The Bible-Bangers vs. the Bible (1032 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.17 on 29 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <fadetoyellow.at.graffiti.net> (View user info) at 2006-08-30 04:45:37 EDT
T H E B I B L E B A N G E R S V E R S U S T H E B I B L E
by Gargamel
The purpose of this article is to refute the very premise of the "Bible-believing", "Bible-based", political agendas Bible bangers push on these secular United States, and I am going to do that by showing that these Bible-banging agendas actually contradict the very Bible that's being banged. I should mention that I am a non-Christian and neither a right-winger myself nor a left-winger, and the mere fact that I'm debunking the premise for the Bible Bangers' agendas on certain views does not mean that I disagree with the Bible Bangers over every one these views. As it so happens, I do not disagree with them over all of their opinions on everything. What I do disagree with, and what I will not have, is these in-name-only biblical notions being pushed on a secular nation. Since the Bible actually *conflicts* with the Bible bangers' Bible-based agendas, there is no reason for them to push it, and that's what I'm going to be proving here.
THE BIBLE VERSUS THE BIBLE BANGERS ON ABORTION LAWS
In my country it seems that the Bible bangers always seem to care much more about their political agendas than their religion (particularly those Bible Bangers on TV with seventeen quarts of grease each in their hair). Exhibit A: the legal status of abortion. The Bible bangers claim that abortion is an abomination, and that there are no exceptions to this. (Of course, being fundies, they are as incapable of ever considering that just because something is immoral doesn't automatically mean it must be outlawed as they are of imagining a four-sided triangle.) The fact is, God approves of abortion in the Bible and even orders it:
"Sama'ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
That sounds to me like it's even worse than any back alley coat hanger or partial birth abortion. Are you telling me that the God who allegedly ordered it is the same one condemning all abortion? How can abortion be an automatic abomination unto the Lord, period, when God Himself once ordered people to perform it?
THE BIBLE VS. THE BIBLE BANGERS ON YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM, THE AGE OF THE WORLD, BIG BANG THEORY
Next comes the notion of "creation science" being forced on secular schools. For not let's ignore the way "creation science" is an oxymoron since science is by definition a study only of the natural rather than the supernatural. And therefore, to find the supernatural with it would be as impossible as finding Mexico City in Australia. The fact is, this rigid "six days must be a literal 144 hours" interpretation, which supposedly comes from Genesis 1, actually contradicts Genesis 1 flatly. You see, if it really *were* an actual 144-hour period in question then there would have been literal mornings and evenings, marking the passing over of night into day and day into night, before God even created the distinction between day and night in the first place—not to mention a sun and a moon. See for yourself:
"And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." (Genesis 1:13-19)
Would it help at all if I pointed out that Isaiah 40:22 also says the heavens are expanding?
THE BIBLE-BANGERS VS. THE BIBLE ON KEEPING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ON DISPLAY IN TOTALLY SECULAR COURTROOMS
Here's what the Bible says:
"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16; SEE ALSO Hebrews 10:14-16)
In light of what St. Paul wrote there, what is the burning need to post these commandments then? America was founded as secular in the First Amendment. Tell me if *this* passage mean nothing to you:
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21)
Does that not sound to you like there's an inherent, perhaps even necessary, distinction between the two?
THE BIBLE BANGERS VS. THE BIBLE'S TAKE ON OUR DUTY TO THIS PLANET
As for these Bible bangers' anti-environmental and/or pseudo-environmental agendas? Here's what the Bible says:
"You are the salt of the earth." (Matthew 5:13)
Just about the only purpose of salt in the first century was to be a preservative. Therefore it is our job, according to the Bible, to preserve the earth. Seems to me like it sounds fairly important here, since the verse goes on to say that if we don't do our job here then we are "no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men".
