Pharyngula

Posted by: Tyson Bodin | December 2, 2009 3:36 PM

I love how astrology is wrong but worshipping the omnipotent , omniscient , invisible sky voyeur is A-OK...

Posted by: Shawn | December 2, 2009 3:38 PM

At least they recognize astrology as something from the imagination...now if they could only go one step further.

Posted by: CatBallou | December 2, 2009 3:43 PM

If he had created humans first, they would've just seen the sun and stars "magically" appear out of darkness, and would've started worshipping them immediately. So he didn't want them to witness that.
Wow, it's fun to make up stuff!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 2, 2009 3:43 PM

So, you see, God juggled the whole chronology of creation in this crazy way simply because he hates astrology.

Of course--he only likes Hebrew mythology.

Isn't that obvious?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Jean-François Bélisle | December 2, 2009 3:44 PM

That's because you cannot say "think like a creationist"... the oxymoron should be obvious.

Posted by: Christen | December 2, 2009 3:45 PM

Why didn't he just design people who wouldn't make up astrology? Is he all-powerful or not?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 2, 2009 3:47 PM

Okay, he made the stars on day four, but when did he make the light coming from these stars? Could he have been cheating just a little bit and made the light a couple of thousand or million or billion years before? Just to get ahead of the game, so to speak.

Wow, it's fun to make up stuff!

Yep.

Posted by: DKB | December 2, 2009 3:48 PM

I love the picture at the top of that quote of two kids laughing and smirking while reading the Bible. Maybe the kids realize how hilarious it really is.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 2, 2009 3:52 PM

What is obviously missing from the Genesis account is just before day 1... when god must've invented, then used in large quantities, LSD... because the only way any of what follows makes sense for an omnipotent being is that he was completely fucked out of his mind...

Posted by: Zifnab | December 2, 2009 3:53 PM

So, you see, God juggled the whole chronology of creation in this crazy way simply because he hates astrology. And he thought that doing it in that order, when no human beings existed to see what he was up to, would convince the astrologers that the motion of the stars was meaningless.

And it worked! I checked my horoscope this morning and it was completely clear of astrologers.

And people worshiping the sun? Non-existent!

That God sure is smart.

Posted by: rob | December 2, 2009 3:55 PM

Larry beat me to it:

"...which people make up out of their own imagination..."

heh.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 2, 2009 3:56 PM

D'oh! It makes perfect nonsense.

Posted by: Lynna | December 2, 2009 3:58 PM

Oh, now I understand. I've been told by religious friends that God does not like superstition. I'm so pleased to see that there is proof of this in the holy babble, and that a knowledgeable Christian Worthy has helpfully provided an exegesis. So what were the Three Wise Men doing following that star?

Ah, damnit. I'm confused again.

Posted by: Moridin | December 2, 2009 4:01 PM

The Bible supports astrology, making his assertions even stranger.

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Genesis 1:14)

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 2, 2009 4:04 PM

This can't be right. After all, he made the trees and grass and herbs and shrubs on Day 3, knowing full well that this would only fuel the heretical idolatry of us Gaia-worshipping tree huggers, right Wiley?

Theology seems a lot like improv theatre: if you can get through the line without losing composure and breaking down into paroxysms of laughter at the absurdity of it all, it's considered a success.

(My apologies to the improv actors out there. I know you study and work hard for your craft.)

Posted by: Victor | December 2, 2009 4:06 PM

Maybe he just didn't read the instructions.

Posted by: Yubal | December 2, 2009 4:16 PM

@ PZ

The mystically correct answer to your question would be:

The third day when he created the plants (and the garden) he sent Luzifer down to the garden to illuminate the creation. However, Luzifer realized that his footsteps were almost as big as those god left behind and wanted to carry on the creation after his own will. Thus, god had to slay him into hell (which was created by the fall of Luzifer) in order to maintain his power and the light was gone, too. The fourth day he had to create substitutes for the light the "light carrier" (Luzifer = lux + ferro) took with him.

To understand the "light" issue (which was created the first day) a little better, one should know that the first day was actually the day god (who represents the idea of time)decided to create out of the rubble left behind from the great battle between the gods/ghosts/daemons that destroyed their world. God was the mightiest being surviving (because he took not part). So, the first day he was gathering those beings who were mighty and made them his allies because else they might become a threat later on. The most powerful spirit was Luzifer (who represents the idea of light). God did not "create" the light the first day, he "arranged" himself with the light.

For text references to this explanation one has to seek out the Talmud Tractati reviewing the Genesis. I can't really tell which one it was for I do not know how the Jews label/organize their stuff and it has been a long time I read it. The story of the time before Day One can be found in the Babylonian Creation myth (Enuma Elish)and maybe the some of the other ones Jews used as a template for Genesis.

(I think no one here is interested in mythology?)

Anyway, regards.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Making shit up is so common -- it seems to happen automatically -- there should be some sort of fun acronym for it.

There are already a few terms for it, depending on what topics you're making stuff up about:

People (though not real people): fiction, mythology, theology
Science: science fiction, theology, political conservatism
History: Historical fiction, theology, political conservatism
Other planets (existing): science fiction, fantasy
Other planets (not existing): Catholicism until the 18th and 19th centuries
Alien creatures and cryptozooids: fantasy, mythology, political conservatism (Ann Coulter doesn't name them as such, but every creature she describes in any of her books, humanoid or no, is technically a cryptozooid), theology

Posted by: stogoe | December 2, 2009 4:26 PM

Now let's be fair...Nearly all of what creationists believe didn't come from their own imagination. Most of it was made up by people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Posted by: Yubal | December 2, 2009 4:32 PM

@ andrew #35

Humans were made the last day because of two reasons.

1) They were supposed to be something special that only reported to god (made after our own image, I LOVE that expression, "our"!)

2) God foresaw that if he would make them any point earlier they (humans) would claim one day they would have helped god with the creation, and therefore, god could not have done it without their contribution.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | December 2, 2009 4:35 PM

Thanks Yubal.

So the reason so much of the current versions of the Bible stories make little sense is that down through the ages, whatever seemed embarrassing to the various editors got left out.

What we have left is a Frankenstein's Monster all stitched together with lots of the original pieces missing and various substitutions from other bodies of work.

Funny how so much mental effort is expended by people trying to reconcile the pieces they find in the final compendium without ever looking for all the bits that got left on the cutting room floor.

Posted by: DuckPhup | December 2, 2009 4:36 PM

Here's the thing... the bibble blokes did not perceive the sun to be the source of the light of day... they saw it as a big light that came out during the light of day.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:37 PM

2) God foresaw that if he would make them any point earlier they (humans) would claim one day they would have helped god with the creation, and therefore, god could not have done it without their contribution.

oh, then that must mean god couldn't have done it without the other biofauna he created first.

gotchya.

oh, btw, don't the two books of genesis contradict themselves on order?

i wonder what that means...

still, consistent between the two books is that he showed us all the most important thing is slacking, by resting on day 7.

all hail Bob.

Posted by: gerryfromktown | December 2, 2009 4:38 PM

But he did say perhaps, thus showing a clear respect for the balance of probability.

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | December 2, 2009 4:39 PM

Obviously god was too bleedin' stupid and impotent to figure out a system that either didn't need light, or could use light that didn't need an obvious, worshippable source.

Posted by: Steve_C | December 2, 2009 4:39 PM

It really is like listening to a child try to explain something they don't understand or actually justify something like shaving the cat.

Adorable when a child does it, face to palm stupid when a supposed adult does it.

I really just want to say "grow the fuck up" every time.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 2, 2009 4:41 PM

Perhaps because God knew that some people would worship the sun, moon and stars, and He wanted to show us that they are not so important after all.

At least the moon and stars (note to creobots: our sun is indeed a star) actually exist. Anyway, I think it's far more sensible to worship the Earth.

He wants us to read His Word, the Bible, and to ask Him for wisdom; not to consult horoscopes, which people make up out of their own imagination.

The irony is visible from Saturn.

Posted by: Woody Tanaka | December 2, 2009 4:42 PM

I read that PDF. It just burns me that these vermin actually teach this crap to children. They should all be locked up for child abuse and their kids put in foster care. I am not kidding about that.

Posted by: Yubal | December 2, 2009 4:45 PM

Ichthyic,

I was saying that we are interpreting scrambled, incomplete texts out of of context.

*yawn back*

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:46 PM

It just burns me that these vermin actually teach this crap to children.

prepare to be further engraged:

http://kids4truth.com/

positively insidious.

Posted by: Electric Monk's Horse | December 2, 2009 4:48 PM

Maybe he just didn't read the instructions.

That would explain a lot.

Santa got God a Create The Universe Kit for a solstice present (after all, considering how little God seems to actually know, he can use all the educational toys he can get), and, since God has no parents, he ripped the thing open and started fucking with it without reading the directions. Best explanation I've ever heard for the US Congress.
But wait. How could God get a solstice present if the Sun and Earth hadn't been created yet? That'll take at least two more drinks to figure out. (God's other solstice present was a Mr. Beer Homebrewing Kit. His avid use of it supplies all the other explanations you need to understand the universe.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 2, 2009 4:49 PM

what about day 8?

There was this serpent wandering around Eden checking out the naked woman who was eyeing this apple tree....

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 4:55 PM

Answer: Perhaps ...

There's no point in reading any further.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2009 4:58 PM

There's no point in reading any further.

well, there is the comic relief aspect.

Posted by: Steve_C | December 2, 2009 5:00 PM

The funny thing is the "creator" had to take more than a moment to do it all. He can do anything and it takes him days? What a loser.

Posted by: SEF | December 2, 2009 5:01 PM

@ Brownian #36:

There are already a few terms for it, depending on what topics you're making stuff up about

There's a more important distinction than the subject matter - and that's whether or not the person has any respect for the truth at all.

There are the liars who do comprehend the difference between reality and fantasy and who are more likely to lie carefully and knowingly (and perhaps sparingly), recalling them so as not to trip themselves up. Cunning, manipulative, long-term-planning religious leaders are more likely to be in this category - they know full well they've made up their religion and have done it for very deliberate personal gain.

Then there are the liars who don't have any significant regard for the truth, who will just say any old rubbish which comes into their head at any given moment and, consequently, are continually contradicting themselves over their previous lies. A substantial number of religious believers seem to belong in this category - constantly trying to patch up their leaky theology without keeping track of the holes they then make in it elsewhere (even within the same sentence/breath sometimes!). They are still trying to advantage themselves but they are less conscious about it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 2, 2009 5:03 PM

well, there is the comic relief aspect.

Nothing could be funnier than "Answer: Perhaps ...".

Posted by: creatards | December 2, 2009 5:04 PM

One of my favorite questions from this creation idiot is a question he claims atheist can't answer and that is why is the earths temperature just right for life. First don't ask an atheist to answer the question...ask a scientist. Second life as we know it can't live outside of our planet without artifical assistance. If this is the work of God it makes as much sense as building a 20,000 sq ft mansion and only making a closet in it livable.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 5:07 PM

astrolatists

Siderolatrists if you want to keep it all-Greek. :-)

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 5:11 PM

certainly appears to be religious fanfic.

