How Religious Are Religious People?

“We’re always told we should live our lives as if we only had 24 hours to live”

Who’s been telling you this? That’s a ridiculous way to think. You can’t go through life under this mentality. If I believed I had 24 hours to live, I would be snorting coke and banging hookers. I don’t think my wife and kids would appreciate this after 24 hours and I’m still around.

I prefer the mentality ‘Hope for the best but prepare for the worst’. In this case, I am prepared to die in 24 hours.

As Brian pointed out, living as though we had 24 hours left to live is absurd. Does anyone really think that we should act as though there were no consequences to our actions? That’s what living as though we only had 24 hours left means to me.

Politically speaking, I really don’t see the value in agitating moderate religious people, who could potentially be our allies on church-state issues, to adopt more radical positions on a matter of intellectual principle. It seems to me to be the type of endeavor that someone with no concern for practical reality would pursue. If someone is serious about their faith, I suspect they’d sooner keep the faith and become more radical than abandon it for logic’s sake. Why encourage fanaticism? There’s no reason, unless you only care about proving how clever you are, and not about the sociopolitical consequences.

I never live as though I only had 24 hours. I live as I think I ought to right now. And, to be frank, if I knew I had 24 hours, except for tying up a few loose ends I’m not sure I’d spend that last day much different from the way I’m spending this one.

I like what Christian author Brian McLaren has said; “I can take the Bible seriously because I DON’T take it literally.” Christian moderates seem to take more seriously the actual teachings of the Bible (“love your neighbor, help the least of these, etc.”) than the so-called fundamentalists who want to bicker about the scientific aspects of the Creation parable. They say they take the whole Bible literally, but in reality they cherry pick a few obscure verses here and there and try to build a political policy around their literal interpretation of those select verses. Liberal/moderate Christians seek to take a holistic view of the message of the Bible and base their world view on a modern understanding and interpretation of scripture.

Religious moderation is something I’ve always had a hard time understanding. I mean, I like religious moderation. It’s much more preferable to go out for a work lunch with your moderately religious friend than, say, get stoned to death as a heathen and adulterer by them… But for me, either the Bible/Quran/Dianetics/etc. is the infallible word of god or not. And if it’s not, they why believe in it?

It’s something that has definitely stuck me in regards to the gay marriage debate. A lot of fundamentalists lament that god will punish this nation for its acceptance of homosexuality, that God calls for the death of all homosexuals (well, at least gay men)… And you know what? If you believe the Bible to be true, then you’re right? The Bible is pretty clear on how homosexuals should be treated.

In my opinion (as I recount here, in a blog post responding the the film For the Bible Tells Me So), attempts to reconcile what one morally feels is right (e.g., not murdering gay people, allowing everyone the right to love who they love) with what the Bible says (god destroys entire cities for letting gay people exist, it’s better to let a sex-thirsty mob rape your teenage daughters than rape a man) is a step in the right direction, but so many of the justifications for what the Bible REALLY says seems just as disingenuous as the readings of PMDers like Tim LaHaye (in the film mentioned, one biblical scholar after another states that the bible doesn’t REALLY condemn homosexuality, which is clearly untrue).

Why not just recognize the book for what it is? A collection of stories, laws and myths originating from iron-age nomads, then later added to, modified and reinterpreted by Roman- and post-Roman-era people. Maybe some of the stories are fun to read, some of them may even have useful morals, but why grant it special “truth” status over other myths, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Kalevala, Superman or the Metamorphasis (Ovid’s, not Kafka’s)?

On behalf of the non-fundies of the world, I appreciate those who think that baiting non-fundies is a waste of time, and I’ll be very pleased to sit next to you all at the next bible belt school board sit-in.

