DISCLAIMER: (1) Like every other post on this blog, what follows merely describes how I have come to see things after decades of Bible study, the research and practice of Christianity, research and practice of other paths, etc. No content here is meant to offend, as our mission includes promoting unity, oneness, and basic universal spiritual principles. (2) This post is not finished, but there’s enough here to convey most of the main points. (3) Commenting, intelligent conversation, friendly debate, etc. are strongly encouraged — regardless of your personal worldviews. (4) This post presently covers FAR too much complex material; it needs to be split into separate posts. (5) For what it’s worth… After listening to his latest thoughts on religion and spirituality, I have no firm idea what his true beliefs really are due to three inherent, deep contradictions: "Neville Goddard is a fundamentalist, I agree with Neville Goddard, & I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally."
The material on this page will be appreciated most by:
- Critical thinkers: Those who wisely insist on sound reasoning in the formation & evolution of their beliefs
- Open-minded folks: Those who are willing to modify their beliefs when reason, experience, science, and other education & wisdom warrant such changes
- Philosophers: Those who deeply enjoy contemplating complex and/or philosophical questions that life, religion, & the universe make us wonder about
I was born and raised in a world of Christian fundamentalism; even today — despite having "left the church" long ago — many people with whom I associate continue to believe and practice as religious fundamentalists.[1]
The words "left the church" (above) are enclosed in quotes because abandoning fundamentalism actually improved my understanding of the lessons spiritual teachers such as Jesus tried to teach to their listeners. As such, I consider myself as much a Christian as anyone, though fundies certainly would take issue with that. Many other religious and spiritual labels could apply to me or my beliefs, as well… but they don’t really matter!
Religious labels and spiritual categories allow us to communicate about our beliefs more easily, but that’s about it.
Note [1]: Understandably, some adherents don’t care to be categorized or described as fundamentalists. Fundamentalist is not meant to be a disparaging term in itself, despite how strongly we discourage fundamentalism in all of its forms. Due to wildly varying belief systems and the great importance of spirituality and truth (to many of us, at least), some type of categorization is required. Without categorization or other ways to communicate belief systems or worldviews, communication on these subjects would be made even more complicated than it already is!
Friendly debate on religion, spirituality
Generally speaking, I no longer encourage verbal debates about religion, but where the written word is concerned, I’ll always deeply enjoy opportunities to share about both the experiential side and the intellectual aspects of spiritual teachings and practices. Because religious and spiritual debate can fan the flames of emotion, become loudly passionate, and even get rather nasty on occasion, I prefer to implement specific guidelines to help keep the discussion friendly, interesting, and intellectually challenging.
Bill: One of many religious friends
As I have mentioned in other posts[2], one of my close religious friends is Bill; we enjoy hiking together on a fairly regular basis. We often share our spiritually themed books, audio books, and other material with each other and occasionally discuss spirituality and religion.
Note [2]: This post — Pitfalls: Literal interpretation of the Bible — Example #1: Some believe the Bible commands far-right politics in Ecclesiastes 10:2 — comes to mind re: Bill
It is very comforting and deeply satisfying that Bill and I agree upon the pragmatic, non-supernatural teachings of Christianity, many of these comprising the basic universal spiritual principles included in the increasingly popular list of spiritual principles. As is pointed out throughout these articles and posts, the practical aspects of even deeply divergent religions are in almost complete agreement! This simple fact represents a beautiful, encouraging, and reassuring idea to so many victims of early, frequent exposure to harsh, rigid, divisive forms of religious fundamentalism.
Even so, our beliefs (the worldviews of Bill & this blogger) begin to diverge when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible and supernatural views in general (the supernatural aspects as opposed to the practical teachings of Christianity). Bill is an inerrantist; to Bill, the Bible was essentially written by God and thus contains no errors and represents valid history, biography, and science.
Perspective is everything
Unfortunately, discussions with Bill about religion and spirituality, enjoyable as they can be, are often limited in depth due to the fundamental differences in how supernatural stories are treated. Perspective is everything, in many respects at least — and the great gulf that separates our personal perspectives with regard to religious fundamentalism — the limiting belief in "a one true religion" — can lessen the quality of related conversations.
