Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.

Really, you would kill the women and children? Is that in line with the catechism you linked to earlier?

ETA: How does this square with the teachings of Christ to forgive?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, I can safely and morally decide right from wrong with lawbooks, right? Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that you can safely decide what society has ruled as right and wrong as far as social behavior goes.

So, our best "moral guide" are our lawbooks, correct?

Quote:
And if they are not sufficient, where else can I go to establish right from wrong, either in a moral sense, or from the standpoint of society?

I would look to societal norms, customs and laws for society and look inward to your own sense of right and wrong for everything else.

So, if I choose, I can point out the societal norms, customs, and laws for the Asmat tribe in New Guinea, and I can kill and eat other people in acceptable morality?

Quote:
Yet you have problems with a person like Mother Teresa.

Yes, for the abundant reasons stated.

Quote:
Do you equate her with sociopaths?

I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis. If I had to venture a guess based on my limited knowledge I would have to say no. Just very misguided.

Was she moral, or immoral?

Quote:
Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

Could you give me an example?

How about your very next response:

Quote:
Since there are cases of warfare, murder, captital punishment, etc in the Bible, you feel justified in condemning the collection as a whole, even though others see the New Testament as a basic guide on morals or values.

I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

Quote:
So which is it? Do you want absolutes, or not?

Again, can you show me where I ask for absolutes.

How about your previous reply?

Quote:
So, therefore, morals are the same. They vary among people and societies.

Yes, I agree with this.

Quote:
Okay then. The morals of my personal behavior is mine to decide, yours are yours to decide, and we both are subject to communal law.

Correct?

Yes, agreed.

So, why can't someone use the Bible as a moral guide, if their morals are a personal thing?

Quote:
Therefore, you have no right or standing to call me amoral, and vice versa, because that's a personal thing?

I have never called you amoral. If you acted contrary to social norms that are deemed immoral and it was determined by a qualified physician that you had a mental defect then I would call you amoral. Otherwise I would likely call you immoral. .....

Being amoral requires a physical diagnosis?

Quote:
Obviously, as you have posted above, we must do so on an individual basis.

If you must first decide what is right to decide what is right in the bible then what is the point? Just decide what is right and skip the bible. To what end does the bible serve?

A reminder.

A basis of wisdom.

A religious foundation.

A history book of the Jewish people.

At best you are cherry picking your data.

And that statement is more evidence of your demand for absolutes.

It's conformation bias.

Not if the reading/accepting occurs first.

That which supports what you already believe to be right is accepted and that which you already believe to be wrong is rejected.

Only if it is universal, and my morals don't change. Further, if the reading/accepting occurs first, or is instilled in me by my primary education and guidance of my parents, it is the foundation, not confirmation.

Quote:
Further, when one arrives at an answer, one might be interested enough to see why the moral/amoral action occurred.

Interesting but hardly of any significance. There simply not enough examples to form any meaningful conclusions.

It is very significant. For example, in my response to triadboy above, when one sees that the Psalms verse he quoted refers to a culture that had been in bondage for centuries, it's hardly surprising that they want to kill their children.

Moral? Maybe not. I won't say it is. Like I noted, I'd be active in trying to kill them all, not write poetry.

Quote:
Of course, one can decide an action was amoral, disregard the fact that it was a legal action, or an action of warfare, then throw the entire collection of different books in the fire, labeling the entire affair "immoral."

I have another option. We can look at the entire work as a collection of mythology, allegory, history and evolution of philosophy helping us to understand a small part of the underpinnings of our moral thought.

Hey, I can go for that.

Quote:
But I don't have to do so.

I really wish you would stop with this tired straw man. I have stated over and over that you are free to do as you want as far as I'm concerned, so long as you don't hurt someone or break the law. I would gladly come to your defense to live as your conscious dictates. If anyone gives you a hard time about your rights to live the way you believe is correct then please tell me and I will join the argument on your side. Until then could you please stop assuming that I don't believe you have the right to live, think and behave according to your own conscious?

You can write that, agree that morals are a personal thing, yet then write this?:

Quote:
I believe portions of it to be, yes.

I'm sorry that the irony of that is lost on you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.

Really, you would kill the women and children?

Not specifically or individually. I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Is that in line with the catechism you linked to earlier?

Yes, it is. And it is also what would likely be be expected of me by my political and military leaders, too.

ETA: How does this square with the teachings of Christ to forgive?

It is very possible to forgive dead people.

 

[stillthinkin]

Mockery is all but useless to those who already view the bible with such passion and commitment but to those who are on the fence it can be profound.

This is quite correct. A great example from recent history: the comedic mockery of the Jew was a profoundly influential element in Nazi propaganda in the 1930's. Mockery is a tool, I suppose.

