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]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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.

Originally Posted by The Bible

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]

Originally Posted by seebs

bad hermeneutics

Those 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]

Originally Posted by lunachick

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).]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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]

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

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]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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

[seebs]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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]

Originally Posted by HelenM

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:

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]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

There is no point.

Thank you, wildy.

So why are you a xian, then?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by seebs

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]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

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]

Originally Posted by seebs

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]

Originally Posted by dantonac

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]

Originally Posted by seebs

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