A pebble becomes a mountain

Morgan Guyton's "Capitalism’s war on the Sabbath" does contain a tiny grain of truth. Sadly and predictably he takes that minuscule point and creates a mountain of arrogance laden nonsense. It is true that the form of capitalism that currently dominates the American economy is not labor friendly in any way. It does not, however, directly oppose the idea of a period of rest. It seek to maximize profit by pushing hour of operation and production as much as possible. If it were possible to do that and allow adequate rest Big Business would be fine with providing that. In practice it isn't possible so it does end up undercutting time off for employees.

This isn't really what Guyton is writing about. He makes it clear early on that is views of the "Sabbath" are very biased and ignorant. The idea of a rest-period is not unique to religion and certainly isn't innately Christian. It is the Christian version that he is passing off as a unique and universal concept. Sunday is not the holy day for Jews or Muslims. So, even within the Abrahamic faiths Guyton's take on the Sabbath is half-assed. This bit of nonsense isn't even among the most egregious bits of absurdity penned by him. There are far too many to note them all so I'll just quote one as an example.

"God does not make arbitrary rules for the sake of his honor and glory; God’s commands are for the sake of our flourishing..."

Apparently, he's never paid attention to the two version of the Ten Commandments, or for that matter, many of the Mosaic laws. God himself, according to scripture, makes it clear that many of the rules and rituals are expressly for honoring God. Yes, in fact God does make arbitrary rules. Those rules are interpreted differently not only among the various religions but also within Christianity.

....And Jesus wept

....Or did he? Chris Boeskool's HuffPo piece "Saving a Murderer's Life: Who Would Jesus Execute?" is pretty ridiculous. It meanders in and out of all sorts of logical fallacies and disjointed trains of thought that if it weren't for the title it would be easy to lose the main point he seems to be trying to emphasize. Even though I actually agree with a few of the point he makes when he wanders into "non-religious reasons to be against the death penalty" even those are poorly represented and expressed. The whole piece is based entirely on his own narrow interpretation and understanding both theology and the social issues/public policies related to capitol punishment.

Ultimately he comes back to his main objection: his views on what Jesus would do. Of course, he has no clue that what he has expressed is not only an opinion loosely based on other opinions but that it actually has no solid foundation in the scriptures as he assumes it does. I have pointed out over and over that there is no single narrative for the Christ figure and therefore not a single version of Jesus. There are plenty of instances where it is easy to see the Jesus figure not just being okay with executing Tsarnaev but outright demanding it. Anyone care to reread Luke 19:27 and then try claiming Jesus would forgo putting this asshole to death.

Here are just a handful of previous posts I have written about such interpretations of the various claims about Jesus as a single "historical" figure.

A not so cute WWJD story (10-26-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-not-so-cute-wwjd-story.html

How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title? (9-14-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-many-assumptions-can-be-squeezed.html

What makes it a "taunt"? (4-20-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-makes-it-taunt.html

Which Jesus is More Absurd (2-24-13)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2013/02/which-jesus-is-more-absurd.html

Jesus is.... amorphous (9-15-12)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2012/09/jesus-is-amorphous.html

Confusing bias for substance

The folks over at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement definitely have problems with reality. I'm all for nonviolence but I take issue with delusions, willful ignorance, double standards, and plain old deceit. Yet another of their Patheos blog posts is chock full of all of the above. The title,"How Christians Reject Jesus: On Trying to Outsmart God", implies a number of things that Adam Erickson not only never establishes but also has no objective way to establish.

When he writes "reject" what he really means is that there are Christians who do not accept his preferred version of the Jesus figure, which is true. It is also true that his views of Jesus are highly subjective, debatable, and unproven. Virtually every paragraph of the piece shows that he is writing solely from his own biased views without any substantive thought. In the very first paragraph he insists, "We take seriously the words of Jesus that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us." No, they do not. The selectively choose which bits of scripture favor their own preferences. There are plenty of passages where Jesus acts in a hostile and violent manner.

