Republicans confuse “Atlas Shrugged” for the Bible

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Yes and no

I think there's a lot to be learned through textual criticism. Comparing various translations of Biblical texts across many centuries gives one a pretty good idea of what the original texts might have said.

But that's neither here nor there, as I tend to agree with Dan Fincke, that religions are cultural institutions, more so than mere collections of ancient texts:

But the propositional, literalist believer is not the “true” instance of any religion. There is no way to mediate and determine what “true” Christianity or “true” Islam or “true” Hinduism are in propositional terms. These are cultural institutions, they have changed wildly over time and in different places and still can change in drastic unforeseeable ways. There is no reason to say a biblical or koranic literalist is truer to his or her religious tradition than someone who reads those texts allegorically or selectively or who rejects them entirely but still for some reason identifies with the religion.

What the totality of the texts say or don't say isn't really that important when each respective Christian sect has an established cultural tradition of believing or practicing in a certain way. They are all equally valid (or, as we would see them, invalid). So, we are in agreement on that point.