The Bible Geek

My favorite podcast for several years has been “The Bible Geek” with host Robert M. Price.   A New Testament scholar, former evangelical pastor, and current atheist, Bob Price has a great love and respect for theologies, religions and myths (including comic books, of course!).   

He has little patience with “axe-grinding apologetics”, but he also has great friendships with apologists which creates an atmosphere where relationship is valued over polemics - although Bob will certainly tell you what he thinks about an issue!

He is also a master of accents, reading questions from listeners in the accent of their choice.  He usually reads Scripture in the voice of Charlton Heston, unless Jesus is speaking, then it is Willem Defoe.  And the apostle Paul is Paul Lind (Bewitched). 

All in all, it is a fascinating podcast if you like such things.  

I got a bit of a thrill when he recently addressed some of my questions.  If anyone is interested, I will paste the questions below.  Happy listening!   Or not listening!  :)

These questions are addressed at the beginning of the Dec. 5 2013 podcast.  I am particularly impressed by his response to the first question.  There is a lot for me to explore in there.

Hi Bob!

1.  My chosen myth is that of a pantheist, or panentheist, God.  God is all that is (including myself and the Bible Geek!).  And even if there is a stand-alone person of God in the mix, creation must reflect God's thought and intention,  and therefore that creation should be considered part of God, just as our thoughts and intentions are a big part of who we are.

Is there any history of this type of thought within the Judeo-Christian tradition?

2.  It seems to me that the problem people have with determinism, whether theistic or naturalistic, is that they assume there is a separate "I" being played like a marionette.   However there is no separate "I."    We are not controlled by naturalistic factors - we ARE those naturalistic factors.   The alternative is that we are disconnected from the phenomena around us.  It seems to me the same is true if one believes in theistic determinism.  God is not pulling our strings to achieve His intention - rather we ARE God's intention.

I suppose I agree with the Calvinists a bit on this one.  Too bad they mix up God and the devil!

I would be interested in your thoughts on freewill within this context.  Is there an "I" that is separate from naturalistic phenomena or from God's intention?  The idea seems incoherent to me.   

Thanks so much for your incredibly valuable insight.  I am in the car a lot teaching music lessons and playing gigs, and I always enjoy the Bible Geek!

These questions are addressed in the middle of the Dec. 7 podcast.  I was glad to hear him generally agree with me on the first, as the meaning of “turn the other cheek” has come to mean “ignore” instead of what it actually means - “OFFER the other cheek.”    The 2nd question was not addressed directly, but he offered interesting thoughts anyways.  The 3rd question response was interesting, but I think it may show a bit of a weak link in Mr. Price’s Christ Myth Theory.  However I am still very interested in the theory, and it is quite possibly correct.  Who knows?

Greetings to the garrulous Geek who knows his Greek!

I have a few questions for you, sir.

1.  I have been listening to some episodes of The Bible Geek over the last year and the subject of "turning the other cheek" has come up a few times.  Your view seems to be that the best interpretation of that passage is that it is a rejection of a retributive honor system.  While this makes some sense for sure, particularly since it is a direct challenge to "an eye for an eye" in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, I wonder if there is more to it than that.  

The passage does not say simply to walk away.  Rather it says to offer the striker the other cheek as well.   This seems to go a bit further than rejecting retaliation for the offense.   To me, it seems to imply a non-violent power play, where the struck takes back control from the striker - as in "You may have hit me, but I am the one calling the shots.  Here, hit my other cheek as well."

Doesn't this seem close to the kind of non-violent resistance we saw from Ghandi in the 20th century?  It seems an act of taking back power for the powerless by shaming the conscience of the offender.    

What sayeth the Geek?

2.  I join the Geek in criticizing the Penal Substitution Theory as fundamentally unjust.   How does punishing an innocent for the crime of another satisfy justice in any coherent way?   The sins of humanity are not presented by Paul as being akin to a parking violation, where another might pay a measly fine in our stead.  Rather the author of Romans sees the sins of humanity as a capital offense - "the wages of sin is death".

Killing an innocent in a guilty person's place makes no sense according to any civilized justice system.  Or, to put it in a way we have all heard many times, two wrongs do not make a right.

However, I am wondering if the "substitution" idea can still be moral if we remove the "penal" from in front of it?

