebrews supposed to be so proud that David committed adultery? That he had such a messed up family? You've got to be kidding. Yes, there is honor given to David by some theists -- but lets forget about the ignorant masses -- and go straight to the book eh?
 

killing a man with a sling shot (I was only four years old!). And killing him for what!?

Actually, Goliath said "Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us." So maybe Goliath (although defying Israel) was doing a good thing by proposing a way to avoid further bloodshed -- soldiers were lined up on both ends ready to go all out. But what were the odds of a one man fight -- especially with this huge guy. You make it sound like David killed Goliath in cold blood, but really it was quite as you presented.

Goliath then says, as David comes, "Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks? Come here, and I'll give your flesh to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field!" And it ends pretty ugly, with David cutting off Goliath's head with his own sword. So, is it just about tribal loyalty -- I think there's a little more to understand here. The bigger question is why was there war? Why does God allow -- even sponsor this killing of the enemies of Israel? Why couldn't they just love each other and get along? I don't know -- that's a question about God that needs more understanding.
 

No, because the Bible god has "revealed" an alien form of morality which you call "righteousness." It is alien in that it is inhumane -- un-human. It is the inversion the complete reversal -- of natural human compassion which is (usually) the result of our childhood nurturing.

Hmm, I wouldn't say that the Ten Commandments is so alien. What do you think about the Beatitudes? (Matthew 5-7) Or "'Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.' And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandemnts." -- Matthew 22:37-39
 

By their fruits shall you know them. The fruit of the Christian message is that it makes people forfeit their own human compassion for the sake of loyalty to the tribal totem (in this case the Gospel message).

Now that's a good question. Is that true -- is Jesus' message really to forfeit compassion for the sake of tribalism? (The 'Jesus tribe' I guess.) What does it mean to be under Jesus the tribal warlord -- it means we follow His instructions: Love the Lord, love your neighbor as yourself ... what does it mean to be righteous: Matthew 25:31-46.
 

You are right: only by stifling and forfeiting your humanity can you become "righteous." No. I am human, and will strive to be the best human I can be with what little I have.

... [were it not for the Inquisiton, etc., you] wouldn't be a Christian today, because the Gospel message has never been able to stand on its own merit. It must be forced upon others either

I would have to say that the Gospel message has been damaged by what these so-called 'Christians' have done. I have a big problem when being Christian equates to loyalty to the church -- and some influential church leaders -- bottomline, being a Christian is about following Christ. The Gospel message is that all of us -- no matter how good we look, are like David, like Jacob, like Abraham -- failures when it comes to behaving in an ethical way -- but God, in love (which is incomprehensible), provided a way by which we could have a restored relationship with Him.

Tim Uy

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 5:00 PM

Yes, they found a beautiful virgin to nurse the dying king ... but lets back track a bit -- at least on your end you have better ammunition than that:

Nurse!? She crawled into bed with him! ("Let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.") Why did the damsel they needed have to be a virgin? Why did she have to be pretty? If he needed heat, I would think a fat woman would do the job much better than a pretty one -- or a big, burly man for that matter!

Methinks if he hadn't been so petered out (groan!), he surely would have had relations with her. (Methinks this was the idea behind bringing her to David in the first place -- to perhaps inspire him to practice that activity most likely to motivated him toward any kind of action. (Compare this with the process King Ahasuerus used to replace Queen Vashti with Esther to see exactly what Biblical morality thinks of the dignity of woman and to explain how they could just grab a virgin to lie with the king -- thereby ruining her prospects for marriage.)

No. There is nothing in the text to indicate that anything except age ever tempered the David character; this is "Exhibit A" on that note.
 

But if he was so honored, why are these stories in there.

You have it backwards: the stories are there -- and yet he is honored!

I don't get it! Only tribal loyalty could blind people into honoring a figure such as David.
 

Are the Hebrews supposed to be so proud that David committed adultery?

He committed murder to cover up his adultery, and yet the Hebrews (and Christians) are proud. I'm not trying to explain this pride, I just don't understand it. It is not humane in any sense of the term.

David should be universally vilified along with the Charles Mansons of this world. At least Manson's case can be understood (but not excused) because he is a nut who should never have been released from the prison term he was serving until the mid-1960s. David was made king (by a prescient "Almighty God," according to the story) and thus his actions reflect upon that entire theistic system -- particularly its basis for determining ethical behavior.
 

Actually, Goliath said ...

A giant bragging session. A bully drawing a line in the sand at the schoolyard, and another (younger, up-and-coming) bully outsmarting him, thereby gaining supremacy among those who respect bullies. This is the mentality of the Bible heroes!

 

No, because the Bible god has "revealed" an alien form of morality which you call "righteousness."

Hmm, I wouldn't say that the Ten Commandments is so alien.

They are alien in their original context. They are not precepts that any modern group of humans, working democratically toward the best interest of all living in the community, would develop. They are also alien in that they are alleged to have come from on high, and not to have been developed by the community.

True, we would all adopt the modern understanding of a few of the commandments, such as do not murder and do not steal, but the ancient understanding was quite different from how they are interpreted today. Do not murder once meant do not pollute the land by spilling blood upon it (because the life is in the blood and the blood cries out for vengeance, etc. -- blood being the object of some extremely superstitious fears); do not steal meant do not move landmarks (because of the curses written upon them -- again, the object of superstitious fears); do not bear false witness against your neighbor worked only for fellow Hebrews (and everyone else was fair game). It was all about superstition and tribal loyalism and had very little to do with the humanistic understanding which is naturally read into it by the post-Enlightenment mind.

Meanwhile, I don't think we need a revelation from above to know that murder, theft, and false testimony in a criminal case is wrong. (A dog doesn't need a revelation from "God" to know that it is wrong for another dog to steal his bone; are we that much more stupid than dogs that we need "divine" guidance?) Even if we don't feel the pangs of conscience over these things, we will fear the repercussions of doing them -- not only from the law, but also from our fellow men in lieu of any laws.
 

What do you think about the Beatitudes?

Many of the early Jesus communities were stoics, wandering philosophers who had renounced all materialism. For them to have placed these words in Jesus's mouth seems only natural, because these vagabonds were the same "poor" that were the object of the Beatitude commandments of their "Jesus." Other Jesus communities (and other communities) had different agendas, and wrote different tales about Jesus, each reflecting the needs and problems of the various communities at the time the tales were written.

A classic example of this happening in recent times is in the testimony Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. He complained that the churches could not agree whether baptism is by sprinkling or by immersion, and whether man had free will or God predestined everything. This was very much the situation during the century or so while John Wesley's humanistic Christianity took hold in America. So, when Smith wrote his "bible," he has his "Jesus" give a speech. Guess which issues Smith's "Jesus" settles in the year C.D. 34? Predestination and baptism! -- those issues which were hotly disputed in New York in 1810! -- those very issues which plagued young Joe Smith!

This is precisely the same thing that happened many times when the books of what we now know as the New Testament were edited and compiled -- when the tentacles of Constantinian Christianity wrapped themselves around the previously diverse groups of Jesus movements and choked them (and the accounts of their existence) out of human memory. Rome replaced the truth with its own fictionalized account of what happened, and that is the story that most Western Christians believed for hundreds of years, and still believe today. The same thing happened within Islam during the two hundred years after Mohammed is alleged to have lived (but did he even exist? that is a separate and very valid question).

Only within the past 100 years (Baur and Bauer and others) have we had enough archaeological information to see that the further back you look (before Constantine), the more diverse the Jesus movements appear. What was later (and is now) called heresy was mainstream thought in many areas -- and not just one or two "heresies," but to the point where it doesn't look like what is now seen as orthodoxy even existed before then. It's not like a "Big Bang" where a Jesus laid down the religion and it spread and then heresy later crept in (although the Catholics would have us believe this is how it happened); it's more like a whole world of diversity among Jesus movements (some so diverse that they didn't even have a "Jesus" and others still waiting for the resurrection to occur, etc.) was suppressed and supplanted with that one, tiny stream of thought that eventually became Christian Orthodoxy -- which eventually influenced which books made it into the New Testament and which were omitted or even suppressed.

To effect this, a new historical "account" had to be written and the old one driven out of the memories of the people. The Beatitudes (and the other poverty saying such as sell all your goods and give to the poor [vagabond preachers]) are enough to make any modern Christian cringe. They are included because the Jesus-Stoic movements were sufficiently popular (at just the right time) that their memory could not be erased very easily. So, the sayings were included and remain today.
 

Or "'Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.' And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandemnts." -- Matthew 22:37-39

A succinct summary of tribal totem loyalism if I ever saw one: who are the "neighbors" in the OT passage but one's fellow Jews? All the commandments (particularly the Ten Commandments) make sense when interpreted in this light, but do not make sense when seen as humanistic codes of conduct. "Thou shalt have not other gods before me" implies the existence (in the minds of the people) of other totem deities, each with his or her own tribe.

  

By their fruits shall you know them. The fruit of the Christian message is that it makes people forfeit their own human compassion for the sake of loyalty to the tribal totem (in this case the Gospel message).

Now that's a good question. Is that true -- is Jesus' message really to forfeit compassion for the sake of tribalism? (The 'Jesus tribe' I guess.) What does it mean to be under Jesus the tribal warlord -- it means we follow His instructions: Love the Lord, love your neighbor as yourself ... what does it mean to be righteous: Matthew 25:31-46.

This only makes sense in light of the "neighbor" being one's fellow tribe member; it does not work (and cannot work) when one is trying to live and uphold the Christian message(s) in a pluralistic society. Jesus is quoted as saying, "You cannot serve two masters." Much is said about abandoning or suppressing all that is of human construct ("worldly; fleshly").

The biggest problem with tribal loyalism (in respect to participating in the decision-making processes of a society) is the aspect exclusivism. We are the good guys and everybody else is wrong (or inferior or not "spiritual" or whatever). This is a very common problem I encounter of Christians: their tendency to see me as being in some way inferior because I am not "saved." This ranges from the woman handing out pamphlets on the bus (who tells me she will pray for me after I announce that I am an atheist), to the political pundits who do not want "Secular Humanists" to have a voice in developing policy for the schools and the communities. Everywhere within this range, any non-Christians (and even rival Christians) are seen as second-class citizens at best and evils to be thwarted at worst.

No. In a pluralistic society, we all must have a say in such matters: we all live here. True, many Christians consider themselves citizens of Heaven (Php. 3:30; also, Col. 3:1; Jn. 18:36) and consider themselves only "sojourning" on this planet (1 Pe. 1:17). Such Christians cannot have it both ways and still earn the respect of the rest of us: either they must join us and work together for the common good of us all -- placing the common good even above their own special interests in political matters (like the Episcopalians and the traditional [Roger Williams] Baptists), or they must form their own private communities and leave the rest of us alone to build our society (like the apolitical Jehovah's Witnesses, the 19th-century [Brigham Young] Mormons, and also the modern Hare Krsna devotees and the original Twelve Steppers).

