The Bible's Falacies

Just a short five minute clip of Sam Harris raising some reality(not fundamentalist) based points about how most people gloss over the truly grotesque and illuminate the divine aspects of holy books. I thought he was quite eloquent and right on point, which is why I am sharing this with you here. Even fundamentalists would find offense at this.

I was raised with the exact argument he's speaking of, that the Old Testament was wiped away and no longer relevant once Jesus died for the world. And yet the whole time growing up I always wondered why we kept reading the Old Testament.... still can't figure it out. The smartest thing to do would have been to strip away all the(95% of the Old Testament) newly rejected(as forgery or highly questionable) gospel and only talk about what actually pertains to us now. But those two books are still stuck together in the same binding like they belong together.

The Literal Truth

I don't agree with the last 30 seconds but it's still funnier than heck from an open-minded gnostic perspective. The last round is especially funny because of the sheer number of ways the quotes contradict themselves.

If it's ok for Mary....

...then does the fact that Jesus was a bastard mean that it's ok for me to have premarital sex?

Ok, I know that was inflammatory. And it was meant to be. Because the Bible's definition of marriage can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It deserves realistic discussion; discussion based on LOGIC not on some omniscient God-factor which doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you twist it or turn it inside out. Cocking your head to the side and looking at something sideways doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumb and people are going to ask if you have whiplash or if you need to sit down.

Book of John 4:6-26 is a perfect example of why the definition of marriage needs to be discussed.

Jesus and his disciples are traveling and they stop in a town. The disciples leave to go the the market and Jesus sees a woman at a well. He asks her to draw him some water to drink. She is astounded he is talking to her at all because of the different regions they come from. (The commandment to love thy neighbor hasn't kicked in. And quite frankly, has it ever? I'm anxious for it.)

Verse 11 is clearly indicative that the woman has not a clue what Jesus is talking about in the beginning. "The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou has nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has thou that living water?"

Only when Jesus indicates after the fact that he was talking about a different well of water than the physical one before them does she understand that he is talking in metaphors.

Why then is it so difficult for us to understand that the entire Bible is meant to be read metaphorically? Why do people insist on reading it for a literal interpretation and then end up being Younger Earthers and all sorts of other nut jobs who cast contemptuous eyes on science?

Anyway, getting back on point: Jesus tells the woman that the type of water he is speaking of isn't the type of water which leaves you thirsting for more. It is the type of spiritual 'food' or substance of which one takes and never thirsts again because the soul is content with truth and knowledge of God.

To prove that he is not some wandering, raving lunatic he points out that instead of having only one husband she actually has five. At that point the woman is shocked with his statement, calls him a prophet, and then states that she'd heard Jerusalem was The Place to be in the presence of holy people and to learn godly ways. What Jesus says next at verse 21 and 22 is truly prophetic in a gnostic sense:

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet, at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

(Remember, the Jewish Mystery religions were the very heart of what we now call the Gnostic Bible codices and tracts. Kabballah is a cousin of this range of Mystery teachings.)

The woman at the well is not rebuked by Jesus. Not condemned and told that she is going to hell for sleeping with five different men. Jesus simply acknowledged her actions in order to show her that he knew of her intimate secrets.

Verse 17 and 18:

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou has well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

There are a few ways to interpret this statement of Jesus'.

1. She is a widow five times over and is now on her sixth husband but has not consummated the marriage yet.
   
2. She has had a marriage-like bond(emotional) with and/or slept with five men but this sixth man is not one with whom she has a marriage-like bond with and so is not counted by Jesus as being a current husband.
   
3. The author of the verse was drunk and miscounted/miswrote what was meant to be: "For thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now has is also thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Bringing her total husbands up to six.

Conclusion: judging from any of these proposed interpretations anyone you have a sexual relationship with and/or a 'marriage-like' bond with is counted as a spouse.

I find it interesting that the only time the Bible speaks of segregating women from the men is during menstruation. And Jesus talked to women as he would men. There was no favoritism. No coddling of the 'gentler sex.' Many gnostic sects have taken this to mean that a true platonic love was possible between men and women as equals. To love in the Platonic sense was to direct one's mind and soul to the divine, to reach toward love itself. This profoundly unbiased emotion has been examined since before Plato's dialogue in the Symposium. It's an idea which is as old as humanity's first couple.In the fifteenth century Platonic love even became fashionable.

Wiki on marriage:

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."^[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"^[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.^[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.^[6]

(Keep that 'circular logic' bit in your mind by Mr. Bell as you keep reading.)

Now here's an interesting quirk of Roman Catholicism:

"Divorce is not recognized, but annulments predicated upon previously existing impediments may be granted. Offspring resulting from annulled relationships are considered legitimate. The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion."

Going back to our woman-at-the-well scenario, if she had divorced her five(or six) husbands and then remarried then that means she could be baptized but not receive communion. How much sense does that make in relation to Jesus' words to her; an offering of knowledge and direct communion with God? It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

Book of Mathew 16:6 "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And yet the Catholics will recognize an annulment. God made the bond but man is willfully separating it under the guise of Peter's divine patronage.

Why is it that children from an annulled marriage are considered legitimate? If the marriage "didn't exist in the first place" as what is necessary to agree upon for an annulment to take place, then how can the children be legitimate?

I have to agree with Duran Bell's statement concerning sexual access being the basis of marriage restrictions and legitimacy issues being called "circular logic." Convenient circular logic at times. And at others a whole messy can of worms with legitimate/illegitimate children being squabbled over.

And getting back to Mary's bundle of joy-- surely Joseph felt cuckolded by God. Poor guy.

If it's ok for Mary....

...then does the fact that Jesus was a bastard mean that it's ok for me to have premarital sex?

Ok, I know that was inflammatory. And it was meant to be. Because the Bible's definition of marriage can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It deserves realistic discussion; discussion based on LOGIC not on some omniscient God-factor which doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you twist it or turn it inside out. Cocking your head to the side and looking at something sideways doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumb and people are going to ask if you have whiplash or if you need to sit down.

Book of John 4:6-26 is a perfect example of why the definition of marriage needs to be discussed.

Jesus and his disciples are traveling and they stop in a town. The disciples leave to go the the market and Jesus sees a woman at a well. He asks her to draw him some water to drink. She is astounded he is talking to her at all because of the different regions they come from. (The commandment to love thy neighbor hasn't kicked in. And quite frankly, has it ever? I'm anxious for it.)

Verse 11 is clearly indicative that the woman has not a clue what Jesus is talking about in the beginning. "The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou has nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has thou that living water?"

Only when Jesus indicates after the fact that he was talking about a different well of water than the physical one before them does she understand that he is talking in metaphors.

Why then is it so difficult for us to understand that the entire Bible is meant to be read metaphorically? Why do people insist on reading it for a literal interpretation and then end up being Younger Earthers and all sorts of other nut jobs who cast contemptuous eyes on science?

Anyway, getting back on point: Jesus tells the woman that the type of water he is speaking of isn't the type of water which leaves you thirsting for more. It is the type of spiritual 'food' or substance of which one takes and never thirsts again because the soul is content with truth and knowledge of God.

To prove that he is not some wandering, raving lunatic he points out that instead of having only one husband she actually has five. At that point the woman is shocked with his statement, calls him a prophet, and then states that she'd heard Jerusalem was The Place to be in the presence of holy people and to learn godly ways. What Jesus says next at verse 21 and 22 is truly prophetic in a gnostic sense:

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet, at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

(Remember, the Jewish Mystery religions were the very heart of what we now call the Gnostic Bible codices and tracts. Kabballah is a cousin of this range of Mystery teachings.)

The woman at the well is not rebuked by Jesus. Not condemned and told that she is going to hell for sleeping with five different men. Jesus simply acknowledged her actions in order to show her that he knew of her intimate secrets.

Verse 17 and 18:

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou has well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

There are a few ways to interpret this statement of Jesus'.

1. She is a widow five times over and is now on her sixth husband but has not consummated the marriage yet.
   
2. She has had a marriage-like bond(emotional) with and/or slept with five men but this sixth man is not one with whom she has a marriage-like bond with and so is not counted by Jesus as being a current husband.
   
3. The author of the verse was drunk and miscounted/miswrote what was meant to be: "For thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now has is also thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Bringing her total husbands up to six.

Conclusion: judging from any of these proposed interpretations anyone you have a sexual relationship with and/or a 'marriage-like' bond with is counted as a spouse.

I find it interesting that the only time the Bible speaks of segregating women from the men is during menstruation. And Jesus talked to women as he would men. There was no favoritism. No coddling of the 'gentler sex.' Many gnostic sects have taken this to mean that a true platonic love was possible between men and women as equals. To love in the Platonic sense was to direct one's mind and soul to the divine, to reach toward love itself. This profoundly unbiased emotion has been examined since before Plato's dialogue in the Symposium. It's an idea which is as old as humanity's first couple.In the fifteenth century Platonic love even became fashionable.

Wiki on marriage:

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."^[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"^[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.^[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.^[6]

(Keep that 'circular logic' bit in your mind by Mr. Bell as you keep reading.)

Now here's an interesting quirk of Roman Catholicism:

"Divorce is not recognized, but annulments predicated upon previously existing impediments may be granted. Offspring resulting from annulled relationships are considered legitimate. The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion.^[80]"

<sup>Going back to our woman-at-the-well scenario, if she had divorced her five(or six) husbands and then remarried then that means she could be baptized but not receive communion. How much sense does that make in relation to Jesus' words to her; an offering of knowledge and direct communion with God? It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

Book of Mathew 16:6 "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."</sup>

And yet the Catholics will recognize an annulment. God made the bond but man is willfully separating it under the guise of Peter's divine patronage.

Why is it that children from an annulled marriage are considered legitimate? If the marriage "didn't exist in the first place" as what is necessary to agree upon for an annulment to take place, then how can the children be legitimate?

I have to agree with Duran Bell's statement concerning sexual access being the basis of marriage restrictions and legitimacy issues being called "circular logic." Convenient circular logic at times. And at others a whole messy can of worms with legitimate/illegitimate children being squabbled over.

And getting back to Mary's bundle of joy-- surely Joseph felt cuckolded by God. Poor guy.

One Nation Under God?

Nope. No way. No how.

This country was not founded on Abraham principals, commandments, or even "I wish we could have's." Sorry all you literalist indoctrinated Bible Belters. It just ain't so.

And before my loyal Readers have a conniption- no, I haven't suddenly become atheist. Yes, this is still a gnostic blog. But I like to think that even gnostics have enough braincells to rub together to realize fact from fiction. Reality and logic is a gnostic's university.

The Founding Fathers abhorred organized religion as they saw the tyranny it eventually led to. Want proof?

Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli. Passed by Congress 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This was a document which was passed around and signed by the heads of state of two countries. The reason? The United States did not have a Navy at the time and could not protect its fleet of commercial goods traders traveling around Tripoli and piracy was killing trade. So the government did the only thing which seemed plausible: they bribed the government of Tripoli with gold and jewels.

The Treaty of Tripoli was bought and paid for to keep Tripoli and nearby pirates from looting our American ships. Buying off pirates for safe passage is one thing. But the fact that there was such a large amount of continual trade going on meant that the government and people of Tripoli feared the Americans would do what the British do with any other country they find lucrative for business- stake their imperial claim.

There is still argument to this day concerning Article XI and how exactly it was interpreted between the Arabic translation and the English. Legal scholars can disagree and spit back and forth at each other all they want but the fact remains: the document was read before the Senate on June 7th, 1797 and every Senator present agreed upon the terms unanimously.

The Treaty of Tripoli and portions of the Federalist Papers have since been interpreted as meaning the United States does not have an official religion and will not sanction or protect one over another. A smart move to make since the United States is a nation founded on immigrants from over a hundred countries. Why would someone come to "the land of the free" only to be told they have to abide by Abrahamic convention and thought? It is understood worldwide that the United States will open it's doors to any nationality or creed. And what is a creed?

Main Entry:	creed
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	belief, principles
Synonyms:	articles of faith, canon, catechism, church, confession, conviction, cult, doctrine, dogma, faith, ideology, persuasion, profession, religion, tenet, weltanschauung

Main Entry:	belief
Part of Speech:	noun
Definition:	something regarded as true
Synonyms:	assumption, concept, credence, credo, creed, doctrine, dogma, faith, fundamental, gospel, gospel truth, hypothesis, idea, ideology, law, opinion, postulate, precept, principle, say-so, tenet, theorem, theory

My final question is this: why is it that parents still teach their young and impressionable children differently? Why would they tell their children something which legally just isn't true? They may want it to be true but any of our courts will throw out a religious argument of "but I thought that it was" faster than our government can hand out stimulus checks. Wanting doesn't make it so. So why perpetuate the lie at home? Why don't our public schools(I'm not even going to entertain the religious private school angle) teach our children about factual law anymore?

The Pledge of Alligence was altered in 1954 by Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. The words 'under God,' were added. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Thank you Eisenhower for that religious insertion and attempt to make atheists seem unpatriotic to the rest of their countrymen. Not seeing a reason to believe in God does not make you unable to believe in the need for security and freedom for your nation.

ReligousTolerence.org states:

On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. The ruling stating that "the text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court of Appeals reading. They did not rule on the basis of the Pledge violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they ruled that the plaintiff Michael Newdow did not have primary custody of his daughter and thus did not have standing to take the case to the federal court system.

It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll mourn right along with the Texans. It's not every day that our Constitution is trampled upon so deeply and soundly that the American public willingly pulls the wool over their own eyes to go right back to sleep.

Blogs of Note

Is it any wonder that with as freedom loving as gnostics are that I would find a home-away-from-home in an atheist's blog? I'm not kidding! The Atheist Camel is exactly what it claims to be: "...an oasis airing his perspective on theists, religion and politics, beliefs, God, gods, the supernatural; science, reality, reason, logic, ethics, morality...and the lack thereof." I find myself positively commenting on just about every updated post there. "Hump" is the most cogent and eloquent atheist I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Gnostics do have a great deal in common with atheists if you squint and tilt your head the right way... I'll speak more in depth about this in a future article. It will surprise you.

I have discovered a number of blogs which are havens of freedom and free thinking and I'd like to share them with you. On the side column you will find a list of links titled Blogging For Freedom. Naturally, it is a work in progress. If you have a blog you'd like to nominate to be added to that section simply comment or email me directly at gnosticunrest@hotmail.com.

The Gigas Codex- Devil's Bible

It is becoming more and more clear to me that even National Geographic documentaries are turning toward sensationalism for profit. I watched a documentary this afternoon on the Gigas Codex also known as the Devil's Bible and it really ticked me off.

Wikipedia has the basic facts on it:

(English: Giant Book) is the largest extant medieval manuscript in the world.^[1] It is thought to have been created in the early 13th century in the Benedictine monastery of Podlažice in Bohemia (modern Czech Republic). During the Thirty Years' War in 1648, the entire collection was stolen by the Swedish army as plunder and now it is preserved at the National Library of Sweden in Stockholm.^[1] It is also known as the Devil's Bible because of a large illustration of the devil on the inside and the legend surrounding its creation.

The codex is contained in a wooden folder, covered with leather and ornamented with metal. At 92 cm (36.2in.) tall, 50 cm (19.7in.) wide and 22 cm (8.6in.) thick it is the largest known medieval manuscript.^[2] It initially contained 320 vellum sheets, though eight of these were subsequently removed.^[3] It is unknown who removed the pages or for what purpose but it seems likely that they contained the monastic rules of the Benedictines. The codex weighs nearly 75 kg (165 lbs.) and the vellum is composed of calfskin (or donkey according to some sources) from 160 animals.

...............

The Codex includes the entire Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, except for the books of Acts and Revelation, which are from a pre-Vulgate version. Also included are Isidore of Seville's encyclopedia Etymologiae, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Cosmas of Prague's Chronicle of Bohemia, various tractates (from history, etymology and physiology), a calendar with necrologium, a list of brothers in Podlažice monastery, magic formulae and other local records. The entire document is written in Latin.

The manuscript includes illuminations in red, blue, yellow, green and gold. Capital letters are elaborately illuminated, frequently across the entire page. The codex has a unified look as the nature of the writing is unchanged throughout, showing no signs of age, disease or mood on the part of the scribe. This may have led to the belief that the whole book was written in a very short time (see Legend). But scientists are starting to believe and research the theory that it took over 20 years to complete.

Page 290, otherwise empty, includes a unique picture of the devil, about 50 cm tall.


Ok, here's their initially insane theory. It would have taken about 20-30 years of nearly nonstop work for one man to create this codex. They don't see any type of change in handwriting indicating aging or health issues. So naturally it has to be supernatural, right? The legend of the codex is that a Benedictine monk sinned so grievously that the leader of the order planned to wall him up alive. The monk pleaded for his life and stated that if he was allowed to live he would perform a miracle; he would create in a single night the most astounding feat of artistry ever seen. He would create a book which would glorify and even save life. Naturally, this is the Bible. But this book contained everything from the New and Old Testaments to herbals, incantations, to exorcism rituals. Long story short, he was a guy in trouble and he vowed to perform a miracle to save his life. Midnight came and went and he was frantic. He knew he wouldn't be finished in time. So he sold his soul to the Devil and voila! The book was completed by morning prayer time.

The beginning of the investigation leaves a lot to be desired in deductive reasoning skills. Wanna know how they made the LEAP at guessing that only one guy wrote it? Quote: "Inks used in writing during the 13th century were based in either metal or animal nests. If there is only one type of ink used throughout the book then this proves only one scribe wrote it."

*blog author slams head into keyboard*

Ye gods, people. This is not the Dark Ages. Yes, it was written in the Dark Ages but that does not mean that our brains cannot or should not have evolved to be a bit more sophisticated since then. The sun is yellow so it's made of gold? I can't see the other continents out there so the earth is flat? Gimme a break!! Their logic is so faulty it makes my head hurt to think about it. (Besides the head-keyboard thing.)

You're talking about a monastery. With multiple people. Why wouldn't the commune use one ink? Or even have a choice between the two? Why is it so impossible to think that given an option artists will choose whichever medium they feel most comfortable or confident with? How do you know that both types of inks weren't available and a group of monks simply chose to use the same one? (It was animal's nests, by the way.)

Handwriting analysis was the final straw, though. The g's are all the same throughout the text. National Geographic swings wildly from saying the codex is, "superb workmanship, astounding in it's artistry" to "amateurish and crude. From a self taught writer." How can one book be both? And why couldn't a group of artisans agree to use one uniform script for the text? Why is that such a stretch? Uniformity and conformity is encouraged in religious orders. They would have seen it as a community effort which was proof of their devotion to God.

I think it was the overall tone of the documentary which aggravated me so much. Flagrantly sensationalistic. Ink types and handwriting analysis were the only kinds of research done to dismiss the theory of a guild of writers working on the book versus one solitary scribe. Oh wait. Then there was one "Hermann, recluse" who was included in that list of names on page .... it's GOTTA be him!

The old adage about assuming makes an ass out of someone still holds true.


One last note: on the opposite page of the devil is a painting of the gates of heaven. It's quite pretty. I couldn't find a really good closeup image of it anywhere, unfortunately.