Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's another one of those classic Worldnutdaily headlines:
Yes, it's an "exclusive," which as always means it's something so breathtakingly idiotic that no other "news outlet" would even consider publishing it.
The book of Deuteronomy will save America? Which parts, one wonders, should we put into practice in order to save America. Perhaps Chapter 13, which commands the murder of anyone who dares to suggest that your religion is false and theirs is true:
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Or perhaps chapter 22, which commands the murder of any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day:
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Or perhaps a new rule for the military that says if they see a beautiful woman in Iraq or Afghanistan and want to have sex with her, they can bring her home, shave her head and make her their wife, as decreed in chapter 21:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
But hey, the next verse does say that if you don't like her, you can make kick her out but you can't sell her. By all means, let's "save America" by implementing the barbaric rules found in the book of Deuteronomy.
Politics
Comments
And you just know that these guys would be the first to trot out the "but the rag-heads are barbarians, that means we have to waterboard them, no matter what the america-hating liberals say" line...
Posted by: phisrow | April 28, 2009 9:42 AM
I like the part where he compares public school teachers to terrorists that blow up entire cities.
Posted by: jake | April 28, 2009 9:44 AM
Back in the '80s, one of those Neo-Nazis who managed to get nominated to run for Congress (by the Democrats, I'm ashamed to say) said we all had to "rebarbarize" ourselves in order to save our race from extinction. The fact that the WND crowd are sounding so similar to the Nazis, with so little apparent awareness, is disgusting but not all that surprising.
Those laws in the OT are clearly nothing but brutal tribal laws appropriate for a climate of brutal tribal warfare. Only a lunatic or a sadist would want to go back to that era. As escapism goes, this is far more dangerous and destructive than drugs.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 28, 2009 9:51 AM
not just a haircut, but also a manicure. gotta treat her right.
"Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;"
Posted by: David | April 28, 2009 9:53 AM
Well, to be fair, most scholars think that story of the discovery of the book of Deutoronomy by King Josiah was staged and it was actually written long after the rest of the rest of the first five books specifically to get the people to shape up. And according to the Bible the "discovery" of Deutoronomy really, really helped. And we know that the Bible is a trustworthy source, since the Bible says the Bible is a trustworthy source. So, uh, maybe the folks at World Nut Daily are on to something.
It can't hurt to try, anyway, since it's a well-known fact that the Founding Fathers intended for the United States to be a land of bronze age Jews. I, for one, am getting really tired of these cotton-poly blend shirts and have been lobbying for the cancellation of Deadliest Catch. So I fully support the move to a strictly governed ancient Jewish society...
Posted by: Geds | April 28, 2009 9:53 AM
Here's the link for those of you who are foolish enough to want to actually read this WND article [link].
David d'Escoto should consider moving to the Swat Valley of Pakistan. Wrong religion, but at least the spirit is the same.
Posted by: Imrryr | April 28, 2009 10:00 AM
No, no, we need to go to football games and hold up signs reading "Deuteronomy 25:11-12". Now that's truly the inspired word of the Author of the Universe.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | April 28, 2009 10:10 AM
Ray - Hold up a sign that says "Jeremiah 8:8", that's much more accurate. ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 28, 2009 10:23 AM
If you read the entire commentary (and I did), you will see that the whole screed boils down to, "Don't send your kids to public school." Public school "secular indoctrination" of the youth is supposedly the reason that we are becoming so morally bankrupt, yadda yadda.
Posted by: Adrienne | April 28, 2009 10:54 AM
I've often brought verses like these up in conversation with a close friend who goes to bible college... his usual response is a whole rant about us not understanding Gawd's Justice. That's usually about the point that any intellectual conversation goes out the window and just results in my getting pissed off.
Posted by: havoc | April 28, 2009 10:56 AM
Saying that its a Bronze Age script is something of a misnomer. There's no real evidence provided by either archeology or textual analysis that points to any of the Torah existing much before the 2nd century BCE, and what of it existed before then was likely in the form of oral stories or small, unrelated texts; so who can say what those stories were really like before the Yahwehean priests got their hands on them? For that matter, there's no real evidence that the "kings of Jerusalem" existed at all, though some scholars still maintain that there may have been some kind of chieftainship located there.
So really, Deuteronomy was more likely a series of draconian hygiene and behavioral laws declared by the Yahwehean priesthood to govern life in a growing iron-age urban environment during a period when that priesthood was attempting to dominate the countryside which provided Jerusalem's food and resources. The harsh treatment of dissent and unruly children (farmers and herders don't kill kids; they're free labor); the advice on how to treat war captives (as domestics); the extreme dietary rules and dislike for ocean produce and pig meat; all make much more sense if you imagine a largely mercantile and semi-industrial urban community located in an arid, highland area and facing a fast-growing population, poor relations with their agricultural hinterland, and in conflict with the Phoenician-influenced fishing and trading villages along the coast which worshiped other gods of the Hebraic pantheon.
The Bible is, in general, a book of lies (like all holy books), but the claim that it rivals in age the religious traditions of the Mediterranean and Fertile Crescent which surround the Trans-Jordan is perhaps the first and biggest of these lies.
Posted by: Julian | April 28, 2009 11:17 AM
Yeah, more a la carte quote mining from the religious.
It's amazing how often the people that cite Deuteronomy as reasons for opposing homosexuality (actually, it only says that male homosexuality is an abomination; if the word of god is inerrant then she must not find lesbianism to be too terrible...) or erecting a Ten Commandments monument in front of a government building. Then when you point out that that same book dictates that eating shrimp and bacon or a woman wearing pants are of equal abomination they respond with "Oh, that's the Old Testament".
*sigh*
Posted by: Pi Guy | April 28, 2009 11:50 AM
The whole issue of when the Old Testament was written is extremely complex. For example, we can see strong influence from Egypt (`Moses' is pretty obviously a name of Egyptian origin), not to mention Babylonian (again from names, `Mordechai' and `Esther' compared to `Marduk' and `Ishtar'). It's likely an oral collection that started being reduced to written form around the time of the Babylonian captivity or somewhat before, and definitely did assume a somewhat recognizable form around 200-300 BCE. Again, the Torah is written in Hebrew, whereas by much later than 200, most Judeans were speaking Aramaic.
You have a collection of stories of diverse origins, some specifically written in reaction to others. For example, the Book of Ruth was written to counter exclusivism, with its big punchline that even King David traced his ancestry to a non-Jew. Often, when two contradictory tales couldn't be reconciled, both appeared, thus, for example, in Genesis 1 the world is created in 7 days, whereas in Genesis 2 the world is created in 3 days. (For Biblical literalists: why aren't you out there shouting that 3 equals 7?) Similarly, the three sets of Ten Commandments, two in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy, diverge significantly.
The story of finding Deuteronomy in the Temple is pretty unbelievable, but it's not at all impossible that the Deuteronomist started with folk tales, sayings, and the like, and then added his own (or Josiah's, perhaps) own political goals to produce a final product. There may well be traces of earlier cultures and times in it.
None of which means that anyone who says we ought to live by it today isn't crazy.
Posted by: Vincent Manis | April 28, 2009 11:53 AM
Julian,
Have you got a good source for the historicity of the bible and/or Jesus? I've always wanted to read something about that, but I honestly don't want to wade through a lot of religiously-biased, apologetic stuff to get to some scholarly work. I'd just like the facts without the agenda!
Thanks!
Posted by: Satcomguy | April 28, 2009 11:55 AM
My favorite Babble quote is Deuteronomy 23:12-14
12Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
13And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
14For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
Posted by: LightningRose | April 28, 2009 12:05 PM
You know, I always thought that a WND Exclusive just meant that they have a new book to sell.
But to be honest, I can't find a single WND "article" (I'm using this term loosely) that doesn't try to sell something.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 28, 2009 12:36 PM
I think you all misunderstand. A world like that described in Deuteronomy is a dream come true for the most extreme Christians. They would love it if they could kill any non-believers. They wish they could kill women for not being virgins. They want to make captured women their sex slaves. This doesn't seem barbaric to them because it's exactly what they want. They want to forcefully push their views and lifestyles onto everyone with the threat of death.
Posted by: catgirl | April 28, 2009 12:58 PM
Pi Guy,
I call bullshit. I don't believe there is a single person in the universe who cited Deuteronomy as a reason for opposing Homosexuality, only to be humbled into a meek "but that's the Old Testament" when confronted with your devastating killer response, where you presented them with inconvenient passages from the same book.
I'll file this in my ever-growing collection of fantasies entitled Self-Aggrandizing Make-Believe Dialogues. It has contributors from across the political and religious spectra.
Why is it so hard for some people to make a point without embedding it in a made-up dialog?
Oh, and the witty "she must not find lesbianism to be too terrible" Puh-leez. At least try for some originality.
Posted by: heddle | April 28, 2009 1:09 PM
At least three specific people have personally told me that homosexuality is wrong because of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. All of these people think that eating shrimp and women wearing pants is just fine. These were not fantasies, unless I am using drugs that I am unaware of and everything is just an amazing hallucination.
I call bullshit on you, heddle. Maybe you've never used such a hypocritical argument, but plenty of others have. You can pretend it doesn't happen, but it still does. PiGuy is also completely correct to state that the Bible says very little about lesbianism. There's one verse that might be interpreted to condemn lesbianism, but it's a stretch. However, it's not because God, society, or the writers of the Bible condoned lesbianism; it's that they just didn't care about female sexuality because it was assumed she would just obey her husband.
And why are you so offended that someone would imply God is female? Maybe you wrongly interpreted it to be an attempted insult to God, but in the rational world, being female isn't insulting or degrading. Some might even consider it a compliment.
Posted by: catgirl | April 28, 2009 1:37 PM
This retort is as weak as it is unoriginal. True originality is extremely rare, entirely subjective and hardly important.
Posted by: pough | April 28, 2009 1:50 PM
I've seen it several times myself. Still, I don't fool myself that it represents the most sophisticated argument out there.
This is, however, the Internet. I have personally seen people argue, in all seriousness, that evolution is impossible because it would require a giant energy source external to the earth, that cows and bulls are different species, that butterflies have wombs, and that amoebae tend their young. The internet has ruined the phrase "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Just because it's galactically stupid, you shouldn't assume it hasn't been argued, sometimes repeatedly and with sincerity.
Posted by: DaveL | April 28, 2009 1:59 PM
catgirl,
Oh give me a break. You are distorting my point. Or simply quote-mining.
No doubt that is true. But pi-guy's story was quite different. He wrote "Then when you point out...". He implied that he countered their argument with other passages from the same book, at which time they responded with But that's the Old Testament even though they had just invoked the OT. That's bullshit. I know exactly what such person would respond with 98% confidence, because I have confronted many with the same sort of argument. They will immediately go into supposed distinctions between the moral and ceremonial law, more or less every single time. They will not, in stride, reply "but that's the OT" after just having quoted the OT. Hypocrites are not made up--and I didn't say they were. Perfect slam-dunk rebuttals that leave the other person without any response are usually made up. Like I said, you distorted my argument--as if I were claiming that people whom use the OT selectively do not exist, when I wasn't making anything close to that point.
Again you are distorting my argument--I never said he was wrong--I was mocking him for inventing a dialog to make himself look clever.
Oh gimme another break. I am not offended by anyone implying God is female. And I did not interpret it as an insult to God. Pi-Guy is neither capable of offending me or of insulting God. I criticized him for failing to be original or funny. Using she as the pronoun for God is so last millennium Give me something original.
Posted by: heddle | April 28, 2009 2:03 PM
Yes, heddle, those very same people have insisted that they are not hypocritical because the rules they don't want to follow are in the Old Testament. Sorry that you don't like it, but it's true. 98% of them have never even heard the terms moral law and ceremonial law. Plus, that whole point is just a flimsy excuse to cherry-pick which laws you want to follow and which ones you don't.
Using the he pronoun for God is also so last millenium. It's kind of hypocritical for you to claim someone is using an old-fashioned statement when you are talking like a middle-school valley girl. And if you're not offended by the implication that God is female, then why do you even care? Why did you even bring it up? Why do you assume that he was trying to be funny? Is it supposed to be funny to imply that someone is female?
Posted by: catgirl | April 28, 2009 2:17 PM
A guy whose religion and worldview is based on a set of documents no less than 2000 years old -- which he then considers inerrant and beyond question -- is demanding "originality?" As lame attempts to avoid seeing the weaknesses of one's own worldview go, this is pretty...unoriginal.
Face it, heddle, you tried to pretend Christians didn't do some stupid thing or other (again), and you've been proven wrong (again). If you're always going to be this thin-skinned and defensive about your religion, maybe you should think of finding a better religion.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 28, 2009 2:26 PM
heddle - nice to see your still kickin'.
OT, while I realize you've commendably argued the importance of keeping religion out of politics, I'm just wondering what sort of dialogue is happening in your church regarding America's leaders authorizing and using torture, and now we may possibly be trying to put the issue to bed with no justice. Seems too tempting for a preacher to ignore; actually I think it's too tempting for anyone who's engaged.
I am hoping all the Christian church's leaders start to play a more active leadership role in this matter like many did when it came to slavery and civil rights. While I realize those were mostly liberal churches, the fundie church I grew up in continuously made the point that a distinguishing difference between those godless commies and 'Christian Nation' America was who and how they treated their detainees relative to how we treated the worst dregs of society.
Is their hope for us yet or are they laying low since such an action would further damage their political allies on the right?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 28, 2009 2:26 PM
Michael Heath,
There has been no mention of it in our church--which never discusses politics, especially from the pulpit. So I don't really know what the others in my church would say on the matter. Personally I am appalled that our nation is/was torturing people. I tend to be mainstream in my church--so if I had to guess, I'd guess that would be the majority viewpoint.
catgirl,
You are preaching to the choir.
And again you are missing the boat, by now seemingly willfully. I am not arguing that people do not cherry pick the OT. I am arguing that people do not really have conversations like this:
"He said this, to which I replied with a truly devastating and insightful that, which he had never heard before. And he was then utterly defeated. It was so neat!!!"
Doesn't happen.
Call it a wild guess that he wasn't making a deep theological argument about God's gender--but rather he was trying being cute.
Posted by: heddle | April 28, 2009 2:51 PM
Yes, heddle, it does happen. People hear refutations they don't like all the time and often they will give some hypocritical excuse to it.
PiGuy said:
This exact situation has happened to me. Multiple times. Sorry that you don't like it, but it does happen.
Also, I think you are reading way too much into one pronoun.
Posted by: catgirl | April 28, 2009 2:58 PM
So according to heddle God has functioning testicles and produces testosterone. Excellent.
I doubt such a thing is even possible.
Posted by: GH | April 28, 2009 3:15 PM
On the plus side, some industries should see a boost to a more widespread application of Deuteronomy:
"I'll take two big round ones, a pointed one, and a packet of gravel."
Posted by: JakeS | April 28, 2009 3:22 PM
I think anything I might have to say about this is already covered at evilbible.com, which I'm sure many of you know already. I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't visited yet.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 28, 2009 3:28 PM
catgirl:
You must learn to take what heddle says with a 100 lb. bag of salt. Well, that, or just keep calling "bullshit".
In my mind's eye I see heddle trying to be a good worker bee and just grade the friggin' papers his astrophysics students are handing in. But the siren call of apostasism on the internets is too seductive. He resists to the point of reading someone's comment that the babble is b.s. or that Sarah the Impalinator is not Our Lady of The Reichwing and well, the bodily effluvium hits the impeller. See, heddle knows shit that you don't and can't. It's shit, but he knows it.
Posted by: democommie | April 28, 2009 3:30 PM
"This is, however, the Internet. I have personally seen people argue, in all seriousness, that evolution is impossible because it would require a giant energy source external to the earth, that cows and bulls are different species, that butterflies have wombs, and that amoebae tend their young."
You know DaveL, the first one of those is probably actually true for the case of evolution. Of course, life as we know it, the climate, and infact almost every dynamical process on earth also requires a giant energy source external to the earth. Which isn't particularly surprising when you consider that there is one hanging somewhere around here - it's a great yellow ball we call the Sun.
Of course I assume they didn't quite realize that subtle fact...
Normally I see that same argument although with regards to entropy rather then energy, although the solution is much the same.
Posted by: Coriolis | April 28, 2009 3:44 PM
DaveL, you'll love to hear this. There was a troll (who got banned) over at Pharyngula, who said that one of the wonders of God is "hearts that beat for a lifetime with no external energy source". Her name is Barb, in case you ever run across her at other blogs. Watch out for more gems like that one if you find her.
Posted by: catgirl | April 28, 2009 3:51 PM
"Then when you point out that that same book dictates that eating shrimp and bacon or a woman wearing pants are of equal abomination they respond with "Oh, that's the Old Testament"."
I've seen this retort, many times. In fact, that is what my Mom taught me.
Which was silly, because she well knew that, at the time the OT was written, both men and women wore skirts. So the commandment must refer to something else, only decipherable in that culture.
Posted by: Susannah | April 28, 2009 4:17 PM
My mom made a HUGE mistake when I asked her about the dietary laws of the OT and why we as christians didn't follow them; she told me that those laws were rendered irrelevant when we discovered (scientifically) that proper cooking techniques made pork and shellfish safe to eat. (I wasn't aware of the blending of fibers thing or the sowing of differing seeds thing or the beard thing at the time.)
The mistake part came later when I extrapolated those statements to mean that the discovery of safe, effective birth control meant that pre-marital sex was probably okay, too.
Posted by: twincats | April 28, 2009 4:57 PM
Here's what gets me... the Bible has been translated so many times. More "modern" translations are sort of Cliff Notes, such as The Message. What goes through these characters' heads when they have to come up with some sort of modern paraphrase for these verses that deal with rape and genocide?
...I imagine it's something along the lines of "OH shit."
Posted by: havoc | April 28, 2009 5:42 PM
God, I HATE having to back up heddle on this one, but it's only fair...
IMHO heddle is correct in stating that anyone who is specifically bringing up Leviticus or Deuteronomy to support their religious opposition to homosexuality would know those are Old Testament books. They'd usually also mention Romans or Corinthians.
If all they know, on the other hand, is that the Bible says it's an abomination unto the Lord, then they usually don't know about all the other abominations...
Posted by: ildi | April 28, 2009 5:59 PM
Ed--
Why don't you try addressing and analyzing the main point made by the article, rather than settling for a caricature? And what's up with not linking to the very article you're criticizing?
Posted by: Commodore | April 28, 2009 6:39 PM
Most of the stranger laws in the Torah have something to do with health, hygiene, or maintaining a cultural identity. It's all fascinating stuff. Even if you don't believe in the Bible, I'd recommend you find an anthropological book on the Torah and read up on this.
Posted by: Brandon | April 28, 2009 6:46 PM
Raging Bee,
Raging Bee, do you mean David Duke? He was a southern Democrat (which up until the '90s was basically code for Southern Racist Cracker), then switched to the Republican party (where he turned out to be too Southern Racist Cracker even for them). So I don't think the Democrats should be too embarrassed about him.But if you're thinking of someone else, I'd really like to know who.
(By the way, I always use Duke as an example in my American Gov't class of what I think of as Democracy's real purpose--it's tendency to weed out the worst. The longer Duke remained in electoral politics, the worse he did, with even his own party openly repudiating him.)
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2009 8:06 PM
"You who have no sin cast the first stone." "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." -Jesus Christ
Paints a bit of a different picture?
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 28, 2009 8:59 PM
@ heddle:
Uh, not BS. There were two occasions where this same dialog occurred in my own real life in just the last year. First, soon after Palin was picked to run with McCain with my mother, step father, my girlfriend and her mother shared our personal views on DOMA. My girlfriend and I opposed it strongly and Palin's candidacy in general. The conversation was reignited the day after Xmas with all of the previous participants plus two other friends. All but my girlfriend and I attend church every single Sunday and the GF's mother and the guy friend even hold elected positions and do readings during services. All very Xian.
As if this would seem to you to be some sort of unusual situation, catgirl claims to have experienced similar arguments and the reason why I had it in my head was when I heard it said by my old boss during a conversation at lunch with some co-workers (mostly ex-military Repubs; definitely conservative) not long before the first of my, as you say, made-up conversations. Not only did I not imagine these conversations with my family - I took part in another like it with a different group. And I stole the part that you claim that I invented.
I admit that I didn't come up with the argument myself but went home and googled up Deuteronomy and read all the passages and several interpretations of its meaning. Doesn't matter.
Sorry, heddle. 100% true.
Posted by: Pi Guy | April 28, 2009 10:46 PM
It always struck me as insane that any Christians tried to literally apply Old Testament law today: not only is Jesus traditionally supposed to have fulfilled that part, *it never applied to non-Israelites anyway*. So even if you're of one of the theological strains that doesn't accept that Jesus's sacrifice makes the OT law unnecessary, you *still* shouldn't need to worry about it unless you're actually of Jewish descent. OTOH, most Christian denominations take the Ten Commandments etc. seriously, but that's both because Jesus is believed to have reaffirmed them and because they're thought to be good principles anyway.
Yeah, very little of the Bible dates to the Bronze Age (probably the Book of Job, at least in an early form, and possibly early versions of the Pentateuch: but I believe even the Pentateuch wasn't put into final form before about the 500s BC. It's still an open point, though, and quite questionable how extreme that putting-into-final-form was; some theories make it sound like little more than collating pre-existing texts.)
Interesting point: it's not just the Bible that prohibits male homosexuality without mentioning female, that's a VERY widespread trait. IIRC suggested explanations have included stuff about social status, and possibly hygiene considerations. Who knows?
Posted by: sff | April 28, 2009 11:13 PM
Heddle seems to think that a lot of Christians actually read the Bible.
Newsflash, heddle: They don't!
Oh, there are some who have read the entire book through, and really know it.
I remember dealing with various fundies over the years telling me this or that from the bible.
But then they didn't know that the bible said that pi was 3.
Or that bats were birds.
Or, well, so forth. There are so many examples of things that church-going Christians just do not know about their Bibles. And I'm talking Protestants, not Catholics, who often admit that they're not taught (or even encouraged) to read it.
You might just be startled at how many of the butt-on-a-pew-every-Sunday Xians just read passages here and there, because reading more makes their eyes glaze over.
Can't say that I blame them for feeling that way. It's a rather boring book, most of the time.
Posted by: Aquaria | April 29, 2009 12:37 AM
You can think of Deuteronomy 23:12-14 as clear evidence that sanitation was discovered in the Bronze Age and then forgotten for three thousand years.
In any case, religious traditions are the accumulated experience of a community. Sometimes part of an early version of that experience didn't work out and a tradition is abandoned but still remains in the holy books. In that case, it makes sense for the community to ignore the tradition (e.g., the way the current Christians ignore the tradition of not eating shrimp or the way current Jews ignore the requirement of centralized worship). It still makes sense for the community to adhere to a "fundamentalist" attitude towards those traditions that did turn out to be important. (A century or two ago, part of the Jewish community decided to try ignoring the requirement to not eat shrimp etc. It looks like that isn't working very well. As far as Jews are concerned, God really does hate shrimp.)
In other words, it makes sense for a fundamentalist Christian to disapprove of homosexuality because it says so in the Bible but not to disapprove of shrimp and it makes sense for an Orthodox Jew to disapprove of shrimp because it says so in the Bible but not to insist on Temple worship.
You may ask why keep the laws on the books but reinterpret them instead of just dumping them? It's quite simple. Keeping the laws on the books enables rapid backtracking.
Sometimes the above-mentioned accumulated experience goes awry. For example, the story of the Exodus is obviously about the rescue of a people from the horribly unjust system of slavery. For centuries, it was reinterpreted in Judaism and Christianity to be about a special case with no lessons for any other situation. (After all, everybody knew that slavery was a necessary part of the economy.) A few centuries ago, a handful of evangelical Protestants (which is embarrassing to those of us in other religions) went for a more literal approach and declared that slavery could not be tolerated. This actually worked.
In a system with cafeteria religion, there will be occasional attempts to "turn back the clock." When backtracking is needed, those attempts can be used to fix the system. If we simply dump apparently-obsolete laws, it will be harder to fix.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | April 29, 2009 2:46 AM
Pi Guy,
If by "then" in your first comment (#12) "Then when you point out..." you mean "at a later time, in another argument" then I can buy it. I will also point out that it is not only Christians who make inconsistent arguments on different occasions--almost everybody does that now and then. But if you mean, as the first comment (#12) read and in my opinion implied--that it was in the same breath--that the person quoted the OT as authoritative, then you pointed out the inconvenient dietary laws, and then they denied the authority of OT -- sorry I don't believe such a conversation ever happened.
Aquaria, #44
I guess I'll have to take that seriously because you are clearly an expert when it comes to the biblical knowledge of Christians. And you made into a newsflash.
I am sure you have many credible, telling anecdotes demonstrating how ignorant they are and how clever and knowledgeable you are.
Well that's good. Because the bible doesn't claim pi = 3, or that bats are birds. You are trying to trick me!
Good thing you do know the bible back and forth! (Your pi = 3 and bats are birds examples might lead someone to suspect that your level of knowledge is limited to some internet list of alleged biblical nonsensical statements, but I know you are not one of those simpleminded biblical critics.)
But not you, you are not surprised--because, as mentioned, you are an expert on Christian bible knowledge.
Posted by: heddle | April 29, 2009 4:49 AM
I have a hard time believing you've never run into one of these people, Heddle. Some people have stunningly compartmentalized minds and have no problem blatantly contradicting themselves literally from one sentence to the next. It's not a trait specific to Christianity, but yes those people are out there, and they aren't as incredibly rare as you might think.
Posted by: DaveL | April 29, 2009 5:51 AM
Count me in as another person who has had numerous conversations that heddle blithely claims never took place.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 29, 2009 6:49 AM
W. Kevin Vicklund,
Sorry, don't believe it.
Just like if someone came on here and wrote:
This guy went on and on about survival of the fittest, and how people were just like any other animal. Then I said to him: well doesn't that mean that I should just kill you because, I am fitter than you? Ha ha! His jaw dropped! It was great! Then he said that survival of the fittest didn't mean we had to behave like animals--then he realized his trap and stormed away!
No, I don't believe any conversations that are variations of that theme. I believe they are contrived to show how stupid a class of people is, and for the person relaying the dialog to pat himself on the back for his own cleverness. And I believe they backfire.
If you say you have argued with really dumb people--sure. But I don't buy perfect-storm dialogues.
Posted by: heddle | April 29, 2009 7:07 AM
heddle demonstrates, yet again, in his latest comment, his evenhandedness and reasonable response to those who point out that he's mistaken about THEIR experiences--since he hasn't actually had them. heddle would never stoop to name calling or character slurs to "win" an argument.
Aquaria:
Shame, shame, shame on you. You told heddle that you are an EXPERT on the bible. I know that because he says so. If you're such an expert, recite for, me the entire thing, both OT and NT (plus all of the footnotes, endnotes, appendices and suchlike) as any good christian could. How dare you accuse those nice folks that hate teh GAY and evilution of cherry picking and quote mining--while they're enjoying a shrimp cocktail, in their cotton/poly shorts after mowing the lawn on the sabbath.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2009 7:13 AM
Drat:
heddle's up early, as I see from his comment (#49). My previous comment should have referred to his previouser previous comment (#46)--although his latest comment is a further demonstration of his style of debate. I regret the error.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2009 7:17 AM
Really? Mine does. "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.". Looks a lot like it calls a bat 'fowl'. Sure it's totally reasonable, especially if one believes that the Bible contains only the words of ancient men and not the divine, that the writers didn't know the biological difference, or that it's a translation problem of whatever. But that doesn't change what the verse pretty much says: bats are fowls, or birds. If you don't think it does, then what is your translation?
I'm not sure why you are protesting this, as I believe it is verses like this that are specifically exempted by the (tortured IMO) definition of 'inerrancy' that you adhere to.
Posted by: Spartan | April 29, 2009 9:30 AM
@ heddle:
The truth value of the existence of these conversations does not depend upon your belief in the same way that the existence of god doesn't depend upon what people believe in their hearts (that's momma-in-law's justification for believing despite the lack of evidence). I will elaborate (but as little as possible) by telling you that the 10 Commandments portion came in a different discussion at work soon after Judge Roy Moore had erected the monument in front of his court house. The others are culled from a number of conversations. However, the DOMA/homosexuality/post-Palin nom conversation did occur twice with the noted participants and I asked about the pants and shellfish stuff on both occasions. And, yes, Mike, our friend, did point out that there were NT references against homosexuality but acknowledged also that, while he tended to discount the OT teachings, the Decalogue were still god's rules and that he was at a loss to assimilate that with the shrimp stuff being okay to ignore and the gay stuff being a clear indication of god's thoughts. You don't have to buy reality but that doesn't make it unreal.
As it was, I condensed the topics from several conversations into a few paragraphs simply to be concise. I apologize for not being more thorough for you or anyone else but this is a blog. I'm not testifying before Congress. And sorry for the cheesy humor about the she-god. In fact, I first noted the gay/lesbian dichotomy on the second of these conversations when we grabbed the KJV and NIV (yes, we have both) from the bookshelf. I made the "she" joke at the Xmas-time conversation for the first time. Of course, you have no reason to believe that either.
FYI: my girlfriend laughed last night when I told her that I was commenting back at someone who had nothing better to do but troll who doubted the veracity of my claim that such arguments took place. She remembers them both clearly.
BTW, for you, here's the "Pi = 3" quote from the Bible:
I'll save you some work since you both don't know the Bible the way that you'd like to think you do and can't seem to do any of your own fact-checking. Google "bible pi = 3" and you'll find that the above quote was taken from the first reference in the list. Just so that you have all the facts that you won't check out for yourself, the circumference of a circle, C, is related to the its diameter, d, by the equation C = pi * d. Therefore, Hiram's measurements yield the rearranged equation pi = C/d = (30
cubits)/(10cubits) = 3. Exactly 3.No one's trying to trick you at all. But you might be able to learn something from all of this: calling BS doesn't make you appear clever to anyone when you can't back your refutation about what others claim. Neither do you look clever when you deny facts that can be verified or rebutted by doing some simple research. From what I can tell by reading the comments of others, you're just not worth any more of my time.
Posted by: Pi Guy | April 29, 2009 9:46 AM
Spartan:
I think bats taste just like fried chicken. Well, fried chicken with leathery little wings and cute little furry faces.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2009 10:06 AM
Pi Guy, I've heard the "pi=3" charge before, but your quote doesn't seem to necessarily support that. The passage says that the sea was 'round', but not necessarily a circle. Yes it says it was 10 cubits from one rim to the other, and maybe it's fair then to say then it must be a circle, but it seems like it could also be oval or irregularly shaped, with one length of it being 10 cubits.
Posted by: Spartan | April 29, 2009 10:18 AM
I've seen this happen also. In fact, it happened as part of the specific conversation I was thinking of when I wrote my previous post. That particular conversation (an online forum for the local paper) started the cascade of events that led me to discovering Panda's Thumb in 2005. If I hadn't had this conversation that you say I am lying about, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you, heddle.
BTW, you are dishonestly adding to the argument, and then attacking the part of the argument that you added. Neither I nor the original commenter said anything about the other person realizing he just got trapped and stomping off. In my experience, and as the subtext of Pi Guy's post also implies, the other person is often completely unaware of the hypocrisy at the time of utterance. The direction the conversation takes after that point can take any of quite a few headings. You are dangerously close to attacking a straw man.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 29, 2009 10:31 AM
democommie, #54: I think bats taste just like fried chicken. Well, fried chicken with leathery little wings and cute little furry faces.
Hey!
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 29, 2009 10:45 AM
Spartan,
The pi=3, bats=birds are examples of “the ancients were idiots” fallacy. For bats/birds, the Hebrew could have been rendered “flying things.” But at any rate, our modern taxonomy is not an inviolate law of physics, and the ancients are not bound to it. They are free to have a taxonomy that grouped bats with what we call birds under the “family” of “things that fly.” There is no requirement for them to look forward in time to see how we have decided to group flora and fauna. And the way we have decided to do it, as I said, is not an unambiguous law of nature, but a very convenient and useful prescription that we have invented, not discovered. As for pi = 3—the value of pi was known at that time, in the east, and at any rate it was certainly known that the circumference was more than 3.00 times the diameter. There are many factors at play here. The sea could not have been circular, because the technology did not exist then (or even now, I am told) to cast a bronze object of that size with anything near perfect circularity. Also, the rim had a thickness which introduces a small ambiguity. Furthermore, there was no habit of mathematical precision in eastern writing of that era, hence we have Job and others with 5000 sheep and 3000 cattle and “1000 hills.”
Pi-guy
Fair enough, I’m quite willing to believe that on one day a person quoted the OT on homosexuality, and on another used the old “Oh, that’s just the OT” excuse. Been there many times. But your original post painted a story that they said A, you presented them with a killer argument, and then they responded: not-A. That’s what I was questioning.
That’s true, I’m simply saying that I don’t believe it. It sets off my bullshit detector.
Oh gosh! I must have missed that! That is such a revelation that the bible states pi = 3! Okay: I confess I only read those parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality. I am so busted. Thank you so much for uncovering that relatively unknown passage. That’s really embarrassing!
Again, thank you. Good thing that wasn’t asked during my physics Ph.D. defense!
That’s also true.