"God" means something different to Bill and to me
For example, Bill and I have differing ideas in mind regarding the word "God."
To Bill, "God" represents that ideal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, "loving" entity — precisely as the supernatural being is described in the prevailing Protestant versions of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. In keeping with this, Bill also believes — or "knows" — that the literal being "God" had a literal, physical son named Jesus. In actual, factual history, Bill would likely posit, there really was a talking snake — Satan in disguise — and the ark was a real boat built by an elderly Noah; and the global flood is a historically accurate news account; and so on, in tandem with literal scripture interpretation.
On other issues, Bill will not give any opinion — meaning he has not set aside the time or effort to study them or to try to understand the deeper meaning of these scriptures. But…
If Bill is implying that revealed religious scripture (including the Bible) is up to each individual to interpret, then this blogger would be pleased. This would imply that the scriptures do not have any set meaning — that it is up to each person to interpret in a way that is personally meaningful.
On the other hand, when this blogger uses the word God, it is interchangeable with terms like Mother Nature, the universe, creation, Source — or perhaps most accurately, existence itself. To this blogger (and so many others), the idea of God as a separate being (e.g., resulting from literal Bible interpretation) is purely a poetic device, a literary (not literal) representation of an unknowable creative force, something that the mind of man cannot presently comprehend — but not the historical, biographical, fantastical, magical being of the sort envisioned by so many Bible readers who opt for literal interpretation (seven-headed monsters included).
To so many of us, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Literal interpretation creates outrageous, unbelievable stories that include great evil and eternal torture. The message of Jesus is a practical, compassionate, spiritual one — not a religious one that demands specific supernatural beliefs.
Is deep, logical, intellectual, critical thought about religion a BAD thing? Some fundamentalists seem to imply just that! To them (sadly), religious belief is so tenuous it cannot withstand human intelligence. Obviously, such short-sighted comments should be ignored.
Do you believe that faith is a proper alternative to reason and critical thought? If so, then you implicitly support all religions. In other words, those raised in the Muslim world should ignore logic and reason, and simply accept the tenets of Islam on faith.
Care in using the word God
When discussing religion and spirituality with Christian fundamentalists like Bill, this writer does not use the term "God" very often for a simple reason: The listener will almost certainly interpret it in a way that includes that fundamentalist idea of God – and that’s not what I am talking about when I use the word "God." For this reason, I often use alternate words, such as the terminology often used by New Thought teachers as synonyms for the word "God.": the Tao, Source, Mother Nature, universe, universal intelligence, or being. (I am using the word being here to mean existence, as in the verb "to be" — and not to indicate that separate entity of literal Bible interpretation, as in human being.)
Differing perspectives greatly limit clear communication
As you can imagine, if such a basic term as God does not mean the same thing to Bill and me, then clear, cogent communication on the subject becomes far less likely. When a given word is used, Bill and I may be thinking about completely different ideas, concepts, or definitions. If such an important, basic term like "God" isn’t even the same thing to us, one can imagine how many other basic words — terms frequently used in religious or spiritual conversations — might represent vastly varying, fundamentally different ideas. Such different perspectives tend to muddle and complicate discussions about basic religious beliefs and spiritual concepts.
Inherent challenges in religious/spiritual debate
Debating religious and/or spiritual belief systems and related practices is fraught with potential problems and issues.
Religious debate will be largely informal and unorganized if the participants do not set guidelines or are unfamiliar with the general rules of debate, some knowledge of common, major logical fallacies, or even logical skills or aptitude for critical thought in general. A common characteristic of religious fundamentalists who have stuck with the religious beliefs and practices of their upbringing is an overall lack of critical thinking practice and skill — not because they are less intelligent, necessarily, but because they’ve been taught not to question these things. It follows that, since fundamentalists have been trained not to delve too deeply — to just accept whatever their preachers tell them purely on faith — they may lack practice and experience in critical thinking when it comes to subjects like religion and spirituality.
