…and this is a 
What Would Jesus Do … with a cruise missile?
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: August 7, 2007 9:54 AM, by PZ Myers
It's frightening to see religion poisoning our military, but it's happening. A group of generals is facing disciplinary action for promoting an evangelical religious organization, and they admit to being oblivious to the problem of a general declaring that his "first priority is his faith in god", or in supporting a fanatical Christian group that wants to target foreign diplomats, ambassadors, and other representatives for conversion to Christianity. These fellows lent the dignity and responsibility of their positions to a weird cult, and now they defend themselves with this particularly chilling argument:
Brooks told investigators he believed he did not violate any rules. Due to Christian Embassy's long tenure of working with Pentagon employees, Brooks said he saw the group "as a sanctioned or endorsed activity."
Catton's response was similar. Christian Embassy had become a "quasi-federal entity," he told investigators, and he believed he was taking part in a program approved by the Defense Department.
So because they blindly assumed that Christian proselytization was a normal activity for high-level military leaders, they went ahead and contributed to a movie that portrays our government as a hotbed of Christian crazies … which is true, unfortunately, but we don't need to pretend that that is a good thing.
You can watch the whole movie — it's an embarrassingly treacly pile of crap in which politicians and soldiers profess their reliance on morning bible study and advice from the Lord to do their jobs. For instance, it's got representative Gresham Barrett of South Carolina piously declaiming the moral guidance he's been given, saying "You have to think about what's right, what's right for the country" while the video shows a picture of him smilingly shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. It's got Pentagon chaplain Ralph Benson providing his solution to the "war on terror": "What more do we need than Christian people leading us?" Christian Embassy, by the way, seems to be affiliated with Bill Bright and the Campus Crusade for Christ — that's all we need is crusaders taking over the military.
These displays of piety from our leaders always make me want to sit them down and pin them down on precisely how Jesus is advising them. They seem bereft of any sense of ethics at all, which is making Jesus look like a right clueless bastard whose sole interest is in promoting the careers of self-serving maggots like Tom Delay.
Comments
Jesus would use the missile to burn the unbelievers. Or so Revelations would have us believe. Matthew's Gospel is a bit different.
Posted by: llewelly | August 7, 2007 10:09 AM
In my post Catholicism's Politically-Motivated Ignorance I call for Catholics (and Christians alike) to admit that joining the military is a sin on grounds of the ten commandments and other Bible passages. The military and theism is obviously contradictory, and expressing faith while being in the military is hypocritical.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 7, 2007 10:16 AM
I predict zero meaningful punishment for these clowns. After all, why would Bush punish his own kind?
Posted by: Dynaboy | August 7, 2007 10:20 AM
It's really sad those idiots can't grasp the fact that if there really was a god we wouldn't need a military.
Posted by: Bad Albert | August 7, 2007 10:20 AM
Slightly off topic, but relevant if only to remind us that the US military has not been entirely taken over by morons. I heard an excellent program this morning on BBC Radio 4. An interview with Joe Darby, who for those who do not know was the person who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraid. You can listen to the program here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ram/tue0900.ram
You will need RealPlayer.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:23 AM
...I call for Catholics (and Christians alike) to admit that joining the military is a sin on grounds of the ten commandments and other Bible passages. The military and theism is obviously contradictory, and expressing faith while being in the military is hypocritical.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 7, 2007 10:16 AM
You could not be more wrong.
Mt 8:5-13
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 10:28 AM
Salt,
You forgot the sixth commandment, which in the KJV of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Note that total absence of any qualification.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:29 AM
Salt, would you like to offer your interpretation of Matthew 8:5-13 and how it relates to what Tom said? Please.
Posted by: zeekster | August 7, 2007 10:34 AM
I haven't actually seen a tremendous amount of overt proselytizing or direct pressuring of soldiers toward Christianity in the Army. Few people have ever asked me about my beliefs. They're usually weirded out enough that there's this very liberal scientist in their midst that we have plenty of conversation fodder without really getting near faith. If anyone is really interested, though, I had an interesting conversation recently with my company CO, that started out like this:
Major 'X': "So, do you actually believe this notion that the Earth is millions of years old?"
Me: "Well, actually, no. I believe that the Earth is billions of years old."
It went from there...
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:35 AM
Salt,
You forgot the sixth commandment, which in the KJV of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Note that total absence of any qualification.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:29 AM
Matt, the KJV has quite a few misinterpretations of the original Greek.
