Bad Boy, Bad Jesus, Bad Bad Jesus: Reviewing “The Bad Jesus” by Dr. Avalos, Part 1

One Proud Owner of "The Bad Jesus"

The prolific and indefatigable Dr. Hector Avalos, who is a giant of a man, a scholar's scholar, just released a new book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics. In it he continues with a main theme of two of his previous books, the theological, ethical and political irrelevance of the Bible for the modern world. In The End of Biblical Studies (2007), he masterfully showed how biblical scholars are preoccupied with maintaining the relevance of the Bible for the modern world, even though their own research actually shows the opposite. In Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (2011), he expertly showed how modern biblical scholars are still unjustifiably defending the indefensible ethics of biblical slavery. In this new book Avalos takes on the over-all ethics of Jesus himself---Oh My---as represented in the four canonical gospels (irrespective of whether Jesus existed or not, which he remains an agnostic about). Avalos skillfully shows how the Jesus depicted in the New Testament has a bad side, a side permeated by a “religiocentric, ethnocentric and imperialistic orientation.” He reveals the bad side of Jesus that modern biblical scholars unjustifiably try to hide from view.

Here is how he states it:

If one relied on most modern treatises of New Testament ethics, Jesus had no bad ideas, and never committed any bad deed. This cannot possibly be sustained if Jesus is viewed as a real historical human figure. If Jesus was a human being, he must have had some ideas that are ethically objectionable, or, at least, morally questionable. If Jesus was a human being, he must have had flaws, inconsistencies and hypocrisy in his moral system, just as does every other human being. If his followers, ancient or modern, believe that those ideas are applicable to their lives and to the lives of others, then it also raises the question of whether any of Jesus’ bad ideas also had bad consequences. If Jesus had some bad ideas, then imitating Jesus’ bad ideas could be a bad practice today. Given how much time historically has been spent on lauding the Good Jesus, this book centers on illuminating ‘the Bad Jesus’. (pp. 29-30)

Read more »

The Bad Jesus Is On Full View in the Gospels

So why is there anybody left in church?

To keep up sales and profits, when you have a deeply flawed product, you have to be clever, cunning, shrewd—and determined. You have to work extra hard to disguise the flaws. The resurrection of Jesus comes to mind especially. Robert Conner, here on the Debunking Christianity Blog, 8 September 2017, wrote:

 

“The Evangelical Resurrection Industrial Complex (ERIC) has churned out scores of scholarly tomes, hundreds of erudite disquisitions in professional journals, dissertations and commentaries, as well as debates and conferences beyond numbering, and the tsunami of dishonest verbiage shows know sign of receding.”

Read more »

Bad Boy, Bad Jesus, Bad Bad Jesus: Reviewing “The Bad Jesus” by Dr. Avalos, Part 2

The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics is a 461 page monster of a book written by biblical scholar Dr. Hector Avalos. It's unlike any other scholarly book on the market today. It tells us the rest of the story of the Jesus we find in the four gospels, the dark side, the raw side that biblical scholars try to whitewash over because they think Jesus deserves special treatment. Dr. Avalos by contrast takes off the blinders, forcing readers to see what Jesus was really like.

My guess is that people won't like Jesus after reading his book. I don't. He's not a guy I would want living next to me, or being around my children, or writing a column in a magazine, or politically involved in America that's for sure. No one should. Let's even have done with the notion Jesus was an over-all good person. I would want little to do with him. You might too after reading this wonderfully researched, one-of-a-kind book on an essential issue in disabusing Christians of their faith.

In the future when someone says Jesus was sinless, respond by saying "Bad Jesus." If someone holds up Jesus as an example of a good life, hold up Hector's book "Bad Jesus" in response. If someone asks, "What would Jesus do?," respond by asking them to read "Bad Jesus." It is the antidote to people who indefensibly think Jesus was a perfect human being. It is the corrective to believers who think we need a red-letter edition of the New Testament. It tells us the rest of the story, a story that most people and most Christians have never heard before.

