Shri Mataji: The Bible, of course, was tampered with very much

[Guest guest]

Cruelty and Violence in the 1st Four Books of the Bible

 

Genesis

 

1. God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and

vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has

something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved.

4:3-5

 

2. Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's

vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious

jealousy. 4:8

 

3. God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping

things, fowls, and " all flesh wherein there is breath of life. " He

plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

 

4. God repeats his intention to kill " every living substance ...

from off the face of the earth. " But why does God kill all the

innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems

God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4

 

5. God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to

koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned

them all. 7:21-23

 

6. Noah kills the " clean beasts " and burns their dead bodies for

God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of

all " clean " animals since only two of each were taken onto the

ark. " And the Lord smelled a sweet savor. " 8:20

 

7. To free Lot from captivity, Abram sends an army of slaves to

pursue and smite his captors. 14:14-15

 

8. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless

slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

 

9. Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to

Hagar whatever she wants. " And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she

fled. " 16:6

 

10. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering

his two " virgin daughters " instead. He tells the bunch of angel

rapers to " do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes. "

This is the same man that is called " just " and " righteous " in 2

Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8

 

11. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in

Sodom and Gomorrah by raining " fire and brimstone from the Lord out

of heaven. " Well, almost everyone -- he spares the " just and

righteous " Lot and his family. 19:24

 

12. God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing

Abe's lie. 20:3-7

 

13. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham

shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But

finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to

kill instead. 22:2-13

 

14. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is " defiled " by a man who seems to

love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and

kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take

their wives and children captive. 34:1-31

 

15. " The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about

them. " I don't know what the " terror of God " is, but I'll bet it

isn't pleasant. 35:5

 

16. " And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord;

and the Lord slew him. " What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The

Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

 

17. After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to " go in unto they

brother's wife. " But " Onan knew that the seed should not be his;

and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on

the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord;

wherefore he slew him also. " This lovely Bible story is seldom read

in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines,

including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control.

38:8-10

 

18. After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that

she " played the harlot " and " is with child by whoredom. " When Judah

hears this, he says, " Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. " 38:24

 

19. Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh

will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree

for the birds to eat. 40:19

 

 

Exodus

 

20. Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is

looking. 2:11-12

 

21. God threatens to kill the Pharaoh's firstborn son. 4:23

 

22. God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been

circumcised. 4:24-26

 

23. God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so

that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4

 

24. " And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD. " Who else

could be so cruel and unjust? 7:5, 17

 

25. God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into

blood. 7:17-24

 

26. The fifth plague: all cattle in Egypt die. 9:2-6

 

27. The sixth plague: boils and blains upon man and beast. 9:9-12

 

28. " For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart,

and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know

that there is none like me in all the earth. " Who else but the

biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14

 

29. God kills all Egyptian cattle with hail. 9:19-20

 

30. The seventh plague is hail. " And the hail smote throughout the

land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast. " 9:22-25

 

31. These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent

children by God was premeditated. 11:4-6 (see 12:29-30)

 

32. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts " a

difference between the Egyptians and Israel. " 11:7

 

33. God explains to Moses that he intends to " smite all the

firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. 12:12

 

34. After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he

kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was

finished " there was not a house where there was not one dead. "

Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the

firstborn cattle, too. 12:29

 

35. To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children,

Moses instructs the Israelites to " sacrifice to the Lord all that

openeth the matrix " -- all the males, that is. God has no use for

dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 12, 15

 

36. After hardening Pharaoh's heart a few more times, God drowns

Pharaoh's army in the sea 14:4-28

 

37. Moses and the people sing praises to their murderous god. 15:1-19

 

38. " The Lord is a man of war. " Indeed, judging from his acts in the

Old Testament, he is a vicious warlike monster. 15:3

 

39. God's right hand dashes people in pieces. 15:6

 

40. Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites " with the edge

of the sword. " 17:13

 

41. " The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war

with Amalek from generation to generation. " 17:14-16

 

42. Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to

death or " shot through. " 19:12-13

 

43. God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says

that if we will make such " burnt offerings, " he will bless us for

it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of

innocent animals? 20:24

 

44. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15,17

 

45. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 21:24-25

 

46. If an ox gores someone, then both the ox and its owner must die.

21:28-29

 

47. " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. " Thousands of innocent

women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

 

48. " Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. " Is

it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them

to counseling or something? 22:19

 

49. " He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he

shall be utterly destroyed. " If this commandment is obeyed, then the

four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be

killed. 22:20

 

50. If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family

with his own sword. 22:24

 

51. " The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me. " (As a burnt

offering?) 22:29

 

52. God promises to " send his fear before the Israelites " and to

kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land.