W. Kevin Vicklund,
That’s a very Calvinistic viewpoint. But I’m curious: you actually witnessed, in person, this:
Or you read someone’s account? Did you actually see a person defending evolution storm off in defeat when faced with such a “killer” argument?
Posted by: heddle | April 29, 2009 11:53 AM
heddle, we are in agreement on the pi=3 issue, but I disagree with your analysis of birds=bats.
I guess they could be examples of that fallacy if anyone actually commits it, for I certainly haven't. I think it's more aptly called the 'the ancients were ignorant about some things" non-fallacy (or in this case, it is entirely possible that the translation is in error).
Does the Bible that you use say 'flying things'? Most that I have seen say 'bird' or 'fowl', which I think is the most common translation. Which leaves me with the following logical sequence, and let me know where it jumps the rails:
1) Given that we have many translations, when we talk about 'the Bible' saying something, it is reasonable to refer to how a passage is most commonly translated.
2) Most Bibles indicate the words 'birds' or 'fowls' in Lev 11:19.
3) You assert that 'the bible doesn't claim bats are birds'.
4) I quote the verse that does indicate bats are birds.
5) You respond that this is mistranslated or the taxonomy has changed since their time. That's all fair and fine, but it *does not change* the fact that the Bible says bats are birds. If you're using an ancient definition of the word 'bird', then it's mistranslated, and should have said 'flying things' which makes sense. But it doesn't.
If any of those statements are incorrect, I'm all ears. Again, I assume you're sticking by this point because you are wedded to inerrancy (which again, I thought statements about biology or geography or even some history I thought were specifically excluded from the inerrancy consideration given the articles in the Chicago Statement of whatever that you've linked to before). If we take those passages from Leviticus and place them in any other non-fiction book from any time period, would you still honestly say that that book does not claim bats are birds?
And this doesn't even touch on what reasonable expectations we should have concerning a book that is partly or entirely of supposed divine origin.
Posted by: Spartan | April 29, 2009 12:36 PM
Most inerrantints I've met believe the Bible is inerrant "in its original autographs", not necessarily as it's been transcribed or translated.
Not that anyone now living has ever seen the original autographs, but that's another can of worms.
Mind you, there was one character on Christianforums who insisted the KJV was inerrant, and that anywhere it disagreed with the earlier Hebrew/Greek manuscripts, the older manuscripts were wrong...
Posted by: DaveL | April 29, 2009 12:51 PM
Not to defend Deuteronomy as a just system of laws, but the part about shaving the head of a female captive etc. was actually progressive. In those days, female prisoners of war were fair game for their captors. They could be raped, enslaved, or married at the whim of the their captor. The regulations in the Torah are an improvement in that they prohibit rape and marriage without forethought. The point of shaving the woman's head etc. is to make her unattractive. The idea is that if the captor still wants to marry the woman after a delay and after seeing her in this unattractive state, there is a reasonable hope that he will enter into a real marriage with her, as opposed to simply seeing an attractive woman and jumping into bed. Generally speaking, the treatment of prisoners and slaves in the Torah, although often offensive to our standards, was actually an improvement on the general mores of the time.
Posted by: Bill Poser | April 29, 2009 12:54 PM
After having grown up in the church, I can say (from my experience alone - this is not the results of a survey) that the Bible is, for many Christians, like porn; you just fast-forward to the good bits.
Heddle obviously isn't into porn (by which I mean just the good bits of the Bible), but obstinately refusing to accept that there are Christians who aren't just like him is terribly amusing. Keep it up!
BTW, the formatting of these comments seems to have changed and now they're more difficult to read. Maybe my cache needs to catch up to the stylesheet, but I see blockquotes not being indented, which - combined with the dotted line to the left - makes the non-quoted portions look like the quoted portions.
Posted by: pough | April 29, 2009 1:12 PM
Heddle, do you ever bother to read posts? Pi Guy specifically said in the rest of that paragraph that it didn't occur on two separate days, but rather that it occurred twice and both times he brought it up. But note that the other person didn't stop off in defeat, but rather continued the conversation. The "stomping off in defeat" is your own addition.
Well, I was raised Presbyterian ;) Furthermore, I accept the premise that contingency plays a large role in the history of the universe.
Keeping in mind that this was an online conversation, yes, this happened in the middle of an extended discussion. To add more detail, I was patiently explaining various ways in which evolutionary theory could explain homosexuality when this guy launched a Leroy Brown full frontal assault. He stormed off after getting soundly drubbed. I remember this because it threw a spanner in my carefully planned argument and royally pissed me off.
But again, the whole "storming off in defeat" is something you added. The original comment wasn't offered up as some sort of killer argument, but as an example of the contradictions in the logic being used.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 29, 2009 2:15 PM
Comment 11 is a beautiful thing. Are you the Julian I know?
Posted by: septima_pica | April 29, 2009 3:02 PM
Idiots? Certainly not. Extremely ignorant of much of basic biology and any other science? Definetly.
Posted by: GH | April 29, 2009 3:14 PM
The bible is always and forever, eternally, intrinsically, categorically, inclusively, historically and morally inerrant--except when one of it's utterances (or translations of same) are easily proven to be bullshit by someone with a grade school education. In that case the bible is still inerrant, but in a looser, less accurate sort of way. What a load of bullshit.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2009 4:13 PM
If the expectation is that the Bible is inerrant as a biology textbook, I would suggest the problem is not with the Bible, but with the expectation. Even if I believed the book inerrant (I don;t in any strong sense of the term) I would be mistaken to try to learn geometry from its pages, much less seek instructions for performing brain surgery.
The Bible provides a general guideline better suited for self-government than the institutional kind. It worked for a primitive agricultural society, but Greeks and Romans soon developed better models (worse ones, too). A few thousand years of cultural development later, we just might be ready to do better ourselves.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 29, 2009 5:20 PM
I think it was called The Enlightenment?
Posted by: ildi | April 29, 2009 6:07 PM
You've made me aware of an assumption I've been making, namely that those who claim inerrancy must also assume that God was working supernaturally to ensure this inerrancy; the alternative, especially given that much of scripture was communicated orally, is essentially a massive telephone game with the inevitable distortions that come with it. If we assume that God supernaturally intervened to make sure that at least his word was accurately transcribed, is it really unreasonable to have the expectation that the rest of it be true also? Doesn't the Bible itself set this normally unreasonable expectation, especially with statements such as all scripture is profitable for teaching?
Posted by: Spartan | April 29, 2009 6:08 PM
I've argued this topic with heddle on Pharyngula and, while I won't get into it again, it is important to note he considers there to be two kinds of 'Christians' (broadly speaking) - those who actually know something about the bible and those who know nothing about it beyond knowing to answer 'yes' to the question 'are you a Christian?'
heddle just likes to pretend the latter don't exist - or, at least, if they do, they never get into the arguments listed by the posters upthread and embarrass Christians like heddle with their ignorance.
Posted by: Wowbagger | April 29, 2009 7:35 PM
Yes, but true as what? It is neither a history or biology text (or any science for that matter). To the ancient Hebrews it was: A book, neither more nor less. We have legal texts in plenty, but generally stripped of the context in which they were applied. It is not that the text is a complete palimpsest for the reader to discover his own preconceived ideas, but it is close.
Fortunately, my interpretations happen to be correct. ;D
Posted by: kehrsam | April 29, 2009 10:54 PM
But the point is that that isn't how many of today's Christians appear to treat it. As many of the comments illustrate, it is only convenient for them to refer to the bible when they need it to back up their existing prejudice, preference or distaste. There are any number of things condemned in the bible - things that almost all Chrisitians disregard - that are right alongside the things they argue should be condemned (teh gay, for example) because of what the bible says.
Saying that 'it's not meant to be a history or a biology text' is fine in principle, but it leads to the inevitable question: If that's the case then by what method are we to distinguish the parts that are to be taken literally from those which aren't?
Posted by: Wowbagger | April 30, 2009 12:52 AM
"Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There" (1871) can't be regarded as a history or biology text, but then again, nobody seriously considers it as being the 'inerrant (or semi-inerrant) word of god(s)' either.
The bible is a book, like the 'Illiad' or the 'Legend of Gilamesh', interesting in that it tells us things about the Iron Age to the Roman period in the Middle-East (and later Medieval to Modern periods due to how it was edited and translated), but still, it's just a book. Any attempt to give a book 'divine' status simply obscures our understanding of the information it really can impart to us. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 30, 2009 1:20 AM
"To the ancient Hebrews it was: A book, neither more nor less."
I don't buy that. They went to great pains to protect it and used it as a guide to life that far exceeded any status it would have as a "book".
If it's just a book, why not use something like Robert Fulghum's, "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten"? as a guide to living. It's just got the stuff about human interaction and skips all of the dietary admonishments.
Posted by: democommie | April 30, 2009 6:13 AM
Wowbagger, #70
No I don't pretend that dumb Christians do not exist or that they do not engage in embarrassing arguments--otherwise you'd have difficulty explaining why many of my blog posts are in fact concerned with dumb Christians and embarrassing Christian arguments. I said that single-setting contrived arguments ending in total victory and humiliating defeat of the type pi-guy wrote about don't happen. A person makes those type arguments up to make himself look good. That's my working theory based entirely on the fact that I have witnessed a gazillion debates and arguments and never saw such a slam-dunk outcome.
Please argue against my actual claims, not claims you invent and then attribute to me.
Posted by: heddle | April 30, 2009 9:23 AM
Wowbagger:
" I said that single-setting contrived arguments ending in total victory and humiliating defeat of the type pi-guy wrote about don't happen. A person makes those type arguments up to make himself look good. That's my working theory based entirely on the fact that I have witnessed a gazillion debates and arguments and never saw such a slam-dunk outcome."
sez heddle.
Have you not learned in the past that heddle's anecdotal evidence trumps all others' anecdotal evidence (heddle being far too charitably christian to call them lies)? Also, heddle is an astrophysicist, thus precise in his use of numbers. A gazillion is a rather a lot, but if she says it's a gazillion, you gotta take his word for it.
Posted by: democommie | April 30, 2009 10:29 AM
Okay, my turn to call bullshit. It's a bit rich for you to insist on sticking to *your* actual claims when your distortion of the original comment has been pointed out to you multiple times now. Reread comment 12 from Pi Guy, and point out anything that points to 'total victory', 'utter defeat', 'truly devastating and insightful', and especially 'humiliation'. It reads pretty clearly that the apologist offering up the 'that's just the OT' response is oblivious to their own inconsistency; *nowhere* does he even imply that he's provided any type of 'insightful' or humiliating response. Whether you believe anyone is that oblivious is besides the point (although you acknowledge that people selectively use the OT), for you then reply with , "only to be humbled into a meek "but that's the Old Testament" when confronted with your devastating killer response". There is *nothing* in Pi Guy's comment that mentioned anything about anyone being humbled, delivering their response meekly, or anyone crowing about any devastating killer response; that's all 100% bullshit that you've dishonestly concocted and is know supposedly, according to you only, part of Pi Guy's original point.
You're doing a great job of filling your book of Self-Aggrandizing Make-Believe Dialogues all on your own...
Posted by: Spartan | April 30, 2009 11:02 AM
At this point, I must conclude that heddle is in willful and deliberate violation of the following two verses of his holy book:
Exodus 20:16
Deuteronomy 5:20
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 30, 2009 2:23 PM