?

Log in

No account? Create an account

March 14th, 2012

Just how many of my fellow atheists have read in the Bible that a rapist must marry his victim, without it occurring to them, or finding through investigation of the Jewish commandments, that this means he cannot get out of it if she demands marriage? In other words, he is trapped, not she.

They could have a case (although one with different content) if they argued that, in the patriarchal society, the victim’s father could make the decision, but they don’t bother. Instead they leap into attack as soon as they think they have a ‘gotcha’. They read the Bible like the vicious evangelical fundie chauvinist pigs they love to argue with.

(Similar things pertain to the New Testament, though in that case the trouble is abetted by terrible mistranslations of the Greek, and reliance on printed words rather than oral tradition.)

Dawkins promotes shallow study

It is ironic that Richard Dawkins, who is a famous scientist, is on record promoting shallowness of study of religion in atheist apologetics (let that notion sink in). On the other hand, in the process he has revealed his real thesis, which he buries under such titles as ‘The God Delusion’ and with page after page of discourse on natural selection, which really has nothing to do with the topic. Dawkins’s thesis is:

God is not a leprechaun (or anything like that).

It’s a good thesis, worth investigating, so one wonders why he buries it.

(Discourse on natural selection does serve the purpose of arguing with vicious evangelical fundie chauvinist pig types, which atheist apologists love to do. When they gain converts, the converts are pre-trained in the techniques! See, for instance, John Loftus – who, by the way, is much more readable than Dawkins, whose turgid writing I can barely scan through before tossing it aside.)
If Richard Dawkins wishes to write a second book – the pair can be in volume, of course, as a volume divided into parts – then that’s fine. The result would be:

Part I. God is not a leprechaun.

Part II. You biblical ‘literalists’ are dead wrong.

Written well, that would be a good read. Unfortunately, Dawkins is an awful writer and I, personally, wouldn’t bother. :)
Consider that passage that male chauvinist pig fundie Christians read as saying that a husband is his wife’s head=‘boss’ and that she should ‘submit’ to him.

Read in Greek of the period, apparently, and making a whole lot more sense, the passage says that the man is the head=‘source’ of the woman (an allusion to Adam and Eve) and that she should support him. We still actually have that figurative meaning of ‘head’ in English, as in ‘headwaters’; and a head needs support, doesn’t it?

The meaning is totally changed by the mistranslation.
Tweet 1: https://twitter.com/#!/LauraShezBar/status/180107232539709441

Tweet 2 with translation from the Gay Study Bible by A. Nyland: https://twitter.com/#!/chemoelectric/status/180113416999010305

This is a quotation from Paul or pseudo-Paul (a forger, of Paul’s school after his death, using the name of Paul for authority).

Latest Month

June 2016
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930