It is one's actions toward his or her fellows which impacts us all. Thus, in a pluralistic society one must choose between the tribalism of loving one's neighbor and healthy participation in the processes that make up a pluralistic society. If someone is making decisions based upon one's loyalty to his or her god, one is not thinking about the best (or least evil) choices we, as a society, can make, but only in the interest of furthering the agenda of the tribe or gaining special favors for tribe members.

Exclusivism precludes the tribe members from thinking about the interests common to all. You can't have both. Any good to society that comes from tribal loyalism is accidental; it is never a product of the loyalism.

When (as has happened since the end of the Jimmy Carter administration) the Christians (or the members of any exclusivistic tribe) gain dominance in the political processes, favoritism gives way to anything that may be good for all; anything good that comes from such a system is merely incidental, accidental, and not there by design.

Exclusivistic tribal loyalty, by its very nature, precludes any good coming to the whole of a pluralistic society. Orthodox (or traditional) Christianity is exclusivistic in that only those who tow the line are "saved" or "one of us" (or, as the Twelve Steppers now put it, "spiritual"). The rest of us are the "others" that the Christians are trying to convert or "save."
 

I would have to say that the Gospel message has been damaged by what these so-called 'Christians' have done.

And I would say it is the Gospel message itself that is flawed.
  

bottom line, being a Christian is about following Christ.

So follow Christ and live your life the way Christ wants you to live. If you can afford to have your own community where your Christianity does not trample the rights of the rest of us to march to the beat of a different drummer -- or the beating of our own hearts -- then fine. If you cannot afford your own island or mountain, then at least let the rest of us (those of us who are citizens of the world) do the best we can toward establishing and maintaining a pluralistic culture that works for the good of all people (including the citizens of Heaven).

It is wrong for us to make policy that impairs your right to obey Christ in your personal life, and it is wrong for us to forbid anyone from participating in the political processes -- so we citizens of earth, we members of a pluralistic society, will never ban the citizens of Heaven from these processes. It's just that the citizens of Heaven who sojourn among us want also to rule over us, to the end that they can count us out the moment they have the power to do so. Since about 1978, they have been exploiting our processes and deceiving their own fellow citizens of Heaven to accomplish this goal. You say you abhor what happened during the Dark Ages? It's happening again in America today.

This is the gist (and the extent) of our opposition to the workings of the citizens of Heaven.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:39 AM

Hi Cliff. I hope you are doing well. I've been thinking quite a bit the last few weeks about the things you've said. And I think that in some sense there is some truth about what you say about tribal loyalty. But though it permeates through the stories, at the end of the day it's about loyalty to God. Tribal loyalty is what leads to a lot of problems in religions - because people stop relating to God and start focusing on the clan.
 

I don't get it! Only tribal loyalty could blind people into honoring a figure such as David.

I think a good study of the scriptures leads not to one honoring David, but to an understanding that God honored David or found pleasure in David because though David made many mistakes in his life - he sought to know and experience God. It's important to read the Bible carefully and understand what the message is - though Abraham, Issac, Jacob... these are 'honored' as forefathers of Israel - the stories that are laid out DON'T honor these men - but rather, the message is, here are these people, and despite all the mistakes they made, God chose them to have a relationship with.
 

Do not murder once meant do not pollute the land by spilling blood upon it (because the life is in the blood and the blood cries out for vengeance, etc. -- blood being the object of some extremely superstitious fears); do not steal meant do not move landmarks (because of the curses written upon them -- again, the object of superstitious fears); do not bear false witness against your neighbor worked only for fellow Hebrews (and everyone else was fair game). It was all about superstition and tribal loyalism and had very little to do with the humanistic understanding which is naturally read into it by the post-Enlightenment mind.

I think that this above statement is not true. It was probably applied this way, precisely because people thought more in the tribal mode rather than seeking God.
 

Meanwhile, I don't think we need a revelation from above to know that murder, theft, and false testimony in a criminal case is wrong. (A dog doesn't need a revelation from "God" to know that it is wrong for another dog to steal his bone; are we that much more stupid than dogs that we need "divine" guidance?) Even if we don't feel the pangs of conscience over

Sure seems like it. How much murder, theft, false testimony is going on these days?
 
  

Or "'Love the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.' And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandemnts." - Matthew 22:37-39

A succinct summary of tribal totem loyalism if I ever saw one: who are the "neighbors" in the OT passage but one's fellow Jews? All the commandments (particularly the Ten Commandments) make sense when interpreted in this light, but do not make sense when seen as humanistic codes of conduct. "Thou shalt have not other gods before me" implies the existence (in the minds of the people) of other totem deities, each with his or her own tribe.

Actually, the Bible is quite clear that there ARE no other gods. But that people tend to worship idols, or other gods that are 'man-designed'. Love God - that's not tribal loyalty. And loving your neighbor - I find it - but the mission of the Jews was to follow God and in that way lead the world to know God. (I'll find the passage one of these days...) so it's hard for me to even consider that neighbor meant your family - though it may have started there because they were having problems even doing that.
 

and uphold the Christian message(s) in a pluralistic society. Jesus is quoted as saying, "You cannot serve two masters." Much is said about abandoning or suppressing all that is of human construct ("worldly; fleshly").

Human lust - human impulse - jealousy, rage, envy, self-glorification... these are the things that come from worldly, or fleshly passions. It's not talking about decision-making processes.
 

"spiritual" or whatever). This is a very common problem I encounter of Christians: their tendency to see me as being in some way inferior because I am not "saved." This ranges from the woman handing out pamphlets

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone elase, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things. Now we know that God's judgement against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgement on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgement? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you towards repentance.
 

pluralistic society. If someone is making decisions based upon one's loyalty to his or her god, one is not thinking about the best (or least evil) choices we, as a society, can make, but only in the interest of furthering the agenda of the tribe or gaining special favors for tribe members.

Exclusivism precludes the tribe members from thinking about the interests common to all. You can't have both. Any good to society that comes

This is a good point - need to chew on it more.

tim

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 8:28 PM

I don't get it! Only tribal loyalty could blind people into honoring a figure such as David.

I think a good study of the scriptures leads not to one honoring David, but to an understanding that God honored David or found pleasure in David because though David made many mistakes in his life - he sought to know and experience God.

I would hope that an experience with such an entity (should such an entity exist) would at least inspire moral behavior superior to what we would expect from one who has not had (or has rejected) an experience with such an entity.

This only prompts me to further question the validity of the claims that such an entity exists.
 
 

Do not murder once meant do not pollute the land by spilling blood upon it ...

I think that this above statement is not true. It was probably applied this way, precisely because people thought more in the tribal mode rather than seeking God.

1. Your answer presupposes the existence of a "God" which is the very question we are trying to resolve here.

2. There is plenty of "Scripture" that talks about the life being in the blood and about how the land is polluted by blood and how humans are rendered "unclean" by touching something that has touched blood.
 

Actually, the Bible is quite clear that there ARE no other gods.

The Bible is quite clear in its warnings not to worship gods other than the tribal totem, Yahweh.

There are one or two passages that state that these other gods do not exist but are frauds perpetrated by the priests of these gods (e.g., "Bel and the Dragon"), but the main gist presupposes that rival gods were worshipped (i.e., existed). Otherwise, we would expect, throughout, clear statements along the lines that these gods are phonies.
 
  

Meanwhile, I don't think we need a revelation from above to know that murder, theft, and false testimony in a criminal case is wrong. (A dog doesn't need a revelation from "God" to know that it is wrong for another dog to steal his bone; are we that much more stupid than dogs that we need "divine" guidance?)

Sure seems like it. How much murder, theft, false testimony is going on these days?

And how much more religious is America today (per capita) than it was in 1789? The most thorough study indicates that America was not very religious during the times of the Revolution, but is the most religious of all the nations today.

In light of this, tell me: what good has religion done?
 

And loving your neighbor -- I find it -- but the mission of the Jews was to follow God and in that way lead the world to know God.

But that's not what it says about a Jew's "proper" relationship to one's neighbor. It talks about neighbors not having the same rights as a Jew (see, for example, the laws about human slavery). Using the same language, the Bible forbids bearing false testimony against one's neighbor (fellow Jew) -- but is strangely silent about non-Jews.
 
  

and uphold the Christian message(s) in a pluralistic society. Jesus is quoted as saying, "You cannot serve two masters." Much is said about abandoning or suppressing all that is of human construct ("worldly; fleshly").

Human lust - human impulse - jealousy, rage, envy, self-glorification... these are the things that come from worldly, or fleshly passions. It's not talking about decision-making processes.

But this is not a natural interpretation of the passage in its context. It has had modern humanistic values superimposed onto it. The original clearly speaks of loyalty to the Jesus cult versus the absence of such loyalty.
 
  

This is a very common problem I encounter of Christians: their tendency to see me as being in some way inferior because I am not "saved." This ranges from the woman handing out pamphlets

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things. Now we know that God's judgement against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgement on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgement? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you towards repentance."

Romans 1-3 seems to be saying we are all in the same boat, but not even Paul (unless the Pastorals are forgeries) was consistent with the context into which you placed this passage (by virtue of using it as your response to my objection).

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 3:02 AM

Hi Cliff.
 

I would hope that an experience with such an entity (should such an entity exist) would at least inspire moral behavior superior to what we would expect from one who has not had (or has rejected) an experience with such an entity.

That's true. One would hope that. Your earlier argument was that even after all the things he did wrong, and the subsequent consequences (seeing his family fall apart) - his heart never changed, and he was still a self-seeking hedonistic power-obsessed dude. Your example was the beautiful virgin brought to his bedside to 'keep him warm'. My impression was that he did change - not that he was able to avoid the consequences, but I think he had a change of heart - Psalm 51, and other Psalms give me this thought.
 
 

Do not murder once meant do not pollute the land by spilling blood upon it ...

I think that this above statement is not true. It was probably applied this way, precisely because people thought more in the tribal mode rather than seeking God.

1. Your answer presupposes the existence of a "God" which is the very question we are trying to resolve.

No, not really, I just meant that instead of thinking tribally they SHOULD have been thinking God, and if they did, then their interpretations would have been different.
 

2. There is plenty of "Scripture" that talks about the life being in the blood and about how the land is polluted by blood and how humans are rendered "unclean" by touching something that has touched blood.

I agree with that, I didn't mean that there wasn't such things, but that the main point of 'Do not murder' was 'Do not murder' not just 'don't let blood pollute the ground'. The murder of Abel even in the very beginning is wrong - so how can the rule become just 'don't let blood pollute'.
 

There are one or two passages that state that these other gods do not exist but are frauds perpetrated by the priests of these gods (e.g., "Bel and the Dragon"), but the main gist presupposes that rival gods were worshipped (i.e., existed). Otherwise, we would expect, throughout, clear statements along the lines that these gods are phonies.

Just because rival gods were worshipped doesn't mean the Bible says that they are real... it was a big part of the culture. I can say that in Southeast Asia they are building this gigantic structure with a million little buddhas so people can go worship - pay tribute - ask for favors... and still say that this is wrong and not mean that those gods are real.. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this one.
 

In light of this, tell me: what good has religion done?

Your talking about religion as an institution - which in many ways in the past, today, and in the future, is a tool for people to wield power. Looking through the Bible, you see that this is true - but the essence of the Bible is not a religious institution but it's about people's relationship to God.
 

But that's not what it says about a Jew's "proper" relationship to one's neighbor. It talks about neighbors not having the same rights as a Jew (see, for example, the laws about human slavery). Using the same language, the Bible forbids bearing false testimony against one's neighbor (fellow Jew) -- but is strangely silent about non-Jews.

Where do you interpret neighbor being a fellow Jew? Actually one of the 'law experts' asked about this. Luke 10:25-37. He asked 'And who is my neighbor' and Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan. So when you read it, what do you think Jesus' answer is?
 

has had modern humanistic values superimposed onto it. The original clearly speaks of loyalty to the Jesus cult versus the absence of such loyalty.

Come on - on this one (serving God versus money) it's really quite straight. Not about Jesus cult versus something else. The point is that the love of money is just as bad as worshipping another God - maybe some place else you can pull more about loyalty to the 'cult' but this one is not it.

The context is Matthew 6:19-21 - "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destory, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." .. -> Matthew 6:33 - "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..." - which is all these things that were talked about previously in Matthew 5,6.
 

Romans 1-3 seems to be saying we are all in the same boat, but not even Paul (unless the Pastorals are forgeries) was consistent with the context into which you placed this passage (by virtue of using it as your response to my objection).

The objection, if I understand correctly, was that Christians/Jews saw themselves as better than non-Christians. And I responded by pointing out a passage in Romans where Paul talks about how Christians should not judge non-Christian because we ourselves are sinners and only have a relationship with God by virtue of God's mercy and grace ( mercy = when we don't get something we deserve, grace = when we are given something we don't deserve ). And you said that Paul himself was not even consistent in this. I think Paul is pretty consistent - I'll look through it, there may be a few points when he talks about not associating with sinners

I Corninthians 5. There's a case in the church of Corinth where this guy sleeps with his father's wife. (sheesh). Read on - I Corinthians 5:9-13. The judgement is more on someone who calls themselves a Christian, but does bad things.

Anyway, it's bedtime *grin* - hope you have a good day tomorrow.

tim

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Sunday, May 21, 2000 11:47 PM
 

My impression was that [David] did change -- not that he was able to avoid the consequences, but I think he had a change of heart -- Psalm 51, and other Psalms give me this thought.

David's life (according to the story) manifested the most despicable of behavior throughout -- and yet he is honored as a man after God's own heart!

Meanwhile, it is one thing to think sweet thoughts about God, it is another thing altogether to act morally. Without these works, the sentiments in Psalm 51 and elsewhere are little more than lip service (assuming these to be works of David and not forgeries).
 
  

2. There is plenty of "Scripture" that talks about the life being in the blood and about how the land is polluted by blood and how humans are rendered "unclean" by touching something that has touched blood.

I agree with that, I didn't mean that there wasn't such things, but that the main point of 'Do not murder' was 'Do not murder' not just 'don't let blood pollute the ground'. The murder of Abel even in the very beginning is wrong -- so how can the rule become just 'don't let blood pollute'.

Abel's blood "cried out from the ground." This passage clearly supports Lewis's notion that we are dealing with a superstitious taboo, here. This discussion is about why (according to the Bible) murder is wrong. Meanwhile, it doesn't take a revelation from "God" to know that murder is wrong.
 

Just because rival gods were worshipped doesn't mean the Bible says that they are real... it was a big part of the culture.

In many Bible passages, the "God" character sure acted as if these gods were real. This points to the likelihood that the people of those times thought of their god as local, not universal, and that monotheism came much later.
 
 

In light of this, tell me: what good has religion done?

Your talking about religion as an institution -- which in many ways in the past, today, and in the future, is a tool for people to wield power. Looking through the Bible, you see that this is true -- but the essence of the Bible is not a religious institution but it's about people's relationship to God.

No. I am talking about religion as people having faith in supernatural beings -- people's relationships to a God -- as opposed to humans working out our own problems using our own reasoning powers (however feeble). In light of this definition, tell me what good religion has done.

Meanwhile, throughout the Bible I see faith (relationships with a "God") being used consistently as a tool to wield power. This begins with the story of Eve eating the fruit of knowledge, continues with the tale of Abel performing the proper sacrifice, and goes on through the story of Paul publicly denouncing Cephas for eating with Jews. The New Testament comes off as an extremely biased pro-Roman, anti-Jewish political tract.
 
  

But that's not what it says about a Jew's "proper" relationship to one's neighbor. It talks about neighbors not having the same rights as a Jew (see, for example, the laws about human slavery). Using the same language, the Bible forbids bearing false testimony against one's neighbor (fellow Jew) -- but is strangely silent about non-Jews.

Where do you interpret neighbor being a fellow Jew? Actually one of the 'law experts' asked about this. Luke 10:25-37. He asked 'And who is my neighbor' and Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan. So when you read it, what do you think Jesus' answer is?

You are using New Testament passages to interpret what Old Testament people meant when they used the word "neighbor." What the Jesus character did to "correct" the common understanding does not alter the previous (uncorrected) understanding of the word.

