*   *   *   *

This post could be titled, “Where the magic happens.”  That is, while listening to last Sunday’s sermon a phrase hit me.  “Comfort zone.”  As in the comfort zone so many Conservative Christians seem to like.  As in “Comfort Zone Christians.”  Which led to the image above.

And led to this thought:  Those too-literal Fundamentalists are “missing out on the magic…”

I’ve used a lot of terms to describe that type of Christian; the kind this blog tries to challenge.  To get them to “explore their full potential.”  I’ve tried terms like Boot-camp Christian.  (As illustrated at left.  That is, the kind of Christian who never seems to want to leave the “boot camp” where he “learned the fundamentals.”)

 I’ve also tried the term Carbon Copy Christians.  (As have others, who describe the Christians who seem to  go to church only to become “mass produced carbon copies of each other.*”)   But Comfort Zone Christian seems to hit the spot.

Like I said in the opening paragraph, God wants us to live lives of abundance.  And He wants us to do even greater miracles than Jesus.  Or as I said in Reading the Bible, “you’re only cheating yourself if you choose to read and study the Bible only in a strict, narrow, or fundamental way.”  Or – finally – as the image at the top of the page indicates, if you’re a too-literal Bible-reader, then you miss out on “where the magic happens.”

For more on this topic, see 7 Reasons Why [the] Comfort Zone is Dangerous.

The article – subtitled Live Life to the fullest – described the term as that “situation where you feel completely secure, comfortable and relaxed to what you currently have.”  Which is one thing many people look for when reading the Bible.  And which is generally a desirable place to be.  However, if you stay in your Comfort Zone too long, you don’t grow.  You stagnate.

Also, being too comfortable – in life or in Bible study – “causes negative mindset and attitude.”  And that – unfortunately – is what many Christians are known for.  (As noted in Latest from a “None,” I Googled the term “negative Christians” and got 12 million hits.)

Last of all the article said staying in your Comfort Zone too long limits your chance to “Live Life to its Fullest.”  And that would be a violation of John 10:10.  Then too, if you want to even try to follow the mandate of John 14:12, you need to remember this:  “We cannot become what we want to be by remaining what we are.“  That is, you can’t come close to doing greater miracles than Jesus if you read and study the Bible only in a strict, narrow, or fundamental way.

Which doesn’t mean you never read the Bible that way.  Sometimes it pays to go back and get a refresher course in the “fundamentals” of the Bible.  The danger comes when you only read the Bible strictly and narrowly.  Which brings up the concept of “mysticism.”

The terms “mystic” or “mysticism” seems to drive Conservative Christians crazy:

Mysticism is when you get into a mystical state and it’s something you cannot understand, you’re out there in “la-la” land, it’s an “oooh” experience and you’re really not thinking.

See What is Christian mysticism? – GotQuestions.org.  (As the term was discussed in On the Bible and mysticism.  Which post also noted:  “The terms ‘mystic‘ or ‘mysticism‘ seem to throw Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians into apoplexy.  (‘Try it sometime!!!‘)”  

But as first used, the term “referred to the Biblical liturgical, spiritual, and contemplative dimensions of early and medieval Christianity.”  See Mysticism – Wikipedia, and On originalism.

In other words, mysticism – connecting with God – was “what the Bible was originally about!”  For another example – thinking outside the box – see also The Bible’s “erotic love poem.”  That post discussed the Bible book Song of Songs.  (Also called the “Song of Solomon”):

The Song of Solomon is a love poem, frankly erotic, apparently composed to celebrate a wedding.  This, too, is appropriate, for Solomon had numerous wives and was, presumably, an experienced lover.  (E.A.)

The irony is that Bible literalists and/or fundamentalists insist on not giving the Song of Songs its literal meaning.  Instead, such Comfort Zone Christians read this book – and this book alone – “allegorically, as having to do with God’s love for his people.”  In the alternative, they interpret the book as “treating the love that it celebrates as an analogy for the love between God and the Church.”

In other words, the idea of a “frankly erotic love poem” in the Bible is something Conservative Christians can’t seem to handle.  (Or choose not to, as in “You Can’t Handle the Truth!”)  But the better course – aside from interpreting all the books of the Bible “strictly and literally” – is to treat the Bible as both simple enough for a child and yet “full of mysteries:”

In other words, you could say that the Bible message is both simple enough for a child to understand, yet so full of subtle mysteries that a lifetime can be spent on its study, yet still leave myriads of lessons yet to be learned.  (See 1st Corinthians 4:1:  “This then is how you should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”)

That’s from Snake-handling “redux,” which made the point that the Bible is best approached on two levels:  A literal level where you “learn the fundamentals,” and a more spiritual level “where the magic happens.”  Or as Paul said in 2d Corinthians 3:6, Jesus “made us competent as ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit;  for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”  (Which is another way of saying, “If Jesus was a Conservative, we’d all be Jewish.”)

Snake-handling “redux” raised another danger of reading the Bible too literally:  The danger that some people tend to take isolated passages out of context, and way too literally.

Which means that they could end up like “Stumpy” in the picture below…

*   *   *   *

The snake handler on the right – “Stumpy?” – is arguably taking Mark 16:18 “out of context…”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of comfort_zoneblog.crew.co.  The subtitle is “Why it’s scary and why you should;”  I.e., why you should get out of your comfort zone from time to time.

“Note” also that an asterisk in the main text indicates a statement supported by a reference detailed further in this “notes” section.  Thus as to Carbon copy Christians, see Paul describes an out-of-body experience, which included the link, How to Break the Cookie-Cutter, Carbon Copy Christian Cycle:

Churches, wittingly or otherwise, often taken on the role of mass producing assembly lines. Each Christian is instructed in the same way, given the same set of rules, a particular sanitized clothing lines of music selection, and specific speculative interpretations of scripture which they must abide by.  Churches such as these are not interested in creating unique Christians but mass produced carbon copies of each other.

Bizarro Santorum – his “mirror image” – says:  “There’s no such thing as a conservative Christian!” 

*   *   *   *

Back in 2008, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum made headlines for supposedly saying, “There’s No Such Thing As A Liberal Christian.”

Whether he actually said it is subject to debate.  (See e.g. Liberal media shamelessly twists comment from Rick Santorum.)  But whether he said it or not, the idea seems common among “Conservative Christians.” See for example The Heresy of Liberalism | Christian Forums:

Liberalism (or to give it its proper name, heresy…) is about individual freedom.  Freedom from tradition, freedom from institutions, freedom from authority, freedom from dogma.  The freedom to be and do as you choose…  Thus where Christ offers freedom from sin, Liberalism offers freedom to sin.  In short, it is anathema to God and should be recognised and treated as such by all who consider themselves Christian.*

At this point it should be noted that I beg to differ.

Being a “Liberal” Christian – or, God forbid, a moderate – is simply the opposite of being a boot-camp Christian.  (One of those “Biblical literalists who never go ‘beyond the fundamentals.'”)  I’d also like to point out that the Apostle Paul was himself accused of heresy.   See e.g. Acts 16:20-21 and Acts 18:13.  (Jesus on the other hand was accused of blasphemy, not heresy.)  The point being that the penalty for heresy – or blasphemy – was usually death.

The caption for the image above left reads:  “Massacre of the Waldensians of Mérindol in 1545.”  It shows an alleged heretic – with long flowing hair – being pushed off a castle wall to her death.  That image itself harks back to Luke 4:29.*  That’s when when Jesus was similarly threatened, with being thrown off a cliff:  “Jumping up, they mobbed him and forced him to the edge of the hill on which the town was built.  They intended to push him over the cliff…”

I discussed this whole mess – liberal vs. conservative Christianity – in the May 2015 post, WHY we’re getting “less Christian.”  The post included this, America becoming less Christian:

[T]he single most important reason [is] younger people moving to the left on social issues and the most visible religious leaders moving to the right on that same issue.

That study indicated the biggest reason many young Americans turn away from fmainstream Christianity is negativity.  (“You don’t believe it?  Just Google ‘negative Christians.’  I did that and got almost 12 million results.”)  Ironically, the study noted the “rise in evangelical Christianity is contributing to the rejection of religion altogether by some Americans.”  (Which supports my theory that such literalists drive “potential converts away in droves.*”)

Which brings up the subject of the Bizarro Rick Santorum.  Simply put, Conservative Christians – like Rick Santorum – benefit greatly from the inherent strength of negativity bias:

…even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one’s psychological state and processes than do neutral or positive things.

Which is another way of saying the nastier you are, the more you “win.”  It also means a person who is not content with being just a boot-camp Christian needs to point out the downside of “being conservative.”  He or she needs to be – in effect – a Bizarro Rick Santorum.  (But see also Adversary System, below.)

Which in turn means that he or she needs to start arguing – for example – “There’s no such thing as a conservative Christian!” 

The allusion is to Bizarro Superman, seen at right.  More recently, there was a Seinfeld episode, Bizarro Jerry.  The episode showed Jerry, George and Kramer meeting their mirror images, Kevin, Gene and Feldman, as shown at the bottom of the main text:

Kevin [is] Jerry’s opposite since Kevin is reliable and kind, contrasted to Jerry’s forgetfulness and indifference.  Gene is shown to be quiet, courteous, charitable and well-dressed as opposed to George being loud, obnoxious, cheap and slobbish.  Feldman acts generously to his friends…  He also always knocks on Kevin’s door and waits for him to unlock it[, unlike] Kramer, who constantly takes Jerry’s groceries and bursts through his door without warning.

So here goes.  The Bizarro Rick Santorum could say there’s no such thing as a conservative Christian.  He could say “conservative Christian” is a contradiction in terms.  (On that  note, you – or he – could just Google “conservative christian oxymoron.”  I did that and got 3,450,000 results.  But be forewarned, some of those results read Is Liberal Christian an Oxymoron?)

Or he could say, “Where in the Bible does it say you have to be a close-minded right-wing wacko to get to heaven?”  (Remember, this is “Bizarro Rick Santorum.*”)  But finally he might just say:

“If Jesus was a Conservative, how come we’re not all Jewish?”

*   *   *   *

Kramer, George and Jerry meet their “bizarro opposites…”

*   *   *   *

Notes:

The upper image is courtesy of kotobukiya created a statue that the bizarro version of jerry seinfeld would totally get on board with … dailydead.com:  “Standing eight inches tall, this Bizarro anti-Superman statue is based on DC Comics’ New 52 version of the popular villain and will be released in November [2016].”  (Which is actually kind of appropriate…)

The Rick Santorum image is courtesy of Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Santorum speaking in Des Moines, Iowa in 2011.”  (Santorum formally announced his run for the Republican presidential nomination – for the 2012 campaign – “on ABC’s Good Morning America on June 6, 2011.”)  On the other hand, some conservatives think that Santorum himself is “way too liberal.”  See Rick Santorum is NOT a Conservative | Christian Forums.

“Note” also that an asterisk in the main text indicates a statement supported by a reference detailed further in this “notes” section.  Thus as to Luke 24:45, see the “further notes” below the four asterisks.

As to liberal Christianity offering “freedom to sin,” the emphasis was in the original.  And as to Luke 4:29 – where Jesus was threatened with being thrown off a cliff, and before opening his disciples’ minds – see My Lenten meditation, featuring the image at left, along with the note that in Luke 4:21-30, “Jesus wasn’t threatened by stoning, as Moses was.  Instead, ‘the people’ wanted to throw Him off a cliff.”

Note also that I explored the “Bizarro” idea in “Meet Bizarro Trump?”

Re:  Americans becoming less Christian.  See also Study Finds Americans Less Religious Than Ever : NPR, and U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious | Pew Research Center.  But see also, Fewer Americans Than Ever Hopeful for Children’s Future.  (I’m not sure if there’s any connection there.)

Re:  Bible literalists driving potential converts away in droves.  See The Bible’s “erotic love poem:”

The point is that if you limit your Bible-study to a purely literal interpretation, you’re robbing yourself of at least half it’s value.  (And driving potential converts away in droves.)  But if you move on from a purely literal interpretation, to an open-minded spiritual interpretation, your Bible-study can take you to exotic adventures and explorations that you couldn’t have dreamed of before.

Re:  The “old Seinfeld episode, Bizarro Jerry.”  It was the 137th episode, and the third episode for the eighth season.  Originally aired on October 3, 1996, the “title and plot extensively reference the Bizarro (the polar opposite of Superman) and Bizarro-Earth concepts that originally appeared in various comic books published by DC Comics.”

A final note on “Bizarro Santorum.”  As Wikipedia noted, in 2006 – when Santorum sought re-election to a third term as Senator from Pennsylvania – he was “mired in controversy and spent much of his time on the campaign in defense against his own past statements and positions.”  In that re-election bid, “Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, receiving 41% of the vote to Casey’s 59%, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980.”  It would seem that a true “Bizarro” would have smoothly cruised to re-election, by Casey’s 59 to 41% ratio.

And one final note on whether conservative or liberal Christians are “always right.”  It could be argued that an American Christian should believe the best method of finding spiritual truth is through the clash of measured, well-thought-out arguments.  That’s the Adversary System, and it’s the basis of both our legal and economic American way of life.  As to the former, “The adversary system is based on the assumption that the truth of a controversy will best be arrived at by granting the competing parties, with the help of an advocate, an opportunity to fight as hard as possible.”  As to the latter see Free market – Wikipedia.

The lower image-slash-video is courtesy of Bizarro Jerry – WikiSein, the Seinfeld Encyclopediaseinfeld.wikia.com.*  Re: “mystical.”  As originally used, mysticism “referred to the Biblical liturgical, spiritual, and contemplative dimensions of early and medieval Christianity.”  See Mysticism – Wikipedia, and the post On originalism.  

Moses at the Battle of Rephidim:  “If I let my arms down, the other team will win!“

*   *   *   *

This year’s Super Bowl has come and gone, which means that some of us still haven’t recovered.  (The First Super Bowl is shown at right.)  Which is another way of saying that – with the New England Patriots’ win over the Atlanta Falcons – the 2016-17 NFL season has come to an end.

That in turn means that among Patriot fans, there are some who think their team won because of something they did.  The flip side is that among Falcon fans, there are some who are asking, “Why did my team lose?   What did I do wrong?”

In my case, my sweetheart and I deliberately did not watch the first three quarters.  And all during that time the Falcons did quite well, thank you very much.  (We went to a movie, then went to dinner, though we did occasionally check the score.)  First it was the Falcons leading 7-0, then leading 20-3, then 28-9.  By that time we were home and decided to play cards.

Then Sweetheart decided to watch the fourth quarter, and things went downhill from there.

Despite my begging and pleading, she continued to watch the game.  Finally I got up and left, first driving around the neighborhood, then walking around the neighborhood.  And I kept waiting for the set of loud cheers – from all the Super Bowl parties around the neighborhood – that would signify the Falcons had finally pulled through; finally pulled it off.

It didn’t happen…

But the worst part was the way that “Sweetie” denied my urgent pleas for us to turn off the TV and go back to playing cards.  For one thing, she said “I’m invested now.”  (Which made about as much sense as saying she didn’t want to stop pounding herself over the head with a 2×4, for the reason that she was equally “invested.”)  But  the worst part was when she said, “You don’t  seriously believe that us turning off the TV would change the outcome of the game, do you?”   

Which brought to mind – eventually – what Moses did at the Battle of Rephidim.

I’ve written about that in posts like On football, Moses and Rephidim, and – from this blog – On the Bible and mysticism, and Conservative Christian – “Career buck private?”  The gist of the episode in the Bible – at Exodus 17:8-16 – was that Moses “helped his team win:”

Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill.  As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it.  Aaron and Hur held his hands up – one on one side, one on the other – so that his hands remained steady till sunset. [E.A.]

So what do you suppose would have happened if Aaron and Hur refused to hold Moses’ hands up?  Or what do you suppose would happen if the wife of Moses – or his Sweetheart for that matter – had come up the mountain and said, “Moses, you look ridiculous.  Do you honestly think that holding your hands up like that is going to change the outcome of the battle?”

I’ll tell you what would have happened.  Chaos: Israel defeated.  No Moses, no Bible, no Jesus and His teachings to temper the inherent greed and cruelty of humans.  Which of course would make some people happy. (As shown at right.)

Many such people think that life would be ever so much better without the Christian religion. They seem to think life today would be a matter of the sun perpetually shining down on a literal Paradise on Earth, complete with people of all nations and cultures frolicking happily around in a circle dance. Baloney!! (We saw plenty of “life without religion” in The Holocaust…)

Put another way:  To such a claim I’ll give the same answer my Dad gave me after Watergate and Nixon’s resignation in 1974.  I asked if it wouldn’t have been better if George McGovern had been elected instead of Nixon. His answer?  “Things would have been worse, much worse!”

I don’t know if the country would have been better without the constitutional crisis of Watergate, but I do know history would be way different – way worse – without the tempering effect of real Christianity. Without the Men – and Women – in Black, keeping us on course:

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, Livin’ in the hopeless, hungry side of town…  [F]or those who never read, Or listened to the words that Jesus said, About the road to happiness through love and charity, Why, you’d think He’s talking straight to you and me.

Hey, “Johnny Cash said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

But we seem to be ranging far afield here.  The point of all this is that if Moses had listened to pure logic and reason – as opposed to instinct and intuition – the world would have been much worse off.  If nothing else, with the Amalekites defeating the Children of Israel, world history would have been a much different, and “worse, much worse.”  For one thing, Moses would never have gotten the chance to write – or at least finish – the first five books of the Bible, that “most influential, most published, most widely read book in the history of the world.”*

I figure that in all of this there is “some kind of object lesson…”

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Rephidim – Wikipedia.  The full caption:  “Moses holding up his arms during the Battle of Rephidim, assisted by Hur and Aaron, in John Everett Millais‘ Victory O Lord! (1871).”   As to previous posts on Moses at Rephidim, those posts noted that devoted sport-fans love to think if their team wins, they – the fans – helped out.  (Through their rituals, “lucky shirts” and the like.)  See for example Faulty logic: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc « Gotham Skeptic:  “It’s a natural tendency for people to make connections between events.  ‘When I do this, that happens…’  Primitive people [and perhaps modern football fans] developed superstitions in similar ways:”

Superstition is a large part of a fan’s repertoire these days, especially when the home team is in Super Bowl XLVIII today…   Kenny Shisler has similar superstitions.  The lifelong Broncos fan said he will wear Broncos gear all week long, but refuses to do so on game day… “Like the Bud Light commercials [say], ‘It’s only weird if it doesn’t work…’”

Incidentally, that “Gotham skeptic” article is from a site-reference “now defunct.” But see also Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Logical Fallacy … – Fallacy In Logic.

Re: The Bible as “most influential, the most published, the most widely read book in the history of the world,” see Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One),  Avenel Books (1981), at page 7.  

Asimov (1920-1992) was “an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books.  Asimov was one of the most prolific writers of all time, having written or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.”  His list of books included those on “astronomy, mathematics, theBible, William Shakespeare’s writing, and chemistry.”  He was a long-time member of Mensa, “albeit reluctantly;  he described some members of that organization as ‘brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs.’”  See Isaac Asimov – Wikipedia.

Also as to the Bible as most influential and most widely read, Asimov added:

No other book has been so studied and so analyzed and it is a tribute to the complexity of the Bible and the eagerness of its students that after thousands of years of study there are still endless books that can be written about it.

The “world without religion” image was courtesy of Date: July 4, 2016 Author: bige1972 … Commentsbigguycollege. (Another site-reference “now defunct.”) But see also Science without religion is lame. Religion … comquotefail.com:  “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”

Re:  “Johnny Cash said it, I believe it…”  The allusion is to the phrase “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”  BTW: Googling that phrase got got me 4,280,000 results.

The lower image is courtesy of Johnny Cash – Wikipedia.  See also Man in Black (song) – Wikipedia

Many times Moses almost got stoned to death – for not “dumbing down” the Torah enough…

*   *   *   *

I finally got to read the September 26, 2016, edition of Time magazine.

(I get the magazine hand–me–down from my sister-in-law.)  Page 63 had an essay:  My Life As a ‘None’ and Tales of Being Unaffiliated, by Susanna Schrobsdorff.  (Which included the image at right.)  

The essay had a subhead, saying that Nones – Americans not affiliated with any religion – now make up almost a quarter of the population.

Schrobsdorff began, “Like a lot of women of a certain age, I’ve taken up yoga.”  Then – for reasons not quite clear – she apparently gave up on yoga, then went on to question her “casual pursuit of spirituality:”

I’m agnostic about God, and there’s just a smallish space where faith might fit into my life.  So I check the “spiritual but not religious” box…  I’m just the kind of person that author and pastor Lillian Daniel has aptly mocked, writing, “You are now comfortably in the norm for self-centered American culture, right smack in the bland majority of people who find ancient religions dull but find themselves uniquely fascinating.”

She added that people like her are “on the rise,” followed by a wealth of statistics showing that in a few years, “the largest ‘religion’ in the U.S. will be None.”  (Emphasis added.)

I wasn’t sure if she was bragging or complaining.

But then she started the second half of her essay.  She noted she grew up in a mixed-faith family.  Her mother Mary Anne “was a Catholic until she eloped with my atheist German father…   We’d ask her about God and all the miraculous stories from the Bible, and she’d say:

‘Don’t take everything so literally.'”

(Which is pretty much the whole point of this blog:  That if you read the Bible too literally, you’re only cheating yourself…)

And yet – she wrote – that same mother was both certain that God existed and seemed to pray fervently as she approached death.  (From the emphysema that would “kill her at 73.”)

That is, shortly before she died, the mother, her atheist-husband and her None-daughter stopped at the church where – years before – Mary Anne had taken First Communion:

I don’t know if she prayed.  But I do know that my mother had the certainty that she would go “home,” as she called it, where her long-gone parents and my sister were.

She closed by saying that she longed for the kind of faith her mother had.  She also noted a Jesuitical proof that “God does exist:”

We have innate cravings for food and sleep and love, and so perhaps a desire to identify with a higher power…  That built-in yearning is there because there’s something worth yearning for.  It’s the kind of logic that my mother, the student of Jesuits, would have loved.

 *   *   *   *

So:  Where to begin?  How do I respond to what seems to be a cry for help, a pleading for some proof that you don’t have a to be far-right conservative to be a “real Christian?”

(Or as it says in Mark 9:24, “Lord … help thou mine unbelief!”)

For starters,  I wrote about “Nones” in the May 2015 post, On WHY we’re getting “less Christian.” (Which noted in part that it was “hard to imagine Jesus ever saying ‘There’s No Such Thing As A Liberal Christian.'”)  See also The Blog – above – where I wrote out some of my goals:

Another thing I’m trying to do is reach out to Nones and others turned off by “negative Christians.”  See “Nones” on the Rise and The Growth Of The “Nones.”  (About the rise of the “religiously unaffiliated.”)

So this is a perfect chance to make this a Teaching – or “Teachable” – Moment.

For starters – again –  The Blog said reading the Bible can lead to “an entirely new world.”  It also said that reading the Bible doesn’t mean that you’re supposed to shape yourself into a pre-formed “carbon copy Christian.”  (Or just “another brick in the wall.”)

Which seems to be the goal of those boot-camp Christians who get all the media attention.

Those boot-camp Christians – discussed in the notes – are the Bible literalists who never go “beyond the fundamentals.” And they are generally perceived to be extremely negative.

(I Googled “negative Christians” and got 12 million hits.)

But in John 10:10, Jesus was anything but negative.  In saying He wanted His followers to live abundantly, His goal was for you to grow and develop into all you can be.  (And not stay a “career buck private,” never going beyond the fundamentals.)

I’ll be writing more on Ms. Schrobsdorff‘s essay in a later post.  But I want to close this post by noting something that most people don’t factor in when they read the Bible.  (And especially the first five books, the Torah.)  That factor is:  Moses had to “dumb it down” enough that he wouldn’t get stoned to death, as noted in last January’s On Moses getting stoned:

In plain words, “Moses was forced by circumstance to use language and concepts that his ‘relatively-pea-brained contemporary audience’ could understand…'”  And to the extent he was writing for a future audience, he probably expected that future audience to understand those circumstances, and take them into account.

That is, if Moses had written in the Torah that the earth was billions of years old – or that the earth revolved around that “big bright round thing in the sky” – he probably would have been stoned to death as a heretic.  (By the people he was leading – “those backward, ignorant, sons-of-the-desert” – as nearly happened several times in his account in those first books of the Bible.)

That post also ended with this note:

“It was never ‘contrary to Scripture’ that the earth revolved around the sun.  It was only contrary to a narrow-minded, pigheaded, too-literal reading of the Scripture…”

 *   *   *   *

 
Galileo facing the Inquisition, for saying the earth revolved around the sun…

 *   *   *   *

 The upper image is courtesy of Stoning of Moses, Joshua and Caleb | Byzantine | The Metroplitan Museum of Art.  (It’s a mosaic from the 5th century.)  See also Stoning – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which includes another painting of the incident. The caption to that painting, under Punishment of the Rebels:  “The Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses and Aaron (1480–1482), by Sandro Botticelli, Sistine Chapel, Rome.”  See also Heresy – Wikipedia. 

The “stoning” article said this of the “Korah” painting:

The painting … tells of a rebellion by the Hebrews against Moses and Aaron.  On the [left] the rebels attempt to stone Moses after becoming disenchanted by their trials on their emigration from Egypt.  Joshua has placed himself between the rebels and Moses, protecting him from the stoning…

Which raised the question:  “What would those backward, ignorant, sons-of-the-desert have done to Moses if he’d told them the truth about that ‘big bright round thing in the sky?’”

 *   *   *   *

Re: Ms. Schrobsdorff, who wrote the “Nones” essay.  She is the “Chief Strategic Partnerships Editor and a columnist for TIME.”  She is also 53 years old as of this writing, and began her essay:  “Like a lot of women of a certain age, I’ve taken up yoga.”  Just as an aside, I – the “Scribe” – just turned 65 and have been doing yoga since the mid-1970s.  That’s over 40 years, which means I started yoga when Susanna was about 12 years old.  The point being that while some people – including conservative Christians – see yoga as a “cult,” there are Christians who are open-minded.  

A side note:  Ms. Schrobsdorff seems to have gone to a trendy-slash-upscale yoga center, of the kind catering to the “norm for self-centered American culture.”  My point being:  There have always been those who take a good spiritual discipline and twist it to their benefit. See e.g., The Bible as “transcendent” meditation, which said back in the 1970s you could pay a week’s salary to a TM center – of the kind that made Maharishi Mahesh Yogi rich enough to buy this “headquarters” in Switzerland – or buy an under-two-dollar copy of Lawrence LeShan‘s book, How to Meditate: A Guide to Self-Discovery.  (Which would require a bit of self-discipline…)  

And finally – on a related topic – see 2d Corinthians 2:17.  In the NIV:  “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.”  The NLT version reads:  “You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit.”

 Re:  “Nones.”  See also Irreligion – Wikipedia.

The image to the left of the paragraph – “But then she started the second half” – is courtesy of Atheism – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “1929 cover of the USSR League of Militant Atheists magazine, showing the gods of the Abrahamic religions being crushed by the Communist 5-year plan.”

The image to the right of the paragraph including “She also noted a Jesuitical proof,” is courtesy of Society of Jesus – Wikipedia.  (“Jesuitical” is defined in pertinent part as of or pertaining to Jesuits, or as applying to those who practice “casuistry or equivocation,” and/or those who use “subtle or oversubtle reasoning,” or those who are “crafty; sly; intriguing.”)

The lower image – “Cristiano Banti‘s 1857 painting Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition” – is courtesy of the article, Heresy – Wikipedia:

Galileo Galilei was brought before the Inquisition for heresy, but abjured his views and was sentenced to house arrest, under which he spent the rest of his life. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.  He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions. (E.A.)

Note that Galileo almost got burned at the stake – for saying the earth revolved around the sun – almost 3,000 after Moses was trying to lead his people to “the Promised Land…”

The snake handler on the right – “Stumpy?” – is arguably taking Mark 16:18 “out of context…”

*   *   *   *

I just went back over some posts from last year around this time.  I found this post, still in draft form.  So for the past couple days I’ve been updating it to this final form.

Also last year at this time I did WHY we’re getting “less Christian.”

Posted on May 23, it included the ironic image at right.  Then there was The wisdom of Virgil – and an “Angel,” posted on June 2, 2015.

So this post will review those two from last year, plus the original On snake-handling, Fundamentalism and suicide – Part I and Part II.

Part I noted that a small group of rural Christians practice “snake handling” as part of their religion. And that they do that based on a passage from Mark 16:16-18, part of Jesus’ “Great Commission:”

 And [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation…    And these signs will accompany those who believe:  in my name they will cast out demons;  they will speak in new tongues;  they will pick up serpents with their hands;  and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;  they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (E.A.)

On the other hand there was an article, Snake-Handling Pentecostal Pastor Dies From Snake Bite.  (Which arguably showed that “such a practice may not be such a good idea.”)

Then came the meat of the post, that the Bible is both “simple” and “deep:”

In other words, you could say that the Bible message is both simple enough for a child to understand, yet so full of subtle mysteries that a lifetime can be spent on its study, yet still leave myriads of lessons yet to be learned.  (See 1st Corinthians 4:1:  “This then is how you should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”)

Part II went on to discuss what many say is the proper way to read, study and interpret the Bible.  It also discussed both the topics of “Biblical inerrancy” and Fundamentalism.

I said the business of “requiring every word of the Bible to be inerrant” reminded me of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:4.  He was talking about the Pharisees of His time, and noted that they tended to “make strict rules that are hard for people to obey.  They try to force others to obey all their rules.  But they themselves will not try to follow any of those rules.”

Which brings us to WHY we’re getting “less Christian.”  That post noted a study: Americans Less Religious Than Ever Before.  The gist of the article was that a then-recent poll found Christianity is on the decline, especially among the young.  And here are some of the reasons:

Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative.  Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) – representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. (E.A.)

And finally, note The wisdom of Virgil – and an “Angel.”  That post led off with the fable of the Blind men and the elephant.

The moral of that story?  That each man ended up with a good idea of part of the elephant.  But each went on to “err greatly” – as Jesus might say – by mistakenly assuming that his view was the only accurate picture of the whole elephant.

(Or as Wikipedia said, “the parable implies that one’s subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth.”)

That in turn brought up Virgil, and his views.  That is, throughout history most people have seen religion “in terms of black or white:  ‘our attitude toward the possibility of divine control of things tends to be all or nothing.'”  But Virgil’s view seemed more practical.

His view was that – despite our best efforts – some of what happens to us may make some sense.  But then again “some of what happens seems to make pretty much no sense:”

There is, in other words, an overarching order at work in the world, a final coherence in the way that things work.  But it remains out of human reach, and despite our efforts, we can merely come to know it only in part…

Which could be just another way of saying that when you become a Christian, God doesn’t become your personal servant, willing and able to cater to your every whim.  Or as one Christian mystic once said, “It is to vigor rather than comfort that you are called.”

Or here’s another way to put it.  (In case I’m being too subtle.)  In plain words, God doesn’t owe you a thing.  (See Luke 17, verses 7-10.)  In still further words:

…way too many people think that getting good stuff from God – The Force that Created the Universe– is somehow easier than trying to shoot the head off a match stick…

Which means there are a some important lessons for our spiritual quest.  One is that we shouldn’t expect God to cater to our every whim, like some glorified butler.  (Maybe we should learn to say, “It’s hard as hell, but now and then I’ll do it just right…”)  And maybe we should start worshiping – not to get anything – but rather “asking nothing but to enjoy God’s presence.”

All of which could lead to a far more accurate picture of that “elephant as a whole…” 

*   *   *   *

The parable of the “Blind men and the elephant…” 

*   *   *   *

The upper image was featured in On snake-handling, Fundamentalism and suicide – Part I.

For some background on the “redux” part of the title, see On “Job the not patient” – REDUX.  It’s an allusion to the 1971 book by John Updike, Rabbit Redux.  That book-title in turn “led to a redux in popularity of the word redux.”  So much so that in a later book, Rabbit At Rest, Updike had his hero – Harry Angstrom – say he “hates that word, you see it everywhere, and he doesn’t know how to pronounce it.   Like arbitrageur and perestroika…”

Re: Draft form.  See also Writing Rough Draft of Research Paper – Duke of Definition.

Re: “vigor rather than comfort.”  The quote is an allusion to the book Practical Mysticism, by Evelyn Underhill, as discussed in On the Nativity of John the Baptist:

Hearing now and again the mysterious piping of the Shepherd, you realize your own perpetual forward movement . . . and so are able to handle life with a surer hand.  Do not suppose from this that your new career is to be perpetually supported by agreeable spiritual contacts, or occupy itself in the mild contemplation of the great world through which you move.  True, it is said of the Shepherd that he carries the lambs in his bosom; but the sheep are expected to walk, and to put up with the bunts and blunders of the flock.  It is to vigor rather than comfort that you are called.  (E.A.)

Ariel Press (1914), at page 177.  See also Evelyn Underhill – Wikipedia.

The lower image is courtesy of Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Blind monks examining an elephant, an ukiyo-e print byHanabusa Itchō (1652–1724).”  (See also Stay tuned, for future reference.) 

*   *   *   *

Here’s I how I put in my new book, “On Mystic Christians.” On those snake handlers, and the need to be consistent in Bible study. For example, Bible Literalists interpret most of the Bible literally, but not – in one glaring example – “The Bible’s erotic love song.” (Aka Song of Solomon.)

Why don’t Bible Literalists interpret “Songs of Songs” literally? Why don’t they adhere to the “exact letter or the literal sense” for this book, like all the others in the Bible?

Some Fundamentalists become snake handlers based on a too-literal interpretation of Mark 16:18: “They will pick up snakes with their hands.” But I would say: “Be consistent. If you’re going to interpret Mark 16:18 that literally, you should do the same with Song of Solomon 7:1-3: ‘Your rounded thighs are like jewels… Your two breasts are like two fawns…’”

But here’s another answer, from Isaac Asimov: “Because of the erotic nature of the book, it has been customary to find allegorical values in it that would make it more than a description of bodily passion:”

Jews would have it speak of the love between Yahveh and Israel; Catholics of the love between Christ and the Church; Protestants of the love between God and man’s soul. However, if we simply accept the words as they stand, the book is a human love poem and a very beautiful one.

*   *   *   *

An Army Drill Sergeant, ready to teach new recruits “the fundamentals of being a soldier…” 

*   *   *   *

As noted in My Lenten meditation, I’m not giving up anything this 40 days of Lent.

Instead I plan to spend this time “contemplating on how and when” Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.  (The Torah.)  But first, here’s a note about the “lead-in paragraphs.”

(The ones above “In the meantime.”)

Up to this point, those paragraphs have said the blog is about exploring “the mystical side of Bible reading.”  That’s an accurate statement, but a trifle vague.  On the other hand, help in curing that vagueness came to me in the form of some recent see Daily Office Readings.

Specifically, help came from one of the “gap readings,” between February 6 and 7.  That reading is 2d Timothy 2:3-4:

 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. (E.A.)

(Saint Timothy is shown at right, with his grandmother.)  On that note, see also On reading the Bible.   That’s a post I originally published in July 2014, but recently “tweaked.”  Near the end of the update, I took issue – again – with Biblical literalists.

Such literalism means “adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense” of the Bible.  But to me, “literalness” doesn’t give full effect to the Bible’s frequent use of metaphor and parable.  (See also On three suitors (a parable), on the “essence of the parabolic method of teaching.”)

Accordingly, I agree there is a time and place for fundamentalism, “learning the fundamentals.”

I also agree that the best place to start your “Bible training” is to take it literally:

Just like Army Basic Training, the best place to start is with the fundamentals:  “This is where individuals learn about the fundamentals of being a soldier…”  But no good soldier wants to be stuck as a buck private [during] his whole time “in service.”  (Although there are some few [“soldiers of Christ”] who enjoy having no additional responsibility…)

In turn I concluded that this blog is for and about those Christians who want to develop into something “more than just someone who knows the bare ‘fundamentals.’”

See also Spiritual boot camp, which talked about the words “mystic” and “mysticism,” and how they affect some people:

The words “mystic” or “mysticism” seem to give some Christians apoplexy.  Try it on a Southern Baptist some time!  But seriously, one online dictionary defines a mystic as “a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute.”  Again, arguably different words but the same idea…

All of which is a good reason to switch to Paul’s “soldier metaphor…”

There’s more on that metaphor later, but first some notes about that Lenten discipline.

I’ve noted that in writing the Torah, Moses had to be extremely careful.  He had to be extremely careful because if his audience took his message the wrong way – or weren’t ready for it – he’d likely be killed.  (As by getting thrown off a cliff or stoned.  See Moses getting stoned.)

Jesus faced the same risk of stoning – a number of times – as shown by other recent Daily Office Readings.  For example, John 8:59:  “At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”  And again in the NLT version of John 10:31:  “Once again the people picked up stones to kill him.”

And Jesus Himself noted the danger – in the Gospel for February 21, the Second Sunday in Lent:  “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones to death those who have been sent to her!”  (Luke 13:34.)  And that’s not to mention Paul’s recital in Hebrews 11:36-37 (NIV):

Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.  They were put to death by stoning;  they were sawed in two;  they were killed by the sword.

The point of all this is that anyone – up to and including Jesus – had to be extremely careful in putting forth “the Word” to people who weren’t ready to receive its full implications yet.

And of those potential prophets, Moses – shown at right – was arguably the one who faced the greatest danger of all.  He was after all “the First.”  He was the original “prophet,” the man who single-handedly had to meld a huge group of former slaves into an army able to enter and conquer their own particular Promised Land.

But getting back to the Lenten meditation…

It turns out that there’s a number of theories on when, how, or even if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

For example, according to Mosaic authorship – Wikipedia, “The Talmud discusses the authorship of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and assigns all but the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, which describe the death of Moses, to Moses himself.”

Then there’s Did Moses Write Genesis? | Answers in Genesis.  After noting the “Documentary (or JEDP) Hypothesis” – which the author rejected – he came to this conclusion:

There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land…  Contrary to the liberal theologians and other skeptics, it was not written after the Jews returned from exile in Babylon (ca. 500 BC)…   It is the enemies of the truth of God that are failing to think carefully and face the facts honestly.  As a prophet of God, Moses wrote under divine inspiration, guaranteeing the complete accuracy and absolute authority of his writings. (E.A.)

For the sake of argument, I’m assuming as well that “Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings.”  But note also that the author of Did Moses Write Genesis seems to be one of those Biblical literalists I frequently take issue with.

Then there’s From What Did Moses Compose Genesis?  That article claims Moses had access to material written by “Abraham, Jacob, Noah, and even Adam.”  For myself, I’m inclined to think Moses got those materials, but through oral tradition, as noted in My Lenten meditation.

Finally – for now – there’s When did Moses write Genesis:

The Book of Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, writing around 1400 BCE.  However, scholars now say that the Book of Genesis was really written in stages over a period of several centuries during the first millennium BCE.

I should note there’s a pretty good chance that statement – that Genesis was written by somebody other than Moses – will likely “give some Christians apoplexy.”  

That in turn makes this a good stopping point.  Except to say that after Basic Training, the good soldier – and by extension the “Good Soldier of Christ” – has a chance to go on to Advanced Individual Training, “where new soldiers receive specific training in their chosen MOS.”

For example, a new soldier could go to the Field Artillery Center at Fort Sill Oklahoma.  (With all of the Freudian implications appertaining thereto.)

Or to the Aviation School at Fort Rucker Alabama.

Or even to the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

On the other hand, a ” Not-so-good Soldier of Christ” could choose to remain a buck private for the duration.  But I seriously doubt if that would “please his commanding officer…”

 

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of United States Army Basic Training – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re:  “‘Gap readings’ between February 6 and 7.”  The dates for Lent and Easter shift each year.  (It’s a “moveable feast.”  See How Is the Date of Easter Calculated?)  So, most lectionaries include Daily Office Readings for a Season of Epiphany that can last up to eight weeks.  But in 2016, Lent started early.  Thus the “Week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany” – which includes Ash Wednesday –  came on February 7.  But the readings for the week before February 7 were for the Week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany.  That means there’s a “gap,” in which the readings for the Fifth, Sixth Seventh, and Eighth Sunday after  the Epiphany go unread in a year like 2016.  On the other hand, there are other – more assiduous – “Daily Office Readers” (like me), who do all the readings, regardless of any gap.  And it was from just that practice that I “re-discovered” 2d Timothy 2:3-4 – and it’s “soldier metaphor” – in such a timely manner.

Re:  Biblical literaiism.  See also Biblical Literalism – Huffington Post.

The image to the left of the “spiritual boot camp” paragraph is courtesy of the link, “United States Marine Corps Recruit Training,” in the Wikipedia article on Army Basic Training.  The full caption:  “A Drill Instructor provides an example of boot camp instructional style to a Marine Corps poolee, before the poolee’s departure for boot camp.”

The “Moses” image is courtesy of Moses – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Moses holding up his arms during the battle, assisted by Aaron and Hur; painting by John Everett Millais.”  For more on the Battle of Rephidim, see Was Moses the first to say “it’s only weird if it doesn’t work?”

The “Moses writing” image is courtesy of: 
theosophical…evidence-that-some-of-genesis-was-not-written-by-moses.

The “Sad Sack” image is courtesy of www.coverbrowser.com/covers/sad-sack/2.  See also Sad Sack – Wikipedia, an article about the fictional World War II-era soldier, an “otherwise unnamed, lowly private experiencing some of the absurdities and humiliations of military life.”

Note that I originally planned to end this post with the image below, with the caption:  “An Admiral speaks to the remaining Navy SEAL trainees “at the end of ‘Hell Week.’”

That image is courtesy of United States Navy SEAL selection and training – Wikipedia.  The full caption is this:  “First Phase [of training:]  Then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Mullen addresses the remaining trainees of Class 266 at the end of ‘Hell Week:'”  (See also United States Navy SEALs – Wikipedia.)  As to the “Hell Week” in Navy SEAL training:

The first two weeks of basic conditioning prepare candidates for the third week, also known as “Hell Week.”  During Hell Week, candidates participate in five and a half days of continuous training.  Each candidate sleeps at most four hours during the entire week, runs more than 200 miles, and does physical training for more than 20 hours per day.

But then I would have had to note also that the U.S. Army equivalent of Navy Seal training would be held at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina.  “However, the latter site did not offer a suitable image for this post.”  

Then too the point of that “Navy SEAL” image would have been to contrast the truly-zealous “Good Soldier of Christ” – volunteering for such training – with the slacker content to get by with just learning “the fundamentals.”

*   *   *   *

And finally – really, really this time – note other articles of interest, to be addressed in a later post:  Don Stewart :: When Did Moses Write, or Compile, the Book, Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah – Mesa Community College, and Tablets of Stone – Wikipedia.