LITERALISM VERSUS SYMBOLISM: THE PHONY WAR OVER THE BIBLE

On By Citizen TomIn Philosophy, religionLeave a comment

bibleWhy This Topic?

Literalism is a curious word. Here is the etymology of the root.

Add the “ism,” and we have what sounds like an ideology.

Those who speak of the Literalism generally intend to ridicule those who believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. To them we are like that robot (android) in the “Get Smart” television serious that spoofed the spy movies and TV shows. Like that robot we, supposedly, cannot decipher metaphors and idioms and such.   That is, the robot provided comedy by taking everything literally, and so do Bible-believing Christians.  And yet the critics do not laugh at Bible-believing Christians. Instead, they get angry. That is, the words of the critics do not accord with their mood.

So if it is not Literalism, what is the issue? How we communicate does indicate what we believe and vice versa. That is, because our language reflects cultural prejudices, our language makes it easier to believe some ideas rather than others. Nevertheless, when some one takes everything literally, they have a communications problem, not an ideological problem. Therefore, the argument is over how we interpret the Bible, which side is most correct.

Interested in communications theory? You may find these links informative.

Common Interpretation Errors

The Confusion of Context

When we read the Bible, we are eavesdroppers. The Bible was written for us, but it was not written to us.

When we overhear someone trying to tell someone else about something they have experienced, there are various contexts. Both the speaker and the information he is trying to convey have a separate context. The speaker’s audience also has a context. The speaker has to abstract his topic out of context, understand or model that abstraction with respect to his own context, and frame what he has abstracted appropriately to fit the context of his audience. The better the speaker understands his topic, himself, and his audience the more accurately he can convey his experience to his audience.

On the other hand, because we are eavesdroppers, there is little that speaker can do to convey his story to us. So we have to do some research if we want to understand what the speaker intended to say to his intended audience. Similarly, to understand the Bible, we must study the history that surrounds it. In addition to studying the Bible, we must consider:

  • The context of information.  What is the author’s source? Revelation?
  • The context of the author. Who is the author? When did he write. What was his experience?
  • The context of the audience. Who did the author address? What did he expect them to know? How did he expect them to react?

Once we understand what the author wanted his audience to believe, only then can we apply the words of the Bible to our own context.

The Degree of Abstraction

All communications take place through abstractions. That is words represent ideas and concepts. If someone says “horse,” “run,” and “fast”; our minds throw up the image of a speeding horse. When we use simple abstractions (or simple words and phrases) we ease communications. Complex abstractions may convey more information, but complexity increases the possibility of error. Therefore, it is foolish to use complex abstractions (metaphors and parables and such) when they are not needed.

Because the Bible’s authors sought to convey complex ideas, they could not avoid using complex abstractions to accurately communicate complex ideas. In fact, because of the complexity of what they taught, the Bible’s authors had to use parables to provide simple illustrations. Fortunately, the Bible’s authors employed complex abstractions quite skillfully. Moreover, the authors often explained the abstractions and the parables they used, leaving us little doubt as to the meaning.

Nevertheless, to understand the abstractions and the parables employed in the Bible, we must read the Bible carefully and study commentaries. We must also be careful. We can easily spiritualize what the authors intended to be literal or vice versa. Common extremes either render what is the literal truth into a “happy myth” of self-sacrificing love or make God out to be wrathful tyrant.

The Gospels

So how do we find the right balance? The central story of the Bible is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That story is repeated in four different books. Did Jesus die on the cross? Did He take our sins upon Himself? Did He rise from the dead? In order to live eternally with Jesus, must we accept the gift He offers us, the price He paid for our redemption?

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio.
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio. (from here)

With four different Gospels, we should be able to at least be able to tell whether the authors wanted to convey a myth or the simple, literal truth.

Because I believe the four Gospels, I believe I am a sinner. I believe I should hate my sins. I believe Jesus died and suffered on a cross as a sacrifice for my sins. Because the price has already been paid (and I could not pay it), I believe I would be ungrateful to refuse such a sacrifice.

How do I reach that conclusion? I have read the four Gospels and much of the history that surrounds them. I think the Gospels convey the unabstracted truth. I do not think Christians sacrificed their lives for the sake of a “happy myth.” I also think that any God who who sacrifice His Son for us loves us too much to be a wrathful tyrant.

Here is the introduction to Luke.

Luke 1:1-4 New King James Version (NKJV)

Dedication to Theophilus

1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

The Gospel of Luke (The Book of Acts too)  purports to be a journalistic account of actual events. For that matter so do the other Gospels.

The Book of John ends with these words.

John 21:24-25 New King James Version (NKJV)

24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Amen means “so be it.”

I am not a poet. At best, I am a technical writer.  My writing skills best lend themselves to abstracting what is real to paper, and I measure my success against my understanding of reality.  Yet I recognize I cannot wholly perceive what is real. Any competent scientist or engineer understands we don’t have that capacity. Our senses are incapable of detecting all the details that encompass reality. Our brains lack the capacity to comprehend reality.

Words do not convey reality. Therefore, experience teaches us the wisdom of distrusting words. Imagine you are a pilot. When you board an airplane, what is your first concern? Is the plane safe to fly? If that jet cannot get you and your passengers safely to your destination, then you don’t define it as an airplane. That plane may look like one, but until it passes inspection, you regard that airplane as a potential death trap.

Because the Four Gospels claim that Jesus died, paid the price for our sins, and rose from the dead, if what they say about Jesus is untrue, they are lies. If the accounts are true, then Jesus is the Son of God. If the accounts are false, then Jesus was either a liar or a madman.

That is why the Apostle Paul wrote these words.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Risen Christ, Our Hope

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Take your pick. Believe or disbelieve, but don’t pretend your choice does not make a difference. Either believing in the Bible is a means of salvation or those who believe are of all men the most pitiable.

HOW A POOR WIDOW ANSWERED HER CALLING — PART 1

On By Citizen TomIn Philosophy, religion4 Comments
Baroque fresco at Ottobeuren. (from here)
Baroque fresco at Ottobeuren. (from here)

Mark 12:41-44 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Widow’s Two Mites

41 Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. 42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites,[a] which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”

Two versions of “The Widow’s Two Mites” exist in the Bible. The second version is Luke 21:1-4. The tale told in both versions is essentially the same.

An Example

What should we make of “The Widow’s Two Mites”? Most commentaries carefully examine the widow’s gift. Most focus on the fact the widow gave all that she had. They use the widow’s example to stress importance of giving (See References below.). However, the lessons we draw from the Bible have four contexts: the first has to do with what God wants to tell us, the second is what the author thinks he is trying to tell his contemporaries, the third is how the author’s contemporaries receive the Word, and the fourth is how we receive the Word in the present day. Of course, we should strive above all to discern the Will of God, but we can only overcome our limited point-of-view by sharing our view of the Bible with others.

So what do I have to add here? We forget to consider how extraordinary Jesus’ comment on the widow’s gift would have been. When Jesus used the generosity of that poor widow to give His disciples an EXAMPLE of faith and courage, He pointed to a woman — a WOMAN — a woman so poor she had almost nothing to give. Then He said, because she had given all that she had to give, she had given the most.

In the days to come, many of Jesus’ disciples would give all they had to give. They would give their lives. Jesus would be the first to do that. Still, He pointed to a poor widow as an example for His disciples. During an era when women and the poor were downtrodden and poorly regarded, Jesus offered up a woman’s simple, seemingly unimpressive act of faith and courage as an example for His disciples.

Today we often look pass what would have shocked Jesus’ disciples, offering grown men a woman as an example for them to emulate. Perhaps that is because the Bible includes many heroines, many named and many unnamed such as the poor widow. 7 Of My Favorite Women in the Bible (www.patheos.com) illustrates the character of those the Bible names, and 9 Anonymous Heroines of the Bible (news.americanbible.org) lists many the Bible leaves unnamed.

Was the poor widow left unnamed by accident? Not likely. Jesus held her up as an example, but she had no idea that Jesus had done that. She had no idea how God was using her. Her name meant nothing to her contemporaries.  The tale ends without even telling us what happened to her. We just know that for two thousand years she has inspired Christians give whatever they have of themselves, no matter how small it might seem.

What the tale tells us is that God is watching. Even what seem trifles to us matter to Him, and we know He knows our names.

To Be Continued

References

 

TED CRUZ WOULD REPEAL EVERY WORD OF OBAMACARE

On By Citizen TomIn 2016 Election, Constitution, Health Care Nationalization, Laws, Philosophy, religion, Senator Ted Cruz36 Comments
Ted Cruz campaign ad (from here)
Ted Cruz campaign ad (from here)

“We’re at war” by insanitybytes22 is one of those interesting posts that gets us thinking. Since thinking can be a rather random process, the comment thread soon rambled over to Obamacare. Since Obamacare is topical to this election, I decided to steal some material from my comment and turn it into a pro Ted Cruz post.

You don’t like Obamacare?

Vote for Ted Cruz.

Where does Cruz stand on the issue of health care? There is lots of BS out there. Hence, Michael F. Cannon wrote Clean Up Your Act, PolitiFact: Why Ted Cruz Was Right On Obamacare And Jobs to refute what the mischief makers are writing. Here is an article that is fairly specific about where Cruz stands on the issue.

As an issue, Cruz addresses the topic of Obamacare on this page: Jobs and Opportunity. Why? The health care sector is a large part of our economy. When government steps in and makes our health care decisions for us, government kills jobs and limits our opportunities.

How do I feel about Obamacare? Obamacare is too much government, and I am voting for the candidate who most wants to reduce the size of our government. I hope Ted Cruz will kill Obamacare, but I don’t think he will rid us of Medicare and Medicaid.  Just killing Obamacare, limiting the ambulance chasing, and encouraging interstate competition between insurers will be monumental tasks. Getting our government out of the health care business — if it ever happens — will most likely take decades.

What is the Christian position on how we should make our health care system work? I cannot speak for all Christians, but one message that comes from the Bible is that no man is good, not one (Romans 3:9-20). That is why the people who wrote our Constitution designed our government with numerous checks and balances.

Because it forces us to accept the involvement of politicians and bureaucrats in our health care, Obamacare outrageously violates the Constitution. Because Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, we know from the get-go the people who crafted the legislation cannot be trusted. The majority of Americans don’t even want Obamacare. So the notion our leaders created Obamacare for the good of the American people is absurd.

Do I have a solution for all our health care woes? Yes. Don’t get born. Don’t get old. Don’t get sick. Don’t have accidents. Failing all that, rob a bank and spend somebody else’s money. Seriously, isn’t that all devious politicians have promised us?

When our government takes money from one person and gives it to the “needy,” that is stealing. Even if it were not, our Constitution does not charter Congress to redistribute the wealth. When the Supreme Court says that it does, they have to use ridiculously convoluted arguments. For example, because the Constitution is supposedly a “living document”, judges have the discretion to amend it. However, there is an obvious problem with that argument. If we say the Constitution is “living document”, that just says the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says.

Therefore, sneakier members of the judiciary try to hide their shameless shenanigans under the guise of common law.

Our constitutional system, without our fully realizing it, has tapped into an ancient source of law, one that antedates the Constitution itself by several centuries. That ancient kind of law is the common law. The common law is a system built not on an authoritative, foundational, quasi-sacred text like the Constitution. Rather, the common law is built out of precedents and traditions that accumulate over time. Those precedents allow room for adaptation and change, but only within certain limits and only in ways that are rooted in the past. Our constitutional system has become a common law system, one in which precedent and past practices are, in their own way, as important as the written Constitution itself. A common law Constitution is a “living” Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas. (from here).

Yet those  sneakier souls ignore plain words of the Constitution which must take precedence over common law. Thus, whether they admit it or not, those sneakier souls are arguing that the Constitution is a “living document”,  that judges have the discretion to amend it.

So what is the alternative? If we don’t want government-run health care, how is free market health care suppose to work? It will never work perfectly, but does anything we can devise?

What are the problems with free enterprise health care? When we get sick, it is too late to go shopping for healthcare, and some people will always procrastinate. Some people will always be poor, unable to afford a doctor. And some will always be sickly at birth, so that insurance is impractical. Nevertheless, most of us want insurance, and we can afford it.

What does insurance do for us? When we have a catastrophe, our insurance helps us to pay the bills. In addition, because insurers have market clout and can hire people with the appropriate skills, they can negotiate affordable doctor and hospital fees. Therefore, if we can and we are willing to purchase health care insurance, the main thing we need our government to do is prosecute fraud.

What about those who don’t have insurance? The solution is charity. Charity is something politicians did not invent, and government NEVER provides. Politicians just take money from some people so they can buy the votes of other people.

When we let our leaders redistribute the wealth (or health care), what is Christian about that? Doesn’t redistributing the wealth bankrupt and corrupt our government? Don’t meddlesome government regulations wreak havoc on free market solutions that work quite well for the majority of people? Why is any of that Christian?

But what about the fact the people of the United States spend too much money on health care? Do government-run solutions reduce the cost of anything? Isn’t more government involvement just going to lead to the rationing of health care? Do we want bureaucrats to decide who doctors can treat and how?

If you or I want to buy an expensive car or house, why should politicians have the right to stop us? We don’t buy health care for the “People.” We each want to buy health care for ourselves, family members, and individuals we care about. It is a cinch that few politicians actually care about the “People.” Therefore, our leaders should just have the same right to health care as the rest of us, to buy health care for themselves, family members, and people they care about.