The version I will offer here is still one of substitutionary atonement. It maintains that Christ still takes the place of sinners in a sense. But it removes the "penal" part, which is the idea that Christ's sacrifice was to appease God.

Christ submitted himself to death at the hands of sinners. He showed us the wages of our sin by taking them on himself, for sinfulness responds to love in violent ways. Contemplating the death of Christ at the hands of men, who represent the imperfections we all have, convicts our hearts. This leads us to turn from the destructive ways of sin. Therefore Christ has substituted himself for us, showing and bearing the consequences of our sin and convicting our hearts in order to lead us to the more beneficial path of right action. And of course, this right action, leads us to "at-one-ment" with God.

Christ dies for our sins, because of our sinfulness. But not because God needed to be appeased, but rather because there is a natural suffering that comes about when we do not know love.

This interpretation is one along the lines of Ghandi's hunger strikes. By taking this physical burden on himself to protest potential combat between Muslims and Hindus, he convicted the hearts of both sides and, at least for a while, led them to avoid conflict. His was a substitutionary atonement.

Is there a history of this view of atonement in Christianity?

3.  Finally, I am getting more and more familiar with the Christ Myth Theory.   While I still don't see it as the most likely candidate for describing the "historical" Jesus, the Geek has certainly succeeded in convincing me that it is a possibility to be taken seriously.

My question is this - according to the CM Theory, what would have been the catalyst for the formation of the early church?   It makes sense that if there was a person named Jesus, and he was crucified, and his followers believed him to have been raised by God, then this would have led to a reinterpretation of Jesus' past role on earth, a development of a heightened Christology over time, and the formation of a new religion.

If the Christ idea came about from a combination of Gnosticism, other mystery religions, and the notion of Yahweh as a dying and rising God - what was the spark which brought it all together into what would become Christianity?

I love your show.  Thanks for the education and the entertainment, friend!

Theology From The Plain Part Four - Does It Make Sense To Think Of God As A Person?

In an earlier TFOP post I wrote that I use the word “God” both in reference to the totality all that is and also to a smaller portion of all that is that reflects its possible overall intention and ultimate direction.    Granted, the second definition requires much more of a leap of faith than the first!

However in either of these cases, but particularly focusing on the less controversial first meaning of “God”,  does it make sense to think of God as a person?  

If God is all, then it would make sense to think of God as more than a mere person.  And it would seem an act of extreme hubris to think that God is exactly like us, one small part of the all.  Yet it is also true that there are persons within the all - us for instance!.  So even if the totality of God is much more, or much different, than a version of exactly what we are (persons), personhood is certainly not something alien to God.

Therefore, is it acceptable to think of God as a person, or to attempt to interact with God in personal ways?  Through internal dialogue, speaking, intuitive feelings, or any kind of experience?

I think it does make sense to seek God personally, not so much because God is necessarily a person, but rather because I am a person.  The personhood of God could be a framework, a symbol, a language, a heuristic even, existing in my own mind that enables me to possibly interact meaningfully with the all.

So once again,  if I attempt to interact personally with God, it is not so much because God is a person, but because I am a person.   Personhood is a framework that this particular part of the cosmos (me) might use as an operating system to think about the cosmos as a whole.

One criticism I can think of is this - does this mean that I can anthropomorphize anything?   

First of all, anthropomorphizing things is not necessarily bad, but obviously when we stop trying to consider another entity on its own terms it can be dangerous.  The golden rule does not work so well if we are dealing with another life form with different needs than a human!  But when I am talking about God here, I am not talking about a tree or a lizard.  I am talking about all that is.  The cosmos as a whole.  Everything.  Any kind of possible communication would have to take a form that is specific to me - a kind of user interface adapted to the abilities of the user.

And secondly, I already have ways of interacting with a tree.  I can touch it, see it, etc. - which are also user interfaces for me.  To say a tree is "rough to the touch" says as much about my systems of perception as it does about the tree.  This subject is obviously a huge potential rabbit hole.....   But the main point is that I do not need to consider a tree a person in some way to interact with it.  However, I do not have a way of interacting with the cosmos as a whole.  I cannot zoom out to take much more of it in (much like a skin cell cannot zoom out to see the entire body), and I certainly cannot get outside of “all that is” both because of my limited abilities and because that is a meaningless concept anyway.  

