Jim Moretz

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Locks

To: Jim Moretz

Sent: 28 January 2000 00:59

Subject: Re: Your comments on foolery

Hello Jim,

Thanks for your comments.

You are right, I haven't been entirely fair here as the original words are

more subtle than the common translations often found. Following your email I did some research at the

"All-in-One Biblical Resources Search" at http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/multibib.htm and confirmed your email as a good point and I will link to this email exchange from the "foolery" section so that people can see there are subtleties involved.

Nevertheless, I think I still also have a point worth making if you'll bare with me.

First, on the detail.

You wrote:

<< In Matthew 5:22, the Greek word rendered "fool" in English

is "Raca." >>

As far as I understand, the use of "raca" is not for the

word "fool" which is instead "moros" (English etymology of "moron")

in the original. i.e. the passage should read:

Greek

Matthew 5:22

egw de legw umin oti paV o orgizomenoV tw adelfw autou enocoV estai th krisei oV d an eiph tw adelfw autou raka (raca) enocoV estai tw sunedriw oV d an eiph mwre ("more" = fool, from "moros" [mwros] = foolish) enocoV estai eiV thn geennan tou puroV

However, "Young's literal" translates this not as "fool" but as "rebel," whilst "raca" seems to be "empty fellow."

Matthew 5:22

but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

However I am not sure that this is correct as mwre definitely is ancient Greek for "fool" (I checked this with a native Greek friend and a Greek dictionary). This doesn't spoil your main point though.

Meanwhile many other groups of biblical scholars are quite content to let it read as "fool"

NIV

Matthew 5:22

"...anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin [the

Council]. But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire "

Darby Version

Matthew 5:22

But *I* say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgement; but whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to [be called before] the sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the hell of fire.

Douay-Rheims

Matthew 5:22

But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgement. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

This similar treatment by different groups also seems to be happening with "aphron" (afrwn) which Young's literal translates as "unthinking" whereas all the others are content with "fool." This happens with all the other passages you mentioned.

So you have a good point, which I concede although it is unfortunate that if it is really important then so many scholars have missed it when it seems so obvious in the Greek. Not that Jesus spoke Greek of course, so I could not be certain that Greek speakers were not making similar mistakes with Aramaic words, but I can only conjecture here at the moment. Nevertheless, the oldest texts are Greek so I understand.

Nevertheless, the Psalmists are translated in Young's Literal as claiming atheists are "fools" which is the action so condemned in Matthew. So you are not totally off the hook!

But maybe it is even more complicated....

Out of interest, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

"It is often stated that Jesus never commented about homosexuality. A case

can be made that he refers to gays in this verse. On the surface, the verse

seems to condemn individuals who treat others with contempt and call them

names. Hatred of others is considered here as serious to God as an overt act

of murder. "Raca" is defined in the NIV as an Aramaic term of contempt. But

"raca" "rakha" and similar terms in various Semitic languages also carry the

meaning of effeminacy or weakness - terms frequently used to refer to

homosexuals. The word "Moros" which is translated as "fool" has a number of

meanings, including both sexual aggressor and homosexual aggressor. One

could argue that Jesus was condemning homophobia in this passage; but it

would be a weak case at best, because of the multiplicity of meanings of the

key words. "

So as for what the passage really means, as you say, it is debatable. Certainly if it is important it has not been deemed that scripture can be understood by the uneducated such as "prostitutes and tax-collectors" who are meant to be entering the kingdom of heaven before us. I think it is a shame if so much study is required in order to be persuaded that the bible is saying less cruel and hypocritical things than it seems. Even with much study this is often still not enough. With your email I received yet another from an ex-professional Christian. He said "[I] have run the gamut from Pentecostal to United Methodist minister. I have two Master Degrees from two seminaries, including Princeton Theological Seminary. It was there that I began the long journey of deconversion." http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/jeff_kindle.html

It doesn't seem that any amount of study is guaranteed to make the bible secure enough for belief. There are many similar cases available through my website, and I am currently compiling a big list of similar ex-professional Christians. I have books of collected stories from such people (see my booklinks) and Dan Barker is writing another collection of stories from ex-clergy. There must be something up if all these people are not convinced by their scholarship to remain Christians.

However, the most disturbing part of this passage is the part you did not comment on. It is not the apparent contradiction in the bible that is really disturbing, but the sentiments involved. You said: << Jesus

would never have used that term. >> My guess is that this is mostly a statement of faith in Jesus' perfection. The gospel writers also have Jesus saying "And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool (or whatever), shall be in danger of hell fire (whatever that means)" and one can add to this the other passages I have about Jesus' unforgiving remarks on my page http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html as well the Gospel accounts of Jesus' references to 'hypocrites', 'blind guides', 'whitewashed tombs', 'snakes', 'broods of vipers' etc. There is further discussion at http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/Jesuscha.html

and http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/Jesusdeb.html

about Jesus' contradictions and moral character.

I appreciate that some biblical errancy is straw man stuff or weak, such as some of Donald Morgan's list http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html however much is not so easily tackled, and although a full discussion is only really appropriate on lists such as errancy http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/secular.html#errancy I can at least testify that from my researches, trying to reconcile biblical passages is a common starting point down the road to leaving Christianity.

Meanwhile, back in hell(!!), as I said in my story:

"The fact that Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, believed in hell is to me such a serious religious problem that it was one of the things that finally broke up my Christianity. What was going on in this book! As a liberally natured Christian I had never really believed in the existence of hell, or at least I shied away from hell thoughts, as it did not fit with my idea of a loving God. Rather I thought all this hell talk must mean something else. But the problem was that there was so much of it in the NT and the fact that God seemed to allow the doctrine to be so popular within the church did bother me very much, as did the fact that if Jesus & St. Paul etc. really didn't believe in literal hell then the fact that they didn't make it abundantly transparent that they meant something else was just utterly culpable irresponsibility to me, so abhorrent is the merest sniff of that doctrine and so dreadful the consequences of Christians believing it down the ages. "

This is the real problem with the passage you picked me up on. The contradiction, apparent or otherwise, is useful to show how little the bible can be taken at face value. Inerrancy research is full of pitfalls, but the real moral problem is far worse than this. You may have seen me discuss this a little at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/henry_quon.html which also contains other material of relevance so I will leave you to refer to that if you wish (including the meaning of "hell" (geennan)), rather than repeat it here.

Although I have not discussed the subtleties of translation, I think the important point is well made by highlighting such passages. It is indeed unfair of Jesus (as reported by the gospel writers) to use such language especially, if he were divine, in knowing the problems it would cause down the millennia. This is good evidence against his divinity.

From Steven Carr's site at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/case.htm

"Jesus taught about the Flood. There was no Flood. Would not a great teacher not have known that?

Jesus taught that some people were in a 'synagogue of Satan'. Great teachers do not use antisemitisms.

Jesus called his enemies 'hypocrites', 'blind guides', 'whitewashed tombs', 'snakes', 'broods of vipers'.

Jesus promised the people of Capernaum that it would be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgement than for them.

Sceptics prefer the teachings in Paul's letter to the Ephesians 4:29 'Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen... Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice' "

Paul (like Jesus, above) does not always use this advice. This should be expected from humans.

The point is, so much of the bible is just not humane, let alone divine. In my opinion, to put so much effort into excusing these writings in the face of so many truly cruel passages and the horrific suffering in the world is indicative of an unhealthy relationship. Christians are too often so concerned with bolstering Christianity that the neglectfulness of their god in making himself clear, or even kind, is ignored through sometimes massive effort. There is far worse in the bible than the "foolery" verses I have included which were partly chosen because they struck me as amusing rather than being completely serious. I apologise if that seems too frivolous. The later passages I have at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html are far from frivolous.

As I said in another feedback discussion, trying to build a relationship

with a silent and neglectful partner, who we excuse for cruel acts and words,

is not love. Christians jump through hoops for their god and their beliefs,

engineering experiences and emotions whilst the cool reality is that

there is silence at the other end. Christians blame themselves if they feel

something is going wrong in their Christian lives or their heartfelt and

anxious prayers are not answered, rather than blame or question the

existence of the silent god who leaves them to suffer the worst that

life can throw at them. This is exactly how abused and neglected wives

behave regarding their husbands until they either wake up or are helped

to see the relationship for the non-relationship that it is.

I will reiterate though, that these are just ideas that made me uneasy, and mostly occurred at the end of my deconversion. Most of the process was one of reading of psychology, comparative religion, history and thinking through some knotty problems that lead to my deconversion.

There is a much better way to live, but it takes a lot of courage to dare to

question ones god through fear of what he might do to you or not give you, let alone the fear of losing so much investment in Christian life to date and the psychological attachment one naturally has grown in years of a Christian environment. However, the fact that so many heavily invested sincere Christians have deconverted is compelling evidence that there is something very wrong with Christianity, even without following the resources such as those I have in my notes http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html#notes and the stories on my site.

Basically, I think you made a valid point about the "fool" quotes, but the serious problem is one of enormous moral, emotional and psychological import. Excusing such quotes is interesting and academic, but loving God in the face of what is often said in the bible and the neglect the Christian god has for the world is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel in my opinion. You may ignore my opinion of course, but this is my website, so I will be frank. On the rare occasions that I ask questions on Christian websites, I am always very polite and restrained, as I feel I am a guest. On debate lists and my website, and when people write to me, I let it all hang out though. I hope that you don't get upset by any strong words.

I use feedback as an opportunity for amplifying my thoughts and to build up a FAQ for referring subsequent feedback to. So please don't be taken aback at a long reply - it is not meant to be personal, but rather written as a contribution to my site as well as an answer to your email.

Thanks again for writing and alerting me to not being totally fair about the foolery passages. I hope our exchange has been mutually interesting.

Best wishes,

Steve

----------------

Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html