It's "Thou shall not commit murder". Quite a difference.
You might also note that Jesus did not condemn the Centurion for his military participation. Matter of fact, Jesus never condemned any soldier for being a soldier.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 10:36 AM
No accident, the theocrats are targeting the military. They are trying to take over leadership of the academies at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs.
This is all part of the xian domininionist/reconstructionist movement. They are actually close, having controlled the house and senate until 2006, owning the president, and almost owning the Supreme court. They are also targeting the court systems.
I used to think that the US would be too smart to put a noose around its neck and jump. Toynbee pointed out that 19 of 22 civilizations imploded from within.
In the battle of light against dark, dark wins a lot. The odds say sooner or later the American empire will fall. Who is to say that the death cults won't be wielding the knife? Don't mistake a sense of right or wrong or wishful thinking for a very real possibility.
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 10:39 AM
Salt,
The KJV may well have lots of mistranslations, but that is not the point. I doubt many Christians in the US can read the original can they ? The simple fact is that the most widely used English version of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill".
I still would like to know how come you missed the fact it says that.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:41 AM
An addendum to my post #9 above: the drill sergeants DID look rather askance at those of us who didn't attend church services on Sunday mornings when I was in basic training... This was back in antiquity, but I presume they still do.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:41 AM
I call B.S. These guys are senior officers; they know damned good and well this group isn't officially sanctioned, "quasi-federal," nor anything of the sort. They're just hoping to shift a little blame.
That said, it's amazing that such groups are allowed to use government facilities, especially after the Air Force Academy imbroglio.
Posted by: fuzz | August 7, 2007 10:42 AM
Zeekster, "expressing faith while being in the military is hypocritical" within the context of Mt 8:5-13 is illogical.
If such were true, being hypocritical, would not one expect Jesus to criticize the Centurion for his hypocrisy?
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 10:44 AM
Posted by: Tulse | August 7, 2007 10:46 AM
IIRC, Jesus didn't preach to too many Gentiles; his reaction to the Centurion, for example, was to lament such lack of faith among his own people. Jesus didn't try to convert the Centurion. It was almost a pagan matter, where somebody who primarily worshipped god/dess A could go to a priest/ess of god/dess B, acknowledging that one's authority in a specific matter.
Posted by: Barry | August 7, 2007 10:46 AM
You might also note that Jesus did not condemn the Centurion for his military participation. Matter of fact, Jesus never condemned any soldier for being a soldier.
Since when does not condemning something equate to approval of it? It's like a child saying "But mom - you never say I couldn't do that" I wonder how many other things Christians think Jesus approved of simply because he never said anything against it.
Posted by: zeekster | August 7, 2007 10:48 AM
OK, so its 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' So, as long as the impoverished brown person who I just popped twice at center mass with my M-4 has been designated as naughty in the eyes of the government, and it is a 'lawful' killing, then its OK, eh? Neat. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world to his family.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Salt,
The KJV may well have lots of mistranslations, but that is not the point. I doubt many Christians in the US can read the original can they ? The simple fact is that the most widely used English version of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill".
I still would like to know how come you missed the fact it says that.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:41 AM
Most certainly is the point and I missed nothing, seeing as how I am able to correct you..
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 10:51 AM
OK, so its 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' So, as long as the impoverished brown person who I just popped twice at center mass with my M-4 has been designated as naughty in the eyes of the government, and it is a 'lawful' killing, then its OK, eh? Neat. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world to his family.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:51 AM
sorry about the stupid double post
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:54 AM
Josh,
Does it always amaze you when civilians getting killed by the military is justified because it was not the intention to kill them. I can only presume that somehow getting killed by accident makes you less dead and your relatives less upset and angry.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:54 AM
"I wonder how many other things Christians think Jesus approved of simply because he never said anything against it."
Like homosexuality?
Posted by: MartinC | August 7, 2007 10:54 AM
Hmmm... Jesus also never said anything about evolution, abortion, or homosexuality....
Posted by: Graculus | August 7, 2007 10:54 AM
In my day, Navy Boot Camp in San Diego in the early 60's, Sunday attendance at some religious service was mandatory.
Luckily(?), there was a Christian Science Reading Room available, & thus, a life long addiction to working the Sunday crossword puzzles was burgeoning in me.
