A Library of Questions

So, I just finished reading The Rise and Fall of the Bible by Timothy Beal, which is basically a publication history of the Bible.  He explores the origins of some of the early texts, including scrolls written on animal skins and the like, and then follows the book through its various incarnations from the Gutenberg Bible, to the near endless number of annotated and commentary-laden study Bibles, to the newer "Bible-zines" and Manga Bibles.

For the first few chapters, the book is a strong critique of the Bible-publishing industry, particularly Zondervan, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins, and Thomas Nelson, which is owned by private equity firm Intermedia Partners VII.  I don't think anyone would disagree that publishing Bibles is good business.  As the best-selling book of all-time, it's bound to make some serious money.  What's dangerous is that what people refer to as the Word of God, has become a cash cow, and the readers themselves have become various market demographics that all require a different repackaging of the Bible.

So many people see the Bible as an infallible instruction book for how to live our lives and how to please God, if I may put it so crudely.  When someone reads something confusing or contradictory, they assume it must be something wrong with how they are reading it, because how can an "infallible" book be so unclear?  Publishers take advantage of this, releasing hundreds of new "versions" of the Bible (The Golfer's Bible, The Housewives' Bible, The Young Men of Color Bible, etc.), each promising to connect your niche interest to Scripture, despite the fact that the actual text of the Bible is the same from version to version.

This "repackaging" of the Scriptures leads into Beal's primary point.  Maybe it's not that you are reading it wrong, or that you are interpreting it wrong, or that you are unable to understand how Judas hung himself, but was still able to buy a field with the 30 pieces of silver, trip on a rock, and disembowel himself.  Maybe it's that our concept of biblical inerrancy is flawed in and of itself.  Maybe the Bible is meant to generate questions amongst believers, allowing various interpretations to compete, not provide a definitive answer for every question that ever arises across the entire span of time.

I found this theory interesting and maybe a bit disconcerting, as I was raised in a Christian household, and was constantly surrounded by the idea that Scripture is the divinely-inspired, infallible Word of God.  Any other discussion on the subject is heresy.  I'm not saying the Bible is false, but maybe it was intended to get us asking questions more than it was to answer them.  Jesus himself constantly quoted Scriptures and drew new, different meanings and interpretations out of them.  Why then do we assume that, for us, there is one way to read the Bible?

New York, I Love You

The above picture is only slightly related to this post, I just thought it was hilarious.  Anyway, if you haven't heard, New York's State Legislature recently voted to allow gay marriage, making New York the 6th and largest state to allow it so far.

The biggest buzz so far seems to be that this occurred during a Republican-controlled State Senate.  While I do find that interesting, and even encouraging, from a certain perspective, I'd like to use this opportunity to focus on a quote that I heard during an interview of the various celebrants.  One man, who has been with his partner for ten years and has adopted children, was quoted as saying, "Marriage isn't something that we thought we needed to hold our family together, but it's certainly something that we feel we deserve and are happy about."

I really admire this man for saying what should be obvious to all of us.  Love is not defined or even validated by the government or religion.  Some people choose to express their love through certain ceremonies, but in the end, if two people love each other it really doesn't matter what the government says or what your priest/rabbi/pastor says.  I'm not saying that I don't think gay marriage should be legal, because I am 100% behind legislation which allows it, and the fact that gay couples are not afforded the same tax benefits as straight couples makes me wonder what decade we are living in.  However, "marriage" is just a word, or in some cases, a recognition of two people's love by an outside party.

I've always felt it to be ridiculous that this debate even occurs in our society today.  That's not to say that I don't understand why it occurs, I just don't understand why people can't seem to realize that gay marriage is not going to destroy the world.  Beyond that, it isn't even going to destroy culture or religion.  I don't understand what Christians are so afraid of.  Churches are private organizations - they are not required to perform a gay marriage if they don't want to.  Will god destroy the world because of gay marriage?  I'm still not convinced that the Bible condemns homosexuality in the first place, and there are some Christians that would agree with me.  Would Jesus really want us to persecute a minority group through politics?

A Question of Morality

I was watching an interview with British philosopher and Anti-Theist Colin McGinn, and he brought up an interesting argument against morality and ethics as proof for the existence of god. Personally, I consider myself an Agnostic who has currently chosen to identify as an Atheist, but please understand that I am not an Anti-Theist like Mr. McGinn. Although from what I can tell, we agree on a great many things, including having an openness to religious argument and a respect for the other side of the argument, we disagree in that he believes that religion is inherently dangerous and causes more harm than good. Though I agree that organized religion CAN and HAS caused suffering, I believe that is a problem with people, not with religion in general.

The argument Mr. McGinn brings up, which I have always struggled with is, the question of where morality and ethics come from. Most religious people would say that morality comes from god. For instance, we can probably all agree that stealing is wrong. Well, why is it wrong? It's wrong because god says that it is wrong. God commanded that it is wrong. But let's look at this a different way. What if I were I to say that it's right to murder? You would disagree, because of course murder is wrong. Then I would say, but god says it's right to murder. That would not convince you that it's right to murder. If god says something is right which isn't right, then god is wrong. God can only reflect what's right in his commandments. It IS wrong to steal, and it IS wrong to murder, so god says that it's wrong, not the other way around. God doesn't make it wrong by saying it. It is inherently wrong on it's own.

This struck me as an incredibly coherent, logical argument against the morality-as-proof-of-god argument. Of course, in the spirit of glasnost, I always welcome other opinions, as I am constantly questioning myself and tend to grab onto ideas without thinking through them completely. So please speak up and speak your mind.