Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post, and has been a contributor to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers for more than 25 years on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union and Russian literature. Jacoby has been the recipient of grants from the Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2001-2002, she was named a fellow at the Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. Jacoby’s other books include Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004); Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1984, and Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past. She is working on a book about the relationship between American anti-intellectualism and political polarization, to be published by Pantheon in 2008. Her photo is by Chris Ramir.
Close.
Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter
Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason."more »
J,
thanks for the comment. The point is: "If we want to" means "if we are able to want to". There is the rub. Kudos to your optimism about the freedom of thinking, even the freedom of thinking for pigeons, lol!. If I look at history - and presence - I have grave doubts.
The term "brainwashed" doesn't expire simply because you are sick of hearing it.
People behave exactly like those pigeons when they perform a dance to pray for rain or anything else: They posit a causal - mystical or otherwise - connection where there is none, or where there is a random temporal sequence at best.
Of course if you deny the existence of randomness, I resort to a sympathetic feeling for sweet little pigeons...
A "fixed talking point" that needs constant repetition until The Obfuscating, Brainwashed Jihadist and her ilk do something about their book of "death to the infidel", i.e.
"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe."!!!!!
I know. It is not so much a conditioned reflex, but rather, automatic spouting of "fixed talking points" or "set company lines" so to speak. I am leery of using the term "brainwashed" as it reminds me of a forced process as in "The Manchurian Candidate".
Gerry's point is put in a hilarious way. How can we be sure that even the pigeons would not revert to their "normal" self once freed? Unlike animals used as "lab rats", we humans can deviate from any set behavior or thinking - free to change our minds, our jobs, our habits. If we want to. We also tend to conform to any organisations' rules and norms we're in, be it in schools, the workplace, NGOs or religious organisations.
Well, your reply to Gerry cracked me up! Apparently the pigeons are not simply hungry and smart enough to know how to get fed, but brainwashed. Likewise, lab rats that run mazes to get food - learning, or brainwashed? It is also a fact that Pavlov's goal, which he achieved, was to train lab assistants to write something down when a bell rang and the dog slobbered.....
Actually, Gerry may have a point. The comments of Christian fundamentalists often seems like a conditioned reflex to me. Not sure about the birds and rats, though. They are probably smarter than that.
Your post on "religious" pigeons is the most fun I've read for a while. It cracks me up.
Did the pigeons actually learn how to pray, or is their head movements taken to be as them praying? Were the pigeons taught to fast and to repent?
Who are the fellows teaching pigeons to be "superstitious" and reading into pigeon's head movements that they are religious. What if we premised that the pigeons were at rapt attention in their head movements like Nazis and fascists and to be rewarded for it with food?
Who are the fellows who funded them? Where was it done? What are we? Pavlov dog's, then trained monkeys, then homing pigeons, and now "superstitious pigeons"? The ascent of man, or the descent of man from looking at hapless animals being subjected to experiments to find meaning on human behavior?
Why not compare humans to humans rather than with dogs, monkeys, pigeons or lemmings? Whatever happens to "....and this is what seperate man from animals" and such?
Those are very smart pigeons to know how to get food from humans. Especially in a controlled environment of a lab, and they are not free to roam to find food themselves as they would if free in the world. They will do anything. Just ask your employee. They are not being noble. Only being survivalists.
Susan, I simply want to thank you for your article. I regret that your viewpoints, which are so intelligent, honest, evident, "normal" in the best sense of this word, have to be confronted with the foggy and verbose preachings of a Ryan Haber (or Pablo, the holder of e degree in "bible"), people who think that unless you squeeze your brain cells into "believing" in their particular brand of superstition, you cannot have "nobility". Unbelievable and sad. And ludicrously condescending, since there is no base to "descend" from.
I just read an article about the fact that you can teach pigeons to become superstitious "believers" in no time ("convert" them): Just use the old confusion of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". If the pigeons turn their heads in a particular way and THEN get food every time only after this movement, they will continue and even exaggerate that particular head motion: Their prayers have been answered. The experiment works with all sorts of movements (denominations).
Noble pigeons. I look at the Habers twisting their necks for being "saved", believing that "noble secularism" is an oxymoron.
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo has posted elsewhere on On Faith a commentary titled "Presidential Spirituality, not Religion – Please!!" Intended or not, it poses some counter points to Ms. Jacoby's post. While I deeply respect Ms. Jacoby's viewpoint, I believe Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is closer to the mark of reconciling the political and religious in America. A must-read!
Well written rebuttal to Ryan's narrow viewpoint. Thanks. And damn right we are all social beasties, and empathy, and its companion, compassion, is pretty much inborn, not learned from a book. The book may reinforce it, and guide it, but it is not the source. And, boy howdies, poor Ryan has never had the wonderful experience of being around animals!
I am a believer, Christian, but also hold to evolution, and see no conflict.
Ryan wrote:
"That it, it in no way can be deduced from, 'I feel sorry for him,' that, 'I should not do to him what made him feel bad.' Nor from, 'I shouldn't like that done to me,' does it follow logically that, 'I shouldn't do it to him.'
I'm not talking about *logic*, Ryan. Don't be an @$$. I was speaking of empathy. Do you know the definiton of that word? It's to do with emotion, not logic. If you are empathetic, then I think those things do absolutely follow.
"... and sometimes it's not true. I wouldn't like to be pushed through a birth canal, but it will still have to happen to my baby at some point. I wouldn't like to be shot while breaking into somebody's house, but I might have to shoot somebody, to protect my wife and children, who is breaking into mine."
If it meant living versus dying, I'd happily be pushed through a birth canal (I was, once) and I would certainly wish the same for my children. Gaining a life, priceless.
Where the empathy comes in, is in NOT breaking into someone's house, because you wouldn't want yours to be broken into. If I were to do it anyway, I would feel guilty and recognize that I deserved my punishment, if caught.
"Again, Pam, in 'naturalism' (the use of whatever happens among the animals in nature as a guide for our own conduct) we find no answers. In fact, there, we find most of the problems. Bulls don't ask cows if they'd like to mate. They simply mount them. Is it reasonable to go around teaching schoolchildren that they are 'just animals' and then be surprised to find that, as adults, they act like it, lying, stealing, and raping at will?"
Sorry you see the animals as so depraved. Guess you haven't spent much time around them. Bulls only mate cows that are in heat, otherwise, there's no way she's going to stand for him. There is no rape. I have bred dogs for years. Occasionally, a randy, but inexperienced, young male decides he's not going to wait to be invited - he gets his comeuppance PDQ, I can tell you.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we use the animals for a "guide." Please don't put words into my mouth. I meant that all social animals live by rules that govern their behavior and allow the society to function cohesively. This, and empathy, is all that our own laws are about and precisely where our "morals" come from.
We are more complicated creatures and have need of more complicated rules - we also have the brains to formulate them. But don't make the mistake of thinking that other social animals don't have any. There can be serious consequences for stealing among them. Without language, "lying" requires some extrapolation, but there are consequences there, too. Please do read Frans de Waal - you will find him eye-opening, I think.
Of course, as one who understands and accepts that we evolved from an ancestor that we have in common with chimpanzees and bonobos, I do think our social structure "comes from" the animals, in that sense, but I don't think that we "look to" them for guidance now.
And your premise about school children is absurd, as you must know. I have accepted evolution, and rejected religion, since well before attaining my majority. I recognize, therefore, that I am "just" an animal (actually, I think animals, including humans, are pretty wonderful and amazing). All the same, I don't go around stealing and lying at will. Nor would I rape, if I were a man. One does not follow the other. I am a *social* animal, and I follow the rules - not grudgingly, but happily. No Big Daddy in the Sky holding out reward or punishment necessary.
A synopsis of the flaws in the foundations of today's contemporary religions:
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.
Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, lies, embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.
Well, Haber was pretty rude to Pam. At least graphic, and beyond reason. Maybe we should deck both? ...probably not, on second thought. Plays to their arguments.
You're a fine one to call other people obsfucating. You're the ones that obsfucating. You're alot more obsfucatinger than she is. In fact, you're one of the most obsfucatingest people I ever did see.
Why note the problems with The Obfuscating Jihadist? Because she like most "liberal" Muslims still believes that the koran has no flaws/stench. And that has led to the following:
The assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
CCNL, you are projecting all your fears of Islam onto Jihadist. Instead of imagining her as a potential threat, why don't you think of her as someome communicating to us, from a far-away and exotic land, about ordinary and picturesque things?
This reminds me:
In my ninth grade geography class, we were all assigned to write a paper on a foreign country. The teacher made a list of countries, and each student drew the name of the country; I got Malaysia, so I researched Malaysia and wrote my paper on it.
Even after all this time, I still remember alot about Malaysia, and probably have a slightly above average interest in Malaysia. I can remember the capital, off the top of my head, without even going to look it up: Kuala Lumpur. And isn't this also where the giagntic Petronis twin towers are located?
C. S. Lewis discusses the breakdown of language and the use of education to destroy it in "The Abolition of Man."
E Fav,
Lol. No, I don't think you're smug. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. If you came up to me on the street and decked me, I wouldn't know who it was. That's why I differentiated between the tone I inferred from your comment, the possibly intended different tone, and your overall character. Three very different things.
Pam,
You are mistaken. It's a basic principle of logic (and ethics) that an imperative cannot be derived from a declarative. That it, it in no way can be deduced from, "I feel sorry for him," that, "I should not do to him what made him feel bad." Nor from, "I shouldn't like that done to me," does it follow logically that, "I shouldn't do it to him." It just doesn't follow, and sometimes it's not true. I wouldn't like to be pushed through a birth canal, but it will still have to happen to my baby at some point. I wouldn't like to be shot while breaking into somebody's house, but I might have to shoot somebody, to protect my wife and children, who is breaking into mine.
Again, Pam, in "naturalism" (the use of whatever happens among the animals in nature as a guide for our own conduct) we find no answers. In fact, there, we find most of the problems. Bulls don't ask cows if they'd like to mate. They simply mount them. Is it reasonable to go around teaching schoolchildren that they are "just animals" and then be surprised to find that, as adults, they act like it, lying, stealing, and raping at will?
Ahh, the Obfuscating Jihadist is now making small talk about USA democracy in action while the stench of her koran continues to permeate the globe to include her own country, Malaysia.
Said country is quickly turning into an Islamic theocracy based on the hallucinations of an illiterate, warmongering Arab and his plagiarizing scribes.
One wonders how long it will take to decontaminate it.
Ahh, the Obfuscating Jihadist is back making small talk about grammar while the stench of her koran continues to permeate the globe. One wonders how long it will take to decontaminate it.
We're now on English grammar here? Not going on about spelling yet? F Scott Fitzgerald is said to have some trouble with the spelling of some words.
"Oh Carol! I'm a bloody fool...."
(so my father thought Neil Sedaka sang)
"Ah nevah saw a wild thang feelin' sorry for itself"
- DH Lawrence
Who gives a hoot how English is pronounced, developed and mutated all over the world? You've not seen me using Manglish yet. It ain't worth a bucket of warm spit to get hoity-toity on this. I find English inflected with local idiom and their own mother tongue's grammar by non-native speakers fascinating, charming and educational. You can all call it bad English, and some examples:
I love these comments about grammar on my thread. It shows the high intelligence of people interested in issues at the intersection of secularism and religion.
Gaby: "If God wanted to let us have some religious guidance in writing, wouldn't you think he/she/it would have communicated it in a clearer fashion?"
YES!
Concerned - you're welcomed. Interesting points about the scholars' attachment to Jesus as deity. Will think on it. Almost sounds like being tied to tradition - roots, tribalism.
Could also be an occupational hazard to reach a negative conclusion about Jesus.
" I am simply asking the question that Pam missed. Whence our dignity? Being social animals might make us special – but special is not the same thing as noble or dignified. Special only means distinct in some essential way."
Special was my take on our status, I didn't mean it as some absolute trait. Special to ME.
"There are lots of social animals for that matter. The fact that we have evolved a faculty for empathy in no way explains the fact of moral imperatives."
Sure it does. Empathy allows you to put yourself in another's place. To recognize that pain and fear in another feel the seem to him as they do to you. It's precisely where morals come from. The golden rule is the only one necessary, if we'd all just abide by it.
"Because I feel harmed by an action in no way explains how I might postulate a Golden Rule. And in fact many people who are harmed to do not go on to live by the Golden Rule, but to take revenge."
The golden rule (empathy) should keep the harm from happening in the first place. It might work better if we didn't have a book that tells us that it only applies to kith and kin - perfectly OK to stomp the guys in the next town if they worship another god. Kill them all - their wives, babies, concubines and livestock. Great.
"Moreover, if we are just social animals, why do our rights transcend those we accord to ants and wolves, other social animals?"
Because we've been taught by religion that we are "above" the other animals. They have no souls, and we are to have "dominion" over them. We are, on the strength of this, quite anthropocentric. Were we to accept our natural place in the natural world, we might be more charitable.
I appreciate the reference to John Haught's commentary. He is apparently a typical Catholic theologian, lots of verbage, not much "to the point" rhetoric. I believe he and theologians like Father Schillebeeckx suffer from all the years of Catholic brainwashing and they still cannot make the leap to saying Jesus was not deity. Professor Crossan has a similar problem but when he writes as a co-author, he can make some substantial leaps to truth and reality e.g. his book Who is Jesus with Watts and Excavating Jesus with Reed.
Crossan's historical analyses and use of references also saves the day for his conclusions but he also cannot make that leap to saying Jesus was not deity which is sad since he does a great job proving it.
"Parker - Your paraphrasing sure takes the bite out of the first 4 commandments, but seriously, how do you know that's what God meant? "
How does anyone know what God meant???
That's the problem with religion, no one knows for sure who was a prophet and who not, who wrote the Bible and who know, what Jesus meant with his incessant parables and what not.
If God wanted to let us have some religious guidance in writing, wouldn't you think he/she/it would have communicated it in a clearer fashion?
Judaism, Islam and Christianity are religions based on writings by unconfirmed sources and their scribes and supposedly carry the word and will of God.
From where I sit, God didn't exactly do a good job communicating his will and therefore he shouldn't have any problems when we mere sinner don't do exactly what he wants.
It's like having a boss that gives you a very sketchy assignment, leaves you completely alone during the planning phases, doesn't give you any concrete feedback and hopes you can read his mind of what (s)he envisions as the final outcome. Then, after weeks of intense labor, you proudly present your project, but (s)he is hates it and demotes you (purgatory) and finally fires you (hell) for doing the best you could under the circumstances.
I don't understand why anyone would want to be working (living) under these circumstances.
The wisdom of man is foolishness but the word of God is God's precious truth. The Bible says that Christians are to rightly divide the word of truth. Susan did not rightly divide God's word and so the people of God are responsible before God to correct her mistake.
Ryan haber says: “It is a trait typical of smug people that they will interpret someone's statements in the least charitable way” and "Perhaps you are not actually a smug person, but only play one on the internet when nobody knows your name or place of domicile."
Ryan - it's obvious you think I'm smug! I don't mind, really. it's not the worse thing a person could say about me, I just can't figure why you go to such great pains to deny it, while saying it in a veiled way.
Regarding noble and secular, you said “at least oxymoronic because "noble" and "secular" are contrary modes of being” and all your allusions were to “noble” being attached to the term “secular,” not to tradition.
Mr Mark – have you noticed? This time around, all of the candidates for President can speak English. I’m hopeful it will rub off on the ‘murikin peepul.
Pilgrim – I’d give ryan a break on it’s/its – I do that stuff all the time when writing quickly on the web. ps- are you Arminius reincarnated?
Interesting. I am a C S Lewis fan, being Episcopal. Can you give me a reference to his discussion of language?
Oddly enough, in your well-worded post, you made a grammatical error! "You're probably aware of it's importance..." oops, should have been 'its' with no apostrophe. Sorry, could not resist!
Coincidentally, I agree with you about the state of affairs regarding the use of the English language, especially in the US. It's atrocious.
Interestingly, C.S. Lewis (a Christian) wrote a good deal about the break down of language and its meaning. You're probably aware of it's importance in George Orwell (a socialist). Most tellingly, Confucius, when asked which of his many statutes was the most important, he said those aimed at the purification or rectification of language. So much so, he said, that he would dispense with all the rest if only he could get people to use words for their proper meanings and a standardized grammar.
I didn't, nor do I say, that atheists tend to be more condescending than Christians do. I wrote that was our impression and stereotype of atheists. I didn't make an indirect dig, I clearly cited the abovementioned posts as an example of the sort of smugness that we thought typical of atheists.
Daniel's comments weren't the slightest bit smug, and I don't know whether he's an atheist. Pilgrim, who decided "to add to Mr. Haber's education" about the dictionary definition of "noble" ventured into the realm of smugness.
You commented, "Plus, as long as we’re talking grammar – I’ll ask Ryan haber to please note that “noble” modifies “tradition” not “secular.” Thus a tradition, such as honoring one’s elders could be noble and a tradition such as human sacrifice would be ignoble." That also seems smug, yes. As I pointed out in my email, I never even implied that "noble" was modifying "secular" rather than tradition. It is a trait typical of smug people that they will interpret someone's statements in the least charitable way, that is, the way most likely to be erroneous; smug people will also give undue attention to spelling errors, minor grammatical flaws, etc., in people's writing. All this, they will do in order to find a way to demonstrate their superiority. That is what you seem, at least to me, to have done - since we're being direct.
You will please note, E Favorite, that I have not called you a smug person. Only that your remarks seem characteristic of a smug person. The difference is important. Perhaps you are not actually a smug person, but only play one on the internet when nobody knows your name or place of domicile. Maybe you aren't smug at all, but only picky about grammar and aren't aware of how your comments come across. Perhaps I am only hypersensitive. It's all possible.
It's nice to hear that you had a grammar teacher who was a real stickler. That shows a commitment to and an appreciation for language, something that is sorely missing in our "I ain't not gonna do it" society.
Why is it that the proper use of English is looked down upon in this country as being elitist? Why are so many of us comfortable with the hillbilly english of our Harvard-educated president, while distrusting people who can put together thoughts succinctly and compellingly while using a large vocabulary (Christopher Hitchens springs to mind).
Americans tend to distrust an english teacher like yours who was a stickler for detail, yet they would never accept a math teacher or football coach or a medical school professor or an auto shop instructor who wasn't a stickler for detail. And they certainly wouldn't go in for surgery or bring their car in for repair to be worked on a a person who didn't have a knowledge of and a working ethic that utilized the details.
Language is THE way we communicate as a species, yet many Americans distrust those who use it effectively. They're seen as elitist brainiacs, and people to be distrusted.
Ryan haber: "stereotype we had of atheists was not that they were immoral. It was that they were smug and condescending. Like the little lesson on grammar I received."
FYI - when I studied grammar I was a devout Catholic (my only devout period was in Jr high). So was my grammar teacher - we went to the same church.
He was a real stickler. When I shifted to atheism, my attitude about grammar remained the exactly the same. I'm also just as direct as I ever was and really don't like the kind of indirect dig you made above. That's what it seems like, anyhow. But to be sure, I'll ask - are you saying that atheists tend to be more smug and condescending than Christians? And do you think that my comments about the word "noble" were smug and condescending?
I too understand the commandments to be writtn in the spirit that Parker here conveyed. I understand them to be gentle and loving guidance on how to live the fullest, happiest life.
I don't understand how Huckabee keeps getting credited for sincerity.... He is anything but sincere. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote: "That guy is using the cross so I’ll like him. That doesn’t tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I’m dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh."
E Favorite,
Thanks for acknowledging my post to you. I think the Bible was/is intended to be read thoughtfully, lovingly (including the reciprocal love from and for Divine Providence), and the New Testament sheds light on how the Old Testament can be understood without the brow-beating or bludgeoning that sometimes is inferred. I think we can do our best to understand Bible passages allowing a breadth of meaning that adds richness to our day-to-day lives. All the best to you this year.
With respect to ancient codes, commandments etc., it is simply the evolution of the human race with the resultant contemporary codes like the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
I never said that you misused the scriptures, so please do not keep repeating that. You criticized Susan for quoting the scriptures, then you did the same thing. That is all I said.
Your defense is that she did it wrong and you did it right; is that correct? You want me to show you how you are wrong. Why? I do not engage in silly squabbles over nuanced theological points. That is one reason why Bible-quoting is, as a rule, a very bad policy, because it almost always engages acrimonious bickering which does nothing to advance the cause of Christ.
You seem a little misguided and do not see the inappropriateness in issuing forth unsolicited Bible quotes to people who can read and have access to Bibles. Your very implication is that they are stupid and you are smart, and not just smart, but superior, when, you are not. Being a Christian does not make you better than other people, and memorizing Biblical quotes does not make you smater than other people.
There is no way that you can convey the complexity of Christianity by a few choice Bible-quotes, nor accomodate to the complexity of life by a few choice Bible-quotes; this practice is, in fact, a futlie way to prommote your argument, and it never, ever works.
If you know someone whom you sincerely believe could benifit from a particular Biblical citation, because you know of some specific difficulty that they may be having, why not whisper it in their ear or send it to them in a card? That would be more helpful. On a forum such as this, it is seldom helpful.
I wasn’t confused about the definition of secular. Your definition of secular strikes me as a pagan or secular one. Pagans in classical antiquity were very happy to worship this god on this day and that god on that day, and between days not think about either, nor consider the contradictions involved in the two cults. The pagan philosophers almost always ended up becoming either totally atheist/skeptical or else discerning the necessary existence of a single god whose existence alone could explain other realities. This god was necessary as a first fact, you might say, but not a meaningful part of day-to-day life. These philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, were still very much like their neighbors in that they could discern the existence of this god, while still happily going from temple to temple without concerning themselves about that god much at all, except perhaps in their dialogues.
The first innovation of the Jews, enshrined in the Ten Commandments, is to make the first fact of existence the first fact of their lives. They insisted to themselves and to each other that the One, still veiled in much mystery, should be the First and Final in their life, individually and as a nation. The Greek pagans were happy to acknowledge the god existed and then to leave the god alone, but the Jews insisted that God could not be put into a neat category, a nice little box, and put off into a corner of the closet. For the Greeks, the gods had their sphere (the sacred) and everything else was free of their authority. For the Jews, God became the all-important and deciding factor of life. His reality would dictate everything – the conduct of marriages, of business, of governance, of international relations. They never intended that such things be abolished by Him, nor that they weren’t natural and worldly (with no negative connotation). The Jewish innovation is not the destruction of the secular, but its submission to the sacred.
So Daniel and Pilgrim, your idea that going to church is religious and that going to the movies is secular, that is the idea that I reject as a Christian. I will not box up different parts of my life into different little categories and act as if they had nothing to do with each other. I have only one life, and I am the same person wherever I go or whatever I do. It is the same *I* that votes, that selects movies to watch, that attends Holy Mass each morning. Christianity, lived out in its traditional ways, is like Judaism lived out in its traditional ways in that both religions insist upon the submission of the secular to the sacred, of humanity to God. We do admit of the secular, though. Our government is secular, and it couldn’t but be secular. Its purpose is to regulate affairs of this world. I fully support the separation of Church and State. My own Church, the Catholic Church, forbids churchmen to be statesmen – a cleric cannot be a congressman, as Fr. Robert Drinan of Massachusetts found out. Yet I must insist that the separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of Faith from Life, nor of Faith from Social Life, nor of Faith from Politics.
E Favorite,
I never suggested that “noble” modified “secular” in Ms. Jacoby’s expression. I only suggested that they were oxymoronic when used in the same phrase.
Chris Everett,
I’m not really bewildered by the existence of moral atheists. I can’t say I’ve ever met an atheist who struck me as particularly immoral. Also, as for Christianity at least, I can say quite confidently that the primary purpose of our religion isn’t to instill morality. That is a mischaracterization that dates to the Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers were especially susceptible to the idea that religion’s chief benefit, even purpose, is the formation of character with morality. In Protestantism, with its emphasis on sermons, this ideas is closer to truth, but even in the case of Protestantism it is false. With Catholicism it is patently false. The purpose of religion is certainly, moreover, not to tell the world anything new about morality, or anything that the world didn’t already know. You don’t have to be religious to know that murdering your mother is bad and kicking the dog is unkind.
That said, I never have heard an adequate philosophical underpinning for morality without recourse to the transcendent dimension of human experience.
You wrote, “I see the secular American government as being the MOST noble of institutions because it is founded on the principal of respecting, protecting and even promoting mankinds inherent NATURAL rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It’s interesting. I agree with you, mostly, and I agree that our constitution is a noble document, and our government a noble form. Our Founding Fathers, interestingly enough, did not see these rights as secular ones, although the government, having charge over many secular affairs, they held bound to defend these rights. Our Founding Fathers saw these rights as being endowed by our Creator. And this is why Christians won’t leave off all the jabbering about God. (I mean more philosophically minded ones, and not those who like being pandered to, as most people do. For the record, I DETEST Huckabee’s incessant pandering to Christians.) We won’t leave off the jabbering about God because we cannot find another basis for understanding our rights or the purpose of good governance. That is because God made us, and made the world, and its order, even its secular order, derive from his good will for us. The very secularly minded Founding Fathers (very few of whom were atheist, but most of whom weren’t very religious) quite agreed.
“The concept of rights is itself a complex one, but suffice to say that respecting a person's rights equivalent to treating them with dignity, and behaving with dignity yourself. It's easy to see the nobility in that.”
But whence that dignity? That is another way of restating my question to Ms. Jacoby. I am not here insisting that everything we do must be based on proof-texts from the Bible. I am Catholic – we have never operated by proof-texting the Bible – one of the criticisms against us is that we are not “biblical enough,” right? I am simply asking the question that Pam missed. Whence our dignity? Being social animals might make us special – but special is not the same thing as noble or dignified. Special only means distinct in some essential way. There are lots of social animals for that matter. The fact that we have evolved a faculty for empathy in no way explains the fact of moral imperatives. Because I feel harmed by an action in no way explains how I might postulate a Golden Rule. And in fact many people who are harmed to do not go on to live by the Golden Rule, but to take revenge. Moreover, if we are just social animals, why do our rights transcend those we accord to ants and wolves, other social animals? Note that I wrote “transcend,” for on examination you will see that our rights are not simple more numerous than we accord to those animals, but of an entirely different sort.
I was a classical history major, and I’ve read Hammurabi’s Code, the Lipit-Ishtar codex, and I think Ur-Nammu too. The newer Ten Commandments have modified the older Codes in a striking way. To wit, they have removed the graded punishments. In Hammurabi’s Code, and those like it, the lower social classes receive less legal protection and sterner punishments than the rich, than those who likely called themselves “nobles” while treating their neighbors like brutes. The Ten Commandments, by contrast, makes no distinction among persons based on class, nor even by sex. That was new. The Jewish Law, expanding upon the Commandments, adds layer upon layer of protection for the poor, and even gives lighter penalties to the poor. That sounds outright socially progressive to me.
I haven’t read Robert Ingersoll, though. Maybe I will.
Lastly, Chris, I am not shocked, as I said, to find upstanding and morally-conscientious atheists. Not at all. In fact, growing up in my somewhat but not very religious home, the impression and stereotype we had of atheists was not that they were immoral. It was that they were smug and condescending. Like the little lesson on grammar I received.
Parker - Your paraphrasing sure takes the bite out of the first 4 commandments, but seriously, how do you know that's what God meant? and how do you know how or if to paraphrase other passages in the bible?
Concerned - Here's something to add to your litany of scholarly sources: In a recent Salon interview, a Roman Catholic theologian gone on record about the resurrection. Georgetown University theologian John Haught says, “If you had a camera in the upper room when the disciples came together after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we would not see it. I'm not the only one to say this. Even conservative Catholic theologians say that.”
I have a degree in Bible but I have learned most by walking with God. You may poke fun at me if you would like but remember that the skeptics of Noah's day ridiculed him until the flood took them in judgment and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were blinded by their love of sin and there was no remedy for them except wrath and justice. I pray that you will repent so that you will not have to face God's wrath.
Jesus quoted the Scripture all the time and some people were put off by what He said. Stephen, Peter, and Paul were martyred for preaching the word of God. The English Bible you read cost William Tyndale his life. Daniel was thrown in the Lion's den because he would not cease to pray by his window. His enemies did not like him or his God which I am sure he unabashedly proclaimed. Jesus commanded His followers to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Are you suggesting that I should disobey His command?
Again, you say I have miss used the Scripture and if you are going to claim that show me how. So far your claim is unsupported and I believe that you are wrong in your charge but if you can demonstrate that I have misunderstood the Scriptures I would like to know so that I may grow.
E Favorite,
Although I tend to doubt whether you spent very much time reflecting on the 10 commandments when you made your "journey", I might as well comment on your recent comment about what we find in Exodus 20. To paraphrase what I glean from the first four, to me they say, "If you want to be the happiest that you can be, will you heed the following counsel? 1) Put me first in your life, acting from the heart and not just for show; for your children and grandchildren will tend to follow the example of what was in your heart, as evidenced by what you do in your daily actions. 2) Don't make the poor judgement that my creations or your creations are what you should worship--keep things in perspective. 3) Don't take my authority on yourself, or presume to speak for me. 4) You'll be a good deal healthier, live longer, and the earth will be more productive for you if you will make one day in seven a "holy day" wherein you quit worrying so much about the labors of this world and spend time thinking about spiritual qualities that can make your life richer and fuller and more meaningful."
Notwithstanding that I believe the 10 commandments are a good thing when properly understood, I quite agree with Susan Jacoby in this well-reasoned essay, and that is a different subject entirely.
And your educational background as compared to those scholars referenced below???? And some "bottom-line" questions, do you still believe in "pretty wingie thingies" aka tinker bells, fairies and angels??? And has God visited you in the same manner "it" visited Thomas "the NT Moses" Baum?????
And you asked about the flaws in the OT and NT:
As noted previously,
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
It is my observation that unsolicited quoting of the Bible is usually, but not always, a rude practice, often leading to acrimony. I just find it usually to be very off-putting. Maybe that is just me, and people who do this casually are not aware of their rudeness. I was trying to point that out. In addition, you criticized Susan for quoting from the Bible without proper context and then you did a similar thing. I guess you are not able to see my point. Sorry.
"Ms. Jacoby admits of a moral dimension to human living (whence its origin, I have never read her adequately explaining) so I know she is not believe something like, 'Humans are just animals, and nothing more, less, or other.'"
I can't speak for Ms. Jacoby, of course, but I might well have made a statement similar to hers, and I can tell you what *I* would mean.
Right, we are "just" animals. Social animals. Personally, I think that's pretty special.
If you take more than a cursory look at the other social animals, you will find a good deal of such attributes as altruism, justice, and empathy - the roots of "morality." The "golden rule" is an inborn part of us as surely as is the desire to eat or to have sex. I highly recommend the books of Frans de Waal, if you'd like to know more about where our conscience comes from.
I also think you should look into knighthood a bit more before you declare them "noble."
Chris Everett - you sound like a good hearted fellow too.
I recall when I was in the middle of my journey from belief to non-belief, I thought about the 10 commandments. I realized that I couldn’t remember what all ten of them were, but recalled something about “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” Upon reflection, this didn’t seem like one of the ten most important rules to live my life by.
So I got my bible, and found that the first 4 commandments were all about who’s in charge! 10 rules and four of them about were about whom to worship, how and when to worship him and what happens to you and your children’s children if you don’t worship correctly. I was completely unimpressed with them as a ba
All Comments (104)
J,
thanks for the comment. The point is: "If we want to" means "if we are able to want to". There is the rub. Kudos to your optimism about the freedom of thinking, even the freedom of thinking for pigeons, lol!. If I look at history - and presence - I have grave doubts.
The term "brainwashed" doesn't expire simply because you are sick of hearing it.
People behave exactly like those pigeons when they perform a dance to pray for rain or anything else: They posit a causal - mystical or otherwise - connection where there is none, or where there is a random temporal sequence at best.
Of course if you deny the existence of randomness, I resort to a sympathetic feeling for sweet little pigeons...
January 7, 2008 6:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 7, 2008 06:52
A "fixed talking point" that needs constant repetition until The Obfuscating, Brainwashed Jihadist and her ilk do something about their book of "death to the infidel", i.e.
"Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe."!!!!!
January 6, 2008 11:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 23:53
Hello Pilgrim,
I know. It is not so much a conditioned reflex, but rather, automatic spouting of "fixed talking points" or "set company lines" so to speak. I am leery of using the term "brainwashed" as it reminds me of a forced process as in "The Manchurian Candidate".
Gerry's point is put in a hilarious way. How can we be sure that even the pigeons would not revert to their "normal" self once freed? Unlike animals used as "lab rats", we humans can deviate from any set behavior or thinking - free to change our minds, our jobs, our habits. If we want to. We also tend to conform to any organisations' rules and norms we're in, be it in schools, the workplace, NGOs or religious organisations.
Thanks and regards
"J"
January 6, 2008 7:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 19:23
Jihadist,
Well, your reply to Gerry cracked me up! Apparently the pigeons are not simply hungry and smart enough to know how to get fed, but brainwashed. Likewise, lab rats that run mazes to get food - learning, or brainwashed? It is also a fact that Pavlov's goal, which he achieved, was to train lab assistants to write something down when a bell rang and the dog slobbered.....
Actually, Gerry may have a point. The comments of Christian fundamentalists often seems like a conditioned reflex to me. Not sure about the birds and rats, though. They are probably smarter than that.
January 6, 2008 5:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 17:50
Hello Gerry,
Your post on "religious" pigeons is the most fun I've read for a while. It cracks me up.
Did the pigeons actually learn how to pray, or is their head movements taken to be as them praying? Were the pigeons taught to fast and to repent?
Who are the fellows teaching pigeons to be "superstitious" and reading into pigeon's head movements that they are religious. What if we premised that the pigeons were at rapt attention in their head movements like Nazis and fascists and to be rewarded for it with food?
Who are the fellows who funded them? Where was it done? What are we? Pavlov dog's, then trained monkeys, then homing pigeons, and now "superstitious pigeons"? The ascent of man, or the descent of man from looking at hapless animals being subjected to experiments to find meaning on human behavior?
Why not compare humans to humans rather than with dogs, monkeys, pigeons or lemmings? Whatever happens to "....and this is what seperate man from animals" and such?
Those are very smart pigeons to know how to get food from humans. Especially in a controlled environment of a lab, and they are not free to roam to find food themselves as they would if free in the world. They will do anything. Just ask your employee. They are not being noble. Only being survivalists.
"J":)
January 6, 2008 5:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 17:23
Susan, I simply want to thank you for your article. I regret that your viewpoints, which are so intelligent, honest, evident, "normal" in the best sense of this word, have to be confronted with the foggy and verbose preachings of a Ryan Haber (or Pablo, the holder of e degree in "bible"), people who think that unless you squeeze your brain cells into "believing" in their particular brand of superstition, you cannot have "nobility". Unbelievable and sad. And ludicrously condescending, since there is no base to "descend" from.
I just read an article about the fact that you can teach pigeons to become superstitious "believers" in no time ("convert" them): Just use the old confusion of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". If the pigeons turn their heads in a particular way and THEN get food every time only after this movement, they will continue and even exaggerate that particular head motion: Their prayers have been answered. The experiment works with all sorts of movements (denominations).
Noble pigeons. I look at the Habers twisting their necks for being "saved", believing that "noble secularism" is an oxymoron.
January 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2008 15:23
Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo has posted elsewhere on On Faith a commentary titled "Presidential Spirituality, not Religion – Please!!" Intended or not, it poses some counter points to Ms. Jacoby's post. While I deeply respect Ms. Jacoby's viewpoint, I believe Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is closer to the mark of reconciling the political and religious in America. A must-read!
January 5, 2008 9:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2008 09:08
Thank you, Pilgrim, and you're right, there's no need for the two to be mutually exclusive, at all.
January 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 19:17
Pam,
Well written rebuttal to Ryan's narrow viewpoint. Thanks. And damn right we are all social beasties, and empathy, and its companion, compassion, is pretty much inborn, not learned from a book. The book may reinforce it, and guide it, but it is not the source. And, boy howdies, poor Ryan has never had the wonderful experience of being around animals!
I am a believer, Christian, but also hold to evolution, and see no conflict.
January 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 18:46
Ryan wrote:
"That it, it in no way can be deduced from, 'I feel sorry for him,' that, 'I should not do to him what made him feel bad.' Nor from, 'I shouldn't like that done to me,' does it follow logically that, 'I shouldn't do it to him.'
I'm not talking about *logic*, Ryan. Don't be an @$$. I was speaking of empathy. Do you know the definiton of that word? It's to do with emotion, not logic. If you are empathetic, then I think those things do absolutely follow.
"... and sometimes it's not true. I wouldn't like to be pushed through a birth canal, but it will still have to happen to my baby at some point. I wouldn't like to be shot while breaking into somebody's house, but I might have to shoot somebody, to protect my wife and children, who is breaking into mine."
If it meant living versus dying, I'd happily be pushed through a birth canal (I was, once) and I would certainly wish the same for my children. Gaining a life, priceless.
Where the empathy comes in, is in NOT breaking into someone's house, because you wouldn't want yours to be broken into. If I were to do it anyway, I would feel guilty and recognize that I deserved my punishment, if caught.
"Again, Pam, in 'naturalism' (the use of whatever happens among the animals in nature as a guide for our own conduct) we find no answers. In fact, there, we find most of the problems. Bulls don't ask cows if they'd like to mate. They simply mount them. Is it reasonable to go around teaching schoolchildren that they are 'just animals' and then be surprised to find that, as adults, they act like it, lying, stealing, and raping at will?"
Sorry you see the animals as so depraved. Guess you haven't spent much time around them. Bulls only mate cows that are in heat, otherwise, there's no way she's going to stand for him. There is no rape. I have bred dogs for years. Occasionally, a randy, but inexperienced, young male decides he's not going to wait to be invited - he gets his comeuppance PDQ, I can tell you.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we use the animals for a "guide." Please don't put words into my mouth. I meant that all social animals live by rules that govern their behavior and allow the society to function cohesively. This, and empathy, is all that our own laws are about and precisely where our "morals" come from.
We are more complicated creatures and have need of more complicated rules - we also have the brains to formulate them. But don't make the mistake of thinking that other social animals don't have any. There can be serious consequences for stealing among them. Without language, "lying" requires some extrapolation, but there are consequences there, too. Please do read Frans de Waal - you will find him eye-opening, I think.
Of course, as one who understands and accepts that we evolved from an ancestor that we have in common with chimpanzees and bonobos, I do think our social structure "comes from" the animals, in that sense, but I don't think that we "look to" them for guidance now.
And your premise about school children is absurd, as you must know. I have accepted evolution, and rejected religion, since well before attaining my majority. I recognize, therefore, that I am "just" an animal (actually, I think animals, including humans, are pretty wonderful and amazing). All the same, I don't go around stealing and lying at will. Nor would I rape, if I were a man. One does not follow the other. I am a *social* animal, and I follow the rules - not grudgingly, but happily. No Big Daddy in the Sky holding out reward or punishment necessary.
January 4, 2008 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 18:30
DITLD,
What is obfuscating about:
What is obfuscating about the following:
A synopsis of the flaws in the foundations of today's contemporary religions:
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.
Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, lies, embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.
??????????
January 4, 2008 5:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 17:57
Daniel ITLD,
Well, Haber was pretty rude to Pam. At least graphic, and beyond reason. Maybe we should deck both? ...probably not, on second thought. Plays to their arguments.
January 4, 2008 5:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 17:39
I think E Favorite has been patient. I can definitely see that has got a point.
That thing that Ryan Haber wrote was actually pretty rude.
January 4, 2008 5:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 17:19
Daniel ITLD,
Re 'obsfucating': 12 points out of 10 for you. Very, very good! I wonder if poor 'Concerned' has a clue.
E Favorite,
Don't deck the poor bloke. At least he is polite. Go deck 'Concerned'.
January 4, 2008 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 17:02
Ryan Haber -- The next a stranger comes up to you in the street and decks you -- that's me!
January 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 16:43
You're a fine one to call other people obsfucating. You're the ones that obsfucating. You're alot more obsfucatinger than she is. In fact, you're one of the most obsfucatingest people I ever did see.
January 4, 2008 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 16:36
DITLD,
Why note the problems with The Obfuscating Jihadist? Because she like most "liberal" Muslims still believes that the koran has no flaws/stench. And that has led to the following:
The assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
January 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 14:47
CCNL, you are projecting all your fears of Islam onto Jihadist. Instead of imagining her as a potential threat, why don't you think of her as someome communicating to us, from a far-away and exotic land, about ordinary and picturesque things?
This reminds me:
In my ninth grade geography class, we were all assigned to write a paper on a foreign country. The teacher made a list of countries, and each student drew the name of the country; I got Malaysia, so I researched Malaysia and wrote my paper on it.
Even after all this time, I still remember alot about Malaysia, and probably have a slightly above average interest in Malaysia. I can remember the capital, off the top of my head, without even going to look it up: Kuala Lumpur. And isn't this also where the giagntic Petronis twin towers are located?
So, CCNL, why don't you take it easy?
January 4, 2008 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 13:48
Pilgrim,
C. S. Lewis discusses the breakdown of language and the use of education to destroy it in "The Abolition of Man."
E Fav,
Lol. No, I don't think you're smug. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. If you came up to me on the street and decked me, I wouldn't know who it was. That's why I differentiated between the tone I inferred from your comment, the possibly intended different tone, and your overall character. Three very different things.
Pam,
You are mistaken. It's a basic principle of logic (and ethics) that an imperative cannot be derived from a declarative. That it, it in no way can be deduced from, "I feel sorry for him," that, "I should not do to him what made him feel bad." Nor from, "I shouldn't like that done to me," does it follow logically that, "I shouldn't do it to him." It just doesn't follow, and sometimes it's not true. I wouldn't like to be pushed through a birth canal, but it will still have to happen to my baby at some point. I wouldn't like to be shot while breaking into somebody's house, but I might have to shoot somebody, to protect my wife and children, who is breaking into mine.
Again, Pam, in "naturalism" (the use of whatever happens among the animals in nature as a guide for our own conduct) we find no answers. In fact, there, we find most of the problems. Bulls don't ask cows if they'd like to mate. They simply mount them. Is it reasonable to go around teaching schoolchildren that they are "just animals" and then be surprised to find that, as adults, they act like it, lying, stealing, and raping at will?
January 4, 2008 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 13:09
Ahh, the Obfuscating Jihadist is now making small talk about USA democracy in action while the stench of her koran continues to permeate the globe to include her own country, Malaysia.
Said country is quickly turning into an Islamic theocracy based on the hallucinations of an illiterate, warmongering Arab and his plagiarizing scribes.
One wonders how long it will take to decontaminate it.
January 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 12:39
....and so, in Iowa, Huckabee won. Obama won.
English grammar aside, what does it mean?
According to BBC, Huckabee is for "values", and Obama is for "change".
Jacoby: "Time for a change in values?"
Inerrantist : "Come hell or high water, no!"
Fundamentalist: "Not until hell freezes over!"
Fanatic : "Over my dead body!"
American Innocent abroad : "Anyone got small change? I can't believe how much the value of the dollar has gone down!"
Malaysian using Manglish: "Aiyo! Ar, Hucka who?Obaba what? Where got one, lah!"
January 4, 2008 7:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 07:17
Ahh, the Obfuscating Jihadist is back making small talk about grammar while the stench of her koran continues to permeate the globe. One wonders how long it will take to decontaminate it.
January 4, 2008 6:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 06:12
We're now on English grammar here? Not going on about spelling yet? F Scott Fitzgerald is said to have some trouble with the spelling of some words.
"Oh Carol! I'm a bloody fool...."
(so my father thought Neil Sedaka sang)
"Ah nevah saw a wild thang feelin' sorry for itself"
- DH Lawrence
Who gives a hoot how English is pronounced, developed and mutated all over the world? You've not seen me using Manglish yet. It ain't worth a bucket of warm spit to get hoity-toity on this. I find English inflected with local idiom and their own mother tongue's grammar by non-native speakers fascinating, charming and educational. You can all call it bad English, and some examples:
- "I have hungry."
- "Who belongs to this pen?"
- "Can or not?" "Cannot!" "Okay! Can!"
- "My boss will be on top of me."
January 4, 2008 2:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2008 02:08
I love these comments about grammar on my thread. It shows the high intelligence of people interested in issues at the intersection of secularism and religion.
January 3, 2008 10:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 22:08
Gaby: "If God wanted to let us have some religious guidance in writing, wouldn't you think he/she/it would have communicated it in a clearer fashion?"
YES!
Concerned - you're welcomed. Interesting points about the scholars' attachment to Jesus as deity. Will think on it. Almost sounds like being tied to tradition - roots, tribalism.
Could also be an occupational hazard to reach a negative conclusion about Jesus.
January 3, 2008 9:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 21:50
" I am simply asking the question that Pam missed. Whence our dignity? Being social animals might make us special – but special is not the same thing as noble or dignified. Special only means distinct in some essential way."
Special was my take on our status, I didn't mean it as some absolute trait. Special to ME.
"There are lots of social animals for that matter. The fact that we have evolved a faculty for empathy in no way explains the fact of moral imperatives."
Sure it does. Empathy allows you to put yourself in another's place. To recognize that pain and fear in another feel the seem to him as they do to you. It's precisely where morals come from. The golden rule is the only one necessary, if we'd all just abide by it.
"Because I feel harmed by an action in no way explains how I might postulate a Golden Rule. And in fact many people who are harmed to do not go on to live by the Golden Rule, but to take revenge."
The golden rule (empathy) should keep the harm from happening in the first place. It might work better if we didn't have a book that tells us that it only applies to kith and kin - perfectly OK to stomp the guys in the next town if they worship another god. Kill them all - their wives, babies, concubines and livestock. Great.
"Moreover, if we are just social animals, why do our rights transcend those we accord to ants and wolves, other social animals?"
Because we've been taught by religion that we are "above" the other animals. They have no souls, and we are to have "dominion" over them. We are, on the strength of this, quite anthropocentric. Were we to accept our natural place in the natural world, we might be more charitable.
January 3, 2008 7:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 19:40
E. Favorite,
I appreciate the reference to John Haught's commentary. He is apparently a typical Catholic theologian, lots of verbage, not much "to the point" rhetoric. I believe he and theologians like Father Schillebeeckx suffer from all the years of Catholic brainwashing and they still cannot make the leap to saying Jesus was not deity. Professor Crossan has a similar problem but when he writes as a co-author, he can make some substantial leaps to truth and reality e.g. his book Who is Jesus with Watts and Excavating Jesus with Reed.
Crossan's historical analyses and use of references also saves the day for his conclusions but he also cannot make that leap to saying Jesus was not deity which is sad since he does a great job proving it.
Thanks again!!!
January 3, 2008 6:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 18:42
E Favorite:
You said:
"Parker - Your paraphrasing sure takes the bite out of the first 4 commandments, but seriously, how do you know that's what God meant? "
How does anyone know what God meant???
That's the problem with religion, no one knows for sure who was a prophet and who not, who wrote the Bible and who know, what Jesus meant with his incessant parables and what not.
If God wanted to let us have some religious guidance in writing, wouldn't you think he/she/it would have communicated it in a clearer fashion?
Judaism, Islam and Christianity are religions based on writings by unconfirmed sources and their scribes and supposedly carry the word and will of God.
From where I sit, God didn't exactly do a good job communicating his will and therefore he shouldn't have any problems when we mere sinner don't do exactly what he wants.
It's like having a boss that gives you a very sketchy assignment, leaves you completely alone during the planning phases, doesn't give you any concrete feedback and hopes you can read his mind of what (s)he envisions as the final outcome. Then, after weeks of intense labor, you proudly present your project, but (s)he is hates it and demotes you (purgatory) and finally fires you (hell) for doing the best you could under the circumstances.
I don't understand why anyone would want to be working (living) under these circumstances.
Oh well, such is life...
January 3, 2008 5:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 17:07
Daniel in the Lion's Den,
The wisdom of man is foolishness but the word of God is God's precious truth. The Bible says that Christians are to rightly divide the word of truth. Susan did not rightly divide God's word and so the people of God are responsible before God to correct her mistake.
Are you part of the Emergent Church?
January 3, 2008 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 16:56
E Favorite
Contact me at steemfreek@gmail. Anybody else who does this will be blocked.
January 3, 2008 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 16:26
Ryan haber says: “It is a trait typical of smug people that they will interpret someone's statements in the least charitable way” and "Perhaps you are not actually a smug person, but only play one on the internet when nobody knows your name or place of domicile."
Ryan - it's obvious you think I'm smug! I don't mind, really. it's not the worse thing a person could say about me, I just can't figure why you go to such great pains to deny it, while saying it in a veiled way.
Regarding noble and secular, you said “at least oxymoronic because "noble" and "secular" are contrary modes of being” and all your allusions were to “noble” being attached to the term “secular,” not to tradition.
Mr Mark – have you noticed? This time around, all of the candidates for President can speak English. I’m hopeful it will rub off on the ‘murikin peepul.
Pilgrim – I’d give ryan a break on it’s/its – I do that stuff all the time when writing quickly on the web. ps- are you Arminius reincarnated?
January 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 16:04
Ryan Haber:
Interesting. I am a C S Lewis fan, being Episcopal. Can you give me a reference to his discussion of language?
Oddly enough, in your well-worded post, you made a grammatical error! "You're probably aware of it's importance..." oops, should have been 'its' with no apostrophe. Sorry, could not resist!
January 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 15:10
Mr. Mark and E Favorite,
Coincidentally, I agree with you about the state of affairs regarding the use of the English language, especially in the US. It's atrocious.
Interestingly, C.S. Lewis (a Christian) wrote a good deal about the break down of language and its meaning. You're probably aware of it's importance in George Orwell (a socialist). Most tellingly, Confucius, when asked which of his many statutes was the most important, he said those aimed at the purification or rectification of language. So much so, he said, that he would dispense with all the rest if only he could get people to use words for their proper meanings and a standardized grammar.
January 3, 2008 1:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 13:16
Good grief, E Favorite,
I didn't, nor do I say, that atheists tend to be more condescending than Christians do. I wrote that was our impression and stereotype of atheists. I didn't make an indirect dig, I clearly cited the abovementioned posts as an example of the sort of smugness that we thought typical of atheists.
Daniel's comments weren't the slightest bit smug, and I don't know whether he's an atheist. Pilgrim, who decided "to add to Mr. Haber's education" about the dictionary definition of "noble" ventured into the realm of smugness.
You commented, "Plus, as long as we’re talking grammar – I’ll ask Ryan haber to please note that “noble” modifies “tradition” not “secular.” Thus a tradition, such as honoring one’s elders could be noble and a tradition such as human sacrifice would be ignoble." That also seems smug, yes. As I pointed out in my email, I never even implied that "noble" was modifying "secular" rather than tradition. It is a trait typical of smug people that they will interpret someone's statements in the least charitable way, that is, the way most likely to be erroneous; smug people will also give undue attention to spelling errors, minor grammatical flaws, etc., in people's writing. All this, they will do in order to find a way to demonstrate their superiority. That is what you seem, at least to me, to have done - since we're being direct.
You will please note, E Favorite, that I have not called you a smug person. Only that your remarks seem characteristic of a smug person. The difference is important. Perhaps you are not actually a smug person, but only play one on the internet when nobody knows your name or place of domicile. Maybe you aren't smug at all, but only picky about grammar and aren't aware of how your comments come across. Perhaps I am only hypersensitive. It's all possible.
I'm going to lunch. Happy New Year.
January 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 13:10
Dear E Fav -
It's nice to hear that you had a grammar teacher who was a real stickler. That shows a commitment to and an appreciation for language, something that is sorely missing in our "I ain't not gonna do it" society.
Why is it that the proper use of English is looked down upon in this country as being elitist? Why are so many of us comfortable with the hillbilly english of our Harvard-educated president, while distrusting people who can put together thoughts succinctly and compellingly while using a large vocabulary (Christopher Hitchens springs to mind).
Americans tend to distrust an english teacher like yours who was a stickler for detail, yet they would never accept a math teacher or football coach or a medical school professor or an auto shop instructor who wasn't a stickler for detail. And they certainly wouldn't go in for surgery or bring their car in for repair to be worked on a a person who didn't have a knowledge of and a working ethic that utilized the details.
Language is THE way we communicate as a species, yet many Americans distrust those who use it effectively. They're seen as elitist brainiacs, and people to be distrusted.
A sad state of affairs, is it not?
January 3, 2008 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 13:01
Ryan haber: "stereotype we had of atheists was not that they were immoral. It was that they were smug and condescending. Like the little lesson on grammar I received."
FYI - when I studied grammar I was a devout Catholic (my only devout period was in Jr high). So was my grammar teacher - we went to the same church.
He was a real stickler. When I shifted to atheism, my attitude about grammar remained the exactly the same. I'm also just as direct as I ever was and really don't like the kind of indirect dig you made above. That's what it seems like, anyhow. But to be sure, I'll ask - are you saying that atheists tend to be more smug and condescending than Christians? And do you think that my comments about the word "noble" were smug and condescending?
January 3, 2008 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 12:41
E Favorite:
I too understand the commandments to be writtn in the spirit that Parker here conveyed. I understand them to be gentle and loving guidance on how to live the fullest, happiest life.
January 3, 2008 12:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 12:26
I don't understand how Huckabee keeps getting credited for sincerity.... He is anything but sincere. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote: "That guy is using the cross so I’ll like him. That doesn’t tell me what he thinks of Jesus, but it does tell me what he thinks of me. He thinks I’m dim. He thinks I will associate my savior with his candidacy. Bleh."
January 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 12:12
E Favorite,
Thanks for acknowledging my post to you. I think the Bible was/is intended to be read thoughtfully, lovingly (including the reciprocal love from and for Divine Providence), and the New Testament sheds light on how the Old Testament can be understood without the brow-beating or bludgeoning that sometimes is inferred. I think we can do our best to understand Bible passages allowing a breadth of meaning that adds richness to our day-to-day lives. All the best to you this year.
January 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 12:00
Ryan,
With respect to ancient codes, commandments etc., it is simply the evolution of the human race with the resultant contemporary codes like the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
January 3, 2008 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 11:37
Pablo
I never said that you misused the scriptures, so please do not keep repeating that. You criticized Susan for quoting the scriptures, then you did the same thing. That is all I said.
Your defense is that she did it wrong and you did it right; is that correct? You want me to show you how you are wrong. Why? I do not engage in silly squabbles over nuanced theological points. That is one reason why Bible-quoting is, as a rule, a very bad policy, because it almost always engages acrimonious bickering which does nothing to advance the cause of Christ.
You seem a little misguided and do not see the inappropriateness in issuing forth unsolicited Bible quotes to people who can read and have access to Bibles. Your very implication is that they are stupid and you are smart, and not just smart, but superior, when, you are not. Being a Christian does not make you better than other people, and memorizing Biblical quotes does not make you smater than other people.
There is no way that you can convey the complexity of Christianity by a few choice Bible-quotes, nor accomodate to the complexity of life by a few choice Bible-quotes; this practice is, in fact, a futlie way to prommote your argument, and it never, ever works.
If you know someone whom you sincerely believe could benifit from a particular Biblical citation, because you know of some specific difficulty that they may be having, why not whisper it in their ear or send it to them in a card? That would be more helpful. On a forum such as this, it is seldom helpful.
January 3, 2008 10:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 10:14
Daniel in the Lion’s Den, and Pilgrim,
I wasn’t confused about the definition of secular. Your definition of secular strikes me as a pagan or secular one. Pagans in classical antiquity were very happy to worship this god on this day and that god on that day, and between days not think about either, nor consider the contradictions involved in the two cults. The pagan philosophers almost always ended up becoming either totally atheist/skeptical or else discerning the necessary existence of a single god whose existence alone could explain other realities. This god was necessary as a first fact, you might say, but not a meaningful part of day-to-day life. These philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, were still very much like their neighbors in that they could discern the existence of this god, while still happily going from temple to temple without concerning themselves about that god much at all, except perhaps in their dialogues.
The first innovation of the Jews, enshrined in the Ten Commandments, is to make the first fact of existence the first fact of their lives. They insisted to themselves and to each other that the One, still veiled in much mystery, should be the First and Final in their life, individually and as a nation. The Greek pagans were happy to acknowledge the god existed and then to leave the god alone, but the Jews insisted that God could not be put into a neat category, a nice little box, and put off into a corner of the closet. For the Greeks, the gods had their sphere (the sacred) and everything else was free of their authority. For the Jews, God became the all-important and deciding factor of life. His reality would dictate everything – the conduct of marriages, of business, of governance, of international relations. They never intended that such things be abolished by Him, nor that they weren’t natural and worldly (with no negative connotation). The Jewish innovation is not the destruction of the secular, but its submission to the sacred.
So Daniel and Pilgrim, your idea that going to church is religious and that going to the movies is secular, that is the idea that I reject as a Christian. I will not box up different parts of my life into different little categories and act as if they had nothing to do with each other. I have only one life, and I am the same person wherever I go or whatever I do. It is the same *I* that votes, that selects movies to watch, that attends Holy Mass each morning. Christianity, lived out in its traditional ways, is like Judaism lived out in its traditional ways in that both religions insist upon the submission of the secular to the sacred, of humanity to God. We do admit of the secular, though. Our government is secular, and it couldn’t but be secular. Its purpose is to regulate affairs of this world. I fully support the separation of Church and State. My own Church, the Catholic Church, forbids churchmen to be statesmen – a cleric cannot be a congressman, as Fr. Robert Drinan of Massachusetts found out. Yet I must insist that the separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of Faith from Life, nor of Faith from Social Life, nor of Faith from Politics.
E Favorite,
I never suggested that “noble” modified “secular” in Ms. Jacoby’s expression. I only suggested that they were oxymoronic when used in the same phrase.
Chris Everett,
I’m not really bewildered by the existence of moral atheists. I can’t say I’ve ever met an atheist who struck me as particularly immoral. Also, as for Christianity at least, I can say quite confidently that the primary purpose of our religion isn’t to instill morality. That is a mischaracterization that dates to the Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers were especially susceptible to the idea that religion’s chief benefit, even purpose, is the formation of character with morality. In Protestantism, with its emphasis on sermons, this ideas is closer to truth, but even in the case of Protestantism it is false. With Catholicism it is patently false. The purpose of religion is certainly, moreover, not to tell the world anything new about morality, or anything that the world didn’t already know. You don’t have to be religious to know that murdering your mother is bad and kicking the dog is unkind.
That said, I never have heard an adequate philosophical underpinning for morality without recourse to the transcendent dimension of human experience.
You wrote, “I see the secular American government as being the MOST noble of institutions because it is founded on the principal of respecting, protecting and even promoting mankinds inherent NATURAL rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It’s interesting. I agree with you, mostly, and I agree that our constitution is a noble document, and our government a noble form. Our Founding Fathers, interestingly enough, did not see these rights as secular ones, although the government, having charge over many secular affairs, they held bound to defend these rights. Our Founding Fathers saw these rights as being endowed by our Creator. And this is why Christians won’t leave off all the jabbering about God. (I mean more philosophically minded ones, and not those who like being pandered to, as most people do. For the record, I DETEST Huckabee’s incessant pandering to Christians.) We won’t leave off the jabbering about God because we cannot find another basis for understanding our rights or the purpose of good governance. That is because God made us, and made the world, and its order, even its secular order, derive from his good will for us. The very secularly minded Founding Fathers (very few of whom were atheist, but most of whom weren’t very religious) quite agreed.
“The concept of rights is itself a complex one, but suffice to say that respecting a person's rights equivalent to treating them with dignity, and behaving with dignity yourself. It's easy to see the nobility in that.”
But whence that dignity? That is another way of restating my question to Ms. Jacoby. I am not here insisting that everything we do must be based on proof-texts from the Bible. I am Catholic – we have never operated by proof-texting the Bible – one of the criticisms against us is that we are not “biblical enough,” right? I am simply asking the question that Pam missed. Whence our dignity? Being social animals might make us special – but special is not the same thing as noble or dignified. Special only means distinct in some essential way. There are lots of social animals for that matter. The fact that we have evolved a faculty for empathy in no way explains the fact of moral imperatives. Because I feel harmed by an action in no way explains how I might postulate a Golden Rule. And in fact many people who are harmed to do not go on to live by the Golden Rule, but to take revenge. Moreover, if we are just social animals, why do our rights transcend those we accord to ants and wolves, other social animals? Note that I wrote “transcend,” for on examination you will see that our rights are not simple more numerous than we accord to those animals, but of an entirely different sort.
I was a classical history major, and I’ve read Hammurabi’s Code, the Lipit-Ishtar codex, and I think Ur-Nammu too. The newer Ten Commandments have modified the older Codes in a striking way. To wit, they have removed the graded punishments. In Hammurabi’s Code, and those like it, the lower social classes receive less legal protection and sterner punishments than the rich, than those who likely called themselves “nobles” while treating their neighbors like brutes. The Ten Commandments, by contrast, makes no distinction among persons based on class, nor even by sex. That was new. The Jewish Law, expanding upon the Commandments, adds layer upon layer of protection for the poor, and even gives lighter penalties to the poor. That sounds outright socially progressive to me.
I haven’t read Robert Ingersoll, though. Maybe I will.
Lastly, Chris, I am not shocked, as I said, to find upstanding and morally-conscientious atheists. Not at all. In fact, growing up in my somewhat but not very religious home, the impression and stereotype we had of atheists was not that they were immoral. It was that they were smug and condescending. Like the little lesson on grammar I received.
January 3, 2008 9:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 09:00
Pablo, Pablo, Pablo,
Your Four B Syndrome is at all time high. (Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Bible thumping)
And you did not answer the question about believing in "pretty wingie thingies" aka tinker bells, fairies and angels.
January 3, 2008 8:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 08:50
Parker - Your paraphrasing sure takes the bite out of the first 4 commandments, but seriously, how do you know that's what God meant? and how do you know how or if to paraphrase other passages in the bible?
Concerned - Here's something to add to your litany of scholarly sources: In a recent Salon interview, a Roman Catholic theologian gone on record about the resurrection. Georgetown University theologian John Haught says, “If you had a camera in the upper room when the disciples came together after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we would not see it. I'm not the only one to say this. Even conservative Catholic theologians say that.”
There’s more for anyone who wants to read the article: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/print.html
January 3, 2008 8:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 08:45
Concerned,
I have a degree in Bible but I have learned most by walking with God. You may poke fun at me if you would like but remember that the skeptics of Noah's day ridiculed him until the flood took them in judgment and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were blinded by their love of sin and there was no remedy for them except wrath and justice. I pray that you will repent so that you will not have to face God's wrath.
January 3, 2008 7:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 07:43
Dear Daniel in the Lion's Den,
Jesus quoted the Scripture all the time and some people were put off by what He said. Stephen, Peter, and Paul were martyred for preaching the word of God. The English Bible you read cost William Tyndale his life. Daniel was thrown in the Lion's den because he would not cease to pray by his window. His enemies did not like him or his God which I am sure he unabashedly proclaimed. Jesus commanded His followers to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Are you suggesting that I should disobey His command?
Again, you say I have miss used the Scripture and if you are going to claim that show me how. So far your claim is unsupported and I believe that you are wrong in your charge but if you can demonstrate that I have misunderstood the Scriptures I would like to know so that I may grow.
Have you ever been born again?
January 3, 2008 7:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 07:32
E Favorite,
Although I tend to doubt whether you spent very much time reflecting on the 10 commandments when you made your "journey", I might as well comment on your recent comment about what we find in Exodus 20. To paraphrase what I glean from the first four, to me they say, "If you want to be the happiest that you can be, will you heed the following counsel? 1) Put me first in your life, acting from the heart and not just for show; for your children and grandchildren will tend to follow the example of what was in your heart, as evidenced by what you do in your daily actions. 2) Don't make the poor judgement that my creations or your creations are what you should worship--keep things in perspective. 3) Don't take my authority on yourself, or presume to speak for me. 4) You'll be a good deal healthier, live longer, and the earth will be more productive for you if you will make one day in seven a "holy day" wherein you quit worrying so much about the labors of this world and spend time thinking about spiritual qualities that can make your life richer and fuller and more meaningful."
Notwithstanding that I believe the 10 commandments are a good thing when properly understood, I quite agree with Susan Jacoby in this well-reasoned essay, and that is a different subject entirely.
January 3, 2008 6:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 06:16
Pablo, Pablo, Pablo,
And your educational background as compared to those scholars referenced below???? And some "bottom-line" questions, do you still believe in "pretty wingie thingies" aka tinker bells, fairies and angels??? And has God visited you in the same manner "it" visited Thomas "the NT Moses" Baum?????
And you asked about the flaws in the OT and NT:
As noted previously,
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
January 3, 2008 2:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 02:06
Pablo
It is my observation that unsolicited quoting of the Bible is usually, but not always, a rude practice, often leading to acrimony. I just find it usually to be very off-putting. Maybe that is just me, and people who do this casually are not aware of their rudeness. I was trying to point that out. In addition, you criticized Susan for quoting from the Bible without proper context and then you did a similar thing. I guess you are not able to see my point. Sorry.
January 3, 2008 12:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 3, 2008 00:34
"Ms. Jacoby admits of a moral dimension to human living (whence its origin, I have never read her adequately explaining) so I know she is not believe something like, 'Humans are just animals, and nothing more, less, or other.'"
I can't speak for Ms. Jacoby, of course, but I might well have made a statement similar to hers, and I can tell you what *I* would mean.
Right, we are "just" animals. Social animals. Personally, I think that's pretty special.
If you take more than a cursory look at the other social animals, you will find a good deal of such attributes as altruism, justice, and empathy - the roots of "morality." The "golden rule" is an inborn part of us as surely as is the desire to eat or to have sex. I highly recommend the books of Frans de Waal, if you'd like to know more about where our conscience comes from.
I also think you should look into knighthood a bit more before you declare them "noble."
January 2, 2008 11:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 2, 2008 23:54
Chris Everett - you sound like a good hearted fellow too.
I recall when I was in the middle of my journey from belief to non-belief, I thought about the 10 commandments. I realized that I couldn’t remember what all ten of them were, but recalled something about “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” Upon reflection, this didn’t seem like one of the ten most important rules to live my life by.
So I got my bible, and found that the first 4 commandments were all about who’s in charge! 10 rules and four of them about were about whom to worship, how and when to worship him and what happens to you and your children’s children if you don’t worship correctly. I was completely unimpressed with them as a ba