In case you missed the announcement, ShipofFools.com has published an "authoritative" list of the ten worst verses in the Bible. At a time when atheists are posting ads on billboards and busses around the world, you might assume that the Ship is an anti-religious site. But no. Ship of Fools is a Christian website with an impeccable British sense of the absurd. True to its name, the editors go where angels (and other Christians) dare not tread. "We're here for people who prefer their religion disorganized," says Simon Jenkins. "Our aim is to help Christians be self-critical and honest about the failings of Christianity, as we believe honesty can only strengthen faith."
I wince a bit at Jenkins' confidence. As a student at Wheaton College of Billy Graham fame, I thought that the school motto was "All truth is God's truth." Later I found out it was actually, "For Christ and His Kingdom." But at the time, I figured: Ask away; faith has nothing to fear. So, ask I did, until the last vestiges of my Evangelical beliefs finally crumbled. Another former Christian said it perfectly: "My exit from Christianity consisted of a series of strategic retreats covering an ever-shrinking patch of defensible ground."
Jenkins and his teammates seem willing to take that chance. Like Christian author, John Shelby Spong (The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love), Ship of Fools editors are unafraid of biblical criticism. They do not equate criticism of the Bible with criticism of their God. Rather, they regard the Bible as a human construction that offers glimpses of divinity seen through the dark glass of human fallibility. Beginning in July, they invited readers to submit what they consider to be the worst verse in the Bible.
You don't need to be a purple-faced atheist to notice that the Bible is a pretty mixed book. For every hymn to the loveliness of love, there's a story about God squishing someone because they worshipped the wrong god. For every wise and helpful saying, there's an incomprehensible law. For every verse Martin Luther King proclaimed in the streets of Alabama, there's one that Fred Phelps shouts outside gay funerals.
For a purple-face like myself who keeps pointing out theological - uh -complications -- from the outside, it's a pleasure to land in the virtual company of believers who have no problem saying that sexism and homophobia and slavery and genocide are Bad, no matter how well credentialed their endorsers. American Evangelicals often try to insist that the Bible is the literally perfect word of God, each word essentially dictated by God to the authors. Not only is this position ignorant --ever heard of synods or canonization?-- it has an enormous moral cost. People end up defending sexual slavery and scorched earth warfare, even a belief in dragons. Whew. Been there.
Mercifully, Christians like Spong and Jenkins offer an alternative to Orwellian contortion. To quote one of the Ship's editors, "[The Bible] doesn't have to be a textbook of infallible information and unbreakable laws to be God's book." This radical notion has big implications for Christians and non-Christians alike.
For Christians: As more and more is known about how the Bible was pieced together - what got in, what got left out, how human politics shaped the process--the notion of perfection (called "inerrancy") becomes harder and harder to defend. It requires an eyes-squeezed-shut, fingers-in-ears sort of faith. By contrast, acknowledging the Bible's human authorship and frailties allows for a faith that is flexible and open--one that is centered in worship and service rather than the defense of ancient texts. It also allows Christians to participate in the broader intellectual and moral community of humankind.
For the rest of us: Most of the evil that Christians do in the service of God is actually evil done in the service of a perfect Bible--well, that plus a few perfect follow-on dogmas. When people see the Bible for what it is, whole bunches of craziness, like anti-scientific fervor and Armageddon yearnings, go away. What's left is ordinary folks who are muddling along, living out their best hunches about what is good and what is real, rather like the rest of us. Anyone who is invested in the future of the human race might feel a surge of hope and respect upon finding themselves in the company of self-described "fools," meaning Christians whose religion is based on humble faith, open debate, and radical intellectual honesty. I certainly do.
______________________________________
All right, you're probably thinking. Enough babble. Where's the list?! At Ship of Fools, of course. Don't miss it. And thank you to Edward Babinsky for calling it to my attention.
Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico
Rabbi Adam Jacobs: Why You Don't Understand the Bible
Egypt had the same new testament story about a man that came to earth and was crucified, he rose to the heavens etc. This was ~1000 years before the Christian movement way back when. Theology is pretty fascinating.
If they would only start becoming bleeding heart liberals I think they would get it.
God designed that religion should require intense thought. The Bible itself is written in a style so condensed as to require much intense study. Many know nothing of the Bible or of religion because they will not think and study. The experiential has been emphasized to the neglect of the rational.
God is love.
I was listening to a 'Truth-Driven Thinking' podcast last week and thought of you, and wondered where you'd been.
The guest on this podcast is John Shelby Spong. I agree with much of what he says, but when he was asked about an after-life he gave an answer that made me think he could have been a politician. I wish Gibson would have asked the followup question - "Do you believe we have eternal souls?".
If you get a chance, listen, and let me know what you think.
http://www.truthdriventhinking.com/podcast.htm
BTW, I saw you over at Atheist Nexus. Do you listen to the 'Chariots of Iron'?
Does it have to make any sense? Apparently not.
This whole story about a god who sends himself to earth to die in order to save humans from himself is so convoluted that it sounds like Borat, not the Creator of the Universe. Why didn't he just snap his fingers and say "saved"? Or better yet, why not just not plant apple trees in the garden? If one is going to start questioning, how does one get past this nonsense?
Also, we have already discussed the notion of what salvation means. Must you be a Calvinist atheist? Salvation as I know the concept means the achievement of communion of being with God/ theosis. So through Christ's sacrifice he recreates the world so that human's can more easily achieve theosis. But the key is he gave human's free will. Therefore, we have to decide to choose theosis as "we" had to decide whether or not to "eat from the tree" of the knowledge of good and evil. It is the gift of free will that prevents the finger snapping.
I don't know that it is. I'm not about to read that far into any religion, but I don't remember ever hearing anything like that about Allah or Xenu.
"Must you be a Calvinist atheist?"
Maybe. Talk like "the achievement of communion of being with God" is meaningless to me and we've also already discussed the fact that I think the whole free will argument is a load of crapola. It is not a "gift" to tempt children and then punish them for being tempted.
He must not have liked himself very much to put himself through all of that.
'Divine ritual' and 'human ritual' were both dreamed up by man.
Man imagined more incredible things for their gods than for their selves.
Perhaps the group Ship of Fools should just write a new book, a New New Testament. Its about time for an update.
Your article got me thinking ...
So all these modern "non-fundamentalist " christians have come around to the opinion that the Bible is a fiction - a fallible work of man. Do they mean all of it, or just the parts that make them squirm?
If the christian Bible is a fiction (and the Torah and the Koran as well), then religion is dead. If the Bible is fallible, then it is no more important than any other work of fiction produced by human beings.
I understand the value of poetry and fiction and myth to convey important information about humanity and human nature. But I don't know anyone who worships Robert Frost or Emily Dickinson or William Shakespeare or - more importantly - any of their fictional characters. Why give primacy to Jeebus or Yahweh? I do not care how "inspired" some of you may feel these primitive desert yarns are - if they are not inerrant, then they are just fictions.
Understand, modern new-age christians, that the ONLY source of the christian faith is the New Testament. All else is interpretation of this single work. So, throw out the Bible, and what's left? If we reject divinity as its source, does it carry any more weight than the Harry Potter canon? I don't think so.
And if any True Believer is going to claim that it is not the actual word of god, but rather that it was "divinely inspired", then you need explain what that
Spong, I think, does a better job than anyone of extracting a viable spiritual through line from the "fictional". But I myself find the gleanings to be much more sparse than either he or the ShipofFools folks do.
Beyond the Golden Rule, which is hardly unique to christianity (and which is an entirely secular tenet), the New Testament carries only one message : some guy died "for our sins" and is coming back some day. Utter tripe.
As I said before, I recognize that mythos has value - Mother Goose tales convey information about human nature to children and illiterate peasants. But when does mythos rise to a religion? Why do we not have churches devoted to Zeus or Odin anymore?
.
What I have noticed is that we are the ones that have taken the place of caring for humanity, and fighting against these people who pass the plate and welcome the merchants.
Long live rational thought
Of course, some people use that label rather than atheist because it doesn't provoke as sharp a response from critics, or they don't want to be cast in with those 'militant' atheists. If that's your case, then ignore everything I've said.
It wouldn't matter to me personally, since I consider all organized religion silly and malign to one degree to another, except that the Godsters also stole our political system. They filch our tax dollars with one hand and wave their inerrant Bibles under our noses with the other.
I'm betting that verses regarding virgin births and flying zombies wouldn't even make the list.
Justin Martyr 2ndC C.E. notes the commonalities and uses the idea of the Stoics that the word of God is everywhere in the world, but realized in its fullness in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Many evangelicals criticize him for not having any theological degrees or seminary training, you know the same people who criticize evolutionary biology w/out having taken a single graduate level course in science. Anyway, his book is exhaustively researched, extensively footnoted, and the best is he will plainly state when he leaves the realm of evidence and enters the realm of hypotheses with some conclusions.
3 prevalent themes stood out to me: the old testament/judaic concept of afterlife (pre-xtian), the prevalence of human sacrifice, and the casting of lots to talk with god, not divine revelation.
If an intelligent human being without any advanced degree (in anything) were to read the Bible and The Origin of Species (without any preconceived notions) ... they would have no problem understanding Darwin ... but they'd be pulling their hair out or running to other sources trying to make sense out of the Bible.
Darwin (a man inspired by reason) wrote a very understandable book ... in layman's terms.
What is called the word of (or inspired word of) a god ...................?
The Bible as experienced in the life of the historical church is also understood via the teaching of the saints-- how do people who have attained a high level of sanctity understand the Bible? How does it relate to their understanding of their life in Christ? I know most of you posting here reject even the idea that there are people that achieve sanctity, but I am just trying to point out that even within Christianity, from the perspective of the Orthodox (i.e. Eastern) Christian experience, Evangelical/Fundamentalists are setting themselves up (and all of those who experience the fallout of their misunderstandings) for a very negative outcome.
Bravo and thank you! I have been saying the same things about the Bible for most of my adult life. It's wonderful to know that others question it in the same way I do. Not from lack of faith in God, but with large grains of salt given the fallibility of Man. Blind faith in God is not the same as blind faith in Man, a church or any writings in the name of God.
Thank you for letting those of us who have faith in God, yet still have our common sense intact, that there are other like-minded people out there.
Can we just nominate the WHOLE of the Old Testament? Or at least the whole of the book of Leviticus
I never understood why the Old Testament was considered Christian anyway, because it was all written pre-Jesus, and was, in fact, part of The Torah, the Hebrew Bible, and therefore Jewish doctrine, not Christian
But, hey that's just me