Closed-mindedness = Contempt prior to investigation
While the fundamentalist standard often seems to be a mind that’s both nonobjective and closed, Bill’s mind is wisely a bit more open than those of many other staunch Christian fundamentalists.
Don’t even bother discussing these things with the closed-minded.
Based on experience, this blogger proposes that there is little, if any, fruit to be had from debating or even casually discussing religion and spirituality with the closed-minded. A closed mind points to contempt prior to investigation: words which will probably be recognized by readers familiar with 12-step programs such as A.A.
Is a closed mind even capable of debate — or even cogent discussion?
Let’s say you’re considering discussing or debating religious belief systems with your Mormon friend Andy. If Andy indicates that he already "knows" this or that, or that there can be "no doubt about this or that", or if Andy indicates that his beliefs will not change under any circumstances — regardless of what he learns, what anyone else says, what anyone does, etc. — then, quite obviously, Andy’s mind is shut tighter than a sprung bear trap, thus eliminating the possibility of an enjoyable or intelligent conversation. Unfortunately, debate with a closed mind like Andy’s is simply not possible.
In the above example, Andy is not a true spiritual seeker; according to his sadly limited and limiting worldview, there is nothing further to be learned. The ego has won the battle — so far, at least — in convincing Andy that he already knows what he needs to know.
Sadly, an alarming percentage of Americans are afflicted with such closed minds.
But on a more positive note, spiritual-but-not-religious worldviews like New Thought are gaining much ground today, and most likely comprise the fastest-growing sector of religious belief in the world today — faster growth than even Islam. It may also surprise you that many American Christian fundamentalists:
- Have never even read the Bible all the way through
- Have never applied any real critical thought to difficult, challenging questions about their beliefs
- Sometimes believe it’s wrong even to question these things in the first place
- Cannot answer some of the most basic questions about their belief system
- Avoid reading much science because of the difficult questions often raised by scientific explanations and theories
- Avoid doing any challenging research on their own
- Have no idea that many basic themes in the Bible (e.g., creation, global flood, prophets, miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, creation, etc.) are not original subject matter; that the stories appeared in earlier religious beliefs and myths
Recent discussions
A recent discussion with a fellow concerning the teachings of Wayne Dyer — a popular modern spiritual teacher we both enjoy immensely — evolved into a deeper-than-usual exchange about religion and spirituality, mostly via email.
As a prolific writer and blogger, some writings that are initially intended as emails wind up being too long (or otherwise inappropriate) for email. The remainder of this post is one such example. I was originally going to email it to Bill in an attempt to set some basic ground rules for any further written exchanges about our religious and spiritual beliefs. In the process, I realized such a discussion would probably not bear much fruit because of the varying perspectives — our "spiritual paradigms." Therefore, instead of emailing it to the originally intended recipient, I am publishing it here.
Suggestions for discussions about contrasting beliefs
When planning religious debates, talks about spiritual practices, etc., it can be quite helpful if the participants:
- Know what the major logical fallacies are & and avoid using them
- Carefully consider what’s being said by deeply reading the statements multiple times
- Look up words, learn basic concepts not completely understoodd
- Wait 24 hours before replying if emotions have been stirred
As everyone knows, discussion about religion can be pretty touchy stuff; after all, we are baring our souls — exposing them to potential ridicule — when we disclose our heartfelt beliefs.
Based on my experiences, religious discussion is far less beneficial when the ego has convinced a person that only their own views are correct, that competing views must therefore be wrong — PERIOD. Intelligent exchanges are far less likely with such a closed mind. Such a conversation would not be a discussion or debate; it would amount to nothing but a speech: one person describing his beliefs to the other without adding any convincing critical thought to support those beliefs.
Take my words with a grain of sea salt
These words are merely today’s attempt to explain how I’ve come to see things after decades of Bible study, the research and practice of Christianity, the research and practice of Deism, Buddhism, and other things. Although it is the result of untold research and practice, others should nevertheless take it with a grain of salt… the same grain of salt one would take with any other beliefs: Wayne Dyer’s beliefs, a pastor’s beliefs, your mama’s beliefs, a Mormon’s beliefs, a Muslim’s beliefs, etc.
As they say in Alcoholics Anonymous and related twelve-step programs, opinions are like assholes! We all have our opinions — and given the basic, unknowable nature of all things supernatural (areas that science has not yet reached) — unsupported supernatural beliefs represent little more than opinion.
The more rigid the opinions, the more closed-minded the adherent, then the less worthwhile any further conversation or study would be — as indicated by the popular quote about contempt prior to investigation.
In other words, if a person already insists on a certain answer before the questions are even asked, then the person might as well not study it at all.
One goal of this blog is to encourage all readers to apply critical thought, human reasoning skills, and independent, objective research to their beliefs. Sadly, most do not. There is a sad tendency to avoid critical thought, dodge the tough questions, and stick with the beliefs of their culture, their childhood, or those their peers believe.
So many people have never even read the whole of their own scriptures — much less understand them without having to ask someone else’s opinion! Believe it or not, I know Christians who have never even read the entire Bible — you know, that book they claim to base their entire lives upon? There is no excuse for such ignorance.
Aren’t religion and spirituality important enough to study independently and objectively — from many angles and not just one? Apparently not; the act of attending church seems to be the sum of it for many.
These days, most of us have a world of information at our fingertips. Why not use it to conduct a serious study of one’s own beliefs as well as other worldviews? Why do so many religious people neglect answering the really challenging questions for themselves, instead blindly accepting the dogma from their upbringing?
This type of ignorance is just one perfect example of the lazy behavior, avoidance, and fear that this blog was created to discourage. I humbly ask all readers: Please do your part to spread the positive message of unity, oneness, and adherence to basic universal spiritual principles.
Objectivity in religion and spirituality is one of the most difficult things for the fundamentalist to achieve. And very few ever do, thus limiting themselves severely.
I cannot seem to ignore – or, I am incessantly curious about something Bill said in a previous email. I would like to get a more specific answer.
Bill seemed to indicate two things:
1. He enjoyed and agreed with Neville Goddard in his book, Awakened Imagination.
2. Bill also said that he believes the Bible should be interpreted literally.
Both cannot be true; they are in clear, direct conflict.
The Neville Goddard book – in the first six pages, at least – stresses again and again that the Bible does not represent actual history — that its stories are of a more non-literal, poetic nature.
What I do not understand is how Bill can agree with two completely conflicting viewpoints. I am assuming that Bill understood what he was reading. If Bill did not comprehend the intended meaning of the material in his research, then any further discussion on this subject would be worthless for obvious reasons.
Material must be understood before it can be discussed.
But wait: I DO get it, in a way.
In a sense, I DO understand, because I have been there. I once believed just as Bill does – or damn close, anyway.
Like fingerprints and snowflakes, no two people have exactly the same beliefs.
Like Bill, I believed the Bible was supposed to be interpreted literally. At the time, I was also being exposed to New Thought teachings, Eastern spiritual teachings, and even militant atheism for the first time ever. Heck, I even adopted a form of atheism for a very short time as a rebellious teen (!!!), but quickly saw it to be false by using my Tao-given human abilities of logic and reason.
Over the next several years, I read the Bible cover-to-cover on three separate occasions, and continue to do so today (although it’s slower now, having answered many of the difficult questions I began asking at around age 10).
Obviously, the Bible is one of many books that contain a great deal of spiritual wisdom. But I also was open-minded enough to study many other worldviews. I even practiced some of them – Buddhism, for example, and Deism.
Varied life experience delivers wisdom as few other things can, it seems – but that’s just my opinion – and do I realize my opinion may mean very little to others. It is an experience that cannot be explained, just as the worldview of someone who has never traveled to other countries is by default far more limited than the understanding of a world traveler.
To a worm in a jar of horseradish, the whole world is horseradish.
I started to see the many conflicts between New Thought and Christian fundamentalism. But I loved both sets of teachings. For years, I was NOT willing to believe, accept, or even consider that what I had been taught all my life might not be totally correct.
But I finally broadened my thinking.
Turns out it was bad theology, after all – rigid Christian fundamentalism — exactly as Bill wisely and 100% correctly realized and pointed out to this blogger in one of his emails.
That is the whole reason the blogger decided to get real and look deeply into these things as OBJECTIVELY as possible. No longer would I accept institutional dogma, or believe anything is true just because some preacher — a non-objective fellow who’s paid good money to preach the stuff — might say! (Preachers and pastors obviously must toe the standard line or they will be fired. If they have a different opinion, they must keep it to themselves if they expect to keep their jobs.)
Do you believe that anything is possible?
(…that anything is possible, within reason — not counting giant, invisible, purple spiders in your attic and whatnot!)
If the answer is yes, then by default one must believe that it’s possible for any one of the thousands of world religions to be correct. (If not, then one obviously does not believe that anything is possible.)
The only thing left to do is to do your best to be objective and LAUNCH YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT STUDY that covers many angles – not just the religion one was raised to believe. By limiting serious study to only ONE religion, you are implying that those raised in other religions are correct to stick only with their religion and never look at Christianity.
It might not be possible to see this, depending on how narrow one’s views and beliefs are, how closed minded one might be, how limited one’s willingness might be to study world religion and spirituality, and so on and so forth…
That’s how I became free and finally learned that there is never any reason to worry about anything, ever again – no matter how bad of a mood I might be in, how little money I might have, etc., there is no need to fear death — or anything else whatsoever — and so on…
Mindfulness, tolerance, non-attachment, ego deflation, compassion, and service rule. It’s a beautiful thing… certainly far too beautiful to express in mere words. Even so, may we strive to spread the encouraging, positive message of unity and oneness to the best of our ability.
Resources
No resources apart from Bill’s emails were used in this post.
Removed content
If this is getting old to you, you can feel free to ignore it and I will not bring it up again. (In fact, after this message, I should retire from this line of discussion!! But will I? Prolly not!)
This is an apparent truth (Bible not meant to be taken literally); few still try to support talking snakes with a straight face – not to mention all the other poetic passages and teaching stories.
But none of these crucial steps can even begin to occur until after the affected souls are able to notice and identify the issues, and then engage in the mentally and emotionally rigorous training that allows one to climb to the next level. 
Dave is one of my many Christian fundamentalist friends. We have engaged in a fair amount of talk about religion and spirituality, and I did the best I could at the time to explain a few crucial reasons for the evolution of my beliefs. Admittedly, I was attempting to lead Dave away from the typical, dogmatic, literal interpretation of his chosen "revealed" religious text (the Protestant Bible). I figured I had about a 10% chance (tops) of positively influencing Dave, since my old beliefs are so similar to his current ones. But he would have none of it, and I should have realized that earlier than I did.
It can be rather heartbreaking and frustrating to spend time and effort compiling heartfelt emails and posts, only to have them go misunderstood, unread, or ignored… but it was my choice to do so; it was a risk I decided to take. As I presently see it, my biggest error was attachment, but I probably made numerous other errors as well; e.g., making assumptions, allowing the dreadful ego more wiggle room than I should’ve, misreading the actual level of open-mindedness and willingness, etc.
One applicable 
I happened to catch the last third or so of Bill Moyers’ fantastic, in-depth PBS news commentary program, 
What is it with the Hard Right? Why does the Hard Right consistently adopt such decidedly non-spiritual, self-centered views?
A bigoted, everyone-else-is-inferior viewpoint does not mesh with admirable, respectable global citizenship. Such a big-headed attitude seems to portend doom for that time when American supremacy ultimately and inevitably comes to a close. The very idea that the United States — or any country, for that matter — could ever perpetually maintain absolute global supremacy is a foolish pipe dream. It won’t happen.
The 
Are the 
The opinions resulting from such a loaded question are largely predictable. Like virtually everything else in life, the answer depends upon one’s perspective.
Those who choose to interpret the Bible literally – Hard Right Christian fundamentalists, Biblical literalists, Biblical inerrantists, etc. (the word Christian alone is far too general; thankfully, many Christians reject fundamentalism) – have little choice but to consider spiritual views like New Thought or the Perennial Philosophy as blasphemy. Their reasoning is ultra-simple:
True believers might wonder aloud how anyone could possibly ignore such an amazing gift of love. "Knowing these things, how could anyone do anything else? I mean, don’t you feel it?"
Many thousands of other world religions and spiritual traditions throughout history – including Wayne Dyer’s worldview, which is sometimes called New Thought – do not include one iota of appreciation or respect for the literal killing and sacrifice of God’s son. And that glaring omission of Christ makes all of those (non-Christian fundamentalist) views inherently blasphemous. For true believers within fundamentalism, there’s simply no other way to view opposing or alternative belief systems.
As philosophers and scientists might say, there is no such thing as an objectively true answer to this kind of loaded question. There could not possibly be a sole answer that would be objectively accurate from all perspectives.
On most days, my intake of news consists of the 
It couldn’t be any more obvious that this is an issue of discrimination (not to mention intellectual dishonesty)… The only question is whether this is racial discrimination or political discrimination; neither would be surprising.
Fervent Hard Right, religious fundamentalist Deep South voters pictured here
The Hard Right machine is a uniquely American contraption built upon generous banks of religious and political fundamentalism, which by default designates everyone outside their ranks as being “wrong” (or even evil).
[1] Most Americans no longer believe in a literal Satan/devil… (IT’S ABOUT FREAKING TIME!! Happy happy, joy joy… Now I’m wondering if any fundies out there are thinking, AWW, I wanted Satan and Hell to be REAL!! Damn…)
The usual disclaimer: Traditional, respectful, tolerant, spiritually-principled flavors of Christianity and other religions are not the subject here.
Last but not least, the far right dominionism that has been infecting conservative politics for years ought to remain within the churches and the communities that desire it; extremism cannot be permitted to spread, take hold, and then — God forbid — send the United States careening down a path of horror.
religious extremism — and especially, religious statehood.
Needless to say, Dale’s uninformed agreement with 
It’s quite simple to point out exactly why we wholeheartedly discourage the beliefs (without condemning the believers) of extreme Hard Right religious fundamentalism and religious fideism. (Fideists are those who believe that science, philosophy, reason, and logic are enemies of religious faith, essentially claiming irrationality as a benefit!)
As hard-core supporters of religious freedom and pluralism, we believe it’s perfectly acceptable to hold virtually any religious beliefs one can imaginable –- as long as those religious beliefs and practices do not adversely affect the rest of us, just as I may freely practice and believe as I choose, as long as I do not trample upon the rights or the peace of others.
According to one of the fastest growing "revealed religions" in the world, those who believe Jesus was divine — and those who fail to follow the admonishments of the most recent prophet of God, Mohammad — are destined for eternal hellfire. (Of course, the religion is Islam.)
That’s the bulk of it, for the non-curious types who studied only one religion. (Admittedly, we fail to grasp that mindset.)
Remaining true to the beliefs one was raised to embrace certainly does not make a person defective or dumb; in fact, it demonstrates some positive qualities — such as loyalty and perseverance.
It is indeed hard to believe; despite knowing the horrid dangers of mixing religion with national politics, some Americans want to repeat old experiments[1] by forcing their religious beliefs into government, effectively merging church and state. What wisdom!
I believe the infection of conservative American politics by religious fundamentalism continues to be a major component of present Republican woes, including Americans’ worsening views and ever-poorer opinions of the right wing and its representatives. As religious fundamentalism more deeply infects, corrupts, and sickens the Right, the less popular their political parties and representatives will become — not only in the United States, but around the globe. This troublesome trend is taking Hard Rightist political platforms in the opposite direction of world peace, unity, and mutual respect. But that’s certainly no surprise. Sadly, world peace doesn’t seem to be a priority for Hard Rightists… only winning and forcing their views upon others.
Surely, a wholly secular conservative party will eventually emerge and gradually catch on with the American populace, perhaps leading to a GOP split: