Sabbathh School 28/01/12 - Wishing ain't gonna make it so

So my parents were playing last week's audio Sabbath School lesson last Friday. It could not be avoided - I had to stick around and listen as well. The title for the lesson was "The God of Grace and Judgment", and it had so many things wrong with it I simply could not pass it up. They did creation/evolution two weeks ago, but they said the same old doo-doo they always say about it. I've covered that before, and I don't want to sound like a broken record criticising the same crap over and over again.

Anyway, the lesson began with an illustration which went thus:

A soldier stood next to an old man about to be executed. He was guilty of being the “wrong” race and religion, nothing more. As the soldier raised his gun, his victim said, “Do you know that there is a God in heaven who sees all this, and who will one day judge you for your actions?”

The soldier then shot the old man dead.

This is, in many ways, a prime example of a secular society. Not a secular government (a government that does not promote one religion over another), but a secular society, one in which there is no higher standard than the rules of the society itself. It’s a society with no sense of transcendence, no sense of a higher authority, no sense of God or of a moral standard greater than anything human. It’s a society where humans take the place of God, a society where the only judgment one faces is the judgment of one’s peers or of one’s own conscience (whatever’s left of it, anyway).

According to the Bible, however, the old man was right: there is a God in heaven, and He knows all things and He, indeed, will bring everything into judgment.

I don't know about you, but I was personally offended when I heard this. I do not see how a person shooting another person who said there is a god is in any way illustrative of a secular society. What if the shooter was serving his own - wait, that is the crux of my argument against this idiotic, piece of crap illustration, I'll get to it later. Let me pick on this first:

It’s a society with no sense of transcendence, no sense of a higher authority, no sense of God or of a moral standard greater than anything human. It’s a society where humans take the place of God, a society where the only judgment one faces is the judgment of one’s peers or of one’s own conscience (whatever’s left of it, anyway).

Well, I suppose anyone who's read this blog before should know where I stand on this - no, there is no transcendence, no higher authority and no god! There is no evidence for any such thing, and sincerely wishing for them will not make them true. That "humans take the place of god" line is a meaningless cheapshot, and the fact is that the only judgement we can ever face is that which society hands down upon us.

I understand why one would wish for more. Some may find it impossible to face each day without the assurance that the injustices of this world are ultimately going to be repaid in kind. Human beings can’t see everything, and not every wrong done is going to be revealed and punished, and it’s tempting to want to believe there is some entity that exists outside the timeflow that notices everything and will mete out the punishment mortals were unable to. But no matter how hard one may wish for it, no matter how hard one may clap their hands, there facts of this reality will still remain. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and running to the insubstantial comfort of imaginary entities, why not resolve to stand with your fellow human beings and resolve to work together to root out the injustices and bring the collective judgement of society down upon them. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, standing in the way of the progression towards a more just society.

The sort of “only God can judge” mentality fostered by the mindset shown in the above excerpt (note: I am not saying that that is what is directly espoused in the excerpt, only that it is a natural progression of it, one which is followed all too many times) has some directly harmful consequences too. Deep Thoughts catalogues numerous cases every week of sexual abuse by so-called holy men: pastors, youth leaders and the like. Nearly always, the most damning thing about these cases is the reaction of the churches these criminal excuses for human beings led. Instead of co-operating with authorities, condemning the offenders’ behaviour or even simply apologising to the victims, they most often choose to maintain total silence, sometimes even expressing their outright support for the offender and wilfully hindering the authorities. And this isn’t just the already very well-known and widely publicised Catholic clergy scandals and subsequent coverups I’m talking about: most of the cases Mojoey covers are mainline protestant denominations(including Seventh-Day Adventists. Read the comments section of that link). But it’s all good, hey? God is going to judge them, so what does it matter if they escape Earthly retribution?

Now comes my real sticking point over this particular illustration. The author gives the story of the old man being shot for being “the wrong race and wrong religion” as an example of a secular society. Question: in which secular society has this ever happened? Each and every time in history people have been killed for being the “wrong race and wrong religion” it has been at the hands of another group of religious people who themselves believed they were doing the bidding of their god. More particularly, the most prominent example of this which has happened during the time since firearms were invented is most obviously the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. Even if it was not the example the writer wished to put forward, the Holocaust no doubt sprang to the fore of most peoples’ minds due to the widely spread misconception people seem to have that the Nazis’ philosophies were atheistic. And yet, as most skeptics and anyone who has properly studied the history of Nazi Germany will tell you, the Nazis and Hitler himself were, if not directly religiously motivated, made use of religious propaganda and the churches to stir up hatred for the Jews, the Roma and other “undesirable” minorities.

The fact that the Sabbath School Study Guide’s writer, Cliff Goldstein is himself Jewish only serves to exacerbate the scale of this example’s error. It sounds to me very unlikely that Goldstein was unaware of the facts of what happened during the Holocaust, or of the obvious link to it people would draw regardless of whether or not he was directly referring to it. Whichever way one cuts it, this example is, consciously or unconsciously, slanderously dishonest.

The second issue I have a problem with comes in the study section for Thursday. In this section, we see this being said:

Looking around at the world, we shouldn’t have a problem understanding the idea of judgment and condemnation. One doesn’t have to be a believing Christian to realize that something is radically wrong with humanity. Who can’t see what a royal mess, even disaster, we’ve made of things? Maybe we cry so hard at birth because, instinctively, we know what’s coming. “I cried when I was born and every day shows why,” a poet wrote. Who can’t relate? Who hasn’t himself or herself been the victim of just how greedy, selfish, and mean people can be? Or who hasn’t at some point been the greedy, selfish, and mean one?

You know, all sorts of people, from friends to strangers, Christians, Muslims, so-called “agnostics” and less strident atheists ask me all the time why I’m so vocal in opposing religion. Simply put, it’s attitudes as expressed in this excerpt, and various overtones laid throughout the lesson. The vibe you get from reading it is one of defeatism, of ultimate unfaith in one’s fellow human beings, the feeling that society is in a downward spiral from which it can never pull up. Well, first of all, this view of humanity is factually wrong. Humanity is now as it has ever been: capable of both good and evil. The decay envisioned by many religious conservatives is in equal parts imagined and the consequence of greater connectivity and communication. News travels fast nowadays, and shocking news is by far the most popular and therefore we tend to hear more about it. We think murder, rape, violence and sundry other crimes are increasing in frequency because the frequency of which we hear about them is increasing. And yet, per head, there are fewer people dying violently today than in previous eras.

The media’s sensationalism is causing the rise in alarmism,...yet I welcome it. I welcome that we get to hear about the crimes which were so studiously hidden and never spoken about in ages past. I welcome it, because it brings them to the light, gives us reason to be outraged by them. I welcome it because it enables us to see our enemy, so that we can work to defeat it and to change our circumstances.

And yet, that excerpt tells us that we cannot change them. It forces on us a spirit of defeatism and complacency, for if only God can change us, what reason do we have to even try? Why should we work for global peace and unity if some magic man in the sky is going to wiggle his fingers and do it for us? That is my greatest gripe with religion, that it breeds malignant mistrust in those it infects, and that it turns them into the biggest stumbling block to ever changing the situation we find ourselves in. I’m not saying that once religion dies the path will be clear, no. Other sources of herd-mentality intolerance and alarmism will remain, as well as humanity's own capacity for both good and evil, which we probably will never be able to fully banish. But the mountain in our path will have been worn down and we will be able to glimpse the brighter future that lies ahead of us.

History and Theology: A Jumble of Subjective interpretations II

The Scribes: Subjective Copyists

The versions of historical documents we have today are certainly not originals. Through the ages, books have been copied and recopied for the purposes of dissemination, and in order to replace worn out copies. Throughout this process, overseen by humans without any technical aids, changes must inevitably occur, whether through simple human error or according to some influential individual’s own diabolical ends.

Errors, be they simple linguistic or replication errors, have crept into religious and historical works. For example, interpretations of the Bible differ widely, as translations from one language to another always do. A mere glance at the myriad versions of that particular book is sure to confuse and confound any sane man. Which is correct? Is it, as many ultracon fundamentalists from ‘round the hood would have us believe, the King James version that is the undiluted word of God? Does Jesus speak in thees, thines and thous? Does Job 39:9 speak of a unicorn, an ox or a rhinoceros? These are simply ambiguities in the original language, but there are intentional alterations made to back up a certain viewpoint. Take for example 1 Samuel 20:41. Most translations say that David and Jonathan kissed, and linguists back this interpretation of the original, but the New Living Translation says that they shared a buddy hug, the thought of two men playing tongue twisters (okay, maybe that’s a little exaggeration on my part) seemingly abhorrent to its translators.

There is also much evidence of additions and alterations made in the past to the manuscripts themselves during their replication. These seem to have been made to back up a certain viewpoint, with quite a few presenting one in particular that would prove to be the driving force behind some of the greatest atrocities ever committed.

The first of these forgeries: Jesus’ deity and equality with God seems to have been manufactured some time after he supposedly walked the Earth. Take Luke 3:22. Earlier manuscripts say, “You are my son, today have I begotten thee,” implying that Jesus was not God’s son right up until his baptism, which is when he achieved his “apotheosis”. Yet later manuscripts, on which the majority of modern versions are based, say, “You are my son, whom I love.” This alteration seems to have been made to back up the view that Jesus was God, and was so from the moment of his birth, a view that only became popular among Christians much later after his death.

Another set of alterations describe the period after his supposed rise from the dead. The entirety of John 21, in which Jesus appears to some of the disciples while they are fishing, proclaims Peter as head of the church and prophesies how he would die, and the writer of the gospel is identified, is completely absent from earlier manuscripts. Another notable addition is Mark 16:9-20, in which Jesus gives the Great Commission, which is the basis of the entire evangelical movement which has caused so many of us who really don’t give a flying filbert so much grief.

Now for the biggest, and most controversial supposed alteration. This has to do with one of the biggest criticisms of the Bible and Christianity as a whole. Yep, we’re talking about the issue of patriarchy and misogyny as practiced by the Good Fellows of the Pan-Millennial Bible Writers Club. Misogyny in the Old Testament is well known: I mean, the fellows made no attempt whatsoever to hide it (‘tis the woman who tempted the man to eat the forbidden fruit, all sorts of weird rules in Leviticus about being “unclean” that seem to single women out more than men, like how a woman is unclean for longer after giving birth to a girl than she is for a boy, arranged and forced marriages, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on...).

But that’s just the Old Testament, the Christians say. Jesus changed all that stuff, and we make use of the New Testament. But closer inspection shows that the New Testament isn’t all that different. Sure, it’s a little watered down and marginally better than the crazy crap you find in the OT, but it’s still there, and definitely abhorrent by today’s standards. This isn’t an attack on biblical misogyny, though. That’s the subject of a whole different post.

The insertion of passages ostensibly perpetuating misogyny is a recurring thread in the New Testament’s history. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the infamous 1 Corinthians:34-35, the one which states how women are not allowed to participate in Church discussions, is entirely absent from earlier manuscripts of the epistle.

By far one of the most famous controversies surrounding the bible is the apparent smear campaign on Mary Magdalene, made famous by Dan Brown’s The da Vinci Code. Whole swaths of verses connected to her were seemingly added on to the gospel centuries after they were written: they are completely absent from earlier manuscripts! Take John 8:1-11 for example, the parable of the woman found in adultery. It is not even clear whether this woman was even Mary, but the connection seems to have been made by the early church. Well, it is definite that this woman cannot have been whom it is claimed, because this passage was fabricated some time much later. Also of note is Mark 26:9-23, which I have already mentioned. This passage contains an additional smear of Mary, stating that Jesus drove seven demons out of her. These (apparent) forgeries, coupled with the exclusion of gospels presenting Mary as much more than a simple acquaintance of Jesus certainly lend credence to parts of Dan Brown’s theory, though I still have my reservations on certain details.

The presence of forgeries also raises an interesting dilemma for the fundamentalist Christian. If a Liberal or non-Christian raises the example of misogyny as a reason for not basing their morality on the Bible, the fundie cannot say that the given examples are forgeries, for that is a challenge to the Biblical Inerrancy the Fundie holds dear, which is in and of itself another reason for one not to base their entire existence on what the bible says. But this is the topic of another essay entirely.

Now, you may have noticed that I pretty much entirely used the Judeo-Christian scriptures as an example of changes made through the ages. Some may then go on to accuse me of harbouring specifically anti-Christian sentiments, but any such accusations would be misplaced. Yes, the Christian faith does hold a special place in my heart as the one in which I have been so long incarcerated and has forced me to live an emotionally draining double life, but these emotional reasons are not the only ones. The Bible is the only religious text I have read in full (unless The Secret counts) and I simply have no experience of others. I have only read excerpts of the Koran, and snippets of other religious texts that give the gist of what they have to say, hence are not really qualified to offer a full-on exegesis of their flaws and issues. I can only defer to those who have had more experience with them.

I also need to touch on the possibility of small errors creeping into the works over time. The versions of texts we have today are copies of copies of copies to the nth factor. Undoubtedly, in the process of copying these texts, accidental errors have crept in, incrementally adding up to something quite different from the original. But mere error can only alter a work so far, and I don’t believe they are such a large factor in alteration of historical texts.

The bottom line of all this is that most, if not all ancient texts we possess have been unavoidably adulterated in the process of preserving them for future generations, not just for religious texts but pure historical ones as well. This has been for various reasons, some decidedly sinister, some merely political while others may have been well-meaning but ultimately deviated from the facts or at least the original content. I see no problem in people extracting bits of these ancient texts which are compatible with their own morals and today’s more enlightened society, and applying them to their own philosophy, but to insist on calling them inerrant and hinging one’s entire existence upon them is folly indeed.

History and Theology: A Jumble of Subjective Interpretations

The interpretations we possess of history are varied and conflicting. This is largely a result of a large number of sources covering one event as they personally see it, hence resulting in many differing original accounts, and also in the large number of interpretations of these very sources. The result is a widely varied and very confusing picture of the past, and the average Joe and Jane are at a loss to decide which version to believe. Hence, they often decide to adopt the first they are exposed to, a practice which, I must say, is not very good scientific procedure. The aim of this treatise is to dissect these reasons and lay them before the reader, and also present, in a nutshell, my own theory, my reasons for holding it, and a fair concession of its weaknesses.

The Source: Subjective Witnesses

From the very earliest written historical records we possess, which date back to the Sumerian Empire which flourished in the Tigris and Euphrates valley about 6,000 years ago, there is ambiguity. From that era right up to the 20^th Century, when reliable archiving systems were developed and advances in multimedia technology allowed for the recording of history as it happened, conflicting accounts of events exist. Even after the advent of these systems, accounts have been twisted, manipulated and altered to serve the disseminator’s own ends.

                Good ol’ fashioned politickin’ has been the main culprit in the alteration of historical accounts. Battle accounts, especially, are prone to embellishments. It is well known that the victor in a war is always the one who writes the history books. As such, said victor will always take up the opportunity and choose to paint the opponent in a different light in order to vindicate their own motives. A practice which was common especially in the age from the dawn of civilisation right up to the 18^th Century or so was to embellish battle reports, exaggerating army sizes and battle conditions in order to prove a military leader’s battle prowess. The loser of a battle may also do the same in order to save face.

Religion also plays a major role in the deliberate alteration of history. Religious texts are riddled with embellishments inserted on purpose to reinforce the supposed “greatness of the Big Guy being praised. As a result, the outcomes of battles, army sizes and military tactics are altered from fact, actions of individuals falsified and legends of heroes and villains created from thin air.

Not all misrepresentations featured in religious writings are deliberate. Lack of scientific knowledge is also to blame. Early peoples had no knowledge of certain phenomena and hence subjectively misinterpreted them to be the actions of the gods. As a result the texts are filled with wild superstitions and improbable phenomena which today’s science minded people dismiss as nonsense as they are unable to see the truth behind the myth. This is very unfortunate, as I do believe that hidden within the smoke and shadows are many actual historical accounts.

Perhaps even more unfortunate is the fact that the type of thinking that was prevalent in those dark, uninformed days is still perpetuated today. Even as the boundaries of the unknown are continually being pushed further and further back people still cling to their illusions, hindering the progress of good, sound science. But this is a completely different topic that I shall later discuss in detail. Meanwhile, I would advise you not to take what you read about the past without a dose of good, healthy scepticism. Do come back to read the next part of this treatise, scrutinising the process by which information is passed down from generation to generation.