On God-ordained, Abortion-inducing Magic Potions and Jealous Husbands Shaming Their Wives in the Bible

femaleinfidelity1

What can a faithful, God-fearing man do if he is jealous and suspects that his wife has been unfaithful to him?

Well, if you are an ancient Israelite and if you believe the text of the Bible, (or if you are a modern man who thinks that the Bible’s laws concerning sexuality should be used to legislate issues of sexuality today), then this is what THE LORD ALMIGHTY commands that you do in Num. 5:11-31 (all verses below are from the NRSV):

Num. 5:11: The LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
Num. 5:12: Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him,
Num. 5:13: if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act;
Num. 5:14: if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself;

So basically, if a husband even suspects or, in a paranoid, jealous craze thinks that his wife has been unfaithful to him…even if she has not “defiled herself”, the jealous husband can take action against his wife. And once you read what that action is, you’ll be shocked.

Num. 5:15: then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
Num. 5:16: Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD;
Num. 5:17: the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

So the woman is ordered to sit before the priest, and the priest begins creating a potion, of which one of the ingredients is the dust of the floor of the desert tabernacle.

Thus, so far, if you’re a woman, and your husband thinks you’ve cheated on him, you’re going to have to drink some dirty floor water. I wonder what else goes into this lovely potion?

Num. 5:18: The priest shall set the woman before the LORD, dishevel the woman’s hair,

So take that! The priest messes up your hair. And why? Because your jealous husband is accusing you of being a slut and you are to be shamed even if you are not guilty. But wait, it gets worse. Let’s see what the LORD GOD instructs Israel to do next in this trial.

Num. 5:18 con’t: and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse.

I’m guessing the “water of bitterness that brings the curse” is bitter because of all the foot-trampled dust in the bowl of water she’s about to drink.

But if you’re wondering, “Hey, I thought you said there was some magical element to this process”, this is where it gets weird.

Num. 5:19: Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, “If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse.
Num. 5:20: But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,”
Num. 5:21: —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge;

Delightful. If you’ve cheated, drinking this dirt water will make you miscarry. That’s what it says. And why? Because to God every life matters, even the unborn in the womb, who were conceived through means that were less than ideal? God loves every unborn child??

No. At least that’s not what the text says. Read it.

God wants the woman who had been suspected of cheating by her jealous husband to drink a bowl of holy water that contains dust from the floor of the tabernacle, and if she’s guilty, that is, she cheated and is now pregnant, drinking the magic dirt potion and pronouncing the curse will cause her to abort the child! This is what GOD IS INSTRUCTING: that the suspected unfaithful woman orally consume a concoction that will induce an abortion if she is pregnant.

Tell me again how much God hates abortion. Here, he’s giving the recipe for a drink that induces one.

But wait, there’s more…

Num. 5:22: now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”
Num. 5:23 Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness.

Now we’re dealing with straight up magic! SYMPATHETIC MAGIC! Apparently, it wasn’t enough to pronounce the curse over the bitter potion. God instructs the priest to write down the miscarriage curse, and then WASH IT INTO THE WATER. We are dealing here with the vestiges of sympathetic magic. The priest has to write down the curse, and then brush it into the drink to be consumed, as if just saying a prayer aloud over your meal is enough. Why not write down the grace you say before your meal and sprinkle it on your salad?

This is sympathetic magic, just like the Egyptian execration texts (which, btw, contain the earliest mention of Jerusalem) that are motivated by the belief in the numinous power of writing. The writing activates the magic potion that causes the woman to abort if she is guilty.

The accused woman (remember, she has not been found guilty, this is her TRIAL!) has to drink dirt water containing the remains of ink that was used to write a magic abortion curse. And IF she drinks this bitter water, and IF she’s cheated, the magic potion will cause her to spontaneously abort the child. Again, tell me how much God loves the unborn (even in cases of rape, incest, and adultery) and hates abortion. Here, God is mandating–this is God’s instruction to all Israel–mandating that a woman drink a magic potion that will bring about an abortion if she is pregnant.

And before you start criticizing this interpretation because it doesn’t fit with what you already believe, note that God’s view of the unborn in Num. 5 is consistent with the Bible’s other teachings about unborn and even newborn children.

For instance, in Exod. 21:22-23, the miscarriage of a child following an assault on its mother is not treated as a murder of a human punishable by death, but as an assault against a man’s wife that is punishable by a fine paid to the woman’s husband. Or, note that in Num. 3:15-16, only males one month of age and older are counted as people in the roll. Children under one month of age don’t count. This is consistent with and corroborated by the equivalency prices of various aged individuals in Lev. 27:2-8, where Lev. 27:6 says that children under one month of age require no equivalency, as they do not yet count as people! Again, the biblical view concerning the unborn is consistent with the text of Num. 5, which is clearly calling for a drink to be drunk that will supposedly induce a miscarriage.

Num. 5:24: He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain.

Again, if a husband makes an accusation against his wife, the very trial to determine whether the accusation is even true should involve the magical, ancient equivalent of a morning after pill.

Num. 5:25: The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar;
Num. 5:26: and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
Num. 5:27: When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse (ארר) shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb (בטן) shall discharge (צבה), her uterus (ירך) drop (נפל), and the woman shall become an execration (אלה, or “curse”) among her people.
Num. 5:28: But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children.

Let’s address some technical things here. This is ABSOLUTELY describing an abortion or chemically induced (remember, she is drinking a potion after all) spontaneous miscarriage. I don’t care what “gotquestions.org” tells you, while the term ירך (yrk) in Num. 5:21 and 27 is the Hebrew word for the “upper thigh”, it is also the common Hebrew euphemism for things dealing with the genitals, like in Gen. 46:26, where the offspring of Jacob are referred to as the “ones going out of his thigh” (יצאי ירכו) (cf. Exod. 1:5). The same expression (יצאי ירכו) is used of Gideon in Judg. 8:30.

The same word, ירך (yrk), is also used in the incredibly awkward vow taken by Abraham’s servant mentioned in Gen. 24:2 and 24:9 in which Abraham tells his servant to “put your hand under my ‘thigh'” (ירכי) as a fertility vow that he will only choose a wife for Abraham’s son, Isaac, from among his own people and not from the Canaanites. Note that Israel (Jabob) demands the same vow of Joseph not to bury him in Egypt in Gen. 47:29. This is a very different kind of “handshake”, and yet, there it is in the Bible.

Likewise, the word בטן (btn, or “belly”) is a euphemism for “womb”, as in Prov. 31:2, in which the “son of my womb” is expressed as בר–בטני (bar-bitni), using בטן (btn) as a clear reference to the womb. In Ecc. 11:5, בטן (btn) is used in the expression “how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb (בטן)”, obviously referencing the breath of life that ultimately comes to a fetus at birth. In Deut. 28:4, when the text says, “Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb (בטנך)”, it is not talking about that which comes forth from the stomach (in either direction), but from a woman’s womb. Judg. 16:17, Ps. 22:11, Job 1:21 (“naked I came from my mother’s womb (בטן)”) and countless other passages make clear that בטן (btn) in Num. 5:27 is not an upset stomach or a simple tummy malady that came from drinking some expired dirty foot water, it is an explicit reference to a woman’s womb.

So the word בטן (btn) here means a womb swelling or distending (צבה) in distress (not a stomach), and because it is in parallel with the word ירך (yrk) in Num 5:27, ירך (yrk) does not simply mean “thigh” (as if “thigh dropping” made any sense at all). Rather, ירך (yrk) here is another reference to the womb, and the “dropping” or “falling” (נפל) of this womb is an unmistakable reference to a miscarriage. In this regard, the NIV (2011) translation of “miscarry” in Num. 5:21 and 5:27 gets it right.

And if the womb, or more technically, the uterus, “falls” (נפל), this can only be speaking about one thing: a potion-induced spontaneous miscarriage (i.e., abortion) to purge the unfaithful woman of the child that was not conceived by her husband.

And remember, THIS IS COMMANDED BY GOD in Num. 5. It is God’s prescribed means of discerning whether or not the woman has cheated on her husband: if she has, the fetus is aborted and the wife is presumably executed following the punishment prescribed in Lev. 20:10; if she has not, nothing happens.

The punishment for the crime is clear. Not only is the woman exposed as an adulterer and killed for her capital offense (cf. Lev. 20:10), but so too is the potential child’s life terminated in the process. And this, too, is consistent with the activity of God described elsewhere in the Bible, for God is described as having no problem whatsoever with killing an innocent child because he was brought about by illicit sexual activity like adultery. In fact, this is precisely what happened in 2 Sam 12:14, when through the prophet Nathan, God tells David, who conceived a child with Bathsheba, that, “because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.” And of course, while the child is completely innocent–the product of an adulterous relationship between David and Bathsheba–GOD KILLS THE CHILD in 2 Sam. 12:18-19, despite the fact that David begged God for mercy. Thus, this ritual is a double punishment for both woman and child, which is completely consistent with the commands and actions of God throughout the Bible. And if the child from an illicit union does happen to survive, Deut. 23:2 (HB 23:3) says this child is banned from the assembly: “Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.” Thus, even if they do survive birth, God’s position is to ostracize these children completely from his assembly!

And yes, this passage involves sympathetic magic in the form of a potion containing a written curse. The potion of dirty water and ink is not a likely abortifacient. But the point is that they believed in the magic. They believed that imbibing the written curse would reveal the truth, and they believed this divining process to be prescribed by God himself. Whether or not it actually worked is another question. All we know is that Israelite and later Jewish women were to be subjected to this humiliating, presumably abortive process in order to prove their innocence. Again, drinking holy water with dirt in it doesn’t necessarily terminate or prevent a pregnancy. It is the presence of the written curse that makes this a magic potion, again, one prescribed by God.

So ladies, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you get to have your hair intentionally disheveled by a priest and you get to drink dirty foot water with the ink of an abortion-inducing magic curse in it. And then, if you’re innocent, you’ll be immune to the magic potion, and able to return to the loving arms of your jealous husband and conceive children for him. That’s if you’re INNOCENT!

Num. 5:29: This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself,
Num. 5:30: or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife;

Don’t miss that last part. When she has cheated OR when a “spirit of jealousy” comes over the husband, she must endure the humiliating, abortion-inducing trial just to prove she’s innocent.

Num. 5:30 con’t: then he shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her.

And just in case you think there is some punishment for the husband for falsely accusing a wife who survives this humiliation and pain, read the last verse and think again.

Num. 5:31: The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.

Let me repeat that last verse. If the woman is INNOCENT, and her husband FALSELY ACCUSES her, read it with me: “THE MAN SHALL BE FREE FROM INIQUITY, BUT THE WOMAN SHALL BEAR HER INIQUITY.” The husband pays no penalty for the false accusation. His wife, on the other hand, is humiliated, and all because he had a “spirit of jealousy”.

As shameful as it is, I can think of no better summary–no better motto or slogan–for the treatment of women in antiquity (including in the Bible) than Num. 5:31:

“The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.”

Thus reads the Word of the merciful Lord (who apparently doesn’t hate abortion quite as much as right wing conservatives think he does).

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I cannot comprehend how any woman remained in this religion. Then I think to myself, “What choice did they have? They were chattel. And this is what happened to them when they were INNOCENT!

And let us also remember, this is the same God to whom Jesus prayed, and that Christians believe Jesus to be. So please dispense with the whole, “This isn’t applicable to us Christians anymore. This doesn’t count. We don’t have to deal with this because the Old Testament was nailed to the cross, and we live under grace, not the law” argument, because it’s the same God who sent Jesus, the same religious tradition whose God created the universe and established the very expectation of a Messiah, and the same Jesus who said in Matt. 5:18:

“For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Christians can’t claim that they can just sweep passages like these under the rug and act like they never happened or that they don’t tell us something about the nature of God because he’s the same God who told Moses to establish this practice. The same God who gave you Ps. 23 gave you Num. 5:11-31.

