ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE FOR THE SPIRITUAL TRAVELER: Why Take the Bible Seriously? Is Theism or Atheism More Violent?

To these perennial questions, I offer some answers - not to close a conversation but to broaden one. I do not claim to know anything you don't know, but if I can help you remember what you already do know, I am blessed.

You seem like a rational person, yet you take the Bible seriously. Do you know how many laws of physics Jesus would have had to break to walk on water?
Actually, I do, which is why I take the Bible seriously but not literally. For me, the Bible is myth rather than science. Science is the way we humans explore the facts of our existence. Myth is the way we explore the meaning of our existence. There is no conflict between the two. Conflict arises only when we ask science or religion to do the other's job. When scientists demand that myth conform to physics, and religionists demand that physics conform to myth, we get silly religion and bad science. We needn't choose between science and religion; we only have to insist that each be true to its calling. 

I've visited a mosque with a Moslem coworker, but he won't visit my church. He says the crucifix offends him. Can you shed some light on this
For many Moslems, depictions of the prophets of Islam, which includes Jesus as well as Mohammed (peace be upon them), are offensive, not just because such depictions are thought to be idolatrous but because they limit the spiritual imagination.

Take the 1940 portrait of Jesus by Chicago artist Warner Sallman. Sallman was of Swedish descent and so was his Jesus, who turned out to be the only first-century Jew with blond hair and blue eyes. Yet millions of Americans think of Jesus this way and are shocked when confronted with a truly Semitic-looking Jesus. The image conditions the mind. Keeping yourself free of images keeps you open to reality. This is, by the way, the meaning behind the second of the Ten Commandments.

Does this excuse your friend from visiting your church? I would hope not. Respectfully visiting places of worship other than your own is a sign of a much-needed spiritual maturity, curiosity, and willingness to learn, which I suspect you both value.

My sister and I argue over which is the more violent: theism or atheism. I say theism and point to the Inquisition and Jihad; she says atheism and points to Hitler and Stalin. What do you think?
I think you're both mistaken. The real problem isn't theism or atheism but the absence of freedom. Atheists can be as evil as theists, but the violence you're talking about - from the Bible to this morning's headlines - is nurtured in communities where freedom of thought and action is constricted and often outlawed. Such communities can be religious or secular.

That said, however, it is easier to exploit theism than atheism in the sanctioning of evil. Theism promotes belief in God, and some gods can be used to sanction violence. Atheism denies the existence of God, and the absence of something sanctions nothing. Bottom line: we don't need more theism or more atheism; we need more freedom.

My mother was a devout Christian who never lost her sense of humor or her sense of compassion, yet she died an agonizing and prolonged death. What is the point of religion if this can happen to a true believer?
You have answered your own question. Her faith could not protect her from suffering and pain - nothing can do that. However, her faith did help her live her suffering with grace and humor. People often ask the wrong things of religion; they want truth, eternal life, safety, and surety, but the real gift of religion is learning how to live gloriously with impermanence, not knowing, danger, and uncertainty. I don't envy your mother her end, but I do envy her her faith.

My son came home with a weird question: "Would I still be me if you weren't my mom?" I told him he would, but I'm not so sure. What do you think?
Your son is wrestling with a profound Zen Buddhist koan: "Show me your face before your parents were born." The human sense of "me" and "I" (the "face" in the koan) is independent of our parents. If your son were adopted, would his experience of "I-ness" be any different? He might have different memories, feelings, and thoughts, but would his sense of remembering, feeling, and thinking change? No. He would still think of himself as "I" and "me," even if the content of those thoughts was radically different from what it is now.

The experience of being an "I" is not contingent upon what the "I" experiences. In fact, the "I-experience" is the same, regardless of who is having it. In a sense there is only one "I" in the universe, and this "I" has infinite faces, each with its own perspective and content. Our spiritual challenge is to not mistake the "I" for its perspective or content, and thereby realize ourselves as manifestations of the one and only I, reality itself.

I get very confused regarding the terms "belief," "faith," and "religion." Can you sort these out for me?
I can try. Beliefs are unprovable propositions about reality; faith is trusting that those beliefs are true; and religion is a system of communal behavior designed to enforce and reinforce faith in the correctness of those beliefs.

Beliefs should not be confused with facts or hypotheses. Facts and hypotheses are testable; beliefs are not. That is why you need to have faith in God but not in gravity. Because beliefs are not testable, they need not change. Beliefs only change when experience makes faith in them untenable.

This is why I never argue about beliefs; I focus on experience instead. The deeper my experience of reality (God, Tao, etc.), fueled by science and contemplative practice, the fewer beliefs I hold, the more generous my faith in life becomes, and the less I am constrained by religious rituals and creeds. This is the spiritual path set forth in Psalm 34:8: "Taste and see that God is good." Taste and see reality for yourself.

Rami Shapiro's bio is here. His most recent book is The Sacred Art of Lovingkindness. Email questions to rabbirami@SpiritualityHealth.com.