Should the Bible be Censored?

Should the Bible be censored?

“Most people don’t feel the need to examine the details of the religious propositions they profess.” –Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell)

            A recent Colorado Law which will protect gay's rights and safeguard the homosexual community against discrimination in print or slander in public may also make it perfectly legal to censor the Bible (the Bible calls for the murder of gays). This got me to thinking, along with the previous article on "Smut for Smut," whether or not the Bible should be censored? Or even just regulated with a ratings system like film and video games are? Here are my thoughts on the subject.

            It's true that Christian organizations are normally the first to try and invoke censorship rules against things they find to be "UnChristian" in nature, everything except for their Bibles that is. They have banned Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin from school libraries simply because it had the word "nigger" in historical context. And if they can get away with this small offense, even as their Bibles condone slavery in the first place, why can't we protect gays by regulating the Bible as well?

            Christians have also at various times tried to ban the works of Darwin, and certain zealous faith mongers have taken to burning books they didn’t agree with such as the congregants of the Full Gospel Assembly in Grande Cache, Alberta, Canada in the 1990s burned books with ideas in them that they did not agree with, or that they deemed contained ideas contrary to the teachings of God. (But who are they to decide? Were they objective? Did they read all the books in the entire world and compare? Did they consult with professionals and academics? Or did they, in all piety, just arbitrarily decide?). More recently, there have been several incidents of Harry Potter books being burned, including those directed by churches at Alamogordo, New Mexico and Charleston, South Carolina.[i] It’s no surprise that the main criticism comes mainly from Christian Evangelical groups. (See: Controversy over Harry Potter.)

            Other religions, such as Islam, have not only tried to ban the books they don't agree with, but they have also murdered and attempted to assassinate the authors and artists of those works they deemed to be too blasphemous or go against the teaching of their faith! The film maker Theo van Gogh was successfully assassinated in 2004 for making his film Submission, which was critical of Islam's abusive treatment of women, and in 1991 Salman Rushdie’s Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was slain in accordance to the prior established Khomeini declaration of fatwa against the author Rushdie and anyone affiliated with him for having written a work of fiction.  

The Salman Rushdie Episode: A Not so Funny Sitcom

Fear is the great ally for the reactionary right wing religious mobs who seek to put death sentences on any artist who dares any such portrayal of the Prophet. In 1989 the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic spiritual leader of Iran at the time, manipulated this irrational fear in what can only be described as a holy terrorist tactic, by inciting a death sentence (or fatwa) against the author Salman Rushdie for having written a work of fiction. Salman Rushdie is the leading example of a modern day Voltaire in regards to his persecution over publishing his novel The Satanic Verses. How can we possibly contend otherwise?  We have the historical account of an independent and free thinking person refusing to give into an act of cowardice by relinquishing his civil freedoms to the incessant bullying of the religious reactionaries who take offense at apparently innocuous literature and art. 

As a consequence of standing up to such coordinated attacks against his personal egalitarian beliefs, Rushdie has certainly felt the wrath of what is currently being deemed Islamic fascism,[ii] not to mention general closed mindedness, in what any decent human being would consider an act of unforgiving inhumanity toward one’s individual’s independence.  Such a garish invasion into one’s personal privacy, the strict imposition of Sharia stipulations and regulations on secular men and women including non-practitioners’ of the Muslim faith, and the desire to control others can only be viewed as a direct threat to modern democratic freedom and the freedom of artistic expression, including the freedom of speech. Such a design is antithetical to liberty and is the frightening example of what will come if we allow such cruel religious schemes to override secular values and replace justice with righteousness and reason with idiosyncratic manmade superstitions. 

Back in early 2005, still in my university days, I had the distinct honor to shake Sir Salman Rushdie’s hand and sit with him for a few hours while we enjoyed a civil conversation ranging from personal liberties, including the freedom of speech, all the way to literature, art, cinema, and jazz music. At the time, it occurred to me that this intelligent and thoughtful man was being hounded for doing what he loved best—writing, telling stories, and being creative. What cold reality awaited me, an aspiring writer, I wondered? 

If anything, Mr. Rushdie’s perseverance continually reminds me that there are still decent human beings who will stand up for the good, upholding human decency, having respect for other’s opinions (even though we may disagree with them), and letting reason be our moral guide, despite what the terrible and fanatical religious extremists might preach. Rushdie’s tribulations shockingly paint in detail what lengths religiously sponsored zealots will go through in order to ensure their oppressive tyranny shapes the world according to how they see fit. If you dare to dance to the beat of a different drum they try and get rid of you—often through the use of political pressure, incessant caterwauling, and assassination attempts if necessary.

Anytime a valid counter claim is offered which is so detrimental to religious core theology of the faith that it can dismantle it exposing its weaknesses, the best defense by religion has always been to silence the rationalist by maiming, slandering, and murdering if necessary—always in the name of God just to make it kosher of course. Apostates of every flavor, free thinking atheists, nonbelievers who don’t have a religious bone in their body, skeptics and satirists, such as Voltaire, have all been hunted down and made an example of by monotheistic regimes which seem unsatisfied with the perseverance of independent will and the freethinking multitude. 

It is not the first time Democracy has been threatened by its very antithesis, however, and it won’t be the last either.  For those of us concerned it is clearly vital, not to mention timely necessary, to reaffirm the importance of Thomas Jefferson’s idea of the ‘wall of separation’ which seeks to forever keep church and state affairs separate, and further more ensure the safety and protect the rights of those citizens living in a democratic republic and keep them free from hierarchical rule (religious or otherwise). In his Notes on the State of Virginia Statute, Jefferson wrote:

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves.[iii]

            I am highly skeptical of any omniscient being who tries to keep such rationality as that which Jefferson so admired at bay. It seems to me a highly duplicitous existence to be all knowing yet also be the very agent which oppresses rational knowing in the universe. The tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden story is a perfect example of God not being concerned with our well-being, but simply our obedience. But this hasn’t stopped the hypocrites from preaching God’s greatness. Shouldn’t we be more offended by the fact that religious zeal has forced its slave-mentality onto the principles of universal freedom for all?[iv]

            But the Bible has good too, right? Should we censor the whole thing or just certain parts? Or should we find a compromise? Should we create a ratings system in the vein of the MPAA's system for films? Might we label the various books of the Bible with various age appropriate warnings, such as PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 and so on? We could red flag chapters that were relatively harmless but then suddenly, and arbitrarily, have a grotesque, obscene, racist, or extremely inappropriate passage. We could still have our Bibles, but it would be better regulated.

            Now I know what Christians are going to say. They'll be adamant about not wanting to be carded every time they buy a Bible, and they'll protest by countering with something along the lines of, then shouldn't we censor Shakespeare as well?! The point is missed on those who don't realize the distinguishing points of difference here. Shakespeare is rarely obscene, and the parts that are aren't being read to children as bed time stories. That's the difference here folks! And reading Shakespeare has never killed anyone, but many have become martyrs in the name of their faith because their holy books called them to it.

A Riotous Cartoon  

As of late 2005 the tradition of censorship and religious over-reaction to art continues in the modern world.  The Danish newspaper debacle over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is the shadowy reminder of artistic censorship at its worst.  Meanwhile, even as authors and journalists were feeling the righteous heat of that fiery writers block coming down upon them (to call it that), on the Christian side of things everyone else was boycotting all things Dan Brown; along with his novel The Da Vinci Code and its consequent film adaptation.  

It would seem Dan Brown had the audacity to envision Christ marrying Mary Magdalene and having kids—never mind the historical fantasy created by Brown is a contending theory supported by some Biblical scholars—you can take it or leave it without having to get angry about it.  Dan Brown himself expressed that his novel was a work of fiction, reiterating the fact that The DaVinci Code, like Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, was simply imaginative entertainment.  Harmless enough, one might think.  Heretical according to the religious stand point, sure, stimulating a religious response of course, but innocent from an artistic sentiment as it was never meant to be fact—it was only meant to be a flight of the imagination.  Although Dan Brown’s audacious re-imagining of Christianity was not detrimental to the faith itself he certainly felt his fair share of the righteous heat too. 

Strange that the Catholic Church worked so hard to censor Dan Brown when it was Pope Gregory I (591 C.E.) who started the nasty (and wholly unfounded) rumor that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.  Pope Gregory’s imaginative characterization of Mary Magdalene, as misconstrued as it was, was certainly no more lofty a fictitious re-imagining than Dan Brown’s propagating Christ (although it certainly was a lot crueler).  In fact, we might even agree that a reasonable supposition is to infer that if it wasn’t for Pope Gregory’s vilifying act of “slutting up” Mary Magdalene and turning her into a woman of the night in a vicious attack on her character in the first place, then Dan Brown may have never had the inclination to use her in a light less than Saintly to begin with.   Stranger still that so many good Christians should forget this fact in light of their keenly orchestrated media attacks against Dan Brown’s integrity, artistic and otherwise. 

Purportedly it seems there is a double standard at work when it comes to religious expression vs. artistic expression of religion.  Here we find an inconsistency in which the religious commentator is strictly censored but the religion itself is (always) free to make up any form of poppycock it wishes to pass off as doctrinal fact.  This critical censorship is especially true if the artist fails to meet the standard of those who profess a most sincere devotion to their faith, or else, rubs them the wrong way.  Dan Brown suddenly found himself the prodigal scapegoat for the bothersome and overly forgetful Church leaders and religious reactionaries the world over.  Luckily for Brown, for all his negative press, this didn’t hinder his book sales or film revenue any.

Further Impositions

           

          

            I don't believe in censorship on things that aren't highly controversial, and I'll always back the freedom of speech before the right to critically censor, but I do feel we should censor pornography from young children, and it is well known (even by religious practitioners whether they want to admit it or not) that religious books often contain things which any rational minded person would consider pornographic, or at the least, R rated material. More over, religions regularly call for more than just censorship as Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others are familiar with, it can also call for your unjust murder. Or as J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown are concerned,[v] it can call for the banning and burning of your books. And this form of attack on our basic unalienable rights should be defended against and keep tabs on as to ensure our continued sovereignty without the worry of the threat of religious patriarchs seeking to impose their iniquitous religious standards or destroy our life's work and thereby unjustly strip away our freedoms. 

            Additionally, let’s not forget that for centuries the Bible was the driving article that supported the murder of heretics, the torture and abuse of "supposed" blasphemers, the burning of innocent women (whether they were witches or saints is of no consequence--all innocent--innocent being the key word here), and slavery in the New World, something which outraged Mark Twain in his day. All this because "the bible told them so." Religion’s monopoly on slavery is not a new notion as it has been a common practice of the Church throughout the ages. Only with the advent of more secular moral guidelines and a decline of religious popularity did the Church give up the barbaric practice, but not without controversy. The famed Mark Twain, one of America’s most infamous atheists, was a harsh critic of the Churches propensity for slavery, and in a rather scathing quote Twain made his disgust perfectly felt, berating:

In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them.  Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers.  If any could know, to absolute certainty, that all this was right, and according to God’s will and desire, surely it was she, since she was God’s specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of his Bible.  There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was right, she was doing in this thing what the bible had mapped out for her to do.  So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery.[vi]

