Right now, I’m engaged in a Bible study. Bryon likes his introspection about religion to be fairly intellectual, and I’m along for the ride. If the Bible study has done anything, it’s turned me into a more skeptical, less devout Christian. I don’t see this as a bad thing necessarily.
The Bible is always represented as the world of God inspired by God. Well, honestly, not so much. The books of the prophets read like the predictions of Nostradamus, and the prophets wrote these books according to what they wanted to say. The idea of a god who isn’t vindictive isn’t really introduced until much later in the Old Testament (Isaiah the third).
The first five books of the Bible are Jewish law, history, mythology, custom and society. Ecclesiastes is the book of doom–nothing matters but this life, so live well. And so on, and so on. Christianity isn’t in the Old Testament. I’m not sure why we feel this is an important book to read for Christianity, given that huge parts of it are directly opposite Christian philosophy
The New Testament? There’s a lot of “Jesus said” in the New Testament that contradicts the Old Testament, but there’s also a lot of writing by opinionated men. Paul shares his narrow-minded views with the rest of the world, and it turns out that his views have been used to promote slavery, sexism, and homophobia. Revelation is one big acid trip. Read it. Think about it. Discuss it. Don’t take anything as gospel, except maybe the first four books, because they are the gospel. I believe strongly that Jesus would want you to examine what he’s saying, because he is a consummate teacher.
My third problem is what isn’t in the Bible. Why am I reading excerpts from the Catholic version of the Bible for the study that are unavailable in my Bible? Who made that call? And why? And what does that say about what religious people want me to think?
So…the Bible seems to be a document that serves the purposes of man, written in large part by men to further their cultural and personal agendas. There’s room for loads of discussion here, but that’s what I’ve come to as I’ve been working through it.
One could venture opinions about how most of the “God as violent father” sections are ways to justify tragedy, especially if you believe that all things must have a cause in a pre-scientific society. For example, earthquake? God must be punishing you.
Does this mean the Bible is worthless? I don’t think so. I think it means the Bible should be read and questioned. I think that religion should be mulled over. I think that virtue can be both secular and nonsecular. I consider myself a Christian, although the divinity of Christ isn’t necessary for me to be one. I like the code. I respect other paths to spirituality deeply. Tolerance is my watch word.
Except when it’s not. Because I don’t understand fundamentalism in any religion. If I could think of a time when fundamentalism did something positive in regard to human rights and human dignity, I might have a different opinion, but I can’t find any examples. Usually, fundamentalism is a religious trench people dig when they want to fight the battle of us versus them.
I believe that a literal translation of a sacred book is a fairly bad idea. Often, the literal translation and conservative transformation of a religion is the opposite of what the originator of that religion intended. Here are a couple of examples.
Sharia Law: One of the privileges of my life has been to teach many Muslim students, and ultimately to have friends who practice that religion. Islam comes in many flavors, much as Christianity does. The media most often presents us with the fanatical culture of fundamentalist Islam, pockets of Islam who interpret the Q’oran extremely. Among the many things they do, fundamentalists use sharia law to punish and oppress women.
Take a look again at what the Q’oran really says about women. Now, justify the treatment of women under Sharia law. Fundamentalism causes a disconnect. I’m sure many of you could speak to this more than I could. My students tell me that Muhammad would be appalled by stoning, by squirting acid on Pakistani school girls, all that. And I believe them.
God Punishing the Wicked: The most recent instance of God punishing the wicked is Pat Robertson telling us that because the people of Haiti were so wicked, the earthquake is God’s punishment. By the way, AIDS is also God’s punishment to gays. Katrina is God’s judgment on New Orleans.
Fundamentalists really miss the vengeful Old Testament God, don’t they? As Christianity was founded, Jesus states that God is trying a new experiment in faith. Jesus never talks about revenge. He’s not that vengeful Messiah that the Jews were hoping for. He’s this guy who teaches a philosophy of living.
Yet, Fundamentalists hold onto that Old Testament religion. Which actually excludes them from worshiping God, because if memory serves, God wasn’t offered up on the divinity buffet for Gentiles until Christ, who is antithetical to the vengeance God idea.
A friend recently suggested that Christians call Pat on his actions. I’m happy to do that, but I’m not sure I can call Pat a Christian until he begins to act like someone who follows the philosophy of Christ. I’m sorry that he’s fooled you all because he’s called himself a Christian, but all we can really say about Pat is that he is an Old Testament Fundamentalist. He can’t be Jewish because he’s not one of God’s chosen people, and he can’t be Christian either.
I guess you’d have to call Pat a wedge of spite. Do we need to apply this term to the entire religious right? Mebbe we do…
Don’t make me come over there, Pat. Because I’m calling Jesus before I do, and bringing him with me, and then you can explain what you’re doing, okay? Let’s see what he thinks.
The rest of you, go out and read something religious. Give it some thought. Believe with your heart and your head. Don’t be like Pat. Make a difference in the world.
If you know Pat, link him to this page. I know he’ll be ready to condemn me to hell. Which is never mentioned in the Old Testament, not once, and which I don’t believe in.
Catherine
I agree with you.
I also hold with Madeline L’engle’s opinion that the Bible is not necessarily a ‘true’ story, but a story that contains Truth.
I used to be a fundamentalist. A more painful, fear driven life, I cannot imagine.
I’m glad you’re in a place you like now.
Catherine
Stories often contain truth, but rarely are stories true. The Bible is a story; even much of history is stories. It’s as you said.
p.s. You quoted Milk and Cheese, hur hur…
Evan Dorkin knew that would be the perfect phrase to use about Robertson, all those years ago.
I don’t really understand the concept of being a Christian without believing in the magic of the religion. I could understand it more if one said they were a Catholic, I suppose, but didn’t believe in the religious elements–there’s such a strong subcultural milieu there, which I guess is easier for me to compare to the Jewishness-as-ethnicity-and-culture-and-religion thing.
Personally, I don’t know.
I believe in the divine, but I do not understand how it works, so I don’t believe in a version of the divine, if that makes any sense.
It is easier for me to grasp a concrete philosophy, and wait and see how the magic works, if it does.
Catherine
One of the best things my grandfather ever taught me was to read the full chapter of the Testament and Gospel readings that were listed in the program before the service started.
It was also one of the worst things he ever taught me. Many a sermon I sat through thinking, “That’s not what that passage was about. Not at all.”
And I agree that Crazy Uncle Pat isn’t really a Christian. At least not how I understand Christianity. The old song of “They will know we are Christians by our love,” doesn’t seem to have had the same impact on him as it did for me.
Jesus did talk about vengence. He said, “You have heard it said from old an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
(I prefer the King James for those verses. The modern versions are less satisfactory.)
A friend sent me this: “If we adhere to the true dogmas and are not concerned about our behavior, we will not have any kind of benefit; and in the same way, if we concern ourselves about our behavior & neglect true dogmas, we will receive no benefit for our salvation. If we want to be delivered from Gehenna & to gain the Kingdom, we need to… be adorned on both sides–with correctness of dogmas & honorable living.” St. John Chrysostom
Kizmet: Perhaps more accurate for me to suggest that Jesus did not advocate vengeance.
I would love to know your interpretation of the last statement. I often tell my students it’s not enough to throw a quote out there, but also you need to tell us what you want us to get out of that quote. Where are you going with that?
Catherine