DWill wrote:I don't have my copy of the book yet, but it must be in this chapter, or maybe in a preface that we don't have listed, that Wright makes a distinction that struck me as important. He says that both religious zealots and opponents of religion make the mistake of thinking that a religion is what its leaders and scriptures say it is. Wright says that it doesn't work this way, sociologically. A religion isn't controlled in this way but is always evolving; it can only be defined by its characteristics at any given time, and these might actually contradict the word of authorities and scriptures, or at least ignore them.
That's why it might not be so important what the Bible really says. We all know about the distasteful stuff in it. Just because it is there places no demand on a Christian to believe it or take responsibility for it. A Christian can probably "believe in" just a minor part of the Bible and still feel okay about calling himself a Christian. This would apply to Muslims and Jews, too.
A few comments here: There is a great difference between Christians, Jews and Muslims. You are a Jew by birth. That is true in close to 100% of the Jews that have ever lived. It is possible to convert to Judaism but you are never quote there. There is also a distinction to Jews who consider Judaism to be a religion and those who consider it a tradition, or an ethnicity. For those who consider it a religion there are approximately 600 laws they are required to obey and an elaborate sacrificial systems to partipate in. The problem is that the sacrifices can only be made at the Temple in Jerusalem and it was destroyed in 70AD. Jews of tradition pick and choose what they observe. Basically, you are a Jew by birth is the point.
Muslims have a rigid code to observe in the form of the Five Pillars of Islam:
Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able
none of these are optional.
Christians, while an offshoot of Judaism have a very different structure and within Christianity there is a wide variation of devotion to the Bible and interpretation of the practice of Christianity. For some there are sacriments to be performed, for others there is nothing necessary beyond affirmation.
Dwill wrote:We might have an opinion about the intellectual honesty of the attitude I've described. But we have to take into account the cultural significance of religion to many people. It's more about the shared customs and sense of community than it is about the beliefs, in my view.
It isn't a matter of honesty it is a matter of simplicity. Christianity is, at its heart, uncomplicated.
DWill wrote:I do support requiring that people know what they're talking about, though. If they're going to claim the Bible as a moral authority, they should be knowledgeable about it, or at least they should admit that they don't know it in detail.
Should the same requirement be imposed on people who criticize the Bible?