Pity? Anger? Amusement? I'm just not sure

Well, you didn't really think I was going to let the failed Rapture pass without comment, did you?

Now, I'm honestly not sure exactly what I should be feeling about this whole thing. Should I pity the people who believed Harold Camping and gave up money and more? Should I dismiss them as gullible and stupid? Should I feel they got what they deserved for their lack of critical thinking and arrogance? Should I direct my feelings towards Camping in the form of anger and disgust? Or should I just point and laugh?

Right now, I'm going for a mixture of most of the above. But I think I can rule out pity, except for the innocent victims. Those who have no college fund now because their parents are fucking morons. Those who will suffer because others fell for this fast burning stupidity.

Blogging the Bible part 12

Genesis chapters 12 and 13 today, not a great deal to talk about in either of them though.  Oh, apart from the fact that Abraham was a pimp.

Chapter 12 The Call of Abram

The Lord tells Abram he has to leave his country, his people and the household of his father and go to a land that he will show Abram. The Lord promises to make the nation Abram founds into a great one, promises to make Abram's name great, to bless Abram and those who like him and to curse those who don't. The Lord also promises that all peoples on earth will be blessed through Abram. (GEN 12:1-3) So Abram does as he is told and ups sticks and takes Lot with him. Abram is, we are told, 75 at this point. He takes his wife Sarai, Lot, all his possessions and the people he 'acquired in Haran' (GEN 12:5). Are we to take 'acquired' literally and presume that the Lord approves of slavery then?

Blogging the Bible part 11

Ah, the Tower of Babel. And the inconsistencies start with the very first line of chapter 11.

Verse one:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. (GEN 11:1)

 And here the confusion begins because chapter 10 implies that the descendants of Noah's sons all had their own languages. Chapter 11 also states it was God who scattered the tribes of Noah's sons around the world (GEN 11:9), but chapter 10 implies that they just spread that way - no mention of God doing the scattering is made in chapter 10. Bit of an oversight. There also seems to be some confusion over whether the clans had many languages (GEN 10) or just one (GEN 11). I guess being kind we can say that they started with one language and then ended up with many - but that doesn't deal with the confusion that chapter 10 implies the clans developed their own language and chapter 11 clearly states God simply confused the one language into many.

Blogging the Bible part 10

Genesis chapter 10 now, The Table of Nations. Basically a worthless chapter, unless you like stuff about the made up origins of tribes and cities. There are a few things worth commenting on however.

GEN 10:2 begins "The sons of Japheth:" but we are also told in the footnotes that 'sons' could also be 'descendants', 'successors' or 'nations' in this and many of the other verses of this chapter. Now call me a dirty unbeliever if you will, but when one pretty insignificant word can be interpreted or translated in such a wide way, in fact so widely that the meaning of the sentence can be utterly different with every differing interpretation, how is one supposed to take something in the Bible literally and not look like a drooling idiot?

Blogging the Bible part 9

OK, so on to Genesis chapter 9, and there's not much going on here I'll be honest.

God blesses Noah and his sons (why not the wives? Can anyone say "ancient patriarchal society"?) and tells them to be fruitful and increase in numbers and fill the earth. (GEN 9:1) Then he tells Noah and his sons that he has put the fear of man into all animals and gives them all to Noah and his boys. Then God says that "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you." (GEN 9:3) So, God condones cannibalism. Interesting that Christian missionaries used to get so wound up about it then, really.

Holy Scripture not working for you? Then re-write it!

Just when you think that the ultra conservative right wing hardcore religious inhabitants of this planet couldn't possibly extend and expand their capacity for preposterousness you will find yourself, as I recently did, running across the simpletons and buffoons that inhabit the world of Conservapedia. There apparently really is no depth of intellectual absurdity to which these imbeciles will not sink, and here is the proof. In case you haven't heard, Conservapedia are re-writing the Bible to remove, astonishingly, its liberal bias!

Wait, what now? Yes you read that right, translations of the Bible are apparently too liberal for ultra-conservatives. Just exactly how delusional or detached from any real connection with reality do you have to be to consider any translation of the Bible as liberal? For crying out loud, Hitler was more liberal than any translation of the Bible ever was. At least he was a vegetarian.

Blogging the Bible part 8

Well, after a short break it is back to the unfettered absurdities of the Bible!

Genesis, chapter 8.

For a much more detailed look at the absurdities of the flood story, check here.

So, here in verse 1 we have God remembering Noah and his Ark full of impossibilities. You have to admit, it was nice of him to remember. It had been forty days and nights after all. So, all those animals (and remember there is some confusion over just how many there are onboard) had to have food for 40 days and 40 nights. And there had to be food for Noah and his family too. That's a big ass ship.

So, God remembers and he sends a wind over the earth and the waters receded. Why send the wind? Does that blow the water away? Where does it blow it to? Where, precisely, does the water that covered the Earth go to? How did the Ark handle the wind?

Blogging the Bible part 7

So here we are, almost eight weeks gone by and only up to chapter 7 of Genesis - but this one is interesting from a literalist's point of view because we start getting into the contradictions in the Flood story.

And yes, there are plenty.

Next time you are out on the social cocktail circuit (that is what the young 'uns are still doing, isn't it?) and someone mentions the truth of the Flood story try this fun game - ask them 'Which one?". And point out that by 'Which one?' you mean which version of the Genesis flood story. Not which of the Jewish (Genesis), Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, Islamic, Chinese, Lao, Indian, Andaman Islands, Indonesian, Australian Aboriginal, Maori, Malaysian, Norse, Irish, Finnish, Aztec, Incan, Mayan, Hopi, Caddo, Menominee, Mi'kmaq, and Polynesian flood stories is true.

Blogging the Bible part 6

Getting to some of the good stuff now - get ready for Chapter 6 - The Flood. Wait, that's not right...

Men, we are told, began to increase in numbers on the earth. They even had daughters born to them. Which, if taken literally, makes things interesting. Verse 1 clearly states that daughters were born to men. So, apparently early man could become pregnant and give birth. Come on literalists, you are taking the Bible literally after all, aren't you? Bear in mind also the questions we had before - since Genesis refrains from mentioning daughters up until Naamah is mentioned in GEN 5:22, and makes a point of mentioning daughters being born here - who did the male descendants of Adam lay with and marry? Why make a point of mentioning daughters here but not elsewhere?

These daughters are all fine apparently, at least to the sons of God. Wait, who are these sons of God? Taken literally after all this means God had relations with at least one woman, right? Why aren't they mentioned until now? The first man was Adam, and he was made from dust wasn't he? And then subsequent men in the story are the sons of Adam and his sons etc. So, who are the sons of God? Anyway, these sons of God marry any of the daughters of men they choose to. It isn't clear here if these are forced marriages, but the implication is certainly that the sons of God get to marry who they want whether or not the women like it or desire it. I guess being the offspring of a deity has its benefits.

Blogging the Bible part 5

Thanks to spending far to much time than I care for on The Secret this past week part 5 in our exciting series is late. So sue me. Maybe we'll try for a double whammy today to get back on track.

Genesis, Chapter 5 - From Adam to Noah. And to be honest, there's not much to this one.

This is, as the first line says, the written account of Adam's line. So, when God created man he did so in the likeness of God, as we already know but the authors of Genesis apparently think they need to reiterate. He created male and female and called them both 'man'. Which is a little confusing, let's be honest. (GEN 5:1-2)

Now, Adam had been alive for 130 years. Yes, that's right, 130 years. Who needs modern medical science? Apparently lifespans dropped considerably as time went on and are only now recovering. And here's an interesting observation on this - the more religious society became after Adam and Eve, the lower lifespans got. Religious belief is lessening now and guess what? Lifespans are going up. Coincidence? You be the judge. Am I being facetious? You be the judge.