23:27

 

53. Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for

God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people.

This makes God happy. 24:5-8

 

54. Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body

parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all

around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you

sick, but it makes God feel good. 29:11-37

 

55. Have your killed and offered your bullock for a sin offering

today? How about the two lambs you are supposed to offer each day?

29:36-39

 

56. Wash up or die. 30:20-21

 

57. Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be " cut off from his

people. " 30:33

 

58. Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14

 

59. God asks to be left alone so that his " wrath may wax hot " and he

can " consume them. 32:10

 

60. God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members

of their tribe that were " on the Lord's side " ) to kill " every man

his neighbor. " " And there fell of the people that day about 3000

men. " 32:27-28

 

61. But God wasn't satisfied with the slaughter of the 3000, so he

killed some more people with a plague. 32:35

 

62. If you can't redeem him, then just " break his neck. " Hey, it's

all for the glory of God. 34:20

 

63. Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath " shall be

put to death. " 35:2-3

 

 

Leviticus

 

64. God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic

animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God,

judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions.

Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized

as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut

the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a " sweet savor unto the

Lord. " Chapters 1 - 9

 

65. Wringing off the heads of pigeons for God. 5:8-9

 

66. The holy law of trespass offering: Find an animal; kill it;

sprinkle the blood around; offer God the fat, rump, kidneys, and

caul; burn and eat it in the holy place, for " it is most holy. " 7:1-6

 

67. The priest must sprinkle the blood of the peace offerings. 7:14

 

68. Be careful what you eat during these animal sacrifices. Don't

eat fat or blood -- these are for God. (And he doesn't like to

share!) 7:18-27

 

69. God gives instructions for " wave offerings " and " heave

offerings. " He says these offerings are to be made perpetually " by a

statute for ever. " Have you made your heave offering today? 7:30-36

 

70. Moses does it all for God. First he kills an animal; wipes the

blood on Aaron's ears, thumbs, and big toes. Then he sprinkles blood

round about and waves the guts before the Lord. Finally he burns the

whole mess for " a sweet savour before the Lord. " 8:14-32

 

71. More killing, sprinkling of blood, waiving animal parts, and

burning carcasses " before the Lord. " 9:8-21

 

72. Two of the sons of Aaron " offered strange fire before the Lord "

and " there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they

died before the Lord. " 10:1-2

 

73. If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their

heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by

drinking " wine or strong drink " , then God will kill them and send

his wrath on " all the people. " 10:6-9

 

74. God's treatment for leprosy: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the

live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the

leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next

find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's

right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and

wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat.

Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the

other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32

 

75. God explains the use of scapegoats. It goes like this: Get two

goats. Kill one. Wipe, smear, and sprinkle the blood around seven

times. Then take the other goat, give it the sins of all the people,

and send it off into the wilderness. 16:6-28

 

76. If you upset God, he'll cause the land to vomit you out. 18:25

 

77. " Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations ... shall be

cut off from among their people. " I'm not sure what being " cut off "

means exactly, but I bet it isn't any fun. 18:29, 19:8

 

78. Kill anyone who " gives his seed " to Molech. If you refuse, God

will cut you and your family off. 20:2-5

 

79. " For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall

surely be put to death. " Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9

 

80. Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10

 

81. " And the man that lieth with his father's wife ... both of them

shall be put to death. " Which? The man and his father? The father

and his wife? Or the man and his father's wife? Oh heck, just kill

all three. 20:11

 

82. If a man " lies " with his daughter-in-law, then both must be

killed. 20:12

 

83. Homosexuals must be executed. 20:13

 

84. If you " lie " with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that

sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14

 

85. If a man or woman " lie with a beast " both the person and the

poor animal are to be killed. 20:15-16

 

86. People with " familiar spirits " (witches, fortune tellers, etc.)

are to be stoned to death. 20:27

 

87. A priest's daughter who " plays the whore " is to be burned to

death. 21:9

 

88. God gives us more instructions on killing and burning animals. I

guess the first nine chapters of Leviticus wasn't enough. He says we

must do this because he really likes the smell -- it is " a sweet

savour unto the Lord. " 23:12-14, 18

 

89. Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy

you. 23:29-30

 

90. A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man.

Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole

community must stone him to death. " And the children of Israel did

as the Lord and Moses commanded. " 24:10-23

 

91. Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the

entire community. 24:16

 

92. God tells the Israelites to " chase " their enemies and make

them " fall before you by the sword. " He figures five of the

Israelites will be able to " chase " a hundred of their enemies, and a

hundred will be able to " put ten thousand to flight. " 26:7-8

 

93. God describes torments that he has planned for those who

displease him. The usual stuff: plagues, burning fevers that will

consume the eyes, etc. but he reserves the worst for the little

children. He says " ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies

shall eat it " , " I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob

you of your children " , and " ye shall eat the flesh of your sons ..

daughters. " 26:16-39

 

94. All " devoted " things (both man and beast) " shall surely be put

to death. " 27:28-29

 

 

Numbers

 

95. God displays his hospitality with the admonition: " The stranger

that cometh nigh shall be put to death. " 1:51

 

96. Two of Aaron's sons are killed by God for " offering strange fire

before the Lord. " 3:4

 

97. God repeats his order (see 1:51) to kill any strangers who

happen to come near. 3:10

 

98. Once again (see 1:51 and 3:10) God tells his favorite people to

kill any strangers that come near. 3:38

 

99. Don't touch or " go in to see when the holy things are covered. "

God kills people who touch or look at uncovered holy things. 4:15,

4:20

 

100. " And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and

the Lord heard it. " (He had his hearing aid on.) He then burns the

complainers alive. That'll teach them. 11:1

 

101. " And wile the flesh [of the quails] was yet between their

teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against

the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great

plague. " The Bible isn't too clear about what these poor folks did

to upset God so much; all it says is that they had " lusted. " 11:33

 

102. More plagues and pestilence sent by God. God repeats one of his

favorite promises: " your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. "

14:12, 29, 14:32-37

 

103. God gives more instructions for the ritualistic killing of

animals. The smell of burning flesh is " a sweet savour unto the

Lord. " 15:3, 13-14, 24

 

104. The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God

commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. 15:32-36

 

105. Because of a dispute between Korah and Moses, God makes the

ground open up and it swallows Korah and his family. And then, just

for the hell of it, God has a fire burn 250 men (friends of Korah?)

to death. 16:20-49

 

106. After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent

bystanders, the people complained saying, " ye have killed the people

of the Lord. " So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a

plague on the people. And " they that died in the plague were

14,700. " 16:41-50

 

107. God threatens to kill those who murmur. To which the people

reply, " Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish .... Shall we be

consumed with dying? " 17:12-13

 

108. According to this verse, it is wise to stay away from holy

things and places -- like churches. God will kill you if you get too

close. 18:3

 

109. God shows us how to make new friends by saying : " The stranger

that cometh nigh shall be put to death. " 18:7

 

110. God describes once again the procedure for ritualistic animal

sacrifices. such rituals must be extremely important to God, since

he makes their performance a " statute " and " covenant " forever. Why,

then don't Bible-believers perform these sacrifices anymore? Don't

they realize how God must miss the " sweet savour " of burning flesh?

Don't they believe God when he says " forever " ? 18:17-19

 

111. Don't get near holy things or " pollute " them. If you do, God

will kill you. 18:22, 32

 

112. The purification of the unclean. These absurd rituals, cruel

sacrifices, and unjust punishments are vitally important to God. He

even insists that they are to be " a perpetual statute " to all

humankind. 19:1-22

 

113. " And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered

up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their

cities. " This verse demonstrates the power of prayer: If you ask

God, he will destroy entire cities for you. 21:3

 

114. God sends " fiery serpents " to bite his chosen people, and many

of them die. 21:6

 

115. God delivers the Amorites into Moses' hands. (You're in God

hands with Moses.) So Moses does the usual thing, killing

everyone " until their was none left alive. " 21:34-35

 

116. God's people will kill like a lion and then " drink the blood of

the slain. " 23:24

 

117. God, who is as strong as a unicorn, will eat up the nations,

break their bones, and then pierce them through with his arrows.

What a guy! 24:8

 

118. After the people " commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab, "

Moses has them all killed. Then God tells Moses to hang their dead

bodies up in front of him; God says that this will satisfy him. 25:1-

5

 

119. When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign

woman, " Phinehas (Aaron's grandson) sees them and throws a

spear " through the man .. and the woman through her belly. " This act

pleases God so much that " the plague was stayed from the children of

Israel. " But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9

 

120. God tells Moses how to care for his neighbors by saying: " Vex

the Midianites, and smite them. " 25:16-17

 

121. The ground swallow Korah and his companions and a fire consumes

250 men. 26:10

 

122. " And Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before

the Lord. " When you go camping avoid making any unusual fires. 26:61

 

123. In these chapters, God provides ridiculously detailed

instructions for the ritualistic sacrifice of animals. The burning

of their dead bodies smells great to God. Eleven times in these two

chapters God says that they are to him a " sweet savour. "

 

124. Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They

kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive.