To this day, Sunday is not complete w/out my puzzle.
o
o
Posted by: ROF | August 7, 2007 10:54 AM
Mat,
Clearly you haven't read The Bible. In the law were it talks about killing sinners it makes it very clear that the sinner kills themselves, the line is "the blood will be upon their own head".
Let the Brick Testament in helpful legos get everyone right with Jesus on this;
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
Frankly the Bible document is so full of contradictions that you can justify anything. At the very lest the Christian will argue that he turned his life over the Jesus so Jesus wants him to do this.
Posted by: Bob L | August 7, 2007 10:56 AM
OK, so its 'Thou shalt not commit murder.' So, as long as the impoverished brown person who I just popped twice at center mass with my M-4 has been designated as naughty in the eyes of the government, and it is a 'lawful' killing, then its OK, eh? Neat. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world to his family.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Please note the bolding. Your words. If it is lawful, it is not murder.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 10:57 AM
Bob L,
I quite agree the bible is full of contradictions. However what I remember from my confirmation classes (Anglican) is that the ten commandments are the biggies when it comes to rules. My point to Salt was that for those Christians who adopt the KJV of the Bible the message is clear, no killing at all.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:00 AM
Salt: Convenient that. I'm sure his family thinks of me as much less of a serial killer because I have the 'law' to hide behind.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:00 AM
Salt,
Well that would make the situation in Iraq problamatic then. The invasion of Iraq does not seem to have to been legal under international law.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:05 AM
Salt:
So the commandment really is "Do not kill, except in those cases sanctioned by whatever laws your government has happened to pass"? In other words, there is no independent, absolute divinely-given sanction against killing? Doesn't that make the commandment just an exhortation to obey your government? In cases where adultery isn't illegal, is that OK with God as well?Posted by: Tulse | August 7, 2007 11:05 AM
Matt: I presume you're referring to our amazing ability to avoid referring to dead Iraqi civilians whenever we add up the 'costs' of the war? Perhaps you mean 'collateral damage?' Well, let me just tell you that we in the U.S. military...don't miss...so there cannot be any associated damage. I think that phrase is a big piece of liberal propaganda...just like that lie about world heating up that Al Gore invented.
Salt: I'm curious...was the slaughter that occurred during the crusades lawful or unlawful?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:07 AM
The only thing worse than a fundie nut is a military fundie nut.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 7, 2007 11:10 AM
My point to Salt was that for those Christians who adopt the KJV of the Bible the message is clear, no killing at all.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:00 AM
That's your interpretation. Can you show me where those who translated the KJV meant it the way you say it means? If your interpretation is correct, in that it is absolute and without qualification -
You forgot the sixth commandment, which in the KJV of the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Note that total absence of any qualification.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 10:29 AM
You vegetarian you.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:11 AM
So who determines what is lawful killing? In Germany, it was the Jews. In Cambodia it was the poor and powerless. In Darfur it is xians and animists. In Salem MA it was alleged witches.
Pretty stretchy version of the ten commandments you have there. But we already knew that the lie and violence cults only have 8 commandments, having dropped the ones about lies and killing.
So Salt, who would it be OK for you to kill but not murder. Atheists, Catholics, Moslems, Gays, poor people, non-WASPS, MDs, evolutionary biologists (like Michael Korn) etc. Pat Robertson and the other fundie leaders frequently publish their to kill lists. Who is on yours?
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:12 AM
Of course here in the UK we avoid this problem altogether as the head of our armed forces is also the head of the state church. Simple.
Posted by: Dylan | August 7, 2007 11:13 AM
PZ. You are an atheistic Bill O'Reilly. Your diatribes against religion feed the needs of your adoring sycophants that frequent your website. I was hoping to learn more about evolution because you have a good grasp of the subject and what's happening in the science wars against ID, etc. but I have been turned off by your vociferous attacks against anything religious. It's not that I'm closed to reflecting on lack of evidence for belief but it's difficult to get past your caustic O'Reilly-like remarks. It's your website so do what you want. But I would suggest that you tone it down. If you want to have an impact on people who don't see things exactly the way you do, then dialog - don't demean.
Posted by: peak_bagger | August 7, 2007 11:15 AM
Salt: I'm curious...was the slaughter that occurred during the crusades lawful or unlawful?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:07 AM
I'd have to say lawful, but imo, not moral.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:15 AM
Salt, while it might very well be a problem of translation, you've given no evidence why killing while as a soldier is anything but murder. I liken killing to a non-negligent car accident. That wouldn't be a sin; it's an accident. But taking a gun and shooting some poor brown person for oil isn't just killing; that's murder. And even according to your translation that's still a sin. And therefore should be condemned by all churches.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 7, 2007 11:15 AM
"I wonder how many other things Christians think Jesus approved of simply because he never said anything against it."
Bush on Supreme Court's ruling on Military Tribunals at Guantanamo - July 2006:
They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made."
Unless we speak out, they will assume we are condoning their crimes.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 7, 2007 11:17 AM
You vegetarian you.
Oh right...so killing plant tissue isn't killing? Depending on what you're harvesting, an organism still dies.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:17 AM
Delay's behavior does serve as evidence that life is, indeed, a great buffet.
I think it's very interesting that apologists focus so intently on the mistranslation of a single word. Kill. Murder. Kill. Murder. Kill. Murder. Perhaps we should correct all the other mistranslations, omissions, distortions and additions that have altered each story in the anthology before we attempt to analyze or critique a single word of it.
Questions for Salt and anyone else who thinks they have an answer or two: If the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is so goddamned important, why hasn't anybody corrected it? Why does it say "kill" in virtually every English-language Bible in existence? Why? Because "everybody knows" it really means "murder"? Because "everybody knows" that most of the Bible is metaphor and not meant to be taken literally anyway? That in its literal untruth it is inerrantly true?
There seems to be no small disagreement about this amongst the dozens and dozens of sects of Christianity. How, then, can we know what in the Bible may or may not be true, or which passages must be taken metaphorically and which must not?
Why is a collection of literal translations of the earliest known sources not considered the definitive Bible? Does such a thing exist? If so, why is it not widely available? If not, why not?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Said salt:
This makes perfect sense and explains why Salt will now agree with the following two points:
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM
So who determines what is lawful killing?
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:12 AM
Within the context of most of your post, Government.
So Salt, who would it be OK for you to kill but not murder. Atheists, Catholics, Moslems, Gays, poor people, non-WASPS, MDs, evolutionary biologists (like Michael Korn) etc. Pat Robertson and the other fundie leaders frequently publish their to kill lists. Who is on yours?
Who is on my list? No one. Who might I kill? One who acts against me or mine with unlawful violence.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:22 AM
Salt: I'd have to say lawful, but imo, not moral.
OK...that's interesting...I'm gonna ponder that one for a moment.
That also creates another question for me: in your opinion, what is an example of a killing which is lawful AND moral?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:22 AM
First of all Salt/Josh, the difference between killing a person and a plant is incommensurable. Especially in regards to this conversation which brings up the idea of what is regarded as a sin. (I could bring up the point that fish is a meat and is hypocritically eaten on Fridays during Lent for nothing more than economic gain.. but that, too, is incommensurable in the focus of this discussion.) Stick to the argument at hand: killing while in the military is murder. Your turn.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 7, 2007 11:23 AM
those discussing the 10 commandments, please state what they are, and why most of them call for the death penalty. (like worshipping false gods, or not honoring the Sabbath, these call for stoning) If we strictly implemented the 10 commandments, about 65% of our population would have to die.
what a great religion!
Posted by: richCares | August 7, 2007 11:24 AM
Just as an aside, but something I've been pondering for a while - It seems to me that -religion- is the main problem we are facing, not whether or not there is a god. So the whole atheist thing seems either misguided or wrongly named. Here the fundamentalists are trying to effect Christian dominionism, while in the Middle East it's the Islamic caliphate. In both cases using religion to justify political aspirations. So I think the red letter A campaign, for example, is leading to a faulty end.
We don't need to -prove- there is no god, just that religion is a bad idea. Cases like this one clearly prove why, without getting into any cosmology at all. Treat this as a political problem, not a god problem.
Posted by: TW | August 7, 2007 11:26 AM
Salt said: "You vegetarian you."
I am not a vegetarian. Nor am I a Christian.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:26 AM
This makes perfect sense and explains why Salt will now agree with the following two points:
1. When Nero persecuted Roman Christians by having them torn to shreds by wild animals, no sin was committed. Nero today enjoys his afterlife in Heaven.
2. Christians should support reproductive freedom (e.g., abortion on demand); because abortion is legal in the US, it can't be considered murder.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Abortion here in the USA is not murder under the law. But it can be argued that it is sinful.
Nero committed no unlawful act as Nero was the law. Why did you use the word sin? Did you actually mean to use that word?
