Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition on common sense. Whoever investigates a religion as he would any department of science, is called a blasphemer. Whoever contradicts a priest (or preacher), whoever has the impudence to use his (or her) own reason, whoever is brave enough to express their honest thoughts, is a blasphemer in the eyes of the professional religionist.

Robert G. Ingersoll

 I begin with a quotation from Dr. Bill Gold's fine little essay, "The Pathology of The Need to Believe." Dr. Gold, an ex Catholic Priest, was for many years the pastor at Hope Unitarian Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The older I get, the more depressed I am by most religion. It seems bent on promoting irrationality, absurdity and hypocrisy. It makes a virtue of believing the ridiculous, and a sin of enjoying life. Yet, its adherents number in the billions. What is there that attracts people to beliefs in their religion that they would find absurd in the religion of others?

All theistic religions derive their credibility solely from ancient scripture said to have been received either directly or indirectly from the deity. To say that this assertion cannot be verified either historically or empirically is to belabor the obvious. None of the mystical events or "miracles" upon which theistic religion primarily rests, can be documented. In the case of Christianity the Bible with all it's absurdities and contradictions is the sole source of its existence. So, with that in mind, let's take a quick look at the origin of the Bible.

As is becoming common in academic and popular writing, instead of the initials A. D. I use C. E. (which stands for “Common Era” or “Christian Era”),and instead of B. C. I use B. C. E.( Which stands for “Before the Common Era” or “Before the Christian Era”).

The first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are considered to be the core of the Bible. They are the oldest of all the biblical writings. These books constitute the original document brought from Babylon to Jerusalem around 458 years before the Christian era (BCE) by the Priest Ezra². To the Jews they are the Torah. To the Christians they are known as the Pentateuch. These books state the laws by which Jews and Christians are to live.

Many defenders of Bible infallibility claim that these books were written by one man, Moses, under the direct supervision of God, himself. However, modern investigative scholarship has demonstrated that biblical writing began about 1000 BCE during the reign of King Solomon³. Before that time it was probably passed orally from generation to generation. Analyses clearly show that the writing was not done by a single person but by a host of people. Over the next several centuries the sacred books were expanded, added to, rewritten, edited and reedited, to meet a changing political and social agenda. By the close of the 5th century BCE the Torah or Pentateuch had stabilized generally in the form in which we know it today.

Concerning the validity of the Bible many scholars are today claiming that much of what is recorded in the Bible is at best distorted, and some characters and events are probably totally fictional. Most scholars suspect that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, Judaism's traditional founders, never really existed; many doubt the tales of slavery in Egypt, the Exodus and the revelations of Mt. Sinai.  Relatively few modem historians believe in Joshua's conquest of Jericho and the rest of the Promised Land. In their view, all of the above are complete fabrications, invented centuries after the supposed fact^3a.

According to biblical chronology, the departure of the Israelites from Egypt under the leadership of Moses took place around 1250 BCE⁴ during the reign of the Pharaoh Ramses II⁵. Egypt was then a world power at the very cutting edge of civilization and human progress. History was accurately recorded, sometimes in great detail. Many of their writings, including those in the time of Ramses II, have been recovered and deciphered. Nowhere in them is there any mention of Israelite slaves, the plagues, or indeed any of the preposterous occurrences described so dramatically in the Book of Exodus. Egyptian history of that era never refers to any rabble rousing Israelite slave named Moses. Furthermore, if all of the first-born humans and cattle had been mysteriously murdered on the same night (Exodus 12:29) and if the entire Egyptian army had been tragically drowned in the Red Sea (Ex.14:26-28,) doesn't it seem reasonable that these traumatic event would be mentioned somewhere in their history?

