"Holy Books" are a joke. Rather than leading the human race to comity and compassion, they more often seed internecine hatreds even amongst similar sects or the same religion. Thus, one "holy book" - the King James Bible- may be used to prosecute the credibility and claims of another, say for the Catholics. In addition, the "holy book" may be used to try to consign a pastor or priest working toward greater understanding to eternal perdition.
Only recently, the danger of the power of holy books was exemplified in the threat (taken seriously by millions of Muslims) of a cornball Florida pastor to burn the Qur'an. So where does it end? The answer is no place good so long as these divisive books are extolled as repositories of "the truth" by so many, who are terrified of living under the parameters of their own intelligence, knowledge and conscience.
While I know next to nothing of the Qur'an, and am only passingly acquainted with the Upanishads, I do know a lot about the claimed Christian holy book, the Bible. Below I examine a number of reasons why it needs to be ditched, and with it the "bible worship" that has now replaced a rational approach to it (that always had a large textual analysis as a main component).
1- The nature of textual –copyist errors, including omissions, excisions, loss.
First, there is the problem with lost or disconnected mss. or (in the case of the King James Bible) an entire corrupted 12th century mistranslated text substituted for the Latin Vulgate then reconstructed and issued long after the mismatch could be easily tracked. (Only subsequent exegetical experts were able to do this by comparing the language in the original mss.)
In addition, other portions or whole segments of the Bible (King James or other versions) are easily exposed as incorporating bogus "padding" with just cursory inspection of the same pasages in different editions. An excellent example of a later added text ("synthetic addition") bearing no relation (in terms of coda context or document validation) are the last twelve verses of Mark. None of that content bears any continuity with what came before it so it's reasonable to conclude these were later additions and not part of the original text.
The content of Mark dealing with Yeshua’s end is fairly intact from say 15:42-47 to 16:4-8. Thereafter the problem text appears. (Last 12 verses)
Terrific stuff, compelling and used as the basis for “speaking in tongues” by many Pentecostals, but totally bogus. The whole last 12 verses were added by another scribe (as pointed out by biblical textual analyst and scholar, Bart Ehrman (a former evangelical).
2- Propagation of errors.
In the standard mathematical theory of the propagation of statistical errors, one error made at one point in a mathematical thread or continuum (e.g. computation of a geometrical series, say:
S_n=10 (n=1) [n(n +1)]2
Leads to ever increasing error sizes (in subsequent terms) that leave the final answer very far apart from the original one (31770)
In like manner say at some point (x) in time, maybe 125 AD, a scribe changes a word in an original text or document (say one of the Nag Hammadi scrolls). The next scribe at point (y), maybe 50 years later- copies that text along with its errors, believing that is what the actual text said. He further adds errors of is own, perhaps a preposition in Greek that means “on” and not the correct “by”. A tiny error but it changes the whole meaning! E.g.
“Jesus walked on water” vs. “Jesus walked by water”.
The next scribe at point (z) that copied that manuscript reproduces the mistakes of both his predecessors plus adds his own. The ONLY way mistakes can be corrected is if at some point a scribe recognizes one of his predecessors made an error, finds the error, and manages to correct it before it's passed on.
In a way this is the job of textual critics. The proof in the pudding is that the omissions, errors, etc. can actually be found by any thinking and open-minded reader! The validation, however, generally arrives from those trained in exegesis and who know that nobody in their right mind reads any parts of any Bible literally!
3- Historicity problems
Many problems abound with the historicity but I will focus on two, first – the case of the fictitious town of “Nazareth”.
Forget for the moment that the name borne by the earliest followers of Yehsua was “Nazoreans’ - NOT “Christians” – And Yeshua was known as “the Nazorean”. This is a sectarian term of which the Hebrew is ‘Notsrim’ and is NOT connected directly with a place called “Nazareth” or with the messianic “Nezer” branch from the roots of Jesse.
Nazoreans’ members proclaimed themselves the “preservers of the true faith of Israel”- but this claim was also made by the Samaritans, inhabiting Samaria (Shomron) who represented themselves as the ‘Shamerine’ – the custodians or keepers of the original ISRAELITE religion, as opposed to the Judeans (Jews)
A more pointed fact is that “Nazareth” is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the 4th century. The Talmud, though it names 63 Galilean towns, says nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) mentions Nazareth not even once – although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth!
Although the New Testament tells us very little about our mythical municipality of Nazareth, it does tell us enough to allow us to conclude that present day Nazareth couldn’t be the biblical city referred to say, in the fourth chapter of Luke.
Second, consider the letter of Paul to the Galatians.
This encapsulates a problem of not only historicity, but of significant copyist errors (bastardized mss.) left to parse, as well as geography.
Consider, even at the time of the original “letter” (assuming it was even penned by Paul), Galatia was not a single town with a single church, it was a region in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in which Paul had established churches. When he writes to the “Galatians” therefore, is Paul writing to ONE single church or to all of them? (Presumably since he doesn’t single out any he intends his missive to go to all of them). If so, given the churches are far apart (on average 150 miles) does that mean he made multiple copies of the same letter – or did he intend one letter to circulate to all the churches of the region?
Suppose he made multiple copies, how did he do it given no printing presses were available and the precise copying of merely one letter would have taken over a year. In fact, the evidence of extant texts shows Paul dictated the letter to a scribe. (Paul’s initials, unusually large, diverge from the scale of script used in the actual letters)
Problem with the dictation: Did Paul actually dictate it word for word, or did he merely spell out general points and enjoin the scribe to fill in the rest?
Here’s what we do know: What survives today is not the original copy of the letter, nor one of the first copies that Paul himself made, nor any of the copies that were produced in the towns of Galatia to which the letter was sent – nor any of the copies of those copies.
The first reasonable copy we have of Galatians is a papyrus called P 46 – for the 46th New Testament papyrus to be catalogued, which dates to 200 CE (200 AD). This is roughly 150 years after Paul putatively wrote the letter. It was in circulation – copied sometimes correctly, sometimes not, for 15 decades BEFORE any copy was made that survived to the present day. Further, we cannot reconstruct the copy from which P 46 was made.
Was it accurate? If so, how accurate? It surely had mistakes of some kind, as did the copy from which it was copied. We can see all these exposed like rotting wood under the floorboards when we use textual analysis to peel back the layers!
4. The monumental errors replete in the whole Bible
Textual criticism and analysis not only exposes the inadequacies in distinct texts of the NT, but through the whole bible via the propagation of errors concept.
Consider: from the earliest OT scribblings (12 th century BC) to the final establishment of the NT corpus at the Council of Trent (16th century) more than 28 centuries elapsed. That is twenty eight centuries for copyist errors to propagate through millennia and not be caught and for enormous mistranslations to emerge because of said errors. Even worse, the Trent corpus was not even the final word or revision, the good Book was then bastardized compliments of Henry VIII of England who enjoined the fabrication of the King James Bible which is even less trustworthy than any of the Catholic versions!
Trustworthiness itself was often determined by consensus in the earliest writings and codices. Most present day fundamentalists aren’t even remotely aware that the content they are claiming today as “literal or inerrant words” were in fact originally “passed by committee” !
Half the oldest manuscript witness texts, including a Bodmer papyrus, the Vaticanus and Beza’s Codex omit the sentence in Luke 23: 34which contains the words of Jesus. This level of uncertainty in the textual tradition means the interpretation of the passage was a subject of serious debate. Put briefly: half the witnesses insisted Jesus begged God’s forgiveness for “them” – the other half pretended to know nothing of the “Eloi, eloi lama sabacthani” prayer. What gives?
It is probably bogus and a later addition. Why say so? Because the earliest Greek witness papyrus (called P 75 - which dates back to 200 AD) has no such content. However, the prayer CAN be found in Codex Sinaiticus and a large range of mss. produced in the Middle Ages.
5. The monumental contradictions of the Bible:
For example – just a couple of the more than fifty I pointed out in earlier blogs:
a) The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?
Yes. (Matthew 21:19) Vs. No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)
b) What did Jesus say about Peter’s denial?
“The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38).
OR
“Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30) .
c) Did Jesus bear his own cross?
Yes (John 19:17) OR No (Matthew 27:31-32)
Just this minor sampling discloses the Bible is either made up fairy tales, or can’t be taken literally (it has to be parsed and re-interpreted to eliminate the contradictions). How to account for these clashing takes? One way is that (as noted earlier, e.g. in 3, 4) different passages were approved at different times but the dissmilarities not evident until after the printing press of Johann Gutenburg churned out standard copies - when all the texts could be easily compared. Another interpretation is that a good number of the opposite takes were synthetic later additions, or a result of simple mistranslations. (Though it is hard to imagine how two different bible authors, John and Matthew, could get wrong whether Christ bore his own cross or not!) Yet another explanation is that none of the passages were intended to be taken as historical documents anyway, so getting the specifics right wasn't a big deal. This is the take of Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, Roman Catholic historian, who has pointed out the gospels were never intended to be literal historical tracts or biographical, but rather "written to try to convert unbelievers". Alas, most unbelievers today aren't impressed when told that deliberate falsifications or fables were inserted to "convert" them! Bring on "Hell", because no doubt that's yet another goofy tale!
6-Plagiarism by Christians – to invent their own Son of God myth
Finally, one must come to the unsettling conclusion that much of the Christian NT Codices and docs constitute nothing more or less than the plagiarism of an earlier pagan God-man scripture.
On what basis can this be claimed?
In fact, the heart of the Christian Synoptics looks to be almost wholly lifted from the pagan epistles known as the Izeds (I - IIVIII) appearing in the Zendavesta. The Zendavesta, literally "text and comment," is the doctrine of Zoroaster (Zarathrustra), comprised in eight parts, written at different periods, but of which the earliest have been assigned to the date of B.C. 1200-1000. In its present form it was collected by Ardeshir, the founder of the Sassanian dynasty, from oral tradition, at the time when he re-established the ancient religion of Persia. At the heart of this religion was the God-man Mithra or Mithras.
According to the Izeds, Mithras was born of a Virgin in a manger, raised in relative isolation then sough to preach a ministry of his which included assorted miracles: changing water to wine at a feast, walking on water, feeding a mass of people, and raising the dead. Later, Mithra was found guilty of blasphemy and put to death – after which he rose three days later, and ascended into heaven.
Interestingly, most of the Izeds appear to have been embodied in a “mystagogue” which later found its way into the Greek OT Septuagint. Most of the NT biographical material, as other textual critics have noted (e.g. Crossan, Vermes, Zindler, Allegro, Ehrman) is merely a reworking of the Septuagint, and thence a reworking of the Mithraic –Persian Izeds from the Zendavesta. In other words, plagiarized stories about a God-man. (Very evident in passages such as 1 Cor. 2:6)
Amusingly, the earliest Church Fathers acknowledged that the Mithraists had beaten them to the punch in terms of the first Godman-Savior stories, as when Justin Martyr howled (in reference to the Mithraic miracles):
“WHICH THE WICKED DEVILS HAVE IMITATED IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, COMMANDING THE SAME THING TO BE DONE.”.
Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:
“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, IMITATES EVEN THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DIVINE MYSTERIES. HE ALSO BAPTIZES HIS FOLLOWERS IN WATER THAT PURIFIES THEM OF THEIR SINS”
Another real howler compliments of Justin Martyr:
“When I hear that Mithra was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this.”
Understand that these numbnuts cannot wrap their tiny heads around the fact that the Mithraists beat them to the punch with the God-man myth. The only way they can reconcile it in their heads is to assert the “serpent” (aka Scratch or the “Devil”) helped them “counterfeit” the JC miracles – but over a thousand years earlier!
The conclusion is inescapable: The Bible, OT and NT, comprises a woefully flawed and defective source which cannot be trusted to impart anything beyond elaborate myth and an enduring “son of God” legend.
For sure, it is unwise to treat its every word as a literal embodiment of "divine truth" any more than to use it as a source of moral code, since the punishments it endorses are worse than even the Sharia of Islam. What we have to do is try to pull the bible bangers and idolaters kicking and screaming from their security blankets and induce them to use their own brains for once. To that end, exercise the intelligence to use the good book for inspiration, if you must, but not as a moral arbiter, or a literal historical, scientific or biographical account.