Blogging the Bible part 4

OK, part 4. And you don't have to tell me that this is already taking a while.

Hopefully later books in the Bible won't take this long to examine - but given the central role that Genesis plays in Christian mythology I think it's worth the effort examining each chapter one at a time.

So, chapter 4, Cain and Abel. Adam lays with his wife and she becomes pregnant and gives birth to Cain. She makes the strange pronouncement:

With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man. (GEN 4:1)

So, God can also include midwifery on his resume alongside creator of the Universe. Now, taken literally what does this mean exactly? That Cain was born an adult and not a child? For that matter, how old were Adam and Eve when they were created? Were they created as children? Teenagers? Adults? Or is Eve saying that without the Lord's help she would have given birth to a woman (or girl, which is it literalists?) - and that this is not as worthy of celebration? I'm starting to get that patriarchal vibe again.

Blogging the Bible part 3

Sorry for the late arrival of this week's installment, real life got in the way!

As a taster for what we have in store this week, take some time to watch this first:

Genesis according to Ricky Gervais.

So, chapter 3: The Fall of Man.

So we're introduced to the villain of the piece - the Serpent. More crafty than any other wild animal apparently. Given what is about to happen, that does seem an oversight on God's part. Like the man said, if God knows he is going to be trouble (and he must do, right?) then why did he make the serpent crafty in the first place? Why not make serpents the animal equivalent of the village idiot instead? But then I suppose God would have had to find a new role for sheep. So along comes the serpent and he asks Eve what God said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil (he doesn't start that way, but you know what he is getting at). Which is strange, because she wasn't there when God told Adam not to eat it. I mean, why not go straight to the source? Why it's almost like some male dominated society was trying to invent a mythology that justifies their mistreatment of women.

Blogging the Bible part 2

OK, part 2 of what will hopefully be a series that sees me blog about the Bible, from cover to cover.

This does not purport to be an in depth scholarly study. It is merely my own response to Biblical Literalism, as I pointed out in part 1.

I also want to point out that no, I won't be going back to the original Greek or Hebrew or whatever other languages the earliest surviving manuscripts happen to be written in. The reason why is simple - the average Christian (and certainly your average Biblical literalist) doesn't. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that most Christians don't and can't read these languages either. They read the translations. So that is what I will do.

So, objecting that there may be a wrong translation of a particular Hebrew or Greek word is not a problem for my criticism - it's a problem for the Biblical literalist. If the Bible is inerrant, then there can't be a mistranslation or ambiguity about words and meaning, right?

So, if the NIV Bible I am using is wrong, it isn't my problem. I don't think it is the inerrant word of a god.

Blogging the Bible Part 1

OK OK, I know this is not new territory to be covered by an atheist blog.

I know that there is already the awesome Skeptics Annotated Bible.

I know that Tom over at Dubito Ergo Sum has already talked about interpretations, and when talking about the Bible it is all about interpretation and mine might not be entirely fair to the original intent.

But I can't help myself.

I'm going to read the Bible. From cover to cover. And you're coming with me.

I've already read large tracts of the Bible before, focusing mostly on the canonical Gospels (Catholic school will do that to you), but I've never gone cover to cover. It's going to take some time. It's going to be tedious and frustrating. But boy will it help shut believers up. In response to the question "Have you ever even read the Bible?" I'll be able to say "Yes, have you?" and swagger off into the sunset knowing my foe was suitably humbled. Or something like that.

We'll be reading the New International Version, Red Letter Edition, published 1989 by Zondervan. I won't be doing a line by line critique for the most part, but I'll pick out the bits that are of interest to me - and I'll be talking about the text as if in response to a Biblical Literalist, not some wishy-washy liberal Christian who interprets the Bible how they want in order to ignore the nasty bits (and those people will be the subject of future posts I'm sure).

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.