Divine Authority?
Cousin John sent me an interesting link this morning with the note “Run with it”. 
A brief, succinct, and broadly-applicable essay On the Redundancy of Purportedly Divine Written Sources. The author, Sveinbjourn Thordarson, uses the Christian Bible for his point of reference, but his thoughts apply equally to ANY “sacred” text of the world.
He opens with:
It is a strange fact that most of the world’s major religions seek their truths and their moral codes in ancient written records of dubious origin. It is stranger still that the adherents of these religions believe the written records to be sacred and divinely inspired, and that it is possible to glean from them eternal and divine moral truths. Be that as it may, it still seems that even if we grant the unverified and unverifiable assumption that these written records are divine in origin, they remain highly questionable as sources of religious truth and moral instruction due to interpretive problems.
I’ll let you read the rest of the article on your own, since he makes his points quite well.
Anyone who has been reading over my shoulder the last 20+ years already knows that there are no divinely inspired, divinely-delivered “sacred texts”, and that all allegedly divine texts were written by humans, interpreted by humans, and abused by humans. There is no ultimately authoritative text above which no other can stand. Period. Whether it is the Bible, the Koran, the Gita, the Tarot, or any other “sacred text” — all are obsolete, redundant, and wholely unnecessary and irrelevant to life in the 21st Century.
Does that mean we should pitch them all into the fire? No. Indeed, it would serve an atheist well to read them all, to see that they repeat the same fables, myths, legends, and collective weird shit. And, to provide a foundation for dealing with those who actually believe such texts have any claim to truth or authority.
“Indeed, it would serve an atheist well to read them all, to see that they repeat the same fables, myths, legends, and collective weird shit” - yes, DO read them, analytically. Also, read as many versions as possible. The newest Bible in print is the English Standard Version, from 2001 by Crossway. It is a literal translation, but very easy to read.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 amWhen I clicked on the article link above, I got a “second-hand browser” warning with a big red triangle. FYI.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:40 amweird… the link works fine from here. hmmm…
http://www.sveinbjorn.org/on_the_absurdity_and_redundancy_of_divine_written_sources
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 amI’m not at all convinced that a different translation will change the core message. Over the years I’ve used KJV, RSV, The Living Bible (eww), Good News Bible, American Standard, New American Standard, New Revised Standard, NIV.
Retranslating won’t change the fact that the original itself is wrong.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 amWasn’t aware if all knew about the ESV or not. Same message, just newer package. Also apparently closer to original Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 amyeah, all the English versions in the world won’t fix the fact that the original documents are seriously flawed, faulty, false, fanciful, fictitious and otherwise ‘effed’ up. The hypocrisy is that most academic Bible scholars agree, yet the preachers preach and the gullible laity accepts whatever nonsense comes out in church and in the media/tv/radio. if everyone knew what Bible scholars knew, Christianity as we know it would cease to exist.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 amAccording to a comment on Paul Krugman’s NYT blog, “In this new [right-wing fundamentalist] version of the bible, Jesus asks the lepers what health care plan they’re on before he cures them.”
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 am“Indeed, it would serve an atheist well to read them all, to see that they repeat the same fables, myths, legends, and collective weird shit.”
Time totally wasted, that could have been spent reading Darwin and Dawkins!
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 am@CousinJohn #8
Yeah, true enough, time better spent elsewhere. But for me, it was the act of allowing myself to read other “sacred” texts to see there’s nothing special about the Bible. And, reading the texts others find so precious aids in building cultural literacy.
It’s like…. lots of people love to eat okra. I’ve tried it. There’s no excuse for okra, but I wouldn’t have known it until I’d tried it. It won’t convince others how mistaken they are, but allows me to dismiss their love of okra without a second thought.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 amAgreed on the okra! Absolutely no excuse, although I suppose you could use it as glue in a pinch. Perhaps to glue your copy of the “Living Bible” shut.
Personally, I prefer science fiction to religious fiction.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 amI have heard eating okra compared with drinking the contents of a spittoon.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm