Wednesday, October 7, 2009

A reply to ignorance

I recently came across this video on YouTube. I would love to ignore it, because it is so childish, but apparently, some people consider this kind of assertion as worthwhile. So I have crafted the following response, which YouTube prevented me from posting in its entirety:

This video is rife with faulty arguments and poor understanding of the Bible:

1. The 10 Commandments are only part of the Mosaic law given to the Jews as the structure for their theocracy, The Jews rejected this covenant, so God fulfilled it and gave a new one in Christ. Therefore, the consequences demanded for breaking Old Testament Law are no longer applicable, even if the principles of the Law still are.

2. You use the word innocent, but you define that word as it suits you. If people commit acts prohibited by the bible, they are guilty of those acts (whether you consider them sin or not.) I am not "innocent" of writing this post, neither are they of their behavior, so innocent is an inappropriate word.

3. Christ often uses hyperbole in his teachings. Your reading of his teaching of "self-amputation" is childish and silly. Do you read Kafka, Dostoevsky, Pirandello, or even Saroyan as flatly and wooden as you read the Bible? If so, you don't understand their writing either.

4. Sexism. It is well recognized by ancient scholars that Christ and his followers shattered the glass ceiling regarding gender rights. In contrast to the verses you cherry-picked, the Bible considers women as reliable witnesses in the accounts of the resurrection (which they were not by their society or any other society for many years), worthy of inclusion in accounts of events (often they were completely ignored in other extant works of the time), and even as equals - "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 16:3). There is no mention of women being worth less than men, but men and women have different roles within the body of Christ.

5. Slavery. In the ancient economy, slavery did not have the racial baggage associated with it since the 17th century. Without a middle class, it was a necessary manner of employment. In fact, some modern translations often use the word employee instead of slave, because that is the kind of relationship the original authors had in mind.

6. Assumption of morality. How can the bible be repulsive without a grounding in objective morality? Why is your morality superior to the morality presented in the bible (or any other book)? There are difficult passages in the bible (like your quotes from Isaiah and Hosea) but if God is the creator, he decides what is moral - not us.

---
I would love your comments, especially critiquing my arguments. Thanks in advance!

-Kyle