Godless (35 page)
The first contradiction in the nontract deals with the Ten Commandments, contrasting Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill,” with Exodus 32:27
,
“Slay every man his brother.” The bible is filled with killings and mass murders that are committed, commanded or condoned by deity. If this is not a contradiction, then all squares are round.
,
“Slay every man his brother.” The bible is filled with killings and mass murders that are committed, commanded or condoned by deity. If this is not a contradiction, then all squares are round.
Yet most believers think they can square up this discrepancy with circular reasoning, or with creative
ad hoc
arguments. The most common claim offered in defense of this contradiction is that Exodus 20:13 really says, “Thou shalt not
murder
.” To murder is to kill unlawfully, maliciously or premeditatedly. If the Commandments forbid only “murder,” then it can be argued that other forms of killing are allowed, or even encouraged. God can ordain capital punishment, or command a holocaust of heathens without breaking his own law.
ad hoc
arguments. The most common claim offered in defense of this contradiction is that Exodus 20:13 really says, “Thou shalt not
murder
.” To murder is to kill unlawfully, maliciously or premeditatedly. If the Commandments forbid only “murder,” then it can be argued that other forms of killing are allowed, or even encouraged. God can ordain capital punishment, or command a holocaust of heathens without breaking his own law.
Of course, it is a useless tautology to define murder as an “unlawful” killing in this context. Since the Ten Commandments supposedly
are
the law, they would be merely saying, “It is unlawful to kill unlawfully.” This type of circular thinking excuses anyone who kills “in the name of the Lord, the source of law.” It is not only illogical, but also immoral, to claim that there is a law above the law that can justify unnecessary bloodshed. Many Christians claim that the genocide of idolaters is permitted because “God knows best.” But every murderer feels some kind of justification for the crime. Why is God special? Why should a deity get away with atrocities that would send you or me straight to prison?
are
the law, they would be merely saying, “It is unlawful to kill unlawfully.” This type of circular thinking excuses anyone who kills “in the name of the Lord, the source of law.” It is not only illogical, but also immoral, to claim that there is a law above the law that can justify unnecessary bloodshed. Many Christians claim that the genocide of idolaters is permitted because “God knows best.” But every murderer feels some kind of justification for the crime. Why is God special? Why should a deity get away with atrocities that would send you or me straight to prison?
Malice is a desire to cause harm, so if murder means anything it means a deliberately cruel taking of life. Except for euthanasia—a nonmalicious and (usually) requested termination of waning life—and perhaps self defense—where killing might regrettably be the minimal amount of violence necessary to prevent a greater harm—few would doubt that killing a person is harmful, no matter who does the killing.
Do the Ten Commandments really say that “Thou shalt not murder”? The Hebrew word for “kill” in Exodus 20:13 is
ratsach
. (The word for “slay” in the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is
haraq
.) Depending on which version you use, there are about 10 Hebrew words which are translated to mean “kill.” The five most common in Hebrew order (with translation in order of
King James
frequency) are:
ratsach
. (The word for “slay” in the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is
haraq
.) Depending on which version you use, there are about 10 Hebrew words which are translated to mean “kill.” The five most common in Hebrew order (with translation in order of
King James
frequency) are:
| muth : | (825) die, slay, put to death, kill |
| nakah : | (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder |
| haraq : | (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy |
| zabach : | (140) sacrifice, kill |
| ratsach: | (47) slay [23], murder [17], kill [6], be put to death [1] |
I am using the King James Version for convenience. Other translations will be a bit different, but this gives the general idea. Modern preachers must be smarter than Hebrew translators if they claim that
ratsach
means “murder” exclusively.
Muth, nakah, haraq, zabach
and
ratsach
appear to be spilled all over the bible in an imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way modern writers will swap synonyms.
ratsach
means “murder” exclusively.
Muth, nakah, haraq, zabach
and
ratsach
appear to be spilled all over the bible in an imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way modern writers will swap synonyms.
The word often means something that we would call “manslaughter” in our modern society. Referring to the “cities of refuge” set up by Moses to shelter killers, Deuteronomy 4:42 says “that the slayer [
ratsach
] might flee thither, which should kill [
ratsach
] his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past.” This accidental killing is hardly murder—it is neither premeditated nor malicious.
ratsach
] might flee thither, which should kill [
ratsach
] his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past.” This accidental killing is hardly murder—it is neither premeditated nor malicious.
Numbers 35:6-34 gives perhaps the best glimpse of how the words were used interchangeably. “Then ye shall appoint you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the slayer [
ratsach
] may flee thither, which killeth [
nakah
] any person at unawares.” (35:11) “He that smote [
nakah
] him shall surely be put to death [
muth
]; for he is a murderer [
ratsach
].” (35:21)
ratsach
] may flee thither, which killeth [
nakah
] any person at unawares.” (35:11) “He that smote [
nakah
] him shall surely be put to death [
muth
]; for he is a murderer [
ratsach
].” (35:21)
Again showing that
ratsach
can be accidental: “But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, or with any stone…seeing him not…and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer [
ratsach
] and the revenger of blood according to these judgments.” (35:22-24)
ratsach
can be accidental: “But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait, or with any stone…seeing him not…and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer [
ratsach
] and the revenger of blood according to these judgments.” (35:22-24)
Verse 27 shows that
ratsach
can be considered a justified killing: “[if] the revenger of blood kill [
ratsach
] the slayer [
ratsach
]; he shall not be guilty of blood.” Verses 30 and 31 show how the words are interchanged, and also indicate that
ratsach
was used for capital punishment: “Whoso killeth [
nakah
] any person, the murderer [
ratsach
] shall be put to death [
ratsach
] by the mouth of witnesses… Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer [
ratsach
], which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death [
muth
].”
ratsach
can be considered a justified killing: “[if] the revenger of blood kill [
ratsach
] the slayer [
ratsach
]; he shall not be guilty of blood.” Verses 30 and 31 show how the words are interchanged, and also indicate that
ratsach
was used for capital punishment: “Whoso killeth [
nakah
] any person, the murderer [
ratsach
] shall be put to death [
ratsach
] by the mouth of witnesses… Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer [
ratsach
], which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death [
muth
].”
If this doesn’t remove all doubt then consider Proverbs 22:13: “The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain [
ratsach
] in the streets.” Can animals be guilty of murder?
ratsach
] in the streets.” Can animals be guilty of murder?
As a desperate final straw, naive apologists might point to Matthew 19:18 where Jesus recites the Commandment, “Thou shalt do no murder [
phoneuo
].” But of the 12 times
phoneuo
appears in the bible, this is the only place where it is translated as “murder.” It is translated as “kill” everywhere else, and the Revised Version, The Amplified Bible, the New Catholic Bible and the New American Bible use “kill” in Matthew 19:18
.
The writer of Matthew was quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and this is an example of the difficulty of handling three slippery languages at once. It is hardly a persuasive argument in favor of “Thou shalt not murder,” and most likely reflects a translator bias.
phoneuo
].” But of the 12 times
phoneuo
appears in the bible, this is the only place where it is translated as “murder.” It is translated as “kill” everywhere else, and the Revised Version, The Amplified Bible, the New Catholic Bible and the New American Bible use “kill” in Matthew 19:18
.
The writer of Matthew was quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and this is an example of the difficulty of handling three slippery languages at once. It is hardly a persuasive argument in favor of “Thou shalt not murder,” and most likely reflects a translator bias.
Considering the biblical evidence, “Thou shalt not kill” is a better translation of the sixth commandment than “Thou shalt not murder.” There is a very slight argument in favor of inerrantists, however. Even though the biblical deity overindulged in
nakah
,
haraq
and
muth
, there is no instance where God did any
ratsach
himself. It was ordered and approved by God, but never directly committed by God, not by that verb. But since the use of
ratsach
is relatively sparse, it may just be that the writers of the bible never got around to assigning this particular word to godly massacres.
nakah
,
haraq
and
muth
, there is no instance where God did any
ratsach
himself. It was ordered and approved by God, but never directly committed by God, not by that verb. But since the use of
ratsach
is relatively sparse, it may just be that the writers of the bible never got around to assigning this particular word to godly massacres.
But all of this is irrelevant when we find verses repeating “Thou shalt not kill” in other Hebrew words. Leviticus 24:17 says, “And he that killeth [
nakah
] any man shall surely be put to death [
muth
].” Exodus 21:12
,
just 21 verses after the Ten Commandments, says, “He that smiteth [
nakah
] a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” According to Scripture it doesn’t matter what word you use: killing is against the law.
nakah
] any man shall surely be put to death [
muth
].” Exodus 21:12
,
just 21 verses after the Ten Commandments, says, “He that smiteth [
nakah
] a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” According to Scripture it doesn’t matter what word you use: killing is against the law.
Joshua
nakah
’ed the people of Ai (Joshua 8:21
),
and David
nakah
’ed Goliath (I Samuel 19:5). This was considered justifiable killing in spite of the fact that
nakah
was expressly forbidden. What does this do to the “
ratsach
= murder” defense? If Joshua and David are not criminals, then the bible is again proved contradictory.
nakah
’ed the people of Ai (Joshua 8:21
),
and David
nakah
’ed Goliath (I Samuel 19:5). This was considered justifiable killing in spite of the fact that
nakah
was expressly forbidden. What does this do to the “
ratsach
= murder” defense? If Joshua and David are not criminals, then the bible is again proved contradictory.
Some might argue that no matter how the Ten Commandments are translated, we still need them as a basis for law and order. But do we really? If Moses had not existed would it have never occurred to us that murder is immoral? Without “The Law” would we all be wandering around like little gods, stealing, raping and spilling blood whenever our vanity was offended? The first four Commandments have nothing to do with ethics (see Chapter 10), and any value in the remainder is based on rational humanistic principles that long predated the Jewish religion. It is wrong to kill,
even
according to the bible. And since the biblical god and his followers were murderers, the bible is contradictory.
even
according to the bible. And since the biblical god and his followers were murderers, the bible is contradictory.
When the Israelite warriors marched through a village, slaughtering and plundering in the name of the Lord, ripping up animals, children, men and women and saving the virgins alive for themselves (Numbers 31:15-18
),
they didn’t say to the pregnant woman with a sword in her belly, “By the way, I want you to know that I am not
murdering
you. I am lawfully killing you in God’s name.” And regardless, would such a fine semantic distinction make much difference to the victims of righteousness?
),
they didn’t say to the pregnant woman with a sword in her belly, “By the way, I want you to know that I am not
murdering
you. I am lawfully killing you in God’s name.” And regardless, would such a fine semantic distinction make much difference to the victims of righteousness?
Chapter Twelve
For Goodness Sake
If we did a good act merely from the love of
God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him,
whence arises the morality of the Atheist?...
Their virtue, then, must have had some other
foundation than the love of God.
—Thomas Jefferson
You notice a person drowning in a river. What should you do? If you agree with Jefferson, you will consider yourself a “social animal” with an “instinct” to compassion, whether you believe in a god or not. If you are a humanist, you will empathize with the sufferings of another human being. If you are a Christian, you will believe that the person’s life has value because he or she was “created in the image of God.” But whatever your basis for value, you still have to decide: “Should I jump in?” You can’t pull a list from your back pocket to look up “Rule 127: What to do when someone is drowning.” You can’t consult engraved stone tablets for a commandment that says that “Thou shalt jump into rivers to save drowning people.”
Behavioral dilemmas involve a conflict of values, and in real life this means they are always situational. You can’t simply follow a blind code. You have to compare the relative merits of the consequences of different actions, and the only way to do that is to exercise reason. How far out in the river is the person? How strong is the current? How good a swimmer are you? Are you likely to cause two deaths instead of one? How many children are you responsible for supporting?
It would be pointless to ask, “Is it moral to dive in?” The only purpose of this irrelevant question might be to make you feel virtuous, or guilty.
Perhaps you bravely take the risk and dive in. Or, regrettably, you might reason that the most moral action would be not to jump in the river, but to run for help. Your basis for value is not important—the facts of the situation are.
Quoting Dostoyevsky (“If God does not exist, everything is permissible”), many believers suggest that it is only theists who can have values. Like Jefferson, though, they certainly know this is not true. We atheists are just as likely as Christians to jump in that river—perhaps more likely.
During my struggle to break free from the cocoon of Christianity, the most difficult issue with which I grappled was the idea of relativism. I used to preach that relativism leads to chaos, that without absolutes “anything goes.” I’d say that like ships without rudders or machines without operating instructions, human beings without absolutes simply wander through life, hit-or-miss, trying this or that, never knowing what is right or wrong. It made a good sermon.
Most Christians feel that the basis for morality must be something absolute. This rock-solid foundation must be rooted outside humanity, they claim, providing an external and objective reference by which human behavior can be measured. Without this “cosmic code” for living, we would all choose or manufacture our own individual ethics relative to personal wants, whims and needs. An “inner directed” morality, most Christians insist, leads to relativism—and relativism, to them, is sin.
Additionally, believers claim that without an external code that is absolute, there is no ethical imperative. Why be good if there is no punishment, no reward, no all-knowing police officer to enforce the rules? They believe that if there is no god, then there is no accountability. Since human nature, they insist, is intrinsically corrupt (look at history or current headlines), the tendency will be toward destruction and evil unless there are strict laws and absolute enforcement. We are rambunctious children who need to be broken like wild horses, or reined in and controlled by our wise parents. The fear of punishment and the loss of parental approval provide the necessary moral imperative.
I used to find this argument persuasive. For about a year after rejecting religion I felt uncomfortable flapping my own wings. It took some getting used to the idea that I could chart my own moral course through life—that I
must
chart my own moral course through life. Although there is no ultimate universal guide, I do have a mind, which I realized is the only rudder I will ever have or need. To use yet another metaphor, I felt as though I were on trial and that right in the middle of the proceedings my lawyer died and I was left to represent myself before the bench, which was scary enough until I looked up and saw that the bench was vacant! I was the plaintiff, the defendant, the attorney and the judge! The responsibility was almost enough to drive me back to my cell, back to the cocoon of absolutes.
must
chart my own moral course through life. Although there is no ultimate universal guide, I do have a mind, which I realized is the only rudder I will ever have or need. To use yet another metaphor, I felt as though I were on trial and that right in the middle of the proceedings my lawyer died and I was left to represent myself before the bench, which was scary enough until I looked up and saw that the bench was vacant! I was the plaintiff, the defendant, the attorney and the judge! The responsibility was almost enough to drive me back to my cell, back to the cocoon of absolutes.
Other books
Dark Specter by Michael Dibdin
Bullet Creek by Ralph Compton
Butter Off Dead by Leslie Budewitz
Feeling Hot by Elle Kennedy
Lokant by Charlotte E. English
Hot and Steamy by Jean Rabe
In the Shadow of a Dream by Sharad Keskar
How I Became the Mr. Big of People Smuggling by Martin Chambers
Rexanne Becnel by The Bride of Rosecliffe
