The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

[Xelor]

Selective literalism continues to serve an important function for the Religious Right. It allows them to locate sin outside of the evangelical subculture (or so they think) by designating as especially egregious those dispositions and behaviors, homosexuality and abortion, that they believe characteristic of others, not themselves.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America
​

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible

In "The Year of Living Biblically," A.J. Jacobs tells of his "quest to live the ultimate biblical life. To follow every single rule in the Bible as literally as possible. I obey the famous ones:​

• 
  [*=1]The Ten Commandments
  [*=1]Love thy neighbor
  [*=1]Be fruitful and multiply

But also, the hundreds of oft-ignored ones.​

• 
  [*=1]Do not wear clothes of mixed fibers.
  [*=1]Do not shave your beard
  [*=1]Stone adulterers

He did so to discover whether he was "missing something essential to being a human? Or was half the world deluded?"​

Jacobs thus spent over a year living as a Biblical literalist, a real one. Now that is what it is, but for however foolish I may find Biblical literalism, I give the guy props for not being a selective Biblical literalist. What is selective Biblical literalism (SBL)? It's the practice of elevating certain biblical principles over others in order to best accommodate one’s personal opinions and behavioral preferences. It's the operative psychopathy that allows supposed followers of Christ to condone and embrace a host of nonsense including:

• Anti-Semitism
• Grotesque sexism
• Slavery
• Colonialism
• Segregation
• Marginalization of divorced people
• LGBT inclusion
• Donald Trump/Trumpism

For example:

• SBL-ists abjure stoning rebellious children (Deuteronomy 21:18), yet plenty of them condone the death penalty as retribution for murder (Genesis 9:6).
• By now, most folks, are aware of Old Testament (OT) passages condemning sodomy, yet Jesus Himself never mentions it. He does, however, discuss divorce: "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:32) How hard must one look to find an SBL-ist who's divorced or wedded to a divorcee? Not hard at all, just go to church.
• One need only read the Golden Rule as Jesus gave it to see the incongruity between SBL and its adherents' practices.
• SBL-ists disregard 1 Corinthians -- "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head," yet adamantly hew to Timothy to "do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Apparently Paul's sartorial remarks are to be taken as culturally influenced, but when he discusses leadership, it’s suddenly considered a "Biblical" thing.

Now sure as I think SBL is utter nonsense, I can respectfully disagree with folks who exhibit the probity of being consistent about their SBL. I didn't tell them to literally interpret any passage of the Bible; it's they who proffer literal interpretations. Okay, fine. So, they tacitly declare their cognition is that the Bible is to be take literally. I understand that and can comprehend the Bible thus when considering it and SBL-ist's behavior and remarks. But sure as God made green apples, along comes a passage and the instant I hold and SBL-ist accountable to construing it literally, they suddenly have a figurative interpretation.

How can anyone interact, converse with someone who does that? I mean, really. If someone presents as having a strong stance about something, which is most certainly how SBL-ists present themselves as goes the Bible and what it says, is it asking too much of them to expect they arrived at that stance after careful and comprehensive of all that's entailed in, implied by and incumbent upon them as a result of their having said stance, namely that of the Bible being aptly read literally? In short, no.

I guess what worries me…is that if I had been alive 160 years ago or 60 years ago, and the issues of the day were, respectively, slavery and segregation-I worry that I might have been one of those people quoting scripture in defense of slavery and segregation.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America​

 

[jmotivator]

Selective literalism continues to serve an important function for the Religious Right. It allows them to locate sin outside of the evangelical subculture (or so they think) by designating as especially egregious those dispositions and behaviors, homosexuality and abortion, that they believe characteristic of others, not themselves.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America
​

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible

In "The Year of Living Biblically," A.J. Jacobs tells of his "quest to live the ultimate biblical life. To follow every single rule in the Bible as literally as possible. I obey the famous ones:​

• 
  [*=1]The Ten Commandments
  [*=1]Love thy neighbor
  [*=1]Be fruitful and multiply

But also, the hundreds of oft-ignored ones.​

• 
  [*=1]Do not wear clothes of mixed fibers.
  [*=1]Do not shave your beard
  [*=1]Stone adulterers

He did so to discover whether he was "missing something essential to being a human? Or was half the world deluded?"​

Jacobs thus spent over a year living as a Biblical literalist, a real one. Now that is what it is, but for however foolish I may find Biblical literalism, I give the guy props for not being a selective Biblical literalist. What is selective Biblical literalism (SBL)? It's the practice of elevating certain biblical principles over others in order to best accommodate one’s personal opinions and behavioral preferences. It's the operative psychopathy that allows supposed followers of Christ to condone and embrace a host of nonsense including:

• Anti-Semitism
• Grotesque sexism
• Slavery
• Colonialism
• Segregation
• Marginalization of divorced people
• LGBT inclusion
• Donald Trump/Trumpism

.....

Invariably, as in this case, people who attempt to claim what Christians must do as Christians ignore the part of the Bible that makes them Christians, the New Testament.

Hint: Jesus instructed us that we should no longer be concerned with what we wear and what we eat, and are not qualified to, and therefore were commanded not to, mete out punishment on others for disobeying God's law.

 

[Xelor]

Invariably, as in this case, people who attempt to claim what Christians must do as Christians ignore the part of the Bible that makes them Christians, the New Testament.

Hint: Jesus instructed us that we should no longer be concerned with what we wear and what we eat, and are not qualified to, and therefore were commanded not to, mete out punishment on others for disobeying God's law.

 

[Omega Man]

I guess the guy who went out of his way to do this, threw due-diligence out the window when he didn't realize that all that Levitical stuff only applied to establishing a sense of "tradition" via creating a religious identity among 6th century BC priests and acolytes. None of that had to do with Christians, or people of the 21st century of the Common Era. Trying to make snarky points still requires some due diligence.


OM

 

[Xelor]

I guess the guy who went out of his way to do this, threw due-diligence out the window when he didn't realize that all that Levitical stuff only applied to establishing a sense of "tradition" via creating a religious identity among 6th century BC priests and acolytes. None of that had to do with Christians, or people of the 21st century of the Common Era. Trying to make snarky points still requires some due diligence.


OM

The guy who wrote the OP isn't among the folks who cite Leviticus as a basis for decrying, delegitimizing, disparaging, ect. gays/homosexuality. Its SBL-ists who cite Leviticus. I simply observe that they do it and that Jesus didn't have a damn thing to say about homosexuality/gays.

 

[Omega Man]

The guy who wrote the OP isn't among the folks who cite Leviticus as a basis for decrying, delegitimizing, disparaging, ect. gays/homosexuality. Its SBL-ists who do that.

And they are wrong too. Perhaps that is what the guy who wrote the OP should have emphasized, instead of undergoing some laughable "year of living biblically". Makes no sense.


OM

 

[Xelor]

...


Jacobs thus spent over a year living as a Biblical literalist, a real one. Now that is what it is, but for however foolish I may find Biblical literalism, I give the guy props for not being a selective Biblical literalist. What is selective Biblical literalism (SBL)? It's the practice of elevating certain biblical principles over others in order to best accommodate one’s personal opinions and behavioral preferences. It's the operative psychopathy that allows supposed followers of Christ to condone and embrace a host of nonsense including:

• Anti-Semitism
• Grotesque sexism
• Slavery
• Colonialism
• Segregation
• Marginalization of divorced people
• LGBT inclusion
• Donald Trump/Trumpism

For example:

• SBL-ists abjure stoning rebellious children (Deuteronomy 21:18), yet plenty of them condone the death penalty as retribution for murder (Genesis 9:6).
• By now, most folks, are aware of Old Testament (OT) passages condemning sodomy, yet Jesus Himself never mentions it. He does, however, discuss divorce: "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:32) How hard must one look to find an SBL-ist who's divorced or wedded to a divorcee? Not hard at all, just go to church.
• One need only read the Golden Rule as Jesus gave it to see the incongruity between SBL and its adherents' practices.
• SBL-ists disregard 1 Corinthians -- "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head," yet adamantly hew to Timothy to "do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Apparently Paul's sartorial remarks are to be taken as culturally influenced, but when he discusses leadership, it’s suddenly considered a "Biblical" thing.

Now sure as I think SBL is utter nonsense, I can respectfully disagree with folks who exhibit the probity of being consistent about their SBL. I didn't tell them to literally interpret any passage of the Bible; it's they who proffer literal interpretations. Okay, fine. So, they tacitly declare their cognition is that the Bible is to be take literally. I understand that and can comprehend the Bible thus when considering it and SBL-ist's behavior and remarks. But sure as God made green apples, along comes a passage and the instant I hold and SBL-ist accountable to construing it literally, they suddenly have a figurative interpretation.

How can anyone interact, converse with someone who does that? I mean, really. If someone presents as having a strong stance about something, which is most certainly how SBL-ists present themselves as goes the Bible and what it says, is it asking too much of them to expect they arrived at that stance after careful and comprehensive of all that's entailed in, implied by and incumbent upon them as a result of their having said stance, namely that of the Bible being aptly read literally? In short, no.

I guess what worries me…is that if I had been alive 160 years ago or 60 years ago, and the issues of the day were, respectively, slavery and segregation-I worry that I might have been one of those people quoting scripture in defense of slavery and segregation.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America​

Red/Correction:
Perhaps my writing "LGBT inclusion" has confused some readers. "LGBT disinclusion" or "LGBT delegitimation" or "LGBT marginalization" would have been clearer terms to have used.

BY "LGBT inclusion" I meant the ridiculous notions SBL-ists hold regarding LGBT inclusion.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

 

[Felis Leo]

Selective literalism continues to serve an important function for the Religious Right. It allows them to locate sin outside of the evangelical subculture (or so they think) by designating as especially egregious those dispositions and behaviors, homosexuality and abortion, that they believe characteristic of others, not themselves.
-- Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America
​

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible

In "The Year of Living Biblically," A.J. Jacobs tells of his "quest to live the ultimate biblical life. To follow every single rule in the Bible as literally as possible. I obey the famous ones:​

• 
  [*=1]The Ten Commandments
  [*=1]Love thy neighbor
  [*=1]Be fruitful and multiply

But also, the hundreds of oft-ignored ones.​

• 
  [*=1]Do not wear clothes of mixed fibers.
  [*=1]Do not shave your beard
  [*=1]Stone adulterers

He did so to discover whether he was "missing something essential to being a human? Or was half the world deluded?"​

Jacobs thus spent over a year living as a Biblical literalist, a real one. Now that is what it is, but for however foolish I may find Biblical literalism, I give the guy props for not being a selective Biblical literalist. What is selective Biblical literalism (SBL)? It's the practice of elevating certain biblical principles over others in order to best accommodate one’s personal opinions and behavioral preferences. It's the operative psychopathy that allows supposed followers of Christ to condone and embrace a host of nonsense including:

• Anti-Semitism
• Grotesque sexism
• Slavery
• Colonialism
• Segregation
• Marginalization of divorced people
• LGBT inclusion
• Donald Trump/Trumpism

For example:

• SBL-ists abjure stoning rebellious children (Deuteronomy 21:18), yet plenty of them condone the death penalty as retribution for murder (Genesis 9:6).
• By now, most folks, are aware of Old Testament (OT) passages condemning sodomy, yet Jesus Himself never mentions it. He does, however, discuss divorce: "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:32) How hard must one look to find an SBL-ist who's divorced or wedded to a divorcee? Not hard at all, just go to church.
• One need only read the Golden Rule as Jesus gave it to see the incongruity between SBL and its adherents' practices.
• SBL-ists disregard 1 Corinthians -- "any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head," yet adamantly hew to Timothy to "do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Apparently Paul's sartorial remarks are to be taken as culturally influenced, but when he discusses leadership, it’s suddenly considered a "Biblical" thing.

Now sure as I think SBL is utter nonsense, I can respectfully disagree with folks who exhibit the probity of being consistent about their SBL. I didn't tell them to literally interpret any passage of the Bible; it's they who proffer literal interpretations. Okay, fine. So, they tacitly declare their cognition is that the Bible is to be take literally. I understand that and can comprehend the Bible thus when considering it and SBL-ist's behavior and remarks. But sure as God made green apples, along comes a passage and the instant I hold and SBL-ist accountable to construing it literally, they suddenly have a figurative interpretation.

Presuming you are religious, Xelor, which Christians in your informed theological opinion have the correct and inerrant interpretation of the Bible? Who are the true and faithful, and who the damned and dissolute? Being both an atheist and one who was never Christian in the first place, I do not presume to argue Biblical morality with actual believers, because it appears the Bible and its various schools of interpretation appear to offer a litany of loopholes that justify every form of evil or goodness you can imagine.

 

[Xelor]

And they are wrong too. Perhaps that is what the guy who wrote the OP should have emphasized, instead of undergoing some laughable "year of living biblically". Makes no sense.


OM

I wrote the OP, but I am not A.J. Jacobs, who is the guy who lived literally as instructed in the Bible.

Since your earlier comment focused on one of the several incongruous notions to which SBL-ists typically ascribe, please see post 7 and let me know whether the correction issued there has any impact on your "blue" remarks above. If they don't, I'll respond to the "blue" remarks above.

 

[Xelor]

Presuming you are religious, Xelor, which Christians in your informed theological opinion have the correct and inerrant interpretation of the Bible? Who are the true and faithful, and who the damned and dissolute? Being both an atheist and one who was never Christian in the first place, I do not presume to argue Biblical morality with actual believers, because it appears the Bible and its various schools of interpretation appear to offer a litany of loopholes that justify every form of evil or goodness you can imagine.

Red:
As a group for which exists a convenient label/group name? None of them, AFAIK.

 

[Felis Leo]

Red:
As a group for which exists a convenient label/group name? None of them, AFAIK.

Then which interpretation of Christianity do you follow, may I ask? Are you a Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Nondenominational? Which interpretation or school of theology do you hue to most?

 

[Omega Man]

I wrote the OP, but I am not A.J. Jacobs, who is the guy who lived literally as instructed in the Bible.

Since your earlier comment focused on one of the several incongruous notions to which SBL-ists typically ascribe, please see post 7 and let me know whether the correction issued there has any impact on your "blue" remarks above. If they don't, I'll respond to the "blue" remarks above.

Sorry, I was referring to Jacobs; I erred with my use of "OP".


OM

 

[Xelor]

Off-topic:

Presuming you are religious, Xelor, which Christians in your informed theological opinion have the correct and inerrant interpretation of the Bible? Who are the true and faithful, and who the damned and dissolute? Being both an atheist and one who was never Christian in the first place, I do not presume to argue Biblical morality with actual believers, because it appears the Bible and its various schools of interpretation appear to offer a litany of loopholes that justify every form of evil or goodness you can imagine.

Red:

• I wouldn't describe myself as religious. I have received plenty of theological instruction -- reading the Bible cover to cover comprised pretty much the whole of my 8th and 9th grades' theology classwork, and, of course, the accompanying didacticism consisted of the Episcopal faith's interpretation of the Bible -- and I've taken some theological philosophy courses that informed me about the foundations and justifications found in the Christian dogmatic belief system. As a result, I learned what I was taught.
  
  What I believe is a different matter altogether. I don't have a problem with the notion of God's existence; however, I know that faith, not reason is what enables my forbearance of that notion. (See the attached document here: Is it logical to believe in God solely on the basis of the major arguments for His existence?) Some folks have that faith, and some don't. Whether one does or doesn't has no bearing on whether God exists. Similarly, that there are texts that assert God's existence has no bearing the verity of that assertion. Lastly, God, as depicted in those texts, if any god exists, need not be accurately depicted, both endogenously and exogenously.
• The Bible's, mostly Jesus' behavioral dicta, value, as with the Quran and other scriptural texts, is as a guide to interpersonal interaction. I try to live by the principal sociological guidelines in those texts -- none of them are too terribly different in that regard -- though I'm imperfect in the actually doing so. It's not for want of trying, it's just that at times I know I didn't try enough and must try harder next time.
  
  The thing with sociological applications of New Testament missives is that to benefit from and apply them, one need not have any faith in God's verity or any of the rest of the mystical stuff the Bible alleges occurred/is. I mean, really. Does God need to exist for "do unto others as one'd have them do unto oneself" to make sense as a way to live one's live, to best possible extent one can? Does God's existence make not killing people a good thing? Are the seven deadly sins any more or less odious attitudes/behaviors to exhibit because God does or doesn't exist? Same question re: the seven cardinal virtues. In short, the Bible's sociological insights are quite useful in their own right; thus they alone make knowing the Bible worth it.
• If there's something about which I'm religious about, it's more likely reason than religion.

​

 

[Xelor]

Sorry, I was referring to Jacobs; I erred with my use of "OP".


OM

Fair enough.

I'm not likely to defend/support Jacobs. If he's a member, he'll have to do that for himself. LOL I merely used his book as a rubric to introduce the thread's topic.

 

[Xelor]

Then which interpretation of Christianity do you follow, may I ask? Are you a Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Nondenominational? Which interpretation or school of theology do you hue to most?

My own.

Perhaps you've not read my having stated that I form my own ideas about things and in some instances others have the same idea I do and in other instances, they don't.

 

[jmotivator]

...

Translation:

 

[Daisy]

Translation:

The man just likes to hear himself talk...:roll:

 

[kitsune]

And they are wrong too. Perhaps that is what the guy who wrote the OP should have emphasized, instead of undergoing some laughable "year of living biblically". Makes no sense.

OM

How do you know that they are wrong and you are right? Christian A always insists that he is right and Christian B is wrong. And they both quote scripture to back up their positions.

 

[danarhea]

I guess the guy who went out of his way to do this, threw due-diligence out the window when he didn't realize that all that Levitical stuff only applied to establishing a sense of "tradition" via creating a religious identity among 6th century BC priests and acolytes. None of that had to do with Christians, or people of the 21st century of the Common Era. Trying to make snarky points still requires some due diligence.


OM

No it doesn't. Example.............

And the Lord said unto John "Come forth and receive eternal life". But John came fifth and won a toaster instead.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Invariably, as in this case, people who attempt to claim what Christians must do as Christians ignore the part of the Bible that makes them Christians, the New Testament.

Hint: Jesus instructed us that we should no longer be concerned with what we wear and what we eat, and are not qualified to, and therefore were commanded not to, mete out punishment on others for disobeying God's law.

Jesus said a lot of things, some even an agnostic like myself greatly admire. But his followers in the USA these days follow/empower Donald Trump and the "prosperity" gospel. The rest of us watch and learn what followers of Jesus are like from them.

Follow your path but remember, others learn what you think from what you do, not what you say.

 

[kitsune]

Then which interpretation of Christianity do you follow, may I ask? Are you a Protestant? Eastern Orthodox? Roman Catholic? Nondenominational? Which interpretation or school of theology do you hue to most?

Why should there be multiple interpretations on Christianity? If they all lead to the salvation of my immortal soul then it doesn't matter which one I pick. If only one gets me to Heaven while the others send me to Hell, then God is an asshole.

 

[Daisy]

How do you know that they are wrong and you are right? Christian A always insists that he is right and Christian B is wrong. And they both quote scripture to back up their positions.

Context is everything...if you read a scripture and it seems to contradict another scripture, then it is being taken out of context...

Example...John 10:30...

"I and the Father are one.”

Now, is this scripture to be taken literally or figuratively? Is Jesus also God or is he the son of God? First, read the surrounding scriptures and you will see that Jesus meant it to be taken figuratively...how do we know this? In previous verses, Jesus speaks of how his Father gives him the power to grant everlasting life...

John 8:28..."Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things"

John 5:19..."Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner."

Even after returning to heaven, the Bible still speaks of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ as having the relationship of father and son...they are not One literally, but figuratively...they are both in union, with the same goals in mind...one in action and cooperation, not in person...

1 Corinthians 15:24,25..".Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet."

1 Corinthians 15:27,28...For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

 

[kitsune]

Jesus said a lot of things, some even an agnostic like myself greatly admire. But his followers in the USA these days follow/empower Donald Trump and the "prosperity" gospel. The rest of us watch and learn what followers of Jesus are like from them.

Follow your path but remember, others learn what you think from what you do, not what you say.

I don't think that in terms morality, Jesus said anything that hadn't been said before. He just added more conditions.

 

[Daisy]

Jesus said a lot of things, some even an agnostic like myself greatly admire. But his followers in the USA these days follow/empower Donald Trump and the "prosperity" gospel. The rest of us watch and learn what followers of Jesus are like from them.

Follow your path but remember, others learn what you think from what you do, not what you say.

They teach you well how NOT to be a true follower of Christ...

 

[kitsune]

I knew you'd be on top of this one. So i need some help.

Context is still open to interpretation. There are Christians who see context differently than you do. And they always have. These debates have been going on since the beginning. No one has ever been able to figure out to everyone's satisfaction what it all means and what is the one way. If there isn't a "one way" then the debate is irrelevant, especially to me. If there is, it's time to settle on what it is. Or so it seems to me.