Having said this I want readers to take a look at the contents of his book below, including selected quotes I've chosen from what Avalos writes in each chapter. Keep in mind I make no pretense to summarizing these chapters, only providing a few quotes that might provoke you to read it, which you should. See for yourselves:

Read more »

What to Do When You Disagree with Jesus?

Priests and preachers sweep so much under the rug

We are so used to easy access to the Bible it’s easy to forget that for most of Christian history the laity did not have the Bible. That became possible in the wake of the invention of the printing press in 1450, and the move in the following century to translate the Bible into the languages spoken by the laity. So for well over a thousand years the church got people to believe what it wanted them to believe about Jesus. It sold an idealized Jesus based primarily on Paul’s hallucinations of a resurrected Jesus who ruled in heavenly realms. During this long dark age of Bible ignorance, the laity learned the story of their lord through great works of art, stunning stained-glass renderings, and the word spoken from pulpits.

Read more »

Bad Guys Can’t Shoot Straight

We’ve all seen the movies where the good guys are pitted against the bad guys. The bad guys have numerous faceless henchmen, armed with weaponry that fires off projectiles at incredible rates. After the flurry is over, and the force of the attack shreds all the items within the vicinity, the good guy is unscathed. Or, at best, a flesh wound (that will not affect their performance for the rest of the flick.)

He or she, of course, assesses the situation, and with hands tied, shoots once, which ricochets off a convenient steel plate, severing the rope holding the equally convenient chandelier, which drops on the faceless henchmen, rendering them unconscious.

The Evil Villain often brings in the “expert” to do the job right. The hired gun; the assassin.

This is the situation presented in the New Testament. The “Bad Guys” which consisted of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, and the chief priests as well as unidentified “Jews” were frustratingly unable to kill Jesus. So they had to bring in the hired guns of the Romans.

Why didn’t the Chief Priests simply kill Jesus upon his conviction? Because they were the bad guys—and bad guys can’t shoot straight. We all know that.

Being the Easter season, as I typically do, I re-read the various accounts of Jesus’ accusation, trial, death, burial and resurrection. It is a simple question, really—If the chief priests convicted Jesus of blasphemy, the punishment being death—why did they get the Romans involved at all? Why not just stone him and be done with it?

A little background as to the animosity between these individuals and Jesus would be appropriate. Beginning in the first Gospel—Mark;

The very first encounter we see between Jesus and the bad guys is the healing of the Paralytic. (Mark 2:1-12) The one where the four friends lower the sick person through the roof. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven.” The teachers of the law, who happened to be there on instructions from the Fire Marshall due to the over-capacity crowd, recognize that this is blasphemy. The first confrontation, and the first accusation against the Jesus were to remain the same throughout Jesus’ entire recorded career.

Jesus shows them up by healing the paralyzed fellow.

The Pharisees confront Jesus about fasting and eating and healing. In each situation Jesus is able to foil them with witty repartee. By Mark 3:6, the Pharisees and Herodians were already plotting to kill Jesus.

Jesus continues to teach, to heal and to confront the various leaders. Once he clears the temple, we are reminded again that the chief priests and the teachers of law (and presumably the Pharisees and the Herodians) plotted for a way to kill him. (Mark 11:18) Jesus has quite a few enemies at this point!

Yet they continue to attempt to trap Jesus by tricky words. And continue to be stumped by Jesus’ pithy statements. Finally, they were able to coerce one of the Twelve Disciples to betray Jesus, and arrest him in the Garden. (Mark 14:43-50)

The Sanhedrin listened to numerous conflicting testimonies that were clearly not doing the job. (Worthless faceless henchmen.) Finally the High priest stands up and asks Jesus whether he was the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One. (Mark 14:610 Odd, considering claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy.

Jesus replies, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” A nondescript response that could mean a number of things, not necessarily that Jesus was claiming to be God, or equal to God. Yet the High Priest considers this answer sufficient and they condemn Jesus to death. (Mark 14:63-64)

Now would have been the time to stone him. But what do they do instead? Take him to Romans…Curious.

