Recipe for Biblical Literalism (From the Archives)

Take one part overly-familiar Bible verses. Repeat these verses over and over again until a thick, opaque layer is formed. Use this layer to cover the remaining 39 parts consisting of Bible verses that do not talk about the same subject as those more familiar verses, verses which seem to disagree with them, as well as verses you don’t understand, verses you understand but do not put into practice, and any other verses you could happily live without. Bake until the lower verses are obscured from view.

Avoid stirring and serve.

"Emma Higgs: "These events, whether we believe them to have been divinely initiated or imagined ..."

Describing the Indescribable
"I have finally managed to get hold of Gullotta's article. It's a good read, and ..."

What Happens When You Review Richard ..."
"Obviously The Gospel of Thomas is a prime example of Jesus’ teaching using one-liners. So, ..."

New Age Translation of the Lord’s ..."
"From the Magarik piece:It is easy to recognize the foolish evil of the Green Bible ..."

Bible Nation around the Blogosphere

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • JustSayin

    Straw Man.

  • JustSayin

    Straw Man.

  • http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

    That seems an odd way to “respond” to a piece of satire. But as satire, I think that the description bears a close enough resemblance to its subject for the point to be relevant.

    Perhaps you would care to explain what leads you to write “straw man” in response to this? Might it not be that you wrote that precisely to try to defuse a bit of satire that you felt was close to the mark?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/ James F. McGrath

    That seems an odd way to “respond” to a piece of satire. But as satire, I think that the description bears a close enough resemblance to its subject for the point to be relevant.

    Perhaps you would care to explain what leads you to write “straw man” in response to this? Might it not be that you wrote that precisely to try to defuse a bit of satire that you felt was close to the mark?