Everyone,

I just read this essay a little while ago on Democratic Underground, on a topic about the Hutarees, that bizarre Christian militia group (a euphemism for "Christian terrorist group") that was raided by the FBI over the weekend. The charges against them are going to be unsealed later this morning if they haven't been already.

This essay is as articulate a statement as any I've ever read about how and why "believers" turn into dangerous fanatics.

--Linda

THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS BOOK
by Alan Watts (1915-1973)

For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to translating the Holy Scriptures into the "vulgar tongue.” To this day, you can still get rid of a Bible salesman by saying, "But we are Catholics and, of course, don’t read the Bible.” The Catholic hierarchy included subtle theologians and scholars who knew very well that such a difficult and diverse collection of ancient writings, taken as the literal Word of God, would be wildly and dangerously interpreted if put into the hands of ignorant and uneducated peasants. Likewise, when a missionary boasted to George Bernard Shaw of the numerous converts he had made, Shaw asked, " Can these people use rifles?” "Oh, indeed, yes,” said the missionary. "Some of them are very good shots.” Whereupon Shaw scolded him for putting us all in peril in the day when those converts waged holy war against us for not following the Bible in the literal sense they gave to it. For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might.” But today, especially in the United States, there is a taboo against admitting that there are enormous numbers of stupid and ignorant people, in the bookish and literal sense of these words. They may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which are what one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.

This may sound snobbish, for there is an assumption that, in the Bible, God gave His message in plain words for plain people. Once, when I had given a radio broadcast in Canada, the announcer took me aside and said, "Don’t you think that if there is a truly loving God, He would given us a plain and specific guide as to how to live our lives?”

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Usually because one’s "elders and betters," or an impressively large group of ones peers, have this opinion. But this is to go along with the Bandar-log, or monkey tribe, in Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Books , who periodically get together and shout, "We all say so, so it must be true!" Having been a grandfather for a number of years, I am not particularly impressed with patriarchal authority. I am of an age with my own formerly impressive grandfathers (one of whom was a fervent fundamentalist, or literal believer in the Bible) and I realize that my opinions are as fallible as theirs.

<snip>

Source

quote:

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

By ignoring the presence of mutually contradictory stories of the Creation? Or the presence of mutually contradictory genealogies of major characters? Or the miscounting of legs on insects? Or any number of other things that have been repeatedly pointed out?

quote:

Originally posted by Henry J:

quote:

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

By ignoring the presence of mutually contradictory stories of the Creation? Or the presence of mutually contradictory genealogies of major characters? Or the miscounting of legs on insects? Or any number of other things that have been repeatedly pointed out?

Henry,

It takes a massive amount of cognitive dissonance, all right--more than I can even begin to imagine. But the rhetorical question Alan Watts was asking (and then answered) isn't quite the same as the one you answered. He asked why does one come to the opinion that the Bible is the infallible truth? And the answer is the obvious one, that we were told so by our parents or other authority figures when we were still too young to think for ourselves.

The question of how one goes about "verifying" or convincing others that the Bible is the infallible truth is the one you answered. That's where the cognitive dissonance and deception comes in...reams of it! You only scratched the surface, as I'm sure you are aware. Anyone who spends as much time on Panda's Thumb as you do knows a lot more about it than I do.

I'm well aware that you could fill entire books with that stuff--and people have! But why any sane person would want to read them is beyond me.

--Linda

quote:

For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might.”

I have not been able to find this putative Bible quotation, or anything with a different but similar wording.
--
Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:

quote:

For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might.”

I have not been able to find this putative Bible quotation, or anything with a different but similar wording.
--
Stephen

Stephen,

I wish I could help you there, but I don't know the source of that verse either. Alan Watts was an Episcopal priest, as well as being the leading exponent or popularizer of Zen Buddhism of his time. So whatever his attitude towards it, he was more thoroughly versed in the Bible than most people, and definitely more well-versed in it than I am! I'm surprised he didn't put a reference next to the quotation. It sounds like it could come from one of the psalms, but that's just a guess.

--Linda

     I searched for key words. The use of putteth indicates the King James version, so I looked there. No verse with that word resembles Alan Watt's quotation. The word invincible does not appear at all. Might and almighty are frequent, but never used in the way Watts indicates. Good thing(s) occurs 29 times, but not as Watts would have it.
     From his biography in Wikipedia I infer he painted with broad brushes and was not greatly concerned with sourcing his quotations. Incidentally, his alma mater, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, is not an accredited Episcopal seminary; it may have been when he attended.
Seán

quote:

The use of putteth indicates the King James version

That's a good first guess, but not the whole story. The Anglican "Book of Common Prayer" uses (or used) the Coverdale Psalter, which has similar language but is a different translation. If this verse were from the Psalms, it may make sense for former Episcopal priest Watts to have quoted from there instead. But it's not there either. (I had also first tried similar searches to what you did, Sean, and came up empty in the KJV.) As far as I can tell so far, this verse only exists in Watts' essay. (I have not really tried to determine if the essay is actually his, though it sounds stylistically like it could be, based on some YouTube audio of him I found.) I have not checked the Apocrypha to see if perhaps this verse comes from somewhere there.
--
Stephen

Stephen,
     I found Alan Watts' essay . The quotation is something George Bernard Shaw said was in the Bible; Watts is only quoting Shaw. I'll try to find the remark in Shaw's extensive writings, but am not very hopeful of success.
Seán

Alan Watts was one of my favorite spiritual writers. That man had more common sense than any 10 other theologians. It would behoove everyone to read his entire body of work before casting any asperisans or opinions on this man.

quote:

accredited

Sean, I've often pondered that word. Does it make one more knowlegable if one has attended an "accredited" college? How about someone who has not attended an accredited college but has studied at the hand of masters? Shall we label them "not so smart". Ah yes, I've always wondered about that word, "accredited" for it actually means nothing.

quote:

Alan Watts was one of my favorite spiritual writers. That man had more common sense than any 10 other theologians. It would behoove everyone to read his entire body of work before casting any asperisans or opinions on this man.

Koka,

I've always been a big Alan Watts fan too, and the reason I posted this article in the first place is because I was so impressed with it. I was going to post a few of my favorite excerpts from it when I first posted it, but I got bogged down in the Israel topic on the other board and simply didn't get around to it. I'll do that now.

--Linda

Koka,
In this instance "is not an accredited Episcopal seminary" means the Episcopalean church does not, at the present, accept as priests persons trained at that school. Apparently it did when Watts attended and perhaps it will again.
Seán

Everyone,

Okay, I printed out the essay (it came to 10 pages) and then flopped down on the couch to try and read it a little more carefully. That isn't as easy as it sounds, because every time I do that lately I start falling asleep! I guess I might as well blame the Israelis for driving me to the edge of burnout. Why not? Everyone else seems to want to blame them for everything that's wrong with the world--at least that faction that isn't blaming Obama and the Democrats.

Anyway...the first thing that seemed important to point out is how we get the idea that the Bible is the Word of God in the first place. Not any particular interpretation or level of interpretation at this point, but the Bible itself. So here is what Alan Watts has to say about that:

quote:

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Usually because one’s "elders and betters," or an impressively large group of ones peers, have this opinion. But this is to go along with the Bandar-log, or monkey tribe, in Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Books , who periodically get together and shout, "We all say so, so it must be true!" Having been a grandfather for a number of years, I am not particularly impressed with patriarchal authority. I am of an age with my own formerly impressive grandfathers (one of whom was a fervent fundamentalist, or literal believer in the Bible) and I realize that my opinions are as fallible as theirs.

But many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with a passionate need for eternal authority and guidance, pretending not to trust their own judgment. Nevertheless, it is their own judgment, willy-nilly, that there exists some authority greater than their own. The fervent fundamentalist whether Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Moslem is closed to reason and even communication for fear of losing the security of childish dependence. He would suffer extreme emotional heebie jeebies if he didn’t have the feeling that there was some external and infallible guide in which he could trust absolutely and without which his very identity would dissolve.

Thanks Raksha, the man didn't need accreditation to be brilliant...