28 December 2012

Piers Morgan: The Bible is flawed and should be amended

On Christmas Eve, Piers Morgan interviewed Rick Warren. Here are some excerpts:

On slavery:
MORGAN: -- He [Abraham Lincoln] knew instinctively it was just wrong, unfair, unequal.

WARREN: And why did he know that? Because it's in the Bible.

[No it isn't. See here for what the Bible says about slavery.]

On rape:
WARREN: I think the Bible is true; not everything in the Bible that is explained in the Bible does the Bible commend.

For instance, there's rape in the Bible. The Bible's clearly against rape.

[No it isn't. See here for what the Bible says about rape.]

On adultery:
MORGAN: But the Bible says if you commit adultery, you're going to be stoned to death.

WARREN: That's -- that is a, as we said before, that's a civil law for the nation of Israel.

MORGAN: But it's still an element of the Bible that is flawed.

WARREN: Well, evidently, for that generation, that's their -- that's their commandment. ... But it's not one of the moral laws.

[Yes it is. See here for the Bible's (im)moral law on adultery.]

On Amending the Bible:
MORGAN: The Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned, but they are basically inherently flawed. Hence the need to amend it.

My point to you about gay rights, for example, it's time for an amendment to the Bible.

WARREN: Not a chance. What I -- what I believe is flawed is human opinion because it constantly changes. In fact, we do it every eight years in America. We have a -- we have a change in opinion; what was -- what was hot is now not.

And I willingly admit -- willingly admit that I base my world view on the Bible, which I believe is true, and truth -- my definition of truth is if it's new, it's not true. If it was true 1,000 years ago, it'll be true 1,000 years from today. Opinion changes, but truth doesn't.

MORGAN: We're going to agree to disagree on that.

Watch Rick Warren lie and squirm his way out of the obvious truth of Piers Morgan's statements about the Bible.


Ben Arkell said...

Not sure how you take the references listed from the Bible and state that it condones rape?

Dave Hughes said...

Steve, your quoting the Bible like a fundamentalist. Why not interpret it like many thinking Christians do, as a socio-historical text? Christians are, by definition, followers of Jesus - what does he say about rape and slavery? Quote him for a better representation.

Steve Wells said...

The difference between a fundamentalist and a thinking Christian is that the former believes in the Bible and the latter does not.

Jesus, by the way, was a fundamentalist when it came to the Hebrew scriptures. Here's what he (supposedly) had to say about it: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Mt 5:18-19

Stephen said...

"The Way of Convergence" places great stock in "presuppositions"...

"It's becoming more and more obvious to me that presuppositions are crucial in the thinking game. Often people get labeled wrongly or misunderstood, not because there is a ideological conflict, but rather because the two sides involved are operating off different presuppositions that have not been clarified before dialogue has begun." (from TWOC web site)

"Presupposition" is another word for "assumption". You know what they say about what happens when you assume. ;-)
Assumptions should be based on the best available evidence. When you assume ("presuppose") that "the Bible is the inspired word of God", you need to consider the available supporting evidence. Hint: first you need to consider the evidence for the existence of "god".

Assuming ;-) that you believe your "evidence", then you must explain how the "inspired word" contains so much that is "apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate" (credit: Douglas Adams), and contradictory. Pretty sloppy inspiration, if you ask me.
Steve Weeks

Anonymous said...

I can't watch the video b/c I'm at work...but I'm curious of what the contents of an 'amended' bible would be.Besides what was listed, what else would be taken out..and what would be added.

Stephen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen said...

Blogger Stephen said...

Well, Thomas Jefferson had an idea about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
It is still available: http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Morals-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1604591285

And if you can't have an "amended" bible, there's always the "annotated" version!
Steve Weeks

ds said...

OK,maybe you're right, Ben.

Maybe the Bible doesn't condone rape -- well, except for in times of war. Then it's OK. (Numbers 31:15-18)

Odd, that passage doesnt actually say rape is right in time of war. What it says is that in a particular campaign Moses spared all the virgins ( which in that culture would have been underge girls) but executed the women because they had been complict in an earlier incident. But then I guess thats what happens when you read instead of just rattling off quotes

"And it says that a woman who is raped in the city should be stoned to death if she doesn't cry out loud enough. (Dt 22:23-24)"

Err No, it says that when a married women and man are found having sex then if there is evidence the women consented both are punished. YOu seem to confuse adultery with rape. Do I need to explain the difference.

"Heck, it even requires a rapist to pay the father of his victim 50 shekels and then marry her. (Dt. 22:28-29)"

Wrong again, that passage states a man who sleeps with an unmarried virgin must marry her. Again sex with an unmarried women is not rape.

"So I see your point, Ben. The Bible only condones rape in times of war. Otherwise, the rapist must pay the father of his victim 50 shekels and then marry her -- unless she doesn't cry out loud enough, in which case she must be stoned to death. "

No that just shows you simply cite internet cites without actually reading texts, or even understanding what they actually say.

"Thanks for the correction."

Your welcome.

Norm J said...

By today's standards, what happened to the Virgin Mary would be statutory rape of an underage girl by a person in authority.