David's Bible Blog

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark two by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling. God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned everyone else including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably blameless animals as well.
Of course, irritated theologian types, like yourself will protest that we don’t take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is the whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories.
Pat Robertson would be harmless comedy, were he less typical of those who today hold power and influence in this country. In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham’s nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them” (Genesis 19:5). But Lot’s halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: “I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof: (Genesis 19: 7-8). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
Such unpleasant episodes in Abraham’s story are mere peccadilloes compared with the infamous tale of the sacrificing of his son Isaac (Muslim scripture tells the same story about Abraham’s other son, Ishmael). God ordered Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son. As it turns out God was only joking after all, “tempting” Abraham, and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. By the standards of modern morality, this disgraceful story is an example simultaneously of child abuse, bullying in two asymmetrical power relationships, and the first recorded use of the Nuremberg defense: “I was only following orders.”
Once again, modern theologians will protest that the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac should not be taken as literal fact. And, once again, the appropriate response is twofold. First, many many people, even to this day, do take the whole of their scripture to be literal fact, and they have a great deal of political power over the rest of us, especially in the United States and in the Islamic world. Second, if not as literal fact, how should we take the story: an allegory? Then an allegory for what? Surely nothing praiseworthy.
Those with the power to elect our presidents and congressmen – and many who themselves get elected – believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah’s ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the earth, and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God. This my friend, should trouble you.

If you're going to copy your postings out of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", you should at least give him credit for the original authorship.

The previous post took the words right out of my mouth. Please pardon me but I’m not sure that I did the hyperlinks correctly.
Mr. Carroll, please pardon the length of this post and the fact that I link to some of my own writings. I don’t know if you edited D. Bryant’s post but if it was sent to you as is D. appears to have engaged in plagiarism since the text of the post is indeed quoted from Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” (actually an edited quote) and the last paragraph is mostly from an article by Sam Harris.
One can only assume that D. is in such agreement with Dawkins that the post was none but a whole hearted approval of Dawkins’/Harris’ statements (short of book, chapter & verse). Functioning off of this assumption one is forced to assume that they both do not seem understand that just because the Bible states something it does not mean that it is endorsing it. In other words, the Bible describes & prescribes. To take something that it describes & assume that it is prescribing it only goes to demonstrate a shocking level of misunderstanding. I wrote an essay covering many of Dawkins’ mishandlings of the Bible called “Planting God More Firmly on His Throne”=“atheistricharddawkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/richard-dawkins-planting-god-more.html”
Let us perform a quick survey of the post’s statements:
-“The God of the Old Testament is arguably…” two things to mention here: we can assume that most, if not all, of these besmirchments are based on D.’s/Dawkins’ misunderstandings & lack of basic discernment. Based on absolute materialism, just how is morality determined? (please see my “Introducing the Dawkinsian Weltanschauung”=“atheistricharddawkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/richard-dawkins-introducing-dawkinsian.html”). Moreover, while it is tragically sad to ponder, we must simply pose a question—if that is what someone thinks about God will God “force them to spend eternity in heaven”=“lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/11/on-hell-hell-is-place-of-departing.html” with Him?
-“story of Noah…known from the older mythologies” but why assume that people who lived in vast isolation from each other (chronologically & geographically) were plagiarizing? Perhaps the fact that many of the most ancient “myths” of “cultures around the world”=“www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html” tell the same basic stories (a pristine garden, a flood, etc.) means that the “events actually occurred”=“www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends” & thus became pre-historic history that in this case is known as “myth” or “legend.”
-“don’t take the book of Genesis literally any more…We pick and choose” succinctly, to take literally means to “take it as it is intended”=“lifeanddoctrine.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-do-you-read-bible-have-you-ever.html” yet, no one is as literal as Dawkins (Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, etc.) if we define literal as not considering hermeneutics.
-On a few occasions D./Dawkins appear to not take the time to visualize the scenario presented in the text they are quoting but seem to be merely following letters into words into sentences, etc. & forget what is actually occurring. We don’t actually know very much about Lot except that the Bible, being as honest as it is, depicts one particular instance when his behavior was no less than repugnant. Lot found that his home was accosted by a mob & while this does not excuse his repulsive actions it does inform us that he was in a very dangerous & mentally/emotionally stressed state. When he offers his daughters to the mob the angels would have none of that nonsense & it’s precisely at that point that they act in defense of the girls.
-“Muslim scripture tells the same story about Abraham’s other son, Ishmael” not necessarily so, that is an inference from the text of the Qur'an. In fact, at least “43 ancient documents that predate Islam side with the Bible”=“lifeanddoctrineislamicus.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-was-abraham-told-to-sacrifice.html”.
-“how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma” in that time & place human sacrifice was a given & for all we know it was considered an honor to be sacrificed.
-“the Nuremberg defense” Abraham conjured no defense at all since what he was doing was the worship systems de jour. He did not even hesitate because this was standard operating procedure for the worship of the gods of that place & time. It is incredible to think that the event that made it crystal clear that the God of the Bible was different from other gods & would never accept child sacrifice is so abused & misunderstood. The New Testament states that “By faith Abraham…offered up Isaac…of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead” (Hebrews 11:17-19). Thus, “by faith” means: by logical inference.
-“many many people, even to this day, do take the whole of their scripture to be literal fact…especially in the United States & in the Islamic world” yes, and that event is why Judaism, Christianity & Islam have never practiced child sacrifice. When the Bible records Jews doing any such things it’s clear that they had fallen away from worshiping the God of the Bible & were worshiping gentile/pagan gods.
Now to the D./Harris portion:
-“dinosaurs lived…upon Noah’s ark” the average size of a dinosaur was the size of a sheep & the babies of even the largest dinosaurs were small.
-“light from distant galaxies was created en route to the earth” this is an extremely narrowly held view but we might as well mention that time dilation as expressed in the general theory of relativity means that “millions of years could have elapsed in parts of the universe while days elapsed in others”=“www.creationists.org/humphreys.html”.
-“the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt” but is this not a scientific “prediction” that the human body is composed of the same elements found in dirt/soil/earth? As journalist and senior editor of Skeptic magazine Frank Miele put it in an “interview with Dawkins”=“scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_3.php”, “the clay from which we are made.”
-“& divine breath” the Bible states “divine breath” & Dawkins states blind random chance (for life’s origin).
-“a talking snake” there is so much to say here that all we can provide is rabbit hole that lead to further research. Certainly some believe that there was a talking snake but there is no real need to do so & it would not be due to picking & choosing or embarrassment at the modern (& “logically fallacious”=“lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/atheisms-circular-logic-one-time.html”) denial of miracles. It is generally understood that the “snake”/”serpent” in the garden was lucifer who came to be known as the “that ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9) who is told “You were in Eden, the garden of God” (Eze 28:12). Lucifer, the luminescent one, was referred to as a snake/serpent due to his craftiness & due the root word meaning of “practice divination” or “enchantment”/“enchanter.” This enchanter was told “On your belly you shall go” (Gen 3:14), being brought down from his lofty state (see Eze 28:12-19 & Isa 14:11-19). Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This being was also told “you shall eat dust” (Genesis 3:14), playing off of Adam being made from dust, “Adam” meaning dustman/earthling. Thus, we see that with a slight understanding of literary devises & greater contexts the story is actually presenting a complex tapestry & has nothing to do with either a negatively inclined “literal” reading like D.’s/Dawkins’/Harris’ & also one that does not call for us to pick, choose or reinterpret—we simply take it as it is intended.
This lack of basic discernment skills employed in such a malicious manner my friend, should trouble you.
It is fascinating to think that someone would commit plagiarism in discussing morality (if that in fact is the case here).

Wow, Mariano, your post was fascinating and well put. I shall enjoy perusing your site.

I contemplated deleting that original comment but I didn't because it provided such a stark contrast to my thoughts that I thought it might serve to enhance (sort of like a jewel against a black velvet background). When I originally read the comment, I thought "and this is supposed to make me very afraid?" I felt rather sad for the author and now I find out it was Dawkins' words!

I'm glad I left it. Just in the last day, months later, you and the other poster have shown the comment for what it really was: plagiarism and furthermore, biased mishandling of the biblical text.

Thanks again.

P.S. Love Albuquerque by the way, Hot Air Balloons!