Hemant wrote:

It’s a mix of ignorance, wishful thinking of what a person thinks his religion ought to be […]

It’s also Sam Harris’ wishful thinking about what a particular religion was “always intended” to be. Which raises a point brought up by several people, but I’m going with Justin’s wording for the moment:

This new Christianity – Bible as metaphor and so forth – has absolutely nothing to do with the perspective of the earliest Christians. Christianity is evolving into something else, but the transition is still new enough that the old language is still being used to describe a new paradigm.

The subtext seems to be that Christianity has been a static thing for 1800 years, then all of a sudden Darwin comes along and Christianity has to change, or something.

I think we all know that isn’t true. Hell, Christianity evolves before the Bible has finished being written. Paul of Tarsus, afer all, took a small Jewish sect and turned it into something acceptable for the Greek world.

Unlike most religions, Christianity was not created with a single ethnic group or state in mind. It has always changed as it came into contact with new cultures and new philosophies. It’s not new, it’s not surprising, and it’s not compromising anything at all that is essentially “Christian”, despite what fundies would have you believe.

One more thing, from Patrick:

But for me, either the Bible/Quran/Dianetics/etc. is the infallible word of god or not. And if it’s not, they why believe in it?

First off, please don’t put Dianetics in the same category as the Bible and the Quran. The Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, Ovid etc are capital-M Mythology. Dianetics is just bad science fiction.

Secondly, most mainline Christians, and all liberal ones, have a problem with the idea of “believing in” the Bible. Many consider that bordering on, if not actually being, idolatry.

The way I see it, this sort of religion is based more on laziness than on wishful-thinking. And while I do find it to be preferred over the alternative, I don’t see how you can really encourage someone to be lazy.

Pete, I said “if you really convince them.” I agree that your scenario is more likely.

Pseudonym,

I don’t think Christianity changed all that much prior to the late 19th century. The core beliefs remained pretty consistent – substitutionary atonement, eternal damnation for all those outside the “club”, etc. In fact, I’ll take it a step further; whenever one of the important figures or great intellects showed up – Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther – it became even more hateful. When it did change, all that ever happened was that someone came along, took a bad idea and made it worse.

Yes, there were mystics who emphasized direct experience of the divine and downplayed dogma, but they were few and far between and they had to be very careful about how they expressed themselves.

It may very well be changing for the better now – but, as far as I’m concerned, it’s too little, too late.

The best example I have of a “moderate Christian” is my mom – someone who believes in God and occasionally goes to church but is irritated by those who are “too religious”.
Does her behaviour match her beliefs? Well, she hasn’t stoned anyone and her morality is based on common sense and the greater good rather than ancient texts. Like most folks, she hasn’t given her beliefs a lot of thought. Her parents believed in God, so she believes in God.
Despite all the advances in science there comes the inevitable “we don’t know”. I happen to see that as an exciting opportunity for further study but for most people an “explanation”, even one that makes little sense, is far more satisfying.
That may be the chief reason why even “moderate” Christians will not embrace atheism.

cipher:

I don’t think Christianity changed all that much prior to the late 19th century.

So you don’t think that the evolution of Christianity from a Jewish sect to one more compatible with Greek philosophy (as was done by Paul of Tarsus) was a big change? What about Constantine? Not a big change there?

The core beliefs remained pretty consistent – substitutionary atonement, eternal damnation for all those outside the “club”, etc.

History is not on your side there. The phrase “substitutionary atonement” doesn’t appear until… probably Aquinas, I’m not sure about that. Certainly, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches have never believed in it, and can’t find the idea anywhere in their tradition, so it probably arose some time after the schism.

As for “eternal damnation”, the idea is not known until after the Bible, and certainly you won’t find in the Bible any descriptions of eternal punishment for humans (as opposed to eternal destruction; not the same thing at all).

(OK, that’s not entirely true. There is one controversial verse which hints at the possibility. But that’s got to be weighed against all of the bits which fail to mention it.)

I think that this idea arose when Christianity discovered Plato’s idea of the soul. Nobody can be entirely sure, but certainly the idea came into Christianity later than most people think.

Autumnal Harvest: Jude 7 seems to refer to destruction to me, not eternal punishment. After all, it’s not like Sodom and Gomorrha are still burning.

Luke 16 is interesting because it refers not to the usual synoptic gospel word translated “hell” (i.e. Gehenna, a word with an interesting meaning), but rather Hades, the Greek world of the dead. Even so, this story is pretty fairly obviously allegorical and quite apocalyptic in nature.

The only place in the Bible which is problematic, in case you’re curious, is Matt 25:46. This is the only place where the words “eternal” and “punishment” appear together. The reason why it’s controversial is that the word translated “eternal” or “everlasting” has multiple meanings, and it’s not clear which is meant.

I agree that perhaps some of the New Testament authors (or later editors) believed in eternal punishment, but at the very least, even if you think it’s taught by the Bible, it is in no way as emphasised as some so-called “Christians” would have you believe. The vibe of the New Testament is much more about living in the here-and-now.

Pseudonym,

So you don’t think that the evolution of Christianity from a Jewish sect to one more compatible with Greek philosophy (as was done by Paul of Tarsus) was a big change? What about Constantine? Not a big change there?

Paul – I’m not even counting the first Jewish messianists. It was a small group prior to him; I suppose you could even call it a “study group”! We aren’t even certain about what they believed. It didn’t begin to become what we think of as “Christianity” until he came along. In fact, I should have included him in the list of people who really fucked it up.

Constantine – His biggest “contribution” was to make it the state religion. The triumphalist overtones, the antisemitism – they were already there. He merely sanctioned them. Should have included him, too.

The phrase “substitutionary atonement” doesn’t appear until… probably Aquinas, I’m not sure about that.

Anselm, about the turn of the first millennium – but the idea was there already. It’s right there in the NT! He merely codified it, basing it on the feudal model, and gave it a philosophical pedigree. He was opposed by Abelard, who wanted to emphasize God’s love for humanity, and you know what happened to him – they castrated him! (All right, that wasn’t the reason – but I think it’s highly symbolic nevertheless.)

As for “eternal damnation”, the idea is not known until after the Bible, and certainly you won’t find in the Bible any descriptions of eternal punishment for humans (as opposed to eternal destruction; not the same thing at all).

That is highly contentious, but I see it as the same sort of controversy as that concerning homosexuality – liberals want to read it a certain way, and I don’t want to discourage all of you, but I don’t feel it’s supported by the text. In Revelations, it says that those not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, and “the smoke of their torment goes up forever”. I know there are those among you – annihilationists, conditionalists, universalists – who want to play with the wording, want to believe it means that death itself will be destroyed, or that it doesn’t say the torment goes on forever, or some damn thing – but I think it’s pretty plain. And this is only one example that comes to mind; refute it, and we can find a dozen more.

Autmunal Harvest,

Re: icons – that’s a matter of form. The basic underlying beliefs are the same.

Re: sola scriptura – along with the examples cited above, this pretty much illustrates my point, actually. The really interesting thing going on here is that you guys are doing more to prove my point than you are your own – what changes have occurred, as time has gone by, have only served to make it worse.

Prior to the 19th century? Are you kidding? The reformation wasn’t a significant change?

Not in the way that I mean. The underlying beliefs were the same. The biggest change was that they did away with the magisterium of the church. And, again, insofar as it did change, my contention is that it got worse.

Prior to Luther, if you went to mass and confessed your sins regularly, you’d get into heaven. Faith was considered a gift from God. If it came, well and good; if it didn’t – just go through the motions, and you’ll be taken care of.

Luther did away with all that. A Protestant had to find faith within himself first, then he’d be saved. How could you know you were saved? You couldn’t – so Calvin came along and threw the whole thing back into God’s lap. The bottom line became that God created the vast majority of humans for no other reason than to torture them for eternity. Calvinism is an abomination so obscene that I deny its right even to exist, yet it may be the single most influential doctrinal strain in fundamentalism today.

And – under the old system, most people were going to Purgatory, and you knew you’d get into heaven eventually. Luther ditched that as well. Now, it’s either heaven or hell, for eternity, no second chance. Thanks, Marty.

I’ll also point out that antisemitism increased, for two reasons: 1. Because Luther himself had some lovely thoughts concerning the Jews, and 2. Because, with the Reformation (and, subsequently, the Counter-Reformation), the feudal system broke down, upward mobility became a possibility, Christians were allowed to fill societal niches they hadn’t been allowed to before, and the Jews, who had operated more or less outside of the system for centuries, got herded into ghettos.

I’m sorry, but from my perspective, the whole thing is a train wreck. As you can see, I’m really not generous when it comes to Christianity.

Autumnal Harvest:

I’m guessing (perhaps incorrectly) from your posts that you’re a Christian, and that you think that interpreting the Bible is important in learning about morals and God, but that you also see the Bible as a human product, with contradictions between different human authors, and the assorted human cultural biases. Is this correct?

That’s fairly accurate. I was brought up as a liberal Christian, and I still identify as such, even though I lean a little closer towards some mix of omnism and theistic rationalism with a strong dose of Joseph Campbell.

My opinion of the Bible, incidentally, is not very different from my opinion of other “good” sacred texts in the world. “Good” is subjective, but I would include, say, the Bhagavad Gita but exclude Dianetics. There is some grey area here, but I think most sensible people can tell the difference.

Sacred texts were written by humans who came into contact with “the divine”, and are an attempt to make sense of what they experienced. I furthermore believe that mythology is a good and noble thing, and that it’s a shame that more people don’t appreciate this.

If so, I wonder if you could suggest a book or essay that talks about how someone with your viewpoint goes about interpreting the Bible. For example, if some authors have one view of the afterlife, and some have another, how do you decide which is right?

That’s a hard question to answer.

Part of the problem is that while liberal Christianity is big on scholarship, and trying to find out what the author intended, that’s actually not the basis of what we do. Liberal Christanity is much more about practice than doctrine. That’s why, for example, while anything by John Shelby Spong is worth reading, you might find it disappointing if you’re interested in Biblical interpretation; he’s far more interested in doing.

If you want some authors, I’d be looking at J.B. Phillips, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann and anything from the Jesus Seminar (e.g. John Dominic Crossan). I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard good things about Richard Holloway’s How to Read the Bible; it’s only 120 pages, so it can hardly be a good technical survey, but from the reviews, it looks like it gives a good overview.

cipher:

That is highly contentious, but I see it as the same sort of controversy as that concerning homosexuality – liberals want to read it a certain way, and I don’t want to discourage all of you, but I don’t feel it’s supported by the text.

Just to be clear: The mainstream liberal position on hell and homosexuality is that the text doesn’t really support either, but it doesn’t directly contradict it either.

Taking homosexuality as an example, Paul of Tarsus would be considered a homophobe today, as would any other thinking person of the age. However, he never really said anything about what we understand today as “sexual orientation”. That is, calling homosexuality a “choice” or “lifestyle”, or advocating change-of-sexual-orientation therapy, or making it illegal, is also not supported by the text.

Putting it more simply: What I believe about homosexuality may have no direct support in the Bible, but what Pat Robertson believes doesn’t either.

The reason why liberal Christians have a strong emphasis on scholarship is that we’re far more interested in what the Bible actually does emphasise, such as the many words expended on the evils of greed.

This is where I partly agree with Jamie Whyte. The “scriptural support” for the popular idea of “hell” is a couple of hard-to-understand verses here and there. If it were that important, the Bible would talk about little else. So I guess that means the Bible isn’t very religious.

Pseudonym,

Just to be clear: The mainstream liberal position on hell and homosexuality is that the text doesn’t really support either, but it doesn’t directly contradict it either.

Taking homosexuality as an example, Paul of Tarsus would be considered a homophobe today, as would any other thinking person of the age. However, he never really said anything about what we understand today as “sexual orientation”.

Again, this is a liberal interpretation: “They didn’t understand sexual orientation, mutual consent… ” And, it doesn’t take into account the two Levitical injunctions, which are pretty clear: if two men lie together, it’s an abomination, and both shall be put to death.

The “scriptural support” for the popular idea of “hell” is a couple of hard-to-understand verses here and there. If it were that important, the Bible would talk about little else. So I guess that means the Bible isn’t very religious.

Again, I disagree. It’ all over the place. It may be that the authors didn’t want it to be the main focus, but the ideas of etrnal damantion and salvific exclusivism are there from the beginning (of the NT).

If they hadn’t included Revelation in the final draft (I understand that Luther considered it a mistake), it might have made something of a difference – but they did.

cipher:

Again, this is a liberal interpretation: “They didn’t understand sexual orientation, mutual consent… ” And, it doesn’t take into account the two Levitical injunctions, which are pretty clear: if two men lie together, it’s an abomination, and both shall be put to death.

Leviticus is also pretty clear on the matter of wearing wool blend socks and eating shellfish.

We’ve discussed the Leviticus passage here in the past. If you look at it, it’s in the middle of a big section on the religious practices of the surrounding pagan cultures, which suggests (though doesn’t conclusively prove) that there is some specific misbehaviour that this passage is speaking against. (Large parts of Leviticus seem to be about that.)

Once again, I’m not saying that Leviticus is all good from a modern perspective. It isn’t. What I’m saying is that saying that this is a “pretty clear” statement against all homosexual practice is a conservative interpretation. Stepping back, there’s not very much that’s “pretty clear” about it.

Again, I disagree. It’ all over the place. It may be that the authors didn’t want it to be the main focus, but the ideas of etrnal damantion and salvific exclusivism are there from the beginning (of the NT).

I just re-read the first couple of chapters of Matthew, just to be sure, and couldn’t find anything. 🙂

Perhaps this is a classic case of eisegesis. If you have hell and damnation on your mind, you’ll see it everywhere. If you’re convinced that devils are behind everything, you’ll see them everywhere.

I personally see very little about the popular conservative notion of hell anywhere in Jesus’ preaching. It really is “a verse here and a verse there”, and even then, you need to squint a bit.

This is why I’m trying to emphasise what textual critics (whether Biblical or otherwise) refer to as higher criticism. I’d rather understand what someone was trying to say before dismissing them as worthless. (I may still dismiss them as worthless, but at least I have a legitimate reason why!)

If they hadn’t included Revelation in the final draft (I understand that Luther considered it a mistake), it might have made something of a difference – but they did.

Anyone who tells you they understand what Revelation says is probably lying.

OK, that’s a bit unfair. We do know the general idea of the book. It basically says “Caesar is not Lord, Christ is Lord”. The rest is just expanding on that theme.

Partly, it’s a form of literature that we don’t fully understand. (It’s like trying to understand a screenplay if you’ve never seen a movie before, only much harder.) Partly, it’s highly, highly symbolic, and we don’t get all the references. (That’s like someone from the 1930s trying to understand an episode of Seinfeld.)

One thing we can be sure of is that Revelation is the one book of the Bible that was certainly not meant to be read literally in any way whatsoever, simply by virtue of the literary form. Kind of how if you look at the page and “see” that it’s a poem, you know that you’re not reading a newspaper report, and adjust your expectations accordingly.

I happen to agree that we’d probably be better off if Revelation weren’t included in the canon. It almost wasn’t, after all. But then I’d be discounting the generations of persecuted people who gained a lot of comfort from that book, so who knows.

But again, I really don’t see anything about eternal punishment for humans in there. To see it, I think you need to be thinking it first.