The Word of Man- Promoting Prejudice in the 21st Century

Bishop Spong [Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non Religious World] makes it quite clear that he and other biblical scholars do not believe that the Bible was either inspired by or written by God. He  said:

Holy Scriptures all have human authors who lived in a specific time and place. Only those readers who ascribe an external, revelatory, supernatural source for these ancient texts will find this insight disturbing. There is, however, no rational argument in the world that would support a divine or revealed source for the sacred writing of any religious tradition. This truth becomes quite obvious as we begin to look at the final major strand that made up the Torah.

That final strand was the Biblical re-write done from about the 6th to the 4th century BCE by the priestly class.  They edited even the creation story at the outset of the Bible so that it and other parts of the scripture fit the newly revised theology of the Jewish people after the Babylonian captivity. While in captivity the priestly class, in order to keep the Jewish faith and tradition from being tainted by their captors, formulated a series of rites and laws that would keep the Jews separate from the Babylonians in order to insure their ethnic purity. Circumcision of males, setting aside a Sabbath Day and kosher dietary restrictions would insure that the Jewish heritage would not be lost during the captivity. These and other customs, sadly, would also create a ethnic purity in the Jewish people which would later be used to cleanse their homeland of ‘foreigners.’

Spong writes:

The passion to keep themselves separate from Gentile infiltration in order to survive as a recognized people during the exile got interpreted, when the Jews returned to their homeland, to be a passion for ethnic purity. Genealogies were kept so that people could demonstrate their blood lines and prove their unpolluted Jewish heritage. This led to purges of those husbands, wives and children who were not demonstrably full-blooded Jews, as well as to the judgment, found in New Testament times, that Gentiles were by definition unclean and thus to be avoided. It also led to a violent prejudice against those who came to be called Samaritans. Not only had the Jewishness of the Samaritans been compromised, but their religion had been corrupted by foreign and thus pagan elements that the Samaritans had welcomed. Jewish prejudices against those thought of as half-breeds and heretics went deep and they were validated and legitimatized by appeals to the “Word of God” found in the law said to have been dictated by God to Moses. In time this prejudice against both the unclean Gentiles and the heretical Samaritans would usher in some less than admirable parts of Jewish history.

There it is. Do you get it? Just today at some gathering in Florida, GOP candidate Rick Santorum was confronted by a woman who claimed that President Obama is a Muslim and is not a legitimate president. She said, “He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn’t something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president.”

Of course Santorum took the coward’s way out and only said that ‘he was trying to get Obama out of office.’

Exclusivity. Purity. Purging of the ‘unclean.’ For the Bible says…

If it was right and proper for the Jews to purify their land of the unclean, the half-breeds and heretics, as the Bible states, then it is perfectly logical for some Bible-thumper to want to cleanse America of an illegitimate president.

The “word of God” says it is right to do so.


7 thoughts on “The Word of Man- Promoting Prejudice in the 21st Century

  1. Spong, Luther, Calvin, Henry Tudor, Early Church Fathers, and Jesus.

    Here we go again! Spong just the latest in attempting to have his own religion.
    Spongs concept is to deny Western theism. He even makes, Jesus, an
    adopted son, not a real “God”.

    Why do we even have to propagate this? It seems to me that the problem
    is solved with secularization. Why is there a need to posit a “God”?

    As you write, M_R, Spong has destroyed the Old and New Testaments.
    He demonstrates that it is fake. However, instead of moving to secularism,
    Spong then sets about to fashion his own interpretation of divinity. Why?
    What do we need it for? Is human kind incapable of living and surviving
    without religion? So, Spong has to re-create a version in his own image?
    What have we gained? Another religion!

  2. Is human kind incapable of living and surviving
    without religion?

    Apparently not here in the Land of the Free and home of the Brave. How far can you drive, UptheFlag, in your city before passing a church?

    You can’t at all be serious with that statement, my friend. Americans seem to be more wedded to religious cults than the Puritans. Just look at the Republican Party and the Southern Republican party all around you. Politics and religion are stuck together like intestinal adhesions.

    , Spong has to re-create a version in his own image?
    What have we gained? Another religion!

    Not at all. He only wants the TRUTH to be preached- a truth that has been hidden under layer after layer of propaganda and political righteousness. Surely, history doctorate, you too seek clarity of historical documentation, don’t you?

  3. ” It seems to me that the problem is solved with secularization. ”

    Except in real life that isn’t happening. You have to understand the poison before you can find a cure.

  4. ” And, stepping into politics once more, this propaganda is alive and well today as the GOP candidates move to Florida………”

    Religious and political propaganda seem to go hand in hand doesn’t it. Today, in his State of the Union address, President Obama is expected to call for
    a settlement of the foreclosure problem that has plagued the country for at
    least five years. Unfortunately, Obama’s solution is unethical. It is going
    to put the cost onto the 99 or 90 percenters who pay the taxes. I have
    brought this situation up before and explained how the AGs of NY, MA, CA,
    and DL(Biden) vehemently oppose this immoral plan. The debt is in the
    3-400 BILLION dollar estimate to WS. Obama is willing to close the issue
    on the backs of the middleclass for roughly $30 Billion. How unethical and
    immoral for a “religious” politician!

    1. President Obama is expected to call for a settlement of the foreclosure problem that has plagued the country for at least five years.

      OK.Two questions emerge. First, what is his ‘solution?’ Do you know what it is or are you just tossing a Molotov cocktail on our discussion? Second, the GOP does not really want to ‘solve’ the problem because of several reasons. One, it plays well in an election year. Two, they are bitching about Dodd-Frank as well as the Community Reinvestment Act, both of which attempt to tighten the qualifications for mortgage lending. Third, they are in bed with the Financial Services Industry.

      Why then, UptheFlag, would they want to ‘solve’ the mortgage crisis? Did any of the 4 GOP candidates address the SOLUTION to the problem or did they, rather, just toss it out like red meat to the hungry right-wingers?

  5. “Do you know what it is or are you just tossing a Molotov cocktail on our discussion? ”

    Well, I am a Russian historian, lol…But seriously, I have researched this
    and have put at least 2 or 3 previous long comments some where down
    below on the Obama Administration’s desire to put the foreclosure issue
    behind them. Yes, according to the sources as of this morning Obama
    has a section of the speech dedicated to the foreclosure problem. The
    figure that I wrote about previously was $30-40BILLION. However, this
    afternoon I heard a figure of $17 BILLION. Obama wants to do this
    for two reasons, One economic-to remove doubt in the market , One
    political, to help his re-election bid. The real debt of the six banks involved
    in the foreclosures is in the $350 BILLION range. This is why some
    AGs have broken away from the 50 AGs that want to bring legal action for
    fraud and other crimes against these WS Banks. Obviously, there could
    not be a 50 AGs committee, so a smaller committee was formed. I know
    for sure that one AG on that committee was that of NY. He was the first
    to reject such a settlement with Obama and WS. For this, he was dismissed
    from the committee. I believe that you can find this in the NYT and on
    the Huffington Post. Since then he has been joined by the AGs of CA, MA,
    DL(Biden, VP Bidens son), and a couple of others. I can’t put my hands on
    my research notes right off, my big work desk is loaded with writings and
    notes, lol. Probably check back on those sites for Sept, Oct, or Nov.
    Oh, Check Sunday’s Up With Chris Hayes program on MSNBC for a transcript. There was a long discussion about this issue with former NY AG and
    Gov. Spitzer, Reagan advisor David Stockman, and a lead economic
    writer for the NYT. For the most part, they were in agreement that this was
    not the right way to go. WHY? It allows WS to escape litigation by 50 States
    , it lessens the amount WS is on the line for, and puts the burden on the
    tax paying middle class or the bottom 90%. Now, just what is ethical, moral,
    and fair to do this? And, tonight, the State of the Union Speech is to
    emphasize “FAIRNESS”. However, M_R, we all know the devil is in the

    Moreover, you ask if the GOP wants to solve the problem. Man, they should
    like this sellout to WS if this is the way it goes down. WS has been
    redeemed! Also, I believe that in the Florida debate last night, the foreclosure
    problem was discussed. And, speaking of who is in bed with the Financial
    Services Industry, there are no more cuddlers than the Dems. The chief
    Members of Congress that comes to mind are Dodd, Schumer, and Frank.
    I wish that you would bring your muckraking attention to the betrayal of
    the middleclass by the Senate and the House, rather than if a bible is
    written by a “God” or men.

  6. OMG, he’s baaaack, M_R, your neighbor “Joe the Plumber”. Joe made
    the lead editorial in the WSJ this morning as the paper responded to the
    State of the Union Speech. The J relates the story again of Obama
    meeting Joe in the campaign of 2008 and says that when Obama told
    Joe that we needed to “spread the wealth around” it was nothing but
    campaign rhetoric. However, since that was what Obama was saying
    in his speech it’s much more than that. Now, just how does Joe do it?
    The WSJ. LOL!

Comments are closed.