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