Gospel Doctrine for the Godless

An ex-Mormon take on LDS Sunday School lessons

Category: indoctrination (page 2 of 2)

NT Lesson 11 (Parables)

“He Spake Many Things unto Them in Parables”

Matthew 13

LDS manual: here

Purpose

To show that the church encourages lying by omission, and to encourage readers to be more honest in their personal lives

Reading

This week’s reading is one of the shortest — just one chapter long. It’s all about parables. Parables are stories where things stand for other things, and they lend themselves to more than one interpretation. That means they can mean anything you want them to mean. So it’s perfect for religion.

Main ideas for this lesson

The reason for parables

Let’s start off with a quiz.

Ask: Why did Jesus speak in parables?

  1. To make divine principles clearer by using common everyday objects people would have known about
  2. To keep his teaching at the front of hearers’ minds by using things they would have had daily interaction with
  3. To purposely confuse people so that they wouldn’t understand him, and they wouldn’t be saved.

The surprising answer:

Mark 4:11-12: And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Isn’t this odd? Presumably God wants as many people as possible to be saved, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. Instead, Jesus is setting up an in-group and an out-group, with different levels of knowledge for those who are in and who are out. (It’s why I say that Jesus was the first modern cult leader.) Seen this way, Christianity begins to look like some exclusive club for those who have already made up their minds to believe. And what do you know: it is! Who else would believe on such poor evidence except those who, for social or aspirational reasons, have already given themselves and their thinking over to the narrative?

But this is a terrible way for a god to run things. Jehovah / Jesus is hiding the (allegedly) saving truths of the gospel from people, and they will (one presumes) be languishing in hell / isolation / separation from god for eternity. Why would he hide the truth from them?

When salvation is on the line, God should speak clearly, not in riddles and double meanings.

Is Mormonism ‘occult’?

One of the insults people sometimes hurl at the LDS Church is that it’s occult. They usually meant satanic, evil, and so forth.

A typical LDS sacrament meeting. Awkward the week it’s your mom.

I don’t think the Mormon Church qualifies as occult in the sense that people mean it today. However, there’s an older sense of occult, which is a bit more like hidden:

Oxford: Communicated only to the initiated; esoteric.

In this earlier meaning of occult, the LDS Church definitely qualifies. For investigators, there’s a gradual rolling-out of doctrine, with multiple levels; one for people who have been “initiated into the mysteries”, and another for those who haven’t.  Temple worship is occult in that you’re only allowed to have teh sercet nollij once you’ve been initiated into the mysteries. “Milk before meat”, as they say.

Think about how this plays out in the modern church. I’m not a believer, but I’m an easy guy to convince; all you have to do is lay out the facts, and I’ll change my mind. Yet in my interactions with believers and missionaries, I’ve heard many of the following things:

  • I could sit here and explain everything to you, but because you don’t believe, it won’t do any good.
  • There are experiences that are too sacred to talk about (except with people who believe).
  • I’m not going to show you a sign through your disbelief.
  • You have to believe first, and then the truth will be obvious.
  • Faith precedes the miracle.

This is all part of the same idea: only share certain information with people who believe, and withhold information from those who don’t. And if you think this secretive jazz is weird or unique to Mormonism, remember: it was encouraged by Jesus himself.

Read Steve Hassan’s BITE model of cult mind control. (As far as I’m aware, this model is not well-accepted by psychologists, but many of the items ring a few bells for me.)

Ask: How have you noticed that the LDS Church uses information control, as below?

Information Control
1. Deception:
a. Deliberately withhold information
b. Distort information to make it more acceptable
c. Systematically lie to the cult member

3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
a. Ensure that information is not freely accessible
b. Control information at different levels and missions within group
c. Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when

For ex-Mos and psychologists, it’s easy to see why the church would roll out the weird stuff slowly: people would freak out and bolt if they were confronted with it all at once. Shoot, I might have bolted  at my own endowment myself, were it not for a lifetime of religious training, and everyone in my family right there, dressed in weird robes, in my first endowment session.

The hope is that by the time the member is introduced into the mysteries, they will have invested so much that leaving is unlikely.

I think the Mormon practice of concealing information — and even “lying for the Lord” — is harmful to its members. It gives members a licence for dishonesty. It’s acceptable to hide or shade unpalatable facts. After all, you know it’s true, so whatever you do in the service of the truth is okay.

Watch this video of Gordon Hinckley on the Larry King Show. How many false statements does he make about polygamy?

Quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997: “On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it… I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.'”
Hinckley claimed he was misquoted:
“I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church. (1997 October General Conference)”

This attitude shows up for other church leaders:

Boyd K. Packer“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
“Some things that are true are not very useful.

