What would Jesus tweet? Church of England hands down commandments for Anglicans on social media The Archbishop of Canterbury has used a Facebook Live interview to launch a "digital charter" to provide guidelines for how Anglicans should use social media. In the interview, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Archbishop Justin Welby said it was obvious why the guidelines were needed. "Just look at any article and then …
The Anglicans in this country have generally been pretty good about not doing this. That however is how the church has managed to end up with both extreme right wing misogynist High Church and extreme right wing misogynist Low Church wings doing all the shouting* while the average Anglican is uninterested in the doctrinal disputes and traditionally concentrated on getting the best slot for the flower arranging rota.
*while focussing on really important things like incense and surplices.
The problem with Welby's idea is that I happen to feel that if I were to be a misogynistic hate-peddling Anglican, I would thoroughly deserve what I got on social media.
I've decided to take up the teachings of the Bible and go and besiege and murder the owners of the local cake shop; but I'm not sure if I should steal their cakes before or after killing them? Or should I take them as my slaves instead, all this is new to me, so I'm not sure on the correct order. What should I do with their children - the implication is rather unsavoury? The children own a puppy, do I need to slay that too?
Quote:
Deuteronomy: 20:10-16 "When you come to a city to fight against it, then first proclaim peace toward it. If it answers for peace, and opens its gates to you, then all the people found therein shall be your slaves, and they shall serve you. If it won?t make peace, but will make war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD thy God has delivered it into your hands, you shall kill every male inside with the edge of your sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the fortunes inside, shall you take for yourself; and you shall eat all the good things of your enemy, which the LORD thy God has given you. Thus you shall do to every city even faraway which are not among your chosen nations. In these cities, which the LORD thy God gives you for an inheritance, you shall leave nothing left alive" ?
I'm feeling a bit horny; so is it OK to abduct a virgin off the street on my way home from the cake shop and rape her, provided I force her to become my wife?:
Quote:
Judges 21:10-24. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!
Forget the abduction, I've found another solution. I've had a word with the cake shop owner and he's agreed to sell me his daughter as a sex slave as per your god's teachings. Apparently she is under guarantee too, so if she isn't very good in the sack I can send her back for a full refund:
Quote:
Exodus 21:7-11. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
The sex slave didn't work out very well; she refused my commands, so I had to beat her rather hard and unfortunately she died three days later. It was all her fault of course, I have nothing to reproach myself over, she was my property after all:
Quote:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21
A bunch of children were calling me names the other day, so I set my dogs on them and they tore the children's throats out. I gather that is fine too:
Quote:
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces." (2 Kings 2:23-24)
Yeah, but that's all allegorical. You're not meant to take it literally.
What parts of the Bible are you supposed to take literally? Well, stuff like this gem:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.-- Hebrews 11:1
Don't question it. And whatever you do, don't reach for a dictionary.
I want a ruling on whether haggis is a fish so I can scoff it on a Friday with a good conscience.
BTW I think it's a bit rich for an Archbish to say 'there are no alternative facts'. He's a peddler of demonstrably alternative facts even if he is an Anglican.
There is no god and even if there were as Laplace replied to Napoleon who asked where god was in his calculations 'sir, I have no need of that hypothesis'. 'God did it' does no explanatory work as an explanation. It begs the question: HOW did god do it? Using what method and can we observe and copy them? Despite popular media reports of the Higgs as 'the god particle' no supernatural entities have been found by the LHC or any other piece of scientific equipment.
I should to be balanced note that String Theory's failure to come up with practically testable experiments we can do to test the reality of their castle in the air means they are in danger of being 'alternative facts'. I don't care how compelling the maths is, maths is a language, a highly structured and formal language but like other languages it can be used to describe fictional worlds which are not this world or universe. So your equations suggest other sorts of universes might exist? doesn't mean they do.
As a biologist I can posit the existence of Bigfoot, Nessie, selkies* etc but proving it?
*A being who is a seal in the water but walks like a man on land. Since Inuit have travelled to Scotland in sealskin kayaks in recorded history it is easy to see the genesis of this one.
I agree with so much of what you post.
If you can find a priest with baptismal powers, you can have your haggis rebaptised as a fish and eat it on a Friday (acc.to Francois Rabelais ca. 1540AD)
I do tend to agree about String Theory. It feels like Tycho Brahe's epicycle theory. It was more accurate than that of Copernicus due to better observations. But, as it wasn't heliocentric, it was completely wrong. And it should have served as an awful warning, but oh no, Fred Hoyle had to go and support the Steady State Universe with matter constantly being created from nothing.
The difference between science and theology, however, is that in science, in the absence of experimental evidence it's only an argument, while in theology there have been endless arguments about whether there is any experimental evidence - every single one of which has failed.
Just a quick clarification. The Higgs particle was originally named the "God dammit particle" by scientists, because everywhere they looked for it they couldn't find it.
It was the media that picked up on this and changed it to the "God particle" purely because it would sell more papers.
Sadly you have the wrong religion. Since you're sticking entirely to Torah and the Nevi'im, you have to be Orthodox Jewish. And a particularly backward one of them.
However, if you want to be a Christian you are a bit stuck because not only are you banned from doing these naughty things permitted by the OT, you have to pay your taxes and obey those in authority, so no end to end encryption for you. Or tax avoidance. I guess Rees-Mogg and his ilk have a special dispensation from the Pope.
He'd have a problem, since Jesus actually very clearly says that the issuer of the currency has the right to tax it.
"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, ...[]... Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
I need hardly add that many, many (mainly American) writers have tried to argue that this doesn't mean what it says, but they have been Protestants, not Catholics.
Some fundamental "facts" claimed in Judaeo-Christianity clearly are bollocks (I think I still need "salt that hath lost its savour" explained), and I have worried that someone will come along and invent a new religion which carefully avoids that while still ruining people's lives. But I have to admit that bollocksness in certain existing religions is not a very effective protection anyway.
The New Testament is soooo namby pamby.
God! This Jesus bloke is such a snowflake! Fucking millennials - with their sandals and their oh-so-cool beards... I hate them! I mean, it's political correctness gone mad! All this talk of loving thy neighbour and thine enemies too! Not taking an eye for an eye? When I were a lad we took proper revenge on our enemies - and we definitely didn't love any of the bastards! And hangin' around with fallen women and tax collectors is just the limit.
What the Romans need is a bloody good smiting! I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Wait, so Jesus was the original hipster? I find it rather ironic that anyone could actually be the original hipster (OH?). I guess what I mean is, did they even have plaid flannel then?
I'm sorry, I need a minute to get this all straight in my head. It's like finding out Leonardo da Vinci made noodles and Dan Brown's book was actually the spaghetti code. Dear [$deity], it's Title 21 Section 139.110 all over again!
"Ya just gotta love the Old Testament. Blood and guts all the way."
Yep, Yahweh was just one of many gods they worshipped back in the day. Basically the god of war for a bunch of wandering nomads. One day, one of them got a message from Jehova telling them he was now boss god and not to worship any other god., hence all the blood and gore in the rest of the Old Testament. Everything after that is PR.
Er...no. That's wrong. I've commented enough on this subject but your gloss is not correct at all.
I feel it's the duty of atheists who want to point out why the Abrahamic religions are wrong to get the reasons they are wrong (apart from the very, very obvious one) correct.
That's actually a very partial reading of the OT. You really need to dig a bit deeper and discover that those ancient Hebrews kept on finding that the 'God' who seemed to want them as a sign for others wasn't exactly the god they were looking for.
What they tended to be looking for was a god who would slaughter their enemies (preferably without them needing to get blood on their own hands), etc., but time and again 'God' keeps breaking out of their stereotypical model.
There's a lot of reading in the OT, so if you want to see it summed up nice and succinctly read Jonah; only four pages long. Oh, and don't get hung up on the whale bit - that's not what the story is about.
And then, a long time later, Jesus comes along to sum up the whole business in a single human life - but then that's where the faith bit comes in. Thankfully we all allowed to make up our own minds about what life is all about, and to live with the consequences!
Judges 21:10-24. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!
That sounds like a moral justification for stealing women - a whole new meaning to the term "swipe right"
If there was ever a piece of religious advice that is pertinent to the internet age it would be from the Acts of the Apostles (also made popular by Johnny Cash)
It is hard for you to kick against the pricks” was a Greek proverb, but it was also familiar to the Jews and anyone who made a living in agriculture. An ox goad was a stick with a pointed piece of iron on its tip used to prod the oxen when plowing. The farmer would prick the animal to steer it in the right direction. Sometimes the animal would rebel by kicking out at the prick, and this would result in the prick being driven even further into its flesh. In essence, the more an ox rebelled, the more it suffered. Thus, Jesus’ words to Saul on the road to Damascus: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”
You can say "Jehovah". It's a nonsense word.
Linguistic note: the original, unpointed (vowelless) Hebrew just has the consonants YHVH, as is generally known. However, pointed Bibles have a little variation. In case someone who knows enough Hebrew to read a pointed Bible, but not enough to know that when you come to read YHVH you actually **say** "Adonai" - pointed Bibles have the vowels of Adonai instead. This is referred to as the "kethibh and qere" - "it is written" and "it is read". So these semi-literate readers would instead read the nonexistent word "Yahovah"
The people who knew enough Hebrew to read the pointed version, and did the translations, took YHVW and the wrong vowels and ended up with "Jehovah". It's why the claim of the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses to a personal revelation from God is so funny: he forgot to tell her how to pronounce his name properly.
Of course, something different happened when Mary and Joseph were thinking about what to call their baby. Outside in the inn yard a porter dropped an amphora on his foot and swore loudly. "That's a nice name", said Mary, "We'll call him that."
And contrary to the Bible, there was actually an extra king. He arrived a bit late when the stable was full to bursting with people. When he introduced himself and his entourage to Joseph, he got the answer "Sorry, you can't go in. It would be four king hell in there." This was the origin of a well known expression.
Of course, something different happened when Mary and Joseph were thinking about what to call their baby. Outside in the inn yard a porter dropped an amphora on his foot and swore loudly. "That's a nice name", said Mary, "We'll call him that."
So they decided not to use the middle name? If they had, it would have been "Jesus F**king Christ".
If he could put out a communication that the 11th commandment is not "Thou shall park as close to the church as possible even if you block all the drives in the street".
Coz I'm sick of the crusty god fearing bastards blocking me in every Sunday morning (and Wednesday evening for some fucking reason).
I used to just take the cores out of every tyre valve and place them neatly on top of the tyre, although one blocking the entrance to the doctors surgery was pushed onto the nearby canal towpath - with the aid of a towbar equipped old Audi.
Anon - not sure of the statute of limitations on such things.
Clearly, Mr Welby has a very poor grasp of Philosophical jargon: one would hope his grasp of religious jargon would be better, but there is no evidence of that.
But his rules for social media looks like they were written by corporates. This demonstrates that corporates now think they rule the UK, since the Church of England has always done the government’s bidding.
I saw very similar guidance for Usenet 25 years ago. Except it wasn't coming from religious authorities back then.
Interestingly, already 25 years ago, there were classic parodies and sendups of such advice. People were already well-aware that the advice was broadly good, but that it has limitations, unintended consequences, etc.
I guess that's 'cos social media just reflects human nature. Those netiquette parodies I read 25 years ago were merely an online formulation of what Nietzsche wrote back in the 1880s in sending up Christian 'commonsense'.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