When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: " Have

you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little

ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with

him, keep alive for yourselves. " So they went back and did as Moses

(and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the

virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! [Even God gets

some of the booty -- including the virgins. (31:28-29)] 31:1-54 28-29

 

125. God killed all the Egyptian firstborn. 33:4

 

126. " The revenger of blood " must murder the murderer just as soon

as he sees him. 35:19, 21

 

127. When a murder is committed the blood pollutes the land. The

only way to cleanse it is to spill more blood by killing the killer.

35:33

 

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleViolence.htm

 

 

 

“It began at the beginning of The Unauthorized Version: Truth and fiction in the

Bible with these words: In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells Pilate, ‘To this end was I

born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto

the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.’ ‘What is truth?’

asks Pilate and does not receive a reply.”

 

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible,

Penguin Books Ltd, 1991.

 

 

“In biblical times, the bible or the Old testament was not a book at all. Its

texts were copied on rolls of papyrus, parchment or even leather, each of which

would hold only one text or one group of shorter texts. These rolls were often

cumbersome. A text of Isaiah which was copied on papyrus and found quite

recently in a cave near the Dead Sea unrolls to length of twenty feet. In Jesus’

lifetime, what Christians now call the Old testament would have had to be

gathered up as bulky rolls, rather like bundles of wallpaper which nowadays wait

in a heap to decorate a room. It is harder to control and limit a heap of

scrolls than to preserve a book between one pair of covers. It was the

Christians who first made the books, or codex, the standard form for biblical

texts, and even then they are not known to have copied our Bibles into any one

early example. The history of biblical texts runs from scroll to heap, from heap

to book-codex, spanning about a thousand years. We need to look beyond our

book-binding and try to see when and why, approximately, these texts were

written, and what, then, is their authority as a whole.”

 

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and fiction in the Bible,

Penguin Books Ltd, 1991, p. 52.

 

 

“This spectacular text united themes with which we still live: war on Israel’s

neighbours, death to non-believers, personality responsibility and charity for

those too poor to protect themselves. Although it ordered that nothing should be

added or subtracted from its words, the text grew longer with time, and the

command proved no more binding than others in the book.”

 

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and fiction in the Bible,

Penguin Books Ltd, 1991, p. 65.

 

 

“If we read biblical narrative as a story, we abandon its historical truth. If

we read it as literature, we will find literary art in it, but this art takes us

further from truth which corresponds to fact: the fourth Gospel is an author’s

strong interpretation, not an exact memoir. What, though, about the contents?

They may be historically mistaken; they may be a fiction; but can they not seem

true to us, in the way that other great scenes in stories and fictions seem true

too, Hector’s farewell to his wife, perhaps, in Homer’s Iliad or Prince Andrei’s

rather different farewell to his wife in Tolstoy’s War and Peace. The biblical

stories are usually religious, but we need not believe in their God in order to

be drawn into them in this way ...

 

What we find here is not straight truth but this sense of ‘how it would have

been’: this sense depends, in turn, on the statements we think to be true about

other people, that the plotters against a younger brother (Joseph) will be

haunted by a sense of guilt, that important man’s servants may try to cheat him

(Gehazi) and so forth. There is nothing divine or mystical in the scriptures’

nature which causes this impact, nor is it unique to them. The scriptures are

not a divine mirror but a human labyrinth of authors, persons and predicaments.

We respond to them because of a movement on our part, not on theirs:

recognition, not revelation ...

 

From Eden to the Apocalypse, the Bible is a record of human error and

wickedness. They are two of the human truths in the stories (from David to Judas

Iscariot), and my unauthorized version has traced them in the author’s

themselves: they, too, err and lay claim to false identities; they are only too

human in their views of others, from the palmists’ bitter hatred against their

enemies to the divine approval of genocide or the slaughter of most of humanity

in the Revelation of John. There is no comforting progression, from a barbarous

God of war to a later and milder God of love . . . These ideas of God are human

creations, and, like stories of Creation, they remain contradictory to the end.

After Eden, how could human texts be otherwise?”

 

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and fiction in the Bible,

Penguin Books Ltd, 1991, p. 399.

 

 

“Those who share their faith would probably not worry that they had been brought

to it by mistaken beliefs: if God moves in mysterious ways, he might as well

work through error. In the Bible itself, the Ethiopian eunuch is won to faith by

Philip’s false explanation of a prophecy which was wrongly ascribed to Isaiah.

Yet if someone had explained to Donato and his hearers that Creation did not

happen in that way, and that the narratives in Genesis were not history, would

they really have succumbed so strongly? They believed what they heard: would

they have believed it if they had been told first that they were being read a

story?

 

Story, however, is the conclusion which most biblical authors, and the samples

of my unauthorized version, assert for most of the narrative. Where, then, is

its truth? At one persistent level, the Bible shows us what the authors in

Israel and its self-styled heir, the Church, believed about God. They assume a

knowledge of this God, and even if their stories are wonderfully false, most of

them are told with a faith that God was at work in them . . . Much has been made

of the presence of history in Hebrew scripture, but the Jewish faith is not

dependent on whether its contents happened or not . . .

Unlike the facts of history, stories can also be enlarged, improved and

multiplied without telling lies. Our Bible are a hive of such industry, as

people imagined and filled in gaps which the text had left. It was not

dishonest, not like the giving of prophecies to people of a much earlier date or

updating predictions after the event. Some of the main story inspired more

stories ... Sometimes the main text left unsaid the things which people wanted

to know: these gaps led to an entire body of writings which took their cue from

biblical stories, the Midrash of Jewish writers ...

 

This process is still visible in our Bible’s Hebrew text. At Genesis 18:16 God

sends his angels to punish Sodom: surely Abraham must have realized and tried to

plead with him (so a story of this pleading, at Genesis 18:23 was added.) At

Genesis 12:17 Abraham concealed his wife as his sister in a foreign country, and

God was very angry with a Gentile who wooed her in ignorance: surely God was not

always so harsh to innocent mistakes (Genesis 18:17 ff.; 20 and 26 probably grew

out of gaps and problems in the older story.) Bits of the Bible thus grew in

answer to earlier bits, and inspired a mass of connected stories, like the

script of a weekly serial which passes from author to author, while retaining

the same setting and characters.”

 

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and fiction in the Bible,

Penguin Books Ltd, 1991, p. 359-62.

 

 

 

“Also these organised religions, this monolithic organised religions started

taking the course of gaining power, or gaining money, because they thought

that's the only way you can control people and can go on. They were least

bothered as to deliver the goods; whatever has been described in the Bible.

 

The Bible, of course, was tampered with very much and there have been lots of

changes in that and persons like Paul and Peter, who joined together, tried to

spoil most of the Truth. Though Koran was not so much touched but still it dealt

with more the right side, with the reproductive system and all those things. And

so many things are still ambiguous.”

 

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

The Will Of God, Sahasrara Puja,

Cabella, Italy — May 10, 1992

[Guest guest]

, " jagbir singh "

<adishakti_org> wrote:

>

> Unlike the facts of history, stories can also be enlarged,

> improved and multiplied without telling lies. Our Bible are a hive

> of such industry, as people imagined and filled in gaps which the

> text had left. It was not dishonest, not like the giving of

> prophecies to people of a much earlier date or updating

> predictions after the event. Some of the main story inspired more

> stories ... Sometimes the main text left unsaid the things which

> people wanted to know: these gaps led to an entire body of

> writings which took their cue from biblical stories, the Midrash

> of Jewish writers ...

>

> This process is still visible in our Bible's Hebrew text. At

> Genesis 18:16 God sends his angels to punish Sodom: surely Abraham

> must have realized and tried to plead with him (so a story of this

> pleading, at Genesis 18:23 was added.) At Genesis 12:17 Abraham

> concealed his wife as his sister in a foreign country, and God was

> very angry with a Gentile who wooed her in ignorance: surely God

> was not always so harsh to innocent mistakes (Genesis 18:17 ff.;

> 20 and 26 probably grew out of gaps and problems in the older

> story.) Bits of the Bible thus grew in answer to earlier bits, and

> inspired a mass of connected stories, like the script of a weekly

> serial which passes from author to author, while retaining the

> same setting and characters. "

>

> Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and fiction in the

> Bible, Penguin Books Ltd, 1991, p. 359-62.

>

>

>

> " Also these organised religions, this monolithic organised

> religions started taking the course of gaining power, or gaining

> money, because they thought that's the only way you can control

> people and can go on. They were least bothered as to deliver the

> goods; whatever has been described in the Bible.

>

> The Bible, of course, was tampered with very much and there have

> been lots of changes in that and persons like Paul and Peter, who

> joined together, tried to spoil most of the Truth. Though Koran

> was not so much touched but still it dealt with more the right

> side, with the reproductive system and all those things. And so

> many things are still ambiguous. "

>

> Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

> The Will Of God, Sahasrara Puja,

> Cabella, Italy — May 10, 1992

 

 

Interview with Sam Harris: The Mortal Dangers of Religious Faith

 

Not long before the birth of Christ, in an age of violence and

turmoil, the Roman poet and Epicurean philosopher Lucretius wrote an

epic masterpiece titled De Rerum Natura ( " On the Nature of Things " ).

His goal, in part, was to liberate humankind from the religious

superstitions that he believed stood in the way of true peace of mind

and happiness. Author Sam Harris plays the role of a contemporary

Lucretius in his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the

Future of Reason. Harris received a degree in philosophy from

Stanford University and is a doctoral candidate in the field of

neuroscience.

 

Well aware that a book about the inherent dangers of institutional,

dogmatic religion would court controversy, Harris wrote The End of

Faith out of a sense of urgency regarding what he argues constitutes

perhaps the greatest threat we face today. He shared his thoughts

about the character of dogmatic faith versus mysticism, the role of

reason in civil discourse, and the hope that humans can overcome the

propensity toward religious violence before it's too late.

Amazon.com: Obviously there's something in the makeup of humans that

impels them toward a belief in a transcendent being. From your own

work in neuroscience, how do you account for this?

 

Sam Harris: I don't know of any result in neuroscience that speaks

directly to this issue. But there are some general features of the

human mind that are clearly relevant here. We are born ready to live

in relationship to the world around us. We emerge from our mother's

wombs ready to see faces as faces, to learn language, and to

gradually recognize that we are in the presence of minds like our

own. The prevalence of animism among our primitive ancestors--as

well as its persistence in certain tribes--demonstrates that we

readily ascribe human qualities to processes in nature. It is only

by gaining a deeper understanding of causal processes in the world

(through science) that we come to realize that storm clouds are not

angry gods and that diseases are not the result of demonic

possession.

 

It is difficult to say where we should draw the line between genetic

endowment and cultural inheritance, and both are surely operative in

the case of religious belief. But the basic fact is that, yes, we are

deeply disposed to broadcast our own subjectivity onto the world. The

biblical God is jealous, angry--deplorably neurotic, in fact. And the

Greek gods were like teenagers left alone in their parents' house for

the weekend. The fact that we may be predisposed to conceive of the

universe in anthropomorphic terms does not mean that we are condemned

to do so, however.

 

Amazon.com: Can you clarify the mix of biology and culture involved

in the above? For example, what do you think of the Dean Hamer The

God Gene type of argument? If there is a biological drive toward

faith, what accounts for the extraordinary cultural divide between

the Western monotheisms and the mysticism of the East?

 

Harris: With most higher cognitive traits, the search for an

explanation in terms of single genes is probably hopeless. But

whatever the story is at the genetic level, biology only loosely

determines culture in any case. We need to eat, but we don't need to

eat pasta. We are prone to jealousy, but this emotion can play itself

out in the manner of Cary Grant or in the manner of Mullah Omar. Same

biology, different culture.

 

Much of our behavior as human beings, while it may emerge from our

biology, is perpetuated in its present form merely because we have

not felt sufficient pressure to change it. Culture does not

systematically improve the design of its products (neither does

biology for that matter). So, while we should expect to see

important differences across cultures, these differences may not

reflect anything deeper about us than the fact that human

communities tend to keep using the tools they've got for as long as

these tools are serviceable. Consider the difference between Eastern

and Western medicine.

 

The fact that we may be predisposed to conceive of the universe in

anthropomorphic terms does not mean that we are condemned to do so,

however. Are they equivalently useful? No. Is Eastern medicine better

for Easterners? No. While Eastern medicine may be applicable to

certain health problems, and may even surpass Western medicine in a

few areas, there is simply no comparison between these two

disciplines. No one with an appendicitis, an aneurysm, or breast

cancer would be wise to rush off to her acupuncturist before going to

the hospital. This is true in New York, and it is just as true in

Hong Kong.

 

With respect to spiritual practice, however, the disparity clearly

runs the other way. While Eastern mysticism has its fair share of

unjustified belief, it undoubtedly represents humankind's best

attempt at fashioning a spiritual science. The methods of

introspection one finds in Buddhism, for instance, have no genuine

equivalents in the West. And the suggestion that they do is born of

a desperate attempt on the part of Westerners to make all religious

traditions seem equally wise. They simply aren't.

 

When a Tibetan lama talks about " nondual awareness " (Tib. rigpa) and

the Pope talks about God or the Holy Spirit (or anything else), they

are not talking about the same thing; nor are they operating on the

same intellectual footing. The lama is using some very precise

terminology (albeit terminology that has no good English equivalent)

to describe what countless meditators have experienced after very

refined training in methods of introspection; while the Pope is

merely reiterating unjustified and unjustifiable metaphysical claims

that have been passed down to Christians in the context of a culture

that has failed--utterly--to find compelling alternatives to mere

belief. Such alternatives have existed for millennia, east of the

Bosporus. This is not to ignore the Meister Eckharts of the world,

but such mystics have always been the exception in the West. And it

is important to remember that, being exceptions, they have been

regularly persecuted for heresy.

