Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

levite · 03-23-2009, 06:53 PM

A lot of others have already said some of the most important things to be said on the subject. But I would really want to emphasize that, from a religious perspective, absolute literalism in reading the Bible not only is unproductive, I would argue that it doesn't exist at all.

Your church wants you to believe with 100% literalism and no external interpretation that God created the world 5760 years ago in six 24-hour days. Fair enough. In that case, I presume they also teach that you are forbidden from eating rabbit (Lev. 11:7), pork (Lev. 11:8), every kind of shellfish and crustacean (Lev. 11:12), or the blood of any animal (Lev. 19:26); that you are forbidden from wearing clothes that combine wool and cotton or linen (Lev. 19:19); that you must distance yourself from your congregation every time you have an emission of semen (Deut. 23:10 and elsewhere); that when you need to crap, you have to leave the city, dig a hole, crap into it, then cover it over with the shovel you brought for the purpose (Deut. 23:12-13); that you may not charge interest on loans (Deut. 23:19); nor can you remarry your ex-wife once you have divorced her, if she's had a relationship in the meantime, since that would be abhorrent to the same degree as idolatry or bestiality (Deut. 24:1-4).

You see what I'm getting at. No church teaches those things, because of a bunch of fancy theological footwork ascribed to the Apostle Paul. But they are there. There is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament or in the Gospels to suggest that Jesus didn't expect his followers to behave like fervently religious Jews, seeing as that's what they were. Jesus might have suggested reading the Bible literally-- although I doubt it, considering he was trained by the Rabbis of the Talmud, and they didn't-- but as soon as Christianity ceased being Judaism, it stopped taking the Bible literally.

If your church wants to teach literal creationism, I say they are welcome to do so. As long as they keep strictly kosher, follow all the laws of ritual purity, and the rest of the Mosaic code as well. Otherwise, there is no absolute literalism in reading the Bible: just double-talk.

I say this, by the way, as a practicing Jew, who does keep strictly kosher and so forth, and yet, following the Jewish tradition, would never consider absolute literalism an option in reading the Bible. We have always interpreted, and many of the early Christians did as well-- some of the later Christians, too. I see no reason (no Reason) in a church choosing to read Genesis absolutely literally and not other texts. It's just fundamentalism for the sake of plain cussedness, and to me, that does not seem theologically, philosophically, or religiously helpful. If that's your church, then with all respect to your childhood connections and feelings, I think you will be better off quit of them, from a purely theological standpoint.

And lest you think what I say is anti-Christianism, there are some Jews who try to take the traditional Jewish teachings about the Bible just as literally, and be just as fundamentalist, and I have said the same to them, and would say it again at the drop of a hat.

03-23-2009, 06:53 PM	#21 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	A lot of others have already said some of the most important things to be said on the subject. But I would really want to emphasize that, from a religious perspective, absolute literalism in reading the Bible not only is unproductive, I would argue that it doesn't exist at all. Your church wants you to believe with 100% literalism and no external interpretation that God created the world 5760 years ago in six 24-hour days. Fair enough. In that case, I presume they also teach that you are forbidden from eating rabbit (Lev. 11:7), pork (Lev. 11:8), every kind of shellfish and crustacean (Lev. 11:12), or the blood of any animal (Lev. 19:26); that you are forbidden from wearing clothes that combine wool and cotton or linen (Lev. 19:19); that you must distance yourself from your congregation every time you have an emission of semen (Deut. 23:10 and elsewhere); that when you need to crap, you have to leave the city, dig a hole, crap into it, then cover it over with the shovel you brought for the purpose (Deut. 23:12-13); that you may not charge interest on loans (Deut. 23:19); nor can you remarry your ex-wife once you have divorced her, if she's had a relationship in the meantime, since that would be abhorrent to the same degree as idolatry or bestiality (Deut. 24:1-4). You see what I'm getting at. No church teaches those things, because of a bunch of fancy theological footwork ascribed to the Apostle Paul. But they are there. There is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament or in the Gospels to suggest that Jesus didn't expect his followers to behave like fervently religious Jews, seeing as that's what they were. Jesus might have suggested reading the Bible literally-- although I doubt it, considering he was trained by the Rabbis of the Talmud, and they didn't-- but as soon as Christianity ceased being Judaism, it stopped taking the Bible literally. If your church wants to teach literal creationism, I say they are welcome to do so. As long as they keep strictly kosher, follow all the laws of ritual purity, and the rest of the Mosaic code as well. Otherwise, there is no absolute literalism in reading the Bible: just double-talk. I say this, by the way, as a practicing Jew, who does keep strictly kosher and so forth, and yet, following the Jewish tradition, would never consider absolute literalism an option in reading the Bible. We have always interpreted, and many of the early Christians did as well-- some of the later Christians, too. I see no reason (no Reason) in a church choosing to read Genesis absolutely literally and not other texts. It's just fundamentalism for the sake of plain cussedness, and to me, that does not seem theologically, philosophically, or religiously helpful. If that's your church, then with all respect to your childhood connections and feelings, I think you will be better off quit of them, from a purely theological standpoint. And lest you think what I say is anti-Christianism, there are some Jews who try to take the traditional Jewish teachings about the Bible just as literally, and be just as fundamentalist, and I have said the same to them, and would say it again at the drop of a hat. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)