I hope Bob asks him why David is always so damned crabby on the Slate podcast. Poor Emily Bazelon, I don't know how she puts up with him.

I hope Bob asks him why David is always so damned crabby on the Slate podcast.

He's just probably wishing he was on Bloggingheads instead! 20 miniutes in and loving it so far. T-minus a couple months to Bob's new book, yay!!!

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/181...5:38&out=45:56

It probably can't be overemphasized that although David presents his book as a Jew's take on the Bible, a word-by-word read-through of the "Old Testament" is not even remotely a Jewish experience. David does concede this when he talks about traditional Jewish study of the Talmud, canonical Biblical commentary (Rashi), Midrash and other Holy Books. But it's much more than that. First of all, throughout Jewish history all men were literate in Hebrew. So reading the literature in translation is unthinkable from anything but a post-modern position. Hebrew was (until the modern state of Israel came along) considered a Holy Language, i.e., the actual language of God -- not to be used in non-sacred discourse. (Aramaic was the original vernacular of the streets and later on Yiddish, Arabic and Judeo-Spanish or Ladino served to separate sacred from profane .) Second, the reading of the Bible is cyclical and ritualistic. There is a weekly portion of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Deut. Levit and Numbers) that is chanted as part of the Sabbath service (and read on other days as well). Key passages from the Bible are part of the daily liturgy and the Holy Days

Bob ought to send out drafts of his new book to his fans here. I'm sure our feedback would be constructive, and NOT SARCASTIC! PDFs are fine with me, Bob!

Amusing, thought-provoking discussion, sometimes bordering on the profound. I wish certain questions had been pushed a little further, e.g. the relationship between "moral progress," evoked by Bob Wright, and the three monotheistic religions. The God of the Old Testament seems at times such a bloody, tyrannical and thoroughly disagreeable old fool that I am always amazed when contemporary believers---Jews, Christians and Moslems--say that they revere HIM, or whatever pale replica of HIM they have been taught to revere by authoritative contemporary interpreters of the sacred texts. How much our contemporary moral sensibility owes to this primitive religion, and how much it owes to philosophy (nota bene: not science. Science, pace Wright, has nothing to say about morality), is a subject that could have been taken much further. In my opinion there is an inverse relationship between moral and political progress and religion, and whatever moral progress we have made we owe above all to the inventors of philosophy. As Ernst Renan said in the 19th century: L'Infériorité religieuse des Grecs et des Romains était la conséquence de leur supériorité politique et intellectuelle. La supériorité du peuple juif, au contraire, a été la cause de son infériorité politique et philosophique."

Regarding the audio version, David, why not read your book yourself? You've got a good voice, which is a thought that occurs to me weekly, though that is not the only reason I listen to the Gabfest.

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

An eloquent essay, Wonderment. I am by your attitude, which closely matches the one held by certain Catholics (simplistically: don't read the Bible yourself, but depend on the priests to tell you about it), but which stands in direct opposition to certain evangelical Christians, who believe that self-directed study of the Bible is not only worthwhile, but mandatory.

... which probably ought to be in the sidebar on the video page: "The Complete Blogging the Bible (So far)." I should think it would do more to stimulate book sales than cut into them. [Added] Or perhaps this page is an even better place to start.

Wright:Plotz :: Blur:Oasis

Wonderment, to me this sounds like some christian proselytizers that i've talked to about the bible. when i tried to get into the language and what it means ( i.e. i am challenging them on the disconnect between their book and their words) they tell me that until i accept jesus into my heart i can not truly understand the text. Is your point that nobody outside of the "true believers" should attempt to analyze or discuss the sacred texts of any religion? and is what i am asking "goyish". and is that term a little , ya know, racist?

God responds to Wright's blasphemy

Yeah Wonderment, I enjoyed your post but to me it gets a little too close to the line of "X is the way that you must study/read/pray a given text in order to truly understand it." And that is a policy that has always driven me crazy about religions because I think that not only is it often times a control issue (you need OUR priests to tell you what these words mean) and also brings with it an air of exclusion (you have to read this part on this day, and with these people, and you have to believe in X going in, and while you're at it you have to have a certain blood in you etc.) and both of these elements are a hinderance to people who want to try to understand a text from a distance belief-wise or temporally. After all one could argue that these texts CAN'T be understood today because of the many cultural changes that Bob/David mentioned. The entire point is that David is trying to understand Judaism by hypothetically seeing things the way they were at the

I thought Wonderment was contrasting David's claim that his book can be read as "a Jew's take on the Bible" with what might be seen as a more authentic Jewish experience with Scripture. (Maybe "more general" would be a better way to put it - there's certainly nothing that seems particularly inauthentic to me about about what David has done.) I really didn't read from what Wonderment had to say any sort of stricture regarding how or why, or that there was something wrong with what David's has done - just an elucidation of the distinction from that particular "Jew's take on the Bible" and what might be a more generalized Jewish experience.

To clarify, I had no bones with what Wonderment said on a personal/belief level, I was just trying to point out that the level that the true believers say one must dig to in order to "truly understand" a religion or it's text is often unrealistic for those of us who are merely curious from a personal or academic perspective, and I know that in my case it's a big reason I've only scratched the surface on many of the major religions, rather than digging much deeper into the content. Maybe if I had a sweet Bob Wright-esque book deal I could read the whole Koran ;-) But I will say that it does annoy me when religious believers and clerics (not you Wonderment) will preach that such and such is the literal word of God and will insist on a very precise literal interpretation, but then turn around and tell you that understanding the message involves all this additional stuff ontop of reading the actual text. To me it's snaky because it's usually a point brought up after you have challenged a statement in the

I really didn't read from what Wonderment had to say any sort of stricture regarding how or why, or that there was something wrong with what David's has done - just an elucidation of the distinction from that particular "Jew's take on the Bible" and what might be a more generalized Jewish experience.

Exactly. I hope to read "Good Book," and I think David's idea for the book was fun, interesting and educational. I'm just recommending great caution in assuming it has much to do with how Judaism was practiced, experienced or understood throughout the ages. That is not an endorsement of Jewish practices, which I rejected before David was born, but just a comment on the limits of a lay person's take on the tradition. Just to be clear, I am an atheist.

But I will say that it does annoy me when religious believers and clerics (not you Wonderment) will preach that such and such is the literal word of God and will insist on a very precise literal interpretation, but then turn around and tell you that understanding the message involves all this additional stuff ontop of reading the actual text.

I understand your point, Uncle E, and agree. But there's a lot to be said for two approaches very different from David's: 1) That of the atheist scholars who populate most liberal universities (Thank God! ). They learn the languages, spend decades with the texts, go to hundreds of conferences, talk to the hard-core Orthodox, live in Israel or Tibet or Mecca, and so on. David -- with all due respect -- went to a Bat Mitzvah and spent a week or so in Israel. 2) Field anthropology. Remember the anthropologist who was on Bheads a year or so ago who had actually become a police officer in a US city in order to understand the culture from the inside? There's a long tradition in anthropology of that kind of participatory observation.

I once read the Bible like a novel, from cover to cover: in the desert of my insomnia it was either that or Finnegan's Wake, and I chose the Bible. Of course in a world constructed out of metaphor interpretations are endless, but still I thought I discerned a unifying theme, at least in what we Gentiles call the Old Testament. It was the neverending struggle between the universal and the particular; Abraham's being the universal vision, Moses's the tribal. The basic idea was that the Jewish people were small and weak ("few in number) surrounded by more powerful neighbors amongst whom they "lived and moved and had their being." This was especially the case for Abraham's family, but it also describes the existential situation of the Jewish people throughout history, right up into modern times. Anyway, the moral was to be honest and fair in one's dealings with the world or else you will never survive and prosper, at least not in the long-run. God is just and "the shield of Abraham," at least in a world of "God fearing" human beings, call them superstitious if you will. (Which implies, btw, that your mission, at least part of

Wonderment, I'd also add that it's always nice to have you willing to bring your extensive knowledge of Judaism to the discussion, especially when right-wing Zionist neo-con's are pushing hard for their particular interpretation of the Jewish state and other Israel-related stuff. PS I just moved to Valley Village, CA and am surprised at how predominantly Jewish the area is. I have about 4 synagogues and 3 great deli's all within walking distance. And while I'm an atheist and goy-blooded, I do love me some good kosher corned beef :-)

Is your point that nobody outside of the "true believers" should attempt to analyze or discuss the sacred texts of any religion?

No, absolutely not my point. On the contrary, I support universal education about religion. There are lots of good books about world religion.

and is what i am asking "goyish". and is that term a little , ya know, racist?

No. I probably should not have used that offensive term, but I was just trying to point out to David how Orthodox scholars would view his approach. They would dismiss it as "Martian" or "goyish", i.e., completely alien to the tradition.

To say that religion is supposed to explain things the way science explains things is to miss the point. Religion is about meaning. Who was it, maybe Bultmann, who said that the point is not whether the serpent spoke but what he said? Religion and science can coexist quite nicely, but you have to get over this Enlightenment idea that religion is about explanations. Maybe I'll change my login name to Disgruntled Pastor.

Yeah, okay, and another thing. So how is it that the adulterous David, having pleaded unsuccessfully for his son's life and then gotten up and gone back to his king job, is NOT a great sermon or Sunday School topic? Hmm? Aren't we talking here about life as it is lived? And isn't that what makes religion valuable, that it pushes us to reflect on life as it is lived? Ach, these people and their relentless determination to put organized religion in a box!

Quoting JuliaInIA: To say that religion is supposed to explain things the way science explains things is to miss the point. Religion is about meaning. Who was it, maybe Bultmann, who said that the point is not whether the serpent spoke but what he said? Religion and science can coexist quite nicely, but you have to get over this Enlightenment idea that religion is about explanations. Maybe I'll change my login name to Disgruntled Pastor.

Agreed. You also have to get past this (very modern) notion that the Bible is entirely about morality. The actions of the people in the Bible are presented, warts and all, because the book is not just a book of prophesy and/or moral guidance, but an attempt to present a credible history (by the standards of the time.) So when King David falls in love with a married woman and sends her husband off to war so she will become a widow and he can marry her, this story is not included as means of teaching moral behavior, but rather that King David ("a man after God's own heart"), was just as fallible as any

Contemplating the bible was probably my earliest attempt at analyzing morality so this was a fascinating diavlog for me. I went to church regularly when young but the first moment of confusion came when I was about 13, when I realized one day that many people whom I genuinely liked and thought were good, and I mean really good, were not church goers! In particular, they were Jewish. I pondered this and asked questions to the many ministers in my big church, but never got a satisfactory answer. It all came down to the inevitability of being admitted to heaven only through Jesus Christ. But as I pondered the many good people I’d met who were Jews, I knew, KNEW, that this could not be true. Are you telling me that God would bar from heaven a Jew, Moslem, Buddhist (I was not aware of Hinduism then) or even an atheist, EVEN if that person had spent their ENTIRE life helping others? As I had always believed in a good and just God, there was no possible way that I could reconcile this aspect of what I was told was the tenet of the New Testament. Eventually, as I grew a bit older and experienced first hand

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: PS I just moved to Valley Village, CA and am surprised at how predominantly Jewish the area is. I have about 4 synagogues and 3 great deli's all within walking distance.

You better thank Yahweh that they are in *walking* distance - tongue sandwiches and pastrami certainly can hit the waistline hard! Thanks for the diavlog, Bob & David! Interesting for the most part, though I wonder how useful it is to look at ancient texts and, solely based on our own historical distance, say, "wow, how bizarre." Luckily, it seems like David did more than that in his book, but it is certainly an easy temptation to fall prey (or, in this context, pray) to . . .

PS I just moved to Valley Village, CA and am surprised at how predominantly Jewish the area is. I have about 4 synagogues and 3 great deli's all within walking distance. And while I'm an atheist and goy-blooded, I do love me some good kosher corned beef :-)

I will meet you there one day for a knish and some borsht. Last time I went to the deli in Ventura I got food poisoning from the fershtunkeneh mayonnaise. I'm never setting foot in there again.

This is the story of "who King David was", not "why you should be like King David" or even "what King David's life can teach us about ethics."

Tara/Julia: to play Devil's advocate, who makes this decision to motivation of the authors? And what about when the story doesn't match the findings of historians? As far as Bible/science, I think Bob is taking that approach from the perspective that you can't really understand religion without starting at the beginning when all of them attempted to explain the natural world. At some point religion became much more than that with cultural and moral implications etc., but it is a crucial element to keep in mind to have any chance at a full perspective of the evolution of religion over the years (which is Bob's goal, I think.) The fact that science has proven alot of the causal explanations from days of yore to be incorrect doesn't change their place in the history of said religion.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Wonderment, I'd also add that it's always nice to have you willing to bring your extensive knowledge of Judaism to the discussion, especially when right-wing Zionist neo-con's are pushing hard for their particular interpretation of the Jewish state and other Israel-related stuff.

PS I just moved to Valley Village, CA and am surprised at how predominantly Jewish the area is. I have about 4 synagogues and 3 great deli's all within walking distance. And while I'm an atheist and goy-blooded, I do love me some good kosher corned beef :-)

I thought Sarah Silverman made that up! I can't believe it's a real place.

I haven't read the bible. I prefer the commentaries over the real thing. "God A Biography" by Jack Miles was enlightening and he picked up a Pulitzer for it. However, I read it 3 times so as to digest it. Now, I am tackling "How To Read The Bible" subtext "A Guide To Scripture Then and Now" By James Kugel. The backup by Miles helped in this latest endeavor. My ex is a Catholic and I learned zilch by going to that church about the Hebrew Bible. I often wonder what the priests go to the seminary for 10 years for and to learn what? Even then I was self taught when it came to things Catholic. John

Still haven't gotten around to Non Zero, though I did love The Moral Animal. Incidentally, I've always been one to recommend to believers that they actually read their holiest of texts from cover to cover. Precious few of them have. It wouldn't take long for them to discover that The Lord of the Rings or any Harry Potter book is a more valid reference for morality than the god of Abraham.

Better - learn to USE the "ignore" button on your cell phone during a diavlog.

Who is Sarah Silverman? I know where North Hollywood and Studio City are but am clueless about the location of Valley Village. How should I know, I grew up in Van Nuys. John

Quoting bkjazfan: Who is Sarah Silverman?

Highly recommended. But offensive as hell.

I think of Catholics like myself as some of the worst Bible scholars ever... but the story of Jonah came up in the mass schedule just a few months ago and it came across with all the wit and insight Bob and David discuss. The only time I read the Bible straight through, it was when I was a tween trying to keep myself busy during (ironically) Sunday mass with my family, but I found it insanely soap operish, petty and trivial, except for the parable of the Prodigal Son, which made me want to scream. 15 years later, having actually committed sins, I'm very glad for that story, and really, for all of it, if only for a reminder that every horrible emotion and wrong people feel or do against one another has been done before.

Quoting AemJeff: Highly recommended. But offensive as hell.

Thanks! My cultural awareness is lagging. John

Quoting bkjazfan: Thanks! My cultural awareness is lagging.

John

Nobody who knows Coltrane has anything to apologize for on that score.

