I am beginning to think that Biblical literalism is a major deception in the church for many reasons. I was reading a book called The Physics of God: Unifying Quantum Physics, Consciousness, M-Theory, Heaven, Neuroscience and Transcendence, which is an excellent book in general. In this book, he makes a comparison between Christianity and eastern religions and says that Christianity is more of a cognitive discipline, whereas eastern philosophies are more experiential.
After taking some time to think about this, I would have to agree that this is true. It is entirely evident in the discussions and debates Christian have with each other about various scriptures that they understand spiritual things cognitively. We share our cognitive understanding of these things in contrast to another person's cognitive understanding of the same thing. What creates this cognitive understanding of scripture---biblical literalism.
This is because an allegorical understanding of scripture is going to have an effect on what we do more than a cognitive understanding will.
For example, "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." Matthew 20:16. From a literal perspective, there is a right or wrong answer for what this means. From an allegorical perspective, there is not a right or wrong answer for what this means. Instead, there are layers of meaning that can have an effect on what you do.
I have always considered this to mean that people are equal. Therefore, no one should be considered better or worse. However, I have heard other meanings, and I would imagine that this verse could create a debate trying to determine the literal meaning when there might not be one.
I was reading in the Pistis Sophia, which is considered a "Gnostic" text, but Gnostic has a muddled meaning in the modern world and is meant to comprise everyone that did not go on to adopt the version of Christianity issued by the Catholic church. Even though, these groups were not similar in such a way that they could be defined under one heading. They just basically didn't get funneled into what would later become the Catholic church, which would later branch off to become the Protestant church. The Protestant church is a branch of Catholicism and you can see this in its rigid view towards allegory in scripture.
Anyways, the Pistis Sophia says, "And Jesus said to his disciples: "I am come forth out of that First Mystery, which is the last mystery,"
This is an interesting statement when you consider that the verse in scripture can't be given a literal meaning. The first mystery is the last mystery, and then the door is open. The rest of the New Testament continues to talk about understanding the mystery of Christ.
"Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel," Ephesians 6:19.
This is just one example of many to relate that the mystery of the gospel is the first and the last mystery to be understood.
From a literal perspective, I realize that this could almost be considered apostasy or blasphemy to use something that could be labeled "Gnostic" and derive understanding from this. However, this is only because of the error of literalism that endeavors to cognitively understand scripture in a linear way. An allegorical understanding is nonlinear.
An example of where literalism leads to hypocrisy is most clear when you consider the references to dramatic healings in the Bible. People can get up and walk even though they are said to have been paralyzed. You can't defend literalism when this is not something that happens with any degree of regularity, if ever. I am not going to rule out the chance that there are unreported instances where someone recovers the ability to walk, but in the modern world, finding a true example of something like this happening is almost like searching for Bigfoot. There might be a couple of people who say this has happened, but there are never any other witnesses to this or a way to prove this.
Considering how many people identify as Christian, it is really sad to see that something like this is not something that happens on a regular basis. And if we take the Bible literally, the reality that people are not healed either means that it did not happen or something is wrong in our understanding of what did happen. With Biblical literalism, there are only two choices.
I have heard many weak explanations through the years for why there are no healings like the ones described in the Bible. Honestly, I usually looked the other way when I was told these things because I knew what they were saying wasn't something that could be supported with scripture already, but it wasn't important to me to know why at the time. It was more important to follow Jesus and try to learn to love and be grateful and all that.
Now, after spending years seeking these virtues, it is important to me to not ignore the fact that the Bible cannot be considered literal when you realize that there is no way to explain why Jesus healed and the apostles healed the way they did, but no one in the church since this time has been able to do the same.
I think Biblical literalism is to blame because healing needs to be understood allegorically or in a nonlinear way. It could also be compared to the difference between mechanical physics and quantum physics, which leads to the subject of quantum healing, which is of the devil according to fundamentalists much of the time. Open heart surgery is not of the devil, but something like quantum healing would be even though it might be something that has more similarities to what is described in the Gospel than anything the church has been able to produce in 2000 years.
However, healing is often described as allegory if we define allegory as simply an abstract representation of ideas.
"And He told them, "This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting." Mark 9:29.
Even verses like this within a world consumed with Biblical literalism, can take on a literal meaning. There is a certain prayer, fast, or sort of behavior that he was teaching the disciples about when he said this. However, it could also have a nonlinear or quantum meaning about understanding that the first mystery is also the last. Maybe, this is more about seeking to understand the mystery of the Gospel than about the literal act of prayer and fasting resulting in the healing of paralysis. Maybe we don't see people healed of paralysis today because there is no one alive who truly understands this mystery. I think this is a real possibility at this point in my life.
And this is why I think Biblical literalism is a primary deception in the church. I even used to seek to find where I was being deceived when I was younger by remembering that truly being deceived means not realizing that you are. Deception is not obvious. It is not going to be something discussed as an error in understanding anywhere. In some way, it is going to be the thing that most people will agree on even when they disagree on everything else. For the church today, that would describe Biblical literalism.
and I will read your answer offline. Thanks.
