Christians can’t agree on literalism

The literalists do not own the Bible.Not all Christians agree with Biblical literalism.

Actually, the creation stories really belong to the Jewish faith. A vast majority of practicing Jews don’t understand why Christians take the creation stories literally; the Jews have not considered them literal for thousands of years. Of course, literalist Christians would consider the Jews to be apostate and discount their interpretation of their own sacred texts.

As a Christian, what bothers me the most about literalism is that it argues “facts” and misses the “truths.” Whether or not Adam and Eve were real people, or the universe was created in six days, is not the “truth” to be uncovered in these stories. The truth is much, much deeper than superficial “facts.”

Unfortunately, the literalists are the most vocal and reactionary. Their shouting down of those who disagree with them closes off any real discussion and understanding of these ancient texts, and atrophies the Christian faith.

Tom McCool, at 8:20 am EDT on September 24, 2007

Adjuncts != Temps

Adjuncts are not just “disposable profs” that can be used for the sake of “market efficiency” and then thrown away when it is convenient. The rise in the use of adjuncts over that of full-blown faculty (who tend to have a greater set of legal rights) bodes not well.

Why should someone who is paid a pittance and knows they can be be fired at any time for one small slip of the tongue have any real incentive to teach well?

Joseph C., at 9:30 am EDT on September 24, 2007

I appreciate the fact that institutions use part-time labor to reduce costs, but why then do the same administrators who adhere to a market philosophy ask adjuncts to go “above and beyond” from time to time? We’re asked to set up additional office hours, be available after courses end to tie up loose ends related to grading, respond to emails in a couple of hours but wait for our first paycheck for four weeks. We’re asked to be market-driven and martyrs at the same time.

Jill, at 10:40 am EDT on September 24, 2007

CU Dorm Programs

High marks from students, in an “academic lite” residential course for high-$-paying outstate students who would rather be skiing? Dig a little more deepoly and one might find that an adjunct is either teaching the most brilliant students in America, or buying their accolades with easy As and classes that lack rigor. This is not entirely an adjunct’s fault, given the student-centered consumer model pushed by admins, and before the department gets on its high horse it ought to cast the beam from its own eyes of course, but the rightwing apologists for this bit of acacdemic martyrdom should know better than to rely on student feedback as the litmus test of professional qualifications.

Former CU Adjunct myself...., at 11:20 am EDT on September 24, 2007

Literal vs. intrepretive bibical stuff

I was the union grievance officer when a faculty member was called on the carpet by the dean because some offensive remarks made in a course. The course was “The Bible as Literature,” and the instructor who was Jewish didn’t have deep seeded belief in the New Testament, so he felt he would “interpret” some scripture for the students. When it came to impregnating Mary, the instructor’s interpretation was that the only thing that made sense was the angel “f—-ed” her. I suspect he said it for effect, and it surely had it. It seems one of the male students was upset because “there are women in the class, ...”

When we were to meet with the Dean, I had my “freedom of speech” sermon all prepared and was taken back by the instructor response. His first words were “What horses—-. That’s the problem with our culture. We want to put women on a pedestal. Did any women complain that I was offensive? (No) He (the student) should have complained that he was offended by my comment, but instead he took a sexist approach and said I was only offensive because women were in the class.” I suspect the Dean was taken back as well because nothing happened with the incident.

I don’t know exactly how that ties into the dialog regarding terminating someone for his/her religious views (for or against), but I am sure that type of nonsense goes on all the time. It is only when one is “offended” by someone else’s views, whether jihadists or fundamental Christians, that we begin to screw up our humanity. Personally, I don’t think Noah got all those animals on a very, very, large boat, but I suspect there was really hard rain and someone, maybe named Noah, tried to save a lot of them. I also believe a bunch of lions weren’t anywhere near the wet region, so they simply lived peacefully in their community (just like Katrina didn’t bother us in the Chicago area). If you are offended by my views, then hey, it’s your problem, not mine.

Fred Flener, Retired, at 1:55 pm EDT on September 24, 2007

A vast majority of practicing Jews don’t understand why Christians take the creation stories literally; the Jews have not considered them literal for thousands of years.

That depends on how you define “practicing Jews.” Also on how you define “majority.” As for “the Jews” having any sort of agreement on this (or really, any) issue, you must be joking. Many practicing Jews do take the creation story quite literally. Others do not. And there’s quite a range in between.

Rivka, one of those practicing Jews at practice makes perfect, at 8:10 pm EDT on September 24, 2007

The article in the DesMoines Register quotes a professor who claims to be an atheist. Why would they fire Mr Bitterman for not taking the bible literally and then keep on staff an admitted atheist? There is something to this story that does not add up.

Blind Avocado, I don’t buy it, at 11:30 pm EDT on September 24, 2007

What makes a scientific “fact"?

Pure scientific facts are observable, measureable, and repeatable. I sense an elitist hauty attitude among educators that think things like the age of the earth and evolutionist creation is “fact". The last time I checked neither the creation nor evolution theories were observable, measureable or repeatable which is why they both should be taught as theory. Scientists who can’t nail down their own theory of the age of the earth within a “few billion years” must be a pretty arrogant bunch to believe they alone have the “pedigree” to determine what constitutes the ultimate facts concerning eternal truth.

Dale L Garrett, Whose “facts” count, at 9:25 pm EDT on October 9, 2007

Who’s arrogant?

You seem a bit confused regarding the terms “fact” and “theory,” and “eternal truth,” Dale. No science is concerned with “eternal truth.” Moreover, a theory is a far superior, more sophisticated claim about reality than a “fact,” or group of facts, repeatable or otherwise. A theory is in effect a narrative woven around observable evidence, using facts arrived at both deductively and inductively. You snidely imply that the theory of evolution is not a mere “fact,” therefore it’s only a “theory,” as if the latter term is synonymous with “wild guess.”

If you choose to reject Evolutionary theory as some sort of “eternal thruth,” and would rather believe that the Earth is 4K years old and that Elohim made humans from bark and rocks, so be it. Its a moot point, as evolutionary theory doesn’t address the creation of life, but the origin of species. And that’s a fact.

James Hart, at 9:10 pm EST on December 6, 2007