Can you be....?

[jackfaire]

Can you be of any faith and yet reject or not believe the literature of that faith?

I ask this because sometimes I see where people will say, "I follow faith X but I don't believe Writings Y are true"

This confuses me because those writings are what tells a person about the faith and ignoring the writings is ignoring the teachings of the faith?

So can you follow a faith yet not follow the literature of that faith and if so how?

[guywithashovel]

I think a lot of people identify with a religion simply because they were raised in that religion or because their parents identified with that religion. In other words, it's kind of like a nationality to them. For example, I had a professor in college who was Roman Catholic. She scarcely ever did anything to practice the religion, and she hadn't attended a church service in years. But if you asked her what she was, she was Roman Catholic. Similarly, I used to work with a girl who said that she was a Christian "in the same sense that she was a Scorpio." Perhaps that is the case with some of the people who say they believe in a religion but not the writings.

Also, it could be that they simply don't take the writings literally. There are some Christian churches who see the stories in the Bible as stories mean to teach moral lessons.

[jackfaire]

Also, it could be that they simply don't take the writings literally. There are some Christian churches who see the stories in the Bible as stories mean to teach moral lessons.

Yes but in most of those writings there is nothing that says, "This didn't really happen" and unlike say Aesops fables they are presented in a non fiction way.

[Slytovhand]

I can see why someone might brush-stroke themselves into a religion, but denominations I think might be a tad harder to understand - unless that particular denomination just happens to be rather limited in it's requirements. Such as, one denomination says you must do XYZ to be of its 'faith', but denomination ABC says no, you don't, you only have to 'believe'.

But it's a lot easier to say you are a member of a religion without following all the books! Take Christianity, purely as an example. You can say you are one, without believing much of the Bible at all... you just believe that JC was the son of God (and whatever else happens to be required.. I dunno - what did he say??), and that by believing that you are pretty much 'saved'.

But to call yourself a Roman Catholic - without going through all the rites and rituals that may be required... yeah, that seems a bit odd to me - but then, I'm not one, so I don't know what is required.

Buddhist?? Fairly easy - just follow the basics as 'suggested'.

etc etc...

[HYHYBT]

I'll probably explain this badly, but here goes. Also, I'm sticking to Christianity simply because that's what I know. Other religions may or may not parallel.

First, a question: are there not people you generally trust, but don't necessarily believe everything they say? For example, you may have a friend who's otherwise honest and well-informed, but will fall for and pass along every hoax that falls in her inbox. Or the subset of this: expert knowledge. If your doctor says you have an ear infection and a bad fuel pump, while your mechanic claims it's kidney stones and warped disc rotors, hopefully you get antibiotics and a brake job.

The Bible is, first and foremost, a book about God and our relation to Him; therefore I expect it to have that part down pretty well. But as for geology, biology, etc., a lot has been learned since it was written. Doesn't matter: that was never the point anyway.


Add in its being written, translated, compiled, etc by countless hundreds of people, none of them perfect, or even imperfect in precisely the same ways, and how could you expect perfect and literal accuracy? For that matter, compare any two groups who both claim to take every word of it as literal, perfect truth and see how far that gets them in practice. For example, and I can't remember the names precisely but they're both some variation on 'Church Of Christ' and don't like being called denominations, but there are two who are otherwise nearly identical, but one believes that instrumental accompaniment in worship services is wrong because the Bible doesn't specifically say that the early Christians used it; the other believes it's appropriate because the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid them, and they're mentioned in other places like Psalms. And which version do you take? One example that sticks in my mind is that most versions say David and Jonathan kissed each other goodbye, while at least one claims they just shook hands. Even within one copy, the one point where you have more than one viewpoint of what should be the same events (the four Gospels) each contradicts the others in at least minor ways, and John is vastly different. It doesn't mean the basic idea is false; I'd go with the theory that it was natural drift based on the lag between the events happening and people realizing they needed to write this stuff down, and maybe also on originally having different intended audiences.

Then again, I may have missed the point of the question:
*If it's 'how do you believe?' then I have no idea at all.

*If it's 'how can you believe some of what you read without taking it all?' then try the above.

*If it's 'how do you decide to believe these things but not those as well?' then I can only say that it's wrong to say someone decides what to believe. Try it sometime: take something you know to be blatantly false and try really believing it to be true. I suppose if you keep at it long enough, or have the right screws loose in your head, you might eventually succeed, but more likely you'll at best find yourself *pretending* to believe it. Everything we take in we file as 'this is true,' or 'this is false,' or 'not sure,' or 'doesn't apply.' Look at it as analogous to taste in food: you may well decide THAT you like pizza better than hot dogs, but it would be nonsense to say you decided TO prefer it.

*And if the question is 'how can you describe yourself as x unless every tiny detail of your beliefs lines up?' then 1) in practice, everyone's beliefs are different at some point than anyone else's; 2) only when all x's quit arguing over what book y means would it be productive to argue about how much of y you have to believe to qualify; 3) there's really not a separate name for person-who-is-just-like-x-except-for-point-z, and it would be a rather extravagant waste of new words to try to come up with such names for every possibility; and 4) in the one case I know well, that of Christianity, while the name is a bit contested sometimes, it generally means, depending on who you ask, either anyone who believes Jesus is the son of God, or else anyone who tries to follow Christ whether they believe him to have been anything other than just a good man. The name definitely does not mean he-who-believes-everything-he-reads-if-it-happens-to-fall-between-these-covers.

Reading what Slytovhand posted while I was composing: this is why I try not to claim a denomination... except that, around here at least, "nondenominational" basically *is* a denomination. Actually it's a couple of different ones, both pretty far off my own beliefs. I'm currently attending a Methodist church, but my beliefs are more closely Episcopalian. But I've never been to an Episcopal church beyond occasionally visiting my brother's two hours away. Meanwhile, officially I'm a member of a Baptist church I've only attended once in about twelve years... and to complicate things further, it was Southern Baptist back when I went regularly, but sometime later became independent. So what AM I, really?

And I realize my post is long, unfocused, etc. But at this point it would take too long to redo and it's very late, so it's going up as-is.

[draggar]

I would hope a follower of any religion would not follow the texts 100%! We're talking about stories that are hundreds to thousands of years old.

At least someone who questions the texts shows that they've at least read the text as opposed to the lemmings who just flock to their place of worship and are mesmerized by the congregation's leader (priest, rabbi, etc..).

[jackfaire]

Honestly it's mostly for example, "How can you be christian but state, "I don't believe in the bible but I believe in Jesus Christ" Things like this confuse me as in this example Jesus and all details about him are in the bible so you can't 100% not believe in the bible.

You have to believe in at least the parts about him in order to believe in him to my mind otherwise your just making things up on your own and slapping the label Jesus Christ, Buddha, Odin, etc. on it. You have to know the faith and agree that at least part of the writings are true and right.

If you throw out all of the writings every last bit of them you toss out any basis for believing what you do.

[HYHYBT]

Oh, well, that's different. ARE there really people who claim a religion but believe nothing in it?

[joe hx]

Oh, well, that's different. ARE there really people who claim a religion but believe nothing in it?

There's plenty of people that identify as christian yet know little about it. I mean, they don't even know why Jesus turned the Nile into blood!

[jackfaire]

Oh, well, that's different. ARE there really people who claim a religion but believe nothing in it?

*nods* Seems to be this was sparked partly because I have noticed a prevelance of people expressing belief in a faith but not the writings that document said faith.

[McDreidel09]

From what I understand, there are some parts of the bible some Christians don't believe. I am gonna use my mom as an example, since she falls into this category.

My mother was raised Catholic. She went through all of the rites that a woman who is not a nun could go through. She was baptized, took her first communion, was confirmed, and was married in a church. However, she doesn't go to church.

She believes in God, Jesus, the angels, and the saints. However, she doesn't agree with the bible for a lot of things. She agrees with Jesus' teachings and the ten commandments. The rest of it, she doesn't really go with. In her heart, that is not what God is truly about. To her, her faith is between her and God and nobody else.

[jackfaire]

She believes in God, Jesus, the angels, and the saints. However, she doesn't agree with the bible for a lot of things. She agrees with Jesus' teachings and the ten commandments. The rest of it, she doesn't really go with. In her heart, that is not what God is truly about. To her, her faith is between her and God and nobody else.

And that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about people who say, "I do not believe in the bible at all" as in 100% consider the entire thing page for page word for word BS. As in the entire thing is false but then go around saying, "I believe in Jesus" when the entire basis for information on Jesus is the Bible.

[Kheldarson]

I've got an answer for you: lack of education. I see it a lot.


My mom teaches religious education classes. For some of these kids, it's the only exposure to the Faith they get. Their parents drop them off every Wednesday for a hour. They don't go to church or do anything other than that. So the fact that they don't know anything and don't trust what the Bible says is understandable. Why should it mean anything to them? It means nothing to their lives at any other time. That's how it happens.