Of course many would argue that whatever I think, I still do not have a way of interacting with the cosmos!  Point taken!  But if I want to take a leap of faith and assume that meaningful communication is even a remote possibility, then it makes sense that I would need a user interface of some kind.  And it makes sense that personhood might be that user interface for me, since I am a person.

So in conclusion, I am not suggesting that there is definitely a personal God out there.  That is beyond my ability to comment definitively on.  But I am saying that a personal God exists in me, because I am a person.  And if it is a meaningful endeavor to seek interaction with “all that is”, it certainly seems reasonable that personhood could be a user interface for me.

But is it a meaningful endeavor?  Is it possible that the personal God within me corresponds to something greater?  My thought is that, because our understanding of things must necessarily relate to our total experience of things as a part to the whole,  there may be room for a little leap of faith here.

A Violation of Religious Freedom or a Prevention of Religious Domination? - part three, Engaging A Catholic Argument

This is the last installment in this series of posts.  This issue has obviously interested me greatly, as I can understand why it appears, on the surface, to be a question of religious liberty.  But I do not think this is the case.  No individual is being required to take birth control, and no doctor is being required to prescribe it.  However under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance policies will be required to provide birth control free of charge (though, of course, people still pay for insurance policies).

Here is an argument against the Obama administration’s position.  I took it from a Facebook page called “Stand With the US Bishops Against The HHS”.

“...to make the case that the state can force the Church to pay for contraception for employees requires at least three premises to be true: 1) that all people have a right to contraception under natural law, 2) that all people have a right to receive that contraception free of charge, and 3) that employers have the duty to pay for the contraception.  The 1st premise is false because contraception violates nature by ceasing or altering natural bodily functions. The 2nd premise is false because no one can say that his rights must be secured by another. The 3rd premise is false because employers provide health care as a matter of convention and a part of wages, but it could also be that an employer pays enough for an employee to acquire independent insurance. Further, the 3rd premise is false because while employers do have an interest in the health of employees, they have no interest in the sex lives of employees, and contraception, which is a violation of the body's health, is about sex, not healthcare.”

Here are a few brief criticisms.

One:  If access to contraception is considered an essential part of a woman’s health care, then can we argue that a person has the right to it?   This seems to be the case, as the criticism of the premise offered is one that debates the validity of birth control as an aspect of health care.  They argue against this because the pill “violates nature....by altering bodily functions”.  

Death is a part of nature. Our bodies are programed to self-destruct over time. Is it wrong to “alter” this bodily function when you have the chance?  

Perhaps a better example is pain.  For instance, a woman’s body is designed to feel pain during childbirth.  Is altering this bodily function OK?

So health care is not about what one considers natural per se.  It is about promoting health and well-being.  When a woman is able to have an intimate relationship, setting the stage for the possibility of a family, but can also have access to education and career opportunities by delaying child-bearing, then this contributes to her well-being.  When she can wait to have children until she is financially ready, then this contributes greatly to her and her child’s well-being.  When a woman can choose to have a relationship but not to have children, then her freedom and well-being (and that of her partner) is enhanced. The list goes on and on.  When considering the status of women in less developed countries, access to birth control becomes an even more dire issue.

Two:  The individual mandate enacted by the Affordable Care Act supports the idea that all people must contribute to paying for their own health care.    Participants in health insurance are paying for their insurance policies.  Obviously these policies must offer  coverage for prescriptions that promote well-being.  Whether the policy covers a portion of birth control costs or all of it, the policy would still be paying for birth control.  So this criticism seems irrelevant to me.

Three: Here is where they may have a good argument.  I don’t think that employers should have to provide health coverage to employees.  I think it is a bad way to facilitate the coverage required by the individual mandate.  But this is how things are set up, so until (and if) it is fixed, health coverage must include birth control.

Here is an argument in support the administration’s position:

One:  All people have the right to life, which includes health care.

Two:  The government has decided that all people must contribute to the practice and the preservation of this universal right by taking responsibility for their own health insurance.  This is called the individual mandate.

Three:  The government must therefore decide what constitutes adequate insurance coverage to satisfy this individual mandate.

Four:  Access to birth control is recognized by the government, the public and the medical community as being an essential part of a woman’s health and well-being.

Five:  The government must therefore require insurance policies to cover birth control.

My conclusion is that most of the arguments about this controversy can be reduced to arguments about whether birth control is really health care, whether the invidual mandate is a good idea, and whether the individual mandate should be satisfied through employers.   Arguments about religious liberty are off point.

A Violation of Religious Freedom or a Prevention of Religious Domination? - part two, The Real Problem

The real problem which is causing the controversy between the Obama administration and some US Catholics is not one of religious liberty.  It is one of the public sector using the private sector to accomplish its purposes.  

There will soon be an individual mandate for health insurance coverage in the United States. Here is a small snippet of an exchange between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum where Romney offers up a concise and effective argument for the individual mandate for health insurance coverage.

"If you don't want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for the cost of the state picking up your bill, because under federal law if someone doesn't have insurance, then we have to care for them in the hospitals, give them free care," said Romney. "So we said, no more, no more free riders. We are insisting on personal responsibility. Either get the insurance or help pay for your care." 

"Does everybody in Massachusetts have a requirement to buy health care?" asked Santorum.

"Everyone has a requirement to either buy it or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care," Romney shot back. "Because the idea of people getting something for free when they could afford to care for themselves is something that we decided in our state was not a good idea."

But this is a bit of a side note, as whether we accept it or not, the individual mandate will soon be the law of the land.  And of course, if we are required to purchase health insurance, it must meet certain criteria for contributing to the health and well-being of the citizenry.  The individual mandate would be worthless if individuals  could satisfy it by buying insurance thats cost $5 a month and only covered a bottle of aspirin a year.  There must be standards as to what constitutes an insurance that adequately satisfies the individual mandate.

Access to birth control is widely considered to be an essential part of a woman’s health and well-being.  It was listed by the CDC as one of the top ten most important health advances of the twentieth century, and it is promoted by a myriad of mainstream science-based medical organizations. Therefore it must be covered under any insurance that would meet the requirements of the individual mandate.

According to a recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute, a poll quoted in USA Today, most Americans, and even most Catholics, believe that birth control should be covered under health insurance plans.

So the real problem is not that health insurance should be required to cover birth control.  The problem is the primary method the government uses to satisfy the individual mandate - the employer/employee relationship in the private sector.

If health insurance was done completely publicly, then we might disagree with a national health care system and/or birth control, but we all pay taxes and watch the government do things with which we disagree (because it represents us all).  But this will not happen in the foreseeable future.

However, if the individual mandate was satisfied by individuals purchasing insurance directly,  instead of having it provided through their work benefits,  then there would also not be a huge problem with the requirement that insurance must include birth control coverage.  Catholics who disapprove of birth control would still be purchasing insurance from a company whose benefits would almost certainly include someone else’s birth control.  But this different accounting scenario would eliminate the perception some have that Catholic institutions are specifically being forced to purchase something with which they have moral objections.

So the real problem here is that the government is maintaining the link between the employer/employee relationship and health insurance coverage.   There is a middle man that might disagree with what the government, the public, and the medical community deems a very necessary component of adequate health insurance coverage for women, and the perception then emerges, because the benefits they offer must meet these standards, that the liberty of these middle men is being violated.  

But unfortunately, this is the world we live in.  Therefore the government simply must maintain standards for what constitutes adequate health insurance coverage, or else the individual mandate loses its effectiveness.  

A Violation of Religious Freedom or a Prevention of Religious Domination?

The Obama administration has decided that large institutions run by religious organizations cannot be exempted from including birth control in the health insurance plans they offer.  The rule does exempt churches and other places of worship whose primary purpose is to facilitate the practice of religion.  However, if a religious institution runs a hospital, a university, or another organization that goes beyond religious services, thereby servicing and possibly employing many people outside that religion, then they must comply with this new ruling.  Making sure birth control is easily available to women is a feature of the Affordable Care Act.

The Obama administration’s reasoning is based on the position of many, many medical organizations that making birth control easily available to women is a good for the public health that cannot be compromised by an employer, even if the employer is affiliated with a religion that disagrees with the practice.  Once again, churches would be exempted, but not institutions affiliated with religion serving the greater community beyond the specific practice of religion.  Of course, the Catholic Church is very, very unhappy about this decision as they run many hospitals and universities which would fall under the birth control coverage mandate.

I had to think about this for a while.  Religious liberty is a foundation of our society and should never be taken lightly.  But after considering it for a couple of days, I agree with the administration’s position.

First, we must establish that there is a limit on the practice of religious freedom.  Few would argue that Native Americans should not be able to smoke peyote in their ancient religious rituals.  (Actually, I think anyone should be able to do this, but I suppose that is another subject!).   However, imagine a religion with an initiation ritual requiring five year old children to walk five miles barefoot in the snow.  Let’s call this religion Freezism.  And when practicing this Freezist ritual, hypothermia frequently sets in.  Would our society tolerate this tradition?  Probably not, because of how the religious practice would affect others - namely five year old children who are too young to choose this religious practice for themselves.   So this barefoot snow ritual would not be an exercise of religious freedom so much as it would be an exercise of religious domination because of the risk of severe physical injury to those too young to participate in a truly willing manner.

So religious liberty is not an absolute - just like freedom of speech does not cover threats of violence or yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Now imagine a university or a hospital run by a religion that does not believe in treating heart disease.  Let's call this religion Coronism. Their theology posits that God’s relationship with man dwells physically within a person’s heart, therefore no medical treatment should directly interfere with a person’s ticker.  It is a danger to a person’s soul.  Now imagine that this institution, a hospital let’s say, employs many, many people not affiliated with Coronism, and the hospital tries to exclude heart disease treatment from the health insurance policies offered to its employees.

Surely this would be too great a burden on the public health to be allowed.  It would be religious domination rather than religious freedom.  The Coronists would be forcing their employees to go without heart disease coverage, or to pursue coverage elsewhere at much greater personal expense.  The Coronists would be forcing unwanted religious restrictions, or at least the hardship of bypassing (haha) them, onto employees, onto workers in the community.

By requiring the Coronists to include heart disease treatment in the health insurance policies they offer, no one is forcing any Coronist to receive heart disease treatment.  But no one is allowing the Coronists to make it difficult for their employees to get the treatments they may need and desire and which medical science tells us are associated with health and well-being.

Now imagine another religion that does not believe in fire alarms.  Pyroism? Surely if the Pyrists ran a hospital for the general public, they would not be allowed to subject their employees and clientele to that danger?

At the risk of changing the subject temporarily, I actually think the real problem with the Obama/Catholic conflict is the link between the employer/employee relationship and health insurance.  This link is terrible.  An employer should offer pay.  That’s it.  Then individuals should purchase their own insurance.  We would have greater job mobility for workers, and Catholics could create their own policies which do not cover birth control, while employees at Catholic institutions (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) could buy the insurance they want which provides the services they desire.

But that is not the world we live in.

So the issue of religious freedom means deciding when one person’s “freedom” infringes on the freedom of another.   And the Obama administration has decided that when a church operates an institution that goes beyond the specificities of religious practice, not covering birth control creates an undue burden on the health and well-being of employees.  It is not an expression of religious freedom, it is an expression, however big or small, of religious domination.

And I agree.  Do you?

Catholic Sex Casually

Addition:  The following is not to suggest that there are arguments which are not worth engaging with.  I think all arguments are worth considering and responding to, because they come from people.  Rather, I just want to point out that we can really spin some webs when it serves our purpose. 




I will make up a moral.   

It is wrong to chew gum.  Sure, part of the purpose of chewing is for a person’s enjoyment.  The experience of flavor is a blessing from God, but the primary purpose of chewing is to eat - to gain sustenance for the body.  Chewing gum (particularly sugar-free gum which has no calories at all) divorces the enjoyment of taste from the gathering of sustenance.  It is a denial of the body and God’s created order.

How does one casually respond to an argument like this?  Perhaps with something like.... 

It’s OK....seriously.

The Catholic church acknowledges that sex serves the purpose of achieving intimacy between husband and wife, but it also believes that this intimacy must be married (haha) with the unfettered possibility of conception in order to be right.  Therefore, birth control is wrong and any type of sex besides vaginal intercourse is wrong.  Sexual intimacy must be married to procreation.  Chewing must be married to eating.

There are arguments used by the church to support this view, but I will not debate them too much here.  I am just pointing out that when a rather outlandish moral is offered up, it can be difficult to know where to begin when engaging with it.  

How would you begin to argue with my gum-chewing moral?  Surely there are numerous underlying assumptions, few of which anyone would deem obvious, that would need to be addressed.

Why is experiencing flavor wrong when divorced from consuming calories?  Isn’t this actually a nice thing, because one can have some enjoyment without gaining weight?  Why is it wrong to expand on nature’s “original” purpose for things a bit?  Aren’t art and sports and airplanes etc. all pretty great things which expand on nature’s original purpose?    

So sex using birth control?  Sex in a different way than just vaginal intercourse?     Chewing gum?

It’s OK....seriously.

Theology From The Plain Part One - The Term "God"

I am a person who uses God language.  Atheism does not make sense to me given my approach to God.  You see, to me “God” is the word for “that which is” or for whatever is ultimate.  So it makes little sense to me to think that God doesn’t exist.  I can certainly criticize different concepts of God and be labeled an atheist because I don’t believe in this or that version of God, but “God” is my preferred term in seeking for a greater understanding and experience of existence.   I don’t want to use a term like “unfathomable mystery”, at least not exclusively.  I want to use the term “God”.   The former has too much of a connotation of being “out there”.  Rather, God (I am going to stop using quotes now) is more personable and encompasses me, and all things, more readily.

So what is God?   Well that’s the journey, isn’t it?  Is God a person in any sense?  Is God the selfless void from which all things spring - the ultimate expression of humility and giving love?  Is God the cosmos?  Is the cosmos in God?

I have ideas about all of this, but I am also pretty agnostic about many things.  In fact, I have come to love the label “reverent agnostic”.

But I am not agnostic in approaching existence through the interface of faith. And my idea of faith is not intellectual submission to specific claims about history or authority, but rather it is simple trust.

Perhaps I can be criticized for being too flexible with the idea of God.  I realize that in the culture wars of today, God has come to mean certain things, but throughout history God has meant many things.  Even to the deacon in the pew every week, how do we really know what associations he or she brings to the word God?  You see, I do believe that most people approach God in a way that is more personal than doctrinal.

In light of this, I could be criticized for making God an irrelevant term.  If it can mean anything to anybody, then what is its use?

This is simple.  God is a useful concept not because it unites us in what we see, but because it unites us in a common direction of looking.

I understand that for others the term does not work this way.  Perhaps it has been spoiled by the trappings of sectarian religion.  This is fine, of course.  I understand that for others, different frameworks might work better.  But for me, God remains at the epicenter of what it means to explore this life.

We argue about what we see and what we hope to see.  But, for those who employ the term, God is a finite crucible into which we try to pour the infinite. 

Get A Job!

‎"They need to get jobs. They are annoying. They just enjoy shaking things up for its own sake. They are dirty. They need to do something productive."

- an imagined discussion between Roman citizens concerning Jesus and his followers.

Blog Adventures - Good or "Good"?

I am getting into a bit of trouble over here in the comments section of Baptist pastor Wade Burleson's blog. Wade leads Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, OK.

I realize many readers of this blog question Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity, in terms of epistemology. People often judge their religion's truth by different methods and standards than they do many aspects of everyday life - this is called compartmentalization. This is an essential topic to discuss. But I am even more interested in moral compartmentalization, where some believers attribute actions to a "good" God that they would never consider good for themselves or for others. When this happens, when the word "good" is divorced from what we consider to be good, then the word loses its meaning.

As a former Baptist who grew up in the town of Enid, this is the angle I take when occasionally dipping my toe in here. Wade is smart fellow, a historical scholar, and a nice guy, so he, and the other fine folks folks commenting, are fun to interact with.

Little Dragon - Yahweh or No Way?

ME: (strumming through the Plain White T's song "Hey There, Delilah" which LD is learning) "Hey There, Jezebel....Hey There, Esther....Hey There, Bathsheba...."

LD: Ha ha! Is Bathsheba really a person's name?

ME: Sure. She is the woman in the Bible that King David fell in love with. Then he sent her husband Uriah to the frontline of a battle, hoping that he would be killed, which he was. Then David married Bathsheba.

LD: What? That is terrible!

ME: He did get punished.

LD: OK, good. I was thinking that would be really weird if he didn't.

ME: Yeah, this prophet named Nathan came to him and said that God was angry. Then King David's baby died as a punishment.

LD: What?!

ME: Yeah, sounds like more of a punishment for the child than for David, huh?

LD: Yeah! I hope that was on Nathan's orders and not God's.

ME: No, it was on God's orders.

LD: WHAT?!!!!

ME: At least according to the Old Testament writer.

LD: That is terrible. Why didn't God just make David's wife not love him or something? Why kill his child?

ME: Yeah, I know!

LD: I tell you what, if I was that baby, I would not want to go to heaven. I would definitely rather go to the other place. I mean, He just killed me!

ME: I hear ya.

LD: If someone just killed me, I would not want to hang out at his house.

ME: I understand. But remember, not everyone believes that the Old Testament is exactly right about what God is like. Many people believe it was written by humans and therefore is not exactly perfect.

LD: Yeah I mean, if God really did that, he should be taken down and replaced with some other God from some other religion.......though I don't know who exactly that would be.

ME: I agree! OK, so back to "Hey There, Bath...I mean... Hey There, Delilah"!

I can't help but notice a parallel in Scripture to LD's pronouncement against this concept of God. In Psalms 82 God takes his place in the divine council and judges the other gods. He does not condemn them because they are gods of different peoples, less powerful, or competition. Rather he judges them because of their inability to "give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute." "The foundations of the earth are shaken" because of the injustice over which they preside. This is stirring imagery - right to the bones of the world! As John Dominic Crossan says, "they are dethroned for injustice, for divine malpractice, for transcendental malfeasance in office."

It would seem that LD agrees with the author of Psalm 82 that might does not make right - whatever name, mental image or association one might ascribe to it. For King David's child to die because of David's sin is not a just punishment by any rational accounting of justice in the modern world. David did not "maintain the right of the lowly", but in this story, neither did God.

Psalms 82 not only suggests how we might judge ourselves and our leaders, but also how we might judge different concepts of God.

Recent Books

I thoroughly enjoyed "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. I recommend it to anyone interested in reading about the development of the three Abrahamic religions from the point of view of cultural evolution.

Rather than "reduce" religion to a byproduct of natural selection, the author suggests that its continual adjustment to the facts on the ground, its continual evolution, is a sign of its relevance - that it has historically been an important resource in mankind's gradual but steady trend towards alignment with a real, objective (transcendent?) morality. "Transcendent morality" meaning that there is a universal behavioral trend which gives more fitness to a culture. Anyone familiar with Wright's writing will know that his favorite term is "non-zero sum-ness", meaning that a culture, made up of individuals of course, which finds the most symbiosis, the most "non-zero sum" relationships, between its individual members and with other cultures tends to have greater fitness - a greater tendency towards self-preservation. Wright's idea is that this transcendent moral code MIGHT be evidence of some sort of design - and he is careful to specify design not as a competitor to natural selection, but rather as the source of natural selection. But Wright is no dogmatist on specific conclusions. He simply says that if one is inclined to believe in an underlying purpose to existence, then this moral code that man is continually discovering through cultural evolution (two steps forward, one step back) could be used to support that idea - if one is so inclined.

But it is a great book even if one is not inclined to make such leaps. His stories of the development of these religions are very insightful. While he describes different innovations in religious thought as the product of perceived self-benefit, he is also respectful of the religious impulse which is describes in the words of William James - "the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto." A specific religious innovator (a Josiah, Paul or Mohammed) might be a true believer, not just a self-promoter. But the greater question is not "why did this thinker introduce this idea", but rather "why did this particular idea resonate within the cultural context of the time and become successful?"

Now I am enjoying "Papal Sin" by Garry Wills - a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, a Greek and Latin scholar, a staunch critic of the Catholic church, and a practicing Catholic. One of my favorite authors, even when I disagree a bit. His book "What Paul Meant" completely reintroduced me to the first century apostle. His retranslations of Paul's writing are refreshing and enlightening, stripping common English words from the text because the connotations we bring to the table are so different than those of a first century reader. He replaces "church" with "gathering" (there were no churches back then!). "apostle" becomes "emissary". And so forth. His goal is to recreate the same effect in reading today that the words would have had back then.

But I digress. "Papal Sin" is very enjoyable so far!