The Biggest Joke Book on Earth

By Carl S ~

Back in the 1960's there was a popular TV series called “Get Smart.” The show was a spoof of James Bond-type counter-espionage. Agent 86, a.k.a. “Smart,” was played by Don Adams. I didn't see many episodes, but I do remember a gag he often repeated. When Smart reported to the head of his agency, he would sometimes say things like, “Would you believe there were 200 of them?” There would be a long pause, and then, “Would you believe 100? What about 75?”

Would you believe this report: a guy fed 5000 men with 5 loaves of bread and two fishes? Well, would you believe 50 loaves and 200 fishes? Would you believe 500 men, and no women and children? Didn't you believe me when I told you he also walked on water? Would you believe me if I said the lake was frozen? Would you believe a man lived to be 400 years old, and then he built a gigantic boat, when any 100 year old man would have trouble building a ship model? What else?

One commentator wrote about an atheist mother…

Unacceptable

By Carl S ~

Many loyal citizens insist that our foundation originates from the Bible. They pick and choose from the private writings, even public pronouncements of the Founders as they do from the Bible itself, to bolster their claim. (This is understandable; it’s human nature to “seek and find” support for biased opinions.)

Let’s consider if the tenth commandment alone is reason enough to question the morality of a Bible-based system.

Recently, a Bible commentator pointed out something about the tenth commandment, as written in Exodus 20:17. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The writer asks if we noticed that all of the things mentioned in this commandment are the “property” of the male head of the household.

Indeed, if we look at the Bible, this is normal. Prominent examples are Abraham, Solomon, David, Job, Noah. (This same book/mentality, is the basis for the Muslim and Mormon religions, with their original plurality of wives.)

Since wives, slaves, donkeys are “property,” so are sons and daughters, to be used or disposed of according to the will and disposition of the owner. Thus, Abraham may kill his son, and Old Testament patriarchs sell their daughters. A father god may drown his children; for they are his property. Ultimately, they have no choice, for they belong to him.

The belief that sons, for example, are property, is not limited to the Bible, but is thought to begin with agriculture and the consequent boundaries resulting from it. Treating young men as a man’s property has had dire consequences. In the past century alone millions of young men have died as sacrifices to the wills of dictators, tyrants, and a male “divine” emperor (Hirohito in WWII Japan).

We’ve become much more civilized than those biblical writers. Wives, children, mistresses, are no longer a man’s property, nor does he own slaves, and citizens can even be prosecuted for abusing their own pets. We have become much more moral and humane.

Yet we are asked to celebrate the birth of a son who is destined to be disposed of, in a horrible death, because he is his father’s personal property. This is unacceptable in 21st century America.

Comments