“The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.
“It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.”

This next part is probably not true for everyone, but it was for me, and I’d be interested to hear your comments on this. As a missionary, I willingly took on this tendency to very carefully control how I presented what I believed to be true, and held back information from investigators because they “weren’t ready” for it, or they “wouldn’t accept” it. Well, maybe they wouldn’t, but that was for them to decide, wasn’t it?

And in the rest of my life, I followed this pattern of hiding or shading things about myself or my behaviour — presenting them in the best possible light and omitting uncomfortable details — because I was afraid I wouldn’t be accepted as I was. And why wouldn’t I have? It was acceptable in the service of the church. This tendency was very damaging, and did not serve me well. Again, maybe I’m alone on this, but I really do feel like I got mixed messages about honesty in church. On the one hand, it teaches honesty. On the other, it only reveals the good parts of the church’s history, teachings, and practices. Anything uncomplimentary is written off as anti-Mormon lies.

It’s taken me a lot of effort to become a more honest person; to say it (and see it) like it is. What did it for me was science. Let me explain.

When I was a church member, I thought the church was the standard for what it meant for something to be true. That meant that I could make up explanations and complicated apologetics in defence of church doctrine, and as long as it sounded plausible, I could defend it as ‘probably true’.

But when I used science, the standard was the real world. If I wanted to come up with a hypothesis for why something was so, it had to be grounded in real observations, not wishful stories. And that meant I couldn’t just see things the way I wanted. If I tried that, I knew someone would come around with the facts, and smack me down. Nobody wants another scientist to come around and eat their lunch, so this is a great incentiviser. I had to make sure I was getting it right and not deceiving myself. It’s been a great lesson, and one that has served me well in work and in life. Ironically, I had to leave the church before I could learn it.

Additional lesson ideas

Without honour… in his own country

People didn’t seem to buy the whole Jesus thing in his own country.

Matthew 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Ask: Why didn’t people believe Jesus in his hometown?
Answer: People know you in your hometown. It’s harder to fool people who know you.

Wheat and tares

Why does God allow all the terrible non-Christians to exist? Jesus explains:

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

If the tares are the bad people, and the wheat is the good people, I guess this explains why God is leaving everyone alone, in a good impersonation of someone who doesn’t exist. On the other hand, does this mean God is going to burn people? If so, this would be right in line with Jesus’ other teachings on hell. But more about those later.

Okay, I admit I could be misunderstanding this parable, but that’s probably Jesus hiding the truth from me because I haven’t chosen to accept all this Christian bullshit uncritically, right? So score one for Jesus. Well done.

Faith as a mustard seed

Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed.

Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

There may be some dodgy science here. Mustard seeds aren’t the smallest, and it’s not clear that mustard trees are big enough for birds to sit in.

But let’s take it parabolically.

Last year, a good friend of mine converted to Christianity. When we were housemates, she always seemed like a secular agnostic, but then she moved away, started hanging out with Christians, and now here she was on social media babbling away about how wonderful God and Jesus were. In particular, she cited this scripture, and said that her faith, even as small as a mustard seed, finally grew.

There’s always a self-blaming moment for me when that happens, though it hasn’t happened often. For a moment, I did think, “What could I have done? Could I have been there for her?” but I shook it off. I can’t be everywhere for everyone, and I’m being as public and available as I can with this blog and everything else. Some people will just be susceptible to the beliefs of whoever they’re near, and some people will just believe things for bad reasons. And trying to keep your fingers in someone else’s brain so they won’t believe bad things — that’s for Christians, not me.

But I take the mustard seed parable the opposite way: Even a small germ of belief can grow and metastasise. It speaks to the importance of being rational, knowing how to spot bad arguments, and demanding evidence for claims. Even just a tiny lapse in critical thinking can have severe consequences and lead to bad decisions.

Bad decisions like this book cover.

Admit it, you saw ass.

Egad. That’s the worst haemorrhoid I’ve ever seen. Looks like it’s totes thrombosed. It’s almost blue.

But wait: there’s more. Here’s the original image.

LOL non-proportional scaling.

I tried to find that first image by searching ‘mustard butt fingers’, and then wished I hadn’t. I think that means it’s time to put down the computer. See you next week.

OT Lesson 36 (Proto-Isaiah 1)

The Glory of Zion Will Be a Defense

Isaiah 1–6

LDS manual: here

Reading

Now we’re into Isaiah. Many people are accustomed to thinking of Isaiah as one person. These people may be in for a surprise, as the Book of Isaiah was written by three people (or groups of people) at different times. There was Proto-Isaiah in chapters 1–39; Deutero-Isaiah, in chapters 40–55; and Trito-Isaiah, a committee who wrote chapters 56–66.

