Without going too in depth with it, are you guys saying that unless you believe a text to be the word of God, you're never going to get the full experience? I suppose that's true in one way, but then, say, how's that different from a fundamentalist Christian who believes in creationism vs a more "progressive" Christian who believes it's a metaphor, or believes in a mix of evolution vs creation, or whatever?
The other thing is, I get a little annoyed
when people assume that if you read lots of religious texts you ignore the hard parts and only read the parts that make you feel good about yourself. (I'm not saying anyone on this thread said that but that's the whole "cafeteria catholic" or "spiritual shopper" idea.) When I was talking about the Koran, for example, I highlighted the parts that really appeal to me. But, I have also read, reflected on, and even changed my life around in small ways (so far) due to the "less fun" passages in the Koran. That sounds so shallow but, really, how is that really that much different than a believer's progress?
People say that Allah makes conversion to Islam easy for a person, and He convinces them of the Koran's truth little by little. That, to me, shows an assumption that not everyone is on the same spot on the path to completely and immediately submitting to God, even if that's what's in their heart and that's what their intention is. So, I assume a convert who says and genuinely believes that yes, this is the word of God, literally and forevermore, they're still not going to be immediately submitting perfectly. It's a process. Does that make sense?
I also take the various scriptures with various, hmm. Seriousness, I suppose. That doesn't sound right, but I can't think of a better word. I read Eastern texts, or myths from cultures I'm not too familiar with, mostly for literature / interest. Sometimes I glean spiritual insight from them, but sometimes I'm totally and completely lost. When I tried to read Celtic mythology, like the original stories, I just couldn't get it at.all. Same thing with the REAL Roman myths (i.e. not the ones translated for a modern audience but the word-for-word translations), or the Bhagavad Vita. I was just missing out on SO much because I wasn't from the culture they were written in. They were interesting but it didn't really hold MY interest.
But since I grew up with the Bible and the Koran is very similar to it (Abrahamic religions and all that) I 'get' them much more. I'm not a Christian because I don't believe Jesus was God; I'm not Jewish or Muslim because I don't believe in circumcision and I wouldn't want to have a divided faith family - my husband wouldn't celebrate or practice with us, and I think that would cause a lot of tension. But I suppose I consider myself "Abrahamic" so I sort of claim the literature of all three as "my" scriptures. Not 100% completely, but sort of, like Christians kept the Old Testament in the Bible. They may not follow it to the letter, but it's still a part of their faith.
)
.
