Diarist’s Note: A wise friend suggested that it might be helpful to post a brief explanatory note at the top of BBS posts, so here goes ( if you’ve already seen this, scroll on down to get to the most recent BBS):
For most Christians, there are two main pathways to understanding the Bible:
1) Bible literalism, where the meaning of the words in the Bible are accepted as literal truth, with nothing added, nothing left out and no contradictions. Bible-believers (the term people who ascribe to this belief system prefer to describe themselves) usually also believe that all human knowledge comes down from God through the Bible, including scientific knowledge, history and social theory.
2) Bible as divinely-inspired literature, containing allegories, metaphors, ancient history and some mythology not meant to be taken absolutely literally but as Holy Scriptures which point to an ineffable Truth revealed by God and interpreted by sincere Christians.
The appeal of literalism goes back a long way to the schisms in the church over heresy and conflict over interpretations. Still, Bible literalism wasn’t really a thing until recent centuries (mainly because most people were illiterate and/or prevented from reading the texts themselves), when it enjoyed a resurgence with the Christian revivalist movement. The argument in favor of literalism is that Bible-believers go straight to the text, without editorializing, assuming ‘hidden meanings’ or worse, pretending to know what God meant when it is not plainly written in the text. Fundamentalist Bible-believers try to avoid the dangers of heresy by insisting that the Bible is inerrant, literal truth as written. This would seem to be a strong position, except that Bible-believers also make judgements and interpretations when it suits them, such as loudly proclaiming some verses in the BIble must be obeyed while allowing other verses to be ignored (commonly cited examples include the prohibitions on homosexuality (fundamentalists agree and work hard to force their belief into secular law) compared to the prohibitions against food selections, clothing and divorce (all plainly described in the Bible and routinely ignored by Bible literalists).
Many “mainstream” or moderate Christians today object strenuously to Bible literalism and cite those contradictions, among other problems, to support their argument that the Bible is a complex text full of allegory, metaphor and parables; a work of wondrous revelation from God meant to point us toward ultimate Truth, not the literal meaning of the words. The problem is that this alternative to the literal approach turns out to be whatever interpretation of the Bible someone else with power hands down to you. While allegory and metaphors may have a “correct” interpretation, the best we can do with “correct” is “most likely intended by the author” — and we can’t exactly go ask.
So, Bible belief has two faces of great social consequence.
The purpose of Barmy Bible Study is to highlight not only the inconsistencies in the Bible, which make literal interpretation almost impossible as a blueprint for righteous living, but more importantly will lead inevitably to the replacement of innate human empathy and morality with a violent sectarian legalism which could lead to the commission of crimes against humanity in the name of God (and already has both historically and currently).
Barmy Bible Study is going to upset some people, including moderate Christians who do not take the Bible literally but who defend believers who do. I have some thoughts about this phenomenon, and I am asking people to consider with as open a mind as possible what the logical end point might be of enabling the continued influence of fundamentalist Bible literalism in our government, in our laws and in our liberal democratic societies. As you read the Barmy Bible Studies, consider that there are millions of people in the USA right now who were raised to be “warriors for Jesus”, and countless Dominionists in high-level government posts in the current administration who believe that anything is permitted to achieve their agenda: lying, for dominionists, is not lying when it is done to non-believers (who are considered enemies of God) in service of their Godly mission. That is how professed Christians like Sarah Huckabee Sanders can lie without a flicker of conscience on a daily basis. And lying is just the tip of the iceberg.
I encourage readers to consider this reality as you read the Barmy Bible Study. I have tried to make it entertaining and the dark humor is meant to convey both the absurdity of literalism and its very real dangers to all of us. BTW, I was taken to task in comments one day for the initial “note” in the Barmy Bible Study (“Atheists and other haters of ‘GOD’S HOLY WORD’”) and I’d just like to explain that these were the exact words that a Bible-believer threw at me in a debate many years ago, when I was still a sincere practicing mainstream Christian. I was told in no uncertain terms that as a Catholic, and one who dared to question Biblical literalism, I had no right to even read Scripture. The utter dismissal of it stuck with me, and I’ve used it because its the kind of genuine flavor I have striven for in these BBS posts. Make no mistake; Bible-believers — and the dominionists who are using them today as footsoldiers — consider moderate Christians to be the enemy — literally “other haters of God’s Holy Word” — every bit as much as they consider non-Christians and atheists to be. For now, they will gladly use moderate complicity to their own advantage, but eventually the drive for power and purity will bring the Biblically fueled hate and persecution to the doorsteps of mainstream Christians.
You know, something has been bugging me for ages. Maybe it has been bugging you, too. How many times have there been arguments from fundamentalist “Bible-believing” Christians about what the Bible says about some issue or other? When it comes to gay marriage, for instance, believers quote Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 authoritatively and claim that it is the inerrant, final word of God on the subject: homosexuality is an abominable sin! Case closed. Yet, when anyone points to a believer’s smart new wool coat with it’s elegant linen lining and brings up Leviticus 19:19, the Bible-believer will almost certainly scoff that the other person is not accounting for the historical context, when the Bible was written, unique cultural lens and so on.