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:26 AM
That also creates another question for me: in your opinion, what is an example of a killing which is lawful AND moral?
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:22 AM
The man raping your daughter at knifepoint.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:28 AM
Tom wrote *First of all Salt/Josh, the difference between killing a person and a plant is incommensurable.*
There are people who would vehemently disagree with that point, which suggests that is not an a priori truth.
But OK, I replied to Salt's throwaway comment. I stand properly chastised.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:31 AM
Not buying that distinction between murder and killing and mistranslation assertion without some proof.
A lot of the time when xians need to justify something not in the bible they play the mistranslation card. The problem is, using that strategy the bible then says whatever anyone wants it to say.
Not being a native speaker of ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, it is beyond my ability or interest. Probably the relevant original version would be the Hebrew one, old testament.
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:31 AM
Back in 1983 Canada, there was Sunday morning church parade. If you were not religious, you had your choice of standing at attention for the entire church service, outside whichever church on the base you felt comfortable standing.
In the later 80's, it was just church parade. You had to go to church (protestant or catholic on my base). The logic was that you didn't have to pay attention, as long as you weren't disruptive.
I was told, as a lieutenant, that being an atheist would likely impede my career.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 7, 2007 11:32 AM
peak_bagger:
New around here, aren't you. I can't seem to find one of the time's PZ has has addressed his feelings on the 'sensible, moderate dialogue' topic, but I think it is fair to say that he won't be changing his mind anytime soon.
Posted by: JoeBlu | August 7, 2007 11:33 AM
TW,
In many ways Richard Dawkins agrees with you. Granted he thinks the existance of god is extremely unlikely (not that there is no god, despite what some say he says) but he also says that even if god does exist there is no reason that god should be worshipped.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:35 AM
If the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is so goddamned important, why hasn't anybody corrected it?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 7, 2007 11:19 AM
Some modern Bibles are corrected. The New International Version says 'murder'. The preface to the NIV states it is an attempt to get a much better translation from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts direct into contemporary English.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:36 AM
What I find interesting is the fact that the Old Testament prohibition against killing or murder or whatever you want to call it was clearly meant to only apply within the Hebrew tribal group. Killing anyone outside the group, innocent or not, was fine. For example, the repeated cases of God-demanded genocide described in the Book of Joshua tells us that God says it's ok to murder, murder, murder as long as you don't murder your own kind. So, God is basically a racist. This is the kind of God that the Christian Embassy people can really get behind.
Posted by: Steve | August 7, 2007 11:38 AM
Peak_Blagger,
You seem to be unaware that some people deserve to be demeaned, the Generals in questions being examples of such.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:39 AM
Salt,
Given that so many versions of the Bible seem to have translation errors, why is it so many Americans think the version of the Bible they read, which will be an English version in most cases, is inerrant ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:41 AM
For a good expose of the mess at the USAF Academy, check out With God On Our Side: One Man's War Against An Evangelical Coup In The Military, by Michael Weinstein and Davin Seay. Weinstein, who is Jewish, was a 1977 AFA graduate who became one of the country's most noteworthy telecom attorneys, and served in the federal government in that capacity during the Reagan administration. He was prominent enough, and with good enough connections, to be named to an AFA overseers committee that is sort of like a toothless board of regents. Earlier in this decade he became aware of the religious problems at the Academy when his cadet sons were harassed and relentlessly proselytized because of their non-Christian, "Christ-killing" religion. As Weinstein met more and more resistance as he pressed the issue through channels, he finally went public, first with Op Eds, and later with the above-named book and a website, militaryreligiousfreedom.org. Here's one of many quotes I captured from the book:
Based largely on the experience he described above, David Anton recommended that his son not accept the USAFA appointment he had received. The son, who had had his heart set on attending the Academy since junior high, ultimately took his father's advice after an agonizing decision process.
Posted by: Minnesotachuck (aka ExPFC Chuck) | August 7, 2007 11:41 AM
Squid,
I don't remember them ever *saying* anything bad to us about not going to services...other than the sort-of mocking looks. We had the choice of going to church, or cleaning the barracks and maintaining our equipment. Certainly faith has never come up in any personnel review or anything...and my dog tags say 'grunt' instead of Catholic or something. And even that recent conversation I had with Major 'X' was, surprisingly, an actual discussion. Given what I have heard from others, though, I think my experience has been a bit anomalous. I find the Wednesday breakfasts at the Pentagon very disturbing news.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 11:42 AM
Given that so many versions of the Bible seem to have translation errors, why is it so many Americans think the version of the Bible they read, which will be an English version in most cases, is inerrant ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 11:41 AM
Good question. I have no answer. If I could read German I'd enjoy reading Luther's translation.
A problem Christians have, being the vary same problem many here have, is the picking and choosing of verse to make a point where that verse is out of context.
I'm am reviewing research that posits, using Scripture alone, Hell (i.e. Dante) does not exist. The Fire and Brimstone is so misunderstood. The research so far is quite logical and harmonious, like 1+1=2.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 11:48 AM
Let's face it. If there WERE an omnipotent and omnipresent God, he/she'd have smote the whole lot of the religious right by now for crap just like this.
Posted by: dorid | August 7, 2007 11:51 AM
Hey PZ, thought you might get a kick out of this image: http://areopagus-areopagus.blogspot.com/2007/08/turn-other-cheek-but-firebomb-their.html
Posted by: Ryan | August 7, 2007 11:54 AM
Hmmmm, OK so the Jewish Holocaust, Cambodian Holocaust, Darfur massacres, and presumably the USSR and Red Chinese massacres were all lawful killings because the temporal state sanctioned and carried them out.
I was under the impression that god was the creator and ruler of the universe and temporal states were human institutions that came and went. Where in the bible does it say that human leaders can determine what is killing and what is murder?
Bibilical inerrancy is reduced to whatever the people in power at any time says it is. Why even bother paying attention to it then?
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:56 AM
Of course if God does approve of war then he clearly has mental health issues. In many wars both sides claim God is on their side. Either god is very very confused or he suffers from schizophrenia.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Raven & Josh et al:
Having recently read Hector Avalos's Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, I suspect that Salt is closer to the right track that you are. In addition to exhaustively pointing out the incentives to human-on-human violence that permeate the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), he also goes in some depth into the etymology of the words used in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, as the case may be) of some of the more widely known ethical exhortations, such as the Ten Commandments. Avalos asserts that this analysis shows that, unlike the species-wide applicability with which we read them today, in the original languages these passages connoted or denoted that they applied only to quite narrowly defined in-groups: family, tribe, people (e.g. Israelites), etc.
Avalos also asserts, as is probably needless to say, that the incentives to violence did not stop with the writers of what are now accepted by billions of people as divine revelations. For example, Avalos points to Martin Luther's On Jews and their Lies as advocating the suppression of the Jews every bit as violently as did Hitler in Mein Kamph, the only difference being the technology at hand with which to do it.
Posted by: Minnesotachuck (aka ExPFC Chuck) | August 7, 2007 12:06 PM
Of course if God does approve of war then he clearly has mental health issues. In many wars both sides claim God is on their side. Either god is very very confused or he suffers from schizophrenia.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Why do you point at God there? God made no such claim, it was 'each side', man, that made such claim.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 12:12 PM
Salt,
"Why do you point at God there?"
Can you tell me where I can go to get the real word from god as to who's side he really is on ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:15 PM
Where in the bible does it say that human leaders can determine what is killing and what is murder?
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 11:56 AM
The Bible speaks much about authority, and about Kings.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 12:20 PM
Can you tell me where I can go to get the real word from god as to who's side he really is on ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:15 PM
You're kidding, right?
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 12:21 PM
OK, scratch the 6th commandment and make that the 9 comandments. We weren't using it anyway.
Posted by: raven | August 7, 2007 12:22 PM
Matt and Salt @ 64:
Check out the writings of Bart Ehrman, a Biblical scholar at the University of North Carolina. Lost Scriptures, Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus are three of his more important books. Ehrman grew up as a mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian, IIRC), had a conversion experience as a teenager that induced him to attend the Moody Bible Institute, and then went on to grad school at the Princeton Theological Seminary, thinking he would devote his life to finding the true original, literal founding words of Christianity. What he learned instead is that we can never know what those were because of the inherent and impenetrable fog of time, not to mention the decaying and mis-copied manuscripts, through which we of necessity must study that era. He has since become a self-proclaimed agnostic, because among other reasons, as he put it "if God truly intended for us to live our lives in accordance with the literal words of his scriptures, you'd think he would have given us some means of knowing for sure exactly what those words were." (Paraphrase by MC).
Posted by: Minnesotachuck (aka ExPFC Chuck) | August 7, 2007 12:22 PM
Actually, Chuck, I wasn't discussing murder v. killing with Salt. The cynical point about plants aside, my questions to Salt were written within the context of him being correct (for sake of argument) in his opinion that the word in question is murder.
Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2007 12:28 PM
"You're kidding, right?"
Not at all. Perfectly reasonable question to ask.
I did try praying but there was nobody home to ask.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2007 12:28 PM
Salt, in common with most Xian or other religionistas wants to have his cake & eat it too...
He's willing to discuss the "translation errors" but doesn't see that such errors are inevitable in a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*.
We don't have any evidence whatsoever of the "facts" of the NT, let alone the OT. In many cases, there is evidence that the stories in the NT & OT are exactly that! As many have said before - the Romans kept damn good records - and many of these have survived. The claims of Herod & Pilate & Jesus being contemporaneous are demonstrably false. Why should we treat any of the other stories with less than skepticism?
Regarding the use of 'Murder' or 'Kill' in the commandment. Since these laws are from the old testament, I would presume that the Torah would be the appropriate source (the Jews being very good record keepers in that regard).
The Torah (AFAIK) says 'murder'.
However - as Raven says earlier in this thread - murder is entirely and wholly cultural in basis - and the OT is (as she says) full of references to 'justifiable killing of those outside the tribe'. Not murder - more like clearing vermin (according to the book!)
So I really don't care whether you use the term murder or kill. That's not the point. That's simply a semantic distinction you use to differentiate between killing you allow, and killing you don't, and is fundamentally tribal (societal) in nature.
The real discussion to date has been this: is it appropriate for military personnel to be overtly religious in their duties - and to use their religion as the primary basis for their decision making.
Xians appear to think this is ok.
So let me ask the following: If a military leader were buddhist, and decided NOT to kill because of that - and refused an order to 'send in troops' or 'release some ordinance' as a result of that belief system - would that be appropriate?
This is not about the military, or the use of militaries for political ends.
This is about intrusion of religious doctrine into non-religious matters.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Minnesotachuck, interesting though I'd say Ehrman is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Also interesting is that, taking your post as true, he is now agnostic.
Seems similar to one who believes he has a mission calling, sells all he has, goes on mission, and finds out it was no calling at all. Failure leads to loss of faith.
This (i.e loss of faith) no more confirms or denies anything about God but only suggests that Ehrman was possible looking in the wrong place(s) and for the wrong thing(s).
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 12:37 PM
Salt = Deluded Troll
Ignore.
Please.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 7, 2007 12:49 PM
He's willing to discuss the "translation errors" but doesn't see that such errors are inevitable in a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Are we talking "translation error" or the Bible being "a book that is merely a compilation of human *stories*"?
Tony changes the subject -
The claims of Herod & Pilate & Jesus being contemporaneous are demonstrably false. Why should we treat any of the other stories with less than skepticism?
I'd guess you are as skeptical concerning the Jews, a body of people who have never denied Jesus lived and walked the land at the time of Herod and Pilate.
Your bare assertion of "demonstrably false" is unsupportable.
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007 12:50 PM
Salt
1. translation error is inevitable in such a compilation - don't pretend to be so dense that such was not clear to you from my statement.
2. this is not a change of subject, but a supporting statement (this is a compilation of *stories* without any demonstrably factual basis)
3. Herod & Pilate were not contemporaneous (not unless you count more than 100 years gap as such).
4. Jewish scholars (AFAIK) state that there "may have been" a prophet "jesus" in the "rough" timeframe mentioned in the NT. They do not, however, accord this prophet any direct connection with the line of David (which would be necessary for the Christ). Compare with the Muslim's who *do* recognize a prophet "jesus", but with a different timeline from the christian.
You have no basis to deny these assertions.
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 1:00 PM
So let me ask the following: If a military leader were buddhist, and decided NOT to kill because of that - and refused an order to 'send in troops' or 'release some ordinance' as a result of that belief system - would that be appropriate?
Posted by: tony | August 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Tony, your question (as couched) reminds me of the film 'The Caine Mutiny' where -
~ The Court "There is no more serious charge than cowardice under fire. Be very careful counselor!"
~ The Defense "The defense makes no claim that Captain Queeg is a coward. On the contrary, the defense would assert that no man who could rise to the position of being a Navy Captain could be a coward."
Posted by: Salt | August 7, 2007