Pick'n'Mix Religion

"On the other hand, people who have generally humane and just ideas frequently select the better bits of their chosen creed while being somewhat embarrassed about the bits that involve minor offenders being stoned to death and women being forced to menstruate outdoors."
- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian 24/1/2001

Taking the good bits and leaving the bad

Everybody knows about the Fundamentalists. These are the people who take their Holy Book literally. It is the absolute 100% literal Word Of God and may not be contradicted or questioned. To use a sweeping generalisation, these people are clearly kooks. This page is, funnily enough, not about the Fundies. It's about the rest...

Everybody has a slightly different interpretation of their religion. You would be hard pressed to find any two people who agreed completely on every detail of a religion, especially one as vague and ambiguous as Christianity. "Obviously, Jesus meant this when he was speaking here." "No, no, you've got it all wrong. He meant this, which is subtly but importantly different."

One thing you'll notice when discussing religion is that everyone has their own ideas about what everything means, and which bits are meant as parables and which are meant as literal truth.

People pick the bits of scripture that line up with their own personal beliefs and prejudices. A typical example is the use of scripture to condemn homosexuality. A couple of vague passages in Leviticus and Romans are frequently dragged up to show that God Hates Gays (there's even a website devoted to the subject, the deeply unpleasant www.godhatesfags.com). Interesting that these people somehow know that these particular verses are literal truth, and all the other bizarre rules and regulations in Leviticus (killing children who disrespect their parents, for example) are either just suggestions or somehow don't apply in this modern world. This is partly what I mean by "pick'n'mix" religion. Take the bits you like, happily ignore the rest. Dismiss them as metaphors or parables, but assume that the bits you like are the Truth.

Followers of different Faiths

A second aspect is in the way people think about other religions. For example, a Christian might like to think that Hindus, Muslims, Pagans etc. are all children of the same God (i.e. the Christian God), but are simply following a slightly different path to Him. Everyone worships the same Creator in the end, they just have different rituals and prayers, and take a different route. This all sounds well and good. The problem is that most religions have very, very specific rules about worship and belief.

For instance, Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus (you probably knew this already =) ). Jesus was God incarnate, and was quite clear on these sorts of matters. He frequently said that the only way to Heaven was through him. It seems strange that many christians try to be tolerant of other religions by ignoring the clear teachings of their own personal God. Nowhere does Jesus say "The only way to paradise is through me... Or through some other God of your choosing as long you're nice to people."

If God can be reached by any number of belief systems, how come all the different religions try to make it very clear that theirs is the One True Way?

Basically, most religions seem mutually exclusive. Believe THIS, not THAT! THIS book is the True Book! No False Gods! Or ELSE! But, as usual, people pick the bits they like and discard the bits that they don't.

I've seen Christians chatting with Hindus about religion, both saying that they think they're both sort of worshipping the same God, just in a different way - they're simply following different routes to the same destination. I just can't help thinking "So why, when it is so vague and unclear on most things, is the Bible so specific about who to worship and who is and is not going to get to Heaven?!?"

I'm not suggesting for one minute that religious tolerance is a bad thing. Enough people have died as a direct result of religious intolerance over the centuries. It just bugs me when someone claims to be a Christian, but then immediately disregards most of the unambiguous teachings of Christ! "Oh, yes, I follow the teachings of Jesus. Except for this. And that. And these three here. And a couple there.". Atheists are often accused of arrogance, supposedly claiming to know more than God. So exactly what are theists doing when they say that God was right about X and Y, but not Z?

At least the fundamentalists believe everything (even the bits that contradict each other).

To be fair, this line of reasoning doesn't apply to all Christians. Many people just sort of generally follow the teachings of Jesus, without actually knowing them in any great detail (be nice to each other and you'll go to Heaven). Many people think of the Bible as a guide-book rather than a rule-book. For these people, their religion probably doesn't have a great influence on their life. They're not overly bothered about other religions and just assume God will sort out the good people from the bad, whatever their beliefs. (Of course, there will be others who point at these Christians and say "Ah, but they're not real Christians, not like us!")

"What exactly is a Christian?" would appear to be a very difficult question to answer. Is it someone who follows the teachings of the New Testament to the letter, or tries to live their life bearing in mind the general message of the New Testament, or someone who's seen Jesus Christ, Superstar five times but only goes to church for weddings and funerals?

Some people adjust their lifestyle to fit their religion, others adjust their religion to fit their lifestyle. Pick and Mix.

Teaching religion

Another good example of pick'n'mix religion is how children are taught about it. If you pick up a Children's Bible (Now with coloured pictures!) and flick through it, you'll notice how it has all the "nice" stories from the Old and New Testaments. It has Noah's Ark, and lots of pictures of Zebra and rabbits going onto the Ark, but doesn't mention how thousands of people drowned horribly during the Flood, nor that Noah got drunk after the Flood and rolled around naked in front of his family.
Genesis:
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

It tells all the nice, cuddly stories but leaves out the atrocities, like God sending bears to kill forty-two children for making fun of a holy-man's bald head.
2 Kings 2:
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

This is pick'n'mix religion at it's best (or worst). I suppose it makes sense. After all, the Old Testament could have been written by Stephen King for all the blood, horror and death it contains. No point giving the kiddies nightmares, is there?

Here endeth the rant.