Most archaeologists now agree that solid evidence emerging from recent large-scale excavations in Israel and the Sinai refute significant parts of the Books of Exodus and Joshua⁶. There is nothing to suggest that there ever was 430 years (400 years according to Genesis 15:13) of Hebrew bondage in Egypt as is stated in Exodus 12:40. No data were found to substantiate the movement of between two and three million people plus large numbers of livestock across the Sinai desert during the period generally assigned to the Exodus (Ex.12:37-38). In addition, historians agree that the Exodus story is impossible simply because Palestine, i.e., Israel, was firmly under the control of Egypt during that period.

The story in the second chapter of Exodus of how the baby Moses was set adrift by his mother on the river Nile in a small pitch-covered boat made of reeds only to be rescued by none other than Pharaoh's daughter and how he then went on to become an important leader sounds suspiciously similar to the story of Sargon I, King of Akkad in present day Iraq. According to legend, Sargon, who ruled from about 2335 to 2279 BCE, was placed in a sealed reed basket and floated down river and was rescued by royalty. Sargon, again like the later Moses, went on to attain great political power. Similar stories are told of great leaders in other primitive cultures. So an event that allegedly happened everywhere in all probability happened nowhere.

All of this contradictory evidence raises some intriguing questions. Is the Pentateuch nothing more than a forgery concocted by Hebrew priests long after the events allegedly took place? If there was never a four hundred thirty year Hebrew bondage in Egypt, and therefore no Exodus, did Moses really exist? Is it possible that Moses and his successor, Joshua, are only mythical heroes like Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill? The unvarnished truth is that as of today there are no definite answers to these questions. Suffice it to say that the truthfulness of the Books of Exodus and Joshua is highly suspect. If they turn out to be frauds, as now seems very likely, doesn't that cast serious doubt as to the credibility of the entire Bible?

To be more specific, the story of the Ten Commandments being given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai bears suspicious resemblance to the accounts of other divine law givers all of which predate the Exodus story and were widely known during the time of the Babylonian exile. Notable among these is the historically documented Code of Hammurabi (Akkadian - 18th century BCE.) In fact, Hammurabi's code exhibits close parallels to numerous passages in Mosaic law.

Other examples of pre-Exodus lawgivers include the Assyrian hero Mises, who is said to have written the laws on two tablets of stone. Dionysus, the Greek lawgiver, is shown holding up two tablets of stone on which the law is engraved. Minos, King of Crete, received the laws from God on Mount Dicta. Zoroaster, the Persian prophet, received the book of law from God as he prayed on a high mountain. So, you can see that there is little or nothing original in the Exodus account of the Ten Commandments. This story, like most of the rest of The Book of Exodus, is either fiction, plagiarism or a little of both.

Now you would think that people living today with all of our advances in science, technology and education would see the Exodus story for what it obviously is--a myth and nothing more. Unfortunately, this is not so. It's not just a group of back-country rednecks who perpetuate this misconception. It is some of the highest authorities in our land; educated people who should know better and who should not be afraid to speak out.

Following the recent rash of school shootings, especially the one at Littleton, Colorado, some members of congress attempted to enact legislation requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in our public schools. The motivation behind this effort (other than cheap political pandering) was that by being constantly exposed to these "God-given" paragons of virtue, the school children would more readily acquire moral and ethical values. It should be noted, however, that similar legislation has been routinely struck down by the U. S. Supreme Court as a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

The Ten Commandments are, in fact, inimical to liberty. Far from being the foundation of this country's common law, they constitute the very antithesis of those parts of our heritage of which we may be justly proud. However, many of us may have forgotten just how flawed and obsolete they really are. Indeed, some aspects of the Ten Commandments, to which I will be referring, need to be condemned as immoral and removed from any and all recommended guidelines for ethics and morality.

From the maze of intricate, incomprehensible and often contradictory rules with which the Pentateuch is filled, scripture readers often have great difficulty extracting the fabled Decalogue. To make things even more confusing, there are no less than four different sets of "God-given" laws in  Exodus and Deuteronomy often with radically different and contradictory contents. 