How do we know Isaiah was three people? By the science of forensic linguistics, the basis of which is that language offers us choices. Everyone has their own way of speaking, their own verbal tics and habits. Do you say that you “start” to do something, or do you “begin” to do something? Do you write ‘Internet’ with a capital I, or not? These stylistic choices are largely outside of our control, and can be used to identify us by our writing.

In the same way, each of the three sections of Isaiah show different characteristics, as though different people wrote it. Proto-Isaiah says “The Lord, Yahweh of hosts”, “remnant”, and “to stretch out the hand”, whereas Deutero-Isaiah never does. He does, however, say “all flesh” and “chosen” a lot, which Proto-Isaiah never does.

The idea of Isaiah as three people writing at different times will come into play a couple of lessons down the road, where we’ll see that Joseph Smith and friends blithely placed Isaiah’s words onto Nephi’s plates, without realising that Nephi wouldn’t have had access to them.

For this lesson, we’re in the domain of the first Isaiah.

Main point from this lesson

How to understand Isaiah

A Gospel Doctrine lesson is likely to offer some tips for understanding Isaiah. That’s what I did anyway, when I taught this class in Sunday School. I had two tips that I was very proud of, and that I thought were rock-solid at the time. They were:

1. It’s difficult to understand what Isaiah is prophesying about until after it happens.
2. Isaiah’s prophecies can have multiple fulfilments, both temporally and spiritually.

No, I’m serious, those were the tips. I swear to Zeus, I said that to a room full of grownups and nobody laughed. They all just swallowed it down. I think someone might have taken notes. I should have been embarrassed, and the members should have been rolling their eyes. But no, everyone nodded sagely.

Here’s why I should have been embarrassed. A prediction needs to be specific in order to be any use. I mean, it’s not much of a prediction if you can’t tell what it refers to until after it happens, is it? There’s no point in predicting that (say) a war will happen, but not giving a specific time or place. Wars are always happening, and it would be easy to point to some war, and claim a fulfilment of prophecy. There’s no point in predicting it will rain, but at some indefinite point in the future, and then claiming fulfilment when it eventually rains. Seriously, what wouldn’t count as a fulfilment of prophesy using that principle? “The cat sneezed. Isaiah was right again!” You could drive a truck through that.

So on point 1, of course it’s easy to tie some event back to a vague and poetic prophesy by Isaiah after the fact. But this is meaningless. And point 2 — allowing for multiple targets — just makes it easier for the believer to claim a hit.

So now I have one tip for understanding Isaiah, and every other prophet: They’re all either con artists, or they’re people with real problems. The problem is that people believe them.

Additional teaching ideas

Seraphim!

Isaiah 6 describes angels with wings. Six of ’em.

6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

Mormons really hate the idea of angels with wings. I suppose it’s because in the Mormon universe, angels are always human in origin. No wings on them.

There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated.

But that wasn’t the view of the writer of Isaiah.

Funny story: I used to be Stake Music Director, and I directed the Stake choir. That was my favourite calling ever. I loved putting musical programmes together. I used to pick classical songs with lots of Latin, which got me in a bit of trouble sometimes. Members used to grizzle about it a bit, but the Stake Presidency had my back. They were cool guys, really.

For one musical fireside, I decided to have the choir and soloists doing musical numbers about the Atonement, but with relevant artwork projected on the wall. And for the Resurrection, I used The Resurrection (1873) by Carl Bloch.

And I got complaints. Why? You guessed it — angels with wings. Couldn’t believe it.

And it looks like the dear members in Dianella Stake aren’t the only ones who have a problem with this Bloch painting. When the painting was used for an Ensign cover, the wings got ‘Shopped out. Here’s the before and the after.

Ask: Can you spot the differences?

There’s more to this Photoshop job than just wings. Check out the shoulders.

Yep, they’ve covered the bare shoulders. Apparently, there’s a war on bare shoulders in the church these days. They’ve always preached about modesty, but this is something new, just in the last ten or twenty years or so. I don’t remember people haranguing little girls about their shoulders when I was growing up in the church. Call it hypermodesty.

Ask: People sometimes caution against sexualising children. In what way does a focus on modesty itself sexualise children?
Answer: By training children (especially girls) to be especially aware of their clothing and how they look, instead of allowing them just be kids, hypermodesty is actually training kids to think along sexual lines. Instead of preserving innocence, it removes it.

