This is, in a way, a different approach to the previous post, Christianity without the Bible.
As far as I can see (without considering alternative religions / holy books - but, then, each one of those would have the same problem), one of the following possibilities must necessarily be true:
1- There is a God, and the entire Bible is divinely inspired.
Problem: This must, then, include the women-are-property-of-men parts, the animal-sacrifice parts, the kill-unbelievers parts, the kill-sabbath-breakers parts, the kill-homosexuals parts, the genocide parts, the dietary parts, and, of course, the parts that contradict other parts.
2- There is a God, but only some parts of the Bible are divinely inspired.
Problem: There is simply no way to tell which parts. Ask ten believers, and you will probably get ten different answers. Most people will choose the parts they already agree with as being divinely inspired, and the parts they don’t agree with as the work of mortal men. But what makes your favorite parts right and the other fellow’s wrong? You have no way to know. And anyone can - and will - find something in the Bible to justify his or her actions.
3- There is a God, but the Bible has nothing to do with him.
Problem: Fine. But, then, how do you know God? How do you know that a guy called Jesus was the son of God and died for your sins? “Feelings in your heart” are completely subjective; someone else can feel the exact opposite, and you have no way to tell that your feelings came from God, while the other guy is simply imagining things. After all, he is probably equally sure that his feelings are divinely inspired. If God really did communicate by putting feelings in our hearts, then all of us - or at least a large number of us - would receive the exact same feelings. This simply does not happen. In essence, without a holy book, the God you believe in is your own creation.
4- There is no God, and therefore the Bible is the work of men.
Problem: None that I can see. 
This is the simplest and most likely of these possibilities, in my opinion.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Hi!
As usual, I have nothing but praise for your clear arguments. Now I’ll go and get into trouble with my theist friends…
Thank you!
Thanks.
I agree with Fernando, I’ve got nothing but praise for your clear arguments.
You really have compiled a terrific list of articles, I find each one offers at least one possible solution to a question I have in mind. It’s always enjoyable to hear someone who thinks along similiar lines
Pedro,
You know, I forgot which post actually brought me to your site, but now I find that I read it ‘religiously’ (tongue firmly planted in cheek!). I find your arguments are clear to me and Buddhist though I am, I have little that I can argue with.
The only thing I think is the problem with your posts (and those of some of the people commenting) is that you are trying to attack a fundamentally irrational problem with reason.
Faith, as I understand it, is the ability to believe in something either without evidence or even in the presence of contradictory evidence. At least this seems to be the faith practiced by most christian sects. So, sadly, no matter how well thought-out, documented, reasoned your arguments are they will fall on the deaf ears of the devout who will only see in you a challenge. A challenge that must be converted or defeated.
I can only hope that those that are sitting on the fence and have not tossed their reason completely aside in the pursuit of faith will have an opportunity to read your writings.
Rock on.
Jim,
Speaking for myself, I see the pretense of reason in the faithful, or the claims that faith is “reasonable” or identical to reason as the more important issue than their own faith. Religion has a long history of trying (and sadly often succeeding) to snuff out thought, particularly critical thought. This effort by the faithful to diminish reason by equating it to faith is simply part of this long history. That said, for evil to succeed good men need to do nothing, so I call the faithful on their nonsense when they spew it. I present reason in response to thier jibberish and meaningless emoting. Will this convince those who have already turned away from reason, from the light? Nope. But it will give voice to the minority view, to reality in the face of an onslaught of illusion, ignorance, and dishonesty.
Besides it is so easy to refute these absurd claims and positions that they offer that it takes less effort than swatting at a fly..
Jim,
From the Buddhist point of view, “faith” is a belief that the dharma is true and that it will lead to liberation. Of this you truly have no proof since there is no known buddha in existence. However, there are countless practicing Buddhists in the world who have not reached liberation. “Faith, as I understand it, is the ability to believe in something either without evidence or even in the presence of contradictory evidence.”
Aren’t you then guilty of being one of those who “tossed their reason completely aside.” I hate to point this out since I am also a Buddhist in practice. For you to fully accept the views of Pedro, you can’t be a person of Faith in any way. Thoughts?
Joshua,
While I agree with you on one point, Buddhism also tells us that there is not “leading to liberation.” We are already liberated. We need only to be aware of it by being fully present in each moment. Once you think that practice or zazen or anything will “lead” you to something, you have strayed from the path. There is no separation. And it would not matter if there was an acknowledged buddha in existence. The most common question I have been asked once I becamce Buddhist is, “So now you worship the Buddha, don’t you?” As a fellow Buddhist you know the answer to this is unequivocally “no,” and would still be no even if Buddha showed up.
I have been taught that regardless of what someone else tells me I must first trust my own experience. I can read the words of the sutras, but they are just words. I can listen to my teachers, but again these are just words of others. So in this sense I don’t feel that I have been asked to have “faith” in something that I do not have an experience of myself (and there is no compulsion to have a certain type of experience). As I wrote in a comment to a previous post, and was corrected by TXStorm I believe, is that what I called faith is more a ‘conditional belief.’ I believe that practicing zazen will allow me to become more fully present. From my own experience I know that I have felt a difference in my ability to be present and not merely react to stimuli in situations. At the same time, I would not use my experience to try to convince someone else. It’s not that I have experienced a lot yet mind you, but then I believe that with more practice it will happen. Or it won’t. But still I will practice.
As has been said before (and I forget by which teacher in the lineage), we practice zazen not to become enlightened, but because we already are. Is this faith? Maybe. But faith in myself.
Have I tossed reason aside? I won’t argue that I live a life that is entirely dependent on logic and reason. I don’t. Nor did I ever say that I fully excepted Pedro’s views. I do think that much of what he says is valid and true, particularly with respect to religions that base their beliefs on books and belief in some supernatural god.
My belief requires no other person to also believe. Nor does it require me to do things in order to demonstrate that belief. It also does not require that I submit to any higher authority. In Pedro’s writings I see someone who implores people not to submit their reasoning to something outside themselves, whether it be a sacred book, a ‘holy person,’ or even a god. Maybe I’m wrong. Buddhism asks none of these things from me.
Maybe I’m just a bad Buddhist, and I’m really an atheist who’s too afraid to admit it and that’s why I like Pedro’s writing. Maybe not.
Joshua,
You do Jim and the rest of us a disservice when you try to pidgeon hole him with your equivocation. Buddhism has at least as many variations and sects as xnty, many of which cannot properly be called a religion or faith based in the way that all of xnty must necessarily be.
Jim,
Yes I have even heard it said by a famous zen Buddhist, “If you meet the Buddha, kill him”. Of course this isn’t literal but it does show the detachment necessary for liberation. Mahayana Buddhists don’t seem to share your same definition of faith though. If we were already liberated there would be no need to use Dharma to help us find the defects in our mind.
“Once you think that practice or zazen or anything will ‘lead’ you to something, you have strayed from the path”, this is true. Also, holding on to the idea of “no God” is just as dangerous as a belief in a God. The Buddha said that whenever you become attached to anything, let it go. This includes even attachment to “nothingness”. This takes me back to my first sentence. When one becomes attached to even the Buddha, one must detach from him as well.
So wouldn’t holding on to a belief that “religious people” have thrown away their reasoning abilities keep yourself from liberation? Or if you prefer, take you out of liberation for as long as you hold on to this belief?. . .
I hope this isn’t an offensive topic for you as it is for TXStorm. I mean no disrespect.
TXStrom,
I had a valid question for Jim. I asked because I wanted to know his stance. How is this in any way a disservice? What is your problem? Apparently “reason” is only OK when it is used to take on “god”. Please feel free in the future to not antagonize every comment from the author “Joshua”.
Joshua,
I have never claimed to be a perfect Buddhist in terms of practice, and I wrestle daily with how to practice my vows in the world we have. I think my problem (my attachment if you will) is to the idea that some people feel that their belief requires that others believe as well. Obviously I am thinking about Christians, Muslims would also fit, and probably others as well. Before I am shot for generalizing, I certainly do not mean they all walk around with the idea that they should make me believe, but as Pedro has pointed out, both of these religions, at least, have some very specific, and not particularly open, things to say about nonbelievers. Live and let live is certainly not their mantra.
On the other hand, nothing about what I am doing requires that someone else believe the same thing. Nor do I believe that nonBuddhists are somehow less than me because they aren’t Buddhist. Or that I need to convert said nonBuddhists to ensure their place in heaven.
I firmly believe that each person has a path to walk in terms of their spiritual development. If you don’t like the work “path,” then think of instead as a choice. I respect those who make the choice of atheism as well. Here, I am almost certain, is where Pedro and I will probably significantly part company, but I do view atheism as a path of spiritual development. Note, I am NOT calling atheism a religion. Rather, it is the absence of religion. That is a valid choice also.
What bugs me are those people that both insist their path is correct not only for themselves, but for everyone. This kind of thinking leads directly to classifying someone as “less than” in some way, and makes it a lot easier to humiliate, hurt, or kill that person. I may not agree with Christianity, and I may feel that their religion is full of contradictions, but the bottom line is that if they would do this without trying to force their beliefs on me (a very real situation in the increasinly theocratic country we call the USA), I would be glad to live and let live.
I should mention that I do agree that dharma requires of us to be active in the world as well. It is not enough to become enlightened. The bodhisattva vow asks us to help others as well. And I should mention that it depends on the Buddhist you talk to with respect to the definition of faith. My teacher, from a respected Soto lineage, has said as much to me. Could I have misunderstood? Possibly. I don’t think so.
Finally, I think TX is trying to state that labels must be used carefully because they can easily be misused, and I respect his jumping in to clarify that. On the other hand, I have no problem with your quesitons, Joshua. They are not in anyway offensive to me, and to be honest, the more I am questioned and respond the more I learn about myself and what I really believe. One should never develop their belief in a vaccum. It should be questioned, tested, experienced.
Thank you.
Jim,
Glad that you understood the intent. Goes to show that it was indeed clear. BTW I really like this comment by you: “On the other hand, nothing about what I am doing requires that someone else believe the same thing. Nor do I believe that nonBuddhists are somehow less than me because they aren’t Buddhist. Or that I need to convert said nonBuddhists to ensure their place in heaven.”
Shows one of the core differences in approach and intent between most folks of faith and reasonable individuals. The desire to control others and dictate their actions (or at least judge them as evil) is necessary and at the heart of revealed religions such as xnty, which certainly shows in the behaviors of those who follow those religions.
I suspect that we share a usage of the term “spiritualism” in this sense, though I do recognize that the literal meaning is inappropriate. Certainly the reasonable person can and most often does have a “spiritual” aspect to their lives. I know that I do. Appreciating what is, simply living, and simply living in the moment creates an experience (or more accurately a set of experiences) which contribute to a full and authentic life.
Joshua,
You say that reason apparently is only okay when used to take on god, but you have no basis for your implication. You must first find an example of criticism of reason used for other purposes, and rest assured you will not find such a criticism coming from me.
Here again, you may find some clarification or at least some understanding of honest intellectual discussion if you check our Wendy McElroy’s The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival. This is written for the layperson and explains why emotional reactions such as offer here, have no place and are based upon false assumptions and impressions. Criticizing an argument is not a personal attack so there is no need for you to respond with personal attacks.
Jim,
I am glad that you share the same belief in questioning oneself as I do. It is a great foundation for mutual growth.
In Buddhism, compassion is a driving force in liberation. Since we are all “one” if you attain enlightenment you can help the rest of us. After liberation, Buddha spent 40 years teaching the dharma to help others. From this we can see the proper use of “evangelism”. It is not to convince others but to truly help them. It should be a sacrificial act of compassion and not a spiritually ignorant rampage.
In general, people like to have others agree with them to some how justify their own beliefs. This is no doubt the driving force behind the evangelism seen in Christianity and most world religions. Like you, I have a problem with this view. It even led to my original abandonment of christianity.
However, we cant let the ignorance of some allow us to generalize about a belief(not aimed specifically at yourself). I am very aware of what Pedro thinks of Christianity. However, Christianity at its core and buddhism share the exact same ideas. I could cite many scriptures that affirm this idea, but I feel that I may be in danger of becoming “that bible guy” around here.
I would like to say to anyone reading this that accepting the ideas of others without serious contemplation is an abandonment of free thinking. This applies to both religion and atheism. There is no difference between a Christian who blindly follows others and an atheist who blindly follows others. Both are blind. Perhaps even Pedro and TXStorm could agree with me on this point? :). . .
I would also like to point out that while it is good that TXStorm was trying to clarify the use of labels, he is just as quick to label all Christians in the same category. It is impossible to have any reasonable conversation with such intolerance.
Joshua,
One quick question. What is “Christianity at its core?” And how does it fit with what has been said about the bible in these posts?
Joshua,
AGAIN could you at least make some small effort to try to be honest. You are proclaiming that you have not only greater knowledge of what “god” meant to say than can be found in the very texts you claim show that your contrary claims are true, but now you are pretending to know what is in my mind. Again, where your beliefs and reality are in conflict, it is your belief that is in error, not reality.
I can agree with you that blindly following another is ONE OF the ways of abandoning CRITICAL thought, but not “free thought” since by definition free thought can go anywhere, even into the illusions of religion, imagining guys in the sky, square circles, and all other sorts of contradictions and non-existent entities. What you seem to miss, for what I sadly expect is good reason, is that religion necessitates the abandonment of critical thought.
As for your trouble with reasonable conversions, I would point out that virtually all of my refutations of your claims have been on issues of reason, that is to say that I have been pointing out the falsehoods and fallacies upon which your arguments are made. So, perhaps introducing reason to your arguments would be a good first step.
Remember soundness, thus true necessitated conclusions, rests on both ALL true premises, AND valid argument form. With neither to be found in your argument as of yet, there is much work to do before you can dismiss those who point out those factual and logical fallacies as “intolerant” and “unreasonable.”
BTW That was yet another example of your use of ad hominem, which itself is a logical fallacy. No matter how much you attack me as a person, your arguments will remain fallacious and based upon false premises. So rather than attacking me as a person for your own failings, why not address the real problems, that is to say the failings of your arguments? Why not behave maturely in a rational, reasonable, intellectually honest manner? Ask yourself why it is that you avoid civil honest reasonable behavior so ardently?
Christianity has many core beliefs that are identical in application to those of Buddhism. I’ve listed a few verses to start, but there are many more examples.
“8Pay all your debts, except the debt of love for others. You can never finish paying that! If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill all the requirements of God’s law. 9For the commandments against adultery and murder and stealing and coveting—and any other commandment—are all summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ◙ 10Love does no wrong to anyone, so love satisfies all of God’s requirements.” - Romans 13:8
Loving-kindness is a key element of Buddhism. We see here that it is also key to Christianity.
“My dear brothers and sisters, ◙ how can you claim that you have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people more than others?” - James 2:1
The idea that no one is better than another is key to both religions again.
“8Physical exercise has some value, but spiritual exercise is much more important, for it promises a reward in both this life and the next.” - 1Tim 4:8
Presents the idea that Christianity is more than “just a believe” but a practice as well. This is a big one since modern day Christians tend to believe that Believe is enough.
“Be sure to do what you should, for then you will enjoy the personal satisfaction of having done your work well, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else. 5For we are each responsible for our own conduct.” - Gal. 6:4
A great example of mindfulness and self-realization.
“Don’t be selfish; don’t live to make a good impression on others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourself. 4Don’t think only about your own affairs, but be interested in others, too, and what they are doing.” - phil. 2:3,4
Again, considering that others are better than yourself is a major Buddhist belief. Also, another example of mindfulness since you must truly listen to be aware of the affairs of others.
Along with showing how the 2 religions share a common ground these verses also demonstrate how many of the comments around here truly do not represent Christianity but rather “christians” who haven’t understood their belief fully.
Hi TXStorm,
Sorry if I did not come across maturely. . . Ill work on that
Joshua,
Ok. I see your examples, but by quoting the bible to make your point, don’t you fall into the trap that Pedro so eloquently stated in the main part of this particular blog entry? There are enough other quotes (stated more knowledgebly by others) that either vastly contradict these quotes or teachings in Buddhism. How do you KNOW the quote you chose to illustrate the “core of Christianity” really are the ones God intended to be the core? And, not to be confrontational, who are you to decide which Christians fully understand their beliefs?
I think that the Christians who have bombed abortion clinics or killed the doctors there, or the Christians who have been demonstrating at the funerals of our soldiers, or, hell, any Christian who doesn’t think like you, would disagree. And I am certain they can quote bible passages that support their idea of what the “core of Christianity” is.
That is why I asked you the question. I was raised Roman Catholic… and not just an Easter-Christmas one at that. I went to sunday school, a catholic high school, a catholic university, was in the high school youth organization for 3 years, a founding member of the youth retreat team, and even a member of my church’s Parish Council for two years. And in all that time I don’t think I could say that everyone agreed on a ‘core’ set of beliefs beyond belief in Jesus.
This is not to say that I am against finding a common ground. I just think that it is harder than you think.
Indeed, I was going to say something like that.
I admit I know very little (comparatively) about Buddhism, and what I do know is from reading about it, not practicing, or even talking to Buddhists about it (I personally don’t know any, in my circle of friends).
However, most of Christianity is what I’d call “anti-life“, Joshua’s quotes notwithstanding. Both concerning the Bible (”positive” quotes, like those, are in the minority; for every “thou shalt not murder”, there are dozens of “you must stone them”) and the actual creeds of many believers, who hate this life and everything in it (after all, the world is Satan’s… take me home, Lord Jesus!). If you judge Christianity by the (rare) good parts, again, you are “cherry picking”.
Christianity actually reminds me more of Stalinism and other forms of Communism than of any Eastern religions. Before you say Communism was/is atheistic, I’m not even talking about the “supernatural” parts of Christianity, but of the fact that it is self-hating, individual-hating, destroys our self-worth (we’re all dirty sinners), promotes self-sacrifice as the highest virtue, and, yes, tells us to accept many irrationalities on faith. Exactly like, say, Stalinism.
Great analogy Pedro. The principle difference being one of degree.. Stalism and other forms of totalitarianism are mere pikers in comparison to the harm done by xnty.. At least those governments only claimed to have a right to control the lives of the people under their thumb, whereas xnty claims to have a right to the lives, and forever more..
And thanks for pointing out Jim that in fact Joshua is back to where we started, with the assumption that he knows what god *really* meant.
Why couldn’t belief in God come from something other than the bible?
One doesn’t have to believe the biographies of George Washington are completely true to think that George Washington did indeed exist.
-micah
The beleif in “a” god could come from anywhere, but then of course it is not the christian god without getting it from xnty.
Yup. You can’t redefine words. Much like you can’t say “I’m a vegan, but I eat meat”, you can’t say “I’m a Christian, but I think Jesus was just a guy”. Both of those contradict the main point of the definitions!
Now, if you DON’T contradict the definitions, and believe in the divinity, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, but refuse the Bible… well, there’s a problem, since there’s nothing else about Jesus from even NEAR his time. The 4 gospels were written decades after his death (and contradict one another, but that’s another story), but non-religious literature only started to mention Jesus centuries after his death, and at a time when there were already many, many Christians; in other words, it was second-hand (or third-hand, because what Christians had was the gospels) information at best.
Unless you’ve had a “vision” or dream of Jesus (and we know how reliable those are…), either you use the Bible, or you make your own “Jesus” up. I really don’t see any other possibilities here.
I’ve expanded the reply above here.