Response: Not Religious???

In response to Dania Guadalupe's post "Is There Something Wrong Here?" (March 3, 2012):

I can't say that I quite understand how this chap can say that he hates religion.  It seems quite, quite clear that his assertions about Jesus fall under the category of religion - in fact, he even mentions his belief that various supernatural happenings involved Jesus literally occurred.  It seems to me that his objection is not against religion, but rather against some particular religious denomination, or perhaps against organised religion in general.  Religion, however, does not have to be organised, and his freestyle sort of belief in Jesus does fit the description of religion rather nicely.

Skewed Perspectives

When, in Thursday's class, we briefly discussed Ganhi and his apparently brutally honest autobiography, I thought about the nature of actual honesty.  In modern society, 'honesty' seems to imply admitting your faults to others, exposing the darkest parts of your history and nature for public perusal.  People who admit their lack of proficiency at various activities, tell stories about the unpleasant or immoral things they have done in the past, and generally act in a manner usually considered modest or self-effacing are often lauded as being brutally honest.

However, being modest is not the same thing as being honest.  Going on about all of one's failings while neglecting to mention, or perhaps denying the worth of, one's achievements is no more truthful than focusing only on the good side of things.  While I haven't read Gandhi's autobiography and as such am in no position to gauge how honest or dishonest he might have been about his life, I do know that putting oneself down and focusing only on one's negative traits seems to be far more admired than is probably wise.  In order to be fully and actually honest, people must focus on their negative and positive traits to the same degree, exhibiting an impartial attitude dedicated only to the truth.

Future Interpretations?

Since beginning the Crossan book, we have discussed numerous times the concept of the gospels being metaphorical in nature rather than literal.  If one takes the stories in the Bible as just that, stories, one can draw meanings and messages from within them rather than simply understanding them at surface value.

However, in recent times especially, many people have begun to interpret the Bible literally, probably due to the primarily literal, scientific nature of modern society.  Clearly this is a problem unique to our era, as people who lived around Jesus' time were familiar with the idea of mythology providing non-literal guidelines.

If this is so, then how might people in the future interpret the Bible?  As we do not currently know the future configuration of society, this is hard to predict.  However, we can guess based on current trends.  At the moment, many of the more progressive countries have been losing touch with religion and focusing instead on technology and the environment.  As such, I would guess that in the future either religion will die out (which, I think, would not destroy society, but would be a great shame) or it will adapt dramatically to meet the needs of a new society.  It seems likely that such an adaptation would lead to people interpreting religion in a more metaphorical way - so Christianity might end up being much closer to what it was supposed to be in the years directly following Jesus' death.