 

[qayak]

The implicit syllogism runs like this:
Respect, Dignity, and Compassion are the basis of morality.
Penn was disrespectful.
Penn's actions were not moral.

Obviously people have already disagreed about both the premises. RandFan modified her claim to be "respect is only the basis of morality insofar as the individual has earned respect" or words to that effect.

You are giving too broad of a base for respect, dignity and compassion when dealing with morality. Being a moral person does not mean I have to have respect for all ideas that come down the road. It simply means that I have a basic respect for people. For instance, I have respect for many religious people but I do not respect their religious beliefs at all.

In my view the question is not whether Penn was disrespectful, the question was, did he give the required minimum respect for a person without having to allow respect for that person's beliefs.

Burning a bible is not disrespectful to any person.

Calling the scriptures myths is not disrespectful to any person.

Calling a person an idiot for believing the scriptures could be direspectful unless it can be shown that the person has no reason to believe the scriptures are wrong. In other words, if they are an idiot, calling them one isn't disrespectful.

I didn't see anything wrong with what Penn did although I don't like his style particularly. It is one way to get his message across.

 

[qayak]

This is quite correct. A great example from recent history: the comedic mockery of the Jew was a profoundly influential element in Nazi propaganda in the 1930's. Mockery is a tool, I suppose.

Are you implying that Penn's mockery of the bible is the same as the Nazi's dehumanization of the Jews prior to WWII, of which mockery was a tiny part?

Are you implying that RandFan is a Nazi?


I think . . . . . .

 

[RandFan]

So, our best "moral guide" are our lawbooks, correct?

I'm not sure why you are intent on having moral guides. Our laws are the best guides for appropriate social behavior in a legal context. Ethics are appropriate in professional settings and societal norms and etiquette are appropriate for all other social interactions. If you want to know what is right and wrong for anything not covered by these sets of rules and customs I would recommend looking inside yourself. I suspect you will find a sense of right and wrong there.

So, if I choose, I can point out the societal norms, customs, and laws for the Asmat tribe in New Guinea, and I can kill and eat other people in acceptable morality?

Do you live among the Asmat tribe of New Guinea? If not then I suspect the answer is no? What do you think?

Was she moral, or immoral?

That's a good question. I suspect she sincerely believed that what she was doing was right. From her POV she was moral. From my perspective what she was doing was wrong. I don't believe in god. I believe the welfare of humans in this life is paramount.

H: Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

RF: Could you give me an example?

H: How about your very next response:

RF: I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

How is that an example of an absolute?

So, why can't someone use the Bible as a moral guide, if their morals are a personal thing?

Because it is pro-hoc reasoning. You decide first what is right then you go find those things that fit with your views.

Being amoral requires a physical diagnosis?

Based on my understanding, yes.

A reminder.

A basis of wisdom.

A religious foundation.

A history book of the Jewish people.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. A reminder of what? Be kind to slaves? What wisdom, you should stone adulterers?

And that statement is more evidence of your demand for absolutes.

I don't understand, this does not follow. How is that a demand for absolutes?

Not if the reading/accepting occurs first.

How do you know which parts to accept? I ask this in all sincerity. If you lack a sense of right and wrong how do you know which parts in the bible are right and which are wrong?

Only if it is universal, and my morals don't change. Further, if the reading/accepting occurs first, or is instilled in me by my primary education and guidance of my parents, it is the foundation, not confirmation.

? I don't understand. You are simply restating my position. Your parents told you what is right and the bible simply confirms that. What is universal? Is owning slaves or killing children universal?

It is very significant. For example, in my response to triadboy above, when one sees that the Psalms verse he quoted refers to a culture that had been in bondage for centuries, it's hardly surprising that they want to kill their children.

Does that make it right to kill children? What does your catechism state regarding murder? How are children moral agents and what have they done to warrant such a punishment?

Moral? Maybe not. I won't say it is. Like I noted, I'd be active in trying to kill them all, not write poetry.

Isn't this the attitude of the Muslim terrorists? They are not interested in such details as innocent women and children. They simply want to kill us all. I find this troubling and counter to the teachings of Christ which I think demonstrates the problem of using the Bible as a moral guide. Should you follow Christ and forgive or should you follow Moses and kill them all?

You can write that, agree that morals are a personal thing, yet then write this?:

I see no contradiction. If you choose to view the bible one way and I choose to view it another then that is our respective right. I can debate and discuss without taking away your rights. I'm not telling you to do what I want you to do. I'm trying to make compelling arguments why I think the bible a poor moral guide.

 

[stillthinkin]

I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Destroying entire cities would constitute a breach of "just war theory", which I believe most Catholic thinkers on the subject subscribe to. Ditto regarding destroying their "way of life". The last time the West defeated Islam (Battle of Lepanto 1571 AD) we were content merely to destroy their navy. If I recall, that was a Catholic triumph organized by the pope. There was no "kill them to the last" pursuit of the defeated forces afterwards.

It is very possible to forgive dead people.

I think the idea in the Bible, and in the RCC, is to forgive people instead of killing them, if at all possible. It is true that neither Jesus nor the RCC condemn military service.

 

[RandFan]

Not specifically or individually. I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Yes, it is. And it is also what would likely be be expected of me by my political and military leaders, too.

It is very possible to forgive dead people.

Wow, so kill them first and then forgive? That's a new take on Christian forgiveness I must admit. It's also rather scary. I suspect this is the attitude of many Muslims. They truly believe that Israel and by extension the United States have enslaved and oppressed them and it is their duty to destroy us.

I wonder if enlightenment will ever catch on. Not if the bible is a guide.

 

[RandFan]

This is quite correct. A great example from recent history: the comedic mockery of the Jew was a profoundly influential element in Nazi propaganda in the 1930's. Mockery is a tool, I suppose.

Godwin is not dead. Who knew?

 

[stillthinkin]

Are you implying that Penn's mockery of the bible is the same as the Nazi's dehumanization of the Jews prior to WWII, of which mockery was a tiny part?

Are you implying that RandFan is a Nazi?


I think . . . . . .

Is that little doggie laughing at me? Perhaps mockery is actually a rather pathetic tool, after all.

RandFan, whatever gayak would like to infer from what I said, let me clarify: I do not think you are a Nazi. I read on Wiki that it is basically rude to refer to the Nazi's in conversation with Americans... if I have insulted you, or anyone I apologize.

gayak, the contempt of Jews in the 30's was spread largely through the use mockery. The periodicals of the time were relentless in their pursuit of amusement at the expense of Jews.

 

[RandFan]

I would like to make a concession. I believe that it is possible for the bible to make compelling arguments as to right and wrong and if those arguments are taking on their own then those could be a basis for moral actions. If portions of the bible appeal to our sense of right and wrong and expands our viewpoint in some aspects then I believe it is possible for the bible to be, in part, a moral guide.

I'm rethinking some of the philosophy found in the New Testament and I think it possible for such an argument to be made. I won't completely reject the bible as a moral guide, for the moment, but I will re-examine it provisionally.

It's been more than 20 years since my mission and I have not thought about these matters much in that time. I think it worthy to question assumptions so I'm taking another look for the time being.

If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

Is that little doggie laughing at me? Perhaps mockery is actually a rather pathetic tool, after all.

RandFan, whatever gayak would like to infer from what I said, let me clarify: I do not think you are a Nazi. I read on Wiki that it is basically rude to refer to the Nazi's in conversation with Americans... if I have insulted you, or anyone I apologize.

gayak, the contempt of Jews in the 30's was spread largely through the use mockery. The periodicals of the time were relentless in their pursuit of amusement at the expense of Jews.

I promise I took no offense. Don't worry about it. Godwin has become a quick source of humor IMO. I can't speak for gayak.

 

[triadboy]

That is an interesting opinion. Of course, it is opinion, because you have still not provided any evidence that "people are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them."

I guess it's just obvious to me. I think it centers on psychological feelings of remorse. Because we humans have a brain which can internalize what others feel, we can understand the consequences of our actions upon others...and finally realize we would or would not like these actions inflicted on us.

The Golden Rule certainly doesn't begin with Jesus or even the OT. Buddha was all over that 500 years before Jesus. Hammurabi before the OT.

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage. I'd kill 'em all.

The Babylonian Exile was only about 50 years. (instead of "hundreds"). And it couldn't have been too terrible an exile - when Cyrus released the Jews - a lot of them stayed in Babylon.

Your ability to waste children is very Yahweh-like. You would make a great Islamic/Jewish god. You would be a bad NT god though. Sorry.

 

[qayak]

Is that little doggie laughing at me? Perhaps mockery is actually a rather pathetic tool, after all.

It is laughing at what you said. There are at least four fallacies in that one little statement.

gayak, the contempt of Jews in the 30's was spread largely through the use mockery. The periodicals of the time were relentless in their pursuit of amusement at the expense of Jews.

1- The name is qayak not gayak.

2- Yes, there was a mocking of the Jews but worse, there was a total dehumanization of them. During WWII, the Nazis showed the execution of Jews on newsreels, in theatres. They were killed in all sorts of barbaric ways and the German people flocked to the shows. When the attempt was made on Hitler's life, the conspirators were killed in the same manners and it was shown in theatres as well. Germans walked out of the theatres stating that that was not a fit way for humans to be killed. This didn't come from mockery alone or even mainly.

3- Bringing the Nazis into the argument and claiming mockery led to their treatment of the Jews is just wrong. Mockery takes place all the time without leading to genocide. The Nazis of 1930's have no relation to Penn of 2005 so why the comparison? Because it is an extreme example that you think will make a point. It doesn't, it makes your argument absurd. We can bring in far more samples where mockery has led to great and good changes in the world.

That's what the puppy was laughing at.

 

[qayak]

I promise I took no offense. Don't worry about it. Godwin has become a quick source of humor IMO. I can't speak for gayak.

The only offense qayak is beginning to take is at the misspelling of his name. Don't force me to unleash my Squirrelly Wrath on you!!

http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

 

[stillthinkin]

I would like to make a concession. I believe that it is possible for the bible to make compelling arguments as to right and wrong and if those arguments are taking on their own then those could be a basis for moral actions. If portions of the bible appeal to our sense of right and wrong and expands our viewpoint in some aspects then I believe it is possible for the bible to be, in part, a moral guide.

I'm rethinking some of the philosophy found in the New Testament and I think it possible for such an argument to be made. I won't completely reject the bible as a moral guide, for the moment, but I will re-examine it provisionally.

It's been more than 20 years since my mission and I have not thought about these matters much in that time. I think it worthy to question assumptions so I'm taking another look for the time being.

If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Thanks,

RandFan

That is quite edifying, and encourages me on my own pursuit of the truth.

I look at it this way: the bible does not make arguments, people make arguments. Books do not speak, people speak. In cultures before writing, vast long texts were memorized by those whose task it was to be the "repository of the story". Some individuals might not even have understood entirely what they were memorizing... but they memorized it. These stories, commited to memory generation after generation, developed a life of their own, they grew with their people. This is how the bible began. There is not a hint of an expectation that these stories should be consistent or rational or "literal history". Eventually, these stories were written down, and this is where a good chunk of the Old Testament comes from.

Any written document is an extension of the memory and ideas of a human person or persons. The bible is one such document, memorized and then written by hundreds of people over many thousands of years. The Quran was written, I believe, by one person over the course of a short span; ditto for the Book of Mormon (I realize they believe it was taken from ancient tablets - I believe it is a product of the imagination of Joseph Smith). For Jews and Christians and Muslims and Mormons, these documents take on a sacred character, because they believe that God has spoken to them and is speaking to them through their history and religious leaders. I believe that the primary purpose of the bible, and other such documents, should be considered mainly religious, but also of cultural and historic significance to people who do not share their beliefs. The bible is a particularly interesting case because of its evolution over thousands of years; I find the Quran and the Book of Mormon less interesting because they were a one-man show.

 

[stillthinkin]

I promise I took no offense. Don't worry about it. Godwin has become a quick source of humor IMO. I can't speak for gayak.

Thank you. What is a "Godwin"? I had assumed it some inside joke.

 

[qayak]

Thank you. What is a "Godwin"? I had assumed it some inside joke.

Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

 

[stillthinkin]

It is laughing at what you said. There are at least four fallacies in that one little statement.

1- The name is qayak not gayak.

That's not a fallacy... but I apologize sincerely. Is this a reference to the watercraft? If so, charming! I am a Canuck after all...

2- Yes, there was a mocking of the Jews but worse, there was a total dehumanization of them. During WWII, the Nazis showed the execution of Jews on newsreels, in theatres. They were killed in all sorts of barbaric ways and the German people flocked to the shows. When the attempt was made on Hitler's life, the conspirators were killed in the same manners and it was shown in theatres as well. Germans walked out of the theatres stating that that was not a fit way for humans to be killed. This didn't come from mockery alone or even mainly.

I am not familiar with the newsreels you speak of. Mockery was the first step in the Nazi programme of dehumanization. We first dehumanize people in our minds and hearts through derision, contempt, and mockery. If dehumanization is a bad thing, then mockery cant be too good a thing.

3- Bringing the Nazis into the argument and claiming mockery led to their treatment of the Jews is just wrong. Mockery takes place all the time without leading to genocide. The Nazis of 1930's have no relation to Penn of 2005 so why the comparison? Because it is an extreme example that you think will make a point. It doesn't, it makes your argument absurd. We can bring in far more samples where mockery has led to great and good changes in the world.

I won't make the mistake of bringing up Nazis again. Now I dislike them even more.

That's what the puppy was laughing at.

I am much more grateful for your clarifications than for your puppy's "laughing at" me. Here I had hoped he was "laughing with".

I am also grateful there is no #4.