Franc's Challenge - first challenger down
Francois Tremblay Permalink
11 comments
On the comments thread for the original Franc's Challenge, menachem submitted Exodus 23:5. First, let's look at the verse in question in KJV (rememeber, any other VERSION is a PERVERSION) :
"If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him."
The greater context of the verse is a list of things one should do, so this verse stands alone very well. But just so no one accuses me of skipping over some justification, here is the verse in context :
"If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause."
Okay, first of all, the obvious issue here is, who the fuck still has donkeys carrying burdens ? Most people now live in places where we don't exactly need to use domestic animals to carry things. I guess the almighty YHVH didn't want to blow people's minds back then by telling them about "trucks". Way to go, jackass !
Let's be really generous here and imagine trucks instead of donkeys. Now suppose that you own a trucking company and you see the truck of one of your competitors broke down on the road. Should you go and help him ? Well first of all, there's not much you can do about it, so I guess the example is really pointless. If other human beings were in danger, then surely compassion would compel us to at least call for help. But in this principle, we're supposed to be looking at a mode of transport, a mere donkey, not another human being.
Which of course brings the criterion that ALL Bible verses fail - the criteria of justification. Nowhere is it explained exactly why one should help the donkey of one's enemy. Maybe we should, but how are we to know, without any justification whatsoever ? Blank.
Another thing is that there are many different scenarios that could arise even within these parameters. I could be in need of urgent medical help and thus not in a position to help the donkey at all, in which case it would be downright immoral. That is why secular morality, with its emphasis on values and principles instead of children's books scenarios, is infinitely more flexible and realistic than this religious pap.
Okay, it's your turn again. Go ahead and post your own "good Bible verse" in the comments so I can demolish it in a future edition.
Post a Comment
11 Comments:
wow. you completely missed the point of the verse. the point wasn't to put aside your differences and make nice with your enemy. that's a nice idea, and the bible deals with it elsewhere, but not here. this verse is all about animal suffering; therefore, your truck comparison falls short.
first of all, animals are still used today as modes of transportation and as beasts of burden by more than half the world's population.
however, if you do want to modernize the verse to try to fit it into today's world, don't change the animal into a truck; rather, change the situation. for example, i would learn from this verse that if i saw my neighbor's cat stuck in a tree, or his dog ingured after being hit by a car, i would set aside my feelings for him, and rescue the cat, or bring the dog to the vet.
you're reaching, and i think your readers, dedicated athiests they may be, will agree with me. there is nothing immoral about this verse.
Menachem-
There's nothing in the verse to suggest that the suffering of the donkey is bad- if anything, it suggests that the only problem is that the donkey's owner is unable to move his stuff.
If Yahweh cares so much about animal rights, why doesn't the verse say something like: "If you see a donkey crushed by a heavy burden, take it from its owner and feed it water and sweet grass for the rest of its days, for the happiness of a donkey is the highest value."
Because Yahweh couldn't care less about the donkey- Franc's right, a truck would be a perfect modern analogy.
Not to mention all the sanctioned animal sacrifice in the bible... I'd say god doesn't give a flip about anmial suffering. Why should he? He doesn't even care about people...
God gave humans all the animals for their use in Genesis. Animal compassion is found nowhere in the Bible, especially not this verse. But animal SACRIFICE is a different story...
Lets go drown some pigs in a river! I feel like bacon!
So now that I've beaten menachem up, can I have another contestant please ?
Just for the hell of it, I've been looking closely at the Bible to see if there's anything morally favorable myself. I think the following might come close...
Ecclesiastes 4:9-12.
Of course, there's no mention of God at all. I'm interested to see what your take on this is, Franc.
Yay ! A new challenger ! You're on.
Pavielle-
There's no justification for any of those! They're just commands. The only one that comes close is Proverbs 20: "Wine makes you mean, beer makes you quarrelsome--a staggering drunk is not much fun."
Everything else is without moral justification, and most of them are outright immoral- Proverbs 16, for example, which forbids pride.
As an aside, I really despise these kinds of "modern" translations. You might as well be using the urban-slang translation "Word on the Street" for all the good you're getting from it. Take my advice and get an honest text-only translation like the New Jerusalem. You'll be amazed at what the Bible actually says.
Pavielle-
Of course morality needs justification. Otherwise, how do we know what's a good moral and what's a bad moral? Anybody can come along and say, "Don't do X," but why is doing X wrong? That's why justification is needed. Proverbs 20 implies this justification- drunkeness is not fun, therefore it is wrong to be drunk. None of the other verses you gave even attempted to justify their commands- they're just empty normative statements like, "don't pick your nose," or "don't eat apples," or "always wear green."
The morality that I accept can be found throughout this blog- go back and read through the archives. In a nutshell, happiness is the highest virtue, and acting rationally and symmetrically is the best way to acheive happiness. Any action I take is justified by its adherence to this moral virtue.
Incidentally, Christians are the ones who believe in subjective morality, not me. In fact, atheism is required for objective morality.
Nobody here is "angry at God." At least, no more than we're "angry at Santa Claus" for not existing. What we are angry at, however, is the fact that Christianity continues to instill immorality in what could otherwise be very moral and rational people. My approach with Christians is to figure out if they realize how immoral Christianity is- if they do, but accept it anyway, then they're just despicable, immoral people. But if they don't realize it, then it's in my best interest to try to communicate the immorality of Christianity as thoroughly as possible.
Pavielle-
Have you been reading this blog at all? Murder violates the Moral Razor, which I call the Symmetry Test.
Are you really more happy as a Christian? Does it really have to do with the beliefs? Or is it because of all the instant friends you get once you start going to church? I'll tell you this, Pavielle- I used to be a Christian, and once I started to question the truth of Christian claims, I took a good look at all the happiness around me in church on Sunday, and it shocked me how forced and fake everyone looks. I realized that (and I think this is a relic of late 20th Century American Christianity) everyone expects to be happy, and so they make themselves act happy. It was a crushing realization for me, because I was under the same illusion at the time that you're in- I thought that even if there were serious questions about Christianity, at least is makes people happy. But it really doesn't. They reminded me so much of kids who have found out that Santa Claus isn't real, but continue to believe because it reminds them of the happiness they felt when they were still being lied to.
I decided that the happiness of a lie isn't real happiness at all.
i've been out of it the last couple of days, searching my house for unleavened bread and observing passover, and it looks like this post has passed on into the world of "off-the-front-page," so i guess nobody's reading these comments anymore. that's a shame.
i still stand by my verse. most of the arguments presenting here are based on god's allowing of animal sacrifices, and i don't get the connection. we're looking at one verse, separate from the whole. i could defend animal sacrifice, but it's not the point. and your whole interpretation of the verse as defending the person's enemy rather than defending the animal is just plain wrong. if you'll look in the Talmud, tractate bava metzia 32b, you'll see many laws prohibitting animal suffering and animal cruelty are derived from this verse.
<< Home