Throughout the post Erickson makes similar comments. Among them, "Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Christians are not Biblians. We are Christians. As Christians, we should be putting Jesus first...And Jesus calls us to nonviolence." Problem is that it is not obvious. It in fact is false. If you strip away scripture Jesus literally disappears. As I have on numerous occassions pionted out, Christians to some extant have to take scripture literally if they want to preserve belief in their messiah. I have also on numerous occssions challenged any Christian to come up with a plausible way to reconcile Luke 19:27, ""But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", with the notion of a peace-loving Jesus. Last I knew dividing people up with a an Us-vs.-Them mentality and then oredering mass murder is the opposite of "nonviolent"

The writing never gets any better. However, it does become a bit more entertaining towards the middle. His observations about wisdom gave me a pretty good chuckle.
"Notice the distinction being made between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. The wisdom of God is the way of nonviolent love in the face of violence that often leads to the cross...Human wisdom, on the other hand, is the wisdom of retributive violence."
There are so many things wrong with this that I can't possibly write about all of them. I'll stick with just a few of the more blatant flaws with Erickson's line of thinking.

It seems to me that even the most devoted theists would have to realize that the only way a flawed human being could perceive "God's wisdom" is through the filter of "human wisdom." So how can you possibly make any "distinction"? And how can you know you aren't completely fucking it up? Then there's that gem about God being non-violent. What?! Even if you discount the whole of the Bible how do you account for human violence. Isn't God suppose to be source of everything? Isn't everything suppose to play out by God's grand design? I also have to marvel at the implication that all human wisdom supposedly leads to "retributive violence." Did Erickson just inadvertently admit that he and everyone else at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement are a bunch of dumb-asses?

Believing in the proto-hippy Jesus is better than the tight-ass obey me or go to hell version but that is still no excuse for blathering on in such a blatantly error laden ignorant way.

Lots of people

Lots of people; That's the answer to the rhetorical question posed by Trey Lion's "Who Would Jesus Shoot?" I do agree with quite a bit of his commentary but find it rather silly and ignorant to appeal to religion for support. The assholes who oppose even mild gun control/gun regulation are just as religious as those who support such restrictions. It is also the height of self-delusion to turn to the Christ figure on such matters. As I have pointed out there isn't a single Jesus in scripture. At least one version was, according to the New Testament, a tempermental violent bastard. Luke 19:27 is a pretty blatant example:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Sorry, my initial answer is slightly inaccurate. Jesus would kill all non-Christians. Given that the Christians worldwide number around 2 billion, that means Christ would be just fine with slaughtering around 5 billion people. Somehow I don't think genocide is a good answer for reducing gun violence.

The Bess Mandate

I have to admit that when it comes to social issues Howard Bess tends to reach some of the same conclusions and promotes many of the same causes that I do. He does, however, get there by very different means and frequently tries to enlist the aid of others using what I consider bogus arguments. He definitely favors the proto-hippy version of the Jesus figure. If people are going to make the huge assumption that there ever was a Jesus I prefer this version. That doesn't make it either true or historical.

Bess' piece "Jesus Mandate: Peace and Stewardship" is rather foolish. He insists that the "scholarship" supports his favored views on Jesus without ever really providing any proof. I find it interesting that he doesn't site a single historian or scholarly work on Christian scripture. I have read a great deal on the topic and have failed to notice that there is any sort of consensus among such scholars. So, how can there be a mandate?

Sentences like, "...there is no way we can avoid the clear Bible standard of limitation of private ownership", are completely ludicrous. Given that the "Bible" includes both Old and New Testament his statement is at best an exaggerated conflation. Jesus does not appear in the Old Testament so the statement in relation Jesus is false. Once you get past that problem you run into the fact that the passages that relate to "private ownership" are inconsistent and at times alternately vague and confusing. Then you have all the problems that arise from the fact that the Bible as we know it is a mish-mash of recovered fragments that have multiple translations and are pulled together by speculation and conjecture. There isn't a single "book" of the Bible, Old or New Testament, that can be said to be complete. Whole copies of these scripture simply don't exist anymore and haven't for quite some time.

There can be no "mandate" based on scripture. They are far too subjective and divisive.

