My teenage niece is a very religious Christian, and has recently entered her first serious relationship with a boy who is a fundamentalist Christian. He believes that every word of the Bible is literally true, and that anyone who believes otherwise is deluded at best, evil at worst. This will be the basis of a letter to my niece, an opening salvo in an attempt, not to turn her against Christianity, but to get her to see her religion and the Bible in a modern light.
The Bible is, above all, a history of the Jewish people. The Old Testament, especially, tells how a nomadic desert tribe came to be a powerful force in the world of the Roman Empire. It names the leaders and describes the vicious, barbaric warfare of the time. It attempts to reconcile this brutality (the forceful taking of Canaan from its inhabitants; the murder and enslavement of women and children) by ascribing those horrible acts to instructions from God. It also attempts, using the language and (woefully inadequate) knowledge available at the time, to explain the natural world. Lacking knowledge of modern hygiene, medicine, microbiology and food preservation, it lays out detailed rules of conduct to try to prevent epidemic sickness. It codifies laws to allow a primitive society to function without chaos and anarchy. While a few of these rules also apply to a modern technologically advanced society (thou shalt not kill, honor thy father and thy mother), most of those societal laws lost all relevance centuries ago.
For example, dietary restrictions serve no useful function in an age of refrigeration. Today we know that leprosy, so feared in Biblical times, is easily cured with antibiotics; we know that epilepsy, not evil spirits, causes the episodes that characterize that disorder. While some fundamentalist Muslims still believe a woman should be stoned to death for talking privately to a man to whom she’s not married, and some fundamentalist Hindus still expect widows to climb, alive, onto a dead husband’s funeral pyre, Christianity has abandoned most its barbaric rules, though they remain in the Bible.
Modern Christians recognize that the Bible, as written, must be interpreted through the lens of time, that it has so many internal contradictions that itcannot possibly be literal, word-for-word truth and that it must not be followed in its entirety.
Leon Kass, in "The Beginning of Wisdom" shows how to read beyond the words of Genesis to their essential meaning. For example, when God said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad (not "evil" as some say), he didn’t mean that they would literally die. The proof of this is that they didn’t physically die, they went on to start the human race. What God meant was that the life of carefree innocence that we knew as children (and that Adam and Eve knew in the Garden) is gone forever – that "life" is "dead".
Having recognized that science and medicine can prevent and cure disease, therefore bacon may be safely eaten and lepers need not be banished to the wilderness and epileptics need not be shunned, can modern Christians recognize that other restrictions detailed in the Bible may also not be God’s everlasting demand? Leviticus says that eating seafood that doesn’t have scales (shrimp, clams, even catfish) is an abomination. Christians ignore that restriction. Today we know that the makeup of the brains of some people makes them fall in love with someone of their own gender. Can Leviticus’s decree that homosexuality is an abomination also be ignored? The Bible requires animal sacrifice, but modern Christians ignore those demands. Can the description of the origins of the universe and of Mankind in Genesis be understood as arising from a lack of scientific knowledge by early story tellers, not as the literal truth?
I know that the answer to these questions is "Yes, it can." I know this because many Christians answer that way, including my very good friend, Dr. Dan Ivins, a Baptist minister and cousin of iconoclast Molly Ivins. Dr. Ivins understands that the Bible contains both messages of comfort and relevant advice for those who understand, and also contains outmoded irrelevant rules that some follow blindly out of misguided fundamentalism.
Anyone can memorize and quote Bible passages. That does not mean that they understand the Bible. Read "Job" in its entirety, then ask yourself whether a God that would kill women and children, just to see if Job would remain loyal, is a god worthy of worship.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
(but you can't just tell people how to think - or not think)
Why on earth would anyone worship or believe in a God that could not do things that to us would seem like "magic" ?
As for the claimed unfairness of the God of the Bible, if one ignorant of what was really going on, happened to find themselves on the beaches of Normandy one spring day half a century ago, they might conclude that hordes of incredibly cruel and barbaric invaders were being resisted by the inhabitants of a place under invasion . . . but that wouldn't be the way things really were, would it?
Exactly, John. Those who need a magician don't really understand what Jesus seems to have been about - if he existed anywhere other than in the mind of St Paul.
God, by definition, can do what to us seems magical. To say that nothing "magical" can happen, is simply to say there is no God. Big deal, anyone can say whatever they like, but under no circumstances could one actually know there is no God. Therefor, it is not rational to conclude one who says such things knows what they are saying is true.
The contingency explains the message you've conveyed completely. You're not even sure Jesus is real, and that's something that I think even modern Christians would render problematic.
The morsel of half truth you picked from the Kass book to make your point makes me wonder whether you really read the book, and whether you understood it if you did read it.
Your statement that the book is a good one for Christians who don't want to believe in the magic is ridiculous since the whole book is only about Genesis, long before Chrsitianity was even around. It explains nothing of Christianity at all.
Of course Genesis is a part of the Word of God, Chris, but just because this comment I'm writing is a part of the many comments I write on this site, if someone said that if you don't want to give up on Sue B. but just don't want to believe everything she says, you can read her comment here and let that suffice, it would not be very indicative of all that I think and would be a very silly way to decide whether you accepted me or not.
To say that "the Leon Kass book is a good one for those who don't want to give up on Christianity, but can't believe the magic parts of it, " is simply ridiculous because it doesn't address Crhsitianity. It addresses the beginning of the world before Jesus Christ was recognized. Of course, it's an historical part of the whole word of God, but that's the alpha and omega of it.
I would try to soften it a bit in the beginning by saying this is your view and, if relevant, how you came to this view. Perhaps say that whatever she believes, she will remain in your affections. Also, invite her to question you. You (and I) don't want to close her off from spiritual and intellectual growth. You also are wrestling with the fact that someone she cares about is likely to have a large influence on her, and she doesn't want to lose him.
Sue- I regret using the word silly. I should have said, disagree on that point.
So you meant to say, "Sue- the Catholic Church that I grew up in accepted Genesis as the word of God, so I disagree on that point?"
Well, my answer is still the same.
(I do, Chris ; )
We now pronounce your icons with full rights of man and wife.
It sounds as though you could benefit by spending a little time sitting at your niece's feet. . .
-Mark
I can tell you from personal experience that once a young person falls "under the spell" of a fundamentalist Christian, there isn't much you can do to help them...especially if there are hormones involved. Once the blinders are in place, the only person who can remove them is the person wearing them. Sometimes it takes years. Sometimes it doesn't happen in their entire lifetime. I have a nephew who became infatuated with the daughter of a bible-thumping preacher when he was a teenager. They were inseparable all through high school and most of college, and then, just when we all thought they would get married and live happily ever after, they split up. I thought that would be the end of his churchgoing, but the blinders stayed on. In fact, we are no longer on speaking terms, because he insisted on trying to proselytize me, and I retaliated by sending him Emails that questioned his faith.
So, my only advice is...patience, my friend.
I feel for your niece and I understand doing what you feel you need to do (I'm the same way). Just don't take it personally if she's not in a position to hear you. Also note, some mistakes people have to make themselves - if it's wrong for her and she's smart, she will eventually figure it out and she'll appreciate what you said. If not, well, you tried.
Remember to love her no matter what.
Sue:
It's not Christianity that's the issue, it's the belief that the Bible is literally true. The Bible - all of it - is the basis of Christianity and Genesis is the 1st book of it. What better place to start? You may be right that I don't understand Kass, but what I DO get from him is that there is a reasonable way to read Genesis that doesn't require readers to leave their intellect at the door. If that's true of the very 1st book, then a good case can be made that the rest of it may not be literally true. You can read what Jesus supposedly said and did and believe his message of tolerance and even "salvation" without having to believe that he cast devils out of an epileptic or turned water into wine or walked on water.
I have no doubt she'll figure it out. I just hope that she does before their hormones lead them to the conclusion that sex between true believers is OK (because they won't have any useful contraceptive information).
Well then, if Christianity isn't the issue why did you say that it was a good book for those who don't want to give up on Christianity but can't believe the magic parts?
Make up your mind, will ya?
Help me out here, Sue. Do I understand you to say the the OT does not address Christianity? But then you say it is the Word of the God, and you clearly mean the Christian God. It is almost as if you are saying the god of the OT and the god of the NT are different entities. Please explain.
No book written on any one part of the Bible is a good way for Christians or anyone else to understand the Bible in the first place. The Bible needs to be seen and understood in its enitrety.
Well us go through them one by one.
Read your quote and then read my question. Please. Don't think about Kass or his book.
And then, instead of accusing me...just explain what you meant, because I honestly do not understand what you are saying. Remember, I am just an old man who is easily confused.
Gary had said, "The Leon Kass book is a good one for those who don't want to give up on Christianity, but can't believe the magic parts of it. " Dec 21, 2008, 3:58pm EST
My response, "To say that 'the Leon Kass book is a good one for those who don't want to give up on Christianity, but can't believe the magic parts of it,' "is simply ridiculous because it doesn't address Crhsitianity [sic]. It addresses the beginning of the world before Jesus Christ was recognized. Of course, it's an historical part of the whole word of God, but that's the alpha and omega of it."
You responded, "Help me out here, Sue. Do I understand you to say the the OT does not address Christianity? But then you say it is the Word of the God, and you clearly mean the Christian God. It is almost as if you are saying the god of the OT and the god of the NT are different entities. Please explain."
The OT doesn't address Christianity without the New Testament. This is also the problem I have with taking quotes from the Bible. The bible is an all encompassing book. Taking any part of it and trying to understand anything without the full context is not going to be a valid understanding. This is also why I have a difficult time discussing the Bible with secular people and even Christians who haven't spent a long time studying it.
I'm not sure whether this will help you understand what I mean, but I'll give it a go. There was a recent article ( I don't feel like looking for it now) where a Christian asked, "Do you turn the other cheek?" One problem with that question is that it's loaded. The reason it's loaded is because you must understand all OT and NT verses relating to the subject to understand how one should interpret turning the other cheek. Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29 do tell you to turn the other cheek when an enemy stirkes one. Now, many people interpret that to mean that if you hit me, I invite you to hit me again. The children of God, however, are not meant to be abused. When someone looks only at these verses, it would appear that the command is to allow abuse. Other NT verses that address this turning the other cheek issue are Romans 12:19, l Thessalonians 5:15, and l Peter 3:9. Now look at Galatians 5:14 that also states that we should love our neighbor as ourself. If we allow our own abuse, then that would be the kind of love, or lack of it, that we are showing ourselves, and we would also treat our neighbor in kind in obedience to that verse, if that were what the other verses about turning the other cheek were saying. Obviously, they are not, but this is an example of why we must see and understand the Bible in its entirety, not just in fragmented verses, not just by looking at one book.
There are also verses in the OT that speak of this same subject, such as Leviticus 19:18 and Proverbs 24:29. I'm sure there are others as well.
So that's really my point. You just cannot claim that any single verse or any single book is going to suffice for 'an understanding of Christianity.' It just cannot work because that is not how the Bible is intended to be understood.
The Bible as a history of the Jews, I have written in some of my comments to people in the past. The more I studied it the more I believed that it shows the failure of the Jews to follow God's directions.
Skip forward, to the New Testiment, and we have a new beginning for mankind. Jesus gives us a God that is kinder and more enjoyable to believe in. Even if you do not believe, it is a way of life most people could adopt and find years of happiness following.
I believe that life had to have a God to set the rules of nature. Most human species need a God over them to keep them in line so they can join together in large groups for the betterment of all. I believe this because it makes me less affraid and gives my life more meaning so have decided to enjoy the good of having a God verses being all alone.
I have meant death several times without fear because I believed it would raise me to another part of past life where the source starts. If affraid, like I was when incased in ice under the Arctic ground, I didn't go crazy, but prayer to God he would find me worth taking, and closed my eyes and tried to sleep. What does one do that has no one to give up your life do?
Yes, Gordon, the tenets of living as preached by Jesus, is a good way to live. Unfortunately, too many professed Christians don't live up to it.
"Most human species need a God over them to keep them in line so they can join together in large groups for the betterment of all."
Most higher primates gather in large groups for the betterment of the entire troop without a god over them. Cooperative behavior gave them an advantage when predators attacked or threatened.