Willingly, this unassailable position that the Church knows what's best, such as issues of keeping humans as personal property, has recently been challenged by the secular and free thinking moralist writers of the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Most recently, in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris states the obvious farce that is the (basically non-existent) Biblical objection in regards to slavery:

The only real restraint God counsels on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). It should go without saying that is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.[vii]

Quick to point out that Jesus never made any objection or condemning remarks on slavery, something he should have done if we are to consider him a source of morality and the Son of an all loving omniscient God, Harris reaches out to our human decency by adding:

The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment.  It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany—and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South, among the most pious Christians this country has ever known.[viii]

Of course we might say the same for gay rights or even better animal treatment today. But this evolved form of ethical thinking is with unusual regularity oddly missing from religious thought. Indeed, if the Christian holy book was a source for morality, then it is a bad source. And to paraphrase Harris’ point, anybody who thinks the Bible is the best guide we have on the question of morality has some very peculiar ideas about either guidance or morality. I would go one further and presume that many have not even read their Bibles in full and so are not aware of all the unacceptable and abominable content it contains. Furthermore, those who have read their Bibles in full and continue to believe do not likely believe because they have understood the content of their Bibles. They may, perhaps, believe in spite of it—allowing their modern moral sense and notions of equality to inform their outlook while ignoring the dangerous pitfalls of imperfect, immoral, and inhumane teachings of their holy books and making the choice to stick with only the most virtuous principles.[ix] Here Mark Twain brings us a bit of irony when he quips:

It is not well worth of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one?  It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.[x]

            Anybody can cherry-pick from the best their religious works have to offer and put up a mental partition and block out the bad stuff if they want to. Ignoring the negative aspects of your holy text, however, is not the best way to provide a reliable justification to the problems at hand, and it is a flawed practice for anyone who wishes to enhance their moral understanding. Instead of quote-mining for just the best verses we should be regulating, rating, or else restricting the harmful impact of the bad or morally damaging verses altogether, as a consequence creating a more moral text in the same fashion that Thomas Jefferson created a more practical text when he went to town on the Bible cutting out the superstitious and mythical verses it contained.

Outrageous as it may seem to us, as of the 21^st century the crimes of religious oppression and persecution persist, crimes informed by the backing of religious texts, and wherever there is religious censorship we can be sure there is a desire for better, more egalitarian, society. As is common, the religious like to caterwaul about perceived "religious intolerance" anytime they meet critical scrutiny, but what about intolerant religions? Can they really shift the blame so easily? Not taking responsibility for your own trespasses is despicable, surely it shouldn’t go ignored or un-criticized. It’s funny to me how religion can always pronounce itself guiltless by shifting the blame and passing the crimes of the establishment off onto the individual, and thereby placing all of the blame for its own wickedness and depravity squarely onto the shoulders of the one, effectively safeguarding itself from further criticism by offering up a scapegoat. But man is never allowed to place the sins and depravities on the institution squarely on the shoulders of that religious establishment. If a skeptic criticizes the misdeeds of the faith the faith offers up another scapegoat. If a devout person becomes the victim of the institution and lashes out and criticizes the faith they are called a heretic and traitor.

Religious institutions have always sought to safeguard themselves in an ideological maze of smoke and mirrors, never ever wanting to face the ugliness which resides just beneath the surface of the illusion—the desire to see humanity broken in accordance with its deplorable teachings that we are somehow fallen, sinful, undeserving beings so that we may submit to its will (or the will of God). Stripping us of our self esteem, religion tells us we are unworthy so that it might offer us, in our confusion and angst, a sense of false hope as it step by step destroys our sense of dignity. According to religion, only once you are ruined can you be saved, and they have the key to your salvation! All you have to do is believe what they tell you to. Those who see the sham for what it is and defy the religious ploy often get hammered by a robust and bombastic faith which will hammer you down relentlessly until you are put back in your place. Apostates everywhere no what is at stake when they leave their faith, since they don’t just leave behind a book of harmless fairytales, they often times are forced to leave behind their family, friends, and community as well. Sometimes, if they try to maintain good relations, they will be ostracized and offered up as the sacrificial scapegoat, and their emotional and social lives with be utterly destroyed so that the institution can go on without their dangerous independence, free-thinking, and skepticism. Clearly, as anyone who has studied religion can see, such deficient ideological premises and practices exist in superfluous and are prevalently found in more than one faith and in more than one holy book—and what is a holy book if not a guide on how to practice one’s faith?

           

Conclusion

           

           

            Although I think we should keep the Bible, since it is an important work of literature, I do feel that some of its content is age inappropriate and much of it transparently obscene, and that to teach it to Children is a sign of negligence. I know theist parents will say they don’t read their kids those explicitly offensive or violent parts of the Bible, but some do, and that's more than enough to be critical.

As for the Evangelical inerrantists who claim the Bible is the perfect word of God and that we have simply misunderstood it, wise up. Anyone with a thinking brain full well knows that you would not even need to make such a defense if there was no controversy or inherent conflict within the text in the first place. And even assuming we have all (somehow) misunderstood the deeper moral truths, then this claim of sophisticated moral reasoning which so often gets misapprehended by our feeble intellects, does not necessarily mean that children have the capacity to deduce or discern the content in quite the same way as thinking adults. To suggest otherwise is to be precariously ignorant. Those who may not be Fundamentalists but still feel that the Bible is a good moral guide, and that its teachings are beneficial, think again. In fact, it would behoove you to actually read your Bible in full, because anyone who has would not make such badly informed comments. After a second read through, if you still feel certain verses contain morsels of axiomatic wisdom, then that’s fine, but children should not be expected to be as well versed in their reasoning skills, or for that matter, even socially capable of making such minute distinctions in a text. Simply put, children are neither mentally nor emotionally equipped to deal with the callous content of the Bible on their own, and to this we must protect their fragile imaginations and susceptible minds from the nefarious content of any and all holy books.

