Because Tuesdays Deserve Something Better Than Morrie*
Living in Memphis, it is impossible to avoid religion. More specifically, it is impossible to avoid a flavor of conservative religion that I find completely and utterly alien to the Bible as I understand it. Living here is like being a fish swimming in a water that is filled with an odd tasting algae that all the other fish seems to think is mana from, well, heaven.
The situation is made worse by the common insinuation that if you don’t agree with their Church that you are willfully rejecting that which you know to be true. Nothing could be further from the truth. My agnosticism is not a rejection of something I know to be true, but rather the result of a lifetime of interest in God and religion. In fact, I simply do not understand how one could read the Bible and come out the other end an American conservative evangelical. So, every Tuesday, until I lose interest or get hit by a lightening bolt, I am going to read the Bible and comment on what I find.
I will be using the Catholic Bible. Yes, I know, already I am working from the wrong text. But King James, while pretty, is pretty much the worse translation in existence. And I was brought up with the Catholic Bible, so it is one that I am familiar with. And, frankly, we got here first. Deal with it.
I will read until I come across something that strikes me in some fashion. These posts will be my impressions and while I have read a great deal of Biblical criticism from a great deal of perspectives, but I don’t intend to approach this from any particle perspective or with any methodology. This ins’t a thesis, after all. I am going to read the Bible in the same way that I read any other work of art (no getting offended; I am an agnostic, remember?).
I intend this to be as respectful as possible. I sugar coat my impressions or pretend that I don’t see what I see. But I understand that a great many people build their lives around their understanding of the Bible. I am no Richard Dawkins (who is not burning witches only due to the happy accident of the century of his birth) and have a great deal of contempt for many of the New Atheists. An asshole who happens to be right about a couple of things is still, at the end of the day, an asshole. I will endeavor not to be an asshole. Please do the same.
And that applies to the other end of the spectrum: do not try to convert me. You wont. I come to my agnosticism from a family of deep faith. I was taught CCD by Jesuits, men who have forgotten more about the Bible than you or I will ever learn. I have a lifetime of education, thought and experience behind my agnosticism. You aren’t going to change that with a blog post comment, no matter who pithy it may be. And frankly the existence of God really has nothing to do with this project. The text of the Bible is the point of tis series, and it exists independent of arguments about the nature of God.
Basically, I am asking everyone to play nice. This is about the Good Book, after all.
*I really hate Mitch Albom’s writing.
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Having sat down and forced myself to do what you’re setting out to, I’m actually looking forward to this.
I’m with you on your confusion as to the basis for the modern evangelicals. I wondered if maybe I had the wrong Bible and Jesus and whatnot because they seem to be zeroing in on some fairly minor (or non-existent) things and ignoring some big ones.
But King James, while pretty, is pretty much the worse translation in existence.
Oh, that’s not true, there’s this! (Note that I found that link using Google so that I didn’t give Conservapædia any traffic. You too can just mouse ove the link and not click it, unless you’re fortunate enough to not know what it is and have the morbid curiosity to learn.)
Broadly, I agree with Judd that this should prove interesting, but…
(1) Richard Dawkins … is not burning witches only due to the happy accident of the century of his birth[.]
(2) I will endeavor not to be an asshole.
These two claims are not compatible. However much Dawkins is an asshole (and I think that that criticism of him has become substantially less applicable over time), you’ve just accused him of murderous intent in direct opposition to his stated and acted-upon position. In doing that, you’re being at least an asshole, and frankly worse.
Dan
Fair enough, though I think that hyperbole doesn’t cross the asshole line, I shall endeavor to be less of an asshole going forward
FWIW, though, I think Dawkins has a very fundamentalist mindset and a deep aversion to the taking other people’s points seriously that rather infuriates me, even when I agree with him.
Yeah, while I do think Dawkins has (somewhat recently) left the realm of being an asshole, I can see that being up for debate.
You do have to recognize that part of the content of his claims is that religion is insulated from the kinds of criticism that other claims about reality are subject to. Removing that insulation includes showing contempt for other people’s points when they’re really stupid. (YEC deserve no more respect than Flat Earthers.)
As Greta Christina has explained, Dawkins is playing the Bad Cop in trying to get humans to confess to the non-reality of religion. But do feel free to play Good Cop; somebody needs to.
Dan:
I hate sinking to petty insults and I detest personal attacks but, I’m sorry, you’ve earned it. I had managed to scrub the existence of the Conservative Bible Project from my head and then you went and linked to it, you rotten bastard!
I’m actually tempted to read some of their New Testament; see how they went about taking all that “peace” and “love” garbage and worked in that new bit about Jesus being all in favor of bombing abortion clinics.
Oh, I gave you plenty of warning about that link, so you should have known better. On the other hand, I’m not insulted by the claim that I’m a rotten bastard for these purposes.
More seriously, there are some parts of the NT that do manage to make Christianity seem pretty decent (Mark comes to mind, and it also has the advantage of making the fewest magical claims of all the gospels.), but if you read it with such a goal, Paul provides plenty of fodder for hating others. He seems to be the stepping stone used by those who think all humans deserve hell and some humans are just here to get the rest there faster.
Dan:
I clicked the “this” without reading any further.
If you want something that’s still all Bibley but with the liberal bias still in there but some pretty pictures to look at while you read then there’s always that.
Imagine if my link and Dan’s link got together…… we can only hope a few of those who would be moved by such a thing would be raptured out of existence.
Wow, I’d never seen that one. Now I need to go home and shower, or maybe find some Karl Marx porn.
By the way, I’m trying to decide if this counts as us “playing nice”. I’m afraid the answer might be yes.
Dan:
‘Fraid so.
Since we’re playing nice for a moment, think about what’s going to happen when the conservatives really get going on their rewrite. Imagine the poor schlub who gets stuck with Genesis. It should start off innocently enough with “Once upon a time God intelligently designed…..” but then imagine the horror as they get to that bit about Lot and his daughters. “And they did WHAT? Oh, that can’t be right……”
Kevin:
I apologize for the threadjack. I am still very interested to see the direction this project of yours will take.
Is this a threadjack? I thought it was an announcement of intent, and as such meta, ergo we’re on-topic. And as long as we’re discussing anachronistic literature…
If you figure the folk
who would with work
the ilk of Schlafly scum
when rereading
daunted be by daughters’
lot of Lot’s, to hold vile
the rapine and pillar saline,
rethink — So bold their hate
when last days be come,
shall shrift them then long while.
Now excuse me while I go find some Anglo-Saxon to read.
And, frankly, we got here first.
The Jews might have a thing or two to say about that, especially when you’re working from the “Old Testament.”
Worst Bible translation? I’m afraid you’ve missed the boat. This one (which, yes, I actually own) has to take the cake. It still wins my “most misguided idea ever” award.
Wow, TG, I didn’t think it was possible. But, you’ve managed to find a translation of the bible that offends me as a practicing member of my religion!
Holy shit (no pun intended), I don’t think that can ever be erased from my mind.
“The Jews might have a thing or two to say about that, especially when you’re working from the “Old Testament.”
teehee. Um, yeah! I think he’s got you there, buddy. God did create teh jew before teh catlick.
My take, being jooish and all, is that Catholics consider themselves to be essentially enlightened jews, having the new testabment and all, and that jews are basically catholics who have yet to see the light…. and, of course, are all sinning quite terribly by not accepting the big JC.
When reading aloud I prefer the King James–it rolls from my Scotch-Irish mouth fluidly. If studying Old Testament I go to one of several good academic translations of the Septuagint and if looking for Jesus, I read the Gospel of Thomas.