 

Amazon.com: You basically characterize Western religion as dangerous

and Eastern mysticism as full of promise. How did you arrive at this

conclusion?

 

Harris: Mysticism, shorn of religious dogmatism, is an empirical and

highly rational enterprise. Just as people do not burn their

neighbors at the stake as a result of new insights in physics or

biology, no one is likely to do so on the basis of genuine mysticism.

Religion--especially in the West--is another matter entirely.

Religious faith is a conversation stopper. While Eastern mysticism

has its fair share of unjustified belief, it undoubtedly represents

humankind's best attempt at fashioning a spiritual science.

 

The only thing that guarantees a truly open-ended collaboration among

human beings is their willingness to have their views (and resulting

behavior) modified by conversation--by new evidence and new

arguments. Otherwise, when the stakes are high, there is nothing to

appeal to but force. If I believe that I can get to Paradise by

flying a plane into a building, and I am content to believe this

without evidence, then there will be nothing another person can say

to dissuade me, because my leap of faith has made me immune to the

powers of conversation.

 

Amazon.com: In other words, you are careful to distinguish between

what you term " faith " and " spirituality. " In a nutshell, what is this

distinction?

 

Harris: " Faith " is false conviction in unjustified propositions (a

certain book was written by God; we will be reunited with our loved

ones after death; the Creator of the universe can hear our thoughts,

etc.). " Spirituality " or " mysticism " (both words are pretty terrible,

but there are no good alternatives in English) refers to any process

of introspection by which a person can come to realize that the

feeling he calls " I " is a cognitive illusion. The core truth of

mysticism is this: It is possible to experience the world without

feeling like a separate " self " in the usual sense. Such a change in

the character of one's experience need not become the basis for

making unsupportable claims about the nature of the universe,

however.

 

Amazon.com: Why have earlier attempts at erasing faith through

classical materialism resulted in a level of violence similar to what

you believe faith itself has inspired (i.e., Communism)? The core

truth of mysticism is this: It is possible to experience the world

without feeling like a separate " self " in the usual sense.

 

Harris: Communism was not an attempt to erase faith. It was a new

faith, albeit one that did not look beyond this life. Communism was

shot through with irrationality. Stalin's repudiation of " capitalist

biology " in favor of Lysenkoism (a rehash of the Lamarckian doctrine

of acquired characteristics: The idea that giraffes got their long

necks as a result of their ancestors striving to reach higher and

higher branches) is but one example of the dogmatism that was the

soul of Communism. Freethinking (that is to say rational) scientists

were sent to the gulag for failing to support this ideology.

Millions died from famine in both the Soviet Union and China due to

their failure to implement sane agricultural practices informed by

Mendelian genetics.

 

The kind of intolerance of faith that I am advocating in my book is

not the intolerance that gave us the gulag. It is conversational

intolerance. When people make outlandish claims, without evidence, we

stop listening to them--except on matters of faith. I am arguing that

we can no longer afford to give faith a pass in this way. Bad beliefs

should be criticized wherever they appear in our discourse--in

physics, in medicine, and on matters of ethics and spirituality as

well. The President of the United States has claimed, on more than

one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was

talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a

national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer

makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.

 

Amazon.com: Following the terms of your argument about the dangers of

faith, how was it possible then for Christianity, for example, to

reach a state of relative " domestication " in the early modern

period--without being derided out of existence as an absurdity?

 

Harris: Well, it has suffered some important moments of derision,

especially in Europe (think Voltaire or Hume), which may account for

why modern Europeans are not content to wander quite so far down the

path of biblically inspired irrationality as we are. More

importantly, Christianity has suffered a relentless and uncelebrated

winnowing as a result of the progress of science and secular culture

in the West. Priests would still be diagnosing demonic possession if

it were not for the advances made in the last 200 years by medical

science. The situations in which prayer now seems an adequate (or

even sane) first response to human suffering have been gradually

(but radically) diminished. The kind of intolerance of faith that I

am advocating in my book is not the intolerance that gave us the

gulag. It is conversational intolerance.

 

Another important feature of Christianity--which, unfortunately,

Islam does not share--is that it provides a loophole

into " domestication. " " Render unto Caesar those things that are

Caesar's ... " really does make a difference when it comes time to

find a rationale for separating Church and State. Islam is far more

problematic in this sense. Given the doctrine of Islam, as it is set

forth in the Koran and the Hadith, it is extremely difficult for

Muslims to justify keeping religion out of politics.

 

Amazon.com: Regarding readers' reactions to the book--do you fear

that this could simply become a matter of " preaching to the

converted " ? Or do you hope to jump-start the necessary conversation

through a certain shock value?

