Skeptic's Annotated Bible
20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
You can have other gods, but I come first.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Wow, this is limiting. No art? (No statues, carvings, paintings, sketches, or any other likeness of any kind). Why disallow these things? I'm pretty sure, too, that I've seen statues of Jesus, Mary and other biblical figures in churches, so they apparently don't really follow this rule anyway.
What about something that is both artistic and functional, like a nutcracker?
There doesn't seem to be any rationale given for this proscription, either. It's just some random thing that God has decided to care about.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Here is another example of the inappropriate application of justice. If a father behaves immorally, then the punishment will be applied to the father's children over four generations.
Also, God is a jealous God? That seems pretty immature. Here we are punished for God's insecurities. Meh.
20:6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I have always thought that "in vain" was bible-speak for "use as an invective." Thinking about it now, it seems to be slightly broader, to use in a disrespectful or irreverent way, which could be done even without swearing.
"In vain" could be a problem though. For example, if I were to pray to God (*) to be three feet taller, that would be in vain, wouldn't it? Because there's no chance that I'm going to be growing any taller, the request is in vain. So that's a sin? For that matter, all prayer is in vain, since there is no God (but then, there's no God to notice you took his name in vain, so I guess it's not a problem?) Recently, governor Rick Perry of Texas prayed for rain in Texas, and it didn't come. Was his prayer in vain, and if so, did he then violate this rule?
This the problem of not speaking clearly, especially about things that are supposed to be so important.
* Just go with it.
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
And I'm sure we can all agree on what day is the sabbath. (Not!)
20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Don't let your slaves work on the sabbath. Or your goats.
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
20:12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
What if your father is Charles Manson? Or, more seriously, what if your father abuses or rapes you?
A useless rule without context.
20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Whoa, this is a shocker. There has been so much killing up to now! Anyone remember Moses and the Egyptian? Or Simeon and Levi? Or Cain? All of these were unpunished murders that never seemed to cause God any discomfort at all.
Okay, maybe this marks a turning point for God. I will assume, then, from this point on that if anyone kills someone, that person will suffer the consequences of violating these rules. Um, what are the consequences for violating these rules?
Also, what about self defense? Capital punishment? War? *
* I'm not saying I'm for capital punishment or killing in wartime; I'm just asking how these things can be interpreted in the context of these rules.
20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
I'm going to need a definition of adultery that I can work with here. It seems to me that any time any man wanted to have sex with a woman who was not his wife, he just married her. The vast majority of marriages described so far have been polygamous. So, is polygamy adultery?
Again, God never seemed to care about this before...
20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Or pillage cities that you've sacked. Hmm, I wonder if this would have applied to Jacob, who stole Esau's blessing? Now I'm really confused about Rachel, who stole Laban's graven images!
Is there ever ANY circumstance where stealing something would be a moral act? We've all heard the hypotheticals such as, would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, etc. But we can be more sophisticated than that. What if you're a spy, and you steal another government's secrets. You're acting in a patriotic way in defense of your country; you might save lives by doing this. What if your best friend is an alcoholic and you steal his stash of liquor to help keep him sober, or his car keys to keep him from driving?
My point is, this is presented as an absolute injunction; there's no nuance or interpretation here. But actions cannot be measured in such absolute terms; there has to be room for context, which the bible does not allow.
20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
"Bear false witness," sounds like it means claiming to see something that you didn't see. Does this apply to all forms of lying, or just courtroom testimony of directly observed events? For a list of rules that's supposed to be so important, you'd think they'd be clearer.
The same problems apply here as do for stealing. Some lies are small ("little white lies"); some are helpful, as in not admitting that you know something embarrassing about someone you care about. Or a captured soldier lying about future military plans or the location of forces. If this were to be of any use as a moral guide, you'd have to be able to apply these principles to actual life situations and come up with, on balance, a preferable mode of behavior. But as written, it's an inviolable absolute with no room for interpretation. Thus useless.
20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Do not covet your neighbor's slaves, they belong to him.
Okay, I'm going to have to object to this one. "Coveting" is the basis of all marketing and is what makes the free enterprise system work. If you didn't want things that didn't belong to you, you'd have to make everything yourself (or only buy things you didn't want). No more garage sales! Another useless rule, as presented.
Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I think it's okay to lie, steal or kill. I'm saying that these ideas (which religion does not get to claim any originality for, by the way) have to allow some context for interpretation. If you want to present these ideas as a moral guide, you have to allow for such interpretations. If you just say "follow these rules without fail or else," you might as well apply the "or else" now because nobody will be able to do that. And thus you are providing no value as a moral guide.
20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
20:20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
20:22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
20:23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
Is this a corollary to 20:4 above? Are we now only talking about graven images made of gold or silver? What about bronze? Or plastic? (Of course the Hebrews of this time wouldn't have known what plastic is, but God surely does, right?)
20:24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
I'm pretty sure that every altar I've ever seen in any church has been shaped by tools. It seems the only choices allowed by God are to make your altars of earth (I guess this would include brick, but not wood), or stone.
20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
Eh, what now? Is God afraid that someone will look up the back of someone's smock if the walked up the steps? God still has this irrational objection to nakedness, what a prude.
So, in review. We have a list of things not to do that are presented as absolutes, and no room for interpretation is given. As of yet we've been given no consequences for failing to follow these rules. And some of the rules don't make any sense at all (no graven images, no coveting). Nearly all of them have been broken by primary characters up to now, without God so much as batting an eyelash. As moral guides go, this is a pretty weak list. They're written as absolutes with no basis for interpretation or application to a person's daily life, and as such are useless.
A much more coherent and actually useful basis for conduct (both societal and individual) is the Secular Humanist Declaration from the Council for Secular Humanism. Admittedly it would be hard to carve all that out on stone tablets, but it's worth taking the time to read it.
17ouk epithumēseis tēn gunaika tou plēsion sou ouk epithumēseis tēn oikian tou plēsion sou oute ton agron autou oute ton paida autou oute tēn paidiskēn autou oute tou boos autou oute tou upozugiou autou oute pantos ktēnous autou oute osa tō plēsion sou estin. (http://sept.biblos.com/exodus/20.htm)
ReplyDeletehttp://concordances.org/greek/1937.htm
You need to read more than 1 translation before you mock, make fun of, or speak as if you know the truth.
You are reading as a skeptic, you will find what you are looking for, but you will miss what is important.
Keep reading, you will find the answer you are seeking.
Yes, I'm reading as a skeptic. I read *everything* as a skeptic. Skepticism is a virtue, a frame of mind. It keeps you from being misinformed or lied to, and it helps you sift out what's correct from all the dreck that's out there.
ReplyDeletePart of what I'm doing is taking the premise of the Bible at face value: it's the inerrant word of an omniscient, omnipotent deity that forms the basis of Judaism and Christianity. When you read it within this context and see references to, for example, beating your slaves and persecuting or killing your enemies, it's hard to conclude that this is a good or moral basis for societal behavior. So when I mock or make fun of what I read, this is why. I don't claim to know the "truth" (a word I generally avoid except in the context of truth conditional semantics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics); I claim to read and understand what's written; or when I don't, I point it out. I do look at other sources, other translations and commentaries, all the time. It doesn't help.
Unless you're claiming that other translations, or the original material, doesn't include, for example, the rules in Exodus 21 for how to beat your slaves. That would be a pretty shocking mistranslation in the KJV! I don't think there's any way around the atrocities that are presented in this book.
What I won't do is read this book with a blind eye to things that offend my sense of morality and ethics, which I presume is the only way someone could read this and not conclude how vile it is. Ironically, many people tell me that I have to read it "with an open heart," but I think it's the opposite. If you heart is open you have to be disturbed by how unfairly women and slaves are treated (or the existence of slavery at all), to the people who are senselessly slaughtered over nonexistent transgressions, the senseless slaughter of animals for demonstrations of power or sacrifices, and so on. It is my "open heart" that allows me to realize how wrong these things are.
But of course I know it's all fiction, and badly written fiction at that. The *real* purpose to my reading it is so that I'll know what's in there, and not just selected verses taken out of context to prove a point. I'm doing this with an open mind; the negativity you see is my honest reaction to the book. If it had had a clear, positive and moral message, I would be reacting to that. Don't condemn me without responding to the horrors that I'm reacting to.