Liberal Christianity, what's the point?

[dave_a]

I don't much care for religious fundamentalism. In my opinion it tends to bring out the worst in people.

I know scads of sorta to very liberal Christians though and they seem to be normal people. On one end they have a belief in God and believe Jesus is the embodiment of that god and that is about the extent of their faith as far as I can see it.

Others act just like anyone else, aren't too judgemental, but they have a greater body of beliefs. Some of them are certainly heretical from an orthodox point of view, but their religious belief is used as a basis for their morality even though they knowingly or unknowingly reject much of Christianity's moral teachings. I don't understand that.

As an example, the bible quite clearly teaches that pre marital or extra marital sex is a sin. It also teaches that homosexuality is a sin. These people might be opposed to gay marriage, but don't think anything wrong with having sex outside of wedlock. One coworker who is borderline homophobic and certainly opposed to same sex marriage was lamenting recently that the US was too conservative in terms of sexuality. His time spent in European nations convinced him the more open display of sexuality in media in those nations was healthier than the US regulations.

Another friend has almost identical beliefs as I do and thinks churches are scams, but he recently got married by a Jesuit priest who is ultra fundamental in terms of the Catholic beliefs and he has had some plant thing in his truck since palm sunday.

I don't really understand the attraction of liberal christianity.

Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains. Liberal Christians certainly don't believe the former, so why place any faith in what it says? Catholics particulary mystify me as they have so many beliefs that aren't even in the bible, but are simply church traditions. Given the colorful (blood red) history of the Catholic Church and thier power politics, why would anyone believe anything they say? Why would anyone consider the pope more trustworthy than Ken Lay?

In a sense I have more of an understanding of fundamentalist Christians than I do liberal ones. A fundy has checked their brain at the door and has emotion based reasons for believing stuff that is unbelievable to any rational person who has put in any amount of study.

A liberal Christian on the other hand generally rejects the authority of the pope, the infallibility of the bible, regards things like a 6 day creation or Noah's ark as myths, yet still places some trust in the teachings/traditions of the bible or their church.

Why?

[Petra]

Briefly:

I think many liberal Christians are "cultural" Christians, in that they come from a country with a predominantly Christian culture, and therefore accept Christ almost by default. Ergo, they naturally believe in a diety of some sort, and their historical or cultural bias leads them to believe in God through the Christ figure.

If they are of a certain age, then musicals like Jesus Christ Superstar and The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, etc, may have played a part in their more liberal "feel good", generous interpretations of Bible stories and the Jesus figure.

There is also a kind of blending of East and West. A kind of Bible meets the Baghadvita. Unavoidable, really; but, sadly, subject to fashion.


IOW, it's just another way of life, man. And that, to me, is the only 'point' I need.


I like Liberal Christians. I like their Live and Let Live attitude to love, life and liberty. :)


Please bear in mind that I have absolutely zippo knowledge in this. Zilch. Zero. None whatsoever.

[seebs]

As an example, the bible quite clearly teaches that pre marital or extra marital sex is a sin.

Where?

Seriously! Where?

Remember that our usages of words coined to translate Biblical words are all subject to semantic drift.

So far as I can tell, the sexual sins you can show reasonably clearly from the Bible are:
1. Poaching. Adultery is the crime of sleeping with someone else's wife.
2. Rape. (Although the case isn't as strong as you might like it to be.)
3. Purely casual sex.

I can find nothing addressing the modern notion of "premarital sex", partially because the celebration of weddings has changed so much over the milennia.

It also teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

No, it doesn't.

You could make a decent case for the teaching that "having gay sex" is a sin. I could probably rebut it with about five pages of detailed analysis, passages you've never seen quoted, cultural context, and studies of the relations between passages.

I don't really understand the attraction of liberal christianity.

I do!

Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains. Liberal Christians certainly don't believe the former, so why place any faith in what it says?

Because at least some of what it says is right, and I've had good luck with its predictive power. Perhaps more importantly, the errors seem to come consistently from bad hermeneutics.

Catholics particulary mystify me as they have so many beliefs that aren't even in the bible, but are simply church traditions. Given the colorful (blood red) history of the Catholic Church and thier power politics, why would anyone believe anything they say? Why would anyone consider the pope more trustworthy than Ken Lay?

Er, "simply" church traditions implies in many cases that they've been teaching the same thing since before there was a Bible. In other cases, it reflects a very long and careful process of study of the things they believe.

Note that the word "tradition" is not the same as Sacred Tradition, which is a formal term of art and refers to a fairly small set of beliefs which are written down and carefully studied, and which do not change on a perceptible time scale.

A liberal Christian on the other hand generally rejects the authority of the pope, the infallibility of the bible, regards things like a 6 day creation or Noah's ark as myths, yet still places some trust in the teachings/traditions of the bible or their church.

Why?

Boy. That gets into a long question. Lemme start here.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Credibility? I could find that scrawled in crayon on a crumpled napkin, and I would recognize it immediately as a real and important truth.

It's true. I don't need the source to be credible to recognize the thing itself.

I have written at length, over on ChristianForums, about the reasons I believe what I do. There is stuff out there which is a lot bigger than me. My best attempts to understand it have left me with the theory that, once you get past all the cruft people tack on, Christianity actually describes these things pretty well. It offers me a way of living that has reliably and consistently proved better than what I used to do. I am, to a certain extent, being pragmatic; honestly, even if you convince me that all the God-language is just meaningless bable, words without referents, I'll still follow this way of life, because it works.

But I am the sort to try to puzzle out why things work, and I eventually became convinced that Christianity's explanation is the best one available to me.

I used to be a pretty angry person; now I'm not. Over the last 15 years or so, I have gradually become more like I want to be, more in control of myself... And in ways that are not much like the way my own attempts at self-correction work. I have come to believe that this is a result of interacting with Something. What's that Something like? I don't know exactly. Big. Patient. Not much like us, but willing to talk down to us a bit.

One day, I noticed that I recognized this entity as a major character in the Gospels.

So... I can accept Christianity, or I can try to get away from the best guesses I have available. The most rational thing I can do, from where I am now, is give this stuff some credence, because the alternative is to reject enough of my understanding of the outside world that I might as well be a solipsist.

One thing I'd like to stress, which a lot of people seem to miss: Liberal Christianity is not "Christianity with the tough stuff taken out". It's a totally different religion, with teachings most fundamentalists don't have, or handwave away.

So, for instance, I think the whole "turn the other cheek" thing is actually intended to apply. Someone tries to hurt me, I don't generally fight back; I try to make friends, and I don't try to guilt them, or hurt them back, or anything.

Now, some people make the "well, they'll go to Hell" argument, as though it's okay if people are bad as long as an even bigger bully will be bad to them in turn later. Nasty, horrible, stuff... Makes me angry enough that I get a little sick. It's not about that. It's that the people hurting you are generally already miserable.

The Beatitudes are a new way of life, not a revenge fantasy. It works.

So... What's the attraction? The attraction is that I live in a world full of people worth loving. That's a belief worth keeping, I think. The attraction is that I'm learning to be a more honest, kinder, person. That's worth it.

In short... The basic problem with humans is xenophobia, I believe. Our desire to have everything filtered into "us" and "them" is the root of so much human misery it's hard to even imagine a world without it. Christianity, as taught by Jesus, describes this problem about fifty different ways, and offers a way out. That mainstream Christianity often exemplifies this very problem is hardly surprising. What's amazing is that there is a way out, and it works. I'll buy into that.

[JoeP]

bad hermeneuticsThose bad hermeneutics will get you every time.

Would you care to post an explanation? Dictionary definitions I've found are too concise and web pages too lengthy.

Good post, btw.

[Dingfod]

I like Liberal Christians. I like their Live and Let Live attitude to love, life and liberty. Having been raised a liberal Christian and having been around them for my whole life, I think most are believers, they may cherry-pick their beliefs, but they do believe in God and Jesus and what they see as the basic message of their bible. But, the difference between them and the more fundamentalist Christian, is that they don't feel compelled to impose their set of beliefs or morals on other people, like lunachick said, "their Live and Let Live attitude". That may have changed a bit over the 30 years or so since I last was connected with the religion, for one thing, there are fewer liberal Christians, for another, whole organizations have moved toward fundamentalism, the Southern Baptist Church for one.

[HelenM]

Hi dantonac,

[I know this is off-topic, however, I hope you will bear with me for one post: you've written things about fundamentalist Christians that I've often seen on other boards predominated by nontheists. I don't know whether you're speaking from first-hand experience of a rather limited sample of such Christians, or whether you're echoing what you've read/heard from other nontheists but based on my experience, I find them inaccurate. So I've addressed those comments as well as offering a couple of thoughts about the point of liberal Christianity. I hope my comments don't lead to a big derail of your thread, since that was not my intention and besides, I don't want to spend the limited online time I have trying to discuss or defend fundamentalist Christianity at length anyway (as became clearly to me recently in other thread on here).]

I don't much care for religious fundamentalism. In my opinion it tends to bring out the worst in people.

If you didn't see them before they were religious fundamentalists you can't be sure of that :eek:

Anyway, that's your opinion; is your opinion based on experience and if so, how extensive is that experience?

I know scads of sorta to very liberal Christians though and they seem to be normal people.

You can't always judge by appearances and I'm against jumping to hasty conclusions, but maybe they are normal, then ;)

On one end they have a belief in God and believe Jesus is the embodiment of that god and that is about the extent of their faith as far as I can see it.

And that can mean what to me can be a bewildering array of things; for example they don't necessarily believe God is a 'person'.

Others act just like anyone else, aren't too judgemental

Please bear in mind that not all religious fundamentalists are especially judgmental and some atheists are extremely judgmental.

, but they have a greater body of beliefs. Some of them are certainly heretical from an orthodox point of view, but their religious belief is used as a basis for their morality even though they knowingly or unknowingly reject much of Christianity's moral teachings. I don't understand that.

As an example, the bible quite clearly teaches that pre marital or extra marital sex is a sin. It also teaches that homosexuality is a sin. These people might be opposed to gay marriage, but don't think anything wrong with having sex outside of wedlock. One coworker who is borderline homophobic and certainly opposed to same sex marriage was lamenting recently that the US was too conservative in terms of sexuality. His time spent in European nations convinced him the more open display of sexuality in media in those nations was healthier than the US regulations.

Seebs already addressed that some of this is a matter of interpretation. You can find websites which argue that the Bible doesn't teach the above, if you look for them. You may also think their interpretations are unreasonable, given what the actual text of the Bible is, however. I can't tell whether you're saying "The Bible clearly teaches" because you haven't come across those who say it doesn't, or because you have and reject their arguments.

Another friend has almost identical beliefs as I do and thinks churches are scams, but he recently got married by a Jesuit priest who is ultra fundamental in terms of the Catholic beliefs and he has had some plant thing in his truck since palm sunday.

I don't really understand the attraction of liberal christianity.

Evidently ;). Yet you imply above that liberal Christians are more normal and less judgmental. There already is part of the appeal, in other words, those who think fundamentalist Christians are very judgmental and abnormal may be more drawn to a liberal Christian community.

Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains.

Why? Certainly I've heard fundamentalists claim this but I don't see why there are only two choices. Why is it impossible to think that God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right about Him but not completely right? And/or that over time, people came to a better understanding of God - so there has been a sort of 'evolution' of understanding of God which means that ancient writings about God are somewhat correct but not entirely?

Those are just some of the options you dismissed in your either/or, which would make the Bible worth reading and would describe a liberal Christian position.

In a sense I have more of an understanding of fundamentalist Christians than I do liberal ones. A fundy has checked their brain at the door and has emotion based reasons for believing stuff that is unbelievable to any rational person who has put in any amount of study.

If that's what you think about fundamentalist Christians, I'd say you have very little understanding of them. What you do understand, ironically, is one of their reasons for rejecting liberal Christianity - you've stated it very well in this post.

A liberal Christian on the other hand generally rejects the authority of the pope, the infallibility of the bible, regards things like a 6 day creation or Noah's ark as myths, yet still places some trust in the teachings/traditions of the bible or their church.

Why?

I've tried to give a couple of answers, but I hope you will read Seebs' comments since he is an expert on this subject :)

Helen

[dave_a]

Hi dantonac,

I know this is off-topic, however, I hope you will bear with me for one post: you've written things about fundamentalist Christians that I've often seen on other boards predominated by nontheists.

Sure, these traits aren't limtted to theists, they just seemed to me to be over represented among religious fundmentlists. In any event, I am not here to attack fundamentalism perse, but to contrast it with liberal christianity, the appeal of which I am trying to understand.

I don't much care for religious fundamentalism. In my opinion it tends to bring out the worst in people.

If you didn't see them before they were religious fundamentalists you can't be sure of that :eek:

Sure, maybe they possessed the traits and thus were attracted to fundamentalism, I dunno.

Anyway, that's your opinion; is your opinion based on experience and if so, how extensive is that experience?

I spent the first 20 something years of my life as a bible thumping fundy. Most of my family is fundy. I have found descriptions of other's experiences with fundys has much in common with mine.

Please bear in mind that not all religious fundamentalists are especially judgmental and some atheists are extremely judgmental.

I agree with the latter, but not the former.

Seebs already addressed that some of this is a matter of interpretation. You can find websites which argue that the Bible doesn't teach the above, if you look for them. You may also think their interpretations are unreasonable, given what the actual text of the Bible is, however. I can't tell whether you're saying "The Bible clearly teaches" because you haven't come across those who say it doesn't, or because you have and reject their arguments.

One of my criticisms of the Christians I knew *when I was a Christian* is that so few had ever read the bible from cover to cover. One of the reasons I lost my faith was that I did read the bible through many times and also studied it systematically from various theological perspectives. I generally view the theology of liberal Christianity as offensive because it is a prime example of twisting the plain meaning of words to the point where they mean the opposite of what they say. I have heard the arguments that the Bible doesn't really consider homosexuality an abomination, that nonbelievers aren't really going to hell etc., but that's a silly thing to believe, imo, because it requires one to believe words mean the opposite of what they mean. Anyway, I am not trying to debate what the bible does or doesn't teach, I am getting sidetracked.

Anyway, I was commenting on the rest of your posting, but I realized it/I was getting increasingly argumentative, which isn't my purpose in this thread. Thank you for your response.

[dave_a]

Thank you, Seebs, for your response.

It definitely helps me to understand the attraction of liberal Christianity for some.

[HelenM]

One of my criticisms of the Christians I knew *when I was a Christian* is that so few had ever read the bible from cover to cover. One of the reasons I lost my faith was that I did read the bible through many times and also studied it systematically from various theological perspectives. I generally view the theology of liberal Christianity as offensive because it is a prime example of twisting the plain meaning of words to the point where they mean the opposite of what they say. I have heard the arguments that the Bible doesn't really consider homosexuality an abomination, that nonbelievers aren't really going to hell etc., but that's a silly thing to believe, imo, because it requires one to believe words mean the opposite of what they mean. Anyway, I am not trying to debate what the bible does or doesn't teach, I am getting sidetracked.

Ok, but - and maybe this is my fault for all the off-topic comments in my response - I didn't see you address this part of my response:

You:Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains.

Me: Why? Certainly I've heard fundamentalists claim this but I don't see why there are only two choices. Why is it impossible to think that God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right about Him but not completely right? And/or that over time, people came to a better understanding of God - so there has been a sort of 'evolution' of understanding of God which means that ancient writings about God are somewhat correct but not entirely?

Those are just some of the options you dismissed in your either/or, which would make the Bible worth reading and would describe a liberal Christian position.

Could you comment specifically on this? The options I presented are different from taking words and claiming they mean the opposite of what they mean. Taking words and claiming they mean the opposite is more what I see people doing who are not liberal per se because they do believe the Bible is the Word of God. That's why they need to come up with different meanings for certain parts that they don't agree with. They are not free in the way liberal Christians are free to say "It's not the Word of God; some of it has value for me; other parts don't".

Anyway, I was commenting on the rest of your posting, but I realized it/I was getting increasingly argumentative, which isn't my purpose in this thread. Thank you for your response.

You're welcome :). Possibly I was a little overly argumentative myself in my first response.

Helen

[dave_a]

OK, I have given this a bit more thought and I want to rephrase my inquiry a bit.

I do understand that Christianity has some teachings which are appealing. The golden rule, being compassionate and charitable and all that.

I can understand why such teachings would be appealing so in that sense I understand the appeal of liberal Christianity.

What I don't understand is why bother to regard those beliefs as part of Christianity versus some other faith which teaches similar things or even better (imo), divorcing those beliefs from the teachings of any formal religion and just holding to those beliefs because they seem good and right to you?

Christianity is a label that carries an awful lot of baggage, why carry that baggage versus just dumping it?

In other words, what is distinct about Christiainity that causes a person to reject the fundamentalism and the historical orthodox beliefs, but hang onto the other stuff like the golden rule rather than just having a generic belief in being a nice person?

[livius drusus]

Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains. Liberal Christians certainly don't believe the former, so why place any faith in what it says?

This looks like a false dichotomy to me. In my liberal Christian days, I thought the Bible was a divinely inspired work of men and therefore dismissed the parts that seemed to me like reflections of the ancient hangups of ancient men.

I guess I don't see why it's hard to imagine that I would place faith in the parts of the Bible that I found beautiful or rung true to me. :shrug:

Catholics particulary mystify me as they have so many beliefs that aren't even in the bible, but are simply church traditions. Given the colorful (blood red) history of the Catholic Church and thier power politics, why would anyone believe anything they say? Why would anyone consider the pope more trustworthy than Ken Lay?

Well, I suppose because the days of the Borgias are over and modern popes ain't like that no moah. I wasn't a Catholic per se, but I was certainly surrounded by them, and although there's a certain amount of respect for the office itself, I think generally speaking a person who has dedicated his life to God, even under extreme circumstances as the current pope did during WWII and the Cold War, is deemed worthy of trust.

There's a real power in those traditions you mentioned, dantonac; a sense of mystery, of being part of an immense whole, which is deeply compelling. I've stood in St. Peter's square watching the black smoke over the Vatican turn white twice in my lifetime, and it was a profound experience even for a whiney kid who didn't like standing around in big crowds for ages.

A liberal Christian on the other hand generally rejects the authority of the pope

A non-Catholic does, of course, but I wouldn't say Catholics generally reject the authority of the pope. People still pick and choose, of course, but I doubt there are many Catholics out there who would say they categorically reject papal authority. Unless it's the sede vacantist types, but they're not liberal by any stretch of the imagination and they just reject the post Vatican II popes, not the authority of the papacy itself.

the infallibility of the bible

That's not Catholic doctrine anyway. In fact, I would say it's quite a rare position even in Protestantism.

regards things like a 6 day creation or Noah's ark as myths, yet still places some trust in the teachings/traditions of the bible or their church.

Why?

Because those teachings make sense to them, they inspire them to lead better, richer lives. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Edit: cross-post, dammit, but I don't wanna toss the whole post, so I'll address your revised question in a new one. Sorry for the redundancy.

[wildernesse]

There is no point.

[beyelzu]

Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains. Liberal Christians certainly don't believe the former, so why place any faith in what it says?

This looks like a false dichotomy to me. In my liberal Christian days, I thought the Bible was a divinely inspired work of men and therefore dismissed the parts that seemed to me like reflections of the ancient hangups of ancient men.

I guess I don't see why it's hard to imagine that I would place faith in the parts of the Bible that I found beautiful or rung true to me. :shrug:


I agree that the case as made by dantonac is indeed a false dichotomy, because he assumed an omnimax god that wanted man to be enlightened. Any third option that you propose will run afoul of one of those two conditions.

[livius drusus]

I agree that the case as made by dantonac is indeed a false dichotomy, because he assumed an omnimax god that wanted man to be enlightened. Any third option that you propose will run afoul of one of those two conditions.

I didn't see it that way at the time and I still don't. I believed in an omnimax God who wanted people to be enlightened, but it didn't therefore follow that he would inject Ultimate Truth on Everything into the people who wrote the Bible. In fact, that kind of control freak editing would have struck me as more of a fundamentalist God's thing than the nice guy I believed in.

Besides, why would the Bible be the sole source of enlightenment? I saw evidence of God in all kinds of things. I experienced a genuine feeling of grace on a rollercoaster once and even though my friends chuckled at it, it meant a great deal to me.

[beyelzu]

I agree that the case as made by dantonac is indeed a false dichotomy, because he assumed an omnimax god that wanted man to be enlightened. Any third option that you propose will run afoul of one of those two conditions.

I didn't see it that way at the time and I still don't. I believed in an omnimax God who wanted people to be enlightened, but it didn't therefore follow that he would inject Ultimate Truth on Everything into the people who wrote the Bible. In fact, that kind of control freak editing would have struck me as more of a fundamentalist God's thing than the nice guy I believed in.

Besides, why would the Bible be the sole source of enlightenment? I saw evidence of God in all kinds of things. I experienced a genuine feeling of grace on a rollercoaster once and even though my friends chuckled at it, it meant a great deal to me.
new thread
ending the derailment (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=23220#post23220)

[seebs]

What I don't understand is why bother to regard those beliefs as part of Christianity versus some other faith which teaches similar things or even better (imo), divorcing those beliefs from the teachings of any formal religion and just holding to those beliefs because they seem good and right to you?

Well, some of the beliefs that have good explanatory power for me seem pretty closely tied to the religion.

Furthermore... If I'm so quick to disassociate myself from "those people", those nasty mean people everyone seems to think of when they talk about Christians... I've just bought into the thing I was trying to get away from.

Christianity is a label that carries an awful lot of baggage, why carry that baggage versus just dumping it?

Because to do otherwise would, for me, be less honest. I actually believe certain things; denying this would not help me.

In other words, what is distinct about Christiainity that causes a person to reject the fundamentalism and the historical orthodox beliefs, but hang onto the other stuff like the golden rule rather than just having a generic belief in being a nice person?

I'd argue that to a large extent, liberal Christianity is a reassertion of some of the historical orthodox beliefs, while dropping more modern inventions. Fundamentalism is an invention of the early 1900s, although it has roots going back probably almost as far as 1800.

But... I don't necessarily pick my beliefs on outcomes, I just believe what I believe. It turns out not to matter much whether or not I like Christianity all the time, the basic claims appear to be true.

[seebs]

the infallibility of the bible

That's not Catholic doctrine anyway. In fact, I would say it's quite a rare position even in Protestantism.

To be picky, most Catholics and most Protestants consider the Bible "infallible", but that's a term of art, meaning, if you study the Bible and seek God, you will find God and not Something Else. At least, that's the theory. As the Catholics are so fond of saying, "... in matters of faith and morals."

[dave_a]

Ok, but - and maybe this is my fault for all the off-topic comments in my response - I didn't see you address this part of my response:

You:Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains.

Me: Why? Certainly I've heard fundamentalists claim this but I don't see why there are only two choices. Why is it impossible to think that God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right about Him but not completely right? And/or that over time, people came to a better understanding of God - so there has been a sort of 'evolution' of understanding of God which means that ancient writings about God are somewhat correct but not entirely?

Those are just some of the options you dismissed in your either/or, which would make the Bible worth reading and would describe a liberal Christian position.

Could you comment specifically on this? The options I presented are different from taking words and claiming they mean the opposite of what they mean. Taking words and claiming they mean the opposite is more what I see people doing who are not liberal per se because they do believe the Bible is the Word of God. That's why they need to come up with different meanings for certain parts that they don't agree with. They are not free in the way liberal Christians are free to say "It's not the Word of God; some of it has value for me; other parts don't".

Well in my view if one is going to follow some diety, one needs to have some means of knowing things about that diety. If the bible was the inerrant word of God as some believe it to be, then every part of the bible should be taken as absolute truth and followed. It wouldn't make any sense to disregard or disbelieve something that was inerrant.

If one rejects the inerrancy of the bible, then one is left with nothing solid to go on in terms of Christianity. If one says they don't believe the part about creation or the flood are correct, then how can one put any confidence in the part about the resurrection of Jesus? One might wish to believe it true, but there is no standard of truth to appeal to. Also, when I hear folks say that human understanding of the divine has evolved and we can disregard those portions of the bible which are not consistent with one's understanding of the divine how exactly does one determine which parts are correct and which are not?

It would appear many are not bothered by the fact that their faith is based upon a whole lot of stuff they don't believe, the history of those practicing that faith has been very bloody, used as justification for just about every social evil under the sun, and yet some who reject all of that still find something appealing about considering themselves Christian.

I do understand desiring to have a moral code of sorts that is found in the teachings of some faith, but why Christianity is my question. What is unique about Christianity that makes it more valuable to a liberal Christian than being a buddhist, religious humanist or Wiccan? Why view one's beliefs as Christian and why own the name Christian given the baggage associated with it? Why not just take the moral teachings that appeal to you and call them your own.

Most of what I understand liberal Christian teachings to be are generic, be a good person type stuff. As such I don't understand why the liberal Christian considers themselves a Christian at all rather than perhaps some sort of Unitarian Universalist or religious humanist.

That's my question though, what is it about Christianity that makes it worth being a part of instead of something more generic or something without the baggage?

[Goliath]

There is no point.

Thank you, wildy.

So why are you a xian, then?

[livius drusus]

To be picky, most Catholics and most Protestants consider the Bible "infallible", but that's a term of art, meaning, if you study the Bible and seek God, you will find God and not Something Else. At least, that's the theory.

Fair enough. I read dantonac's use of infallible as meaning literally correct in every detail, but I have no difficulty accepting that most Christians would embrace the term of art version.

As the Catholics are so fond of saying, "... in matters of faith and morals."

Catholics are fond of saying that about the papal infallibility, iirc, not scriptural.

[seebs]

As the Catholics are so fond of saying, "... in matters of faith and morals."

Catholics are fond of saying that about the papal infallibility, iirc, not scriptural.

No, scripture too. At least, it's been that way since Galileo. :) The Catholics are fond of explaining that the Bible is not a science textbook.

[dave_a]

Well, some of the beliefs that have good explanatory power for me seem pretty closely tied to the religion.

Furthermore... If I'm so quick to disassociate myself from "those people", those nasty mean people everyone seems to think of when they talk about Christians... I've just bought into the thing I was trying to get away from.

<snipped my comment>

Because to do otherwise would, for me, be less honest. I actually believe certain things; denying this would not help me.



Well, that is really my question. What is it that is *unique* to Christianity that you believe to be true that causes you to value the label Christian versus some other label or no label at all?

So far in this thread I have heard things like compassion, mercy, charity and the like. These things are not unique to Christianity though.

[seebs]

Well in my view if one is going to follow some diety, one needs to have some means of knowing things about that diety.

That'd be nice.

If one is going to interact with a physical world, one needs to have some means of knowing things about that world. And believe me, I'd love to have one. But, for now, I just have secondary approximations, experiences, inferences, and the opportunity to compare what I believe to be my memories of my experiences with what I believe to be other people.

It may be that I just have a very high tolerance for ambiguity. :)

If the bible was the inerrant word of God as some believe it to be, then every part of the bible should be taken as absolute truth and followed. It wouldn't make any sense to disregard or disbelieve something that was inerrant.

Uh-huh. And those people spend half their time trying to draw up elaborate ways of showing that the things they believe really aren't contradictory, and they rarely have any time or emotional energy left for, oh, I dunno, loving people.

If one rejects the inerrancy of the bible, then one is left with nothing solid to go on in terms of Christianity.

Well, I dunno. I think you could do okay just believing in a church; this is why some Catholics are Catholics, they have no basis for accepting the Bible without someone to tell 'em it's good. (Augustine was in this camp.)

Or, you could just say "hey, I don't really have anything solid, but this is my best guess."

If one says they don't believe the part about creation or the flood are correct, then how can one put any confidence in the part about the resurrection of Jesus? One might wish to believe it true, but there is no standard of truth to appeal to.

One common response is that different books have qualities which suggest different writing styles. The Torah was written down by people long after the alleged Deluge. By contrast, the people writing down the Gospel narratives may have even been alive during them; at most, they were a generation or so later.

Also, when I hear folks say that human understanding of the divine has evolved and we can disregard those portions of the bible which are not consistent with one's understanding of the divine how exactly does one determine which parts are correct and which are not?

By trying one's best.

Science has evolved, and we can disregard those portions of old notions of physics which are not consistent with modern science. So, we do tests to see which things work, and which we need to rethink.

Christians do this too. They pray, they live their lives, they try to learn from their mistakes.

It would appear many are not bothered by the fact that their faith is based upon a whole lot of stuff they don't believe, the history of those practicing that faith has been very bloody, used as justification for just about every social evil under the sun, and yet some who reject all of that still find something appealing about considering themselves Christian.

Well, the social evils and bloody history strike me as unexceptional; I can put those down to "other practitioners are as human as I am".

But I don't think my faith is "based upon" the stuff I don't believe. I think it's based on my own experiences and struggles towards explaining something much too big for me to understand it, let alone put it into words.

I do understand desiring to have a moral code of sorts that is found in the teachings of some faith, but why Christianity is my question. What is unique about Christianity that makes it more valuable to a liberal Christian than being a buddhist, religious humanist or Wiccan? Why view one's beliefs as Christian and why own the name Christian given the baggage associated with it? Why not just take the moral teachings that appeal to you and call them your own.

Look at it this way. You can't just sit down and decide to believe something, right? You can't just say "well, you know, I'm sorta bummed about mortality, so I think I believe in reincarnation now". But... You also can't just toss a belief out. You can't just say "admittedly, my entire life experience has left me convinced of this, but I don't want to be associated wiith that, so I don't believe it now".

Why view my beliefs as Christian? Because they are, at this point, firmly tied to my best guess at the nature of Jesus, called the Christ.

Most of what I understand liberal Christian teachings to be are generic, be a good person type stuff.

Hmm. I think there's a tendency for people to gloss over the scary stuff, and to end up with liberal Christian beliefs being "only those beliefs held by other Christians, but not scary to us".

There's a lot of stuff that I don't think is quite generic. Many or most people would reject my belief that unconditional love for people is morally obligatory. (I recognize that it's also essentially impossible, but I think it is a good moral standard.) A lot of people, especially evangelicals, reduce "love" for people to "trying to make them go to Heaven by making them agree", but that's not the point.

I will agree that good people from other faiths do many of the same things. This is one of the reasons I believe in objective morality.

That's my question though, what is it about Christianity that makes it worth being a part of instead of something more generic or something without the baggage?

I don't think payoff matters, really... It's the best explanation I can find. And some of that "baggage" turns out to be interesting or meaningful. "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." I have found a great deal of benefit from reading the writings of Christian writers. Having shared language and terminology helps.

But, ultimately... I think that guy was, in some way I don't particularly expect to understand, simultaneously like us, and like whatever it is that moves the universe, and phrases like "Jesus was God" are close enough to what I'm trying to express for me to accept them as working language.

[livius drusus]

As the Catholics are so fond of saying, "... in matters of faith and morals."

Catholics are fond of saying that about the papal infallibility, iirc, not scriptural.

No, scripture too. At least, it's been that way since Galileo. :) The Catholics are fond of explaining that the Bible is not a science textbook.

Catholics say the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and morals? I seriously have never seen such a coining in all 12 years of Marymount, nor do I believe Catholics have been using the Bible is not a science textbook explanation since Galileo. I don't want to derail dantonac's thread twice, though, so mebbe we should take it to a new one or PM.

[godfry n. glad]

Shouldn't this be restated as, "Theism, what's the point?"

godfry n. glad

[wildernesse]

Deleted since the person I was responding to has stated that he has no interest in dialogue with the likes of me, so why bother.

[dave_a]

Shouldn't this be restated as, "Theism, what's the point?"

godfry n. glad

Not from my perspective, no. I don't have any trouble understanding some potential reasons that a person would believe in some concept of a diety. I don't have any beliefs in a diety, but having a generic belief in the divine is something I can wrap my brain around.

It is only when we give a specific identification to that diety and call it Jesus or Allah or whatever that I start to have questions.

For a fundy Christian I understand how they can believe what they do, but it's the liberal Christian that I have difficulty understanding.

To call the deity Jesus rather than something else or reverting to a generic deism/theism would seem to me to require something in the way of proof that goes beyond what I usually find liberal Christians to believe in, but that's the point of my inquiry :D

Really I asked about liberal Christianity, but if there was a liberalized form of Islam (perhaps there is?) I could ask the same question about that.

I guess I have something of an all or nothing point of view. Either the faith is internally credible and consistent or it isn't. If it isn't then toss it. That's my perspective anyway.

I went from being a fundy Christian to an atheist rather than a liberal Christian though so I suppose I am just wired that way.

[godfry n. glad]

Either the faith is internally credible and consistent or it isn't. If it isn't then toss it. That's my perspective anyway.


Well, from my perspective, the presumptions made by the theological are unwarrented whether they are fundamentalist or liberal in nature. Neither is "internally credible and consistent." Both have the same "point"....to make the believer feel better about themselves and their particular point of view....as being "right" or "righteous". All that differs is that they pick different snippets of scripture to focus upon and interpret the results differently.

So.... I guess my answer to your question in the OP is: "Same as fundamentalist Christianity, orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholic Christianity, Judaism, Hellenistic paganism, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, and any particular brand of theisitic belief you want to cite."

godfry

[seebs]

Well, from my perspective, the presumptions made by the theological are unwarrented whether they are fundamentalist or liberal in nature. Neither is "internally credible and consistent." Both have the same "point"....to make the believer feel better about themselves and their particular point of view....as being "right" or "righteous". All that differs is that they pick different snippets of scripture to focus upon and interpret the results differently.

I'd have to disagree. I think this is a common trend in just about all belief systems, hardly specific to religion; I've certainly seen atheists who pick beliefs to make themselves feel "rational".

But... I don't think my religion makes me think of my particular point of view as "righteous", and I'm probably more than average convinced that there are errors in it I just don't know about yet.

So... Yeah. People want to be part of "us" and be sure that "us" is better than "them". But not all people do this all the time...

[seebs]

For a fundy Christian I understand how they can believe what they do, but it's the liberal Christian that I have difficulty understanding.

To call the deity Jesus rather than something else or reverting to a generic deism/theism would seem to me to require something in the way of proof that goes beyond what I usually find liberal Christians to believe in, but that's the point of my inquiry :D

Why should I have some really high standard of proof? If I can't find solid proof of anything, wouldn't it make sense for me to make the best choice I can, and go with it?

[beyelzu]

Deleted since the person I was responding to has stated that he has no interest in dialogue with the likes of me, so why bother.
I would like to hear your response, if you dont want to say it here, would you pm me the gist of it?

[seebs]

Deleted since the person I was responding to has stated that he has no interest in dialogue with the likes of me, so why bother.
I would like to hear your response, if you dont want to say it here, would you pm me the gist of it?

Actually, me too. I am fascinated by the different ways in which people approach these questions.

[dave_a]

For a fundy Christian I understand how they can believe what they do, but it's the liberal Christian that I have difficulty understanding.

To call the deity Jesus rather than something else or reverting to a generic deism/theism would seem to me to require something in the way of proof that goes beyond what I usually find liberal Christians to believe in, but that's the point of my inquiry :D

Why should I have some really high standard of proof? If I can't find solid proof of anything, wouldn't it make sense for me to make the best choice I can, and go with it?

Well from my view your faith covers things like why are we here, where did we come from, where are we going, how should we live, and other important things.

I would like to think that people who hold to a formal belief system that gives answers to these questions have some sort of semi objective reason for holding to what they believe.

If you can't find proof of anything then I would think the logical position would be atheism or agnosticism.

[beyelzu]

For a fundy Christian I understand how they can believe what they do, but it's the liberal Christian that I have difficulty understanding.

To call the deity Jesus rather than something else or reverting to a generic deism/theism would seem to me to require something in the way of proof that goes beyond what I usually find liberal Christians to believe in, but that's the point of my inquiry :D

Why should I have some really high standard of proof? If I can't find solid proof of anything, wouldn't it make sense for me to make the best choice I can, and go with it?
on such an important question, I dont think so

so quothe the atheist :tmgrin:

[seebs]

Well from my view your faith covers things like why are we here, where did we come from, where are we going, how should we live, and other important things.

I would like to think that people who hold to a formal belief system that gives answers to these questions have some sort of semi objective reason for holding to what they believe.

Well, "semi objective", maybe.

If you can't find proof of anything then I would think the logical position would be atheism or agnosticism.

So I'm agnostic.

But I still need to make decisions. So I have adopted a model.

[dave_a]

[quote]If you can't find proof of anything then I would think the logical position would be atheism or agnosticism.

So I'm agnostic.

But I still need to make decisions. So I have adopted a model.

So are you a Christian with doubts or an agnostic who has chosen a path that makes the most sense to you? I mean I read what you say, but it seems a bit different from what I have seen you write previously.

[Dingfod]

Atheists are allowed to pick and choose bits and pieces of whatever they want, they aren't the ones calling a certain book the inerrant word of a god. Anyone that does say the bible is inerrant, then picks and chooses from it what they want to believe and discards or dismisses the rest, is a hypocrite.

[seebs]

So are you a Christian with doubts or an agnostic who has chosen a path that makes the most sense to you? I mean I read what you say, but it seems a bit different from what I have seen you write previously.

Those terms have substantial overlap, so far as I'm concerned. I'd say both describe me accurately. I am clearly an agnostic; I don't claim to know the truth, and in fact, I'm a strong agnostic; I don't think the truth can be known. You may by coincidence, or even by sound reasoning, come to hold the truth as your position, but it is impossible to verify it with real certainty.

But... This is the best conclusion I can reach from the information available to me, so I'm using it as my working model of the universe, and whaddya know, it works pretty well.

[seebs]

Atheists are allowed to pick and choose bits and pieces of whatever they want, they aren't the ones calling a certain book the inerrant word of a god. Anyone that does say the bible is inerrant, then picks and chooses from it what they want to believe and discards or dismisses the rest, is a hypocrite.

I think it depends. People who insist on verbal inspiration (every word picked by God) and then pick and choose are probably being silly.

But... Not all "inerrancy" is the kind of inerrancy you see people ranting about.

[Goliath]

Deleted since the person I was responding to has stated that he has no interest in dialogue with the likes of me, so why bother.

:deepsigh: It wasn't my intention to drive you away, wildernesse. I'm sorry to you and to everyone else on this board.

:(

[Goliath]

So are you a Christian with doubts or an agnostic who has chosen a path that makes the most sense to you? I mean I read what you say, but it seems a bit different from what I have seen you write previously.

Actually, I'll do the incredibly unusual, and defend seebs here, since he does have a point. It is possible to be a theist and an agnostic.

[dave_a]

Those terms have substantial overlap, so far as I'm concerned. I'd say both describe me accurately. I am clearly an agnostic; I don't claim to know the truth, and in fact, I'm a strong agnostic; I don't think the truth can be known. You may by coincidence, or even by sound reasoning, come to hold the truth as your position, but it is impossible to verify it with real certainty.

But... This is the best conclusion I can reach from the information available to me, so I'm using it as my working model of the universe, and whaddya know, it works pretty well.

Ok well let me ask you a follow up then as I find your answer interesting. When I was a fundy I knew everything because the bible told me so and the bible was the word of god and god didn't lie/wasn't wrong etc.

When I realized all that was a pile of doodoo I arrived at atheism because to my thinking the lack of any deity fits better with reality than the presence of one.

From your perspective it sounds as if the presence of a diety who, at least vaguely, resembles Jesus fits better.

Of course I can't prove the lack of a diety or the lack of Jesus's diety and you can't disprove the nonexistence of a diety so we are both left with thoughts that we find best fit our perception of reality and neither of us is subject to any real scrutiny of our beliefs or lack of beliefs because we don't hold dogmatically to anything. We don't really assert that anything is positively true in a verifiable way and thus aren't liable to be called to defend the truth of what we believe or do not believe.

I thought I had a follow up question in their somewhere, but I guess I don't.

I am still curious as to what it is about Christianity that you find compelling versus any other faith or humanist viewpoint. You mentioned that "Jesus is god" comes reasonably close to your thoughts, but I guess my question would be what Jesus and what does this Jesus want from you? Does he want anything from you that other religions or secular manifestos don't?

[seebs]

From your perspective it sounds as if the presence of a diety who, at least vaguely, resembles Jesus fits better.

Yup.

Of course I can't prove the lack of a diety or the lack of Jesus's diety and you can't disprove the nonexistence of a diety so we are both left with thoughts that we find best fit our perception of reality and neither of us is subject to any real scrutiny of our beliefs or lack of beliefs because we don't hold dogmatically to anything. We don't really assert that anything is positively true in a verifiable way and thus aren't liable to be called to defend the truth of what we believe or do not believe.

Right. Of course, we have a basic epistemological duty to keep seeking, and verifying, and questioning. Or at least, I think we do; I could be wrong about that, too.

I am still curious as to what it is about Christianity that you find compelling versus any other faith or humanist viewpoint. You mentioned that "Jesus is god" comes reasonably close to your thoughts, but I guess my question would be what Jesus and what does this Jesus want from you? Does he want anything from you that other religions or secular manifestos don't?

Hmm. I don't think it matters whether what Jesus wants of me is different from what other people want; all that would change is whether they're right or not! :) Seriously, I consider it a point in support of my views that many other major religions agree with many or most of the things I have come to believe.

I think of it a bit like psychology; science, but where you don't really have properly reliable measurements available for a lot of things. If there are major discrepencies between two peoples' views, that suggests something that oughta get looked at. If they agree, that supports the result.

I think in terms of pure moral advice about how to treat others, at least some varieties of Buddhism are very similar to Christianity. However, I think the Christian notion of grace is a very important facet of moral thought... The only variety of Buddhism I can think of that's similar is Lesser Vehicle Buddhism. I think that Buddhism's holding that the existence of God or gods is simply practically irrelevant is probably mostly true, but I admit to a personal interest in speculations.

I think the cosmology is interesting, and in some ways unusual. A lot of Christians talk up how unusual salvation through "faith" is, but of course, they mean "being a member of the club", and almost everyone does "salvation" that way.

I think a personal God best explains my experiences of prayer, though, so religions that don't have one don't fit my experience as well.

[Sweetie]

Ok well let me ask you a follow up then as I find your answer interesting. When I was a fundy I knew everything because the bible told me so and the bible was the word of god and god didn't lie/wasn't wrong etc.

Sounds like a Fundamentalist view of the Bible. Different Christians see it differently, but the fact of the matter is, Fundamentalists aren't necessarily consistent either on this viewpoint. Show them something from the Bible that doesn't already fit with their preconceived notions and they'll be explaining it away, even though it says literally the exact opposite of what they believe.

Infallibility means different things to different people. To a Fundamentalist it means that every word and every event in the Bible is true and as it is, except for what they don't like or don't agree with. To a Liberal, they don't hold infallibility maybe because they agree that it means what the Fundamentalists says it means, and can't agree with that. Catholics use it to mean that the truth that the Bible sets forth is infallible, not necessarily that every word is literal and that every event must have happened as such. Catholics though, hold that Sacred Tradition is infallible as well as the Church, so it's a three-in-one type of thing which is why it doesn't come accross the same as the Fundamentalist view. They might say that the Bible is not a science textbook, it can't answer a claim for which it was never intended.

[dave_a]

Ok well let me ask you a follow up then as I find your answer interesting. When I was a fundy I knew everything because the bible told me so and the bible was the word of god and god didn't lie/wasn't wrong etc.

Sounds like a Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

Well that is likely true since the years I spent as a Christian were spent as a fundamentalist.

Different Christians see it differently, but the fact of the matter is, Fundamentalists aren't necessarily consistent either on this viewpoint. Show them something from the Bible that doesn't already fit with their preconceived notions and they'll be explaining it away, even though it says literally the exact opposite of what they believe.

I agree.

Infallibility means different things to different people. To a Fundamentalist it means that every word and every event in the Bible is true and as it is, except for what they don't like or don't agree with. To a Liberal, they don't hold infallibility maybe because they agree that it means what the Fundamentalists says it means, and can't agree with that. Catholics use it to mean that the truth that the Bible sets forth is infallible, not necessarily that every word is literal and that every event must have happened as such. Catholics though, hold that Sacred Tradition is infallible as well as the Church, so it's a three-in-one type of thing which is why it doesn't come accross the same as the Fundamentalist view. They might say that the Bible is not a science textbook, it can't answer a claim for which it was never intended.

Ok, but you have identified 3 distinct groups of Christians: Fundys, liberals and Catholics. The fundies are screwed in the head as far as I am concerned, but they have the most logicaly consistent view. They view the bible as the inerrant word of God and every word is true. Sure, some is literal and some is figurative and some allegory and some poetry and some prophecy and in this manner they can alter the degree of literalness in interpretation to suit their needs, but in the end they have a consistent, if not erroneous and counter factual view. I despise Fred Phelps as much as the next guy, but at least he is somewhat consistent in that he reads the bible as saying homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it won't inherit the kingdom of god. They guy doesn't have to twist the meaning of any words in the bible to arrive at his conclusions.

The Catholic is something of an enigma to me being raised a fundy protestant, but I understand they place more faith in church teachings and tradition than protestants. If a catholic says the bible isn't intended to be a science textbook I take that to mean the bible isn't meant to provide details into how God created all that exists. If that is the case then I have to ask why Genesis provides the creation order and number of days it took and why the new testament uses the creation order to set up man's position over women and why it feels the need to point out it was the woman who was first decieved, not the man. Genesis goes into quite a detailed mode and many of the other bible books use it to build their theological case. I think catholics are simply willfully ignorant as are most fundys.

Then there is the liberal Christian. This creature would largely agree with me in regards to the fundys and Catholics, but still retains beliefs that are distinctly Christian in nature whether they be the divinity of Jesus, the ressurection, the necessity of forgiveness of sins or what have you. They reject almost everything the fundy or Catholic holds dear, yet they still claim the label Christian.

I kind of understand where Seebs is coming from in that he finds enough in the Christian teachings that he considers believable to consider himself a borderline Christian/agnostic though.

I guess it is just my view that I find so much of Christianity whether it be protestant or catholic in origin to be so full of hooey that I don't bother to consider the rest. I don't see the need to embrace any named faith to understand that being nice to people is good and murdering them and cooking them for dinner is bad.

[Sweetie]

Ok, but you have identified 3 distinct groups of Christians: Fundys, liberals and Catholics.

I'm trying to remember. Is there any more groups than that? Can all Christians fit into one of those three categories? Fundies and Liberals aren't Protestants, I don't know where the average Protestant fits. I think the average Protestant could probably fit into one of those three groups.

The fundies are screwed in the head as far as I am concerned, but they have the most logicaly consistent view.

The Fundies do? No, their view is inherently illogical though it seems to be consistent with some Bible verses on the surface, but not all verses.

They view the bible as the inerrant word of God and every word is true.

But you're assuming that they're consistent because the Bible was meant to be solidly literally true. Ask them if Adam and Eve pysically died the day they ate the apple.

Sure, some is literal and some is figurative and some allegory and some poetry and some prophecy and in this manner they can alter the degree of literalness in interpretation to suit their needs, but in the end they have a consistent, if not erroneous and counter factual view.

Catholics do in this way too, but they aren't Fundamentalists. Now then ask a Fundamentalist how they know the books picked for the NT were the right books to pick. They will have no answer but that the Holy Spirit picked through those books and they are convicted that they're authoritative. In this sense they falter from the starting line.

I despise Fred Phelps as much as the next guy, but at least he is somewhat consistent in that he reads the bible as saying homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it won't inherit the kingdom of god. They guy doesn't have to twist the meaning of any words in the bible to arrive at his conclusions.

Jews, because of their theology, agree that it is not a moral good. It couldn't possibly be a good because of what they already have decided is principally good which has alot to do with marriage and childbearing.

The Catholic is something of an enigma to me being raised a fundy protestant, but I understand they place more faith in church teachings and tradition than protestants. If a catholic says the bible isn't intended to be a science textbook I take that to mean the bible isn't meant to provide details into how God created all that exists.

It's meant to imply that if you are looking at the Bible like a science textbook then you are not going to find anything special, even though some things may be absolutely literally true, such as the fall of Jericho.

If that is the case then I have to ask why Genesis provides the creation order and number of days it took and why the new testament uses the creation order to set up man's position over women and why it feels the need to point out it was the woman who was first decieved, not the man.

Theological implications. If someone tells you that the world was created in six days, ask them how long is a day. How long is a day to an eternal god, how long is a day before there was time? How long was a day before "god" created day and night?

Genesis goes into quite a detailed mode and many of the other bible books use it to build their theological case. I think catholics are simply willfully ignorant as are most fundys.

I think there's more to the story than what you have discovered or considered at least.

Then there is the liberal Christian. This creature would largely agree with me in regards to the fundys and Catholics

No, some Liberals, Anglicans usually, hold too many things in common with Catholics to reject them. Actually, there are such things as Liberal Catholics as well.

but still retains beliefs that are distinctly Christian in nature whether they be the divinity of Jesus, the ressurection, the necessity of forgiveness of sins or what have you.

That is actually false. If you are talking to an agnostic Christian for instance, they wouldn't be certain that Christ had to exist at all, some of them would say that he didn't. If they say that Christ forgives sin, ask them what is sinful specifically.

They reject almost everything the fundy or Catholic holds dear, yet they still claim the label Christian.

I kind of understand where Seebs is coming from in that he finds enough in the Christian teachings that he considers believable to consider himself a borderline Christian/agnostic though.

I guess it is just my view that I find so much of Christianity whether it be protestant or catholic in origin to be so full of hooey that I don't bother to consider the rest. I don't see the need to embrace any named faith to understand that being nice to people is good and murdering them and cooking them for dinner is bad.

It was not a stupid man who said to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If you are at war with them or reject them, make sure you understand them and can argue their case as well as they could. It is valueable to understand them as they understand themselves or even better in order to be able to build a strong case against them and recognize the flaws that they may be too blind to see. Without it one generally ends up with arguements that are strawmen and if that's the case then one hasn't prepared themselves against the eventually that what they think the other is about isn't actually what they are about or that they may have actual arguements which one hasn't been spending time in trying to refute. 2,000 years of history and 2 billion Christians on the planet not to mention 4,000 years of Judaism prior to that which also has alot to do with Islam. It's something I have decided is important to spend time studying. Understanding that should lead one to understanding 4/6 of the people on the planet or more. Definately on my "to do" list.

[godfry n. glad]

Ok, but you have identified 3 distinct groups of Christians: Fundys, liberals and Catholics.

I'm trying to remember. Is there any more groups than that? Can all Christians fit into one of those three categories? Fundies and Liberals aren't Protestants, I don't know where the average Protestant fits. I think the average Protestant could probably fit into one of those three groups.


No... I'd say that all Christians cannot fit into those categories. Of course, at this point we should stop and all arrive at an agreed upon definitiion of what qualifies as a "Christian"...Even those who call themselves such exclude others who also call themselves such. The "No True Scotsman" argument runs rampant in such situations.

Just for laughs, let's look at my categorizations....

Protestants include all those sectaries which grew out of the schism of the 16th century...Lutheranism, Calvinism and the deniers of papal authority. That includes all the "mainstream Protestant" flavors from Baptist to Anglican. That, in turn, has fractured even further in sub-schisms over issues of dogma, often very minor. Evangelical sectaries are those involved in active prosylization. Fundamentalists are an outgrowth of this Protestant movement harking back to more primitive and charismatic teaching...generally a conservative reform dating from the beginning of the 20th Century, when the tenets of fundamentalism were explicitly enunciated.

Roman Catholicism does not have "fundamentalists", but there is an active "ultraconservative" movement that seems to focus upon traditional liturgy and more strict behavioral expectations in regards to sex and reproduction.
There is a "leftist" movement within Roman Catholocism, as well, of which I believe Liberation Theology and American Catholicism to be expressions.

Both Protestantism and Catholicism include an array of variant belief within their broad tents, running from conservative to liberal, but Protestantism has splintered into innumerable sectaries in terms of dogma and authority, while the Roman Catholic Church attempts to keep variant opinions on issues of dogma within the church. This is what happens when there is no monolithic authority to control what dogma is acceptable. It leads to multiple variant interpretations.

Of course, there are then the Orthodox traditions, Greek, Russian, Slavonic, Syriac...probably others. I'm not familiar enough with their traditions to speak about them, but I view them as significantly variant from the Roman Catholic to have kept them apart for near a millenia.

Then, there are those who are "fringe" Christians.... the Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Friends, and the Seventh Day Adventists being amongst the more noticeable of the sectaries. From what I can tell, most of these are further deviations from the Protestant mainstream.

godfry

[wildernesse]

Ok, everytime I write a paragraph, Precious comes over and tries to lay on the nice warm laptop and either types for me or, in this last case, deletes my entire attempted post. So, we're going to try this one more time before we lock one furry baby in the bathroom.

First--or, Second--I'm sorry that I reacted so negatively to this thread before. I had been reading on a forum which shall not be named just for kicks and to make my blood pressure go up, I guess. Then I popped in over here and read this thread, which in my then-current state of mind seemed to be exactly the kind of thread I hate most--you're not a fundi, so you're not a real christian. This isn't an excuse, just some background.

After calming down, I realized that not only is the thread really not the way I read it to begin with, but that pouting angry monkeys are ridiculous and really just deserve to be spanked and given a good talking to.

So. I'll try to give my answer to Goliath, which ends up being something of an answer to the OP as well.

My stock answer is that I'm a Christian because I was reared as one and I've had experiences which support my beliefs if they were true.

If I were looking at the subject somewhat objectively--or as much as is possible for me--I would say that religion is part of an overall culture. Religion is part of how people explained the world around them, kept societies together, and knew their purpose on this planet in regards to everything else. And that is still its function today in large part. It's a natural outgrowth of our biology as social animals who can create elaborate and abstract social structures and beliefs. As cultures change, the religions within those cultures change--so I don't see any problem with today's religion not matching up seam to seam with "traditional" religion. The culture that I'm a part of for the most part is a Christian culture--although with a strong independent/personal freedom streak running through it.

So, that's how I started out on this path--from a pretty conservative and fundamentalist-leaning starting point, too. Why do I continue? My personal experiences have re-inforced my beliefs that I have been taught--or I should say some of my beliefs. Technically, I should say that my subjective interpretations of my experiences have led me to continue to believe in certain aspects of my faith. Also, my needs are met within it. Why should I discard something that I find to be true, that works for me and helps me?

That's my basic answer, although it obscures some of the complexity of why I keep going down the path and how strongly I feel about Christianity as my personal path to truth. I don't think that finding Christianity to be valuable and true for me is at odds with it being also a cultural institution.

But, if I keep writing, I'll be here all day. And I'm hungry.

[JoeP]

The article The triumph of the religious right (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3375543) has this classification of 'religious affiliation':
Evangelical Protestants - Mainline Protestants - Catholics
and each of those categories are broken down into
Traditionalist - Centrist - Modernist
(based on intensity of belief).

No mention of 'liberal' or 'fundamentalist'.

The support for various opinions among each group makes interesting study (click on the 'Detail' graphic).

[maddog]

My position is somewhat like Dantonac's in the OP.

I tend to think liberal Christianity is less coherent (internally) than the way I understand American fundamentalism to be. The adherence to the literal words of the Bible and the attempt to reconcile all the things said in the Bible at least displays a perseverence and an attempt to make all the parts fit.

I personally know a few liberal Christians and I also enjoy them more as people than I do fundamentalists, because of the "live and let live" attitude luna described. But the willingness to simply overlook or "pick and choose" among the contradictory things in the Bible seems strange to me.

Dantonac:Either the bible is the inerrant word of God and is to be taken literally, every word, or it is an errant work of literature that can't be taken literally as a life guide considering the genocide and all that nonsense it contains.

HelenM: Why? Certainly I've heard fundamentalists claim this but I don't see why there are only two choices. Why is it impossible to think that God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right about Him but not completely right? And/or that over time, people came to a better understanding of God - so there has been a sort of 'evolution' of understanding of God which means that ancient writings about God are somewhat correct but not entirely?

Those are just some of the options you dismissed in your either/or, which would make the Bible worth reading and would describe a liberal Christian position.

But this, I think, is Dantonac’s question:

Possibility 1) God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right but not completely. What parts of the Bible are right about God? How does anyone know? If we have no good way of telling which parts of the Bible are right about God, then why is the Bible the Bible? What’s particularly “scriptural” about it?

Possibility 2) Understandings about God have evolved over time so that ancient writings are somewhat correct but not entirely. Exactly the same problem/question. Which parts portray the “correct” understanding of God? How do we know? If there’s anything in there that isn’t correct, why is it still “scriptural” (as opposed to merely “old”)? Why is the erroneous part retained in the Bible instead of discarded as error? If we can’t know which parts are right and which parts aren’t, then why is ANY of it, “the Bible”?

That’s the question that’s not being answered. What’s so special about the Bible if it’s full of mistakes? Why isn’t it then just regarded as a culturally important ancient text, which happens to contain some human truth in it? As seebs said, he would recognize wisdom written on a napkin. So would I. But that doesn’t make it “sacred” and untouchable. It would just be “wisdom literature” capable of being applied by human beings who want to know something about how to love one another. No need for a special name for it (as if it were a single book, and the only book, neither of which is true), and no special reverence required.

Then there's this:
In short... The basic problem with humans is xenophobia, I believe. Our desire to have everything filtered into "us" and "them" is the root of so much human misery it's hard to even imagine a world without it. Christianity, as taught by Jesus, describes this problem about fifty different ways, and offers a way out. That mainstream Christianity often exemplifies this very problem is hardly surprising. What's amazing is that there is a way out, and it works. I'll buy into that. I can agree with this "xenophobia" thesis a great deal. The problem is the making of people into "us" and "them." If Jesus taught that making people into "us" and "them" is the source of so much of the misery, and that there really is no "them," there is only "us" (a very Buddhist sounding view, to me, actually) then I believe every Christian who UNDERSTANDS this teaching puts a foot wrong at the outset by saying, "I am a Christian." That label immediately and inevitably makes a distinction: "I am; you're not." IOW, "us" vs. "them" all over again.

I can’t help thinking that, if the people who identify as Christians REALLY understood their teacher’s message, they would never call themselves that. If they really understood that the only commandment is, as Seebs said, to spend your time loving other people, then there would be no reason for anyone to bother calling him/herself a "Christian." Not least of all because Jesus, called the Christ, is not the only enlightened person ever to have taught that idea. To call the deity Jesus rather than something else or reverting to a generic deism/theism would seem to me to require something in the way of proof that goes beyond what I usually find liberal Christians to believe in, but that's the point of my inquiry. I think that’s exactly the point. Jesus had no exclusive claim on the notion of loving one another or on how to "do" love. If people really understood the primacy of loving one another, they would simply be loving human beings, doing the best they can. No need for labels at all. That the supposed followers of such a teacher self-identify as his followers exclusively, by deliberately and consciously choosing a label – Christian – which serves no purpose other than to set themselves apart from non-Christians, and which does so in a way which purports to claim moral superiority to the vast “them” who are not Christians, is supremely ironic, in my view.

#107

[Goliath]

Why should I have some really high standard of proof? If I can't find solid proof of anything, wouldn't it make sense for me to make the best choice I can, and go with it?

In the case of supernatural claims? Absolutely not.

[seebs]

Possibility 1) God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right but not completely. What parts of the Bible are right about God? How does anyone know? If we have no good way of telling which parts of the Bible are right about God, then why is the Bible the Bible? What’s particularly “scriptural” about it?

This is a very good question. How do we know? We don't know. We guess. We use it as guidance in trying to think about these questions ourselves. What's particularly scriptural about it? We have generations of people who have reported that studying this has brought them to experiences which we recognize as similar to the ones we're pursuing.

That’s the question that’s not being answered. What’s so special about the Bible if it’s full of mistakes? Why isn’t it then just regarded as a culturally important ancient text, which happens to contain some human truth in it? As seebs said, he would recognize wisdom written on a napkin. So would I. But that doesn’t make it “sacred” and untouchable. It would just be “wisdom literature” capable of being applied by human beings who want to know something about how to love one another. No need for a special name for it (as if it were a single book, and the only book, neither of which is true), and no special reverence required.

Yeah. But this one does seem to have interesting and unusual properties. I do think many modern Christians fall into bibliolatry, but there's something to be said for the traditional approach. It seems that we can use this book to learn things in a somewhat consistent way.

I can agree with this "xenophobia" thesis a great deal. The problem is the making of people into "us" and "them." If Jesus taught that making people into "us" and "them" is the source of so much of the misery, and that there really is no "them," there is only "us" (a very Buddhist sounding view, to me, actually) then I believe every Christian who UNDERSTANDS this teaching puts a foot wrong at the outset by saying, "I am a Christian." That label immediately and inevitably makes a distinction: "I am; you're not." IOW, "us" vs. "them" all over again.

Indeed. This is a grave danger, but I am not sure that the alternatives are any better. In particular, if I refuse to call myself Christian, then I am distancing myself from the people who do.

Hey, we had this conversation already! :)

I'm still wrestling with this, because you raise a serious point. And, certainly, I have seen the harm done that you predict, and I agree that it is greatly harmful. I am not entirely sure how to prevent it.

And yet... I think there is something important about telling people when you think you've found something cool.

I can’t help thinking that, if the people who identify as Christians REALLY understood their teacher’s message, they would never call themselves that. If they really understood that the only commandment is, as Seebs said, to spend your time loving other people, then there would be no reason for anyone to bother calling him/herself a "Christian." Not least of all because Jesus, called the Christ, is not the only enlightened person ever to have taught that idea.

Right. But that's not the entire idea. It's a little more complicated, and distinguishing which things you believe can be useful.

I think that’s exactly the point. Jesus had no exclusive claim on the notion of loving one another or on how to "do" love. If people really understood the primacy of loving one another, they would simply be loving human beings, doing the best they can. No need for labels at all. That the supposed followers of such a teacher self-identify as his followers exclusively, by deliberately and consciously choosing a label – Christian – which serves no purpose other than to set themselves apart from non-Christians, and which does so in a way which purports to claim moral superiority to the vast “them” who are not Christians, is supremely ironic, in my view.

Right. Which is, I think, why I am so very strongly opposed to exclusivism. As you have so eloquently demonstrated, exclusivism voids the Gospel entirely. If we are exclusive, then we are not particularly following the Christ well at all.

I attempted to get some of these thoughts down in a thread over on ChristianForums, titled Why am I even here? (http://www.christianforums.com/t1151265-why-am-i-even-here.html)

I agree that the whole notion of how special and important we are is absolutely destructive of the message we're supposedly special for having heard.

[maddog]

Possibility 1) God exists and those who wrote down the Bible were partly right but not completely. What parts of the Bible are right about God? How does anyone know? If we have no good way of telling which parts of the Bible are right about God, then why is the Bible the Bible? What’s particularly “scriptural” about it?

This is a very good question. How do we know? We don't know. We guess. We use it as guidance in trying to think about these questions ourselves. What's particularly scriptural about it? We have generations of people who have reported that studying this has brought them to experiences which we recognize as similar to the ones we're pursuing.Hi, seebs. Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Let me share some thoughts as we go along:

"This is a very good question."
Thank you. To me, it's quite a critical question indeed. I believe the whole of Christianity (except for the parts which are indistinguishable from the simple human activity of doing and demonstrating love for one another) is entirely dependent upon the Bible. The Bible is the only source of Christianity, in any distinctive or identifiable manifestation as Christianity. So the correctness of the Bible is the sole basis of justification for a doctrine or belief called "Christianity," distinct from simple humanism. That should make it a critical question also, particularly for self-identified Christians.

"How do we know? We don't know. We guess."
If there is no way to tell, but only to "guess" what's right about God or Jesus in the Bible, then the foundation for anything called "Christianity" is built on sand. Further, the "guess" has to be based on something. What is that "something" that enables you to "guess" what might be right and what might be wrong in/about the Bible and its God(s)? That isn't articulated.

If all anyone is doing is "guessing" which parts are right about God, then the purpose of the whole thing becomes totally confusing to me.

In particular, since everyone that I know who wants to or purports to know anything about God insists that this God person is "good," then why do the students/guessers about the nature of this God hold on so tight to all the parts of the book that obviously depict this God person as a monstrous, murderous, evil lunatic? Why don't the expert students all get together and say, "that part should not be in the Bible"?

"We use it as guidance in trying to think about these questions ourselves." I'm not entirely sure what "these questions" are that you have in mind, but:
What "guidance" comes from the tales of butchery, rape, pillage, slavery, and so on? Aren't there better sources of guidance about what human beings' lives are, if they are to be considered "good" lives? In addition, if all anyone is using this book for is "guidance," then why does it have "scriptural" or holy status apart from other books about wisdom? Why not look to more than one book?

"What's particularly scriptural about it? We have generations of people who have reported that studying this has brought them to experiences which we recognize as similar to the ones we're pursuing."
I can't help wondering if the "generations of people" who have adhered to the Bible (1) really knew what it said (in the Christian churches that existed up until the reformation -- approx. 1,400 years or so -- only the priests read or studied the book. Most Christians couldn't / didn't read, and thus couldn't know what it said), or (2) didn't simply "pick and choose" (i.e., ignore whole portions), just as people do today. Neither of these possibilities demonstrates to me any particular value in the book.

In addition, untold generations have studied and found value in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, and many other philosophers, writers, thinkers and ethicists -- more generations, even, than there have been of Christians. Untold generations have used such works to examine the important questions of human life, and have found that study to yield experiences similar to the ones other human beings also experience about important issues. Yet no one goes around saying, "I'm a Socratic" and dealing with Socrates's works as "scriptural" or "holy." No, they are to be studied, understood, used as guidance, and all the other things you say people use the Bible for. But the Bible people get upset if you treat their book as "just" a means of guidance and study. So it can't simply be that generations of people have found important spiritual and moral value in a book that makes it "scriptural."

That’s the question that’s not being answered. What’s so special about the Bible if it’s full of mistakes? Why isn’t it then just regarded as a culturally important ancient text, which happens to contain some human truth in it? As seebs said, he would recognize wisdom written on a napkin. So would I. But that doesn’t make it “sacred” and untouchable. It would just be “wisdom literature” capable of being applied by human beings who want to know something about how to love one another. No need for a special name for it (as if it were a single book, and the only book, neither of which is true), and no special reverence required.

Yeah. But this one does seem to have interesting and unusual properties. I do think many modern Christians fall into bibliolatry, but there's something to be said for the traditional approach. It seems that we can use this book to learn things in a somewhat consistent way.
"Yeah. But this one does seem to have interesting and unusual properties."
Interesting, yes. Unusual, no. It's a book, like any other book. There's no unusual "property" I have ever detected in this book. It has a lot of interesting stories. So do plenty of other books; indeed, the most interesting stories usually have parallels in other sources. It has a few bits of wisdom in iit. So do lots of other books. And there are lots of other books that contain far more wisdom (IMO) than this book does. This book is in parts unintelligible. So are plenty of other books. This book is in many parts extremely barbaric, cruel and wicked. There may be worse books, but I don't personally know any. Some of it is stupid, boring, and/or scientifically ludicrous. So are many other ancient texts, and plenty of other books. This is not a reason to study or revere it.

The only thing that I find particularly unusual about this book is the fanaticism of its students/devotees.

"It seems that we can use this book to learn things in a somewhat consistent way."
I've never noticed anything particularly consistent about either the way the Bible is studied or what people draw from such study. The "consistency" I've noticed among human beings who identify as Christians are things that are either consistent from one human being to another, regardless of religion, or are distinctive to some small subset of Christians, but revolve about things that are not particularly consistent with humanity as a whole, or even other Christians.

I can agree with this "xenophobia" thesis a great deal. The problem is the making of people into "us" and "them." If Jesus taught that making people into "us" and "them" is the source of so much of the misery, and that there really is no "them," there is only "us" (a very Buddhist sounding view, to me, actually) then I believe every Christian who UNDERSTANDS this teaching puts a foot wrong at the outset by saying, "I am a Christian." That label immediately and inevitably makes a distinction: "I am; you're not." IOW, "us" vs. "them" all over again.

Indeed. This is a grave danger, but I am not sure that the alternatives are any better. In particular, if I refuse to call myself Christian, then I am distancing myself from the people who do. I agree entirely about this grave danger. I'm not sure what alternatives we have, but I think there must be some.

I'd rather not, personally, simply throw up my hands and say, "I don't want to distance myself from people, so I will continue to use the Christian label, because if I don't, then I make a distinction between them and me." "Christian" vs. "not calling myself a Christian" is not the only distinction you make when you accept or adopt the label "Christian." It's not merely a two-pony race. So the "distancing" you do by adopting the label isn't exactly parallel, one-for-one, the same distancing that you do by refusing that label. Just as a matter of curiousity, do you also adopt all the other labels, so as not to distance yourself from them? In that vein, I rather liked Girzone's "Joshua," in which the guy was friends with everyone and went to everyone's church. I wonder what would happen if everyone marked "all of the above" on forms with "religious preference" boxes on them.

And how distancing is it to say, "I don't need to/ don't always think of myself by a particular label," when someone asks you, "are you a _________ (fill in the blank)?" ? Or to reply, "I do my best to live according to proper principles"? Or to say, "everyone is my brother/sister/neighbor"? Or "I don't care to limit my description of my spirituality"? Or "I also am a spiritual seeker"? Or "I believe in love"?

The only reason I must identify myself in this world as an atheist is that so many of the theists want to kill you if you don't believe as they do. I'm happy just to be a human being. They don't want me (or themselves) to just be a human being. If you're not with them, you're against them, and thus the enemy. So if you don't accept their label, they label you. To them, I'm an atheist. If the world were left to me, there'd be no need for such a word.

Hey, we had this conversation already! :)
yeah, I know. :wave: I enjoyed it then, too.

I'm still wrestling with this, because you raise a serious point. And, certainly, I have seen the harm done that you predict, and I agree that it is greatly harmful. I am not entirely sure how to prevent it.
Thanks, seebs. We are agreed. I don't know how to prevent it either. I do feel certain, however, that adopting ironically limiting labels, when the teacher was teaching about NOT doing that, is NOT helping. If GWB had indeed been much more a "uniter than a divider," our world would be in a better condition. Regardless of the value individual people see in studying the life and principles of Jesus, in practice in the USA, Christianity, so-called, has been a devastating force of polarization and enmity-creation. Doing more of the same can't be helping, IMO.

And yet... I think there is something important about telling people when you think you've found something cool. Oh, absolutely. And if people were content with that, I think the world would be better. But they don't seem to be. So many self-labeled "Christians" have adopted a practice and a doctrine which takes to heart the admonition to go out and convert everyone else. THEY'VE found something cool, and if you don't think it's cool, too, well, they'll make sure you burn in hell for it. AND prevent you from telling THEM about something that YOU've found that YOU think is cool.

I can’t help thinking that, if the people who identify as Christians REALLY understood their teacher’s message, they would never call themselves that. If they really understood that the only commandment is, as Seebs said, to spend your time loving other people, then there would be no reason for anyone to bother calling him/herself a "Christian." Not least of all because Jesus, called the Christ, is not the only enlightened person ever to have taught that idea.

Right. But that's not the entire idea. It's a little more complicated, and distinguishing which things you believe can be useful. As you've stated it, I can't really disagree with this. But the rest of the "entire idea" is based on stuff that I can't really understand or don't agree with, or can't force myself to believe, or something. It would be far more useful to say what the "entire idea" is, instead of using the label for a shorthand, because no two "Christians" seem to have the same ideas about a lot of things, including what the "entire idea" is. So the label isn't even that useful for telling others what the rest of the "entire idea" is, or what distinctions they are making that seem useful, or why it's "useful" in the first place.

I think that’s exactly the point. Jesus had no exclusive claim on the notion of loving one another or on how to "do" love. If people really understood the primacy of loving one another, they would simply be loving human beings, doing the best they can. No need for labels at all. That the supposed followers of such a teacher self-identify as his followers exclusively, by deliberately and consciously choosing a label – Christian – which serves no purpose other than to set themselves apart from non-Christians, and which does so in a way which purports to claim moral superiority to the vast “them” who are not Christians, is supremely ironic, in my view.

Right. Which is, I think, why I am so very strongly opposed to exclusivism. As you have so eloquently demonstrated, exclusivism voids the Gospel entirely. If we are exclusive, then we are not particularly following the Christ well at all.Exactly so. And, I'd go so far as to say, there's no reason at all to stop at calling it "following the Christ," inasmuch as Jesus was not the first or only teacher to teach many of his important lessons. You could as well call it "following Akela" (cub scout word for "a good leader"), or many other things. Even identifying it as "following the Christ" is somewhat limiting, and limiting in a way that I don't think the teacher would have appreciated.

I attempted to get some of these thoughts down in a thread over on ChristianForums, titled Why am I even here? (http://www.christianforums.com/t1151265-why-am-i-even-here.html) I'm pretty unlikely to visit over there, but I very much appreciate your sensitivity, introspection, thoroughness, and honesty, as I have experienced it here and at II.

I agree that the whole notion of how special and important we are is absolutely destructive of the message we're supposedly special for having heard. Yes. A great difficulty. Again, this is totally just my opinion, but I think putting down the label would be a good start to overcoming this problem. Of course, you're still left with human nature, and I'm not at all sanguine about how to solve THAT problem.

Nice chatting w/ you again, seebs.
Ta.

#108

[seebs]

"This is a very good question."
Thank you. To me, it's quite a critical question indeed. I believe the whole of Christianity (except for the parts which are indistinguishable from the simple human activity of doing and demonstrating love for one another) is entirely dependent upon the Bible.

I think I'd have to disagree with this, simply because Christianity predates the Bible.

The Bible is the only source of Christianity, in any distinctive or identifiable manifestation as Christianity. So the correctness of the Bible is the sole basis of justification for a doctrine or belief called "Christianity," distinct from simple humanism. That should make it a critical question indeed, particularly for self-identified Christians.

I guess, that's where I think we differ. I think Christianity is a tradition predating the Bible, and while the Bible has a particularly important role in its transmission, you can learn a great deal about Christianity from, say, writings of other Christians.

In short, while I do agree that the Bible is fairly crucial, and many things ultimately lead back to it, I think the role of Christian churches is also important.

"How do we know? We don't know. We guess."
If there is no way to tell, but only to "guess" what's right about God or Jesus in the Bible, then the foundation for anything called "Christianity" is built on sand.

Well, keep in mind, I'm a militant agnostic. That would be my answer to "how do you know anything about the outside world", too. As an epistemologist, I think that our knowledge of things outside ourselves is fundamentally built on sand.

Further, the "guess" has to be based on something. What is that "something" that enables you to "guess" what might be right and what might be wrong in/about the Bible and its God(s)? That isn't articulated.

Well, there we get into the realm of faith. How do I know that I should try to help those in need? I don't. I guess. I have tons and tons of vague inklings, urges, half-finished theorems, that lead me to act this way.

If all anyone is doing iis "guessing" which parts are right about God, then the purpose of the whole thing becomes totally confusing to me.

I have two options. Solipsism, and guessing. I'll take guessing.

In particular, since everyone that I know who wants to or purports to know anything about God insists that this God person is "good," then why do the students/guessers about the nature of this God hold on so tight to all the parts of the book that obviously depict this God person as a monstrous, murderous, evil lunatic? Why don't the expert students all get together and say, "that part should not be in the Bible"?

Someone at CF gave a great example of this, showing me a case I hadn't noticed before. If you look at Psalm 137 (the famous "happy shall he be who dashesh thy little ones against the rocks"), it sounds horrible. How could you learn anything from this?

Now read Jeremiah.

And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.

These are telling the same story. And suddenly, Psalm 137 becomes, not an endorsement of genocide, but a contrast, showing us the gap between what we are called to, and what we sometimes feel anyway.

"We use it as guidance in trying to think about these questions ourselves." I'm not entirely sure what "these questions" are that you have in mind, but:
What "guidance" comes from the tales of butchery, rape, pillage, slavery, and so on?

Not very much, if you don't look at the context. See the above example, for instance.

Aren't there better sources of guidance about what human beings' lives are, if they are to be considered "good" lives? In addition, if all anyone is using this book for is "guidance," then why does it have "scriptural" or holy status apart from other books about wisdom? Why not look to more than one book?

The Old Testament tells us where we were; it's important, because without it, you cannot easily understand the language and references of the New Testament. But it's the Gospels, not the stories of the Hebrew Kings, from which we derive our answers to these questions. But the history tells us a little more about who was asking, and how they would have understood those words.

If you want to understand a story with a lot of cultural references, you need the cultural references too.

I can't help wondering if the "generations of people" who have adhered to the Bible (1) really knew what it said (in the Christian churches that existed up until the reformation -- approx. 1,400 years or so -- only the priests read or studied the book.

This is rather an overgeneralization, but it doesn't seem very important to me. The people who studied it described what they learned from it.

Most Christians couldn't / didn't read, and thus couldn't know what it said), or (2) didn't simply "pick and choose" (i.e., ignore whole portions), just as people do today. Neither of these possibilities demonstrates to me any particular value in the book.

I have seen no evidence that any human has ever done anything other than picking and choosing when trying to understand Scripture. Hermeneutics have been a part of how we try to understand these books since before they were written down. Look at the teachings of Orthodox Jews on what is nominally roughly the same text.

The "picking and choosing" thing is a libel thrown around by fundamentalists who wish to discredit a position by pretending it's all about selecting the verses you like. In fact, all the liberals I know study the whole thing, trying to understand why it's all there and what it has to say. But... Studying the whole thing doesn't mean "thinking the whole thing is written in exactly the same way".

Yet no one goes around saying, "I'm a Socratic" and dealing with Socrates's works as "scriptural" or "holy." No, they are to be studied, understood, used as guidance, and all the other things you say people use the Bible for.

Right.

Okay, I think the problem is, you're seeing the Bible as either "just another book" or as "exact literal truth". It is neither. The Bible is a way to find out more about God. Not just directly about moral questions, but about why there are moral questions at all. Obviously, other books might disagree. But... This book provides an answer which, with study and consideration, I have found to be a very good answer, and indeed, a much better answer than I used to think it was.

But the Bible people get upset if you treat their book as "just" a means of guidance and study. So it can't simply be that generations of people have found important spiritual and moral value in a book that makes it "scriptural."

But that does make it important, if I want to understand their explorations, that I use the same book they did.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly found that passages I thought were nasty had layers of meaning in them I had not understood. There may be more of these; even a passage which sounds utterly barbaric to me and everyone I know may yet have hidden depths, and, at this point, I don't think we should go changing it without more information.

"Yeah. But this one does seem to have interesting and unusual properties."
Interesting, yes. Unusual, no. It's a book, like any other book. There's no unusual "property" I have ever detected in this book.

This is sort of an argument from ignorance. This one seems, to me and to many other people, to have unusual qualities. You do not need to perceive them for them to matter to us.

The only thing that I find particularly unusual about this book is the fanaticism of its students/devotees.

What I find interesting is the transformation which occurs in some (but not all) of them. And admittedly, other books may sometimes have similar qualities. But I'm not expecting to be on this earth long enough to figure all of that out.

I'd rather not, personally, simply throw up my hands and say, "I don't want to distance myself from people, so I will continue to use the Christian label, because if I don't, then I make a distinction between them and me." "Christian" vs. "non-Christian" is not the only distinction you make when you accept or adopt the label "Christian." It's not merely a two-pony race. So the "distancing" you do by adopting the label isn't exactly parallel, one-for-one, the same distancing that you do by refusing that label. Just as a matter of curiousity, do you also adopt all the other labels, so as not to distance yourself from them?

Nope. But I don't try to get away from a true label. The word Christian has a meaning, and that meaning appears to describe me, so I'm a Christian. I don't think I could honestly reject that label; it's a factual claim about me, and that's the end of it.



This is true.

Mostly, I use the label because it's a convenient way to tell people a whole lot of things about what I believe that may be of relevance in some contexts, so I don't have to go through the whole nine yards every time. It's a convenience.

[quote]Regardless of the value individual people see in studying the life and principles of Jesus, in practice in the USA, Christianity, so-called, has been a devastating force of polarization and enmity-creation. Doing more of the same can't be helping, IMO.

I tend to agree, but I think the harm is done, not by the labels, but by the attempts to apply them to all sorts of things they aren't good for.

Oh, absolutely. And if people were content with that, I think the world would be better. But they don't seem to be. So many self-labeled "Christians" have adopted a practice and a doctrine which takes to heart the admonition to go out and convert everyone else. THEY'VE found something cool, and if you don't think it's cool, too, well, they'll make sure you burn in hell for it. AND prevent you from telling THEM about something that you've found that you think is cool.

Indeed. I am very frustrated with these people, and I keep trying to explain to them that the ice cream is, in fact, totally free, and there is enough for everyone.

As stated, I can't really disagree with this. But the rest of the "entire idea" is based on stuff that I can't really understand or don't agree with, or can't force myself to believe, or something. And no two "Christians" seem to have the same ideas about a lot of things. So the label isn't even that useful for telling others what the rest of the "entire idea" is, or what distinctions they are making that seem useful, or why it's "useful" in the first place.

Yeah. I tend to favor a "mere Christianity" view of the term. I don't like the "no true Christian" game.

Exactly so. And, I'd go so far as to say, there's no reason at all to stop at calling it "following the Christ," inasmuch as Jesus was not the first or only teacher to teach many of his important lessons. You could as well call it "following Akela" (cub scout word for "a good leader"), or many other things. Even identifying it as "following the Christ" is somewhat limiting, iand in a way that I don't think the teacher would have appreciated.

Well, that depends, I guess, on the key question of whether He was just another good moral teacher, or whether He was something beyond that. But yeah... It's a problem. I know some people who will cheerfully identify as "Jesus freaks" but don't like "Christian" so much.

I'm pretty unlikely to visit over there, but I very much appreciate your sensitivity, introspection, thoroughness, and honesty, as I have experienced it here and at II.

Thanks. I may actually repost the whole set of articles that's vaguely related to over here, just so I don't have to worry about one of the mods trashing them again. :P

[dave_a]

The Bible is the only source of Christianity, in any distinctive or identifiable manifestation as Christianity. So the correctness of the Bible is the sole basis of justification for a doctrine or belief called "Christianity," distinct from simple humanism. That should make it a critical question indeed, particularly for self-identified Christians.

I guess, that's where I think we differ. I think Christianity is a tradition predating the Bible, and while the Bible has a particularly important role in its transmission, you can learn a great deal about Christianity from, say, writings of other Christians.

What writings? The catholics and protestants have formed their canons. What else do you take as authorative?

In short, while I do agree that the Bible is fairly crucial, and many things ultimately lead back to it, I think the role of Christian churches is also important.

Yes, but the xian churches base their beliefs, at least superficially, off the bible. Even during those days when the Roman Catholic church was persecuting heretics the forerunners of the protestants were using a canon identical to that which protestants use today.

"How do we know? We don't know. We guess."
If there is no way to tell, but only to "guess" what's right about God or Jesus in the Bible, then the foundation for anything called "Christianity" is built on sand.

Well, keep in mind, I'm a militant agnostic. That would be my answer to "how do you know anything about the outside world", too. As an epistemologist, I think that our knowledge of things outside ourselves is fundamentally built on sand.

Well, OK, but anything built upon sand is going to collapse, the bible itself says so. If your faith is built upon sand it would seem time for it to collapse. There surely is a reason you hang out with atheists.

Further, the "guess" has to be based on something. What is that "something" that enables you to "guess" what might be right and what might be wrong in/about the Bible and its God(s)? That isn't articulated.

Well, there we get into the realm of faith. How do I know that I should try to help those in need? I don't. I guess. I have tons and tons of vague inklings, urges, half-finished theorems, that lead me to act this way.

Yes, but you are appealing to universally understood morality. Of course those who are in need should be helped. Show me a culture that doesn't, at least superficially, believe this regardless of their religious traditions. I am not seeing where your faith differs from religious humanism.

If all anyone is doing iis "guessing" which parts are right about God, then the purpose of the whole thing becomes totally confusing to me.

I have two options. Solipsism, and guessing. I'll take guessing.

Friend, you are arguing for holding on to the sand that is slipping between your fingers.

In particular, since everyone that I know who wants to or purports to know anything about God insists that this God person is "good," then why do the students/guessers about the nature of this God hold on so tight to all the parts of the book that obviously depict this God person as a monstrous, murderous, evil lunatic? Why don't the expert students all get together and say, "that part should not be in the Bible"?

Someone at CF gave a great example of this, showing me a case I hadn't noticed before. If you look at Psalm 137 (the famous "happy shall he be who dashesh thy little ones against the rocks"), it sounds horrible. How could you learn anything from this?

Now read Jeremiah.

And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.

These are telling the same story. And suddenly, Psalm 137 becomes, not an endorsement of genocide, but a contrast, showing us the gap between what we are called to, and what we sometimes feel anyway.

I am not seeing this distinction.

"We use it as guidance in trying to think about these questions ourselves." I'm not entirely sure what "these questions" are that you have in mind, but:
What "guidance" comes from the tales of butchery, rape, pillage, slavery, and so on?

Not very much, if you don't look at the context. See the above example, for instance.

What is the context for the numerous cases of "God" commanding the Hebrews to murder and enslave? If these stories are true then real people suffered for real in order for this god to make a point. This isn't a god many would wish to worship even if real.


The Old Testament tells us where we were; it's important, because without it, you cannot easily understand the language and references of the New Testament. But it's the Gospels, not the stories of the Hebrew Kings, from which we derive our answers to these questions. But the history tells us a little more about who was asking, and how they would have understood those words.

If you want to understand a story with a lot of cultural references, you need the cultural references too.

Here is where I cry bullshit. You are explaining away the entirety of the OT's genocide and evil with "you don't understand the context.". I am a former fundy xian of 20 something years who has read the bible from cover to cover dozens of times. I really doubt I simply failed to get the context. If I did then what does that say about the intelligibility of the book god wrote? Further the Jesus of the NT is no different than the YAWH of the OT. Read revelation and you will see the massive death and suffering that Jesus intends for this world. When it is all said and done those who don't bow the knee will suffer an eternity of punishment. I really doubt you can come up with any context to explain all that away.

I can't help wondering if the "generations of people" who have adhered to the Bible (1) really knew what it said (in the Christian churches that existed up until the reformation -- approx. 1,400 years or so -- only the priests read or studied the book.

This is rather an overgeneralization, but it doesn't seem very important to me. The people who studied it described what they learned from it.

Yes, they did. What they describe makes modern fundamentalism look like apostasy.

Most Christians couldn't / didn't read, and thus couldn't know what it said), or (2) didn't simply "pick and choose" (i.e., ignore whole portions), just as people do today. Neither of these possibilities demonstrates to me any particular value in the book.

I have seen no evidence that any human has ever done anything other than picking and choosing when trying to understand Scripture. Hermeneutics have been a part of how we try to understand these books since before they were written down. Look at the teachings of Orthodox Jews on what is nominally roughly the same text.

Seebs, I mean this in the friendliest way, but you really seem to be speaking in platitudes and generalizations rather than dealing with anything head on.

[seebs]

What writings? The catholics and protestants have formed their canons. What else do you take as authorative?

Ah-HAH!

Finally, I think I see a basic point of difference.

I'm not sure I take anything as authoritative.

Including the Bible, or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

So... C. S. Lewis isn't authoritative, but he's damn interesting. Real Live Preacher isn't authoritative, but reading his writing helps me understand my own life and experience.

Yes, but the xian churches base their beliefs, at least superficially, off the bible. Even during those days when the Roman Catholic church was persecuting heretics the forerunners of the protestants were using a canon identical to that which protestants use today.

The Catholic Church has books and books of early materials which they consider the Deposit of Faith, which includes things that were not written down originally but have been since. I am not entirely sure how much of this is really "what we always believed", but I think some of it was, and it was the oral traditions which were used to determine which of the many writings were to be considered "the Bible".

The Bible is based on the early faith. The faith predates it.

What did Paul believe before he wrote all those letters? Obviously something.

Well, OK, but anything built upon sand is going to collapse, the bible itself says so. If your faith is built upon sand it would seem time for it to collapse. There surely is a reason you hang out with atheists.

Here's my figuring: Any attempt to make "evidence" or "knowledge" with the resources available to me is a provable dead end. Of course, that might end up being wrong; while I have pretty good arguments, they presuppose things like "formal logic yields only true conclusions from true premises" or "past behavior is a predictor of future behavior". And I can't prove those.

The only way out, it seems to me, is to pick a few premises and just assert them without trying to support them, to admit that there is no real way to get out of the box and bootstrap. To shove a metaphor in a blender, and set it on puree, I guess.

But I can't get to ideas like "the world I experience is real and external to me" without some amount of guesswork. So I'm okay with it being guesswork.

Yes, but you are appealing to universally understood morality. Of course those who are in need should be helped. Show me a culture that doesn't, at least superficially, believe this regardless of their religious traditions. I am not seeing where your faith differs from religious humanism.

Well, I specifically chose that example of something that we nearly all agree on, but which I cannot possibly prove or support in any way.

So I punt.

My faith differs from religious humanism in that I believe all sorts of things that a straight-up humanist might not. They may turn out to be irrelevant, but they seem to be working as part of a cohesive whole that works well for me.

Friend, you are arguing for holding on to the sand that is slipping between your fingers.

Perhaps. But... This is where faith comes in. I have found that I do not need to be able to prove something to believe it. And this is good, because I can't prove anything without dependencies on untestable premises.

So I accept the premises on faith. To paraphrase the guy from HHGTTG, "It pleases me to imagine that this is a cat." I have no idea. Maybe I don't have a cat. But treating these experiences as real seems to offer the most interesting set of experiences and path to understanding, and it's not as if any of the other alternatives have much to offer me!

These are telling the same story. And suddenly, Psalm 137 becomes, not an endorsement of genocide, but a contrast, showing us the gap between what we are called to, and what we sometimes feel anyway.

I am not seeing this distinction.

In short... Psalm 137 is not there to tell us how God feels, but to give us an instructive example of the difference between what God says, and how people react. This may help us understand other parts of the Bible where people show all the human traits we're so familiar with.

What is the context for the numerous cases of "God" commanding the Hebrews to murder and enslave? If these stories are true then real people suffered for real in order for this god to make a point. This isn't a god many would wish to worship even if real.

Yes. But I am not particularly sure that the stories are true as history. These were not people who understood "history" the way we do. And, thanks to Psalm 137 and Jeremiah, I also know that God could tell them straight up to make peace with someone, and they'd sit around plotting about killing his children. Because, hey, that's what people are like.

Here is where I cry bullshit. You are explaining away the entirety of the OT's genocide and evil with "you don't understand the context.". I am a former fundy xian of 20 something years who has read the bible from cover to cover dozens of times. I really doubt I simply failed to get the context.

Well, honestly, I've met about two fundamentalists in my life who ever studied the Bible in a way amenable to understanding context. In particular, most fundamentalists start out by assuming that all of the people depicted are heroes, and that their flaws are never at issue.

If I did then what does that say about the intelligibility of the book god wrote?

There, I think, is the disconnect in its clearest form. Where the fuck is the idea that God wrote it coming from? He never said anything of the sort. The closest you get is all the language about "the Word of God", but a careful study reveals that this is a specialized title for Jesus, and has nothing to do with any book anywhere.

Further the Jesus of the NT is no different than the YAWH of the OT.

Well, at one level, that's a core teaching of the faith. On the other hand, there's certainly a different emphasis.

Read revelation and you will see the massive death and suffering that Jesus intends for this world.

Er, no. I'll see a coded message written to the early church about the destruction of the Temple.

When it is all said and done those who don't bow the knee will suffer an eternity of punishment. I really doubt you can come up with any context to explain all that away.

I don't need to, because it never meant that to begin with.

This is rather an overgeneralization, but it doesn't seem very important to me. The people who studied it described what they learned from it.

Yes, they did. What they describe makes modern fundamentalism look like apostasy.

Uh-huh. Yes, indeed it does. :)

I have seen no evidence that any human has ever done anything other than picking and choosing when trying to understand Scripture. Hermeneutics have been a part of how we try to understand these books since before they were written down. Look at the teachings of Orthodox Jews on what is nominally roughly the same text.

Seebs, I mean this in the friendliest way, but you really seem to be speaking in platitudes and generalizations rather than dealing with anything head on.

Well, okay. Let's pick a concrete example. Usury. Most fundamentalists think nothing of lending at interest. Want another? How about the injunction to call no man Father? Don't we see Catholics doing that occasionally? Every group understands different passages in different ways. There's a certain amount of "avoiding tough teachings" here, but most of it seems to me to be a result of honest attempts to understand something fairly complicated.

Of course, a lot of this, I think, comes from foundational errors. The entire point of Christianity, as contrasted with, say, Judaism, Islam, or most other popular religions, is that this is not another Big List Of Forbidden Verbs. You are not "saved" because you follow the rules well, and you are not condemned for falling short. It's got nothing to do with the rules. Capon wrote, and I paraphrase, "if the message of the Cross is anything, it is that God fixed things so that no human would ever again have to do anything about religion."

Look at Paul's endless attempts to communicate to people that it's all free, that there is no point in trying to become justified through works of the law. They're very hard to read. I wish we had some slightly, well, more-medicated writings from Paul to look at. The man flits from topic to topic like a hummingbird on crack.

But... Conservative Christianity often (though not always) reflects what would happen if God said "guys, it's okay, you're all good" and someone tried to figure out a way to make money off of it.

God: You know the world? The one you keep using for toilet paper? I made that.
Man: ...oh.
God: Yeah. And those other humans, the ones you keep kicking when they're down? I made those.
Man: Oh. Um.
God: Uh-huh. And that self, the one you puff up and misrepresent and secretly hate? I made that too, and I really like it.
Man: I'm screwed. I suck. *sits down and cries*
God: No, I like you. I'm just saying. You keep wrecking my stuff.
Man: Um... I'm a pay for that.
God: You can't afford it.
Man: Can't you just take my sheep?
God: Fraid not.
Man: *cries harder*
God: But look, don't cry, little guy. I still like you.
Man: *wails*
God: Here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna write you a blank check, and then you can pay me back with it. Here, look, there's my signature and everything.
Man: *stops crying* Oo! Shiny!
God: There, take it. Write in whatever. Write in 'the whole world'.
Man: *uses blank check for toilet paper*
God: Um... yeah. Okay. Now look, I'm ripping it up. Never gonna cash this check. See? I really do still like you.
Man: Wow, God, you're the greatest! *skips away singing, to use the world for toilet paper some more*

The errors are part of the story too. The story of what God tells us is not entirely complete without some study of how we can misunderstand it.

[maddog]

"This is a very good question."
Thank you. To me, it's quite a critical question indeed. I believe the whole of Christianity (except for the parts which are indistinguishable from the simple human activity of doing and demonstrating love for one another) is entirely dependent upon the Bible.

I think I'd have to disagree with this, simply because Christianity predates the Bible.

The Bible is the only source of Christianity, in any distinctive or identifiable manifestation as Christianity. So the correctness of the Bible is the sole basis of justification for a doctrine or belief called "Christianity," distinct from simple humanism. That should make it a critical question indeed, particularly for self-identified Christians.

I guess, that's where I think we differ. I think Christianity is a tradition predating the Bible, and while the Bible has a particularly important role in its transmission, you can learn a great deal about Christianity from, say, writings of other Christians.

In short, while I do agree that the Bible is fairly crucial, and many things ultimately lead back to it, I think the role of Christian churches is also important.

You're quite right, of course, about there being Christians before the NT, particularly the gospels, was written down. The problem for me is how we gain access to or knowledge about what these early Christianities were really like. The data are so fragmentary and confused. I don't think we can say much at all with any certainty about the early practitioners of so-called Christianity. (I say so-called because some did not identify themselves as Christian, and even among those that did, they had many disputes as to whether a particular practice or community was indeed "Christian." Some Christians denied that name to others who also called themselves Christians. The history of the churches is one of institutionalization, and, inevitably, bureaucratization, rigidity, and the creation of orthodoxy.)

And, of course, since this discussion is about the "point," if any, of present-day "liberal" Christianities, I feel somewhat constrained by what I observe their practices to be. Every one of the modern liberal Christianities that I'm aware of claims foundation upon the Bible as the basis of what makes Christianity Christianity and how to identify anything as Christian. I have to take them at their word.

In addition, at least one of the things attributed to Jesus would account for why the initial period of the church(es) is so obscure: if he really promised that he would be back within the lifetimes of those who saw him, there would have been no need to make a scripture at all. Jesus would be back soon, and the purpose would be fulfilled. It wasn't until a great deal of time had passed, long enough to make the early Christians nervous about Jesus's supposed imminent return, that would have made it necessary to record the gospels.

And, to reiterate, I think that, although there were early churches or practitioners of what they themselves may have identified as "Christianity," I'm not at all sure that anyone has a good idea what criteria those practitioners or churches used to make that assessment (i.e., what makes a "Christian"). From what I understand, many would not have considered themselves Christians, they would have considered themselves Jews. There was internecine warfare among the varying practice communities about what being a "Christian" meant; that's the reason why, I was given to understand, the churches invented the credos, and, yes, why they assembled a canon of scripture and closed it -- to solidify the definition of what a Christian is. So, even though churches and self-identified Christians may have predated the Bible, the fixing of the Bible canon was intended by the dominant churches to identify, once and for all, what the word "Christian" means. The successful churches squelched all the others and tried their darndest to stamp them out, such that "Christianity" would mean one and only one thing -- the thing that the Bible says it is.

So, even though churches had existed for two or three hundred years, those churches themselves purported to base themselves upon the authority of the Bible. They did so because scripture and authority were important for othodoxy. Orthodoxy was important for establishing power and administrative control. Power and administrative control were important for making sure that Christian means one and only one thing, not a multiplicity of things. So, as far as I can tell, all the surviving Christianities themselves say that they are derived from (in the sense of being based on) what's in the Bible; hopefully, if they meant the scriptures to mean anything, and particularly if they regard the book as something greater than an ordinary book, as "inspired by God," or whatever, they would have written them to be consonant with the churches' own history and teachings. Again, I have to take them at their word.


"How do we know? We don't know. We guess."
If there is no way to tell, but only to "guess" what's right about God or Jesus in the Bible, then the foundation for anything called "Christianity" is built on sand.

Well, keep in mind, I'm a militant agnostic. That would be my answer to "how do you know anything about the outside world", too. As an epistemologist, I think that our knowledge of things outside ourselves is fundamentally built on sand.To an extent, I agree with you about epistemology, though I think it's better than sand. I think that because, if it were all my own invention, there's a pile of things that no one would ever experience -- I sure wouldn't have invented them!!! I take outside reality as real because I didn't ask for it to happen to me. Also because I can predict some of it with reasonable accuracy. And because solipsism is untenable, and there's no other choice.

I take that (the existence of outside reality) as a baseline. Of necessity, I have to treat my baseline as a given. I don't question and doubt it at every turn. No one else does, either, in practice. No one is wholly doubtful about the existence of outside reality, because otherwise, they'd starve to death. And I've never seen anyone hold to their skepticism enough to do that.

But what that outside reality brings to me I find IS open to investigation and questioning. So I don't see the meta-questions and the basic question (is reality out there?) as of the same identical doubtfulness.

Existence of the real world is not doubtful. No one behaves so. What IS doubtful is particular claims about the things which are in that world. So far as anyone can tell anything, certain claims are built on sand. Now that sand may not be on top of solid bedrock, but at least it's on a rock big enough to build SOMETHING. Big enough to know that sand should be swept away, if anything of value is to be constructed at all.
Further, the "guess" has to be based on something. What is that "something" that enables you to "guess" what might be right and what might be wrong in/about the Bible and its God(s)? That isn't articulated.

Well, there we get into the realm of faith. How do I know that I should try to help those in need? I don't. I guess. I have tons and tons of vague inklings, urges, half-finished theorems, that lead me to act this way.I don't think you give yourself enough credit at all. What do you mean, you don't know, but only guess, that you should try to help those in need? It's as objective as anything in interpersonal relationships ever gets in this world: If there is an external world, and if I know anything at all about it, there are other people. I am a person. I have feelings and experiences. The other people out there interact with me, without my asking them to. They behave as if they feel the same way I do about similar things. I know that pain hurts. I know that help from others makes me feel better. I know that cooperation helps social beings all have a better chance of survival and fulfillment. What's not to know about "knowing" that you should help others in need? why is this even open to doubt, or guessing? I don't have to guess. I know.

The way you are using the word "guess" leads almost to a problem of semantics or equivocation. It seems to me that you are using the word in a most unusual way, not commensurate with its normal meaning. This has the potential (here, perhaps the actuality) of miscommunication, distortion of meaning, and misunderstanding.

If all anyone is doing is "guessing" which parts are right about God, then the purpose of the whole thing becomes totally confusing to me.

I have two options. Solipsism, and guessing. I'll take guessing.See above.

In addition, if what you're "guessing" about is whether God even exists (i.e., hasn't been verified in your experience of external reality the way other parts of external reality have been), then there is utterly no point in saying that you're "guessing" about what's "right" and "wrong" in the Bible about God. You can't even know what the word "God" means. Therefore it's not possible to "guess" anything about the rightness or wrongness of God-statements in the Bible. Any such statements are incoherent and can have no truth value. IOW, if you doubt that God even exists, you have no criteria whatsoever by which to evaluate any statements about such a thing as God. You cannot evaluate the Bible at all. You've effectively admitted that it can teach nothing about God.

In particular, since everyone that I know who wants to or purports to know anything about God insists that this God person is "good," then why do the students/guessers about the nature of this God hold on so tight to all the parts of the book that obviously depict this God person as a monstrous, murderous, evil lunatic? Why don't the expert students all get together and say, "that part should not be in the Bible"?

Someone at CF gave a great example of this, showing me a case I hadn't noticed before. If you look at Psalm 137 (the famous "happy shall he be who dashesh thy little ones against the rocks"), it sounds horrible. How could you learn anything from this?

Now read Jeremiah.

And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.

These are telling the same story. And suddenly, Psalm 137 becomes, not an endorsement of genocide, but a contrast, showing us the gap between what we are called to, and what we sometimes feel anyway.I don't want to get too deeply into a criticism of these two texts, but I want to give a couple of my impressions: First, the psalm legitimately laments the disaster of captivity. There's nothing special or scriptural in that. Second, even if the lament is legitimate, why does the song writer add the "dash the children" lyric? As you said, that add-on sure seems cruel. Wishing abstractly for bad things to happen to your captor is one thing; wishing to smash their children on the rocks is quite another. I'm not sure what that line adds, and particularly what's so wonderful about it that it deserves to be included in this supposedly holy and inspired book. Third, the bit from Jeremiah might be about the same event, but it doesn't exactly tell the same story. The part you quoted doesn't necessarily relate to anything in the song. There's no necessary connection that Jeremiah meant to be talking about that particular song, or anything in particular. In fact, it's hard for me to make anything coherent out of Jeremiah. I don't know how anyone knows what he's supposedly talking about. Fourth, even if we assume that we can put Jeremiah and the song next to one another and make some sense out of them, Jeremiah seems to be saying, "don't listen to the guy that wrote the song." If that's the case, and Jeremiah was God-inspired enough to know the RIGHT thing to do or say in the situation of captivity, then why didn't the compilers listen to Jeremiah? If they had taken him to heart, they "wouldn't have listened" to the guy who wrote the song, and the song would not have been preserved in the book as a supposedly wonderful song. At least maybe they should have thought about crossing out that awful line. Fifth, even if both texts have the wonderful property of being put together to make this contrast, there's nothing special about taking two stories, comparing them, and drawing a lesson for yourself about how we should properly behave and feel about something bad that happens to us. There's nothing particularly magical, inspired, holy, scriptural, remarkable, wonderful or anything else about the ability of a syntopical reader to draw lessons from comparative texts. There's nothing sacred in that. It can be done with any texts. Sixth, nothing about being able to draw a lesson for oneself from texts makes the "dash the little children" sentiment any better, nicer or more justifiable. It's got no business being in a supposedly holy and inspired book. There wouldn't be any texts requiring reconciliation if the awful sentiment hadn't been left there in the first place. Nobody could mistake the lament for an exhortation if it had been left out.

So, for all the effort to reconcile awful texts, we are still left with nothing spectacular about the Bible that requires such reverence or exclusivity.
"We use it as guidance in trying to think about these questions ourselves." I'm not entirely sure what "these questions" are that you have in mind, but:
What "guidance" comes from the tales of butchery, rape, pillage, slavery, and so on?

Not very much, if you don't look at the context. See the above example, for instance.Thanks for the effort. I can tell that you have studied hard to draw for yourself the best lessons you can. I'm not sure that I find the particular psalm 137/Jeremiah example terribly convincing or enlightening, however. That example has its own difficulties for me, as I explained above.

In addition, I'm not at all sure what "context" could put a good spin on the Adam and Eve story, the Cain and Abel story, the Ishmael story, the Jacob stories, the Flood story, and so many others. The Flood story seems a particularly bad example to me. What "context" makes the drowning of everyone and everything "good"? After he did it, even God regretted doing it and promised not to do it again. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me; it's the parts that I do understand!

Aren't there better sources of guidance about what human beings' lives are, if they are to be considered "good" lives? In addition, if all anyone is using this book for is "guidance," then why does it have "scriptural" or holy status apart from other books about wisdom? Why not look to more than one book?

The Old Testament tells us where we were; it's important, because without it, you cannot easily understand the language and references of the New Testament. But it's the Gospels, not the stories of the Hebrew Kings, from which we derive our answers to these questions. But the history tells us a little more about who was asking, and how they would have understood those words.

If you want to understand a story with a lot of cultural references, you need the cultural references too.I don't disagree with this last, at all. I just thought the problem under examination was, what is so special, for what it's being used for (life guidance), about THIS book, which has a whole lot of wickedness, included wickedness perpetrated by the supposedly good God, in it? Yes, OT is the cultural context in which to understand the NT, but that doesn't explain why such things are used and studied to the exclusion of everything else for life guidance, when in fact there are other books which are more rigorous and more moral which could be used for guidance. It doesn't explain why these ancient texts are MORE special, or MORE valuable for the purpose, than other ancient morality texts. Why is it scripture? Why regarded as holy in some way that other texts aren't? I haven't really seen a good reason for that, yet.

I can't help wondering if the "generations of people" who have adhered to the Bible (1) really knew what it said (in the Christian churches that existed up until the reformation -- approx. 1,400 years or so -- only the priests read or studied the book.

This is rather an overgeneralization, but it doesn't seem very important to me. The people who studied it described what they learned from it.Yes. And plenty of other people have described what they learned from other texts. The learnings seem to be closely parallel, or not so different that one book should be elevated over another in that regard.

Most Christians couldn't / didn't read, and thus couldn't know what it said), or (2) didn't simply "pick and choose" (i.e., ignore whole portions), just as people do today. Neither of these possibilities demonstrates to me any particular value in the book.

I have seen no evidence that any human has ever done anything other than picking and choosing when trying to understand Scripture. Hermeneutics have been a part of how we try to understand these books since before they were written down. Look at the teachings of Orthodox Jews on what is nominally roughly the same text. Yes, textual analysis is how we try to understand what a writer or writers are trying to say. Yes, different people can interpret different writings in different ways and get different lessons from the same text. But the same is true with any syntopical reader who is doing comparison, study and scholarship to try to draw out understanding or lessons from the writings under consideration. To me, this indicates that this set of books is no different from any other set of books. There's nothing wonderful or sacrosanct about them. One should be free to say, upon analysis, that "this doesn't belong" to the set of things that should be taught for right living. IOW, there's no earthly reason to call it "scripture."

The "picking and choosing" thing is a libel thrown around by fundamentalists who wish to discredit a position by pretending it's all about selecting the verses you like. In fact, all the liberals I know study the whole thing, trying to understand why it's all there and what it has to say. But... Studying the whole thing doesn't mean "thinking the whole thing is written in exactly the same way". Thinking that the whole thing is "written in the same way" is not a prerequisite for regarding it as inspired, holy, or of some greater moral stature and importance than other books. I agree that "picking and choosing" is a discrediting accusation. And indeed the "liberal" Christians may study the whole thing and try to understand its different purposes and contexts and lessons. But why focus on this to the exclusion of everything else? Why still regard it as holy or special? What's significant about it? Why is ALL of it necessary for Christianity to be Christianity? Isn't "picking and choosing" really about saying, "that part doesn't fit"? If it all "fit," there would be no need to "pick and choose," would there?

Yet no one goes around saying, "I'm a Socratic" and dealing with Socrates's works as "scriptural" or "holy." No, they are to be studied, understood, used as guidance, and all the other things you say people use the Bible for.

Right.

Okay, I think the problem is, you're seeing the Bible as either "just another book" or as "exact literal truth". It is neither.Well, I think we've identified part of the problem about where we differ. Any part that ISN'T TRUE doesn't deserve to be in a supposedly holy book. It may not have to be "exact literal truth," but it has to be true to be worth anything. What's the value of a book that isn't true? If it isn't true, why is it regarded as holy? or even valuable? If it IS TRUE, then why is it regarded as sacred or inspired? If it's true, it doesn't need inspiration. I.e., it's just another (true)book. If it ISN'T true, no amount of inspiration is going to make it worth anything at all -- certainly worth no more than any other ordinary ("just another" bad) book. The Bible is a way to find out more about God.Its efficacy in that regard has not been demonstrated beyond the efficacy of any other book to do the same thing. Not just directly about moral questions, but about why there are moral questions at all. Obviously, other books might disagree.Right. "Just" like any other book worthy of consideration and study. But... This book provides an answer which, with study and consideration, I have found to be a very good answer, and indeed, a much better answer than I used to think it was."I find much of value in this book" is a very different thing to say from "I am a Christian." Finding value in this book still has not been shown to justify the latter statement.

But the Bible people get upset if you treat their book as "just" a means of guidance and study. So it can't simply be that generations of people have found important spiritual and moral value in a book that makes it "scriptural."

But that does make it important, if I want to understand their explorations, that I use the same book they did.I've never said that the book isn't valuable, or that its study would not be profitable, or that it is not interesting, important or useful to study the Christians' book if you want to understand Christians. The problem of this thread (I thought) was why adhere to liberal Christianity? in particular, to assign to oneself the label "Christian," when, it seems, the purposes of looking at the book (to understand the culture and history of Christians and Christianity, to get guidance for right action) do not appear to necessitate assigning oneself that label, or even to necessitate concentration on the book special to the self-denominated Christians.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly found that passages I thought were nasty had layers of meaning in them I had not understood. There may be more of these; even a passage which sounds utterly barbaric to me and everyone I know may yet have hidden depths, and, at this point, I don't think we should go changing it without more information.Why not? what's so special about this book, as opposed to other books? Don't we change other books all the time when we think they are wrong? And even if you don't literally change the book, why not change what you think, do or say about it? When statutes are amended, for instance, because now we have a different idea about the best way to handle something, you can easily show the former text with strikeout type. It's still there for examination, but no one regards it as efficacious any more. Then, if something else important is discovered about it, it could be changed back. But at least there would be a good reason to do so. Or sometimes books are annotated, to show that certain things had historical importance, but are now regarded as unnecessary. And you don't even have to "go changing it" -- you can simply put a note on it that says: "from everything we know, this is barbaric and unjustified, even un-God-like. We think it's a mistake." And look what you're doing -- you're essentially saying that something you regard as immoral is "untouchable" simply because it's included in THIS book, when you would never say that about any other book. And you do so on the off chance that by investing a great deal of investigation into this barbaric, cruel, and facially immoral thing, something might eventually be found in its depths to make all that effort worth it. It seems an extreme perversion of Pollyanna's "glad game" to me. I'd rather invest what little precious time I have on things that I am far more sure have real value, than in something which has so little prospect of yielding anything edifying, kind, loving, charitable, or what you will.

"Yeah. But this one does seem to have interesting and unusual properties."
Interesting, yes. Unusual, no. It's a book, like any other book. There's no unusual "property" I have ever detected in this book.

This is sort of an argument from ignorance. This one seems, to me and to many other people, to have unusual qualities. You do not need to perceive them for them to matter to us.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that every book is the moral equivalent of every other book. Some are more valuable than others. I'm not saying at all that a book you find useful is not important or should not matter to you more than other books that you find less so. BUT, finding a book important is not the same as finding it "unusual" in a way that NO OTHER BOOK CAN BE. Philosophy and deep study may bring about the same findings of worth and importance for the people who study those books. All books of high quality may be in this sense "unusual," but the qualities of unusual books are not themselves "unusual properties." They are qualities that are capable of being found in many books. Thus, no reason to single out one book, and one alone, for the status of "sacred." What people derive from important texts worthy of study is in no way an "unusual property" of books. It is quite a common property of books, and probably was the initial reason that books were ever written.

The only thing that I find particularly unusual about this book is the fanaticism of its students/devotees.

What I find interesting is the transformation which occurs in some (but not all) of them. And admittedly, other books may sometimes have similar qualities. But I'm not expecting to be on this earth long enough to figure all of that out.You don't have to study those books yourself to know that the phenomenon is common among many books, and not exclusive to study of the Christian Bible. I have seen very little in the way of what I would call "transformation" as a result of contact with the Christian Bible. Some people are not "transformed" at all. For example, there seems to be no greater and no less incidence of moral or immoral behavior among Christian adherents and non-theists, or between the same people before they were Christians and after (or vice-versa, if the process is one of deconversion). I think, consonant with my own experience of them, that most Christians are good people. I also happen to think they would be good people even if they were not Christians.

The "transformation" I experience more often than any other is that religiosity allows a basically good person to do bad things for no reason other than that their religion demands it. In any other context, they would not dream of doing this unkind or immoral thing; but if religion demands it, the thing that they themselves would have otherwise regarded as bad suddenly becomes "good." OTOH, I've also seen some people make a genuine turn-around in their lives, and I've seen them do it both with and without Christianity. Psychotherapy has been responsible for more tangible changes in the behavior of people that I actually know than any religious adherence. So, to me, there's nothing particularly special about the study of that book in terms of personal "transformations."

I'd rather not, personally, simply throw up my hands and say, "I don't want to distance myself from people, so I will continue to use the Christian label, because if I don't, then I make a distinction between them and me." "Christian" vs. "non-Christian" is not the only distinction you make when you accept or adopt the label "Christian." It's not merely a two-pony race. So the "distancing" you do by adopting the label isn't exactly parallel, one-for-one, the same distancing that you do by refusing that label. Just as a matter of curiousity, do you also adopt all the other labels, so as not to distance yourself from them?

Nope. But I don't try to get away from a true label. The word Christian has a meaning, and that meaning appears to describe me, so I'm a Christian. I don't think I could honestly reject that label; it's a factual claim about me, and that's the end of it.But this is exactly what I don't understand: what does the word "Christian" mean? Most especially, what you describe about yourself doesn't match with my ordinary understanding of the word. It doesn't seem useful, in regard to yourself, as I experience you.

And how distancing is it to say, "I don't need to/ don't always think of myself by a particular label," when someone asks you, "are you a _________ (fill in the blank)?" ? Or to reply, "I do my best to live according to proper principles"? Or to say, "everyone is my brother/sister/neighbor"? Or "I don't care to limit my description of my spirituality"? Or "I also am a spiritual seeker"? Or "I believe in love"?

This is true.

Mostly, I use the label because it's a convenient way to tell people a whole lot of things about what I believe that may be of relevance in some contexts, so I don't have to go through the whole nine yards every time. It's a convenience.You are one of the most unusual "Christians" I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, however slightly. The word "Christian" in everyday language doesn't seem to me to describe you particularly well at all. I'm not sure sometimes what "the whole nine yards" is in the ordinary sense of the word, but you're definitely not on that scrimmage line. You're in a different league altogether. So, it may be "convenient" to use that label for yourself, but it's actually more confusing than enlightening, to me. That's what, in part, leads me to question your assessment of it as a "true label" for yourself. Mind you, I'm not questioning your integrity in the least. Your integrity is on plain display and I understand that quite well. All I'm saying is that your assessment that "Christian" describes who you are leaves me wondering what "Christian" could possibly mean. I think you might even have a hard time convincing a lot of other "Christians" that the label is appropriate for you.

Regardless of the value individual people see in studying the life and principles of Jesus, in practice in the USA, Christianity, so-called, has been a devastating force of polarization and enmity-creation. Doing more of the same can't be helping, IMO.

I tend to agree, but I think the harm is done, not by the labels, but by the attempts to apply them to all sorts of things they aren't good for.Nevertheless, in practice that's what's happened. In the same way that "liberal," which used to be a perfectly good word, is now somehow evil, and carries so much baggage in popular twisted usage that persisting in calling oneself a "liberal" is like putting a "kick me" sign on. I think it's a misuse of the word for something it's not good for, but I don't know, now, how I'm going to get the rest of the nation to stop sneering and smirking if I call myself a "liberal."

Oh, absolutely. And if people were content with that, I think the world would be better. But they don't seem to be. So many self-labeled "Christians" have adopted a practice and a doctrine which takes to heart the admonition to go out and convert everyone else. THEY'VE found something cool, and if you don't think it's cool, too, well, they'll make sure you burn in hell for it. AND prevent you from telling THEM about something that you've found that you think is cool.

Indeed. I am very frustrated with these people, and I keep trying to explain to them that the ice cream is, in fact, totally free, and there is enough for everyone.

As stated, I can't really disagree with this. But the rest of the "entire idea" is based on stuff that I can't really understand or don't agree with, or can't force myself to believe, or something. And no two "Christians" seem to have the same ideas about a lot of things. So the label isn't even that useful for telling others what the rest of the "entire idea" is, or what distinctions they are making that seem useful, or why it's "useful" in the first place.

Yeah. I tend to favor a "mere Christianity" view of the term. I don't like the "no true Christian" game.

Exactly so. And, I'd go so far as to say, there's no reason at all to stop at calling it "following the Christ," inasmuch as Jesus was not the first or only teacher to teach many of his important lessons. You could as well call it "following Akela" (cub scout word for "a good leader"), or many other things. Even identifying it as "following the Christ" is somewhat limiting, and in a way that I don't think the teacher would have appreciated.

Well, that depends, I guess, on the key question of whether He was just another good moral teacher, or whether He was something beyond that. But yeah... It's a problem. I know some people who will cheerfully identify as "Jesus freaks" but don't like "Christian" so much.

I'm pretty unlikely to visit over there, but I very much appreciate your sensitivity, introspection, thoroughness, and honesty, as I have experienced it here and at II.

Thanks. I may actually repost the whole set of articles that's vaguely related to over here, just so I don't have to worry about one of the mods trashing them again. :P
You are a person of true nobility of mind and purpose. Hat's off to you. :tiphat2:

#109

[seebs]

The short answer is, "damn that's a lot of text". I'm gonna go to bed now, and maybe try to answer it tomorrow.

[maddog]

The short answer is, "damn that's a lot of text". I'm gonna go to bed now, and maybe try to answer it tomorrow.
Yeah, I should've been in bed a couple of hours ago myself. And I need to fix some edits on this first anyway. :) Say g'night, Gracie.

#110

[maddog]

If I did then what does that say about the intelligibility of the book god wrote?
There, I think, is the disconnect in its clearest form. Where the fuck is the idea that God wrote it coming from? He never said anything of the sort. The closest you get is all the language about "the Word of God", but a careful study reveals that this is a specialized title for Jesus, and has nothing to do with any book anywhere.Sez you and maybe three other guys. All the other folks who call themselves Christian disagree with you.
The entire point of Christianity, as contrasted with, say, Judaism, Islam, or most other popular religions, is that this is not another Big List Of Forbidden Verbs. You are not "saved" because you follow the rules well, and you are not condemned for falling short. It's got nothing to do with the rules. Capon wrote, and I paraphrase, "if the message of the Cross is anything, it is that God fixed things so that no human would ever again have to do anything about religion."Then why, oh, why does ANYONE call themselves a Christian, fer Chrissakes?!? Why is there even a church?!? :P

#111

[seebs]

If I did then what does that say about the intelligibility of the book god wrote?
There, I think, is the disconnect in its clearest form. Where the fuck is the idea that God wrote it coming from? He never said anything of the sort. The closest you get is all the language about "the Word of God", but a careful study reveals that this is a specialized title for Jesus, and has nothing to do with any book anywhere.Sez you and maybe three other guys. All the other folks who call themselves Christian disagree with you.

Actually, I think the majority of Christians agree that, technically, the Bible isn't the Word. I know Catholics consider that to be special magic language meaning "Jesus".

Fundamentalism has changed the face of things by making lots of claims about how the Bible has always been understood a certain way, but the fact is, verbal inspiration wasn't even on the table for a LONG time. No one had thought of it. It became necessary as a corollary to sola scriptura, and postdates that belief, which is itself, IMHO, bug-nutty. (If sola scriptura is true, and we are supposed to believe it, then we must be able to find it in the Bible. It isn't.)

I guess... Keep in mind that TV preachers and the like are from a fairly small part of Christianity.


The entire point of Christianity, as contrasted with, say, Judaism, Islam, or most other popular religions, is that this is not another Big List Of Forbidden Verbs. You are not "saved" because you follow the rules well, and you are not condemned for falling short. It's got nothing to do with the rules. Capon wrote, and I paraphrase, "if the message of the Cross is anything, it is that God fixed things so that no human would ever again have to do anything about religion."Then why, oh, why does ANYONE call themselves a Christian, fer Chrissakes?!? Why is there even a church?!? :P

Hmm. Distinguish between "have to do" and "desire to do". I don't have to do anything. I'm covered. This is not one of the religions with a List Of Forbidden Verbs. But... That said, there are things which I wish to do, which in some cases are distinctive. I wish to try to imitate the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, because I believe it is good to do so. Not because I'll be rewarded. Not because I'll be punished for failure. But because doing so is desirable, and failing to do so seems to have inherent consequences I'd rather avoid.

I would rather be a loving person than an angry one. This isn't easy for me, but it makes me happier.

So... I don't have to do any particular things... But if what the guy said is true, then doing these things is a good idea. So I do them. And they work. So I am confirming my hypothesis. :)

[Goliath]

But if what the guy said is true, then doing these things is a good idea. So I do them. And they work. So I am confirming my hypothesis. :)

Circular argument.

[seebs]

But if what the guy said is true, then doing these things is a good idea. So I do them. And they work. So I am confirming my hypothesis. :)

Circular argument.

Not quite, although it's closer than I really like. The predicted outcomes (general peace, joy, etc.) are not exactly the same as the behaviors (try to be nice to people).

[Goliath]

Not quite,

Yes it is. You are assuming that your god exists and that the bible is its word, whence you follow the bible. Until you prove that your god exists and that the bible is its word, your argument fails. Period.

Next!

[maddog]

If I did then what does that say about the intelligibility of the book god wrote?
There, I think, is the disconnect in its clearest form. Where the fuck is the idea that God wrote it coming from? He never said anything of the sort. The closest you get is all the language about "the Word of God", but a careful study reveals that this is a specialized title for Jesus, and has nothing to do with any book anywhere.Sez you and maybe three other guys. All the other folks who call themselves Christian disagree with you.

Actually, I think the majority of Christians agree that, technically, the Bible isn't the Word. I know Catholics consider that to be special magic language meaning "Jesus".

Fundamentalism has changed the face of things by making lots of claims about how the Bible has always been understood a certain way, but the fact is, verbal inspiration wasn't even on the table for a LONG time. No one had thought of it. It became necessary as a corollary to sola scriptura, and postdates that belief, which is itself, IMHO, bug-nutty. (If sola scriptura is true, and we are supposed to believe it, then we must be able to find it in the Bible. It isn't.)

I guess... Keep in mind that TV preachers and the like are from a fairly small part of Christianity.
OK. I'm not touching this one any more. I disagree with you, based upon my experience of all the people I've ever known who call themselves Christians; from everything I've ever heard such people say/claim, the idea that the Bible isn't the Word of God is news to me.


The entire point of Christianity, as contrasted with, say, Judaism, Islam, or most other popular religions, is that this is not another Big List Of Forbidden Verbs. You are not "saved" because you follow the rules well, and you are not condemned for falling short. It's got nothing to do with the rules. Capon wrote, and I paraphrase, "if the message of the Cross is anything, it is that God fixed things so that no human would ever again have to do anything about religion."Then why, oh, why does ANYONE call themselves a Christian, fer Chrissakes?!? Why is there even a church?!? :P

Hmm. Distinguish between "have to do" and "desire to do". I don't have to do anything. I'm covered.Only you? Only people who call themselves Christian? or everyone? ("no human would ever again have to do anything about religion") If this isn't an announcement that religion is no longer necessary or desirable -- FOR EVERYONE -- I don't know what would be. This is not one of the religions with a List Of Forbidden Verbs.But, if you take Capon to heart, why have any religion at all? No one should ever have to do anything about religion ever again. So why perpetuate religion, which consists of nothing but the thing the Christ just got through teaching was absolutely unnecessary? But... That said, there are things which I wish to do, which in some cases are distinctive. I wish to try to imitate the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, because I believe it is good to do so. Not because I'll be rewarded. Not because I'll be punished for failure. But because doing so is desirable, and failing to do so seems to have inherent consequences I'd rather avoid. But why limit them to Jesus, if Jesus's teachings are not unique, if he is not claiming to have the sole lock on how to live a good life? Yes, it MAY be good to imitate Jesus, but if Jesus himself teaches the same as others, then why limit it to Jesus, to the exclusion of all other teachers, who also offer a way to live a good life (i.e., because it is good to do so)? ESPECIALLY why limit it to Jesus, if Capon has correctly concluded that Jesus's very own PURPOSE was to ELIMINATE narrow religious adherence?

I would rather be a loving person than an angry one. This isn't easy for me, but it makes me happier.Yeah, me too. Ditto everyone I know. And only Christians have a way to do this?

So... I don't have to do any particular things... But if what the guy said is true, then doing these things is a good idea. So I do them. And they work. So I am confirming my hypothesis. :)All you're confirming is that a good moral teacher can help you. There is absolutely no necessity of designating this phenomenon by the word "Christian." In fact, using the word "Christian" for something that may be done by anyone only confuses the issue and sets up barriers between people, which barriers then defeat the purpose of "being" loving.

You speak in such vague generalities. When you get to anything remotely specific, there's nothing particularly "Christian" in the content of any of it. So I'm left puzzled, as dantonac was in the beginning: what is the use or need for the label "Christian," when liberal Christianity seems (at least as to any specifics you have here indicated) absolutely indistinguishable from many non-Christian principles?

#112

[seebs]

You're quite right, of course, about there being Christians before the NT, particularly the gospels, was written down. The problem for me is how we gain access to or knowledge about what these early Christianities were really like.

Indeed. And I can't really tell... But this does, to my mind, help distinguish between "Christianity" and "Bible".

And, of course, since this discussion is about the "point," if any, of present-day "liberal" Christianities, I feel somewhat constrained by what I observe their practices to be. Every one of the modern liberal Christianities that I'm aware of claims foundation upon the Bible as the basis of what makes Christianity Christianity and how to identify anything as Christian. I have to take them at their word.

You might look into the Quakers, who are fond of the Bible, but don't consider it quite the basis of the faith.

In addition, at least one of the things attributed to Jesus would account for why the initial period of the church(es) is so obscure: if he really promised that he would be back within the lifetimes of those who saw him, there would have been no need to make a scripture at all. Jesus would be back soon, and the purpose would be fulfilled. It wasn't until a great deal of time had passed, long enough to make the early Christians nervous about Jesus's supposed imminent return, that would have made it necessary to record the gospels.

Indeed. I find myself wondering what they thought when the first Christians died.

So, even though churches and self-identified Christians may have predated the Bible, the fixing of the Bible canon was intended by the dominant churches to identify, once and for all, what the word "Christian" means. The successful churches squelched all the others and tried their darndest to stamp them out, such that "Christianity" would mean one and only one thing -- the thing that the Bible says it is.

Yes. And I am very unsure that I trust them to do this.

To an extent, I agree with you about epistemology, though I think it's better than sand. I think that because, if it were all my own invention, there's a pile of things that no one would ever experience -- I sure wouldn't have invented them!!! I take outside reality as real because I didn't ask for it to happen to me. Also because I can predict some of it with reasonable accuracy. And because solipsism is untenable, and there's no other choice.

Yup. But nonetheless... It's wobbly enough that I don't feel too bad adopting beliefs that I can't entirely support without some amount of bald assertion, or using post-hoc analysis like "living this way is making me happy".

No one is wholly doubtful about the existence of outside reality, because otherwise, they'd starve to death. And I've never seen anyone hold to their skepticism enough to do that.

Not necessarily. If I were a brain in a vat, and eating were purely a mental activity, the simulator would still make me feel hungry if I didn't eat.

Existence of the real world is not doubtful. No one behaves so. What IS doubtful is particular claims about the things which are in that world. So far as anyone can tell anything, certain claims are built on sand. Now that sand may not be on top of solid bedrock, but at least it's on a rock big enough to build SOMETHING. Big enough to know that sand should be swept away, if anything of value is to be constructed at all.

I had a long debate about this on IIDB, which was crippled by people who refused to get past soundbites.

Here's my current theory. Mathematics is pretty much ironclad. I am more confident of mathematical results than I am that the external world has physical existence independent of me. Mathematics doesn't let me do very much. So, I adopt weaker methodologies (empiricism) which allow me to make broader claims. These get me somewhere, but they don't let me tackle philosophical or value questions. So I adopt an even weaker methodology for those... Because I'd rather have SOME kind of methodology, and answers, then none at all.

This is partially motivated by the observation that the null answer, to many of these questions, acts just like an answer, and has effects I'm not sure I like. So, just not answering doesn't get me out of trouble.


What's not to know about "knowing" that you should help others in need? why is this even open to doubt, or guessing? I don't have to guess. I know.

Hmm. Well, I certainly experience strong compulsions along those lines, and I can offer justifications for them... But they all presuppose I want other people to be happy, and I can't prove that. :)

The way you are using the word "guess" leads almost to a problem of semantics or equivocation. It seems to me that you are using the word in a most unusual way, not commensurate with its normal meaning. This has the potential (here, perhaps the actuality) of miscommunication, distortion of meaning, and misunderstanding.

That could be. I tend to use the word "know" very very carefully, because I don't trust it.

In addition, if what you're "guessing" about is whether God even exists (i.e., hasn't been verified in your experience of external reality the way other parts of external reality have been), then there is utterly no point in saying that you're "guessing" about what's "right" and "wrong" in the Bible about God. You can't even know what the word "God" means.

Indeed. I have to admit, I really don't know what it means. I have some attempts to explain it, but it seems most likely that the referent (if the word has one) is substantially different from my understanding of the word.

But I can do my best. And I can say "this sounds like it describes the reality I experience", or "this doesn't really sound right".

IOW, if you doubt that God even exists, you have no criteria whatsoever by which to evaluate any statements about such a thing as God. You cannot evaluate the Bible at all. You've effectively admitted that it can teach nothing about God.

Hmm. Put it this way: I don't doubt that there is something which I call God. What I doubt is specific claims made about it, up to and including "this is something other than a purely local brain phenomenon in seebs". It's clear that I'm having experiences, and that I can draw correlations between my experiences and those described by others.

But... Beyond a certain point, doubting that this thing is external to me gets into the solipsism problem. I have clear evidence that other people are describing interacting with something which acts a lot like whatever I'm interacting with.

So, for all the effort to reconcile awful texts, we are still left with nothing spectacular about the Bible that requires such reverence or exclusivity.

I've noticed that this seems to be one of those things which happens for some people and not others, and I don't particularly know why. To me, it seems special. That said, there's a lot of texts that seem special, and I do have a certain inherent bias against editing ANYTHING once it's done.


In addition, I'm not at all sure what "context" could put a good spin on the Adam and Eve story, the Cain and Abel story, the Ishmael story, the Jacob stories, the Flood story, and so many others. The Flood story seems a particularly bad example to me. What "context" makes the drowning of everyone and everything "good"? After he did it, even God regretted doing it and promised not to do it again. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me; it's the parts that I do understand!

Heh. Yeah, I know. And what I get from those stories is probably not at all what a lot of other people get from them. The flood story... I take it as patently obvious that it didn't actually happen. I see it as an attempt by early people to explain the world, and the main message I see in it is that, while God may be angry with us, God does not really wish to harm us. Anymore, at least. :P

I don't disagree with this last, at all. I just thought the problem under examination was, what is so special, for what it's being used for (life guidance), about THIS book, which has a whole lot of wickedness, included wickedness perpetrated by the supposedly good God, in it? Yes, OT is the cultural context in which to understand the NT, but that doesn't explain why such things are used and studied to the exclusion of everything else for life guidance, when in fact there are other books which are more rigorous and more moral which could be used for guidance. It doesn't explain why these ancient texts are MORE special, or MORE valuable for the purpose, than other ancient morality texts. Why is it scripture? Why regarded as holy in some way that other texts aren't? I haven't really seen a good reason for that, yet.

Because it's the one with Jesus in it. I think that's pretty much it. :)

I mean, that's the thing. Christians think Jesus was pretty special, to put it mildly. Everything that helps people understand Jesus is therefore interesting to them. Even the stuff that's sorta hard to work through.

Thinking that the whole thing is "written in the same way" is not a prerequisite for regarding it as inspired, holy, or of some greater moral stature and importance than other books. I agree that "picking and choosing" is a discrediting accusation. And indeed the "liberal" Christians may study the whole thing and try to understand its different purposes and contexts and lessons. But why focus on this to the exclusion of everything else? Why still regard it as holy or special? What's significant about it? Why is ALL of it necessary for Christianity to be Christianity? Isn't "picking and choosing" really about saying, "that part doesn't fit"? If it all "fit," there would be no need to "pick and choose," would there?

Well, let's take a good example. Paul. Lots of people hate Paul. Go back a year or two, and you'll see me arguing about how bad Paul is, and how much damage his writing does.

Then I was reading through it, and I started seeing stuff I hadn't seen before. And now, I think Paul's great, but that people should be a lot more careful reading him.

So. Let's say I find another passage that bothers me. Should we take it out, or should I consider the possibility that the people who selected it really did know what they were doing better than I do?

Well, I think we've identified part of the problem about where we differ. Any part that ISN'T TRUE doesn't deserve to be in a supposedly holy book. It may not have to be "exact literal truth," but it has to be true to be worth anything. What's the value of a book that isn't true? If it isn't true, why is it regarded as holy? or even valuable? If it IS TRUE, then why is it regarded as sacred or inspired? If it's true, it doesn't need inspiration. I.e., it's just another (true)book. If it ISN'T true, no amount of inspiration is going to make it worth anything at all -- certainly worth no more than any other ordinary ("just another" bad) book.

Not all truth is interchangable. There's a big difference between a book containing the lengths of every hair on my cat, in micrometers, and a book containing the population of U. S. cities, and a book containing an objectively true answer to the question "when is it morally right to kill".

The Bible has claims in it, which I think are true, which are not found in any other books. Furthermore, it has a great deal of supplemental information which, I believe, helps one understand these true claims correctly and in context. That's special.


I've never said that the book isn't valuable, or that its study would not be profitable, or that it is not interesting, important or useful to study the Christians' book if you want to understand Christians. The problem of this thread (I thought) was why adhere to liberal Christianity? in particular, to assign to oneself the label "Christian," when, it seems, the purposes of looking at the book (to understand the culture and history of Christians and Christianity, to get guidance for right action) do not appear to necessitate assigning oneself that label, or even to necessitate concentration on the book special to the self-denominated Christians.

The right action is only part of the story. There's also the question of how we answer questions like "why are we here". Or, for that matter, "if we have not acted rightly, what happens next?" And this book's answer to those questions is different from most others.

Why not? what's so special about this book, as opposed to other books? Don't we change other books all the time when we think they are wrong?

Science books, yes. But other books... Not so much. It would be a grave error to rewrite a Father Brown murder mystery to try to remove the racism. It is part of the story, even if we now disagree with it.

And even if you don't literally change the book, why not change what you think, do or say about it?

And this is what liberals do do, by writing huge books of scriptural commentary trying to get at the question of how we should best understand this material.


I think, consonant with my own experience of them, that most Christians are good people. I also happen to think they would be good people even if they were not Christians.

This may be. I know that there are at least a few people in which this seems to be useful for a transformation. But, as you are about to observe:

Psychotherapy has been responsible for more tangible changes in the behavior of people that I actually know than any religious adherence. So, to me, there's nothing particularly special about the study of that book in terms of personal "transformations."

Hmm. Just as a side point, I argue that it is not adherence to Christianity that makes people better. It's God. Christianity offers an explanation for this which I accept. But it's like physics. What makes you move in certain ways is inertia, whether or not you believe in inertia.

But this is exactly what I don't understand: what does the word "Christian" mean? Most especially, what you describe about yourself doesn't match with my ordinary understanding of the word. It doesn't seem useful, in regard to yourself, as I experience you.

To simplify dramatically: If you read the Gospels, and look at Jesus in them, and then look at me, it is my hope that you will notice some similarity between us. Since I do this specifically by trying to imitate Jesus, not just by doing things which are coincidentally also done by Jesus, the term fits. Furthermore, my belief that Jesus was special in a way that other moral teachers were not matters, I suppose.

You are one of the most unusual "Christians" I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, however slightly. The word "Christian" in everyday language doesn't seem to me to describe you particularly well at all. I'm not sure sometimes what "the whole nine yards" is in the ordinary sense of the word, but you're definitely not on that scrimmage line. You're in a different league altogether. So, it may be "convenient" to use that label for yourself, but it's actually more confusing than enlightening, to me. That's what, in part, leads me to question your assessment of it as a "true label" for yourself. Mind you, I'm not questioning your integrity in the least. Your integrity is on plain display and I understand that quite well. All I'm saying is that your assessment that "Christian" describes who you are leaves me wondering what "Christian" could possibly mean. I think you might even have a hard time convincing a lot of other "Christians" that the label is appropriate for you.

Heh. Yeah, well, there is that.

I wrote something for GA on ChristianForums trying to express this. One of the reasons I do this is that I have known people who would like to follow Jesus, but are afraid they won't fit in or be accepted. Adopting this title allows me to demonstrate that the word is more flexible than some of the TV preachers would have you believe.

Nevertheless, in practice that's what's happened. In the same way that "liberal," which used to be a perfectly good word, is now somehow evil, and carries so much baggage in popular twisted usage that persisting in calling oneself a "liberal" is like putting a "kick me" sign on. I think it's a misuse of the word for something it's not good for, but I don't know, now, how I'm going to get the rest of the nation to stop sneering and smirking if I call myself a "liberal."

Yeah. So now I call myself a "liberal Republican", and everyone hates me. But... I'm also digging away at the chinks in that wall, making it a little harder for people to see those words as describing homogenized groups of people you can treat interchangably.

So... There's two outcomes here.

One is that people learn that I'm some kind of theist, and I think Jesus was way cool.

Another is that, if they start poking around, they learn that these positions are not incompatible with things that they may not have seen often before.

Either way, I win!

[seebs]

OK. I'm not touching this one any more. I disagree with you, based upon my experience of all the people I've ever known who call themselves Christians; from everything I've ever heard such people say/claim, the idea that the Bible isn't the Word of God is news to me.

Ask a Catholic sometime. I'm pretty sure all Catholics (or at least, all Catholic clergy) are clear on that distinction. RLP made that point once, and a lot of other Christians I know agree. You probably live in America, yes?

But, if you take Capon to heart, why have any religion at all? No one should ever have to do anything about religion ever again. So why perpetuate religion, which consists of nothing but the thing the Christ just got through teaching was absolutely unnecessary?

This is tied in to attempts to explain that Christianity isn't supposed to be a religion.

I do not think power structures and institutions are useful to Christianity.


But why limit them to Jesus, if Jesus's teachings are not unique, if he is not claiming to have the sole lock on how to live a good life?

I don't necessarily, but if there is a conflict between what Jesus teaches, and what someone else teaches, I will go with what Jesus said.

Yeah, me too. Ditto everyone I know. And only Christians have a way to do this?

I don't know. I know that this one works, and I currently believe that, while everyone can do it, the Christian explanation of what they're doing is the true explanation.

All you're confirming is that a good moral teacher can help you.

I don't think I'd quite agree. From my perspective, a moral teacher alone would not be able to do this, because some of what's happened is an external force changing me.

You speak in such vague generalities. When you get to anything remotely specific, there's nothing particularly "Christian" in the content of any of it. So I'm left puzzled, as dantonac was in the beginning: what is the use or need for the label "Christian," when liberal Christianity seems (at least as to any specifics you have here indicated) absolutely indistinguishable from many non-Christian principles?

I think there's a tendency to conflate the beliefs, and their effects, and other effects which don't follow from belief, and the mechanism by which things are affected, but all these are distinct. My beliefs are Christian, because I believe the mechanism of the effects on me is the one Christianity teaches. Does that help?

[seebs]

Yes it is. You are assuming that your god exists and that the bible is its word, whence you follow the bible. Until you prove that your god exists and that the bible is its word, your argument fails. Period.

Actually, I'm not assuming that the Bible is God's word. I am assuming that these moral teachings reflect God's will, but this is not entirely based on assumptions about the Bible. Mostly, though, the interesting part is that, wherever this advice comes from, it works.

[Goliath]

I am assuming that these moral teachings reflect God's will,


Unproven assertion that your god exists.

You still lose. Try again? Y/N

Next!

[seebs]

I am assuming that these moral teachings reflect God's will,


Unproven assertion that your god exists.

Indeed. That's one of the hypotheses under consideration.

Can't prove it, see no reason to try. It's a working model, and the model is working, so I keep using it.

[maddog]

OK. I'm not touching this one any more. I disagree with you, based upon my experience of all the people I've ever known who call themselves Christians; from everything I've ever heard such people say/claim, the idea that the Bible isn't the Word of God is news to me.

Ask a Catholic sometime. I'm pretty sure all Catholics (or at least, all Catholic clergy) are clear on that distinction. RLP made that point once, and a lot of other Christians I know agree. You probably live in America, yes?Yes. But that's enough about that.

But, if you take Capon to heart, why have any religion at all? No one should ever have to do anything about religion ever again. So why perpetuate religion, which consists of nothing but the thing the Christ just got through teaching was absolutely unnecessary?

This is tied in to attempts to explain that Christianity isn't supposed to be a religion.All the more reason to eschew the label, which in practice does nothing other than identify a religion/religious practice.

I do not think power structures and institutions are useful to Christianity.
Well, for instance, saying "Christianity predates the Bible" only means that the initial churches (i.e., structures and institutions) were there before anyone decided to write this stuff down. So, Christianity -- in the only way we can know anything about it, the only way any information about it was transmitted to us, is via power structures and institutions, which wrote and collected and suppressed certain books, to solidify the power structures and institutions. Again, all the more reason to eschew the label.

But why limit them to Jesus, if Jesus's teachings are not unique, if he is not claiming to have the sole lock on how to live a good life?

I don't necessarily, but if there is a conflict between what Jesus teaches, and what someone else teaches, I will go with what Jesus said.

Yeah, me too. Ditto everyone I know. And only Christians have a way to do this?

I don't know. I know that this one works, and I currently believe that, while everyone can do it, the Christian explanation of what they're doing is the true explanation.

All you're confirming is that a good moral teacher can help you.

I don't think I'd quite agree. From my perspective, a moral teacher alone would not be able to do this, because some of what's happened is an external force changing me.

You speak in such vague generalities. When you get to anything remotely specific, there's nothing particularly "Christian" in the content of any of it. So I'm left puzzled, as dantonac was in the beginning: what is the use or need for the label "Christian," when liberal Christianity seems (at least as to any specifics you have here indicated) absolutely indistinguishable from many non-Christian principles?

I think there's a tendency to conflate the beliefs, and their effects, and other effects which don't follow from belief, and the mechanism by which things are affected, but all these are distinct. My beliefs are Christian, because I believe the mechanism of the effects on me is the one Christianity teaches. Does that help?Not really, but thanks for trying. It's probably my obtuseness and unfamiliarity with the way you are using words and what you intend them to mean, a matter that is really beyond the scope of this thread. Without making a massive derail to detail what all these things mean to you (which I don't propose that we do), I'm still left at the starting gate of the OP in terms of understanding the appeal of "liberal Christianity." The label still seems not only too vague to mean anything much, but also actively counterproductive to positive relations and interactions in the world. :deepsigh: C'est la vie!

#113

[seebs]

All the more reason to eschew the label, which in practice does nothing other than identify a religion/religious practice.

It does more for me. I'm not sure why, but it does.

Well, for instance, saying "Christianity predates the Bible" only means that the initial churches (i.e., structures and institutions) were there before anyone decided to write this stuff down. So, Christianity -- in the only way we can know anything about it, the only way any information about it was transmitted to us, is via power structures and institutions, which wrote and collected and suppressed certain books, to solidify the power structures and institutions. Again, all the more reason to eschew the label.

I could eschew it, or try to reclaim it. I would rather do the latter. I admit I'm not always sure why.

Not really, but thanks for trying. It's probably my obtuseness and unfamiliarity with the way you are using words and what you intend them to mean, a matter that is really beyond the scope of this thread. Without making a massive derail to detail what all these things mean to you (which I don't propose that we do), I'm still left at the starting gate of the OP in terms of understanding the appeal of "liberal Christianity." The label still seems not only too vague to mean anything much, but also actively counterproductive to positive relations and interactions in the world. :deepsigh: C'est la vie!

Hmm.

I think I see your point.

Okay, how about this. Let's separate the questions out. One question is "why hold beliefs something like this", and the other is "why call it Christianity".

My observation is that, given the belief system, calling it Christianity is probably the most accurate way to describe it. The term "liberal" is often imposed from the outside as a term of contempt; I think modern liberal Christians are reclaiming it, much the way some gay people realized, one day, that they could be proud of the term "queer", rather than hurt and offended.

Why hold a liberal variety of Christianity, as opposed to the others? Perhaps because I'm unwilling to abandon the whole of modern science just to pretend a pretty story with a moral is a factual history of the world. Why hold Christianity of any sort? Here, we see the intended dilemma; why hold any of it, if not all of it?

But consider: I feel the same way about most conservative Christians I know. I don't see any reason to bother talking about being "Christian" if you're not gonna actually get out there and love some neighbors.

It's a pretty broad term. Not quite as broad as "theist", but pretty broad.

[Goliath]

Indeed...

Well, at least you admit to the fact that your argument is fallacious.

[seebs]

Well, at least you admit to the fact that your argument is fallacious.

It's not exactly an argument, it's a methodology. And, while it is technically circular, it's pretty much the same problem that empiricism has. You can't test it without assuming it for the sake of argument.

[Goliath]

I'm not an empiricist, though (in the sense that I do not believe that everything can be empirically verified).

And yes, you've still assumed what you are to prove. Again, thank you for at least having the balls to admit that (unlike most xians that I've encountered).

[livius drusus]

He's not trying to prove anything. He's answering questions about his belief structure.

[seebs]

I'm not an empiricist, though (in the sense that I do not believe that everything can be empirically verified).

My point is, the assumption that anything can be empirically verified is entirely untestable. The best I can do is assume it, and see whether I run into any contradictions.

And yes, you've still assumed what you are to prove. Again, thank you for at least having the balls to admit that (unlike most xians that I've encountered).

I'm not trying to prove anything, though! I'm trying to disprove something, by assuming it as a working hypothesis, and looking for falsification.

Working models are only really testable by using them and seeing whether there are problems. So far, my working model is doing a very good job. It's got explanatory and predictive power, and I haven't been able to falsify it. This makes it a good working model. I can't prove it, but I don't care whether or not I can prove it. I care that, in practice, it seems to be working well.

Note that I feel precisely the same way about empiricism in general. I have no basis for this, except that it seems to work if I use it as a working hypothesis, but this is good enough.

[maddog]

All the more reason to eschew the label, which in practice does nothing other than identify a religion/religious practice.

It does more for me. I'm not sure why, but it does.

Well, for instance, saying "Christianity predates the Bible" only means that the initial churches (i.e., structures and institutions) were there before anyone decided to write this stuff down. So, Christianity -- in the only way we can know anything about it, the only way any information about it was transmitted to us, is via power structures and institutions, which wrote and collected and suppressed certain books, to solidify the power structures and institutions. Again, all the more reason to eschew the label.

I could eschew it, or try to reclaim it. I would rather do the latter. I admit I'm not always sure why.
The problem I see with this is that, historically speaking, for the best part of 2000 years, the label has ONLY signified the power structures and institutions which, by your own admission, are antithetical to and obfuscate the teacher's lessons. The "other" things that the label COULD mean are, under analysis, not (at least in my experience) exclusive to, or unique to Christianity, and also not distinguishable from any other effective moral and ethical systems. Therefore, the label DOESN'T mean anything distinctive from what other enlightened human beings understand and do, but it DOES function as making a distinction and division where, if the teacher's lesson has been properly understood, there should be none. You can't "reclaim" what has NEVER been the case. In particular, as I said much earlier in this thread, I think the specific lesson of this teacher was NOT to make distinctions between thee and me. So I think the teacher himself, properly understood, would lament the use of his name (though not his teaching) AT ALL.
Not really, but thanks for trying. It's probably my obtuseness and unfamiliarity with the way you are using words and what you intend them to mean, a matter that is really beyond the scope of this thread. Without making a massive derail to detail what all these things mean to you (which I don't propose that we do), I'm still left at the starting gate of the OP in terms of understanding the appeal of "liberal Christianity." The label still seems not only too vague to mean anything much, but also actively counterproductive to positive relations and interactions in the world. :deepsigh: C'est la vie!

Hmm.

I think I see your point.

Okay, how about this. Let's separate the questions out. One question is "why hold beliefs something like this", and the other is "why call it Christianity". Yes, that's close to what I'm driving at.

My observation is that, given the belief system, calling it Christianity is probably the most accurate way to describe it.I think we just have to agree to disagree about this. Defining what is special, significant, distinctive ABOUT Christianity, such that it deserves this distinctive name, is an exercise in herding cats. The self-denominated Christians seem to have no agreement among themselves about what the word means, and certainly no way to convey to a non-Christian what the word means. All the words seem, in my experience with self-denominated Christians, to signify either one of two things: (1) distinctive religious practices, dogmas, doctrines and institutions. I think that this is, indeed, cultural Christianity, marked by outward manifestations. I think that the entire existence of this kind of Christianity is an empirical demonstration of "not clear on the concept." I think none of this has anything to do with what the teacher was trying to teach. Therefore it doesn't even deserve the name of "Christian." (2) a moral and ethical practice. The problem with denominating this as "Christianity," is that there is nothing unique or distinctive about this as opposed to other effective moral and ethical practices. "Love" and "love thy neighbor" seem to be the bedrock of this, but ALL enlightened beings capable of teaching this have the same message. I don't even think Jesus was claiming anything distinctive to himself about this. If the essence is "love," and that "love" includes no "other" (there is only a whole, there is only "us," and no "them"), then the successful practitioners of love do not only themselves but their teacher a disservice by claiming a name that the teacher himself would abhor. Again, this kind of self-named "Christians" may be more successful as ethical individuals, but they are still "not clear on the concept" at the exact point of creating an artificial distinction between "us" and "them." The term "liberal" is often imposed from the outside as a term of contempt; I think modern liberal Christians are reclaiming it, much the way some gay people realized, one day, that they could be proud of the term "queer", rather than hurt and offended. Two thoughts about this: First, "liberal" has never been a dirty word, to me. I might impose it "from the outside," too, but not in a pejorative or contemptuous way. I apply it to Christians whom I appreciate VERY MUCH, because they have understood, so much better than the fundamentalist variety (in my experience) the lessons of love that their teacher taught. Like dantonac, I find liberal Christians (again, in my experience) are pretty much like myself and don't make as many harsh and artificial (and unloving) distinctions between people. But, in terms of practicing love, I also don't find them different from others who also practice love. Therefore, I'm left wondering what "Christian" even means in this context. Second, notice that what you are attempting to "reclaim" here is the positive connotation of "liberal," NOT the label "Christian," of itself.

Why hold a liberal variety of Christianity, as opposed to the others? Perhaps because I'm unwilling to abandon the whole of modern science just to pretend a pretty story with a moral is a factual history of the world. Why hold Christianity of any sort? Here, we see the intended dilemma; why hold any of it, if not all of it?I don't see any problem, personally with being a "picker and chooser" about what works for me in forming myself as what I consider a proper human being. Isn't that what we all do in our journey through life, seeking the best and most fulfilling meaning that we can? We all choose ideas, philosophies, principles, which have meaning and efficacy for us.

I have the experience or understanding that human beings do have some differences in personality and preferences, such that one approach or tactic may work better for this person, and less well for that one. I know that many, if not most, social animals (i.e., human beings) are acculturated into the mores of their society, so that most people understand something of what is good and right and want to be and do, good and right. I understand that there are many commonalities and some differences in human beings' understandings of what particular thing is good or right to do in a certain situation. I hold nothing against anyone who chooses a different set of principles or a different kind of approach from the one(s) I use. It's just that, if we are all doing our best to do good and right, and to be good and right, I don't see any point at all in making artificial divisions among us, when we all have the same basic or essential goals. Choosing to use a divisive label for what is essentially a common quest is puzzling to me.
But consider: I feel the same way about most conservative Christians I know. I don't see any reason to bother talking about being "Christian" if you're not gonna actually get out there and love some neighbors. Yes, this is the point of confusion. What I notice particularly about this, however, is what YOU have chosen as the hallmark of Christianity: getting out there and loving some neighbors. In the first place, an awful lot of people who adopt the label "Christian" USE that label to practice the exact opposite of what their teacher supposedly told them. They use it as a way to separate themselves from others, to hate others, to abuse others, and so on. In the second place, the ONE THING that they SHOULD be doing is something that IS NOT EXCLUSIVE or unique to Christians or Christianity -- understanding that all are our neighbors, that we are everyone else's neighbors, and that we should love one another (and since we can do nothing about whether they love us, the only thing we can do anything about is loving them). There's nothing specially "Christian" about loving others. And therefore the label is meaningless in that regard. So (1) the label is USED to practice the opposite of the teaching, and (2) the teaching doesn't need the label.

It's a pretty broad term. Not quite as broad as "theist", but pretty broad.Yes. I have no problem with that. I just think (just my opinion, mind you) that the liberal Christians have not taken the problem to its logical extension/conclusion, i.e., that the label itself is at best unnecessary, and at worst actively harmful.

#114

[seebs]

The problem I see with this is that, historically speaking, for the best part of 2000 years, the label has ONLY signified the power structures and institutions which, by your own admission, are antithetical to and obfuscate the teacher's lessons.

And yet, they also seem to help carry them. This world is full of things in some sort of tension like that.

And keep in mind, I don't think the moral lessons alone are the whole point.

The "other" things that the label COULD mean are, under analysis, not (at least in my experience) exclusive to, or unique to Christianity, and also not distinguishable from any other effective moral and ethical systems.

But this isn't just a moral or ethical system. It's also a belief about the nature of God and our relationship with God. And that part seems to be essentially unique... Not that there aren't other similar ones, but the claims are different.

In particular, as I said much earlier in this thread, I think the specific lesson of this teacher was NOT to make distinctions between thee and me. So I think the teacher himself, properly understood, would lament the use of his name (though not his teaching) AT ALL.

The problem, I think, is not making distinctions, but discriminating based on them. I guess... It's racist to care whether someone's black or not, unless you're trying to figure out the risk of sickle cell anemia, or skin cancer. Then it's actually a good idea.

It's silly to care about whether or not someone's Christian, unless you want to know whether they will be likely to want to go to church.

I think we just have to agree to disagree about this. Defining what is special, significant, distinctive ABOUT Christianity, such that it deserves this distinctive name, is an exercise in herding cats.

Well, if you wanteed a short answer, you could always go with one of the Creeds. The big thing seems to be belief that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ, and indeed, God.

This carries with it certain implications, such as "this person's advice is special", or "sins can be and are forgiven".

Yes, this is the point of confusion. What I notice particularly about this, however, is what YOU have chosen as the hallmark of Christianity: getting out there and loving some neighbors. In the first place, an awful lot of people who adopt the label "Christian" USE that label to practice the exact opposite of what their teacher supposedly told them.

Yup.

But that doesn't change what the label is supposed to mean. :)

I think the original intent, that it refer to people in whom Christ is manifest (whatever that means; more magic words), is still important.

Yes. I have no problem with that. I just think (just my opinion, mind you) that the liberal Christians have not taken the problem to its logical extension/conclusion, i.e., that the label itself is at best unnecessary, and at worst actively harmful.

Hmm.

So, really, what I should be thinking about here is whether there is any benefit to the use of the term. And I think there is, but it's very hard for me to express it.

I will point out that there are groups of Jesus-followers who don't really do much with the "Christian" label. But they still tend to have some kind of label, some kind of way of saying "are you one of the people doing this thing?", simply because it's useful.

I'll keep thinking about this.

Anyway, to separate out these questions: Ignoring the question of why one would use the label, the reason to hold the belief system is that it appears to be true.

I'm not sure how to describe the reasons for pursuing this the way I do. This is a faith with no easy answers, no simple solutions, and a whole lot of struggling to figure out what's going on. It may be that this is a path provided so that skeptics and seekers can feel like they're doing something useful. :)

[Ronin]

Yes. I have no problem with that. I just think (just my opinion, mind you) that the liberal Christians have not taken the problem to its logical extension/conclusion, i.e., that the label itself is at best unnecessary, and at worst actively harmful.

I can understand how the label "Christian" is unnecessary for one to behave morally and ethically with concern and care for others. I have argued something along these lines many times with seebs and very early on with HelenM.

Biblically, it is not even given as an instruction for people to attribute such a label to themselves. Jesus merely instructs people to love one another. It is reasonable to behave this way and not attach oneself to the importance of another by associative label.

Unfortunately, calling oneself a "Christian" does open the field to more harmful confusion given the written descriptions of the behavior and attributes of the OT god to which the NT canonization attaches itself (for practical purposes of the day, in my view, that no longer can be extricated).

I would be more careful not to presume any other "harm" can be brought about by the associative label "Christianity" as some sort of causal relation to actual physical violence, however...as such danger is not limited to the concept of religion.

[Goliath]

I'm not trying to prove anything, though! I'm trying to disprove something, by assuming it as a working hypothesis, and looking for falsification.


I'm disappointed, seebs. You, of most people, should know that if P is a proposition, then there is a universe of difference between "P is true" and "I don't know why P is false".

[Ronin]

I'm not trying to prove anything, though! I'm trying to disprove something, by assuming it as a working hypothesis, and looking for falsification.


I'm disappointed, seebs. You, of most people, should know that if P is a proposition, then there is a universe of difference between "P is true" and "I don't know why P is false".

That doesn't seem to be what seebs wrote, Goliath.

He is working with a hypothesis and (not being able to find falsification) is working under the assumption that the hypothesis appears correct...for now.

Much like quantum physics.

:wink:

[maddog]

...

And keep in mind, I don't think the moral lessons alone are the whole point. Neither do I. But I don't consider it (examining the teachings of Christianity) either qualitatively or quantitatively different from any other philosophical investigation.

The "other" things that the label COULD mean are, under analysis, not (at least in my experience) exclusive to, or unique to Christianity, and also not distinguishable from any other effective moral and ethical systems.

But this isn't just a moral or ethical system. It's also a belief about the nature of God and our relationship with God. And that part seems to be essentially unique... Not that there aren't other similar ones, but the claims are different. I agree, it isn't "just" a moral or ethical system. But it is a philosophical investigation into fundamental questions. But here's the point: So are a lot of other things.

The "belief about the nature of God and our relationship with God" seems a little strange, to me, considering what you've said about yourself and your philosophical inquiries. The world/universe seems to me to be inescapable, because things about it happen to me, and other people describe similar things happening to them, but complete solipsism seems untenable. So I begin with the world/universe as a foundation. As far as I know, everyone investigates the nature of the world/universe. I don't consider inquiry into Jesus's life/ministry any different in kind to this. I also don't consider Jesus's own inquiries and explorations (and explications of his findings) any different in kind to any other philosophical attempt to understand the world/universe and our place in it. I also don't find anything in his answers particularly unusual or distinct from other systems of understanding.

As to the word "God," and its relation to this world/universe, that question has no particular content or meaning for me, and I find all the words said about it by others who have conducted an investigation of it, completely incoherent. You yourself are agnostic in regard to anything called "God." What can the "nature" of an incoherent idea be? What kind of "relationship" can anyone or anything have to an incoherent word? I don't fault anyone for asking the question, but I also don't think that they can have received any real, or useful, or distinguishing answers. I could be mistaken about this, however. :)

In particular, as I said much earlier in this thread, I think the specific lesson of this teacher was NOT to make distinctions between thee and me. So I think the teacher himself, properly understood, would lament the use of his name (though not his teaching) AT ALL.

The problem, I think, is not making distinctions, but discriminating based on them. I guess... It's racist to care whether someone's black or not, unless you're trying to figure out the risk of sickle cell anemia, or skin cancer. Then it's actually a good idea. I think this is a good example of your point.

It's silly to care about whether or not someone's Christian, unless you want to know whether they will be likely to want to go to church.I think this is a very bad example of your point, unless you're being facetious. Predictability about church-going is trivial. It's not only silly to care about whether someone is a Christian in general, it's equally silly (if not more so) to care about whether or not someone is likely to want to go to church. ESPECIALLY since church-going (institutionalization and rigidifying of doctrine and dogma) is not only inessential to Jesus's point, but also antithetical to it.

I think we just have to agree to disagree about this. Defining what is special, significant, distinctive ABOUT Christianity, such that it deserves this distinctive name, is an exercise in herding cats.

Well, if you wanted a short answer, you could always go with one of the Creeds. The big thing seems to be belief that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ, and indeed, God.This signifies nothing if there can be no certainty that God even exists or what "God" even means.

This carries with it certain implications, such as "this person's advice is special", or "sins can be and are forgiven".Yes. I suppose so. But if the special person's special advice is, "don't make unloving distinctions between people," then setting up an exclusionary institution and doing many many unloving things in the name of the institution, which in turn trades in the special person's name, solely BECAUSE the person is deemed special, is kind of like false advertising. As to "sins can be and are forgiven," fine. Once this special person said that, what more is there to say? -- unless, of course, as much of Christian doctrine holds, most people are excluded from this forgivenness, or there are conditions attached by which to "earn" this forgivenness. Again, if the sins ARE "forgiven," and they are simply, genuinely, and universally FORGIVEN, then what need of the name/label of the special person? Thanks for the information. Now I'm no differently off than if I, and everyone, had never heard of this Jesus/God person. What's to say after that? Is there magic involved somehow?

Yes, this is the point of confusion. What I notice particularly about this, however, is what YOU have chosen as the hallmark of Christianity: getting out there and loving some neighbors. In the first place, an awful lot of people who adopt the label "Christian" USE that label to practice the exact opposite of what their teacher supposedly told them.

Yup.

But that doesn't change what the label is supposed to mean. :)

I think the original intent, that it refer to people in whom Christ is manifest (whatever that means; more magic words), is still important. Depending on what you think about what the manifestations of Christ are or actually consist of (it would seem it HAS to be something detectable in ordinary life by ordinary people), then I think those characteristics manifest themselves even in non-God-believers, non-Christians, if you will. Again, no need for ANY label, beyond "there is a moral/ethical/kind/generous/loving person."

Yes. I have no problem with that. I just think (just my opinion, mind you) that the liberal Christians have not taken the problem to its logical extension/conclusion, i.e., that the label itself is at best unnecessary, and at worst actively harmful.

Hmm.

So, really, what I should be thinking about here is whether there is any benefit to the use of the term.Yes. Something like that. And I think there is, but it's very hard for me to express it. Right. We can only do the best we can to articulate it. BUT, unless SOMEONE can successfully articulate that benefit, all the data I have tell me that the word is positively harmful.

I will point out that there are groups of Jesus-followers who don't really do much with the "Christian" label. But they still tend to have some kind of label, some kind of way of saying "are you one of the people doing this thing?", simply because it's useful.I guess I kind of dispute the usefulness of the "Christian" label in particular, especially since it doesn't appear to have a terribly clear meaning, since its meaning has been coopted by people who have values in opposition to what it should mean (and so leads to misunderstanding about the usage of the word in the wider culture), and since other, more specific words would do better at conveying an understanding to others.

I'll keep thinking about this. Me too. I could be wrong. I've been :yikes: :jawdrop: wrong before (believe it or not!)

Anyway, to separate out these questions: Ignoring the question of why one would use the label, the reason to hold the belief system is that it appears to be true.Yes. An excellent (indeed, the only) reason to elect a particular philosophical position. In some ways it isn't even a choice -- how can you "choose" to believe something that isn't (as far as you know) true?

I'm not sure how to describe the reasons for pursuing this the way I do. This is a faith with no easy answers, no simple solutions, and a whole lot of struggling to figure out what's going on. It may be that this is a path provided so that skeptics and seekers can feel like they're doing something useful. :)
We are all skeptics and seekers. We may find different solutions or answers. I wonder what would happen if, instead of saying "I am a ________ (e.g., Christian)," people said: "I like the Friends' practice," or "Jesus is meaningful to me," or "I try to be a good person," or "I endeavor to act upon principles in all my affairs," or "I am a seeker, like you."

#115

[viscousmemories]

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, but I just wanted to say I think it's really interesting and informative. At this point I'm in strong agreement with maddog overall, but honestly I find most of seebs' position very reasonable too. Of course I'm no philosopher or theologian, just my view from the peanut gallery. :yup:

[seebs]

Neither do I. But I don't consider it (examining the teachings of Christianity) either qualitatively or quantitatively different from any other philosophical investigation.

Hmm. That's interesting; it seems fairly different in some ways to me. Of course... The institutions tend to get closer to the mainstream of philosophical thought.

I agree, it isn't "just" a moral or ethical system. But it is a philosophical investigation into fundamental questions. But here's the point: So are a lot of other things.

Sure. But I think these answers are more likely to be true than those answers. :)

As to the word "God," and its relation to this world/universe, that question has no particular content or meaning for me, and I find all the words said about it by others who have conducted an investigation of it, completely incoherent. You yourself are agnostic in regard to anything called "God."

Sure. I'm also agnostic in regard to the existance of moral standards, the existence of any kind of purpose to life, or the notion that I should be kind to those around me. I am willing to agree that I could, potentially, be missing out on a much better life I could live by rejecting my current positions.

What can the "nature" of an incoherent idea be? What kind of "relationship" can anyone or anything have to an incoherent word? I don't fault anyone for asking the question, but I also don't think that they can have received any real, or useful, or distinguishing answers. I could be mistaken about this, however. :)

Here's the thing. I'm about as sure that something is happening as I am that any of my other experiences are telling me something. Beyond that... My view of these things is obviously fragmentary and incomplete, but then, so what? I still have experiences. I recognize that my model is necessarily partial, but it allows me to make informed decisions and has explanatory and predictive power.

I think this is a very bad example of your point, unless you're being facetious. Predictability about church-going is trivial. It's not only silly to care about whether someone is a Christian in general, it's equally silly (if not more so) to care about whether or not someone is likely to want to go to church. ESPECIALLY since church-going (institutionalization and rigidifying of doctrine and dogma) is not only inessential to Jesus's point, but also antithetical to it.

Well, I mostly agree - but I found a church a bit over a year ago, and I have only missed church once in that time when I was in town, and that was because I'd driven into town two hours before church and was out cold.

Now, keep in mind, we don't have a minister, or music, or anything. Just a few people (6-10, mostly) sitting in a circle, praying together. But... I value it greatly. I don't really understand it.

But, for instance... If I'm with my in-laws, we generally say grace before meals. When I'm at my friend Dave's house, we hold hands, but no one says anything. The label "atheist" allows me to know that Dave will not be comfortable partaking in a saying-of-grace, for the most part. Similarly, Dave knows that I will be interested in writings or material related to Christianity, because I'm Christian. The labels allow us to relate to each other better, because we see them as a chance to know each other better.

I agree that this is unusual. Frankly, it drives me nuts. I have been driven just about to tears by watching people talking about how they try to keep separate from the non-Christians. What words can I use? How can I even begin to express what's wrong?

Hmm.

I guess it's this: You can be proud of a title, or you can adopt it with some humility. I see "Christian" as more like "servant" than like "master". I am acknowledging a debt, not just to the Christ, but to other people. Ugh. Words fail me so often in this.


Yes. I suppose so. But if the special person's special advice is, "don't make unloving distinctions between people," then setting up an exclusionary institution and doing many many unloving things in the name of the institution, which in turn trades in the special person's name, solely BECAUSE the person is deemed special, is kind of like false advertising.

Those Pharisees. Man, always playin' games with the ice cream.

First, they're all like, "Free Ice Cream." But then they're like, "But first you have to watch this educational video." And you're all like, "But you said 'Free Ice Cream.'" And they're all like, "But we can't just give away ice cream. It is too yummy and delicious." And you're all like, "Man, that's a rip off. You lied to me." And they're all like, "It wasn't a lie. We're not charging any MONEY for the ice cream." And you're all like, "That doesn't seem right." And they're all like, "Looks like you're too dumb if you can't understand a simple thing like ADVERTISING." And you're all like, "I just wanted some ice cream." And they're all like, "Go away. No ice cream for you."

And then you look and they don't even have any ice cream. All they have is that crappy Italian Ice stuff that isn't anything like ice cream.

That is what I think of Pharisees.

I love that quote. And yes, I agree. It is very much like false advertising.

As to "sins can be and are forgiven," fine. Once this special person said that, what more is there to say? -- unless, of course, as much of Christian doctrine holds, most peveryone, had never heard of this Jesus/God person. What's to say after that? Is there magic involved somehow?

Basically... It helps people to know this. So we tell them. It's the Gospel, the Good News; yeah, there's right and wrong, and you know you've done some wrong, but it will be okay. That's something sorta cool.

Depending on what you think about what the manifestations of Christ are or actually consist of (it would seem it HAS to be something detectable in ordinary life by ordinary people), then I think those characteristics manifest themselves even in non-God-believers, non-Christians, if you will. Again, no need for ANY label, beyond "there is a moral/ethical/kind/generous/loving person."

Honestly, I tend to agree with this. I find exclusivism terrifying. It is a rejection of the entire point of the Gospel, IMHO.

We are all skeptics and seekers. We may find different solutions or answers. I wonder what would happen if, instead of saying "I am a ________ (e.g., Christian)," people said: "I like the Friends' practice," or "Jesus is meaningful to me," or "I try to be a good person," or "I endeavor to act upon principles in all my affairs," or "I am a seeker, like you."

You have a good point there. And sometimes, I do like to do those.

I guess, honestly, a lot of the reason I use the label "Christian" is because I want very much for people to know that you can follow Jesus and identify as a follower of Jesus without hating gay people... Because I think some people might then give His words some consideration, who otherwise might not.

Of course, it's bloody arrogant to say "hey, maybe people will think I'm cool and do this too", but... I can only do my best to say "this is what it means to me, and I think it's good."

[seebs]

He is working with a hypothesis and (not being able to find falsification) is working under the assumption that the hypothesis appears correct...for now.

Pretty much. To borrow a quote from Real Live Preacher, I don't even know how a VCR works, what business of mine is it whether or not God exists?

But I have found that using terminology like "God" and "prayer" allows me to communicate with other people about experiences I've had, and, if they've had similar experiences, we seem to find that this terminology helps us communicate about our shared experiences. It gives us a richer model, a richer set of language... It's working.

[godfry n. glad]

Me, too.

I've always been uncomfortable using the term "atheist". My primary reason is that it defines the position in terms of another, it's supposed antithesis. A-theism, a not-god-believer. I don't care to define myself in terms of not being something else. I don't make a big deal about it and tend to backslide into using "atheist"....it's short and rarely in need of explanation.

I also use a term for myself which seebs used for himself, militant agnostic. I always interpret it with the credo, "I don't know, and neither do you." I think it the most accurate label for my current thinking on things theological. The thing is, I tend to come down on the heathen side....rather than the theist. It's a model that has worked for me. It certainly explains the world much better than the literary pasticcio known as the Bible. To me.

I like the idea of freethought, but find the term unwieldy and others find it off-putting. "Like I'm not free? Who do these "freethinkers" think they are?" I find that referring to yourself as a heretic gets knowing smiles and nods, except from those you'd best stay away from.....

I assume most everyone hear has heard the joke about the man talking the suicide jumper down...right?

Labels seem to be an attempt to make things easier for folks, but it also seems that in something like theological imagination comes into contact with power those labels get abused...misused...distorted...subverted....

godfry

[Ronin]

He is working with a hypothesis and (not being able to find falsification) is working under the assumption that the hypothesis appears correct...for now.

Pretty much. To borrow a quote from Real Live Preacher, I don't even know how a VCR works, what business of mine is it whether or not God exists?

But I have found that using terminology like "God" and "prayer" allows me to communicate with other people about experiences I've had, and, if they've had similar experiences, we seem to find that this terminology helps us communicate about our shared experiences. It gives us a richer model, a richer set of language... It's working.

Seebs:

I can fully understand this view right up to the use of the word "richer" as a unique qualifier for your view as it infers something superior to say...any other worldviews of comparable language usage that do not involve notions of "God" (s) or "prayer" yet provides comfort to others.

Goodness and hope aren't lesser models or language sets, in my view, and remove all of the supernatural notions that can be so confusing.

Humanism is rich, but not any moreso than any other moral/ethical system that produces hope and caring for others.

[/end nitpick]

:cool:

[seebs]

I can fully understand this view right up to the use of the word "richer" as a unique qualifier for your view as it infers something superior to say...any other worldviews of comparable language usage that do not involve notions of "God" (s) or "prayer" yet provides comfort to others.

Well, they work better for me. I will grant that many other worldviews are also rich, and some in ways that mine is not. But... I have found that this language and model are helpful to me in expressing things I found hard to discuss otherwise.

Goodness and hope aren't lesser models or language sets, in my view, and remove all of the supernatural notions that can be so confusing.

That's the question, I guess; I have found that the additional model helps me tie things together in ways that are useful to me.

[godfry n. glad]

In answer to the OP, I'd say that the point of "Liberal Christianity" is to give those who don't like the fire and brimstone and prefer the shepard and kindly savior theology want to have some place to bring together community.... people who have similar beliefs and similar desires to socialize. I was exposed to what I came to call "coffee and donut christians"...the church gave them a community center around which to do good things. Pretty mainstream christians. Do-gooders flock to these types of organizations. It is an outlet for a lot of peoples' altruistic compulsions. I think it's "community" that's important to most of these people, rather than theology. (Yeah, Rev, I hear what you're saying, but do you have a basketball court? And the Boy Scouts need a place to meet...it's only once a week. Can ya help us out?)

I think it's a refuge for those who "feel" christian and think of themselves as christians but don't agree with the attitude of the more pencostal and fundamentalist christians. They are passive christians and wish to remain that way....well, sort of...they keep losing parishioners.

That's my interpretation, but then...I'm just a bystander (and hardly innocent).

godfry

[livius drusus]

You said "hardly". :butthead:

[seebs]

In answer to the OP, I'd say that the point of "Liberal Christianity" is to give those who don't like the fire and brimstone and prefer the shepard and kindly savior theology want to have some place to bring together community.... people who have similar beliefs and similar desires to socialize. I was exposed to what I came to call "coffee and donut christians"...the church gave them a community center around which to do good things. Pretty mainstream christians. Do-gooders flock to these types of organizations. It is an outlet for a lot of peoples' altruistic compulsions. I think it's "community" that's important to most of these people, rather than theology. (Yeah, Rev, I hear what you're saying, but do you have a basketball court? And the Boy Scouts need a place to meet...it's only once a week. Can ya help us out?)

I think it's a refuge for those who "feel" christian and think of themselves as christians but don't agree with the attitude of the more pencostal and fundamentalist christians. They are passive christians and wish to remain that way....well, sort of...they keep losing parishioners.

That's my interpretation, but then...I'm just a bystander (and hardly innocent).

godfry

Hmm! I think this is fascinating, because this is precisely what many fundamentalists seem to see.

Here's the thing. The liberals I know personally are actually very, very, far from this... Not passive at all. Consider that I probably put a MINIMUM of two hours a day into theological, philosophical, and moral debates. These topics are a big deal to me. In fact, much more important than the social function aspects of religion.

I think there's two separate continua here, at least. One is passive/active. I'm a pretty active Christian. One is conservative/liberal, which is perennially ill-defined. There may be more.

But, for instance, I'm pretty much unconcerned about gay sex (which is seen as a liberal trait), but it's not apathy; it's the result of a couple of years of active consideration and study, which led me to a firm conclusion that it's none of my damn business, and that my calling here is not to pry gay men apart before they get all sticky, but rather, to make them feel that they are welcome in the Kingdom of God, whether or not people are squicked by their personal habits.

I think it's easy to mistake these positions, because both will result in the answer "yes, Bob and Jack can come to our church even though they're sleeping together", but the reasons are very different. I'm not in favor of gay marriage despite my Christian beliefs, or because I'm lackadaisical about them; I'm in favor of gay marriage because of my Christian beliefs, which make it clear that I have an obligation to stick up for outcasts, despite the (admittedly utterly trivial) personal costs.

[maddog]

seebs:

with this, I think I can retire from the discussion with better understanding between us.

pleasure talking to you :handshake: , Friend.

#117

[seebs]

Cool. Thank you, as always. I think you've raised some good points, which will certainly influence the way I talk with other Christians about what that word means, and how people should use it.

You have certainly helped me clarify my previously largely intuitive dislike of the notion of avoiding contact with "non-believers". It's not so much that my position has changed, as that I think I understand better why it's so important to me.

[godfry n. glad]

In answer to the OP, I'd say that the point of "Liberal Christianity" is to give those who don't like the fire and brimstone and prefer the shepard and kindly savior theology want to have some place to bring together community.... people who have similar beliefs and similar desires to socialize. I was exposed to what I came to call "coffee and donut christians"...the church gave them a community center around which to do good things. Pretty mainstream christians. Do-gooders flock to these types of organizations. It is an outlet for a lot of peoples' altruistic compulsions. I think it's "community" that's important to most of these people, rather than theology. (Yeah, Rev, I hear what you're saying, but do you have a basketball court? And the Boy Scouts need a place to meet...it's only once a week. Can ya help us out?)

I think it's a refuge for those who "feel" christian and think of themselves as christians but don't agree with the attitude of the more pencostal and fundamentalist christians. They are passive christians and wish to remain that way....well, sort of...they keep losing parishioners.

That's my interpretation, but then...I'm just a bystander (and hardly innocent).

godfry

Hmm! I think this is fascinating, because this is precisely what many fundamentalists seem to see.

Here's the thing. The liberals I know personally are actually very, very, far from this... Not passive at all. Consider that I probably put a MINIMUM of two hours a day into theological, philosophical, and moral debates. These topics are a big deal to me. In fact, much more important than the social function aspects of religion.

I think there's two separate continua here, at least. One is passive/active. I'm a pretty active Christian. One is conservative/liberal, which is perennially ill-defined. There may be more.

Heh... Add one more and you'd have a three-dimensional christian. :giggle:

But seriously, I can agree with your point. Passive/active is very different than conservative/liberal. And, yes, conservative/liberal is perennially ill-defined, but then the whole active/passive in relation to theology in one's life tends to be underdefined, as well. What qualifies as "active"?

My view is that most churches center around a small cadre of "active" members, who spend time shaping the liturgy, practice and teachings of the larger group. But I still see the largest portion of those who refer to themselves as "christian" as being involved for the social benefits of a community in which they are comfortable.

Actually, the largest portion of those I know who are self-described "christians" don't even attend a church and when they do, it really doesn't matter whether it's methodist, presbyterian, congregational, episcopal, lutheran, calvinist or otherwise. There seems to be a familial upbringing division between roman catholics and the various protestant sectaries, though. Most of the guys I know who are self-described "christians" are such because their wives have decided such....they are christians by virtue of the fact that they attend the church of their wife's choice at least twice a year. And that's both mainline and fundamentalist (mainline tend to be golfers, while fundamentalists are hunters).

But, for instance, I'm pretty much unconcerned about gay sex (which is seen as a liberal trait), but it's not apathy; it's the result of a couple of years of active consideration and study, which led me to a firm conclusion that it's none of my damn business, and that my calling here is not to pry gay men apart before they get all sticky, but rather, to make them feel that they are welcome in the Kingdom of God, whether or not people are squicked by their personal habits.

I think it's easy to mistake these positions, because both will result in the answer "yes, Bob and Jack can come to our church even though they're sleeping together", but the reasons are very different. I'm not in favor of gay marriage despite my Christian beliefs, or because I'm lackadaisical about them; I'm in favor of gay marriage because of my Christian beliefs, which make it clear that I have an obligation to stick up for outcasts, despite the (admittedly utterly trivial) personal costs.

seebs....do you have folks tell you you're a bit "unusual" in this regard?

godfry

[Ronin]

Well, they work better for me. I will grant that many other worldviews are also rich, and some in ways that mine is not. But... I have found that this language and model are helpful to me in expressing things I found hard to discuss otherwise.

Very good, then.

I think that a lot of the conflict that arises between individuals (and, thereby, reflected in the overall representative groups, irl and on BB) when discussing worldviews is that all too often language promoting their respective position as superior to the other is used (intentionally or not) adversely.

This is, in my view, the fuel for further misunderstanding and conflict (witness IIDB and CF).

This has been my interest of late (to include perception, problem and possible remedy).

How can we as moderate representatives of our respective worldviews bring others less tolerant within our groups to common ground?

A few days ago I went out of state to some forensic video training with a co-worker who is the son of a local Lutheran minister. After training, during the inevitable free time at the hotel in an unfamiliar city, we could not help but start discussing our understanding of life, the Universe and everything (especially in light of my pro-active effort to promote the atheist/humanistic view). In the end, after touching upon many of the hot-button issues of our day, he expressed the notion that I was in many ways much more of a Christian than some of the Christians that he knew.

I could not help but offer that, except for some of the paranormal aspects of his views, he appeared to be sincerely dedicated to the core values of humanism. Since then, I have found that many of my Christian co-workers have learned from him that I am not the seed of Satan that they assumed I must be because of what they are told on a weekly basis.

In short, they have become tolerant of an alternative view.

originally posted by Ronin ~

Goodness and hope aren't lesser models or language sets, in my view, and remove all of the supernatural notions that can be so confusing.

posted by seebs ~

That's the question, I guess; I have found that the additional model helps me tie things together in ways that are useful to me.

Sure. I have no qualms against superfluous notions per se. I just find them unnecessary and, in many respects, distracting due to their number and credulity requirements.

[Beth]

My apologies, I did not read the entire thread.

I have been taking my kids to an Episcopal Church For a little while now. Mainly because my kids really want to go to church, but as long as I do not profess atheism, I have a group of people to fit into and I do enjoy the service. I think I will always enjoy that type of religious symbolism.

Anyway, I was remarking to a friend just the other day that I do not really understand Liberal Christianity very well. My post-Fundamentalist mind will never really let me grasp the concept of it. When I stopped believing in the BIble as the Inspired Word of God, my fundamentalist mind stopped the ability for me to believe. I was not particularly happy as a fundamentalist and desperately wanted to become a Catholic, but that clashed with my fundamentalist family. ( I may contradict myself, as it is rather difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on this subject.)

I thought I was a Liberal Christian because I did not wholly follow the Old Testament and the abominations. I also had to learn to ignore Paul every now and again to not feel like total crap every second of the day, But I took Christ's words as literal. But after meeting Liberal Christians, I now know I was not a Liberal Christian, I was still a fundamentalist with just a little more liberal slant.

I believed if I sinned in my heart, I was actually guilty of sin. I believed there was eternal Judgement or Damnation, I should say. I believed in a rapture of the Saints and that my name was written in the Lamb's Book of LIfe. I believed that those who died without Christ were damned and it broke my heart to the point I would sob horribly everytime I heard of someone's death. I would cry over deaths in the news, I even still cried that those poor souls in the Holocaust died to be damned after such cruel abuse. I had a horrid time reconciling with god over Hell. I spoke in tongues and saw visions. I was considered a prophetess in my church.

I believed in a six day creation, but I did not know what a day in God's eye was. I accepted it took billions of years. I thought god created through evolution, although Darwin's evolution was my enemy, mainly because I did not understand what he wrote because I was homeschooled YEC. Darwin, I was told was a wicked, godless man.

I believed people were born gay, thought they should be allowed to marry so that they would not be in sin via fornication. I knew that many around me thought being gay was sinful, but no where did I remember Jesus condemning it. I thought the biggest sin of it was that they were not married. It actually took me a while and intensive bible study to get to that point because it took a long time to reconcile personal things within myself and realize I was not vile and doomed I think mainly because my mother was so anti-gay.So I was raised gays (Gay was a bad word in my home, a cuss word. We had to say 'funny' if we had to refer to homosexuals at all.) She even took us to to Orlando one day after I had just married to pray for God to rain down fire and brimstone on Disney as we looked down at it from a distance because it was holding Gay Day. That actually scared me because I was trying to politely reason with my mother.

A liberal Christian is not bound to his or her faith through fear. They can accept that there may be other paths to Jesus via other religions. They do not even have to believe the bible is the word of God. Hell, a liberal Christian does not even have to believe Christ was god, but a man who showed a profound path to God. my mind cannot accept such a liberal interpretation. My mind only accepts hot or cold and perhaps that it is because I may always be an x-fundy and not totally separated from my former beliefs.

[seebs]

I think that a lot of the conflict that arises between individuals (and, thereby, reflected in the overall representative groups, irl and on BB) when discussing worldviews is that all too often language promoting their respective position as superior to the other is used (intentionally or not) adversely.

Yup. And, of course, part of the problem is, if you didn't think it was in some way superior, you wouldn't adopt it!

originally posted by Ronin ~

Goodness and hope aren't lesser models or language sets, in my view, and remove all of the supernatural notions that can be so confusing.

posted by seebs ~

That's the question, I guess; I have found that the additional model helps me tie things together in ways that are useful to me.

Sure. I have no qualms against superfluous notions per se. I just find them unnecessary and, in many respects, distracting due to their number and credulity requirements.

Right. But, of course, I don't think they're superfluous; I think they tie things together and fit my experience better than the alternatives.

[seebs]

Heh... Add one more and you'd have a three-dimensional christian. :giggle:

But seriously, I can agree with your point. Passive/active is very different than conservative/liberal. And, yes, conservative/liberal is perennially ill-defined, but then the whole active/passive in relation to theology in one's life tends to be underdefined, as well. What qualifies as "active"?

Yeah. It's easier to define active, I think; an active believer will clearly base life decisions on those beliefs. Lots of people don't.

I saw someone at CF, in a debate over the Guantanamo Bay thing, ask where I get my concept of "moral rights". He has a Christian icon. He's on staff. In theory, he presumably believes in some of this Christian stuff... But he doesn't seem to think that it can be a source for moral guidance, except in the very narrow fields where he knows of a Forbidden Verb.

My view is that most churches center around a small cadre of "active" members, who spend time shaping the liturgy, practice and teachings of the larger group. But I still see the largest portion of those who refer to themselves as "christian" as being involved for the social benefits of a community in which they are comfortable.

I think this is largely true. There's another fairly large subset who are involved because, IMHO, they are entirely and perfectly missing the point; they want to be treated specially nice, and they want some kind of recognition of how much better they are than everyone else.

This is where you get people who think atheists are "spawn of Satan" or whatever. They need a story in which they're the heroes. I honestly think they could do a lot better than Christianity, for what they really want.

seebs....do you have folks tell you you're a bit "unusual" in this regard?

Yup.

But, insofar as I am confident of much of anything, I am confident that any God or gods which may exist are utterly repulsed and sickened by the abuse heaped on gays.

No one seems to pay any attention to Jesus. I guess I'm trying to put the Christ back in Christianity. Jesus actively sought out the very people society condemned and rejected, because the entire point of His message was that they, too, were important. Christianity is primarily targeted, not at people who want to be specially important, but at people who think they're specially worthless, and need to be told otherwise. All the people the mainstream churches won't have? That's who Jesus came for. Look at the gap between how He treats the people in charge of the religious institutions, who flawlessly keep every last component of the Law, to the letter, and how He treats the people who haven't even come close to keeping the Law, but are small, scared, and lonely.

This gives you a picture of a Christianity which exists only for the outcasts, in which the people in power aren't welcome, and a lot of people stop there.

The next key insight is that those people in power are also small, scared, and lonely. And they are just as lost as the rest of us, but they can't even admit it yet. Poor bastards.

[seebs]

A liberal Christian is not bound to his or her faith through fear. They can accept that there may be other paths to Jesus via other religions. They do not even have to believe the bible is the word of God. Hell, a liberal Christian does not even have to believe Christ was god, but a man who showed a profound path to God. my mind cannot accept such a liberal interpretation. My mind only accepts hot or cold and perhaps that it is because I may always be an x-fundy and not totally separated from my former beliefs.

Interesting!

What's particularly interesting to me is that there are plenty of non-liberal churches that might not have had some of your concerns. The Catholics do not teach that non-Christians are necessarily damned; only that they are pretty sure Catholics aren't, and at least some people are, so better to be here than there.

Your position on gay marriage, while more dogmatic, is similar to a lot of mine.

But... I think Jesus was pretty clear about it not being a question of "Do X, go to Hell", so I don't worry about it at that level.

Still, an interesting position. And yes, you seem to have basically a liberal heart, but a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible.

[Beth]

Interesting!

What's particularly interesting to me is that there are plenty of non-liberal churches that might not have had some of your concerns. The Catholics do not teach that non-Christians are necessarily damned; only that they are pretty sure Catholics aren't, and at least some people are, so better to be here than there. I know many Catholics who believe that non-Catholics, or at least, non-followers of Christs are destined for Judgement and Damnation. Anyway, as I said, I had a very hard time with this concept. I had a NDE when I was 17. At the time, I was a Closet unbeliever. The experience made me believe that I was dying and heading to eternal darkness. It confirmed, in my mind, things I have heard about hell. Those damned were to spend eternity in outer darkness and the most wicked were to spend eternity in the fires of hell.

Hell as a child was something drilled into me. I would sit in the front pew in a little country Church of God and have the preacher scream at me, well, uss, and spit and cry about how we were all wicked sinners, worthless and damned. Every service, I was bawling and at the alter begging god to forgive me, that began at around four, I think. So, yes, I had a fundamentalist understanding of hell and it tormented me because I could not do anything about it other than try to spare others from such a fate by telling them about Christ or trying to live by example.

This is how I can be a little more tolerant at my in-laws for some things they do that are downright controlling. I see them as brain washed. My hubby is coming around. He now tells me that as long as we are married, we are one in the sight of god, therefore, the Holy Spirit that is within him is also within me...so saved by association.

Your position on gay marriage, while more dogmatic, is similar to a lot of mine. Cool.

But... I think Jesus was pretty clear about it not being a question of "Do X, go to Hell", so I don't worry about it at that level.
Not so sure.
'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.' NKJ version

The parable of the goats and the sheep also struck my heart with terror.


Still, an interesting position. And yes, you seem to have basically a liberal heart, but a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible.
Yes, I think so. But that is simply because I read the Bible in whole over fifteen times, front to back, and the NT every couple months in whole and studied the bible at least two hours a day.

[Beth]

Anyway, Seebs, I read the Bible under the impression the Bible was the inspired word of god, so maybe my literalism gave me a scarier impression of Christianity.

[seebs]

I know many Catholics who believe that non-Catholics, or at least, non-followers of Christs are destined for Judgement and Damnation.

Sure. But what the Church actually teaches is just "we can't say anything about them".

'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.' NKJ version

The parable of the goats and the sheep also struck my heart with terror.

Re-read that parable carefully. (It's Matthew 25:31-46 or so.) Note that at no point is even the slightest reference made to what the sheep or goats believe.

So, this guy is standing in the street, in the middle of traffic, and a man comes to him and says "Cars can kill you. Get out of the street. Believe in me." He tells his friends. It's true that the friends that believe the story are safer than the friends who don't... But that doesn't mean that people who stand in the street chanting "Bob met a man, and the man told him to get out of the street" are safer.

Yes, I think so. But that is simply because I read the Bible in whole over fifteen times, front to back, and the NT every couple months in whole and studied the bible at least two hours a day.

I don't think it's so much a question of how much time you spend studying it, as which premises you have in mind when evaluating it.

[Beth]

Sure. But what the Church actually teaches is just "we can't say anything about them".The Catholic Catechism on Hell and Judgement:
IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

V. THE LAST JUDGMENT

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust," will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment." Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

1039 In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man's relationship with God will be laid bare. The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life:

All that the wicked do is recorded, and they do not know. When "our God comes, he does not keep silence.". . . he will turn towards those at his left hand: . . . "I placed my poor little ones on earth for you. I as their head was seated in heaven at the right hand of my Father - but on earth my members were suffering, my members on earth were in need. If you gave anything to my members, what you gave would reach their Head. Would that you had known that my little ones were in need when I placed them on earth for you and appointed them your stewards to bring your good works into my treasury. But you have placed nothing in their hands; therefore you have found nothing in my presence."

1040 The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God's love is stronger than death.

1041 The message of the Last Judgment calls men to conversion while God is still giving them "the acceptable time, . . . the day of salvation." It inspires a holy fear of God and commits them to the justice of the Kingdom of God. It proclaims the "blessed hope" of the Lord's return, when he will come "to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed."

From the Catechism, it appears the Church does teach that those who die with an unrepented mortal sin in their heart will face hell fire and eternally be seperated from god.




Re-read that parable carefully. (It's Matthew 25:31-46 or so.) Note that at no point is even the slightest reference made to what the sheep or goats believe.Well, true 'nuff. I did not include the parable to say that it implicates non-believers. It just used to strike terror in my heart. Anyway, I think John 3:16-21 pretty much represents what many Christians believe in regard to Salvation and it clearly states that those who do not believe in Christ will be condemned.

So, this guy is standing in the street, in the middle of traffic, and a man comes to him and says "Cars can kill you. Get out of the street. Believe in me." He tells his friends. It's true that the friends that believe the story are safer than the friends who don't... But that doesn't mean that people who stand in the street chanting "Bob met a man, and the man told him to get out of the street" are safer. I do not gather that from John 3:16-21


I don't think it's so much a question of how much time you spend studying it, as which premises you have in mind when evaluating it.I was studying it for ordination. That was my goal. Study of apologetics and theology. Anyway, I do agree that it depends on what you interpret the Bible to mean. I held a literalist interpretation but acknowledge that some things were used figuratively and that also had to be studied and interpreted.

[seebs]

From the Catechism, it appears the Church does teach that those who die with an unrepented mortal sin in their heart will face hell fire and eternally be seperated from god.

Yes... Except they have this little subclause that says "of course, God can have mercy on whoever He wants".

Basically, you have no way of knowing that someone hasn't repented. The sacrament of Absolution, while it in principle guarantees that you have repented correctly, is not the only way to repent; it's just the only way to get the Church to say with certainty that you have sufficiently repented.

There are exceptions. Martyrs, for instance.

Well, true 'nuff. I did not include the parable to say that it implicates non-believers. It just used to strike terror in my heart. Anyway, I think John 3:16-21 pretty much represents what many Christians believe in regard to Salvation and it clearly states that those who do not believe in Christ will be condemned.

Yes, but John being a mystic, it is not clear what he meant.

It does, IMHO, stretch credibility fairly far to assume that these people meant "believe in" the way most people today are using the phrase.

I mean, if someone says he "believes in George W. Bush", who would think he means "hold it to be true that George W. Bush exists and is our President"?

I was studying it for ordination. That was my goal. Study of apologetics and theology. Anyway, I do agree that it depends on what you interpret the Bible to mean. I held a literalist interpretation but acknowledge that some things were used figuratively and that also had to be studied and interpreted.

It's one of those big underlying changes in worldview, where the exact same text can be entirely changed by tweaking the premises even slightly. Either view appears to be roughly consistent.

[Beth]

From the Catechism, it appears the Church does teach that those who die with an unrepented mortal sin in their heart will face hell fire and eternally be seperated from god.

Yes... Except they have this little subclause that says "of course, God can have mercy on whoever He wants".

Basically, you have no way of knowing that someone hasn't repented. The sacrament of Absolution, while it in principle guarantees that you have repented correctly, is not the only way to repent; it's just the only way to get the Church to say with certainty that you have sufficiently repented. No we cannot, but that also leaves family with uncertainty and cruel fear and they pray for their dead so that god will have mercy.

There are exceptions. Martyrs, for instance. Yes. I know.



Yes, but John being a mystic, it is not clear what he meant. Then, how do you know if this was even the words of Christ if you allow that John may have had some other meaning?

It does, IMHO, stretch credibility fairly far to assume that these people meant "believe in" the way most people today are using the phrase. Well, I think "whosoever " is better to be looked at it since that word did not exist in the original text. It also appears from looking at the exegistical studies of this verse, that this verse did not make a blanket statement of love to the entire world, but, instead, a statement of love for a special group of people.

It appears that Jesus was sent to die for the attonement of believers only and seems to reject the Universal notion of Salvation simply because this passage states who exactly this atonement is provided for.
I mean, if someone says he "believes in George W. Bush", who would think he means "hold it to be true that George W. Bush exists and is our President"?
This really is not a good argument because this verse states that god gave his only begotten son. So, one must believe that Christ is god's only begotten son.
Then it states that those are condemned for not believing in the name of the son of god.



It's one of those big underlying changes in worldview, where the exact same text can be entirely changed by tweaking the premises even slightly. Either view appears to be roughly consistent.Yes, but then I ask why believe in it if the religion can be so tweaked that the belief no longer matches the message or book that the belief is based upon?

[seebs]

No we cannot, but that also leaves family with uncertainty and cruel fear and they pray for their dead so that god will have mercy.

Yup. Which is where we get into long and complicated discussions on the nature of grace and mercy.

Then, how do you know if this was even the words of Christ if you allow that John may have had some other meaning?

Well, it isn't the words of Christ; it's the words of John, in the intro explaining the Gospel.

Well, I think "whosoever " is better to be looked at it since that word did not exist in the original text. It also appears from looking at the exegistical studies of this verse, that this verse did not make a blanket statement of love to the entire world, but, instead, a statement of love for a special group of people.

That's Calvinism; I don't think there's any historical justification for it, it's a retrofitting to make Calvinism work.

It appears that Jesus was send to die for the attonement of believers only and seems to reject the Universalist notion of Salvation simply because this passage states who exactly this atonement is provided for.

The main point I'm attacking here is the notion that "intellectual assent to specific claims" is the kind of belief under discussion.

This really is not a good argument because this verse states that god gave his only begotten son. So, one must believe that Christ is god's only begotten son.

Why?

Why not believe what the guy said, instead of assenting to claims about him?

Then it states that those are condemned for not believing in the name of the son of god.

But what is that "name"? Keep in mind that John's a mystic. He refers to Jesus as "the Word of God". (Logos, in Greek.) What's that mean? It's not a simple claim about "hey, there was this carpenter, he was actually God."

Yes, but then I ask why believe in it if the religion can be so tweaked that the belief no longer matches the message or book that the belief is based upon?

Well, a good question. Of course, we'd need to reach consensus on the "real" message to answer it... But I assume all the believers are doing their best to find the "real" or "original" message... It's always a bit tricky figuring out what it was, though.

[Beth]

Yup. Which is where we get into long and complicated discussions on the nature of grace and mercy. I know! I find such discussions immensely fun! :P


Well, it isn't the words of Christ; it's the words of John, in the intro explaining the Gospel. If we are speaking of the words within John 3:16-21, then yes, they are supposed and are written as the words of Christ. "Jesus said,'...'"


That's Calvinism; I don't think there's any historical justification for it, it's a retrofitting to make Calvinism work. Well, yes, it is somewhat Calvanism, but we also really must look at the content of the passage. It says that god loves the word, sent his son for them, but then adds a clause, you must believe in him and if you do not, you will perish or be condemned. To me, that is not a blanket statement of love. In the NT belief in christ involves many things including faith in him and following him.



The main point I'm attacking here is the notion that "intellectual assent to specific claims" is the kind of belief under discussion. Right, but it appears that the Bible makes these certain claims.



Why?

Why not believe what the guy said, instead of assenting to claims about him? Because he claims to be the son of God. He makes claims and in order for me to believe those claims, I must assent to a belief.


But what is that "name"? Keep in mind that John's a mystic. He refers to Jesus as "the Word of God". (Logos, in Greek.) What's that mean? It's not a simple claim about "hey, there was this carpenter, he was actually God." Still, even in this broad spectrum, you must show even for faith. Now I must believe in Christ as the Son and I must also believe in the Word.


Well, a good question. Of course, we'd need to reach consensus on the "real" message to answer it... But I assume all the believers are doing their best to find the "real" or "original" message... It's always a bit tricky figuring out what it was, though. :yup:

[seebs]

Well, it isn't the words of Christ; it's the words of John, in the intro explaining the Gospel. If we are speaking of the words within John 3:16-21, then yes, they are supposed and are written as the words of Christ. "Jesus said,'...'"[/quote]

Oops, you are of course correct.

Nonetheless... I have generally assumed that the stories reflect the style of the person writing them down. If you haven't yet, wander over to Real Live Preacher, and read the RLPDV versions of some of the stories. While I don't necessarily believe that his descriptions are the exact literal facts, they communicate something I do believe, which is that there's probably a lot of streamlining going on in the stories we get.



Well, yes, it is somewhat Calvanism, but we also really must look at the content of the passage. It says that god loves the word, sent his son for them, but then adds a clause, you must believe in him and if you do not, you will perish or be condemned. To me, that is not a blanket statement of love. In the NT belief in christ involves many things including faith in him and following him.

Right. And we have other passages, such as the sheep/goats parable, which talk about actions. And, to make it even more fun, we have the parable of the two servants who do not do what their master wants, and the one who knows, but doesn't do, what his master wants is beaten more harshly. (Of course, our modern sensitivities rebel against the notion of beating servants at all.)

If we are to believe that any of these things happened, and Jesus was not simply incoherent, we have to try to form a reconciliation of these passages.

I have come to the conclusion that the best reconciliation is to observe that "believing in", as a form of emotionally empty intellectual assent, is close to worthless. James supports me; "even the demons know, and tremble."

[quote]The main point I'm attacking here is the notion that "intellectual assent to specific claims" is the kind of belief under discussion. Right, but it appears that the Bible makes these certain claims.

It does, yes... But I don't think it is intellectual assent to those claims that people meant when they talked about the "belief" which matters. James is clearly scornful of the notion that merely holding to a true claim is salvation.

Because he claims to be the son of God. He makes claims and in order for me to believe those claims, I must assent to a belief.

Ahh, but here's the thing: I don't necessarily even know what "son of God" means. I know people who insist that Jesus was the son of God, but so is everyone else. People say all sorts of things.

But... Let's just say I look at a phrase like "Blessed are the peacemakers". Well, hey, I can go out and make peace, and see whether I like that life better than the one in which I don't. I can test that claim, and lo and behold, I have tested it, and it is true.

Still, even in this broad spectrum, you must show even for faith. Now I must believe in Christ as the Son and I must also believe in the Word.

I think this is not what Jesus meant for us to believe in. I think that, if you were given a choice between really taking the sermon on the mount to heart, and sort of making excuses for it while claiming Jesus was definitely God, it would be the former, not the latter, which was "believing in Jesus".

And I'm not kidding about the excuses. There's a famous Christian Reconstructionist writer who says that turning the other cheek is a bribe Christians should use to make those in power careless so Christians can take power, and that once they have power, they should punish offenders harshly.

It is empirically quite possible to adhere to all the magic words that people say are the faith, while rejecting everything Jesus taught.

[seebs]

Real Live Preacher wrote an essay, in his book, which discussed a related issue, and there's now a copy online.

TV Preachers (http://www.somareview.com/tvpreachers2.cfm)

But this is the truth: Whenever I see a TV preacher, I cannot believe that I’m a preacher too. I cannot believe those guys are colleagues.

Stop right there. I know what you’re going to say, and I don’t want you to say it.

Do not tell me that I’m different. Do not tell me that TV preachers are con artists, but I’m not like them. Do not tell me that.

Yellow freakin’ fear is the only thing keeping me safe. It just might save my soul, if my soul can be saved. Even as I write this I wonder if anyone can preach and be saved. Check that. No one can preach and be saved. Can’t happen.

Of course, what’s impossible for me, might still be possible for God. So God is my only hope and refuge. A very present help in times of trouble.

Be afraid, preachers. Be very afraid. Never forget what you could become, may yet become, may have become.

Does this help explain it at all?

No matter how much some Christians frighten me, no matter how much I fear, hate, and oppose everything they've done to that word... If I reject it to distance myself from them, how is that any better than claiming it to distance myself from everyone else?

So, instead of claiming this word, I accept it, because it speaks a truth about me. And I remember that, in fact, I am not necessarily objectively better than those people I wish so much I could distance myself from. I need that knowledge, to keep me from becoming dangerous in my arrogance.

[dave_a]

Real Live Preacher wrote an essay, in his book, which discussed a related issue, and there's now a copy online.

Does this help explain it at all?



Not for me really. See, if you are a more conservative/fundamentalist type of Christian then you believe the bible to be the word of God. You might believe it inerrant, perhaps just inerrant in matters pertaining to faith, but ultimately you view it as being a trustworthy enough account to base one's faith upon. Apart from this bible you would not have ever even heard of this man, Jesus.

To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus, the Christ.

When a liberal Christian takes the bible and tosses out a huge portion of it or relies upon fanciful interpretations to be able to tolerate some of what it says it seems to me like one is assigning the bible to an almost irrelevant place in one's faith.

Why then be a Christian when you can't know anything about Jesus other than what the Bible has to say about him. Indeed those who spoke of Jesus are the same people many consider offensive like the apostle Paul.

The quotes from this preacher sound vaguely reminiscent to me of Ghandi. Isn't he the one who said he would be a Christian if it weren't for all the Christians? Be humble seems to be the message of this preacher and there is nothing uniquely Christian about that message.

In other words, Seebs, liberal Christianity to my eyes is a sensible means to arrive at a nice moral framework, but it isn't unique. The same framework can be found woven throughout other religious and secular creeds. A version of Jesus is the figurehead for liberal christianity and that seems fine, just unnecessary given the only source of knowledge about Jesus is highly suspect in terms of accuracy.

However, from my standpoint this thread has gone on plenty long enough and you absolutely do not need to try and explain yourself further. I understand what you are saying and I have an inkling of why calling your faith christianity is important to you. I respect that, even though it isn't a choice I personally would make.

[seebs]

When a liberal Christian takes the bible and tosses out a huge portion of it or relies upon fanciful interpretations to be able to tolerate some of what it says it seems to me like one is assigning the bible to an almost irrelevant place in one's faith.

That might be, but in fact, I don't think I do that, really. I think my interpretations are fairly rational.

Why then be a Christian when you can't know anything about Jesus other than what the Bible has to say about him. Indeed those who spoke of Jesus are the same people many consider offensive like the apostle Paul.

Yes. I will say... I would agree with this a lot more if I hadn't gradually found something much better in Paul than what he looks like at first. I should bring the post over that I wrote once explaining why I think Paul was actually a liberal, at least by modern standards.

But, here's the thing: What the Bible has to say about Jesus, describes someone I would follow. Good enough.

The quotes from this preacher sound vaguely reminiscent to me of Ghandi. Isn't he the one who said he would be a Christian if it weren't for all the Christians? Be humble seems to be the message of this preacher and there is nothing uniquely Christian about that message.

Gandhi's famous quote was "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Or something similar.

But... I think that's only part of the message.

And, finally... Even if the message is not unique, the person giving it is.

In other words, Seebs, liberal Christianity to my eyes is a sensible means to arrive at a nice moral framework, but it isn't unique. The same framework can be found woven throughout other religious and secular creeds. A version of Jesus is the figurehead for liberal christianity and that seems fine, just unnecessary given the only source of knowledge about Jesus is highly suspect in terms of accuracy.

!!

Okay, right. I basically agree.

What if Jesus is not just a figurehead?

That's the thing. Liberal Christianity, unlike, say, UU beliefs, is not just a set of moral teaching; it's also a cosmology.

However, from my standpoint this thread has gone on plenty long enough and you absolutely do not need to try and explain yourself further. I understand what you are saying and I have an inkling of why calling your faith christianity is important to you. I respect that, even though it isn't a choice I personally would make.

Cool. I'm always happy to try to answer questions.

Someone came to Quaker meeting last night, and asked us what we got from going to church. I thought about it, and finally said that, if I knew, I'd probably already have gotten it. I am in this as a seeker, I think, more than anything else. I don't have all the answers, but trying to answer helps me understand the question, at least.

[flufeemunk]

Kind of butting in here, but I am just thinking about Quakers etc, and I thought of Philip Berrigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Berrigan). There is a man who believed so fervently in his religion and what he was doing that he went to prison several times for very noble and radical causes. What about anarchist Christians?

[seebs]

Kind of butting in here, but I am just thinking about Quakers etc, and I thought of Philip Berrigan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Berrigan). There is a man who believed so fervently in his religion and what he was doing that he went to prison several times for very noble and radical causes. What about anarchist Christians?

I have generally gotten along with them very well. One of the people in my Quaker meeting was very active in Vietnam protests, and got arrested a lot. He said the hardest part of it for him was that other people in the movement would call the cops "pigs", and he couldn't stand this, because it was dehumanizing the enemy, and wasn't that what everyone was there to protest about? Wise man.

[Larry]

As an example, the bible quite clearly teaches that pre marital or extra marital sex is a sin.

Where?

Seriously! Where?

1 Corinthians 7 -- 8) "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Well, ok. It may not specifically say it's a sin but I think you get the point.

Edited to add: Sorry for jumping in in the middle of this but it was the first comment I felt like responding to.

[seebs]

As an example, the bible quite clearly teaches that pre marital or extra marital sex is a sin.

Where?

Seriously! Where?

1 Corinthians 7 -- 8) "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Well, ok. It may not specifically say it's a sin but I think you get the point.

Edited to add: Sorry for jumping in in the middle of this but it was the first comment I felt like responding to.

No problem. That's the thing; it doesn't actually say it's a sin. It suggests in context that marrying and burning with lust are alternatives... But the exact formalized rule isn't there.

So far as I can tell, the attempt to formalize this is a comparatively modern invention. The early church celebrated weddings, but it didn't perform them; to this day, strictly speaking, Catholics teach that the priest officiates, but the actual sacrament of marriage is performed by the people getting married, as I recall.

[Larry]

No problem. That's the thing; it doesn't actually say it's a sin.
Sin is generally considered something which is immoral and/or against the commands of God. Morality deals with behavior and in thinking along that vein my thoughts were focused on this phrase "It is good for them if they abide even as I."

If a thing is good then wouldn't its opposite be bad? The subject of the verse speaks to those who are single or widowed on the subject of sex. It seems to me that Paul is alluding to his own abstinence of sex and claiming that if you can't control your sexual desires that it would be "better to marry than to burn with passion". Note he doesn't say "it's better to marry than to HAVE sex outside of marriage." However, passion precedes the actual act. So he's in a round about way (imo) saying that if you can't control your desire to have sex then you better think about getting married.

Edited for an aside note: If I recall Paul was a widow. I vaguely recall that one of the criterium (criteria) to be a member of the Sanhedrin you had to be of the age of thirty and married.

[viscousmemories]

Just out of curiosity what makes you guys think he meant burn with lust and not burn in Hell?

[Larry]

Hi viscousmemories!

Context. Plus the original Greek. I could be wrong and maybe Seebs will correct me.

[viscousmemories]

Hi Larry, glad to see you found your way back. :)

Context, eh? Anything specific about the context? I did look it up and read the stuff that came before and after, but I didn't get any clues from that either. It really seems like he's saying the best thing you can do is contain your lust, but if you can't contain it (i.e. you feel you must act on it) then you should marry, 'cause it's better to marry than to burn in hell for fornication.

[Larry]

Hi Larry, glad to see you found your way back. :)
Thanks. Well, my life has taken a few turns and twists which necessitated cutting back on my online activity. But that's neither here, nor there. I'm glad you're still around.
Context, eh? Anything specific about the context? I did look it up and read the stuff that came before and after, but I didn't get any clues from that either. It really seems like he's saying the best thing you can do is contain your lust, but if you can't contain it (i.e. you feel you must act on it) then you should marry, 'cause it's better to marry than to burn in hell for fornication.
I've been accused of being evasive and rude whenever I answer a question with a question, but I honestly can't see in the context where you see being sent to hell the end result of having sex outside marriage. Verse 6 states: "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." so I hardly think this issue is high on God's list of "no-nos". Nevertheless, I'm not in the camp of those who believe in a literal hell but still Corinthians was written to the Church and I am in the camp that believes that anyone who is a Christian (by confession and not by works) is heaven bound with no return ticket elsewhere. Where was I? Oh yeah, context. Verse 1 clearly sets the parameters of the subject when it says "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." To "touch" is meant in a sexual way. Then verse 2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Seems obviuos to me that to touch a woman outside of marriage isn't a good thing. If it's not a good thing then wouldn't that suggest it must be a bad thing. Good/bad. Moral/immoral. Is there much difference in the terminology?

Then it talks about the sexual relationship between a man and a woman in marriage. We're still on the subject of sex, or so it seems. That doesn't change in verse 7 but address those who aren't married on the subject of sex. So I guess I'll have to get into the Greek to if that's not enuf. But perhaps I should wait upon seeb to see if he has any correction to make to what I've said.

Btw -- Am I getting off-topic here?

[viscousmemories]

I've been accused of being evasive and rude whenever I answer a question with a question, but I honestly can't see in the context where you see being sent to hell the end result of having sex outside marriage.
I don't interpret your comments as evasive or rude at all. :)

To be perfectly honest I've had no real interest in discussing religion or the bible in the nearly 20 years since I stopped believing in the supernatural, so I have no need to fight about it. I really asked where your impression was coming from because I was curious. If I thought you were being evasive or rude I'd probably just stop talking to you.

Now to answer your question...

I thought standard Christian teaching (whatever that is) was that fornication is a sin worthy of burning in hell. I didn't get the idea from that passage, I just assumed that's what he meant based on my own preconception.

[Larry]

I thought standard Christian teaching (whatever that is) was that fornication is a sin worthy of burning in hell.
You're probably right about that. I've read many such theological gobbly-gook and came away with a bad taste in my mouth. So . . . I guess I'll never be a "standard" Christian (whatever that is).
I didn't get the idea from that passage, I just assumed that's what he meant based on my own preconception.
Preconceptions can make one see what isn't actually there. I think that's called bias. Read something about that over at Ebla (Elba). Now that! was an interesting read.

Anyways, I really appreciate your cordiality. It's refreshing!

Edited to add: Ya know sometimes I feel like such a "duh". I just discovered the article I mentioned on bias is right here on this forum and written by clutch. Duh me! But it is one of my favorites no matter where it is. :D

[seebs]

Sin is generally considered something which is immoral and/or against the commands of God. Morality deals with behavior and in thinking along that vein my thoughts were focused on this phrase "It is good for them if they abide even as I."

Sure. Although, to be picky, this is Paul, not God, writing... But!

If a thing is good then wouldn't its opposite be bad?

If there are really only two options, yes. Paul's contrast points out that there are at least three. What he does, burning with lust, and marrying. That's at least three.

The subject of the verse speaks to those who are single or widowed on the subject of sex. It seems to me that Paul is alluding to his own abstinence of sex and claiming that if you can't control your sexual desires that it would be "better to marry than to burn with passion". Note he doesn't say "it's better to marry than to HAVE sex outside of marriage." However, passion precedes the actual act. So he's in a round about way (imo) saying that if you can't control your desire to have sex then you better think about getting married.

Agreed. However... This isn't an exact rule. Paul also once comments "know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one flesh?" Paul was very close to a position which denies the entire concept of premarital sex as not meaning anything at all.

Edited for an aside note: If I recall Paul was a widow. I vaguely recall that one of the criterium (criteria) to be a member of the Sanhedrin you had to be of the age of thirty and married.

Not exactly sure, myself.

[seebs]

A side note: "Fornication" is a word invented to translate a Greek word, porneia (might have spelled it "wrong", whatever that means when transliterating), which means "sexual immorality". The more formalized ("outside of marriage") definition in English is not a good translation. For instance, rape within marriage is porneia, but is not fornication... The words are definitely different.

Sexual morality is a field where simple, rigid, rules are very appealing, because more complicated things are harder to explain to people.

But... The exact boundaries are very different from one time or place to another, and we don't really know, because Jesus didn't talk about it so much. (Though He did talk at length about the wrongness of divorce; curiously, boffing someone 'cuz you like 'em never gets the coverage than stopping because you don't like 'em any more does.)

I've seen credible arguments that the entire point of the rules as originally intended is built around providing stability for people who, in that culture, couldn't fend for themselves. Hard to say.

[Larry]

Greetings seebs!

I think I entered this discussion on a single comment (question) you made (asked) which may have been better suited to a discussion of its own thus avoiding the possible loss of focus of the core issue. Which frankly I forgot what that was. :chin: So, I'll briefly address your latest response; grab some :popcorn: ; and see if I may contribute more substance to the topic.
Sin is generally considered something which is immoral and/or against the commands of God. Morality deals with behavior and in thinking along that vein my thoughts were focused on this phrase "It is good for them if they abide even as I."

Sure. Although, to be picky, this is Paul, not God, writing... But!
Always a "but" with us liberal Christians, ain't there? :wink: That's true, that Paul wrote it, but he did so with permission. Remember? :D
If a thing is good then wouldn't its opposite be bad?

If there are really only two options, yes. Paul's contrast points out that there are at least three. What he does, burning with lust, and marrying. That's at least three.
That's interesting. But what exactly did Paul do? Abstain from having sex if you keep within the general scope (context) of the subject. In order to do so, it's necessary to control your urges. But if you can't (and "burn with passion") then Paul's advice is that it's better to marry. Why? Well, if it's a good thing to be able to control your sexual urges outside the parameters of marriage then it's a bad thing if you can't and the solution to that would be to marry in order to avoid doing that which is bad.

Perhaps I was wrong, in thinking, that the verse I cited seemed to address your question. I can't think of another that is clearer on the subject so I'll concede that your question remains unanswered.

[seebs]

Sure. Although, to be picky, this is Paul, not God, writing... But!
Always a "but" with us liberal Christians, ain't there? :wink: That's true, that Paul wrote it, but he did so with permission. Remember? :D

Well, sure. But I don't think that means he's guaranteed to be correct, only to be sharing something he's come to believe.

If there are really only two options, yes. Paul's contrast points out that there are at least three. What he does, burning with lust, and marrying. That's at least three.
That's interesting. But what exactly did Paul do? Abstain from having sex if you keep within the general scope (context) of the subject.[/quote]

We think so, yes. Probably. Some people argue that he was gay. :P

In order to do so, it's necessary to control your urges. But if you can't (and "burn with passion") then Paul's advice is that it's better to marry. Why? Well, if it's a good thing to be able to control your sexual urges outside the parameters of marriage then it's a bad thing if you can't and the solution to that would be to marry in order to avoid doing that which is bad.

Right. But what if, say, you can control your desires, without abstaining?

There are some people for whom, say, alcohol, or gambling, are very dangerous temptations. There are others for whom they are idle amusements. I am a virtually guaranteed non-alcoholic; I have a low tolerance, but I hate being even tipsy, let alone drunk. For another person, alcohol might be more of a problem.

Different people struggle with different aspects of sexuality. Trying to find a way to reconcile moral principles in treatment of others is a challenge, but not everyone has the same exact requirements.

Perhaps I was wrong, in thinking, that the verse I cited seemed to address your question. I can't think of another that is clearer on the subject so I'll concede that your question remains unanswered.

That's sort of the point; I've been asking that one for a long time, and I've never found an answer to it that isn't a little circular.

My current view is that there are good reasons to avoid sex outside of "marriage", but that I don't accept legalism on the question of what marriage is. For instance, the first time I had sex with the person who is now my spouse, I looked her in the eyes and said "'til death do us part". If that sex was premarital, it was premarital by under an hour. (Well, depending on what we consider sex.) (There are other reasons for which I suspect that some of the things involved in the full version of the story were probably "sinful", but I don't think the "premarital" part is at issue.)

I tend to think that a lot of people, in their aggressive drive to rigorously avoid the sin of putting a penis in a vagina without a legal license to do so, end up commiting very serious sins. (For instance, I would consider "getting married to someone just so you can fuck them" to be sinful.)

(And yes, I do use words like "sin", I just use them in a very different way than many fundamentalists.)

(BTW, I am not only liberal in my faith, I am liberal in the use of parentheses.)

[Larry]

(BTW, I am not only liberal in my faith, I am liberal in the use of parentheses.)
:lmao: Well, I can't say there's anything "bad" about that, but then I'm not a grammarist so I wouldn't know if you've incorrectly used them. But I suspect the last one might have been. ;) Methinks I have the same problem with " ". Get "control" of yourself man!