 |
| How true? |
But this is a tricky position for the (theistic) Christian. There is nothing in the recorded (or attributed) words of Jesus that can really support such an extreme bibliolatry, and - worse - if people take that view, then they are left unable to properly understand what is written in the bible, and the beliefs and culture of the people over the 800 years or so during which it was cobbled together. The process of compilation is part of the message, and part of the fun and value of the thing, for Christ's sake! Why turn it into some primitive oracle, and rob it of its humanity?
As a Christian Atheist, it's pretty obvious that I cannot hold to an inerrantist position - but even when I was a theist, the suggestion was absurd. In order to make it "inerrant", one had to dream up the most ridiculous convoluted nonsenses, that then dehumanised the authors, wrenched the stories and worldviews from their historical contexts, and made the "God" of the bible a buffoon. Indeed, biblical inerrancy was (in my view - and it continues to be my view) a very deep and troublesome form of blasphemy.
Let's look at it another way. If there are contradictions in the bible, outright errors, fictions, fables, fantasies and fudges - does that decrease its value? I would suggest not. I would instead suggest that the bible gives us a very clear view that religion should really have nothing whatever to do with truth claims (or even gods), but about community. A shared narrative that gives us a toolkit for describing the problems that life throws at us wee humans.
So, if you're sitting in a church, listening to some priest or pastor rabbitting on about the amazing bible, you can remind yourself that he or she is missing something really important. Perhaps the most important thing of all. But you won't be thanked for pointing it out.
True, you'll be smacked upside the head with someone's bible if you point that out. :^)
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, deep down I don't think I ever held a really inerrant view, but rather than think about it I think I sequestered the questions by shoving them under the carpet. So what happened was the bible became very boring.
Studying the bible after leaving Christianity is *much* more interesting, as you describe. Rather than trying to fathom the meaning of something like the trinity, you can study how the concept came about. No more pretzel logic!
"the bible became very boring."
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to get a grip on just what made me 'fall away' from the church, from the bible, from belief, but I think this statement really sums it all up. I've been really fascinated by how people could be so dramatic about de-conversion. I had no reference to just how emotionally invested people could be.
If we are to take the bible as a 'shared narrative', then what is the "most recent" testament? Where does that line get drawn now between sacred text and non-sacred text (if the line exists, that is)? Because it is an incomplete, or at least dated, narrative at this point, right?
I'd propose Jeremy Rifkin's book [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-empathic-civilization_b_416589.html]
Hi Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI have heard from a lot of people that "deconversion" was in many ways like a grieving process, but for many others it was like peeling the last wrapper off the parcel, and getting a genuine surprise by the marvels inside. Since moving beyond "faith", I think the bible is far more interesting than it was before.
As for its value as a shared narrative, I would not want to be prescriptive. There are bits of it that really genuinely are trash if you are looking for rules to live by. I think we have to find these rules for ourselves, but we can certainly retro-fit them to biblical stories or Moby Dick or The Lord of the Rings if we prefer.
I don't just see this as a Christian thing - as in many things, our Jewish friends have got this cracked - Jewish atheism is alive and well. Islam is probably lagging somewhat behind, but I would love to see a strong drive towards the acceptance of de-godded versions of the major religions.
A Muslim Atheist -- the possibility of such a thing existing almost gives me chills of hope.
ReplyDeleteThere is some talk going on about how the majority of Muslims are in fact liberal and open-minded but repressed or comfortably silent (or submissive may be the better word choice).
I've been wondering about what it would take to make the moderates more vocal, more outgoing. A militant moderate? The extremes are so much better at the "evangelical way of the crazy".
Maybe de-godded versions, as you suggest, would do the trick. I don't know.
I have written about the absurdity of the fundamentalist view of the Bible here:
ReplyDeletehttp://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/religious-fundamentalism-is-blasphemy/
I am puzzeled, however, by the idea of atheist versions of religions like Christianity. Why not just be atheist?
About a year ago I would have said the Bible was the Word of God, I have now thought about that view and have come to a different conclusion (rather than the one I was brought up with and had sort of believed all my life). It is a way of explaining the world, and God as the writers understood this to be. Obviously some bits are more useful than others (I am quite fond of Ecclesiastes, Revelation less so). I like Thich Nhat Hanh's analogy that religion is like fingers pointing at the moon. Things like the Bible (or the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita or the Dhammapada for that matter) can be useful for helping us along the road if viewed in the right way (as written by people trying to make sense of the world, just as we are), not as something that should be blindly followed without question.
ReplyDeleteValerie