This is why we (men) must make every effort to lift up women, encourage them, promote them, and beg their forgiveness for the millennia of oppression we’ve imposed upon them–modern day, institutional oppression that is found in the very laws of this country that were (and many still are) rooted in the laws of this book – the same book and the same laws that some religious fundamentalists are STILL attempting to impose upon our secular government and the citizenry of this nation.

Where is NonStampCollector when you need him? This needs to be a video.


I welcome comments and would love to see someone attempt an apologetic defense of this passage. I’m particularly looking for people who will claim that this is a “poor exegesis” (which usually means a non-apologetic exegesis with which you don’t agree), or “out of context“, or that my comments don’t count because I don’t believe that this text is “authoritative” or “inspired” or because I’m “not a Christian” or because I’m “an agnostic” or “an atheist”, because those anti-intellectual excuses always betray that the one making them simply has no reasoned response, only a desire not to listen to the obvious anymore.

Some Old Articles about Noah in Anticipation of the New Movie about Noah

In honor of the nationwide premier of Darren Aronofsky’s new Noah movie, I’m reposting some pieces I’ve written in the past about the subject.

===

===

I’ll actually be providing a review of the movie for ASOR sometime in the next few weeks.

For the time being, allow me a few introductory remarks about some of the reactions we’re beginning to see about the movie.

Religious conservatives always freak out whenever anyone messes with their ancient myths. Well, allow me to clarify: as long as you retell the myth as it is preserved in the Bible, you’re praised as a good and faithful servant and an excellent producer/director/actor.

But should you explain the origins of the myth, or offer your own mythological interpretation of the ancient biblical myth, or vary it in any way, well then you’re a heretic destined for burning flames of hell and the movie is immediately dismissed as the fanciful ravings of a godless atheist.

Remember, a worldwide flood has been disproved time and again. It’s a myth preserved in the Bible, which was based upon much earlier flood myths that were incorporated into the biblical narrative.

So why can’t a modern director offer his own interpretation of the ancient myth? When Baz Luhrmann reinterprets the Descent of Orpheus myth as “Moulin Rouge!“, or the Coen brothers reinterpret Homer’s Odyssey as “O Brother, Where Art Thou?“, everyone cheers (including conservative Christians). But when Darren Aronofsky retells the biblical flood myth as “Noah”, religious conservatives weep and gnash their teeth. And why are biblical myths so sacrosanct?

Because many religious fundamentalists still believe the account of the Flood in the Bible is historical. They believe it really happened, regardless of what science says. The myth is to be believed over science, but only when the myth is preserved in the Bible. If it’s a myth of another religious tradition, then it’s OK to accept science, and even to use science to disprove the myth. But if the myth is in the Bible, science suddenly sucks.

Look, they are myths. And this is modern motion picture art reinterpreting ancient literary art. So relax and enjoy the movie. And trust me, there will be plenty of scholars pointing out the places where the movie deviates from the biblical text and takes artistic liberties. Just please don’t confuse those of us who do this with the religious fundamentalists who criticize the movie because they believe the worldwide flood actually happened.

Cheers.

Excellent Rebuttal to Apologetic “Objective Morality” Claims invoking Hitler by NonStampCollector

My colleague, NonStampCollector (@nonstampNSC; YouTube), has posted an excellent new video that offers a refutation to a common argument made by some theistic apologists that claims that morality must ultimately be objective (requiring therefore an objective moral lawgiver = God) using a hypothetical situation positing that Hitler actually won WWII, and that because of his propaganda machine, anyone who thought ill of his extermination of the Jews would be an outcast in a minority of ethical thinkers, even though they were still correct in condemning the Holocaust.

NonStampCollecter debunks this logic in a way that only NSC can. Check it out.