Not all parent keep their Bibles out of reach of prying eyes, and what’s more, what measures are they taking to protect their children from those in the service of the Church or church community which might (without parental consent) teach other people’s kids about some horrible concept, such as hating gays, or making women inferior, or else frighten them with the idea of being punished in hell where their parents can’t save them, among other disreputable religious teachings while their parents are elsewhere? I'm not saying that Sunday school is a form of child abuse per se, but it can be. What happens when your kid is stuck in Sunday school with old crazy Ms. Braybrook?

            What I propose is a ratings system for the (unavoidable) extremely graphic content, and yes, I believe people should be carded when they buy a religious Holy Book that contains adults themes and content, and they should be of the age of consent to purchase it. And if they are convicted of a religious crime, in which the religious ideologies found in that holy book have motivated them (in part) to enact horrible atrocities or crimes against their fellow human beings, thus breaking the law, then their holy books should be confiscated and they should be denied further access to it until they can be rehabilitated as a law abiding citizen. But beyond this, people should be free to purchase it as they would The Catcher in the Rye, porn, or any other material—under freedom of speech rules—as long as they are of the proper age designated.

            So what do you think? Should the Christian Bible be regulated, rated, or censored? Why or why not?

---

               [i] Harry Potter and the Ministry of Fire:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/book-burnings-potter-tech-media_cz_ds_books06_1201burn.html

[ii] Fascism, according to the Random House Dictionary, is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. This is the Islamist agenda, more or less, and it has always been the goal of those extremists like the Taliban to establish a totalitarian regime by which they can create a global Islamic Empire. Such a poisonous ideology is derived, not from a radical literalism of Islamic creeds; a rather worrisome side effect in those who approach Islamic theology and the teachings of the Qur’an, Hadith, ijma and qiyas with a legalistic interpretation and dedication. 

[iii] Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). Notes on the State of Virginia, p.286

[iv] To find an example of such crude and oppressive monotheistic ideologies run dangerously amuck one need look no further than the Hamas Charter (1988).  According to the charter, Hamas seeks to reshape the world into a universal Muslim world.  Article 8 states the slogan of Hamas: Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.  Such reason, however, I would caution, is unsound since all non-Muslims must fear such charters which go on to promote violent and forceful conversion of non-Muslims and that seeks militancy instead of peace, discord instead of harmony, despotism instead of equality, self-sacrifice instead of mutual cooperation, and intolerance instead of understanding and acceptance.

               [v] Iran has banned and burned all translations of Dan Brown’s popular novel The Da Vinci Code. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_Iran

[vi] Mark Twain, Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, from: Europe and Elsewhere and a Pen Warmed Up in Hell.

[vii] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, p. 17

[viii] Ibid., p.18-19

[ix] Ibid., p.14

[x] Mark Twain, Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, from: Europe and Elsewhere and a Pen Warmed Up in Hell.

A Defense of "Smut for Smut"

A Defense of “Smut for Smut”

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and they twain shall become one flesh, he by sticking it to her who rideth him ‘cowboy style’…except in reverse.” (Matthew 19:4-5)^[i]

Recently a student secular group at the University of Texas in San Antonio started a rather controversial campaign called “Smut for Smut” in which Holy Books such as the Bible, Koran, book of Mormon and so on, could be exchanged for free pornography. This caught the attention of Fox News, which decided to give it their fair and balanced reporting on the subject by interviewing a whole bunch of outraged Christians and neglecting to discuss the reasons for the campaign itself. Like I said, the fair and balanced reporting we have become accustomed to from Fox News. See the video below.

Atheists who understand the irony behind this are tickled by the novelty of this idea, and many have been reposting the video to the outrage of hypersensitive Christians everywhere. These same Christians are berating the “Smut for Smut” campaign as simply bad taste and a sensationalist ploy for atheists to belittle religion yet again. What splendid pride filled jealousy this is! For what else could it be? Are the religious seriously suggesting that there is nothing grotesque, horrid, or deeply disturbing to be found in their holy books? Can they be that naïve? Because, if so, it’s rather hard to believe that such credulity exists on such a massive scale. Or perhaps it’s just that religious folks are pedantic and prudish? Maybe all religionists are prudes and all atheists are lewd? Unfounded stereotypes aside, I’m sure people have seen “Hoo-has!” and “Bajingos!” before. Either from porn, in the confines of their own bedrooms, or a sex ed. class, or by sheer accident, however they have stumbled upon the human anatomy, almost everyone knows what a penis and a vagina looks like. And the popularity of porn is undeniable too. As Dr. Cox shrewdly states in one of my favorite TV shows Scrubs, “If you took away all the porn websites on the Internet but one, it would read, bring back the porn!”

Not that I’m advocating pornography, or that you ought to go out and look at it, but I am saying that it is so prevalent that to entertain the notion that everyone would share the same overly prude hyper-sensitivity of homophobic, sex-starved, sexually stunted fundamentalists who are in all likelihood closet porn addicts anyway, is just absurd. Most people are fascinated by the act of sex, because let’s face it, we’re either curious or plain old perves. And as humans we like sex, we need sex, it’s how we survive as a species.  Our biological function is to copulate and repopulate. There’s nothing wrong with being comfortable with that concept. Sex is good! Deal with it.

I find the “Smut for Smut” campaign an intelligent strategy that seeks to confront and even perhaps dissuade the uninfringeable status quo of sacred paper idols. Certainly this hoopla has caused a big stir, and I’m glad of it, because it just goes to show how so many people still let their sacred values dictate their attitudes within larger society as a whole. Not everyone, however, views sex as a grotesque sinful form of human depravity as Christianity traditionally has, and still does. Christians have been railing against sex since promiscuous pagans and sensual Simonians, making it into a sin of the flesh for over two thousand years. Even mentioning sex around Christians makes them nervous and suddenly sparks heated emotions and opinions among Christians who then denounce it at almost every turn. Instead of being adults about it they talk about abstinence—which is the same thing as not wanting to deal with the issue at all. This sign of mental sexual immaturity and denial of our human nature is astonishingly bizarre to me. More than that, it’s debilitating and unhealthy to boot. I should know since I was a victim of it myself. But that’s another story for another time.

Even so, I can understand why Christians are shocked by the “Smut for Smut” campaign, mainly because they are taught to abhor sex (instead of being properly informed about sex), but I think they miss the point altogether. I believe this “Smut for Smut” project is a fascinating sociological exercise in both the freedom of speech as well as public expression of opinion. Especially since, as is all too often the case in religious cultures, non-believers are denied their public opinion at the sake of offending someone else’s sacred values (and/or beliefs); which is wholly unfair. 

If Campus Crusaders and Bible thumpers have the right to get up on their high pedestals, or nearest park bench, and begin indiscriminately preaching the “good news” to everyone within ear shot, then why can’t the favor be returned? I think this little stunt demonstrates the need in the public forums for us to stop allowing religion free reign to dictate what is and isn’t sacred and what people are and aren’t allowed to say. Trading a Bible for a Playboy or a Koran for a Penthouse is not so offensive when you consider that Playboy and Penthouse do not condone rape, forced marriage (sexual bondage) to a rapist, and child sexual slavery, battery of wives, and incest and polygamy just quite like the Bible and Koran do. I’m just saying, to consider a photo spread of a beautiful naked woman more disgusting than a book which by decree commands its followers (or at one time has) to defile, demean, rape, and brutalize that beautiful woman, then I must be terribly concerned with your moral values not to mention common sense judgment.

Personally I feel the Bible should be stamped with an NC-17 rating for mature audiences only. Precisely because I feel age appropriateness does apply, regardless of whether it’s fiction or non-fiction. As an adult, so what if I want to watch some porn? None of your bleeding business. If I want to rub my body all over with green Jell-O, while standing on one foot, reciting the star spangled banner, again, who even cares? If I should one day turn out to be gay, sorry, my personal life is mine, stay out of it! But it becomes my business when you subject your children to pornography. As a concerned citizen and decent human being, it would be my duty and moral obligation to protest.

As such, anyone who allows their child to read the Bible without adult supervision before they child’s 17^th birthday is a negligent parent, as far as I’m concerned. Again, age appropriate applies. I mean, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” didn’t get a hard R rating for nothing. Just to think, this bloody, gruesome, torturous film which reveled in the depiction of human mutilation, humiliation, and suffering covered only a few hours of just one Biblical character’s story. I don’t care whether or not it’s a true story—toning it down a bit or else keeping something off screen for the imagination would have gone a long way in trying to show that it was more about the story than the brutal torture. But no, this was clearly pornographic material which went for shock and awe treatment. This is the same material Christian parents teach their impressionable young kids. For shame! And to think of the nerve of the Christian community as Christian churches handed out free tickets to see this pornographic blood fest, and they did en masse, and what’s more, they applauded it for its authenticity and accuracy! Not a single church came out to protest this gory movie as age inappropriate obscenity. Yet this just goes to show there is a double standard at work.

Our religious smut is fine, but your beautiful erotic smut is too sinful for our tastes. We’re allowed to be loud and obnoxious and stand on a public park bench and spout out at the top of our lungs this putrefying smut, because we’re believers that this smut is true and meaningful, so don’t you dare make a mockery of our faith by trading your smut for ours! That would be crossing a line! See? It’s like I said, double standards all around.

Yet the truth is, the Bible is by and large jam packed with smutty material. The majority of which is pornographic, inappropriate for children, and well, for the most part just plain ole inappropriate. There is some good in the Bible, sure, but I don’t see Christians censoring their Bibles like they would try to censor campus freedom of speech campaigns. Meanwhile, “The Passion of the Christ” became the highest grossing pornography of all time.^[ii] So I don’t see how anyone could take offense by the “Smut for Smut” campaign unless they were seriously deluded and had been brainwashed just not to see it, or else, they have allowed their crazy-eyed-zeal for their sacred values to override their better judgment; and that would be a shame. But the bottom line is this, if Christians are allowed to have their preferred smut, then I should be allowed to have mine, and if somebody wants to trade smut for smut, then I don’t see the problem.

  

---

^[i] Translation note: The authorized King James version uses ‘cleave’ in place of ‘sticking it to her’, but the meaning of cleave is twofold. First, it literally translates to: to make a way through (something) forcefully, as if by splitting apart. Now that’s some serious deep penetration! Secondly, its secondary meaning is to become emotionally attached to someone.

I think in the context of the verse, translating the ‘cleaving of flesh’ (i.e. sex) from the root sarx (meaning the flesh, but also, like a horse) is a double entendre playing on both meanings. Therefore my crude translation fits within Biblical context and is not all that far from the original meaning of the vocabulary usage. The various translations render the concept of copulation, or engaging in coitus, as cleave, unite, bond, hold fast to, be joined, or come together.

^[ii] Movie Trivia: “The Passion of the Christ” went on to earn more than 600 million dollars worldwide, was the highest grossing R rated film domestically with over 370 million, and was rated #1 of the 25 most controversial movies of all time by Entertainment Weekly (16 June 2006). Even the family friendly edit got slapped with an R rating, as the film was just too violent to escape the MPAA’s stern guidelines. Similarly, the director’s cut of the 1980’s film “Robocop” was so extremely violent that it initially got rated XXX as grotesquely violent pornography. Even though the director edited the film to snag a hard R rating for theatrical release, since the MPAA does not allow pornography to be shown in family going public cinemas.

Religion in its Death Throes?

The well spoken and superbly cordial AC Grayling tells it like it is.

Part 1



Part 2

The Prophet Paradox

 

The Prophet Paradox: Jesus the Legend & Problems with Messianic Truth Claims

Below is a list of those who dazzled crowds with their magic, miracles, parables, and other wonders, but more importantly, who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah! Messiahs have come and gone, but even before Jesus of Nazareth, there was a plethora messianic savior types to choose from. A person of antiquity had their pick!

Almost all of them, if not most of them, accomplished a few of the same miracles that Jesus did. Simon Magus was probably the most notorious of the lot. From his namesake we get the sin of ‘simony’ which comes from the ungodly attempt to buy spiritual salvation and miraculous powers, something that was so disgusting to Peter that it made it into the canonical Gospels (see: the canonical Acts of the Apostles, verses 8:9-24). Funny that some years later the Catholic Church would begin selling Indulgences, the very thing early Christians detested and viewed as signs of false prophecy and heresy.

A few of these wannabes even claimed to have died and were, apparently, resurrected(!) They even had followers to voucher for them. Others brought people back to life while others offered salvation. This was the particular trade of Simon Magus, who was said to have rescued the prostitute Helen who then becomes his companion, and in their intimate sexual relationship led to the formation of a new offshoot Gnostic Christianity called Simonianism, which flourished in the Syrian region till about the mid fourth century.

Many of the self proclaimed prophets were virgin born (no surprise there). It seems that in and around the first century Palestine such conjuring and sorcery was common fair, a form of sensationalist entertainment and spectacle, to wow crowds. Nothing could be more ubiquitous than miracle working in superstitious cultures of early man. The more supernaturally inclined the more readily they accept any old Joe-Shmoe with a messiah complex, a perfect breeding ground for religion, today as well as in times of antiquity. But if you ask me, the only way to buy into any of it is to remain credulous. At any rate, here is the list of Jewish messiah claimants:

• Simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BC)

• Athronges (ca. 3 BC)

• Judas of Galilee (?)

• Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC — AD 30-?)

• Theudas (? - 46)

• Menahem ben Judah (?)

• Agrippa II

• Vespasian, c.70

• Simon bar Kokhba (?- ca. 135)

• Moses of Crete (?)

• Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (684-705)

• Yudghan (?)

• David Alroy (?)

• Nissim ben Abraham (?)

• Moses Botarel of Cisneros (?)

• Asher Lemmlein (?)

• David Reubeni (1490-1541?)

• Solomon Molcho (1500-1532)

• Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676)

• Barukhia Russo (Osman Baba)

• Jacob Querido (?-1690)

• Mordecai Mokia (1650-1729)

• Löbele Prossnitz (?-1750)

• Jacob Joseph Frank (1726-1791)

• Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994)

Christian messiah claimants and those who claimed to be the second coming of Jesus is still going! Bunch of hippies!!

Some Christian/post-Christian messiah claimants are:

• Simon Magus and Dositheos the Samaritan, mid first century

• Montanus (?)

• Adalbert powers circa 744.

• Tanchelm of Antwerp (ca. 1110)

• Ann Lee (1736-1784)

• Bernhard Müller (c.1799-1834)

• John Nichols Thom (1799-1838)

• Arnold Potter (1804–1872)

• Hong Xiuquan of China (1812-1864)

• Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892)

• William W. Davies (1833–1906)

• Father Divine / George Baker (c. 1880 – September 10, 1965)

• Georges-Emest Roux (1903-1981)

• Sun Myung Moon (b. 1920)

• Yahweh ben Yahweh (1935-2007)

• Iesu Matayoshi (b. 1944)

• Jung Myung Seok (b. 1945)

• Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda (b. 1946)

• Inri Cristo (b. 1948)

• Apollo Quiboloy (b. 1950)

• David Icke (b. 1952)

• David Koresh (Vernon Wayne Howell) (1959-1993)

• Maria Devi Christos (b. 1960),

• Sergei Torop (b. 1961)

• Wayne Bent (b. 1941)

• David Shayler (b. 1965)

• Laszlo Toth

The thing to keep in mind is this, when Jesus' miracles and dramatic displays of magic power are juxtaposed with those who came before him as well as after, there is no distinguishable difference. The name changes, the contents remain the same. So confirmation of a real miracle which Jesus performed would be necessary as proof that Jesus was the real deal, and not just another doppelganger, huckster, and/or fraud. Otherwise, he just blends into the scenery… with a bunch of Joe-shmoe-messiah-wannabes.

After examining the above list, a Christian friend of mine asked, “What does this list of derelicts prove?” and went on to add, “Jesus doesn’t need smoke and mirrors to perform miracles. He created the entire universe and every one of those false prophets you mentioned.”

Yet isn’t this the dilemma? How do we know Jesus was the real deal? How do we know he wasn’t just another false prophet? If you will, consider this dilemma along with me for a moment.

Prophet A claims to have made a ball of clay turn into a living dove. Upon seeing the popularity of such a conjuring trick Prophet B claims to have done the same. Prophet C looks at the popularity of both of their claims and thinks to himself it’s time to find a new bag of tricks, and says to have raised someone from the dead. Hearing this grandiose news, Prophet A and B suddenly claim to have done the same. Seeing the popularity of each other’s miracles, and of the good old ones that never go out of fashion (such as levitating, flying, shape shifting, raising the dead and walking on water as Simon Magus supposedly did), they keep trying to one up each other to gain new followers and prestige.

Quetsion: Of prophets A, B, and C who is the *false prophet?

Answer: All of the above. Since none of their truth claims or claims to be messiah are vindicated, we cannot assume one is superior to the next. Moreover since we have no reason to doubt them, other than the dubious attempts to demonize and slander the other, in all cases being similar, and being impossible to verify beyond a reason of a doubt, it is therefore impossible to know who the genuine article is.  Because of this we the only logical deduction which can be made, giving the evidence we have, is that they are either 1) all telling the truth, e.g. a paradox, or 2) are all lying. Which seems more likely to you? Even so, when we take into consideration that the stories may all be apocryphal, in other words, myth and legend, then the problem goes away. But we are left with an even bigger problem, trying to prove the historicity of a person (or persons) who we’ve just concluded were all mythologized messiahs or legendary lore.

A Big Frakkin Problem: For Christians that Is

What most Christians don’t seem to realize is that if you make a claim that prophet A is the one and only true prophet, then clearly, you need to back this claim up with evidence, otherwise you are only left with a paradox. You can’t simply espouse because all other prophets are false, because this is one of the signs of a false prophet, claiming there are no other genuine prophets. Since all other prophets have claimed the same authority, and can recreate one another’s miracles, and all have followers who swear that they saw these miracles with their own two eyes, we must be highly skeptical.

As David Hume reminds us, “...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” (Section 10 : Of Miracles Pt. 1) Hume goes on to inform:

When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. (Section 10 : Of Miracles Pt. 1)

Christians claim Jesus is the real deal. But how do they know this? Because the Bible tells them so? Because it states in the Gospels that there were eye-witness testimonies to support this claim? So what?! All of the professed messiahs have had eye-witness testimonies, and as Hume already pointed out, these are categorically untrustworthy.

Christians have to do better. Mainly, they need to bring forth some trustworthy evidence which supports their premises, because making the claim “I’m a Christian and the Bible tells me so” is so unconvincing as to actually dissuade people from believing. No joke. Circular logic as inept as this just shows critically minded skeptics that there isn’t a real argument here to begin with—we forget it in a couple seconds after the novelty has worn off—and move on.

Besides, if the Bible was 100% historically reliable, and everything was in order and in tune with reality, then it would have more credence than it does. Only then would an ardent skeptic be justified in checking out the truth claims of the religion. And then, once held up to scrutiny, these claims would either have to check out or be discarded. If the original claims stand up to the test of scrutiny, and corresponded with outside sources, and were verifiably accurate with what history and science say, then it might pass muster. Yet the Bible rarely has this sort of consistency and dependability, so simply espousing it does is not the way to prove Jesus was the one and only messiah. As such, Christians cannot simply say that Jesus was the real deal and all else are frauds. First we must have proof that Jesus wasn’t a fraud himself, and that takes more historical research than just saying it.

Theists readily take it on a matter of faith that Jesus was the chosen messiah without ever looking into the matter. How do they know this? The Bible tells them so. How do they know the Bible is infallible and wholly accurate? Because the Bible says so. And that’s how they know. Moreover, it appears what they think they know is all they know. Anything outside of their sources is written off as either too trivial or heretical and so not really worth bothering about.

That’s why the above list of messiah wannabes and derelicts seems so unimportant to Christians. Mostly because it’s just not a concern of theirs to have to debunk frauds and false prophets—since the Bible is the authority on the subject—they can take it at its word. But to anyone who knows the implications of such a list knows that it is more than a small concern, it’s a major conundrum. In the end, minus a biased book that claims it’s its own source of authority, what is there to prove to us the authenticity of one messiah over the next? Not much, and that’s an understatement; which reminds me of the words of Alexander Pope, who once remarked, “Skepticism is as much of the result of knowledge, as knowledge is of skepticism.” I couldn’t agree more.

From Preacher to Prophet to Messiah to Son of God—Fact or Legend?

None of the guys on the list of would be messiahs used smoke and mirrors, they were believed because they had the backing of religious authority and the credulity of the crowd. Maybe this is all the illusion one needs to become a messiah? At any rate, they all were being sincere; they all were the real deal! That’s the claim anyway. We simply have no evidence to back up their wonder-working claims nor refute them, including the miraculous deeds of Jesus Christ.

Remember the example from above of prophet A, B, and C? They all claimed to have god-given authority too. There is just no telling who the real one is, and pointing fingers and making accusations of who is a false prophet will get you nowhere. Whatever their names were and whoever they turned out to be, they made virtually the same claims based on the same level of testimony of nearly indistinguishable miracle making. So will the real prophet/messiah please stand up? Oh, all of you? Okay the, whose got the holy book which demonizes everyone else and claims that all prophets are false except for the select chosen prophet? Oh, all of you again? Dang it, this is tricky business. Alright then, how about this, whom among you has claimed to be the way and the light, the source of true salvation, and has died and come back to life after three days? Three of you?! It’s just so hard to tell who can be telling the truth here. What’s your name son? Osiris? Oh you too Mithra? Jesus? Okay then, all of you.

Now a trained apologist will emphatically state that Osiris and Mithra are obviously myths, and that Jesus was a real historical figure! No comparison! So Jesus, by means of his ties to historicity, becomes the champion by default! He must be the genuine Messiah! That’s the only logical deduction, right? Or could it be more likely that Christians took the stories they liked best and crafted a messiah, which was grafted to a historical figure they admired, and in an age of high superstition filled with credulous believers who’d follow you to the depths of hell for doing one little magic trick, created a legend?

Indeed, this seems to be the more likely scenario, since there is so much similarity between these three figures and Jesus that it is beyond uncanny! In fact, it’s down right inconceivable, unless of course, we’re dealing with retellings of myth. Then it all makes sense. But if Christians insist on Jesus being historically true in all aspects, then they must accounts for the 95% of him which overlaps with the pre-existing mythical tales of those like Osiris, Mithra, Oedipus, Apollonius of Tayana, Asclepius, Hercules, Romulus, Empedocles, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus, etc. Not only this, but they must account for the unknown to reasons why Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s story of fidelity coincides with the symbolic undertones as those found in the Osiris and Isis relationship? Can we really believe the numerous overlapping facets of their teachings and sometimes verbatim claims are purely coincidence? I find that a little far fetched. Since when do two different people, from different cultures, speaking different languages, make both the same exact statements? It seems a literary borrowing is more likely. That behind it all was the inspiration of external literary sources, such as the literary parallels of the Gospels and Homeric epics, which apparently the Gospels borrow from liberally.

If this is all impossible to believe, then we have the difficulty of proving the trustworthiness of the claim full well knowing that these legends and myths came first. It’s no coincidence that Jesus’ character life can be recreated nearly piece for piece from various overlapping pagan sources. This has often been referred to as the Jesus Puzzle, because you can take these various mythical elements, piece them together, and reconstruct a nearly exact image of Jesus Christ—along with everything he ever said and did.

Such a rather unfathomable string of coincidences has caused knowledgeable Christians a rather big headache, not because it seems so far-fetched, but rather, because there is just no way to currently disprove such a theory. C.S. Lewis, however, tried his darnedest though, by proffering that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. Since Lewis can use deductive reasoning to reason away liar and lunatic, we are left only with Lord, to which Lewis deliberately misinforms his readers that this is the only possible conclusion a reasonable person can make. Actually, not so. Lewis anticipates his mostly Christian audience will agree with him, and so he avoids the problematic fourth option of: Jesus was a legend.

Certainly a shocking amount of scholarly research on New Testament criticism and Biblical history seems to support the Jesus was legend hypothesis. Legends are based upon real historical figures and events, which consequently get exaggerated and blown way out of proportion as times marches on. Since this hypothesis seems to explain many, if not most, of the problematic elements of the Jesus story, and also seesm to be the theory which exercises the greater objectivity in distinguishing between the various truth claims, it appear to me that this is the more likely possibility. Jesus was legendized, or maybe a legend got historicized (since it can go both ways), from the role of an itinerant preacher, to a foretold prophet, to a would-be king of the chosen race, to eventually become the God of the universe! The trend seems to be pointing toward an inflation of importance and eminence. It fits the theory.

Yet such a pattern is so obvious that I don’t quite see how Christians can simply ignore it. I would think that further inquiry is beyond justified, it’s downright necessary! Accordingly, it seems to me to be of utmost importance in establishing the truth claims perchance to lend them verifiable credence, because if Christians can disprove the legend hypothesis beyond a reason of a doubt, then they would have eliminated the main objections to the claims surrounding Jesus Christ’s historicity. I would be a win for their side. The fact that Christians have not done this, not even in the past two thousand years of trying, is a sign that the legend theory of Jesus Christ is undeniably the biggest historical obstacle Christians have ever faced. All these historical discrepancies, literary anomalies, and lack of satisfactory evidence all accumulates over time to form a perplexing puzzle of loose ends, some call it the Jesus Puzzle, I have termed it the Prophet Paradox.

Conclusion: Jesus is More Legend and Fact

David Friedrich Strauss was the first to launch a scathing critique Christ’s historicity and really question the plausibility of it or consider if there was another better explanation in his exhaustive analysis The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined. It seems that to ignore this stalemate between devotional messianic truth claims butting heads with real discernable history and the natural knowledge we have acquired after hundreds of years of detailed scholarly research says to me that Christians don’t want to confront the evidence but, rather, choose to simply restate over rehearsed rhetoric. I know, because I used to do it too. And that’s fine if their goal is to convince/convert/and win souls for Christ and Christianity, regardless—and even contrary—to what the evidence may say. But if you’re in want of the truth, you have to dig deeper, and at least make the attempt. Instead of tackling the seemingly insurmountable hurdles head on, however, they would rather shift the burden of proof onto the skeptics. You can’t prove the Jesus didn’t do a miracle!—they’ll say. Yes, but the point is, neither can you. Nor can Christians prove or disprove the miraculous claims of any of the listed prophets that are outside of our current historical reach. Simply put, those who deny that Jesus is (in all likelihood) a legend hypothesis just haven’t looked into it thoroughly enough to even be bothered by it, or perhaps, haven’t fully understood the ramifications of what it would entail if it turns out to be true. If true then Jesus was, as C.S. Lewis honestly admitted was a real possibility, all one big Christian lie. And if this is the case, then Christianity could never be truly vindicated. 

For the Christian who is seriously haunted by such prospects, the next step would be to begin trying to disprove it—but for this we need more evidence, which we just don’t have. So Christians are up the creek without a paddle, so to speak, caught once again between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Believers can say Jesus was the real deal all they want. They can argue the Resurrection all they want. They can quote the bible all they want. This devotional tract doesn’t prove anything. It’s simply arguing back to the statement Christians want to affirm in the first place, that Jesus is the genuine article. It’s circular reasoning through and through. For someone like me, and I can only speak for myself, it just won’t do. This is not how you go about proving or disproving theories.

In order for people to believe Jesus was the Messiah, instead of just professing it, Christians need to validate their claims, and maybe then they’ll have something worth defending and championing as the historical truth. But this is not the case, Christians are wrong about the reliability of the Gospels as well as the historicity of Jesus and everything we know about him, as I so often shrewdly point out on this blog. The way I see it, Christian apologetics is sorely losing the match with Atheism. Atheism is a true dynamo—a force of arresting skepticism and incontestable sagacity—it floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee!