How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[fast_and_bulbous]

Faith is a wonderful thing.

I'm not a fan. Anecdotally, my life really only began once I lost mine. But I understand its power.

I agree with everything you wrote F & B.

I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing the moment I stopped believing. It was as if I had been watching some lame, silent, black-and-white film and all of a sudden, I was living in a vibrant, multicolor world, a world that was real, that was really, really real. It was a world that mattered. It was all I had and suddenly it was incredibly precious. And I felt free to act in this world exactly the way I saw fit (what I believed was best for myself and others) and I didn't have to worry constantly about what some God thought about my opinions.

And yet I understand or believe I understand the power of faith. When I am in a really bad place (I'm worried about the plane crashing or something like that), I sometimes feel the power of God or the universe protecting me. I know I will be fine. I feel comforted. On some level, I know that I am believing in a fiction, but I also believe that somehow as a human being I am wired to believe in this fiction when the going gets tough and I don't beat myself up about it. I just let myself believe what I need to believe the .0001% of the time I feel like I need this other worldly support it get through whatever the horror is. Then, when all is clear I just return to my normal, realistic atheistic self. And I refuse to let any faith tradition guilt me into thinking I'm a hypocrite.

In fact, I really, honestly think it is normal and healthy to "believe" sometimes and not other times.

I had been having lots of questions for years before I suddenly realized that God doesn't actually exist. But it was    John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism that was the actual trigger for my deconversion epiphany. Somewhere in this book, Spong discusses Mark 2:27: "Then Jesus told them 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath'." Spong interprets this verse as saying that religion is for us, it should help us, not harm us. I agree, but now understand that verse even more broadly than Spong does. I understood it as giving me the freedom to believe in the very rare occasions that I needed to, but not believe at all the vast majority of the time.

For me it was Thomas Merton that kind of sealed the deal. I read a bit about Buddhism, thought it was interesting but not for me, went to a few Unitarian services, which I hated, ironically, because it felt so "lite" - I decided after that I'd either go back to Catholicism or just be the agnostic atheist that I think I always was.

I am content knowing that after I die will be just like before I was born, full stop. Once you stop worrying about eternal torture for arbitrary natural human urges it makes life a lot more pleasant. I could go on but I won't out of respect for others who still have faith. Just be good to other people no matter what your belief system, eh?

[marshwiggle]

I read a bit about Buddhism, thought it was interesting but not for me, went to a few Unitarian services, which I hated, ironically, because it felt so "lite" - I decided after that I'd either go back to Catholicism or just be the agnostic atheist that I think I always was.

This is why mainline denominations are declining and more conervative denominations are growing; religion that doesn't demand much doesn't inspire much committment. You're either all in or not at all.

[Treehugger]

I read a bit about Buddhism, thought it was interesting but not for me, went to a few Unitarian services, which I hated, ironically, because it felt so "lite" - I decided after that I'd either go back to Catholicism or just be the agnostic atheist that I think I always was.

This is why mainline denominations are declining and more conervative denominations are growing; religion that doesn't demand much doesn't inspire much committment. You're either all in or not at all.

This is why, when certain members accuse me of just wanting our UU church to be "a social club," I say: "Yes, I think that would be best." Better a social club, than a watered-down self-help religion or social justice transformed into a religion.

[marshwiggle]

I read a bit about Buddhism, thought it was interesting but not for me, went to a few Unitarian services, which I hated, ironically, because it felt so "lite" - I decided after that I'd either go back to Catholicism or just be the agnostic atheist that I think I always was.

This is why mainline denominations are declining and more conervative denominations are growing; religion that doesn't demand much doesn't inspire much committment. You're either all in or not at all.

This is why, when certain members accuse me of just wanting our UU church to be "a social club," I say: "Yes, I think that would be best." Better a social club, than a watered-down self-help religion or social justice transformed into a religion.

Absolutely! Any of the things like feeding the poor, providing community, etc. that are associated with church have external organizations dedicated to that specific purpose. The point of the church is that those functions are consequences of the spiritual context there. The church isn't a great means to a social end; it is the place to develop people spiritually, and all of those other things should come out of that.

(In case you hadn't heard, a few years ago there was a minister in Canada who became an atheist, and wanted to keep her church and congregation. Google Greta Vosper. To me, that's the most insane example of church as a means to an end. Without the spiritual core, it's going to be much less effective at any social goal than an organization explicitly devoted to that.)

[Wahoo Redux]

In the final analysis the Judaeo-Christian tradition is all about receiving some sort of communion with God; the church is the means to that.  The ideas are much deeper, of course, but Christianity is predicated on a sort of spiritual quid pro quo. 

Just some reading:

Why fewer Americans go to church.

Membership down sharply last 2 decades

Melenials not going

[kaysixteen]

I trust that Canadian woman's church did indeed send her packing?

Religious hypocrisy is a bad thing, whatever the nature of the hypocrisy.   A couple of years back, my brother embraced the Masonic lodge (he remains an essentially lapsed, non-practicing Catholic, but he has gone all-in on the Lodge).   I confess he spent a bit of time afterwards pretty obviously scoping me out on whether I might be interested, and I confess for maybe a sec or two I considered it, largely because Lodge membership would be a good career move, and I could use a good career move.   But I just cannot do it, as it would require me to make too many obviously insincere religious compromises.  Sadly, I may well also be coming to the point where I need to consider whether continued participation in my current church may well be approaching the border of what could be seen as 'hypocrisy' as well, though I am hoping I might still be able to avoid it.  In any case, the election will be over soon... one hopeth.

[Treehugger]

I trust that Canadian woman's church did indeed send her packing?

Religious hypocrisy is a bad thing, whatever the nature of the hypocrisy.   A couple of years back, my brother embraced the Masonic lodge (he remains an essentially lapsed, non-practicing Catholic, but he has gone all-in on the Lodge).   I confess he spent a bit of time afterwards pretty obviously scoping me out on whether I might be interested, and I confess for maybe a sec or two I considered it, largely because Lodge membership would be a good career move, and I could use a good career move.   But I just cannot do it, as it would require me to make too many obviously insincere religious compromises.  Sadly, I may well also be coming to the point where I need to consider whether continued participation in my current church may well be approaching the border of what could be seen as 'hypocrisy' as well, though I am hoping I might still be able to avoid it.  In any case, the election will be over soon... one hopeth.

Just because some follow what others consider "religion lite," doesn't mean they are hypocrites. I'm sure many sincerely believe their religion lite and live accordingly. Actually, the biggest hypocrites are probably those who insist that the Bible should be understood and followed literally and yet still pick and choose which verses they will conveniently ignore.

[marshwiggle]

I trust that Canadian woman's church did indeed send her packing?

Actually, no, the church was so into "diversity" that she's still at it.

Just because some follow what others consider "religion lite," doesn't mean they are hypocrites.

No, but it does kind of question the point. If a prof declares at the beginning of a course that everyone will get A+, all kinds of smart students are going to realize they don't need to worry about tests and assignments, and even why they should even bother to come to class. Unless they really enjoy the subject, why inconvenience themselves on behalf of something if there will be no concrete consequences to their choice?

I'm sure many sincerely believe their religion lite and live accordingly. Actually, the biggest hypocrites are probably those who insist that the Bible should be understood and followed literally and yet still pick and choose which verses they will conveniently ignore.

Sure, and hypocrisy is pretty endemic to human nature, so it's not restricted to religious people. Any good religious teaching will, among other things, remind people of that reality and help them to see it in themselves so they can attempt to change it.

[kaysixteen]

Not taking various verses of Scripture literally is not the same as wholesale disbelief of the basic message of the scriptures.  IOW, if erstwhile believing Pastor Jane has come to embrace atheism, she is a liar when she attempts to continue to act as a pastor.   If my doctor comes to disbelieve the germ theory of disease, he's fired, no need to ask for the fora's opinion on this action.

Further, if one defines 'religious lite' the way the poster appears to have intended it to be defined, as faking religious belief in the context of getting some warm and fuzzies and/or having some quasi-spiritual underpinning for a social institution or welfare society, this is indeed hypocrisy and defeats the overall purpose of such an institution, harming its mission and legitimacy.

[Treehugger]

Just because some follow what others consider "religion lite," doesn't mean they are hypocrites.

No, but it does kind of question the point. If a prof declares at the beginning of a course that everyone will get A+, all kinds of smart students are going to realize they don't need to worry about tests and assignments, and even why they should even bother to come to class. Unless they really enjoy the subject, why inconvenience themselves on behalf of something if there will be no concrete consequences to their choice?

I don't think that a university course is the best analogy for a religion. Or, at least, God help us, it shouldn't be.

It seems, based on this analogy, that you have a rather authoritarian view of religion. Religion for you seems to be about getting things right (getting an A+) on the exam of life.

I believe that religion is ideally involved with living well, with living the "good life," philosophically understood. But it is not competitive. And any hypothetical grade would be jointly given by both the professor (society in general, not just the earthly representatives of some supposed numinous being) and the "student."

I'm sure many sincerely believe their religion lite and live accordingly. Actually, the biggest hypocrites are probably those who insist that the Bible should be understood and followed literally and yet still pick and choose which verses they will conveniently ignore.

Sure, and hypocrisy is pretty endemic to human nature, so it's not restricted to religious people. Any good religious teaching will, among other things, remind people of that reality and help them to see it in themselves so they can attempt to change it.

And, of course, it is not just religious teaching that can help people understand their hypocrisy. There are wise, helpful people in all walks of life (not just amongst the clergy).

[Treehugger]

Not taking various verses of Scripture literally is not the same as wholesale disbelief of the basic message of the scriptures.  IOW, if erstwhile believing Pastor Jane has come to embrace atheism, she is a liar when she attempts to continue to act as a pastor.   If my doctor comes to disbelieve the germ theory of disease, he's fired, no need to ask for the fora's opinion on this action.

She's not a "liar," if she is honest about her atheism, which apparently she was. Lots of people understand the scriptures metaphorically, so I don't really see a problem with both being an atheist and a minister. In other words, people understand "spirituality" in different ways. It is certainly possible to be a lot more spiritual, understood broadly as deeply connected the interconnected web of  existence, open towards experience, wise, deeply compassionate, etc., as an atheist than as a rigid, doctrinaire Bible-thumper (not that I believe we have any of the latter on these fora).

Further, if one defines 'religious lite' the way the poster appears to have intended it to be defined, as faking religious belief in the context of getting some warm and fuzzies and/or having some quasi-spiritual underpinning for a social institution or welfare society, this is indeed hypocrisy and defeats the overall purpose of such an institution, harming its mission and legitimacy.

I don't see it as faking anything. I just see it as naïve. I just sat through a UU Covenant group meeting where three attendees waxed lyrical about Tolle's The Power of Now for most of the meeting. I went through a big self-help phase a couple of decades ago and have thankfully moved beyond it. Also, even then, I could recognize trash writing when I saw it. Apparently, not everyone can. However, I bit my tongue and mostly just listened? Why? Because it was clear that this book was actually, genuinely helping them navigate their current lives, and if something is helping someone else be wiser, more centered, calmer, happier, etc. I am certainly not going to say: "Look, can't you see that this book is garbage?" Because apparently it is not garbage for them.

[marshwiggle]

Just because some follow what others consider "religion lite," doesn't mean they are hypocrites.

No, but it does kind of question the point. If a prof declares at the beginning of a course that everyone will get A+, all kinds of smart students are going to realize they don't need to worry about tests and assignments, and even why they should even bother to come to class. Unless they really enjoy the subject, why inconvenience themselves on behalf of something if there will be no concrete consequences to their choice?

I don't think that a university course is the best analogy for a religion. Or, at least, God help us, it shouldn't be.

It seems, based on this analogy, that you have a rather authoritarian view of religion. Religion for you seems to be about getting things right (getting an A+) on the exam of life.

I believe that religion is ideally involved with living well, with living the "good life," philosophically understood. But it is not competitive. And any hypothetical grade would be jointly given by both the professor (society in general, not just the earthly representatives of some supposed numinous being) and the "student."

Let me try again. Any worthwhile accomplishment in life requires commitment; marriage, having children, completing a degree, getting a job, buying a house, etc. Sacrifice of some sort is made for the sake of the potential benefit. Religious commitment is no different. The potential benefit typically consists of

• spiritual fulfillment of some sort in the present; i.e. the "good life"
• pleasant afterlife

The sacrifice required is typically material comfort in the present, such as giving to the poor, making effort to help others, etc.

For a universalist, who believes that the afterlife is the same for everyone, then the only specific benefit to religious commitment is therefore the spiritual fulfillment in the present. In that case, the more material comfort a person has, the less likely the religious commitment will "pay off", since the spiritual fulfillment will have to be really huge to compensate for giving up personal comfort.

So this is why "religion lite" (which is what I would call the universalist  position) is not terribly compelling; the only time religion becomes "worth it" is one is suffering greatly in some way, so that the material comfort is minimal, so the sacrifice will potentially be worth it.

Thus, to me it's no surprise that the churches of a more universalist persuasion are dying.

Not taking various verses of Scripture literally is not the same as wholesale disbelief of the basic message of the scriptures.  IOW, if erstwhile believing Pastor Jane has come to embrace atheism, she is a liar when she attempts to continue to act as a pastor.   If my doctor comes to disbelieve the germ theory of disease, he's fired, no need to ask for the fora's opinion on this action.

She's not a "liar," if she is honest about her atheism, which apparently she was. Lots of people understand the scriptures metaphorically, so I don't really see a problem with both being an atheist and a minister. In other words, people understand "spirituality" in different ways. It is certainly possible to be a lot more spiritual, understood broadly as deeply connected the interconnected web of  existence, open towards experience, wise, deeply compassionate, etc., as an atheist than as a rigid, doctrinaire Bible-thumper (not that I believe we have any of the latter on these fora).

Like you, I don't think she's lying; I just think church is not the best way to any of those "secondary benefits" without its core. Each of those can be pursued much more directly some other way. So her "church" is kind of pointless to me. (Kind of like caffeine-free diet Coke- what's the point????)

[little bongo]

I'm reminded of a blog from a midwest academic--they mentioned something to the effect that we're dealing with the most intimate and personal relationship imaginable. That relationship is between us and our notion of the Infinite. And while we might get help, we're ultimately the ones who decide what answer works for us.

[ciao_yall]

This is a piece written by my BIL-IL, in which he talks about the comfort he takes in religious rites.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-31/synagogue-coronavirus-pandemic-seat

[kaysixteen]

She's not lying if the church/ denom she serves does not explicitly teach theism.   She is lying if it does, and she gets up publicly and leads prayers, reads creeds, etc., that profess belief she does not have.   Why is that hard to grasp?

And 'metaphorical' belief in the scriptures is not the same as disbelieving their basic message, which is a theistic one, including the idea that Jesus is God, and that He died and  was resurrected.   How can these concepts be understood 'metaphorically' in a way which denies their essence, their essential theism, etc.?   Explain that to me, I really want to know how you are using this term, etc.  I can understand saying 'metaphorical' understanding of the scriptures would include disbelieving the specs of the creation story of Genesis, embracing theistic evolution and an old earth, etc., but it would not and could not include believing the basic inverse of the underlying theistic spiritual message of the scriptures.