For previous posts about videos by NonStampCollector, see:

https://robertcargill.com/2013/02/02/nonstampcollector-comments-on-the-same-sex-marriage-debate/

https://robertcargill.com/2013/01/30/new-video-from-nonstampcollector-biblical-slavery-its-totally-different/

https://robertcargill.com/2012/09/13/nonstampcollectors-take-on-the-akedah-the-binding-of-isaac-in-genesis-22/

https://robertcargill.com/2012/06/20/nonstampcollectors-latest-yahwehs-perfect-justice-death-for-picking-up-sticks/

https://robertcargill.com/2012/01/23/nonstampcollectors-latest-the-ten-commandments-as-the-supposed-basis-for-the-morality-of-western-civilization/

https://robertcargill.com/2011/10/11/what-exactly-is-biblical-marriage/

https://robertcargill.com/2011/09/14/resources-for-teaching-the-story-of-jephthah-judges-11/

https://robertcargill.com/2011/09/14/some-thoughts-on-free-will/

https://robertcargill.com/2011/07/24/the-most-clever-argument-thus-far-against-a-historical-worldwide-flood-and-noahs-ark/

On Ad Hominem Cries of “AGNOSTIC” and “ATHEIST” in Response to Scholarly Critique

Deflect. Deflect. Mock, then deflect again. Never address the issue, just deflect, attack the critic, and mock. This passes for “theology” and logic in some circles.

In response to recent posts I’ve made about the Bible’s understanding of certain social institutions like marriage and slavery, a colleague of mine responded immediately, yet indirectly with a logically fallacious and highly ad hominem criticism of agnosticism and atheism.

This is twice in one week for this individual

I presented a theological problem concerning why the same God of the Bible would slaughter thousands of Egyptian children to free his people from slavery, and then instruct those same people on how to make slaves of their own.

And in response, rather than address the theological issue at hand – that glaring contradiction and theological conundrum posited by the text – my colleague shifted the response to an ad hominem attack against agnostics, arguing (indirectly) that I’m “cudgeling” them with a god I don’t believe exists. The post then rambles on, employing scattered, tangential analogies and other red herrings in the hope of diverting attention for the fact he has no answer to the dilemma posited by my post, or perhaps to disguise the cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain conflicting beliefs.

Of course, the problem with my colleague’s line of reasoning is that HE believes God exists, and, HE believes the biblical texts to be an accurate “revelation” of the nature of God. Thus, the burden is to explain why HE continues to believe what HE believes in spite of the glaring ethical problem created by such conflicting positions (i.e., God kills to free slaves, and then instructs those freed how to make slaves of their own).

The fact that I don’t believe that the text accurately reflects God – or that God even exists – is completely moot: I’m not the one making the claim that the revelatory text of the Bible accurately reflects God. I don’t believe it does. For me, the problem is solved: the text is a reflection of Iron Age thinking about social interactions (e.g., marriage, slavery, etc.) that has been attributed to God in an attempt to justify it. I recognize that the conflicting claims don’t make sense, are contradictory, and I dismiss them as the beliefs of an ancient people who felt that the answer to ethnic diversity and religious plurality (so prized and protected today by our U.S. Constitution) was to kill those who don’t believe what they believe because God said so (Deut. 20:16-18).

But my colleague is trapped between claiming that the Bible is the “revealed” authority for social issues of slavery and marriage, and the often appalling actions of the God described in that same Bible (cf. the genocide of the Amalekites ordered in 1 Sam. 15:2-3, or the slaughter of Egyptian children mentioned above), and simply cannot resolve the glaring ethical contradictions contained within it.

And that is the point of the exercise: to point out that there are horrendous INTERNAL ethical contradictions (note: no appeal to science here, just laying one biblical text along side another) that a believer in the revelatory nature of the social aspects of the texts cannot reconcile.

He can’t do it! So in response, he claims that the one pointing out this obvious discrepancy is somehow the fool. He claims that the one highlighting the contradiction is waving around an “invisible cudgel”, when in fact, I am merely waving around the believer’s own cudgel. In this regard, it’s a mirror. If they believe it exists and is real, then they must deal with the damage caused by it. But, if they realize it’s just an ancient set of social contracts attributed to a deity (as I and countless others do), then they don’t.

The believer is simply being hit with the cudgel of his/her own creation. It’s not my cudgel, it’s theirs. These are their claims, not mine. The burden of proof is on them to offer some semblance of a rational defense for their claims, not me, because I don’t accept them! They are the ones saying that the text is “revelation” and therefore binding on modern civil law in the case of same-sex marriage, but somehow not in the case of slavery and divorce. My question exposes this, and their only response is to attack the one asking the questions for not believing in the veracity of the contradictory claims.

philosopharaptor_1_plus_1The logical fallacy in my friend’s response is like asking, “How can you tell me that 1+1 doesn’t equal three, when YOU don’t even believe that 1+1=3? You idiot! You’re waving around a false cudgel.”

My response is that his response is circular reasoning combined with a mixed analogy (the “double-double” of logical fallacies), one which is quite easy to expose.

It’s like saying, “You can’t tell me that the claims made by the Flying Spaghetti Monster are contradictory, because you don’t even believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You’re waving around a false cudgel!”

With all apologies, it’s laughable. Simply change the name of the god and the same colleague would (or at least should) reject it as silly. I don’t accept the claim precisely because it’s an easily exposed logical fallacy. It’s an absurd claim couched in circular reasoning.

Yet ultimately, this is the rhetorical tactic all too often employed by those who cannot reconcile their claims in the “revelatory” nature of biblical texts discussing social relationships (slavery, marriage, etc.) with our modern ethic: they tackle the person instead of tackling the problem–the very definition of an “ad hominem” attack)–and they deflect from their lack of a solution by laughing, mocking, declaring, “You fool!” and invoking other anti-intellectual slogans at those simply asking them to reconcile their own contradictory claims.

And even though the entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that the God they believe to be making the claims is either self-contradictory, outright evil, or nonexistent, they claim that because the agnostic doesn’t believe in this flawed theological construct, they have no right to criticize it. It is the epitome of anti-intellectual fundamentalism.

At the end of the day, my colleague’s only response is that I don’t believe the fallacious argument, so I am ineligible to point out its flaws. I present a logical dilemma, and his only response is, “ATHEIST!” (or in my case, “AGNOSTIC!”).

This may pass for “theology” and “logic” is some fundamentalist circles, but it sure as She’ol ain’t scholarly.

I shake my head.

NonStampCollector Comments on the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

NonStampCollector (@nonstampNSC; YouTube; blog) has just posted a short comment on attempts to use Christianity – and especially Christian appeals to biblical mythological accounts like the story of Adam and Eve – in the fight against same-sex marriage in the modern state.

In short, the reason so many otherwise sensible Christians oppose same-sex marriage is Jesus’ appeal to the “marriage” of Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4-6. In this passage, Matthew records Jesus as speaking about divorce, and in doing so, citing the mythological story of Judaism’s primordial humans, Adam and Eve.

Matthew 19:4-6 reads:

Matt. 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’”
Matt. 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Matt. 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (NRSV)

Note that Matthew records Jesus as having done a little prooftexting of his own, pulling from the summaries of the two different creation accounts in Genesis.

Gen. 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (NRSV)

and

Gen 2:24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (NRSV)

Matthew records Jesus as pulling from two different texts to defend his stance on divorce, specifically, that Christians should NOT divorce.

AND YET, we see no constitutional amendment on state ballots banning divorce, and prohibiting divorced individuals from remarrying, but rather, we find conservative and fundamentalist Christians lining up and spending all kinds money to ban and prohibit same-sex marriage, EVEN THOUGH the text is CLEARLY talking about divorce.

It is yet another example of conservative and fundamentalists deliberately ignoring the glaringly obvious context of the biblical passage (divorce), and instead using said verse to prooftext against something the passage is not at all addressing (same-sex marriage).

So to clarify, conservative and fundamentalist Christians are citing a scientifically debunked primordial religious creation myth from nearly three millennia ago, and then using it out of context in an effort to suppress the modern rights of gay Americans in a state that is founded on the principle that the church and state should be separate.

That is just how far conservative and fundamentalist Christians must stretch – how far they must contort the Bible as well as the founding principles of this country – just to suppress the rights of other Americans. They must cite:

“a moral imperative implied (out of context I might add), within an ancient Middle Eastern story involving a woman made of a man’s rib, being convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit of a magical tree.”

THAT’S the rationale for denying homosexual Americans the same right of marriage that heterosexual Americans enjoy: magic trees, talking snakes, rib-women, and primordial mythology.

Of course, the real reason this argument is even entertained at all is the much larger problem, which just also happens to be the reason why so many conservative and fundamentalist Christians still cling to the historicity of the six-day creation and worldwide flood myths, despite all of the scientific and contradictory intertextual biblical evidence against them: Jesus quoted them both!

Jesus refers to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4-6, and their child Abel in Luke 11:50-51 (and their parallels), and to the flood in Luke 17:27 (and its parallels). And if Jesus referred to things that are mythological or ahistorical or simply did not happen, then people might question his all-knowingness, and maybe even his divinity. And thus, many conservative and fundamentalist Christians cling to scientifically debunked primordial myths, despite all the evidence to the contrary, just so they don’t have to deal with the problem that Jesus is recorded as having appealed to debunked creation and flood myths.

So while they’re at it, why not just take the quotes out of context and use them to oppress gays as well. It makes just as much sense…to fundamentalists.

Anyway, watch NonStampCollector’s video.

New Video from NonStampCollector: Biblical Slavery (It’s TOTALLY Different)

NonStampCollector (@nonstampNSC; YouTube; blog) has just released his latest provocative video. This time, he addresses the issue of biblical slavery.

Definitely watch this video! It is a GREAT encapsulation of the very weak arguments many people make in defense of slavery in the Bible. The “it’s totally different” refrain is particularly priceless (and quite accurate).

It’s also another excellent contribution to his larger argument that the ethics and morality dictated in the Bible cannot and should not be used to regulate a modern society simply because they are “biblical”. Rather, we should recognize that we have evolved and matured as a society over the past 2000-3000 years, and that many of the so-called “ethical” commands in the Bible are reprehensible and worthy of disregard.

Slavery was God-ordained and God-regulated in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and the practice was retained and re-endorsed in the New Testament (e.g., Col. 3:22; 1 Pet. 2:18; Eph. 6:5). Claiming that it was “totally different” from slavery in the US South is a weak, easily debunked, and rather disturbing argument made in the defense of God’s ethical character.

Watch the video. I invite your comments.

(Also, for those of you wanting to read the script (or use it in a class), you can find the script and references here.)

“Myth of a Christian Nation” Question of the Day

I have a question regarding the myth that the United States was founded as a

I have a question regarding the myth that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation”.

Following up on Piers Morgan’s debate with Rick Warren, here’s your “Myth of a Christian Nation” question of the day.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Thus, in the U.S., you can worship any god you want to worship, and this is legal, acceptable, and protected by the Constitution.

However, Deuteronomy 13:12-16 says the following:

Deut. 13:12 If you hear it said about one of the towns that the LORD your God is giving you to live in,
Deut. 13:13 that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” whom you have not known,
Deut. 13:14 then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you,
Deut. 13:15 you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword.
Deut. 13:16 All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt.

Now, we have heard many Christians say that the laws of the Old Testament have been “nailed to the cross” and are no longer binding. For instance, despite the fact that Lev. 11:10-12 clearly states that the children of God cannot eat shellfish:

Lev. 11:10 But anything in the seas or the streams that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and among all the other living creatures that are in the waters—they are detestable to you
Lev. 11:11 and detestable they shall remain. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall regard as detestable.
Lev. 11:12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.