How does Matthew record the relationship? Following Mark, the author records the first confrontation and accusation being the paralytic, forgiveness of sins and claims of blasphemy. (Matt. 9:1-7) Again, we see the pattern of fasting, eating and healing, followed by the Pharisees (but no Herodians) plotting to kill Jesus. (Matt. 12:14)

Matthew veers a bit from Mark, by including some parables after the cleansing of the temple before reminding us that the Chief priests and the Pharisees (but no Herodians or teachers of the law) wanted to arrest Jesus. (Matt. 21:45)

Mathew follows Mark’s tale of the betrayal, arrest in the Garden, the accusations before the Sanhedrin, the High Priest’s question, Jesus’ response and the condemnation of death. (Matt. 26:57-66) Again, now would have been the time to stone him. Yet we see them get the Romans involved. (Matt: 27:1-2) Why?

Luke also includes the first accusation of blasphemy at the healing of the Paralytic. (Luke 5:17-26) Luke has the fasting, eating and healing. He removes some of the teeth of Mark and Matthew by stating that the Pharisees and teachers of the law began to discuss “what they might do to Jesus.” No explicit death threat here. (Luke 6:11)

Luke also is less emphatic over whether the bad guys intended to do physical harm to Jesus after he confounds them. The author records that they wanted to “besiege him with questions.” (Luke 11:53-54) Irritating—perhaps. Deadly? Not at all. Most striking, Luke indicates Pharisees helping Jesus, since Herod wants to kill Jesus! (Luke 13:31) (Interestingly Luke only records Herod imprisoning John the Baptist (Luke 3:20) and that subsequently John is dead (Luke 9:7) Did Luke know the history of Josephus that said Herod killed John the Baptist out of fear of insurrection, and not the accusation of Herod’s wrongdoing? Was Luke correcting Mark’s history, here?)

Luke conforms to Mark’s indicating the chief priests and teachers of law began to plot to kill Jesus following the cleansing of the temple. (Luke 19:47-48) It should be noted that Luke indicates the chief priests “were included” in the people that wanted to kill Jesus. Rather than being the sole or precipitating cause, they were just some among the many.

By Luke 20:19, they moved to the forefront of the people desiring to kill Jesus.

Luke includes the betrayal, and corrects Mark’s error by moving the trial before the Sanhedrin to the morning (Luke 22:66) Luke also adds to Jesus’ claim. In this instance, Jesus is recorded as being asked the additional question “Are you the Son of God?” (whatever a Jew would think that meant) and Jesus replies, “You are right saying I am.” (Luke 22:70)

Luke never states what Jesus was specifically condemned for. Luke never has the Jews stating Jesus committed a Jewish law worthy of death.

Luke does include an interaction between Herod and Pilate that is not recorded in any other Gospel. The author states Pilate, upon learning Jesus was from Galilee, sends Jesus to Herod. Now would have been a perfect time to kill Jesus.

We have Herod, who killed John the Baptist out of fear of an uprising, and who we have been informed desires to kill Jesus. He has the legal authority to do so. This would be the opportunity. Yet Herod does not kill Jesus. Why not? What sense does this make? (Luke 23:8-12)

Previously, Luke records Herod desiring to kill Jesus, but the Pharisees protecting him. In a (slight) role reversal, Luke now has Herod protecting Jesus and the chief priests and teachers of law desiring to kill Jesus! Is Luke absolving the Pharisees? (They have dropped out of the picture since Luke 19.) Even so, what happened to change Herod’s mind from desiring to kill Jesus to saving him?

At this point we are left puzzling until our puzzler is sore—if the Priests had condemned Jesus to death, wanted to kill him—why not pick up stones and stone him?

The Gospel of John adds an interesting insight. John, like Luke, does not include a specific condemnation, nor does it include the trial transcript of Mark. No, what John includes is Jews stating, “But we have no right to execute anyone.” (John 18:31)

Now that would make the rest of the pieces fall into place. If the religious leaders did not have the right to implement capital punishment—this would explain why, in the other Gospels, the leaders turned Jesus over to the Romans. They wanted him dead. They couldn’t do it on their own. So they take him to the authorities that can. (This does not resolve the problem of Herod, who clearly DID have the authority to kill Jesus. Not surprisingly John fails to record the claim that Herod was involved in any way.)

