Pharyngula

PZ quoting the Bible. Now I've seen everything.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | July 27, 2006 12:19 PM

The just shal live by faith.

What a load of CRAP!

Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2006 12:26 PM

Doesn't Romans also justify absolute deference to political authorites based upon their selection by God? Or is my recollection of biblical fictions foggy?

Posted by: phototaxi | July 27, 2006 12:41 PM

So nice to know we've sunk to the point where our Senators now openly admit to making science policy based on what they read in crappy Michael Crichton novels.

For most of them, it's the only exposure to "science" they've ever had.

Posted by: Dan | July 27, 2006 12:58 PM

Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.

Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Jim Wynne | July 27, 2006 1:03 PM

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

Posted by: wamba | July 27, 2006 1:08 PM

Amazing, it was actually the other senator from Oklahoma who made a big issue of "rampant lesbianism" in the high schools.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20162/

It sounds more like rampant lead poisoning among the voters to me.

Posted by: PaulC | July 27, 2006 1:19 PM

For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Yes! I'm cutting this out and putting it above the swimsuit calendar.

Posted by: Mr. Person | July 27, 2006 1:24 PM

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html

The "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" also comments on the rabble rousing tones of these passages.

"New tactic - quote mining scripture. The thing is, you don't even have to do the dishonest quote mining that the other side does, you can leave it in context."
Why not??? Right on PZ!
Most people really don't really read the bible they supposedly believe in. When I was younger and attended church, these parts are quietly skipped over, or only a sentence, used out of context is referred to. This book needs to be shown for the hateful rag it is.

Posted by: Rocky | July 27, 2006 1:32 PM

I find that the Bible is a lot easier to understand when it is accompanied with illustrations of the people and the events as they were happening... in LEGO form:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/index.html

Posted by: matthew | July 27, 2006 1:45 PM

Ed Darell:

I'm glad somebody else noticed the same way of reading that I did.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 27, 2006 1:49 PM

That whole passage is pretty incoherent, but I'm inclined to interpret verse 23 as an injunction against idolatry--literally replacing the image of God with an animal depiction, like a golden calf. I think it's a stretch to apply this to environmentalists, who didn't really exist at the time as such.

Thank you, PaulC. That's obviously the meaning intended.

This is a great example of how God's word, no matter how eternal and infallible it may be, still has to be processed through a fallible human mind to be given meaning. The fundamentalist's absolute faith is not in God, but in his own infallibility.

There are few people in this world more arrogant than the religious fundamentalist, despite all his desperate trappings of humility.

Posted by: Max Udargo | July 27, 2006 2:02 PM

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Who knew Paul forsaw evolutionism!

Posted by: Jason | July 27, 2006 2:15 PM

In Oklahoma, we apparently put our criminally insane (and ethically bankrupt) people in public office. Sure there are hillbillys and rednecks here, but not all are fanatical religious adherents, or drooling inbreeders.

Posted by: Colby Codner | July 27, 2006 2:17 PM

Shorter Romans: Loving nature is really, really gay. And evil.

It's not about loving nature being evil - it's not. Nature, like women, is not the least bit denegrated at any point in the Bible. This passage is about not putting God first and what that leads to. Oh, I don't expect PZ or anyone else here to understand or accept that fact. It's much easier and more comfortable to hold on to the lies you hold. Few people ever move beyond that.

Posted by: Jason | July 27, 2006 2:22 PM

And you are living proof of that fact Jason.

Lies lies lies yeah. - Thompson Twins

Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2006 2:26 PM

One of my favourite quote mines is Psalm 139, a passage anti-abortionists use to defend their position:

This is what you normally see:

13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

This is the passage you don't see, that almost immediately follows it:

19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

20 They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you?

22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.

Loving, peaceful, thoughts are they not? And we wonder why abortion doctors get murdered...

Posted by: tacitus | July 27, 2006 2:28 PM

"22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Isn't this sort of damning to those who proclaim themselves experts in this field?

Posted by: Wyatt | July 27, 2006 2:31 PM

Source for the Jeffereson quote:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(ws03101))

Posted by: Efogoto | July 27, 2006 2:40 PM

Oh man, where to start? The quote, though lengthy, still needs more context to be fully understood.

Sastra wrote:

Nonbelievers don't need to be persuaded like well-intentioned equals: they can only be chastized and condemned. Nice.

Romans 1:14 "I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish."

skipping forward to chapter 2, verse 1-11 ...

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 judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

skipping forward to chapter 3, verse 9-26 ...

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

and skipping way ahead to chapter 12, verse 9-21:

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Posted by: M Petersen | July 27, 2006 2:56 PM

phototaxi:

I believe you may be referring to Romans 13:1-7

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Posted by: M Petersen | July 27, 2006 3:01 PM

Thank you to those who linked to The Brick Testament. It's hilarious. I loved Legos as a child.

Posted by: j | July 27, 2006 3:07 PM

I also wanted to pass on this link. It's a handy website that compares different verstions of the same biblical passage. Very handy when the ol' King James Version just gets too big for its pantaloons.

Posted by: nancy73 | July 27, 2006 3:10 PM

"It's much easier and more comfortable to hold on to the lies you hold. Few people ever move beyond that."
Wah, wah, wah........
Jason, what a pitifully insane statement to spew forth to rational adults. Great example of reversed projection.
It's people like you that believes in the insane concept of an invisible middle eastern sky god, and during a discussion where adults question the truth and evidence of radical stupidities, you call the questioners close minded accepter of lies. Of course, because you already have all the answers, if only we would believe.
You very much sound like someone who's trying to convice himself of his own irrational views by attacking others,
much like other closet non-believers I've know in the past until they were ready to make the jump to reality. In the future, when you grow out of the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny phase of your life, I wouldn't be too surprised to see you here posting as an ardent and reformed realist, of course under another name.
The truth will set you free!

Posted by: Rocky | July 27, 2006 3:10 PM

tacitus:

That is the personal feelings of King David, who was understandably pissed off. Also, the covenant of the time used war and punishment -- the new covenant introduced by Jesus was one of love.

That being said, it's not that God isn't angry about sin and He is just. But through the sacrifice and victory of Jesus, He provides a way out.

Posted by: M Petersen | July 27, 2006 3:19 PM

As Rocky claims, most people don't even read the Bible they believe in, how would I expect that those who don't believe would be any different?
Posted by: M Petersen | July 27, 2006 03:10 PM

Yes sir, I agree, but if you read through the feedback, many or most of the commenters have read and been exposed to the bible. I still read it as an interesting history source. As I believe PZ noted above, the teachings of Jesus has many great value lessons of life, many, as a secular humanist I greatly strive to live to. I have many good and close Christian friends that I greatly admire for their actions, not their words. My friends and I often agree on the philosophical reasons for living a good moral life are often agreed on, we just have different path for doing so.
Having said that, the concern is the witch burning fervor of radical evangelists that are fine with forcing their views down everyone throats at gunpoint. A casual reading of history, recent or past, demonstrates the distinct danger of this path.

Posted by: Rocky | July 27, 2006 3:28 PM

Also, the covenant of the time used war and punishment -- the new covenant introduced by Jesus was one of love.

You seem to disagree with Matthew on that point:

Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Posted by: quork | July 27, 2006 3:33 PM

Since Paul wrote his shit decades before the Gospels were written, what makes folks think he was destorting Jesus' message? Couldn't it just as easily be that Paul got it right, Jesus was a dick, and then Matt and Jack and Mark and Luke came along to soften things? OK, I don't think that's what happened (and seriously question if there ever really WAS a Jesus as anything more than a literary creation), but it's at least as plausible.

And for fine biblical quote mining, my favorite passage is probably this:

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28&29, Living Bible

Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 27, 2006 3:49 PM

If I didn't reject the idea of fate, I'd swear it wasn't coincidence that PZ brings up this passage the day after I read John Shelby Spong's interpretation of it. Here's Spong's moneyquote:

Yes, I am convinced that Paul of Tarsus was a gay man, deeply repressed, self-loathing, rigid in denial, bound by the law that he hoped could keep this thing, that he judged to be so unacceptable, totally under control, a control so profound that even Paul did not have to face this fact about himself. But repression kills. It kills the repressed one and sometimes the defensive anger found in the repressed one also kills those who challenge, threaten or live out the thing that this repressed person so deeply fears.

-John Shelby Spong, The Sins of Scripture, p. 140

Posted by: False Prophet | July 27, 2006 3:55 PM

Actually, that passage makes a lot of sense. I was about 12 when I first rejected religion and discovered evolution, and it's true; I was pretty much overwhelmed by the lust in my heart, became disobedient towards my parents and developed an unhealthy interest in 'women (who) did change the natural use into that which is against nature'. I also developed spots, I'm guessing that was god showing how pissed off he was.

Posted by: Don | July 27, 2006 4:01 PM

Ah, no. Not sure where you get the "sex for pleasure" thing. You're quite free to have all the sex for pleasure you want, as it was meant, within the marriage relationship of a man to a woman.

verses 24 and 26

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

"the natural use" pretty clearly refers to childbearing, and if not then the big guy needs to find a better copy editor.

Posted by: Ray H | July 27, 2006 4:05 PM

Ray H:
No, no referring to child-bearing at all. It is referring to unnatural sexual relations. Then in Verse 27, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Posted by: M Petersen | July 27, 2006 4:11 PM

And what is that due penalty?

Posted by: j | July 27, 2006 4:13 PM

My favorite passages have to do with pagan worship, and "Baal's sweet tooth".

(Hosea 3:1): "...Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they love the sacred raisin cakes."

Later, I'm off to get a bagel. Perhaps with... RAISINS!

Posted by: Robster | July 27, 2006 4:15 PM

MPETE I stopped reading your posts there after a while.
Way too long and way too much cut and pasting.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2006 4:20 PM

Shan, perhaps there wouldn't be a problem with the passages if they weren't being interpreted to deny certain people--homosexuals, for instance--their rights. In fact, maybe I wouldn't have a problem with the Bible at all if it weren't exerting such a powerful force in our legislation, legislation that affects non-believers as well as believers. Abortion bans, gay marriage bans, stem cell research bans...all are, to some extent, religiously motivated.

Posted by: j | July 27, 2006 4:24 PM

Ummmm yeah.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

They Should Have Noticed

John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2006 4:30 PM

I don't think Saul of Tarsus changed much when he shifted his allegiance from one authority to another. His attempts to exert control over the early church are of a piece with his earlier attempts to persecute believers, except that he saw an opportunity to lead the movement, and not just be an enforcer. I'm not saying that he didn't believe in what he preached -- largely, I think he did. But he's got more in common with the TV preachers of today than with the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount.

Posted by: idlemind | July 27, 2006 4:34 PM

Greg: I'm sure you are the foremost historian on this matter, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming to know more than me (though you have no idea what I know or don't know). Also, I'm quite sure you have researched it thoroughly and published extensive papers with facts, otherwise you wouldn't be referring me to the writings of Kenneth Humphreys.

Here are the ones I mentioned:

Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus.

Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian.

Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

I've also refuted the "myth" idea in the previous thread.

From http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/appearances.html:

Professor A.N. Sherwin-White, an eminent historian of Roman and Greek history, has studied the rate at which myths were formed in the ancient Near East. He chides New Testament critics for not recognizing the quality of the New Testament documents compared to the sources he must work with in Roman and Greek history. Those sources are usually removed from the events they describe by generations or even centuries. Despite when they were written though and the typically biased approach of the writers, he says historians can confidently reconstruct what actually happened.

In stark contrast, Professor Sherwin-White tells us that for the gospels to be legendary, more generations would have been needed between the events and their compilation. He has found that even the span of two full generations (50-80 years) is not long enough for legend to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.7 Even the late dating of the gospels meets that criteria, let alone the early dating! In addition, there is no example in history where legendary stories supplanted the historical core in the same geographical location in less than two generations. The legends about Jesus the critics are looking for do exist, but they arose in the second century - consistent with the two-generation time frame discovered by Professor Sherwin-White - when all the eyewitnesses had died off. Thus, the trust-worthiness of the gospel accounts is highly probable because there just wasn't enough time for mythical tendencies to creep in and prevail over historical fact.

If you don't like Sherwin-White, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(1919-1983):
John A.T. Robinson

Robinson concluded that New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's AD 70 destruction. C. H. Dodd, in a frank letter to Robinson wrote: "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud." [1] Robinson's call for redating the New Testament was echoed by subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham's work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Other subsequent works calling for redating of some or all of the gospels were written by such scholars as Claude Tresmontant, Gunther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linneman, Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard. [2]

In relation to the four gospels dates of authorship, according to Norman Geisler, "Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65." [3] Robinson went on to state that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus' death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that John, the apostle, wrote the fourth Gospel. Dr. Robinson believed the result of his investigations argued for the rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament.[4] [5]

Posted by: M Petersen | July 27, 2006 4:44 PM

On Kenneth Humphreys: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/humphreysk01.html

On Remsberg:
http://tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html

In almost all cases, Remsberg's writers are the sort who would not mention Jesus anyway (being writers of either fiction, poetry, or on mundane and practical matters like oratory and agriculture, or historians or writers of another time o