According to Exodus 19:1 the Ten Commandment story began three months after the Israelites left Egypt when they arrived at Mount Sinai. Three days later Moses went up on Mount Sinai where God allegedly gave him the commandments. This one I will call "Set 1". Set 1 appears in Exodus 20:3-17. This is the traditional set universally recognized, and for that reason it is the set upon which I base this paper. However, in Deuteronomy 5:6-21 there is given a second set of ten commandments. This set, "Set 2," was given not on Mount Sinai three months after the Israelites left Egypt as we are told in Exodus but forty years later on Mount Horab. Although these two sets are nearly identical, there are two important differences. First, with regard to the Sabbath, Set 2 tells us that the purpose of commandment four is to remind Israel that God liberated the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt (vs. 15). In Set 1, however, it is to remind Israel that God rested on the seventh day of creation (vs. 11). Second, in commandment number ten, forbidding coveting, Set 1 lists wives as property (vs.17) whereas in Set 2 they are listed separately (vs. 21).

Exodus 21:1 - 23:26 comprise "Set 3," a third and much expanded set consisting of no less than forty commandments. Some scholars say it contains sixty commandments depending upon how the sentences are punctuated and divided.

Now the story goes that after conferring with God for forty days and forty nights Moses came down from the mountain to find the Israelites worshiping, of all things, a golden calf, the symbol of an old Canaanite god, thereby breaking two of the new commandments. He was furious! In a fit of peak he dashed the stone tablets containing Set 1against the rocks and destroyed them. So, God said to Moses, "Hew thee two tablets of stone like the unto first, and I will write upon these the words that were in the first tablets." (See Attachment II) But despite God’s promise to duplicate Set 1, this set, "Set 4" (Exodus 34:14-26,) is radically different from the original tablets. (See Attachment I) To compound the confusion, Set 4 is identified by God as the real Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28 ). The poor scripture reader is confused even farther by Deut. 27:15-26 in which Moses announces the twelve "curses of Mount Ebal," a couple of which are suspiciously similar to Set 1, the Exodus 20 set.

Nowhere in chapter 20 of the Book of Exodus do the words, "The Ten Commandments" appear. In verse 18 of Exodus 31 (KJV) it states: ."..He (God) gave Moses the two tablets of testimony." Please note that the contents of the tablets are called simply testimony. The words, The Ten Commandments, appear only three times in the entire Bible (Exodus 34:28, Deut.4:13, and Deut.10:4.)

Now let us examine each of these alleged cornerstones of righteousness in context and try to figure out just what it is saying and identify its moral and ethical rectitude.

#1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

This commandment is of no moral or ethical value whatsoever. Furthermore, it violates the first amendment to the U. S. Constitution which prohibits any establishment of religion by the state.

Number two of the "Big Ten" is rather tricky. All we usually see of this one is the first part: "Thou shall not bow down to any graven images." However, when read in its entirety, this one gives quite a different impression.

#2. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to any graven images nor serve them for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

First, this one clearly contradicts Deut. 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 where we are told in no uncertain terms that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents. But, from a more practical point of view, could anything be more unjust than holding a person responsible for a crime committed by his or her great-great-grandfather? In the legal systems of democracies such as ours, the notion that one person can suffer the punishment of another not only denies the basic concept of personal responsibility, it's down right absurd. Like commandment #1, this one violates the U.S. Constitution and is without moral or ethical value.

#3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain.

Contrary to popular notion, this commandment has absolutely nothing to do with obscene language. It has its origin in the primitive belief in word magic. The ancient Hebrews, like the Egyptians from whom they appropriated many of their superstitions, believed that people and gods alike possessed secret names. By learning this name the person or god could be controlled by using it or perhaps misusing it in incantations, spells or curses. Another reference to this subject can be found in Leviticus 24:16 where it states: "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death." So where is the moral in this nonsense?

The fourth commandment also violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. Besides having no beneficial aspects, this commandment has a great deal of evil behind it. As in #2, we usually see only part of it. The full account reads as follows.