Please stick to the discussion at hand: What did the Old Testament writers mean when they used the word "neighbor"? Why does the Protestant Ninth Commandment specify that one should not bear false witness "against thy neighbor"? Why does it not simply say, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?

This is the question Lewis raised, and it remains valid despite your attempts to distract.
 

The objection, if I understand correctly, was that Christians/Jews saw themselves as better than non-Christians. And I responded by pointing out a passage in Romans where Paul talks about how Christians should not judge non-Christian ...

In Romans 1-3, Paul is discussing various people before they become Christians. Paul is saying that Jews should not see themselves as having any advantage over Gentiles.

Meanwhile, Paul and the others rest heavily on the notion that Christians are superior (in various respects) to non-Christians. This theme is consistent throughout the New Testament, and it is this theme that, more than all others, taints the dignity that could have been the Christian religion and promotes the bigotry from which we non-Christians suffer.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 11:04 PM

Dear Cliff,

So I've been moving through Chronicles these days - and today I read a passage in I Chronicles 17 where the word of God comes to the prophet Nathan who then brings the message to David. (After David indirectly asks about building a temple for God.) - there's more but what caught my eye was "Now then, tell my servant David, This is what the Lord Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name like the names of the greatest men of earth..." David follows with a response: "Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my family, that you have brought me this far? And as if this were not not enough in your sight, O God, you have spoken about the future of the house of your servant. You have looked on me as though I were the most exalted of men, O Lord God. What more can David say to you for honoring your servant? For you know your servant, O Lord. For the sake of your servant and according to your will, you have done this great thing and made known all these great promises..."
 

Abel's blood "cried out from the ground." This passage clearly supports Lewis's notion that we are dealing with a superstitious taboo, here. This discussion is about why (according to the Bible) murder is wrong. Meanwhile, it doesn't take a revelation from "God" to know that murder is wrong.

No, the fact that Abel's blood cried out from the ground is not "why" murder is wrong. The actual verse says: The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground." It's not just that murder is wrong (that's obvious enough - especially by Cain's lie) but that God hears and sees and cares.

I tried to look for more on bloodshed: after the flood, in Genesis 9:4-6, God instructs Noah that they should not eat meat that has blood in it still (because life is in the blood). He continues with: "And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.'" Though it talks about the shedding of blood, I think in this case it's not about spilling onto the ground as some superstitious taboo. It's really just about murder.
 

In many Bible passages, the "God" character sure acted as if these gods were real. This points to the likelihood that the people of those times thought of their god as local, not universal, and that monotheism came much later.

If you have some references I'll look it up - but as far as I've been able to ascertain (obviously with personal bias) it doesn't seem like that at all. Rather God was angered because people's hearts were turned to worshiping 'created things' rather than the Creator. The Hebrew people may have thought that both were equally real - and they take Baal so seriously that it gets to the point where God has to remind them of reality (Elijah in I Kings 18:21).
 

Meanwhile, throughout the Bible I see faith (relationships with a "God") being used consistently as a tool to wield power. This begins with the story of Eve eating the fruit of knowledge, continues with the tale of Abel performing the proper sacrifice, and goes on through the story of Paul publicly denouncing Cephas for eating with Jews. The New Testament comes off as an extremely biased pro-Roman, anti-Jewish political tract.

Hold on, I lost you there a bit. How is Abel performing the proper sacrifice about wielding power?

Actually, I was just reading about Paul and Peter with regards to eating with the Jews. The background starts in Acts 10. There was a Roman centurion, Cornelius, of whom Luke (the traditional author of Acts) says prayed to God regularly and was 'God-fearing'. This man receives a vision from God to send for Peter (Cephas). Because Cornelius is a non-Jew - better bringing the Gospel to him was strange - because until then they had been preaching to Jews. But Peter receives a vision, where a voice tells him to eat animals that were previously impure and unclean. Peter says, 'Surely not, Lord, I have nefver eaten anything impure or unclean." But the voice says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." The shortened point is that the Gospel goes to all -> jump to Acts 10:34:

"Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all..." The Holy Spirit comes upon the listeners (Gentiles) showing that this new relationship with God through Christ extended to non-Jews.

Ok, so then (sorry it's so long), Peter goes back and gets critized - because the Jewish Christians were still of the mindset that one should not eat with non-Jews (the 'uncircumsized men' in Acts 11:3). So Peter explains his vision and how God has 'granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.'

The passage you are talking about starts in Galatians 2:11.

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he bgan to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group (people who thought that circumcision was necessary for salvation - obviously not true from what happened at Cornelius' house). The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewsih customs?

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
 

You are using New Testament passages to interpret what Old Testament people meant when they used the word "neighbor." What the Jesus character did to "correct" the common understanding does not alter the previous (uncorrected) understanding of the word.

Please stick to the discussion at hand: What did the Old Testament writers mean when they used the word "neighbor"? Why does the Protestant Ninth Commandment specify that one should not bear false witness "against thy neighbor"? Why does it not simply say, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?

You are right - I sorta cheated there. Apologies. I did a bit more homework. First of all, the commandment doesn't seem to be specifically on lying but rather on giving false testimony when your neighbor has been accused by someone. First of all, why would you give false testimony against your neighbor? Probably because you didn't like him/her. Apparently it was happening enough that God needed to say something about it to the Israelites. But whose the neighbor?

I don't know if I have a succint answer, but here's what I found regarding this:

Exodus 23:1-3
"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pevert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit."

Exodus 23:6-7
"Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty."

