Pitfalls of Biblical Literalism

[Suddenly]

A jailed man accused of killing and cutting out the hearts of his son, estranged wife and her daughter plucked out his own eye and then quoted from the Bible, officials said Tuesday.


Which seems odd until...

Thomas, 21, then quoted the verse Mark 9:47: "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell."

Seems a bit more reasonable, but...

A judge ruled Monday that Thomas will be evaluated by a mental health professional.

His application of verse seems spot on, so my question is:

At what point does taking the Bible literally become mental illness?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Suddenly
His application of verse seems spot on, so my question is:

At what point does taking the Bible literally become mental illness? Autodeoculation, of course, has a distinguished history going back at least as far as King Oedipus (see also the relevant discussion in The Unbearable Lightness of Being). But at any rate, I don't see anything in that story that suggested that the man had any real grounds for arriving at the conclusion that his eye was causing him to sin. Accordingly, it could be argued that, strictly speaking, this poor fellow failed to read or apply one-half of the verse in question. (Unfortunately, now that he's missing an eye, he's at increased risk of reading only one-half of other verses in the future.)

I normally avoid the use of smilies, but this one seems appropriate here:

;)

[Brahe]

Originally posted by Suddenly
His application of verse seems spot on, so my question is:

At what point does taking the Bible literally become mental illness? Wherever you want! I know that sounds facetious, but that's exactly how it works.

Want to take the Bible literally in its condemnation of homosexuals? OK!

Want to take the Bible literally in its condemnation of mixed fabrics? That's crazy!

Want to take the Bible literally with regards to an Earth six orders of magnitude as old as the Earth really is? OK!

Want to take the Bible literally with regards to an unmoving Earth? That's crazy!

And these are only the positions for a single hypothetical Christian (probably a fundamentalist). Should you query several Christians, you'd probably find numerous discrepancies. When it comes to the Bible, there's just no rhyme or reason to the way that people interpret it, even among "literalists." It's a giant Rorschach Inkblot. If you want to interpret the Bible to be against slavery, you'll be able to do that. If you want interpret the Bible to support slavery, you'll find plenty of support for that too.

[Hexxenhammer]

Link to CNN story. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/04/07/plucked.eyeball.ap/index.html)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Brahe

And these are only the positions for a single hypothetical Christian (probably a fundamentalist). Should you query several Christians, you'd probably find numerous discrepancies. When it comes to the Bible, there's just no rhyme or reason to the way that people interpret it, even among "literalists." It's a giant Rorschach Inkblot. If you want to interpret the Bible to be against slavery, you'll be able to do that. If you want interpret the Bible to support slavery, you'll find plenty of support for that too. Sounds like people in general if you ask me ...

Nice bunny rabbit in your signature by the way. :)

[Tony]

Hey Suddenly, do you mind if I post this on another thread?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
Hey Suddenly, do you mind if I post this on another thread?

That's fine. Just make the check out to....

Thanks to Hexxenhammer for posting the link and thus perhaps shaving off a few months of the time I will likely have to spend in copyright prison once Upchurch gets his paws on me...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which seems odd until...

Seems a bit more reasonable, but...

His application of verse seems spot on, so my question is:

At what point does taking the Bible literally become mental illness?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748220

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14713056

[c4ts]

So his eyeball was making him kill people?

[Silicon]

Well, Cats, you pulled your eyeball out, right?

What you say?

[c4ts]

How are you gentlemen!! All your eyesight are belong to us. You are on the way to damnation. You have no chance to survive make your time.

[Martin]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
AutodeoculationOh, you are so making that up.

[c4ts]

Doesn't look like a real word. The root "oculation" doesn't relate to eyeballs.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by c4ts
Doesn't look like a real word. The root "oculation" doesn't relate to eyeballs.

Yeah I can't find anything on "autodeoculation"

[Kopji]

Mark 9:47

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire...


He just needed to be annoyed with it.
These days we have eye-drops.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts

So his eyeball was making him kill people? Ever see the movie Dr. Strangelove? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:62164) Where the guy kept trying to strangle himself with is own hand?

[scribble]

Originally posted by rachaella


Yeah I can't find anything on "autodeoculation"

I always heard it was "self-depeeperization." Maybe if you search on that.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by scribble


I always heard it was "self-depeeperization." Maybe if you search on that.

Well obviously you're correct. There is no need to look up that one.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


That's fine. Just make the check out to....




If you guys are interested in the reply I got go here:


http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18540

[zer0vector]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever see the movie Dr. Strangelove? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:62164) Where the guy kept trying to strangle himself with is own hand? Alien Hand Syndrome (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12655)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Martin
Oh, you are so making that up. Yes, of course it's a made-up word, although not surprisingly I'm not the first person to have made it up (the deoculation part, anyway).

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Yes, of course it's a made-up word, although not surprisingly I'm not the first person to have made it up (the deoculation part, anyway). Whoops, I take it back. I should have gone straight to the unabridged OED, according to which deoculate means "to deprive of eyes or eyesight". Damn I'm good.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Even more bizarre than Alien Hand Syndrome is Capgras Syndrome, where the victim thinks that an entire other person has been replaced with an impostor. The other person looks, acts, and feels the same, but has been taken over by an alien.

Combine that with autodeoculation, if you dare!

~~ Paul

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Suddenly
At what point does taking the Bible literally become mental illness?

There is no objective answer. Mental illness is dependent upon culture, time, "sophistication", etc. It all depends on what you consider to be the best environment, in terms of temporal existence, for the science and classification of mental illness. Homosexuality used to be considered a figment of mental illness, and now it isn't.

If you're talking about the standards of today's psychological establishment, obviously there is some nebulous threshhold. Obviously self-mutiliation would be considered mental illness, even if it is fueled by biblical belief. And if you feed a starving homeless person, obviously that wouldn't be considered mental illness even though that too *can* (and in many instances may in fact *be*) fueled by biblical belief.

-Elliot

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by elliotfc


There is no objective answer. Mental illness is dependent upon culture, time, "sophistication", etc. It all depends on what you consider to be the best environment, in terms of temporal existence, for the science and classification of mental illness. Homosexuality used to be considered a figment of mental illness, and now it isn't.

If you're talking about the standards of today's psychological establishment, obviously there is some nebulous threshhold. Obviously self-mutiliation would be considered mental illness, even if it is fueled by biblical belief. And if you feed a starving homeless person, obviously that wouldn't be considered mental illness even though that too *can* (and in many instances may in fact *be*) fueled by biblical belief.

-Elliot

So whether the Bible is to be taken literally without such action being considered mental illness is decided by the standards of the society one lives in?

Doesn't sound positive for the idea of biblical literalism. Sounds like moral relativism of the highest order. Unless we can somehow consider mentally ill behaviour to be moral...

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So whether the Bible is to be taken literally without such action being considered mental illness is decided by the standards of the society one lives in?

I wasn't talking about whether the Bible should or should be taken literally.

I was only talking about societal standards/views of mental illness.


Doesn't sound positive for the idea of biblical literalism. Sounds like moral relativism of the highest order. Unless we can somehow consider mentally ill behaviour to be moral...

Call me a literalist, but literalism should factor in such literal concepts as analogy and metaphor. And it does. I don't think that any biblical literalist actually thinks that Jesus was a Lamb. And I don't think more than a handful of biblical literalists pluck out their eyes. You know, I don't think any of Jesus' closest followers plucked out their eyes. It's called discernment. I can't even believe I'm talking about this.

-Elliot

[bignickel]

Tonight they exorcise the ghost
of love from its unyielding host
If that don't suit you, scream and shout
If thine offend thee, pluck it out

Who'll weep for the fury eyes
Beholding love a thing of beauty
There's no sleep for fury eyes
So deep are the eyes of fury

- "Fury Eyes", The Creatures

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by elliotfc


I wasn't talking about whether the Bible should or should be taken literally.

I was only talking about societal standards/views of mental illness.

And when the two collide you simply construe the text to have a meaning that would not require mentally ill behaviour within the standards of present society?




Call me a literalist, but literalism should factor in such literal concepts as analogy and metaphor. And it does. I don't think that any biblical literalist actually thinks that Jesus was a Lamb. And I don't think more than a handful of biblical literalists pluck out their eyes. You know, I don't think any of Jesus' closest followers plucked out their eyes. It's called discernment. I can't even believe I'm talking about this.

-Elliot

You call it discernment. The question is what tools are used to discern. Might there be a bit of ones societal prejudices tossed into that mix?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Suddenly
And when the two collide you simply construe the text to have a meaning that would not require mentally ill behaviour within the standards of present society?

First, I'm not very concerned about the standards of present society.

Second, I get the point. It is better to be blind than to be damned. It is better to be blind than to treat others like objects.

Third, there are manifold ways of self-improvement. Self-mutilation has inherent problems, obviously. I mean come on, think about it. Why wasn't Jesus demanding that all of his sinners surrounding him pluck out their eyes? Obviously, if Jesus REALLY expelected us to pluck out our eyes, he would have been surrounded by eyeless folks. Again, I can't believe I'm talking about this, my last post in this thread.

Jesus, use your brain. Obviously Jesus wasn't telling people to pluck out their eyes. A kid would understand this.

You call it discernment. The question is what tools are used to discern. Might there be a bit of ones societal prejudices tossed into that mix?

Always. Look to the source, that's the key, and don't let the bastards distract you.

-Elliot

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Whoops, I take it back. I should have gone straight to the unabridged OED, according to which deoculate means "to deprive of eyes or eyesight". Damn I'm good.

Got a google-whack on "oculectomy", although, the context doesn't do much to solidify the definition.

The "tom" suggests a cutting rather than a gouging.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by elliotfc


First, I'm not very concerned about the standards of present society. This isn't about you. This is about how our own societal prejudices create large differences in what we consider to be literal interpretations of texts.

Second, I get the point. It is better to be blind than to be damned. It is better to be blind than to treat others like objects. Whose point was that?

Third, there are manifold ways of self-improvement. Self-mutilation has inherent problems, obviously. I mean come on, think about it. Why wasn't Jesus demanding that all of his sinners surrounding him pluck out their eyes? Just those whose eyes caused them to sin. At least that's what it says. I'm sure there are people that can identify a certain body part without which many of their "sins" would not occur. It appears Jesus and modern western society have a different idea of the relationship between amputations and sin. Obviously, if Jesus REALLY expelected us to pluck out our eyes, he would have been surrounded by eyeless folks. Again, I can't believe I'm talking about this, my last post in this thread.

Jesus, use your brain. I'm not Jesus. Doesn't one of the commandments say something about this sort of usage? Obviously Jesus wasn't telling people to pluck out their eyes. A kid would understand this. I'm sure a child would understand the world was flat if he was taught that. Nice debate tactic though. Personally, I try to debate concepts beyond the comprehension of children. I can understand if you find that too complex.



Always. Look to the source, that's the key, and don't let the bastards distract you.

-Elliot

Like those who try to convince you that the Bible isn't to be taken literally when their own scientific and cultural beliefs are not compatable?

[phildonnia]

(Recalling my Catholic Education)
I believe the whole amputation bit is meant to be metaphorical. The "body" in this sense is the church, and the various offensive parts are individuals or sects that would lead the rest of the church into sin. Thus, Jesus is setting up the doctrine of excommunication.

That's the way I learned it anyway. I would have chimed in earlier with this, but I just remembered this.

And I think it's pretty clear that the individual in question is loony tunes. I doubt one could find a bright line between self-diseyeballage and say, foregoing meat on fridays during lent.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever see the movie Dr. Strangelove? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:62164) Where the guy kept trying to strangle himself with is own hand?
I saw the same thing in Evil Dead: Army of Darkness (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800183637&intl=us)...

Not exactly the same thing, the hand (which was possessed) was eventually removed with a chainsaw.

[Upchurch]

On Easter weekend, my wife and I watched a show (on the History Channel?) called Banned From The Bible (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870398996#post1870398996). It was about books that arbitrarily (imho) weren't included in the Bible.

Can you imagine believing in the absolute truth of a text that was compiled and decided on by a committee? I've worked with committees. I wouldn't trust them to decide when they met, let alone absolute truth. :nope:

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Upchurch
On Easter weekend, my wife and I watched a show (on the History Channel?) called Banned From The Bible (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870398996#post1870398996). It was about books that arbitrarily (imho) weren't included in the Bible.

Can you imagine believing in the absolute truth of a text that was compiled and decided on by a committee? I've worked with committees. I wouldn't trust them to decide when they met, let alone absolute truth. :nope:

Hi Upchurch,

Is there anywhere to acquire a compendium of the books excluded in the, eh hem, "official bible" squirted out by the Council of Trent?

Thanks,

Kuroyume

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I saw the same thing in Evil Dead: Army of Darkness (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800183637&intl=us)...

Not exactly the same thing, the hand (which was possessed) was eventually removed with a chainsaw.

"A Farewell to Arms"

Anyway that was Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn, not Army of Darkness.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
On Easter weekend, my wife and I watched a show (on the History Channel?) called Banned From The Bible (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870398996#post1870398996). It was about books that arbitrarily (imho) weren't included in the Bible.

Can you imagine believing in the absolute truth of a text that was compiled and decided on by a committee? I've worked with committees. I wouldn't trust them to decide when they met, let alone absolute truth. :nope: A camel is a horse designed by a committee... Says a lot about the Bible.

[evildave]

Originally posted by c4ts


"A Farewell to Arms"

Anyway that was Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn, not Army of Darkness.

Yeah. Army of Darkness was the one where the Brisco County Jr. guy built himself a replacement hand with medieval tools and components.... one handed!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0132257/

Hey, he was in Oedipus Rex, too!

Vocabulary Word Of The Day
Enucleation (http://www.eyecancer.com/Enucleation/enuc.html)

[Marvel Frozen]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Is there anywhere to acquire a compendium of the books excluded in the, eh hem, "official bible" squirted out by the Council of Trent?


this site (http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apocrypha.htm) has the full text of most of the excluded books.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Marvel Frozen


this site (http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apocrypha.htm) has the full text of most of the excluded books. That's a freakin' awsome site, Marvel. Thank you.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Is there anywhere to acquire a compendium of the books excluded in the, eh hem, "official bible" squirted out by the Council of Trent?
Squirted out twice actually. (A few "unofficial" bibles turn up every so often as well.)

There were two seperate canonizations, and the bible after each canonization looked nothing like the other. The Christianity that exists today is not the Christianity Jesus had in mind (for that matter, Paul's Christianity is very much different from that of Jesus Christ's Christianity... just in case anyone was wondering why Jesus doesnt remotely behave like some of the nuttier fundies we are bound to come across from time to time).

From what I've "heard" (i.e. cant find it in the news), I believe the Catholic Church is undergoing a process of a third canonization. Perhaps the next bible will be a little more down to Earth, "in the beginning, God said 'let there be a bang', then God abandoned his Creation, never to interfere with it for the rest of eternity"...

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Squirted out twice actually. (A few "unofficial" bibles turn up every so often as well.)


Ah, when was the second 'squirted out'? I know of the Council of Trent and can only remember the First Council of Nicaea as developing doctrine, canons, and creed.

Thanks,

Kuroyume

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Yahweh

From what I've "heard" (i.e. cant find it in the news), I believe the Catholic Church is undergoing a process of a third canonization. Perhaps the next bible will be a little more down to Earth, "in the beginning, God said 'let there be a bang', then God abandoned his Creation, never to interfere with it for the rest of eternity"...

That would certainly save paper and make quoting the bible require much less memorization.