Gregory Paul: "Lawrence O’Donnell Tells the Truth About the Unholy Bible"

Something fairly extraordinary happened on MSNBC the evening of 1/10/13. It was what Lawrence O’Donnell said on his The Last Word.

He stated that the scriptures that many albeit not all Jews and Christians revere is a very, very bad book, so much so that it is not appropriate for the President to be sworn into office with his hand on the morally defective Holy Bible (christiannews.net/2013/01/12/msnbc-host-lawrence-odonnell-blasts-use-of-bible-at-inauguration-no-one-believes-the-bible).

It all started with the forced withdrawal of Louie Giglio from giving the benediction at Obama’s second inauguration. That happened when it was exposed that the pastor said some harsh things about homosexuals in the last century. That sort of thing was passable back in 09 when Rick Warren — who has objected to gay ways in various ways — did the let’s-all-get-along prayer gig at the first Obama inauguration. What with objections to bigotry against gays climbing like an F-22 on afterburners (richarddawkins.net/articles/568418-the-gays-are-winning-%E2%80%93-and-the-religious-right-is-losing-what-nontheists-can-learn-from-the-success-of-the-homosexual-rights-movement), gay bashing is longer an item that can be brushed aside at Democratic bashes.

What O’Donnell – who seems to much be more familiar with what is actually in the Bible than are most — did was take matters to their logical conclusion. He broke through the pretense. I do not know what the religious views of O’Donnell are, but he told a truth that many atheists like myself have been pointing out. Of course it does not take guts for atheists to do that. It’s expected of us. It does for the host of a mainstream media show.




The conventional, theopolitically correct view these days — the opinion held by liberal and centrist Jews and Christians — is that pastor Giglio was being unJudeoChristian in bashing homosexuals. That the creator of the universe is friendly towards the gays he in his wisdom created. The problem with this modernist JudeoChristian view, a grave defect that O’Donnell went to considerable things to tell his listening and viewing audience, is that is it a lie.

The reason it is a lie to opine that the JudeoChristian God is tolerant of homosexuality is that doing so is literally unBiblical. It is outright heresy and blasphemy. The Holy Bible that according to JudeoChristian doctrine is the Word of God – it is all that we have if Judaism and/or Christianity is correct about the existence and nature of their Biblical creator – is definitely antigay. It is, as O’Donnell established, opposed to the sinful abomination of nonheterosexuality in both the Jewish and Christian testaments. Which is to be expected because the volume was produced in an ancient culture that denounced sexuality outside of tight tribal constraints. At no location is the Word of God progay.

But Lawrence did not stop there. He went on to discuss how it is a very strange thing that the first black President is swearing the presidential oath on Bibles, being held by his wife of slave descent, when the Good Book goes on, and on, and on, about how slavery is acceptable and normal. To a far greater degree that it is into gay bashing. In the Old Testaments there are extended descriptions of how Jews are to keep non-Jewish slaves, including forcing female slaves into marriage, and severe punishments for those who fail to obey their righteous master’s legitimate orders. Passages take delight in clearly describing how the Israelites take humans as booty before and during the conquest of the Promised Land. The only commentary on slavery by Jesus is an allegory involving how the scale of punishment of slaves rises with their increasing disloyalty to bloody violence. In the New Testaments slaves are repeatedly warned to fear and obey their masters as they would Jesus. A whole chapter is about Paul returning a slave to his rightful master as an example of how Christians should demonstrate the positive nature of their faith by being loyal, and obedient to the social order. (For the many Biblical extracts that detail the numerous moral failings of the Holy Bible check outrationalpatriotismfoundation.com/index.php/the-bibles-many-dark-obtuse-sides).

It has been one of the great con jobs of the modern era that the Christian industry has managed to convince most that Jesus and his faith are anti-slavery. Because slavery is now seen as perverted, Christians have had to go to tremendous lengths to hide the pro-slavery stance of the Bible, and to persuade folks that Christianity played the critical role in ending the evil institution. Never mind that it took millennia For Christianity to get around to addressing the issue. That even northern churches were reluctant to denounce human bondage for fear of offending their southern brethren who went ahead and set up denominations explicitly designed to support their peculiar institution, such as the Southern Baptists. That southern Christians were driven to fury by how Christians who were abolitionists never could actually show how the Holy Bible denounced slavery because it obviously does not. That only Christian America had to wage a war of mass carnage to end slavery, when more secular Europe did so without fuss and bother. That the Pope issued a statement in favor of slavery in the late 1860s – that’s after the American Civil War. And never mind that it was really the onset of modern industrial-corporate-consumer capitalism that is incompatible with slave economics that forced the delegitimization of the practice – it’s not a coincidence that just as modern economics were coming to the fore in the early 1800 the slavery that had been normal since the dawn of civilization suddenly became passé.

As O’Donnell observes, virtually no one these days, even the most hard core Jews and Christians, actually believes in the entire Bible. Aside from the slavery thing, Moses and Joshua righteously order the Israelite shock troops to commit outright genocide against pagan tribes and nations, including slaughtering entire populations down to the infants and pregnant women. There is no ambiguity about it, it is described at self congratulatory length during the entirely unprovoked war to ethnically cleanse the Promised Land for the Chosen People. And don’t think God objected, it was his holy idea. And there’s lots of other stuff, like how those who disobey their parents are to be executed, as are those who commit adultery (there are some dominionist Christians who want to bring that back, and truth be told a few think slavery was OK – after all it’s in the Bible).

While we are at it, don’t think the perfidy of socialism enforced by death was something atheists thought up for all Bible believing Christians to denounce as unGodly. According to the Bible it is a JudeoChristian invention (www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/from-jesus-socialism-to-capitalistic-christianity/2011/08/12/gIQAziaQBJ_blog.html). Marx stole the idea from the theists.

And don’t swallow the line, emitted by countless people all who should know better – even the occasional atheist such as Bill Maher slips up on this one – that for all the bad stuff of the Bible it is really a wonderful book because it’s main character was a man-god of peace. It boggles the mind that folks really imagine this is true, since everyone knows it is not. As you recall, Jesus had a beef against the moneychangers in the Temple. Did the Son of God do what real men of peace like Gandhi and King would do? Send a petition to the authorities? No. Organize a sit down strike? No. Organize a demonstration with folks yelling “down with the money changers?” No. He fashions a whip and commits an unprovoked criminal surprise assault. These enlightened days that’s called a hate crime. Jesus does not even claim to be a person of peace. Instead he explicitly denies having come to bring peace, saying he has come to bring division, the sword (he allows his entourage to purchase some of those), and fire. To turn dad against son, mom against daughter, and mother in law against daughter in law. The Jesus of the Bible was a religious zealot who demanded total conformity with his dominion over humanity, not a man of let’s all get along tolerance.

Of course many Christians and Jews, conservatives most of all, are ticked off at O’Donnell for daring to point out that their beloved scriptures are not worthy of presidential events. But of course if a Muslim president tried to use the Koran for the swearing in ceremony there would be an uproar, especially from conservatives. Or if an atheist president used Origin of the Species. Or if an atheist president used no book at all (www.gregspaul.webs.com/WPoped.pdf).

What JudeoChristians are not doing is showing how O’Donnell is specifically wrong. Because they can’t. The believers don’t have thoughtful arguments. They have unthinking outrage on their side. They are cynically and lazily counting on the tendency of most to go into knee jerk you-can’t-say-that-about-my-sister mode, to demand the automatic deference to JudeoChristianity we are all supposed to adhere to out of a sense of theological correctness, and to avoid upsetting the delicate sensibilities of believers whose supernaturalism is supposed to be beyond direct criticism. The theocommunity gets away with this diversionary song and dance because most Christians are seriously ignorant about the Bible they think they adore. Surveys show that the great majority of believers have never actually read the archaic book. As one who has waded through the entire thing the failure of most to do so is understandable, But unacceptable. And hypocritical. If you believe in a faith you really ought to read the book it is based upon for Christ’s sake. Most Christians have little idea how depraved the Biblical god is, because they have not found out themselves, and their clergies are not about to tell them. In fact, the churches depend upon their flocks not getting around to carefully read the entire scriptures. Seriously. It is quite common for believers to abandon the faith when they find out the extent they have been lied to. I know a lot of people who had that experience. The book is so morally defective that a recent study found that the god-ordained violence in the Bible has the same tendency to promote violence as do violence packed video games(sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushman/files/BRDKB07.pdf).

That brings us to the belief that is as common as it is bogus, the delusion that the gods are good for societies. All the research is showing that the opposite is true. The more atheistic 1st world countries are, the more socioeconomically successful they are (www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/is-religion-good-for-society/2011/10/17/gIQA9HutrL_blog.html). It is the irreligious democracies that enjoy low rates of murder, incarceration, juvenile and adult mortality, obesity, STD infections, teen pregnancies, abortions, corruption, mental illness, and high upwards social mobility, income growth, leisure/family time (www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf). It is the most godly parts of America that suffer the most from lethal crime, juvenile mortality and short lifespans driven in part by obesity, adverse consequences of sexual activity, and poverty enforced by class rigidity. The very idea of a good God is abjectly false. If there is one, the creator is responsible for the little planet we are stuck on being such a death trap that diseases have killed and denied the free will of 50 billion kids, a disaster that at best proves the designer’s gross incompetence, or criminal guilt (gregspaul.webs.com/Philosophy&Theology.pdf);rationalpatriotismfoundation.com/index.php/there-cannot-be-a-creator-god-who-cares-about-the-victims-of-mass-shootings-or-of-the-deaths-of-children). Liberal believers contend that we should all somehow understand that God is not the dark brute of the Bible, but they are just making that up. The state of the planet proves there cannot be a good God.

George Washington blew it. He could have made the taking of the oath the secular affair it should be, like our Constitution. Instead he initiated the tradition of being sworn in on the JudeoChristian propaganda tract. It was a bad thing. Think about it. A slave owner was exploiting the PR value of a text that endorsed his keeping fellow human beings in bondage against their will. Amazing how most brush that truth aside. And neglect how using the same set of scriptures inauguration after inauguration is constitutionally dubious. It would be very good if Obama did not use supernaturalistic items to help justify his rule over a nation in which atheism is the fastest growing thought system (www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2012/05/30/is-atheism-increasing-at-the-expense-of-theism). Not that that will happen.

But at least O’Donnell has made it a little easier for Americans to express their freedom to take on the religious trade that wants to control the debate on their self-aggrandizing terms. The wall of theological correctness that stands in the way of open, honest and fair discussion getting lower and lower.

Follow Us

Popular

Recent

Updating soon.

Comments

Archive

Attribution

© 2013 Economic & Social Justice Reality Report | Views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor, Editorial Board, ESJRR, or WPRR.
item