Only recently, the danger of the power of holy books was exemplified in the threat (taken seriously by millions of Muslims) of a cornball Florida pastor to burn the Qur'an. So where does it end? The answer is no place good so long as these divisive books are extolled as repositories of "the truth" by so many, who are terrified of living under the parameters of their own intelligence, knowledge and conscience.
While I know next to nothing of the Qur'an, and am only passingly acquainted with the Upanishads, I do know a lot about the claimed Christian holy book, the Bible. Below I examine a number of reasons why it needs to be ditched, and with it the "bible worship" that has now replaced a rational approach to it (that always had a large textual analysis as a main component).
1- The nature of textual –copyist errors, including omissions, excisions, loss.
First, there is the problem with lost or disconnected mss. or (in the case of the King James Bible) an entire corrupted 12th century mistranslated text substituted for the Latin Vulgate then reconstructed and issued long after the mismatch could be easily tracked. (Only subsequent exegetical experts were able to do this by comparing the language in the original mss.)
In addition, other portions or whole segments of the Bible (King James or other versions) are easily exposed as incorporating bogus "padding" with just cursory inspection of the same pasages in different editions. An excellent example of a later added text ("synthetic addition") bearing no relation (in terms of coda context or document validation) are the last twelve verses of Mark. None of that content bears any continuity with what came before it so it's reasonable to conclude these were later additions and not part of the original text.
The content of Mark dealing with Yeshua’s end is fairly intact from say 15:42-47 to 16:4-8. Thereafter the problem text appears. (Last 12 verses)
Terrific stuff, compelling and used as the basis for “speaking in tongues” by many Pentecostals, but totally bogus. The whole last 12 verses were added by another scribe (as pointed out by biblical textual analyst and scholar, Bart Ehrman (a former evangelical).
2- Propagation of errors.
In the standard mathematical theory of the propagation of statistical errors, one error made at one point in a mathematical thread or continuum (e.g. computation of a geometrical series, say:
S_n=10 (n=1) [n(n +1)]2
Leads to ever increasing error sizes (in subsequent terms) that leave the final answer very far apart from the original one (31770)
In like manner say at some point (x) in time, maybe 125 AD, a scribe changes a word in an original text or document (say one of the Nag Hammadi scrolls). The next scribe at point (y), maybe 50 years later- copies that text along with its errors, believing that is what the actual text said. He further adds errors of is own, perhaps a preposition in Greek that means “on” and not the correct “by”. A tiny error but it changes the whole meaning! E.g.
“Jesus walked on water” vs. “Jesus walked by water”.
The next scribe at point (z) that copied that manuscript reproduces the mistakes of both his predecessors plus adds his own. The ONLY way mistakes can be corrected is if at some point a scribe recognizes one of his predecessors made an error, finds the error, and manages to correct it before it's passed on.
In a way this is the job of textual critics. The proof in the pudding is that the omissions, errors, etc. can actually be found by any thinking and open-minded reader! The validation, however, generally arrives from those trained in exegesis and who know that nobody in their right mind reads any parts of any Bible literally!
3- Historicity problems
Many problems abound with the historicity but I will focus on two, first – the case of the fictitious town of “Nazareth”.
Forget for the moment that the name borne by the earliest followers of Yehsua was “Nazoreans’ - NOT “Christians” – And Yeshua was known as “the Nazorean”. This is a sectarian term of which the Hebrew is ‘Notsrim’ and is NOT connected directly with a place called “Nazareth” or with the messianic “Nezer” branch from the roots of Jesse.
Nazoreans’ members proclaimed themselves the “preservers of the true faith of Israel”- but this claim was also made by the Samaritans, inhabiting Samaria (Shomron) who represented themselves as the ‘Shamerine’ – the custodians or keepers of the original ISRAELITE religion, as opposed to the Judeans (Jews)
A more pointed fact is that “Nazareth” is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the 4th century. The Talmud, though it names 63 Galilean towns, says nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) mentions Nazareth not even once – although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth!
Although the New Testament tells us very little about our mythical municipality of Nazareth, it does tell us enough to allow us to conclude that present day Nazareth couldn’t be the biblical city referred to say, in the fourth chapter of Luke.
Second, consider the letter of Paul to the Galatians.
This encapsulates a problem of not only historicity, but of significant copyist errors (bastardized mss.) left to parse, as well as geography.
Consider, even at the time of the original “letter” (assuming it was even penned by Paul), Galatia was not a single town with a single church, it was a region in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in which Paul had established churches. When he writes to the “Galatians” therefore, is Paul writing to ONE single church or to all of them? (Presumably since he doesn’t single out any he intends his missive to go to all of them). If so, given the churches are far apart (on average 150 miles) does that mean he made multiple copies of the same letter – or did he intend one letter to circulate to all the churches of the region?
Suppose he made multiple copies, how did he do it given no printing presses were available and the precise copying of merely one letter would have taken over a year. In fact, the evidence of extant texts shows Paul dictated the letter to a scribe. (Paul’s initials, unusually large, diverge from the scale of script used in the actual letters)
Problem with the dictation: Did Paul actually dictate it word for word, or did he merely spell out general points and enjoin the scribe to fill in the rest?
Here’s what we do know: What survives today is not the original copy of the letter, nor one of the first copies that Paul himself made, nor any of the copies that were produced in the towns of Galatia to which the letter was sent – nor any of the copies of those copies.
The first reasonable copy we have of Galatians is a papyrus called P 46 – for the 46th New Testament papyrus to be catalogued, which dates to 200 CE (200 AD). This is roughly 150 years after Paul putatively wrote the letter. It was in circulation – copied sometimes correctly, sometimes not, for 15 decades BEFORE any copy was made that survived to the present day. Further, we cannot reconstruct the copy from which P 46 was made.
Was it accurate? If so, how accurate? It surely had mistakes of some kind, as did the copy from which it was copied. We can see all these exposed like rotting wood under the floorboards when we use textual analysis to peel back the layers!
4. The monumental errors replete in the whole Bible
Textual criticism and analysis not only exposes the inadequacies in distinct texts of the NT, but through the whole bible via the propagation of errors concept.
Consider: from the earliest OT scribblings (12 th century BC) to the final establishment of the NT corpus at the Council of Trent (16th century) more than 28 centuries elapsed. That is twenty eight centuries for copyist errors to propagate through millennia and not be caught and for enormous mistranslations to emerge because of said errors. Even worse, the Trent corpus was not even the final word or revision, the good Book was then bastardized compliments of Henry VIII of England who enjoined the fabrication of the King James Bible which is even less trustworthy than any of the Catholic versions!
Trustworthiness itself was often determined by consensus in the earliest writings and codices. Most present day fundamentalists aren’t even remotely aware that the content they are claiming today as “literal or inerrant words” were in fact originally “passed by committee” !
Half the oldest manuscript witness texts, including a Bodmer papyrus, the Vaticanus and Beza’s Codex omit the sentence in Luke 23: 34which contains the words of Jesus. This level of uncertainty in the textual tradition means the interpretation of the passage was a subject of serious debate. Put briefly: half the witnesses insisted Jesus begged God’s forgiveness for “them” – the other half pretended to know nothing of the “Eloi, eloi lama sabacthani” prayer. What gives?
It is probably bogus and a later addition. Why say so? Because the earliest Greek witness papyrus (called P 75 - which dates back to 200 AD) has no such content. However, the prayer CAN be found in Codex Sinaiticus and a large range of mss. produced in the Middle Ages.
5. The monumental contradictions of the Bible:
For example – just a couple of the more than fifty I pointed out in earlier blogs:
a) The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?
Yes. (Matthew 21:19) Vs. No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)
b) What did Jesus say about Peter’s denial?
“The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38).
OR
“Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30) .
c) Did Jesus bear his own cross?