 

Harris: I certainly hope to start a conversation. And I'm not sure

who the " converted " are, in any case. My book seems to offend

liberals and conservatives equally. Conservatives love what I have

to say about the dangers of Islam but recoil at my attack upon

Christianity. And liberals hate the case I make against Islam (due

to its political incorrectness) but love my argument against the

intrusions of Christian fundamentalism into social policy. Both

sides seem poised to resist my core argument against faith itself.

Perhaps the dedication in my book is more literal than most. I may

have written The End of Faith only " for my mother. " She, at least,

agrees with me.

 

Amazon.com: What are some of the most unexpected reactions to your

arguments you've come across--both pro and con?

 

Harris: I have been quite surprised to find some Christians

celebrating my argument against moderate religion. One Baptist

minister more or less endorsed my book as the final nail in the

coffin of religious moderation, claiming that I have proven that

there are only two viable choices, secularism or fundamentalism. His

rebuttal to my thesis was also the most surprising criticism I've

encountered--he simply offered no rebuttal at all. He spoke about my

book for 40 minutes on the radio, with very few distortions, and

left my argument against faith entirely unchallenged--as though any

process of reasoning that put faith in question would be so obviously

unacceptable to his listeners that it need not even be addressed.

Listening to him essentially pitch my book, while damning it

implicitly, was really a through-the-looking-glass experience.

 

Generally speaking, however, I am continually surprised to find that

even secular intellectuals believe that faith is necessary for other

people. " We'll never get rid of religion. It's just too important to

people, " is perhaps the most common rejoinder of all. How is it that

anyone thinks he knows this to be the case? Surely the first half of

the 19th century was filled with people who said things like, " We'll

never get rid of slavery. It's just too important for the

economy.... " Of course, this was a similar, seemingly sensible

claim. But it was the product of intellectual and moral laziness,

and it was wrong.

 

Amazon.com: Dostoevsky's famous phrase " without God, everything is

permitted " (from The Brothers Karamazov) is often used by theists as

a warning about the dangers of living without a transcendent moral

certitude. In your view, is it safe to say that " it's with God that

everything is permitted " (murder, genocide, etc.)?

 

Harris: Yes, but I would broaden the scope of the claim: With false

certainty, anything is possible. This covers the Hitlers and the

Stalins of the world as well. Generally speaking, however, I am

continually surprised to find that even secular intellectuals believe

that faith is necessary for other people.

 

Amazon.com: What's the single most practical thing that people who

agree with your conclusions could do starting now to change the

overall consensus about religious faith?

 

Harris: Once again, it comes down to new rules of conversation--not

new laws or demonstrations in the street. Just imagine how different

it would be if every time a person in a position of power used the

word " God, " the press responded as though he had just used a word

like " Poseidon. " Our conversation with ourselves would change very

quickly and very dramatically. Imagine someone opposing stem-cell

research on the floor of the Senate with a statement like, " life is

a gift from Zeus himself. No man should meddle with it. "

 

Of course, criticism and the demand for intellectual honesty are not

enough. On the positive side, we need to find creative approaches to

ethics, spiritual experience, and the building of strong communities.

The scientific study of positive human experience--joy, love,

compassion, meditative states, etc.--will undoubtedly play a role

here. But this will take time. It need take no time at all, however,

for us to realize that the people who invoke God in public discourse

are either speaking in empty platitudes or making some very suspect

claims about the nature of the world, or about the character of their

own experience. We should demand that they start making sense, and if

they fail to make sense, we should stop listening to them.

 

Amazon.com: In what sense is your book a kind of " prayer " ? Do you

think ultimately that humans will be able to avoid the apocalypse

that you argue is the greatest threat of religious faith?

 

Harris: I am not as optimistic as I'd like to be. It is an

interesting state to be in, psychologically speaking, because I feel

very motivated to make the case against religion, but I don't see

any real basis for hope that anything will change for the better. It

seems very likely that we have spent too long in the company of bad

ideas to now arrest our slide toward the brink. I hope I'm wrong

about this, but I would not be surprised if the human experiment

runs radically off the rails in our lifetime. We should demand that

they start making sense, and if they fail to make sense, we should

stop listening to them. The people who have their hands upon the

tiller of civilization are just not thinking, speaking, or

allocating resources in the ways they must if we are to avoid

catastrophe.

 

The fact that we elect presidents who waste time on things like gay

marriage, when the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union lie

unsecured (to cite only one immediate threat to our survival), is

emblematic of how disastrously off course we are (it is also

emblematic of the role faith plays in forcing us off course). So I am

not hopeful. But still, each of us has to try to contribute

positively to the world as we find it. What alternative is there?

 

Interview with Sam Harris: The Mortal Dangers of Religious Faith

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/542154/103-2667123-

6979004