Religion is Hard, Faith is Easy (Part II)

Part I of this post gives a basic rundown of my religious upbringing and experiences, and the lessons they taught me.  This post exists as an exploration of my current ideas and beliefs, and exactly what I meant when I said I do not ascribe to some of the basic assumptions and tenants of Christianity.

To sum up from the last post, the lessons I have learned that currently shape my views on religion and faith: 
1)the Bible is a product of a different time and culture2)other religions offer valuable insights to faith and God, and some of them make more sense to me than some Christian viewpoints
3)one can still belong to a religion while disagreeing with different aspects of it
4)I have a very hard time seeing in black and white, or believing in that manner
5)it does no good to let the opinions and beliefs of others, or their disapproval, determine what I believe or how I think about faith and religion
6)I LOVE discussions about religion and such--they help me articulate my thoughts--but I don't like arguments about religion and such

Concerning the Bible, many Christians believe that it is a Holy book, either literally written by God, or "God-breathed"--that is, directly inspired by God.  Specifically, they believe this most strongly about the New Testament.  I don't agree.

Through my fascination with historical context, as well as my Religious Studies classes, I have learned quite a bit about the history of the Bible.  The Old Testament is a product of the Jewish religion and culture.  The Jewish Torah--which most Christians know as the Pentateuch--makes up the first 5 books of the Old Testament.  The rest is combination of writings and stories that were extremely important in Jewish culture--prophecies, poetry, stories of cultural happenings and leaders, and Jehovah moving through all of it.  Obviously, these writings were written and accumulated by individuals over centuries, not by God himself.

In regards to the New Testament, there is no difference in the origin and manner of compilation of these books in my mind.  They were written by individuals, and as such were the product of individual points of view, backgrounds and agendas, and had specific purposes.  This point of view gets me in trouble with the Christians who believe God wrote the Bible.  Others who believe that the Bible was God-inspired might be willing to consider these assertions, but then, I am not done.  This group of Christians still believe in the general infallibility of the Bible, and of the books therein.  Again, I disagree.

Without going into too much detail, which would take entirely too much space, I have read several books dealing with scribal error and textual reconstruction in regards to the Bible.  The current book I'm reading on the subject--Misquoting Jesus--talks about these issues in a very clear and concise manner.  Suffice it to say, as with all works from antiquity, scribal errors and additions and removals were made as the letters and written stories that were to eventually form the Bible traveled through the centuries.  In regards to the compilation of the books we currently know as the Bible, the Council at Nicea worked to make a uniform orthodoxy out of all the various versions of Christianity that existed at the time (this is where the Nicene Creed comes from) and as part of this effort they determined which religious writings would be cannon and which would not.  This council was a group of individuals, again with their own agendas and points of view, and so I cannot believe in the infallibility of their decisions.

All this said, I still think the Bible is an amazing book, and think that the fact that all of those writings survived long enough to be compiled (regardless of their closeness to the original writings) is incredible.  I do think what I call the "red lettered" parts--or the sayings of Jesus--probably came from one source, potentially a record of Jesus' actual sayings written down from oral tradition.  Because these were the words of the prophet/messiah himself, they might have made it down the years with less alteration, but there is no way to know that for sure.  Also, I think that the Bible still describes a pretty good way to live your life, regardless of the "truth" of its holiness (the stance on the matter taken by my DeeDee).

Also, I do not agree with Christianity's blanket condemnation of those who do not adhere to its beliefs, nor do I agree with the condemnation of people who have never even heard of Jesus.  In regards to the other religions in the world, I can no longer bring myself to believe that they are ALL wrong.  Granted, they cannot all be right, but I do not see how one can have the claim to the "Truth" over all others.  This obviously gets my into trouble with traditional Christians.  It has been my experience that at this point in my discussion many Christians try to affirm the truth of Christianity by pointing to the Bible (which, as discussed above, I don't see the same way they do) or by pointing out unique aspects of their religion.  Some point this out calmly and we continue on with our discussion; others get upset and point this out vociferously and get either 1)angry or 2)fearful for my soul lol.  For example, one point they try to bring forward is the resurrection of Jesus.  They, and myself back in the day, have been told and taught that no other religion has an "empty tomb".  This is just flat out false.  There are many older religions with resurrection stories that actually predate or are contemporaries of Christianity--for example, the Egyptian god Osiris.  Christian morality is also very similar to the morality of most major religions, and many minor religions as well, so any claims of moral uniqueness fall flat with me too.

To speak against the condemnation of the ignorant, I use one of Christianity's own definitions.  God is defined as perfectly just.  It is not just to hold people accountable for a decision that they have never had the opportunity to make.  Thus, God would not condemn those who have never heard of Him/Her/Itself or of Jesus.  At this point someone tries to argue that either A) we cannot truly understand the justness of God or how it operates or B) since God sacrificed His/Her/Its son, he can judge people however He/She/It wants.  In regards to A) if you are going to define something as perfectly just, you cannot turn around and logically argue that you cannot understand your own definition.  In regards to B), that's just silly.  If God is perfectly just, then He/She/It must ALWAYS be just--and I don't believe that God would be petty enough to rescind justice just because of a personal sacrifice.   

Now that I've more or less expressed my disagreement with two of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity--the Bible and that Christianity is the one "True" religion--some might wonder why I still consider myself a Christian.  A great deal of the reason is that I do agree with the moral teachings of Christianity, and I do agree with the methods by which they are delivered--in a community of fellow believers.  It goes without saying that it is also the parents' job to deliver moral instruction to their children, but I also agree with Christianity's emphasis on family and community.  Some Christians denounce the idea that community and social interaction could be just as important as the spiritual aspect of their religion, but I hold that very view.  While one can observe the spiritual aspects of Christianity in solitude--prayer, meditation, reading from the Bible, etc.--one cannot employ the morals of interpersonal interaction without having a community with which to interact.  I in no way mean to imply that other religions do not also posses this characteristic, but Christianity is the one with which I was raised, and the one that I best understand.  Just because I do not agree with all of the Christian religion does not mean I'm willing to toss the whole thing.  So, while I could research and learn and convert to another religion, my familiarity and familial connection with Christianity is another big reason why I remain tied to the Christian faith.

Some would say that this is not good enough, that I must be spiritually committed to my religion.  I understand their position.  Personally though, I am spiritually committed to my FAITH.  Religion is a man-made thing and I do not wish to spiritually adhere to such a construct.  Faith however is a much easier thing to ascribe to.  I have faith in God, and have faith the He/She/It has an overarching plan.  I believe we have to do our own part, though, and that "God helps those who help themselves".  I believe that Jesus was a remarkable man of faith, and hey, if we was the Son of God who died for our sins, awesome (there was much debate about this fact even among Christians immediately after his crucifition.  Today's Christianity won out at the Council at Nicea.).  Deep in my heart, I believe that's who he was and what he did, but I do not believe that he is the only way to God.  I believe in questioning my faith and adding and subtracting to it as my explorations continue and my understanding increases--be these additions and subtractions from the Christian religion or other religions.  And I have faith that God loves me, and has created me to be the person I am--seeking, questioning, exploring.  All of these things I have faith in. 

For me, religion a man-made construct set up to express faith.  As such, it is hard for me to find a religion with which I entirely agree.  Since I cannot entirely agree with religion, I take it much less seriously than I once did.  Eventually we'll find a church we can stand, but I know that I will never truly be at peace with religion. 

Defining my religious views--that's hard. 

Faith though--a faith that stands as an ever-changing compendium of beliefs and thoughts that is always open to adjustment and change--for me, that's the easy part.