To take your second question first, historical veracity isn't important. The story that gets told is what's important. (Did Lincoln free the slaves? History is only part of that story.) To take your first question second, I think we read the Bible the same way we read other ancient texts; we don't assume that the Gilgamesh epic is about human morality. We don't assume that ancient Greek myths are about morality. When we assume that the Bible is all about morality, that's usually because we were taught it by adults when we were children, when one of our major life tasks was learning how to behave, and then we never thought about it again. (Thus the author's surprised appreciation of, for instance, the book of Jonah.) And it's also because institutions of religion (one of which I am an ardent adherent to) have also often been very concerned about regulating behavior, to the exclusion of cultivating awe or plumbing the mysterious ambiguities of life as she is lived. So then we think the Bible is all about setting examples for good behavior, when it is barely that and yet so much more.

Yes, exactly. And also David's story is simply put out there for us to turn over and ponder and laugh at and cry about, just to add to our repertoire of experiences of life in the presence of God.

It is quite possible to consider that both bloggers have it in reverse: rather than the ancient Israelites were trying to make sense of their world through a theistic mythology they were rather driven by an inner voice -- a collective inner imperative -- a pre-constructed model that commanded their sensibility about their world. This inner voice foisted itself upon their mindscape forcing its context upon the natural order of things. In other words, the world of events both social and natural served merely the outcropping of an inner sensibility. They started with god shaping their world around him and not the reverse -- making sense of a disparate and indifferent universe through a theocentric prejudice. The hallucinogenic quality of their lives reflected this collectively shared inner-life whose motif (language) consisted of external events such as the parting of the Red Sea, the pillars of fire, the vanquishing of the Egyptian army, etc. Then their historic journey traces through the meandering threads of these books of the bible this outward flow or objectification of mythopoeic thought.

Julia, thanks for the detailed response. I like your take on the Bible. It's far more nuanced than many people I have known. Hopefully this won't seem like I'm being snarky:

To take your second question first, historical veracity isn't important.

The historical accuracy comes about unfortunately when fundamentalists try to use it as a way to justify that the Bible is the word of god, and most of the time it is used for silly arguments against sceince, like the 6,000 year old earth. Also, anytime someone says "here's what happened" they are making an inherent statement of fact that is subject to falsification or at the least testing against the historical record. There are a number of factual claims that don't make sense in the Bible. In a book that is just supposed to be a buncvh of good or inspiring stories, no problem. But when people try to claim that the Bible is the infallible truth, that's where I think it is essential to counter that statement with the facts as far as we know them.

The story that gets told is what's important. (Did Lincoln free the slaves? History is

You don't have to go back 4,000 years to find people who are horrified by the sexual freedom today. There are plenty in today's world.

What commonality do all Jews share?
Is there any?
What does it mean to be Jewish?
Why does it matter to non-religious Jews?
The fact that we'd all be victims of any past or future Hitler?
Is that the ultimate, indivisible "meaning" of Judaism?

Quoting Happy Hominid: Incidentally, I've always been one to recommend to believers that they actually read their holiest of texts from cover to cover. Precious few of them have. It wouldn't take long for them to discover that The Lord of the Rings or any Harry Potter book is a more valid reference for morality than the god of Abraham.

That's a very funny remark....and profoundly true. The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter would indeed be better guides to morality: they both reflect the enlightenment belief that morality is universal, i.e. that there are no tribal Gods. The fact of the matter is that very few contemporary Jews or Christians have any idea of what is in their "holy book" and would be utterly horrified if they knew. The only sane way to the read the Bible is as an historian, or an anthropologist, of primitive cultures. Or as a psychoanalyst: see Freud on Moses and monotheism.

Quoting AemJeff: Nobody who knows Coltrane has anything to apologize for on that score.

Again, thanks. Trane was something else with his compositions, playing the tenor sax with his infamous jazz quartet. John

Uncle Eb - Well and generously said. I'm looking forward to Julia's response. To me, her posts seem short on substance and long on platitude. Perhaps she will respond in more specific terms. In my experience, these conversations tend to fall apart at the level of the specific. Organized religion may well be about meaning, but it is about meaning within the confines of rules and a starting set of assumptions. Without those, the term organized religion would be an oxymoron. Those rules and assumptions determine the range of acceptable meanings to be derived from the Bible, and it is those rules and assumptions that are the true subject of disagreement. In my opinion, it is disingenuous for adherents of organized religion to speak of unqualified "meaning". If they really meant the term that way, church would be a literature class and it would be more likely that I would be attending.

Thanks Me&TB, I really enjoyed your post as well. Especially:

In my opinion, it is disingenuous for adherents of organized religion to speak of unqualified "meaning". If they really meant the term that way, church would be a literature class and it would be more likely that I would be attending.

Very nice. I tend to think that the expression "meaning" is really one of the most slippery words in language. I remember Bob had a segment in his book "Three Scientists & Their Gods" that got into the attempts to find "meaning" in the Universe. He did a great attempt at trying to isolate and define the term to the best of his ability, but ultimately I still remember walking away with my head spinning and wonder "what does 'mean' even MEAN??" It reminded me of why I was never big on philosophy. After too many twists and turns my brain gets lost (or bored.) In regards to religion, I agree. One of the biggest problems I always have with it is that as you alluded to, it always feels like the game is rigged by their rules (believers, clerics etc.) I find the search for Universal meaning as Bob and David

Quoting bkjazfan: Who is Sarah Silverman?

Two short vids that serve as a good introduction here and here. Also, music video here. NB: In the intro, she is talking to the guy who was, at that time, her boyfriend. (Pity the video title gives away the punchline.)

The problem with this is that the Bible influenced both the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. The Enlightenment was a Judeo-Christian phenomena produced in a Judeo-Christian world. It all runs together.

Well, thanks, you guys. (the Boys too) Uncle Eb, I just don't think you have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian (or a Jew, but I'm a Christian pastor). I don't know why you have to think the scriptures are historically "accurate" (whatever that is) to think that they are truthful. Nor am I some kind of far-left deviant; this is standard teaching in mainline seminaries, and I'm a graduate of Yale Divinity School, for what that's worth. Read Marcus Borg. As for the reservations that the Boys expressed, this is the kind of discussion you have for months in adult Sunday School and never really finish having. I can't be specific; God is a huge topic! But let me say this: I've been a pastor for nearly 25 years, and I've decided that no meaning is absolute but that each of us has to have some working theories, which we alter as we go along. I wish you were in my adult Sunday School; we love worrying these things over and getting hit occasionally by new insights. John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, told them to remember that "there is more light and truth to break forth from God's

I don't know why you have to think the scriptures are historically "accurate" (whatever that is) to think that they are truthful.

If I don't believe that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead (both questions of history: they either happened or they did not), I'm guessing that I can't really be a Christian.

I wish you were in my adult Sunday School; we love worrying these things over and getting hit occasionally by new insights. John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, told them to remember that "there is more light and truth to break forth from God's holy Word," and he was right.

I'm sure you guys get into some great discussions of love, compassion, forgiveness and all that wonderful stuff, but I could discuss those same topics from Bob/David's more rational approach and get just as much light.

I'm sure you guys get into some great discussions of love, compassion, forgiveness and all that wonderful stuff, but I could discuss those same topics from Bob/David's more rational approach and get just as much light.

True, but Bob and David are not going to come to your funeral, be at the birth of your children, or visit your parents in the hospital or the hospice. Religious COMMUNITIES provide stability, continuity, solidarity, service, etc.

No, you don't have to believe those things. But I'm not trying to persuade you to be a Christian; I'm sure you're doing just fine. All I'm saying (or at least what I started out to say) is that Bob and David make some common assumptions about the Bible and faith that I think are erroneous. I'll grant you that lots of believers make those same assumptions and then think they can't accept the theory of evolution or think they have to work out elaborate rationalizations for the virgin birth or some such. It was such pernicious effects of the Enlightenment that caused 20th century theologians like Bultmann to attempt "demythologizing" scripture, which ultimately taught us, post-modernly, that mythology doesn't have to be factual or historical to be true. Think of faith as not a set of beliefs but a narrative by which we structure our understanding of the universe. I think love is stronger, more persistent, and more ingenious than evil, and I think that's what the story of the Resurrection is about. I also think that people don't have to have faith or have a faith like mine to be

No, you don't have to believe those things. But I'm not trying to persuade you to be a Christian; I'm sure you're doing just fine. All I'm saying (or at least what I started out to say) is that Bob and David make some common assumptions about the Bible and faith that I think are erroneous. I'll grant you that lots of believers make those same assumptions and then think they can't accept the theory of evolution or think they have to work out elaborate rationalizations for the virgin birth or some such. It was such pernicious effects of the Enlightenment that caused 20th century theologians like Bultmann to attempt "demythologizing" scripture, which ultimately taught us, post-modernly, that mythology doesn't have to be factual or historical to be true. I think that people don't have to have faith or have a faith like mine to be good and important and wonderful. I'm not trying to convince you; I'm just trying to defend myself and my community from the implicit charges of stupidity that occasionally irritate me enough to make me speak up.

Wonderment, thank you for providing a cogent, coherent synthesis of an old, mythical belief system that is as relevant today, as thousands of years ago. It also demonstrates the power of belief over reason, I honestly believe you when you state your atheist rationality, but I would bet anything that you follow the mores and social codes of Judaism. Too bad that when the rubber meets the road, most of your tribe will cling to that little piece of land that has only religious and historical significance and eventually the next global bellicose tragedy will start and finish there. As Einstein reportedly remarked, at that time we will only have sticks and stones to rebuild again, if any humans survive at all.

Quoting SkepticDoc: As Einstein reportedly remarked, at that time we will only have sticks and stones to rebuild again, if any humans survive at all.

You're correct about the implements, but I think he had a different purpose in mind.

Quoting JuliaInIA: I also think that people don't have to have faith or have a faith like mine to be good and important and wonderful.

Amen to that. But Julia/Tara, if the bible isn't so much a morality guide, and it need not have any historical veracity as history, then what's left? Stripped of those things I'm trying to figure out the value of the book. Granted I've held my own interpretation of morality for a while now and I haven't been to a church since I don't know when, but I've always been of the opinion that the New Testament is a source of moral contemplation and is a wonderful tool if read without perverting its meaning. Yes, I know that one person's perverted interpretation is another person's moral clarity, but you get the gist.

True, but Bob and David are not going to come to your funeral, be at the birth of your children, or visit your parents in the hospital or the hospice.

No but my family and friends who largely approach religion with the same skeptical nature, will.

Religious COMMUNITIES provide stability, continuity, solidarity, service, etc.

No argument here. Those are the things are the +'s, but they have never been enough (or more accurately they are not so much greater or abundant in the religious world than they are in the atheistic world to convince me.) PS I had to kill some time this evening so I dropped in a borders and read the first 25 pages of The Good Book, and it is GREAT! David has a really entertaining style. Can't wait to read the whole thing.

Thank you Lemon, I think you actually got to the heart of the question/point I was trying to make, much better than I did. I'm also a bit confused as to what exactly "true" means in Julia's statement.

Quoting Lyle: The problem with this is that the Bible influenced both the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. The Enlightenment was a Judeo-Christian phenomena produced in a Judeo-Christian world. It all runs together.

Would you care to elaborate? I see no influence of Biblical morality on either work. Admittedly, my acquaintance with both works is limited to the film version of Harry Potter and conversations with children. There is one thing that can be said about the Enlightenment that no one would dispute: it was virulently anti-religion. The only religion the philosophes hated more than Christianity was the religion that gave birth to it. Running over the major figures in my mind I can't think of a single one who thought very highly of the Bible or of Christianity....except perhaps Rousseau, who, however, thought that most believers were idiots. Even in Britain, where atheists were less outspoken, the dominant figures were at best deists, i.e. believers in Newton's clockmaker God, who set the universe in motion and then forgot about it. Ecrasez l'infâme.

Quoting bjkeefe: You're correct about the implements, but I think he had a different purpose in mind.

You are correct, I have a low "Machiavelli score" and tend to be too optimistic. Of course, if we participate in the "military-industrial complex" rebuilding and fighting wars are part of the whole...

Fair enough. I choose to regard the scriptures as authoritative in a way that other texts aren't because they're the stories told by and to my community. So, for example, when Jesus declines to turn stones into bread during his 40 days in the wilderness, we think about why Mark would tell us that. Nobody buys the idea that Jesus didn't care about hunger & human suffering. Is there already enough bread and the problem is that people don't distribute it equitably? Is it that there is a value to stones as they are? Is it that even good gifts are tainted by an evil giver? Is it consistent with Jesus to say that even to hungry people bread isn't everything, and if so, do we agree? What is Mark after here? Not for one minute do I think that Jesus went into the wilderness and had supernatural encounters. Rather, I think Mark is trying to tell us something important to the Jesus community, and since we're part of the contemporary Jesus community we want to know what that was.

Oh sorry, I forgot to talk about "truth" in my disquisition above. Well, think of Pandora's box. Nobody thinks there was a Pandora or a box, but we all know that the world is rife with all manner of wickedness, so complex as to beggar description. Yet we keep going every day, and sometimes we even try, with some success, to unravel hideous problems like the Intractable Income Maintenance Worker Who Won't Answer Her Phone When Refugees Call Her. Why? Because Hope didn't escape the box, and remains with us. It's true. Or, in my community's mythology, we keep going and sometimes make headway with problems because the principle behind the universe is resurrection: nothing, not even death, can stop God from healing and mending and making all things new. When my daughter turned 2, her daycare provider ordered out for pizza to celebrate. That evening she told me that "the mailman" had brought pizza. The mailman had not brought pizza, but she didn't have the vocabulary or the life experience to tell me what had really happened. Sometimes we have to express the ineffable in mythic terms because we don't have the tools or the tools are inadequate

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I was just trying to point out that the level that the true believers say one must dig to in order to "truly understand" a religion or it's text is often unrealistic

Or cynical. Because no one can understand or judge Scientology until they are themselves a 48th level Ice Wizard.

Hey Julia, I agree with your outlook as far as having a higher level of authority attributed based on your community/beliefs, that's why you're a believer, and that's fine. Here's what I still have problems with. Chirstians (not you) say- the Bible is the word of God and it also teaches us all these wonderful stories that can guide us in morality, which in-turn helps reinforce God's interest in us acting morally, and possibly (depending on what denomination you are) judging us all on how well we follow this moral road-map of sorts. These are all arguments I've heard for why I should be a Christian or at least religious or at least respect those who are etc. So I go ahead and read some stories, and like Bob and David, find a whole bunch of stuff that is morally questionable or downright immoral. Especially in the Old Testament, God time and time again, rewards the people who are jerks, dumps on the people who happen to have female genatalia, and shows favoritism based on no discernible moral consideration (as with Jacob/Esau, I believe.) This is deeply troubling for me as I look at this supposed "moral" text. It

Or cynical. Because no one can understand or judge Scientology until they are themselves a 48th level Ice Wizard.

If you want to send me a check for $50K, I'll be happy to get you started ;-) !!

Julia - I tend to communicate with a goal toward clarity, so my questions are designed to help me figure out exactly what it is you are trying to say. My parents speak often of how their understanding of Christianity is superior to that of other Christians. That their faith community has arrived at the correct understanding, while others trying to do the same have come to a different and incorrect understanding. This sounds rather like what you are saying. But perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Quoting JuliaInIA: All I'm saying (or at least what I started out to say) is that Bob and David make some common assumptions about the Bible and faith that I think are erroneous. I'll grant you that lots of believers make those same assumptions..... .

If Bob and David and lots of believers make these assumptions, then your assessment of these assumptions as erroneous boils down to just your (or faith community's) opinion, which would seem to carry no more legitimacy than any other opinion about those assumptions. Or is your opinion somehow more legitimate than that of other Christian faith communities and if so, why? Also, I'm a

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: If you want to send me a check for $50K, I'll be happy to get you started ;-) !!

Also required: a tape recording of you confessing every embarrassing thing you ever did in your life, for blackmail.

Great questions Me&!! It's nice to have you back (it's been awhile, no?)

I know, I know. I know that people bring their own prejudices to the texts, and that they cherry-pick without being conscious or honest about their filters. I guess I want to say that interactions with the text can take place on a scholarly level AND on a devotional level, and that nobody's refereeing the garden-variety churchgoer. Bob and David are wildly intelligent and way better generally-informed than I am (Bob anyway), but they're not Biblical scholars and they don't pretend to be. There actually are people who understand the texts better than B & D do, some of whom have faith and some of whom don't--but those scholars don't get hung up on straw men like the idea that a creation story is threatened by scientific knowledge. I was just frustrated that they were assuming all these sort of junior high objections that scholars dispensed with a couple generations ago. And I know that most Christians aren't up to speed on this stuff either, but I don't expect most Christians to be Biblical scholars. Biblical scholars do not pretend that there aren't all kinds of inconsistencies and horrific stories in the Bible, and neither do I. I ask, What's

Julia, I can't really disagree with anything you said. As I said before, you take the kindof approach that I think is useful and interesting (for people like me) because you acknowledge the scholarly approach as well as the devotional, whereas alot of people don't. Anyways, keep commenting. I like when people like you, Wonderment, or Abu Nor Al-Irlande (sp?) chime in with more knowledge of these texts/histories/cultures than most of us here have to offer. It makes the discussion all the more enlightening.

Quoting bjkeefe: Also required: a tape recording of you confessing every embarrassing thing you ever did in your life, for blackmail.

"I've abandoned my child! I've abandoned my boy!"

Of course I think I'm right. Actually I know I see "through a glass darkly," but I have to have something to work with until we see face to face. Does that make sense? I mean, if I thought it was more persuasive to believe in supernatural miracles, then that's what I'd believe in. This is a tautology. I do try to stay open to correction or enlightenment, but I'm sure I'm as guilty as your parents of thinking my way is the best. HOWEVER, the common assumptions that Bob and David make are verifiably incorrect, not because of some article of faith or belief or opinion but because of the work of scholars who work with ancient texts, biblical and otherwise. Archaeology, linguistics, textual studies, sociology and anthropology, psychology and literary criticism are among the academic tools that inform contemporary scholarly understandings of the Bible. Interpretation is not just a matter of opinion; there really are facts that help you eliminate some unnecessary byways. As for who goes to heaven (whatever that is) . . . Christian claims to exclusivity can be traced to a very early institutional desire to win intramural fights. Later it became an interfaith claim to exclusivity. I don't think

Thank you; you're kind to say so.

Julia, not sure how familiar you are to BHTV, (you're relatively new as a commentor) so you might be interested to know that Bob was raised Southern Baptist and actually has a pretty big soft spot for the devout (and the military.) He did an interview with a priest or religious scholar of some sort not too long ago. Anyways, if you haven't seen it, you might enjoy digging it up. Cheers-- UE

Quoting JuliaInIA: .... if I thought it was more persuasive to believe in supernatural miracles, then that's what I'd believe in.....

More persuasive of what?

Also, check out Bob's video series of interviews wkith theologians an d philosophers at http://meaningoflife.tv/

Julia, what do you think religion is good for? I was raised Southern Baptist - like Bob! - and now am an unbeliever. I think takes like yours are interesting, but it is so far from what I was taught it's hard to grok in some ways. Religion for me was very pragmatic in a way, it was about the salvation of souls to heaven from eternal punishment in hell. If religion is more about uplifting stories, ect, it seems to lose a bit of its force. Where I live I don't get to talk to many liberal religious folk, people tend to either be fundamentalist or uninterested in religion at all. Thanks.

Quoting JuliaInIA: And okay, I'm not just frustrated with people outside the faith community entertaining naive notions of what we're about.

Julia - I don't think people outside the faith community have naive notions about what you (the faith community) are about. The problem is that their notions of what you (the faith community) are about are absolutely (disturbingly) correct and based on information communicated in no uncertain terms by the faith community itself. You acknowledge as much when you condemn the faith community for "being self-righteous, ignorant and anti-intellectual, parochial and frankly deserving of your contempt." For all intents and purposes, what "Biblical scholars" think and believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the millions of "garden variety churchgoers" believe because they are the ones passing laws and setting policies and casting votes that impact all the rest of us. If they are "self-righteous, ignorant and anti-intellectual, parochial", that is bad news for all of us, but especially bad news for people like you who get tarred with the same brush as they. Rather than criticizing David and Bob, you, maybe more than anyone, should be out there encouraging the "self-righteous, ignorant and anti-intellectual, parochial" to read the

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Great questions Me&!! It's nice to have you back (it's been awhile, no?)

Thanks. I've been here - mostly reading rather than commenting, though. Or I end up commenting so late that no-one reads them!

I don't disagree with what you are getting at Franco-American, but the Enlightenment happened in a Judeo-Christian Europe. It may have been anti-religion (although many if not most of the major players in the Enlightenment were nominally religious, i.e., adherents to a faith or deists (they didn't totally reject the existence of God or something greater than themselves -- Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes for example), but it was still a product of a religious Europe. All of us in the West come from a Judeo-Christian world, be us atheist, agnostic, or believer. One can reject religion, and still be intimately influenced by it. The Enlightenment itself wouldn't have happened if not for the existence of Christianity, as like you rightly say, it was hostile to it. So I would argue that J.K. Rowling would not have to be a believer or purposely use Judeo-Christian ideas, stories, or morals in her books.... to have put them in her books. Many of the morals, ideas, and stories that we have in the West simply come from our Judeo-Christian heritage (even if they are synthesized tales from other ancients like the Greeks or whomever), whether we like it

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Thank you Lemon, I think you actually got to the heart of the question/point I was trying to make, much better than I did. I'm also a bit confused as to what exactly "true" means in Julia's statement.

I really liked reading your posts uncle eb (as usual!), and I think it was very helpful to read the way you laid out the argument.

Quoting JuliaInIA: Fair enough. I choose to regard the scriptures as authoritative in a way that other texts aren't because they're the stories told by and to my community. So, for example, when Jesus declines to turn stones into bread during his 40 days in the wilderness, we think about why Mark would tell us that. Nobody buys the idea that Jesus didn't care about hunger & human suffering. Is there already enough bread and the problem is that people don't distribute it equitably? Is it that there is a value to stones as they are? Is it that even good gifts are tainted by an evil giver? Is it consistent with Jesus to say that even to hungry people bread isn't everything, and if so, do we agree? What is Mark after here? Not for one

Quoting JuliaInIA: To take your second question first, historical veracity isn't important.

On a closely related note, on the 4 March 2009 edition of Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviews Bart Ehrman. Blurb:

What is the story of Jesus' birth? How did Judas die? What did Jesus say when he was crucified?

The answers to those questions vary depending on which Gospel you read, says Bible scholar Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them). He says that each Gospel writer had a different message — and that readers should not "smash the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think that [they] get the true understanding."

"When Matthew was writing, he didn't intend for somebody … to interpret his Gospel in light of what some other author said. He had his own message," Ehrman tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.

In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, Jesus dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die and asking why God has forsaken him. But in the book of Luke, Jesus prays for forgiveness for his killers. The two stories offer very different accounts, says Ehrman, yet many people tend

great diavlog. I just bought the book. i can't wait to compare notes on your reactions to mine in reading the bible in that "reading it straight through" kind of way. Also, I think your book might inspire me to take up where I left off -- I read till I got to the book of Chronicles, ----got busy with other things and didn't feel I had time to finish --- but the bookmark is still where I left off. thanks again, and who knows? your book might become a bestseller!

Quoting bjkeefe: On a closely related note, on the 4 March 2009 edition of Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviews Bart Ehrman. Blurb:

I just finished listening to it. It's pretty interesting, especially the part about Jesus as apocalypticist. It's about 40 minutes long. Stream the audio from the page itself, or subscribe through iTunes to download.

Ehrman has been on Fresh Air five times previously. I've caught a couple of those. Links here.

Thanks for the heads up. I subscribe to the FA podcast but I hardly ever actually listen to it. Ehrman's always fascinating.

Quoting claymisher: Thanks for the heads up. I subscribe to the FA podcast but I hardly ever actually listen to it. Ehrman's always fascinating.

y/w. Thanks for letting me know.

Here, I beg to demur. Religion at its very best encourages dissimulation. It poses an ideal and declares that the individual can transform his nature through mimicry: eventually getting it right through practice as though one can force changes to the core self by emoting and role playing. The irony is that the core characteristics of the self remain although repressed under the persona or mask of behavioral pretense. One is simply play acting – pretending to be another human being while ignoring the fact that nothing has substantively changed. Yes, the books of the bible tell us about real people with real lives but so do novels. Were we to regard any written work as a model for correct human behavior, we would be in deep trouble. Following faithfully the homiletic-inspired stories of the bible does not facilitate the transformation of the person it only encourages hypocrisy.

Quoting bjkeefe: y/w. Thanks for letting me know.

It was really great! You'd think that stuff would be common knowledge, given how obvious it is when you spell it out. There are some pretty fundamental contradictions in there.

Just sharing this link: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Quoting claymisher: I hope Bob asks him why David is always so damned crabby on the Slate podcast. Poor Emily Bazelon, I don't know how she puts up with him.

Exactly, He needs to be nicer to Emily and give her more time. He tries to dominate the conversation which isn't very christian of him.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Just sharing this link:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Holy cow! That is the best thing ever! Thanks for the link. I can't believe how cool that is.

It may be a project of Sam Harris!!