THE BIBLE BANGERS VS. THE BIBLE ON PRESERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE RICH
Preserving the interests of the rich? Think again:
"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me....Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:21-24)
Note: "The camel going through the needle's eye" was a figure of speech popular for centuries throughout much of the Middle East. (You can find it, for example, in the Koran as well as the Bible.) Like many or most figures of speech, it is hyperbole. When people speak of someone "fighting like a tiger", we do not literally mean that they fought like a tiger—a feat no human could be capable of, since we lack a tiger's speed, strength and sharp teeth. It's hyperbole. The expression in question here is the same, referring only to extreme difficulty. All the same, for someone to be perfect by giving away all they got since it's extremely difficult for a rich man to enter heaven is still an undeniable slap in the face of the interests of the rich. And if nothing else clinches it, this passage should:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21)
THE KEY TO IT ALL
But the key to unraveling the whole agenda of the Bible bangers is this verse:
"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
So before you go trying to get the Ten Commandments on the walls of secular courtrooms where people of all different religious standings might be (including perhaps people of no religion at all), consider next time how angry you would get if instead on the wall was a copy of The Nine Satanic Statements.
User Reviews
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-09-01 14:24:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And by the way, I forgot to mention this below, but what's funniest and most ironic about what you said is the assertion that I have the reading comprehension of an eighth grader (again, simply because my comprehension is different from yours) since (a) you're the one with such a lack of reading comprehension that you never noticed how the "preserving the earth" notion isn't incompatible with the "good deeds of Christians shining their light before the world" notion, and (b) I was already reading at an eighth grade level when I was in the second or third grade, while you were probably still reading "Green Eggs and Ham"—and accusing people of being dense for not assuming "the obvious truth" that Sam I Am was just a figment of the main character's imagination.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-09-01 14:14:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Arcanis, you really crack me up. Oh yeah, I have an IQ (not that those tests mean a damn thing) in the top one or two percent and I'm DENSE--because I happen to disagree with you: how DARE I? I got straight A's in almost every English class I've taken since grammar school, with my teachers often expressing how impressed they are with my advanced interpretive skills, and I would have no hope in such a class--because I disagree with you--how DARE I? I was at the top of my theology class all throughout high school at a very Christian high school and because I dare to disagree with you I know jack about the Bible. You're the one suggesting that people are being compared to currency over a totally irrelevant point and I'M the one who's hopeless--because I dare to disagree with your nonsense. You won't even look up how salt was never used as a flavoring in the already outrageously dry ancient Middle East (or at least very rarely--that's what I was taught in school, anyway), and I'M the one who needs to check the facts. I thank you for all your hilarious irony.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-08-31 23:46:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Let me make my 4th paragraph clearer, since you have the reading comprehension of an 8th grader. I'll replace some pronouns with antecedents so you don't get lost.
ANOTHER reason why it doesn't matter: because the prepositional phrase "of the earth" is not behaving as "to the earth", but rather "on the earth." The preposition "of" is a versatile yet unspecific word. We could make SALT specifically mean "preservers." But we're stuck with the fact that if you read MORE of the passage, the passage is not saying anything about the salt preserving the earth. If anything, the passage is about preserving Christians ways and good deeds.
As for the second part of the paragraph... I want you to read it until you understand why it's true. Keep re-reading it until you get it. Remember, all salt is some "salt of the earth," because it came from earth. Salt is not "salt of Mars," now is it?
--If you can't understand this basic grammatical argument, then you've got no hope. Get a salt shaker and pour some salt on your hand. On your hand, you cannot disagree that you have some "salt of the earth" on it. And by no means, does this "salt of the earth" preserve the planet at large.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-08-31 23:37:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Garg, how dense are you? how old are you? Do you honestly believe the only possible symbolisms for using salt is what it's used for? I already freaking told you the parameters of why salt was used. You stupid dolt.. I already said it doesn't matter which of the 3---in fact, it's probably ALL of them. The main point is that it was an IMPORTANT valuable good that was seeked for, with limited quality.
Other proper substitutions could have been "You are the diamonds of the world," or "You are the gold of the world." Do I actually believe that people are metals/elements, or that the world trades people? No, moron. Stop thinking like that. Think some, for once. What's your interpretation of "You are the light of the world" ??
Interesting fact.. the saying "He's worth his salt" came because salt was used as currency.
ANOTHER reason why it doesn't matter: because the prepositional phrase "of the earth" is not behaving as "to the earth", but rather "on the earth." The preposition "of" is a versatile yet unspecific word. We could make it specifically mean "preservers." But we're stuck with the fact that if you read MORE of the passage, it's not saying anything about preserving earth. If anything, it's about preserving Christians ways and good deeds.
--If you can't understand this basic grammatical argument, then you've got no hope. Get a salt shaker and pour some salt on your hand. On your hand, you cannot disagree that you have some "salt of the earth" on it. And by no means, does this "salt of the earth" preserve the planet at large.
If you don't believe me, then get a second....third, hell, fifth opinion, because yours is obviously wrong.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/salterth.html
http://misterstandfast.blogspot.com/2005/05/christian-you-are-salt-of-earth.html
Wikipedia: " At the time, salt was a highly valuable commodity, and was often used as payment (hence the term salary - derived from the Latin word for salt), and so the metaphor can easily be understood as a reference to the value (Salt) and benefit (Light/Enlightenment) that Jews considered the Mosaic law to bring."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_and_Light
Garg...you appear to be in awful shape for a college English Lit course.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-31 16:12:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Flavoring? Which the people of the ancient middle east pretty much never used salt for anyway? Currency? "You are the currency of the earth"? Does the world trade people? I mean, come on.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-08-30 23:38:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-08-30 17:30:51 (#)
Ranking: 1
I'll give you a +1 for an effort of some sort.
Submitted by VelvetElvis (user info) at 2006-08-30 22:02:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by a_palindrome (user info) at 2006-08-30 12:02:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The "eye of the needle" was also a way of refering to a very narrow gate of Jerusalem.
////
Glad someone else caught that. "The needle's eye" oval gates in Jerusalem's walls were used when the main gates were locked, for security, so enemies couldn't just ride in since needle gates were so small.
(In ancient Ubermaic it translates as, "Again I tell you, what the hell man it would be easier for Apollo to stick his humongoloid head through a glory hole than for Fat Tony to pass through a KFC drive thru without ordering a shitload of chicken with all the fixin's.")
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-08-30 17:30:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'll give you a +1 for an effort of some sort.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-08-30 16:54:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Whoa, Garg, are you serious? If that's the case, may I suggest you read the entire chapter or even book of each passage before 'construing' it. You took so many passages out of context.... and it's very, very ironic that you attacked metaphors and analogies, etc.
You took "You are the salt of the earth," and took it to mean, "You are the preservers of earth." You took one use of salt, and you presumed earth is what's to be preserved since it's in the succeeding prepositional phrase.
However, the real meaning of the sentence is more along the lines of "Christians are the gold of the world." Do you see how freaking far off you were? First, let me dissect the sentence for its intended connotation, and then I will tell you why Jesus used this SYMBOLISM, not to be taken LITERALLY.
You--This was part of the sermon of the mount; Jesus was addressing Christians.
are--a state of being verb.
the--a definite article
salt--While true that one use for salt was for preservation, salt was used for flavoring and even for CURRENCY. While I can't be bothered to check which it was used 'mostly' for, I can tell you that it doesn't matter. The key connotation here is that it was precious and of limited quantity. Therefore in my paraphrase; the currency, gold, could also be used. If anything, I think Jesus was talking about the flavoring or currency, because the verse goes on to say "if the salt loses it saltiness. It is no longer good for anything" 'Saltiness' is a property of taste and identification, not of preservation.
of the--preposition and another article
earth--You obviously see that it means "of the world," because of the very next verse. Again, read the whole passage. The very next verse has a similar symbolism saying, "You are the light of the world."
Later on in the next verse, it says "let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." That's basically what the salt verse is talking about with its saltiness. The salt represents Christians. The saltiness represents the good deeds of Christians. Jesus goes on to mean.. If Christians lose their good deeds, then they are no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
Now do you get it? I mean, I hope you don't use your logic for the next verse, dealing with light. Does that mean you expect people to use themselves as human torches, because people used it to guide their path at night?
Your understanding/rationale is rather weak. This post was less clever than I thought.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-30 15:39:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Acarnis, if you're going to accuse me of misconstruing Matthew 5:13, at least tell me how I allegedly misconstrued it. Look it up, man: that's what salt was for back then.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-30 15:38:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The 'eye of the needle' was also a way of refering to a very narrow gate of Jerusalem. It was so narrow that traders had to take the baggage off their camels in order to fit through. So if you think about it in that sense, a rich man has to get rid of his baggage, or wealth, in order to enter heaven. Just throwing that out there."
No, that's an urban legend, look it up at snopes.com.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-30 15:18:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-08-30 13:02:33 (#)
Ranking: -2
Do you have a post about the "Back Seat Bangers vs. The Bang Bus" in stock?
-------
Yeah, I'll +2 the shit outta that one.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-08-30 14:19:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
decent post.
Foolproof has no clue what is going on here.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-08-30 14:09:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-30 08:43:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Just like I expected! Not a single criticism against my arguments here that the person making it would have made had they read what I wrote carefully and fully absorbed it.
And Foolproof, I never said I was anti-religious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahaha...
Despite agreeing with your philosophy, I found most of the stuff you typed to be rather comedic. You were trying to be funny, right?
Were we supposed to find something? I think I know what it is. In the 5th section, you go to such great lengths to explain a figure of speech, the hyperbole. Yet, almost all of the arguments in the rest of the article are attacking figures of speech used in the Bible.
The kicker would be "You are the salt of the earth." (Matthew 5:19) You attack an analogy that is talking about something completely different.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-08-30 13:02:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Do you have a post about the "Back Seat Bangers vs. The Bang Bus" in stock?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-30 12:54:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"secular nation"...
What a stupid fucking notion. There is no such thing as "secular". We ALL have a religion even if it's just pure hedonism, which is now the case in these "secular" United States.
Submitted by a_palindrome (user info) at 2006-08-30 12:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The "eye of the needle" was also a way of refering to a very narrow gate of Jerusalem. It was so narrow that traders had to take the baggage off their camels in order to fit through. So if you think about it in that sense, a rich man has to get rid of his baggage, or wealth, in order to enter heaven. Just throwing that out there.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:44:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Man, this is almost ETS-esque.
I'm not going to critique or argue with any of the points, because it's an argument over the way a book made 1500 years ago is interpreted, and that's just assanine.
I mean hell, if this is the case, we might as well argue over the African creation myths.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:37:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Indoninja is on a propaganda payroll...
Don't pay attention to him.
Submitted by goferforhire (user info) at 2006-08-30 10:10:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/92429
Don't talk about the Bible. The only value to reading it is the vocabulary increase. If you manage to pull a positive message out of it, good for you.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-30 08:43:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just like I expected! Not a single criticism against my arguments here that the person making it would have made had they read what I wrote carefully and fully absorbed it.
And Foolproof, I never said I was anti-religious.
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2006-08-30 08:08:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Didn't like the way it was set up- like a lecture, of which I've had far too many lately. But not bad.
Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2006-08-30 07:41:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Defect (user info) at 2006-08-30 07:17:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, for your first point, the christians could argue that abortion is allowed only if He wills it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly the point of Hosea. Sure, you can quote things out of context all day and night, but you need to actually read what it says before jumping to such hasty conclusions. The chapter of Hosea (in the general section you are talking about) is talking about how the people of Israel were failing to acknowledge God, a decision that God condemned. So therefore, in the course of it, he was making women's wombs barren and destroying their kin. In the end, though, the purpose of the book of Hosea is to show God's love and compassion towards Israel - as he is unable to "let go" of them.
As for Him willing "abortion," the Bible addresses spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), but this is obviously of no fault to the potential mother or her unborn child.
Submitted by Defect (user info) at 2006-08-30 07:17:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They could discount the whole thing for saying you can't find God in a book. Also, for your first point, the christians could argue that abortion is allowed only if He wills it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-30 07:05:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
this was poorly done.
Submitted by Huber_the_Nose (user info) at 2006-08-30 06:46:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Would it help at all if I pointed out that Isaiah 40:22 also says the heavens are expanding?"
You dolt....that's not what Isaiah 40:22 says at all.
Isiah 40:22 :
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as
grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as
a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to
dwell in"
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2006-08-30 05:54:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
HEY! I'm the anti-religious one here, pal. Don't try to muscle in on my territory.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-08-30 05:46:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting.
You should come play:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/92397#2121019
Submitted by keskanu (user info) at 2006-08-30 05:32:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
preach that to the world ;)