OT Lesson 31 (Proverbs & Ecclesiastes)

“Happy Is the Man That Findeth Wisdom”

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes

LDS manual: here

Reading

We’re now into the so-called “wisdom books”, allegedly written by Solomon. And I have to say: after the terrible books of Chronicles and Kings, the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are a breath of fresh air. In fact, there’s a lot of great stuff in here.

Wisdom

Proverbs is very big on wisdom. Some representative verses:

Prov. 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!

And yet I gather that you’re supposed to get wisdom by magical means, and not by book larnin’.

Ecc. 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Rather predictably, the real lesson manual tries to draw the tired distinction between being ‘learned’ and being ‘wise’

The books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes emphasize the importance of wisdom. What differences are there between being learned and being wise?

inviting members to note that smart people don’t always stay in the church. No, they don’t, do they? Why is that?

Not only that, but the writer of Proverbs misplaces where knowledge is to be found.

1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The fear of the Lord is not the beginning of wisdom, not even if we define fear as respect, awe, and so on. More often than not, theism and supernaturalism work against scientific inquiry. By giving easy but unproductive answers like ‘godiddit’

and by discouraging questions

supernaturalism makes gaining knowledge just about as difficult as possible.

Mercy

It’s good to be merciful.

Prov. 11:17 The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh.
25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

And yet wise kings are supposed to run wicked people over, apparently.

Prov. 20:26 A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.

Fairness

Prov. 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Restraint

Prov. 11:12 He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.
15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Kindness to animals

Prov. 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Keeping things in perspective

It’s good to have your priorities in place.

Prov. 13:7 There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches.

And even an allusion to the kind of oppositional approach that makes the scientific method work.

Prov. 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Yes, there’s a lot of good stuff in Proverbs. And yet, some of the worst advice in the Bible is right here. Let’s get to it.

Main ideas for this lesson

Trust in the Lord

I already had a go at this scripture in an earlier lesson.

Prov. 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

And to put a finer point on it:

Prov. 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

To review: it’s just about the worst scripture around because it’s designed to get you to ignore your own thoughts and motivations. The only reason someone would get you to stop thinking for yourself is that they know their bullshit system won’t benefit from you doing so.

But there’s a further problem with ‘trusting in the Lord with all your heart’: In order to do this, you’d have to assume that your understanding of what ‘the Lord’ wants can’t be wrong or mistaken. Are you infallible?

Click to go through to ‘Jesus and Mo‘.

What people really mean by “trust the Lord” is “trust yourself”.

And when you have a god who isn’t directly and clearly available for comment, guess who’s always willing to step in and interpret the divine will? People. This is a system that’s just begging for abuse.

Indoctrination of children

Here’s another one of the most evil verses in the Bible:

Prov. 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

How much indoctrination this verse must be responsible for! How carefully parents teach religious dogma to believing children, adding layer on top of layer for years and years.

It’s particularly ironic then, that Christians sometimes accuse gay people of trying to “convert” people to a gay lifestyle — that is, of doing something that gay people aren’t doing, but which Christians themselves explicitly are.
Children believe grown-ups. That’s probably good; by having parents transmit ideas to us via language, we can get a head start, and know more than we could have learned in a lifetime. But bad ideas do get in with the good, and they can be horribly difficult to root out. As Richard Dawkins says in The God Delusion:

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. (pg. 176)

What’s the answer?
• Use skepticism to give children good ways of detecting good ideas from baloney. Again, I really like Maybe Yes, Maybe No by Dan Barker.
• Let children form their own ideas and their own identity.

• Resist the efforts of people who want to indoctrinate other people’s kids, as with school prayer.

Child abuse

The book of Proverbs tells us that it’s okay to beat your kids. It starts by saying that it’s good to beat stupid people…

Prov. 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

continues by saying that you should “chasten” children with a rod…

Prov. 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

…and you shouldn’t stop beating them just because they cry.

Prov. 19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

In fact, “correcting” (or beating) a child with a rod will drive the foolishness out of them.

Prov. 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Once in my Mormon days, I taught this lesson in Sunday School. I’ve always been against beating or spanking children — even as a TBM — because I think children should have consequences for their actions, but physical punishment is not a good consequence. Consequences should be related somehow to the behaviour.

So I read these proverbs in class, and invited comments. A few people tried to tone it down a bit. One inventive fellow said that the “rod” wasn’t really a rod — it was more like a “book”. You know, like the “stick of Joseph”! I asked in response if we were meant to beat children with books, perhaps? He demurred.

Another member said that the “rod” wasn’t meant to be interpreted as beating. He commented that a shepherd doesn’t use his rod to beat sheep; he just puts it in their way so they won’t go to the wrong place. I don’t know how he was so knowledgable about sheep.