More neighbor stuff:
Leviticus 19:15-18
"'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
"'Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
"'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the Lord.
"'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. "'Do not seek revenge, or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

I think from that last verse you might be able to pull the point that neighbor = one of your own people. Hmmmm.... ahh, here we go.

Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

Exodus 23:9
"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens; because you were aliens in Egypt."

Leviticus 19:33
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 24:22
"You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the Lord your God."

Numbers 16:14-16
"For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the Lord, he must do exactly as you do. The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the Lord: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you."

Deuteronomy 1:16
"And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God."

Deuteronomy 24:17
"Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this."

Ezekiel 22:29-31
(a rebuke from God, because the Israelites WERE practicing tribal loyalty...)

"The people of the land (the Israelites) practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice.

"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behhalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord."
 

Meanwhile, Paul and the others rest heavily on the notion that Christians are superior (in various respects) to non-Christians. This theme is consistent throughout the New Testament, and it is this theme that, more than all others, taints the dignity that could have been the Christian religion and promotes the bigotry from which we non-Christians suffer.

God is funny I think. I've been reading this book by Jack Deere called Suprised by the Voice of God: How God Speaks Today Through Prophecies, Dreams and Visions. It's about well, how God speaks today through prophecies, dreams and visions. A friend of mine prays and receives verses that seem to always be appropriate to situations. She is a fairly new Christian, and not very well versed - and has versus that she doesn't even know what the contents are. Naturally I'm very skeptical, having been raised in a fairly conservative background (believing that God works in miraculous ways in the Bible, with certain 'special' people, but certainly not me and no where near me). There've been several times where I know God has comforted me (maybe stories another time) and God has given me an impression that was later confirmed... but this verse stuff, well it's kinda far out for me. So, for what it's worth, I read your last paragraph, prayed for a verse (for the first time), and was led (skeptically... I think I just came up with it myself... because I think it is sort of offensive...) to Matthew 15:16. It wasn't a voice, just a thought that came into my head.

It says: "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

(I feel really bad even now writing this to you - but what can I say, I didn't even know what it would say. BTW I'm not sure if it's for you, or for me. Actually, at first I thought it was for me: as in, "Tim, I've spent the last hour with you while you've looked for answers - verses and passages - to Cliff's question and you want a verse??")

Have a great day Cliff.

tim

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 5:13 PM
 

"... O Lord God. What more can David say to you for honoring your servant? For you know your servant, O Lord. For the sake of your servant and according to your will, you have done this great thing and made known all these great promises..."

My point precisely: David is the servant of this butcher god. Anyone who worships the butcher-god must honor one who faithfully serves him, who faithfully carries out his will. Fortunately for us, it is very unlikely that such a butcher-god exists. More likely is that primitive butcher-charlatans wrote the words that many call the Word of God.
 

It's not just that murder is wrong (that's obvious enough - especially by Cain's lie) but that God hears and sees and cares.

But although he could have intervened (or even have changed Cain's heart) he did not. This points very strongly toward the likelihood that no such god exists.
 

Though it talks about the shedding of blood, I think in this case it's not about spilling onto the ground as some superstitious taboo. It's really just about murder.

It says much about spilling blood and describes attitudes toward blood that are very superstitious and which have no foundation in that body of knowledge discovered by the modern scientific method.

It says much about blood but is strangely silent on the modern reasons why we abhor murder: someone lost his or her life and will not get it back either here or in some afterlife.
 

Hold on, I lost you there a bit. How is Abel performing the proper sacrifice about wielding power?

The Abel character gained some sort of power over Cain (i.e., Cain felt a loss of some kind).
 

Actually, I was just reading about Paul and Peter with regards to eating with the Jews. The background starts in Acts 10.

Acts is an extremely filtered account, which attempts to reconcile the problems between Paul and Peter. It was written after the fall of Jerusalem and distributed among the Roman nations where there were few surviving Jerusalem members to dispute what it said. The Ebionites state that the problem was never resolved, and that Paul was considered a heretic by the Jerusalem Church. Paul himself, in Galatians, paints such a vastly different story from the account in Acts that many orthodox Christian commentators insist that they cannot be commenting about the same event.
 
 

You are using New Testament passages to interpret what Old Testament people meant when they used the word "neighbor." ...

You are right -- I sorta cheated there. Apologies. I did a bit more homework.

Do not fret. This is precisely what your predecessors, the New Testament writers, did. Before they had a New Testament, they saw Christ in almost every passage of the Old Testament. This is reflected in the "fulfilled" messianic prophecies (many of which are not even prophecies to begin with). The stretches to which they went to in order to "fulfill" these "prophecies" are hilarious. Later writers, such as Justin, are a real hoot. No modern writer would even consider most of Justin's ideas about messianic prophecy. By the time of Augustin, this approach had become, for the most part, passe.

I do not have any response to your request for specifics on the Old Testament acting as if the other gods were real. I only remember the impression I got, along the lines that we cannot assume monotheism from these passages, but only when we compare them with the few that specifically teach monotheism (i.e., that the other gods are false gods -- as taught in the apocryphal "Bel and the Dragon," etc.).

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: "Tim Uy"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:31 PM

Hi Cliff.
 

But although he could have intervened (or even have changed Cain's heart) he did not. This points very strongly toward the likelihood that no such god exists.

This is a good question. Does the fact that Abel got murdered without divine intervention that no caring/good god exists? Or does that just mean that a god which intervenes everytime something bad happens to people does not exist. I don't know why He didn't do anything.
 

