From Taoist to Infidel, by Richard Carrier

[Horia Plugaru]

In the article "From Taoist to Infidel," Richard Carrier, speaking of the immorality of the bible, mentions Jesus' saying that he "came not to bring peace, but the sword." It seems that Carrier is interpreting Jesus' words as implying an intention to start a real war, with literal violence and all.

However, I heard some Christians who say that in fact this is not what Jesus meant. They cite Matthew 26: 52 "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" trying to show that Jesus did not approve of war. In fact, they continue, "the sword" here means "The sword of division that God's word brings. It is the division of truth from error, and the reaction of the darkness against the light. The sword that Jesus brings, is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others" as one such Christian puts it.

Of course, it could be replied that this understanding of the word "sword" is not correct because in Luke 22:36, Jesus is clearly talking about a real sword, a weapon:"he that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." But here apologists usually claim that Christ instructed His disciples to get real swords only to assure the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12. They say he was to be considered a lawbreaker ("transgressor") but he was not endorsing the use of weapons for the purpose of harming other people (whether in self-defense or otherwise).

So it seems that Carrier's understanding of Matthew 10:34 "I came not to bring peace, but the sword" is erroneous.

I would like to know what does Richard Carrier think about this Christian interpretation of Matthew 10:34. Is it convincing? And if not, why not?

Thank you,

Horia Plugaru

[Richard Carrier]

Quite simply, if we are allowed to interpret the bible as saying something exactly the opposite of what it plainly says, then we can pretend the bible says anything and everything, whatever we want. Using the same method I can say, with equal merit, that the Bible predicts Einstein's Theory of Relativity, advocates pedophilia, demands the regular consumption of Orange Crush, commands that little girls be crushed to death who play with dolls, and provides the world's greatest recipe for pepperoni pizza.

But all the while, I would be compelled to heed my own words, in the very essay to which you respond:

"It does no good to try in desperation to make excuses for it. A good and wise man's message would not need excuses."

Or, as I also say there, "It is plagued with a general obscurity and ambiguity" that condemns it as inferior, even dangerous--precisely because it can be interpreted to mean anything. The Nazis found in the Bible support for the extermination of the Jews. Southern slave owners found support for the brutalizing enslavement of blacks. The Inquisition found support for the burning of witches. And god-fearing Christians even today find in it support for the assassination of doctors, and state-sponsored religious coercion.

That's the general point. Now the specific point. What I mean by quoting the sword verse is not something you need guess at--the very next words in my essay make clear what I meant: the principle of "setting even families against each other." And that is, after all, explicitly in the Bible. Accordingly, I took "sword" as a metaphor for strife and division, not necessarily marching orders for war. I will quote the passage at length, the very words of Jesus himself:

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

The context is unmistakable: Jesus (or, rather, the fictional character the author wants us to believe is Jesus) intends his teachings to create strife and division, to tear up families, and destroy the foundation of love upon which society sustains itself, and in its place secure the universal rejection of human society in favor of single-minded pledge of love and allegiance to Jesus Christ (which translates in practical terms to love and allegiance for the church whose propaganda this Gospel represents). All for the single purpose of selfishly securing salvation for the individual after death.

The words are plain: "I did not come to bring peace." That means what it says: he is not preaching peace. That does not mean he is calling for war in a military sense, so much as cultural and social war, which can be just as violent, but even when eschewing violence can be just as destructive. Hence in the parallel passage in Luke (12:49-53) he says: "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! ..." Thus, the passage pertains to something he wishes to happen, not anything that saddens him or that he wants to stop. So he continues, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Whatever you want this to mean is irrelevant: what the text [i]plainly says[/] is immoral and reprehensible, and certainly not admirable. If that is not what God meant, then he should have said what he meant and not something exactly the opposite. Any half-wise human would, so God can have no excuse. The Jesus character portrayed here is demanding that we place him above all other humans, and engage in destructive combativeness with everyone, even our own kin, over questions of religious allegiance. It does not matter if this has been spuriously interpolated amidst some supposedly genuine collection of sayings. It is impossible now to distinguish interpolations from genuine sayings. If there was a true Jesus, we cannot really know what he said about anything. Even what the Gospel authors portray him as saying is full of contradictions, as it represents many layers of redaction and tradition cobbled together over time, or appropriated and toyed with by this or that author. And it does not matter if it meant something else, because any text worth our admiration would say what it meant, not something else instead.

Basically, the more Christians try to make excuses for their book, the more they claim it must mean the exact opposite of what it says, the more they condemn it as unworthy of our attention.

[lazcatluc]

I would like to say that I have found this article to be extremely interesting. However, IMHO, it refers to Christianity a lot more than it is supposed to (at least judging by the title). In fact, I'm sure there are more of Mr. Carrier's opinions on Christianity than on Taoism here. I understand that the main adversary of the Secular Web is Christianity but I was hoping for a more detailed description of Taoism and how one stops calling himself a Taoist. There are some tails of mystical experiences lived by the author and, suddenly, the phrase "and it did not take long for me to realize that everything I had experienced through Taoism had a natural explanation". This is what I think the essay is lacking: a more detailed description of the natural explanations of the Taoist pseudo-mystical experiences.

I'm hoping that, if he's not too busy, Mr. Carrier will provide some of these explanations either on an update or maybe here in the forums.

Catalin Lazar

P.S. I fully agree with the conclusions the author reached when comparing Christianity and Taoism. In fact, my own conclusions are similar. I would also like to see some feedback from people who have a different view on this subject.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding From Taoist to Infidel (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. You should probably allow up to two weeks; Richard is quite busy most of the time. -DM-]

[Richard Carrier]

The essay in question was about me, and how and why I went from being a Taoist to an Infidel. The essay was not about Taoism per se. So that's why it didn't contain what you were looking for. I haven't composed such an essay because there is no need for it--Taoism is neither very common (there are more atheists and agnostics than Taoists) nor any kind of threat (Taoism promotes genuine tolerance and peaceful coexistence, indeed even political inertia, and therefore presents no threat to the future of human society or education or happiness, even if it is a false religion). It thus ranks very low on my scale of priorities--especially now that I'm not a Taoist anymore.

As to your main question about the natural explanations of mystical experiences, there are a lot of really good books on the subject. See:

John Horgan, Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border between Science and Spirituality (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618060278/internetinfidels/) (2003); and: Eugene D'Aquili & Andrew Newberg, The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800631633/internetinfidels/) (1999) and Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/034544034X/internetinfidels/) (2001).

[Enda80]

"While the very Son of God Himself defended a whore from moral condemnation, whores were routinely morally condemned, most ardently by the Devout."

"It does not matter if this has been spuriously interpolated amidst some supposedly genuine collection of sayings. It is impossible now to distinguish interpolations from genuine sayings."
Well, at least in this case, we can say that the story you referenced in the first paragraph is an interpolation. Why? It is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels.
The Jesus Seminar had to throw this one out. I find it interesting that they did, since usually the Jesus Seminar jumps on the verses that the unreconstructed Confederates love, not this one that liberal Christians love.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
"John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts."

[Brin Londo]

Perhaps this has been expressed many times but I've always had the unfortunate realization that Christianity has it's place--or at least a ministry has it's place.

I grew up reading Encyclopedia's as well and always found the quid pro quo aspect of scientific discovery exciting and reassuring--and a great introduction on how much we STILL have to discover! :-)

But for many people there is no desire to think outside of themselves; nor may it be possible. Classically an I.Q. of 100 means that the person is able to "imagine" or think of things that do not exist and to my horror, a couple years ago, I realized that an average I.Q. of 100 means about half the population may NOT be able to think outside of themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Kohlberg's stages of moral development require you to get to about stage five (of six) before natural laws come into play. When an individual cannot see the harm their actions may cause then the fallback doctrine of "if you do this, you'll be damned" may be all that stands between a contributing member of society and an immoral deviant. And by deviant I do not mean just sexual but any action that through one's own "self-centered" perception and rational can justify bringing pain to others.

As for morality I have met many people in my life who regard thoughtful discourse as an irritating or a waste of time. If a person refuses, or does not have the mental capacity, to open themselves up to higher thought how are they to decide right from wrong? Self interest rarely comes out with a winning, moralistic viewpoint. And yes, while I regard the Bible to be a poor textbook, the Christian services I have attended in the past have rarely used more than a simple quote to reinforce a separate but valid moral ideal. True, the Bible is misleading to those who read it, but then who reads it? (I did and found it long winded and confining).

Certainly many people need moral guidance as they are not willing to fine the answer on their own, now if Christian leaders could just separate out monetary or nationalist goals from their simple moral teachings we at least could focus on reducing crime, gaining respect for others and living a full life.

(a former Christian / current atheist looking for a better answer)

[Steve Weiss]

Quite simply, if we are allowed to interpret the bible as saying something exactly the opposite of what it plainly says, then we can pretend the bible says anything and everything, whatever we want. Using the same method I can say, with equal merit, that the Bible predicts Einstein's Theory of Relativity, advocates pedophilia, demands the regular consumption of Orange Crush, commands that little girls be crushed to death who play with dolls, and provides the world's greatest recipe for pepperoni pizza.

But all the while, I would be compelled to heed my own words, in the very essay to which you respond:

"It does no good to try in desperation to make excuses for it. A good and wise man's message would not need excuses."

Or, as I also say there, "It is plagued with a general obscurity and ambiguity" that condemns it as inferior, even dangerous--precisely because it can be interpreted to mean anything. The Nazis found in the Bible support for the extermination of the Jews. Southern slave owners found support for the brutalizing enslavement of blacks. The Inquisition found support for the burning of witches. And god-fearing Christians even today find in it support for the assassination of doctors, and state-sponsored religious coercion.

That's the general point. Now the specific point. What I mean by quoting the sword verse is not something you need guess at--the very next words in my essay make clear what I meant: the principle of "setting even families against each other." And that is, after all, explicitly in the Bible. Accordingly, I took "sword" as a metaphor for strife and division, not necessarily marching orders for war. I will quote the passage at length, the very words of Jesus himself:

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

The context is unmistakable: Jesus (or, rather, the fictional character the author wants us to believe is Jesus) intends his teachings to create strife and division, to tear up families, and destroy the foundation of love upon which society sustains itself, and in its place secure the universal rejection of human society in favor of single-minded pledge of love and allegiance to Jesus Christ (which translates in practical terms to love and allegiance for the church whose propaganda this Gospel represents). All for the single purpose of selfishly securing salvation for the individual after death.

The words are plain: "I did not come to bring peace." That means what it says: he is not preaching peace. That does not mean he is calling for war in a military sense, so much as cultural and social war, which can be just as violent, but even when eschewing violence can be just as destructive. Hence in the parallel passage in Luke (12:49-53) he says: "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! ..." Thus, the passage pertains to something he wishes to happen, not anything that saddens him or that he wants to stop. So he continues, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

Whatever you want this to mean is irrelevant: what the text [i]plainly says[/] is immoral and reprehensible, and certainly not admirable. If that is not what God meant, then he should have said what he meant and not something exactly the opposite. Any half-wise human would, so God can have no excuse. The Jesus character portrayed here is demanding that we place him above all other humans, and engage in destructive combativeness with everyone, even our own kin, over questions of religious allegiance. It does not matter if this has been spuriously interpolated amidst some supposedly genuine collection of sayings. It is impossible now to distinguish interpolations from genuine sayings. If there was a true Jesus, we cannot really know what he said about anything. Even what the Gospel authors portray him as saying is full of contradictions, as it represents many layers of redaction and tradition cobbled together over time, or appropriated and toyed with by this or that author. And it does not matter if it meant something else, because any text worth our admiration would say what it meant, not something else instead.

Basically, the more Christians try to make excuses for their book, the more they claim it must mean the exact opposite of what it says, the more they condemn it as unworthy of our attention.

I endorse both the spirit and the letter of this argument. In fact, I have on a few occasions visited local Christian churches here in South Africa in order to see what the appeal of Christianity is and to question the ministers first-hand concerning the standards of morality advocated by their doctrines. I specifically wanted an explanation of Luke 19:27.

One minister that I approached after his sermon had been in the religion game for about 35 years, and I assumed that he would know what was contained in Luke 19:27, and he was carrying a copy of his bible under his arm at the time. When I asked him for his interpretation, he expressed his ignorance of the passage and asked me to summarize it. Rather than paraphrase it, I suggested that he open his bible, read it and then pass comment.

When he had read Luke 19:27 he denied that it meant that Jesus wanted everyone that didn't want to follow his teachings to be put to death in front of him as it plainly states in unequivocal terms. Far from "turning the other cheek and making friends with those who are one's enemies," this passage urges immediate execution without trial of those who do not conform to Jesus's dictates. Instead the minister said that the passage was part of a longer story and that it really meant that this mass murder would occur only on judgment day by god. I disagreed with his interpretation and pointed out that death for non-belief, either immediately or deferred, was a distinction without a difference. The message was clear. Believe or suffer death. He quickly excused himself rather than discuss the issue futher, but perhaps he was a bit surprised to be questioned when he thought that he was playing on his home court. In the future he just might have to be a bit weary about who might approach him again on some other point of biblical immorality.

[Richard Carrier]

"While the very Son of God Himself defended a whore from moral condemnation, whores were routinely morally condemned, most ardently by the Devout." "It does not matter if this has been spuriously interpolated amidst some supposedly genuine collection of sayings. It is impossible now to distinguish interpolations from genuine sayings."
Well, at least in this case, we can say that the story you referenced in the first paragraph is an interpolation. Why? It is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels.
The Jesus Seminar had to throw this one out. I find it interesting that they did, since usually the Jesus Seminar jumps on the verses that the unreconstructed Confederates love, not this one that liberal Christians love.

NOTE: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm)
"John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts."

Just FYI, all we can prove is that it was interpolated. We can't prove the saying didn't come from Jesus. For instance, it could be a cross-insertion from another (rejected) Gospel or oral tradition that included authentic sayings. I am not saying I believe this, only that you should be wary of conflating "it's an interpolation" with "Jesus didn't say it." Though the Jesus Seminar did conclude he didn't say it (but they did say they wished he had), they did not state their reasons.

Also, your source is mistaken. It is attested as having been in some Greek and Latin manuscripts by Jerome (and is quoted by Augustine). Hence it cannot derive from the 5th century but must have been inserted in the 4th century or earlier.

[Richard Carrier]

Certainly many people need moral guidance as they are not willing to fine the answer on their own, now if Christian leaders could just separate out monetary or nationalist goals from their simple moral teachings we at least could focus on reducing crime, gaining respect for others and living a full life.

The solution is to teach people to become adults. Not to treat them like children.

[adren@line]

taoists are infidels.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

taoists are infidels.

As are Christians.

[adren@line]

infidel was generally used by Christians and Muslims to define others. Other terms that were used and are still used are heathen, pagan, kaffir, unbeleiver, etc.

Christians arent really infidels even by Quranic standards.

[-DM-]

From American Heritage Dictionary (and this is typical of definitions given by other contemporary dictionaries): 1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.

Thus, based on this definition...
taoists are infidels.Depends on which of the two definitions, above, you have in mind.

As are Christians.False.

infidel was generally used by Christians and Muslims to define others.True.

---

And based on what I know of the teachings of Islam...
Christians arent really infidels even by Quranic standards.Debatable. Islam divides people into three groups: Muslims (umma), people of the Book (ahl al-Kitab) and unbelievers (kafir). A "kafir" is a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah, which essentially equates with being a disbeliever in God. "Kafir" is a derogatory term which is sometimes used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, a Muslim of a differing sect, or an apostate from Islam. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "unbeliever."

In any case, Carrier's description of his path from "Taoist" to "infidel" is accurate.

-DM-

P.S. Let's don't continue to argue the definition of "infidel." Carrier isn't likely going to change the title of his article to suit a narrower definition than the definition that he had in mind at the time.

[Richard Carrier]

In any case, Carrier's description of his path from "Taoist" to "infidel" is accurate. ... Let's don't continue to argue the definition of "infidel." Carrier isn't likely going to change the title of his article to suit a narrower definition than the definition that he had in mind at the time.

Umm....and perhaps it was too obvious for anyone to notice, I'll add that the essay is a story about how I joined the Internet Infidels. Hence, I literally became an Infidel. It's an actual corporation with a board of directors and everything! Honest to Boudicca.

[Abu Mathyu]

I find the linkage of Taoist and "infidel" to be interesting albeit misleading. I would hope that the author didn't intend to use either as slander or insulting.

In the greater debates that are occuring at an increasing rate, insults, whether implied or not aren't helpful to understanding of anyones beliefs.

[-DM-]

I find the linkage of Taoist and "infidel" to be interesting albeit misleading. I would hope that the author didn't intend to use either as slander or insulting.If you are talking about the article under discussion, From Taoist to Infidel (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.html), there is no "linking" of Taoist and Infidel, rather there is an account of the author's transition from one to the other. If you are talking about definitions, a Taoist can be considered an infidel by definition; I don't see that as misleading or insulting, I see it as a fact.

-DM-

[Abu Mathyu]

Fact?

Well, from the perspective of anyone who thinks of an unbeliever as an infidel, then yes. However, this would mean we are all infact infidels as we do not all agree on one "most true" or "best" belief system.

When I say insult, I mean to say that it is used and often understood as an insult by those seeking to dismiss a conversation or discussion with someone of differing views.

[ModernHeretic]

(Taoism promotes genuine tolerance and peaceful coexistence, indeed even political inertia, and therefore presents no threat to the future of human society or education or happiness, even if it is a false religion).

Richard, why do you say it is a 'false religion'? Do you mean by this simply that it is not "The One True Faith", or do you really disagree with the central tenets of Taoism (The concept of the Tao, of wu-wei, of living a life of compassion, simplicity, humility, etc.).

It seems to me that Taoism is perfectly compatible with a naturalistic worldview; although some Taoists may postulate things like a soul or spirits (I recall that Chuangzi mentions spirit; IIRC it was mentioned a lot when he was talking about the "True Man"), is this necessarily a problem for a philosophical Taoist? I agree that taking a more eclectic approach is probably better than assuming that your religion or philosophy has "the Truth", but I don't see that it's any more false than any other religion.

Although there may very well be good naturalistic explanations of mystical phenomena, do you really think this makes mystical practice such as meditation less valuable?

Is there anything within Taoist philosophy that you consider incompatible with a naturalistic, humanistic worldview?

I look forward to your response.

[ACH]

I would like to point out two flaws in Horia Plugaru's assertion about the intended purpose of the swords at Luke 22:36-38.

Notice the following verses from Luke 22:36-38:

36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

First flaw:
In verse 37 it obviously and specifically states that the purpose of the swords is in fulfillment of prophecy, as it says "It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; etc..."

Second flaw:
Notice in verse 38, that the disciples inform him that they have 2 swords, and Jesus responds "that is enough". If you remember, there were 12 disciples. If Jesus truly meant the disciples to arm themselves specifically for violent purposes, he would have instructed ALL the disciples to arm themselves. By my count, they would be 10 swords short, 9 if you don't count Judas.

A possible third flaw, imo, is pointed out by Horia Plugaru himself: it would be sheer folly for Jesus and his disciples to violently protest his arrest in this manner, being vastly outnumbered, even if all the disciples were armed.

Clearly, the use of swords in this instance is not to inflict violence on other people.

[-DM-]

Fact?Yes, fact.

Well, from the perspective of anyone who thinks of an unbeliever as an infidel, then yes. However, this would mean we are all infact infidels as we do not all agree on one "most true" or "best" belief system.We are not all, in fact, infidels simply because we do not agree on one most true or best belief. The dictionary definition of "infidel" was given above:
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.

But when Richard speaks of becoming an Infidel in this specific case, he is talking about how he "joined the Internet Infidels," how he "literally became an Infidel," a member of an actual corporation with a board of directors," i.e., Internet Infidels, Inc.--this organization.

-DM-

[Richard Carrier]

Richard, why do you say it is a 'false religion'?

Because it is a religion and it is based on assertions and premises that are false.


Although there may very well be good naturalistic explanations of mystical phenomena, do you really think this makes mystical practice such as meditation less valuable?

If you read my book, you'll know my answer is explicitly no. See "meditation" in the index, and my entire chapter on natural spirituality.


Is there anything within Taoist philosophy that you consider incompatible with a naturalistic, humanistic worldview?

First, don't confuse propositions that are incompatible with naturalism, with propositions that are false. Many false propositions are still compatible with naturalism. Thus, to say that Taoism contains false propositions is not the same as saying Taoism contains propositions incompatible with naturalism.

Second, it is fallacious to conclude from "I believe Taoism contains false propositions" that "I believe every proposition in Taoism is false."

Third, Taoism does assert propositions that are incompatible with naturalism, unless you "reinterpret" all such statements in a manner grossly contrary to their original meaning.

In exactly the same way, one can "reinterpret" the entire Bible so as to be entirely compatible with naturalism, but in doing so you aren't reading what the Bible was originally written to mean, but making up your own meaning, and thus in effect rewriting the book. What would ever be the point of that?

Indeed, in the case of Taoism, as with any and every other religion, I believe if you completely reinterpret its every proposition so that it is (a) compatible with naturalism and (b) true, you will simply end up with the worldview in my book. There is nothing distinctively "Taoist" about that worldview, any more than Platonist or Aristotelian or Epicurean or Stoic or Confucian or Christian. All those words become meaningless if they all mean exactly the same thing.

Hence I don't play word games. When people say "Taoism" they neither mean nor understand the worldview in my book, but some other worldview that is neither true nor properly naturalistic, and if we intend to speak English, we must use the word as it is commonly understood.

See my book's discussion of the winnowing of religious theses on pp. 270-73, and my discussion of Taoist supernaturalism in an Appendix (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html#S) to my critique of Rea. And of course, my sections on the meaning of words.

[kill with power]

Is sword, the same word translated from the origional greek language? Sometimes Words are translated the same in english even though they are different in greek. Im not saying that you are correct or incorrect in your assumtion, but what i am saying, is that it is an assumtion, you are annalizing an english translation of a greek text, inorder to do that you need to study the greek text, if you dont your argument is worthless, a testiment to your own ignorence, which you claim to be opposed to.

[-DM-]

"kill with power":

Richard Carrier reads Greek. He has no need to base his writing on an assumption, on an English translation of a Greek text.

The fact is, however, that any of us would have every right and reason to base an analysis of the Bible text on an English translation of the language in which the text was written given that the better of the accepted English translations are typically done by committees of experts in the original language(s). Note that if we could not trust their translations, then Christianity and Judaism, both, would be in big trouble given that there is almost no tenet of the belief system of either religion that is not either based on or reflected in the Bible.

But to answer your question about the Greek word translated "sword(s)" in the New Testament, following is a listing of the verses where Jesus allegedly used the word:Matt. 10:34 (KJVS) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Matt. 26:51 (KJVS) And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

Matt. 26:52 (KJVS) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Matt. 26:47 (KJVS) And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Matt. 26:55 (KJVS) In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

Mark 14:43 (KJVS) And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

Mark 14:47 (KJVS) And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

Mark 14:48 (KJVS) And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?

Luke 2:35 (KJVS) (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Luke 21:24 (KJVS) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Luke 22:36 (KJVS) Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:38 (KJVS) And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Luke 22:52 (KJVS) Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

In every single case, the word is Strong's G3162, machaira, a knife, i.e. dirk; figuratively, war, judicial punishment: - sword.

-DM-

P.S. You could have checked it out for yourself, of course, using some of the online Bible study tools. Had you done so, you probably wouldn't be inclined to suggest that anyone's argument might be worthless, or a testament to his own ignorance.