#4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

First, it should be noted that, accept for a small sect called the Seventh-Day Adventists, Christians have never observed the official Sabbath day, Saturday, or made any attempt to keep it holy. Also, this commandment tacitly recognizes, and therefore condones, slavery. In Exodus 31:15and again in Exodus 35:2 it states, ."..whosoever does work on the Sabbath must be put to death." In Numbers 15:32-36 we are told that a man was stoned to death simply for gathering a few sticks on the Sabbath. No penalty for buying and selling fellow human beings into slavery, but death if you are caught doing a little work on the Sabbath. Is that God's idea of justice?

It should be noted that the word "servant" is used in almost all versions of the Bible. However, the root Latin word "servus" as well as corresponding Greek and Hebrew words would be correctly translated not as "servant" but as "slave." The substitution of servant for slave in some versions of the Bible is an obvious ploy intended to conceal, or gloss over, a shameful Bible fact.

Jesus' commentary on the Sabbath is interesting. In the venerated Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17) he declares unequivocally that he has come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. However, he contradicts this in Mark 2:27 where he says that the Sabbath was created for man not man for the Sabbath.

Another revealing fact concerning commandment #4 is that in Deuteronomy 5:15, were it is alleged that Moses is repeating the commandments, something has been added to the end: "And remember that thou wast slaves in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." How can God condone slavery on the one hand yet condemn it on the other?

Since Deuteronomy was written much later than was Exodus⁷, this passage is an obvious forgery. However, it makes an important change as to the overall purpose of this commandment. In Set 1,the Exodus 20 version, its purpose is simply to provide a day of rest for the people because that's what the Lord did on that day. But in Set 2, the Deuteronomy set, its purpose is to remind the Israelites of their rescue by God from Egyptian slavery.

Commandment number five is another one of which we usually see only the shortened version. So, I will give it here in its entirety:

#5. Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which God giveth thee.

While I would agree that under most circumstances it is a good thing to honor one's parents. It is also a fact that some parents are not deserving of honor. Parents have responsibility too. It is downright wrong to honor parents who are neglectful, abusive, murderous and/or crazed by religion. In spite of that the required punishment for breaking this commandment is death according to Exodus 21:17.

Now let us check some famous Jesus quotes and see just how well he kept this commandment:

Matthew 8:21-22-- Jesus denied a disciples request for permission to bury his father. This is repeated in Luke 9:59:60.

Matthew 10:35-- For I come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Matthew 12:46-50-- Here Jesus denies his own family in a most rude and contentious manner.

Matthew 22:34-40-- Here we learn that Jesus issued two new commandments and immediately proceeds to break one of the. We read: in KJV: But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophet". This is strange indeed when we see in the very next chapter how Jesus ignores the second commandment as he proceeds to level a vicious attack against his own neighbors.

Mark 3:31-35-- Jesus deliberately snubbed his own family who had come to see him. He denied them in favor of the assembled crowed whom he identified as his real family.

Luke 11:27-28 ~ A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" Here Jesus refuses to bless his mother.

Luke 14:26-- Here Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother...he cannot be my disciple."

John 2:4-- Upon being informed by his mother that there is no more wine for the wedding reception, Jesus insults her with the insolent and disrespectful reply, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

The most objectionable part of commandment number five, however, lies in the coda, .".. that you may live long in the land which God has given thee." This alludes to the pernicious myth that God gave Palestine to the Jews, along with the right to dispossess and slaughter the previous inhabitants. The ruthless displacement of the Palestinian Arabs from their homeland and all of the horrible atrocities and acts of violence and terrorism which persist to this day are directly derived from this ridiculous commandment and other Old Testament verses such as Genesis13:14-15 and Joshua 1:11.

Please note that I have now gone half way through the Ten Commandments, and nowhere in them is there anything remotely supportive of ethical and moral values. Now, let us examine the other half.

#6. Thou shalt not kill/murder.

