Read on Twitter
Love @NickKristof, but this just goes to show that NOTHING terrifies believers more than someone reading their holy books literally, ie *the way they& #39;re actually written.*
Apparently God can& #39;t explain himself as articulately as his human interpreters.
/1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/books/review/the-lost-art-of-scripture-karen-armstrong.html?fbclid=IwAR0mHoIZyZYJZMd53-JCNvnCm_fF1OMf62a7FIpFKdhDk2415jqRl7tJD98">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/1...
Apparently God can& #39;t explain himself as articulately as his human interpreters.
/1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/books/review/the-lost-art-of-scripture-karen-armstrong.html?fbclid=IwAR0mHoIZyZYJZMd53-JCNvnCm_fF1OMf62a7FIpFKdhDk2415jqRl7tJD98">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/1...
This quote is especially astounding. What really gives Scripture a bad name is the fact that it makes SCIENTIFIC claims—claims about nature, the origin of the universe, the emergence of life, etc—that we know for a fact to be false. And then, it claims to be Absolute Truth.
/2
/2
It is a strange double standard to be charitable to books that blatantly endorse misogyny, slavery, homophobia, and scientific untruths by dismissing them as "metaphorical." Would you give my book that luxury? No, you would hold me accountable for every word I write.
/3
/3
In other words, you would be holding me to a higher standard than God himself. When you& #39;re whitewashing verses that allow you to beat your wife (Quran 4:34) or kill gay men (Leviticus 20:13), you& #39;re not just "interpreting." You& #39;re twisting and mutilating clear language to
/4
/4
make it sound somehow morally palatable to yourself. That means you& #39;re not getting your morality from your religion—you ALREADY HAVE IT. Why cling to the middleman then?
Karen Armstrong has a point if she& #39;s looking at Scripture as historically fascinating, man-made works.
/5
Karen Armstrong has a point if she& #39;s looking at Scripture as historically fascinating, man-made works.
/5