The Bible(NT) Says....Jesus is a thief

"And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them." (Matthew 21:1-3)

Basically, Jesus sends two of his followers into town to steal a donkey and a horse. I've heard apologists try to weasel their way out of this one by claiming they were freely given. That's the bullshit excuse Jesus tries but it does hold up to scrutiny. Notice that Jesus claims that if the followers are caught they should say the "Lord" needs them and everything will be fine. Really? Even if you blindly accept the divinity and validity of scripture this is still problematic. Already Jesus has an incredibly shitty track record at fulfilling promises and prophecies so there is no reason to assume he knows which donkey and colt the followers will come across. He also does not give any useful description of how to find these animals or any way to distinguish them from any others. Why? Maybe because he never sought permission to take them so it wouldn't matter which ones were taken or from whom? Also notice something that is implied with "the village over against you." This could (depending on version/translation) be a vague reference to directions. It may be simply saying the village you see opposite of where we are standing. It could also be Jesus saying that since that village is hostile to us we can justify taking whatever we want from them. Either interpretation is possible.

In any case, apologists excuses don't hold up. The Jesus figure felt he needed two animals so he sent his followers to take them.

Jesus is a thief.

The Stupidity of Adam and Eve

In his New Republic piece, "Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again.", Jerry Coyne does an excellent job dismantling the Adam and Eve narrative. He not only points out a variety of reasons why the "literal" story is idiotic crap but also shows why it is just as stupid in symbolic/metaphoric terms. Unfortunately, many theists will never fully give up on such fucking ridiculous garbage. To some degree Christians can never fully distance themselves form that type of supernatural superstitious absurdity. All the basic doctrines that make Christians an identifiable religious group rely on them. Adam and Eve are so intimately bound to original sin and therefore Christ's "sacrifice" and "resurrection" that there is very little to salvage without it. The only possible work-around I can think of is to focus entirely on Jesus as a symbol of ethics and morality stripped of all the supernatural elements. Of course, that would rely on a whole other set of delusions to make it work (unique ethics, historicity, single figure).

Cowardly Costco

I have to admit that when I first heard about Costco labeling the Bible as fiction I was pleasantly surprised. For a big box chain to do something that would undoubtedly lead to controversy is rare. I was both amused and impressed. The sad truth is that any objective person should not be surprised or upset by such labeling. What sacred text is fact based? Why shouldn't it be labeled fiction? Just because people deem something important or wish to believe something does not automatically make it true.

Rather quickly and predictably Costco apologized. As it turned out the labeling was unintentional. It was an isolated mistake that probably would have gone mostly unnoticed. The only reason it was not corrected without incident is because another arrogant self-righteous asshole had to throw a hissy fit.

Oh well, at this point I have come to terms with living in a society that places little value on reality.

A couple of the articles related to this incident:
'Fiction' Label On Bibles At Costco Shocks Pastor [UPDATE]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/costco-bible-fiction_n_4304784.html

Costco Apologizes for Labeling Bibles as Fiction
http://business.time.com/2013/11/20/costco-apologizes-for-labeling-bibles-as-fiction/

Can a Mythical Figure make Predictions?

Even if you make the huge assumption that King David was an historical figure there are still problems with Joe Badens CNN Belief blog post "How King David predicted modern Judaism." One major flaw is that "King David" didn't say or write anything about himself even if he did exist. Every passage related to David in the Bible is attribute to other authors. Most scholars long ago figured out that even the psalms he supposedly penned were most likely written by others after his supposed life time.

As for the "prediction" Badens claims, that is also nonsense. His own writing refutes the notion.
"The Israel we know today is a nation that David created virtually out of thin air. Before David, there were two territories, Israel to the north, and Judah to the south."
How does merging two previously established territories qualify as "virtually out of thin air"? Any King seeking to consolidate power would do the same. That is simply a natural progression of political power that is not innately religious let alone unique to a specific religion. A handful of paragraphs later Badens adds an even more telling comment,
"We tend to think of Israel in biblical terms: the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the land of the 12 tribes. These concepts were created in the wake of David’s reign."
So, he admits to certain aspects of the Biblical David being fabricated* but fails to question those elements he's counting on for the pieces main premise. How convenient.

The piece never gets any better. None of it is supported by known history. In some ways it is rather impressive how ignorant and delusion Badens is regarding a number of fields of study. Most of the concepts and themes he brings up can be explored from Archeology, Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Theology,... He doesn't managed to adhere to the basic research principles of any of these fields. All of which can provide at least partial insights on the rise and establishment of Judaism. Inconveniently for Badens main point is the fact that Judaism predates the sections of the Bible that David is referenced in. There is also a considerable amount of debate about how different Pre and Post-Temple Judaism really is and whether those differences are as significant as they have traditionally been accepted to be.


*Yet another topic I have commented on previously.
Speaking of Faux History (7-16-11)
Family Values with a side of Indigestion (7/28/12)
"History" in the Bible (3/10/13)

The Stupidity of Low Standards

Even though the first few paragraphs may imply that the question in James Tabor's recent post may have some merit it doesn't take much to figure out that it is utter nonsense bordering on idiocy. "How Christian Is the New Testament Book of Revelation?", is a question that to some degree destroys itself. Which religion draws any authority from the New Testament? That's right the answer is Christianity. If you applied Tabor's incredibly low standards consistently then the New Testament is itself not "Christian." There are no unique or original elements contained in what most consider the truly Christian half of the Bible.

So why ask the question? Most of the Gospels (the entire Bible, in fact) are loaded with all sorts of incoherent and even horrifying passages. Revelations is one of the most problematic books in the New Testament for far too many reasons to cover in a single post. The point is that many modern "scholars" and apologists are constantly trying to find ways around such problems. As far as I can tell this is the only real reason for Tabor's piece. Distancing your preferred Faith from unpleasant aspects in one section of scripture while preserving the rest is not a new tactic. Others have tried it and many more will try it. It is intellectually dishonest and ultimately a failure.

Jesus still hates himself

Though there are any number of claims that can be made and supported by scripture about Jesus there are a few that are outright ludicrous. The notion that Jesus hates religion is both incredibly silly and very ignorant. This is not because you could cherry pick and interpret scripture to back the claim but more that you have to have scripture to enforce the claim in the first place. The earliest information, in fact the only information, about the Jesus figure comes from religious texts. Without religion (specifically Christianity) Jesus ceases to exist. Even if you make the huge assumption that there ever was an historical Jesus, the Christ figure would still be completely unknown today without religion.

"'Jesus (still) hates religion’: An interview with YouTube sensation Jefferson Bethke", a recent post on Jonathan Merritt's blog, is still a pretty interesting interview to read. I genuinely like Jefferson Blethke despite is naive and ignorant take on Christianity. His YouTube video, which I've written about previously (May 17, 2012 Naive, Idealistic, and Ignorant, but not Controversial) , is worth watching. I have also previously commented on the bogus notion that Christ can exist separate from Christianity (December 21, 2012
Actually, Christ does Need Christianity). I would point out that the reverse is not true. Christianity can survive even if its adherents finally accept that Christ is a myth.

"Prayer Failed for Jesus"

Green's Debunking Christianity blog post, "Prayer Failed for Jesus!", makes some excellent points. I find these contradictions of scripture very entertaining. They are also rather revealing. Many theists come up with the same feeble response to such blatant flaws in their beliefs. They like to insists that we are being "literalists". The problem with this attempted dodge is that it is largely a projection. What branch of Christianity does not claim authority through scripture? It is not the fault of critics that virtually every doctrine and concept put forth by theists is linked to and/or justified by scripture. We didn't choose to build our beliefs around bronze-age bullshit.

Since so many pray to, or in the name of Jesus, why is it unfair to point out that according to their own scripture Jesus' prayers went unfulfilled? If some branches of Christianity claim that Jesus is simultaneously God and Man, what makes it rude to point out how silly it is for him to pray to himself?

Boring?

I'm aware of a wide variety of summaries, descriptions, and criticisms of Christianity but I don't recall anyone calling it "boring." Even before considering all the mischief and mayhem this major world religion has foisted on the rest of us, reviewing the massive doses of intrigue and in-fighting that has occurred within and among the 40,000+ sects/denominations is anything but boring.

Once you get past this silly notion Acuff's example of excitement from the Gospel of Luke is pretty terrible. Then again, the Bible is chock full of horrendous behavior and piss-poor role models. The whole piece, "Should Christianity be so boring?", is a rambling mess that doesn't ever come together or make any coherent valid point.

If you're studying Christianity, or any religion, and you find it boring you either aren't paying attention or your research skills really suck. Whether you like it or not, religion is one of the most fascinating fields to study.

"But while I love these truths...."

So, after listing a variety of horror stories and contradictions contained in the Bible Ellen Dollar still comes to the conclusion that it contains "truths". "Do I Love the Bible? It’s Complicated" is not the first or last piece that follows this shoddy analysis of scripture. Equally, this is not the first or last time I will comment on such odd leaps of reason.

I have always been confused as to how otherwise intelligent people can so blindly accept the notion that the Bible is "The Good Book." Literature does not have to contain all positive messages or even be well written to be taken as interesting or inspiring. But the Bible is portrayed as being more than just "literature." Yet, when you apply standards that most people accept in any other aspect of life these scriptures fail miserably.

For example, Dollar insists that "Fundamentally, I believe the Bible is the primary narrative revealing what we as Christians believe about God, the world, and the people who inhabit it." This is after she provides a litany of contradictory and heinous passages. It never occurs to her that by such low standards a reasonable person can easily conclude that Christianity is by its nature contradictory and even evil. I'm pretty sure that is not what she intends. She never really explains how cherry picking and interpreting scripture (which all believers do) establishes the Bible's merits.

In the end, this is simply another piece that clearly demonstrates how deluded Christians are about "The Good Book."

Liberal Christians make Assumptions, too

In a recent HuffPo piece Derek Penwell makes a few claims that are highly debatable and loaded with a number of assumptions. "The Problem With Assuming Liberal Christians Hate the Bible" simply highlights the fact that different strains of Christianity interpret the Bible in different ways. Penwell seems to be quite oblivious to the reason many Christians have reached a number of biased assumptions about their fellow Christians. He does this while maintaining a deluded notion about the Bible itself.

"But here’s the thing: Liberal Christians love the Bible. No, seriously. We love the Bible. We just refuse to treat it as though it is a set of timeless golden tablets that says all that needs to be said once and for all about everything of importance. (It doesn’t say anything, for instance, about why the Chicago Cubs haven’t won a World Series in over 100 years.)...Liberal Christians aren’t liberal in spite of the Bible, but because of it. They don’t pursue justice for LGBT people because they haven’t read Scripture, but precisely because they have. And in the arc of the narrative of God’s interaction with humanity, liberal Christians find a radical expansiveness, an urgent desire to broaden the embrace of God’s hospitality to include those whom the religious big shots are always kicking to the sidelines."

What makes it sacred? What is there to love about this specific book that cannot be claimed about any number of other pieces of literature? He talks about supporting homosexual rights based on Bible. Seriously?! Therein lay the problem. The Bible contains as many passages that condemn homosexuals as there are that encourage acceptance. Penwell points out that the Bible is not a set of "timeless golden tablet" but how do you determine which passages are still relevant? Personal morals, perhaps? Which means that liberal Christians are not liberal because of the Bible.

The truth is no Christian is anything "because of" the Bible. People have their point of view and values based on any number of factors but scripture is not one of them. The scripture of most religions, Christianity among them, alternate between being incoherently vague to being outright contradictory. How do establish beliefs on such a mishmash of nonsense? You don't. You simply retrofit to what you already have come to believe for a variety of other reasons. Assuming the "Good Book" is good just because that's what yopu've always been told or because you want ti to be so does not prove anything.

Another Theistic Conundrum

Assuming the basic premise of "Not all religious convictions are written in stone" it still leads to some inconvenient questions. For instance, if religious convictions are not universal and unchanging what makes them sacred? What makes them any different from any other type of belief(s)? Why should special allowances, which most theists still insist on, be made for faith? It seems to me that this is a theological catch-22. If you allow for change and accept, at least partially modernity and reality, you loose any special claims. If you don't allow for change you add to the variety and strength of criticisms that advancing knowledge inevitably pile up against religion as a whole, which results in religion's irrelevance.

This dilemma is not blunted by the author's preference to focus almost entirely on Homosexual rights. The ideas and questions implied in the title remain no matter hard theists try to deflect them with special pleading or delusional ploys.

Is Taco Bell really Mexican?

If there are any theists, Christians in particular, out there reading this can you please explain this one to me,
"Poll: Americans love the Bible but don’t read it much." This is by no means new information but it still both fascinates and confuses me. Why do so many insist the Bible is such a wonderful book without actually have read or paid attention to what they have read? I don't know the percentage but many who have read the "Good Book" cover to cover have done so through some type of study group or similar program. So many who do read it seem to simply accept what they are being told they should take the meaning of a given passage to be. Basically, no real thought is involved with many religious peoples' reading of a book that is supposedly such a profound experience. Doesn't that negate the idea that it is so worthy?

To me this is no different than someone proclaiming their undying love of Mexican food and in the very next breath admitting the only "Mexican" they've ever eaten came from Taco Bell. I just don't get it. If anyone has a decent explanation for this beyond the standards (faith or delusion/wishful thinking, depending on your point of view) I would love to hear it.

Simple, Obvious, Contradictory...

It never ceases to amaze me just how contradictory and delusional some theists can be. Greg Carey's "Jesus and the Bible" post, however, seems to have set a new record. This is probably the fastest self contradiction I've read in the past few years. Paragraph two essentially negates the opening paragraph.

Paragraph 1:
"When we Christians are tempted to lob Bible verses at one another like hand grenades, we might do well to consider Jesus' example."

Paragraph 2:
"On a certain day, Luke tells us, Jesus was in his hometown, Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). He stood up in the synagogue to read, and he was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. Scrolling through, Jesus read from two verses. Actually, a verse and a half."

See what he did there? He failed in not being "tempted to lob Bible verses." To prove his pointed he has to use Bible verses which completely undoes the initial point. It is not completely his fault since it is literally impossible to discuss Jesus in any significant way without referencing the New Testament. He cannot acknowledge that Jesus' very "existence" depends on scripture.

Later he gets into the need to interpret scripture by again using Jesus as an example. Again, he fails to acknowledge where that train of thought has to lead. Since the Bible cannot have any real meaning without massive amounts of cherry-picking and interpretation then it is really no more valid as a source of inspiration and/or authority than, say, Harry Potter.

Blind faith and delusion is quite the combination.

Damn Godless Commies! Oh, wait....

"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need (Acts 4:34-35)...But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?(Acts 5:1-3)...And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 'Three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.' 'Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.' And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 'Peter said ... How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.'Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost.'
'And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.'
'By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people.' Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things." (Acts 5:5-11)

Basically, a couple convert to Christianity and sell their property but start to have second thoughts. They decide to hold back a portion of the proceeds. Even though they give the bulk of their money to the group they both end up dead. It is an interesting story considering that conservative Christians insist that the Bible is the definitive authority on ethics and morals. These same Christians tend to rail against "redistributing" wealth. It seems the early Christians not only liked the idea but the message in the above narrative is give up everything to the common group or face death. The same group of religious right nuts also seem to alternate between insisting Obama is really a Muslim or else a commie. Which seems really bizarre to me since they frequently use, falsely, communism as a synonym for atheism. Contradictory? Inconsistent? Very! It is fascinating that their beloved source of authority seems to favor some of the more basic elements of communism. Private property and the free market are definitely not favored by God in this part of the Bible. So, does that make communism godly or free market fundamentalists ungodly? I fin that is a very entertaining theological dilemma.

To Respect or Not to Respect

As I have previously written, I firmly believe that individuals should be given the benefit of the doubt in regard to being respected.Until an individual gives you reason not to show them respect their is no reason to withhold such consideration. Ideas and institutions, on the other hand, should earn respect before it is granted.

With that basic premise in mind I would suggest that not only has the Bible (Old and New Testament) not earned my, or anyone's, respect but  has made such consideration quite difficult. I see no reason to grant respect to an idea, institution, or individual when there is no chance of reciprocity. There are a handful of scriptural passages that make it clear that the God (or rather the authors writing in the name of) has no respect for us. Two such examples are:

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34)
"For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:11)

Short and to the point.