My response was to pull out Proverbs 23:13, which explicitly discusses using the rod for beating:

Prov. 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

I then paused, looked at the silent class, and said, “The Bible says to beat your kids. The Bible is wrong. Don’t beat your kids.”

Looking back, I can’t believe I said that! But then I suppose I had some support from Gordon B. Hinckley, who said in a Conference talk:

In terms of physical abuse, I have never accepted the principle of “spare the rod and spoil the child.” I will be forever grateful for a father who never laid a hand in anger upon his children. Somehow he had the wonderful talent to let them know what was expected of them and to give them encouragement in achieving it. I am persuaded that violent fathers produce violent sons. I am satisfied that such punishment in most instances does more damage than good. Children don’t need beating. They need love and encouragement. They need fathers to whom they can look with respect rather than fear.

Credit where credit is due; he got this right. That he had to repudiate the Bible to get this right speaks volumes against the Bible.

There are a lot of Christians who do take Proverbs seriously, and who do beat their children. Currently the most ghoulish of these is Michael and Debi Pearl of the No Greater Joy Ministry. Their book “To Train Up a Child” (change.org petition here) gives some rather chilling suggestions:

Never reward delayed obedience by reversing the sentence. And, unless all else fails, don’t drag him to the place of cleansing. Part of his training is to come submissively. However, if you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child, who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.

Their preferred instruments are rulers, switches, and lengths of PVC piping. Their methods have been implicated in the deaths of three children. And all perfectly biblical.

Additional teaching ideas

Women

The writer of Proverbs didn’t like strange women much, which seems to rule out Solomon as an author.

Prov. 5:3 For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:,
5:4 But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.
5:5 Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.

Also:

Prov. 9:13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.
9:14 For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city,
9:15 To call passengers who go right on their ways:
9:16 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
9:17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
9:18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.

No one had a problem with sex workers in the earlier parts of the OT, but now they do.

Prov. 23:27 For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit.
23:28 She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men.

Personal note: This next scripture embarrassed my mother terribly.

Prov. 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

The Bible doesn’t comment on men without discretion.

Prov. 11:22 As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

Mean women suck; no similar proverb on mean men.

Prov. 21:9 It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.

Or as rendered in LOLcat:

See also:

Prov. 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

Ecclesiastes, and how to live

The book of Ecclesiastes is for anyone who’s ever felt world-weary and tired of the whole game of living. The word ‘ecclesiastes’ is a Greek rendering of a Hebrew word meaning ‘the leader of a congregation‘, and is usually rendered ‘preacher’, but this preacher is less like Billy Graham, and more like Jim Casy from the Grapes of Wrath. He’s at a distance from faith, so he seems a bit more analytical about it.

Tell me if this isn’t something you’ve felt before: We strive for progress and learning, but sometimes we wonder what it’s all for. Of course, gaining knowledge is a higher-quality decision that sitting around and being stupid, but we all die, whether we’re wise or foolish. This struggle is (I think) especially keen for me as a skeptic, when delusion seems to be so very prevalent and hard to fight.

Well, the writer of Ecclesiastes has you covered. He’s thought it all before. See, there really is nothing new under the sun.

Ecc. 2:14 The wise man’s eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.
2:15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.
2:16 For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
I think of all that I work for, and how one day I’ll have to leave it to someone else. And who will they be?
2:18 Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.
2:19 And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity.

The preacher’s answer is that we should have enjoyment while we’re alive.

Ecc. 3:22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
5:18 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
8:15 Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.

But there’s something that missing here. Yes, it’s important to enjoy living. I’d also add that it’s important to leave something for the next generation of humans. Even if I’m not around anymore, by contributing a little bit to human knowledge, maybe I can have some ongoing influence for good.

There’s another thing the preacher seems not to understand. He seems to think wisdom is not within anyone’s grasp.

7:23 All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.
7:24 That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?
8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

But we do have one very good way for finding out about things that are far off, deep, or even very complicated: science. By abandoning the idea of supernatural intervention and using methodological naturalism, we can observe things about our universe, and make testable hypotheses that tell us about their workings and their origins.

There’s one more verse in Ecclesiastes that I like.

9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Like much of the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes doesn’t have much to say about the afterlife. And this is kind of strange to me. Many Christians have asked me, “If you don’t believe in an afterlife, that what’s the point of doing anything at all?” From now on, my answer will be, “Read Ecclesiastes! Its author seems to find life rather worthwhile, without the presumptions of an afterlife.” Okay, so there might be more to add to it, but the basics are there: You only get one life. Enjoy it. Do what you do with enthusiasm, including eating, drinking, and being merry, because you only get one time around.

See you next time.

Newer posts