Literally? no.

Caution: the next paragraph could be offensive to some.

This morning I stumbled upon what I think is a clear and somewhat obvious thought--it is that I can stop worrying about the fact that I can’t reconcile myself with Christian theology in any normal way (only a problem in that I am fond of the particular faith community with which I grew up.) The thought is this: For a theological theory premised heavily on the stories of a guy whose whole shtick was parables, is it not odd that they went on to insist on a literal understanding of some of the things he said about himself? The problem with Christianity is not the worldview described by Jesus in parabolic form--the problem is the next several centuries of unnecessary to harmful add-ons, and the stick-up-the-arse determination of countless ensuing “teachers” to insist on a literal adherence to their particular choice of interpretation. Christianity and the myths that grew out of the death of a political rebel are and should be parables for concepts that are more sublime than what can be captured in the rigid framework of any religion. There. I was actually going to talk about that more, but I don’t want to.

Instead I’m going to talk about the ukulele.