What I Am Reading – December 11, 2008
Dec 11
- Positive Thinking
- The Inigo Montoya Guide to 27 Commonly Misused Words
- Turning the Bible on its Head — Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
- Whose Trust A Spider’s Web
- Six Simple Steps to Avoid Credit Problems in a Bad Economy
- The Sherlock Holmes Guide to Recovering Your Stolen Identity
- You Must Be Born Again
- Project 10 to the 100
- Bioethics and the 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Really Simple Goal Setting
- How to Avoid the Physical Hazards of Blogging
- Minimalist Fitness II: Yardwork Workouts, Prisoner Workout and Other Non-traditional Exercises
- Ten-Point Manifesto on How to Work Better [Habits]
- StairCASE Stepladder Bookcase [Stuff We Like]
- Don’t Forget Sunk Costs, Stupid!
- iSearch a Better Way to Find People Online [People Search]
- Distinguish Yourself With A Social Calling Card [Business Cards]
December 10, 2008
December 8, 2008
December 8, 2008
October 6, 2008
October 29, 2008
October 9, 2008
September 30, 2008
September 25, 2008
September 22, 2008
September 22, 2008
September 20, 2008
September 17, 2008
September 18, 2008
September 18, 2008
September 15, 2008
September 11, 2008
September 11, 2008
The Newsweek Metronidazole gel article reminded Lisinopril uses me of Worth lithium one of Tamsulosin 0.4 mg the things I most hate about the culture wars.
Mary Carruthers (of all things, an Oxford medievalist, though those have been useful to theological discussions before) offers an interesting distinction. Looking at the history of thought, she divides ways of looking at language into two camps: “fundamentalism” and “textualism.” “Fundamentalism” at its most extreme involves an absolute conviction that the prime facia impression that the Bible makes on you is the plain truth. “Textualism” puts the preference on interpretation; imo at its farthest extreme (which no one, despite their rhetoric, has ever lived up to) it regards all interpretations as equally valid so that criticism and scholarship is elevated above the original text. Neither, however, are good or bad–in fact, everyone lives somewhere between the two extremes. Both have been required for Scriptural interpretation since long before Jesus impressed the Rabbis with his unexpected scholarship, and the history of the Christian Church (inasmuch as there is a single history) has largely been marked by shifts one direction and corrections in the opposite. Certainly both is necessary–”fundamentalism” gives one the confidence to act on one’s beliefs, but “textualism” gives one the requisite humility to continually seek God’s views rather than sliding into one’s comfortable prejudices and biases.
Newsweek, if their editorial gives any indication, wants to equate belief in the unique, divinely-inspired nature of scripture with a pure “fundamentalism” that is dangerous because it offers the reader an escape from the “serious” “Judeo-Christian tradition.” In fact the millenia of wrestling with the “stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament” occurred and took on a seriousness and depth BECAUSE those who wept, prayed, argued, died, and (probably as often) killed did so with the belief that the Scriptures contained divinely revealed truth. The fact that they believed the Bible to be true, rather than countering the seriousness of their thought, gave the arguments fuel and strengthened their “serious” nature.
But I don’t think that means there isn’t still a very dangerous form of “literalism.”