Yes, indeed change is very much obvious in the bible. And I don't think this can be emphasized enough. We do see ethical progress from the old to the new testament, particularly from the militaristic, bloodthirsty deity known as Yahweh to the (supposed) teachings of Jesus. If one of our premises is that the deity doesn't change and is ethically perfect then it is pretty difficult to reconcile the forgiveness, love-thy-enemy, turn-the-other-cheek, walk-another-mile that Jesus espoused (and Jesus is supposedly a manifestation of the deity itself) and the murderous, unforgiving OT god. As Richard Dawkins had so famously said,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the mospot unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. [The God Delusion, Bantam, 2006, p. 31]

One need only contrast how this all-loving(?!) being murdered--without batting an eye--hundreds or perhaps even thousands of Egyptian children, and how Jesus is reputed to have loved children. Imagine how the United Nations or The Hague would judge a leader, a father who summarily murdered children--for whatever reason, under whatever pretext. Imagine how we would consider a so-called super-advanced, super-wise, and super-benevolent extraterrestrial who resorted to killing human children--for whatever reason, under whatever pretext. No one can get away with the rationalization that the end justifies the means in the case of children, that murdering children is ok because of some some greater good, and above all when this "greater good" is not even named, described, analyzed and evaluated. What possible "greater good" could merit the murder of children?

And we continue to see ethical progress up to our time. As we have said we need only point out that slavery and treating people including children and wives as chattel is now a crime against humanity (so to speak) such that the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights enshrines the dignity of every person whatever their sex or age. You don't see this in the bible. In contrast some of Jesus' contemporaries did condemn slavery. The Judaic sect known as the Essenes for instance. And the Jewish philosopher/theologian Philo of Alexandria. Thus there is simply no excuse for Jesus' lack of condemnation of slavery particularly since supernaturalists believe him to to be a god-man, a demigod or the deity itself. And there is no excuse for the Judeo-Xian deity to have permitted it in the first place given the various theological premises imposed on it.

Of course what all this points us to is that the bible is a very human document (as with all of the world's so-called sacred texts), written by humans who were set in their milleu.

Hi et! I think the concept of “spirituality” would be hard to define. It is a personal experience and each person should define it for themselves. It can range from a spirituality based on religious dogma to a spirituality based on belief in oneself or the human spirit that you referred to.

Thanks for pointing out that religious dogma has changed over the past centuries and decades. Fundamentalists often preach that their God is a God who doesn’t change but a close look at the bible tells us that change is very much a part of religion and spirituality.

I'm glad my lingering belief that National Bookstore is biased is being put to rest. Thank you for this much needed disillusionment. You see I have seen neither the bestsellers The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, nor God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger in National. This led me to suspect that National may be prejudiced against atheistic books. The presence of the Sam Harris' title is quite a welcome disconfirming evidence.

Haven't read Letter to a Christian Nation, but Harris is definitely hard-hitting in his The End of Faith.

Vis-a-vis Xians not believing in Islam's god or Hindu's deities, Richard Dawkins succinctly puts it as thus: monotheists are atheistic toward the thousand gods out there except one. Atheists just go one god further.

Pretty biased and irrational indeed that a monotheist will believe through and through in his/her god (usually his culture's) but not in all the other gods, even if there is just no evidence for all gods including his/hers.

I have a problem with the words "spiritual" and "spirituality"? What do they mean and refer to? I'm not sure there is any consensus as to what they are. The root word seems to be "spirit." But what is spirit? Is it something that is incorporeal/nonphysical? If so, what is the evidence that it is in fact real? Or does spirit (as in "the human spirit") refer to a psychological process, something related to drive/motivation/urge/desire?

Some critics--even religious skeptics like Michael Shermer for example--contend that atheism by itself will not convince people or will not work or what have you unless you have something positive to offer and replace theism with. I find this rather odd since most of us are a-fairyists, a-Roswell-alienites, a-dwarvians, a-Loch-Ness-monsterians, etc. (forgive the crude on-the-fly neologisms). And yet when we critique or dismiss belief in fairies, aliens on earth, dwarves, yeti, etc. it would be strange indeed to say the least to be scolded for not offering something to replace these beliefs with. What should we replace them with? Moreover, isn't hacking our delusions a good in itself? Isn't being rational a good in itself? Isn't doing away with wasted time on irrational beliefs a good in itself? Isn't thinking clearly and knowing the ways to be objective about our beliefs a good in itself?

As for values, ethics and meaning which religion purportedly provides, there is no need for an atheist to offer anything. Humanism is out there for the taking. Besides, Christians have been practising prejudice against its own book of moral code. They cherry pick which commandments of their god they will enforce and which ones they turn a blind eye too and which ones they will definitely not follow. For example they too have a humanistic enough sense to condemn slavery (which is permitted and regulated but nowhere in the bible condemned) and do not go about stoning adulterers and other "sinners." I'll hazard a guess that 1st century Jews and Christians, including the authors of the bible, would be pretty unnerved by how 21st century Christians don't follow so much of the laws of God. Where's the animal sacrifices? Whatever happened to God's explicit permission to own slaves? Where are the killings of family members who encourage us to go to other religions and gods? These 1st century Xians will probably want to know when God changed his mind and changed the rules. (In fairness, the 21st century Jews will have a lot of answering to do as well)

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
— St Francis of Assisi

In a country where the devil wears condoms and the morning-after pill Postinor is illegal, I was surprised to find that the book, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, is on sale at National Book Store.

Pro-atheist?

Letter to a Christian Nation is considered to be pro-atheism. The author uses a simple argument to help Christians understand what atheism is… Continue reading