My perspective is that you must be fully committed to your religion; otherwise, you're just a pretender. It's one thing to dance around the fringe and cherry pick what you like, discarding what you dislike; it's quite another thing to completely immerse yourself in its tenets, such as absolute faith. I think that Christianity in America suffers from its lack of absolute conviction and is more quasi-religious than it is actually religious. I think a good comparison would be the practice of western Christianity in relation to the practice of Islamic faith elsewhere. The Muslim, it seems, takes his/her religion more seriously than does the average Christian.
I agree that religion should be as much a matter of practice as belief. People need to actually live their faith, not just announce it in empty words. I don't agree. Being committed to something doesn't mean that you have to take it ready-made off the shelf and can't have a hand in fashioning it. Commitment doesn't necessarily imply commitment to any existing tradition.
Religion is quite clearly not an all or nothing proposition. A moment's reflection on the multitude of different denominations and sects in all the major religions is evidence of this. People pick and choose the doctrines or ideas they are willing to embrace and join like-minded groups on the basis of this. (The case of extreme Protestant Christians is especially amusing in this respect: they are forever splintering and forming new groups when disagreements arise, as there is no hierarchy to arbitrate or find ways to reconcile differences of view.) The idea of "full commitment" in religious belief therefore seems to me a mirage: it invites the question, "full commitment to what?" and the answer to that differs from person to person. But that will not stop smug evangelicals from thinking they are (like the New Testament Pharisees) superior to everyone else, due to their supposedly higher level of "commitment".
I would think that the Bible presents a "ready-made" guide; however, the interpretations differ. But I also think that people often interpret according to their own preconceptions or desires.
Because the Bible is not a coherent narrative or rule book. Genesis 1:1-2:3 A creation story of Earth; Light, Day & Night; Division of Waters & creation of Heaven; Division of Land and Sea & creation of plants; Creation of stars, sun, moon and planets; Sea animals and birds; Land animals & Mankind as Apex of Earthly life; Blessing the seventh day. Genesis 2:4-2:25 A different creation story: Adam formed before land plants or rain on the first day of creation. Then the garden with the first plants. Then the land animals. Then Eve. So right away, even among sincere believers claiming that the test of purity is belief in the Bible, the correct answer to "Which was created first, man or auroch?" is a topic for schism. "Which came first, man or pine tree?" You can't decide these questions on the content of the text and logic. You can't communicate personal revelation (or opinion) about these questions without authority separate from the Bible. But humans are good at following other humans, so differences of opinion will lead to divergence of groups following different leaders who advocate the same principles but for those details. Thus hair-splitting becomes cause for strife and division of community with no mechanism to promote unity. The Catholic church for many years took their job to be rooting out ideas they disfavored and suppressing them, often by killing their adherents. Eventually, things got better.
I certainly don't think of religion in terms of the Bible. I find much of the Old Testament morally problematic. Christians almost always skip over the murder and genocide stuff, calling them "problem passages", choosing instead to emphasize the 'God is Love' stuff. The difficulty is that Christians steadfastly continue to believe that Jesus was the incarnation of the very same God who ordered that his Hebrews to commit genocide against their Canaanite neighbors and who ordered that daughters who have premarital sex, Jews who leave Judaism or blasphemers be put to death. Much of our problem with fundamentalist Islam today is that many Muslims continue to believe and practice such things. (Islamic Shariah is little different than Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) We can laud Muslim fundamentalists for their commitment to their chosen faith, or we can condemn and oppose them for choosing to adhere to a variety of faith and to a vision of God that we find crude and evil. That decision is ours and it has to be made. Is there anything wrong with people employing their own intellectual and moral judgement when selecting a religious path? Doing so doesn't imply any lack of commitment in following that path. I'm inclined to agree with Exchemist and say that it's hard to imagine how people can avoid doing it.
That's going to happen when there's some measure of state tyranny and community social threat which is coercing orthopraxy. Also dissuades customizing behavior and belief to suit local and personal preferences, that would stray from officially sanctioned canon. But that said, if leaders from an alternate culture can refer to _x_ religion as one of "Peace and tolerance" with only a few inaudible giggles from the audience, then it's probably an indication of some scattered flexibility below its popular facade of strict conformity. Even the royal sycophants have to see a few fragments of apparel to maintain the sober pretense that the emperor's comments do have clothes.
But it serves as the foundation for the whole structure. I would think that the truly committed would be forced accept the ugly with the good.
But that's rather my point. Interpretations differ. Each individual inevitably forms their own opinion. If they belong to a denomination with clergy, then they may be told what, in the view of that denomination, the right interpretation is. But even then there will be divergences or ambiguities. If there were no alternative interpretations, or differing emphasis laid on different things, then the study of theology would be dead, which clearly it is not. And you will find different clergymen will teach different things, according to how they personally see it, what books they have read, how they themselves have been taught, etc. Given this background of shifting shades of grey, how is one to judge "true commitment"? Do you mean commitment to those interpretations and emphases that are embraced by the individual in question, perhaps?
Well it only serves as a foundation for Christianity of course. But if we limit ourselves to that, what do you classify as the "ugly" that has to be accepted along with the good? Genesis 1? Genesis 2? How do you reconcile the fact that they contradict one another in certain respects? What is someone with basic level of science education expected to think about them? Should they take the Catholic, Anglican and Methodist view of these, i.e. that they should be read as allegories? Or is that not being "truly committed"? Or what about some of the Old Testament stories, e.g. Exodus, that are thought to be inconsistent with historical evidence? What should the "truly committed" Christian think about those? Or what should they think about some of the brutal stories of the Old Testament which are obviously incompatible with the message of Christ in the New Testament? Are they allowed, in your view, to think that the New came to supersede the Old, and thus the message of the NT is the one to stick to in case of conflict? Or is that not being truly committed? It seems to me that the sensible Christian (the sort of people I tend to associate with, at least Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) is happy to accept that a lot of this need not be literally true and to be fairly relaxed about the details, looking instead for what these stories teach us today about how we should live our lives. That, after all, is what your average Sunday sermon is generally about, in a Catholic, Anglican or Methodist church. The underlying issue, as I see it, is that the moment an intelligent person engages their brain, what might casually have been thought to be black and white issues become nuanced, partly dissolving into shades of grey. I'm thus a little nervous that a demand for "true commitment" that includes the "ugly" (i.e. the ridiculous, incompatible or objectively wrong) may in effect be a demand for stupidity.
We're talking about beliefs here. If one believed God existed, and believed Jesus was his ... er ... field agent, is one not free to believe that Noah was a fictional tale? Why would that make anyone a pretender? Surely the truth (one's subjective truth) is more important than subjugating one's beliefs for something that someene else demands to be true.
I guess this is like fully committing to being an American. If you don't shout "USA,USA" then you aren't a real American? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats like the Church my wife went to for 20 years... ie... if you didnt take the Bible literally you was on a path to hell... of course... they had ther own true version of what the Bible literally said... but i soon discovered they didnt all practice what was preeched to 'em on Sundays... Wednesdays an Fridays Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why do you have to look so much into creation. Why not just look , that the bible is a guide of life for society to be in harmony . Do you think the 10 commandments is a good guide , if you look on a better way look into Chapter 5 and 6 of Matthew, let it be your guide . We had some short discussion on Genesis as for me genesis #1 have some good parallel with evolution , but if you want to argue against the process in genesis @ 1 it is up to you . As to me Genesis #2 is to show the fall of man due to be independent of God.
Flood is were not uncommon . the story of Noah is written on the tablet of Gilgamesh , would you believe on the tablets ? I think we have a problem with the bible . For the Jew the Torah ( 5 books of Moses ) is guide on how to live with examples , Keep in mind examples . The society in the past was not as literate as we are in the present ,so many things are written as examples what causes man to do evil to other man. What true do you want ? It is said live and let live, otherwise we perish.
A means for control of power/money woud be my guess Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Im not much of a Bible reader... the most ive ever read at one time is the 23rd Psalm -- it was to memorize it at Sunday school for our teecher so i did it... after all... she did serve cookies an cool-aid... but i dont use the Bible as a guide to behavior/self control... do you.???
