Winnipeg Sun on Biblical Morality

[Steven]

I'm still torn about saying something to the effect of "...and contrary to popular opinion, the New Testament does not make it all better.  Jesus states in several places his support for the old laws..."

I don't know.  It's adding extra stuff, and comes across as an afterthought, but I can't help feeling that if we don't put it in, they are going to make that claim.

I had this thought as well. It's frustrating because these issues can't be adequately addressed in a soundbite. Unless you say:

"Even the New Testament, which is claimed to set things right, promotes degrading women, discriminating against homosexuals and those of different religions, rape, slavery, killing and genocide."

I don't know if that is correct to say though. It does kind of seem like we're shoehorning it in there. But you just know they'll come back saying "all the bad stuff is in the Old Testament".

[X]

I had this thought as well. It's frustrating because these issues can't be adequately addressed in a soundbite. Unless you say:

"Even the New Testament, which is claimed to set things right, promotes degrading women, discriminating against homosexuals and those of different religions, rape, slavery, killing and genocide."

I don't know if that is correct to say though. It does kind of seem like we're shoehorning it in there. But you just know they'll come back saying "all the bad stuff is in the Old Testament".

Maybe just mention that Jesus supported them, along with a citation?  (Matthew. 5:17-18)

I personally think "by any reasonable standards" is better than "by modern standards" because it can't be construed to mean that morals should change with time (something that is generally argues against by those kinds of people).

I agree.


One last point:  I'm not sure includig the rape part is wise.  Yes, there are some passages that imply support, and yes, the punishments are peculiar.  But passages can be easily pointed to that cplicitly say rape is bad.  Which leaves us trying to show that the Bible supports rape using inferences and deductions.

[brian]

We can take out the rape part I guess, it probably falls under degrading women.

And I think it is just about time to send it in?  I suppose if no one has sent it in withing the next hour or so, I'll take care of it.

[brian]

Okay, I sent it off the same as the last one but without the word rape

[X]

Yeah.  If nothing had happened by 6pm, I would hav equoted the last one, removed the word rape, and asked either you (as PR) or Trevor (Pres) to send it.

(PR or Pres instead of myself for the dual purposes of maintaining my illusory anonymity, as well as having an official stamp upon it.)

So, thank you.

Now we'll see if it turns up in the comments seciton over the weekend.

[brian]

The letter was published today, except they cut out a paragraph

Lately there have been some letters to the editor alluding to the use of the Bible as a moral guide. The general consensus seems to be that the Bible is useful as a moral compass.

The Bible contains some good moral teachings, it also contains harmful moral teachings. The Bible promotes degrading women, discriminating against homosexuals and those of different religions, slavery, killing and genocide. Hence, most Christians only follow some of the Bible's teachings.

Caring for fellow human beings is a far better reason to be moral than fear of divine punishment. We are more than capable of deciding what is moral by ourselves.

[Steven]

It sucks that they cut part of it but I'm happy that they published it at all.

Their comment wasn't even that snarky: "Some are more moral than others."

[trevor]

Considering how long some of the other letters are, I'm a bit surprised they cut stuff from ours. It sucks, especially as the sentence they cut made a good point, but I guess that's journalism for you.

[X]

Yeah.  I'm disappointed that they cut out what I feel was the primary point of the letter.
But I guess they had to shorten it to make it fit in the "Letter of the Day" column.

Now let's see if it generates interest.

(Oh, and it seems that "members" can submit a letter.  I always thought the Sun required a name.)

[Steven]

Now let's see if it generates interest.

At least it will help that today's issue features a scantily clad woman on the front page  . I got my copy!

[X]

And a reply, of sorts:

Bible's standards clear

A lot of writers are pretty miffed with my letters simply stating that the Bible is very clear in pointing out that homosexuality is a sin, as is lying, stealing, adultery, worshipping false idols and having any other god before the God of the Bible. A common theme throughout the letters is that the Bible was written by men. The Bible states that all scripture is inspired of the Holy Spirit that moved men write the words. One writer refers to the Bible as being a work of fiction, and another makes the ludicrous claim that Christianity evolved from the old Egyptian religion. All of this is completely untrue. The Bible is in fact the living Word of God. God is not tolerant of sin whatsoever, and that is very clear from scripture in the Bible.

Barry Banek

Winnipeg


(The Bible inspires plenty of debate.)

Do we want to reply?
Perhaps reiterate that the BIble cannot be a moral guide when those who sake their morals from it have to parse the good laws from the bad?
And also something about the cirularity of assuming the Bible is written bygod because it claims it is?
Maybe we could state in our letter that god wrote it.

i.e.

We wish to thank the Winnipeg Sun for printing our letter, and making it letter of the day.  Unfortunately, in the process, a key message was edited out.  The simple fact is that the Bible absolutely cannot be a moral guide if those deriving their moral codes from it have to use some outside system of ethics to parse the good morals from the bad ones.  You can't have it both ways.  If someone wishes to use the Bible as justification for propagating intolerance of homosexuals, for example, by claiming the Bibles laws are absolute, then they are, by their own guidelines, required to adhere to the laws about not eating cud-chewig animals like rabbits, not eating certain birds such as bats, keeping women under the dominion of men, killing their children for disobedience, etc.
This message, by the way, was inspired by god, and since it is written as such, it must be so.

[Steven]

I like your idea for a reply. The only thing I would suggest is to find some better examples than not eating rabbits or bats because you can imagine that someone will retort "Of course I don't eat rabbits or bats!".

[X]

True.  The idea is to bring attention to errors in the text.

You are probably ocrrect in thinking that an explicit re-itieration of some of the vileness in the bible would be more appropriate to the points being made.

I'm also unsure if the last line would be better as "This message, by the way, was inspired by god, and since it is written as such, it must be so.", or as "This message, by the way, was inspired by god."  Both are a comment on the circularity of saying 'the Bible is god's word because it claims to be', but one is more subtle.

I like subtle.  That's why I went more for bats = birds, and rabbits = cud-chewers.  Both are wrong and nicely demonstrate the Bible's very human origins.

But, I will admit, probably irrelevant.


Edit:  I revised the letter.  THe revision is quoted below.

We wish to thank the Winnipeg Sun for printing our letter, and making it letter of the day.  Unfortunately, in the process, a key message was edited out. 
The simple fact is that the Bible absolutely cannot be a moral guide if those deriving their moral codes from it have to use some outside system of ethics to parse the good morals from the bad ones.  You can't have it both ways. 
If someone wishes to use the Bible as justification for propagating intolerance of homosexuals, for example, by claiming the Bibles laws are absolute, then they are, by their own guidelines, required to adhere to the laws about keeping women under the dominion of men, killing people for almost anything, buying and selling slaves, etc.
Further, anyone who believes the Bible is the word of god because it says it is should look up something called "circular reasoning".
Good day to any readers, and feel free to think for yourselves!

Or do you think this might be too long?
(According to the Sun, letters have to be recieved before 5pm to be published the following day.)