That is, fanfic that the Keepers of the Canon said didn't belong in there, as opposed to the fanfic that they liked enough to put in.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 5:14 PM

"God wants us to worship Him, not anything that He has created..."

Like Jesus....

Oh nononononooooo. "Begotten, not created" it says in the Nicene Creed.

Posted by: momentofsciencetx | December 2, 2009 5:16 PM

Perhaps because God knew that some people would worship the sun, moon and stars, and He wanted to show us that they are not so important after all.

Now wait...God has yet to have created "man" at this point and knew when he did some would worship the moon and stars. Then why the hell did he make them? man this creation garbage reminds me of voodoo economic from the 80's.

Posted by: Vanessa | December 2, 2009 5:19 PM

So, God waited to create the stars on the 4th day to thwart belief in astrology. But there is still widespread belief in astrology so it would seem God was unsuccessful. Isn't this just like that Star Trek where they blew up the android's brain by telling him that Harry Mudd was a liar and then said he was lying now?

And did I just jack this thread into dork dimensions?

Posted by: John Noble | December 2, 2009 5:23 PM

I tell you what, for a bunch of god-fearin' loonies their kids-level explanation of the birth of the universe and stellar nucleosynthesis isn't half bad!

If only they weren't so clearly mental.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 2, 2009 5:24 PM

so let me get this straight. god didn't create the sun, moon and stars because he didn't want anyone to worship them instead of him, but hadn't created who was going to worship him yet, because he still had to create............ oh, no... I've gone cross-eyed.

'Perhaps' God knew he was then going to give explicit directions on breeding striped livestock but say not a whit about anything that would matter to anyone who isn't a fertile crescent pastoralist and thus knew the rest of his followers would obsessively pore over scripture to find something of relevance to people not surrounded by tents and camels and sand and thus would glom on to the order of things written on his very first to-do list and try to extract meaning from it.

I kin haz theology degree now plz?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 5:26 PM

That is, fanfic that the Keepers of the Canon said didn't belong in there, as opposed to the fanfic that they liked enough to put in.

Yeah. The Book of Esther has been called a historical novel – the setting is sort of real (like: there really was a Persian empire), but the plot is fiction, and so are probably all of the characters.

Posted by: Sparky | December 2, 2009 5:30 PM

That explanation reminds me of the Cheez It commercials.

Makes about as much sense, too.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 5:33 PM

And did I just jack this thread into dork dimensions?

Come, come to the dork side of the farce.
– Émile Moacdieh

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 5:34 PM

Vanessa, that's not how I remember it. My recollection has the android thinking that Kirk is the perfect creator - who never lies - and then Kirk tells it "I'm lying".

tsk tsk.

the way this worked was that he said he "everything I say is a lie"; it was the liars paradox that circuited the android.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 5:36 PM

the way this worked was that he said he "everything I say is a lie"; it was the liars paradox that circuited the android.

Just good old Epimenides the Cretan saying "all Cretans are liars"? That's it?

Where I come from, we call it Star Dreck. I begin to understand why. ;-)

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | December 2, 2009 5:40 PM

aren't there a few more effective and obvious methods for a deity to employ to dissuade worship of the stars?

How about: dispense with creation of worshipers in the first place. Problem solved. Presumably omnipotence precludes the need for worship. Why are so many gods so needy and passive-aggressive/abusive about getting attention?

Oh, right. Because people made them up.

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: Naked Monkey Guy TM | December 2, 2009 5:45 PM

"One of my favorite questions from this creation idiot is a question he claims atheist can't answer and that is why is the earths temperature just right for life. First don't ask an atheist to answer the question...ask a scientist."

But no need to ask a scientist, just keep reading: "After all, God was there, so He knows what happened, and He has told us." This section was clearly written merely to provide comic relief for atheists!

And if their god was so concerned with sun worship maybe he shouldn't have let his followers borrow so heavily from ancient Egyptian creation myths. Many aspects of both Genesis stories are just sanitized versions of Egyptian myths (without the fun stuff: masturbation, semen, etc...)

Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2009 5:49 PM

The Book of Esther has been called a historical novel – the setting is sort of real (like: there really was a Persian empire), but the plot is fiction, and so are probably all of the characters.

Daniel is a pretty classic case too. Episodic stories about a legendary wizard of old, strung together into a chain narrative with added apocalyptic material and cryptic references to the author/redactor's own time.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 2, 2009 5:56 PM

Don't you know teh intertubz were designed to resolve Star Trek debates?

Oh. I thought it was for porn.

(SFW - mostly)

Posted by: raven | December 2, 2009 6:00 PM

The book of Daniel is one of the lamer books.

Daniel prophecizes after the fact a lot. It works OK.

While it is set in 600 BCE, it was written ca. 200 BCE.

The really old predictions aren't too good because Daniel didn't have a reliable history book. They get better towards 200 BCE.

One can tell when the book was written. Every prediction beyond that point just fails. One would think he was an economist or something.

Fundies don't worship the sun. Or god or jesus. They worship a tired old anthology of mythology called the bible.

Posted by: Steven Alleyn | December 2, 2009 6:07 PM

@#111 His point is that no matter how far you stretch the metaphor, the story doesn't fit the data. Don't be a troll.

Posted by: PixelFish | December 2, 2009 6:10 PM

The plants getting made on day 3 only makes the loosest of sense in the literal creationism if you think that God is putting them out like some groundskeeper, knowing full well that they only have one literal day before they get sunlight and have a sun and moon to tweak their circadian rhythms. If you are a Day Ager, that means you have to think the plants survived thousands of years without a day-night cycle.

Genesis is really fuxored.

Posted by: Warren | December 2, 2009 6:13 PM

@7:

[T]here's a north star (but not a south one, since only heathens live in that hemisphere).

Yeah, all the heathen have in the southern hemisphere is the Southern Cross.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 6:18 PM

AFAIK, the southern cross doesn't work nearly as well as the north star. clearly the southern sky wasn't nearly as intelligently designed as the northern sky :-p

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 2, 2009 6:24 PM

No matter how hard I try, I'm sorry, I just can't think like a creationist. That's really stupid.

You seem to think of Genesis only like a Creationist. That's really stupid.

What would be the point of thinking about it any other way? What's the message of Genesis then?

"God created everything in the universe, but in an order different than this and on a time scale different than this; ponder the mystery!" What's the theological benefit of getting things wrong?

The whole 'bible is metaphorical, only most of the metaphors aren't really metaphors but simply wrong facts and you better believe the non-metaphors' thing is even dumber than taking the bible literally. It's like the part in the old Astro Boy cartoon of the 80s where Astro deliberately makes a mistake in the retelling of the episode to Geronimo the computer at the end "in order to play a game with you" only the price of getting it wrong is eternal damnation.

Posted by: gr8hands | December 2, 2009 6:26 PM

The authors of the bible clearly don't understand stars very well. They have peculiar ideas about their attributes:

Judges 5:20

They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

Job 3:9

Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day:

Job 36:7

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Daniel 8:10

And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

Obadiah 1:4

Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.

Mark 13:25

And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

Posted by: SakanaUshi | December 2, 2009 6:29 PM

See, the biggest problem the creationists have is that their explanation for adults isn't any more interesting or plausible than their propaganda for kids. In fact, I'd rather they use the kids stuff in their precious debates and stuff, cuz then we'd have amusing cartoons mixed in with the lunacy.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 2, 2009 6:38 PM

When a Christian who doesn't think about the bible like a creationist can produce the instructions they were given by their god to do so then perhaps that argument can be considered. Until that happens, though, they've got no more claim to correctness than the creationists do.

Obviously, the reasons for doing so are to fit in with the understanding of the world provided by science and history - but only to the point where that science and history is that which doesn't conflict with anything they consider really important - well, at this point in time.

Funny how the proportion of the bible which is 'poetic metaphor', 'apocalyptic literature' and other non-fiction (or part-fiction) genres seems to increase proportionally with changing knowledge of science and history and human social evolution, isn't it?

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 6:42 PM

Revenge.... is mine !!

Siderolatrists if you want to keep it all-Greek

You fail Greek forever !!

Αστρολατρεία

vs

L. sidereus "starry, astral," from sidus (gen. sideris) "star, constellation,"

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 2, 2009 6:47 PM

He wants us to read His Word, the Bible, and to ask Him for wisdom; not to consult horoscopes, which people make up out of their own imagination.

OUCH OUCH OUCH, I shot water through my nose with that final comment. It is literally painful to see how unaware these people are. Horoscopes are imaginary, but the Bible is real.!?!?

So let's get this straight:

Horoscopes: Imaginary
Fairies: Imaginary
Ra, Odin, etc.: Imaginary
God of the Bible: REAL?!?!?!?

The stupid, it burns...

Posted by: Keith | December 2, 2009 6:56 PM

Gen. 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Here's an interesting problem, the moon is up in the day half the time, and then when it's a new moon it puts off hardly any light. So the bible just plain gets it wrong. If god wanted the moon to rule the night, couldn't he have made it so it was always in the night sky and always lit up?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2009 6:58 PM

that's it, I don't like you anymore.

:-(

But... but... I had to do it. There's such a thing as duty, you see (as my sisters can attest at length). I had to get that into print tube at last.

Erm... "What does God want with a starship?" That's good. That's something I like.

One can tell when the book was written. Every prediction beyond that point just fails. One would think he was an economist or something.

ROTFL!

god clearly wanted women to engage in lesbian sex with each other -- why else would he make the clitoris appear on the outside of the vagina, easily accesible by another woman, rather than inside the uterus?

Inside the what now? :-S

god clearly wants humans to masturbate -- why else would we have that capability? I mean, we can't tickle ourselves.

I sometimes manage to do it accidentally.

Having a beer with God would make even me uncomfortable. [...]

Brownian for NOM.

The major problem with this statement is that I'm pretty sure the average human circadian cycle is 25 hours and must be reset every night.

And not all of us need the same amount of sleep, and while some acquire a 4-h cycle when kept in a sleep laboratory (away from all indications of time), others go all the way to a 50-h cycle (and then sleep for 16 h without interruption).

I think I'm one of the 50-h people. :-(

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 2, 2009 7:01 PM

I know, I know: nobody takes Moby Dick literally, so there's a problem that doesn't apply.

Well, there are worthwhile things you can take from Moby-Dick (e.g. don't fuck with whales), just like there are worthwhile things you can take from the bible - the main difference is that people forget that the latter is just as much a product of the human mind (no deities required) as the former.

It's the whole 'well, the bible was right about so-and-so; therefore, the god it mentions must exist' is the part that bothers me. Humans have worked some shit out over the thousands of years we've been capable of doing so; that some of it wound up in a book that was otherwise complete fiction is kind of inevitable - and adds nothing to the argument for the existence of any gods.

Posted by: Steven Alleyn | December 2, 2009 7:04 PM

LOL @ #136 - I would think the Moby Dick lesson about whale fucking is self-evident.

Posted by: Geoffrey | December 2, 2009 7:07 PM

Well, there are worthwhile things you can take from Moby-Dick (e.g. don't fuck with whales)

You'll drown in seamen.

Sorry. Had to be said.

Posted by: SteveM | December 2, 2009 7:08 PM

Vanessa, that's not how I remember it. My recollection has the android thinking that Kirk is the perfect creator - who never lies - and then Kirk tells it "I'm lying".

I'm not saying my recollection is correct. However, I felt 2 neurons fire when I read your post which drudged up whatever my memory retained. I thought that was a great episode.

You are thinking of the episode "The Changeling" with the robot probe Nomad. Nomad thinks Kirk is "the creator" and since it considers itself to be perfect, the creator must also be perfect. Nomad's "mission" is to destroy imperfection, so in order to defeat Nomad, Kirk convinces Nomad that it made a mistake in thinking Kirk was its creator, therefore it is imperfect and must be destroyed. While Nomad is trying to resolve the dilemma, Spock says one of the best lines in the series, [to Kirk]"Your logic was impeccable, we are in grave danger."

Posted by: plumberbob | December 2, 2009 7:17 PM

Let's try this:

Richard Elliot Friedman
# Who Wrote the Bible? (Harper San Francisco) (1987) ISBN 0-06-063035-3

He takes Genesis as it is written in Hebrew, using Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis, modified by his own studies, and gives us his answer. Using History, Politics, Economics, Clan Rivalry, and NO THEOLOGY, he puts together at least a much more plausible story than we've had here so far. It's a short paperback; it's very easy reading; it makes sense. Even if it's not absolutely historically accurate, it at least makes much more sense than we'd ever get from the creationists.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 7:17 PM

Jjjjjust to be clear: I'm talking about tickling myself. :-]

*immature giggle*

just for that, you're forgiven for the blasphemy upthread

Posted by: H.H. | December 2, 2009 7:19 PM

CJO wrote:

Well, jeez. It's literature, isn't it? Do you say "Moby Dick is metaphorical, only most of the metaphors aren't really metaphors but simply wrong facts."? What would the "wrong facts" be?

But Moby Dick was written to be literature. Genesis wasn't. It was written before such categories existed.

I know, I know: nobody takes Moby Dick literally, so there's a problem that doesn't apply.

That's a big part of it, certainly. Also, Melville never intended his audience to take his tale literally. What were the intentions of the authors of Genesis? What about the rest of the Old Testament? Did Yahweh have a covenant with the Jewish people or not? What were the authors intending to convey?

But really, the unremitting hostility to a certain ancient literary tradition, just because some addled fuckwits don't understand it gets to me. Though maybe it's the 'you better believe' part that really engenders hostility; I hope it's not that you really believe an effort to understand a mythical tradition on something like its own, ancient, terms is actually dumber than taking the bible literally.

Of course not. But taking the bible as a metaphorical guide to truth is just as bad as considering it a literal guide to truth. It's not a guide to any type of truth. It's tribal fiction, and should be treated as such.

Posted by: SEF | December 2, 2009 7:25 PM

@ Keith #132:

If god wanted the moon to rule the night, couldn't he have made it so it was always in the night sky and always lit up?

Ah, well, { puts on creationist "thinking" cap } he did make it that way but then Lucifer/Satan messed with the nice neat clockwork, so that the moon was no longer in synch (and precisely the right distance away all the time to match the sun exactly) and the days were a different length and ...

{ at which point you're not allowed to notice that the creationist has contradicted their previous assertion of god being the more powerful being and that he was right in declaring all creation to be good despite the Satan issue and ... etc etc }

Posted by: jolly | December 2, 2009 7:32 PM

Oh, my dog! I just realized that my feet fit exactly the shoes under my bed. I'm sure no atheist could explain that!

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 2, 2009 7:34 PM

...Though maybe it's the 'you better believe' part that really engenders hostility...

I kinda roll my eyes when I hear the 'may contain metaphorical wisdom' claim, myself... and I do have my reasons... And I do think--speaking of--it's completely fair to point out that you don't have to be a literalist about your favourite holy book to be one incredibly tedious, shortsighted schmuck about it all the same.

I mean, I know and have read lots of religious types--Jewish, Moslem and Christian, mostly--who'll go on at absurd lengths about all the great wisdom that's to be found in their respective holy books--even when they are quite happy to work with various 'metaphorical' (and see also 'amusingly contrived') interpretations of what these works actually tell us...

Several things strike me about such extravagant, effectively self-congratulatory accolades:

1) If you really need to work that hard to 'find' wisdom in something, it seems rather difficult to argue this is really anything intrinsic to the text in the first place. Fuck... get creative enough about it, I could probably find 'great wisdom' in pretty much any disposable commercial genre fiction. Like, I dunno... Harlequin Romances... or say 'Letters to Penthouse'...

('And however shall I pay for this pizza, said the sultry vixen... And here we see a subtle, deep, thoughtful meditation on one of the questions of our age: what are such Earthly pleasures really worth...')

2) There's something incredibly parochial, short-sighted, and arrogant about the very attitude. Yeah... we got the wisdom right here, and it's ours, see... and watch how good we are at seeing it here and here only (and also, incidentally, frequently to be followed by: 'and therefore: God')... not that we actually look as hard for this alleged 'wisdom' anywhere else...

(See also such claims as 'ye cannot write a verse like it'... as if anyone would even fucking want to that badly, honestly...)

3) When it's actually saying something really kind of disgusting (yes, the deity is a bloodthirsty, vicious, arbitrary tyrant, but obeying him anyway is a virtue, see), they just paper over that, if it's inconvenient... and you still get meaningless, insulting bumpf about this 'great wisdom', when really, a more indpendent reviewer would be just as happy to call any other book that talked stupid shit like that 'great bollocks'...

(Besides which: given those rather sick messages, you get to thinking: wouldn't it be more appropriate to point out, before handing it to anyone, whether or not you go on about this alleged 'wisdom': 'Warning, almost certainly also contains monumental stupidity')

... the whole point being: these books just get way more fucking respect in culture in general than they've ever earned by virtue of their actual content. Quite seriously, it's my opinion your average independent reviewer who hasn't been brought up in the culture that reveres them, and didn't even know there was a culture that reveres 'em enough that they might give said critic grief for calling 'em as s/he sees 'em, well, I don't think that critic would be that much impressed. And indeed, hearing the accolades of the faithful later, might well wonder if they were reading some other book altogether.

Now as (heavily mythologized) history, and as interesting and frequently valuable information on the concerns of the cultures that created them in the first place (and on those which have edited/maintained them since), sure, there's something there all right. But again, that's not so much an accolade. Nor is it in any way unique. Insofar as you can say essentially the same thing about many far less revered texts coming from remote cultures and eras.

Posted by: SteveM | December 2, 2009 7:34 PM

Well, the moon certainly does "rule the night sky", just not every night. When it is in the sky during the day it is clearly overruled by the sun, and clearly the sun does not rule the night sky (by definition).

Posted by: SteveM | December 2, 2009 7:38 PM

Also note that the Bible implies the Sun is not a star but something unique.

And that the Moon emits its own light instead of reflecting the Sun's.

Posted by: Paul | December 2, 2009 7:41 PM

I'd be very interested in hearing your take, CJO.

I suspect at the very least the elites did not believe what they were writing, but much like the idea in Plato's Republic they were fabricating a religion to keep the masses content. Or perhaps just recording a religious tradition that had been passed down for some time, but I think that less true based on redactions...deliberately limiting the canon would, in effect, redefine any existing religion/collection of beliefs. But you are much more well-read on the subject, I just mull it over from time to time from the perspective of an ex-Christian that did some Bible reading.

Posted by: plumberbob | December 2, 2009 7:49 PM

Hay!,

This book is just literature, written by men with a political axe to grind. We don't learn much hydraulics or fluid dynamics of raft design from Huckleberry Finn. See my reference in #144, and let's dissect it from there. The creos know nothing of the structure of this.

Posted by: Randomfactor | December 2, 2009 7:50 PM

A Jewish friend of mine says that they had all these disparate tales of what people did in the olden days, put them all together with little regard to the redundancy (almost every story is told twice in the Old Testament) and kept them the way you keep letters from ancestors.

For the most part, you don't expect to have to sacrifice your son or kill all those which pisseth against the wall, it was just ethnic historic significance. These are just stories of what somebody said somebody did.

Later, in captivity in Babylonia, they used the tales to weave a religion to keep the populace unified under domination.

And then of course the Christians came along. My personal opinion is that when Saul of Tarsus got stoned off his ass, they forfeited claim to the Old Testament. They ignore so much of it anyway...

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 2, 2009 8:01 PM

And then of course the Christians came along. My personal opinion is that when Saul of Tarsus got stoned off his ass, they forfeited claim to the Old Testament. They ignore so much of it anyway...

I think attempting to retain the OT is the biggest mistakes the Christians made - since, as it is almost completely in opposition (philosophically) to what Jesus had to say, it really paints the god character as being startlingly inconsistent and prone to changing his mind on big issues.

Which leads to the obvious question: how can an omniscient being 'change its mind'? By definition it already knows what's going to happen!

Really, if they'd tossed all the old crap aside as being wrong (which in so many ways they did anyway) we'd have a lot fewer holes to point out in the logic. Of course, it didn't stop a few schismatic groups from doing their darndest, but we all know what the mainstream church thought of that kind of behaviour...

Posted by: llewelly | December 2, 2009 8:10 PM

Perhaps because God knew that some people would worship the sun, moon and stars, and He wanted to show us that they are not so important after all.

Hear that, George Carlin fans? Your favorite comedian is in

HELL!

Posted by: Crux Australis | December 2, 2009 8:13 PM

I find it fascinating how, on the first page of that "information" booklet, they state facts about the Sun -- temp, etc -- and on the second page, go on to say that scientists "don't know".

Posted by: Susannah | December 2, 2009 8:24 PM

On Page 2 of that link:

"The length of each day and night is also just right for the amount of sleep we need."

I knew it! We were never supposed to invent electric lights. Or candles, either, for that matter. Just see where they've got us!

(Of course, one wonders about the "just right" amount of night in the summer up north. Where I lived for years, on the 52nd parallel, summer nights averaged around 4 hours. Winter nights were 16. Maybe God never intended us to live beyond the middle latitudes. Because then we might start worshipping firewood.)

Posted by: Crux Australis | December 2, 2009 8:32 PM

"The huge planet, Jupiter, with its strong gravity,
is in just the right position to pull many comets and meteors away from crashing into Earth and killing us all."

Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | December 2, 2009 8:35 PM

Of course, it didn't stop a few schismatic groups from doing their darndest, but we all know what the mainstream church thought of that kind of behaviour...

I wonder if the Old Testament is, by this point in history, a kind of literary "auto-format." It's been around so long, that even new branches of Christianity incorporate it (no matter how much hand-waving they do about it) because, hey, it's always been there, and it's assumed to be code relevant to the success of the overall operating system.

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 8:39 PM

A fallacious laundry list of god's actions in the creation of the universe simply isn't generalizable, and tells us nothing about the human condition. I don't consider most of the myths of the bible to be good literature at all, and that includes Genesis.

You're discussing the first 24 verses of the story, up to the creation of Man, like it's the whole story. That's really stupid. Creation of the Universe is only a pretext to the emergence of Man as a being qualitatively different from other animals. Man is qualitatively different because He has the Law (Torah, Knowledge of Good and Evil).

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 2, 2009 8:44 PM

I don't understand the fascination with gathering around the mentally retarded kids on the playground to celebrate how much smarter we are...

Well, speaking of metaphors, that's really an incredibly bad one.

I mean, the mentally retarded kids on the playground are typically a frightened, persecuted minority, constantly told by the society they inhabit they are unworthy, subnormal, incapable, so on. They are the furthest thing from arrogant. Humiliation is their daily lot...

... whereas religious culture is frequently the very epitome of arrogance--indeed, so utterly, profoundly arrogant, it believes it can even portray its arrogance as humility and get away with it. Convinced, frequently, it has the right way, the better way, the only way... But ah, we are all but humble conduits for this divine wisdom we only insist the rest of you must heed and respect as worth hearing, that's all...

... and generally, besides which, they are also both spectacularly and stubbornly wrong. And then consider on the other hand that many of those classified as 'retarded' actually, insofar as they know they've got issues, at least try to learn, and sometimes will even succeed by dint of effort... Both points that recommend them as rather superior to certain religious cultures I can think of...

(/Shorter: 'The mentally retarded on the playground' really don't need more humiliation. The religious--especially those trumpeting the significance of their 'holy books' and demanding to be heard as moral arbiters in the press and beyond--probably will never quite get as much as they both deserve and clearly need, no matter how hard we try.)

Posted by: tim Rowledge | December 2, 2009 8:53 PM

How about stories of tokoloshes?

Those would be fanfic about some sort of SteamPunky combination of galoshes and Tokomak reactors, right? Sort of 7 parsec boots perhaps?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 8:59 PM

I mean, the mentally retarded kids on the playground are typically a frightened, persecuted minority, constantly told by the society they inhabit they are unworthy, subnormal, incapable, so on.

I don't know what frightening world you inhabit, but in my neck of the woods, most people treat mentally retarded kids compassionately. Some kids don't taunt them on the playground, but even most kids on the playground find this taunting behavior repulsive, not least because they're taught that it's repulsive in Sunday School.

But you know all that.

... whereas religious culture is frequently the very epitome of arrogance--indeed, so utterly, profoundly arrogant, ...

You describe culture generally here, but you seem oblivious to the arrogance of your own crowd.

No, I'm not suggesting that the guys at creation.com are a persecuted minority or that they're any nicer to the mentally challenged than you are, except that they're presumably nicer to each other than you are to them. I just don't see the point of "debunking" their stupidity over and over again. They don't care, and the debunking doesn't persuade anyone here either. It's just a lot of dull preaching to the choir.

Posted by: Miles Tougeaux | December 2, 2009 9:14 PM

A supply chain problem: the Sun, moon and stars got held up in customs.

Material shipments were hosed up all week. Thats why fauna started with whales and game birds on Day 5. Whats with that?

Posted by: plumberbob | December 2, 2009 9:18 PM

Hay, Everybody!

It is not science. We all agree on that. It's politics! The creationists are trying to turn it into science called ID. They'd love it if we would do that work for them.

Friedman has shown a really political fight going on between the Moses family priests, the Aaron family priests and two competing royal families.

There were no astronomers or engineers or scientists there, so let's stop playing with sun, moon, and stars. Let's get back to what was important to each group: Who has a job, Who doesn't have a job, Who is in political power, for how long, and with what other group's approval.

Posted by: nejishiki | December 2, 2009 9:24 PM

@Martin B

Paul explicitly interprets Genesis as allegory in his letter to the Galatians.

Chapter and verse, please? I found one use of 'allegory' in chapter 4:22-26, but not referring to the creation.

Posted by: Jessa | December 2, 2009 9:33 PM

Re: #192 and #195.

Aww. Dennis has learned how to get around the spam filter. So cute!

Buh bye!

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 2, 2009 9:35 PM

Ah yes... and speaking of arrogance. Sure the folk you know wouldn't treat the disabled as their lessers... 'cos they learned not to in Sunday School...

Dunno what fantasy world you live in, but so far as I've noticed religious instruction doesn't seem so much to make people act one bit better to one another...

Rather, it teaches 'em that even tho' they're still being assholes, they're still mysteriously better... But that they must never precisely put it that way.

(As to the alleged arrogance of those calling 'em on their bullshit, sure, that's a complicated story... But I do tend to find it generally less galling... Insofar as they're at least occasionally right.)

Posted by: IaMoL | December 2, 2009 9:38 PM

Uh oh David Mabus has freaked out again.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 9:44 PM

Chapter and verse, please? I found one use of 'allegory' in chapter 4:22-26, but not referring to the creation.

I didn't say that he interprets the Creation as allegory. I said he interprets Genesis as allegory. Genesis has more than three chapters. Paul discusses a story from Genesis involving Abraham's daughters as allegory in Galatians. The point is that ancient authors already interpret the stories in this book as allegory. The idea of an allegorical story is well established at least two thousand years ago, and the practice is already common then. Jesus tells allegorical stories continually.

Posted by: amphiox | December 2, 2009 9:46 PM

"Man is qualitatively different because He has the Law (Torah, Knowledge of Good and Evil)."

And yet he was not made with such knowledge, and the act of obtaining that knowledge was forbidden from him, the transgression for which he was punished with all the ills of mortality.

So what, then, does the allegory imply?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 10:01 PM

I know of no one from ANY of the local Seminaries/Schools of Divinity here that would accept Martin's claims as anything but sophistry.

And how may local seminarians do you know? Suppose I can convince a respected, published, academic theologian to come here and tell you that this interpretation of the Eden story is reasonable and discussed seriously among some of his academic fraternity, someone like Bart Ehrman or Gordon Kaufman. What's it worth to you? I'd like you to meet me in Athens, Georgia, so I can have you photographed kissing my ass and link the picture here. You travel at your expense. How about that?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 2, 2009 10:04 PM

...i just don't know why they can't have science and God.

Because the god posited by most religions has been demonstrated by science to be, if not completely impossible, highly unlikely.

Im sure that some clever person could figure out a way to make the two work together and compliment each other.

People have. It's called deism. But it only works because it renders the being involved completely irrelevant to our existence beyond acknowledging its responsibility.

But that doesn't seem to be enough for the theists; they insist that there something else out there. I have no idea why - I can't even comprehend the state of mind where such a concept is possible based on the world we observe.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | December 2, 2009 10:10 PM

Martin Brock is now just making shit up. I know of no one from ANY of the local Seminaries/Schools of Divinity here that would accept Martin's claims as anything but sophistry.

The idea of Bible as allegory is relatively popular in more liberal theological circles, from what I know at least. I find it more of a projection of what one wants upon the Bible and its creators to make ridiculous and unsavory parts of the Bible more palatable to modern tastes.

For the most part, the Bible is a semi-idealized and fictionalized history of the Jewish people. There really has been nothing beyond mere assertion on Brock's part as to why I should doubt this too much. On another thread, Brock argued that since the story is ridiculous literally, it is unlikely that the Hebrew writers believed it literally. That would either mean that he thinks: a. People don't believe ridiculous things (obviously false, and not what he means), or b. the Hebrew writers themselves wrote it or knew it was allegory somehow. In the thread, I argued that since the progenitors of the passage were very probably separated by a large temporal distance (due to the similarity of creation myths in the ancient Near East, implying a link somewhere between all of the stories), whether or not the progenitors of the myths thought it was allegory, the Hebrew writers themselves probably interpreted it literally (in the absence of a competing narrative based in verifiable reality).

I thought it tried credulity to believe that the information that the passage was meant to be interpreted allegorically was transmitted orally by all of the stories, so I doubted that there was such unison in opinions among the priests in the ancient Levant on the literal truth of the passages. Probably they argued about it, much like we do today. I would think that they leaned toward the explanation that it was literal more than not based on the above evidence, but I could be wrong of course.

Posted by: Phrogge | December 2, 2009 10:11 PM

Ah, but man's read must exceed his grasp, else what's a metaphor?

Posted by: IaMoL | December 2, 2009 10:12 PM

And how may local seminarians do you know?

Since I was a Seminarian and have many ties to Perkins and Bridwell - a lot, asswipe. And you can kiss my ass fuckwit - you're full of shit and you know it. Your view is in the most minor of minorities among conventional Protestant theology and you know it.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 10:15 PM

Your view is in the most minor of minorities among conventional Protestant theology and you know it.

So? Do I anywhere claim to describe conventional Protestant theology? Conventional Protestant theology doesn't interest me personally.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 10:18 PM

I think attempting to retain the OT is the biggest mistakes the Christians made - since, as it is almost completely in opposition (philosophically) to what Jesus had to say, it really paints the god character as being startlingly inconsistent and prone to changing his mind on big issues.

have you read Ehrmann's Lost Christianities? It's generally pretty fascinating, but he also specifically addresses this issue. There were Christians who didn't accept the OT god as the God of Jesus, but rather a lesser, more vindictive deity. They included only Paul's letters and the Gospel of Luke in their scriptures. Ehrmann also notes that if that were the prevailing sect of Christianity, it is well possible that Christianity would have died out early, because it didn't have a respectable age to it w/o the OT (compare this to today, where old superstitious groups are "revered religions", and new superstitious groups are "dangerous cults")

Posted by: plumberbob | December 2, 2009 10:24 PM

@ Martin Brock #211,

Isn't this the same as the myth of Prometheus? Take a look at Cyanomaster at 209 above you. These are universal stories that are common in the mythology of all cultures. Hebrew tribes were no exception.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 10:25 PM

"Man is qualitatively different because He has the Law (Torah, Knowledge of Good and Evil)."

And yet he was not made with such knowledge, and the act of obtaining that knowledge was forbidden from him, the transgression for which he was punished with all the ills of mortality.

So what, then, does the allegory imply?

oh c'mon guys; for once, MB is not trolling (well, not completely anyway; he's still creating a strawman about how PZ and others see the bible). the story is exactly the same as the story of Prometheus: steal something from the gods to give to humans, so that the humans become independent of the whims of the gods, get punished for it. the only difference is that while Prometheus was a hero, Eve is treated like the enemy.

Posted by: Commissar Claw | December 2, 2009 10:35 PM

I am glad that Martin Brock happened along to tell us all what the one correct interpretation of the bible is. Clearly every other person who attempted, and failed, to correctly interpret the bible was just using the idea of Yahweh as a sock puppet. But not Martin, he has the correct interpretation.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 10:39 PM

The idea of Bible as allegory is relatively popular in more liberal theological circles, from what I know at least.

But Paul is reading Genesis as allegory two thousand years ago. Did he walk in liberal theological circles?

I find it more of a projection of what one wants upon the Bible and its creators to make ridiculous and unsavory parts of the Bible more palatable to modern tastes.

I read the ridiculous and unsavory parts as ridiculous and unsavory myself, but I read the first few chapters of Genesis as an allegory, because it seems clearly to be an allegory and possibly an allegorical commentary on what follows. Knowledge just doesn't grow on trees. Literate men didn't figure this out during the Enlightenment.

For the most part, the Bible is a semi-idealized and fictionalized history of the Jewish people.

Of course. We all agree on this point.

There really has been nothing beyond mere assertion on Brock's part as to why I should doubt this too much.

There hasn't even been mere assertion on Brock's part. I never deny that the Bible is a semi-idealized and fictionalized history of the Jewish people. That many of the stories are not literally true, and aren't even intended as such, is precisely my point.

On another thread, Brock argued that since the story is ridiculous literally, it is unlikely that the Hebrew writers believed it literally.

Unless the originator of the story believed himself literally a witness to the events described or somehow miraculously imbued with the knowledge, he knew he was inventing a story. We know that people invented stories at this time. Supposing that the story is invented hardly seems incredible.

... the Hebrew writers themselves probably interpreted it literally (in the absence of a competing narrative based in verifiable reality).

You have no evidence of this, but you say "probably" here. In what sense is your theory "probable"?

Even if the Eden story in its final form incorporates earlier Creation mythology, you still have no evidence that the author of its final form did not intend to construct an allegory, and we know that people constructed allegories millenia ago, and we know that these stories have been read allegorically for millenia. Biblical texts themselves attest to this fact.

Probably they argued about it, much like we do today.

That's more certain than probable. We have records of the arguments.

I would think that they leaned toward the explanation that it was literal more than not based on the above evidence, but I could be wrong of course.

Incredibly, many people lean toward literal interpretations today, so I suppose many people always have, but we aren't taking a poll here. I'm not anyway.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 10:46 PM

Isn't this the same as the myth of Prometheus? Take a look at Cyanomaster at 209 above you. These are universal stories that are common in the mythology of all cultures. Hebrew tribes were no exception.

I think so. I like the analogy with Prometheus.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 10:55 PM

Warning that death follows from eating the fruit looks like a pretty strong forbidding to me.

It's a warning, as you say it is. Of course, literal death does not follow eating the fruit in the story, and the author(s) clearly understood this.

So in this particular hallucination allegory of yours, the snake represents Moses?

That's your interpretation. I'm not saying I don't like it.

Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | December 2, 2009 10:59 PM

I know the allegorical interpretation from when I was a believer. Even then it did not convinced me.

Beside its obvious "a posteriori" aspect, it does not seem compatible with the 2 Genesis stories.

I find more probable and simple that it was just cobbled-up from other myths in order to satisfy different "sides". A bit like it happened at the Council where it was decided what was gonna be the New Testament. That's compatible with the 2 Genesis stories: one for one side, the other for the other side :-)

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 2, 2009 11:00 PM

Moby Dick is full of facts. Too many facts. And I love facts. And whales. But how many of us are that much into whaling?

I prefer Bartleby. Excellent pithy story. Short. I didn't have to become an expert in harpoon science and the uses of whale oil to finish it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 2, 2009 11:06 PM

Of course, literal death does not follow eating the fruit in the story, and the author(s) clearly understood this.

Did they understand this as God having lied to Adam in the first place, or as God changing his mind?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 11:11 PM

That sounds like Marcion (and, as I recall, it wasn't even the entire Gospel of Luke).

yup. now that you mention the name, I remember it, too :-)

I don't know if they left any parts out, though; well, other than the obvious one, i.e. the sweating blood and water. And I don't even know if that one was already in Luke at that time.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 2, 2009 11:14 PM

So does anyone else think that as long as you don't take it as anything near literal truth, the book of Exodus is a seriously cool story? As long as you're approaching it as you would any work of fiction I think it can be pretty enjoyable. ;-)

well, it is an interesting story, but only after some heavy editing. No one cares about all the carpentry instructions, for example :-p

Posted by: nejishiki | December 2, 2009 11:17 PM

The story of the deadly apple was always explained to me as meaning that Adam would be mortal, and subject to death after eating it. This was the Mormon interpretation. It was also said that Adam's Fall was a good thing. Interestingly, the Mormon sunday school teachers seemed to believe that, for instance, the sacrifice of Isaac was literally true - an historical account - and also an allegory that symbolizes the sacrifice by god of his only begotten son. The implication is that God writes his allegories not on paper, but in human lives, adjusting the course of human actions so that real events come to symbolize something else.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 2, 2009 11:39 PM

...right along with a literal declaration of accomplishing miracles involving the ability to walk on water, multiply food, raise the dead, cause fig trees to immediately shrivel and die, etc. & oh yeah, shooting off straight up in the sky - heavenward.

Since you're a seminarian, you know that the earliest gospels don't have most of this stuff, that Mark is remarkably prosaic and has few miracles, that some of its "miracles" (like the withering fig tree) aren't clearly miraculous at all and that Jesus explicitly states that he doesn't perform miracles. He even says it immediately after one of the common "miracles" (the multiplication of loaves and fishes, which isn't obviously miraculous).

The fig tree doesn't immediately shrivel and die. It's just living one day and then found dead the next. The withering isn't witnessed by anyone.

Mark does have the walking on water, and the later gospels describe incredible miracles, but even these miracles are laughably impotent compared with Moses' feats, and Moses isn't even a man-God.

SO Reconcile me this: how are some supernatural events qualified as allegorical for credibility yet others cannot be dismissed as non-literal, ...

You read the stories in their literary and historical context, and you reach your own conclusions. If you want some definitive authority to tell you the "correct" answer to every question, I can't help you there. I'm sure you won't accept me.

... or If Jesus' miracles can be rationalized as so much allegory/PR hype, then how does any of it have any validity beyond folklore?

We know that many of the stories in the gospels are allegories (parables), because the gospels explicitly describe them so. I guess you aren't discussing those.

I suppose a story can be an allegory even if its author doesn't explicitly tell me that it's an allegory, but that's just me. I also suppose that people invent stories for many other reasons and that some invented stories are not allegorical. I don't have an infallible litmus test to help you make this distinction. You just have to accept history and literature with all of its ambiguities. Sorry if you aren't comfortable with that.

Posted by: Steven Alleyn | December 2, 2009 11:52 PM

Interestingly, Spinoza's thologico-political treatise and Hume's essay on miracles took care of the arguments about miracles fairly effectively some 300ish years ago, so if you wanna talk about how some miracles "aren't that miraculous," I suggest picking them up (just read the chapter on miracles in TPT if you wanna save yourself time - the chapter and the essay are fairly short). As for the bit about Genesis... I think that's been pretty much covered, so far.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | December 3, 2009 12:03 AM

Martin Brock:

Jesus tells allegorical stories continually.

So, essentially, there's no way to tell when he's speaking in allegory or being literal? Is that really what you're saying?

And how do you tell the difference? Is it allegorical when it contradicts reality, and literal otherwise?

Posted by: nejishiki | December 3, 2009 12:27 AM

@ #243
Well, yes, I guess so. I offered that as a comment on the breadth of interpretation that actually exists. I'm sure there is a way to argue the opposite, but neither interest me personally.
What of the other part of my post? Do you think it is possible to consider a biblical story both literally true and allegorical?

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | December 3, 2009 1:51 AM

Jadehawk, OM,

the only difference is that while Prometheus was a hero, Eve is treated like the enemy.

Biblical allegory: stoking community fear of women since the 3rd century B.C.E.

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: madbull | December 3, 2009 1:55 AM

Its not funny.
Would have been hilarious if they weren't teaching it to kids. Kids believe anything and it sticks on. I had a fkked up teenage believing in Elephant Gods so I just cant laugh this off.
Shouldn't law prohibit teaching kids stuff without evidence

Posted by: Bill | December 3, 2009 3:35 AM

@Madbull, I agree entirely. The debate about allegory and metaphor is highly entertaining (exactly on what basis do you believe in God/Jesus Christ, Mr Blake?), but the real problem here is that this is inane, stupid propaganda aimed at children that will limit their human development, leaving them stunted emotionally and eliminate their ability to truly comprehend the magnificence of their lives and the world around them. This is child abuse. It demeans all of us that it is allowed to happen and there should be laws against it.

So what do we do about it?

Posted by: strangest brew | December 3, 2009 5:31 AM

'God wants us to worship Him, not anything that He has created'

So we are not to worship his creation including shrines churches bits of scrappy textiles old bones and crud and tat of every hue and inanity, nor apparently by default his arguably pièce de résistance, Humans!

Why then bow and get all obsequious before Kings, Queens,popes, Cardinals, Bishops, priests hobgoblins and delusional fuckwits that have sexual and psychosomatic problems with reality in general?

Someone here is not holding to the rules...methinks they is making them up as they toddle along!

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 3, 2009 6:13 AM

Making shit up is so common -- it seems to happen automatically -- there should be some sort of fun acronym for it. - Hank Fox

MAking SHit UP.

Posted by: Milt Rowe | December 3, 2009 8:13 AM

"It's an allegory!"
"No, it's a crockoduck."

Posted by: Pete | December 3, 2009 8:41 AM

"The Genesis myth isn't so useful. A fallacious laundry list of god's actions in the creation of the universe simply isn't generalizable, and tells us nothing about the human condition. I don't consider most of the myths of the bible to be good literature at all, and that includes Genesis."

Not even the one where Eve introduces freethinking into the world?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 8:50 AM

Yes they do. They also describe for what purpose the divine revelation [rolls eyes] was thusly phrased; the evil hope at the heart of Calvinism.

Some NT parables are interpreted in context. Others aren't. Calvinism appeared a millenium and a half later.

Amalgamating millenia of the history of countless people into a single, Evil mashup is really stupid. It's just fleeing Eden all over again.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 9:01 AM

Eve is treated like the enemy.

The Eden story doesn't treat Eve like the enemy any more than it treats Adam or the Serpent like the enemy. The idea that Woman is especially culpable for the Fall is a much later development. In the story, Eve is only the first to know Good and Evil, and this temporal distinction between Man and Woman is not particularly relevant. God punishes both, along with the Serpent, for obtaining this knowledge.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 9:11 AM

Just out of interest, Martin, do you actually have a point beyond "The Bible should be considered a piece of literature"?

Do you need another point? The Bible is a piece of literature as a matter of historical fact. It's not the Root of All Evil, but it is an historical foundation of Good and Evil in western culture, i.e. it is a foundation of forcible propriety, Law and the State.

Because honestly, I prefer the Odyssey.

Do you actually have a point beyond this preference?

Posted by: Rorschach | December 3, 2009 9:17 AM

Because honestly, I prefer the Odyssey.

Do you actually have a point beyond this preference?

To quote the Rev, the whishing noise you just heard is the point flying right over your head..:-)

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 3, 2009 9:26 AM

Do you actually have a point beyond this preference?