Many fundamentalist Christians, Dominionists and other sects who refer to themselves as Bible-believing Christians, insist that the Bible is inerrant and also literally true. It has no theological contradictions, no historical discrepancies, no errors of any kind. So, how is it that a sincere Bible-believer can so easily say two passages of the Bible are definitely to be obeyed to the letter, but the passage sandwiched right in between those same two passages is not meant to be obeyed to the letter but rather to be taken in a historical context, or interpreted in the light of a different uniquely geographical place and time, or something something whatever? It’s a puzzling question, but today is your lucky day because I have some thoughts about that!
Many fundamentalist Christians make time every day to read the Bible. They earnestly desire to gain insight and a depth of understanding through their study of ancient holy scripture which they regard as inerrant and literally true. But, sometimes a surprising problem arises: all of that reading does not seem to produce the results that dedicated study usually produces. What I’m saying is that believers' constant reading and studying of Christian scripture often fails to result in a consistent, coherent understanding of what the Bible is literally saying to them. A passage about a horrific massacre will be described as a wondrous sign of God’s love, even though the words in the passage literally describe a wrathful, vengeful god and blood, death and horror. The Bible-believer will point out that God’s love is understood from the context or whatever, but how does that square with literal Word?
I mean, it seems like it should be fairly straightforward, right? Most people, upon setting themselves the task of studying a text with the sincere intention of understanding it (as most Bible-believing Christians honestly do) seem capable of grasping the meaning of the words they are reading. Sure, it can be more challenging to understand allegory or mythology or dense writing full of metaphors and hidden meanings and stuff, but still: a sincere reader, devoting daily effort to the task, surely would seem to be in a position to succeed?
More to the point, reading a text with no mythology, allegory or metaphors involved, but simply the literal truth as revealed by a supremely omniscient, omnipotent god ought to be much easier and straightforward. The god has revealed the truth, and in its omnipotent way has surely revealed it in a form its worshipers will be able to understand. It ought to be the easiest thing imaginable, this exchange of holy writ between a believer and the all-loving god whose only wish is to welcome that believer into its presence. Surely the believer only needs to read the words to understand their plain, unambiguous meaning?
And yet, no! That does not seem to be the case at all for Bible-believers when they study the Bible. I don't think it is because Bible-believers are any less intelligent than other people. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am convinced that it is probably their intelligence which protects and prevents them from grasping the literal truth contained inside the Good Book™. Well that, and what remains of their human empathy after a really thorough religious upbringing. Understanding the Good Book requires nothing but Faith™ - demands it, really - but even the most fervently Faithful bible-believers are usually unable to completely overcome their innate rationality + humanity in order to make sense of it.
The taxonomy of Faith means opposite Day, every day, and this fundamental lie is very difficult to affix permanently in an intelligent believer's brain. Innate human moral conscience resists.
For Faith commands that round is flat, evil is good, mythology is science and hate is love. The taxonomy of Faith means opposite Day, every day, and that fundamental lie is very difficult to fix fast in an intelligent believer's brain. Innate human moral conscience resists. Early spiritual abuse training works hard to snuff out that innate morality, but often fails to completely eradicate it. Human empathy is tenacious! Still, fear-based religious teaching can usually force a believer’s human empathy way down deep enough to make it less of a hindrance to the goals of the power structure a stumbling block to Faith.
Bible belief demands that the Faithful call cruelty kindness, the profane holy and falsehood truth. How do good people reconcile this with a self-image of compassionate Christianity? I’m convinced that what’s left of a true believer’s empathy and rationality recoils in horror from this affront to human decency and dignity. My hypothesis is that, as a defensive response, Bible-believers unconsciously block themselves from fully understanding the starkly simple words of Holy Scripture. What I am saying is, Bible-believers basically gaslight themselves.
You know, if people really did just read the Bible literally, without all the doublespeak of church leaders telling them on the one hand that it is “literally” true while on the other hand chastising people for taking awkward passages “out of the context in which they were written”, then perhaps we could all finally get somewhere! I figure I’m about as smart as a bible-believer and not near as likely to gaslight myself about the Bible. So, I’ve decided to give it a go.
As a recovering Christian, I am free of Faith™ (not to be confused with faith, of which I have as ample a supply as the next person), and do not experience the type of cognitive dissonance that is experienced by a true believer. I know the Bible is all mythology and propaganda - not to mention a time-tested handbook for crowd control - so I have no expectation at all that anything in there is literally true; no internal struggle trying to make myself accept what I know to be false, immoral and horrific but which a religion insists I call true, moral and beautiful. Without Faith disrupting a person’s moral compass, I believe that the verses in the Bible can be plainly understood. So maybe I can help make the meaning plain for interested parties and Bible-believers, too!
In the coming weeks, I am planning to do my part for society by holding weekly Bible Study classes for adults** right here in my diary. Morally conflicted Bible-believers' troubles are over! I intend to illuminate, in simple prose, what it is that their Holy Bible is actually saying.
Time slot will be Wednesday evening, 7ET (the usual Bible study time at the local MAGAchurches megachurches, if I remember correctly) and Sunday evenings around 5ET for as many weeks as I can stand it necessary. Be sure to bring a copy of your Bible! Suggested text for the class is ... never mind - any old Bible will do.
**Classes restricted to age 12 and older. The subject matter in the Bible is not appropriate for children.
™ By using the ™ symbol, as well as the oddly typical habit of Christian fundamentalists to randomly capitalize words, I am referring to the altered meanings that some Christians attach to words they borrowed from mainstream religion. When not capitalized, the words denote their original dictionary meanings.