It says much about spilling blood and describes attitudes toward blood that are very superstitious and which have no foundation in that body of knowledge discovered by the modern scientific method.

Do you mean like ceremonially? Or like things about being clean vs. unclean in Leviticus?
 
 

Actually, I was just reading about Paul and Peter with regards to eating with the Jews. The background starts in Acts 10.

Acts is an extremely filtered account, which attempts to reconcile the problems between Paul and Peter. It was written after the fall of Jerusalem and distributed among the Roman nations where there were few surviving Jerusalem members to dispute what it said. The Ebionites state that the problem was never resolved, and that Paul was considered a heretic by the Jerusalem Church. Paul himself, in Galatians, paints such a vastly different story from the account in Acts that many orthodox Christian commentators insist that they cannot be commenting about the same event.

The Ebionites - I'm not really familiar with that. Can you tell me more who they were?

On the Acts vs. Galatians passages - they are actually two different events. (Take a look again.) In Acts Peter receives this understanding about the opening of the gospel to the non-Jews, and in Galatians Paul is talking about how Peter, after the events in Acts, got worried about pleasing the Jewish Christians who were insistent that the non-Jewish Christians should adopt Jewish rules and regulations. I guess I'm not really sure what you mean about the Acts and Galatian's account being different and what these commentors are commenting on.

On the problem being resolved - I can imagine that it probably never was really well resolved. The issue was whether the Gentile Christians should be subject to the Jewish law - and if so, the whole law? or just some? Paul's point is that following Jesus Christ's frees one from justification by the law.

More later,

tim

From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Tim Uy"
Subject: Re: The Bible Unmasked (Joseph Lewis)
Date: Friday, May 26, 2000 2:50 AM

The Ebionites claimed to be the original followers of the completely human Jesus, whom Paul had transformed into a god. They were Jews, and practiced Judaism. They denounced Paul's deification of Jesus as a Hellenistic heresy. Paul's were the earliest writings among those that were eventually accepted into the canon. What we know today as Paul's writings were assembled by Marcion -- who didn't think Jesus's "Father" was the same Jehovah of the Old Testament. With this scenario, the Jewish followers did not "re-Judaize" but, rather, never left their Jewish roots. Only the followers of Paul, primarily Gentiles, left the Jewish religion. In this sense, the original disciples were a sect of Judaism. They were eventually ostracized by the Christians (for being Jews) and by the Jews (for being Christian -- or by being seen as followers, in some respect, of Paul's Christianity).

The Ebionites went underground after the second war, and eventually died off about the third century. Meanwhile, Paul's version of history flourished, and eventually influenced the later writings of the Gospels and Acts and the pseudonymous epistles of Peter and John.

Justin Martyr,* Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome all confirm that the Ebionites opposed Paul as a false apostle. The Pseudo-Clementine writings are seen by many (originally Baur) as being Jewish Christian or probably Ebionite works. Paul is strongly hinted at as the supreme enemy under the literary disguise of "Simon Magus." The Peter character's attack on this Simon/Paul character is on the grounds that he is a false prophet, that he has spread lies about Peter, and that he knows nothing about the true teachings of Jesus, since he never met him in the flesh, but bases his ideas entirely on delusive visions. If nothing else, this shows that Paul, unlike Peter, was a controversial figure, whose role in founding Christianity was the subject of great contention.

Meanwhile, for Paul to assert that Jews believed that people are justified (passively and entirely -- in the Christian sense) by works of the law is, I think, for him to misrepresent the Judaism of Paul's time. By that time, the ceremonial law was just that: ceremonial. It provided a bond between Jews and a springboard for faith (much like the icons of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity do today). It has always been faith through which men were established and maintained their relationships with God. Read Acts 7 and note that every act of justification recounted by the Stephen character occurred somewhere other than in Jerusalem or at the temple; this is the entire gist of the Stephen story, and for the Jews to stone him for saying that is so unlike the Jews of that time (just as for the Jews to advocate crucifying anyone is so unlike everything we know about them) that we can rest assured that the Stephen story is fiction, provided as a backdrop for setting a precedent for the doctrine of non-Jerusalem/non-temple justification. Although this had always been the case in Judaism, it was imperative for the Gentile Christians to paint the Jews as having lost the favor of God (Romans 9-11) so that the Pauline Gentile "Church" could supplant the Jews as the elect of God.

In a similar vein, note the basic teachings of the John the Baptist character (my personal favorite biblical character). His message was that one is not justified by previous acts of faith made by ancestors or nations, but by a personal act of faith which any individual is competent to make. Also, he seems to be saying that one's past acts of faith cannot count for salvation, but that the act of faith must remain alive. Paul would not have this, because he preached a permanent, irrevocable redemption.

Paul also advocated that one cannot attain saving faith on one's own power, but rather it is a gift from God. Christian theologians have been twitching ever since, because Paul seems to be saying that God not only foreordains the salvation of the elect, but also the damnation of the non-elect (notwithstanding the fact that the damnation described by Paul is the default condition of man).

None of these things were popularly held by Jews of the time. However, these things take a back seat to the notion that God would ever become a man or that He would die or that He would need the death of a man (or Himself) to propitiate Himself for the sins of any man -- much less mankind. These ideas are so un-Jewish and so patently pagan that I, for one, cannot conceive of anyone, having studied the history of the times, taking the redemption myths seriously as having had a Jewish source.

I cannot be the only one who feels this way, because the only passage in Luke that even mentions the idea of redemption is widely suspected as being a later addition to Luke. In Luke, salvation is attained through a vow of poverty, and damnation through self-indulgence.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.