On the face of it we seem to be getting somewhere with this one as everyone would agree that killing is a bad thing, generally speaking. However, this commandment issues an absolute and unalterable directive that refutes and contradicts other parts of the Bible such as commandments #3 and #4 in which killing is the required punishment. Some additional examples of Bible killing are:

Ecclesiastes 3:3 -- There is a time to kill.

Exodus 19:12--Whosoever toucheth the mount (Sinai) shall be put to death.

Exodus 22:18--Thou shall not suffer a witch to live! So, God, that awesome creator of the universe and all that's in it, believes in witches although he never gets around to defining the concept. But that aside, this one little sentence composed of eight one-syllable words stands directly responsible for the imprisonment and execution of thousands of innocent women most of whom were old, indigent and defenseless.

Leviticus 24:21--The one who kills a man shall be put to death. Incidentally, this is the passage referred to by many Bible believing Xians as the justification for the death penalty.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21--When a man has a son who is disobedient and out of control and will not obey his father and mother or pay attention when they punish him, then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the town gate. There they shall say to the town elders, 'This son of ours is disobedient and out of control and will not obey us.' Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death.

Here let me address a popular misconception. We often hear references made to "The Bible," as if there were only one. This is an illusion cynically encouraged by many clergy. But, in reality there is no such thing. The truth is that if there ever was an original Bible there is no record of anyone living or dead ever having seen it. What served as an original has long been lost or destroyed. Today, what we have are many "versions" of the Bible. According to C. Dennis McKinsey, publisher of The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, there are currently no less than sixteen of them all of which disagree on some basic Christian doctrines. Commandment number six is a good example.

In about half the versions I consulted the word "kill" in commandment #6 had been changed to "murder." This amounts to a significant revision. The word "kill" is an umbrella term covering all cases including war, capitol punishment, self defense, suicide, etc. Murder, on the other hand, is a special case of killing much more narrowly defined. Forbidding murder creates much less of a problem for the Bible believer. So let us humor them and change commandment #6 to read: "Thou shall not murder."

Although this revision may help them to some extent, they are still not off the hook. Cain murdered his brother Able and then tried to lie out of it. For his crime Cain received a relatively light punishment. He was banished from the tribe. (Genesis 4:8-16.) Moses, the man allegedly chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt, was a murderer (Exodus 2:12) never brought to justice for his crime. Er, Judah's first born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; so the Lord slew (murdered) him (Gen.38:7.) Because he refused God's order to have sexual intercourse with his own sister-in-law, God murdered Onan (Gen.38:8-10.) In 1st Samuel 6:19, it is recorded that in a fit of pique God slew (murdered) 50,070 men for what amounted to a minor infraction--looking into the ark of the Lord.

Another record of senseless slaughter is recorded in 2nd Kings 2:23-25. It seems that when Elisha, one of God's favorite prophets, was on his way to Bethel a group of little children came out of the city and began to poke fun at him. "Go up thou bald head...Go up thou bald head," they shouted. This infuriated the divine prophet to the extent that he suddenly turned and cursed them in the name of the Lord whereupon two she bears came out of the near by forest and tore apart forty-two of the little children. Satisfied that his dignity had been sufficiently restored and his bruised ego soothed, Elisha continued on his way.

The story of the Israelite massacre of the Amalekite nation is recorded in I Samuel 15. The facts of the case are these: God sent the prophet Samuel to command King Saul to smite the Amalek. "Utterly destroy all that they have," he said, "spare them not; but slay both men, women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Accordingly Saul took two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah and carried out God's instructions to the letter including the slaughter of infants and pregnant women. Besides breaking the sixth commandment, didn't God commit what could be only called genocide? Isn't this an outrageously immoral act that exceeds the Nazi holocaust in sheer atrocity? After all, many Jews survived Hitler's savagery.

The story of the tenth plague (Exodus 11) is perhaps the most shameful in this book of shame. In Exodus 11:4-5 God says to Moses, "About midnight I will go into the midst of Egypt. All of the firstborn of Egypt will die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, (don't forget that according to the story Moses grew up under the care and protection of Pharaoh's court) even to the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of the beasts."

In addition to this story's general repugnance, deliberately specifying such individuals as the maidservant underscores God's indiscriminate cruelty, since she could have in no way influenced Pharaoh's policy toward the Israelites. So, while the Israelites dined securely behind their blood-smeared doors (Exodus 12:7,) God went about the grisly business of murdering all of the firstborn of Egypt.

Perhaps the most infamous record of murder and genocide in human history is that of the Great Flood. If we are to take this story seriously, and many Christians do, it must be recognized that with the exception of Noah and his immediate family, God not only caused the death of every man, woman and child on earth including fetuses, some of whom doubtless were in the third trimester of gestation, he also murdered practically all of the animals to say nothing of terrestrial plant life. What had they done to deserve such cruel treatment? What ever happened to divine forgiveness?

Take the sad story of Achan (Joshua 7:18-25.) Now it seems that before the fall of Jericho Joshua declared that all the spoil taken there should be given to the Lord. In spite of this order Achan, one of Joshua's soldiers, secreted away a garment, some silver and some gold. Afterward Joshua tried to take the city of Ai. He failed and many of his soldiers were slain. Joshua, seeking an excuse for his defeat, discovered Achan's indiscretion. Thereupon Joshua took Achan along with his sons and his daughters, his oxen and his sheep and had them stoned to death. What had the sons and daughters or the oxen and sheep done to deserve such a cruel fate?

In the story of Daniel it seems that Darius, King of the Medes, was informed that Daniel had been seen worshiping a god other than that of the Medes. Because this was a capital offense, Daniel was summarily thrown into the lion's den, but God intervened and saved him. When King Darius saw what had happened he was so impressed he ordered that those who had informed on Daniel be thrown into the lion's den along with their wives and their children (Dan.6:24.) So what had the wives and children done to deserve such a horrible fate? Why didn't God intervene to save them?

For a more complete list of God's killings and atrocities, see The Bloody Bible on this web site.

#7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

The penalty for adulterers is death with no exception (Leviticus 20:10). First, however, we must ask ourselves just how relevant this commandment is in today's world. It was conceived and implemented thousands of years ago by men who kept harems containing hundreds of wives and concubines. In fact, King Solomon the Wise had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3.)These men certainly were not monogamous or faithful as we understand these terms today, and they had no intention of living that way. What commandment number seven really says is that men should keep their cottonpickin' hands off other men's sex objects.

This commandment is contradicted in Numbers 31:18 where Moses, presumably speaking for God, tells the Israelites that upon defeating the Midianites they are to kill everyone but the women children that have not known a man by lying with him. Those they may keep alive for themselves. Since many of the Israelite soldiers were no doubt married men, wasn't this an open invitation to commit adultery by the disgusting act of sexual molestation of helpless little children?

David committed adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11). Yet, neither of them was put to death as is required. However, God "punished" David by murdering an innocent baby. The baby, it says in 2 Sam 12:15-18, suffered for seven days before it died. Another ironic twist to this disgusting story is that in letting David and Bathsheba off the hook while killing their baby God not only committed murder, thereby breaking one of his commandments, he broke several other of his own law as well. In Deut. 24:16, II Kings 14:6b and Ezekiel 18:20 it plainly says that children will not be punished for the sins of their parents. According to Jeremiah 31:30 all shall die of their own sins. So, in addition to being a baby murderer God is also a liar and a hypocrite?

The culture which produced the seventh commandment was a patriarchal one in which women were considered to be little more than the chattel property of men. See, for example, Deut. 22:28 - "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver." The point is that in this case the father had had his net worth devalued and could no longer demand the proper "bride price" for a daughter who was now "damaged goods." The only recourse in that society was that he be compensated for what was a crime against property, not against human rights.

When an adulterous couple was caught in the act, the woman was punished just as severely as the man and in some cases even more so. An example is the famous story of the woman "caught in the very act" of adultery (John 8:1-11). Although this story is an acknowledged forgery, it illustrates the point very well. In it the authorities were prepared to stone the woman to death on the spot, but nothing is said about the man with whom she was involved. Here it is appropriate to point out that in pardoning the adulterous woman, Jesus went back on his promises to uphold the Old Testament laws of Moses in their entirety (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17).

Here it might be well to note that the Judao/Christian God is male, and there is no doubt of that. God's name in the Bible, Yahweh (Jehovah,) is as masculine a name as Ralph or Richard. (The feminine would have been Tahweh.) The biblical authors regularly identify God with masculine verbs and adjectives. Yahweh is pictured as a father, not a mother; as a husband, not a wife; as a king, not a queen; as a lord, not a lady. And, historically, on occasions when the ancient Israelites lapsed from monotheism, they pictured their God with a female consort, Asherah, also known as the queen of heaven (Jer 7: 2,18; 44: 15-26). See The Disappearance of God by Richard E. Friedman, Author's Note #1, page 285.

#8. Thou shalt not steal.

Also in Leviticus 19:13 it is written that we should neither defraud nor rob our neighbor.

Here again we may be getting somewhere because nobody likes to be defrauded or stolen from. But just as in commandment number six, this commandment tends to be unrealistically absolute and unalterable. There are cases in which stealing is perfectly justified. For example, should this commandment prevent someone from stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family? Should it prevent a hostage from stealing the gun of a crazed killer? I'm sure you can think of other examples.

On closer examination, however, we realize that God must have had his fingers crossed when he dictated this one because in verse 22 of the 3rd chapter of Exodus, he instructs Moses to tell the children of Israel, "Now, when you go out of Egypt, you will not go empty handed. Every woman shall ask her Egyptian neighbor to borrow jewelry of silver and of gold as well as for clothing. Load your sons and daughters with them and plunder Egypt." So here God instructs his people to repay an act of neighborly trust and kindness with lies, deceit and out right thievery. In Exodus 12:35-36 we learn that the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they had asked from the Egyptians articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing. And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians. This action is down right despicable.
 

This is especially astonishing in light of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 where we are told in no uncertain terms that thieves will share in God's kingdom.

Another example of theistic thievery is found in Luke 19:30-35 where Jesus orders two of his disciples to: "Go ye into yon village where you will find a colt tied. Untie the colt and bring it here. If anyone asks you why you are taking the colt, tell him the Lord has need of it." The two disciples went into the village where they did indeed find a colt tied to a tree. As they were untying it, the colt's owner ran up to them and yelled, "Hey, why are you untying my colt?" The disciples, ignoring the owner's protest, told him the Lord needed it, and they dutifully took the man's colt to Jesus. Since there is no indication that the colt's rightful owner was ever compensated, doesn't that make our dear Lord and Savior a common horse thief?

Here let me digress for a moment to point out how these verses pose an outlandish inconsistency in Jesus' story. Jesus was someone said to be endowed with great supernatural power. He fed five thousand men plus women and children with only five loaves and two fishes with lots of leftovers (Matt. 14:17-20). He turned water into wine (John 2:7-9). He cured a man of leprosy with a simple wave of his hand (Matt. 8:3-4). He walked on water (Matt. 14:25). He restored the sight of a man who had been born blind (John 9:7). He healed a paralytic by simply forgiving his sins (Mark 2:10-12). He resurrected Lazarus after he had been dead four days (John 11:43-44). Yet Jesus irresponsibly chose to put his disciples at risk by ordering them to commit a criminal act. Horses were valuable property and horse stealing was not looked upon too kindly. With all that magical power he is alleged to have had, why didn't Jesus just conjure up a horse from a stone (Luke 3:8)?

#9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

On the surface this seems unobjectionable. However, it is not clear just what the circumstances are under which false witness is to be forbidden. Is it only in a court of law? Does it include gossiping? Is it only wrong to bear false witness against fellow Hebrews while being okay against others? This is a commandment that suffers from a lack of definition.

Actually, the subject of lying, to which many people believe this commandment is referring, reveals several damaging biblical contradictions. Both Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 state emphatically that God does not lie. In Numbers 23:19 we are told that God neither lies nor changes his mind. In Proverbs 12:22 we are told that lying lips are without exception an abomination unto the Lord. In spite of these assurances, God does indeed lie and instructs others to lie on his behalf. One of the most blatant of God's lies is recorded in Geneses 2:17. Here he warns Adam and Eve, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". In spite of this clear warning Adam and Eve ate the fruit. They did not die "that day" as God had promised. In fact, Adam lived to the ripe old age of 930 years according to Genesis 5:5.

In Exodus 3:18 God suggests that Moses ask Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to go into the wilderness for three days to worship. The clear implication being that after completing the worship ceremony they would return, which, in reality, they had no intention of doing. So here God conspired to make a liar out of Moses. This leaves one to wonder just who qualifies as "The Father of Lies" (John 8:44.) Is it Satan , or is it God?

Another of God's lies occurs in 1st Kings 22:21-23. Here God hatches a devious plot against Ahab, King of Israel, based on a lie. Also, in 1 Samuel 16:1-3 God tells Samuel to lie if asked why he is visiting Jesse. God even makes up the lie for him, "Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee." In this passage God not only instructs Samuel to deliberately lie, he openly conspires with him in a dastardly, underhanded plot to depose Saul and anoint someone else, a son of Jesse, king of Israel.

We learn in Joshua 2:4-6 that Rahab, the prostitute, deliberately lied to the authorities in order to protect Israelite spies. Not only was she not condemned for breaking commandment no. 9, in James 2:25 she is actually praised for her “good work.”

In John 18:20 Jesus tells three lies. He did not always speak openly. He often spoke in parables with obscure meanings and he spoke in secret (Mark 4:10-12 and Matthew 13:10-13). Also, he taught in places other than synagogues and the temple. Jesus lied again in Matthew 16:28 when he said to his disciples, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

In Revelation 21:8 we are warned that upon death all liars go directly to hell.

For more on this subject see, Did Jesus Lie? on this web page.

#10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shall not set thy heart on thy neighbor's wife, his land, his slaves, his ox, his ass or anything that belongeth to him.

We see right away that this one is addressed to men only. Its primary purpose is to protect men's property rights. Also, here again we detect tacit approval of the institution of human slavery. But what is really behind this one?

Researchers in this field, and I'm thinking particularly of the late Dr. Edward W. Lane, the great Arabologist, believe that the word "covet" refers to the ancient "Curse of the Evil Eye." In many Semitic cultures even today there is a taboo against complementing a man on the beauty of his wife, the cuteness of his children, the architecture of his house, etc. Admiration is closely allied with envy and envy to covetousness. Whenever one covets something one casts an envious or evil eye upon it and the subject is thereby bewitched or cursed according to the prevailing superstition.

Well, that covers the hallowed Ten Commandments, the bedrock of western jurisprudence, the bulwark of justice and the foundation for a moral and ethical society.

When I give this paper before a group, time is always set aside at the end for comments and questions from the audience. Several questions seem to come up rather consistently during these discussions. These questions and my replies are given in Attachment 2.

ATTACHMENT I

ATTACHMENT II

2 Friedman, R. E., Who Wrote The Bible?, Summit Books, N.Y.

3 Larue, Gerald A., How The Old Testament Was Written: Free Inquiry; Vol. 7, No. 1: Winter 1986/87.

3a Are the Bible Stories True?, Time Magazine, December 18, 1995.

4 Greenberg,Gary,101 Myths of the Bible, 2000,pg xxix.

5 Ruled Egypt from 1292-1225 BCE.

6 The Lufkin (Texas) Daily News, March 9,1988.

7 Friedman, Richard E., Who Wrote the Bible? , pg.117