There is only one problem with this. Where is it indicated that the Jews could not execute someone by stoning? In fact, the first place we can look to see that they could is the Gospel of John itself!

In John 8:57-59, the “Jews” (the Gospel of John commonly uses this vernacular rather than chief priests, teachers of law or Pharisees) are amazed by Jesus’ claim to have seen Abraham. They question how that could be, and Jesus responds, “Before Abraham was born, I am.” I need not remind the readers of the “I am” of the burning bush. (Exodus 3:14) Nor, apparently did the Jews need any such reminding.

They picked up stones to stone Jesus. No plotting. No tricky questions. No fear of a crowd. Justice at its most simple—Jesus claims to be God; Jesus is stoned. But lest we forget, these are the Bad Guys. There is still an hour left in the movie. Bad Guys can’t shoot straight. Jesus is able to slip away.

If the Jews could not stone people under Roman law it sure wasn’t stopping them. Twice.

John records another instance of Jesus in the temple area where Jesus proclaims, “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30. Again, the Jews pick up stones to stone him. No plots, tricky questions or worry about the crowd. (John 10:31) Again, they forgot they wear the Black Hats; they miss. (John 10:39-40)

The Disciples certainly seemed to grasp the Jews’ ability to stone Jesus. When He wants to go visit sick Lazarus, the disciples say, “Hey. Last time you were there, they were going to stone you!” Jesus responds with the obvious answer, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.” (John 11:8-9)

Wha--? According to Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus had made it quite plain to his disciples that he was going to suffer at the hands of the chief priests and be killed. (Mark 8:31-32, Matt. 16:21, Luke 9:22)

Jesus: I am going to Jerusalem to suffer, be killed by Gentiles and raised again.
Disciples: Don’t go! They are going to kill you!
Jesus: [smacking his head with that “don’t you get it?” look] You should walk in the day, so you don’t stumble like at night.

No one is saying, “Hey, don’t worry. They can’t kill you.” Everyone acts as if that is exactly what can occur—Jesus, the Disciples, and the Jews.

At this point, in John the High Priest and the Pharisees DID plot to kill Jesus. So Jesus stopped working in public. John 11:45-57. This is a good justification for the reason of the need of a betrayer. They couldn’t find Jesus. Notice, though, the limitation seems to be on finding Jesus—not on whether they could kill him or not.

Humorously, when Jesus is questioned by the High Priest, he replies that he has always spoken openly, and said nothing in secret. What about having just been in hiding from the Jews? That wasn’t in the open. And when he WAS in the open, and DID speak openly, they tried to stone him. Twice.

In Mark the Sanhedrin seems to be looking for a reason to condemn Jesus. In John, despite having been ready to stone him (twice) we still see them looking for a reason. It is as if everyone completely forgot the very basis of plotting against Jesus!

The Jews want to kill Jesus, try to stone him, and he escapes. Herod wants to kill him, has him in his grasp and Jesus escapes. It is a Hollywood staple—the plot must proceed and the movie would end unceremoniously early if the Bad Guys can hit.

It should also be noted that Stephen was stoned with no thought or qualm about the legal right to do so. Acts 7:59. Paul records being stoned, without any indication as to a legal irregularity. 2 Cor. 11:25. The Sanhedrin is indicated as having the ability to sentence Peter to death. Acts 5:33. And James the Just is recorded by Josephus as having been stoned to death.

What changed? What happened that by the time of Peter’s preaching, Stephen, Paul and James, the religious leaders clearly could stone, yet at the time of Jesus, they could not?

It is my position that Mark, in writing his Gospel was utilizing the Tanakh, and used Psalm 22 as the outline for Jesus’ death. A crucifixion. In order to do so, he needed Jesus to die by the Romans (Jews would not have crucified a condemned person), so he has the chief priests turning Jesus over to Pilate.

Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s outline (correcting awkward problems as need be.) But by the time of John, the question as to why the Romans were involved at all was raised. So, the sole Gospel to do so, John attempts to offer a defense, claiming that Jews did not have the right to execute. A claim that is problematic in light of John itself other books of history.

This Easter season, I ask the question: Why didn’t the Jews just stone Jesus?

You’re Sure You Know Jesus in Your Heart? Can You Verify That?

Imagination plays a major role in religious certainty

The huge ecclesiastical bureaucracy has been in charge of promoting an idealized Jesus, hence it’s no wonder Christians are confident that they know Jesus in their hearts. They fail to notice that Jesus is a product, one that is presented in the most positive ways. The church has always gotten away with this because, for the most part, the laity can’t be bothered to look at the so-called evidence; that is, to verify what they’re told about Jesus. 

 

The supposed sources of Jesus knowledge are simply not valid. They are the equivalent of smoke and mirrors. The fervent promoters of Jesus—theologians and clergy, but beginning with the gospel authors—remind us of the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz conjuring stories and fantasies. Let’s consider a few examples.

Read more »

Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said

Text of my presentation at e-Conference on Atheism

[Here is the script of my presentation on Saturday, 5 September 2020, with a few small additions. The video should be available soon. The event was sponsored by the Global Center for Religious Research.]

We pose this challenge to theists: please tell us where we can find reliable, verifiable data about God—and all theists must agree: Yes, that’s where to find it. This never happens because theists don’t agree. For example, they usually claim that scripture is a source of data about God…but whose scripture? We see no effort on the part of Christians to expand the Bible to include the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon. They refuse to acknowledge that these books qualify as scripture.

Naturally, Christians adore the gospels. But these documents themselves present major problems, just in trying to figure out what Jesus did and said. Rembrandt has given us a portrait of a friendly, amiably Jesus. So my apologies to Rembrandt for puncturing this image in what I’m about to say.

Read more »

DR. ROBERT MYLES AND THE BAD JESUS: AN ANDROCENTRIC DEFENSE OF FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD ABANDONMENT?

Dr. Robert Myles of the University of Auckland (New Zealand) has reviewed The Bad Jesus in two parts available here and here. 

Dr. Robert Myles

He is the first biblical scholar to perform such a review of The Bad Jesus on the blogosphere. I was especially interested in his comments because he specializes in New Testament and Christian origins, as well as in Marxism and critical theory. 

Myles is also the author of The Homeless Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), which treats a few of the subjects I do.

That book offers many provocative observations, and I recommend it to anyone interested in issues of poverty and homelessness in the Bible. His book came to my attention too far into the editing process of my book, and I did not include it in my discussions. I did read it by the time I wrote this post.

Although Myles’ review raises some interesting questions, it ultimately does not represent my arguments very accurately or address them very effectively.  I will demonstrate that his review actually is, in part, an androcentric defense of the abandonment of families by Jesus’ disciples. I will address the objections he raises against my methodology and my discussion of Jesus’ view of abandoning families, especially in the case of the men he called to be his disciples in Mark 1:16-20 because that is one main example Myles chose from my book.

Read more »

The Bad Jesus is now Published!

It is a great pleasure to announce the publication of my new book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics, which, to my knowledge, is the most complete scholarly critique of the ethics of Jesus from an openly atheist biblical scholar (and just in time for Openly Secular Day!). It is available from the publisher, Sheffield Phoenix Press, and on Amazon.

Read more »

Christianity: Ten Knockout Punches, Number 9

What Jesus would do isn’t good enough

Here’s a surprising headline from 2014: “Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates.” This is the opening paragraph of the article: “Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates—in fact, being more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion, according to findings as cited by researchers from Baylor University.”

Wait a minute. Isn’t this the crowd that always wants to know What Would Jesus Do? These are the words of Jesus in Mark 10:

Read more »

I Really Do Appreciate Christians Who Go to Bat for LGBT Rights

But com’on, is Jesus their best reason for stepping up to the plate?

A young man named Matthew Vines has taken on a big challenge: trying to convince Evangelical Christians that their virulent opposition to homosexuality is wrong. Those very righteous people don’t seem to grasp that their anti-gay rhetoric is mean-spirited, destructive, evil. They may claim that they don’t hate gay people…no, they love them, and want to get them to turn away from sin. But they remain mired in aggressive and arrogant ignorance about gay people. They bring shame to theology.

Read more »

Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said

A Series of Flash Podcasts, Episodes 13 - 25

The mystery deepens. People love their Jesus, they may even claim that they belong to Him, and one measure of moral superiority is Jesus Behavior: What Would Jesus Do? But there must be widespread failure to read the gospels, or the texts are read under the close supervision of apologists (preachers and priests) who explain away—well, they try—the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus.

Read more »

Jesus the Cult Fanatic, At It Again

Christians pretend not to notice…

In a recent article Richard Carrier didn’t mince words about Jesus: “…he is actually quite loathsome and rarely gives anything but really bad advice…” This probably has greater shock value than Christopher Hitchens’ famous subtitle, “religion poisons everything.” Believers can shake their heads in alarm and accuse Carrier of having gone over the edge with atheist snark; they’re accustomed to hearing white noise about Jesus from the pulpit—only good stuff. He’s the guy they worship, after all. How could Jesus possibly give bad advice?

Well, it’s not hard at all to figure out. For starters, how about actually reading the gospels? I recently fell into impromptu conversation with a devout Catholic, and I dropped Luke 14:26 on her: How can you be a follower of Jesus? He expects you to hate your family to be his disciple. She had never read that verse, had not even heard of it. That was not part of the white noise. She’s one of those in-the-dark-Christians so highly valued by priests and preachers.

Read more »

Hoisting Mittelberg By His Own Petard: The Authoritarian Path to Faith. Reviewing Mittelberg's "Confident Faith" Part 8

I'm reviewing Mark Mittelberg's book Confident Faith. [See the "Mark Mittelberg" tag below for others]. Mittelberg discusses Six Paths of Faith in his book. In this post I"m going to write on the third path below: "Truth Is What You've Always Been Told You Must Believe".

1) The Relativistic Path: "Truth is Whatever Works for You"
2) The Traditional Faith Path: "Truth is What You've Always Been Taught"
3) The Authoritarian Faith Path: "Truth Is What You've Always Been Told You Must Believe"
4) The Intuitive Faith Path" "Truth Is What You Feel In Your Heart"
5) The Mystical Faith Path" "Truth Is What You Think God Told You"
6) The Evidential Faith Path: "Truth Is What Logic and Evidence Point To"

If you think #3 the Authoritarian Path of faith is the same as #2 the Traditional Path of faith, I'm with you. Still it probably deserves a separate chapter since they bring up different issues. Mittelberg distinguishes between them: The Traditional Path of faith (#2) is more of a religious tradition passed down to children from generation to generation that is passively received, whereas the Authoritarian path (#3) is based on "submission to a religious leader--past or present--and the ideas that leader holds up as the standard to live by." (p. 61) It's being required to believe authority figures. Being required to have "blind obedience" to "unquestioned authority" is bad, and very dangerous.

Read more »

Bible Blunders & Bad Theology, Part 7

Train Wreck Bible Verses

The Bible is a dangerous book, actually—from the standpoint of preserving the faith. Conservative scholar Ben Witherington once made a stunning confession, concerning Paul’s Letter to the Romans, i.e., that “…the goal of understanding this formidable discourse is not reached for a considerable period of time.” Wait a minute: Isn’t God’s Word supposed to the clear, its meaning obvious? Perhaps the Gideons have been on a fool’s errand for so many decades, giving out Bibles for free—more than a billion so far—on the assumption that the Word of God is accessible; it’s right there, just read it and “get it.” Witherington knows it’s not that simple, and the problem goes much deeper than that.

Read more »

Teachings of Jesus that Christians Dislike and Ignore, Number 3

They just say NO to their lord and savior

Most of the Old Testament is ignored today by churchgoers: trying to plough through the books of Numbers or Leviticus, Jeremiah or Ezekiel is too much of a struggle. When they turn to the New Testament, the gospels probably get most of their attention—though that is limited too—while the letters of the apostle Paul are also too much of a struggle. Of course, there are famous texts from these letters that are favorites, e.g., “love is patient, love is kind” (I Cor.13:4)—which is Paul in a good mood. So much of the time he is a bully, lashing out, scolding, savoring the wrath of his god.

Read more »

SO MUCH Bad Theology in ONE Bible Chapter

Who’s the culprit? His initials are J.C.

We can be sure that, most of the time, believers descend into a fog of piety when they pick up their Bibles to read the Jesus stories. It’s as if critical thinking is suspended or even cancelled as they reverently plod or skim through the gospels. That has allowed the church to get away with a lot.

Why not try another perspective? For example, that of comparative religion or literature. Consider that the gospels fit in the wide range of fantasy and mythology writings of the ancient world. Maybe they’re not so sacred, after all. I recommend, as an experiment, that every time devout readers come across the name Jesus in the gospels, they should put in another name instead; that might deflate some of the aura of holiness. How about substituting Brian for Jesus? That alternative hero has been proposed by John Cleese, Eric Idle, et al. Their superb use of satire, I am sure, has helped erode the appeal of Christianity (and exposed its silliness).

Read more »

The ‘Good Book’ Has Never Lived Up to the Hype

The Bible as ‘Word of God”: Fatal Flaw Number 4 (of 5)

If only the Bible had produced the best possible results in this best of all possible worlds. We’re stumped that the deity who gave us this thousand-page book didn’t foresee some of the consequences. By some measures, of course, the Bible has been a big success; in terms of sales it ranks pretty high—supposedly the best seller of all time. And billions of copies have been handed out by Christian zealots. ‘Holy Bible’ is commonly printed on the cover, but does widespread veneration mean that it has been successful as a moral guide? Of course we can acknowledge the many positive outcomes of people following its best teachings. But that’s not the whole story by any means.

Read more »

What is Bad Theology?

Is there such a thing as good theology?

“You shine with radiant light, in this circle of earthly existence. You shine so finely, it surpasses understanding. God hugs you. You are encircled by the arms of the mystery of God.”                                                                                                                          St. Hildegard of Birgen, 1098-1179

 

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.”

                                                                                Jesus, Matthew 18:8

 

 “Religion is all bunk.”    Thomas Edison

 

The New York Times, 17 September 1994, in its Religious Notes column by David Gonzales, reported on the preparations for a college debate that would soon take place between a Hunter College team, and one from England touring the U.S. at the time. The topic: Is the world better off with religion?

 

I couldn’t resist saving the clipping, because I’m always on the lookout for examples of bad theology innocently stated. Mr. Gonzales introduced his readers to one of the debaters, 28-year old Daniel Mallon Durante, who was preparing to make the case that the world is better with religion. But the young Durante had been a “self-styled rebel, who went from school to pool hall and on to jobs as locksmith, plumber and printer before enrolling in college.” He had returned to his Brooklyn parish to find God, under the tutelage of Father James Zona. The rebel had been tamed: “Talking and praying with him, Father Zona helped him develop a deep and personal faith…”

Read more »

How Come Jesus Didn't Know Better?

Mark, Chapter 3: Jesus and the demons

Even the most devout Christian believers have to admit that human imagination has been hyperactive in the creation of all other gods (but, oh not, not theirs). Thousands of gods have been invented throughout the millennia, and apologists for theism—well, the one true Christian theism—sometimes try to deflect suspicion by saying that all the other gods can be respected as symptoms of the human quest for God (capital “G”).

It’s even sometimes said that “we worship the same god”—but that is clearly a lie, a poorly designed dodge. The god that the Jews worship didn’t require the sacrifice of his son, and Allah is clearly not Trinitarian. Nope, these are different gods.

Read more »