Interesting. I think even the most religious Amish and Haredi people actually trim their beards, and Jews and Christians both have reasons why sacrificing chickens is unnecessary, but interesting. I have to admit I kind of want that book.
God bless.

Actually I could hardly make it to the end of the article, let alone want to read this mans’ book. Thank you God for a husband that isn’t quirky. How did he ascertain a group of adulters so he could throw “pebbles” at them? I think the bible says stones, so right there he broke the bibles instruction. Did he sacrifice the lucky chickens at the office of Esquire? or outside on the sidewalk on Broadway?

I think the important thing to keep in mind when discussing “literal” readings of the Bible is that “taking the Bible literally” almost never means “putting into practice every word of the Bible.” I was raised in the fundamentalist Baptist subculture, where the Bible is taken literally, but no one stones adulterers. Why? Because, in their reading, the Bible literally says that Christ fulfilled and swept away that kind of use of the Law.
Those who think that taking the Bible literally means doing everything the Bible says are actually a very small minority.

It’s interesting that many Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians take Leviticus’s prohibition “Thou shall not lie with mankind…” as proof that God condemns homosexuality but ignore everything else in it, including the stuff that Jacobs tried to take literally. Fred Phelps denounces “fags” but I’ve never seen him protesting Red Lobster when the Bible also prohibits shellfish. Jerry Falwell denounced lesbians and gays following 9/11 but if we take the Bible as literally as Jacobs then that means people who wear poly-cotton blends, men who shave, and menstruating women are just as sinful as gay men.

How can one take the bible literally when there are mistakes in it and contradictions? Do you start with the OT and follow it’s rules then hit the NT and have to change some of your ways?

I loved the wifes approach to her “uncleanness” I hope he enjoyed standing. I am not sure why anyone would even want to put in practice these obscure mandates. I also wonder what makes him so sure someone was an adulter. Frank is right too, the fundies pick and choose what they think is right and should be enforced.
Pagansister, maybe he needs to go even further back before all the translation and read what is available in the language it was written, if it still exists. That would be quite the trip.

“Because, in their reading, the Bible literally says that Christ fulfilled and swept away that kind of use of the Law.”
Then shouldn’t that part of the Bible be left out? And wouldn’t that include the part of not lying with a man as you would a woman if it includes the shellfish part?
And yes, I presume the Bible means stones and killing, not pebbles and annoying. Correct me if I’m wrong.

What a task it must have been to have tried living so many rules for so long. It seems that he was able to smooth over parts where the writers of the Bible may have been dealing with things differently than their forbears, the so-called “contradictions”, which always used to confuse me. But I think that in the end the best part of his experiment is that he was able to gain a reverence for the sacred.

But if his wife was not of his own tribe when he married her, then he must be exiled. Did he exile himself from his tribe? How did that work?

Such a silly thing to do. Anyone who knows anything about Judaism knows quite well that the Torah, or Hebrew Bible (what others call the “OT”) is absolutely NOT meant to be taken literally. There are layers and layers of interpretation and nuance, and stories that are told are often just allegory and metaphor, the basis on which to learn life lessons.
As far as sacrifice is concerned, prayer and acts of lovingkindness (in Hebrew, “chesed”) replaced any kind of ritual sacrifice after the fall of the second Temple.
And BTW, a menstruating woman is NOT “sinful”, she is ritually impure , something a rabbi can explain better than me, but I can say with confidence that she is not herself considered “sinful” just because she is menstruating.

I think he missed a few things…
1. Stoning suspected adulterers…Torah advocates a justice system meannig, even if you took that part of the Law seriously (disregarding what Jesus said about it), he would require two or three witnesses first.
2. Sacrificing chickens…I think that’s fall under the catergory of “alien fire”. Wasn’t that what Nadab and Abihu got in trouble for-offering unauthorized sacrifices?
Personally, I find his claim that he hasn’t lied in a year a tough pill to swallow.
Peace!

Bravo to you A.J. Jacobs! Though others may pick apart the minutia of the right or wrong of what you did, your pursuit of this year long practice has gained you and therefore others through you great and hopefully enduring spiritual benefit. Wishing you all the best and many blessings!

Hare Krishna! Is he mass murdering gay people as per Leviticus 18 and Romans 1:32?

While the undertaking of A. J. Jacobs is both interesting and amusing he starts off with a completely wrong premise – that all of Scripture was meant to be understood in a literal fashion for all time.
Truth is that Scripture contains both literal commands and metaphorical teachings.
Furthermore, some of the literal commandments were ceremonial in nature and only meant for a certain time.
Other commandments were spiritual and eternal in nature and meant for all time.
The trick is to understand one from the other….that requires having the Holy Spirit in you and diligently studying the Scriptures in their entirety and in their context.
In a nutshell… love God, and believe in his Son Jesus Christ by surrendering your life to Him and being empowered by Him.

For all those wondering how biblical literalists follow some parts of the Old Testament and not other parts:
Generally, they look for reaffirmations of OT laws in the New Testament. If the Law forbade killing but was fulfilled, then they think they need a reaffirmation of the wrongness of killing in the new covenant; and Jesus provides just that, saying, “Don’t kill, and don’t even think about killing.” People of this persuasion usually (but not always–not all literalists are against homosexuality) see a couple of Pauline writings as reaffirmations that homosexuality is not permitted, so they denunciation of homosexuality still stands for them. As for unclean foods, however, not only is there no reaffirmation of cleanliness laws in the NT, but Acts specifically casts them aside, saying, “No! Gentile converts do not need to adopt this part of the Jewish covenant.”
As a former fundamentalist who studied the theology intently for a few years, this is why all I can do is roll my eyes when people counter fundamentalist with “God hates lobster” signs or something like that. Most fundamentalists, while espousing a ridiculous theology, aren’t quite as simple as people make them out to be, and effectively engaging them requires learning their nuances.

Please read revelation 3 AND 4.

His conclusion: “Certitude in any form is kind of dangerous,” ……is a “certain” conclusion. I mean to say that “certitude in any form is dangerous” is a definite certain position is it not? Therefore he breaks his own rule with his own rule. It’s a self defeating position. I understand that Agnostics by definition and admission “do not know,” but this guy is saying that “no one can know” while also concluding that certitude is dangerous. Of course, if no one can know then it follows that one must know to conclude that no one can know. It’s one thing to say “I don’t know” and quite another to say “no one can know.”

PC,
“His conclusion: “Certitude in any form is kind of dangerous,” ……is a “certain” conclusion.”
You’re in a loop there. It’s similar to the one about ‘Fighting discrimination is discriminatory.”. Personally, I think we’re better off learning to reason and see clearly rather than blindly follow a holy book that may have much that is irrelevant in it.

NateW
Your comment about the counter-fundmentalists who say “God hates Lobster”. I don’t get it. Wouldn’t the prohibition against shellfish mean God has a special places in God’s heart for lobster? After all, you shouldn;t eat who/what you love.
As to this whole project. Laws forged 2500 years ago have little meaning today. Our lives are so radiacally different, we don;t even poop the way they used to! It is an amusing distraction, and I’m glad to see his wife brought some sensibility and levity into the whole affair. (He’s lucky he is not about to experience the whole divorce aspect of teh Law) By the way, this was pretty much OT Law, Mosaic law. Jesus had a whole different take on the whole of the Law. For that matter, King David had a very – flexible – sense of The Law.
I saw him on the Today show – that was enough for me.

jacknky,
The author of the article is the one that made the loopy statement. I just pointed out that it is a self defeating conclusion. And actually your comparison is over simplifying things a bit don’t you think? I mean what kind of discrimination are you talking about? Racial discrimination? Ok, let’s take that one. If I conclude that someone is racially discriminant are you suggesting that I too am racially discriminant just for saying that someone else is racially discriminant? I mean I haven’t said anything about the person’s race only that the person is racially discriminatory and that racial discrimination is wrong.
As for your statement on the Bible. It too is an oversimplification and I will not blindly follow your reasoning.

“The author of the article is the one that made the loopy statement. I just pointed out that it is a self defeating conclusion.
No, your point is merely a rhetorical conclusion based on a play on words.
“And actually your comparison is over simplifying things a bit don’t you think? I mean what kind of discrimination are you talking about? Racial discrimination?”
Actually, I was quoting an argument I hear from those who want to discriminate against homosexuals. They say they are being discriminated against by those who don’t want to allow them to discriminate. Makes sense if your logic is semantic based.
“As for your statement on the Bible. It too is an oversimplification and I will not blindly follow your reasoning.”
Why? Do you think the teachings that eating shellfish is an abomination still has relevance? Is it “oversimplified” to point out that the Bible can be used to justify just about any behavior?
The Buddha said: “Be a light unto yourself.” That makes more sense to me than trying to decipher a 2,000 document that has some basic wisdom and a lot of 2,000 year old societal norms.

jacknky,
“Actually, I was quoting an argument I hear from those who want to discriminate against homosexuals. They say they are being discriminated against by those who don’t want to allow them to discriminate. Makes sense if your logic is semantic based.”
So, then you agree with me that your argument was an oversimplification. You must because you clarified it. Actually, what you quoted merely points out hypocrisy and a self defeating argument. To dismiss it as merely semantics is simply incorrect.
So then you don’t think it is self defeating to say “Certitude in any form is a little dangerous,”? Would his conclusion not encompass his own certitude? If so then his own certitude is by his own admission “dangerous.” Right?

“People of this persuasion usually (but not always–not all literalists are against homosexuality) see a couple of Pauline writings as reaffirmations that homosexuality is not permitted”
I don’t understand why people give credibility to what Paul and the others said. Isn’t Jesus supposed to have been “God” on earth, or perhaps its direct representative? What’s so special about what Paul may have written? Maybe to Catholics since he and the others were early church officials, but since when do Protestants go by what Popes said, even before the split?
My impression is Christianity would get a valuable housecleaning if they tossed out all the extraneous stuff and only kept what Jesus is purported to have said. Not that it would be perfect, but surely much better. Are there any sects that do that?

So, then you agree with me that your argument was an oversimplification. You must because you clarified it.”
In your mind, does clarification equal oversimplification? You gave an example of what I might have meant by “discrimination” (racism). I clarified it. I try to be brief in these posts. You seemed interested so I clarified. You may very well accuse me of not being clear but that doesn’t equal “oversimplification”.
“Actually, what you quoted merely points out hypocrisy and a self defeating argument. To dismiss it as merely semantics is simply incorrect.”
The argument “Your desire to not allow me to discriminate is discrimination” may indeed be hypocritical and self-defeating but the logic is mostly a semantic one. It posits the assumption that if you deny my discrimination I’ll deny your discernment and it allows the originator to verbally obfuscate his own intolerance.
“So then you don’t think it is self defeating to say “Certitude in any form is a little dangerous,”?”
Yes, I agree that the language is self-defeating because it opens the door for linguistic nit-picking. Perhaps if he had qualified the statement something like “In my experience certitude can be a dangerous thing.” we wouldn’t be arguing semantics but rather would be discussing the real issue.

jacknky & nnmns
Where will this all end!? Your discussion is making any one episode of Seinfeld seem like a Round Table on Foreign Policy! I realize we all get a little focused on relatively tiny issues, but, WOW, I am impressed at how far a dialog about a double, and potentially triple negative (anyone for a quad?) statement can go. The guy in the article had a hobby and did some things, even if they were kind of silly. But take a breathe, buy a vowel, and go for a walk!

nnmns:
Christians have, from the beginning, believed in the authority of the Apostles. Even Gnostic and “heretical” writings usually try to put themselves in line with the Apostles. We believe that the Apostles are the prophets of the New Covenant. Just as the prophets of the Old Testament spoke for God, even when God sometimes spoke for Himself, so it happens in the New as well.

Nate, thanks.

I was quite impressed with Mr Jacobs’s very earnest attempt at living Mosaic law. It required a lot of effort, attention, more than a little creativity, and generally a strong commitment to the project. Such things ought to be honored.
Yes, it was silly and pointless in some ways, but the depth and breadth of his actions must have made God smile. And he was changed by the experience, and that counts for a lot.

Although it was a monumental effort, it is an insult to those of us who have fundamental beliefs. Almost nothing he did is relevant to fundamental belief in God’s word.

Jest,
“But take a breathe, buy a vowel, and go for a walk!”
You’re no fun!

Nmmmms wrote-
“My impression is Christianity would get a valuable housecleaning if they tossed out all the extraneous stuff and only kept what Jesus is purported to have said. Not that it would be perfect, but surely much better. Are there any sects that do that?”
I don’t know of any “sects” that do this as a matter of policy, but rest assured, there are those of us who have that view. The problem is, of course, when a “Christian” says, “I will follow the teachings of Jesus, and not accept the writings of Paul, etc. as inspired scripture”, then other Christians will call them a non-christian heretic, because they “reject” the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Thus, someone who decides to follow the teachings of Jesus only puts themselves in a position of being rejected by those who CLAIM to be following the teachings of Jesus.
Would it be “perfect”? I sincerely doubt it. There will be different people interpreting those teachings, and therefore such a movement would suffer the same fate as Churchianity… it would most likely fragment into various denominations and sects. Anytime people are involved, we can probably toss the word “perfect” out on its ear.
Personally, I have to commend this man. Even though his attempt was, in some ways, “silly”, at least he made an attempt to do something that most “Christians” never attempt, even with the verses they ACCEPT as authoritative and binding. I firmly believe that if all Christians took literally and lived the command of Christ to “Love your God with all your heart… and love your neighbor as yourself…” this world may come a little bit closer to that “perfect” we’d all like to see.
Don

“he starts off with a completely wrong premise – that all of Scripture was meant to be understood in a literal fashion for all time.”
Tell it to the RRRers.
“Truth is that Scripture contains both literal commands and metaphorical teachings.”
Discernment is everything then. Too bad it is entirely absent from the rigid RRR.

Nate W,
“Those who think that taking the Bible literally means doing everything the Bible says are actually a very small minority”
If only they were. And even if they are, they are a very vocal minority with majority clout.
“not all literalists are against homosexuality”
They AREN’T??? Tell THAT to Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, etc. Sure SEEMS they are.
“all I can do is roll my eyes when people counter fundamentalist with “God hates lobster” signs”
That’s “ALL” you can do??? How about pointing out that ridculous, selective reading of Scripture by the RRR is harmful? That would go a lot farther than merely rolling your eyes.
“Most fundamentalists, while espousing a ridiculous theology,”
Trouble is, though you and I may think it is a “ridiculous theology”, THEY don’t! And, unfortunately, they get to push their theology into laws governing all people, many of whom do not share that theology.
“aren’t quite as simple as people make them out to be, and effectively engaging them requires learning their nuances.”
What is “nuanced” about a preacher saying “If a man so much as looked at me ‘funny’, I’d kill him and tell god he died”? What is “nuanced” about saying Matt Shepherd “burns in hell”? What is “nuanced” about blaming 9/11 and Katrina on gays? What is “nuanced” about calling others who don’t believe likewise that they are “Satan’s minions” and “sons of Moloch”?

could we end the semantic argument by just slightly amending the phrase to “Certitude in any form CAN BE a little dangerous”?

jacknky
OOOH that Stings! Telling a jester that he is no fun cuts to the funnybone.
Ex-Pentecostal,
As it has been said, Moderation in all things, including moderation. Even a glass of water can be dangerous.

“could we end the semantic argument by just slightly amending the phrase to “Certitude in any form CAN BE a little dangerous”?”
That works for me.

I give up. What’s RRR?