(/... Martin Brock at the comedy club: 'Huh... There's some light flashing at the back of the hall... Again... Geez, they've had that in every club I've ever worked... And it always starts flashing like about thirty seconds after I start talking, and keeps going for the remaining three hours of my riveting and wildly original monologue about how much airline food sucks... I mean, as if there's anything else anyone wants to hear about and as if they could get it anywhere else... Anyway... It's still flashing. Weird... What could that mean?... Thing always flashed right up until the entire audience had trickled out, and the cops showed up to drag me off the premises... I figure it's some weird tradition... Pretty light, tho'... Anyway, folks: about that airline food... It sucks, amirite?...')

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 3, 2009 9:31 AM

Why does He create Martin Brock for so little time? That's what I'd like to know.

(/Also unsurprisingly, the audience was thinking just the opposite.)

Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 3, 2009 9:32 AM

Martin, while I admit that I have an affinity for many of the ideas that you present in your posts, you are also exhibiting an unfortunate tendency to create straw people out of other people's arguments, giving them an uncharitable interpretation which appears to be a function of your apparent relish in calling their arguments stupid.

That's really stupid.

(Hey, that is kinda fun!)

Posted by: killyosaur | December 3, 2009 9:38 AM

@Yubal count me as one of those who finds the study of the ancient Hebrew and Middle Eastern Myths interesting

Brownian @ #41, what like Norse Mythology? The biblical myths are not "white" myths, they are "brown" myths, originating from the middle east. What we generally consider "white" (Northern European) would be Norse Myths, Celtic Myths (fairies, leprachauns, etc), Druidic etc. And what exactly is a "white" myth anyway? I don't know what "white" culture is.

And doesn't the creationist's argument basically mean that Scientology is true? I mean if by his logic, the creation of the Sun and Moon on the 4th day means they are not very important, then the Scientology belief that the god of the bible was created by thetans attaching themselves to early humans which would have occurred prior to the supposed creation of the said god means that Scientology, by the creationist's logic, must be more important and therefore true, or something.

Posted by: No BS | December 3, 2009 9:40 AM

"i.e. it is a foundation of forcible propriety, Law and the State."

Yep, an eye for an eye...

Or is it turn the other cheek?

Theologians my ass, get real jobs ya bums.

Posted by: Svlad Cjelli | December 3, 2009 9:45 AM

Hey, don't knock God's methods! It worked, didn't it?
Otherwise there'd still be astrologers, silly. :P

Posted by: Mr T | December 3, 2009 9:49 AM

Some stories are explicitly allegorical, i.e. the author interprets his own allegory in context. Other stories bear allegorical interpretation, i.e. a reader can substitute allegorical representations of various characters and relationships in the story and make more literal sense of the story this way.

Are there any narratives in oral or written tradition which could not be interpreted as "allegory"?

What's your point, exactly? You started off claiming that it's not a "scientific story". Is there any reason why a (pseudo-)"scientific story" can or should not be written or interpreted as an "allegory"?

Also, why does Martin Brock write about Martin Brock in the third person?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 9:53 AM

I suspect just about everyone else here has heard more than enough of your voice, too.

You've heard enough of my voice, but you can't resist the temptation to address me. Maybe you should see someone for that too.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 3, 2009 9:58 AM

Tim Harris @277

Nice post.

The real problem is that sacred books, particularly monotheistic ones (polytheistic peoples tend to be rather less worried about the truth of their beliefs), come down to us with an aura of authority and a serious claim to their being true in some way, and they have over the ages been set against merely 'secular' literature, which is characterised as superficial in comparison...

I'm not necessarily arguing with this point (I need to think about it some more), but it strikes me that if you are right then it reveals a certain irony, in that most literature of a more authoritative and truth-oriented bent (e.g. dictionaries, auto repair manuals, tax codes, etc.) are deemed to be decidedly less aesthetically valuable and profound than the great (or even lesser) works of lit.

The only reason that the bible has ever been imbued with a sense of profundity is that the fantasists have convinced themselves that it is actually a literal instruction manual that is written in secret code, which if solved unlocks some great "Mystery" (not to mention eternal rewards, etc. etc.). Well, Peyote unlocks the very same "mystery", and it's a hella lot more fun.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 10:09 AM

Martin... I'm confused...

I've followed the discussion to this point... you entered in with your very first post by calling us "stupid" (or at least the way we were attacking the genesis account as literal).

Then you go on to stipulate (as you've done in a number of other threads) that the bible is not meant to be taken literally, is largely allegorical, and we are stupid for attacking it as such.

And I think, to a certain point, we actually agree with you there.

So I'd like to ask you two questions:

First (and this is multi-part I admit), do you think that the majority of christians take the genesis account, or the bible literally if asked? And, is social and political policy being made, and attempted to continue to be made, based on literal interpretations of the bible? Is the teaching of ID not based on some literal interpretation of the genesis account? And is the attempt at forcing this teaching not something we should be concerned about? Do you not think the best way to attack these issues as rational free-thinkers is to attack the literal interpretation using modern science?

Second: if you agree with the premise of the first question, what exactly is your point?

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 10:15 AM

And get paid for it.

Few are paid by taxpayers in my neck of the woods, because we have this clause in our Constitution, but some academic theologians are paid this way. Ehrman apparently is paid by taxpayers, in part at least, since he works at a state university, but he seems more one of Us than one of Them. If we don't like churches and other free associations supporting this sort of thing, we aren't obliged to support them. Seems fair enough to me.

Posted by: Mr T | December 3, 2009 10:23 AM

It's not a pseudo-scientific story either. It's just not a scientific story at all.

Well, you assert that, but that's not my point. I'm not asking about "it", as in the Genesis creation myth.

I'm asking, in general, if any "scientific story" could ever be interpreted as an "allegory". Are those mutually exclusive?

I don't remember where you explained what you think non-allegorical stories are. I'm not being disingenuous; please just define them clearly enough and perhaps give an example. Personally, I think just about any narrative can be given an allegorical twist.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 3, 2009 10:25 AM

You've heard enough of my voice, but you can't resist the temptation to address me. Maybe you should see someone for that too.

Well, me, I see it more as an opportunity to illustrate a particular point. But since you're apparently roughly as dense as your argument is sparse (necessarily so on both points, I'd expect), I'll spell it out for you in smaller words:

As I've noted before, this is one of my chiefest peeves both about religion in general and droning, vapid wanks like Brock in particular: this delusion of theirs that the vacuous pablum they spew about almost equally silly (and at the very least hopelessly overexposed) drivel from another age is in some fashion even worth serious consideration any more.

They're like network sitcom reruns at the very best--sitcoms in which the braying laugh track will be the only laughter ever heard again--and like network spam, at their worst, and more generally. Dumb, empty, hollow noise about next to nothing or less than that, filling up space, derailing conversations, utterly unaware what an utter waste of time and space their own effort and speech represents. If ye are foolish enough to broach one of the subjects they feel they own in some fashion, they will never stop turning it to empty mush, dumbing it down, drawing it down until the entire conversation has been lowered to their own tediously pathetic level of empty discourse... And otherwise interesting fora become exercises in reminding them how utterly little they've said--and only when this is said in interesting enough fashion that you notice it and are amused enough to get that point are you likely to gain any real insight from the activity at all.

PZ said it as well as anyone: you've made his point for him--and I'd add that you continue to reinforce it with every comment: the entire world has heard enough about this book, and especially enough from the likes of you.

No progress in understanding anything will ever be made where wanks like you monopolize conversations--you're like black holes of boring that draw in all interest, leaving only a void. I begin to suspect it is one of the methods of religion: where you can't actually support your argument with sense, just bore the hell out of everyone until they go away.

Which brings us, in any case, to yet another arrogance of religion, and one of the most nagging: the clearly unsupported presumption that they've really anything whatsoever of substance left to say.

(/And it is a colossal misconception, judged from the amount of time they spend saying it anyway.)

Posted by: Aratina Cage | December 3, 2009 10:36 AM

Screw the Sun; why, oh why did it take God so long to create Martin Brock?

Thank you Sven! *bows face down with palms pressed together in your direction*

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 10:53 AM

I've followed the discussion to this point... you entered in with your very first post by calling us "stupid" (or at least the way we were attacking the genesis account as literal).

I don't call "you" or "us" or "them" stupid anywhere. If you want to take a description of a proposition personally, I can't help that, and it's very obvious why I choose this description in this thread.

Then you go on to stipulate (as you've done in a number of other threads) that the bible is not meant to be taken literally, is largely allegorical, and we are stupid for attacking it as such.

No. I never say that "the Bible" is not meant literally. I say that one story, comprising three short chapters, is not meant literally. The rest is you.

And I think, to a certain point, we actually agree with you there.

I don't know who "we" is supposed to describe, but some people here are agreeing with me while other people are disagreeing.

First (and this is multi-part I admit), do you think that the majority of christians take the genesis account, or the bible literally if asked?

From polls I've seen, a majority in the U.S. take the Creation account literally, but popular opinion is incoherent, so I don't know why it matters.

"Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true."

I'm not sure this summary of the poll results is accurate, but I just don't care. It's irrelevant to any point I'm making.

And, is social and political policy being made, and attempted to continue to be made, based on literal interpretations of the bible?

In a quasi-majoritarian system like ours, the unwashed masses affect social and political policy. Most people are religious. I suggest you get used to it.

Is the teaching of ID not based on some literal interpretation of the genesis account?

Behe's ID? No, it's not based a literal interpretation of Genesis. Behe accepts a billion year old Earth, common descent, natural selection and much of the rest of the Darwinian synthesis. He only wants to add some vaguely "intelligent" causation to "random mutation". Theories not based on some literal interpretation of Genesis can still be incoherent. Do I think "irreducibly complexity" makes sense? No.

And is the attempt at forcing this teaching not something we should be concerned about?

I haven't seen much attempt to force it. I've seen a few local school boards attempt to teach it in their local school districts, and I've seen them forced to stop. If it were up to me, we wouldn't even have local school boards elected by majorities and administering schools financed by taxpayers, but that's a separate issue. We wouldn't have unelected, Federal judges dictating curriculum far more broadly either.

Do you not think the best way to attack these issues as rational free-thinkers is to attack the literal interpretation using modern science?

I think the best way to attack the issue is to present a more rational alternative to the literal interpretation, not to take the literal interpretation for granted and attack it as bad science.

Second: if you agree with the premise of the first question, what exactly is your point?

My several points seem clear enough to me. What exactly is your point?

Posted by: ChrisH | December 3, 2009 11:23 AM

Martin #283

Yup, laws change... quite a lot like the interpretation of the bible.

Certainly as we (Western civilisation at least) have got richer, our way of life has become less ugly, brutish and short.

Don't you find it instructive that our laws and interpretation of the bible have gone in approximately the same direction? They've followed our cultural norms as opposed to driven them.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | December 3, 2009 11:40 AM

Martin Brock @300:

From polls I've seen, a majority in the U.S. take the Creation account literally, but popular opinion is incoherent, so I don't know why it matters.

Here's a pretty good indication of why Martin doesn't fit in very well here.

Popular opinion may indeed be incoherent; but it sure as Hell has efficacy. It is a real force, and it's one to be reckoned with. Most of us here, I think, understand quite well that we all have a stake in understanding and trying to influence (however locally) how the rest of the world thinks and lives their religion that goes way, way beyond the merely academic and bloodlessly expository sense.

That said, this is why I also don't agree with AJ Milne@296 (although Odin knows I sympathise with the sentiment). The world hasn't heard enough about that book. They haven't heard enough about its base and vulgar provenance (pre-emptive olive branch to CJO - I only mean with respect to how most Christians think it came to life). They haven't heard enough about the almost comical amount of infighting, politicking, and baldfaced power-grabbing that went into the selection and editing of the Canon. They haven't heard enough of the prior cultural and historical antecedents that reduce much of what seems original and immense in the Bible to pale imitation, if not outright plagiarism. They don't get that text that so many people lovingly memorize and cherish like their own children is really just a translation of a translation of a translation of copy of a copy of a compendium of Iron Age Middle Eastern religious tradition and mythology. If they had, they'd realize that there are soooo many better stories from which to compose their fantasies, and they might not get so bent out of shape about this whole Trvth thing.

This, anyway, is why I'm interested in what Martin has to say, even as I fight through the tedium and the bloviating. YMMV.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 11:52 AM

completely misses the point

..being the most important part. If the fact that people took the Genesis account literally didn't have any effects on the rest of us, then fine.

Unfortunately that isn't the case.

Posted by: Stephanie | December 3, 2009 11:55 AM

Shit like this makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 11:59 AM

Popular opinion may indeed be incoherent; but it sure as Hell has efficacy. It is a real force, and it's one to be reckoned with. Most of us here, I think, understand quite well that we all have a stake in understanding and trying to influence (however locally) how the rest of the world thinks and lives their religion that goes way, way beyond the merely academic and bloodlessly expository sense.

That "local influence" is probably why Martin Brock likes to attack the atheists here. Based on his statements in past threads, he's in the deep South somewhere and wishes atheists would just shut up so he could go on co-existing with Baptists without them hating him for being associated with uppity atheists who will tell you that your belief in a factual bible is idiocy. He'd prefer to walk around with his fingers in his ears and hope if he's quiet they won't discriminate against him for being an atheist with bisexual tendencies.

Don't feed the troll, guys. He's been doing this for weeks already. Just ignore him, he's never going to see eye to eye with anyone around here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 3, 2009 12:16 PM

Don't feed the troll, guys. He's been doing this for weeks already. Just ignore him, he's never going to see eye to eye with anyone around here.

I've had MB in my killfile for a while now, so I don't even read his pseudointellectual garbage. I suggest everybody put him in their killfiles, and let him have a conversation with himself. I'm sure he will go away if nobody argues with him. But, we have very strong SIWOTI syndromes...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 12:21 PM

The SIWOTI is strong with this one... yes... I'm aware.. need to seriously work on that. ;->

Posted by: nejishiki | December 3, 2009 12:35 PM

A troll isn't just someone with a bad argument. A troll tries to make you angry or create confusion on purpose. I don't think MB qualifies. Still, the best way to avoid being trolled is not to react in an angry manner.

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 12:50 PM

A troll isn't just someone with a bad argument. A troll tries to make you angry or create confusion on purpose.

I call him a troll based on context, not just on this single thread. In past threads he made a "homophobia is genetic" argument purely through obfuscation and redefining/narrowing the scope of terms until he was not engaging with anyone else, and in a previous thread on gay marriage rights he kept putting forth his "abolish marriage for everyone and let everyone just use contracts for all the related rights" argument while ignoring that the entire point of the thread was that those contracts were not being honored due to the fact that the couple in question gay (and in fact he spoke out against the law that was struck down, which was to force recognition of the contracts). And in every argument he is in he repeatedly builds strawmen and replies in an inflammatory manner.

Hence I don't even bother responding to him anymore, I just was hoping a reminder would keep people from feeding the troll. He's a lost cause. But then, for some reason at least 90% of the libertarians who find their way to Pharyngula are. Go figure.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 12:57 PM

Paul #318

In all fairness to Martin Brock... it seems there's a "Brock" and a "Martin Brock"... I seem to recall that Brock is the one that has made the arguments concerning abolishing marriage. I don't know if they are the same person, but i don't want to attribute stuff to MB that isn't his. Are they one in the same, do you know?

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 1:11 PM

In all fairness to Martin Brock... it seems there's a "Brock" and a "Martin Brock"... I seem to recall that Brock is the one that has made the arguments concerning abolishing marriage. I don't know if they are the same person, but i don't want to attribute stuff to MB that isn't his. Are they one in the same, do you know?

No, I do not know for sure. But the "past thread" mentions in my post here were all based on contributions under the Martin Brock handle (it's one reason I think they are the same, as Brock is making the same arguments Martin Brock did in the past here).

I'm fairly sure they are the same (or perhaps related), based on sentence structure and certain dog whistles used. But I did not assume as much in this post, although it occurs to me that my contribution in "The Same-Sex Marriage debate, greatly simplified" did make that assumption.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 3, 2009 1:33 PM

Opposing stupidity is not stupid - eyelessgame

Indeed. But opposing opposing stupidity is stupid!

Posted by: Anri | December 3, 2009 1:43 PM

Martin Brock sez (in part):

Again, I have no definitive litmus test for this sort of thing, and neither does anyone else. If you can't tolerate the slightest ambiguity, you won't like literary criticism, but history is ambiguous regardless.

Hunh.

And here I had thought, all this time, that Christians considered the correct interpretation of the bible to be somehow important to the cause of good vs. evil in the world, and the fate of their immortal souls.
But, since I now know that it's just a matter of literary criticism, and nobody is actually basing life decisions on the interpretation of the text, I can stop worrying about what people think of it.

That's a relief.

Posted by: Steve_C | December 3, 2009 1:52 PM

martin. that's a crock. just ban divorce. it makes as much sense as your crap.

marriage isn't the problem, people who want to join into that bond but are forbidden to are being unfairly treated.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 2:35 PM

In #224 you pretended to be able to know that a part of Genesis was intended to be read as allegory because: you claim it is and always was obvious that knowledge doesn't grow on trees.

As an agnostic, I claim to know very little. The story seems allegorical on its face. I don't need certainty to follow this assumption where it leads.

In #257 I pointed out that you were wrong in regarding it as obvious, since the world is evidently still full of remarkably similar idiots who very much do believe in the magic knowledge-bearing properties of plants (and other stuff).

"Obvious" is my perception. That people believe apparent allegories to be literally true is no evidence of anything. We aren't discussing beliefs of the story's readers. We're discussing the intent of the story's author(s).

In #259 you attempted to brush off this holing of your argument by pulling a switcheroo and pretending that I was the one claiming to know that it was definitely not allegory rather than you being the one who had claimed to know that it definitely was.

I never claim that you know that it's definitely not an allegory, and I never deny claiming that it's an allegory. I do claim that it's an allegory.

In 259, I say, "They do, but this fact is not evidence that allegories are not allegories. If I assert that some Stephen King novel is literally true, my assertion is not evidence of anything." That's the entire post.

I agree in 259 that many people believe all sorts of nonsense but assert that this popular opinion is not relevant. I never say a word about anything you might know.

Very dishonest of you.

Very dishonest of you.

We can see what their tiny little minds were up to.

I don't assume that people writing millenia ago had tiny minds.

The allegory is thus often an imposed one ...

Since the author(s) of the Eden story don't explicitly give us an allegorical interpretation, we can only assume the allegory and weigh different interpretations the story will bear. If you want certainty, try mathematical logic but stay away from Kurt Godel.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 3:20 PM

We're discussing the intent of the story's author(s).

Despite SEF's agreement and subsequent argument over the ability to actually know the author's intent (which is a fair point regardless)... I say "bullshit"! The only one trying to have that argument is you. We've been busily trying to explain to you that the author's intent, however you believe yourself able to ascertain it so obviously, is beside the fucking point. What is of more import to us is the current religious establishment's interpretation of biblical texts, and its use of that interpretation to push policy. What the author intended is of little consequence to these people... they are pushing the story as literal, and must therefor be addressed on those grounds.

I could give a fat hairy rat's ass whether you are right or wrong about the author's allegorical intent. Factually, it's impossible to know. Pragmatically, it's not relevant to the post, nor the reason for posting it.

Posted by: gr8hands | December 3, 2009 3:47 PM

Martin Brock, you've ignored my comments on other posts -- about how you're wrong in thinking that the authors and readers of genesis, up until the middle ages, literally believed in a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which had literal fruit that would give you knowledge if you ate it.

Kaufman and Ehrman have agreed with that point (I've had personal conversations with both of them -- you see, like others here, I am affiliated with a leading seminary). Denying that is sophistry or revisionist history.

It appears you're confused about what allegory means, about what midrash means, about what parable means, and the role of accuracy in those various literary forms.

Personally, you sound like a somewhat disgruntled MDiv student who isn't doing well in Contemporary Hermeneutical Strategies, and has to take his feelings of inadequacy out on atheists.

But, I digress.

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 4:00 PM

"Bigotry" is just your politically correct self-congratulation. I don't need any lessons in gay friendliness from you. I've discussed my gay credentials in other threads.

Oh, you mean like how you were politically active to legalize sodomy, but you belittle gays who are politically active in wanting to get married?

"I've got mine, fuck you" indeed.

Posted by: gr8hands | December 3, 2009 4:24 PM

Martin Brock, you're ignoring the fact that all theists are in one form or another "genesis literalists" -- they at the very least believe god created everything.

Oh, I suppose there are those who believe in a god who didn't create anything, but they're an extremely small fringe hardly worth discussing.

But the main difference (in this particular discussion) between any other theists is only in how much genesis they take literally.

They all are, of course, completely wrong to take any of it literally, save for those very few historically accurate items.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 4:35 PM

Martin #337

Still missing the point... (not surprised).

The discussion regarding author's intent would be fine and well, and interesting enough to be worth having in earnest if you did not use it initially to call arguing against literal interpretation stupid. We didn't draw you into the argument, asswipe... you did that on your own with your very first post.

Once you used that line of argument as a launching point, you needed it explained to you that the author's intent is (once again) beside the point, and arguing against a clearly popular and relevant literal interpretation was not only not stupid, but quite appropriate.

Don't sit here and pretend that we all just attacked innocent you for daring to try to argue the merits of the discussion of "allegorical intent". That's typically dishonest of you.

You shifted the goalposts, pal... you deal with the repercussions.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 3, 2009 4:51 PM

I can't killfile MB--I'm at work and can't mess with the computer's software, the browser is IE, so I can't do killfiling--but I can ignore him!

Anyhoo. According to Acharya S in The Christ Conspiracy, the original OT stories were indeed intended as allegories...for astrology. She says the original authors, whoever the heck they were, wrote those stories to explain the movements of the stars and planets, and had no idea how their allegorical fairytales would be used later on when some Roman thugs decided to amalgamate dozens of Mediterranean gods into this Jesus character and superimpose him onto the Jewish messianic myth. I don't consider it the final word on the matter, but it's a fascinating interpretation. Also, it really makes the creationist quoted in the original post look especially silly.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 3, 2009 4:56 PM

Pharyngulans are an extremely small fringe focused obsessively on creation.com and answersingenesis.org.

Citation most definitely needed.

Can't imagine how it continues to be listed among the most visited science blogs on the entire internet year after year.

See, Brick... just like with your assertion of "allegorical intent", simply stating something you believe doesn't make it fact. Try chewing on that for a while.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 5:09 PM

When I say sodomy, I'm using your term. In a previous thread you described taking political action to legalize sodomy. It's not part of my normal vocabulary.

No. I didn't. I said I took political action against "sodomy laws", and I used the quotes. I don't need to look back at the posts, because I've argued similarly for years; however, you level the false accusation here, so I'd like you to back it up with a quote and a link.

Oh? So telling gays not to care about marriage and just get the proper paperwork for Power of Attorney in place was not belittling when the whole point of that thread was that their Power of Attorney was not being honored?

No. I argue in the thread that a law simply requiring morgues to honor their power of attorney was a sufficient and far superior remedy.

The subject of the thread was not a gay marriage statute at all. It was a statute specifically targeting gay couples who wanted to claim the bodies of their partners from morgues, to arrange burial, without necessarily obtaining power of attorney. I bothered to read (and quote) the statute, and it required a gay man to prove his intimacy with a deceased partner in order to claim the body.

So a morgue doesn't want to honor the deceased's explicit grant of power of attorney, but it'll happily take my word for evidence of our "intimacy". Or maybe it wants more evidence. What's that supposed to be?

So instead of this ridiculous requirement, why not just require the morgue to honor the power of attorney? Ever think about that? If the legislature can require the morgue to honor my proof of intimacy with a dead man, can't it also require the morgue simply to honor the power of attorney?

It means you have no intention of marrying a man, so you are perfectly fine keeping gays from being able to marry since you are perfectly capable of doing so whenever you so choose.

I oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation, including benefits to childless straight couples who may marry. I advocate removing this discrimination by withdrawing benefits of marriage from childless straight couples.

You argue against granting civil rights to others because it does not affect you.

I argue for withdrawing the rights from me insofar as I may marry a woman without sharing parental obligations and rights with her.

Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 5:30 PM

@346

But I'll say this. For me, the gay rights movement was about sodomy laws. It was about repealing the criminality of homosexuality, not about inviting legislatures to write the terms of gay relationships.

You say "sodomy laws", but with no scare quotes, and with repetition in the next sentence you conflate "criminality of homosexuality" with "sodomy laws". It's easy to read as you conflating the terms sodomy and homosexuality. If that is not what you meant, you should be clearer instead of trying to act like I made the term up. I'd appreciate you repealing your false accusation.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | December 3, 2009 6:26 PM

But Paul is reading Genesis as allegory two thousand years ago. Did he walk in liberal theological circles?

I realized that before I wrote what I did. I should have made my point a bit more clear then: just because it's relatively popular among more liberal theological circles does not mean that it is new in any way. It's a bit aside from my main point, but it looked like I implied it was a newer interpretation. Mind you, its popularity is directly related to science taking over the areas that religion once occupied for many people, but that does not mean that no one came up with it beforehand.

Unless the originator of the story believed himself literally a witness to the events described or somehow miraculously imbued with the knowledge, he knew he was inventing a story. We know that people invented stories at this time. Supposing that the story is invented hardly seems incredible.

You're right that it wouldn't be if the progenitor of the myth wrote the Bible. It is very likely he did not, though. By the time the Bible was written, the mythology belonged to the Hebrew people and the progenitor matters little, if any, to the interpretation of the passage itself. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say what the content of the progenitor's story actually was anyway. I proposed a slow modification of an original story (fictional allegory or semi-fictional event description) to the point that it usually only vaguely resembles the original, if it does at all. This is just my hypothesis and has little bearing on what the people who wrote the Bible thought of the myth. That, I believe, is the most important for its interpretation.

You have no evidence of this, but you say "probably" here. In what sense is your theory "probable"?

In a sense, you are right: we have little evidence for either a literal or non-literal interpretation on the part of the people who wrote the passage in question (separate from the people who first told the story that the passage originated from, of course). I based my hunch upon an understanding of how the human mind works (i.e. it tends to latch onto any explanation it can and tends to work in terms of agency, so the Biblical creation myth would probably seem at least plausible to the Hebrew people - hence, the Hebrew people would probably attach to this explanation of creation for the most part otherwise they would have to admit that they don't know how the universe actually works, a very disturbing thought for many even to this day).

I admit that I could in fact be very wrong (thus I used "probably"), but it is a tentative guess based on what I know currently so it is subject to change.

Even if the Eden story in its final form incorporates earlier Creation mythology, you still have no evidence that the author of its final form did not intend to construct an allegory, and we know that people constructed allegories millenia ago, and we know that these stories have been read allegorically for millenia. Biblical texts themselves attest to this fact.

It almost certainly is a different form of an earlier creation myth that was rather common in the ancient Near East, but that's a bit aside from the main point I suppose. You're right, I do not and he could have indeed constructed a narrative that was meant to be allegory. It is only an absence of direct evidence, though, and he could have thought of it literally. I already explained above why I thought it was likely that he (or they I suppose) thought it was literally true, but it is very indirect evidence. That does not mean it is wrong though. There is little direct evidence that they did not intend for the story to be literal either, only arguments that it is likely that it was intended to be allegorical.

In fact, it is probable that the authors and redactors of the passage all thought something different about the passage as well. In effect, it would mean that the story really has no correct interpretation, allegory or otherwise. It would be just a mess of people writing down, editing, writing more information down, editing, etc. and can never truly have a definitive interpretation. This becomes more likely if the Bible was constructed by fragments rather than individual documents, although this scenario is still plausible with individual documents.

Incredibly, many people lean toward literal interpretations today, so I suppose many people always have, but we aren't taking a poll here. I'm not anyway.

My argument is only that people also tended toward such an explanation at the time the passage in question was written, thus it is more likely that the authors were literalists as well, especially since it was more likely for them to take the Bible more literally at the time. That does not necessarily mean the authors and redactors in question were all literalists, it is just likely that most of them were or thought that it was both literal and allegorical. I think we can both agree that as a literal truth, it fails miserably (as I think your argument is based on that fact in part), but as an allegory it could make more sense, especially to a modern audience (thought not solely to one). The latter does not imply that it was meant to be allegory of course, but it does mean that the Bible fails to explain the world in a satisfactory and clear way. Perhaps it was meant to be obfuscatory as well.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 3, 2009 8:50 PM

... its popularity is directly related to science taking over the areas that religion once occupied for many people, ...

I agree. Allegory has always played an important role in theology. The most zealous literalism seems to be a reaction against modern challenges to these traditions as much as an inheritance from the traditions. The Sistine Chapel is nothing like the Creation Museum.

You're right that it wouldn't be if the progenitor of the myth wrote the Bible.

No individual wrote the Bible, but someone presumably wrote this story at some time, even if he compiled it from earlier myths, and someone made it the introduction to the Torah, and the Torah is the Law, and the Law essentially is Knowledge of Good and Evil. I'm not saying anything very incredible here. That's why I say that it seems "obvious".

... the progenitor matters little, if any, to the interpretation of the passage itself.

The progenitor of "Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", whenever he contrived this notion, either believed that knowledge literally grows on trees or had something else in mind.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to say what the content of the progenitor's story actually was anyway.

If that's true, we aren't even discussing the same story. I'm discussing the story that appears in the first three chapters of Genesis and that presumably survives, more or less intact, from three to five millenia ago. Even if this story in its present form is a compilation of earlier mythology, even if someone originated the notion of a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil at some earlier point, even if this earlier inventor was simply daft, the compiler of the story nonetheless included this notion, and the story reads like an allegory prima facie.

... we have little evidence for either a literal or non-literal interpretation on the part of the people who wrote the passage in question ...

The evidence of an allegorical interpretation is that the story does bear an allegorical interpretation, that it does not bear a literal interpretation, that the story exists in a tradition full of explicit allegory and that literate followers of the tradition have read it allegorically for ages.

One may believe that men materialize from dust and knowledge grows on trees despite the absence of any empirical evidence in this direction, and people do believe so. When I say the story does not bear a literal interpretation, I'm not denying that. The historical method does not presume that people can't believe incredible things, but the only evidence I see that the story was intended literally, with no allegorical interpretation, is that many people read it literally. Most people aren't very bright, so I expect this evidence in any case. It looks like an allegory and quacks like an allegory regardless.

It almost certainly is a different form of an earlier creation myth that was rather common in the ancient Near East, ...

It would help to see this earlier creation myth outside of a similarly political context. If "Knowledge of Good and Evil" suggests something else in this earlier context, you add some weight to your theory at least.

I have seen other explanations of "Knowledge of Good and Evil" in this context. For example, some scholars say the Hebrew suggests "knowledge, good and evil" in sense like "creatures, great and small", so the Tree simply bears all knowledge and "ethical knowledge" particularly is not implied. I don't think the rest of the story bears this interpretation, but some people reason so.

In fact, it is probable that the authors and redactors of the passage all thought something different about the passage as well. In effect, it would mean that the story really has no correct interpretation, allegory or otherwise.

I can't agree here. Even if the story is constructed from bits of earlier mythology, it's still a cohesive story in its final form. This final form has an author. Every story is constructed from bits of earlier stories for that matter.

Perhaps it was meant to be obfuscatory as well.

Allegory is often obfuscatory by design. Jesus basically threatens the lives of the Temple priests in an allegory (the parable of the vineyard), and they have him crucified for it. Mark is fairly explicit on this point. Followers of this tradition clearly understood this usage of allegory, by the time of the Common Era at least.

Posted by: p mercer | December 3, 2009 9:53 PM

What sort of person would demand that everyone worship him?

And who would want anything to do with such a person?

Posted by: Enrico Pumarosa | December 3, 2009 11:54 PM

You'd have thought the very same God who knew of the Sun worship to come would have done something with his supposed foreknowledge of the Winter Solstice and his alleged sons birthday...go figure!

Posted by: Rorschach | December 4, 2009 12:02 AM

@ 354,

What sort of person would demand that everyone worship him?

And who would want anything to do with such a person?

Her maybe ?

(not entirely sfw)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 7:24 PM

I don't believe that a wealthy straight man with a young, live in lover who doesn't work (otherwise) should receive this tax break either, and I favor repealing it.

What about rich straight men with young live in lovers... I mean trophy wives.

Oh never mind, that never happens.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 5, 2009 10:53 AM

What about rich straight men with young live in lovers... I mean trophy wives.

Oh never mind, that never happens.

I address this point immediately after the words you quote, but you completely ignore me. It's like you're willfully blind to anything contradicting your simple caricature. Incredible.