Christians will argue that Peter’s vision in Acts 10 “trumps” this law, allowing Christians to eat food previously deemed “unkosher”.

Acts 10:13 Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.”
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.”
Acts 10:15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.”

Likewise, despite the fact that Exodus 20:8-10 – one of the 10 Commandments no less – clearly states that one should not work on the Sabbath,

Ex. 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.
Ex. 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work.
Ex. 20:10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

the NT gospel of Mark 2:27-28 states:

Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath;
Mark 2:28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

and Christians use this text to argue that even though at one time God had people PUT TO DEATH for so much as picking up sticks on the Sabbath (cf. Num. 15:32-36:

Num. 15:32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
Num. 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation.
Num. 15:34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him.
Num. 15:35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.”
Num. 15:36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. )

despite this, Christians no longer have to keep the Sabbath.

So, because the NT “overrides” the OT, the laws in the OT don’t have to be kept anymore.

EXCEPT, of course, for those laws that are NOT overridden, or better yet, those that are REITERATED and RESTATED by none less than Jesus himself, well, THOSE laws (like condemning homosexuals in Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 AND in Rom. 1:26–27, 1 Cor. 6:9–10, and 1 Tim. 1:9–10) – these OT laws are to be KEPT and ENFORCED by Christians, because the condemnation was repeated in the NT.

Got all that?? So here’s my question:

Where in the NT does Jesus say it’s OK to worship other gods?

Where does Paul say it? Where does Peter say it? I mean, if we’re supposedly a “Christian nation”, and Deuteronomy 13:12-16 clearly states that anyone who worships another god must be put to death – THEY AND THEIR ENTIRE TOWN!! – because another god was worshiped somewhere in the land, and if not one, but three of the 10 Commandments clearly state:

Ex. 20:3 you shall have no other gods before me.
Ex. 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Ex. 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

then there must be someplace in the NT where Jesus or Paul or SOMEBODY says it’s OK to worship other gods (IF, that is, we’re a “Christian nation”.) Right? It must be there in the NT, because religious plurality would CLEARLY violate the commands of the eternal, omnipotent, infallible, inerrant God who clearly spells out in no uncertain terms that we’re NOT supposed to worship other gods, and yet our nation has legislated, nay, our nation was founded on the idea of religious plurality. That is, our nation is founded on a principle that is directly contradictory to one of the most fundamental biblical Christian principles: worship only God.

So it must be in there somewhere.

So where is it?

I can’t find it in Matt. 4:10:

Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’”

I don’t see it in Matt. 22:36-38:

Matt. 22:36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
Matt. 22:37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
Matt. 22:38 This is the greatest and first commandment.

I don’t read it in 1 Cor. 10:14:

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols.

So WHERE IS IT EXACTLY that the NT authorizes our United States of America to protect those who worship other gods from the very punishments prescribed and authorized by the Bible against those who do so??

(And if the founding document of the U.S. is going legislate AGAINST the first 4 Commandments, then how again were we established as a “Christian Nation”?)

(Or, could it be that our nation was established with some laws that happen to be congruent with some Christian teaching (as well as with many other religions’ and philosophies’ teachings), but was NOT established as a “Christian nation”, especially given the fact that many of the founders were avowed Deists who believed in the existence of a god – a “grand architect of the universe” – but one who revealed himself through the strict physical laws of the universe – Deists who openly chastised Christians and Christianity for its reliance on miracles and mythology that contradicted the very fixed physical principles of nature they felt revealed the nature of God?)

But I digress. Let’s stick to the initial question: Where in the NT does it authorize our United States of America to protect those who worship other gods, when the OT clearly condemns it, IF we were founded as a “Christian nation”?


For more on this topic, read my earlier post: we were NOT founded as a christian nation: thoughts on article 11 of the u.s. treaty with tripoli

Also check out nonstampcollector’s (blog, YouTube) video, which makes a similar point:

Comments welcome.

%d bloggers like this: