I am currently reading the old testament straight through. My first thought when reading it is that biblical literalists cannot possibly have actually read the old testament. The book, as any one who has read it can see, is self contradictory. Several stories are repeated multiple times, with subtle variations. A lot of it seems to be not relevant or even obsolete (the promised borders of Israel, for example).

The thing is that the bible, like most western literature before the enlightenment, is not written to tell a specific, true story. Its meant to be about Truth, the deeper meaning the writers saw in the world. This is really difficult for modern readers, because we are used to reading books that are about things that happened. We don’t really have myths and legends in the same way anymore. Augustine himself struggled with accepting christianity because he found the scripture to be absurd until he found what he was a deeper meaning in the book.

For some reason the idea that all truth can be found in the bible ( a thoroughly modern notion ) seems to appeal to the fundamentalists. That its as simple as looking in the bible and all will be answered. For most evangelical christians “bible study” consists of very slowly and methodically reading the bible and then accepting what it says in isolation, assuming that a three line verse means anything on its own.

I always wondered how the leaders of this movement, who often have advanced degrees and clearly aren’t complete idiots, can accept this view of a “literal bible”. It turns out they don’t believe this at all. In fact, their version of biblical literalism leaves as much room for interpretation as catholic exegesis:

Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

So what they mean is that bible means what they say it means. More from the “Chicago Statement” after the jump:

Read the rest of this entry »

Check out this disconcerting story about the $27 million, new Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky: Adam and Eve in the Land of Dinosaurs.
Some of my favorite exerpts:

Outside the museum scientists may assert that the universe is billions of years old, that fossils are the remains of animals living hundreds of millions of years ago, and that life’s diversity is the result of evolution by natural selection. But inside the museum the Earth is barely 6,000 years old, dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, and Jesus is the savior who will one day repair the trauma of man’s fall.
…
Whether you are willing to grant the premises of this museum almost becomes irrelevant as you are drawn into its mixture of spectacle and narrative. Its 60,000 square feet of exhibits are often stunningly designed by Patrick Marsh, who, like the entire museum staff, declares adherence to the ministry’s views; he evidently also knows the lure of secular sensations, since he designed the “Jaws” and “King Kong” attractions at Universal Studios in Florida.

Ah, spectacle, where would religions be without you? To see the fucked-up and scary lows to which evangelical preachers will go in their use of spectacle to indoctrinate children with ass-backwards religious beliefs, watch the stellar movie, Jesus Camp.

Attn: Everyone. You can’t draw a trend with one data point. Sometimes a crazy person is just a crazy person.

Fundamentalists do not read the bible. Sure, they read it constantly and frequently attend bible studies. But they clearly are not actually reading it as a work, I suspect most read it piece meal and apply each chunk, out of context, to their own lives. I have not yet attended a fundamentalist “bible study” but I have a strong suspicion that study is mostly indoctrination. They read a short passage then discuss it, with discussion led by someone who knows the correct interpretation of the passage at hand.

A commenter at pandagon brought up Martin Luther and the reformation, specifically how Luther rejected this hierarchical view of religion (at least until his followers stopped listening to him). The interesting thing to me about biblical literalism is that it real is a very new phenomenon. Religious objection to science is not, but the idea that the bible is the literal truth was rejected by Augustine himself, the philosophical father of both the Catholic and Protestant churches. Luther and Calvin were both heavily influenced by his writing. I am on the bus right now, away from internet so I can’t do more research on the origin of biblical literalism, but I suspect it is post-great awakening. I would guess 20th century, but I need to look into it.

The bible says a lot of things, some of which contradict each other. It was this contradiction that caused Augustine himself to doubt. He later realized (according to Confessions) that only the ill informed try to read the bible as a literal, rather than spiritual truth.

I think this poll cannot possibly be accurate. There must be other biases at work here, because I can’t accept that near half of americans reject evolution. 41% of catholics believe the earth is younger than 10,000 years. The need to check with their priest, because the catholic church does not agree with them.