Yes (John 19:17) OR No (Matthew 27:31-32)
Just this minor sampling discloses the Bible is either made up fairy tales, or can’t be taken literally (it has to be parsed and re-interpreted to eliminate the contradictions). How to account for these clashing takes? One way is that (as noted earlier, e.g. in 3, 4) different passages were approved at different times but the dissmilarities not evident until after the printing press of Johann Gutenburg churned out standard copies - when all the texts could be easily compared. Another interpretation is that a good number of the opposite takes were synthetic later additions, or a result of simple mistranslations. (Though it is hard to imagine how two different bible authors, John and Matthew, could get wrong whether Christ bore his own cross or not!) Yet another explanation is that none of the passages were intended to be taken as historical documents anyway, so getting the specifics right wasn't a big deal. This is the take of Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, Roman Catholic historian, who has pointed out the gospels were never intended to be literal historical tracts or biographical, but rather "written to try to convert unbelievers". Alas, most unbelievers today aren't impressed when told that deliberate falsifications or fables were inserted to "convert" them! Bring on "Hell", because no doubt that's yet another goofy tale!
6-Plagiarism by Christians – to invent their own Son of God myth
Finally, one must come to the unsettling conclusion that much of the Christian NT Codices and docs constitute nothing more or less than the plagiarism of an earlier pagan God-man scripture.
On what basis can this be claimed?
In fact, the heart of the Christian Synoptics looks to be almost wholly lifted from the pagan epistles known as the Izeds (I - IIVIII) appearing in the Zendavesta. The Zendavesta, literally "text and comment," is the doctrine of Zoroaster (Zarathrustra), comprised in eight parts, written at different periods, but of which the earliest have been assigned to the date of B.C. 1200-1000. In its present form it was collected by Ardeshir, the founder of the Sassanian dynasty, from oral tradition, at the time when he re-established the ancient religion of Persia. At the heart of this religion was the God-man Mithra or Mithras.
According to the Izeds, Mithras was born of a Virgin in a manger, raised in relative isolation then sough to preach a ministry of his which included assorted miracles: changing water to wine at a feast, walking on water, feeding a mass of people, and raising the dead. Later, Mithra was found guilty of blasphemy and put to death – after which he rose three days later, and ascended into heaven.
Interestingly, most of the Izeds appear to have been embodied in a “mystagogue” which later found its way into the Greek OT Septuagint. Most of the NT biographical material, as other textual critics have noted (e.g. Crossan, Vermes, Zindler, Allegro, Ehrman) is merely a reworking of the Septuagint, and thence a reworking of the Mithraic –Persian Izeds from the Zendavesta. In other words, plagiarized stories about a God-man. (Very evident in passages such as 1 Cor. 2:6)
Amusingly, the earliest Church Fathers acknowledged that the Mithraists had beaten them to the punch in terms of the first Godman-Savior stories, as when Justin Martyr howled (in reference to the Mithraic miracles):
“WHICH THE WICKED DEVILS HAVE IMITATED IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, COMMANDING THE SAME THING TO BE DONE.”.
Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:
“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, IMITATES EVEN THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DIVINE MYSTERIES. HE ALSO BAPTIZES HIS FOLLOWERS IN WATER THAT PURIFIES THEM OF THEIR SINS”
Another real howler compliments of Justin Martyr:
“When I hear that Mithra was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this.”
Understand that these numbnuts cannot wrap their tiny heads around the fact that the Mithraists beat them to the punch with the God-man myth. The only way they can reconcile it in their heads is to assert the “serpent” (aka Scratch or the “Devil”) helped them “counterfeit” the JC miracles – but over a thousand years earlier!
The conclusion is inescapable: The Bible, OT and NT, comprises a woefully flawed and defective source which cannot be trusted to impart anything beyond elaborate myth and an enduring “son of God” legend.
For sure, it is unwise to treat its every word as a literal embodiment of "divine truth" any more than to use it as a source of moral code, since the punishments it endorses are worse than even the Sharia of Islam. What we have to do is try to pull the bible bangers and idolaters kicking and screaming from their security blankets and induce them to use their own brains for once. To that end, exercise the intelligence to use the good book for inspiration, if you must, but not as a moral arbiter, or a literal historical, scientific or biographical account.
No comments:
Post a Comment